Three law professors on Fisher v Binnie

December 20th, 2012 at 8:15 am by David Farrar

I called yesterday for more focus on the substance of the Bain issue – mainly whether or not Fisher’s criticisms of Binnie’s report are justified and substantial, and wanted to hear from legal experts rather than those with a vested interest.

Was pleased to have commenters discover or point out that no less than three law professors have actually commented publicly on this issue. And it appears they have all concluded that they agree with Fisher’s critique. Let’s go through them all.

First, there is this video on TVNZ with Otago University Law School Dean Mark Henaghan. Definitely worth viewing.

Then the ODT report:

Having read both reports, Prof Henaghan said a main issue of concern with Justice Binnie’s report was whether it relied on the onus of Mr Bain proving his innocence, rather than the Crown proving his guilt.

”In this case, it is not a criminal trial. If you are asking for compensation the onus is on you to prove you deserve it and that was one thing was worried most about in respect of Justice Binnie’s report.”

He thought Dr Fisher’s recommendation to have a revised report drafted and opened for feedback from all involved was sensible, and anyone preparing such a report could at least benefit from Justice Binnie’s ”thorough” compiling of data.

Tapu Misa reported:

The Otago University law professor, , told Radio New Zealand last week that he agreed with Robert Fisher’s criticism that Binnie failed to consider circumstantial evidence and the way we in New Zealand approach it.

Professor Dawkins said Binnie’s dismissal of individual pieces of evidence was problematic and “corroborates the Minister of Justice’s conclusion that the finding in the report is not supported by robust reasoning and analysis”.

He also agreed that Binnie incorrectly imposed the burden on the Crown to prove Bain wasn’t innocent, when the onus of proof should have lain with .

Also ZB reported Dawkins:

Otago University Law Professor Kevin Dawkins says there’s an ongoing concern in the Fisher review, that Justice Binnie was more inclined to believe David Bain’s version of events, than the Crown’s.

“I think there were parts of Justice Binnie’s report which indicate an inclination to find David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities.”

Kevin Dawkins says may have been confirmed in his view by the verdict of the jury in David Bain’s retrial, but that point isn’t relevant in this inquiry.

And finally we have . He has blogged extensively on this at Pundit. he is very critical of over not giving Bain’s camp a copy of Binnie’s report, and the way Fisher was commissioned. However he also gets into the substance of Fisher’s criticisms and his main conclusion:

I think Fisher’s core criticism of Binnie’s approach to the physical evidence is right.

And in detail:

But how and why Binnie thought this footprint evidence (put together with the timing issue, and the no blood in the shoe point) was stronger than the combinedevidence that pointed towards David Bain’s guilt we’ll never know – all we know is that he says he considered the matter and came to that conclusion.

And that is a problem, because it is only in the overall “thickness vs sharpness” analysis that you can reach an overall assessment on the balance of probabilities of whether David Bain is innocent. So I think Fisher is absolutely correct in this aspect of his criticisms: even if Binnie really did do what he says he did (and remember, an absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence), we needed to see him doing it in order to be fully satisfied about his conclusions.

So, yes – for all the problems that I have with the way Fisher’s review of Binnie’s report was commissioned and framed, Collins was right to conclude from it that Binnie’s report is not a safe basis for concluding that David Bain is innocent. Having read that report, and Fisher’s critique, and Binnie’s response, that is the conclusion I myself have come to.

So there seem to be three options going forward:

  1. Pay Bain compensation, despite the documented inadequacies of the Binnie report.
  2. Do not pay Bain compensation, on the basis that the Binnie report has failed to make the case that he is innocent.
  3. Ask someone to do another report on Bain’s likely innocence, and make a decision on compensation based on that.

I don’t think anyone expects (1) will occur. Nor should it occur.

I think (2) would be rather unfair to David Bain. It is not his fault that Binnie’s report was sub-standard. He shouldn’t lose his chance for compensation because of it.

So inevitable we need another report. As some have noted it can use as a starting point, the evidence collated by Binnie.

But who should do it? You have a double challenge. First to identify someone acceptable, and secondly to convince them to do it – considering the toxicity of the environment around this now.

Geddis blogged:

So maybe the only way through this is to give the job to more than one person. As my Boss at the Otago Law Faculty, , has suggested, “at least with a panel of judges they can reality-check each other and make sure they are not being influenced by one thing.” And as I make it a policy to never disagree with my boss, I’m going to suggest that this is a brilliant idea from a fair-minded, highly intelligent and devastatingly good-looking man.

The idea of a panel is not a bad one.  Maybe two NZ Judges or QCs who have had nothing to do with the case, and one Australian?

If you have a sole reviewer, and they reach a different conclusion to Binnie, then the Bain camp will criticise that as having hand picked a favourable reviewer. But if you have a panel, it is much harder to criticise it – and it worth recalling appellate benches are always panels.

Of course a reviewer or review panel may come to the same conclusion as Binnie – and that is fine, so long as their report correctly sets out why, and the tests they applied.

1,728 Responses to “Three law professors on Fisher v Binnie”

  1. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. No, the conclusion wasn’t arrived at by logic and probability. It’s a load of rubbish and far too many people can see that for it to go anywhere except the bin.

    If Bain gets any compensation it will be because the system has failed again. It will mean we have bowed to lawyers and their precious process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Dennis
    I don’t believe Peter Ellis is guilty, maybe of a minor offence but not what was alleged
    McDonald; A hard one not really sure but leaning towards possible guilt

    Do you have any particular views on Tamihere/Lundy (I tend towards guilt) or Len Demler (definitely guilty IMO)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kea (14,860 comments) says:

    Kanz, you forgot to answer my question, or did you?

    Bain was found guilty. Thanks to a work of fiction and a strong media campaign, the second jury found him not guilty. It is a text book example of playing the system. I do not know what motivates people like you, who support someone who murdered their entire family. Bain is a social misfit and a remorseless killer.

    However, he was found not guilty and various legal people have supported the finding. He should be paid out. Maybe he can hire hookers, so he can live out his rape fantasy and not try it on some innocent woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Reid (20,224 comments) says:

    Please tell what consideration you have given to the rest of the Bain family. If David gets compensation that is saying Robin was a sexual predator, murdered most of his family and spared his not so favorite son.

    None Chuck. Bain’s family doesn’t come into it. If David gets compensation this says the system is sorry for getting it wrong. The system has already admitted it got it wrong. That’s not under question.

    The system has spoken. It did get it wrong, period. Anyone can debate whether or not it is right that the system has determined by its own processes that yes, in fact, it got it wrong. But that doesn’t affect or negate the fact that the system, by its own processes, has accepted that yes, it was wrong.

    And this has nothing to do with the morality or otherwise of the act that is the subject of the allegation.

    So you see the law is a bit of an ass, but it is the law, and Cabinet can’t cheat on the law, even if most of the public would rather cheat on the law. If Cabinet can cheat on the law, then Heaven help the rest of us.

    Dotcom, we agree. Personally, I think it stinks, in this case, what’s been meted out and continues to be meted out. Personally, I think it crossed from a criminal to a political issue a long time ago and personally, I don’t get why the politicians are insisting upon battering their popularity against an unstoppable force that should and could have been closed down years ago with much less expense and zero outcry. The longer it continues the worse it gets. What about this, doesn’t any politician understand. And if they do understand the downside, then what do they see as the upside because newsflash, it doesn’t exist. It’s not there. It never has been. What about battering their heads against a … don’t these idiot politicians understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Rowan. My problem is I don’t trust the police, not that they are corrupt necessarily.

    I thought the case against Macdonald was never strong and of course King found a weakness: the diving boots. There is an explanation for the number of ridges, hunters buy bigger boots to go over thick socks. When I found out he was a really nasty and stupid man I realised Guy’s wife had it right. King was a decent man and I think it worried him Guy was not convicted because he was too smart.

    Lundy is a difficult one. I don’t think he was acting when he collapsed at the funeral, he might have realised the horror of what he had done. A mate who lives in PN and has a PhD in engineering thinks he is innocent, but he refuses to think Bain might not be innocent – at least I think that’s a fair comment. I don’t like to think of men killing their daughters but if it wasn’t Lundy who was it? I say guilty, but it took me a long time to decide that and I might have been influenced by Bryce Bruce so I could change my mind.

    Tamihere. I think he was an easy target like Watson. Possibly guilty but I have doubts.

    Demler. Well I know Harvey used to smack Jeannette but who shot who I don’t know. Demler had a hand in it but I doubt he shot his daughter, but who was the woman seen looking after the baby?

    I started thinking about Bain only when the retrial found him not guilty. Reed gets right up my nose. I say no more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Reid. The law is not reality. It’s just a game lawyers play. Time it was changed.

    Examining magistrates to lead investigations into serious crime.

    Panels of judges with suitably qualified people, maybe some “ordinary” jurors. By suitably qualified, I don’t mean in law necessarily, someone who has shown he can reason.

    I am too tired to deal with this now. Pity we can’t “private message” (as we do on PPRUNE, for example).

    The minister should have made his own mind up and said NO. I’ll bet no one expected Binnie to be such an ass. I still find it unbelievable, not that I’ve ever had much time for lawyers. And look at Palmer! Another dunce. And a former prosecutor!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Reid. Compensation under these circumstances is a political issue. It is not a right, it is an ex gratia payment by government of taxpayers’ money.

    If you get dopey results you junk them and if you have a dopey system you change it.

    Bain is lucky we are not like China, he would have had a bullet in the back of the head and that would have been the end of him and his rotten cult.

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

    Dennis Horne (41) Says:
    December 26th, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    Can we take it that dopey means “doesn’t see how right I am”?

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

    > I think you deserve to be shown up when Bain is paid his rightful 2 million in compensation.

    That’s the funniest post so far. :)

    Governments are rather averse at compensating mass murderers, and so it will be in this case.

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

    ross69, it seems you have missed this. It is very informative.

    CHAPTER XI: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AS TO FACTUAL INNOCENCE
    471. In response to the Minister’s Mandate letter I conclude that it is more likely than not that David Bain is factually innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Dennis
    This is the best I can do for you re the blood in the barrel.
    Q. I take it that if there’s blood in the barrel it would have to be from the last firing of the rifle?
    A. It is far more likely that because of the movement of the gases the bullet is designed that it fits very snugly into the barrel so any biological material would largely be removed so it really comes down to that final shot.

    However ,the “expert ” answering that question got the order of shots to Laniet’s head the wrong way round,so I would take anything he had to say with a grain of salt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Re the glasses.
    I now find I was in error when I agreed with Dotcoms theory that David Bain could have worn those glasses with one lens missing. He couldn’t have.
    And I also said the frame may have hit some hard object when it fell to the floor. Not so.
    A crown witness was asked about the condition of the frame and lenses,to which he replied
    There was verdigris on the glasses and lenses and what appeared to be skin oil on the inside of the pads. The frame was badly bent. I loosened the screws and was able to replace the right lens and not the left lens.
    Q. What sort of force would be needed to create the damage to the frame?
    A. The frame would have needed to be pressed against a soft surface in order to release the lens without damaging the lens.
    Pressure against a carpet or a mattress,quite a decent pressure.
    Q. Could the frames have been worn in the state they were in?
    A. No ,they are quite badly bent,no way could you use them.

    Dotcom has suggested those glasses could have been cleaned . Not so.
    Dotcom has suggested that David Bain could have worn those glasses with one lens missing . Not so.

    This is what I believe happened.
    David Bain was wearing those glasses in Stephen’s room. At some point during that struggle those glasses were pressed against the carpet, causing the frame to bend and both lenses to pop out.
    Some time later,and after he had washed his hands,David Bain retrieved the frame and one lens and placed them on that chair in his room. He could not locate the other lens.

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

    muggins, you might find this helpful. It will allow you to let go and move on, perhaps. That is as long as you have the ability to do that.

    e) Conclusion on the issue of Margaret’s glasses and the dislodged lenses

    442. The Crown Law Office correctly submits that “the applicant [David Bain] is still faced with the unexplained presence of the broken glasses in his bedroom, coupled with his facial and other injuries.”258 Yes, I agree that the presence of these items where they were found is unexplained, but so is the absence on them of blood, or other biological material. It is the Crown Law Office that makes the positive assertion that the broken glasses and lenses link David Bain to the killing of Stephen. All of the Police witnesses at the scene commented that the house was a terrible mess (as mentioned, one constable described it as a “pigsty.”) The fact David Bain sometimes wore his mother’s glasses is not proof that he did so at the relevant time. The unexplained location of the frames and lenses where they were found in the “pigsty” after the killings is just that – unexplained.

