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.

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

  1. tvb (4,501 comments) says:

    Yikes!!! The cost of getting theses endless reports is making the exercise of getting yet more reports not worthwhile. Pay Bain nothing. Just how much is the man’s life worth. There is a lot of elective surgery in the costs of all this. There are people dying, good people dying for want of medical treatment. Bain has had a fair go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    I recall hearing comment from Auckland’s Bill Hodge that was also in agreement with Fisher’s criticisms.

    It’s interesting that Reed has remained very quiet. He has had plenty of time now to form a view about Fisher vs Binnie. Oh, to be a fly on the wall (or better, on his telephone handset).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nick K (1,256 comments) says:

    Another 1,000 comment thread coming up………………

    Bain did it. No he didn’t! Yes he did. No, Robin did.

    x about 500

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

    There should be a further report from a panel of three whose sole brief is to determine whether they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that David Bain is innocent.

    The panel should consist of retired High Court Judges experienced in criminal trials. Appellate judges could be considered if they have a background as a judge hearing criminal trials.

    What we are essentially after is a finding of fact, and who best to give that than the judges that sit day in day out in criminal trials where the whole point is to establish findings of fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. peterwn (3,304 comments) says:

    So the three wise men from Otago do not really have any festive season gifts for David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. rangitoto (248 comments) says:

    Ask Binnie to repay his fee and give it to David Bain. Problem solved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    I say give David Bain the compensation that he seeks. I think that $20 is enough to buy 2 big bacon classic combo at Wendy’s for him and Mr Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Rich Prick (1,721 comments) says:

    The matter of compensation is the subject of Ministerial discretion, not a trial. The measure for the Minister and Cabinet, is whether the exercise of the discretion (or not) is reasonable. To assist with the exercise (or not), the test of proving innocence on the balance of probabilities in one for the claimant to make out. I have not seen any evidence of that, and accordingly the refusal to exercise the discretion would be entirely reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. BeaB (2,144 comments) says:

    I still like the siggestions that everyone who thinks he didn’t kill his family donate $1000 each to compensate him.

    I personally think a nation that provides endless financial resources to a convict to fight for his freedom to the highest court in the land has done everything required. To ask for even more millions on top says a lot, to me, about his character.

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

    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.

    Because if you read his report, it’s obvious why. He explains why. Jesus effing Christ.

    Note to kids. Don’t attend a NZ law school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rich Prick (1,721 comments) says:

    Bloody good idea Beab. Although I suspect Peter Ellis would get more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    He [Otago University law professor, Kevin Dawkins] 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 David Bain.

    When does Bain have any input?

    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?

    Why an Australian? If he is from the Outback or somewhere that has isolated him from any mention of Bain, he would have to familiarise himself with all the evidence any case, otherwise in the age of the Internet, if he is a person who follows any news in the world of justice, he must know [and probably has an opinion] of the Bain case already.
    I could never see the merit of getting someone because they were Canadian. Same with Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    When does Bain have any input?

    At his interview with Binnie I would have thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. BlairM (2,364 comments) says:

    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.

    How ’bout NOOO?!

    The government didn’t even need to do the freaking report in the first place. There was no legal obligation to carry one out and there still isn’t. The decision rests with Cabinet, and if they can’t figure it out themselves, God help us all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson.
    Surely you don’t want me to go over all the evidence again that points to David Bain as being the killer?
    And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we don’t hear more about that goat shagging story that David Bain told Binnie about.
    Did Binnie really believe that? Maybe shagging goats is a common practise in Canada.
    I believe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have a panel of judges,but I don’t think we need to have an overseas judge on that panel.
    But my preference would be for Robert Fisher to do the job. He has by far the most experience in matters relating to compensation. Obviously the Bain camp would be up and arms if he was chosen,but why should we kowtow to them?
    He should have been asked to do the job in the first place,in my opinion.

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

    He [Otago University law professor, Kevin Dawkins] 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 David Bain.

    Read the report. Binnie does no such thing. What he does do is use the Crown’s own weighting of the evidence against them. IRC iIt was asserted by the Crown that the bloody footprints must have been left by the killer. “Must have been” is the highest level of certainty. David Bain is extremely unlikely to have left those prints, ergo Robin did it. As for the evidence against David, Binnie points out that it is either too compromised to be useful or it is not very strong. It’s not rocket science.

    Now we could disagree about this, but it’s just silly to suggest that Binnie doesn’t weight the evidence. I understood how he was accounting for that right away (not to do so is being deliberately obtuse), although I’m probably better trained at this sort of thing than most lawyers.

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

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

    Hmmm actually quite a few people, I think, would like (1) to occur. They may not necessarily think Bain is innocent. But they feel he was convicted when, if he’d had a fairer trial, he may have been acquitted. So there are those who believe he should be compensated despite his possible/probable guilt. I am sympethetic to this point of view. However, if he were to be compensated, any payment ought to be significantly less than the $2 million that has been mentioned, and should come with the rider that the payment relates to the quality of the investigation and subsequent trial, and is NOT related to the issue of innocence. In other words, there would be no admission that he is likely innocent.

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

    Surely you don’t want me to go over all the evidence again that points to David Bain as being the killer

    As Binnie pointed out, it’s not very strong when compared to the evidence against that, given the Crown’s own weighting of the evidence.

    I don’t care if Bain is innocent. I care that our legal profession is incompetent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    All judges are first lawyers. Lawyers are trained to select facts that support their theory. Their theory depends on who pays. I suspect many judges never get out of that mode to some degree.

    A researcher or scientist looks at the facts and then develop a theory. The Referee in this case does not have to follow the rules of evidence as in a court case. It appear almost everything can be taken into account.

    I would hope a panel could include a well respected researcher who is very good at statistics and probability. Legal probability appears to work differently than scientific probability that depends on mathematics.

    I would not be worried about being unfair to Bain but would be against not looking at the issue again.

    However, I think it is very important that as many members of the public were satisfied that a fair process has occurred.

    There are some people who will never be satisfied. I think if David broke down and confessed during the next review his supporters would say he was bullied.

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

    Read the report. Binnie does no such thing. What he does do is use the Crown’s own weighting of the evidence against them. IRC iIt was asserted by the Crown that the bloody footprints must have been left by the killer. “Must have been” is the highest level of certainty. David Bain is extremely unlikely to have left those prints, ergo Robin did it. As for the evidence against David, Binnie points out that it is either too compromised to be useful or it is not very strong. It’s not rocket science.

    The trouble is, Tom, that, not everyone agrees that the measurement analysis definitely points a finger at either Robin or David, and Binnie is wrong to make his own personal conclusion that it was definitely Robin. While it may well be incontrovertible fact that the killer left the bloody footprints, it is debatable as to who actually left the footprints because there are too many variables, therefore this piece of evidence should be put into the probability mix, with, maybe a little bit of weighting towards Robin being the culprit.

    What Binnie left entirely out of his analysis, and which I hope the new team take into consideration, is the probability of Robin doing what he is alleged to have done.

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

    > I think that $20 is enough to buy 2 big bacon classic combo at Wendy’s for him and Mr Karam.

    I was thinking a little more than that. How much would it cost to give him unfettered access to mental health treatment? :)

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

    And Bill Hodge:

    So NBR ONLINE submitted some pertinent questions to two of the country’s leading legal academics, Associate Professor Bill Hodge of Auckland University and Professor Andrew Geddis of Otago University.

    1. Has Justice Binnie a right to feel aggrieved at Miss Collins’ comments saying his report appeared to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law and lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions?

    Andrew Geddis: Yes. It’s a pretty scathing indictment of someone who was, until last year, serving on the highest court of Canada and it calls his professional competence into question.

    And if you do that to an ex-judge (who is used to having a certain level of deference paid to him and his opinions), then you are striking directly at his mana.

    So I’m not surprised he’s given Collins as good as he got, nor do I think he was wrong to do so.”

    Bill Hodge: “It’s an attack on his competence, it’s not just saying you missed out on a few facts or you don’t appreciate our culture, but to say you’re incompetent, that’s really going to the heart and he has a right to be aggrieved in my view.

    There is a way she could have said this is not quite what we were looking for but to say it’s not reasoned or robust is an allegation of incompetence.

    And it would be a smear on his reputation, his capacity, and his ability.

    I mean, this is what judges do – take a complicated set of facts, get some legal submissions and distil an outcome, and Collins says he’s done it incompetently so it’s close to being defamatory.

    I’d say it’s on the borderline of defamation, maybe over the border, but he’s not going to bring an action.”

    2. Has Ms Collins followed “a fair and even handed process” in determining whether David Bain should receive compensation?

    Andrew Geddis: “Well, we’re not at the end of it, so it may be too early to say.

    However, the real problem is that the process is being made up on the hoof … Simon Power decided to set one process in train, Judith Collins has taken over his role and received a report she clearly is unhappy with, so she has decided to set another process in train to try and deal with that issue.

    But because the rules are being made up as we go, there’s inevitably a fear that they are being developed in an effort to produce an outcome.”

    Bill Hodge: “Although Collins is Minister of Justice she’s working in a political environment with the backup of the Solicitor General, so it’s not the same as an employer considering allegations of misconduct – it’s not the same as a criminal court hearing cases.

    It’s a decision about spending public money by people who are entrusted with the public money to spend, albeit in this case ex gratia, to spend it appropriately.

    So there is a political element to this rather than fair and even handed processes or about a legal decision-making process.

    It is a political process and Binnie himself has said that.”

    3. Should Ms Collins have referred the Binnie report to the Solicitor General for “advice” given that his office “attempted for almost 17 years to uphold a conviction of Bain?

    Andrew Geddis: “The problem is that she has no-one else to go to for advice!

    The Government’s legal officers are also the people who are charged with representing the Crown in criminal prosecutions – it’s just that we expect them to ‘swap hats’ when they move from role to role.

    So unless Collins was going to lock herself in her office and make up her mind what to do here without talking to anyone, the only people she could talk to were the Solicitor General and Crown Law.”

    Bill Hodge: “The Solicitor General is the highest law officer in the land who is not a politician, so she doesn’t have anywhere else to go to.

    I mean, he is the go-to guy who I would go to if I wanted a little bit of back-up or cover.

    He’s bound to report on the law. He’s not a prosecutor, he’s a legal adviser to the government and she’s quite within her rights to go to him.”

    4. If Ms Collins was intent on seeking advice was she duty bound to get “input from both sides?”

    Andrew Geddis: “Depends what we mean by “duty”. In a legal sense, probably not.

    This whole compensation issue is a political call wherein the Cabinet can do whatever it wants to, so the minister has pretty much a free hand when it comes to pulling together information to give to Cabinet.

    The ‘Cabinet Guidelines’ are meant to give this process some sort of structure (without being legally binding on the Crown), but they don’t cover the eventuality we’re presented with here.

    So it’s a clean slate in terms of deciding what to do.”

    Bill Hodge: “This is more of a political decision-making process and I don’t think she is legally bound to get input from both sides.

    There’s certainly an element of unfairness but not a legally deficient unfairness.”

    5. Was it unfair that Justice Binnie’s report was not shown to “the party most affected, David Bain?”

    Andrew Geddis: “That’s a different way of asking the previous question.

    I suspect that Collins’ concern was that had Bain’s team been provided with a copy of the report, it (or, selected excerpts from it) would quickly have made its way into the media and been used as a stick to try and beat the government into settling the matter quickly.

    So she’s chosen not to give it to them.

    Which is, of course, not ‘fair’ if you think that the issue should be handled in a legalistic, even-handed manner.

    But if you think that the issue is a political one in which public opinion is a critical factor in how it will finally be resolved, then fairness doesn’t come into it!”

    Bill Hodge: “There is an element of moral unfairness but not legal unfairness. I don’t think there is a legal obligation to release it.

    It is a report commissioned by the government for its own political use so it’s not for the public in that sense.

    I suspect that in the long run the politics and the morals of it will demand its release, so I suspect it will come out in due course.

    There’s no legal requirement to show it to Bain, although I would have done that myself routinely if I was considering making a decision that was adverse to him.

    But this is not the type of process where it is legally required – there is no precedent for it.

    So I would say it’s morally unfair, but without seeing the report it’s impossible to fully make that judgment but I would say she should have shown it to counsel on the other side.”

    6. Is it incumbent upon Ms Collins to release the Binnie report now in order to allow New Zealanders to “judge for themselves” the merits of her press release?

    Andrew Geddis: “Well, I think she’s made that rod for her own back.

    If she wanted ‘the process’ to play out before releasing all the information (which, I believe she eventually will have to do), then she ought to have simply said that from the start … “This is a high-profile case with a lot riding on it. We want to get it right, so we’re gathering all the facts we can before making any decision – once we have all those facts then we will, of course, make them public … but until then there will be no further comment.”

    But by hinting at what is in Binnie’s report, but then saying ‘it’s secret’, she’s opened herself to the question, ‘just what is it that you want to hide?’

    Bill Hodge: “In due course I think she will release the report. She probably won’t before Christmas and I think it will come out in January, and I’ll bet you a latte on that one.”

    7. How would you describe the overall way in which Ms Collins has handled the Bain compensation claim?

    Andrew Geddis: “I think she’s been handed a tough hand to play, but nevertheless she hasn’t dealt with it all that well.

    In particular, I think her decision to rip into Binnie in public has backfired – not only does it now pit her against someone who isn’t afraid to give as good as he gets.

    But it’s probably scotched any chance that Binnie could have been convinced to quietly withdraw his report following Fisher’s review of it.

    She’s now hurt his ego too much for that.”

    Bill Hodge: “It has been clumsily handled but I would say remember she is considering spending a lot of public money and she has an obligation to the taxpayer to spend that money carefully.”

    8. Will there be any disquiet in legal circles here and abroad at the way this case is playing out?

    Andrew Geddis: “I think the entire Bain saga has produced disquiet in legal circles – given all that preceded it, the miracle would have been had the compensation claim been settled in a quick and uncontroversial fashion!”

    Bill Hodge: I think the disquiet is about the fact that there are a lot of people, some in your profession and some in mine, who are pretty hostile to Joe Karam, David Bain and Privet Reed and there is a lot of support for the view that Robin Bain could not have done it (committed the murders).

    So there is a view around that Collins is dealing with a hot potato in a clumsy way, but it is a legitimate hot potato with strong views on both sides.”

    9. In getting Robert Fisher to undertake a peer review was Ms Collins “shopping around” for an opinion she liked?

    Andrew Geddis: “I think ‘shopping around’ is too strong.

    I think she has genuine concerns about some aspects of the Binnie report (which have been amplified by Crown Law’s advice) and believes that if it had been accepted and acted on as is, there would have been a very strong public reaction against it … you can bet that every amateur Bainologist convinced of Bain’s guilt would be all over it with a microscope ripping it to shreds.

    But if she came out and simply said ‘I think this report is wrong (and Crown Law thinks so, too)’, then she would be subject to a very strong public reaction against that conclusion … every other amateur Bainologist (plus Karam/Reed/etc) would be all over the media crying ‘cover up!’

    So she needs some outside cover to back up her concerns – which is NOT (I repeat NOT) an allegation that Fisher simply has been brought in to tell the minister what she wants to hear, but rather reflects my suspicion that if she thinks the report is that bad then those facts will also lead another independent observer to the same conclusion.”

    Bill Hodge: “In terms of shopping around, Bob Fisher has been the go-to guy in this sort of situation before.

    He’s found some in favour, he’s found some against, but as far as I’m concerned he plays with a straight bat.

    So she couldn’t go to a better guy in terms of experience or in terms of being able to cope with the complexities and the pressures.

    He’s not known to me to have a strong view one way or the other on this and I know him pretty well.

    I think he’s the best available person to do it.”

    10. Is there anything else you would like to comment on in relation to this matter?

    Andrew Geddis: “This episode really underscores the need to rethink how we handle the issue of both dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice and compensating wrongly convicted/imprisoned people.

    There have been calls to set up something like the UK’s Criminal Cases Review Tribunal (see, eg, this: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10578421), which could also have the role of deciding upon claims for compensation for wrongful convictions.

    Leaving this issue in the hands of a minister inevitably politicises it, which comes at two costs.

    First, there’s a public confidence question: is the just thing being done, or the popular one?

    And second, there’s the question of fairness to people who may have already suffered a terrible injustice at the hands of the State.”

    Bill Hodge: “It’s an awkward and ugly situation and we’ll all await with interest to see how it plays out.”

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

    > I would hope a panel could include a well respected researcher who is very good at statistics and probability

    And someone who has excellent interviewing skills, who’s prepared to ask Bain the questions that Binnie didn’t ask. Also, someone who is prepared to talk to the likes of Paul Mullen, Bain’s former psychiatrist, Kirsten Koch, who claimed Arawa told her David was intimidating the family with a gun, and of course Messrs Buckley and Taylor, who both said that David had planned to rape a jogger. Their evidence could be especially helpful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    Rich Prick:

    The matter of compensation is the subject of Ministerial discretion, not a trial. The measure for the Minister and Cabinet, is whether the exercise of the discretion (or not) is reasonable. To assist with the exercise (or not), the test of proving innocence on the balance of probabilities in one for the claimant to make out.

    Absolutely correct. It’s a (major) point the cheer squad has missed entirely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    Bugger the edit – again! Not meant to be in bold. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Tom Jackson, you place a lot of wight on a footprint. Do you believe Ewen MacDonald is innocent of murder on the balance of probabilities because the footprints do not match?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    I don’t care if Bain is innocent. I care that our legal profession is incompetent.

    It would seem unlikely that one single canadian judge knows our law better than a wide variety of New Zealand experts who have questioned his report.

    Your assertion doesn’t pass the sniff test. Neither does Binnie’s report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    Absolutely correct. It’s a (major) point the cheer squad has missed entirely.

    They also miss the point that Bain is only getting this chance by the grace of the same politicans they are now flaying. Bain does not qualify for compensation under the usual criteria. Peroid.

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

    He [Otago University law professor, Kevin Dawkins] 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 David Bain.

    This is a reference not so much to David Bain himself as a person, but to his defence, which is also represented by any evidence that exonerates or incriminates him.

    What this means is that where there is incriminating evidence, such as the broken glasses, which other evidence indicates David Bain used to wear when his own were not available, then David Bain, or other evidence is needed to adequately explain for it in a way which exculpates him. Simply saying “I do not know” or “I do not recall” works for a jury, but it does not work for the balance of probabilities test. We need something stronger. The Bain defence has tried to argue that the lens had dust on it and therefore had been there for quite some time, but the rest of the glasses were on David Bain’s chair, and he is recorded as having asked for them during the time immediately following the murders. The onus is on the Defence team to prove that the glasses evidence had nothing to do with the murders.

    The same applies for other evidence that incriminates David Bain, such as the presence of his opera gloves covered in blood in Steven’s room, the presence of Stephen’s blood on the crotch of his pants and all the other items of evidence presented at trial. These were all incriminating items presented in the various trials. They cannot simply be cast aside and ignored, which is what Binnie has done. Instead, the Bain defence has to demonstrate that they had nothing to do with the crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. PaulL (6,044 comments) says:

    How about a French judge? As I understand it, in the French system they have investigative judges – they ask all the questions they think they need, then they form an opinion, as opposed to our jury trial system. In short, a task like this is something they’d be very familiar with, whereas it is quite unusual for a NZ judge. Perhaps as part of a panel that would be a really useful addition?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    I think there is a fourth option DPF has missed, the one Collins and Cabinet will actually use:

    4. Find a Tory mate, quite high-up in the New Zealand law community. Get him/her to write a report saying Bain cannot be proven innocent and pay him no compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @twistedlemon

    It appears Hodge’s comments are before Binnie’s inadequate report became public. I wonder what he thinks of the report and Fisher’s criticism of it.

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

    Should only take one competent person (though I like the panel of 3) to look at the evidence and decide against compensation.

    In fact he should actually go back to jail for those last three years.

    Without going over the overwhelming evidence against David, I will leave you with this,

    No revelation about prostitution or incest.

    The simple fact that Robin died wearing the same clothes he had on the night before.

    The truth is, both the revelation and the change of clothes were pure invention.

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

    > The simple fact that Robin died wearing the same clothes he had on the night before

    have you got a link?

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

    Well, well, well ….

    So the academics are right, and an eminent, internationally recognised jurist, is wrong?
    David, you need to put your Dunedin “prejudice” :) aside and view, dispassionately, what Binnie said. It would also be helpful if you and the academics could refute Binnie’s demolition (pulverisation, actually) of Fisher ‘s argument that form is “more important” than substance, in particular) .

    Henagan, I am told by those outside of Dunedin, is hardly objective. And Geddes had foreshadowed his position PRIOR to release of the Binnie/Fisher documents (unless he had been leaked a copy in advance). On the other hand, not one “academic” mentions that Binnie was assisted on matters relating to the idiosyncrasies NZ law by Professor Paul Rishworth of Auckland University. You could have placed his views alongside of Hodge avid, could you not?

    There is another academic v real world point: Binnie correctly pointed out that Fisher had failed to recognise the difference between academia and actuality.

    And apropos Fisher, it seems that the academics forget, or are unaware, of his role in the A A Thomas compensation hearings by the Williams Royal Commission. The fact that Fisher was counsel for the Police, defended their actions, and argued against compensation for Thomas, speaks for his known biases . Moreover, it is not an ad hominem attack, to remind folk that Fisher is commonly known in legal circles as the “***** Judge”. Of course that, and other private life issues that result in his departure from The Bench, need not necessarily disqualify him. None of us are perfect, and many (myself included) have faults Fisher would do well to remember that.

    MY POSITION has always been on this, and on other blogs, that we should accept Binnie’s report whatever the outcome., That position was published weeks ago, before even the Herald published its report. THAT BEING SO, I AM NOT, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN, a Bain cheer leader. :)

    I have referred to the absence of coverage (by you, DPF, the academics, and MSM) of Binnie’s response to Fisher, so some extracts which I include to make my point. You already have access to the full Binnie analysis as I previously posted it. I reproduce the following extracts in answer to the academic viewpoint..

    BINNIE on FISHER – email to Collins:
    • “ 3 . The document makes it clear that Mr Fisher has not read any of the evidence since his meeting with the Minister last September — this task (which I would have thought essential to an assessment of my Report) he reserves for “the second and final report” — an exercise apparently predetermined at the September 26 meeting — to be delivered who knows when — much of what he says about my analysis seems to arise from his lack of familiarity with the material I was asked to review, as will be discussed. The other leg to his analysis is that he might have weighed up the evidence differently than I did (although, presumably with an eye to what he expects to be the second stage.
    • 4 .Mr Fisher passes over the fact the structure of the argument of the parties to my inquiry was largely derived from the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 2007 . That decision laid out in great detail the important FACTUAL issues which the Crown Law Office and the Bain team continued to consider critical to the outcome. They invited me to make findings of fact on each of these issues and I did so. As to the luminol footprints, for example, the Privy Council asked the Solicitor General in the course of the hearing whether the Crown’s case could survive a finding that Robin made them. This was because on the Crown’s theory Robin would never have been in those parts of the house on the morning of June 20. The Solicitor General agreed in Court that whoever made the footprints was the killer (the actual quote from the Solicitor General in the Privy Council hearing is included in my Report – it was taken from a contemporaneous handwritten note and Mr Pike, for the Crown , who was present at the hearing, did not dispute its accuracy). Yet Mr Fisher thinks this issue should just be bundled up with everything else as if the Crown’s admission had never been made.
    • 5. Mr Fisher dismisses the luminol foot evidence as just a “single strand” of evidence followed by me by “a serial testing of that conclusion against some, but not all, of the other items of evidence” (para 95) This just shows Mr Fisher’s lack of familiarity with the evidentiary record. When an admission is made in proceedings between the same parties on the same subject matter before New Zealand’s then highest appellate Court it’s importance is not to be diminished,
    • 6 Mr Fisher’s main point is that “in a circumstantial case” bits of evidence are to be examined individually but the ultimate decision should only be reached looking at all the relevant evidence cumulatively. At the “second stage” , he says, “it is necessary to assess the cumulative effect of combining the probative force of all the items” (p 23). His analysis is based on criminal cases ( see e.g. para 44 where he quotes a bunch of criminal precedents and, amongst other things, a paper he delivered to a Criminal Law Conference in Auckland in 2003). This is not a criminal case. It is not even a law suit. It is an informal inquiry to be conducted (as he notes elsewhere) with a great deal of flexibility and discretion. Nevertheless, Mr Fisher then quotes me at Para 71 as doing exactly what he said I should have done i.e. I say . the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence, considered item by item both individually and collectively , and considered in light of my interview with David Bain … persuade me that David Bain is factually innocent” Mr Fisher says at para 72 that my “formulations are clearly beyond reproach”, His allegation is that I didn’t do what I said I did. This is just wrong. I did what I said I did. Otherwise I wouldn’t have claimed to have done it. …….
    • 8. Then there is a lengthy explanation by Mr Fisher of the onus of proof starting with the statement that “Mr Binnie has misunderstood the law in New Zealand on multiple onuses of proof’. This is demonstrably incorrect. I made a distinction between the legal or persuasive onus — which rested throughout on Mr Bain — and the evidentiary onus. The evidentiary onus is simply what Mr Fisher calls the need for “evidence” or “further evidence”. Mr Fisher just uses a different vocabulary.. …,..,
    • 12 At para 12 8 and following Mr Fisher finds surprising my references to the 2009 jury acquittal. At para 131 he calls these references “an inappropriate distraction”. Given that the acquittal is the starting point of the claim for compensation, and that it is a fundamental part of the narrative, this complaint is off the mark as well. I made it perfectly clear at several points that the jury was dealing with a different set of issues that I was and that its conclusion was not probative for compensation purposes. If Mr Fisher felt “inappropriately distracted” it was not for want of explanation on my part.
    • 13 At pages 4 2 to 50 Mr Fisher offers an exposition of his view of the scope of the “extraordinary circumstances” discretion . for the most part there is nothing much that divides us here. I laid out a series of alternate approaches Cabinet may wish to consider. I expressly stated that if deliberate misconduct is envisaged that there was none, in my opinion. I put the issue on the basis of ineptitude that departed to a marked degree from the CIB’s own Manual which according to the police witnesses they were required to follow unless for good reason. Mr Fisher does not accept the Cabinet reference to “failure to investigate the possibility of innocence” . He wants to add the words (which appear nowhere in any official document that I know of) “and elected not to investigate in case innocence emerged”. That is not the directive I was given and if it is to be amended in this fashion it should be amended by Cabinet not Mr Fisher. 1 8 What is particularly galling in Mr Fisher’s commentary is reference to “the well-publicised recommendation that compensation be paid.” At the time this “publicity” appeared in the New Zealand press the only people who had my report were the Ministry and myself. If the leak occurred it had nothing to do with me……”

    There is, of course, much, much more, none of it helpful to Collins, Fisher, the academics and those that wish that Bain had been found guilty three years ago.

    So David (et al), can we now have some balance ? :)

    Can we put aside the desire of some (who have declared that issue has become a three year (to date) hobby, and avoid attempts to re-write the record, and efforts to relitagate issues that have been decided ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    I would hope a panel could include a well respected researcher who is very good at statistics and probability

    This isn’t that kind of probability. You’re considering questions like “What is the likelihood that these footprints could have been left by David Bain rather than Robin Bain?” or “Is the likelihood this pair of glasses was broken in a struggle with Stephen Bain greater or lesser than the likelihood that they were broken at some earlier time and just happened to leave a lens in Stephen’s room and the rest of the glasses in David’s room?” Those kind of questions don’t lend themselves to statistical calculation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Regarding Fisher’s view that Binnie didn’t consider the cumulative effect of the evidence, Binnie says:

    His allegation is that I didn’t do what I said I did. This is just wrong. I did what I said I did. Otherwise I wouldn’t have claimed to have done it.

    I read the report and I couldn’t see that Binnie did what he said he did. I may be no expert on such things, but as the post points out, other people who are experts have also read Binnie’s report and didn’t see that he did what he said he did. Given that Binnie’s report reads exactly like he didn’t take the cumulative effect of the evidence into account, it’s hardly convincing for him to give a response that amounts to “Oh yes I did.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt

    You are correct on an individual basis. However, if the answer to your first question is assessed to be 70% and the second is 80% what is the likelihood of both being true? Two variables are basic but many are far more complex.

    I think Binnie took your approach he decided the foots prints were almost certainly Robin’s and discarded most evidence that did not support his original theory.

    If the footprint was shown to be almost certainly Robin’s why did the first jury convict?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. BeaB (2,144 comments) says:

    flipper
    When was Fisher removed from the bench? For what reason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I wonder is anyone with a scientific background could say the likelihood of blood spreading out due to capillary action of the carpet. If that is possible would the material of the socks and the carpet make much difference?

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

    This isn’t that kind of probability.

    Psycho, but he could use math. For instance we could assign probabilities per evidence item as follows:
    1. footprint evidence 75% that it was Robin and 25% that it was David
    2. glasses evidence 75% that it was David 0% that it was Robin
    3. fingerprint on gun evidence 100% that it was David 0% that it was Robin
    and so on
    Then you weight each item of evidence with an explanation and calculate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem . You then compare the probability it was David with the probability it was Robin and summarize. The result would be a very easy to digest and understand.

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

    BeaB

    He wasn’t removed. He resigned, when he was denied (passed over?) a permanent appointment to the Court of Appeal.
    If you are unaware of the background, go check with senior legal folk.

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

    As an aside I did a probability test sometime ago on the likelihood of Robin being the murderer: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/odds

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “go check with senior legal folk”

    Or Goggle porno and his name.

    However, that in no way undermines his legal and logical skills.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    ross69
    At the first trial David said
    On the Sunday he [Robin] was wearing the tracksuit top and bottoms. On the Sunday he was wearing what I understand he was wearing when he was killed. He also said,for thr first time,that he was wearing that green jersey that the killer wore,previous to the trial he had always said that was Arawa’s jersey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    There was no way that sockprint evidence could be anything but inconclusive. And one has to remember it was only seen with the use of luminol. Binnie should never have hung his hat on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    Kent –

    Surely the “answer” you get from any analysis like that is only as good as the probabilities you assign to the inputs?

    E.g. How do you get the 75% and 25% figures in

    Footprint evidence 75% that it was Robin and 25% that it was David

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Australis (101 comments) says:

    The law leaves a wide discretion in the hands of cabinet. In order to bring some structure to the decision, the Government has decreed that wrongly imprisoned persons must prove their innocence (on the balance of probabilities).

    But is this appropriate?

    Our system is based on two jury findings – “guilty” or “not guilty”. The former allows the Crown to imprison the accused, while the latter allows the accused to go free. The system didn’t work in the Bain case, with the unfortunate result that he was wrongly imprisoned. Now, who should bear the cost of that error – the victim or the Crown?

    Reading Binnie’s report, one gets a clear feeling that the default position should be that the victim gets compensated. This is strengthened by suggestions that the Dunedin police contributed to an error which might have been avoided. The accused could not be held responsible for the mistakes of the first trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Binnie was associate Minister of Justice before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. It was a political appointment.
    So if the same system was in place here Judith Collins could be appointed to the Supreme Court.

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

    “ross69
    At the first trial David said
    On the Sunday he [Robin] was wearing the tracksuit top and bottoms. On the Sunday he was wearing what I understand he was wearing when he was killed. He also said,for thr first time,that he was wearing that green jersey that the killer wore,previous to the trial he had always said that was Arawa’s jersey.”

    Robin wasn’t wearing a tracksuit top when he was killed.

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

    Chuck B…..
    As I said above:

    “Of course that, and other private life issues that result in his departure from The Bench, need not necessarily disqualify him. None of us are perfect, and many (myself included) have faults Fisher would do well to remember that.”

    Then there is also that pesky “strands of circumnstantial evidence” line that he (Fisher) uses to criitque Binnie. The same test can/should be applied to Fisher (dating back to the Thomas inquiry), should it not?. :)

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

    RRM, the probabilities you assign are subjective, based on your judgement as a former Supreme Court judge etc and your reasoning as an educated person. By converting your statements such as ‘likely’ or ‘not likely’ into mathematical probabilities you then provide yourself with an easy to digest means of calculating the accumulated probabilities. When it comes to review, if your reviewer thinks you assigned too great a probability to item X, then you change it, and hey presto your spreadsheet automatically updates all the calculations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. 2boyz (263 comments) says:

    All this grief would have easily been avoided if Binnie was told the outcome that the government wanted

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

    It could have been avoided if Binnie had used a modicum of common sense.

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

    Ross:\

    You know the basis is true, because the cheer squad, have never attacked it. :)

    And most would prefer it to fade away like the blood evidence.

    The change of clothes and revelation are pure fiction.

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

    I think Binnie’s approach to the footprint evidence was flawed. He relies heavily on Mr Walsh’s (an ESR scientist) tests, which were performed with a “completely bloodied” sock. Of the luminol prints left at the scene, only one was “complete” (showing both heel and toe areas) and none were visible to the naked eye, so it is unlikely the sock was “completely bloodied” as in the experiment, or else there would be visible and partly-visible prints. Importantly, Hentschel (the man who saw and measured the print on site) testified that he only measured the area of brightest luminescence, and that there was no way of knowing exactly how much bigger the foot was than the print, but that it was at least 280mm long.

    Furthermore, from his tests Walsh concluded that a foot 270mm long would leave an average print of 282mm but a foot 298mm long would leave an average print of 297mm. This should have rung alarm bells for Binnie about the complete inconsistency of this test. Why should one size foot leave luminol prints on average 12mm longer than the foot and another size foot leave luminol prints 1mm shorter? Was the same amount of blood applied? Was Walsh measuring the complete luminesence or only the brightest luminescence as Henstchel was at the scene? As Walsh testified at the retrial, measuring luminol prints is not easy, and the prints at the scene could have been made by David (testimony Binnie does not seem to have relied on, even though he relies on Walsh’s evidence elsewhere). Later the judge in that trial would point out that these tests did not mimic the way the blood came to be on the socks that morning, which was by transference from blood (possibly smeared) already on carpet – not by stepping in a tray of animal blood. Binnie acknowledges this point, but says it is covered because they took an average length over a serious of prints as the prints faded. I don’t think that covers it, because you’re still starting with a more completely bloody foot than would have been the case, so more luminescence.

    So taking a wildly inconsistent test, Binnie makes the further and equally wild assumption that the print measured at the scene was in fact an “average” print. Walsh had measured a series of prints (some as small as 286mm with a completely bloodied sock on a 298mm foot) and taken the average length. Binnie then accepts this average as the pivotal piece of evidence exonerating David. This seems a giant leap of faith. In fact, later in his report, in dismissing Mr Kleintjes’ approximate computer-switch-on time deduction (by taking the mean point of a series of plus or minuses), he sneers at the prosecution’s use of the phrase “median logic”, saying splitting the difference “may be acceptable for lawyers haggling over settlement of a personal injury claim”, when in fact he readily accepts a very similar type of evidence on the luminol prints. So Walsh taking an average luminol print length in place of a foot with an unknown quantity of blood on it is definitive – and should be relied upon as proving innocence on the balance of probabilites – but Kleintjes suggesting a median of two extremes is “pretty odd”. There is a lack of consistency in these two positions that I find “pretty odd”.

    In conclusion, Binnie’s finding that Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilites is based on an inconsistent test and the leap of faith that the print found at the scene is in fact an “average” print, when there is much uncertainty over how such prints are measured and how much blood was on the sock. I would still suggest it is more likely to have been made by a larger foot with less blood on it (because there are no visible prints), but it is, at the very least, inconclusive.

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

    Thanks David Farrar.
    Your post today confirms that my expert advice to you yesterday exactly matches what you have posted here, and attributed to seniors at Otago Law School.
    David, you don’t like giving credit where credit is due, do you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    http://mediamusings.dsc.rmit.edu.au/files/2012/10/Beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

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

    No one kills their wife and kids -bar one- within 10-20 minutes of that kid coming home to find them – unless of course the father hated him too!

    And if he did hate him – then why not kill him too?

    Or did the father hate the others more?

    How many times has David visted their graves since he was released?

    How soon did David visit their graves after being released?

    What really is ‘circumstantal evidence’ ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    All through his report Binnie refers to the ten round magazine found next to Robin Bain’s body as being empty. In fact it had three live rounds in it. If that magazine was empty then obviously Robin would have needed to change magazines if he was going to commit suicide. But why would he have needed to change if it still had three live rounds in it ?
    Far more likely that David Bain put that magazine next to his father’s hand as a prop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Brian Marshall (204 comments) says:

    David Bain did not take the stand in the retrial. He should not be paid compensation because of that. If he wants the right to slience, he should lose the right to claim compensation.
    That’s my 2 cents worth.

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

    David Farrar, as regards your 3 options for going forward, I have two suggestions. First, I disagree slightly with
    “2.Do not pay Bain compensation, on the basis that the Binnie report has failed to make the case that he is innocent.”

    I would have said, 2. Do not pay Bain compensation, on the basis that David has failed to make the case – to the decision maker (Cabinet) – that he is innocent.

    Second, I would offer something remarkably different to anything ever done so far in New Zealand history.

    If I were Minister Collins, I would offer David the opportunity to personally make his case to Cabinet, by the conduct of a public Cabinet hearing, in which David makes himself available to be questioned by the actual decision-maker, Cabinet, so that the actual decision-maker would be able to assess the credibility of David’s claims of innocence. (Something like American Senate enquiries are famous for having done in decades past, leaving great historical film footage). But I would want such a Cabinet enquiry to hear from an advocate for Robin Bain as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    I once worked with someone who would listen to arguments/debates that traversed the nitty gritty and popped in and out of the room as other distractions arose. These discussions were something that he had an interest in but didn’t concern him in a functional sense. Almost inevitably, usually a few days later, he would find an opportunity to return with a flourish and his high level summation of what had already been discussed or was implicit in in the differing perspectives, and claim it as his own. It was particularly amusing when he did this on one ocassion within the space of two or three hours as we had him well pegged at this stage. It wasn’t quite rolling in the aisles stuff but it was funny nevertheless. But this can’t be the same person because he didn’t ever claim to being a lawyer, nor was he insufferably arrogant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    Brian Marshall

    I don’t agree with that limitation but I certainly agree that at this point (compensation) a waiver of client privilege should be a pre-requisite to a compo claim.

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

    How many times has David visted their graves since he was released? How soon did David visit their graves after being released?

    Those are among the many questions that Binnie could’ve asked David, but didn’t.

    Andrew Geddis complains about the process and suggests it was unfair to David. What he and others ignore is that Reed QC was able to examine David at length in Binnie’s presence. However, the Crown wasn’t permitted, it seems, to ask David questions. Any questions it wanted to ask had to be asked by Binnie on its behalf. That seems to be unfair.

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

    There is no way you can have a fair report for either side if you use NZ judges, because to be an NZ’er and not have formed an opinion on it, would mean that you’d either been living under a rock for the last 15 years, or that you were clinically brain dead. Neither are things that I think you could level against NZ judges in the majority.

    So it has to be UK or Aus based judges on the panel reviewing it. Although perhaps maybe at least one who has practiced at least once in NZ.

    But given that its Collins who will order the new report, I don’t have any faith she’ll go with outside NZ judges, and if I was having one of those days, where I see her in a bad light, I’d even say she might just want to write the report herself.

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

    Assigning subjective probabilities proves nothing, Kent.
    One must keep to provable facts – eg 50% of the population is female – as your Wiki example does. Check this out with someone who understands statistics.

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

    Assigning subjective probabilities proves nothing, Kent.

    Ultimately we are dealing with a subjective judgment here, twistedlemon. The idea is to make the job easier by assigning numbers to your judgments on individual items so that you can apply math to the overall calculation in order to reduce the level of error in your subjective overall judgment. If you have 10-20 items of evidence that you apply probability to, then, how are you going to explain your cumulative probability? Maths makes it easier. You describe the maths that you are using and if a learned panel of judges deems that your probability for a particular item is not adequate, then you can change it and the math looks after the accumulated probabilities.

    Your example proves my point. Applying 50% as a number of the population who are female is approximate. I understand that at present in NZ it is more like 52%. In analyzing evidence one can assign a probability of 50% to any item of evidence in which Robin and David are equally likely to be incriminated eg: evidence such as “was in or near the house at the time of the murders”, “has previously used a firearm”, but these are not much use to us. Instead we need to take each of the crucial items of evidence in the trial and make a subjective judgment of probability for each of David and Robin. We then convert our subjective judgment into a number, just like you converted the actual stats of females in the population to an arbitrary 50%, and then we need to put it through some calculation such as the Bayesian one. This makes our calculation more transparent, and more accurate, and if we need to change the probability of any single item, we can do so easily and our accumulated probability auto-corrects.

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

    Raskolnikov – brilliant post. Informative, reasoned,not emotive. Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I have an ongoing civil court case with a former lawyer who I know at some stages frequented the Northern Club. Should I have a right to know if the judge in the case mixed with hem socially or are judges supposed to be trained to put that sort of bias aside?

    I see no reason why we should go outside NZ in the case unless someone knows the judge.

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

    Kent: = Can’t agree at all with 75-25% Robin, on the sockprints. thats absurd, considering your other claims.
    at best murky, but since no one can prove Robin took his shoes off, laughable.

    Harriet: these days, circum evi, means we don’t have a clear video of the crime !

    ..
    Remember, NO change of clothes, NO wild revelatations, NO MOTIVE.

    But anyhow its lunch, then the Knicks-Jets, then back to the grind … have a good one people …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Paulus (2,660 comments) says:

    Any such payment is not obligatory, but entirely relevant to a Cabinet decision on any amount.
    There is a lot of obfuscation around in the above comments.
    Does Bain’s QC get paid if he gets nothing, or a token gesture ?

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

    I agree twisted, great post Raskol …….

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

    @Kent Parker

    I agree with twistedlemon. I don’t think that you can generate much quantitative credibility to subjective judgments that way. If your inputs are largely subjective judgments then your output is just another subjective judgment. Even if you use “math”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @flipper (1,233) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 11:31 am

    “Then there is also that pesky “strands of circumnstantial evidence” line that he (Fisher) uses to criitque Binnie. The same test can/should be applied to Fisher (dating back to the Thomas inquiry), should it not?.”

    What has the Thomas case got to due with Fisher’s assessment of Binnie’s report? He was working for the Crown I believe you said.

    We have an adversarial system that many of us do not agree with but if Fisher was employed to oppose Thomas compensation what does that have to do with his present task or future task?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    The Otago University law professor, Kevin Dawkins, 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. [my emphasis]

    Can someone explain to me what this even means? As far as I’m aware NZ approaches circumstantial evidence no differently to British, Australian and yes, Canadian courts with whom we share a common basis for our legal system and a common inheritance of precedent and principles.

    Have I missed something? Does NZ, alone in the Western world have a perverse approach to cicumstantial evidence??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    RRM kent is correct. Its subjective probability, when there’s prior knowledge about the specific event (well some form of historical knowledge about various footprints on crime scenes because surely the footprint in the David Bain’s case wasn’t the first one to be brought up in court – so there is prior knowledge), both the defence & prosecuting team can come up with those values even if there’s slight disagreement between them of the prior probability of the event at hand that they’re looking at, the overall aggregation is what’s important. The other way of doing it if prior probability is not available, but there’s abundant of data available, then the bayes network can learn prior probabilities from the data. If it is real time, then the network will adapt itself when dataset pattern changes, ie, the bayes network itself updates prior probabilities in all the network nodes.

    Basic spam filters use bayes. To classify an incoming email if it is spam or not, the filter already learned from data about the prior probability if similar messages (it has seen in the data it learnt previously) is likely to be spam or not_spam. The filter adapts itself as new unseen type of spam messages managed to get through. It means that the previous prior probabilities have to be updated and for ISPs where they deal with millions (or even billions) of emails a day, this real time update is done automatically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    Re David fronting up to Cabinet, I have thought along those lines myself. But I reckon a select few members of the public should be allowed to question him as well. Cabinet could call for submissions and those applying perhaps asked to take a test to prove they are reasonably well informed. Or else Cabinet could ask the public to supply them with a list of questions they would like asked. Obviously there would be a lot of duplication,but the office boy/girl could sort that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    SGA (124) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    @Kent Parker

    I agree with twistedlemon. I don’t think that you can generate much quantitative credibility to subjective judgments that way. If your inputs are largely subjective judgments then your output is just another subjective judgment. Even if you use “math”

    Is There Life Beyond Our Solar System?

    How do you think people look at – refer to the Bible or the Koran or mathematical logic?

    http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/ET.html7

    I see no reason why the same scientific approach cannot be taken to this situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    “Can someone explain to me what this even means? As far as I’m aware NZ approaches circumstantial evidence ”

    Probably just being kind to Binnie in trying to attribute his misapplication to something other than incompetence.

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

    Oh David , David you silly boy.

    Its not about guilt or innocence – its about spending 13 years in jail due to a shonky trial – and we all know it was shonky.
    Im surprised that these so called law experts you are reporting cant see this.

    The privy council said that the original trial was no good – shonky. Its not about the guilt or innocence – its was a shit trial with biased and withheld evidence.

    Come on people – get to the real issue. Forget all this recovering of evidence – thats actually got nothing to do with this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    SGA and twistedlemon, how about you guys, read the following, then come back to comment on what Kent posted on subjective probability because you need to understand what Kent is talking about.

    A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks

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

    @Falafulu Fisi & @Chuck Bird

    If your subjective probabilities are being determined by processes such as “By converting your statements such as ‘likely’ or ‘not likely’ into mathematical probabilities you then provide yourself with an easy to digest means of calculating the accumulated probabilities.” (@Kent, above), then I’m happy to stand by my statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    SGA, did you read the document above? I suggest you read it first. Pay attention to the likelihood ratio that the authors is talking about.

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

    Oh Barry, you silly boy ..

    If the first trial had been even better regarding gathering evidence, then David would be still in jail and looking at still more time from the parole board.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    Many of the objectors to a scientific approach would not be able to work out the odds of rolling a 7 with 2 dice let alone 3. Has anyone got Binnie’s email? I would like to ask him.

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

    Chuck @1.28….

    Presmably you were not at the Thomas inquiry on the issue of compensation. I was. Fisher’s advocacy against Thomas went down like a ton of lead bricks with Messrs Williams, Gordon and Johnstone. They regarded him as a Morris (the Crown Prosecutor who was aware of Police trial/evidence shenanigans) clone. Source: Peter Gordon personally to me, later.

    Yes, Fisher was a police “hired gun”, just as he is Collins’/Crown Laws’ “hired gun” in this case. I am sure you must know tha he is regarded as being the “tweedle” to the “dumb” that is Kirsty McDonald QC. Not the same as a “rent a cop”, but you get my drift?
    It is the time line,and demonstrated pre-judgement Chuck, that destroys Fisher’s credibility

    Joe Karam (No, I have not read him.) is no Pat Booth. But he has been almost as effective. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    The fact the Crown fell over with a mistrial, a Privy Council hearing, a Jury’s decision, a finding of ‘innocence’ on the balance of probabilities isn’t overcome by a Minister attacking Binnie. Collin’s simply doesn’t like Binnie’s reasoning that’s why she took it to the Crown one of the parties who had been attacked. The Crown is no more neutral on the Bain case than the Minister.

    As for:

    ‘3. Should Ms Collins have referred the Binnie report to the Solicitor General for “advice” given that his office “attempted for almost 17 years to uphold a conviction of Bain?

    Andrew Geddis: “The problem is that she has no-one else to go to for advice!’

    No one else, really? Extraordinary.

    If she had simply given notice of the recommendation and taken it to Cabinet, The Crown who were certainly ‘in the loop’ could have objected by employing Judicial Review. This was their argument against release of the report, that it might be subject to JR – yet they (The Minister acting on their behalf) went right ahead and released anyway under pressure. As far as I know none of those subject to criticism in the report that the Minister sought to protect have filed for review anyway oddly enough. The Crown want two positions and the Minister is happy to give it to them. Quite clearly the Crown don’t like the footprint evidence because the 20mm difference in the footprints sizes between the 2 men equates to the gulf between preservation of the ‘good name’ of authorities and Justice in this case, also that of Thomas, Watson, Ellis and others. All we have here are excuses. But they like less the towelling the Privy Council and the Jury gave them. This Minister was in charge when The Crown decided on a retrial now infamous as an expensive attempt to put a round peg in a square hole. The footprint won’t get bigger or smaller, the bloodied hands won’t go away and the strip search will always exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. PaulL (6,044 comments) says:

    @flipper, seems to me you’re tackling the man, not the ball. That’s what DPF has been getting at – sure some people don’t like Fisher, but the question is whether his critique has substance. It sounds like a number of reasonably authoritative sources think that his critique has substance. Clearly we cannot be paying Bain compensation based on a report that has acknowledged and material issues. On that basis, there will need to be a new report. It’s pretty simple.

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

    Thanks, Falafulu Fisi, for that link. If it doesn’t work for people, then try this instead: http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.187.4661%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=OGTSUOfUHMaZiQeEmYCIBA&usg=AFQjCNHTQOxBzH_2O_vfYCP9wrlMsWBaig&sig2=mGMadLIX0WkHfMWv6UC5Zw&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.aGc&cad=rja

    That pretty much describes what I was talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Chuck, I’ve suspect that those in the legal fields (including the members of the jury) view probability aggregation as something additive, which is completely wrong. I’ll give an example. Here are 3 joint events, A, B, C.

    A –> B –> C

    Lets say that subjectively that the occurence of event A has a probability of 0.3, and event B happens with a subjective probability of 0.4 (condition on event A taking place) and finally event C happens with a subjective probability of say 0.4 (condition of event B taking place).

    There aggregation will be something like the following:

    0.3 + 0.4 + 0.4

    which comes up with a probability of 1.2, which is completely wrong because the final probability is more than 1. Probability must fall in the interval [0,1] its a closed interval, ie, 0 and 1 are inclusive.

    This is not how conditional joint probability is calculated. It is not additive. The only additive property of probability that’s true at all time is when one adds the probability of an event and its complement :

    prob(A) + prob(not A) = 1

    The probability additive law above is always true. However, conditional joint probability is not additive.

    This sorts of fallacy in legal reasoning has been addressed by various authors in the last 15 years or so, in the scientific literature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Truthiz

    You’ve entirely missed Barry’s point about the reason for compensation. If you’re subjected to a shonky trial at which evidence was withheld, you are entitled to compensation whether you’re guilty or not. I know this seems counter-intuitive but let’s flip it – you’ve lived a blameless life volunteering in a leper colony, you give blood, you give what little money you find to those even poorer than yourself and in your spare time you whittle simple wooden toys to ensure that the orphanage children have something in their stockings at Christmas. Then you commit murder. It doesn’t matter what you’ve done before, the consequences of that one act are isolated from the continuum of events and dealt with discretely (though not discreetly).

    If you believe David Bain to be guilty – and I can’t be bothered trawling through the theories and counter-theories to form an opinion which, at the end of the day, will have nil effect on the outcome anyway – then the appropriate sequience of events would be for Bain to be compensated for failures to give him the proper trial which anyone accused deserves; then for him to be tried (yet again) and convicted of murder at a proper trial. And if you really want to redress the balance, those responsible for the failings at his first trial should be made to face the consequences of their incompetence / malfeasance, which is what has brought us to this point.

    Of course there’ll now never be another trial, so it seems unjust that a person whom so many believe to be guilty should receive recompense. But that is the price we pay for permitting those in charge of investigating and prosecuting citizens to either deliberately or inadvertently screw up.

    If one good thing were to emerge from this mess it would surely be that police officers, prosecutors and even judges who’re found to have acted incomptently or clealry unfairly actually experience some consequences to their behaviour – like, say, having to compensate the accused out of their own pockets, as successfully convicted criminals sometimes must do with their victims. That would serve to improve the process rather than simply stuff money into the pockets of someone whose claim is, at best, dubious while not affecting the system in any way whatsoever.

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

    Early on someoine remarked on the absence of detailed comment by Michael Reed. I do not purpoirt to kniow, but guessing, I would say that following Binnie’s demolition of Fisher he has:

    a. Offered Collins an “oliue branch” (accordiung to Karam), or
    b. Waiting for Fisher to report to Collins so that he can eviscerate both (Collins has opened the issue to the prospect of judicial review, silly woman), thereby ending Collins ultimate party leadership hopes.

    As a National Party member, and working voluntarily at electorate executive level (The views I express are my own, but have been conveyed to the appropriate folk, as DPF can confirm), I know that her star (along with Parata’s) is no longer bright.

    So, have a nice afternoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Flipper

    “Joe Karam (No, I have not read him.) is no Pat Booth. But he has been almost as effective.”

    It is more effective than Pat Booth. Pat helped get someone off who was definitely innocence beyond a reasonable doubt and there would only be a handful of retired police who think differently.

    If you want lobby against anything lobby against the adversarial system. I am the victim of in it in a civil case that may go on for years against a doggy former lawyer who has not employed a barrister who is not much better but more intelligent as distorting the facts and using legal maneuvers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “You’ve entirely missed Barry’s point about the reason for compensation. If you’re subjected to a shonky trial at which evidence was withheld, you are entitled to compensation whether you’re guilty or not.”

    That is not the law Rex. If you or others think it should be then lobby for a law change.

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

    Ok Chuck.
    You have my sympatrhy.
    Went thru something similar 30 years ago. It is a real learning curve, albeit unwanted.

    .

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

    The unfortunate (for DB supporters) consequence of doing the probability analysis correctly, is that items of evidence such as the broken glasses and the gloves belonging to David and other items, is that they become rather sticky because not much probability can be assigned to them in respect of inculpating Robin. Robin had no use for the glasses, yet we know that David wore them when his were broken, and Robin had his own set of opera gloves with him in the van and had no need to use someone else’s. The probability that Robin used them and arranged the glasses so as to incriminate David can only be assessed as very low. Add to this the evidence of David’s fingerprints on the murder weapon and not Robin’s, stories of David using the paper run as an alibi and a number of other items, it becomes pretty clear that probability is weighted pretty heavily in favour of David being the culprit.

    People say I am biased against David Bain, but only because the evidence is biased against David Bain. Karam may have blunted some of the finer details, but the fundamental empirical weight remains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi (2,107) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
    Chuck

    Thanks for that. Would you shoot us that email please I wanted to should you something off topic.

    chuckbirdnz@gmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I have been wondering what reason have David’s supporter given for Robin to have come from outside the house in the caravan and taken off his slippers to do the killing. I would not think he would go from the caravan to the letter box and to the house in his socks.

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

    You’ve entirely missed Barry’s point about the reason for compensation. If you’re subjected to a shonky trial at which evidence was withheld, you are entitled to compensation whether you’re guilty or not.

    The terms of reference is “innocent on the balance of probabilities”, not “being subjected to a shonky trial”. Further, there is no evidence that the trial was “shonky”. The Law Lords heard the arguments put forward by the Bain defence in 2007 and determined that the evidence should be heard again, largely because of allegedly new evidence and not necessarily because of faults in the original trial. Similarly the police investigation was never found to be inadequate. There are one or two individuals out there who would like to you to believe it was a “shambles” but this is a gross exaggeration. There were one or two mistakes, as is common in any human endeavour, but the overall evidence is of an investigation conducted adequately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Correction to my post above. It should read:

    which comes up with a probability of 1.1

    I’ll drop you an email chuck.

    Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    barry,
    The Privy Council did not say the first trial was no good.They said there was some evidence that should have been heard by a jury.
    In defending his much criticised report,which found David Bain innocent of the murders of the Bain family,Canadian Justice Binnie says that all the “external” judges who had looked at the case record had rejected arguments of Mr Bain’s guilt. He said “By far the most prominent,of course,were the five judges of the Judical Committee of the Privy Council”.
    In their famous decision of 2007 the Privy Council ordered a retrial and emphasised: “In closing,the Board wishes to emphasise,as it hopes is clear,that it’s decision imports no view as whatever on the proper outcome of a retrial. Determination of guilt is not the task of the appelant courts. At any retrial it will be decided whether the applicant is guilty or not,and nothing in this judgement should influence the verdict in any way.”
    The Privy Council also ordered “The appelant must remain in custody meanwhile”.
    If,in Justice Binnie’s view,these statements by the Privy Council emphasising they offered no view as to Mr Bain’s guilt of innocence,somehow point to his innocence,then it is not surprising Justice Minister Judith Collins has questioned the judge’s grasp of the facts.

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

    I should just offer a clarification on the luminol prints: Walsh’s tests showed that a 270mm foot can produce a 280mm luminol print with a completely bloodied sock, so even though his tests produced inconsistent “average” results, we can’t rule out that Robin didn’t make the print (before presumably depositing the bloody sock/s in the laundry basket with the likewise bloody jersey and tracksuit pants he must have been wearing). Hence my conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive. (Disclaimer: I previously thought it would be nigh on impossible to produce a print longer than the foot itself; you can, provided the sock is completely bloodied). On the other hand, Binnie acknowledges a 5mm margin of error is the measuring of the luminol print, so we’re talking 275-285mm – suddenly very close to Walsh’s minimum of 286mm with a completely bloodied 298mm foot. The margins here are too close to call definitively. As muggins said concisely: “Binnie should never have hung his hat on that.”

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

    What he does do is use the Crown’s own weighting of the evidence against them. IRC iIt was asserted by the Crown that the bloody footprints must have been left by the killer. “Must have been” is the highest level of certainty.

    If Binnie believes that the Crown’s overall assertion that David is the killer is so weak, why would Binnie then attribute such weight to the Crown’s assertion that the footprint must be the killer’s. Seems rather contradictory and arbitrary to me.

    And how much weight would you give to the testimony of the only forensic expert (Dr Peter Hentschel) to have seen and measured the prints, who stated that they were a match for David’s feet, not Robin’s? (alas the photographs of the prints didn’t develop for subsequent examination) Clearly there is a conflict of evidence here which renders the sock evidence indeterminable imo.

    [Just as an aside, I performed (somewhat obsessively) a loose experiment a while back in which I placed my socked foot on an inked piece of carpet and then measured the resultant imprint at 240mm, some 15mm shorter than my actual foot length of 255mm. David’s foot was measured at 300mm compared with one of the bloody prints measured at 280mm. See a correlation?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The first trial was not a “shonky” trial. That is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘LeeDecember 20, 2012 12:11 PM
    Fisher’s report includes the sentence,

    “85. Take David’s fingerprints in blood on the rifle.” But didn’t the final evidence show that the fingerprints were not in any type of blood?

    ReplyDelete

    AnalystDecember 20, 2012 1:32 PM
    It seems that your good friend Mr Kent Parker is now professing on kiwiblog to be an expert on Bayes theorem. Sadly for his pretensions, he makes some very fundamental errors in his supposed explanation.
    Firstly, and most heinously for a bayesian, he transposes the conditional.
    Secondly, and related to this, he clearly has very little comprehension of how probabilities are assigned for use of Bayes theorem.
    Thirdly, he fails to recognise the necessity for comparison.
    Fourthly, and perhaps most risible, he refers readers to the absurd calculation of probabilities he has posted on his website. Anyone with even quite a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning would get a lot of enjoyment from his calculations there, and a Bayesian would probably wet themselves laughing!’

    Some comments in passing posted above. Very difficult for Fisher who doesn’t clearly doesn’t know the evidence to comment with any authority. The ‘fingerprints in blood’ is so last century. While Kent appears also fall at the first hurdle.

    A problem for Fisher, beside his apparent partiality, is that he didn’t study the evidence as Binnie has. For Fisher to ‘peer’ review without being on a equal knowledge basis of his ‘peer’ there must be flaws in his conclusions as he has been unable to take an over view based on equal knowledge of the facts. That he picks out ‘cornerstone’ evidence that has been soundly refuted (see poli light evidence of Jones compared to Manlove, note Jone’s explanations of not properly explaining things to the Jury as making it easier for them, and his conflict with other Crown witnesses) to understand that Fisher merely pushes the failed Crown case. Nobody can give an overview if they don’t have one themselves, Fisher disqualified his own credibility by undertaking a ‘peer’ review on selective evidence, Binnie didn’t do that.

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

    It is not the use of probability or subjectiveness or the use of Bayesian techniques that it the problem.
    As your article shows, if it is not a simple Boolean proposition, the method of working out the probability of an event may be very complex.

    I take issue with an amateur mathematician assigning probabilities without any factual basis or genuine research or data. Why is the probability of it being Robin’s footprint 75%? And the pro-Bain camp has statistics to show it is very unlikely for fingerprints to be left on a gun during a suicide – only because they ignore all the other influencing factors.

    Let us remember that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Parker’s attempt at a Bayesian solution to the problem is risible. If you genuinely have a knowledge of statistics, Falafula Fisi, you would acknowledge this.

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

    On Wikipedia, try typing in exactly these 7 keystrokes:

    means m

    So it’s the word ‘means’ followed by a space, then the letter ‘m’

    The predictive search of Wikipedia at the point will prompt you to select
    ‘means motive opportunity’.

    In most of the world including especially in USA and Canada, (i.e. Binnie’s Canada), it is considered in whodunits, that if you solve these three things, then you have solved the mystery.
    Americans tend to say that if you solve the motive, you have solved the crime.

    Binnie’s attitude to ‘motive’ was inexplicable. Some might regard it as deplorable.
    He gave over one small paragraph of his 193-page report to motive.

    Robin simply had no motive for murder.
    David had what was then 600,000 motives.
    What was then 600,000 motives, is today’s equivalent of Well Over One Million Dollars.

    Anyone who watches Crime TV knows that as little as a Few Hundred Dollars can be enough for some people to murder.

    You decide. What did Robin have to gain? What did David have to gain?

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

    And this is the decision Cabinet is faced with.

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

    > A problem for Fisher, beside his apparent partiality, is that he didn’t study the evidence as Binnie has.

    Binnie refers to the evidence that he studied and it is clear that he made some serious blunders. To deny that he made blunders shows more than just partiality, it shows pigheadedness.

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

    This from Counterspin

    Mr. Hentschel measured the prints only from the toe “area” to the heel “area”, and therefore the full print could have been larger. He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the”complete toe and heal”; he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance, not all the luminance.

    I’m assuming of course that Kent Parker didn’t make this up.

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

    No Rex,

    you and Barry miss the point, the first trial was not shonky at all and more than enough evidence was produced for a correct decision.

    If the police had more time and spent more energy, they would ONLY have gathered more evidence AGAINST David and Bain would still be in jail.

    You still fall for Karam and the cheerleaders bluster … Karam stated he wanted a chance for David to have his say, then when he got given this chance, he piked, and not only that, he tried to get the second trial shut down a couple of times … sad.

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

    > Binnie’s attitude to ‘motive’ was inexplicable. Some might regard it as deplorable.

    It sure was. Binnie asks Bain about the estate and even asks him how much the estate is worth! Why would Binnie ask that question? He knows that Bain stood to gain a lot of money with the murders of his family. But when it comes to motive, the old fella is completely stumped. Even aisde from the money, Bain maybe got tired of living in squalid conditions with a dysfunctional family, including with a nutty mother and a father whom he hated. So there were at least two possible motives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    “The fingerprints in the blood are so last century” says one David Bain supporter. Talk about biased!
    I try to be impartial. If Dr Dempster,the man at the scene,says that wound to Robin Bain’s head was a close contact wound then I defer to his opinion,even though other experts ,looking at photos, say it was not a close contact wound.
    The same goes for Kim Jones. He said there was blood under those fingerprints and who better to know than him as he examined that rifle shortly after the crime. But the David Bain supporters want to believe a so-called expert who came up with a “no blood under those fingerprints ” conclusion fifteen years later. Before that one of their experts had said there was mammalian blood there so for quite a few years Bain’s supporters were saying it was rabbits blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    twistedlemon…
    If you genuinely have a knowledge of statistics

    I develop statistical algorithm for commercial software application. I don’t use off the shelf statistical software tools. I write them from ground up, so it is a field that I know very well, because I do it from sunrise till sunset (existing algorithms and newly published algorithms that many expert practicing statisticians have never heard of – except those in academics because they do read peer review related statistical journals on a regular basis).

    Kent’s attempt is not risible. That’s the correct way of doing reasoning under uncertainty. Perhaps his example is simple, but the footprint evidence may be expanded into many sub-nodes of further evidences. The more nodes in the network one can have, the more accurate the prediction outcome is, despite using subjective probability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    A problem for Fisher, beside his apparent partiality, is that he didn’t study the evidence as Binnie has.