    The Court of Appeal effectively relegated the “glasses and lens” issue to being probative neither of guilt nor innocence,259 and I agree with the Court’s conclusion on this point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    kanz. Do you think Thomas is guilty? Watson is guilty?

    Do you think Ellis is guilty? Or do you think the result was dopey?

    Do you think when the system makes a dopey decision and cannot correct it then it’s a dopey system?

    For Bain to be innocent there has to be a chain of events each hard-to-believe. That adds up to almost absolutely unbelievable. That does not make it impossible. But in the real world people with brains and training get quite good at assessing situations to make real-life decisions that matter.

    You can quote all the rubbish you like from courts and lawyers. With their track record you might just as well toss dice. In fact, that’s what they mostly are: professional tossers.

    The key to this puzzle is not the footprints. The evidence is inadequate. Binnie stuffed up there.

    The key is: Did Robin kill himself? The answer is: almost certainly not but maybe. If you start there, you will come as close to the truth as we’re ever going to get until something really upsets David Bain again.

    I say: Binnie wouldn’t have the foggiest idea how to solve a real life puzzle; get to the truth. His mind is full up with legal rubbish. Who cares what some court says? Courts are often wrong. Get back to basics and proper reasoning.

    I know I could never convince you. I can tell you can’t reason. Because all you do is tell me what other people think. You never think for yourself. You’re one of the huge majority who are below average.

    Fortunately Collins is tough. She is going to have a go at stopping another travesty. Fortunately it’s unlikely another no-Bainer like Binnie Bunny will pop out of the hat. Boo!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    I see Dotcom is now hoping I will drop dead in the next few days . Charming.
    Poor old Dotcom. After a promising start he has now become the laughing stock of this thread. How sad.
    I sure he means well. I can understand why he wants me to drop dead and I daresay many of David Bain’s supporters would like me to drop dead as well,but for different reasons.
    In Tony’s case he just can’t stand having his theories demolished.
    Tony, best you leave this thread before you get further in the mire. When you are in a hole,stop digging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz
    If a person says he was wearing a pair of glasses that were found in his room then if would be fair to assume that is why those glasses were in his room.
    The Law Lords of the Privy Coucil believe David Bain was wearing those glasses in Stephen’s room. They don’t seem to be too worried that no blood or fingerprints were found on them.
    And as I have said many times, you are prepared to accept Robin Bain did not leave any fingerprints on the rifle,yet you are not prepared to accept that just because David Bain didn’t leave any fingerprints on those glasses then that means he wasn’t wearing them in Stephen’s room.
    You say Robin Bain was wearing those bloody gloves yet there was no blood on his watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    muggins. I am sure you are right about the glasses. Poor stupid kanz thinks courts are gods and what they say is gospel. Of course it’s highly probable Bain was wearing the glasses and of course they were highly likely to be damaged in the fight with Stephen. The lens in the room cannot be ignored either.

    Blood in rifle. You see the difficulty here. There is an assumption that there was blood (IF…) but no actual statement there was. Maybe there was and maybe there wasn’t. If there was, it might have been a tiny bit in the suppressor.

    I’ve had a lot of experience arguing with anti-fluoridationists and friggy-pooh alternative health lunatics. You just keep going round and round in circles. They cannot ever see a flaw in their reasoning and say black is white one minute and white is black the next. Hopeless.

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

    Dennis Horne (42) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Interesting. You rattle off a number of names of those who have been victims of our “the police only charge the guilty” type of justice. Yet you wish to perpetuate it by not being able to see past it in the Bain case. The evidence was found to be suspect at the PC hearing, shredded in the retrial, disseminated by the Binnie report, yet you want to cling to it as though it is a life-raft. Well I do hope you let go before it hits the absolute bottom of the ocean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. See what I mean? The system got it wrong with Thomas, with Watson, and now with Bain. There is no inconsistency, you fool.

    The evidence was not shredded by the PC. In the second trial, Reed correctly identified the suicide of Robyn as the key. He then managed to hoodwink a number of gullible jurors that Robin killed himself, merely by showing it was POSSIBLE to kill shoot yourself that way. He did not prove Robin had. He did not say this manoeuvre would need a lot of skill, practice and or luck.

    Don’t worry about me, Kanz. I might kill myself if I make a poor judgement, or get really unlucky.

    You’re no match for me intellectually, Kanz, but do keep trying. Every little niggle and wriggle you make consolidates my position that my judgement it sound. If you are ever right, it would probably be for the wrong reasons.

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

    Kanz

    Why do you continue to argue about the glasses? Binnie clearly got it wrong, as he did about many other matters.

    David testified at his trial that he had not used his mother’s glasses on the weekend of June 20, nor had he seen them that weekend “or at least a year previous”. This testimony contradicted a pre-trial agreement between the prosecution and defence. David’s then lawyer, Michael Guest, approached then prosecutor Bill Wright. Wright says Guest told him “there would be no dispute that he [David] had been wearing the glasses over the weekend…it was therefore with some surprise that David asserted he hadn’t been wearing them.” A witness, Janis Clark, testified that David had told her days after the murders that he had worn his mother’s glasses after his own had been broken the previous Thursday. However, David informed Binnie that: “I don’t think I would have said that to her.” (He may have had no memory of the conversation. Or maybe he thought that to admit to wearing the glasses was harmful to his case.) An independent witness and David’s legal counsel both believed that David had worn his mother’s glasses on the weekend of the murders. Further, Binnie was aware that David had driven a car that weekend. Is it likely he drove the car without glasses (presumably his driving licence required him to wear glasses while driving)? A pair of damaged glasses was found in David’s bedroom. How did they get there? A reasonable inference, given the evidence, is that David put them there. If that inference is correct, it means that David lied to Binnie.

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

    ross69 (1,435) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 9:55 am
    It seems you have trouble with comprehension. Try reading it again.

    e) Conclusion on the issue of Margaret’s glasses and the dislodged lenses

    442. The Crown Law Office correctly submits that “the applicant [David Bain] is still faced with the unexplained presence of the broken glasses in his bedroom, coupled with his facial and other injuries.”258 Yes, I agree that the presence of these items where they were found is unexplained, but so is the absence on them of blood, or other biological material. It is the Crown Law Office that makes the positive assertion that the broken glasses and lenses link David Bain to the killing of Stephen. All of the Police witnesses at the scene commented that the house was a terrible mess (as mentioned, one constable described it as a “pigsty.”) The fact David Bain sometimes wore his mother’s glasses is not proof that he did so at the relevant time. The unexplained location of the frames and lenses where they were found in the “pigsty” after the killings is just that – unexplained.

    The Court of Appeal effectively relegated the “glasses and lens” issue to being probative neither of guilt nor innocence,259 and I agree with the Court’s conclusion on this point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. If the law were the arbiter of truth we would know the Earth was 6000 years old and the Sun went around it. WE DON”T CARE WHAT DOPEY LAWYERS DECIDED. They have no monopoly on TRUTH and in fact even when they stumble on the truth as they did with Ellis they carry on as if nothing ever happened.

    Kanz. Stop talking like a parrot and think for yourself. Do try.

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

    Muggins thanks for clearing it up where the blood was the bain supporter keep saying it was in the barrel but it is at the top of the silencer which make sense as the arrangement/ bullet path is off center. What that mean to me because right here I am looking a silencer of the same make and it doesn’t necessarymean that Robin was the last shot and the bain supporter have lied telling me that it was Robins Dna.

    Believe me the key to all this is the position where Robin lays in relation to the blood splatter it defies the laws of Physics in a large way. It is imposible for Robin ended up where he did without a horizontal force.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chuck Bird (5,990 comments) says:

    Gamefisher, How much effort does it take to remove a silencer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    gamefisher. Agreed. The narrative that requires that Robin killed himself is so unlikely to be true that it’s unbelievable in the normal sense of the word. The way he is supposed to have killed himself is so unlikely as to be dismissed. But it’s not completely impossible. Therefore to prove Robin did not kill himself is the ultimate goal.

    You do realise though that that would not persuade Kanz and the cult. They are beyond reason. Binnie is a bee in their bonnets.

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

    gamefisher (62) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 10:25 am

    Muggins thanks for clearing it up where the blood was the bain supporter keep saying it was in the barrel but it is at the top of the silencer which make sense as the arrangement/ bullet path is off center. What that mean to me because right here I am looking a silencer of the same make and it doesn’t necessarymean that Robin was the last shot and the bain supporter have lied telling me that it was Robins Dna.

    Don’t ask muggins, he tell porkies.
    The blood was in the barrel, not the silencer. Hentschel’s notes are where that information was found. I guess you will now need to claim that what he saw was wrong, just as with the luminol footprints, huh?
    Now, why do you think it was never mentioned in the first trial?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,830) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Gamefisher, How much effort does it take to remove a silencer?

    A moot point. Robin easily managed to shoot himself without bothering to remove it.

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

    Chuck Bird if you have a screwdriver or coin that will fit 10-15 seconds.

    Dennis can you do vector calculations in relation to force, gravity and acceleration?

    Kanz even if it was a hard contact it would be a most unusual for the blood to had got into the rifling part of the barrel.

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

    http://www.akl.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/8121256/Time-to-accept-Binnie-findings-on-Bain

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

    gamefisher (63) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 10:48 am

    Kanz even if it was a hard contact it would be a most unusual for the blood to had got into the rifling part of the barrel.

    Well, it did. Much seems to have happened in that household that morning that you seem to struggle with. Pity you can’t see past your prejudices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. Yes, yes, of course, dear. Robin certainly wasn’t worried about making a hash of it. He wouldn’t have made it so difficult for himself. Perhaps he felt he should be punished with a slow death if he guessed the wrong angle. That’s why he did it that way. Blah blah blah.

    Did Robin get up after he was killed and write on the computer, “You’re the only one who deservED … “?

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

    Kanz read this and then give me you interpretation of it quote”Dr Dempster’s view was confirmed by the belated disclosure of Mr Henstschel that traces of blood were found towards the mouth of the gun barrel” unquote

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

    > Robin easily managed to shoot himself without bothering to remove it.

    I forget you were there that fateful morning. What was Joe Karam wearing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    gamefisher. Two of my oldest friends are professional mathematicians and my DiL is a theoretical physicist. Can you explain what you want?

    By the way, was the body moved, possibly? There just may be enough data, not judgements, to settle this matter.

    Kanz. So when was a newspaper able to decide a scientific matter? This is science now, Kanz, not bamboozle with bullshit …

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

    gamefisher (64) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Interpretation is open to speculation. I far prefer to accept what Hentschel wrote in his notes at the time, which was that he found blood “inside the barrel”. You can interpret and speculate as much as you want, which is why you are so often wrong.

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

    Kanz quote “you are so often wrong” unquote can you give me example so I may have right of reply

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Psycho Milt (3,049 comments) says:

    The fact David Bain sometimes wore his mother’s glasses is not proof that he did so at the relevant time. The unexplained location of the frames and lenses where they were found in the “pigsty” after the killings is just that – unexplained.

    A fine example of two of the problems with Binnie’s report: his lack of understanding of balance of probabilities; and his assumption that the onus is on the Crown to prove guilt.

    If he was doing his job properly, he would take into account:

    1. The fact that glasses David Bain was known to wear were found broken in his bedroom on the morning of the murders, and a missing lens from them found in the room in which a struggle with the victim had taken place, casts suspicion on him. While proving nothing in itself, it increases slightly the likelihood that he’s the murderer.

    2. Given that the onus is on David to demonstrate his innocence on balance of probabilities, it’s up to him to do the explaining, not the Crown. Given that he offers no explanation, the suspicion they cast on him stands.

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

    Dennis if an object(a ball) with a mass of 4.5Kg is 1 meter off the floor and is at zero velocity was suddenly allowed to fall but you wanted to land 3 meters away in the time it takes to freefall to the ground what horizontal force would be required bearing in mind that the object would need to travel in a parabolic arc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    gamefisher. This is not easy. I am sure you know the momentum of the bullet is not all transferred to the head as an impact, much of the energy is dissipated penetrating the tissue and whizzing around. I don’t think a .22 would move a head far and not 3m. I know this is not an answer to the question, so I would like “to phone a friend”.

    I guess it might determine the way a body fell. Or am I misunderstanding your question completely?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (345 comments) says:

    In March 2010 Bain lodged an application for compensation for wrongful imprisonment. His case falls outside Cabinet rules on compensation and so the Government is not obliged to pay him anything – but may do so if he is able to establish his innocence on ‘the balance of probabilities’ and is also considered to be the ‘victim of exceptional circumstances’.

    Justice Binnie concluded …that Dunedin’s police had made ‘egregious errors’ and that there were ‘numerous instances’ of investigative ineptitude that led directly to the wrongful conviction. In particular, he described the failure of the Crown to preserve evidence in the David Bain murder investigation (the house was deliberately burnt down) as one of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that the Cabinet should take into account.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain Compensation

    If it is a correct summary of the situation, that Bain must establish his innocence on ‘the balance of probabilities’, when has Bain done that, or is his explanation still to come?

    What degree of ineptitude attaches to the police, that the house was burnt down, when concerned parties agreed on that, including David Bain, if correctly reported?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Dennis
    I don’t trust the system because it ‘decides’ what happens then hand picks the evidence to fit the conclusion already formed and shuts its eyes to anything that doesn’t fit this, (much like the JFRB witchhunt) Have heard the “Demler didn’t do it” or “no evidence against Robin Bain” theories time and time again but the arguments to me are very shallow.
    All the various hard cases this has happened in ie Thomas, Ellis, Watson, Bain etc, Scott Watson was a convienent fall guy because Rob Pope decided that someone needed to go down for the murder.
    The woman seen outside the Crewe farm was Norma Demler (Lens girlfriend and subsequent wife), . I found Keith Hunters The Missing Bloodstain published earlier this year by far and away the best book on the subjet, the only scenario that would fit with Len not killing his daughter is Pat Booths murder-suicide and that doesn’t get of the ground, that is unless you believe Ian Wisharts conspiracy theories .

    My frustration is that the Bain case will never be ‘solved’ to the degree of certainty that anyone requires, this would be directly be at the incompetence of the investigating cops, who didn’t do the basic testing, this case didn’t need to be a “mystery whodunnit” but thanks to them it is forever

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt @ 11.11
    ‘A fine example of two of the problems with Binnie’s report: his lack of understanding of balance of probabilities; and his assumption that the onus is on the Crown to prove guilt’
    Milt, I know that youlot hink that Binnie should make a definitive finding that ‘the only way these glasses could have got there is in the course of thee murders’ but how can he really be so definitive? To me the lack of forensic evidence and the misleading testimony of Milton Weir back in 1995 cast quite a bit of doubt on the reliability of this evidence.
    How would David be able to explain the following scenarios (They are scenarios only and I am not suggesting they definitely or even probably happening!)
    1. The broken glasses were in Robins pocket when he came inside and placed on the chair in Davids room
    2. Milton Weir planted the lens in Stephens room

    Givern that the court of appeal who found against David back in 03 doesn’t regard the glasses as ‘probative of Davids guilt or innocence’ then wouldn’t this be the best conclusion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Rowan. I don’t trust the system either. We need an investigative system. An adversarial system means the winner is a lawyer, not the truth. A smart lawyer can muddy the waters to derail even a good case.

    However we are not constrained by legal proceedings now. We can make our own assessments and we can reason. Admittedly we could have done with more factual evidence.

    The way to do this is to construct two narratives. Robin did it. David did it. When we compare them, as I have done over the last few weeks, I find David did it. Robin could have done it, but I find it unbelievable AND I do not find David persuasive. I think he is a liar. And I have spent a lifetime working with people intimately.

    My decision has not been taken lightly but I have great confidence in my judgement. I have a record of seeing the issues and getting it right (and before anyone else). Google me plus Perpignan.

    Binnie is a Bunny so he didn’t change my mind. No compensation for Bain.

    The only way I can be proved correct about my assessment of Bain is if the unthinkable happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Rowan. Left to lawyers we’d still be eating poorly under candle light after a day in the fields behind a horse. What this fiasco proves is they haven’t got a clue. A couple of scientists could have sorted this mess out in the beginning. Assume Robin was the killer then prove he wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (345 comments) says:

    … this case didn’t need to be a “mystery whodunnit” but thanks to them it is forever

    The one who could possibly solve it is David
    But as Karam has said [paraphrased] David doesn’t know the evidence
    And David could now be of a frame of rationalized mind that he no longer really knows what he previously knew. Not a liar but no longer cognisant of the truth.

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

    Dennis 11:50am no you read it correctly and you are correct the bullet energy/force is spent destroying tissue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Puzzled in Ekatahuna (262) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    I am sure you are right about his state of mind now. Just like the captain of the first A320 that crashed during a display still blames the aircraft rather than his being too low and too slow. It’s as clear as the nose on your face what happened but he still denies it to this day. Even jail didn’t change his mind. The Russian pilot who shot down the Korean airliner still thinks it was a spy plane, despite there being proof it was simply off course due to pilot error.

    I’m signing off now. gamefisher, ask me more if you like, I might have misunderstood the direction of your question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Blood in the barrel.
    Hentschel’s notes say that blood was found on the silencer and extensive smearing and traces of blood were found inside the barrel. I took this to mean the barrel of the silencer,not the barrel of the rifle.
    Kanz takes it to mean the barrel of the rifle.
    The blood was not DNA tested. It is possible it could have been Stephen Bain’s blood.
    But as I have said many times ,blood in the barrel does not mean that Robin Bain committed suicide. It just means he was shot from close range.

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

    The problem as I see it is that as long as Karam tells david, ” you didn’t do it, you weren’t there” david can never tell the truth, would any of dare to tell Karam if we were in david’s shoes.
    The day david looked Karam in the eye and said he didn’t do it, the stage was set.
    Karam should never have accepted david’s word that he couldn’t remember because he was too traumatised.
    It’s too late for the truth to set david free.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body
    Dotcom seems to have left us, but in his brief stay he did make some good points.
    It is obvious that the magazine in the photo I have linked to was not placed there by Robin Bain.
    As Dotcom said Robin Bain would have placed that silencer on the table,not on the floor. And of course it would have fallen over from the force of his hand hitting the floor if it was there before he was shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Gamefisher
    Yes/no is Robin Bain the last family member shot in your ‘murder’ scenario, how could Stephens blood possibly be in the barrel while Robin was the last person shot? If Robin is the last to die then it is his blood in the barrel (whether self inflicted or murdered), Read my post at 6.30 last night re Hentshells evidence.
    I have also put out the question about the curtain blood splatter, to date I have no takers so am left with crown expert James Ferris’s ‘shaking’ the dead body scenario, are we really supposed to buy this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Re last post.
    For silencer read magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Rowan
    I believe that blood was in the barrel of the silencer. Hentschel was referring to the silencer in his evidence. There would hardly be blood in the barrel of the rifle and not in the barrel of the silencer.

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

    There are 4 component to that magazine when the law of probability are applied
    1. Why was it in that locality in the first place as the other magazine was reloaded.
    2. Why was it placed on the floor slightly under the table and not on the table.
    3. In the adsence of Robin hand why would it be placed on its edge.
    4. Why didn’t it fall over when Robins hand landed right beside it.

    Two more posible components lack of fingerprint and the coffee table looks as though it has been moved.

    More oddities
    1. No indentations to bean bag.
    2. Robins arm lying on him normaly gravity should of pulled it behind him.

    Has the fallen down lamp on the floor in computer room ever been discussed.

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

    Rowan do a find using ridicled and read my post dec 24th 5:25pm but plese note! that is not where Robin finaly ended up that morning he had to of been moved. The blood from any close shot will accumulate in the silencer. If you had a silencer of the same make you would also see the low probabilty of blood reaching to the rifled part of the barrel but if it did all it points to is it was a close shot and the blood belongs to the last victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    gamefisher. I have to check the maths again, but if we let a ball on the edge of a table drop we can determine the time it takes to drop 1m, 0.452s

    If we assume the bullet weighs 4g and travels at 300m/s and the momentum is entirely transferred to a 4500g ball, the answer is 0.5m.

    This is not a real life case BUT IT DOES GIVE A LIMIT.

    If you want the formulae and workings let’s know. (I await my dawdling wife to put her face on.)

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

    Denis I know that an object in freefall will take 0.46 second to hit the floor and the actual distance it would have to travel to land 3 meters that mean its average hirizontal velocity would be 6.52 meters per second or 23.4 kilometers per hour what I need is the force required to accellerated that object to that speed. For arguement sake let say the acceleration occured over 10cm.

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

    Hi Dennis the average weight of a human head weigh 4.5Kg I am needing confirmation I am on the correct track. At the moment I am only using Robins head as my hypothesis. He weight 72Kg and his height was 1.75cm according to my calculations some large forces were required to propel him sideways.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    gamefisher,
    That lamp in the computer room has been discussed but sort of dismissed due to the untidy nature of that room.

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

    “Givern that the court of appeal who found against David back in 03 doesn’t regard the glasses as ‘probative of Davids guilt or innocence’ then wouldn’t this be the best conclusion?”

    You’re missing the point. David said he didn’t wear the glasses and had nothing to do with them. But a witness said David told her he had worn them since the Thursday prior to the murders. He had also driven a car, something which he told Binnie he couldn’t do. Furthermore, Michael Guest and Bill Wright had reached an agreement pre-trial that David would not contest that he had worn the glasses that weekend. But he did just that! On the available evidence, it seems David is telling porkies.

    Why would an innocent person lie?

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

    muggins has the stuff I am discussing with Dennis been dicussed before?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Psycho Milt (3,049 comments) says:

    Milt, I know that youlot hink that Binnie should make a definitive finding that ‘the only way these glasses could have got there is in the course of thee murders’ but how can he really be so definitive?

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but in my case, not so. I just expect Binnie to take seriously the Crown’s point that the broken glasses and lens are somewhat suspicious. To the investigators who turned up that morning, the glasses (ie, that one of the suspects wore glasses, the only glasses available for him to use were been badly bent, and a missing lens turned up in the room where the murderer struggled with one of the victims) were understandably a point of suspicion. Binnie disregards that suspicion (ie, fails to understand balance of probabilities) on the spurious basis that the Crown couldn’t prove the glasses were related to the murder (ie, he mistakenly believes the onus is on the Crown to prove guilt). He didn’t need to make any definitive finding, but he did need to accept that the glasses increment the probability of David Bain being guilty.

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

    Dennis Horne (53) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Rowan. I don’t trust the system either. We need an investigative system. An adversarial system means the winner is a lawyer, not the truth. A smart lawyer can muddy the waters to derail even a good case.

    In this case even an investigative system would have left us with what we now have.
    THE POLICE MADE A COMPLETE COCK-UP OF THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION. By the time it got to court, it was too late.

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

    muggins (611) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Rowan
    I believe that blood was in the barrel of the silencer. Hentschel was referring to the silencer in his evidence. There would hardly be blood in the barrel of the rifle and not in the barrel of the silencer.

    We really have to feel sorry for poor old Hentschell, he couldn’t get anything right. His luminol footprint measurements were wrong (because they didn’t fit with any of muggins’s many theories) he didn’t know where he found the blood within the rifle (because it didn’t fit with any of muggins’s many theories) pity they didn’t use a scientist who knew what he was looking at, aye?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Chuck Bird (5,990 comments) says:

    “Rowan. I don’t trust the system either. We need an investigative system. An adversarial system means the winner is a lawyer, not the truth. A smart lawyer can muddy the waters to derail even a good case.”

    Kanz, I think that is one thing many of us on both sides of this debate agree. The same applies to civil cases. Many lawyer wrongly believe that their first duty is to their client.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,833) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Kanz, I think that is one thing many of us on both sides of this debate agree. The same applies to civil cases. Many lawyer wrongly believe that their first duty is to their client.

    Just as the police and Crown law believe that their first duty is to gain a conviction, any conviction at any cost will do, even if the first cost is truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    gamefisher
    Not that I know of.
    BTW. That was the suppressor barrel and not the rifle barrel.
    You have got to watch these David Bain supporters like a hawk.

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

    muggins (612) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    gamefisher
    Not that I know of.
    BTW. That was the suppressor barrel and not the rifle barrel.
    You have got to watch these David Bain supporters like a hawk.