    Which is utter utter nonsense, no matter how many times, or by whom, it is repeated. Fisher wasn’t supposed to be reviewing the evidence, so he didn’t. He was reviewing the process and reasoning that Binnie used to review the evidence…he found that to be faulty, and the subjects of DPF’s post seem to agree that he was right to do so.

    If you read Fisher’s report, he specifically offers no verdict on Binnie’s conclusion and states words to the effect that the evidence weighed correctly may still come to the same result.

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

    “I have been wondering what reason have David’s supporter given for Robin to have come from outside the house in the caravan and taken off his slippers to do the killing. I would not think he would go from the caravan to the letter box and to the house in his socks”.

    Well, there’s no evidence that Robin entered the house in his socks. He was found wearing shoes, which apparently showed no trace of blood. Of course the Bainers need Robin to have worn just his socks…but they offer absoluetly no proof. Just as the alarm clock shows him likely to have woken at 6.32am, the Bainers reckon he might have stayed up all night. Pure speculation.

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

    Even though Binnie asked a few of the right questions, he never pressed David about his answers …

    But the truth is, basing the whole thing on a few indistinct footprints, was just absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird

    Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. Should have said “your entitlement to compensation is viewed discretely”. As with the Thomas case, the panel charged with advising on whether compensation was payable looked at the actions of police and others whose duty was to construct a case against Thomas, concluded they’d failed in their duty, and that compensation was payable.

    What I was trying to say was that compensation is generally found to hinge on the system’s culpability for its failings and not issues of the perpetrator’s probable guilt or innocence. Or put another way, it’s more an examination of process than of fact.

    It seems Power’s original terms of reference left the door open to have a judge conduct an inquisitorial proceeding similar to a French court or a Scottish Procurator Fiscal when what was needed was a dispassionate and objective analysis only of the system’s performance.

    Cabinet can make a judgement on the quantum of compensation taking into account, if it wished, the probability of guilt or innocence because, after trials and appeals and all the rest of the legal circus has packed up its tents, opinion (as illustrated here) is still utterly divided. If Binnie had been asked to report solely on the system’s failings, then that would have provided a far less controversial document which would have informed that process.

    FWIW I do believe that compensation should be payable as a matter of course to anyone wrongfully arrested and anyone wrongfully convicted. Just as there must be consequences for those who choose to step outside what the system finds acceptable and commit crime, not just to punish but to deter the next would-be criminal, there must be consequences for the system when it subjects an innocent citizen to the loss of their liberty, reputation and sometimes family and friends. And if that occurs because of gross incompetence (as opposed to honest error) or any form of abuse of power, then the individual responsible should, IMO, also be subject to sanctions.

    But I accept that, as you say, it’s not the law at present and I apologise for the fact that the way I phrased it above made it sound as though it was.

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

    Binnie’s biggest mistake is to assign more or less 100% probability that the footprints were made by Robin. This is incorrect. While we can assign a probability of 100% to the fact that the footprints were made by the killer there is too much expert dispute over who might have made them to allow anything like that level. For the sake of the Bain supporters the maximum probability of culpability we might allow is 75% Robin to 25% David but a more accurate assessment would be 50% to 50% because this item is probably either way.

    But Binnie has gone further, in ignoring, for reasons he attempts to explain, circumstantial evidence that incriminates David Bain, such as the glasses, which were the most contentious item of evidence after the first trial. Just because an item of evidence is contentious, does not make it invalid and in a probability test of this sort cannot be simply relegated to “unexplained”. It has to be explained, because the onus is on David Bain, and it has to be represented in the probability equation. Binnie cannot simply throw aside evidence that was a key part of a prosecution argument that cost our country something in the region of $2 million over two trials.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. RRM (10,009 comments) says:

    Twistedlemon – don’t even go there!

    I have learned through bitter experience that Falafulu Fisi is usually correct when he talks about mathematics & statistics ;-)

    I agree it seems counter-intuitive to use a process of making up probabilities for “Option A” vs “Not option A” for pieces of evidence or claims made as evidence, and to then hit the equals button and point to the answer as someone’s guilt or innocence.

    But when you say it like that, isn’t that kinda what a jury does anyway? Only by doing this you are at least being a bit more regimented about keeping track of all the various bits of evidence, and all the various claims about them, and how plausible they seem…

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

    > For the sake of the Bain supporters the maximum probability of culpability we might allow is 75% Robin to 25%

    That’s being very generous to David. David got blood on his socks, Robin didn’t. Robin was found wearing shoes which were absent of blood. Moreover, if Robin had walked around the house, he might have been expected to have found the bodies and called the police. He didn’t do so.

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

    The footprint evidence is discussed here:

    donmathias.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/bain-binnie-fisher-bayes-how-should-judges-reach-conlusions/

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

    Here is a curve ball for some of you, that you have nevere seen before.

    There is no evidence, other than from David Bain, that Robin Bain collected the newspaper from the road front.

    Yet, it is like it is the eleventh commandment brought down by Moses himself, that Robin brought in the newspaper.

    I say that it is much more likely that David brought in the newspaper as he almost always did; that David placed the paper where it still appears in the dead-Robin photograph, right next to the alcove curtains, and that it provided a ‘lure’ for Robin to come over to the curtains, where David lay in wait with a loaded and cocked rifle.

    David may have even added to the ‘lure’ by saying “Dad, come and see today’s newspaper headline”. Then surprise surprise, as Robin bent to read the paper, bang, you’re dead too.

    And David thinks he is a million dollars (in today’s values) richer.

    And 25-minutes later, not one minute later, but 25 minutes later, he calls 111 with his “They’re all dead”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Pete George (23,682 comments) says:

    Just as the alarm clock shows him likely to have woken at 6.32am, the Bainers reckon he might have stayed up all night. Pure speculation.

    A time on an alarm clock is just a time on an alarm clock, it indicates no likelihood that anyone woke at that time. Someone planning on killing most of their family is unlikely to sleep through until an alarm clock goes off.

    While we can assign a probability of 100% to the fact that the footprints were made by the killer…

    I don’t know how you can be 100% certain of anything. It may be a high probability, but I don’t see how any evidence like that can be 100% cetrain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Truthiz:

    You still fall for Karam and the cheerleaders bluster …

    Actually, being out of NZ I’ve mercifully been spared seeing and hearing anything said by Joe Karam on the topic. I can honestly swear I have not read, heard or seen a word from the man on this topic. Or any other, come to that, since I don’t follow sport.

    Quite to the contrary, my logic follows this sequence:

    A number of well-informed and obviously intelligent commenters here and elsewhere can produce long lists of evidence which they say should have convicted David Bain. Were it one or two, or were they people known to have extreme views on other topics, they could be dismissed. But the sheer weight of numbers suggests that, either this is a form of mas hysteria, or they have valid points. I assume the latter.

    If a large number of people who’ve studied the facts in some depth can be brought to the conclusion that Bain is guilty, then for the trial and retrial to have failed to bring 12 (or is it 10? I forget whether NZ introduced majority verdicts, not working with the courts there any more) people to that conclusion, there must have been major failings in the way the case was prepared and presented.

    As a principle, I believe that if the state arrests and charges you, puts you on trial and then fails to prove your guilt, you ought to be entitled to compensation, for many reasons but primarily to ensure that it faces consequences for its actions and is motivated to do better next time, thus lessening the likelihood that someone genuinely innocent will be put through hell (e.g. Peter Ellis, whose case I did take the trouble to study, unlike Bain’s). If that means a guilty man gets some cash, so be it.

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

    I’m assuming of course that Kent Parker didn’t make this up.

    Actually all the evidence items were done by another person, who has since been through Binnie’s report and found that he is not a stickler for detail. He has posted about one error here: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/canadian-judge-ian-binnie-makes-an-error-with-evidence and has discovered another error in which he says that the magazine that was lying on its edge was empty, and he repeats this several times. If you have a look at the picture here: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body you can clearly see at least one bullet in the “empty” cartridge. Now, every report is bound to have mistakes, just as every police investigation and every trial, and these are not deal breaking mistakes, but we document them anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    Then surprise surprise, as Robin bent to read the paper, bang, you’re dead too.

    Now there’s interesting, because if he’s bending to pick up the paper, what are the chances that he’s bending one knee to do so? There’s your explanation for the two directions of blood splatter on the leg of his trousers.

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

    And if you don’t like my”newpaper” theory above, which as I say, you have never heard before in 18 years, then explan this.

    If Robin had brought in the newspaper, why would Robin have put the newspaper down where it appears in the dead-Robin photograph?

    God, I wish I’d taken an interest in this case many years ago.

    I have some more curve balls for you coming, that no-one has ever once considered in 18 years.

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

    As a principle, I believe that if the state arrests and charges you, puts you on trial and then fails to prove your guilt, you ought to be entitled to compensation, for many reasons but primarily to ensure that it faces consequences for its actions and is motivated to do better next time..

    You say “primarily to ensure that it faces consequences”, so you consider it more of a punishment for the government than a reward for the ex-convict. If that is the case then DB shouldn’t get compensation and we should focus on what leaves the coffers of the government. Since the retrial cost the government something like $6 million, then surely it is punished enough? As an aside, I don’t think forcing a government to pay out money is a good way to punish a government. The best punishment for a government is election day! You can be assured that, as a result of the Bain debacle, the police have put into place measures to future proof themselves against some of the allegations made against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Viking2 (11,562 comments) says:

    Forgotten is the fact that Bain’s inheritance went up in smoke with the cash given to relatives. How could that be?
    Regardless of innocence or guilt neither of which I’m arguing, that inheritance should have remained invested in some way for his release.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    RRM, twistedlemon is new here. So, he doesn’t know what I know. Isn’t it better to let newbies here know that? I’ve been posting here at Kiwiblog for 6 years and I have not even reach your milestones 6000 posts. Twistedlemon’s is dismissive about bayesian probability as if it is something dodgy. See, if I asked him to state the probability that the footprint belonged to Robin and not David, I bet you that he wouldn’t know. Lets’ say that it was definitely Robin’s footprint, ie, prob(Robin) = 1. This means that prob(not Robin) = prob(David) = 0. Here is the next question. On what probabilistic evidence that was based on? Was it based on the testimony of the expert? But the expert wasn’t giving evidence on probabilistic reasoning framework. He gave evidence as a boolean logic (either/or, yes/no, true/false). That’s not reasoning under uncertainty. That’s reasoning with certainty. It’s more like that the expert had a psychic view of the actual murder taking place. The expert should have assigned a probabilistic view on the evidence, but he didn’t. If he did, can you please state here of what probability that he assigned that it was Robin? I’m keen to know.

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

    > There’s your explanation for the two directions of blood splatter on the leg of his trousers

    I have a lot better explanation than anyone else has ever come up with.

    When you have a gun pointed at your head, your legs give way, and you sit down on the floor, with the upper leg between thigh and knee pointing to the ceiling, but with the foot still on the floor. Falling high velocity blood goes in the air, and comes down pointing to both thigh and foot.

    You can’t do this when you are shooting yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    The Minister has left herself with no alternative but to commission another report. She will look completely foolish if she tries to pursue any other option.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    I find it sad that some of you people can be so dismissive of the Judge and Privvy Council findings, it appears they only offer an ‘opinion’ of guilt or innocence, much the same happened after the Thomas royal commisions findings back in the 80s. I also find it sad that in NZ the trial seems to be a ‘battle to be won and lost’ rather than finding out the truth, it appears Kent and co that you would regard your opinions of guilt as the only ones with any legal standing and the only place in which to decide guilt or innocence is via trial by media via witchhunt crusades such as Justice for Robin Bain

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

    Viking 2 – not at the time of the murders.

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

    Falafulu Fisi – if you made this claim of 75% probability I would believe you implicitly. You obviously know your stuff. Kent doesn’t. What nodes and sub-nodes of evidences has he used? Indeed, what evidence other than gut reaction has he used?

    “but the footprint evidence may be expanded into many sub-nodes of further evidences.”

    I think Kent just guesses a probability. Let’s be nice to the pro-Bain camp and let them have 75%. 50-50 is a good medium point………” For the sake of the Bain supporters the maximum probability of culpability we might allow is 75% Robin to 25% David but a more accurate assessment would be 50% to 50% because this item is probably either way.”

    Why 50%? Why 70% ? Where is the evidence? Show me ONE node, let alone a series of sub-nodes!

    I object to Parker’s mis-use of a valid statistical method.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Regardless of innocence or guilt neither of which I’m arguing, that inheritance should have remained invested in some way for his release.

    I am almost at a loss for words. That is the dumbest comment I have seen on this debate. If you are found guilty of killing a family member you are not entitled to an inheritance morally or legally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Kent Parker:

    I see the point you’re making, but psychologically, “we spent $6 million on trying to convict X of Y and failed” is different to “we did such a crap job of trying to convict X of Y that we’ve had to pay the bastard compensation when we know full well he’s guilty”. Much stronger motivation.

    And if police (or prosecutorial) misconduct is involved as it was with Thomas then IMO the compensation ought to come out of the pockets of the public officials found to have abused their power – just as a criminal who makes a victim suffer must recompense them out of his own income, not expect the taxpayer to do so.

    Whether it’s a “reward for the ex-convict” (and a genuinely innocent person has had their conviction overturned, so that’s a slightly pejorative descriptor) depends… if you were genuinely innocent then you undoubtedly deserve not reward, but recompense for the hell you’ve been put through.

    Perhaps, combining your suggestion with my perspective, the just outcome in this scenario is that the system pays for its errors in the Bain case by compensating the rest of us for having to sit through nearly two decades of soap opera :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Twistedlemon, what is the probability that the bloodied footprint belonged to Robin? Can you state of why you reached that figure in your conclusion? This will answer your question of why 75% or 50% or 30%, etc,…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotcom.
    Who brought the paper in?
    At the first trial the police said Robin Bain brought the paper in,and they were entitled to say that because David said he didn’t bring it in.
    But what is confusing is that David Bain also said he normally brought the paper in when he ran his paper round,which is what he did that morning. He said that if he walked his paper round then his father would bring it in at around 7am. That would be because Robin would have finished his prayers by then and David would be still out on his paper round.
    So the question is why didn’t David bring the paper in that morning?
    Joe Karam is puzzled as well. In his book Trial by Ambush he writes “We will never know for certain who brought the paper in but personally I don’t discount the likelihood that David himself brought it in as he usually did,and simply and understandably had no recall of doing so in the aftermath of what happened next”.
    I lean towards David bringing it in. I think he was caught on the hop by that question and for some reason decided to tell a lie. I just can’t see him not bringing it in when he normally did. Of course the Crown would rather have Robin bringing it in. I mean why would a man who was about to commit suicide bring the paper in? Surely he wouldn’t have been expecting to see his death notice in it.

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

    I also find it sad that in NZ the trial seems to be a ‘battle to be won and lost’ rather than finding out the truth, it appears Kent and co that you would regard your opinions of guilt as the only ones with any legal standing and the only place in which to decide guilt or innocence is via trial by media via witchhunt crusades such as Justice for Robin Bain

    Rowan, mine is not a legal opinion. I do not have any formal legal training. Like Falafulu Fisi I am a maths and science man, and I reckon I know this stuff better than Binnie who appears to have made a legal opinion based on social justice rather than a “factual” analysis, which was what he was meant to do. Also there was, in my opinion, nothing wrong with the verdict of the first trial. If you want to talk about Trial by Media, then please do read David and Goliath, Bain and Beyond, Trial by Ambush by Joe Karam, and rewind yourself back ten years ago and listen to a number of episodes of the Holmes Show. Then read a number of editorial articles in the Herald over the years, including one famously made by Paul Holmes after the retrial but also a number made in the past week.

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

    Rowan (and many others), please understand that there are two legal processes. The second is separate from the first.

    The Courts were asked to decide David’s criminality.

    But separately from what the Courts decided, now that he is no longer guilty, a different body from the Courts is asked to determine a different question.

    It is Cabinet which is tasked with deciding if David shot anyone. The Courts have not decided whether David shot anyone. They have decided that he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt (BRD). If there was reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds (and that reasonable doubt may have differed from juror to juror), then is it still possible he shot people.

    It would be wrong to compensate David, if he shot people. It would be wrong to compensate David if the jury though he probably shot people, but the jury had doubts about it.

    What Cabinet has to decide is whether probably David shot people, with the prosecution failing to reach a BRD standard.

    It is New Zealand law. It is British law. And it is almost universally international law. Cabinet may not break the
    law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan.
    Re the Privy Council report.
    Could I refer you to my post at 2.36 which you do not appear to have read?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. PaulL (6,044 comments) says:

    On probability, let me give an analogy.

    In project management, we often estimate things. You just look at a project and say “5,000 days”. Or you can break a project down into all it’s component parts, look at each part, say “50 days” for part a, “100 days” for part b, and so on and so forth, then add it all up, and come to 5000 days. Strictly speaking both are very subjective judgements. But the latter is demonstrated time and again to give a more reliable result.

    I think what those talking about probability are saying is effectively the same. Sure, all the input numbers are still subjective. But a systematic way to create those individual numbers, a methodical way to combine those numbers, and auditability as to how you got there has a number of benefits:
    1. It requires assessing each piece of evidence in detail, rather than forming a gut feeling across the top
    2. It allows others to critique your logic chain, in part or in full
    3. It avoids you inadvertently weighting the evidence in a way that you didn’t intend to
    4. It keeps your eye on the big picture, even though you’re being asked to work at a detailed level

    Incidentally, it is well accepted in project estimating that having done all the detail work and crunched the numbers, that your answer should be tested against common sense, and you should then iterate on the detail where there are things that don’t quite dovetail.

    So, for example, you might break your evidence into subsets (probability that David killed person A, that he killed person B, probability that Robin did it, however you break it down). You then look at those subsets, and if it comes in that you think it’s 100% that David killed person A, and 40% that Robin did it, then something’s wrong on your logic chain.

    I can certainly see the rationale in applying this kind of methodology to this problem.

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

    >> Muggins leans towards David bringing it in. Muggins thinks David was caught on the hop by that question and for some reason decided to tell a lie.

    Not quite Muggins. The clue is where the paper finished up, i.e. next to the alcove curtains — I say as a ‘lure’.

    Muggins, have a look at the photo of the dead-Robin, and the plan of the room. In a Robin-suidice scenario, NO way would Robin have placed the paper where it still appears in the photo when Robin died.

    But if David had used it as a ‘lure’, this would have incentivised David to lie and distract attention away from it being his ‘lure’. And guess what, as a distraction it has worked for 18 years – till yours truly Dotcom came along.

    And I promise you some more gems to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    It is Cabinet which is tasked with deciding if David shot anyone.
    What Cabinet has to decide is whether probably David shot people, with the prosecution failing to reach a BRD standard.

    Jeez Dotcom – you’re as bad as your namesake. Give yourself an uppercut.

    Cabinet doesn’t have to prove anything. Bain has to prove his innocence in the BOP. And if (a massive word) Bain could prove his innocence in the BOP, then Cabinet gets to decide whether there are then extraordinary grounds to make an ex gratia payment. There are several hurdles…

    Do keep up.

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

    Why 50%? Why 70% ? Where is the evidence? Show me ONE node, let alone a series of sub-nodes!

    twistedlemon, we make an educated guess. If we assign 100% that the footprints were Robin then we are saying that Robin definitely made the footprints, at which point, we, like Binnie, then proceed to ignore all other evidence because we have our fait accompli. If we are completely undecided, then we assign 50% to 50%.

    Because this trial has such a long history, in making our subjective assessment of probability we have to take into account all the things various experts have said on the matter of the footprint evidence from both sides. I’m not sure if the probability test also allows you to take into consideration what other judges have concluded from the evidence, but this can be used to help arrive at a reasonable probability, by some form of proxy panel decision. Binnie has taken other legal judgments into consideration, including, famously, the retrial jury, for which he has been criticized.

    So, our final probability regarding the footprint evidence is going to be somewhere between 50 and 99% either way, but 99% is probably going too far, because that is too close to certainty, and my reasonable conclusion is that the maximum we should go is 75%. You may differ. In other words the highest probability that we can reasonably say that it was Robin (or that it was David) who left the footprints, is 75%. If we assign 75% to the probability that it was Robin, then we are agreeing with the assessment of some experts and judges, that the footprints are not likely to be David’s because they are too short and more likely to be Robin’s. The 75% probability assignment is another way of saying “more likely Robin”.

    Note that this is a simplistic analysis because this is just a political blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Dotcom (25) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
    > There’s your explanation for the two directions of blood splatter on the leg of his trousers

    I have a lot better explanation than anyone else has ever come up with.

    When you have a gun pointed at your head, your legs give way, and you sit down on the floor, with the upper leg between thigh and knee pointing to the ceiling, but with the foot still on the floor. Falling high velocity blood goes in the air, and comes down pointing to both thigh and foot.

    You can’t do this when you are shooting yourself.”

    And how is an upper trajectory contact shot achieved, or blood spatter high on the curtain, with no shielding of spatter by the gunman. Only small things I know. Thanks for the modesty accompanying your explanation which we’ll put near the top of the ‘most unlikely’ scenarios.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Like Falafulu Fisi I am a maths and science man, and I reckon I know this stuff better than Binnie who appears to have made a legal opinion based on social justice rather than a “factual” analysis, which was what he was meant to do.’

    Modesty abounds today.

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

    Elaycee (3,198) Says:
    Cabinet doesn’t have to prove anything

    I did not say that Cabinet has to prove anything. I said Cabinet has to decide. This is the law. So please give yourself an uppercut.

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

    “A time on an alarm clock is just a time on an alarm clock, it indicates no likelihood that anyone woke at that time. Someone planning on killing most of their family is unlikely to sleep through until an alarm clock goes off.”

    Pete, you’re speculating, like the other Bainers. The fact (not speculation) is the alarm clock was set to go off at 6.32. The police found the radio on. You’re speculating that Robin was “planning on killing”, but where’s the evidence of that? Look at the facts. He had no blood on his socks or shoes, so he is mostly unlikely to have wandered round the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Viking2 (11,562 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,757) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Regardless of innocence or guilt neither of which I’m arguing, that inheritance should have remained invested in some way for his release.

    I am almost at a loss for words. That is the dumbest comment I have seen on this debate. If you are found guilty of killing a family member you are not entitled to an inheritance morally or legally.
    ——————-
    Except that has never been properly proven Chuck.
    The indecent haste with which that house was burnt down created suspicions way back then. The relatives were real quick to grab the dosh.
    In any event the next surviving relative was due the proceeds and that is an argument that is being determined currently between Bain and his relatives.
    I favour Bain as the relatives actually had no entitlement but were given the money anyway. something which I think the courts were responsible for based on a trial that is now determined as being faulty.

    So far from being a dumb comment its your understanding and bullying mind that is the dumb bit.
    and you have shown that before today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Viking2 (11,562 comments) says:

    Looks like we might be repeating the process with Tamahere in light of the statements coming out today. Statements ignored by the police just as we have the same problem with Watson.

    time we changed our courts to requiring them to find the truth rather than which lawyer is better than another.

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

    Dotcoim.
    There is no “law” on this.
    The Cabinet “manual” is NOT statute law.
    Cabinet can ignore the whole mess….or poy, as Binnie (an independeent Canadian) says it should, on our behalf.
    Because, Bain, somewhat like you (?) was fitted up by an inept Dunedin police investigation AND a self-serving prosecution.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,887) Says: at 4:06 pm that mine is the least lilkely scenario.

    Only to non-thinkers N-NZ.

    Mine is the only scenario that explains pointing upwards/downwards blood spatter on the upper/lower leg. Kneeling does not explain it.

    It is possible as well that in the face of a rifle nussle pointed at him, Robin slouched backwards from looking at the newspaper, onto the coffee table. NO OTHER explanation EVER, is an improvement on this theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Yes Muggins I have read (and now reread) your earlier post, Lets just look at the number of NZ cases that have actually been heard there as opposed to successfully appealled, in the privvy council, The case of Scott Watson was rejected there yet is far less complicated, as Keith Hunter points out the best ‘evidence’ the police have in the case is from there jailhouse snitch, I’m not going to discuss in depth the case for or against watson here yet why would the privvy council reject the crown arguments and quash the case if they actually believe in Davids guilt??

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

    The Cabinet manual is law. You’re wrong on this. End of debate.

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

    Cabinet is “the master of its own fate”, but it must observe precedent and published instructions to itself, until it explicitly changes the instructions. Cabinet has signalled no intention to change the instructions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Scott Chris (4,663) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
    This from Counterspin

    Mr. Hentschel measured the prints only from the toe “area” to the heel “area”, and therefore the full print could have been larger. He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the”complete toe and heal”; he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance, not all the luminance.

    I’m assuming of course that Kent Parker didn’t make this up.’

    As I told you the other day, read the evidence. He said ‘complete’ and tried to back out of that at the trial – he was contradicted by both a defence and Crown witness on that when it became the complete print matched the father and not the son. No wonder you have no idea of what you are talking about. Counterspin’s material was reviewed by Binnie who valued it (obviously not highly) in his overall consideration, but he didn’t ignore the ‘actual’ evidence or trial transcript in favour of a third or fourth hand account. Kent’s site still says that the fingerprints were in blood, and there was no strip search. When persecuting somebody don’t look at the evidence of his persecutors look at the trial evidence before you polish up the old pitch fork and put on a black cape.

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

    Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Your point was?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    Docom: Cabinet does NOT have to decide whether Bain shot his family. BAIN has to prove his innocence in the BOP. Can you not understand the difference? And only if Bain proves innocence (BOP) does Cabinet decide whether there has been extraordinary circumstances… And if then, would they decide on compensation.

    And thank you for sharing this:

    And guess what, as a distraction it has worked for 18 years – till yours truly Dotcom came along.

    Was that your application for lifetime membership of the Moron’s Club?

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

    Very interesting, Kent. As the transcript shows, Robin had an old-style manual alarm clock rather than a clock-radio that comes on automatically, as Binnie suggests. If his radio had to be manually turned on, then that suggests (but does not prove) Robin was in his caravan after 6.30am turning off his alarm and turning on the radio. Coupled with his “normal overnight collection” (or words to that effect) of urine, that does imply he had a normal night’s sleep and was following his normal routine (as has long been suggested), leaving him about 11 minutes to snap, commit the murders and get changed before David arrived home. There is also the issue of the newspaper collection, but the evidence is a bit less clear there (David has said he “doesn’t remember” bringing it in, I think). It is inexcusable to get this kind of detail incorrect in a $400,000 review when the transcripts and the photographic evidence prove otherwise (unless he also had a clock radio, but I can’t see any suggestion of that), especially when you go on to say that the radio being left on suggests Robin had left the caravan and entered the house before 6.30am – exactly the opposite conclusion: “We know from the Police that Robin’s clock radio was still playing when they entered the caravan, suggesting perhaps that Robin had already left before it came on at 6.32 am on 20 June, as the defence suggested.”

    Finally, I just googled “Robin Bain’s caravan” and the fifth hit is a photo featuring the said alarm clock (http://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/stephen-murray-examines-an-alarm-clock-from-robin-bains-news-photo/85588157). Where’s my $400,000? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Nostaligia…
    … I am a maths man

    And so as authors of the paper I cited in my previous post, Prof. Norman and Martin Neil (School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London) and Dr. David Lagnado (Cognitive, Perceptual, and Brain Sciences Department, University College London). Did they study law? Nope? Do they know more about logic and reasoning under uncertainty (probabilistic reasoning) more than justice Binnie. Yep, definitely. Binnie’s understanding of probabilistic reasoning (and many in the legal profession) fall in the category who think that probability aggregation is additive that I gave in my previous post above ( which is completely wrong). That is something that is taught at law school and I’ll challenge any legal experts here to show me which law school that teaches this stuff?

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

    Rowan, you are way out of your depth with your last question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. tvb (4,501 comments) says:

    Bain had his million dollar defence paid for by the taxpayer. He has his life back. Enough is enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    I meant to say…
    That is something that is NOT taught at law school

    This is where science comes in. The way how human brain works is explained by science and no wonder that scientific experts are being called to give their opinions in courts.

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

    Rowan, you are way out of your depth with your last question. The Privy Council ordered that a retrial could occur.

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

    “Elaycee (3,199) Says:

    Docom: Cabinet does NOT have to decide whether Bain shot his family. BAIN has to prove his innocence in the BOP. Can you not understand the difference? And only if Bain proves innocence (BOP) does Cabinet decide whether there has been extraordinary circumstances… And if then, would they decide on compensation. ”

    Oh serously Elaycee, you are showing you are well out of your depth.

    David has to prove his bop innocence TO WHOM? Answer: to Cabinet.
    And WHO decides whether he has satisfied that onus of proof? Answer: Cabinet does.

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

    Binnie: “We know from the Police that Robin’s clock radio was still playing when they entered the caravan, suggesting perhaps that Robin had already left before it came on at 6.32 am on 20 June, as the defence suggested.”

    Why does Binnie suggest that Robin left his caravan before 6.32? I guess it hurts his theory if Robin left later. But when the facts don’t fit the theory, you ought to change the theory.

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

    ” Elaycee (3,199) asked: Was that your application for lifetime membership of the Moron’s Club?
    Yes, Elaycee, it was. Now can you raise the standard of the relevance of your questions.

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

    Bea excellent idea re David Bain supporters donating $1000 each, unfortunately that would only raise about $10,000.
    There are probably only about 10 of them, it only seems more because they devote 24/7 to the cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi (2,113) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
    Nostaligia…
    … I am a maths man

    And so as authors of the paper I cited in my previous post, Prof. Norman and Martin Neil (School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London) and Dr. David Lagnado (Cognitive, Perceptual, and Brain Sciences Department, University College London). Did they study law? Nope? Do they know more about logic and reasoning under uncertainty (probabilistic reasoning) more than justice Binnie. Yep, definitely. Binnie’s understanding of probabilistic reasoning (and many in the legal profession) fall in the category who think that probability aggregation is additive that I gave in my previous post above ( which is completely wrong). That is something that is taught at law school and I’ll challenge any legal experts here to show me which law school that teaches this stuff?

    I’ve no doubt you are a maths man, my doubts were with the Kent’s elevation of himself. If that wasn’t clear, I’m sorry. Kent is also a psychologist, a web designer, a song writer and to now call himself a ‘science and math’s man’ well…..

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

    ross69 (1,354) asked: Why does Binnie suggest that Robin left his caravan before 6.32?

    Because police accept that David was unllikely to have completed 6 shootings and a fight (Strephen was shot twice), plus washing self etc in 25 minutes.

    So how could the Binnie theory be left relying on Robin doing the same within TEN MINUTES???????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    I’m not going to discuss in depth the case for or against watson here yet why would the privvy council reject the crown arguments and quash the case if they actually believe in Davids guilt??

    Rowan, the Court of Appeal had decided that new evidence wouldn’t have made any difference to the original trial. The Privy Council held that that the evdience should be heard by the jury so that a jury could decide. In essence, the Court of Appeal had gone too far in dismissing the Appeal.

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

    ” Falafulu Fisi (2,113) said: this is something that is NOT taught at law school… ”

    It is actually. A lot of time is spent there on logic and analysis and deducing. A lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    #$*& … The PC decision was not a finging of guilt or innocence to any threshold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    #$*& … “finding” (but maybe I was right the first time)

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

    > So how could the Binnie theory be left relying on Robin doing the same within TEN MINUTES???????

    I’m not talking about theories, I’m talking about the evidence. Where is the evidence that Robin got up prior to 6.30? David clearly got up about 5.45 – he needed to in order to complete his paper run.

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

    ” thedavincimode (4,130) said: the PC decision was not a finging of guilt or innocence to any threshold ”

    Exactly, the Privy Council simply did not rule guilt or otherwise.

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

    > David clearly got up about 5.45 – he needed to in order to complete his paper run.

    That was the latest he got up…of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    The biggest card the nay sayers have played against themselves in the last couple of weeks is that they formerly called the police investigation ‘copy book’, though it’s now relegated by them to a shambles or worse. Yet the nay criers now say that ‘if’ the investigation had been better ‘it would’ have proved the case against David Bain which has so far failed. How can anybody expect to be taken seriously when they float in two extremes. In the next breath they claim to have ‘secret’ information not offered at the trial, from who?…yes the police that botched the investigation. Spinning, spinning spinning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Belinda (33) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    Bea excellent idea re David Bain supporters donating $1000 each, unfortunately that would only raise about $10,000.
    There are probably only about 10 of them, it only seems more because they devote 24/7 to the cause.’