    Your proof of this? Or are you just pulling supposition out of your arse again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Phycho Milt.
    Even the Law Lords of vthe Privy Council have said that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in struggle with Stephen before shooting him was a strong one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Got it from the horses mouth. How’s your arse ? Getting a bit sore from all the bullshit that is coming out of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz
    My apologies. It is not your arse that the bullshit is eminating out of but another orifice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    gamefisher. I am back, temporarily. One mate says:

    About 300N (newton) ie about 30kg (divide 300 by 9.81), acting through the centre of mass (horizontally) over a distance of 0.1m (10cm) will have the required effect of moving 4.5kg about 3m in 0.45s. The force acts for about 3ms.

    If you sketch a graph of v against t you will see the graph is constrained by shape and area enclosed (the distance travelled in time of 0.45 seconds) to have a particular form.

    Does this answer your question? My other mate seem interested now too so that’s good news.

    Kanz. If you prefer the term inquisitorial, which means the court is involved. What I really want is someone clever directing the investigation of serious crime. It would have been so easy to state the hypothesis that Robin killed his family then show he didn’t.

    Chuck. A good lawyer is a lawyer who gets you off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    “We really have to feel sorry for poor old Hentschell, he couldn’t get anything right. His luminol footprint measurements were wrong (because they didn’t fit with any of muggins’s many theories) he didn’t know where he found the blood within the rifle (because it didn’t fit with any of muggins’s many theories) pity they didn’t use a scientist who knew what he was looking at, aye?”

    Kanz totally agree, I just assume he was correctly able to measure those bloody footprints? How big an assumption is this given the total cock up an inability of any of the officers to get anything right? If this assumption is correct then the bloody footprints are a perfect fit for RB even though he tried to mislead the first jury that they were the same size of Davids socks, This seems more convincing than the speculation about the glasses

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

    Rowan (75) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Kanz totally agree, I just assume he was correctly able to measure those bloody footprints? How big an assumption is this given the total cock up an inability of any of the officers to get anything right? If this assumption is correct then the bloody footprints are a perfect fit for RB even though he tried to mislead the first jury that they were the same size of Davids socks, This seems more convincing than the speculation about the glasses

    Yes, fancy using a scientist who couldn’t measure, and didn’t know where he found blood. One would have thought one could be confident in accepting his evidence, but apparently not.
    By the time the anti Bain lot have finished they will have dismissed ALL of the police and prosecution evidence in favour of their own ‘theories’. It gets better all the time, and so much fun to watch.

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

    Reply to muggins 5:36 Ok it has always been at the top of my list convincing me that Robin didn’t suiciide so I need to be more proactive with this hypothesis. Yes I have learnt to watch the David Bain supporters like a hawk.

    Dennis thanks for that and it confirms I am on the right track as up until now I had been doing it manualy but have found some good online calculators so there is more to come. Unless someone can come up with a plausible answer where the horizontal force/s came from whilst he was falling to the ground I am reasonably certain I can show that it was virtualy impossible for him to have landed where he was and leave those blood and brain splatter on the curtains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Psycho Milt (3,049 comments) says:

    If this assumption is correct then the bloody footprints are a perfect fit for RB even though he tried to mislead the first jury that they were the same size of Davids socks

    So, in terms of balance of probability, your assessment is that there’s a very high level of probability that crime scene investigators attempted to mislead the jury? Seriously?

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

    Psycho Milt (874) Says:

    December 27th, 2012 at 7:31 pm So, in terms of balance of probability, your assessment is that there’s a very high level of probability that crime scene investigators attempted to mislead the jury? Seriously?

    Whether they meant to or not, in the terms of balance of probability they did BRD.

    A Weir told the Jury the lens was found out in the open.
    B Jones told the Jury that blood glows under polilight.
    C Hentschell told the jury that the footprints matched Bain’s feet, not saying that he was only going by an empty sock size.
    D The prosecutor did by saying the glasses belonged to Bain and not of Sanderson’s ammended statement.
    E The prosecutor did by not telling the jury of Mrs Laney’s ammended statement.
    F Ngamoki did by telling them the rifle was 6 inches longer that what it was.

    Do you want more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz
    It doesn’t matter where in Stephen’s room that lens was found. The Law Lords of the Privy Council said that the fact it was found in Stephen’s room meant that the Crown’s thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is a strong one. They obviously weren’t too worried that Weir had told the jury that he found it out in the open when he didn’t.
    Jones was only trying to make it easier for the jury to understand. We all know how dense some jury members can be.
    David Bain said those glasses belonged to his mother so it was up to the jury to decide if he was telling the truth. As it happens he was telling the truth about that but he lied when he said he hadn’t been wearing them that weekend. Any jury member with a modicum of common sense would have realised that if those glasses were in his room,and that they were a pair of his mother’s that he said he had worn before when his were unavailable,then he would have been wearing them again because his were unavailable.
    Laney’s ammended statement made very little difference. It was accepted that Denise Laney saw Bain at the gate.
    Ngamoki admitted in cross-examination that he had measured the rifle incorrectly,so the jury were well aware of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. The “bloody footprints” are problematic. There might be agreement that they were made by the killer but the identity cannot be determined from the footprints. They were invisible to the naked eye, indistinct and incomplete. True?

    Whatever was said about the length of the rifle, in reality it was very difficult to get a good shot at your own head with it the way it was used. No, not impossible. But proving it’s possible is not the same as proving it happened.

    You see, you can try to unpick the tapestry, make it look tatty, but the picture stays the same, and it’s David who is implicated. It’s no good trying to stitch up Robin.

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

    Dennis Horne (56) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    Wrong they were complete “from heel to top of toes” according to the “expert” who, saw them with the help of luminol, and measured them. As pointed out, with an allowance of 5 cm for error or missing margins, they were still 15cm too short to be Bains. It doesn’t matter how much anybody wants to fudge the result, the facts don’t lie. For them to have been Bain’s they would have to be missing the toes, they weren’t. I know this is hard to take, but it is incontrovertible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Dennis
    I agree. When Guest cross-examined Ngamoki he admitted he measured the rifle incorrectly. The rifle that was used to carry out the demonstrations was the murder weapon.
    Those sockprints could only be seen with the use of luminol.
    Kanz is clutching at straws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. SPC (8,499 comments) says:

    If the footprint is not David Bain’s, does this mean that they have to be Robin Bain’s?

    Confusion of which did it is sufficient for a finding that there is reasonable doubt – insufficient proof to convict. But it does not prove innocence.

    If there is evidence that shows that each one could not have done it – then people can move beyond the “one or the other did it school, and the – but not this one the other one did school houses” and look at the possibility that someone else did. And given motive and opportunity, whom they might be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz.

    How many footprints were judged complete by Hentschell?

    He made a judgement one was David’s, is that correct?

    Do you think he was mistaken?

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

    Dennis Horne (57) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    Of course he was, he was comparing them to the measurement of an empty sock. The “judgement” counts for nothing. It was not his job to judge whose foot made the print. It was his job to find, record and report any evidence he did find.

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

    Dennis to keep it simple if Robin was killed where and how the defence scenario he should of fallen beside the curtain but he was found approximately 1 meter away that would of required a minimum constant horizontal force of Robins body weight of 72 Kg for the duration of the fall. The bean bag is approximately 0.5 meter so somehow he must of gone invisible to go through it when the trajectory is taken into account lol. The first time I saw that photo I thought straight away it was a stage death scene now that I have analyzed it there is now doubt what so ever. Robin did not suicide period there are not laws of probability applicable to this unless someone can come up where the force or kinetic energy came from. Focusing on the kinetic energy requirement is probably a better way to go as it is more of a constant.

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

    Psycho Milt, a New Year’s gift for you.

    Have you missed me? Photo of me here with comments.
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/12/face-of-the-day-376/

    If you can solve the problem of the glasses, you will help solve the whole dilemma. But you have to contend with the enemies here, both the JFRB (muggins) and the SDRK. Muggins was quite unbearable on the issue of the glasses so I decided I have better things to do. She is a Robin Bain enemy as things stand.

    Here is most likely what really happened:

    a) Margaret’s glasses were worn throughout David’s killing spree

    b) David wants you to believe he couldn’t have been the killer because he was useless without glasses, and he wants everyone to believe he had no glasses available to him that morning

    c) Originally, David had done things to sidetrack police

    d) David deliberately broke his own glasses on the Thursday, and made sure that independent people were aware that he had no glasses – call this his glasses “alibi”. The plan was then to use Margaret’s glasses without anyone knowing

    e) If the killings had gone as planned, the glasses alibi would have worked. God knows where the glasses would have finished up, but they were plenty of options for him to eliminate them after (at least 4 of) the murders and before police were called

    f) But Stephen did happen, and that damned left lens popped out, and that’s all that happened to the glasses in Stephen’s room. The left lens popped out.

    g) Today, I visited the $2 shop, and I bought (not brought btw) bought some $2 glasses. I went into my kitchen where the vinyl floor is harder than carpet (Stephen’s room had carpet on the floor). I threw those glasses up into my kitchen ceiling and bounced the glasses off the ceiling and let them bounce down as hard as I could, down onto the vinyl. I did this a number of times. I could not break them. I could not bend the frames. I couldn’t even get a lens to pop out.

    h) But I easily popped the left lens out by pushing it out with my thumb. I left the left lens in my kitchen, where it just happened to get hidden by an ice skate

    i) (just joking about my ice-skate) So David continued to kill the rest of his family, and he did so with 90 percent vision. He is right-eyed, and he had right-lensed glasses. He had a very useful “monocle”. He may have even worn the full-framed monocle on the paper run (if you accept the 2009 Crown version of the timings – doesn’t matter either way).

    j) David knew he had a problem after the last murder. He looked and looked, but he couldn’t find the left lens. But he knew police would find it. So he had to cater for this snafu. He was off-plan. He was improvising. He couldn’t dispose of the glasses on the paper run, as per original plan. What to do? Panic. (imagine here a David voice) “Oh-h-h, what am I going to do?

    k) I know. I’ll screw the glasses up in a little ball, just like crumpling up a piece of A4 paper. I’ll tell cops that Stephen took them from me weeks ago, and he returned them to me without a lens and all crumpled up. But at 7.00 am on 20/6/94 he wasn’t anticipating that an auntie would later be remembering he’d been wearing the glasses over the weekend. Good, thinks David instead, my glasses alibi is back on track. I couldn’t have been the murderer. I was near blind.

    l) Those $2 glasses Dotcom bought today, in my bedroom I took a t-shirt in my hand, and I wiped off anything that could link the glasses to me, and I popped out the right lens, popping it down and never giving it another thought cos the police were on their way. Then still using the t-shirt, I scrumpled up those $2 glasses, like I was screwing up an A4 sheet of paper and damned if they don’t look exactly like those scrumpled glasses in the photo in David’s room.

    m) And till this day 18½ years later, Joe Karam is still asking how David could have carried out those murders without being able to see. Even if the Crown theory is to be believed, Joe asks, how could he have murdered without glasses.

    n) And till this day, no-one has asked how on Earth Margaret’s glasses got scrumpled up like a screwed up piece of A4 piece of paper, something that CANNOT have happened in a fight between two people. The scrumpled up shape can only have happened if after the murders, someone who shall remain nameless, staged the crime scene. The shape of those scrumpled up glasses, together with a defence explanation which is totally incompatible with scrumpling-up, is as good as a signed confession from David that he killed 5 people.

    As they say in the classics. I rest my case. Bye. I’m enjoying the gay marriage thread. Btw, I’m hated there as well. Suggest you at lest have a look at the opening comments.

    Sincerely, Tony Dotcom, Logician-Magician

    PS Don’t bother replying. I won’t be here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Katz

    So he was mistaken about the sock. Hopeless.

    Maybe he was equally mistaken about the completeness of the imprint?

    Of course, as usual, you don’t answer questions you don’t like. How many “complete” prints did he find?

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

    Dennis Horne (58) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Katz

    So he was mistaken about the sock. Hopeless.

    Maybe he was equally mistaken about the completeness of the imprint?

    Of course, as usual, you don’t answer questions you don’t like. How many “complete” prints did he find?

    I don’t have that information here right now, but it doesn’t matter. The longest print was 280mm, far too short for Bain’s, that is all that matters.

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

    quote”I don’t have that information here right now, but it doesn’t matter. The LONGEST print was 280mm, far too short for Bain’s, that is all that matters.” unquote

    So the other prints were measured and were shorter the 280mm print just happen to be the first in the sequence of where 1-3 earlier print are missing can’t you people see this is junk science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Katz. Ah. Complete, eh. Do you have a photo of it?