    How’s the petition coming along? Thinking of adding another 3 or 4 years, no pressure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Dotcom…
    A lot of time is spent there on logic

    So, what’s the logic of where the scratch marks on David’s body originated from?

    Did David self inflict those on himself or it was caused when he struggled with Steven?

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

    >>> ross69 (1,356) said: I’m not talking about theories, I’m talking about the evidence. <<<

    Careful Ross, slow down. I'm not the enemy here. You might have called it "evidence". I called it "theory". But we are saying the same thing. And there is no "evidence" whatsoever of when Robin got up. There is a theory that if the alarm went off at 6.32, then that is a *probable* indicator of whan he got up — ergo "theory". Regardless, theory/evidence? Ain't worth falling out over. Once again, we are saying the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    Yet the nay criers now say that ‘if’ the investigation had been better ‘it would’ have proved the case against David Bain which has so far failed. .

    Heh. Which is of course, quite different from the Bainiacs saying that ‘if’ the investigation had been better ‘it would’ have proved the case against Robin Bain which has so far failed. Oops, just a minute …

    But didn’t that discussion have it’s subject founded in the release of the Binnie and Fisher reports and their relative merits? How’s that argument going over at Bainiac central?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    “Falafulu Fisi (2,114) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
    Dotcom…
    A lot of time is spent there on logic

    So, what’s the logic of where the scratch marks on David’s body originated from?

    Did David self inflict those on himself or it was caused when he struggled with Steven?”

    It’s not proven they existed. The certainly didn’t exist at 11am on the day in question when he was strip searched in the Dunedin police station in the presence of 2 officers both of whom offered no testimony conflicting with the police surgeon’s report. They simply did not exist on the day by all evidence given, so speculating how they ‘might’ have got there later is of no relevance.

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

    >>> Nostalgia-NZ (1,891) said at 4:49 pm: The biggest card the nay sayers have played against themselves in the last couple of weeks is that they formerly called the police investigation ‘copy book’, though it’s now relegated by them to a shambles or worse. Yet the nay criers now say that ‘if’ the investigation had been better ‘it would’ have proved the case against David Bain which has so far failed. How can anybody expect to be taken seriously when they float in two extremes. In the next breath they claim to have ‘secret’ information not offered at the trial, from who?…yes the police that botched the investigation. Spinning, spinning spinning. <<<

    Who's saying this? And who cares? Got nothing to do with "compensation" anyway, which is what the entire debate has moved onto.

    Agreed, cops made a monumental stuff-up. Right that's that debated done and dusted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (346 comments) says:

    Dotcom – David has to prove his bop innocence TO WHOM? Answer: to Cabinet.
And WHO decides whether he has satisfied that onus of proof? Answer: Cabinet does.

    If this is true, when and where has David attempted to prove his innocence.
    Why is any report commissioned by Government from Canada or anywhere else, if David does it.
    Does anyone have a link to what the requirements are for compensation in this case?

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

    >>>Rex Widerstrom (4,718) said at 3:46 pm: … if police (or prosecutorial) misconduct is involved, then compensation ought to come out of the pockets of the public officials (concerned) … <<<

    Ahh, the Royal THEY comes out of yet another New Zealander.

    Rex, if the culprits are to be held accountable, then the Royal THEY will have to prosecute the culprits for their misfeasance.

    And who, Rex, is going to conduct the prosecution? The Royal THEY who are going to do this, don't exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    Dotcom: Do you try extra hard to be a moron, or does it come naturally?

    But, as today is ‘Be Kind To A Moron’ Day, I’ve decided to help you. Now, I don’t care if you lick windows, still play with yourself and occasionally shit your pants, Dotcom – I’ll be extra patient today and try to explain things:

    The first hurdle is that Bain has to prove his (BOP) innocence. Not to Cabinet – you are wrong. Bain has to prove his innocence (BOP) to a third party appointed by the Minister. Bain (and others) met Binnie. Bain didn’t meet Cabinet. Binnie then submitted his Report to the Minister but she said it was fatally flawed. A review by Fisher confirmed these (fatal) flaws.

    The second hurdle, is that the Minister would have to accept Binnie’s notion that Bain has proved his (BOP) innocence – and the Minister does not have to accept it. But if the Minister did accept it, she then makes a recommendation to Cabinet. Cabinet then decides if they wish to accept the Minister’s recommendation. They don’t have to, either – they could reject it.

    The next issue to be considered is whether there have been any extraordinary circumstances. Another hurdle.

    Then, and only then does Cabinet decide if an ex gratia payment is warranted. And they would determine any quantum.

    So you can beat your narcissistic drum and try to proclaim you know everything, but the reality is you merely have an opinion – just like everyone else here. And you don’t have the answers – that’s obvious!

    PS: Keep an eye on your mailbox – your letter of acceptance letter can’t be too far away. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Heh. Which is of course, quite different from the Bainiacs saying that ‘if’ the investigation had been better ‘it would’ have proved the case against Robin Bain which has so far failed. Oops, just a minute …’

    Missed the bus there davinci. The defence claims about the ‘quality’ of the investigation have never changed, it’s your dear mates that got off one hobby horse onto another expecting a ride off to the sunset to goo gaa land not realising they were already there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Longknives (4,868 comments) says:

    Anyone else find it slightly unscrupulous that Bain and his Defence team leapt in and made all these bizarre allegations once Dr Pryde was dead?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    I reckon that the murderer of the Bain’s family is still somewhere out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    Bugger… Edit…. “your letter of acceptance letter” should have read: your letter of acceptance”…. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Dotcom:

    Rex, if the culprits are to be held accountable, then the Royal THEY will have to prosecute the culprits for their misfeasance.

    And who, Rex, is going to conduct the prosecution? The Royal THEY who are going to do this, don’t exist.

    An Independent Commission on Corruption; a Crime and Corruption Commission; a Police Integrity Commission and all sorts of other variations on a theme (and, for one-off cases, though I’d rather see a permanent body, Royal Commissions) have all be created in the past in NZ, Australia and other jurisdictions which share a common heritage from English law, at the stroke of a legislative pen. They then become “they”.

    All it takes is political will.

    If OTOH, you’re saying there’s never likely to be in NZ a thorough house-cleaning of police and prosecutors as there was in, say, Queensland, because successive government lack such will then reluctantly I must agree wholeheartedly with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    Surely you’re not suggesting the real killer is hiding out with the real killer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman? Perhaps David Bain could join OJ in his unending quest for truth and justice. They’d make quite a superhero team, one with his jersey and the other with his glove…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    You might quite rightly criticise their timing but not my point. Nice flannel attempt though.

    But how is this Binnie report holding up? You agree with Fala F that Bain has got $20 of burger money coming his way?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Longknives (4,868 comments) says:

    Don’t get Nostalgia and Judith started on OJ…..another Police conspiracy to frame an innocent man!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Bain didn’t meet Cabinet. Binnie then submitted his Report to the Minister but she said it was fatally flawed.’

    Not quite Elaycee. The one sided review can’t be accepted, remembering that Binnie’s review took into account all arguments, Fisher only took the Crown’s objections and excluded all others plus a frank inquiry into all the evidence that a ‘peer’ review would require to have merit. Though putting that aside Fisher said the Binnie result may well have stood had it followed Mr Fisher’s perfect footsteps. Thanks for your fanciful extrapolations, I suppose you just had to get them out.

    I can see the stumbling and falling well into the future over this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Longknives (1,946) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
    Anyone else find it slightly unscrupulous that Bain and his Defence team leapt in and made all these bizarre allegations once Dr Pryde was dead?’

    Who do you mean in the defence team that are making bizarre claims about the strip search after Pryde is dead? All of them?

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

    >>> Puzzled in Ekatahuna (255) asked ME at 5:11 pm: when and where has David attempted to prove his innocence? <<<

    Okay, pretty basic question addressed to ME, that deserves a short answer. (Please don't nitpick my wording — it's a poor man's guide for Puzzled in Ekatahuna, not a university thesis).

    After his 2009 acquittal, David applied to Cabinet for compensation. To help be able to make an informed decision on this, on behalf of Cabinet, last year Simon Power appointed Justice Binnie to make a recommendation to Cabinet as to whether through the Courts processes, David (and his defence team) had *already* established a BOP case against his having killed anyone.

    Binnie reviewed all the evidence, and supplemented this with interviewing David as well as a couple of the cops who investigated back in 1994. As a result of this, Binnie recommended to Cabinet that he thought that David's BOP case has been made.

    On behalf of Cabinet, Justice Minister Judith Collins has decided that she cannot accept the Binnie recommendation.

    So the questions FOR CABINET remain. Should it compensate or not?

    And before Cabinet decides this, Cabinet wants to assure itself that: on the BOP, David did not kill anyone. Cabinet will not pay compensation if CABINET thinks David killed.

    And that, in a nutshell, is where things stand.

    One day Cabinet has to make a decision on whether to pay out on David's compo claim.

    But to be able to make that decision, Cabinet first has to decide whether Cabinet believes that David killed. Through Judith Collins (with the blessing of John Key) Cabinet has decided (so far) not to make that decision solely on the Binnie report.

    Now, Puzzled in Ekatahuna, people will argue with this poor man’s guide, surer than eggs, but it is just that, a guide.

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

    Kent – read the post by PaulL. Your simplistic, gut reaction allocation of probabilities is wrong. It doesn’t work like that.

    “But a systematic way to create those individual numbers, a methodical way to combine those numbers, and auditability as to how you got there has a number of benefits:
    1. It requires assessing each piece of evidence in detail, rather than forming a gut feeling across the top
    2. It allows others to critique your logic chain, in part or in full
    3. It avoids you inadvertently weighting the evidence in a way that you didn’t intend to
    4. It keeps your eye on the big picture, even though you’re being asked to work at a detailed level”

    Please provide the detail of how you arrived at a probability of 75%. Otherwise, it’s just an uneducated guess.

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

    >>> Elaycee (3,201) asked me at 5:13 pm: Dotcom: Do you try extra hard to be a moron, or does it come naturally? <<<

    It's God-given, Ely.

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

    Oh btw, I don’t know everything.

    Can someone please help me here, cos it will fill in one mystery for me.

    How many shots were fired in Stephen’s room altogether, please?

    And so, from that, how many shots were fired altogether, please?

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

    Falafula Fisi – could you please tell me if this is how you would assign probabilities if using Bayesian techniques? Is this what is meant by a ‘subjective’ allocation of probability? Would you lay any credence on the results of an analysis using data like this?

    This is a serious question – because I am a mathematician, but not an expert in this field.

    “David’s opera gloves were found bloodied and lying on the floor in Stephen’s room and are also consistent with the fact that Stephen had a violent struggle with his murderer. It is 100% probable that these gloves were used in the murder. We assign 75% probability that David was wearing them because they are his gloves, and 25% probability to Robin because he had his own set of opera gloves in the caravan and had no need to use David’s.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Rowan, the Court of Appeal had decided that new evidence wouldn’t have made any difference to the original trial. The Privy Council held that that the evdience should be heard by the jury so that a jury could decide. In essence, the Court of Appeal had gone too far in dismissing the Appeal
    Yes davinci mode
    Now the court has decided, and Justice Binnie has carefully looked at both sides of the evidence and found for David Bain on the BOP,
    From the counterspin site
    Was it David Bain who killed his family or did Robin Bain kill four members of his family and the commit suicide?

    First of all let me say that although I am trying to be impartial I honestly believe that it is far more likely that David Bain murdered his family than it is that Robin Bain murdered four members of his family and then committed suicide .
    Now there is no proof that either Robin Bain or David Bain shot Margaret Bain. There is no proof that either Robin Bain or David Bain shot Laniet Bain, although I do wonder if David Bain could have heard Laniet gurgling when she was dead. And there is no proof that either Robin Bain or David Bain shot Arawa Bain, although I do wonder why Robin Bain would have shot Arawa, who was the standout academic performer of the children in his family and the one who was going to follow in his footsteps. And we can’t be certain that David shot his father. It is possible that Robin Bain could have committed suicide. …….

    I think we won’t argue that the evidence in the case is 100% circumstantial, with conflicting evidence on both sides of the equation, Justice Binnie however has reviewed all the circumstantial evidence against both sides together with the prosecution and defence arguments and decided that the crown arguments fail the BOP test, I think judging from his reading his reasoning that I agree with him, as he says,
    “463. None of the foregoing points are free of difficulty. Nothing has been established beyond
    a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence,
    considered item by item both individually and collectively, and considered in light of my
    interview with David Bain on 23 July 2012, persuade me that David Bain is factually innocent of
    the murder of his parents and sisters and brother as alleged by the prosecution. I recommend
    that this conclusion of factual innocence be adopted by the Cabinet”

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

    >>> Rex Widerstrom (4,720) at 5:21 pm said: An Independent Commission on Corruption etc <<<

    Absolutely agree with the concept, Rex. Well overdue, and we're well behind the international standard. But tend to think this might be for another day/ another blog thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    twistedlemon, can you address my question that I put forward to you in my previous post? How did the expert reach a conclusion that the footprint was that of Robin instead of David? Does the expert read minds or travel back in time to witness the murder as it took place? What is the probability that the footprint belonged to Robin rather than David? You can’t deny subjectivity by using subjectivity, because I suspect that you come up with a subject probability that the print belonged to Robin. Can you address that?

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

    Please provide the detail of how you arrived at a probability of 75%. Otherwise, it’s just an uneducated guess.

    twistedlemon, these probabilities are arrived at in the same way that Binnie arrives at his individual judgments of “likely”, “unlikely”, “speculative”, “credible” etc. Instead of using words, we use numbers. As pointed out, this system is much easier to adjust in a peer review situation and in order to get the best result, many minds might be consulted to achieve a particular probability numeric. An “educated guess” is one way of putting it, although sometimes you can actually draw on statistics such as “Prosecutor Cameron Mander put to Dr Cordner a published article reviewing 1704 cases of suicide using a rifle. It said 22.9 per cent were to the right temple and only 3.3 per cent to the left temple.”

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

    Ok, Dot ..

    My guess is Mum, one in the head, then ONE at Stephen (grazing him), then he throttled with T Shirt, then execution SHOT thru the top of head, then across to Laniet, struggling with the damaged glasses, ONE in the wall, ONE thru the cheek, then on to Arawa, by now vision really impaired and strained from fight with Stephen, he makes her beg on floor in front of him, gets real close, SHOT in head, then back upstairs hears Laniet is still alive, EXECUTES her, then cleans up, does run and waits for dad, ONE in the head.
    guesstimate — SEVEN

    Not totally accurate, as I have not checked for a while, but a fairly close picture …

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

    Oh and Rex and Dot,

    weird but interesting views :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573662

    “Rowan, mine is not a legal opinion. I do not have any formal legal training. Like Falafulu Fisi I am a maths and science man, and I reckon I know this stuff better than Binnie who appears to have made a legal opinion based on social justice rather than a “factual” analysis, which was what he was meant to do”

    Kent
    Based on your maths and science and probability expertise what probabilities would you assign to the fingerprint evidence (can’t seem to get the link working) of crown expert Kim Jones verses the defence expert Carl Lloyd? given that Jones agrees with Lloyd that 1. Blood does not flouresce
    2. His evidence at the 1995 trial that it did was wrong but this was “so that the jury would understand”
    3. The colour of the ridges was the wrong colour if the fingerprint was made in blood “but this was because the photo is a negative”
    Also Jones disagrees with the Hentshell on where the sample was taken from but he suggests that he is correct and Dr Hentschell is mistaken
    So what probability to you suggest I think maybe 20% might be being generous to Jones

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    “David’s opera gloves were found bloodied and lying on the floor in Stephen’s room and are also consistent with the fact that Stephen had a violent struggle with his murderer. It is 100% probable that these gloves were used in the murder.”

    in fact, in the interview with Binnie, David suggests that Stephen may have borrowed the gloves, and that they got bloodied and were found on the floor was merely incidental.

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

    >>> Rowan (22) said at 5:56 pm: Now the Court has decided … on the BOP… <<<

    Robin. The Courts have decided precicely NOTHING on the BOP. Nothing.

    All the Court has decided is that David did not kill beyond reasonable doubt (BRD).

    The mathematical difference between BRD and BOP is with reasonable doubt (WRD). We simply don't know if David killed WRD. No Court has been asked to decide this question, nor has it decided this question.

    It ain't easy, but this is part of the reason why lawyers take on average about 10 years of study to become Barristers. And some (it seems Binnie included) never quite get it. So if you don't get it, don't hurt yourself trying, Rowan. You're in some seriously well-qualified company.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    Justice Binnie has carefully looked at both sides of the evidence

    Rowan, that statement encompasses two of the points at issue; 1) whether he was careful and even-handed or consistent in looking at the evidence and 2) whether his approach to assessing the evidence was appropriate having regard to his brief. There seems to be a bit of dispute around those two points.

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

    I don’t understand your question. I’m not debating the subjectivity. I’m debating the allocation of a number by gut reaction.

    Binnie listened to the expert who carried out experiments with blood stained socks. He said that after considering this evidence he believed that it was most probable that the footprints belonged to Robin. He did NOT assign a numeric value to this probability.

    After considering the evidence as presented in court re the footprints, I believe that it is more probable that they were made by David . I would not put a numerical value on it without doing research into other cases, footprint forensics etc.

    Because we were not there and the evidence is debatable, the probability is, obviously, subjective. But is it rigorous to say – 50% if we don’t know, 100% if we do know, so let’s settle on 75%. What is achieved by applying Bayes equation to numbers plucked out of thin air?

    If you clarify your question, I’ll try and answer it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    I’m finding the debate about statistics and analysis as it relates to probability in criminal cases fascinating… thanks to those who are contributing.

    Can I ask the statisticians / mathematicians this… taking as the basis of an estimate the number of convictions overturned by the work of Innocence Projects in the US, UK and Australia it would appear that, very roughly speaking, about one percent of convictions in what the US would call capital cases (mainly murder) are unsound.

    As near as I can tell, about 18 years ago the murder rate was 12.1 per million people (it’s since dropped markedly) and the population was about 3.6 million. Therefore approximately 43 murders took place that year. So anyone convicted of murder had a 0.43% chance of that being a wrongful conviction. Or, to put it another way, at that time roughly once every three years an innocent person was going to jail for murder.

    It would presumably take a lot of work, looking at the level of uncertainties in each case, but one could presumably calculate a statistical probability for that 1/129 being one David Bain, could one not?

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

    >>>Truthiz (30) said at 6:07 pm: My guess Not totally accurate but .. <<<

    Yes, I think it was 7, Truthiz, but …

    Any of you experts know exactly in each room how many bullets were shot?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    I meant the trial jury has heard the evidence that the court of appeal decided “any jury would convict upon” and come up with their vedict, Binnie has found on the BOP
    Some of the court of appeal reasoning makes me laugh Joe Karam sums it up quite well in the appendix to his new book

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Nick K (1,256 comments) says:

    …and considered in light of my interview with David Bain on 23 July 2012, persuade me that David Bain is factually innocent of the murder of his parents and sisters and brother as alleged by the prosecution. I recommend
    that this conclusion of factual innocence be adopted by the Cabinet”.

    Oh, look, this is just bullshit. What was David Bain supposed to say and act like at the interview? Was he supposed to say, “Yeah, I fucking shot the prick. In fact I shot all of them. But I want a few mill to see me through life. So sign the bloody report, Binnie”.

    Um, no. He wasn’t. He was *meant* to be innocent, caring, believable. That was his fucking job!!! So what if he pronounces innocence until the cows come home. Of course he is going to do that. He wants the millions!! Binnie has put far too much weight against this “evidence” IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Dotcom points out:

    The mathematical difference between BRD and BOP is with reasonable doubt (WRD)… No Court has been asked to decide this question, nor has it decided this question.

    And nor could it. But it could if a Justice Minister had the gumption to legislate to permit a finding of “not proven” along with “guilty” and “not guilty”,as is available to juries in Scotland (and, slightly differently, Italy).

    Not only would it help juries (who, despite good instructions from judges, still often struggle with the fact that not guilty =/= innocent, by allowing them to bring in a finding that better expressed how they felt about some cases) it would also give the public, who can’t be expected to follow the minutiae of these cases, a handy shorthand guide to what the jury actually felt. I wonder, had that verdict been available to the Bain jury, whether they would have opted for it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    twistedlemon…
    I’m not debating the subjectivity. I’m debating the allocation of a number by gut reaction

    Gut feeling is the same thing as subjectivity. This doesn’t mean that it always make sense. The opinion of the expert who said that Robin committed suicide is one of those subjective/gut-feeling absurd claim. But the expert didn’t come up with a probability number, did he? He used linguistic terms as Kent stated above. You put probability numbers instead of linguistic terms (same thing).

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

    Sorry EIGHT !

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

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    I don’t respect anybody who just assigns a number on gut reaction without backing it up!
    Gut feeling is not the same as subjectivity when assigning probabilities!

    Can I say because I go to a boys’ school and I look around and don’t see any girls that 100% of school pupils are boys?
    Its a gut reaction which has no basis in fact.

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

    Recast:

    My guess is Mum, ONE in the head, then ONE (2) at Stephen (grazing him), then he got throttled with d T Shirt, then execution SHOT (3) thru the top of head, then across to Laniet, struggling with the damaged glasses, ONE (4) in the wall, ONE (5) thru the cheek, then on to Arawa, by now vision really impaired and strained from fight with Stephen, he makes her beg on floor in front of him, gets real close, SHOT (6) in head, then back upstairs hears Laniet is still alive, EXECUTES (7) her, then cleans up, does run and waits for dad, ONE (8) in the head.
    guesstimate — EIGHT, maybe another miss but I don’t recall it, and not counting misfires …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    truthiz,
    could you kill a person who surely screamed (pain from first shot) without waking the others?
    in particular laniet was still in bed…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    so adding the misfires – one in stephens room one where robin died… any others?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I still have not heard from anyone why robin would be walking around with his socks on. He had slippers on when he died.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    twistedlemon, gut feeling is the same thing as subjectivity.

    You seem to be weaseling around. Let me ask you again. Did the gun expert who testified that robyn committed suicide reached his conclusion via what? a) subjective b) gut feeling c) combination of both?

    Which ones?

    twistedlemon…
    Can I say because I go to a boys’ school and I look around and don’t see any girls that 100% of school pupils are boys?

    You simply don’t understand logic and the way human brain works do you? What you’ve just stated above is perfectly valid since our mind does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward chaining reasoning all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    The correct link for backward chaining reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Here’s a question for everyone wanking on about Bayes Theorem – given that Laniet was a prostitute, what was the probability that she was the victim of incest? You know, I think there might actually be some REAL DATA out there about that, and I think the probability might be pretty high. And that points to two things – one it gives Robin a motive, and two he may not have been the sainted creature that a lot of people seem to believe he was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    chuck,
    hmm interesting – surely he cant have thought he was going to get bloody – that wouldnt have been the plan.
    He might have had some clothes at the house but surely not slippers – they would be at his caravan would they not? adn he would want them to walk outside.

    So he wore them over (very high probability)

    he wouldnt change out of them at the house to get his murdering done – thats weird, but he must have taken them off to get the socks bloody (which he then washes) but not the slippers… even if he came over in socks and slippers he still has to take the slippers off (weird) then find then again and put them back on (?) and then shoot himself…

    presumably this implies he did the same with all the clothes… ??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Falafulu Fisi (2,118) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
    twistedlemon, gut feeling is the same thing as subjectivity.

    You seem to be weaseling around. Let me ask you again. Did the gun expert who testified that robyn committed suicide reached his conclusion via what? a) subjective b) gut feeling c) combination of both?’

    The ‘soot’ around the wound – featuring more on one side than the other, the trajectory of the shot – supported by soot ‘capture’ around the wound, the blood on his trousers, his dna found inside the rifle – supporting the soot around the wound as being close contact and therefore supporting the vacuum effect, the lack of shielding in the spatter, the position of the body, the position of the rifle, statistical data, neither subjective, gut feeling or maths. In Binnie’s case it would have gone further – the dynamics of the family, opportunity, the computer turn on time, the footprints, the overall scene detail by detail, the tensions in the family, Robin’s comparative outlook in life and so in goes on, narrow – then wider. The perspective and tests that Fisher claimed didn’t happen in the ‘right’ way.

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

    As I told you the other day, read the evidence. He said ‘complete’ and tried to back out of that at the trial

    Nostalgia, once again you have made an assertion but failed to produce a link or a quote to back up your assertions.

    I repeat, Hentschel was the only forensic expert to examine and analyse the foot prints and he concluded unequivocally that they matched David. Which part of his clarification don’t you understand? Are you saying he is lying?

    He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the”complete toe and heal”; he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance, not all the luminance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Chuck Bird (2,758) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
    I still have not heard from anyone why robin would be walking around with his socks on. He had slippers on when he died.’

    We did you get that information from Chuck?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Scott Chris (4,664) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
    As I told you the other day, read the evidence. He said ‘complete’ and tried to back out of that at the trial

    Nostalgia, once again you have made an assertion but failed to produce a link or a quote to back up your assertions.

    I repeat, Hentschel was the only forensic expert to examine and analyse the foot prints and he concluded unequivocally that they matched David. Which part of his clarification don’t you understand? Are you saying he is lying?

    He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the”complete toe and heal”; he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance, not all the luminance.’

    How does complete later become qualified as not complete. How does a larger walking footprint become smaller – only by weasling out of it. As I keep telling you read the transcript or Binnie’s report, two experts one from the Crown and one from the defence agreed that footprint wasn’t made by a person with a foot the size of David’s and unfortunately for you the only other person that might have walked about the scene was your man. Who was the person that gave evidence in the first trial of the size of Robin’s foot by measuring his sock?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    Still nostalgia,
    even if they were not slippers – why would he take them off in order to do his killing then put them on for a suicide?

    I suppose the argument is that he went to bed got changed out of his clothes into somthing random (but somthing since it was cold), got up the next day – put the green jersey on over his clothes and went to the house, he now takes off his shoes and goes and does some murdering. he gets bloody so he goes and cleans up (blood us yukky anyway) then he puts a towel on and his shoes and skips back to the caravan where he puts his clothes on from the previou day (conveniently there). now he pops back to the house where he left the gun (unattended I guess despite davids impending return ) and shoots himself.

    if not that then I guess he carried a change of clothes with him.. which seems far less likely.

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

    David suggests that Stephen may have borrowed the gloves, and that they got bloodied and were found on the floor was merely incidental.

    Hmm, I don’t think so Dean. See for yourself

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Nostalgia…
    The ‘soot’ around the wound – featuring more on one side than the other, the trajectory of the shot – supported by soot ‘capture’ around the wound, the blood on his trousers, his dna found inside the rifle – supporting the soot around the wound as being close contact and therefore supporting the vacuum effect, the lack of shielding in the spatter, the position of the body, the position of the rifle, statistical data, neither subjective, gut feeling or maths.

    There’s still subjective & gut feeling in some of the observations that you’ve just stated above. Did the expert conduct a trial on a falling rifle from a position similar to robyn’s height (from his head down)? If so, how many times did he do it? How many times did it land in a position very close or similar to the position of the rifle found at the crime scene? If he didn’t do that, the he was using his gut feeling. Try dropping an oblong object like a cigarette lighter (say 100 times) from a meter and a half high and you will observe that it does land on the carpet at almost random position.

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

    Scott@6.48
    yes possible, but its the complete miss at Laniet, which I’m sure is a clue.

    maybe Dave if he is reading this, can pop in and tell us the correct order … ;)

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

    given that Laniet was a prostitute, what was the probability that she was the victim of incest?

    Quite high I’d say. At a guess, I’d say 75% likelihood ;)

    Question is, perpetrated by whom? Father? Older brother?

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

    How does complete later become qualified as not complete

    He was clarifying what he meant by ‘complete’. Have you never had to clarify what you meant by the use of any particular word?

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

    >>> Truthiz (33) said at 7:51 pm: … maybe Dave if he is reading this, can pop in and tell us the correct order … <<<

    Good idea. Dave is probably already here, so we don't want him using more than one nick.

    Help please.

    Does any of our resident experts know how many bullets were fired in each room?

    God, it would have been so much easier if only cops had done gunpowder residue tests, or kept cutouts of the lumisol-footprints. Idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “We did you get that information from Chuck?”

    From a photo on Counterspin. Do you suggest it may have been doctored?

    Now can you answer why Robin would be walking around in sock killing his family but putting his slippers back on before he topped himself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi

    ‘There’s still subjective & gut feeling in some of the observations that you’ve just stated above. Did the expert conduct a trial on a falling rifle from a position similar to robyn’s height (from his head down)? If so, how many times did he do it? How many times did it land in a position very close or similar to the position of the rifle found at the crime scene? If he didn’t do that, the he was using his gut feeling. Try dropping an oblong object like a cigarette lighter (say 100 times) from a meter and a half high and you will observe that it does land on the carpet at almost random position.’

    I can not answer that question apart from presumption. That would need to include not only ‘falling’ but recoil, the ‘right-handedness’ grip being the strongest hand. I do recall clearly from the evidence the collapse of the right knee and the fall backwards that resulted. I’ve been interested in the ‘natural’ drawing away at the final moment from the barrel when in fact it may have been the opposite. I think your maths applies to the apparent ‘cleverness’ of placing the rifle on the ‘wrong’ side if it were a staged suicide, which extends into other factors of David Bain, if guilty, never taking the ‘statisticaly high position’ of blaming somebody else, however subtly – and in this case his father, to save his own skin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Chuck Bird (2,759) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
    “We did you get that information from Chuck?”

    From a photo on Counterspin. Do you suggest it may have been doctored?

    Now can you answer why Robin would be walking around in sock killing his family but putting his slippers back on before he topped himself?’

    Change your sources Chuck.

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

    Okay, good people. Dotcom promised you more gems Here is your next gem (or what Elaycee will no doubt call next moronic episode).

    Most people agree, and certainly the experts agree (so don’t jump in here and argue for the point of arguing) that whoever wore the green pullover was the killer, and whoever left the luminol-footprints was the killer. Also, whoever turned on the computer was the killer.

    Well here’s one more that is less-often talked about.

    Whoever took the 10-shot magazine out of the rifle and replaced it in the rifle with the 5-shot magazine, some time between the 4th and 5th killing, was also the killer. Agreed so far? (Think before posting please).

    Now I have a few questions about that event – the changing of the cartridges – that no-one else seems to have seen as important.

    The magazines were made of hard plastic (some special name I can’t remember). They ought to have had fingerprints on them. Both the 10-shot one next to Robin’s hand, and the 5-shot one still in the rifle when cops found it, ought to have had fingerprints on them.

    But there were no fingerprints. Please explain?

    If Robin were the killer, he had no need to avoid fingerprinting these magazines, and fingerprints would have certainly been found, but none were.

    If David were the killer, he would have been careful not to get fingerprints on either magazine or they would have been enough on their own to finger him as the murderer.

    Ergo, the lack of fingerprints (including an absence of historical fingerprints from David from when the magazines were purchased or stored in his room for example), points strongly to David being the killer.

    I might be wrong, but I think this has not been done before. Anyone is welcome to tell me otherwise, and Dotcom would be more pleased than anyone to learn of it.

    Dotcom advises that there is more where this has come from.

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

    For my next post you will need this link:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-empty-shell-casing

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

    Now then, not only would there have been fingerprints on the magazines of Robin were the killer, there is something even more profound about these items.

    We know that the 10-shot magazine was found right next to dead Robin’s right hand. You need to go to the bottom of the link I already left – and to the foot of the page (ctrl-end on your keyboard).

    First, let’s assume that the Robin-suicide people are correct for a moment. This scenario would mean that shortly before his shooting himself, Robin changed the magazines. Agreed so far? Pause if necessary before continuing.

    Right, so Robin is changing the magazines over. If he is right next to the coffee table (no matter standing or kneeling or even sitting on the coffee table) and he has just removed the 10-shot magazine from the rifle, where are 999 Robins out of a thousand going to put down the 10-shot magazine?

    a) ON THE COFFEE TABLE? or
    b) on the floor under the coffee table and on its side?

    If you think he would have put it on the floor and on its narrow side, then Robin is probably your killer.

    But if you think that like 999 out of a thousand Robins, our Robin would have put it on the coffee table, then David is your killer.

    More pieces of Dotcom genius to come. Keep watching this space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. mikenmild (11,702 comments) says:

    Okay, I’m confused now. Who is the greatest genius, Dotcom or Falafulu Fisi?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    • Nostalgia-NZ (1,900) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
    ‘Chuck Bird (2,759) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
    “We did you get that information from Chuck?”
    From a photo on Counterspin. Do you suggest it may have been doctored?
    Now can you answer why Robin would be walking around in sock killing his family but putting his slippers back on before he topped himself?’
    Change your sources Chuck.

    I am not part of Counterspin but your response shows why it is a waste of time trying engage in sensible debate with David’s fan club.

    When you do not have an answer you dodge the questions like David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Okay, I’m confused now. Who is the greatest genius, Dotcom or Falafulu Fisi?

    It nearly was David until Judith intervened.

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

    > it is a waste of time trying engage in sensible debate with David’s fan club.

    It sure is. If a video came out tomorrow showing David commiting the murders, the Bainers would claim that it must be Bain’s long lost twin brother.

    There are plenty of online sources showing Robin wearing shoes (or slippers) when he was killed. He wasn’t wearing just socks. Isn’t it weird that he apparently went round the house in his socks to commit the murders – and somehow managed to avoid getting blood on those socks – and then put on his shoes before killing himself.

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

    Now let’s assume David were your killer.

    He changes the bullet-magazines in the rifle. After killing Robin, he has 25 minutes to set the scene, including moving Robin’s body and placing the (wiped) magazine mms from Robin’s hand so as to frame him.

    _______________

    While I’m on moving Robin’s body, and noting that people have been talking about probabilities today, please answer this.

    What are the probabilities of suicide victims dying with their left hand on their hip/belly. I think you will find that it is almost never that a forearm falls onto the victim’s body, compared to by the victim’s side.

    But too much for some of you to take in in one ten minute Dotcom burst.

    More pieces of Dotcom genius to follow. But not necessarily tonight. You have enough to keep you busy for now.

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

    In summary to keep you busy, Robin-suicide fans, please explain away:

    a) the lack of Robin’s fingerprints on the 5-shot magazine.

    b) the lack of Robin’s fingerprints on the 10-shot magazine.

    c) the placement of the 10-shot magazine elsewhere than on the coffee table,
    as 999 Robins out of a thousand would have done.

    d) the placement of Robin’s right hand on his dead hip/belly.

    Thank you,
    Tony Dotcom

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

    At 9.13 of this doco it is clear that Robin was wearing shoes when he was killed.

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

    And
    e) your explanation for the newspaper being where it is in the same photo (remembering that Dotcom thinks it was put there as a ‘lure’, for Robin to come over to the alcove curtains).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    I asked “given that Laniet was a prostitute, what was the probability that she was the victim of incest?”

    Scott Chris replied “Quite high I’d say. At a guess, I’d say 75% likelihood ;)
    Question is, perpetrated by whom? Father? Older brother?”

    My response is: David was not that much older than Laniet. Laniet said it was her father. Her father lived with her at Taieri mouth. So likely to have been the father.

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

    > Laniet said it was her father.

    Really? Have you got a copy of her trial transcript? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    No I believe she was dead by the time of the trial and didn’t actually give evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    It sure is. If a video came out tomorrow showing David commiting the murders, the Bainers would claim that it must be Bain’s long lost twin brother.

    There are plenty of online sources showing Robin wearing shoes (or slippers) when he was killed. He wasn’t wearing just socks. Isn’t it weird that he apparently went round the house in his socks to commit the murders – and somehow managed to avoid getting blood on those socks – and then put on his shoes before killing himself.’

    Just like the evidence of David hating his father rossie, which you quoted from the Binnie report but failed to produce. ‘Plenty of online resources showing shoes or slippers.’ More bs from the master.

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

    Peculiar of Judge Binnie to take the Dunedin Police and others to task and then produce a large number of flaws and errors himself.

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

    c) the placement of the 10-shot magazine elsewhere than on the coffee table, as 999 Robins out of a thousand would have done.

    To be fair, a fair few people who were about to commit suicde would probably have thrown the magazine away. Why place it on a table or the ground? But it would have been easier to place it on the table nearby than have to kneel or bend over and place it on the ground. Bear in mind that Robin ought to have been running short of time, having woken up at (most likely) 6.32am. That didn’t give him much time to find the trigger lock, find the gun and ammo, find David’s opera gloves, put them on, possibly attach a silencer, kill 4 people, wash up, change his clothes, put on shoes, turn on the computer, wait til it warms up, writes the strange message, then shoot himself, all before David gets home!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    I’ll kick it off with some honest questions (ie I suspect you may well answer them to my satisfaction)

    1) if he moves robins body is it not likely that he will have to clean up again? but he has already done a cleanup so he could go on his paper route and there is no time for a washing cycle now. isn’t that odd?

    a/b) how well do magazines take fingerprints? what if his hands were wet from just washing them lets say? would he tend to obliterate previous fingerprints by david when he handles it in order to load the gun?

    or could robin have been still considering getting away with the crime and went into suicide mode very late as a result of maybe david coming home or some realization that there was just too much blood.

    c) magazine is very weird.. i think the defense like to hint that the police moved it?

    d) have we got a good sample of how people fall after a shot like that? i take it he gets a bit of sideways momentum from the shot and his arm is bent.. if that is the case I can see it falling onto his stomach, potentially.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    ‘Plenty of online resources showing shoes or slippers.’ More bs from the master.

    Nostalgia,
    you were sounding reasonable before, now I am not following you at all… did someone else come and take over your computer and post under your name?

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

    > Just like the evidence of David hating his father

    You still haven’t read Binnie’s report…what’s taking you so long? All those big words confuse you?

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

    “What was the probability that she was the victim of incest?” Scott Chris replied “Quite high I’d say. At a guess, I’d say 75% likelihoodQuestion is, perpetrated by whom? Father? Older brother?”

    Good question

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

    >>> Dotcom (55) said at 9:12 pm: … d) the placement of Robin’s right hand on his dead hip/belly. <<<

    RH should be "left hand".

    Anyone know where the lookup is to establish chances of a suicide-by-shooting victim's hand ending up on the top of their body, when odds are it always falls to the floor?

    Tony Dotcom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Kent Parker (431) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
    “What was the probability that she was the victim of incest?” Scott Chris replied “Quite high I’d say. At a guess, I’d say 75% likelihoodQuestion is, perpetrated by whom? Father? Older brother?”

    Good question’

    By the one she consistently blamed Kent. Unless she was covering up for David. Why would she do that Kent, or provide an alibi for him. Do the maths, I think for somebody versed in maths and science it goes zero – zero.

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

    >>> Scott1 (128) asked at 9:33 pm: I’ll kick it off with some honest questions … c) magazine is very weird.. i think the defense like to hint that the police moved it?

    Yes, police did move the magazine. They accidentally knocked it over, but not until well after the photo was taken with magazine on its side mms from Robin’s hand.

    Allegations of police malfeasance don’t hold water in this discussion, and won’t either in Cabinet’s considerations.

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

    Some relevant quotes from Mathias (link above):

    “At the measured 280 mm the prints were exact matches for prints left by Robin Bain’s foot.”

    “It is in my opinion appropriate for a fact-finder to accept that David’s foot did not make these prints. The footprints are direct evidence of who the killer was.”

    “When the final form of the footprint evidence is included in the assessment it overwhelms the cumulative effect of the other evidence … now David’s innocence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

    “In Bayesian terms the likelihood ratio is so strongly in favour of the hypothesis that David is innocent that there is no real possibility that he is guilty.”

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

    Scott1 (128) said at 9:33 pm: I’ll kick it off with some honest questions … 1) if (David) moves robins body is it not likely that he will have to clean up again? but he has already done a cleanup so he could go on his paper route and there is no time for a washing cycle now. isn’t that odd?

    This can only be a response to my suggestion that David moved Robin’s body.

    There is a lot of evidence that David moved Robin’s body which I haven’t covered in my comments above.

    My point about the statistical odds of the hand being off the ground is just one new question that appears not to have been in headlines over the years.

    Your question is a legitimate question in its own right as a question, but does not answer my point about the statistical probability of the hand being where it is in the photo.

    Yes, these are competing questions, but yours does not answer mine. That said, thanks for the challenge. You might be right. I might be right. The question is ultimately what Cabinet sees as the BOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Laniet said David was molesting her.
    Laniet said she had had a black baby.
    Laniet said her father was molesting her.
    Laniet lied like a trooper. David lies like a trooper.
    I wouldn’t believe anything either of them said,because I wouldn’t know when they were lying and when they were telling the truth. It would just be a coin toss.

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

    David having shifted the body, is also indicated by photos I don’t have access to. Robin’s blood is indicated in one such photo as apparently having run upwards against gravity.

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

    Based on your maths and science and probability expertise what probabilities would you assign to the fingerprint evidence (can’t seem to get the link working) of crown expert Kim Jones verses the defence expert Carl Lloyd? given that Jones agrees with Lloyd that 1. Blood does not flouresce
    2. His evidence at the 1995 trial that it did was wrong but this was “so that the jury would understand”
    3. The colour of the ridges was the wrong colour if the fingerprint was made in blood “but this was because the photo is a negative”
    Also Jones disagrees with the Hentshell on where the sample was taken from but he suggests that he is correct and Dr Hentschell is mistaken
    So what probability to you suggest I think maybe 20% might be being generous to Jones

    It is clear that the probability that the fingerprints belonged to David is 100%. We can then assign a probability to whether the fingerprints are in oil, animal blood or human blood depending on our judgment of the various merits of the experts. Binnie, in his assessment would tend to discard all except one and conclude that it is, say, animal blood, I can’t remember which one he chooses, but that is wrong. He should assign a probability to each, and as you suggest we can give Jones 20% for human blood, maybe 30% to mammalian blood and 50% to oil. We cannot discount Jone’s evidence entirely. How we factor that into the probability equation then becomes important. Clearly if it is human blood then that implicates David as the murderer, so we might be forgiven for saying the fingerprint evidence, because it has a 20% chance of being human blood means that David has 20% probability of being guilty on that particular item. It depends on what level of detail we want to go to. A simpler analysis might focus on the presence of the fingerprints only. David’s fingerprints were on the murder weapon but Robin’s were not, therefore we might assign 75% probability that David used the gun to murder and 25% that it was Robin. Forget all the clever explanations, the incontrovertible facts speak for themselves: David’s fingerprints were on the gun and not Robin’s. But, alas, you say, what if the fingerprints really were incidental and David really is innocent. Well, I answer, then this apparently incriminating item will be balanced up against other items which point with greater probability towards Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I asked GOD what were the chances of a right-handed man committing suicide by shooting himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and he said we don’t take loonies up here.

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

    This is the hand/magazine proximity photo
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    The scent of desperation, who would have thought of it so easily escaping.

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

    The magazine would leave some sort of print but it is unlikely that there would have been print that met the standards for evidential purposes.
    Much has been raise using statistical number to try and prove that rifle don’t leave fingerprints. This is not strictly true as most guns are oiled to prevent rust which in turn prevent fingerprint being left. The Bain rifle had fingerprints on it so that meant it was receptive to receiving finger prints but it begs the question why aren’t Robins on it if he used it especially as he would have been perspiring more after the fight with Stephen. The prints of David and were in pristine condition yet claimed to be 3-6 month old well my experience of blood on rifle is after that length of time the blood would have been flaky and a high possibility of prints in rust. Those print showed up in a polilight so they had to be either in blood or another substance that adsorbs the polilight rays. Judge Binnie lacked the experience to judge this and discounted this piece of evidence on the basis of the NZ expert disagree on another mater so considered them unreliable.

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

    Here’s a question for everyone wanking on about Bayes Theorem – given that Laniet was a prostitute, what was the probability that she was the victim of incest? You know, I think there might actually be some REAL DATA out there about that, and I think the probability might be pretty high. And that points to two things – one it gives Robin a motive, and two he may not have been the sainted creature that a lot of people seem to believe he was.

    David Bain himself says that it is unlikely that incest was taking place. This is recorded in tab G of the appendices to Binnie’s report. This is yet more contradictory testimony from the master of contradictory/mysterious/enigmatic testimony. What do we make of it? Is David Bain wrong and Joe Karam right? We cannot know for sure, therefore the best thing we can do is to assign 50% probability to the idea.

    However how does this connect with the murders? According to David’s defence team, it provides the motive for Robin to commit murder. Noticeably Binnie ignores this notion completely in favour of some other motive such as “he was angry and frustrated”. How Binnie can know this is anyone’s guess. Anyway ultimately one has to assign some kind of probability to motive. We could be generous and say that for Robin there was a 50% chance that he had motive for murder. We do this because, despite what Binnie says, there are plenty of motives for David Bain to murder, such as the inheritance, the fractious nature of his relationship with other family members and so on. Motive is a bit of a hard one to pin down, not like fingerprints or blood splatter and so, as Binnie quite rightly suggests, not too much weight should be put on this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    dotcom,
    well i think that i can agree that it would be more likely in an average suicide for the hand to be by the side but we are beyond our level of expertise to allocate much of a probability to it.

    So I am very easily swayed,
    but it does seem possible that the head swings back the sholders follow the arm and hand (bent) now starts to move then the body hits the ground – the hand/arm pulled by the body still has sideways momentum after the body has stopped and is still higher than the body so flops over it.. A very uneducated hypothesis… but i dont know how much information you are building your psoition on so I dont know if it is more robust.

    I imagine a standard low power gun into the mouth from a standing position (and many variations on that) – probably hand drops to the side fairly straight.. So no issue that that is probably the normal result..

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

    In my discussion in the previous post I omitted to say that David Bain would also have 50% motive for murder. That is the safest conclusion. Binnie is quite wrong in saying that David Bain had no motive. Human motive is one of the most complex puzzles in the universe. How can he know, for crying out loud? We are supposed to be dealing with facts not speculation.

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

    Thanks Scott. Not looking for guesses which yours is at 10.26. Looking for people who know where to look up on the internet what the statistical chances are of arm finishing up on the body as distinct from finishing up on the floor.

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

    Kent, I put in a detailed comment on motive earlier today.

    Means, motive and opportunity has its own Wikipedia page
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

    Americans (including Binnie’s Canadians) say that if you solve the motive, you’ve solved the crime.

    $600,000 then equals Well Over One Million Dollars worth of motive today.

    Murders have occurred for $100, let alone for Well Over One Million Dollars of motive.

    Yet Binnie gave over only one paragraph of his 193-page report to motive. One tenth of one percent of the Binnie Report given over to ‘motive’.

    It’s judicial negligence on a grand scale. It’s scandalous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Now, its time to go and party. Its end of the year though. So, Pete George, I’m off to Ponsonby Rd, perhaps Chapel bar or Lime bar, looking to get laid. I’ll tell you tomorrow of the probabilistic likelihook of being scoring a nice lady. But I do hiphop dance Pete George, and if I can persuade young ladies using probabilistic reasoning then Falafulu starts moving like Michael Jackson. The fact is Pete George, ladies love a good dancer guy regardless if he’s dumb or not. So, sometimes my moves will get me to score sometimes. If you doubt Pete George, then next time you’re in Auckland, get in touch and I’ll take you to dance bars and you can witness that I don’t have to talk sometimes, I just move around the dance floor.

    You all have a good night bcos I’m off to get laid and perhaps I’ll bump into David Bain in some bars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. BlairM (2,364 comments) says:

    I am not sure what Nostalgia-NZ’s point of view is now. Is he claiming that the crime scene photo of Robin wearing shoes was photoshopped? I’m not sure how he explains Robin’s strong desire to change clothes and do washing, yet not go to the bathroom, before topping himself.

    In crazy Karamland, this somehow all makes sense, but not to me, and not to most intelligent people who aren’t Canadian Supreme Court justices.

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

    Scott1 (129) said at 9:33 pm: I’ll kick it off with some honest questions … how well do magazines take fingerprints? what if his hands were wet from just washing them lets say?

    Fingerprints on this type of plastic were almost as good as on glass. Robin’s hands were not washed according to police notes from the time — Robin’s hands still had gardening grime on them.

    And a man about to shoot himself dead, would have been sweating profusely, thus enhancing the prints that a Robin hand on the magazines would have produced.

    Ergo, Robin did not change the magazines over in the rifle. David did, meaning emphatically, that David was your killer.

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

    >>> Falafulu Fisi (2,121) said at 10:59 pm … I’m off to get laid <<<

    Why do Pacific men come so quickly? Because they can't wait to get down to the pub to tell their mates about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    From a correspondent,

    The reason why David Bain could easily win on Judicial Review on a single point:

    The probability of the footprint being Robin’s is extremely high. In fact, it’s virtually certain because even with maximum error allowance on the measurements (ie 5mm), it couldn’t be longer than 285mm. David’s average print was 306mm I think. Even if there was a 5mm loss at the toe and the same at the heel – and it can’t be more than that and still show the ‘top’ of the toes – that brings it down to 296. To get down to 285 would be impossible.

    So the questions then are: 1) Given that the footprint is Robin’s, what the probability it could have been left by him innocently? Answer from the Solicitor-general: nil. 2) Given that the footprint does exist, what is the likelihood David is innocent? Answer: Infinite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    ahh yes – i forgot about the dirty hands, should have remembered that.
    Still to give the next report writer his proabilities of it being possible we do need some evidence regarding how likely it is (by accident) for the magazines to have no useable finger prints.

    Also do we know if the magazine was suspciously clean (ie did it have some partial prints or was it just really clean (wiped down)? was it fingerprinted?

    also I hear that they said the keyboard was not in a state likely to hold fingerprints (even prior to cox using it).. does anyone know what they mean by that?

    In the absence of the above into i guess I would say that Robin, in the robin hypothesis, changed clothes and cleaned up – so I take it he would also have considered wiping down magazines etc. (which leads to the suggestion the message on the computer isnt a suicide note).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. big bruv (14,141 comments) says:

    Is it just me or do others notice that the Bainiacs all frame their argument in support of the mass murder with “but what if?”

    I guess the way that Bainiacs are happy to stretch the truth and believe in wacky and impossible theories helps explain why there are also some people who believe in the sky fairy.

    Both are equally stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,

    but Nil isnt a valid answer to probability of that sort.
    what is the probability of the sock not having blood all over it such that it would not leave a full print?
    is there really 0 probability robin would get a little blood on him (walking into a murder scene) and then go to that location?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    I note as i have said before what the Answer from the Solicitor-general says in the context of a beyond reasonable doubt case is not what he might say in a BOP case.. but even if it was – he is obviously wrong, because you cant say nil to anything like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘big bruv (10,881) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 6:38 am
    Is it just me or do others notice that the Bainiacs all frame their argument in support of the mass murder with “but what if?”

    I guess the way that Bainiacs are happy to stretch the truth and believe in wacky and impossible theories helps explain why there are also some people who believe in the sky fairy.

    Both are equally stupid.’

    Give examples or you merely show who the stupid person is. Examples of your deductions were printed in North and South Magazine, hardly flattering.

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

    > Given that the footprint does exist, what is the likelihood David is innocent? Answer: Infinite.

    On your planet that is correct, but back on planet earth the likelihood he is innocent is right up there with the Black Caps demolishing South Africa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Given that the footprint is Robin’s, what the probability it could have been left by him innocently? Answer from the Solicitor-general: nil. 2) Given that the footprint does exist, what is the likelihood David is innocent? Answer: Infinite.

    @Nostalgia-NZ, even Binnie the ninny does not claim that the footprint is definitely Robin’s. He did not claim that David was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and that was one of his tasks. The first jury were obviously not convinced and did not accept your illogical reasoning.

    Just slightly off topic. Do you think the State should have paid OJ Simpsons legal costs as the jury found him not guilty or innocent according to your way of thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    David might be innocent. The world might end today. Which is the most likely?

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

    “Yet Binnie gave over only one paragraph of his 193-page report to motive. One tenth of one percent of the Binnie Report given over to ‘motive’.”

    Binnie seemed to think that motive was very important. He said as much early in his report. So when David told him the estate was worth $600k, Binnie might have been expected to take note. Alas, he’d already concluded that Bain was innocent. Thus Bain could have told Binnie that he was desperate for money but it wouldn’t have made any difference. The old timer’s ears were closed by that stage.

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

    > David might be innocent. The world might end today. Which is the most likely?

    According to some, the latter is highly likely. I wonder how many are Bain supporters :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    …reason why David Bain could easily win on Judicial Review….

    Looks like the cheer squad is giving up on scoring an ex gratia handout of taxpayer dollars courtesy of Cabinet.

    With good reason!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. BlairM (2,364 comments) says:

    People slide in socks, even blood-soaked ones. The size of the footprint because of this is almost immaterial. It’s one bit of evidence that might point to Robin, the holy grail on which all hopes hinge. And yet this flimsy detail is trumpeted over all other evidence which shows the contrary – that David Bain is the killer. What if?… what if…?….what if…? What if David Bain killed his family, because that’s the most simple explanation given the evidence? Can we get over this sympathy for nerdy, lanky white boys with big ears?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (346 comments) says:

    A diagram [ http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-empty-shell-casing ] shows a four inch gap between the curtains that separate off the alcove where the computer is located.

    How did Binnie explain the empty shell casing by the leg of the computer chair if Robin committed suicide?

    If Robin left the message on the computer why would he pull the curtains hiding it, to possibly go unnoticed?

    In the consideration Binnie is said to have given the footprints then eliminated other evidence in respect to that, is it just lucky be didn’t start at the other end of the evidence and eliminate other items because of what he could have found there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    Puzzled

    1. The curtains were planted.

    2. The cartridge case was planted.

    3. There is no “if”. Robin did leave the message. It is written.

    4. The footprints are Robin’s. It is written.

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

    The probability of the footprint being Robin’s is extremely high.

    Rubbish. I’ve already explained this to you Nostalgia, but perhaps this time you’ll get the point. The only forensic expert (Dr Peter Hentschel) to have physically examined and measured the foot prints states that they are a match for David. When challenged by Bain’s defense as to why the ‘complete print’ was some 20mm shorter than Bain’s foot, he explained that it was a ‘complete print’ in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the”complete toe and heal” he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance, not all the luminance.

    Source

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

    > How did Binnie explain the empty shell casing by the leg of the computer chair if Robin committed suicide?

    Maybe the casing *could* have travelled there of its own volition. I’d be more interested to know why Robin didn’t shoot himself in the alcove. Why come into the lounge at all? Of course if David was holding the gun to his head the alcome might have been a little cramped, so if the Bainers are correct Robin could have killed himself in the alcove but decided not to. Hmmm the Bainers claim that Robin was nuts but he seems to have been thinking all the time, thinking about washing his clothes, washing himself, changing his clothes, putting on shoes, bringing in the newspaper, placing the magazine on the ground and killing himself in the lounge rather than the alcove. That’s a lot of thinking for a deranged person. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    I did not appreciate that David Bains 22 rifle had a thread fitted and custom made full over barrel suppressor. I just looked at a few pics. I thought it would have had a slip on “silencer” which while not common back then at least could have been brought from a sports shop.
    A full over barrel suppressor in 1994 would have been as rare as rocking horse shit and vastly expensive. Today the suppressor and threading of the barrel would be around $500 and I would hazard a guess to say it would have been three times that price back then. Very quiet tho which obviously came in handy. Good planning.
    Very poor choice by David to pick a semi auto as a murder weapon tho. They fling cases out and leave them as tell tale signs.

    Any one know how much he paid for the gun?

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

    At the retrial, Anna Sandiford testified for the defence. She did tests on Bain’s footprints which, perhaps unsurprisingly, assisted the defence. But it didn’t mean that David couldn’t have made the footprints at the crime scene.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/56929/foot-too-big-trial-told?page=0%2C0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    Colville

    Are you sure about that? I recall seeing a hoseclip fitting suggesting it was slide over.

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

    Was the “suicide” note the last thing on Robin’s “to do list ” that morning.
    He certainly cut it fine, David must have been walking inside as the final fullstop was typed.
    If you were the kind of person to leave a note, I’d have thought you’d do it before you started the killings.

    David must be gutted, if he had been a minute earlier he could have saved his dad, what terrible bad timing…yeah right
    another one for the tui board.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Does anyone know when the papers were delivered to David’s house for him to do his paper run? This would show if he had time to deliver some of the papers first. I have delivered pamphlets myself (not for money) and know putting them in mail boxes slows one up a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    That sockprint.
    We have to remember that sockprint could only be seen by using luminol .
    The person who found that[those] sockprint has told me that he thought at the time it was too big to be Robin Bain’s and he also said that when he showed it to Milton Weir Weir agreed with him.
    I would point out that I never asked that retired scientist to comment on that footprint. It was an unsolicited comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Colville, I am no expert on guns but David testified he took rifle to a gun shop to get the silencer fitted. Would a slide on silencer have to be fitted? I think a screw on one would obviously have to be fitted.

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

    Scott :: “also I hear that they said the keyboard was not in a state likely to hold fingerprints (even prior to cox using it).. does anyone know what they mean by that?”

    I remember a similar statement,

    Only logical answer is it was wiped down ! One of Davids final acts and most important to his scene set.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The paper run.
    As I understand it the papers were dropped off in bundles and the first bundle was dropped off at the start off the paper run at 11 Aytoun Street at around 5.45am,maybe five minutes earlier. David Bain said he left home at around 5.45am and a Mrs Rackley ,who lives not far from the start of the run said she received her paper at 6am.,which she said was earlier than usual. David Bain told his aunt that he left to go on his paper round earlier than usual that morning and that he had run all the way.
    In my opinion the reason why David Bain left earlier that morning was because he wanted to be home by 6.40am,the time he said his father usually entered the house. He wouldn’t have wanted his father to be in the house with a lot of dead bodies for too long. I am pretty sure that is why he looks at his watch just after passing through Heath Street. Why would he be checking on the time otherwise? But there are many theories as to what actually happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    This thread is just over 300 comments on the comments three law professors have made regarding the comments of a fourth [Fisher] had made on a fifth [Binnie].

    The earlier thread ‘Dom Post on Binnie report’ had 996 comments.

    When will people arrive at the conclusion that Collins in seeking a report, from any single person [or now even a panel] that will met with any reasonable criticism, to indicate any greater degree of innocence than the retrial verdict, may be a task no one can at moment can fulfill?

    As often quoted on kiwiblog –
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    – Albert Einstein

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (402) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 9:21 am

    Next time you are having a chat with that retired scientist, can you ask him why his testimony about those sock prints changed between trials? One would have thought that measurements were just that, and couldn’t change. While he was of the opinion that the correct comparison was sock size, he was adamant that he had seen the complete foot. Once he learned that actual foot sizes were needed to be compared to the print, and they were obviously larger, he suddenly became unsure of what he saw.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “When will people arrive at the conclusion that Collins in seeking a report, from any single person [or now even a panel] that will met with any reasonable criticism, to indicate any greater degree of innocence than the retrial verdict”

    @Yvette

    I do not think so. Collins would would like the report to show that David is more likely than not to have committed the murders and the more likely the better which most on this thread know is the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Kanz

    Can you give a reason why Robin would have taken off his shoes or slippers to do the killing and then thrown away the blood soaked socks where the police could not find them and put his show on before killing himself?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,769) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 9:53 am

    Honestly? No, I cannot give a reason why Robin did anything that he did that morning. My mind has never been in the state that his obviously was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    David Bain purchased that rifle on February 6, 1993. He paid $200 for it and paid another $30 for a cleaning kit and bullet belt. He purchased the silencer shortly afterwards. I can’t recall him ever saying what he paid for the silencer.

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

    > My mind has never been in the state that his obviously was.

    What state is that?

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

    “Can you give a reason why Robin would have taken off his shoes or slippers to do the killing and then thrown away the blood soaked socks where the police could not find them and put his show on before killing himself?”

    Of course there’s not a skerrick of evidence that Robin did any of that. Occam’s Razor would therefore suggest that that scenario is false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    I spoke to that retired scientist a couple of years ago. I don’t think there will be a next time.
    The point is that the evidence as to who those sockprints were made by is inconclusive and Binnie should never have decided otherwise.
    And I would also point out that the sock that made those prints must have had quite a lot of blood on it yet David Bain managed to put it in the washing machine without noticing that blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (405) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 10:06 am

    They are only claimed to be inconclusive because said ‘scientist’ changed how he described them. He only did this after finding out that the criteria on which he based his initial conclusion (the sock size) was absolutely foolish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Can you self-hypnotise yourself? David told Binnie his mother could. Binnie should have asked David if his mother taught him how to hypnotise himself. I mean he may have been able to hypnotise himself on and off at will.
    Barrbara Short,who knew the Bain family very well told me that she believed David was “under possession” when committed the murders,which she is sure is what he did. But I am starting to wonder if he was in a self imposed hypnotic state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (406) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 10:13 am

    Now you are telling absolute lies. Barbara Short does not believe David killed his family under any circumstances.
    My Question now must be why do you think it is important that you make up such lies and post them on public message boards?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz.
    That retired scientist told me those sockprints were to large to be Robin’s. Now we are never going to be able to prove who they were made by, just like we are never going to be able to prove that David Bain’s fingers had blood on them when they were placed on the rifle, even though the police fingerprint expert is sure that they did have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Barbara Short told me when I phoned her a few weeks ago that she was sure David Bain killed his family but that he doesn’t know that he did it because he was “under possession ” at the time. She said I wouldn’t understand what the term “under possession” meant but that the natives of Papua New Guinea would. She said that when she visited David Bain in prison every time she asked him about the murders he went “under possession”.
    So don’t you go accusing me of telling lies,Kanz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    More black magic and bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I see that Dotcom,who I presume is not the same Dotcom who has been running rings around the government of late-I bet Jonn Key wishes he had never heard of him-has posted a link showing that magazine next to Robin Bain’s hand.
    Now Binnie seems to have been under the impression that that magazine was empty,but in fact it had three live rounds in it.
    So my question would be why would Robin Bain change magazines when the magazine he took out of the rifle had three live rounds in it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,906) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 10:33 am

    More black magic and bullshit.

    That is almost all that is left when the evidence does not support the stance that he has.
    I say almost, because what he has left is to claim to have spoken to a cell mate of Bains who heard him confess in his sleep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I see the bullshit expert is back posting again. But I tend to agree about the black magic,although Barbara Short,who came across as an intelligent lady,and who was a missionary teacher in PNG for many years,said most people wouldn’t understand the term “under possession”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    I don’t know any criminals well enough to speak to,but maybe you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (411) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 10:44 am

    How well did you know the people you claim to have talked to up until now? If you wish to retain even a slight semblance of the ability to reason, you at least need to be consistent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    We seem to have drifted off the subject somewhat, but I see that some posters have mentioned percentages so I will ask the following questions.
    Those glasses that were found in David Bain’s room.
    They were a pair of his mother’s that he said he had worn previously when his were unavailable as was the case that weekend.
    He told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend,they weren’t perfect,he said ,but they got him by.
    He told his trial lawyer that he would be admitting to wearing those glasses on the Sunday and the days prior.
    So my questions would be
    [1] Had David Bain been wearing those glasses that were found in his room or
    [2] Did somone else put them there?
    Now I don’t know what anyone else would think but I would say 100% that David Bain was wearing those glasses and 0% that someone else put them in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Denise Laney said that Joe Karam had phoned her.
    Barbara Short said that Joe Karam had phoned her.
    I don’t believe that Joe Karam knows either of those woman any better than I do.
    What say you to that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (412) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 10:55 am

    About the glasses, show one piece of evidence that links them to the murders and you may have a point. I believe the police and prosecutors tried every way possible to prove a link and came up with nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Kanz (130) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 9:50 am
    muggins (402) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 9:21 am

    Next time you are having a chat with that retired scientist, can you ask him why his testimony about those sock prints changed between trials? One would have thought that measurements were just that, and couldn’t change. While he was of the opinion that the correct comparison was sock size, he was adamant that he had seen the complete foot. Once he learned that actual foot sizes were needed to be compared to the print, and they were obviously larger, he suddenly became unsure of what he saw.’

    Sprung, the poor bugger. I guest it wasn’t on the table for consideration then as everyone’s minds were made up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Colville (443) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 8:43 am
    ‘I did not appreciate that David Bains 22 rifle had a thread fitted and custom made full over barrel suppressor. I just looked at a few pics. I thought it would have had a slip on “silencer” which while not common back then at least could have been brought from a sports shop.
    A full over barrel suppressor in 1994 would have been as rare as rocking horse shit and vastly expensive. Today the suppressor and threading of the barrel would be around $500 and I would hazard a guess to say it would have been three times that price back then. Very quiet tho which obviously came in handy. Good planning.
    Very poor choice by David to pick a semi auto as a murder weapon tho. They fling cases out and leave them as tell tale signs.