    Shall I ask again? How many “complete” prints did he find?

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

    Muggins will not think about the above. Be careful with muggins. She had become so enmeshed into the campaign, she cannot remember what is fact, and what is her making up of facts to fit her closed off theories. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle among many others), told us a long time ago, that if we do this, we will never solve whodunits. Again, be very wary of muggins, who will tell you things that ARE SIMPLY NOT KNOWN FACTS, as to why the above does not fall into place. She does not know everything. She thinks she knows when the right lens came out of the frame. She does not know this. She thinks she knows when the glasses got crumpled. She doesn’t know this. She is convince that David was without glasses for at least 2 murders, a scenario that plays straight into Joe Karam’s hands. Indeed the loss of the right lens and the crumpling of the glasses cannot have been when muggins thinks is was. Muggins is doing a great deal of harm to the potential solving of a lot of the gaps in what happened. Muggins is doing more harm than good at this stage.

    Is my scanario proven? Is my scenario set in concrete? God, NO. But it is better than any other I’ve seen. And certainly better than what Crown Law ever came up with — but then Crown Law are made up of lawyers who couldn’t make it as lawyers in the community. And of course, Binnie has no idea.

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

    gamefisher (75) Says:
    December 27th, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    So the other prints were measured and were shorter the 280mm print just happen to be the first in the sequence of where 1-3 earlier print are missing can’t you people see this is junk science.

    Seems it is the best we have. No wonder Binnie said they made a complete hash of the investigation. A bunch of clowns and we are meant to accept they proved anything?

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

    Actually, dotcom. Muggins is actually a stupid old man, whose only hobby is to prove Bain is guilty. It is ALL he has in his life which is why he seems to feel he owns the evidence.
    He deserves pity, if nothing else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Just wondering if a blood sample contains a mixed profile i.e. Robin/Stephen or David/Stephen then what would the DNA test show as to where the blood came from? As most of the blood on Robins body was not tested we will never no the source of it yet most of you ‘assume’ it is all his, there is also copious amounts of blood on his body totally inconsistent with coming from his head wound, look at Det Lodge notes in Karams book, blood on shoulder, right elbow, fingernails, on hood covered by green beanie, this is all totally inconsistent with his fatal head wound.
    Moving the body is a difficult one, could have been done by David but doesn’t really support either suicide or murder scenario

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

    Just wondering when the washing machine was turned on ?

    also wondering about Davids bloody palm print on the washing machine …..

    .

    but most all I wonder about the evil that resides in certain men, where only money and fame matter, not truth and justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Rowan. I thought the defence is Robin changed his clothes before he met his Maker.

    For me, the position of the magazine on its edge so close to where Robin hand fell strongly suggests it was not suicide and Robin was not the killer.

    Tell me one thing which suggests so strongly David is not the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Dennis,
    All Robin has to do is chuck the green jersey and a pair of bloody socks in the laundry and wipe the gun with the white shirt the crown alleges was ‘sponged’, this could also explain the unidentified fiungerprints. Yet it seems very hard for a lot to get a grip with. I don’t believe the positioning of the spare magazine was relied on much in the second trial, seems strange the significance attached to it in 1995, it was placed not dropped but this doesn’t really exclude either DB or RB. I think it was suggested (wrongly) in 1995 that Robin could have used it to reach the trigger then the prosecution bought in the ‘landing on its edge scenario’ which made the suicide look impossible. Despite Tonys never ending rant (he should be a crown prosecutor!) his arguments were pretty shallow to me.
    As to David not being the killer, evidence, Denise Laneys alibi evidence, the ridiculous murder scenario suggested by the crown, minimal blood on him (would have expected significantly more if he had fight with Stephen) no blood inside shoes, no real motive, bloody footprints smaller than his feet, have yet to see anything convincing from JFRB members on this they just try to minimise it. The prosecution casts a lot of suspicion but doesn’t really have any smoking gun.
    I think you would agree that either man could have killed Margaret, Arawa or Laniet, no real evidence either way. A small amount in Stephens room but to me the defence argument of finding is better mainly due to the amount of blood in the room and lack of on DB, yet still some blood which suggests he hadn’t washed.
    That enough for you

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

    Row:

    Laney evidence shows nothing at all, except she saw David.

    The only ridiculous scenrio, is the defences version of a man committing suicide.

    Miminal blood on him: not really a fair bit on his clothing and of course the MAJOR, he had a chance to clean up not like Robin.
    and he admitting to cleaning up.

    No real motive: except financial, of course this only works if the WHOLE family are at home.

    bloody footprints: lol, the most inconclusive evidence of all .

    ** Fairly poor based on the evidence against David, but heres a few questions ..

    When was the washing machine turned on ?

    How did Davids bloody palm print get on the machine ?

    Why was the computer keyboard completely wiped down ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. SPC (8,499 comments) says:

    This poll indicates the why as to the desperation to discredit the Binnie report.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10856318

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

    How does a Herald digipoll work?
    Do you think they ask only the people whose comments they have published previously?
    If it had come from somewhere that is not so biased towards david bain, I’d have more faith in it.
    Wasn’t it taken when the results of Binnie’s report was leaked but before Fisher’s review?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Kea (14,860 comments) says:

    SPC, I consider Bain guilty, but I support him getting a pay out. The simple fact is he was found not guilty and has no conviction. He was locked up for 13 years. Under those circumstances it would set a troubling precedent if he received no compensation. I think we need to take this one on the chin to maintain the integrity of the system, such as it is.

    You go to Court for Law not Justice. Justice is purely subjective and we can all make our own decisions on that, but what matters here is the Law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Chuck Bird (5,990 comments) says:

    Belinda, you are on to it. Many people like to go with the majority. The Herald is largely anti National. They were very selective in the comments they allowed through in response to Rodney’s Op Ed. They only allow 32 mainly pro David comments and shut it off in a day. Kerre Woodham did a anti Nat Op Ed and they allow 100s of comments.

    I just hope Judith does not cave to poll driven Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. SPC (8,499 comments) says:

    Kea,

    I have no idea who did it. I am more open to a third party being involved than most others.

    I agree that spending 13 years in prison because of a trial that the PC said could not stand – and then being found not (proven) guilty at the re-trial is grounds for compensation.

    Collins said she needed some sign of Crown culpability before granting compensation – saying it was not about him being innocent or not. I would have thought the first trial being invalid was grounds enough IF he was not proven guilty with a new trial.

    I think the issue of motive to kill to gain inheritance makes some averse to paying compensation.

    I would be inclined to pay him $330,000 + the CPI since 1994. This is similar to 18 years work at the MW (half the median/average being saved/invested to compensate for being unable to work. Or just say $500,000. It has to be in 6 figures, but I would not go onto 7.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. SPC (8,499 comments) says:

    The original leak of the Binnie report was as far back as September.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10832947

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

    > I would be inclined to pay him $330,000 + the CPI since 1994. This is similar to 18 years work…

    I didn’t realise that paper runs paid so well. Maybe I should consider a career change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. SPC (8,499 comments) says:

    ross 69

    Were you still on the same income you were on, when working part-time and at uni, 18 years later?

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

    SPC

    He might have got a job at McDonalds, or he might have gone on the dole. Of course, if you compensate him for lost earnings, you also have to deduct the cost of accommodation and food, which he was kindly provided with for 13 years. The upshot is that he’s entitled to little or no compensation.

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

    Here’s an idea for a ratings winner. David goes on live TV and spins the Lotto wheel. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. SPC (8,499 comments) says:

    ross 69

    You cannot factor in the higher cost of prison stay accomodation and food in cost – median wage – less single costs are about MW. The amount is so similar to the inheritance that he would have got, just go with that.

    The unspoken issue is how much of any compensation will stay with him or whether he has obligations to supporters?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. SPC (8,499 comments) says:

    Or should that be – a supporter spins the wheel to see whether that get any money for their help.

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

    At the conference in Perth earlier in the year, David said:

    “On Monday June 20, 1994, at 5.30am my night’s sleep was broken by my alarm. A few minutes later I got out of bed, dressed and ran out the door to do my paper run. An hour or so later I returned home and any sense of peace in my life was forever taken away when I found my mother dead in bed, blood streaming down her face.”

    Hmmm so he gets out of bed at say 5.33. And hour later he is back at 6.33. So he had up to 10 minutes to turn on the computer…

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

    > The unspoken issue is how much of any compensation will stay with him or whether he has obligations to supporters?

    I doubt he will get any compo. I’m sure he will be quite happy having Joe Karam and David’s wife-to-be support him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. SPC (8,499 comments) says:

    ross 69

    Don’t bring up spouse support …

    The years not working because of being imprisoned also mean a “loss of future earnings” … (like a spouse who supported another pre divorce and had no career of their own afterwards).

    The claim could be for $2M.

    1. Inheritance ($330 + CPI) unless the Crown require the family relatives to provide redress? Possibly a claim that invested in property the $330,000 would have increased faster than the CPI.
    2. lost earnings/savings – between the MW and the median wage over the period – tax and living costs to a net income savings level over the 18 years for a single man owning their own property.
    3. lost future earnings (not developing a career) – thus sufficient cash payout to live off investment earnings income ($500,000 providing about $25,000 pa)
    4. payment to cover compensation for supporters costs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Robin Bain hated his family, went mad, devised a cunning plan, waited until son David, who dominated him and had arranged for them to be all together, to go out briefly, then shot them, strangling Stephen, changed his clothes, wrote a “note” exonerating David on the computer, a note that read “deserved” not deserves, shot himself in an awkward manner successfully, leaving no fingerprints on the rifle, fell down well away from the curtains where the blood splatter was found, his arm not knocking over a magazine on its edge millimetres away, which was on carpet and would have fallen over with any nearby thump.

    And people believe such nonsense? Well, I never. Proof of Horne’s Maxim: 90% of people are below average.

    I find it easier to believe 72 virgins might be waiting in heaven for me. In fact, if the Universe is as weird as this it’s looking likely.

    Or maybe there is a smart scheming unctuous lawyer orchestrating this. Hmmm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Dotcom said not to bother to reply because he won’t be coming back and then he came back,so I will reply just on the offchance.
    Re those glasses.
    David Bain told his aunt and lawyer he had been wearing them that weekend.
    The expert who examined them said the frame became twisted when those glasses were pressed into a carpet or a mattress or something similar.
    He said both lenses would have come out when that happened.
    Even the Law Lords of the Privy Council agree that the Crown’s thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a stuggle with Stephen before shooting him is a strong one.
    And that is what happened. Those glasses were dislodged in that struggle ,possibly when David and Stephen were wrestling on the floor. The frame was twisted and both lenses fell out.
    At some point David Bain picked up the frame and one lens and took them back to his room. He could not find the other lens.
    He wasn’t wearing glasses when he shot Arawa and his father,possibly not when he shot Laniet as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Denise Laney’s sighting does not give David Bain an alibi. That is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators. A computer expert said the computer could have been turned on anywhere between 6.39am and 6,49am.
    David Bain estimated he was home between 6.42/6.43. I see he is now saying,after 18 years,that the dog slowed him down.
    And Binnie believed him. Absolute bullshit. That dog was a 5 year old Keeshond,in the prime of life. They are similar to a Husky and as we all know Keeshond’s can run forever.
    It is quite possible that David Bain arrived home at around 6.42,went into the house expecting to find his father in the lounge, turned the computer on,then went back out to the street again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    The reason why David Bain had no blood on himself was because he probably had a shower. But he did have Stephen’s blood on his clothes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Tony,if your looking in,Kanz is a middle-aged woman who is very much in love with David Bain.
    She deserves our pity.

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

    [Deleted by DPF and 50 demerits. Do not do a post of that nature again threatening people]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    muggins. Absolutely right. I can’t see how anybody can’t see it! Unless David was woefully short sighted, say more than -5or6 dioptres, and it seems he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have had much difficulty with middle distance. The other side of the room would be a blurred, that’s all. Driving is another matter all together. If his vision was so seriously impaired he couldn’t see to walk around the house I would have expected him to have a spare pair. The Bains loved and looked after their children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/12/three_law_professors_on_fisher_v_binnie.html#comment-1068239
    Rowan,there was blood on David Bain’s odd pair of shoes as per this photo,but he lied to the police as to what shoes he was wearing to put them off the track. By the time the police caught on to it Bain’s lawyer wouldn’t let them bring those shoes in as evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. SGA (3,497 comments) says:

    @muggins “Absolute bullshit. That dog was a 5 year old Keeshond,in the prime of life. They are similar to a Husky and as we all know Keeshond’s can run forever.”

    Well, no, I didn’t know that. I thought that Keeshonds, aka Dutch barge dogs, required only moderate exercise, that was one of their advantages as a house dog – so I checked.

    “While every dog benefits from exercise, the Keeshond does not require a great deal of it. He isn’t generally considered to be the breed of choice for long-distance runners, for example. For your own health as well his, though, plan on at least one vigorous daily walk.”

    http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/keeshond

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

    Ross I think he could have been back well before 6.33, if he left home at 5.45 and claims it takes him 40 minutes to do his run.
    If he admits to being able to do it in 40 minutes, he can probably do it in less. I’m sure that was the fastedt he ever did that run in his life.
    Didn’t someone at the beginning of the run claim to get their paper earleir than normal?

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

    Dennis Horne (62) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 9:24 am

    The Bains loved and looked after their children.

    And evidence showed Robin ‘loved’ his daughters in ways that fathers never should. The dirty bastard.

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

    Kanz @9.23am
    That sounds very like a threat to muggins safety.
    Shows the calibre of a david bain supporter, most seem to be thugs who have big problems with the police.
    I suspect most don’t care if david bain is innocent, just want to see someone beat the system.

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

    Belinda (57) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Kanz @9.23am
    That sounds very like a threat to muggins safety.

    But muggins says I am a middle aged woman, would he be scared of that? Probably would but he can always phone a friend. LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. Not a skerrick of evidence. Laniet was full of it. White babies, black babies, abortions. Believe that, do you? Or only the bits of nonsense that suit your purpose? From all accounts Robin was a decent man doing his best with a mad wife and a domineering son.

    If imminent disclosure were a motive, why would he leave one, especially David? Makes no sense. If he was going to kill himself, why kill the others? Or why not kill Laniet and himself?

    Furthermore, it was David who organised the family gathering, not Laniet.

    You, Kanz, are as mad as a hatter or getting very well paid for this nonsense.

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

    Dennis Horne (63) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Arawa’s friend from PNG was full of it too was she? She gave evidence to the effect that Robin was sexually abusing Arawa before the age of 9. The prosecution had her evidence suppressed.
    Some think that is normal, but they are the sick people in our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    SGA
    Ok,take your point re the dog. But it still requires a vigorous walk every day.
    And the point I would like to make is that David Bain never once suggested that the dog slowed him down that morning.He said it would take him two to three minutes to get home from where he looked at his watch. Karam,in his book David and Goliath said that David Bain had a fattish unfit dog with him. Now,18 years later,Bain is saying the dog slowed him down.
    Why? Because he wants to fits his arrival home time with Denise Laney’s sighting of him.
    That dog was not fattish,nor was it unfit. Absolute bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Laniet told a school friend that David was molesting her. She even left home for a couple of weeks and stayed with a friend’s family. Then David came to the school and told her everything would be ok,so she went back home. Then shortly afterwards she left school,left home,and went to work in a massage parlour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. Okay. Let’s accept for a minute Robin was abusing his daughters. He didn’t want the family or anyone to know, so he killed them. So why did he spare the one, David? Because David didn’t know? So David didn’t know but Stephen did? Really?

    Me thinks Bain saying he didn’t know means it wasn’t true.

    Kanz, can you walk on water?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Chuck Bird (5,990 comments) says:

    How to spot a sociopath – 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

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

    This might be useful in determining who the sociopath was and it wasn’t Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Belinda
    Re that threat. This is not the first time a David Bain supporter has threatened to come and sort me out, though it is the first time it has happened on a public website.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. SGA (3,497 comments) says:

    @muggins “SGA. Ok, take your point re the dog.”

    No problem. Despite their appearance, Keeshonds are actually much more closely related to Pomeranians than Huskies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Chuck Bird (5,990 comments) says:

    This video is worth watching for everyone but David’s fan club.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Dexter (512 comments) says:

    Time to stop posting Kanz.

    You lack the logic and persuasive skills to convince anyone of your argument and all your doing is harming your own ‘side’ with your aggression and threats.

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

    Dennis Horne (64) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Kanz. Okay. Let’s accept for a minute Robin was abusing his daughters. He didn’t want the family or anyone to know, so he killed them. So why did he spare the one, David? Because David didn’t know? So David didn’t know but Stephen did? Really?
    Me thinks Bain saying he didn’t know means it wasn’t true.

    Why would Bain know what his father was up to with the daughters? do you think the wife would know too?
    As for Stephen, he was a different story. Do some digging and find out which of Robin’s children had been in trouble with the law, which one was under a youth aid officer and why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    My thanks to David Farrar for deleting that threatening post.

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

    Dexter (182) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Time to stop posting Kanz.

    If you say so, bye, will miss you. As for me I will do what I want.

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

    muggins (626) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 10:14 am

    My thanks to David Farrar for deleting that threatening post.

    Hahaha, who is the girl? Proves my point. LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz
    What about Laniet sayng that David was molesting her? Is it possible she told people that her father was molesting her because she was frightened to say who the real molester was.?
    And funny how David said Laniet always sided with her father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz
    You are the girl.

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

    Maybe the threatening post should stay up, so the public can see what one is up against when one defends Robin Bain.
    No wonder so many are scared to speak up.

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

    muggins (628) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 10:19 am

    One person in 2011 was bullied into writing lies for counterspin. Many people, starting as early as 2 days after the killings claimed that they had been told it was the Father. The telling had started as early as Arawa being 9 years old. Which do I believe? Not hard to answer that one.

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

    Belinda (58) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 10:25 am
    Maybe the threatening post should stay up, so the public can see what one is up against when one defends Robin Bain.
    No wonder so many are scared to speak up.

    Nah, it was taken down because all it threatened was a trip to PN and that was enough to scare the girl who calls himself muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    I think it is a moral issue for some people.

    If people believe the propaganda designed to muddy the waters and clear David, they WANT Robin to be the killer. In my long and intimate experience with the public, many people believe what they want to believe.

    gamefisher. muggins. Can someone with the same or similar magazine, place it on some carpet and whack their hand down close. See how far away you can still do this for the magazine to topple over.

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

    Chuck

    It’s interesting that Karam and Co fought tooth and nail to keep the evidence of Mark Buckley, Gareth and Greer Taylor, and Kirsten Koch from the jury at Bain’s retrial. You’ll remember that Karam said, prior to the retrial, that all of the evidence should be presented. So why did he do everything he could to prevent a lot of evidence from being seen and heard? Behind the scenes, defence lawyer Heln Cull was in overdrive trying to deny jurors access to evidence. The Court of Appeal heard numerous applications from Cull about what evidence should be admitted. Quite a different story from the garbage that Karam was spouting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. Listen up. This madness is nothing. We drifted into WWII after one assassin. Here we have five and people are equally easily duped.

    All I can say is, thank goodness David was spared. He was the only one who deserved to live, you know.

    Well, he wasn’t spared for his looks or his personality, that’s for sure. The Good Lord works in mysterious ways, eh?

    Well, if poor old Liz cops it, we can always blame Robin, resurrected from the dead.

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

    Dennis re 11:03 I haven’t got a magazine like that one so can’t answer that but the police did experiments with it to my understanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Listen up. It appears the NZ Herald conflate the two issues of innocence and police incompetence. I have been told, in private correspondence, that innocence is not the issue. The issue for the Herald is should Bain be paid compensation and the answer is yes because the investigation was inadequate and the first trial unfair.

    So, to protect our silly system of point scoring instead of finding the truth, we shall pay out a killer.

    Truly, the law is an ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. parapenter (1 comment) says:

    g’morning muggins aka supersleuth. I knew we’d catch up again one day. Now about that $10,000 you said you’d pay to cybernana & moi if it turned out Binnie found David innocent.Remember that bet you made on TM?I never got a chance to reply cause admin wiped the thread. i think i would like to donate my portion to charity.now how do you want to make the payment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    gamefisher. I am kind of familiar with military weapons but have never owned a .22 and haven’t shot one since late 50s. Approximate mass and dimensions of magazine?

    I think it’s worth following up. (I have to go now.)

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

    Really important announcement about your 12.03, Dennis in my next post.

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

    Your 12.03 was comment # 1650

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

    Not sure what model Winchester 22 it was but if it was a 490 this is a photo of a 5 shot mag so note the curve the 10 shot would have more of a curve due to its extra length. http://www.ebay.com/itm/WINCHESTER-490-22-Caliber-5-Round-Blued-Magazine-/221008317398

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz. I missed your earlier post.

    Okay, I will accept for the purposes of the argument that Robin was abusing his daughters and Stephen knew but David didn’t. You have implied Margaret didn’t know.

    So tell me again, having decided to kill himself, why did he kill the others? Spite? Why spare David but not Margaret? Job-lot mentality? Why leave a “note” on a computer instead of writing so authorship was undisputed? To embarrass and incriminate David? Because he wanted to punish him for dominating him and causing all this trouble?

    COMPULSORY QUESTION: Why write “deserved” not “deserves”, did he write it after he was dead?

    It’s so far-fetched it could reach the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Which it might do yet. with help from the Herald and dunces from the legal system. (Really must go.)

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

    Holy moly look at the curve http://www.gunauction.com/buy/6557505/vintage-nib-winchester-m-490-22lr-10-rd-magazine

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Absolute bullshit regarding the additional ‘shoes’ as I mentioned earlier it is a requirement that you have half a braincell in order to answer my questions as you don’t appear to please refrain.

    Truthiz
    The ‘bloody’ palm print, has this actually been proven to be in blood? David did the washing that morning (under either scenario)so any print is his.
    When was the washing machine turned on? well do we believe the cops made a beeline for the laundry as ‘David’ supposedly did to the lounge? They broke into the house at 7.33, probably around 7.40 when they searched in the laundry, If the machine was started around 6.50 and took between 45min to an hour it could easily be finished by the time they got there. Davids sweatshirt
    he wore on the paper round was in the washing machine so doesn’t really support the washing beforehand scenario
    Computer keyboard, any evidence this was actually wiped down or that it was tested for fingerprints, nope didn’t think so.

    Dennis,
    This doesn’t really look like a planned premeditated murder does it, David trying to ‘implicate’ his father, can’t find anything in any of his statements in the last 18.5 years that do so. Robin could have been waiting by the window for David to come home so he could shoot him to before changing his mind and deciding to spare him and shoot himself instead

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Dennis
    We are now up to debating what the correct way to write a suicide note! really it doesn’t support either argument

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

    Now now Rowan, your acceptance of the pitiful evidence of robin doing it shows your intelligence.re muggs.

    You know David was the only one who had time to clean up.

    You also know Robin did not CHANGE his clothes or wash up.

    .
    In fact Robin did what he did every morning, woke up at abt 6.30 to his alarm, got dressed, picked up the paper and went to the lounge for prayers at about 6.45.

    .

    There is no evidence that Robin did anything out of the ordinary that weekend. Now david .. well where to start.
    .

    Remember no revelation, NO motive.

    .
    No blood from ANY family members on Robin or his clothes, and no chance to clean up, then 98% chance, a non murderer.

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

    now back to the computer,

    The person who wrote the note on the computer was self obsessed.

    the note shows a lack of understanding of simple english.

    the person who wrote the note wiped down the computer keyboard.

    :::
    And how can any person who threatens another writer with violence or death still be allowed to write on this board ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz,old girl
    Stop telling porkies.
    Nobody was bullied into posting anything. The person who wrote that arrived back from nine years overseas just before the retrial. She went to the police but they said she was too late because the deposition hearings had closed.
    Many people,when they heard of the murders ,were sure that it was David Bain who committed them.
    Kanz,
    You call me a girl, I call you a girl.
    And if you think I am frightened of you and your murderer mate,who has also threatened me,you have another think coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    http://www.akl.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/8121256/Time-to-accept-Binnie-findings-on
    Interesting comments.

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

    What did Kanz say?
    dotcom@inbox.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Sofia (926 comments) says:

    The evidence not admitted – the paper-run as an alibi to commit sexual assault, and the young woman told of David threatening the family with the rifle – I had not seen before. Thank you, Chuck Bird, for the link –
    http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video?vid=2783327

    I do hope Collins has seen it, in her resolve to find a solution that stands up to thorough scrutiny.
    ___________

    Just as it seems accepted that the killer showered, and evidence indicates Robin didn’t [full bladder, gardening dirt still on his hands] the conclusion is David both used the shower and was the killer.

    Likewise the computer note is presumed to be written by Robin for David, so the fact the keyboard was wiped down, suggests an author other than Robin actually wrote the message.

    There seems to be multiple points like this against David but few to incriminate Robin.

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

    It’s so simple re the “suicide note”
    There are only two possible reasons why you would type a suicide note.
    A/ There was no pen in the house
    B/ You want to disguise who wrote it.

    As if an intelligent person like Robin Bain would write such a silly inane note anyway, whereas it sounds just the type of thing an immature 22 year old would do.
    If Robin Bain was writing his final message I’m sure it would have much more important things to say.

    In case anyone has forgotten didn’t it say
    “Sorry, you’re the only one who deserved to stay”
    Quite frankly I can’t think of anyone but David himself who would think he was the only one who deserved to stay. It must rate as the silliest suicide note ever written. If it wasn’t so tragic the suicide note would be laughable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Re odd shoes.
    First of all,have you ever heard of anyone wearing odd shoes? I wonder if David Bain got rid of one bloody shoe.
    It was not until April 1995 that the Police,in their final preparations for trial ,decided further shoes should be examined. It was now considered David might not have worn the Lasers on the paper run. On 13 April 1995,less than a month before the trial a number of shoes including the “odd pair” were delivered to the ESR for examination. The odd shoes had assumed significance not only because of the blood on them but also because they had been in a position just inside the door where David could have reasonably taken off his footwear when he returned from his paper run. At the original interview when asked where he took his shoes off he replied “Usually by the door in front of the cupboard”.
    It is significant that the odd pair of shoes were the ones just inside the door whereas the Lasers were found next to the bed,some distance from the door.
    Forensic examinations conducted between 26 and 28 April 1995 identified blood on the laces of the left shoe and on the right shoe heavy blood staining was visible on the inner edge corresponding with the big toe area. ,possibly consistent with the wearer bleeding from the big toe or foot. Light blood staining was visible back to the area beneath the end of the lace holes.
    However,there was insufficient blood for grouping purposes.
    At this stage an approach was made to defence counsel to allow this evidence to be presented at the trial[it had not been part of the depositions] but Mr Guest refused on the basis he did not have time to prepare for it. He also said the Crown Prosecutor should not include reference to those shoes in his opening address.Because those shoes were not part of the Crown case the shoes were subsequently destroyed and are no longer available for re-examination with today’s advance techniques.
    Maybe another lucky break for David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Belinda
    Robin Bain hand wrote a letter to his mother every week and regularly to his brothers and sister,so it was his usual practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Binnie made a shocking error in his report when he stated that Robin had already collected the paper before David came home.
    David said that he didn’t bring the paper in ,though he normally did when he ran his paper round. He said his father brought it in at around 7am if he [David] walked his paper round.
    So from that detective Binnie presumes that Robin Bain brought the paper in before David arrived home.
    Jesus wept!

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

    “Quite frankly I can’t think of anyone but David himself who would think he was the only one who deserved to stay. It must rate as the silliest suicide note ever written. If it wasn’t so tragic the suicide note would be laughable.” –Belinda

    Perfect and so truth, only someone so into themselves could have wriiten that.

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

    “Quite frankly I can’t think of anyone but David himself who would think he was the only one who deserved to stay. It must rate as the silliest suicide note ever written. If it wasn’t so tragic the suicide note would be laughable.” –Belinda

    Perfect and so true, only someone so into themselves could have written that.

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

    Arawa I would of though would had been hihly loved and respected by both parents but especialy her father as she ended up as a head prefect and was following his footsteps into the teaching profession. Note David says there was tension between Arawa and Robin but this has only been revealed after the folly of that suicide note “Sorry, you’re the only one who deserved to stay”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Muggins some actual evidence to back up this shoe bullshit, you seem to think that ‘this witness told me’ and “I rang such and such person’ now makes it factual evidence? next thing we know DB will have confessed to you in your dreams and we are supposed to accept it as evidence?
    The top post on why RB ‘couldnt’ have commited suicide
    the tense of the words on the suicide note, well Belinda maybe you forgot to tell RB the ‘correct’ rules of how to write a suicide note, didn’t know there were any myself but you being the linguistic expert on such matters should be able to share some. Maybe he was waiting at the window for David to come home so that he could shoot him!! If he changed his mind then just maybe he wanted to be gone by the time David got home so didnt want to go looking for pens in the pigsty of a house.
    Muggins also Robins letter writing style was written EXACTLY the same way as the suicide note, coincidence?

    Also are all of the below just coincidences?
    1. Laniety goes home for the weekend with the intention of telling all, she mentions this to several acquaintinces
    2. Even if the allegations aren’t true then she has shared it with rather a lot of people and more than likely her mother
    3. A late night argument between family members on the Sunday night
    4. Margaret and Laniet go down to the atm at 1am to withdraw all bar around $20 from Robins account, tell me is this a normal activity to do at 1 in the morning?
    5. The very next morning they are both found dead with bullets in their heads unfortunately Arawa and Stephen are potential witnesses so must also die, David is out, maybe he must as well?

    Having changed his mind and deciding that he can’t kill David and hide the secret
    ‘BANG’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Is when the newspaper was bought in significant, maybe David bought it in, do you really think when the paper was bought in was significant?
    No printers ink in the lounge, yet the killer typed the message on the computer again coincidence?
    personally to me this is a very overrated concept

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Rowan (79) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    Dennis
    We are now up to debating what the correct way to write a suicide note! really it doesn’t support either argument

    Rowan, don’t play stupid. It’s the wrong tense. It’s written after the event. If you planned to kill yourself now and leave one, you would write in the present tense, “You’re the only one who DESERVES …”. It’s the past tense, written as if the writer is already dead. It’s just another little piece of the jigsaw that fits to show the picture “David”.

    Suicide note. Really? It’s no suicide note. Even if Robin was completely off his rocker, he would have known the authorship could not be verified. Am I supposed to believe this was all part of Robin’s plan to implicate his son? You know, the only one who deserves to stay?

    This whole narrative is preposterous. Whatever you believe about Robin, you simply can’t get anything consequential to point at him as the killer of five members of his family the leaving the one who planned for them to be all together. It just make no sense to believe he is the killer when there is a perfectly coherent narrative explaining David is.

    What’s more, nothing David has done since leads me to think he is normal, as Binnie Bunny concluded. No anger towards his father for killing his mother, comparing himself to AA Thomas, regretting his lost career as an opera singer, his need to have Karam stopping questions. His prepared lines he reads from a script in his head; watch him. He’s not talking to you, he’s reading.

    The Herald is heading the movement that a killer should be paid because Binnie Bunny said so, even if Binnie Bunny was wrong in his analysis and his conclusion. Doesn’t right and wrong count any more?

    It’s the same with the homosexual marriage nonsense. The essence of marriage has always been mating and child rearing; never homosexual acts. Never mind, we’ll redefine it so homosexuals think they are married. The normalisation of deviance.

    There are people who were wrongly convicted, one never exonerated (Ellis) and one still in jail (Watson). Never mind them. No, Bain is the man of the moment. He was wrongly found not guilty at the second trial and released, but that’s not enough, he must be compensated for us not making a stronger case against him. I give up. I’ll take my medicine, promise.

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

    You are so sad rowan ….

    You know there was no revelation

    decide he couldn’t kill the brilliant one of the family, his most loved and trusted and the most promising newspaper boy in his street, LOL LOL LOL ROFLOL , besides he probably wasn’t even the best paperboy in his street.

    Gawd you bainophiles are appalling ….

    Wake up and smell the roses, your beloved leader executed his whole family …

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

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

    Quote “4. Margaret and Laniet go down to the atm at 1am to withdraw all bar around $20 from Robins account, tell me is this a normal activity to do at 1 in the morning?

    We can all spectulate as to the reason for that but it is all conjecture as the witness are dead .

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

    There is another fault with “Sorry, you’re the only one who deserved to stay”. Note the detached way the writer is by saying “you’re” instead of mentioning David by name.
    Who talks about his family in that same detacted maner and sorry no prizes for the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Truthiz
    Why don’t you have a look in the mirror at yourself and the JFRB witchhunt
    You don’t prove jack shit just as the prosecution ‘rope’ is nothing more than a weak spiderweb

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Sofia (926 comments) says:

    The premature burning of the house, said to be ill-advised and denying justice in some ways, is getting a little hammering in the reasons for there to be compensation, but didn’t David agree to this, along with others?
    As much as his responsibility as any one else.

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

    Truthiz re 4:13 thanks for that link I have read plenty about sociopath I have sister that is one also look up serial bulies.
    I espspecialy like this “Sociopaths never answer facts; they always attack the messenger” we have seen this since 2009 countless times and I have never had a fact aswered that doesn’t suit their views.

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

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

    :)

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

    And yes Sofia, David agreed to the burning down of the house, fortunately for him, this helped to clear away MORE evidence against him.

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

    Did Binnie ask db why he was Robin’s favourite child?

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

    Does anyone here know what model Winchester 22 that rifle was I think it may be a 490 but I need to be sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Rowan
    First of all Margaret Bain went down to draw the money out at 11.30pm not 1am. Big difference. She wanted to clear the visa a/c before it attracted any interest as it would have at 1am on the 20th. It was not unusual for her to do that. There was never much money in the bank a/c. Only Robin’s salary went into it,he was the sole earner.
    It is only Dean Cottle that Laniet was going home to “spill the beans”.
    He said Laniet told him that she was going to tell her parents she was a prostitute,but they already knew that and she knew they knew. So why would she have said that? I wouldn’t trust anything that Cottle said. Besides,Laniet didn’t want to go home that night,she was frightened of her freaky brother.
    How do you know there was a late night argument?
    Robin Bain would have left a hand-written note. Forget about the stlye,don’t you realise David would have copied that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Rowan
    The point I was making about the paper is that ninny Binnie said that Robin brought it in before David came home. How the hell did he come to that conclusion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. SGA (3,497 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne “Rowan, don’t play stupid. It’s the wrong tense. It’s written after the event. If you planned to kill yourself now and leave one, you would write in the present tense, “You’re the only one who DESERVES …”. It’s the past tense, written as if the writer is already dead.”

    Dennis – it’s hard to see a “smoking gun” here. Would it be so odd for a “suicide in the making” to use the past tense? “I’m glad to have known you” rather than “I’m glad to know you”. A suicide might well see things in past tense already. Why isn’t that possible? I genuinely can’t see why you attach so much relevance to this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    gamefisher
    Yes,it was a Winchester 490.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    SGA
    I shoudn’t be chipping in, but Robin Bain was a schoolteacher,he would never use the incorrect tense.
    Besides ,as I have already pointed out, he wrote a hand-written letter to his mother every week. If he was going to commit suicide don’t you think he would have written a hand-written note?
    Many murderers have left type written “suicide” notes ,that way no-one can tell who wrote them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. SGA (3,497 comments) says:

    @muggins
    You miss my point. For an intending suicide (if that’s what happened), what would be the correct tense? “I’m glad to have known you” or “I’m glad to know you”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    SGA
    No,you miss the point. Robin Bain would not have typed a suicide note.
    But had he typed that note when he was alive he would have said used the word deserves. You deserve to stay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/story/time-i-spent-with-laniet-and-arawa
    Stories from a friend of Arawa and Laniet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. SGA (3,497 comments) says:

    @muggins
    I have made no comment on whether or not Robin Bain would have typed or written a note, have I? I politely pointed out that what “tense” an intending suicide (if that’s waht happened) might use isn’t that clear. I can’t see why you might be confused about my messages, but I apologise for any ambiguity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    We don’t know if David Bain had much printers ink on his hands,he may have been wearing gloves,as were other paper boys in Dunedin that morning. It was bitterly cold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    SGA (130) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
    Dennis – it’s hard to see a “smoking gun” here. Would it be so odd for a “suicide in the making” to use the past tense? “I’m glad to have known you” rather than “I’m glad to know you”. A suicide might well see things in past tense already. Why isn’t that possible? I genuinely can’t see why you attach so much relevance to this.
    +++++++++++++

    It’s not what a natural English-speaking person would say in the circumstances. It is exactly what I would predict someone writing on the behalf of – or in the shoes of – someone who has already passed on would say.

    It’s just another anomaly in the whole saga, like the de facto anonymous “note” on the computer, which in itself is self-serving drivel written by an immature individual, probably a psychopath who can’t see how absurd it sounds. Like the “I would have been an opera star” crap.

    You see, all the links in the chain fabricated to hold Robin to account are so improbable that I really have to accept that the large minority of people who believe it are essentially brainless. Well, no surprises there, then.

    There is an other aspect to the acceptance of compensation. It is that somehow society is to blame for individual failure. It’s not David’s fault for killing his family, it’s the police and prosecutors fault for not making a better case. It was the same with the TE901 crash on Erebus. Mahon, Holmes, Williamson, Dunne and others blamed Air NZ entirely. But the accident was not inevitable when the DC10 left NZ. The pilots did no VFR navigation and went down to a level this was required BY LAW. NZ Herald, thinks compensation should be paid even if Bain is not factually innocent – “The evidence is a sideshow”.

    Well, if you believe Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel laurate, the Universe is essentially clockwork. That means we have no free will. What we are doing here makes no difference. Que sera sera.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. SGA (3,497 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne “It’s not what a natural English-speaking person would say in the circumstances.”

    And you know this because ….?

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

    I man is typing the hardest sentence he had to do in his whole life and he doesn’t mention the persons name and does it in past tense. Yeah right another Tui add

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    SGA. Imagine yourself sitting down to write a note to your son. You have just killed his mother and siblings, but you have decided to spare him. Read the first, then read the second:

    You are the only one who deserves to live
    You are the only one who deserved to live

    Now wait 10 minutes, then sit down to tell your son you have killed the family but you have decided to spare him. Write that down any way you like.

    What did you write?

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

    muggins re 6:25 thanks for that as you know better than I one has to be 100% correct otherwise any mistake is pounced upon and used to discredit and that what Binnie did to Jones evidence he discredited Jones evidence base on a different dispute that is failed logic.

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

    Muggins I presume you have seen a photo od the bullet fragment from Laniets head I did some test and got almost the same pattern as on that bullet fragment firing through a bath mat into a pigs head hard contact.

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

    Take a look at marzuka post #299 Colin’s second opinion on Binnie makes sense. to see a javascript similation of how Robin most like could fall

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    gamefisher
    I don’t recall seeing that photo.
    But I have to admit that,unlike you, I have absolutely no expertise in bullet fragments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    marzuka post #299?

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

    Sorry on trademe post #229 “Colin’s second opinion on Binnie makes sense” thread

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. SGA (3,497 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne
    You are the only one who deserves to live
    You are the only one who deserved to live

    Both “play” to my ear. As I said to you earlier (you may not have bothered to read it, you didn’t reply) – what “plays” better for someone intending suicide as a message – “I’m glad to have known you” (paste tense) or “I’m glad to know you” (present tense). I see nothing odd about someone in that situation adopting the past tense. But, hey, you are free to differ in opinion – but as a “smoking gun”, it’s a bit lame.

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

    God it was good on the compo thread Friday.

    Almost no flaming. Almost no vindictiveness. Yet a lot of work done.

    God it was good. Miss you all.

    The luminol topic is a no-brainer.

    The “deserves/deserved” is a no brainer.

    Rowan is a no-brainer.

    But keep up the good work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    SGA (134) Says:
    December 28th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
    @Dennis Horne
    You are the only one who deserves to live
    You are the only one who deserved to live

    Both “play” to my ear. As I said to you earlier (you may not have bothered to read it, you didn’t reply) – what “plays” better for someone intending suicide as a message – “I’m glad to have known you” (paste tense) or “I’m glad to know you” (present tense). I see nothing odd about someone in that situation adopting the past tense. But, hey, you are free to differ in opinion – but as a “smoking gun”, it’s a bit lame.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I agree, if you are leaving a situation for good you would say: “I’m glad to have known you”.

    Would you then add to the person at the time: “You are the only who stayed”?

    Smoking gun? The whole picture is a smoking gun. The paper round timing PLUS the tremendous struggle with Stephen PLUS the broken spectacles PLUS the “note” on the computer PLUS the awkward way of shooting oneself PLUS the magazine on its edge PLUS … where the magazine was found PLUS

    Let’s take one strand. That the note on the computer is a genuine suicide note is extremely unlikely. That Robin would say nothing except he was sparing David is very very unlikely. That he would say David was the only deserving one is very unlikely. That he would write it from the perspective of someone already dead is unlikely. This all adds up. This alone, without considering any other evidence, means that the likelihood that Robin committed suicide is very low.

    But do you see how I weighted each bit? Extremely unlikely to unlikely. An “unlikely” makes an “extremely unlikely” even more unlikely. So it’s all grist for the mill.

    Hope this helps, I am leaving now. Maybe Manic.com will put in a guest appearance later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Dennis
    If you happen to look in .
    You asked about David’s glasses prescription and I said I wasn’t able to help you with that.
    However those glasses of his mother’s that he was wearing gave him 90% of his visual potential.
    David Bain is myopic ,slightly more than his mother was. They had the same degree of myopia in the left eye,but David was slightly more myopic in his right eye. David has a small amount of astigmatism as did his mother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    What a number of people don’t realise is that Robin Bain wore glasses as well. His glasses were found in the caravan. He needed them for reading.
    So he would have had difficulty fitting the key to that trigger lock without his glasses. He would have had difficulty typing a message on that computer without his glasses. If he brought the paper in then he must have been going back to the caravan to read it. If David brought the paper in then his father must have intended to take it back to the caravan to read after saying his prayers.

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

    What were Robin’s glasses prescription thanks in advance and people need to note that the light in David’s room was very dim just like the laundry.

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

    What? We need to know David’s glasses prescription? But we don’t need to know the wattage of the light bulb in the room?

    These things will solve whether David is going to get compensation or not.

    Muggins, nice to see that now I’m not here, you’ve adopted my theories as if Orwell had written the script. Eurasia is now at war with Eastasia. Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia. The history books have all been re-written .. .. ..

    Keep it up guys. Miss you heaps.

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

    Dotcom yes as it is another piece that show Robin did not do it I am putting a document together simila rto a book that I intend to send to many people Judith Collins is of course at the top of the list. David must not get compensation based on innocence and some of us want Robins name cleared as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    And miss you too,Dotcom,you old bastard.
    gamefisher,
    I am unable to give you Robin’s presciption,but he needed glasses for reading. Same as me. I don’t need glasses for driving.
    David needed glasses for driving. He could type a note on the computer without needing glasses. For Robin it would be quite difficult. I mean if I take my glasses off the computer keys are quite blurry.

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

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

    Do I need to say more lol

    Muggins you would of observed same as myself when not using glasses you can read print better in bright light as opposed to dim light so if Robin’s prescription were similar to mine or worse he definitely would of had some issues and he would of known that prior so unusual that he didn’t have them with him also for the paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Re those question you asked on the wrong thread.
    You seem to be confused as to what near[short]sighted and long sighted means.
    David was short sighted,meaning he could read without glasses but couldn’t drive without glasses.
    Robin was long sighted meaning he couldn’t read without glasses but he could drive without glasses.
    Re gloves. Rowan,I wasn’t suggesting that David wore those bloody gloves on his paper round . He had other gloves he could have worn and quite possibly did,seeing as it was a bitterly cold morning. The reason why I don’t believe he had printers ink on his hands is because there was a drop of Robin Bain’s blood in the washbasin that David Bain said he used to wash his hands in to remove the printers ink from.
    Question. How did Robin Bain’s blood get into that washbasin after David Bain had used to remove the printers ink?
    Re those odd shoes.
    I explained all that to you earlier. By the time that blood was found on those shoes the depositions had closed. The police asked Bain’s lawyer if they could bring those shoes in as evidence and he turned them down. Unfortunately they did not keep the shoes which may well have turned out to be a lucky break for David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    gamefisher,
    Exactly. If I go to look up a number in the phone book and forget to take my glasses with me I have to go to a window to read the number,and that is in the daytime. I just couldn’t read the number at night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Rowan (3,345 comments) says:

    Yes Muggins
    Your shoe explanations along with any explanation you have tried in any Bain thread show your total lack of understanding of this case. It appears much more than your simplistic pea brain mind can comprehend.
    I really can’t be bothered writing answers to your posts anymore

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    So you can post on this thread after all.
    Re that odd pair of shoes. If you would care to reread my post at 1.57pm yesterday you will find out all you need to know about those shoes. I did not make all that up,I read it in a public document.
    I am pleased to read that you can’t be bothered answering my posts any more because I am sick and tired of having to explain things to you over and over and over again.
    Go back to playing with your rubber ducks.or whatever it is you play with.

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

    Gamefisher, re that handbook, good on you. Best commenter here by far to be doing it. Well done.

    If I can help in any way.

    dotcom@inbox.com

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

    Dotcom thanks I will be contacting those I think can help me in the New Year and work as a team to use true meaning of “naturaly justice” and not the bastardised versions in circuit at present.

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

    > For Robin it would be quite difficult [without his glasses].

    Does that mean, if he were the killer, he might have had problems looking for the ammunition, trigger lock and opera gloves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    muggins. Thanks. It would seem the lens prescription was never documented. If David needed his mother’s spectacles for TV then he would struggle to drive without them, even in Dunedin. But he would see well enough to move around the house and see very clearly for a metre, and better than normal close up (reading). Robin would of course be the opposite. He would find reading difficult without glasses but would be able to put a key in a lock or load a clip, in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Dennis
    From the first trail
    Q. For items wuthin say a metre your vision without glasses is perfectly adequate.
    A. It is adequate for moving around and I can judge distance and do everyday things.The only hardship is that everything becomes blurry beyond a certain point. There is a blurred outline.
    Q. At what distance is that occurring.
    A. At about 30cm I would say,around a foot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    muggins. I am guessing because I don’t know the prescription (and I am not an expert). I would expect him to see eyes, mouth and nose or count the fingers of a hand 2m away. Perhaps very clearly at 1m is wrong but well enough to recognise a face without difficulty, say. I know that’s vague, sorry, I’m kind of guessing he’s about -3 dioptre.

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

    When David spoke to that conference in Perth in March, he described finding the bodies. He describes finding his father’s body last and then it “dawned on me to call the emergency number”. He said he was focused on finding his father…but why would David have assumed that his father was home? David got back from his paper run between 6.40 – 6.45 am (if not earlier). But David said Robin would enter the house between 6.40 – 7.10 am. So there must have been every chance that Robin was still in his caravan…why didn’t David check the caravan for his father? Moreover, David assumed his father would be in the lounge at about 7.10 (about when David reckons he found his father). If David felt his father would still be in the lounge at 7.10, then it suggests David wasn’t too concerned about his father findings the bodies.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/David-Bains-speech-at-Perth-justice-conference/tabid/309/articleID/245984/Default.aspx

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

    Ross69, good point. I hadn’t spotted this one before, but very self-incriminating.

    But in his Perth speech, David made a much, much, much worse self-inculpatory statement than the one you mention. Yet no-one has ever spotted it to my knowledge.

    When it is pointed out to people, people immediately recognise it as tantamount to a confession of mass murder.

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

    from Binnie interview with D. Bain, page 46

    Q . Now when you spoke to the police, you said you went in search of your
    father and the question is why would you look for your father in the
    lounge?
    A. Ah , again I can only give you what I made in my, in the statements and,
    and in evidence and so on and that was really his influence, he was
    most concentrated , he spent a lot of time in that room either working on
    the computer or praying or, you know, discussing things with visitors
    that he might have had .

    Yet ,only a little later in the interview, David appears to downplay Robin’s routine of praying in the lounge (page 50 in document).

    It could well be that the initial suggestion, that Robin was shot while praying, was correct all along?

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

    “… being constantly crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, by all I once held dear”. – David in Karam’s booklet “Innocent”

    now compare that statement with the following twaddle..

    “Due to my attention being focused on my own life and all the fantastic things I was getting involved in I was unaware of the malevolent undercurrents that were happening in my own family.”

    “Life had only just started. I had taken part in triathlons, joined the local harriers club, passed through outward bound. I sang in the Royal Dunedin Male choir and became involved with a group of young and enthusiastic amateur performers and started a degree in music and drama at university and formed three lovely (inaudible). “

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