    Any one know how much he paid for the gun?’

    Home made silencer. Attached with a ‘hose clip.’ Might have been the reason for at least one of the shots ‘tumbling.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,907) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Sprung, the poor bugger. I guest it wasn’t on the table for consideration then as everyone’s minds were made up.

    I guess so, he KNEW they were too big to be Robin’s long before he had any idea what size Robin’s foot was? What is scientific about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Scott Chris (4,668) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 8:32 am
    The probability of the footprint being Robin’s is extremely high.

    Rubbish. I’ve already explained this to you Nostalgia, but perhaps this time you’ll get the point. The only forensic expert (Dr Peter Hentschel) to have physically examined and measured the foot prints states that they are a match for David. When challenged by Bain’s defense as to why the ‘complete print’ was some 20mm shorter than Bain’s foot, he explained that it was a ‘complete print’ in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the”complete toe and heal” he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance, not all the luminance.’

    Your sources suck Scott Chris to put it politely.

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

    See the problem is where most of the other probaincompo, are misguided fools or just haters of Collins/Courts,

    Kanz, Nos, Judith, Para, Cybernana are deliberate deceivers, whose only function is to belittle people and lie about actual evidence, evidence they know to be true, but that which the Bain camp, can’t keep having it published, as these lessens the chance of Sainthood for davey …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    The fact that a lens from those glasses was found in Stephen’s room was the link. There does not have to be any other link.

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

    > Your sources suck Scott Chris to put it politely.

    Haha when in doubt, attack the messenger. So tell us what the good Dr actually said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ

    I find this “under possession ” fascinating. Was the paper run also done “under possession ”, or did he ‘slip in and out’, just as the Crown now say he did from the house when he got home?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Obviously that scientist believed that sockprint was made by someone with a larger foot than an average person would have.
    But ,I repeat, the judge said the footprint evidence was inconclusive. Now I can’t help it if you think you know better than the judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (414) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:07 am

    Kanz
    The fact that a lens from those glasses was found in Stephen’s room was the link. There does not have to be any other link.

    Oh yes there does.
    Many things were found in that room, were they all connected to the murders? What part did the skate boots play, perhaps the killer skated in to shoot Stephen? After all, they did have blood on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Elaycee (3,202) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:47 am
    …reason why David Bain could easily win on Judicial Review….

    Looks like the cheer squad is giving up on scoring an ex gratia handout of taxpayer dollars courtesy of Cabinet.

    With good reason!’

    The only people to give up have been The Crown when they rightly decided against appealing the verdict. They’ve tried to litigate their case again ‘in camera,’ accommodated by The Minister – silly mistake. Much like your admired POA who you predicted would knock over the wharfies. The old adage if you throw punches don’t be surprised when more than a few come back.

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

    I implore you good people of New Zealand to let those black souls (Kanz, Nostalgia, Cybernana, Judith, Flipper, Para) stew in their pot of hate and purge yourselves of this evil of Karam/Bain intent.

    Have a good Christmas and hopefully Joe and dave will get what they truly deserve. Costs $2 at local shop. :)

    Right, early lunch and 3 o’clock knock off … woo hoo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (415) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Justice Binnie said otherwise. Now, I can’t help it if you think being an office clerk from the time one left school until retirement qualifies one higher than him.

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

    David Bain was walking along the street when he saw a ladder going into the clouds. As any of us would do, he climbed the ladder. He reached a cloud, upon which sat a rather plump and very ugly woman.

    “Make love to me or climb the ladder to success,” she said.

    No contest, thought David, so he climbed the ladder to the next cloud. On this cloud was a slightly thinner woman, who was slightly easier on the eye.

    “Make love to me or climb the ladder to success,” she said.

    “Well,” thought David, “I might as well carry on.”

    On the next cloud was an even more attractive lady who, this time, was quite attractive.

    “Make love to me now or climb the ladder to success,” she uttered.

    As he turned her down and went on up the ladder, David thought to himself that this was getting better the further he went. On the next cloud was an absolute beauty. Slim, attractive, the lot.

    “Fuck me here and now or climb the ladder to success,” she flirted.

    Unable to imagine what could be waiting, and being a gambling man – after all, he’d gotten away with murder – he decided to climb again.

    When he reached the next cloud, there was a 400 pound ugly man, arm pit hair showing, flies buzzing around his head.

    “Who are you?” David asked.

    “Hello, David” said the fat, balding man, I’ve heard so much about you. “I’m Ces!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Exactly what I said to Barbara Short. I asked her how could David Bain have delivered every paper correctly[and as far as I am aware he did] while he was “under possession” but she said he could go “under possession” at will. She said that when she visited him in prison he went “under possession” every time she asked him a question about the murders then when she asked him a question about something else he came out of possession .

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

    > The only people to give up have been The Crown when they rightly decided against appealing the verdict.

    How could they appeal the verdict? What would be the point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘@Nostalgia-NZ, even Binnie the ninny does not claim that the footprint is definitely Robin’s. He did not claim that David was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and that was one of his tasks. The first jury were obviously not convinced and did not accept your illogical reasoning.

    Just slightly off topic. Do you think the State should have paid OJ Simpsons legal costs as the jury found him not guilty or innocent according to your way of thinking.’

    Sorry. Have no interest in O J Simpson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (416) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:19 am

    This gets better by the minute.
    Was he “under possession” of Robin’s spirit?
    Did he confess while “under possession”?
    Maybe he could become one of the ‘sensing murder’ stars and learn things while “under possession”.
    Did he display this “under possession” phenomenon when being questioned by Binnie?
    Did he display this “under possession” when giving evidence in the first trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Are you on something? David Bain never said he was wearing those skate boots. They were Stephen’s skate boots,you silly boy.
    As the Law Lords of the Privy Council said,there is no direct evidence suggesting how or why a lens from a pair of glasses that Stephen never wore and had no need to wear,was already on the floor of his bedroom prior to him being shot.
    But perhaps you can suggest how that lens got there Kanz,even though those Law Lords couldn’t figure it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Things get sadder for the analysts: not implying that Scott is one, but as the conversation continues on Binnie’s methodology prevails.

    “Scott1 (132) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Nostalgia,

    but Nil isnt a valid answer to probability of that sort.
    what is the probability of the sock not having blood all over it such that it would not leave a full print?
    is there really 0 probability robin would get a little blood on him (walking into a murder scene) and then go to that location?”

    · Scott1 (132) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 6:52 am

    I note as i have said before what the Answer from the Solicitor-general says in the context of a beyond reasonable doubt case is not what he might say in a BOP case.. but even if it was – he is obviously wrong, because you cant say nil to anything like that.

    There is no way that Robin can have left those footprints innocently – they unequivocally tie him to the scenes, they unequivocally mean he changed his socks before he committed suicide, they unequivocally mean the socks he wore that were bloodied were not found (although they may have been washed). The solicitor-general’s statement was that without the footprints their case against David collapsed – ie they would have no case against him. The reason for that ‘nil’ is simple: Weir says that the reason they went for David was the lack of blood on Robin – that there was so much blood everywhere that the killer must have had blood on him. Robin didn’t have enough, David could have removed it. But the sockprints show that so could Robin have removed it. More than that, they show that Robin DID remove it. So then we are left with a ‘Robin DID definitely remove blood’ vs “David could have but there is no hard evidence he did”.

    Sure, it’s possible to construct fantastic scenarios that render David guilty and Robin having made those prints. But this isn’t about fantasy, it’s about evidence, and there is no construction that is supported by evidence that allows Robin to have made those prints innocently. Combine it with David’s alibi (which is actual, although doubt has been introduced as to the accuracy of timing and so-on); combine those with all the circumstantial stuff which easily has an innocent explanation (with evidential support); combine those with the hard evidence of the fatal wound to Robin which is substantially more likely suicide than homicide (based on hard data) and the overall, cumulative probability that David is innocent is way beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    “But perhaps you can suggest how that lens got there Kanz,even though those Law Lords couldn’t figure it out.”

    The Bain household was chaotic. There was probably all sorts of stuff all over the place for no known reason, built up over years. I was astonished when I read Binnie’s report to find out how pathetic the glasses evidence was, given the extraordinary emphasis that was put on it by the Crown. It seems to be yet another example of the Crown conjuring up evidence to fit its predetermined hypothesis of David Bain’s guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    You would have to ask Barbara Short about what she thinks David could or could not do.
    When I asked her if David Bain would ever confess to the murders she said he wouldn’t because he was “under possession” when he committed them and so doesn’t know that he did them.
    I believe he may have been able to hypnotise himself. I mean why on earth did he bring those glasses back to his room?
    Why didn’t he just put them in his mother’s draw? Then no-one would have been any the wiser. He might have got away with it if it wasn’t for those glasses.
    Mind you,that would still leave the bruises and or sratches to explain,plus his brother’s blood on his clothes,plus his fingerprints on the rifle,etc.,etc.

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

    Your sources suck Scott Chris to put it politely.

    Nostalgia, which part of what I said is inaccurate? To blithely state that the source sucks without qualification means nothing.

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

    “I was astonished when I read Binnie’s report to find out how pathetic the glasses evidence was, given the extraordinary emphasis that was put on it by the Crown.”

    So what you’re saying is that David had no reason to lie about wearing his mother’s glasses seeing as it was irrelevant? So why did he lie? Why did he also lie when he said he loved his father, when he actually hated him? Why did he lie about not getting a tattoo? Why did he say it could be him who murdered his family, seemingly unsure if it was him or Robin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    dragonfly,
    David Bain said he was wearing those glasses that weekend. He didn’t say that a lens was missing from them. I was astonished when Binnie said that the reason for those glasses being in David Bain’s room was unexplained,and so were many other people,I don’t doubt. You need to become more informed ,dragonfly. Spend hundreds of hours researching the case like I have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,912) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:05 am

    “Home made silencer. Attached with a ‘hose clip.’ Might have been the reason for at least one of the shots ‘tumbling.’”

    I already told you David said he had the silence fitted at a gun shop. Do you think David was lying?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,372) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:41 am

    You are being silly now.
    What evidence is there, before the murder/suicide to show that Bain ‘hated his father’? You say it as though it is an indisputed fact.
    He could not possibly have lied about having a tattoo, it was obvious to Dr Pryde when he strip searched Bain that morning/afternoon.
    What proof do you have that he wore the glasses that weekend, such as even one of the many people who actually saw and spoke with him?

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

    >>> Yvette (2,217) said at 9:43 am: When will people arrive at the conclusion that Collins in seeking a report, from any single person [or now even a panel] that will met with any reasonable criticism, to indicate any greater degree of innocence than the retrial verdict <<<

    Yvette, yours is a common misconception about our legal system. Cabinet must approve any compensations payout to David Bain. But it was the Courts that decided guilt or innocence. So different decision makers, so new decision has to be made.

    Also, the grounds for finding of guilt or innocence are different from the grounds for finding that dcompensation is due, so a new decision is needed by Cabinet, rather than simply relying on a different finding of the Courts on different grounds.

    Thirdly, the onus of proof is on the opposite parties to establish guilt than it is for establishing compensation. So Cabinet has to make a new decision, and can't rely on a different decision made by the Courts.

    The Crown was required to prove guilt or otherwise to the standard of Beyond Reasonable Doubt (BRD). In the end the Crown failed to prove BRD. Now David (and his team) is required to prove on the Balance of Probabilities (BOP) that he didin't kill. His "not guilty" verdict is not a statement that he didn't kill. It is a statement that he didn't kill BRD. Which leaves With Reasonable Doubt (WRD).

    Cabinet needs to establish on the BOP, that David didn't kill, and it does not yet have the information before it, to make that decision.

    It may sound complicated to you, and it is. That is why it takes young people something like 10 years of study to become Barristers. If you don't get it yourself, then don't hurt yourself trying, you are in the company of many. But Cabinet is obliged to get it technically precise, and Cabinet is not entitled to take shortcuts in deciding David's compensation or not.

    Cabinet has to do it according to law. If Cabinet doesn't get the law exactly right, how can they expect he rest of us to get the law exactly right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,770) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:48 am

    He said he had it fitted at the shop. Did he say he bought it from there? There is a difference, you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    “Why did he also lie when he said he loved his father, when he actually hated him”

    It is possible to both love and hate a parent – this is common in dysfunctional families.

    “Why did he say it could be him who murdered his family, seemingly unsure if it was him or Robin?”

    It is not uncommon for some types of people, when accused of something, to wonder if maybe they did do it and don’t remember. I think David’s wondering if he might have done it points to him being an honest person. As for the glasses, there does seem to be conflicting evidence about whether David was wearing them or not, but the trauma of finding his family dead may have damaged his memory – also a well-known phenomenon.

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

    Next, your one-and-only Tony Dotcom wants to have a go at the topic of the luninol-footprints.

    And as you have quickly come to expect, Tony Dotcom does not follow the well-trodden path followed by thousands before him. What I have to say on the luninol-footprints will rock YOUR socks, and will smash the Justice Binnie report to smitherines.

    First though, look here and tell me what you see about the map of the lunisol-footprints. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/bloody-sock-prints-in-the-hallway-0

    More in a moment.

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

    “I’ve done a lot of soul-searching and wondering if I did it in the blackout or not…that only leaves my father, doesn’t it”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Mp9IM7-qE

    Hmmm so even after he’s been convicted, he’s still thinking whether or not he might have committed the murders. Why would he need to do any soul searching? Do Arthur Thomas or Lindy Chamberlain do soul searching, wondering if they committed murder?

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

    Sorry. “luminol” (twice)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dotcom (67) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:55 am

    As you say, your evidence follows a path not trodden by others. I believe you. Yesterday you made a case for Bain putting the paper in the lounge as a lure for his father. The newspaper was in another room altogether. It was in the entrance hallway. That will explain why no others trod that path.

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

    > I think David’s wondering if he might have done it points to him being an honest person.

    Except we know he isn’t an honest person. He denies hating his father when talking to Binnie. Whenever Binnie refers to testimony adverse to David, he says he has no memory of the events, or that the person who’s proffered the testimony is wrong. Sometimes he says he can’t remember the events but the other person is still wrong! He says he couldn’t drive a car without glsses but then admits, after Binnie catches him in a lie, that he did drive a car without glasses the day before the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    The reason why no-one saw David Bain wearing those glasses that weekend is twofold.
    First he said he only wore them for watching TV and going to lectures and no-one has come forward to say they saw him at lectures and secondly ,he shot the five people who would have seen him wearing those glasses.
    Simple as.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    No. I think we – to give you the ful l story, I had , I’d bought that rifle rig ht,
    as I said , i n ’93. I can’t remember exact dates and times. It sat i n the
    cupboard for a wee while u ntil I got to, um, I took it to the, ah, to a rifle
    shop to have the silencer fitted . I got a sling and I think I got a case for
    it and a trigger lock and then at that point once you know –

    Have you not down loaded what is on the MoJ web site yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:


    oss69 (1,374) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    > I think David’s wondering if he might have done it points to him being an honest person.

    Except we know he isn’t an honest person. He denies hating his father when talking to Binnie. Whenever Binnie refers to testimony adverse to David, he says he has no memory of the events, or that the person who’s proffered the testimony is wrong. Sometimes he says he can’t remember the events but the other person is still wrong! He says he couldn’t drive a car without glsses but then admits, after Binnie catches him in a lie, that he did drive a car without glasses the day before the murders.’

    More bullshit from ross. What a surprise. Where is that evidence ross about David hating his father? You’ve only ever made claims about it or published from a source other than the transcript. I guess you figure repeating a lie gives it some weight. But that’s all you have.

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

    >>> Raskolnikov (8) said at 12:27 pm: … I think Binnie’s approach to the footprint evidence was flawed … <<<
    So do I. Seriously flawed. And in ways that have not yet been mentioned by anyone.

    First though, please consider this. Anyone who watches real-crime TV or CSI programs, will know what a polygraph is. Well I ask you this. American law enforcement agencies all over the country use the polygraph. So why isn’t the result of polygraph tests allowed to be used as evidence? You all automatically know the answer to this – because it is so damned unreliable, and the results so damned unpredictable.

    So the rule we can take from this, is that if a forensic process is unreliable, then its results can’t be used as admissible evidence. Agreed so far? Makes sense doesn’t it.

    Okay then, why has so much reliance been placed in the 65 Every Street luminol processes. Are they reliable? How reliable are they then? 100% maybe? 80% maybe?? 60% maybe? 40% maybe? Who can answer this?

    Well I have an answer for you. And it couldn’t be more simple and it is staring all of us in the face if you have already looked at the footprint map I posted a few minutes ago.

    WHERE are the footprints that are MISSING? Did the killer hop? We don’t know. Did the killer take the bloody socks off and put them back on again as he walked through the house? We don’t know.

    Or is it more likely that the luminol process as it was applied at 65 Every Street in 194, was so unreliable that it could only detect an unpredictable number of the footprints that undoubtedly would have been left? I say that this must be the conclusion that Judith Collins must come to, and that the Binnie total reliance on this flawed procedure is nothing less than moronic.

    If the methodology was sound, not just five luminol-footprints would have been found, but up to double that number. The absence of a regularly-paced series of right-foot prints, means that the integrity of the entire process and the whole conceptual luminol system and how it was applied by police at 65 Every Street, is discredited.

    Not only is the process in the years that followed simply inconceivably fraught with potential for error, the entire capture process from day 1 was never validated as a result of the unexplained absence of some prints IN THEIR ENTIRETY. And Binnie has hung his entire career out to dry on this lack of scientific integrity??? Poor man. And he is a criminal Judge???
    What Binnie has done here is the scientific and forensic equivalent of saying that DNA as a concept works – if you take into account that DNA works only in two out of three tests.

    Note: that I’m not saying that DNA works in only 2 out of 3 instances – I’m only hypothesizing such a situation to make the point. DNA is accepted as a forensic process because it has been proven to work at close to 100 percent of the time. But here we have a test that clearly worked only sporadically, yet the entire Binnie case has been built on it.

    God save us. Only in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘Chuck Bird (2,771) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:48 am
    Nostalgia-NZ (1,912) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 11:05 am

    “Home made silencer. Attached with a ‘hose clip.’ Might have been the reason for at least one of the shots ‘tumbling.’”

    I already told you David said he had the silence fitted at a gun shop. Do you think David was lying?’

    No, I think your desperation has led you into comprehension difficulties.

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

    Please do something unusual now.

    If you are thinking of replying to the above, please first pause and take a few breaths, and think about what you are about to say first.

    Because what I have said, is absolutely correct.

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

    “What evidence is there, before the murder/suicide to show that Bain ‘hated his father’? You say it as though it is an indisputed fact.”

    David admitted at his first trial that he told Val Bod he hated his father. If you take the time to read Binnie’s report, he essentially admits to it again, but only after Binnie reminds him of Boyd’s testimony. But he doesn’t volunteer the information – why not? David complains to Binnie that he thought it was a private conversation. In other words, he doesn’t deny telling Boyd that he hated his father, he’s annoyed that she has testified to that effect. That says a lot about him.

    Remember David’s psychiatrist, Paul Mullen, said that David’s description of the love for his family was “sickening sweet”. Mullen realised he was being lied to. Binnie wasn’t clever enough to realise that David lied to him too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    Home made silencer. Attached with a ‘hose clip.’ Might have been the reason for at least one of the shots ‘tumbling.’

    Home made silencer my arse. Unless of course he had a lathe and a mill hidden in his bedroom of course. You do realise a silencer isnt just a hollow can?

    I am betting Cantubury Gun Works. Expensive and a total waste of money if your just shooting rabbits. But dear ole David wasnt intending on shooting rabbits was he.

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

    > Where is that evidence ross about David hating his father?

    I’ve told you where. Try the frst trial. Try Val Boyd’s testimony, which David agreed with. Try reading Binnie’s report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “No, I think your desperation has led you into comprehension difficulties.”

    Nothing wrong with my comprehension. There is no need for me to be desperate. David will not be able to rip the tax payer off. However, it important that the vast majority of the public agree that justice has taken place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    Maybe there is another hunter reading this thread that can help out but I just cannot remember seeing a supressor prior to about 8 or 10 years ago.???
    they just were not around. I am sure a few pro cullers etc had them but CGW started making the concentric versions with the allow expansion chambers then Dan Hardy got in on it and is doing very well. Supressors now are common and at around $500 fitted not an expensive addition to a $2 or $3K gun. They reduce up range noise by about 40% and improve accuracy. I have one on my 300 Win Mag which would alost be un usable without it as its too light to hold with such a big cartridge.

    A supressor changes a short sharp bang to a dull long thud. Awesome for not alerting other game in the area. Like in the bedroom along the hall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Colville:

    Keep up the good work and we could have a third trial on new compelling evidence.

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

    Now Chuck, you know that we can’t have a nuther trial. (Unless you ask George Gwaze what he thinks about the double jeopardy law in NZ)

    Tony

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Colville:

    Where is your evidence that the silencer was thread fitted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    That pesky strip search just won’t go away.

    other interests. I did not pressure him to talk about anything iBJ::$ghCOurtat
    any way. And did he in his conversations ever raise the topic of
    his family? No.Constable, do you have any medical quals? No. Y~n12
    have used the word shock in relation to the acc, what do you mean
    5 by that? I said he was withdrawn, lying in a foetal position, hi& otes of Evidence en before Hon
    eyes were closed and he was responding little to what was going o&SticeWilliamson
    and a Jury of
    about him. At some stages that was during that morning. Are thoBeelve
    the symptoms you use to describe his state of shock? They are my
    own words. They were used by me in the notebook and I used them t8o M2a9y M1a9y951 995
    10 loosely I suppose.
    Mr Wright calls:
    THOMAS RANKIN PRYDE (SWORN)
    My full name is Thomas Rankin PRYDE. I reside in Dunedin and I am
    15 a duly registered medical practitioner. Part of my employment is
    that of a police surgeon. About 9.30 am on Monday 20 June last
    year I was called by the police to attend an address at 65 Every
    Street, Dunedin. I entered the address on my arrival. There is a
    plan with overlaying transparencies (plan handed to witness). The
    20 front door is just under the word SOUTHERN, ground level, with the
    path coming in from Every Street there. The front door is just
    between the N and S in SOUTHERN SIDE. Upon my arrival I went into
    the lounge area which is marked with the letter A on the plan.
    There was a body of a male in that room, a middle aged man and I
    25 pronounced life extinct. I then presumed to room E and there was a
    middle aged female in a double bed in that room and I found life to
    be extinct there. I went into the room marked C and there was a
    body of a girl in that bed. I again pronounced life extinct. I
    went down to the room marked G on the lower level and I observed
    30 the body of a further female on the floor of that room and again I
    pronounced life extinct. Finally, I went into the bedroom marked F
    and there was a body there of a teenage boy and I again pronounced
    life extinct. I subsequently travelled to the offices of the
    Criminal Investigation Branch here in Dunedin and shortly after 11
    35 am that morning I spoke with and examined the accused David Bain.
    I made notes of my examination. I seek His Honours leave to refer
    to those (no objection by defence Counsel). I examined David Bain
    in one of the rooms in the CIB. I obtained his permission for an
    examine him and to obtain body and fluid samples from him. These
    would be used as evidence by the police and I asked him whether hdol2
    was agreeable to this, to my examining him and he agreed to allow
    5 the examination. He appeared calm and subdued and was quietly Notes of Evidence
    spoken. He made no spontaneous conversation but answered my Justice Williamson
    and a Jury of
    questions. There was no sign of intoxication. He had a mild acngdelve
    or pimply face. His nails were clean, no dirt or debris under the
    nails. I noted recent bruising to his head area. 8 May 1995 I listed threeto29May1995
    10 areas, one was the right temple. About here (indicates right
    temple). That was about 3 square crns in area. A small bruise
    above the right eye or a little lower down , 1 cm by half a cm.
    Some bruising to the right cheek (indicates) below the right eye.
    This was 1 and a half crns by 1 cm. By recent bruising, roughly it
    15 would be about 10 hours old. There was also a small injury on the
    inner aspect of the right knee. This was a skinned abrasion, a
    small flap of skin remained at the area. This again was about 10
    hours old. Other older features were noted, there was a tattoo on
    his left upper arm, feathers, a band and a rose. I obtained his
    20 pulse, this was a low normal of about 60 beats per minute. For a
    young man who is involved in running, a fit young man, that is not
    abnormal. It is quite normal. He had a surgical scar on the left
    groin where he had had a small operation as a child and he had a
    right small rupture, a hernia. I obtained from the accused various
    25 samples. I have a list of them here – I obtained blood from the
    vein, hair samples, swabs from various parts of his body and smears
    from various parts of his body. There is a set procedure that I go
    through. My initial specimen taking was from a special kit which
    is used to find evidence for firearms activity. That is firearm
    30 residue on the skin, that is firearm activity. These were all
    labelled and sealed. They were sealed in appropriate containers,
    labelled and handed to a police officer, a Mr Ross. I have
    referred to the bruising I noticed and also the skin, the
    laceration on the inside of the knee. As to the origin of these
    35 injuries, I asked him how his injuries had occurred and he replied
    that he didnt know. I also inspected the nose of Mr Bain during my
    examination. There was no evidence of any recent bleeding or any
    injury to the nose. The bruises that I observed and described,
    they wouldnt have caused any bleeding. There would have been a In the High Court at Dunedin
    certain oozing of blood from them but no noticeable bleeding. The
    laceration to the knee that I referred to, it wasnt specifically Yo12
    laceration, more of a graze than a laceration. There was some
    5 oozing from the area but no obvious bleeding. Notes of Evidence From these injurie~kenbeforeHon
    that I observed, there were no injury that would have produced an$ stice Williamson
    nd a Jury of
    blood staining anywhere. Twelve
    XXD Mr Guest: 8 May 1995
    to 29 May 1995
    10 Dr Pryde, in relation to the skin from the knee, did you take any
    measurements at all of the graze you referred to? Yes. It was 0.9
    cms x 1 cm. From what you saw of that graze, I suggest to you you
    cant tell us accurately whether the missing piece of skin was
    either 1 or 2 bits of skin, you hae no way of knowing where that
    15 bit of skin, how it came off? No, that is correct. And it was a
    superficial graze rather than a gouge? Yes, it was a superficial
    graze, yes. You will be aware of the terms epidermus and dermus in
    relation to skin? yes. Can you explain to the jury in lay terms
    the difference between epidermus and dermus.? The epidermus are
    20 the outer layers of the skin continually sheered off. The dermus
    is the deeper layer which produces the superficial layers of the
    skin, the dermus has blood vessel and varius types of cells in its
    composition. (Witness shown a diagram) Look at that diagram please
    – Is that a diagram that will assist you to explain the difference
    25 between epidermus and dermus? yes. Using that diagram explain to
    the jury again the difference? The dermus is the upper thinner
    black line there. Is the dermus the top of the skin? No, the
    dermus is the underlying. Is the epidermus the top of the skin?
    yes, the epidermus is the black surface of the skin. The dermus
    30 includes the ridges and the underlying tissue here. And if the
    graze only affects the epidermus, the top bit and doesnt get into
    the dermus, the black ridges coming up, then there will be no or
    little blood? Yes, that is correct. So if some of the epidermus
    comes off it is fair to describe that as a flake rather than a
    35 piece of skin, are you with me? Yes, that is corr. I suggest to
    you that the wound that you saw and the blood you saw just oozing
    does suggest it was a very superficial scrape? yes, I agree. And
    that the skin or bits of skin we dont know which, which came from
    In the High Court at that graze may fairly be described as a flake or flakes of skin? Dunedin
    yes, I would agree. The examination of David Bain at the Cib bldg
    commenced shortly after 11 am that morning? yes. And you are tM12
    police surgeon who is often called out by the police to assist in
    Notes of Evidence
    5 medical examinations? yes. And you properly warned avid Bain qgken before H~~
    told him that the police could use such samples you took from hi% Justice Williamson nd a Jury of
    as evidence? Yes. And the reason you did that was that you knowTWelVe
    you had to get his consent for those samples? yes. We know of
    8 May 1995 course, you knew he wasnt under arrest? yes. He was entirely
    10 operative about every request you made of him? yes, entirely. You
    looked under his finger nails for debris? Yes. And if there had
    been debris you would have taken that out carefully and put it in a
    sealed bag would you not? Yes. And there was no such debris?
    There was none. And your examination would be careful and
    15 deliberate of each of his fingers and thumb nails in looking for
    debris? yes. You also took from him swabs for fire arm discharge
    residue purposes? yes, I did. And from what part of his body did
    you take those swabs? From the hands and fingers. Was that done
    with a specific scientific pack which from your experience you have
    20 to use to check for fire arm residue? yes, it was. Skills you
    have learnt as a police surgeon over 25 years? yes. Did you take
    blaQd from him? Yes, I did. Did you tell him whak -Chat blood – – – –
    could be used for? Yes, I did. Did you mention the term DNA
    testing to him? yes, I did. What did you tell David Bain the
    25 blood you were taking from him could be used for? I explained to
    him that his blood would be compared with other samples of blood at
    the scene and could be used in a DNA analysis. Did you tell him
    that he wasnt obliged to assist with any of these swabs or tests
    and taking of blood? Yes, I did. So he knew of the purpose which
    30 could be made of the swabs and the blood tests? yes. And he knew
    of his rights, his right to refuse? Yes. At any stage did he
    pause or show any lack of co operation to those requests by you?
    No, he was very co operative. You tell us of three bruises, the
    right temple, above the right eye and the right cheek below the
    35 right eye? yes. Do you time all of that bruising at 10 hrs
    previously? At approx. 10 hours previously, yes. Did you make up
    your mind about the age of the bruising at the time you were
    inspecting them or upon reflection over recent months? Certainly
    In the High Court at not, this was at the time of the examination. Have you read your~,,~di~
    deposition statement before coming into court today? yes. Do you
    confirm that the timing of the bruising was not mentioned in thatN012
    deposition statement? yes, I do. How certain can you be when you
    Notes of Evidence
    5 say 10 hours as distinct from 24 hours ago this occurred, or it takenbeforeHon
    only occurred in the last hour – what allows you to say 10 hrs Justice Williamson
    previously? This is a matter of experience. The probability is $Eelve
    10 hrs. It falls off either side of that of course. I could rule
    8 May 1995
    out 24 hrs just by casual inspection as I can one hour but it is ao29May1995
    10 matter of experience to find it. It was approximately 10 hours was
    the probability. Can you rule out 4 hours? Yes, I could. The
    probability for that would be practically non existent. Can you
    rule out 5 hours? Again it is a matter of probability. It is most
    unlikely but I cant rule it out, it is most unlikely. What time
    15 was it you noted the bruising in the examination at the CIB? I
    recored the hr as at 11.20 and recorded the bruising first at the
    commencement of the examination. You also toolc samples from the
    groin and the penis of the accused? Yes. There was a thorough
    examination of him by you? yes. So it wasnt just obtaining some
    20 blood and looking for debris and things of that nature? No, it was
    a thorough examination.
    RXD Mr Wright:
    How thin is the epidermus? Very thin. The dermus is the thicker
    25 part and the epidermus is the thin, flaked off area. You described
    the mark on the leg as a graze? yes, I called it skinned abrasion
    and put the word skinned in inverted commas. Would its depth have
    penetrated through to the dermus? That’s a difficult one. I cant
    really answer that in definite terms. It is possible that some of
    30 the dermus was attached to the skin but this would have to be on a
    microscopic examination. You said 10 hours previously, your
    estimation of the bruising? yes. Can you put a maximum or minimum
    time on them – can you put the figures either side? The max.
    probability is 10 hours and it falls off as a curve on either side
    35 of the 10 hours. 7 hours would be pretty minimal and 13, 14 hrs
    would be minimal on the other side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @Colville: It appears that OTC suppressors have been around for decades – I’ve had one on a smallbore for ~20 years (fitted by the gun shop but made in Nelson. Google suggests this particular manufacturer has been in business since the early 1970’s).

    The suppressor is very effective when using subsonic – but not so good if you’re using Stinger! 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Dotcom;

    I have not looked up the new legislation but I believe compelling new evidence is the wording.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Elaycee:

    Was it thread fitted? Do you remember the ~ cost? Is really useful for shooting rabbits if that is what you used it for?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    That is an interesting post from a David Bain supporter re Dr Pryde’s examination of David Bain.
    Very few people would have that information so I think I can take an educated guess as to who passed it on to him.
    But I would ask that poster to show me the actual words strip-search.
    I have no doubt that Judith would be interested as well,because she didn’t believe there was another officer there. But obviously there was and I hope to hear what he has to say in the next day or two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird. I am not sure about it being thread fitted but I cannot see how its possible to get a seal between the barell and supressor without it. The pics I have seen (only 3 of them) show the front sight still being on the gun so the supressor must push on from the front rather than twist on. There seems to be a fitting at the rear of the supressor which is what nostalgia describes as a hose clip. I think this fitting is a machined to fit spacer that the gunshop has made to order to fit the particular barell diameter of this weapon but equally possible it clamps the supressor onto the gun, something needs to hold it onto the barell otherwise when fired the expansion gasses would fire the supressor forward and off the gun.

    in the end I dunno, but I think the fucker killed em all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    Kent, reasonable explanation though a bit more detailed than necessary imo, Basically if you agree with me then we can apply a 20% probability to Jones evidence that they are recent bloody prints deposited in human blood during the murder then that leaves 80% for Lloyd that they are latent fingerprints in either gunoil or mammal blood, and not related to the murder.
    Expanding on our probability theorom what probability can we assign to the glasses being
    (a) worn by David and involved in the murders
    (b) Not involved in the murders and coming to be found in Stephens room in unknown circumstances
    To me the lack of forensic evidence linking them to the crime and the dodgy photo and explanations of Det Weir, together with the evidence of Sanderson that he asked for his evidence to be changed by Weir and this wasn’t done, remember this was an important in 1995 as one of the jurys questions to the judge was “whose were the glasses according to the othmapologist”?
    However interested to know what probability you would assign

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

    Oh Nostagia,

    Who cares about the examination … you sad soul.

    Thats all you got, how sad, how can a few scratches whether there or not, compare to fingerprints on the gun, or NO fingerprints on the magazines, or NO family members blood on Robin, or that fact David changes stories and lies all the time, YOU should know how the cops react when you change your story the next day or week.

    You should accept that your IDOL did it and got lucky in the second trial,and move on, otherwise its gonna eat you up, shown by your insane hate blog.

    For the others my guess is now that they have so much evidence in their face, they will try and bury you in bullsh*t, pages of it till DPF closes the subject. Good Luck

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @Chuck: I still have it – no thread cut into it as it simply slides onto the end of the barrel and is secured with a ‘hose clip’.

    It’s great for small game – because there is very little noise when using subsonic ammunition. If there are several targets together (goats / rabbits etc) then several can all be picked off as they are not spooked by noise.

    However, I note that when I use subsonic (with the suppressor), the gun can sometimes jam! The gun shop people said this was caused by the suppressor itself – apparently using a suppressor can affect the gas pressure and the ability of the gun to eject the spent cartridge and push a fresh round into the breech. (Semi auto). But if I change up to Stinger (1650fps) then it doesn’t jam but the noise is sufficient to scare anything else nearby.

    Sorry, I don’t recall the cost – but I don’t recall it being expensive at the time.

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

    >>> Chuck Bird (2,776) said at 12:53 pm: I have not looked up the new legislation <<<

    Chick, there's no new legislation. Bill of Rights s27 covering double jeopardy applies.

    Once someone has been finally acquitted of an offence (which David Bain has been) he cannot be asked to face any other charge on the same offence again.

    Crimes Act s358(1) says the same thing, but in a very complicated way.

    And the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rigtht guarantees every person in the world the same thing.

    God, Chuck, I thought you were joking with the reference to a third trial. You weren't joking. Chuck, abandon this thought pronto. I can never, ever EVER happen.

    The ONLY thing left to do, is to decide compensation for David or otherwise, and that's it as far as our justice system is concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Dotcom – your 11.49 response to what I asked at 9.43 –

    Collins hopes a commissioned report might show on the balance of probabilities David Bain is innocent, or not – and that such a report will be ‘robust’, that is : stand up to reasonable examination.
    Apparently Binnie’s report is relatively easy to question, which is why it is not satisfactory.

    My question was “Does any one think that one person sifting through whatever evidence they choose to look at, can come up with an answer that is clear, logical, factual and stand up to reasonable examination?”

    Is there not three answers –
    1] on the balance of probabilities David Bain is innocent
    2] on the balance of probabilities David Bain is not innocent
    3] who can fucking tell?

    How many reports will we need to seriously consider answer 3?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Dotcom: maybe someone else can help me. I sure there are two grounds for a new trial after someone has been found not guilty. One is if key witnesses have been intimidated. I am not sure the exact wording of the other. I believe the law was first changed in the UK and then here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Binnie’s report gets it all right

    From today’s Herald letters to the editor where support for Binnie’s report has been in the majority most of the week:

    Justice Ian Binnie’s report on David Bain is an exemplary document It deserves an A grade. The gathering and analysis of the evidence, consideration of the relevant legal issues, and conclusions are measured and compelling. The report properly places the onus on Mr Bain to establish he did not kill his family. The report finds in his favour after a detailed consideration of all evidence and submissions from both prosecution and defence viewpoints. The analysis includes an in-depth interview of Mr Bain, conducted in the presence of the Crown lawyers. Justice Binnie takes an overview on all the evidence before coming to his conclusions. He makes no error in his methodology and reasoning.

    Secondly, Justice Binnie does not exceed his mandate in concluding that exceptional circumstances can be found for compensation His advice is modest The report Is consistent with the Privy Council decision that found a miscarriage of justice.

    By comparison the report of Robert Fisher, QC, is flawed. It says Justice Binnie made fundamental errors of principle in assessing innocence, and misconduct by authorities. The analysis does not sustain either of these allegations.

    My assessment is based on experience as a former prosecutor in the Crown Solicitors Office, and more than 30 years lecturing in criminal law.

    Kenneth Palmer.

    Associate professor of law.

    University of A uckla11d.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Yvette:

    If you were on foreman on a jury on a civil case would you tell the judge, “who can fucking tell”

    A third report particularly if there is a panel should decisively should David is not innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Truthiz
    Re that examination.
    Now I have always said I didn’t believe that David Bain was strip-searched but Karam and co have always said he was.
    And David Bain has told Binnie he was.
    Obviously that poster you mention wants to try and discredit me. David Bain’s supporters have been trying to do that for years. If I make a mistake,and I admit to having made one or two,they are all over me like a rash. In fact one of his supporters [no prizes for guessing who],tried to take me to court because of what I was posting on another public website.
    That website banned me for a few months but eventually we came to an agreement out of court and I was given my posting privileges back.
    Now I see there was another police officer who was in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain. I only heard about him yesterday. I hope to be getting his version of events in the not too distant future. Hopefully he will have been in the room the whole time when Pryde was carrying out that examination so that I can get a definitive answer as to whether Bain was strip-searched or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Well at least one ‘expert’ knows he’s on precarious ground continuing to lie about the strip search.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Truthiz (37) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 1:15 pm
    Oh Nostagia,

    Who cares about the examination … you sad soul.

    ‘Thats all you got, how sad, how can a few scratches whether there or not, compare to fingerprints on the gun, or NO fingerprints on the magazines, or NO family members blood on Robin, or that fact David changes stories and lies all the time, YOU should know how the cops react when you change your story the next day or week.

    You should accept that your IDOL did it and got lucky in the second trial,and move on, otherwise its gonna eat you up, shown by your insane hate blog.

    For the others my guess is now that they have so much evidence in their face, they will try and bury you in bullsh*t, pages of it till DPF closes the subject. Good Luck’

    So the scratches don’t matter know. I wonder when Kent will take that info down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ:

    Why do you worry about all these unimportant things? I am going to a party tonight before the world ends.

    It is quite possible or at least as possible as some of your flaky ideas.

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

    >>> Yvette (2,218) said 1:25 pm … How many reports will we need to seriously consider (David’s innocence)? <<<

    Yvette, all that matters is this. Cabinet has before it, an application from David for compensation. Cabinet at some stage is going to have to decide the application. No-one else can make this decision for Cabinet.

    Cabinet is the "master of its own destiny", and no-one tells Cabinet how to go about its affairs (except voters at next election). So Cabinet being the master of its own destiny can do what it likes to make the decision it has to make. But even Cabinet is bound by precedent and my written instructions to itself, with both of which it has to comply.

    So Cabinet is right now faced with making a decision on whether to grant compensation or not. It can call for as many or as few "expert" opinions as it likes to reach its decision. The Binnie report was one of these. But the Binnie Report, according to the people who sought it (leaving aside that Simon Power is no longer a member of Cabinet), is tainted.

    So Cabinet can still do what it damned-well likes to decide whether David probably killed or not. And even if it does call for 10 recommendations through 2013, it can turn around and ignore all of them. The ultimate decision is for Cabinet and no-one outside of Cabinet to make.

    Cabinet's decision-making is up to Cabinet. Who knows, Crusher might just do a ring around and see where the majority vote as it stands might lie, if the matter is put to the next Cabinet meeting, and she could have Cabinet decide the question of compensation then and there without further explanation. I wish she damned-well would do it this way, and get the damned thing over and done with.

    And I personally hope to Hell that Cabinet can see that clearly on the BOP, Robin Bain killed no-one.

    The biggest problem we have is that it requires “people” to actually come to a decision. And everyone knows that in any given situation, the easiest decision to make is to put off making the decision.

    The second biggest problem we have is what the Binnie Report was contaminated by, political correctness, and the inability in this Century for anyone in authority to call someone who is obviously lying, a liar.

    It will be easy for Cabinet to say David probably didn’t kill.

    My bet is that no matter what, Cabinet to not be able to actually say the words, that Cabinet thinks that Robin Bain was probably a killer. Such is the nature of politically correct decision-making, that they will leave this question hanging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @muggins:

    From your above post people obviously know who you are. Do you know who Nostalgia-NZ is and/or why he or she is so obsessed?

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

    >>> Chuck Bird (2,779) said at 1:32 pm: Dotcom: maybe someone else can help me. I sure there are two grounds for a new trial after someone has been found not guilty. <<<

    Jesus H C Chuck Bird. You asked me a question. I gave you a comprehensive answer with references. You don't like the answer, so you (like Collins) want a second opinion.

    Get it into your thick head, Chuck, that David can never, that's EVER, under any circumstances be tried again for anything to do with what happened at 65 Every Street that Monday morning.

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

    Nos:
    I don’t care about the examination, because it looks like some cheap points scoring by you over someone, and to be honest I’m not sure if Kent is the full quid, but his heart is in the right place, where you just sound bitter.

    You know the change of clothes and revelation are pure fantasy, dreamed up by Joe and that there is no real motive for Robin.

    You know the weight of evidence pointing to David is enormous.

    Whether you just feel hard done by (from the pigs) or whatever, just suck it in.
    .

    I’m an hour away from skipping the grind, then four hours from paradise.

    Suggest you all chill out this weekend and enjoy what holidays you got. :)

    and thanks DPF …………….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “My bet is that no matter what, Cabinet to not be able to actually say the words, that Cabinet thinks that Robin Bain was probably a killer.”

    You might be literally correct but Cabinet is likely to say David has not proven his innocence on the balance of probabilities. I wish they would take a stronger stand but sadly you are probably correct.

    If we got a panel with one Judge, a researcher and a scientist as long a it is not an AWG alarmist we could maybe come up with a result that would convince the vast majority of the public except for the pro Bain lot and those who are anti Collins.

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

    But even Cabinet is bound by precedent and my written instructions to itself

    Should be

    But even Cabinet is bound by precedent and BY written instructions to itself

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    @ Chuck Bird

    OK. Perhaps “who can fucking tell” is a little blunt, but cases where juries have not returned a verdict are not unknown,
    and several killings remain unresolved – Kahui for example.

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

    The silencer was an over barrel slip on made of plastic held on with a hose/jubilee clip and they were made in Nelson NZ under the name “Silent kill”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Dotcom

    Okay genius explain how George Gwaze had a second trial if the double jeopardy law had not been amended?

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

    With regards to the footprints why is n’t ever mentioned that there could be 2-3 missing steps as the print stated midway at the end of Margarets ben the killer would of had to do a peap to get there and not make additional print or there was something like a carpet there and removed by the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Yvette

    “but cases where juries have not returned a verdict are not unknown,
    and several killings remain unresolved – Kahui for example.”

    I agree when the criteria is beyond a reasonable doubt like in criminal cases.

    I do not think it would happen often or at all when balance or probabilities is the criteria as in this situation.

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

    >>> Chuck Bird (2,781) said at 2:12 pm: If we got a panel with one Judge etc … <<<

    OMG, I just went to all that trouble explaining to you and others, Chuck, that the decision is ultimately Cabinet's decision to make. You can make whatever panel of 110 judges, or a 10,000 judges if you want to. All you will be doing is asking them to make a recommendation to *the panel that already exists* to make the decision. That panel is called Cabinet.

    It is for Cabinet and no-one else to decide who was most likely to have been a killer — David or Robin

    You will note that I never use the description "who was innocent or not" or similar. Even the legal concept of "innocence" is fraught with legal arguments that could keep 10,000 judges busy writing reports till they died.

    When all is said and done, Cabinet has one decision to make, and no-one else can make it for them.
    That decision is who was most likely to have been the killer — David or Robin?

    Keep it simple. WHO WAS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN A KILLER — DAVID OR ROBIN?

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

    .. .. And then from that one decision, then how much compensation is due to him.

    Of course if David was more likely to have been the killer, then the amount would be a big fat beautiful zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Dotcom – Cabinet has one decision to make, and no-one else can make it for them.
That decision is who was most likely to have been the killer — David or Robin?
    Keep it simple. WHO WAS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN A KILLER — DAVID OR ROBIN?

    What is to stop them saying “We have declined to award compensation because we are unconvinced by any argument we have received”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Dotcom:

    For a genius your comprehension is not that great. You ignored my question about Gwaze.

    BTW – what are your quantifications to make you think you know more than just about everyone on this thread?

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

    For me it is good that the laws of probability are now being dicussed and people such as Kent have grasp the concept as I used my own exel spreed sheet layout using it just after the trail. Even with the most generous loading on unlikely event happening Robin the odds are still astronomical(beyond lotto odds) when compounded(multipied) and even added are very high. For me when it comes to evidence there is what is presented in court but not all is presented and any reviewer needs to look at the whole lot and also consider if there was the likelyhood of any evidence that was removed by the killer.

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

    “Get it into your thick head, Chuck, that David can never, that’s EVER, under any circumstances be tried again for anything to do with what happened at 65 Every Street that Monday morning.”

    Oh I think if he confessed to the killings, there might well be grounds to re-try him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Oh I think if he confessed to the killings, there might well be grounds to re-try him.”

    Have you run that past Dotcom?

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

    > Have you run that past Dotcom?

    No, but then I don’t think Dotcom is the Solicitor-General. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird…
    BTW – what are your quantifications

    Perhaps, film or gender studies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Lets test the experts like Dotcom and pro Bain supporters their basic knowledge of probability.

    Let us say it was Robin but he had a six shooter rather than a rifle.

    Let us also assume he only needed 5 shoots. That leaves one bullet left. If he puts the gun to his head a pulls the trigger there is almost a 100% probability he will be dead unless the gun misfires.

    He is not quite up to suicide so he decides to play Russian roulette. He also decides if is still alive after three tries he also deserves to live. What are the odds that he will kill himself after three tries.

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

    “The report properly places the onus on Mr Bain to establish he did not kill his family. The report finds in his favour after a detailed consideration of all evidence and submissions from both prosecution and defence viewpoints. The analysis includes an in-depth interview of Mr Bain, conducted in the presence of the Crown lawyers. Justice Binnie takes an overview on all the evidence before coming to his conclusions. He makes no error in his methodology and reasoning.”

    Good to see Binnie isn’t the only dunce…Kenneth Palmer wants to join the club.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Falafulu Fisi

    Please do not take the test till after Dotcom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Longknives (4,868 comments) says:

    A couple of people I know who were previously ‘on the fence’ regarding Bain’s guilt/innocence have been turned by events in the past few weeks. Mostly because of his dramatically changing stories…like did he ‘black out’ or didn’t he? and all the bullshit he is inventing re the goat and his superstar music career!

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- He is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

    I strongly suspect Nostalgia and Judith know this but they are determined to go down fighting…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Re that strip-search.
    I see a David Bain supporter says I know I am on precarious grounds continuing to lie about that strip-search.
    He seems to think he can read my mind.
    I am saying I do not believe David Bain was strip-searched. That is my honest opinion. I believe those marks should have been there that morning when Dr Pryde examined him. Bain can give no explanation as to how he got them and I think that most people with a modicum of common sense will be of the opinion that they were caused by his brother.
    I am not on precarious ground. If Bain were to sue me that is what I would say. If Karam can be found not guilty of defamation by using the defence honest opinion then so can I .
    Of course there is a possibility that those marks,if they were bruises and not scratches might not have shown up until after Dr Pryde examined David Bain. But the thing is that neither Bain nor any of his supporters have ever been able to explain those scratches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I tell you what,Longknives, I don’t reckon we have heard the end of that goat story yet. I still can’t believe that Binnie thought that story was true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Dotcom…
    HO WAS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN A KILLER

    Umm! You frame the question in a probabilistic language and yet you don’t seem to understand what is probabilistic reasoning.

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

    >>> Yvette (2,220) asked at 2:42 pm: What is to stop Cabinet saying “We have declined to award compensation .. ” <<<

    Only thing that Cabinet is accountable to is the voting public. By law, they are masters of their own destiny, and can do whatever they think is politically palatable.

    Ours is a Westminster system, and at its apex is something that is labelled "parliamentary supremacy". How does it survive? Through tradition and the ongoing general will (some would say apathy) of the people. But it does survive, and essentially it has worked for many centuries (without too many civil wars).

    Our particular style of it, has its roots as you all know, in the Magna Carta, of which only 3 of its original clauses still subsist, but it is still British law. Most of the Magna Carta's other provisions over the years, have been subsumed into more topic-specific British statutes. Anyway, tending off-topic.

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

    Perhap various parties have been looking at the wrong angle on how David Bain should be compensated and not base it on whether he is ‘innocent’ but whether he had been incarcerated for an unusual length and unfortunate that could be a ‘yes’. Example Scott Watson was heard approx 4 years after his imprisoment yet Davids took 13 years irrespective of whether people agree withe results of the verdict. Anything over 5 year may be considered too long so an 8 year entitlement. He would not fit the criteria of extraordinary circumstance so would not be entitled to cabinet guidelines of $100,000 per year and in my opinion deserves a lot less. He should also be made to apologies to the Bain family for defaming his father as Robin has not be convicted of this crime because a person can’t claim to have suffered an injustice and in the next sentence create one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    Dotcom is wrong again:

    When all is said and done, Cabinet has one decision to make, and no-one else can make it for them. That decision is who was most likely to have been the killer — David or Robin?

    Oh, bollocks.

    Cabinet does not have to decide whether it was Robin. Or whether it could have been the mailman. Or the neighbour. Or anyone else. Cabinet is not listening to any ‘evidence’ as this is not a revisit of any Court Case.

    What they will do, is consider the recommendation made by the Minister whether David has been able to prove his innocence in the BOP to the Minister. And if Cabinet agrees with the Minister’s recommendation (they don’t have to), they next consider whether the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ threshold has been met. Only if all stages have been satisfied, do they then determine quantum.

    The Minister has the first decision: Has Bain been able to prove his innocence in the BOP?
    Second decision is by Cabinet: Do we accept the Minister’s recommendation?
    And so on….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “I still can’t believe that Binnie thought that story was true.”

    I can assure you all goat shagging was not common when I left Canada almost 50 years ago. Mind you I hear Canada has got very liberal over that time.

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

    Let’s remember that when Binnie – in a fit of pique – put out a press release after Collins’ criticism of him, he said:

    “It is a curious feature of this case that all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt.”

    That statement is clearly false. The Privy Council didn’t reject the arguments of the Crown. What the law lords did do was to say that with the advantage of hindsight and fresh evidence, Bain’s conviction should be overturned. But when Karam and Co subsequently went back to the Privy Council to try to get Bain acquitted, law lords told them to bugger off. That fact is missing from Binnie’s report. What incompetence! Quite ironic when Binnie attacks the police for being inept and incompetent.

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

    > I still can’t believe that Binnie thought that story was true.

    I can’t believe that Binnie made no attempt to verify its veracity. He seemed to believed everything that David told him. Just as well David didn’t tell him to jump off a cliff, the old fella might have thought twice about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @gamefisher:

    Perhap various parties have been looking at the wrong angle on how David Bain should be compensated and not base it on whether he is ‘innocent’

    I understand the criteria for assessing any compensation claim has already been determined by the previous Minister of Justice (Simon Power) and the onus is now on David to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that he is innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    The following paper should be good reading for some here on this thread.

    How Might Probabilistic Reasoning Emerge from the Brain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Chuck,
    When you say goat shagging was not common when you were in Canada does that mean that some Canadian’s were known to shag goats but it wasn’t a common practice?
    My other question would be how would you know it was not common? I mean it isn’t as if the goat is going to kiss and tell.

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

    >>> gamefisher (6) said at 3:21 pm: Perhaps we have been looking at the wrong angle on how David Bain should be compensated and base it on whether he had been incarcerated for an unusual length … <<<

    Mr Gamefisher would be absolutely right. This would be a claim under the "fair trial" (etc) provisions of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, for which there are many precedents by now, of "damages" being given for Bill of Rights breaches. The first NZ example of this was awarded in a case which carries the nickname of Baigent's case, and came about in the years following the passing in 1990 of our Bill of Rights Act.

    To date, damages under the Bill of Rights Act have been pitifully small (by international standards), counting in thousands and occasionally tens of thousands of dollars. Compare this to the hundreds of thousands and millions available through the path Bain has taken, and for which Arthur Thomas and David Docherty are the best-known recipients to date.

    Cabinet has never given itself authority to determine claims for Bill of Rights breaches, favouring these decisions being made by the Civil Court in a public law hearing. The Courts detest these claims, and find reasons for refusing, much more readily than they award damages. One such claim succeeded only at the level of the Privy Council, and became the reason that Margaret Wilson then severed NZ from Privy Council access.

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

    >>> Elaycee (3,208) said at 3:22 pm: .. Dotcom is wrong again .. <<<

    Whatever – you say tomatoes, I say tomatos. You seem to resent the accuracy of my comments. Your habit is to say that someone is wrong. Then you regurgitate their words using your own style, and claim the high ground. Piss off, and come up with some original material to contribute to the debate. Consider your future comments about me already answered, troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @muggins

    I would bow to Binnie’s superior knowledge. Does anyone have his email address?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Elaycee,
    When Simon Power wrote to me in November 2009, he said this.
    The position in New Zealand is that there is no legal right to compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.Compensation may,however,be paid at the Government’s discretion on an ex gratia basis in accordance with a process agreed by cabinet.
    A fundamental principle is that compensation is only paid to persons who can prove they are at least innocent on the balance of probabilities of the crime for which they were convicted. A persons acquital by jury does not in itself establish innocence for the purpose of obtaining compensation. It simply means that the jury is not satisfied the prosecution has proved guilt to the very high standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The possibility of either guilt or innocence on the balance of probabilities therefore remains open.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Chuck,
    Does anyone know if he has a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    You seem to resent the accuracy of my comments.

    Whaaat? As soon as you stop getting the fundamentals of this compensation claim wrong, I’ll stop correcting you. As I’ve said many times, you have poor comprehension skills. Now, that’s accurate! :D

    Dotcom: You’ve come in here as a self proclaimed know all and fired off crap at the rate of a thousand cannons. But as soon as the bullshit / the fanciful theories / the self aggrandisement / the bluster is all stripped away, you’ve ended up like a pop gun.

    Merry Christmas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    Bugger: Edit problem at this end… We were all busy laughing at Dotcom’s latest pearl:

    You seem to resent the accuracy of my comments.

    Whaaat? As soon as you stop getting the fundamentals of this compensation claim wrong, I’ll stop correcting you. As I’ve said many times, you have poor comprehension skills. Now, that’s accurate!

    Dotcom: You’ve come in here as a self proclaimed know all and fired off crap at the rate of a thousand cannons. But as soon as the bullshit / the fanciful theories / the self aggrandisement / the bluster is all stripped away, you’ve ended up like a pop gun.

    Merry Christmas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @muggins (3.48pm): Thanks. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. mikenmild (11,702 comments) says:

    Now now, Elaycee, Dotcom is a genius. He has said so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    as soon as the bullshit / the fanciful theories / the self aggrandisement / the bluster is all stripped away

    LAC

    If that’s what you think, then now all you have to do is make a few enquiries of his colleagues at the bar and of the judiciary and you’ll soon have your man. He has started calling himself Tony, which might be a hint, but I wouldn’t place much reliance upon the “Dotcom”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    thedavincimode
    That woudn’t be Tony Baloney?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,788) asked at 2:20 pm: Okay genius explain how George Gwaze had a second trial ..?
    I can explain Gwaze, but you wouldn’t listen to me anyway, and it is off topic anyway, so move on. I already mentioned the George Gwaze case above, in anticipation of your stock-standard ill-informed reference to it. Another urban myth that is not worth getting side-tracked by, but people always want to.

    Chuck, if you think David can be tried again, do some research in other than this echo chamber – an echo chamber which purpetrates more myths than it dispells – and you will soon find from any lawyer, that David can never be tried again.

    (Just btw, the Gwaze case was not double jeopardy because of one critical word in our Bill of Rights Act (and in the international law as well), a particular word that does not apply to the David Bain criminal case.

    Please move on, and accept that no-one can support you on this. Please stop hurting yourself with your ill-founded belief that somehow, some way, David might be put through another trial some day if you work hard enough for it to happen. Chuck, please simply give it up. David Bain can never appear in a criminal court on this matter ever again.

    Anyway, Chuck, what is the point of you arguing with me for nothing more than the sake of arguing. I am just as much in favour of David being denied compensation as you are, so why are you so determined to discredit the accuracy of my professionally accurate and verifiable comments.

    I have spent months watching this debate, not wanting to attach my name to it, for fear of retribution to myself. I’ve watched urban myth after urban myth being bandied about the boards, and the whole public image of the mess being warped beyond belief.

    I have come here, as it is a site I have had familiarity with (under a different nickname which I have abandoned), where it is (usually) a site which has a standard of intelligence sufficiently high so that I can (just) tollerate innane rebuffs from idiots who resent my Mensa intelligence, and resent my immodest power of deductive reasoning that is very special.

    I am ready to be corrected on anything I say, but it rarely happens, other than by well-meaning idiots who open their mouths (keyboards) before they open their brains. Fuck I hate idiots telling me I’m wrong.

    No-one this week has successfully challenged anything I have said – though a few have tried and quiickly retreated.

    Now piss off Chuck, and accept that you have much to learn on this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @milkmilo: Dotcom is a genius??? He has said so???

    So we can prove that he does talk shit. Great! :D

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

    >>> gamefisher (6) said at 2:22 pm: With regards to the footprints why is n’t ever mentioned that the 2-3 missing steps .. <<<

    I covered this comprehensively at 12.09 today, but you seem to have been the only one to have been paying attention, gamefisher. Everyone else only wanted to discuss whether David Bain was strip-searched and similar distractions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotcom.
    Most of what you are saying is beyond my ken,but I did appreciate your post re that luminol.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @thedavincimode: Its funny you mention that… people who make a habit of doing the ‘cut and paste’ sometimes forget that they leave a trail easily found via a rudimentary search on Google….

    PS: Have I mentioned that ‘Tony Dotcom’ is demonstrating ‘anger management’ issues? 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Zapper (1,027 comments) says:

    Falafulu

    Did you get laid last night?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    Zapper

    Well if you haven’t heard, he can’t have? Dotcom assured us that if he did he would cum quick so he could get off down to the pub to tell his mates (that’s what PIs do apparantly)

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

    >>> Elaycee (3,214) said at 4:19 pm: Dotcom is a genius??? We can prove that he does talk shit .. <<<

    Good, and while you're busy wasting everyone's time trying to prove this, I'll be busy proving that David Bain does not warrant one dollar of taxpayer's money as compensation. My goal is to save $2 million of taxpayer's money, Elaycee. What's your goal. Trolling?

    David Bain is a killer.

    And you, Elaycee, are a troll. I look forward to your next post being of anything original, or on topic, or anything other than criticising a fellow traveller on this blog. You simply will not be able to do it. It's not what trolls were born to do.

    Anyway, my next post will be back on topic, sorry for this aberration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Now piss off Chuck, and accept that you have much to learn on this issue.”

    And you do not think you have much to learn? Why do you not use your real name? I will have a guess and that is because you do not what prove what many people think – that is you are an arrogant, rude immature fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Dotcom

    You would not be a lawyer by any chance? That would explain your arrogance.

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

    >>> muggins (429) said at 4:20 pm: Dotcom. Most of what you are saying is beyond my ken, but I did appreciate your post re that luminol <<<

    Both kind and gratious of you to say so.

    I have to admit, some of my theories are complex, which is why others (cops after all) seem to have not come up with them.

    Which of my theories did I leave you wondering about?

    a) the lack of Robin’s fingerprints on the 5-shot magazine.
    b) the lack of Robin’s fingerprints on the 10-shot magazine.
    c) the placement of the 10-shot magazine elsewhere than on the coffee table.
    d) the placement of Robin’s right hand on his dead hip/belly.
    e) the placement of the morning newspaper being where it is (remembering that Dotcom thinks it was put there as a ‘lure’, for Robin to come over to the alcove curtains).
    f) Binnie's totally disregarding (in today’s dollar terms) the Well Over One Million Dollars of Motive.
    g) the lumisol-footprints that *aren't there*, as distinct from the lumisol-footprints that are there.

    Happy to discuss any one of them further. Ask away as to which is of interest to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    muggins

    That’s for you to decide.

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

    >>> Chuck Bird (2,791) said at 4:47 pm: Dotcom, are you a lawyer? That would explain your arrogance. <<<

    No comment re my profession, though I notice it is the third time you have asked me without your offering in kind.

    The arrogance is a persona I have intented for internet chatboards. It tends to get the insults out of the way early on, insults that are going to come anyway, but we get back to the business at hand quicker. This persona is my way of not having to engage as one half of the insults process (unless you regard having your errors pointed out as being insulting).

    Now can we stop talking about me. I'd much rather solve the problem of what Judith Collins is going to give David Bain by way of compensation. Which as you will have seen, I think should be a massive big fat handwritten cheque for ten cents (or a new goat).

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

    invented

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dotcom (80) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    No-one this week has successfully challenged anything I have said – though a few have tried and quiickly retreated.

    I challenged you this morning, I have not retreated from it, nor have you defended it. I will repeat the challenge.

    As you say, your evidence follows a path not trodden by others. I believe you. Yesterday you made a case for Bain putting the paper in the lounge as a lure for his father. The newspaper was in another room altogether. It was in the entrance hallway. That will explain why no others trod that path.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. mikenmild (11,702 comments) says:

    Oh great and terrible Dotcom. Please have mercy on the world. When you have resolved the Bain case to the satisfaction of all, please go and make peace between the nations of the Earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    I have mentioned the lack of fingerprints on the magazines also,so we are at one with that.
    Placing of the magazine on the coffee table, I agree that if Robin Bain was going to place that magazine it would be more likely to be on the coffee table than the floor.
    The placement of Robin Bain’s hand on his right hip. Yeah,I could go for that.
    The placement of the ODT. What has the placement of the ODT got to do with the alcove curtains?
    Motive. If money was the motive ,I am not sure it was the primary motive. Have you read Karam’s Innocent booklet?
    The luminol footprints. Not sure about that. If you are right about that why didn’t the Crown bring in an expert witness to give evidence about luminol?

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

    mikenmild (6,150) said at 5:10 pm: Dotcom. When you have resolved the Bain case please go and make peace between the nations of the Earth.

    80 percent of the way there. How close are your plans?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    How did that lens get into Stephen Bain’s room? The Law Lords of the Privy Coucil would like to know.
    Also,I wouldn’t mind an apology from you for calling me a liar. But I won’t be holding my breath waiting. I doubt you would be man enough to apologise, if in fact you are a man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “I notice it is the third time you have asked me without your offering in kind.”

    Firstly, I am not hiding behind a pseudonym. Secondly, I do not profess to be a expert let alone a genius .

    If you are so smart why do you not apply for the job of Referee?

    If you spoke to people who are basically on the same side as you to their face or even by email using your real name you would not get very far.

    Do you know the difference between IQ and EQ? It would appear not.

    I am 69 as it say on my FB. How old are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @Dotcom (or whatever you want to call yourself this time): You confuse me with someone who actually gives a stuff what you think – of me or of anything. But rest assured – as soon as you stop talking such obvious crap, I’ll have no reason at all to point it out. Over to you which direction you wish to take…

    Like everyone here, you have an opinion. And whether you like it or not, your own opinion has equal weight to the opinion of others. Not more weight but equal weight. Your self promotion is nauseating. Your lack of attention to detail, is obvious. Your claim of MENSA involvement, is laughable. Your condescending attitude toward others, is indicative of narcissism. Your comments directed to Chuck were totally unwarranted and downright rude. Even the kids here think you’ve been a prick. You should be embarrassed. But I doubt it.

    Its time you got off your high horse and recognised your shit really does stink – anything credible you may have been able add to this discussion has been swamped by your inaccuracies and your incessant self aggrandisement.

    PS: I think you should check your mailbox. Your membership to the Morons Club must be there soon….

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

    >>> Kanz (142) said at 5:08 pm: Dotcom I challenged you this morning <<<

    Genuinely missed it in the zeal of this morning's comments.

    Plese go to the photo of the dead Robin at this page, and tell me what you see on what I think is a sheepskin, next to the beanbag.
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-empty-shell-casing

    My theory still holds water. No-one other than David said that Robin brought in the Monday morning paper, and we now know (more than ever since Binnie's report), that David lies. This is one lie he has carried off for 18 years. As he did on every other morning that he did his paper round, David brought in the Monday paper.

    Soon afterwards, from behind the curtains in the alcove, David said to his dad when Dad came in with his full morning bladder, "Hey Dad, come over here and have a look at he headlines in this morning's paper". Robin comes over to the beanbag to have a look at the paper there, and

    BANG!

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

    >>> muggins (431) said at 5:12 pm: … why didn’t the Crown bring in an expert witness to give evidence about luminol? <<<

    Because they didn't have me working for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. Rowan (2,521 comments) says:

    “You know the change of clothes and revelation are pure fantasy, dreamed up by Joe and that there is no real motive for Robin.

    You know the weight of evidence pointing to David is enormous.

    Whether you just feel hard done by (from the pigs) or whatever, just suck it in”

    I wonder how hard it was for Robin if he was the killer it would have been to change his jersey and socks and leave them with the other clothes in the laundry. Would appear to be a very difficult concept for a lot of you to grasp.

    Weight of evidence, 100% circumstantial very contentious, and you seem to rely very strongly on the fact that evidence such as blood samples, carpet samples, gunpowder residue etc wasn’t collected to support the “no evidence against Robin”
    No motive for Robin yet remember the police didnt follow up Laniets incest allegations because they had “a murder to solve”, really you think David had a stronger motive? hmm must have been that chainsaw!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Zapper…
    Did you get laid last night?

    No i didn’t. The bar I went to were majority cougars and not many chicks. There were only 2 chicks, but one fat and the other one very ugly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dotcom (88) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    I have seen the photos many times, and refuse to enter that world of lies your link leads to.
    That portion of paper is a discarded one from an earlier time, it is an old free community newspaper.
    That morning’s ODT had not been opened and was not in the suicide room.
    Still, you continue with your ‘road not trodden’ theories, they make for humour if nothing else.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,792) said at 5:19 pm: a whole lot of things that are off topic — namely me.

    Move on, or preferably move back ON TOPIC. I get very bored with talking about me. (But one answer only – why don’t I apply for some job or other? Why do you assume I need a job, or that I haven’t already got the best job in the world?)

    Move on, Chuck, or get ready for that party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. Zapper (1,027 comments) says:

    So because the police didn’t investigate all evidence properly, and if they had it’s possible some would point at Robin, the fact that all evidence they did gather points at David is irrelevant?

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

    >>> Kanz (143) said at 5:39 pm: that my theories they make for humour if nothing else. <<<

    Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. Zapper (1,027 comments) says:

    Directed at Rowan, cursing lack of edit

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

    >>> Elaycee (3,216) said at 5:29 pm: 18 or so insults to me, none of which were clever or novel <<<

    Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    We now know that Laniet has said that David was molesting her,so if you believe Robin was molesting her then you have to believe David was molesting her also.
    Of course it wouldn’t be hard for Robin to leave his clothes in the laundry. But it would be bloody hard for David not to notice those clothes had blood on them and that blood he got on his hand when putting them in the wash.
    Rowan ,the Law Lords want to know how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room if it didn’t get there when David was in there fighting Stephen. Can you help.
    Also,how did David get those scratches and/or bruises on his chest?

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

    >>> Elaycee (3,216) said at 5:29 pm: 18 or so insults to me, none of which were clever or novel <<<

    And as predicted, Elaycee's next post was indeed off topic, and trolling. Move on.

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

    If I am correct, part of Binnie’s brief was to examine the evidence. Please explain why then he asked for Karam’s books. Karam never gave evidence at either trial. In fact, if my memory serves me correct, he was nowhere near Dunedin in the 1990’s. Nothing Karam has ever said or written has ever been used as evidence. To my mind, the moment Binnie asked for Karam’s books, the Government should have sacked him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (432) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    You seem concerned that Bain did not notice blood on the clothes before putting them in the machine. The light was so good in that room a policeman went to turn it on so he could see, only to find it was already on.

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

    “I wonder how hard it was for Robin if he was the killer it would have been to change his jersey and socks and leave them with the other clothes in the laundry. Would appear to be a very difficult concept for a lot of you to grasp.”

    Quite simple to grasp if Robin wanted to frame David. Must be why Robin wore the gloves, to frame David. But then the old fella got a bit confused and tried to clear David with that note on the computer. But still not as confused as that old bugger from Canada who swallowed everthing David told him hook, line and sinker.

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

    > Please explain why then he asked for Karam’s books.

    Because he wanted to read some fantasy and couldn’t find his copy of The Hobbit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotccom
    While I also believe David brought in the morning paper,and we are in good company because Joe Karam believes he may have also. I am afraid I cant go along with your theory about David calling his father into the lounge to read it. Have you seen the photo of the paper on counterspin.co.nz? That paper is in pristine condition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    That was the light in David Bain’s bedroom.not the laundry. And where’s my apology,you wanker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    Not only humour, he’s raised the intellect pool for the disaffected Kanz.

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

    >>> Rowan (26) said at 5:36 pm: .. really you think David had a stronger motive? <<<

    Try Well Over One Million Dollars Worth of motive (in today's dollar terms).

    Motive doesn't have to be acted out. It only has to *be*.

    If One Million Dollars is not motive in this case, then any future claims of LESSER amounts than one million dollars, should be challenged by the Defence as irrelevant, *every time* motive is ever again mentioned in any Criminal Court for an amount of less than One Million.

    So if someone is accused of killing someone for $500 in cash, in the future according to Justice Binnie, the $500 spoils of the murder/robbery will not count as motive, and the prosecution will have to come up with another apparent reason for the killing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,383) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 5:54 pm
    > Please explain why then he asked for Karam’s books.

    Because he wanted to read some fantasy and couldn’t find his copy of The Hobbit.’

    He read from your ‘resource’ pool.

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

    >>> Falafulu Fisi (2,125) said at 5:38 pm: There were only 2 chicks, one fat and one very ugly. <<<

    Then they were dead certs.

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

    > To my mind, the moment Binnie asked for Karam’s books, the Government should have sacked him.

    Well, that’s a bit extreme, but certainly it suggested that Binnie’s review wouldn’t be unbiased. It wasn’t. He allowed Michael Reed QC to spend quite a long time examining David but didn’t allow the Crown the same luxury. Binnie asked David any questions on behalf of the Crown. Binnie also failed to ask a number of important questions, and failed to draw an adverse inference from David’s false, contradictory and misleading answers. He also gave no weight to some important circumstancial evidence which shouldn’t have been favourable to David.

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

    How did Robin have time to commit all those murders, it seems to me that he spent all his time racing about changing his clothes. There had to have been at least three changes of clothes and lets not forget taking his slippers off, changing his socks and then putting them back on again. All this on a full bladder, not getting a single drop of anyone else’s blood but his own on him, not to mention the amount of blood that was splashed around Stephen’s room and yet he hadn’t washed his hands despite all those changes of clothing. Ahhhhh but imagination is a fine thing. If you can’t blind ‘em with science, baffle ‘em with bullshit!! Well done Karam, you score a perfect 10 for that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. Elaycee (4,404 comments) says:

    @Dotcom:

    >>> Elaycee (3,216) said at 5:29 pm: 18 or so insults to me, none of which were clever or novel <<<

    I know your skills are not flash, so best I point out that the comment you attributed to me, was not actually said by me.

    Why don’t you just quit whilst you’re behind?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. thedavincimode (6,871 comments) says:

    muggins/LAC

    These most recent claims, accompanied by a puffing out of the chest to a life-threatening extent, are proving rather more interesting than the thread.

    The usual legal suspects (Nookin, FES, Masterly) are quite understandably absent given that they will inevitably be working their arses off prior to Xmas – as briefs typically are. That would suggest that the mysterious newcomer has more time on his hands than they do. It could be a wind-up of course – the outrageous arrogance of the comment that LAC refers to is extreme perhaps for even the most likely suspect. Unless of course this is a wind-up within a wind-up. But it would be doing a disservice to Nookin/Masterly/FES to even suggest they had displayed nothing of the charms of our mystererious newcomer. Could it be that anonimity has persuaded him/her to caste aside the remaining pretence of modesty?

    The plot thickens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    For those unable to comprehend what Binnie said himself, I will attempt to put it in plain language.
    He explained that the reason he needed the books was because Crown Law had given him the PCA report which was done in response to the allegations in Karam’s books. He needed to see what Karam had alleged to see how the report addressed those allegations.

    Clear? or is that still too intellectual for you?

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

    Kanz (144) said at 5:39 pm: it was an old free community newspaper.

    My theory works with any newspaper. You are looking for a way to exclude it, on a certainty test, which is not the correct test for the compensation claim.

    Remember, proof BRD will never again be a test in the David Bain case. From now on, balance of probability is the only test that will ever apply, so no theory should ever be ruled out. Every theory, short of being impossible, has to be given a probability weighting which needs to be compared against other competing probabilities.

    My explanation for the blood spatter upwards and downwards on the same leg, is far more probable than any others put forth. Most just give up on this one, saying this blood spatter pattern will never be explained. Correctly so, when it was a case of proving something BRD. But everything counts in BOP.

    You might say that “I’m clutching at straws”. But so is everyone. Robin having possibly washed his hands, for example, when police said he did not have washed hands, is my idea of “clutching at straws”. My straws are stronger than your straws.

    This hand washing provided RD in a BRD situation, so the possibility of Robin having washed his hands won. But RD has no role to play in a BOP test — no role to play. So the possibility of Robin having washed his hands has to be measured against the possibility that he didn’t wash his hands. For me, this is a classic example of the RD being the difference between BRD and BOP.

    In the criminal case, Robin might have washed his hands, so there was RD. But on balance given that the cops said his hands were still dirty from his activities from the day before, he probably didn’t wash his hands. Ergo, Robin was “not guilty” even though he probably killed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  502. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    I will keep asking you,every time I see you are posting. Where is my apology?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  503. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    muggins,
    Re checking his watch –
    to be fair when i did a paper run id probably look at my watch all the time – see how fast i was going and how far in i was. I think for some one like david that might not be abnormal.

    Nostalgia,

    “The solicitor-general’s statement was that without the footprints their case against David collapsed….”

    you seem to be agreeing with me, but you also seem to think you are disagreeing… you seem to still be confusing BOP (balance of probabilities) law with BRD (beyond reasonable doubt)….

    Dotcom,
    of he got blood on a sock it is unlikely he would get the same amount on both socks – hence much easier to detect the print of one sock.
    However maybe you are making a point about the spacing of the prints etc. maybe if he saw he had blood on the sock he might well have hopped? i am not sure how they were spaced…
    Still this does sound like an interesting area for investigation, for example how reliable their methodology was. It would be interesting to see a photo of the prints or maybe evidence of other prints they took in dunedin in other cases..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  504. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (434) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Kanz,
    That was the light in David Bain’s bedroom.not the laundry. And where’s my apology,you wanker.

    It was the laundry.
    As for calling me a wanker, I wouldn’t call you that as you appear (on these threads) to have an unhealthy obsession with the rear ends of goats.
    Apology? for calling you a liar? Not likely. When I was talking to my old mate Ian (The Honourable Justice Ian Binnie to you) yesterday, I mentioned your real name to him. I had trouble stopping him from laughing, said he had lost count of the times you had emailed him.

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

    ross69 (1,384) said at 6:01 pm: Binnie’s review would be biased. It wasn’t. He allowed Michael Reed QC etc.

    And Binnie gave over only 0.05 percent of his report to a Well Over One Million Dollar (in today’s dollar terms) motive for murder.

    Well over one million dollars. Line them up, the nutters who would kill for that sort of money. The line would be very, very long, and Supreme Court Justices (except Binnie) know this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  506. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    thedavincimode.
    If you are talking about Dotcom,you have to admit some of his theories make sense. Look at that photo of Robin for example,wouldn’t you have thought his arm would have fallen lower? It is definitely an interesting suggestion.

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

    > He explained that the reason he needed the books was because Crown Law had given him the PCA report

    Wrong. He said the books represented the defence case.

    But it explains why his report contains so many errors.

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

    “Well over one million dollars. Line them up, the nutters who would kill for that sort of money. The line would be very, very long, and Supreme Court Justices (except Binnie) know this.”

    Well, quite. But Binnie – try as he might – couldn’t think of a single motive! Maybe a million dollars is peanuts to a former Supreme Court judge. But not to someone whose primary source of income was a paper run. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  509. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Binnie knows my real name because he has looked at counterspin. I know you are trying to wind me up about me emailing Binnie because if you had spoken to him you would know I never have. Either that or you are lying again.
    And where’s my apology?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  510. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    dotcom,
    newspaper bait is a plausible story, but Im not sure how it adds much to the probability as david doesnt have too much difficulty killing an older weaker and unarmed man with his own gun. the paper issue stands on its own (ie that it is odd if david didnt bring in the paper if he normally does so) but still…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  511. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,386) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    Wrong. He said the books represented the defence case.

    Your ignorance is showing. The defence case was contained within their claim, which held a great deal more information than any book written by Karam in 1996 or whenever it was.

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

    >>> corrigenda (51) said at 6:01 pm: How did Robin have time to commit all those murders ? .. <<<

    You are quite correct to ask this.

    These are the most likely timings for Robin — not BRD — but most likely.

    His alarm went off at 6.32.
    And Robin came into the house at the latest at 6.45.

    Yes, for the purposes of casting doubt, Bain's team came up with all sorts of variations of this, but casting doubt is no longer the test — BOP is. And I repeat, the *most likely* timing for Robin between his getting up and his meeting David in the lounge, is no more than 13 minutes, and *probably* a lot less. Probably it was no more than 2 minutes. But even at 13 minutes, Robin did not have anything like the time he needed to do what he is accused by the David team of doing.

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

    “”Elaycee (3,217) Says: December 21st, 2012 at 6:07 pm @Dotcom: >>> Elaycee (3,216) said at 5:29 pm: 18 or so insults to me, none of which were clever or novel <<< Why don’t you just quit whilst you’re behind?""

    On topic still I see, troll.

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

    Kanz

    You’r’e wrong. This is what Binnie said in a letter to the SST earlier in the year:

    “It is important to emphasise that Bain is not represented in the enquiry by a lawyer. His official spokesman is Karam. His books are, as background, the clearest indication presently available to me of the position likely to be put forward on Bain’s behalf.”

    Like I said, the books represented the defence case. Interestingly, Binnie said Bain wasn’t represented by a lawyer. So why was Reed allowed to question Bain at length in Binnie’s presence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  515. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (437) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Whatever. I told him to expect a phone call from you before too long. He asked God to spare him from such fools, now how would he know you are a fool if he has had no correspondence from you?

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

    “”muggins (437) said at 6:21 pm : I will keep asking you,every time I see you are posting, for my apology?””

    Yes, I see what you mean, muggins. My sympathies. I too am a liar now, for my having theories expressed as theories. Which is why (Chick Bird) I choose to use a nickname, like most people here do.

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

    “But even at 13 minutes, Robin did not have anything like the time he needed to do what he is accused by the David team of doing.”

    Binnie inferred that the murders, and Robin killing himself, may have happened while David was inside the house! And he has the cheek to call the Crown case unlikely.

    You’ll recall that the Crown initially thought that David might have committed the murders in the 20-25 minutes that he couldn’t account for, but doubted he had enough time. But Binnie thinks that an old guy probably did it in a fraction of that time. LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  518. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,387) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Are you trying to tell us that the claim, put before Powers who then put it before Binnie, did not lay out their arguments? Do you think it just said something like “give me some money”?

    It seems imbeciles are the only ones arguing against Bain.

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

    Scott1 (134) Says: at 6:24 pm (beyond reasonable doubt)… maybe if he saw he had blood on the sock he might well have hopped? Still this does sound like an interesting area for investigation, for example how reliable their methodology was. It would be interesting to see a photo of the prints or maybe evidence of other prints they took in dunedin in other cases..

    First, photos of the luminol-prints didn’t develop. Nobody’s fault in particular, it happened to everyone at some stage before digital photography. Bummer.

    Second, sure he may have hopped. But to use your own words, “you seem to still be confusing BOP with BRD”.
    Which is more likely? That he hopped? Or not? On BOP.
    So forget BRD. It doesn’t count any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  520. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    I think the david defense is that robin probably got up prior to his alarm (probably with some major killing on his mind having not really slept very well. he then gets up and sees david go out. Straight after that he goes into the house and does some murdering. then cleans up has a bit of a wash and pops onto the computer to write a message. he then decides to kill himself and bang.

    it has some oddness to it but not completely implausible…

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

    > It seems imbeciles are the only ones arguing against Bain.

    So Robert Fisher, Andrew Geddis, Kevin Dawkins, Mark Henaghan, and Judith Collins (and many others) are all imbeciles. Who woulda thought?

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

    > it has some oddness to it but not completely implausible…

    With comments like that you can expect to be contacted by the Tui billboard people any moment. :)

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

    “I think the david defense is that robin probably got up prior to his alarm”

    And the evidence for that is…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  524. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,391) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Those people are not coming out and arguing against Bain, they are attempting to discredit Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  525. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,391) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    And the evidence he didn’t is? In fact some evidence that he even slept in the caravan would be good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  526. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Dotcom

    With you expertise in probability as well as everything tell me can one be sure of making money playing craps and if so how?

    BTW, If it is not too personal how old are you? On the balance of probabilities I think somewhere between the age of my children and grandchild although not necessarily chronologically,

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

    “”” ross69 (1,388) Says at 6:29 pm Binnie said the Karam books represented the defence case, which explains why his report contains so many errors. “””

    More importantly, Ross, the Karam books were NOT produced ON OATH, nor were they subject to cross-examination. Both basic Binnie errors of natural justice and jurispridence. Binnie must have been losing the plot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  528. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,391) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:07 pm
    “I think the david defense is that robin probably got up prior to his alarm”

    And the evidence for that is…?’

    The dead found in the house in which Robin Bain’s bloody footprints were captured.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  529. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dotcom (101) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    He also said he read that site that you are so fond of. Not only has that been produced under oath, or been subject to cross examination, it is the subject of a defamation case. Is that why all the anger here, because Binnie read their information then dismissed it?

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

    > Those people are not coming out and arguing against Bain, they are attempting to discredit Binnie.

    Too funny.

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

    > The dead found in the house in which Robin Bain’s bloody footprints were captured.

    Is that it? You’ve done a Binnie – puts all your eggs in one basket on the basis of disputed evidence. But it’s reassuring to know that there is nothing else to support your theory that it was Robin.

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

    > And the evidence he didn’t is? In fact some evidence that he even slept in the caravan would be good

    The onus of proof is on Bain…as you know. So where’s the evidence Robin got up at sparrow fart?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  533. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,393) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    How is the footprint evidence disputed and by whom? The crown used it as a major plank against Bain in the first trial. Binnie used the exact same evidence, except he compared the measurements to the actual foot size, rather than the sock size. Hentschell was CERTAIN of his measurements until he found that the foot sizes were larger, so for the retrial tried to fudge what he had seen and measured.
    It is a sad state of affairs when people allow their opinion to become so cast in stone that they need to make the evidence fit, such as you, dotcom and the police and prosecution have done here. It closes the mind to learning the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  534. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,394) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    The onus of proof is on the person making the claim. It was you above who claimed that Robin awoke when his alarm went off. Proof of that?

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

    “””Scott1 (135) Says: at 6:36 pm The newspaper bait is a plausible story, but Im not sure how it adds much to the probability as david doesnt have too much difficulty killing an older weaker and unarmed man with his own gun. the paper issue stands on its own (ie that it is odd if david didnt bring in the paper if he normally does so) but still…”””

    The key to the bait theory is that it puts David and Robin close to each other, so that one rifle shot will probably do it, and far enough into the lounge that Robin will not run. Yet still either side of the curtain, so Robin comes to within 1-2 metres of David, while still completely unawares.

    Now at this stage, before I said “BANG”. But IRL, this does not always happen. David needs to give Robin a final parting lecture before despatching him. So David appears, rifle fully readied and aimed to “fire”. And David says some words to Robin that even David Farrar would not allow here. And what does Robin do?

    Robin falls/collapses/backs off/slumps so that guess what? Forget all that talk of Robin being on one knee etc. Robin finishes up seated in recoil, partially his back, and on the half-filled bean bag. Guess what position Robin’s knee is in? Robin’s knee at this point is the highest point of his entire leg, and blood spatter ends up going “up” his upper leg, while it goes “down” his lower leg. And for the first time in 18 years, we have a sensible explanation for the upwards/downwards pattern of blood spatter on Robin’s leg.

    “God, Dot you are stupid” — or at least this is what the next series of comments will say. Feel free to say it, that Dot is stupid, but just for this once see if you can include some reasonable dissing of my theory as part of your dissing of my id.

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

    > The onus of proof is on the person making the claim

    David is claiming he is innocent – have you got proof of that?

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

    > How is the footprint evidence disputed and by whom?

    I can see you’re trolling….Robin had no blood on the soles of his socks or the soles of his shoes. But remarkably, he is able to transfer blood just by the power of his mind!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  538. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,395) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:21 pm
    > The dead found in the house in which Robin Bain’s bloody footprints were captured.

    Is that it? You’ve done a Binnie – puts all your eggs in one basket on the basis of disputed evidence. But it’s reassuring to know that there is nothing else to support your theory that it was Robin.’

    You were a basket case long before I came along ross.

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

    “”” Kanz (154) Says: at 7:34 pm: You claimed that Robin awoke when his alarm went off. Proof of that? “””

    Don’t need proof of that any more. “Proof” ended at the criminal court. Only thing that matters now is BoP.

    And probability is that a person has a radio/alarm to wake them up. The probability otherwise, Kanz?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  540. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dotcom (102) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    And that explains the blood splatter on the other leg, how? On the left leg it goes down all the way. That left leg was straight up and down when Robin shot himself. Having the right leg on a chair at the same time explains both. You see, the thoery needs to encompass the blood on both legs one is not good enough.

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

    “”” Kanz (154) Says: at 7:18 pm : Is that why all the anger, because Binnie dissed their information? “””

    No, anger if any, is that a killer wants to be compensated for his killing.

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

    And that an innocent man who can no longer speak for himself, has been framed for murder.

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

    The Bainers have put all their eggs in one basket and say that the footprints were Robin’s. But even Bain’s biggest supporter – Ian Binnie – never said they were Robin’s. To quote Robert Fisher:

    “The way in which Binnie J related one item of evidence to another began with luminol footprints. In his view the luminol footprints ‘were PROBABLY made by Robin rather than David Bain’ (Binnie’s emphasis).”

    In other words, the footprint evidence is inconclusive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  544. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dotcom (103) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    I understand now. You can suggest absolutely anything as long as you use the word PROBABLY first. In that case, I will sit back for a while and just enjoy the PROBABLY punch and judy show you and ross69 have going, it should be a good one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  545. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,397) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    That might be what Fisher said. This is from Binnie’s report,

    “None of these issues is without difficulty, but in the end I conclude that none of them
    persuasively undermines the positive proof of factual innocence found in David’s credible
    explanation of his activities on June 20, plus Robin’s bloody footprints in the hallway where, on
    the prosecution theory, he had not been, the lack of any bloodstains on the inside of David’s
    running shoes, and the circumstantial evidence that Robin preceded David into the house.”

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

    This is what Fisher said of Binnie’s approach:

    To adapt the more usual rope analogy, Binnie J has adopted a provisional conclusion based on a single strand which he perceived to be the thick one and then tested some of the other strands singly and in tum against that strand. The approach is contrary to legal and mathematical principle. As judges routinely explain to juries, while each strand may not be strong enough to bear the load placed upon it, the strands taken together gather strength from each other.

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

    “”””Chuck Bird (2,793) Says: at 7:12 pm: Dotcom, with your expertise in probability as well as everything … BTW, are you between the age of my children and grandchild? “”””

    Off topic, Troll. I really thought you were better than trolling, Chick Bird. You disappoint me.

    Have I hurt you so badly by simply telling you that David Bain will NEVER ever again appear in a criminal court regarding the 1994 events? Baby/chuck/toys/cot, Chuck. You’re better than this. Get back to topic. Or go to your party and have a few drinks to get over it.

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

    > the lack of any bloodstains on the inside of David’s running shoes…

    Hmmm what about the lack of blood on the inside of Robin’s shoes, the lack of blood on the soles of his shoes, and the lack of blood on his socks? I woulda thought that might have got a mention from Binnie…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  549. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    ross,
    yes well Im skipping over the problem of the clean clothes (eg socks) which i raised earlier. but the idea that he might get up early and technically have the time to do stuff isnt too bad a theory… unless you have a counter to that…

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

    “”””ross69 (1,398) Says: at 6:54 pm Binnie inferred that the murders, and Robin killing himself, may have happened while David was inside the house! And he has the cheek to call the Crown case unlikely. You’ll recall that the Crown initially thought that David might have committed the murders in the 20-25 minutes that he couldn’t account for, but doubted he had enough time. But Binnie thinks that an old guy probably did it in a fraction of that time. “”””

    Every point spot on, Ross.

    So police conceded that David couldn’t do it in 25 minutes, Yet Binnie wanted to believe that Robin did it, including the dissed washing up, in 13 minutes; and when this didn’t fit, ROFL, he killed while David was in the house.

    Balance of probabilities? David the killer 100. Robin the killer 0.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  551. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,399) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    To which Binnie replied,

    Mr Fisher’s main point is that “in a circumstantial case” bits of evidence are to be examined
    individually but the ultimate decision should only be reached looking at all the relevant evidence
    cumulatively. At the “second stage” , he says, “it is necessary to assess the cumulative effect of
    combining the probative force of all the items” (p 23). His analysis is based on criminal cases ( see
    eg para 44 where he quotes a bunch of criminal precedents and, amongst other things, a paper he
    delivered to a Criminal Law Conference in Auckland in 2003). This is not a criminal case. It is not
    even a law suit.It is an informal inquiry to be conducted (as he notes elsewhere) with a great deal of
    flexibility and discretion. Nevertheless, Mr Fisher then quotes me at para 71 as doing exactly what
    he said I should have done i.e. I say:
    … the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence, considered item by item both
    individually and collectively
    , and considered in light of my interview with David Bain … persuade me that David Bain is
    factually innocent”
    Mr Fisher says at para 72 that my “formulations are clearly beyond reproach”, His allegation is that
    I didn’t do what I said I did. This is just wrong. I did what I said I did. Otherwise I wouldn’t have
    claimed to have done it. Moreover he concedes that in this “weighing up” exercise some factors will

    be given more weight than others. That is precisely the path I followed. I found the physical
    evidence compelling. The psychological and propensity evidence of no help. Mr Fisher suggests at
    para 94 that I should have included in the weighing up the psychological and propensity evidence
    even though I considered it of no value. This shows the impracticality of his academic model .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  552. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Everyone except Binnie and Joe knows that a creep that looks suspiciously like David did it!

    If you don’t believe me ask Judith! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  553. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    ‘The approach is contrary to legal and mathematical principle. As judges routinely explain to juries, while each strand may not be strong enough to bear the load placed upon it, the strands taken together gather strength from each other.’

    You’re away with the fairies ross. He’s agreeing with Binnie posed in language to fool dummies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  554. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    So David had no injuries which were freely weeping. He hadn’t had a nose bleed. But Robin did.

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

    “”” Kanz (157) Says: at 7:12 pm Some evidence that he even slept in the caravan would be good. “”””

    He always did. So BOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  556. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    my thoughts on this is that if you have an alarm you tend to find it hard not to wake up to the alarm.. BUT a day you plan to do some murdering is like christmas day for a kid (ok a slightly odd comparison but stay with me) on this day they will tend to wake up earlier i suppose.

    the odd thing however for the robin theory is that it would be so easy to set the alarm earlier.. because even if you actually would wake up earlier – you wouldn’t want to leave it to chance when you clearly didnt leave many other things to chance.
    … and it probably isnt the sort of thing you would think of as being proof you are a murderer unless you are sherlock holmes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  557. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dotcom (108) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    No he did not. That has NEVER been claimed except by you.

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

    “””” Scott1 (137) Says: at 8:19 pm Isnt the sort of thing you would think of as being proof.. “”””

    Don’t need proof any more. What’s the BoP?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  559. Nostalgia-NZ (5,278 comments) says:

    The very odd thing about Fisher’s inquiry is that he acted against a colleague or ‘peer’ knowing the person didn’t have a reply. He acted with poorly disguised stealth at the hands of the Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  560. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,925) Says:
    December 21st, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    The very odd thing about Fisher’s inquiry is that he acted against a colleague or ‘peer’ knowing the person didn’t have a reply. He acted with poorly disguised stealth at the hands of the Minister.

    Maybe he thought that Binnie didn’t have a reply, he didn’t count on Binnie though did he? Not only did Binnie indeed reply that reply made Fisher look like a dunderhead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  561. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    sorry dotcom i was not clear.
    what i mean is that robin would not have decided not to set his alarm a little earlier in some convoluted plot not to eveal he got up earlier to kill people – he would not hve even though about it. so if he did not set his alarm earlier it implies he was not thinking of murdering people the previous day on BOP.
    (im trying to take each BOP debate on the facts on its merits)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  562. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    The only thing wrong with the Bain family murders is that the last survivor didn’t shoot himself as well! :)

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

    “”” Kanz (159) Says: at 8:21 pm That Robin did not normally sleep in the caravan when at 65 Every. That has NEVER been claimed except by Dot. “””‘

    This is your big chance Kanz. Convince me Robin normally slept elsewhere than the caravan whenever he was at No 65, and I’ll put myself into the sinbin for the remainder of Friday night. Deal?

    signed, Tony Dotcom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  564. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Binnie thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a fool,only turns out he is the fool.
    And I have caught you in another lie.
    Trial by Ambush,p50,
    Another point made,confirmed by other witnesses, is that the light bulb in the bedroom was very dim .When the two ambulance officers came in Andrew tried to turn the light on ,thinking it was off . However instead of turning the light on he turned it off,because it was already on.
    Now if you say you are telling the truth then you are also saying that Joe Karam is lying. Are you telling the truth?
    Of course you are not. Which takes me back to the point I made about David Bain putting that bloody clothing in the wash without noticing it was bloody and without noticing he had blood on his hands.
    Re the goat. May I remind you that it was David Bain who said he saw Mark Buckley humping that goat. I wonder if it was a billy goat or a nanny goat? Binnie didn’t ask.
    And where’s my apology?

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

    “””” Johnboy (9,544) Says: at 8:30 pm that the last survivor didn’t shoot himself “”””

    So who did the killing Johnboy, and what makes you think it was him, and not the other?

    Vote: