A new Bain report?

January 25th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports:

The Government will “most probably” commission another report on ’s application for compensation, Prime Minister John Key said yesterday.

That is the sensible thing to do. There is no way one could make a decision on compensation on the basis of the Binnie report. it isn’t that the conclusion is necessarily wrong – it is that the reasoning and weighting of evidence was done in a way that several law professors have said was outside the norm.

It is possible a more standard review of the evidence will reach the same conclusion on whether Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities (and that is all that was asked for).

Mr Key said Ms Collins would return to the Cabinet with other options that included asking Dr Fisher or someone else to do more work.

Asked if there would be a second report, he said “most probably”.

Mr Key said that while the cost of the process was important, it was necessary to reach a robust conclusion by which New Zealanders could understand why any decision had been reached.

If an individual is appointed and they reach a different conclusion to Binnie, then the accusation will be the Govt just cherry-picked the answer they wanted. This is why I like the suggestion that a panel of three be asked to do the second report. If they all agree on the key issue of innocence on the balance of probabilities then I think there will be fairly widespread acceptance of any decision by Cabinet that follows that report. The hardcore believers on both sides will never accept a report that doesn’t say what they want – but I think the majority of NZers want to see an end to it, and a multi-person panel will give them confidence of a fair resolution.

Tags:

729 Responses to “A new Bain report?”

  1. Manolo (14,027 comments) says:

    A green field for another 5,000+ comments!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    All aboooooard the Bain Train!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tvb (4,494 comments) says:

    Oh gawd why can’t they just make a decision. A huge amount of money has been spent already on Bain not least the massive fees for his trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (14,027 comments) says:

    It’s all part of DPF’s grand plan to beat other NZ blogs and reclaim the most-comments-per-month title.
    A multiple murderer and his family are excellent bait for the nutter sharks in the blogsphere pool.

    [DPF: Heh, no. KB has always had the most comments. I blog on issues I am interested in. That is the only criteria]

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    DPF, I fully support a panel but hope the government has confidence in NZers and does not bring in another so called expert from overseas. From what I have seen Binnie is not only a ninny but about as trust worthy as David Bain.

    http://www.driveforjustice.com/2012/12/17/drive-for-justice-26-our-ermine-clad-masters-decide/

    I hope the panel is not solely lawyer, past or present judges and includes at least one researcher. It is also important that David be properly interviewed as well as the people he has tried to discredit.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    To my layman’s view it’s important that our justice system can be seen to be capable of honestly and competently investigating possible miscarriages of justice and righting them if approriate – otherwise how can New Zealanders have confidence that they can expect a fair trial in our country?

    (Outside experts should be a part of that – if an Air New Zealand Dreamliner crashed, you wouldn’t necessarily ask Jim of Jim’s Topdressing New Plymouth to investigate and report on the causes… )

    Oh, and what Manolo said… absolutely!

    [ :-P Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary.]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    This is why I like the suggestion that a panel of three be asked to do the second report.

    Yeah, but what are the odds they’ll reach a split decision…..(not that they should – David Bain clearly murdered his family)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. OneTrack (3,216 comments) says:

    We are a rich country. We can continue to afford paying these lawyers megabucks for going round and round in a slowly decreasing circle. Just don’t get sick because there might not be enough money for your stay in hospital. Wonder what these guys with PNH think? How many of them could be treated with the money being burnt and already burnt on this?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mike Wilkinson (71 comments) says:

    I diagree, David. A report written by committee is significantly less likely to find Bain not guilty on the balance of probabilities. The Gov’t is just looking for a way to get out of doing something politically unpopular.

    Whatever I might think of his guilt, I continue to feel sorry for David Bain. Not only does he get mistreated by the police and the justice system, he also gets done over by the Government. Poor guy.

    Cheers,
    Mike

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 35 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    Yeah, but what are the odds they’ll reach a split decision…..(not that they should – David Bain clearly murdered his family)

    Well, if it really IS so clear that David Bain murdered his family, then I guess the odds are pretty low. Alternatively, if the odds are high that there’ll be a split decision, then it would seem that it ISN’T that clear that Bain did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    A report written by committee is significantly less likely to find Bain not guilty on the balance of probabilities.

    Why do you say this? The Privy Council, which overturned Bain’s conviction, was “a committee”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    @OneTrack,

    I see your point. The best thing would just be to pay Bain his compensation now, and not spend more on lawyers just to come up with a recommendation that he be paid compensation. That’s what you mean, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. toms (299 comments) says:

    What an utter fiasco. These fishing expeditions for the “right” answer has already cost the New Zealand taxpayer north of half a million dollars. Now for some reason it is …”the sensible thing to do…” to spend another quarter of a million for another half senile retired lawyer or judge to produce another report that hopefully will allow the government to not pay compensation.

    Why doesn’t Collins simply spend $750,000 taxpayer dollars on a giant fireworks display that spells “no compo David” in the sky?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    Why doesn’t Collins simply spend $750,000 taxpayer dollars on a giant fireworks display that spells “no compo David” in the sky?

    Because Collins takes her job as Minister of JUSTICE seriously, and wants to ensure that the right thing is done (be that to pay compensation or not)?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 36 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. chrisw76 (85 comments) says:

    I’d actually like to see a report on whether or not on the balance of probabilities David’s father murdered the entire family before killing himself. As we seem to by implication putting him on trial, we might as well actually start with this position and evaluate the evidence with this in mind.

    Cheers, Chris W.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    It’s not a particulary difficult question. The Binnie report is fundamentally flawed. It cannot be relied on. So a new report is needed.

    Very unfortunate, but it only arose because Binnie went off the rails. If one is looking to blame the Govt, it is that Simon Power appointed a corporate lawyer turned judge who had little if any experience in criminal trials and forensic evidence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Longknives (4,853 comments) says:

    “Collins in consultation with Key will shoulder-tap a Tory or panel of Tories.
    The Tory or Tories will write a report stating Bain cannot be proven innocent.
    A recommendation will be made to Cabinet that Bain should receive no compensation.”

    Does believing in Robin Bain’s innocence automatically make you a ‘Tory’?
    What an odd summation..

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer – I question whether you would think the Binnie report is “fundamentally flawed” if it found against compensation for Bain.

    Let’s be pragmatic here – People who think Bain killed his family obviously don’t like the Binnie report and don’t want compensation awarded. Those who think Bain is innocent believe the Binnie report should be upheld and Bain should receive compensation.

    The prevailing view of Cabinet must be that Bain is guilty and therefore they seek to undermine the Binnie report.

    Remember National have chosen to traverse this very issue in their focus groups.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. peterwn (3,298 comments) says:

    Rather than a three person panel, simply choose someone other than Mr Fisher QC – not that there is any intrinsic problem with Mr Fisher but his stance is virtually a foregone conclusion. In any case the most authoritive three person review on the matter is the 2003 Appeal Court hearing. The Privy Council ‘rejected’ that outcome on a philosophical basis rather than that there was anything ‘wrong’ with the outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @hamnidaV2

    I thought David probably was lucky to get off on the second trail. However, I did not have that strong a view on the matter as if he was guilty he was not the first to be found not guilty and he will not be the last.

    It was not till after I read Binnie’s soft interview of David that i felt strongly on the issue. After seeing what some think of him in Canada I think Power should hang his head in shame for appoint such an arrogant incompetent fool – and that is putting it politely.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @peterwn

    Do you think that person has to be a lawyer and if so why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer – I question whether you would think the Binnie report is “fundamentally flawed” if it found against compensation for Bain.

    No – I think it is flawed because… it contains demonstrable flaws, not what the outcome is. Do you perhaps have a different standard?

    In terms out outcome, frankly I couldn’t care less.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    In any case the most authoritive three person review on the matter is the 2003 Appeal Court hearing. The Privy Council ‘rejected’ that outcome on a philosophical basis rather than that there was anything ‘wrong’ with the outcome.

    What does this mean? The PC overturned the C of A’s 2003 decision on the basis that it failed to correct “a substantial miscarriage of justice”. That seems to be a bit more than a difference of “philosophic basis”. Now, true the PC went out of its way to say that any retrial may or may not find David Bain guilty … but given its ruling, it is hard to say that the 2003 C of A ruling is an “authoritative” review of the issue.

    103. A substantial miscarriage of justice will actually occur if fresh, admissible and apparently credible evidence is admitted which the jury convicting a defendant had no opportunity to consider but which might have led it, acting reasonably, to reach a different verdict if it had had the opportunity to consider it. Such a miscarriage involves no reflection on the trial judge, and in the present case David’s counsel expressly disavowed any criticism of Williamson J. It is, however, the duty of the criminal appellate courts to seek to identify and rectify convictions which may be unjust. That result will occur where a defendant is convicted and further post-trial evidence raises a reasonable doubt whether he would or should have been convicted had that evidence been before the jury.

    104. In the opinion of the Board the fresh evidence adduced in relation to the nine points summarised above, taken together, compels the conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred in this case. It is the effect of all the fresh evidence taken together, not the evidence on any single point, which compels that conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Keeping Stock (10,405 comments) says:

    Manolo said

    A green field for another 5,000+ comments!

    As I noted the other day Manolo, a weekly Bain post is pivotal to DPF’s strategy to wrest the #1 spot in the NZ blog rankings back from Cameron Slater.

    But surely, there will come a point of critical mass with regard to Bain, where everything that can be said about the case has been, and has been ad infinitum, ad nauseum

    As far as the question of another report goes; it needs to be done. Justice Binnie’s report was fundamentally flawed, and Judith Collins is absolutely right to be cautious before recommending a huge sum of compensation. Alternatively, Ms Collins could propose that Justice Binnie give back half of his fee ($200,000) which could be shared equally by David Bain and Joe Karam, and the matter could be laid to rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    “A recommendation will be made to Cabinet that Bain should receive no compensation.

    This is a total confusion between the role of Government and the judiciary. ”

    No it is not. This is total confusion in the mind of someone besotted by the notion that everything always has to be expressed, assessed and determined in terms of political left or political right and that the political right is always “tory” and always wrong.

    Whether Bain receives compensation has nothing whatsoever to do with the judiciary. The judiciary’s function is to determine legal rights. Bain has no legal right to any compensation. The courts have no jurisdiction. He cannot go to court. The government, entirely in its discretion and on an ex-gratia basis does make payments of compensation without any obligation so to do. It does so according to guidelines which it has adopted. The guidelines are not binding and, in any event, have no application to Bain because he does not come within them. It is the role of the government to decide whether to make a payment out of tax payers’s money by way of compensation. If you cannot see that after it has been spelled out so often by so many then you are simply displaying intransigent bigotry and adding nothing to the debate.

    The government does not need to shoulder tap anybody. If, as Hamnida suggests, the outcome has been predetermined then the government could quite easily make that determination here and now. It has not done so. It has sought the assistance firstly of Binney and, when serious flaws appeared in that assistance, from Dr Fisher

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Mike Wilkinson (71 comments) says:

    AG @ 9.25

    The reason I believe a committee is unlikely to find Bain not guilty on the balance of probabilities is that any committee would likely have a majority of members from New Zealand. Since New Zealanders are already heavily polarised on Bain’s guilt/innocence, it is most unlikely this majority could agree on any firm conclusion. If there’s no possibility of any agreement, how can there be any “not guilty on balance of probabilities” decision?

    Aside from whether it’s desirable, I believe the committee route is just a convenient method for National to get out of something that’s politically unpopular.

    Cheers,
    Mike

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    The hardcore believers on both sides will never accept a report that doesn’t say what they want – but I think the majority of NZers want to see an end to it, and a multi-person panel will give them confidence of a fair resolution.

    Sadly I think a majority of NZ’ers don’t actually understand the difference between the compensation criteria and being found “not guilty” and don’t fully appreciate just how bad the Binnie report was.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Well, if it really IS so clear that David Bain murdered his family, then I guess the odds are pretty low.

    My assumption is that not everyone thinks as clearly as I do Andrew – even that esteemed, mind cluttered Canadian judge ;)

    “The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”
    ― Voltaire

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Sofia (862 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ, on the “c_k_stead_on_the_bain_case” – which is now so large it is dopey to try and load it very often – has among other points said –
    that David should withdraw the compensation claim and sue

    And I wonder why not?
    Does some legality prevent it?
    Is it not then just a question that the Privy Counsel found the first trial “unsafe’, but Bain had been convicted on that and did 13 years before being found “Not Guilty” in the second trial.
    Is the evidence for suing not a great deal different – showing wrongful imprisonment – than the current position of proving “innocence on probability” for compensation?
    And is suing not more likely to succeed?
    Just wondering …

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    Wonder if this will become another 2000 comment thread with the usual unemployed devotee’s ranting and raving at each other.

    Instead of studying something productive, that will be useful or actually help someone or themselves they have devoted countless hours to something completely and utterly irrelevant in which their opinion is absolutely worthless outside of ranting on message boards and ostracizing themselves at dinner parties..

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    The real of truth of the matter is you Tories would have no problem at all with the Binnie report if it contained some excuses of why Cabinet shouldn’t approve compensation.

    It is important to note that no one raised concerns about Binnie or his report until the recommendations were unfavourable to the Tory agenda. Tories simply assumed that because Simon Power picked him it would be all good. That assumption was wrong, but don’t worry, you’re in Government so a fresh report can be ordered.

    Here is some advice – Make sure the next author(s) are genuine Tories who know the score so you don’t get another pro-Bain report.

    If there was such a problem with Binnie’s credentials, you should have raised them before, not after, his investigation started.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @hamnidaV2 – not sure why you are addressing comments to members of the UK Conservative Party – a bit homesick, perhaps? – but you sure seem to love the word Tory.

    Anyway, if your comment were addressed to me, you would be wrong (which seems to be quite common). I don’t have problems with Binnie’s credentials as a jurist, but given that his report went off the rails and had demonstrable errors (a rather important detail you seem to forget), in retrospect it was a mistake to appoint someone lacking in expertise of criminal law & evidence.

    I certainly wouldn’t have expected such a substantively flawed report from Binnie, but there you go.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    queenstframer – But no need for you to worry. While the Tories are in power a new report can simply be ordered. Hopefully you are happier with the next report and a recommendation can be made to Cabinet for no compensation.

    Power by Right – That’s the Tory way.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Hopefully you are happier with the next report

    That will depend on whether or not it has demonstrable errors.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Paulus (2,657 comments) says:

    Pay him $1.

    That will be a settlement, neither confirming or denying guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    “It is important to note that no one raised concerns about Binnie or his report until the recommendations were unfavourable to the Tory agenda.”

    Is it possible that this is not the mind-numbingly stupid statement that it appears to be?
    I have tried to give it the benefit of the doubt but, really, it re-inforces the view that, with Hamnida, the only criterion for assessing any situation is the political leaning of those involved.

    No-one raised concerns about Binnie because there was nothing to be concerned about until the report arrived. The flaws were in the report–not in the way he went about doing his job or anything he said prior to delivering his report.

    How could Collins have had concerns that Binnie’s report went beyond his brief and contained a flawed approach to dealing with circumstantial evidential until she received the report?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    If he want any money he can go on with Oprah. She is very understanding. He cannot get tried again and confession is good for the sole.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    hamnidaV2, at one point Binnie basicially said that if we can trust David then there is no question of whether he did it or not.

    Do enlighten us all on how a report that contains such stupidty should be taken seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    Is it possible that this is not the mind-numbingly stupid statement that it appears to be?

    No chance at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    This is why I like the suggestion that a panel of three be asked to do the second report.

    If not a panel of 3, I would expect any report to be peer-reviewed. Maybe a report by Fisher peer-reviewed by Binnie? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    ^ Yes. Logic and reason are evidently not hamnidaV2’s strong points.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The real of truth of the matter is you Tories would have no problem at all with the Binnie report if it contained some excuses of why Cabinet shouldn’t approve compensation.

    That’s rubbish. It doesn’t matter which side of the political fence you’re on, Binnie’s report was pitiful. I say that as a non-Tory.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer – Logic and reason – Tories don’t like the Binnie report, so they order a fresh report.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Why do you say this? The Privy Council, which overturned Bain’s conviction, was “a committee”.

    Andrew,

    The PC’s decision was completely different to what’s involved with David’s compo claim. For a start, the onus of proof, which was on the Crown re the PC, is now on David. Second, if a panel of 3 was to hear David’s claim, it would presumably require two members to find David innocent beyond reasonable doubt. Given the evidence, how likely is it that even one member would find in David’s favour?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    “Tories don’t like the Binnie report, so they order a fresh report.”
    And a considerable number of legal experts agree that the report was flawed and support this action regardless of political hue.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 78 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/lance-armstrong-has-finally-confessed-what-about-david-bain

    David Bain should just do what Lance Armstrong just did.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    hamnidaV2 (37) Says:

    January 25th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    queenstframer – But no need for you to worry. While the Tories are in power a new report can simply be ordered. Hopefully you are happier with the next report and a recommendation can be made to Cabinet for no compensation.

    Power by Right – That’s the Tory way.

    A Tory is a member or supporter of the Conservative Party in Britain.
    Are you posting from Great Britain ,hamnida? There aren’t any Tories here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Manolo (14,027 comments) says:

    muggins, you’re badly mistaken. Nobody gives a fuck about David Bain here.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Jimbo (43 comments) says:

    Muggins, you’re a bore. Yes, DB is way bad but try to see the big picture and stop trying to win every single argument. You don’t need to respond to everything. Go out, enjoy the sunshine. Find a friend. Or if you can’t stop yourself go back to the other thread and bore people there?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    “There aren’t any Tories here” – Seriously? I think you should submit your post to Tui for their next billboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Stuart Grieve QC advised Bain back in 2010 that he should quit while he was ahead. Alas, he didn’t seem to appreciate this good advice.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Bain-compensation-Take-the-freedom-run—lawyer/tabid/423/articleID/148323/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    ross69

    How does it feel to be accused of being a tory?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    hamnidaV2 points out:

    This is a total confusion between the role of Government and the judiciary.

    That’s what’s wrong with this process and has led to this entire mess. What was a legal process, subject to centuries of precedent as regards the way in which the law must be applied, the weight that must be given to each piece of evidence and a hundred other variables suddenly becomes a political one in which the only consideration is “will the public swallow this, or hammer us in the polls?”

    We as a society can adjust, to some extent, the way the justice system handles matters through electing people who’ll legislate the changes we wish to see. It’s not a perfect system by any means, but it’s the only one we have and there isn’t a widespread desire to throw it out and institute, say, an inquisitorial model or just a quick kangaroo court and a sound thrashing (despite that latter option probably rating quite high amongst some KB commenters).

    Therefore we’re signalling our belief that the system gets it right far more often than it gets it wrong. The corollary to that is that we must be willing to accept the consequences when the process in which we have placed our faith – and in which we’ve accepted the outcome when applied to literally thousands of other people who come before our courts every year – fails.

    If the law simply stated that anyone who, at the end of all available legal processes, was found to have been wrongfully convicted was entitled to x amount as compensatory damages and then a set figure per month spent in jail, all this hand wringing would end. A politician – any politician – has no place in what has been, up till now, a purely judicial process.

    Yes, very very occasionally someone dodgy might end up receiving what is, in the scheme of things, a small amount of money. But more importantly, genuinely innocent people would not be forced to go cap in hand to the government and prove, to a higher and completely arbitrary standard, that what they endured was unconscionable. And we’d be spared this circus.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Ross @ 1.25
    Given the evidence, how likely is it that even one member would find in David’s favour?
    Provided they are independant and not associated with crown law very likely that 3 would. I seem to remember the JFRB idiots clearly agreeing at the time of the appointment that Ian Binnie was clearly the right man for the job. How much did the crown prove at the retrial again?

    Chuck Bird @ 10.23
    You are kidding yourself that David was given such an easy ride by Binnie, he was interviewed in the presence of John Pike and Annabel Markham for the crown. If they had any problems with what was or wasn’t asked then they would have brought it up then. You seem to have changed your view towards guilt solely on the suppressed evidence of Mark Buckley and Davids interview, mind you not a lot of actual evidence to do so on!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    ““There aren’t any Tories here” – Seriously? I think you should submit your post to Tui for their next billboard.”
    Collins Concise Dictionary: Tory “.. a member or supporter of the Conservative Party in Great Britain or Canada”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    @Nookin

    And a considerable number of legal experts agree that the report was flawed and support this action regardless of political hue.

    And not to mention a considerable number of bloggers with a degree of common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Jinky (188 comments) says:

    I remember a psychiatrist who interviewed David in jail prior to 1st trial quoted as saying “if david did kill his family he is not aware of doing so”. So he could well be guilty but thinks he’s innocent!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    Chuck, in reflecting upon your earlier comment, maybe Judith should commission Oprah. Lance Armstrong coughed and he seemed to be a rather more convincing liar than Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    “You are kidding yourself that David was given such an easy ride by Binnie, he was interviewed in the presence of John Pike and Annabel Markham for the crown. If they had any problems with what was or wasn’t asked then they would have brought it up then.”

    I think that the critical issue is not the questions that were asked but the fact that Binnie accepted his evidence so unreservedly nothwithstanding the questions asked. Attendees would not necessarily have been forewarned of that possibility. I also gather that there was no right of cross-examination .

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    That’s what’s wrong with this process and has led to this entire mess. What was a legal process, subject to centuries of precedent as regards the way in which the law must be applied, the weight that must be given to each piece of evidence and a hundred other variables suddenly becomes a political one in which the only consideration is “will the public swallow this, or hammer us in the polls?”

    That’s codswallop, Rex. Binnie’s report was rubbish, a fact which you cannot argue with. If it had been even passable, this matter would now be done and dusted. So, instead of blaming the Minister you would be advised to put the blame where it belongs.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    You are kidding yourself that David was given such an easy ride by Binnie, he was interviewed in the presence of John Pike and Annabel Markham for the crown.

    What’s that got to do with the price of fish? Their presence counted for nothing. But I’d note that neither Pike nor Markham were permitted to ask David questions directly. However, Reed was…that says a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I also gather that there was no right of cross-examination.

    On the contrary, Reed cross-examined David at length, a luxury which was not afforded the Crown. Binnie bent over backwards to assist David, who of course Binnie thought had been hard done by before the interview had even begun.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom (4,904) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 3:11 pm hamnidaV2 points out:

    This is a total confusion between the role of Government and the judiciary.

    That’s what’s wrong with this process and has led to this entire mess. What was a legal process, subject to centuries of precedent as regards the way in which the law must be applied, the weight that must be given to each piece of evidence and a hundred other variables suddenly becomes a political one in which the only consideration is “will the public swallow this, or hammer us in the polls?”

    We as a society can adjust, to some extent, the way the justice system handles matters through electing people who’ll legislate the changes we wish to see. It’s not a perfect system by any means, but it’s the only one we have and there isn’t a widespread desire to throw it out and institute, say, an inquisitorial model or just a quick kangaroo court and a sound thrashing (despite that latter option probably rating quite high amongst some KB commenters).

    Therefore we’re signalling our belief that the system gets it right far more often than it gets it wrong. The corollary to that is that we must be willing to accept the consequences when the process in which we have placed our faith – and in which we’ve accepted the outcome when applied to literally thousands of other people who come before our courts every year – fails.

    If the law simply stated that anyone who, at the end of all available legal processes, was found to have been wrongfully convicted was entitled to x amount as compensatory damages and then a set figure per month spent in jail, all this hand wringing would end. A politician – any politician – has no place in what has been, up till now, a purely judicial process.

    Yes, very very occasionally someone dodgy might end up receiving what is, in the scheme of things, a small amount of money. But more importantly, genuinely innocent people would not be forced to go cap in hand to the government and prove, to a higher and completely arbitrary standard, that what they endured was unconscionable. And we’d be spared this circus.

    Yes, the legal system has failed again. How much longer are we going to put up with this anachronistic and costly circus? Due process is no better than alchemy, Justice must be brought into the modern world of science and statistics, reasoning and probability.

    A trial lasting three months is a cock-up. What is done about it? Shrug of the shoulders! What other organisation or profession could get away with this nonsense? The whole system is rotten and a disgrace.

    The matter is no longer within the justice system. Compensation is a gift from the people, it is political and the decision is made by politicians. They should make it, not throw more money at dunces and witch doctors.

    If the minister wants to understand what happened, get a few scientists to explain it and explain the odds it was David Bain. The truth stares you in the face once you look at the evidence. The defence is a preposterous narrative and a chain of improbabilities that stretch to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    The Bain team played a huge con trick on gullible journalists and a dopey public: Nice boy versus dirty old man. Ah, that’ll be why Robin invited a lodger, to observe the incest, or perhaps he hoped for a menage a trois?

    A saturation campaign of poisonous rumour and the denial of reality by a Canadian dunce is a circumstance that requires an exceptional response.

    Collins is a pillar among pillocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    Ross

    Reed examined Bain and, I think, was given the opportunity of cross-examining Weir. The Crown were not given the opportunity of cross-examining Bain. Bain was, in the loose context of this procedure, Reed’s witness and so he does not “cross-examine” him. I am not disagreeing with your point — just the terminology

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Jimbo (10) Says:

    January 25th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
    Muggins, you’re a bore. Yes, DB is way bad but try to see the big picture and stop trying to win every single argument. You don’t need to respond to everything. Go out, enjoy the sunshine. Find a friend. Or if you can’t stop yourself go back to the other thread and bore people there.

    Hang on Jimbo. There is hardly anybody left posting on that thread. Just someone called Judith.
    And I am a bainaholic, which means I am addicted to Bain threads. I have tried to go cold turkey,but to no avail,and those patches they gave me are bloody useless.
    But I am trying to cut down to four posts a day. I am off for my walk in the sunshine now.
    Copulater.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom (4,904) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    I agree with what you have said there, but as it has now become political, and they appear to be wanting another report, I suggest it be along the lines of the Royal Commission into the Crewe murders, as Muldoon appointed.
    That Panel consisted of the Honourable Robert L Taylor former Cheif Justice for NSW, a retired Archbishop the Most Reverend A H Johnstone, and a retired politician the RT Hon Peter Gordon, not one of them had a connection with the NZ judicial system.
    They came back with findings that no NZ Judge or QC would dare to come back with.

    It would be good if at least one of them were familiar with using the Bayes’ Theorem, as Don Mathias has recommended here http://donmathias.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/bain-binnie-fisher-bayes-how-should-judges-reach-conclusions/

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    ross69 says:

    That’s codswallop, Rex. Binnie’s report was rubbish, a fact which you cannot argue with. If it had been even passable, this matter would now be done and dusted.

    What? What has that got to do with anything I said? I’m effectively arguing for a law change which would make compensation to someone wrongfully convicted a right, not at the whim of a politician (any politician, from any party, ever) thus removing its potential as a political football and ensuring the overwhelming majority of genuinely innocent people wrongfully convicted don’t have to beg for what should rightfully be theirs.

    That the supposed inadequacies of Binnie’s report have highlighted the inherent unfairness of this process is, for the purposes of my argument, neither here nor there.

    Other jurisdictions have legislated compensation schemes applicable upon a final and binding finding of not guilty; so should we.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom (4,907) Says: January 25th, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Don’t agree. What you really want to do is to protect the existing legal system from accountability and outsiders. You are a Luddite.

    At the very least we should have a “not proven” verdict available to juries. That would have been the best Bain would have got, since we know at least one juror (second trial) stated on TV Bain is not innocent. She tried to express her concerns to Binnie, but he sent her packing. If science operated this way we’d still be eating a meagre meal by candlelight after a 14 hour day in the fields behind a horse.

    In my opinion the whole legal system is rubbish. We have a former prosecutor, Prof K Palmer giving the Binnie Report an A* in a letter to the NZ Herald. Another dunce bites the dust.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    In 1998 the Law Commission released a report on dealing with this type of issue. It is sad that it was ignored. I believe that if Binnie’s report can not be accepted, then the only way this claim can proceed is for a tribunal (or committee) to be established, and the government take no more than an administrative role. Personally I think Collins has handled this badly and allowed herself to be influenced by others with vested interests. The result being that any decision made by Cabinet, without another full report conducted by someone other than Fisher, would be ‘unsafe’.

    http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/pp/PP31/PP31.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    There’s been a big breach of faith with the Binnie report here are some of the reasons why:

    David through his representatives was asked to accept the result of the Binnie report whatever it may have been. That was agreed with. I’m not 100% certain of this because I haven’t seen it in an official document. I did however hear Joe karam say in an interview that they had been going to agree to the report regardless of the result.

    Binnie’s report or methodology couldn’t be reviewed a/ by a person of lesser experience b/ by a person who hadn’t familiarized himself with all the evidence as Binnie had, or indeed consulted with Binnie over any issues. There should have been no review of the report, particularly not one where a conclusion was that Binnie using a route, he has indicated that he took, may have reached the same result anyway.

    David is now put in a position that entitles him to have no faith in a system that required he accept the results of the report whether they favoured him or not. A situation in itself that shows even at the outset the right of natural justice was never afforded him. He could be said to have been confident in his innocence and an independent review or ‘forced’ to accept terms that I don’t know of any other applicant was required to accept when making a bid for compensation.

    I agree with everything Rex has said above but it isn’t a resolution here because such an Act of Compensation doesn’t exist, in fact at this point it can be argued that a justice system doesn’t exist. A prison inmate can take the department of corrections to court and win on a BOR issue concerning smoking and have all the rights of appeal and due process afforded any other person in the country – except one David Cullen Bain. More priority is given to the issue of smoking in prisons, parking backwards into parking spaces in Rotorua (or some such place) than the highest court confirming a MOJ for which no redress is available other than through the office of the perpetrators of the MOJ, Crown Law and a ‘neutral’ Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Judith,

    The discussion paper put out by the Law Commission in 1998 suggested there were 4 options. The first two options required the claimant to prove innocence “beyong reasonable doubt”. The third option required likely innocence, while the 4th option was the status quo. I’m not sure how any of those options would be helpful to David Bain. Ultimately he has to prove his innocence. Telling porkies isn’t going to help him achieve that.

    The Law Commission commented:

    “In considering the issue of compensation it is easy to overlook the tension between the fact of innocence and the procedures required to establish that fact. Any procedure for establishing innocence or guilt following acquittal or discharge will be an onerous one, imposing emotional pressures on the participants and costing them time and resources. If the procedure imposes a threshhold that is too low, it allows claim by those who are guilty but dispute that fact. The result will be duplication of public resources already spent at trial, and doubt being cast on the verdict. There is a “floodgates” risk that in many cases the current processes of trial and appeal could be converted into the first stage of an effective double trial: the first of guilt and the second of innocence. This would undermine finality and certainty in criminal procedure.”

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Well there’s no finality here ross despite you rubbishing Binnie for the last 2 months.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I’m effectively arguing for a law change which would make compensation to someone wrongfully convicted a right, not at the whim of a politician (any politician, from any party, ever) thus removing its potential as a political football and ensuring the overwhelming majority of genuinely innocent people wrongfully convicted don’t have to beg for what should rightfully be theirs.

    In other words, you’re arguing that possible mass murderers should be paid compensation. I respectfully disagree, and I suspect the vast majority of taxpayers would not want possible mass murderers compensated. I have no problem with innocent people being compensated, and we’ve seen that happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Well there’s no finality here ross despite you rubbishing Binnie for the last 2 months.

    Whose fault is that? If Binnie had’ve been even moderately competent, which surely should be reasonably expected of a Supreme Court judge, then this process would be all over. It is not Judith Collins’ fault that Binnie doesn’t understand NZ law and thinks the sun shines out of David’s arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Other jurisdictions have legislated compensation schemes applicable upon a final and binding finding of not guilty; so should we.

    Rex, what are the other jurisdictions you’re referring to?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Ross
    “That’s codswallop, Rex. Binnie’s report was rubbish, a fact which you cannot argue with.”
    Yes a proven ‘fact’ isn’t it? as decided by the ‘Daddy didn’t do it witchhunt’. The ‘rubbish’ report you speak of is the academic legalistic unresearched crap published by Robert Fisher! His track record and the fact that he was acting for Hutton & co trying to protect the cops ‘image’ during the Thomas commission shows us his true credentials as a suitable person for the job doesn’t it!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘It is not Judith Collins’ fault that Binnie doesn’t understand NZ law and thinks the sun shines out of David’s arse.’

    The extent of your argument ross summed up beautifully, readily seen how easy you are to manipulate. You are succour for the likes of Collins, you wouldn’t even stand up for your own rights.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Rowan,

    I didn’t mention Fisher. Have you actually read Binnie’s report? It appears not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Complete acceptance of a contrary legal finding by JK would be breaking a habit perhaps?
    Given the implications of a finding of “factually innocent” on RB, I think the minister is right to consider a further examination. It’s not just a case of DB being innocent. It’s also a case of RB being a murderer of his children. He isn’t here to speak for himself, but wouldn’t any of us accused of such a serious crime want it carefully examined before being officially confirmed? Even post mortem?
    That’s what makes this case so different, and why Collins is right to be careful. She could hardly ignore the contrary opinions. At the very least the assertion that the luminol footprints show RB has to be the killer should be reviewed. Surely this wouldn’t take long? Or cost much? And then, when an acknowledged forensic expert (there must be someone in the US) states that Justice Binnie was correct, we can all move on to other things. Also, N-NZ and Kanz, you will have the pleasure of a good laugh at Collins’ expense- and a few other people as well. I, for one, would accept such a result. And Collins, of course, then has to face the wrath of an electorate for having buggered around so much!
    Would a small delay not be worth it for all this pleasure?
    Of course, if the expert found the footprint might have been DB, then it would be interesting to see if JK accepts this the way he apparently would have accepted an adverse report by Justice Binnie!
    It is hard to see any down side at all to re-checking the luminol evidence at the very least, by someone not paid for either by defence or prosecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    At 127 of his report, Binnie said:

    The initial Police theory (a 25 minute killing spree after David Bain completed his paper route) suggested someone totally but temporarily deranged. The second Police theory (“four before one after”) required a calm calculating “psychopath”. Yet what sort of calculating killer leaves the murder scene open to all the world for an hour while he goes off to do his paper route? Robin’s alarm clock was set for 6.30 am, but Robin was not obliged to remain in his caravan until 7 am.

    So, Binnie believes that David would have to be a psychopath. I’m not sure what expertise Binnie has in psychopathy. No such expertise is mentioned in his report. He says the “world” was able to view the murder scene. I must confess I failed to stumble across it, though the fact I was in Wellington at the time probably didn’t help. Last, he makes the amazingly obvious claim that Robin could have left his caravan before 7 am. Yes, he could have. However, it is up to David to prove that he did. It is little wonder the Minister rubbished Binnie’s report.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    At 134, Binnie said:

    the Police “four before one after” theory not only requires David Bain to be what used to be termed a psychopath but immensely incompetent

    But if David was the killer, as seems likely, then that surely suggests he was competent, not immensely incompetent. Moreover, if David was the killer, an alibi would have been helpful. One witness, Mark Buckley, claims that David planned to rape a jogger 4 years prior to the murders. Buckley claims that David intended to use his paper run as an alibi. It appears Binnie ignored Buckley’s evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Well snarkle Binnie accepted the evidence of Crown witness on the footprints, even though Karl Stead made the claim that Walsh was a defence witness. However, a further two witnesses, 1 for the crown and 1 for the defence agreed with the assertions about the footprint. I’m not adverse to any forensic information provided there is input from both sides, but the problem remains with this process, it’s up to the ‘whim’ of Collins and it’s already shown that ‘whim’ and justice don’t mix. David contracted in on a pledge to accept Binnie’s report, something which utterly surprises me, but to see the Minister breach what most would assume was a mutual pledge takes this case a long way back in the past when ‘Kings’ could not be trusted to ‘Judge’ without whim.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Is that ‘evidence’ ross of a crime that was never committed on a person who was never found, but who, according to one of Robin’s main supporters, there was going to be some announcement on channel 1 a couple of weeks ago. New thread same bs eh ross?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    As John Key has said, someone will be asked to write a new robust report. Might be a local, i.e Robert Fisher,or it might be someone from overseas.
    Then Judith Collins will review it. If the writer concludes that David Bain is innocent on the BOP’s then she will recommend to Cabinet that he be paid compensation. If the writer concludes that David Bain is not innocent on the BOP’s then he won’t get any compensation.
    Simple as that. No if’s, buts or maybe’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (1,721) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    As John Key has said, someone will be asked to write a new robust report. Might be a local, i.e Robert Fisher,or it might be someone from overseas.
    Then Judith Collins will review it. If the writer concludes that David Bain is innocent on the BOP’s then she will recommend to Cabinet that he be paid compensation. If the writer concludes that David Bain is not innocent on the BOP’s then he won’t get any compensation.
    Simple as that. No if’s, buts or maybe’s.

    That was what they said when they commissioned Binnie in 2010.
    Sad for the law abiding people of this country, as Arthur Thomas found out, that we are all targets of ‘get someone at all costs’ policing, and that our Government has no interest in justice or keeping their word.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    I suspect my two cents will get lost in the anticipated thousands of comments on this thread, but I would just like to point out, once again, that this is not a left/right issue. People who realise David Bain is responsible for the murder of his family come from all sides of the political spectrum.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    KANZ

    I have some difficulty with your emphatic rejection of the government’s right to get a second opinion with the approbation bestowed on the decision of the Privy Council which was, in effect, a fourth opinion. It seems that to your mind, the crown only gets one shot but Bain can have as many as he wants.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    I have some difficulty with your emphatic rejection of the government’s right to get a second opinion with the approbation bestowed on the decision of the Privy Council which was, in effect, a fourth opinion. It seems that to your mind, the crown only gets one shot but Bain can have as many as he wants.

    Firstly I was answering muggins emphatic,

    If the writer concludes that David Bain is not innocent on the BOP’s then he won’t get any compensation.
    Simple as that. No if’s, buts or maybe’s.

    This is what was stated when Binnie was appointed,
    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/canadian-judge-assess-bain%E2%80%99s-claim-compensation

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Actually Bain agreed to accept Binnie’s decision by all reports, it was the Crown, who chose Binnie, then ‘ducked out’ on the same arrangement. In doing so of course, they attacked an international jurist and the rulings of 5 law lords to go instead with a participant in the covering up of another MOJ. All very reasonable of course, particularly where they (The Crown and Minister) have ‘reserved’ the right to judge themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    I think it reasonable to expect that an eminent jurist would get it right and stick to his brief, just as one would hope that a court would get it right first time. I also think it reasonable to expect that someone aggrieved by a decision has a right of appeal, or as in this case, the government, which is paying for an opinion, has a right to a second opinion if the first is manifestly flawed. Do you dispute that or was your jibe at muggins just that — a superficial jibe?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    But N-NZ, would you not agree that the luminol footprint is absolutely crucial here? and if Binnie’s assertion is upheld, Collins will look really stupid? and that DB will then have an even greater moral force behind him to be paid compensation? and that he can even claim more compensation for the buggering around? and that any extra compensation will outweigh any money he might earn himself while waiting, whatever job he has?
    Where’s the downside?
    While you are waiting, why not employ your time profitably by writing a stinging post, to be posted here. I, for one, will feel suitably chastened when I realise how wrong I have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Sorry, I meant “a stinging post in anticipation of that moment when the assertion is upheld”. As someone once said, the most pleasurable words to say in the English language are” I told you so”. And as Dorothy Parker said “the most beautiful words in the English language to read are: ‘cheque enclosed’.” Words which I am sure DB will read once the second opinion is received, if you are correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘if the first is manifestly flawed.’

    That hasn’t been established, but you talk about a right of appeal which David doesn’t have yet which the Crown employs at whim. David didn’t choose Binnie, the Crown did that. Speaking about paying for an opinion as you do Nookin, suggests, as has been shown, that the Crown can choose the opinion that suits them even while holding Bain to an agreement to accept what ever Binne recommended. Divorce the name Bain from the proceedings, and all the connotations that affords some opinion, and look for the fairness.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    The luminol bloody footprint is a red herring. Problematic evidence must be treated very cautiously. There is absolutely no way of determining what Hentschel saw or measured, he doesn’t know himself for sure, it was an opinion. You cannot reject his opinion (that it was David’s) yet accept his measurement because no one including he knows exactly what he was looking at. Essentially it is indeterminate.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Actually snarkle my opinion on what is crucial isn’t the ‘footprints,’ however, I might be persuaded otherwise because I remain open minded about them. What is crucial to me is the manner of Robin’s death and the evidence surrounding that, all of which I think demonstrates Robin as the killer. The idea that anybody would agree absolutely with one scenario or another is naive, yet telling evidence against Robin remains even if the footprint evidence is removed. To me the evidence against Robin Bain is overwhelming.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Nookin @ 9.40
    “I have some difficulty with your emphatic rejection of the government’s right to get a second opinion with the approbation bestowed on the decision of the Privy Council which was, in effect, a fourth opinion. It seems that to your mind, the crown only gets one shot but Bain can have as many as he wants.”

    The Bain camp were happy to go with Binnie and whatever decision he made, back when he was appointed, The process was fair to both sides, now Judy doesn’t like the conclusions so it looks like she’s going shopping for a more favourable opinion. The crown had there opportunities but their case was shown up for what it was at the retrial, and this confirmed by the view of an independent judge. I think they should have had a 3 panel independent enquiry back in 2009 as opposed to a retrial. The whole process is turning into a repeat of the Thomas commission and the only honourable thing would be for Judy to pay up. Key point you make ‘if the first is manifestly flawed’. The only thing that has been shown to date is that Collins is unhappy with the conclusions. The way in which she slandered it in the media was appalling, there should be an independant review of Fisher and Binnie before going starting over the whole process once again, this would need to include actually going over the evidence before contesting the conclusions!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Ross @ 8.28

    “But if David was the killer, as seems likely, then that surely suggests he was competent, not immensely incompetent. Moreover, if David was the killer, an alibi would have been helpful. One witness, Mark Buckley, claims that David planned to rape a jogger 4 years prior to the murders. Buckley claims that David intended to use his paper run as an alibi.”

    Clearly a competent person would leave the scene of 4 murders waiting to be discovered by his father while removing himself for an hour! Pretty big assumption that Daddy will still be in bed once he gets back. Clearly that shows huge intelligence!
    The Mark Buckley story didn’t come out for 15 years, very reliable evidence isn’t it! but hey you clearly need it as prime facia evidence as you don’t have much else!
    And yes I have read the Binnie report more than once

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    now Judy doesn’t like the conclusions so it looks like she’s going shopping for a more favourable opinion.

    “Judy” should have been a little more careful who she shared her shopping list with, would be a shame if she had to start shopping for a more ‘favourable’ position because she failed to address the manner in which the ‘goods’ she received from her ‘buddies’ were obtained. Nothing worse than ‘tainted goods’ to make a shopping trip smell bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,753 comments) says:

    Barry George just got hosed by the British Legal system. Nothing like the State trying to save a few bucks and in the process continue to prolong the suffering of a victim of the state. Either that or the High Court seriously believes Barry Geerge killed Jill Dando with fairy dust. Being weird now a crime, the justice system being totally incompetent, not so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    This case is fraught with complication as to applying standards that usually apply to these situations.

    A person convicted and sentenced and imprisoned, later assessed to be not guilty of the offence often receives compensation. This does not necessarily require another party to be found guilty of the offence. And often clear evidence such as DNA is involved in clarifying the matter.

    In this case, the conviction was overturned and a re-trial ordered by the Privy Council. The result of the re-trial – not found guilty, invalidates the period of imprisonment on the basis of the first trial.

    While no apparent intentional wrong-doing (such as in the Arthur Allan Thomas) was involved in the investigation and first trial the over-turning of result – and the ordered re-trial leaves the conclusion that the period of incarceration that followed would be seen to be an injustice if there was a failure to convict at the re-trial.

    In this case, because of the focus on the perpetrator being someone of the household and no other, the inference is that if one party is not guilty, then another is the guilty party. This results in the person not found guilty at the second trial still being accused of not being innocent of the crime either – this as the defence of the other household “suspect”.

    This was why Collins referred to the issue as more whether there was culpability to the Crown for a flawed process in deciding whether there would be compensation – this rather than re-litigating whether people thought the accused was innocent or guilty. The hired Canadian did not need to focus on being the inquisitor of the key facts of the case, but whether to an outsider the Crown had been seen to keep its hands clean during the process. Thus was less liable for compensation. The Privy Council did not determine on this, only that a re-trial was required.

    This was a valid way to draw the issue away from the he vs him, him vs he who done it debate.

    Because otherwise, if DB got compo people might think this implied that on balance RB did it. And has a “coroner” ever determined on that – or will any coroner ever get to determine on that?

    Of course, a police statement, that the case remained open – and that another party could yet be charged would be one way to nip aspersions of RB guilt on any compensation payment because of the “injustice” of years in prison when the conviction was overturned.

    My advice on compensation.

    MINIMUM

    1. Pay base compo equal to the inheritance dispersed to relatives – to end that litigation process DB vs RB relatives and any DB claim against the Crown for inability to claim this while in prison. An adjustment for asset inflation – 50% into housing (average Dunedin property values) and 25% sharemarket average. Assume 25% would have been spent and not invested.

    2. Pay another amount for legal costs – for the advocacy for the re-trial, the re-trial and the compo claim. All resulting from the result of the first trial being overturned by the PC.

    Neither infers anything about the Crown culpability or any proof of innocence.

    AVERAGE

    3. Compensation for loss of earnings. Say half average of minimum wage + median wage as net income for the 13 years in prison.

    This included in the package – similar to the basis for 2 – the ordering of the re-trial AND the finding of not guilty.

    HIGH

    4. Damages – admission of liability for Crown culpability in loss of liberty OR finding of innocence on BOP. The later would involve the police making a statement that they have kept the case open (so as to not to infer any guilt on RB’s part).

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    “The only thing that has been shown to date is that Collins is unhappy with the conclusions. ”

    1, He exceeded his brief. He came to conclusions that he was not asked to address.
    2. He dealt with circumstancial evidence in a manner inconsistent with NZ law ( and indeed the law of other countries). I have read the views of many academics who support the Fisher report on Binnie’s approach so to say that the only thing that has been shown to date is unhappiness with the conclusion is real “head in the sand” stuff. Fisher’s report contains a detailed analysis of the flawed reasoning. NZ law on circumstantial evidence is readily ascertainable. Just search judicial decisions online

    So, as I read your comments, I see that you argue that Collins does not like the conclusion despite the fact that she has made no comment whatsover about the merits of the case and you argue that there are no other grounds to criticise the report despite a very detailed report from Fisher spelling out that criticism– supported by numerous people qualified to comment.

    Broken down, you are saying that the complete absence of any evidence to support your allegation (which is, essentially, an allegation of bad faith) is proof of your allegation but the existence of compelling evidence that she had justification for concern is proof of the absence of justification.

    Can you see why your arguments do not seem to gain traction?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    A person convicted and sentenced and imprisoned, later assessed to be not guilty of the offence often receives compensation

    Really? I don’t think so. Besides, you haven’t made the case out for why David deserves compensation. He indeed does deserve a payout if he can show he’s innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    SPC,

    The British system is worse than ours, and of course compensation in the US is a rarity (if it happens at all). That’s why I asked Rex earlier about his claim that “other jurisdictions have legislated compensation schemes applicable upon a final and binding finding of not guilty”. Certainly not in the US or UK and I doubt in the vast majority of Western countries.

    Barry George should have been paid compo. His conviction was a farce. So, for those who think our justice system is not up to scratch, it is clearly far better than the system in the UK.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268299/Barry-George-loses-compensation-bid-Jill-Dando-murder-conviction-High-Court-judges-uphold-Justice-Secretary-Chris-Graylings-decision.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Broken down, you are saying that the complete absence of any evidence to support your allegation (which is, essentially, an allegation of bad faith) is proof of your allegation but the existence of compelling evidence that she had justification for concern is proof of the absence of justification.

    Rowan is a committed David Bain partisan. For him,, that Binnie reached the “correct” decision is all that counts – how Binnie reached the “correct” decision is a matter of no consequence, so the motives of anyone with concerns about how he reached it are automatically suspect, no evidence required.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Andrew Adams was wrongly convicted and served nearly 14 years in prison. His claim for compo was denied in 2011.

    http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/05/12/wrongly-jailed-andrew-adams-still-fighting-for-compensation-61634-28679388/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Like Collins you want it all your own way Nookin. You argue that there is no law governing compensation then apparently wiithout any hesitation argue that Binnie didn’t follow NZ law in reaching his decision. So when the Minister says only cabinet have the discretion to award compensation she is also arguing that is the precedent and that NZ Law must apply. Make no mistake I don’t hold Binnie’s views as being in error and I don’t understand why you attack them, when others have endorsed them and even Fisher admits (as he had to not knowing the evidence and therefore really exempt from offering an oversight) that using Fisher’s ‘logic’, or interpretation of NZ Law (that word again) that Binnie may have still reached the same conclusion. So which is it, are we within the Law or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt is a committed Robin Bain partisan, like ross and others. Having lost on evidence they look to pull the wheels off on procedure.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Another couple of gems from Binnie, who some of the Bain cultists think did a marvellous job:

    170. Was there, then, the prospect of financial gain from his parents’ death? The estate,
    when gathered in by his uncles, was something around $600,000. There is no suggestion in
    the evidence that money was of any significance to David Bain and much to suggest that his
    family relationships were of central importance.

    171. The Crown Law Office throws out the theory that perhaps David not Laniet called the
    family to gather on the Sunday night (see its submission at para 199) but David Bain explained
    at length the arrangement made by Margaret and Arawa to collect Laniet from work and there
    is no reason to doubt his explanation.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    bad luck ross.

    You show the evidence that the money was of any significance and why there is reason to doubt David’s explanation. You draw out paragraphs and try to imply meaning into them rather than simply note what they say. I guess next you’ll revert to screeds of what David ‘said’ and what sinister meanings you deduce from it, again, and again.

    Since when has JFRB not been a cult, harassing people, their families, members of the jury even witnesses. You live in coukoo land.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    You show the evidence that the money was of any significance and why there is reason to doubt David’s explanation.

    The onus of proof is on David. You must be pretty thick because you keep forgetting that.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    Binnie did.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    This shows just how arrogant Collins is, I wonder what appointment she has promised Fisher for ‘doing what she wants’?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861503

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    If there is no proof there is no proof ross, go pore over every word David ever said – it might make you feel better about him being found not guilty and innocent on the BOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Defence lawyers are not required to judge — that is, know right from wrong — they are required to win. While the duty of the prosecution is to the court, reflected in the requirement to share information, no such onus is place on the defence, whose “duty” is to the client, to get him off, whatever it takes. This includes lying disguised as argument and tricks disguised as hypothesis.

    Bohje moi, let’s be rid of this anachronistic humbug we call due process. Introduce examining magistrates. Police teams ready to fly backwaters like Dunedin when confronted by mass murder where the killer is a cunning clever psychopath. Tribunals of three judges with maybe some jurors as watchdogs. Hear ALL the facts pertaining to the case. I don’t know exactly but the present system is nonsensical. A good system would save enough on appeals to pay for itself. Peter Ellis had his life destroyed, Scott Watson was set up by an ambitious cop, Arthur Allan Thomas was the victim of crooked cops. Incompetence at every level including the judges. Even when reviewed we didn’t get it right. Maybe no monetary compensation is enough for this unnecessary suffering. Some of these cops should have been executed – the Chinese way.

    The British system is a load of bollocks. It’s not working in the UK either. At least they have a CCRC. But it’s still a backward process with an inward-looking legal profession. The least reliable witnesses are those who turn against their partners in crime, yet the Police and courts take them at face value. Likewise other jail birds. Even genuine eye witnesses can be mistaken, and often are. Sometimes it’s difficult, in this case it is not: there is surfeit of evidence. The defence narrative is preposterous and the chain of improbabilities so long it stretches credulity that any normal person could believe it.

    Why didn’t the Crown appeal the Bain verdict and arrest those silly jurors who ignored proceedings and afterwards kissed his arse? For goodness sake with the evidence available a team of scientists could sift through and get the answer within a week. A day, even.

    The “joke” is, in some cases the verdict could be “guilty without a shadow of a doubt”, and those people walk free, while others where there is a genuine and substantial doubt get banged up. Completely arbitrary and unacceptable in this day and age.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    As to why anyone should doubt David’s explanation re Laniet coming home that Sunday, well, 3 independent witnesses said that Laniet had been told to attend a family meeting. A 4th witness, David’s aunt, said he was bringing her to that meeting. By implication, Binnie treated the evidence of these four with contempt.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10567763

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt is a committed Robin Bain partisan…

    Wrong. I find it entirely possible that Robin Bain was the murderer.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    NNZ

    If there is no proof, then David gets no money. Surely even you understand that?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    Nos NZ
    There is a law relating to compensation. The law says he is not entitled to it. Cabinet says that it may volunteer compensation if certain conditions are met and, even then, entirely at cabinet’s discretion. Those conditions entail an analysis of the facts and a conclusion on the balance of probabilities. That analysis has to be undertaken in accordance with legal principles. That is why a jurist was selected. Those principles are not random, optional processes. They have been adopted by the courts because they are more likely to provide a reliable and enduring outcome than any other process. Sticking to principled arguments also eliminates the possibilities of conclusions based on gut instinct, emotion or bias.

    If you are going to pay out truckloads of public dosh on a controversial matter then you have to get process right. That is why I have my reservations about Binnie’s conclusions. That is also why the ERA is such a stickler for process in employment cases. Go about it the wrong way and you may still get the right result, but the odds of doing so are not as good and the aggrieved party has every right to be monumentally pissed! A hearing (and this is really only a quasi-hearing) has to be seen to be fair and if there are clear reasoning flaws then it is not fair. There are two parties in this case. They both count.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Don’t you read your own links ross, or is it simply that you skip over the cross examination?

    This was a good part, something which the cultist’s deny:

    Questioned by defence lawyer, Helen Cull QC, Mr Letts said he did not know Robin well. He told Ms Cull he was not aware that Robin was familiar with firearms and was a hunter.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz (770) Says:

    January 25th, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    muggins (1,721) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    As John Key has said, someone will be asked to write a new robust report. Might be a local, i.e Robert Fisher,or it might be someone from overseas.
    Then Judith Collins will review it. If the writer concludes that David Bain is innocent on the BOP’s then she will recommend to Cabinet that he be paid compensation. If the writer concludes that David Bain is not innocent on the BOP’s then he won’t get any compensation.
    Simple as that. No if’s, buts or maybe’s.

    That was what they said when they commissioned Binnie in 2010.

    Kanz,that is not what they said in 2010,as I recall. There was never any suggestion that a local would write that report.
    Simon Power decided to go overseas, probably because he knew Karam and co would kick up bobsy-die if he didn’t ,and Simon Power chose Justice Binnie who has since proved he wasn’t up to the job.
    But the fact remains that another report will be written and that is the report that will count. Forget about Binnie’s Report. Get it out of your nut. Otherwise you will become all bitter and twisted.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,609) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 8:55 am

    Don’t you read your own links ross, or is it simply that you skip over the cross examination?

    He also forgot to mention that one of those witnesses, who suddenly remembered what she ‘saw and heard’ 13 years later, was the daughter of a jury member who had found Bain to be guilty. The strange thing was, she forgot that, and stumbled over it when challenged the next day by the defense.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘That is also why the ERA is such a stickler for process in employment cases. Go about it the wrong way and you may still get the right result, but the odds of doing so are not as good and the aggrieved party has every right to be monumentally pissed! A hearing (and this is really only a quasi-hearing) has to be seen to be fair and if there are clear reasoning flaws then it is not fair. There are two parties in this case. They both count.’

    That’s exactly right Nookin, I absolutely agree, particularly about fairness. The Minister was influenced that the report was unfair to the Crown and individuals who might seek JR, in fairness the second party should have also been involved – a point at which we might diverge. Regardless I agree with all else in your appraisal.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    hamnidaV2 (40) Says:

    January 25th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
    “There aren’t any Tories here” – Seriously? I think you should submit your post to Tui for their next billboard.

    Vote: 0 5

    Ham, I see you got five thumbs down for that comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    I also think it’s possible Robin was the killer, just as it’s possible I might win Lotto, which is why I take a ticket, even though I know from my experience of the real world I won’t win.

    What you make of this case depends on your experience of life. If life has been grossly unfair, you have suffered injustices at the hands of the police and the courts, been sexually abused, or you are a bit thick or naive … then you might be blind enough not to see the wood for the trees.

    Of course you can tear away at any particular piece of evidence, but you can do that too on the evidence that might show Robin as the killer. It’s a question of probabilities and balance, looking at the total.

    The fact remains that absolutely nothing ties Robin to the rifle. Nothing at all. The fingerprints are David’s and Stephen’s. Yes, David might have picked the rifle up innocently. What is the probability? The suppressor had Stephen’s pristine prints, they were not smudged where Robin was supposed to have gripped the rifle to hold it accurately to his temple. That doesn’t say “Daddy did it” to me.

    And that’s without looking at the rest of the narrative, like the immature narcissistic typed “suicide” message and Robin’s changing into old clothes without underpants to meet God, putting his bloodied clothes in the laundry to be washed by David, who doesn’t feel the blood on them as he picks them up. Bah, humbug!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    1, He exceeded his brief. He came to conclusions that he was not asked to address.

    “45.
    Accordingly, at this time I seek your advice on:

    whether you are satisfied that Mr Bain is innocent on the balance of
    probabilities and, if so, whether he is also innocent beyond reasonable
    doubt; and

    any factors particular to Mr Bain’s case (apart from your assessment of
    innocence beyond reasonable doubt) that you consider are relevant to the
    Executive’s assessment of whether there are extraordinary circumstances
    such that it is in the interests of justice to consider his claim.
    46.
    Because the question of whether “extraordinary circumstances” apply in a
    particular case is ultimately a judgement for the Executive to make I am seeking
    advice on factors you consider relevant to this assessment rather than an opinion
    on whether Mr Bain’s application qualifies for the exercise of the residual discretion
    reserved by Cabinet. ”

    —–

    It appears to me that the only thing Binnie has done that was exceeding what he was asked for, was to provide an opinion on whether the application qualifies for the exercise of the residual discretion reserved by Cabinet. He was asked to provide the factors regarding extraordinary circumstances.

    I do not see that as reason to scrap the rest. Whilst his opinion has placed Collins in a position where someone more experienced and of a higher legal standing than her clearly disagrees with her ‘preconceived opinion’ of DB’s guilt, all other information within that report was within keeping with what he was asked for, especially regarding the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ of which so many (understandably) find embarrassing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    It appears to me that the only thing Binnie has done that was exceeding what he was asked for, was to provide an opinion on whether the application qualifies for the exercise of the residual discretion reserved by Cabinet. He was asked to provide the factors regarding extraordinary circumstances.

    Just as during discussions of the evidence the antis had the bumper sticker mantra of “mountain of evidence” that they needed to cling to, they now have the bumper sticker mantra of “fatally flawed”.
    In both cases they have no idea what it means, or what constitutes it, but they will cling to it anyway. Just as a toddler clings to his/her teddy bear.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    As I have already told Kanz,you have to forget about Binnie. As John Key has said,there is going to be another report.
    You will only get all bitter and twisted by continuing to rabbit on about something that no longer has any relevance.
    John Key doesn’t give a stuff what you think or what anybody else on this thread thinks . He has made a decision.
    Get over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (1,724) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Judith
    As I have already told Kanz,you have to forget about Binnie. As John Key has said,there is going to be another report.

    muggins, are you ever able to tell the truth? Are you even able to understand what truth is? I think not, and at your age you are no longer capable of learning.
    ‘Going to be’ is not ‘most probably’ or vice versa.

    Mr Key said Ms Collins would return to the Cabinet with other options that included asking Dr Fisher or someone else to do more work.

    Asked if there would be a second report, he said “most probably”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Ross @ 8.43
    Again you are good at putting your ‘spin’ on things how about you look at your own article ‘Questioned by defence lawyer, Helen Cull QC, Ms Nader-Turner agreed she didn’t come forward with this information in 1994 after Laniet’s death. She gave her statement about this to police in 2007′ so you are relying on evidence that was 13 years old and the witness recollections as gospel.

    Nookin @ 6.57
    “despite a very detailed report from Fisher spelling out that criticism”
    Desperate nit picking and legalistic academia would better sum up Robert Fishers review

    Psycho Milt @ 7.21
    I have made my own conclusions based on the evidence. Binnie just reinforced these. I thought he was pretty light on the crown given conduct of same of the individuals concerned in 1995. Your posts here tell a different story if you are not a RB partisan.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I do not see that as reason to scrap the rest.

    Clearly, you need to remove your eye patch and read Binnie’s report with an open mind. He makes numerous assumptions and speculates wildly. He thinks the onus of proof is on the Crown. He accepts David’s word as gospel, even when independent witnesses testified to the contrary. He placed huge weight on the luminol footprint evidence and little or no weight on more important evidence. His report also lacks balance.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Rowan,

    I think we’re all agreed that 90 prosecution witness all perjured themselves in the biggest conspiracy that has ever been seen in NZ. You don’t need to keep banging on about this.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Just wondering how the onus is on David to disprove weak unproven allegations from the crown? Its already been done most of them don’t even stand up to common sense let alone BOP!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    The fact remains that absolutely nothing ties Robin to the rifle. Nothing at all. The fingerprints are David’s and Stephen’s. Yes, David might have picked the rifle up innocently. What is the probability? The suppressor had Stephen’s pristine prints, they were not smudged where Robin was supposed to have gripped the rifle to hold it accurately to his temple. That doesn’t say “Daddy did it” to me’

    Good to see you sticking with what you don’t know best Dennis.

    The rifle was found beside Robin, his fingerprints may or may not have been among those identified as being found on it, there was a95% chance his fingerprints wouldn’t be found on the rifle even if he were the user, the rifle was used in such a way as characterised as suicide rather than murder, close contact, temple and rising (facts acknowledged by the Crown) The bullet didn’t go through the beanie another characteristic of suicidees lifting clothing rather that shooting through as happens in murders, his dna was found in the barrel – although not tested, confirmed as being likely to have come from the last shot. There is other evidence such as him having blood on his palms that indicates he was involved in the deaths of his family and so it goes on, strongly enough to have made the jury answer the question as to whether it was David with 5 not guilty verdicts. However, this thread is meant to be about the question of a ‘new’ report.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ross

    ‘Rowan,

    I think we’re all agreed that 90 prosecution witness all perjured themselves in the biggest conspiracy that has ever been seen in NZ. You don’t need to keep banging on about this.’

    There’s no agreement on your absurd exaggeration, or any of you absurd exaggerations.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    He accepts David’s word as gospel, even when independent witnesses testified to the contrary.

    Considering Bain’s interview was the last of his evidence collection, he must have come to some of those conclusions before that interview.
    If you read that interview carefully, he was jumping from one thing to another then back again, in the attempt to trip Bain up. He found that Bain remained steadfast in his answers, he never waivered, unlike the Crown in their submissions and the two other interviewees.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Ross
    Not 90, only 3 or 4 actual cases of perjured/completely untrue evidence. You seem very good at ‘spinning’ out the evidence of the others to support your stories and ignoring what they actually say, similarly you are also very good at micro analysing Davids interviews for inconsistencies which you again ‘spin’ the ‘meaning’ of!
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Rowan (449) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Ross @ 8.43
    Again you are good at putting your ‘spin’ on things how about you look at your own article ‘Questioned by defence lawyer, Helen Cull QC, Ms Nader-Turner agreed she didn’t come forward with this information in 1994 after Laniet’s death. She gave her statement about this to police in 2007′ so you are relying on evidence that was 13 years old and the witness recollections as gospel.

    Not to mention she had forgotten a close relative of hers was in fact a juror in the first trial.
    She had to be recalled to the stand the next day, to have it clarified.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,724) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Judith
    As I have already told Kanz,you have to forget about Binnie. As John Key has said,there is going to be another report.
    You will only get all bitter and twisted by continuing to rabbit on about something that no longer has any relevance.
    John Key doesn’t give a stuff what you think or what anybody else on this thread thinks . He has made a decision.
    Get over it.
    ————————

    The Binnie Report will not just disappear into oblivion. It is not that simple Muggins. They cannot ‘undo’ it, and pretend it doesn’t exist. It does, it makes some very valid points, and if those points are not adequately addressed in a subsequent report, the government (having set the precedent) will be obliged to seek yet ‘another report’. They cannot and must not be seen to be ‘shopping’ for a report that suits their opinion.

    I am sure Key doesn’t give a stuff, however, he is paid to ‘give a stuff’ and if he should continue to display such arrogance, it will eventually return a result he does not like.

    You may call it rabbiting on – the problem for you is that your stupidity has compromised the minister in a manner that you are yet to understand. I hardly think you are in any position to be giving advice to other people regarding what they should and should not do.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Don’t you read your own links ross, or is it simply that you skip over the cross examination?

    There’s nothing in the reported cross-examination of the witnesses Ross refers to that excuses Binnie dismissing their testimony as “the Crown Law Office throws out the theory that perhaps David not Laniet called the family to gather on the Sunday night” or excuses him allowing the testimony of the person making the compensation claim to decide the issue. If Collins actually was furious at that kind of reasoning in the report, she had every right to that fury.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,036) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 10:34 am

    Perhaps he had read the testimony of someone who had nothing to prove, and who knew the arrangements had been made by Laniet prior to the weekend as shown here. This from the court news, which was reporting what actually happened in the court room rather than showing a bias in the reporting.

    http://courtnews.co.nz/story.php?id=1927

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Rowan says:

    I have made my own conclusions based on the evidence.

    Sure you have. As have muggins et al on the other side. And everything you read about the case reinforces those conclusions, just as everything the JFRB people read reinforces their conclusions. What distinguishes you from the non-partisans is the very fact that you’ve drawn conclusions – you think the evidence, or more correctly the endless speculation various people indulge themselves in, allows you to “know” who the murderer is, when in fact you, like me and everyone else on the planet bar one, don’t “know” which of them it was at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,036) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 10:34 am

    You are basing your argument on the premise that one is guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

    That is not how this works, especially considering the person had received a verdict of not guilty BRD. David Bain as the applicant puts forward his ‘case’ and the Crown provides information to answer that case. This is not like a standard trial where two parties present their case, and a jury decides who ‘wins’. The compensation bid is about David proving on BoP that he is innocent. The Crown offered nothing substantial to challenge that, in your example.

    The Crown put forward their arguments to Binnie, however, they failed to provide sufficient proof that their argument was the valid one. Given that they were unable to do that, then the natural premise returns to the applicant’s claim.

    David Bain does not have the status as a convicted criminal, in the absence of proof otherwise, there is no legal premise for him not to be believed, unless there was evidence (from the Crown) to prove that.

    What you are arguing is that the Crown must be believed even when they cannot prove it, just because they are the ‘Crown’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    This from the court news, which was reporting what actually happened in the court room rather than showing a bias in the reporting.

    Even the nation’s journalists were biased against poor David, huh? I’m aware that other witnesses gave evidence conflicting with that of the witnesses Ross refers to – the point is Binnie dismisses witness testimony as a “Crown Law Office theory” and lets the account given by the very person who’s making the claim decide the issue. It’s failure to recognise where the onus of proof lies, it’s misrepresenting evidence, it’s bad reasoning, in short it’s incompetence. His report is full of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    What you are arguing is that the Crown must be believed even when they cannot prove it, just because they are the ‘Crown’.

    What I am arguing is that when you are asked to investigate whether a claimant for compensation can demonstrate a compelling case for his claim, in any dispute over particular facts of the matter you don’t simply take the claimant’s word for it and allow that to decide the issue. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, I would have thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,039) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 11:04 am

    What I am arguing is that when you are asked to investigate whether a claimant for compensation can demonstrate a compelling case for his claim, in any dispute over particular facts of the matter you don’t simply take the claimant’s word for it and allow that to decide the issue. This is not a difficult concept to grasp, I would have thought.
    ————————–

    In the example you provided, was a ‘proposition’, i.e. that David was responsible for making Laniet go home.

    The Crown was unable to provide sufficient evidence to suggest that was a true statement.
    David Bain said he did not.

    So what is the adjudicator meant to do? There is nothing to prove the Crowns suggestion, or that DB was lying?
    Of course Binnie had to accept his word.

    If the Crown is going to put forward such arguments, then they must provide the evidence to support them. The evidence should be able to ‘disprove’ whatever the applicant states. They were unable to do that, therefore in the absence of proof, the claim is deemed either false or ‘not proven’, and therefore adds nothing to the Balance of Probabilities.

    If the Crown is going to make claims, it must be able to substantiate them. Same for the defense, which incidently they did not do in some cases according to Binnie’s report.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    @ Milt
    Milt you are one of the few on here that its worth debating with, ie actually on the evidence rather than some of the other stupid arguments from the various trolls ie ‘the goat’, the ‘right’ way to do things or how to spell the dogs name!
    No I am not going for reasonable doubt here or trying to establish ‘facts’ only going on BOP as thanks to the lousy investigation at the time nothing is BRD. At the end of the day I just think it far more likely than not that the killer was Robin, on that basis David deserves compensation.
    The debate has gone well beyond who did it it is now a political issue rather than a criminal issue. To me the whole situation is farcical and it looks like Judy is digging a bigger hole rather than trying to sort out the mess and achieve finality on the whole sorry affair (which is what the Binnie report was supposed to do in the first place)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz(776) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 9:56 am
    muggins (1,724) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Judith
    As I have already told Kanz,you have to forget about Binnie. As John Key has said,there is going to be another report.

    muggins, are you ever able to tell the truth? Are you even able to understand what truth is? I think not, and at your age you are no longer capable of learning.
    ‘Going to be’ is not ‘most probably’ or vice versa.

    Mr Key said Ms Collins would return to the Cabinet with other options that included asking Dr Fisher or someone else to do more work.

    Asked if there would be a second report, he said “most probably”.

    Kanz, I think going to and most probably are one and the same as far as that report is concerned. However I take your point. The main thing is that you can forget about Binnie’s report. Judith Collin’s has looked at that report,had it reviewed and found it wanting.
    And I have looked at Binnie’s interview with David Bain and found it wanting. Not that he didn’t ask some good questions,but he gave Bain too much of an easy ride.
    I am hoping someone with more cross-examination skills will interview Bain, if only to find out the answer to Judith’s question as to what sort of sex she reckons Mark Buckley was having with that goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Milt
    On your suggestion that Davids denial of organising for Laniet to be home over the weekend shouldn’t be relied on, shouldn’t evidence such as Kyle Cunninghams statement be the best indicator given that the crown is unable to prove its allegation? also more reliable than what some friend remembered after 15 years IMO
    Maybe you could look at the link Kanz posted but here it is again
    http://courtnews.co.nz/story.php?id=1927

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Judith (1,047) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 11:33 am

    Big hairy dogs’ bollocks.

    Even if we leave aside the rather obvious point that the Crown is “making a claim” at this point in response to the defence claim that Laniet called a family meeting to accuse Robin Bain of sexual abuse, ie we are looking not at a Crown accusation but a dispute over the facts of that matter; even leaving that aside, there is a dispute to resolve: the Crown alleges, backed by witness testimony, that contrary to defence claims Laniet was reluctant to return to the family home that weekend for a meeting David wanted her to attend. Binnie, although having the option open to him to point to the fact that the various witness testimony involved is contradictory, writes it off as a “Crown theory” refuted by the sole testimony of the compensation claimant. There’s no excuse for that whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    On your suggestion that Davids denial of organising for Laniet to be home over the weekend shouldn’t be relied on, shouldn’t evidence such as Kyle Cunninghams statement be the best indicator given that the crown is unable to prove its allegation?

    It’s not about which witness testimony is more likely to be correct (we don’t and won’t know that), it’s about Binnie’s approach to the evidence. Binnie was free to say he couldn’t give any weight to the view that David wanted a reluctant Laniet home that weekend because there was contradictory testimony on it – what he most definitely wasn’t free to do was pretend it was just some theory Crown Law had thought up and therefore he could take David Bain’s word for it. That was either deliberate favouring of one side over the other, or sheer incompetence.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Milt
    So another unproven allegation/piece of the jigsaw as the onus is on David to prove innocence and this unproven allegation progresses either side 0.0000% what was Binnie supposed to find! The defence has proven actual allegations ie bloody fingerprints, gurgling etc. Don’t see the need to disprove heresay allegations that don’t get of the ground! if the crown is making this allegation then its up to them to prove it!
    If you use the common sense argument then its also unlikely, as there is no evidence that this was a ‘planned’ killing. I don’t regard Buckleys statement 15 years down the track as proving anything! similarly some of the others who were bullied into making statements by ‘justice for daddy’ nitwits

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    psycho milt:

    .It’s not about which witness testimony is more likely to be correct (we don’t and won’t know that), it’s about Binnie’s approach to the evidence. Binnie was free to say he couldn’t give any weight to the view that David wanted a reluctant Laniet home that weekend
    because there was contradictory testimony on it – what he most definitely wasn’t free to do was pretend it was just some theory Crown Law had thought up and therefore he could take David Bain’s word for it. That was either deliberate favouring of one side over the other, or sheer incompetence’

    You’re struggling again Milt. This is the point where Binnie ‘steps back’ and views the whole case to see if this issue overcomes others which indicate that Robin is more probably the killer. For example it doesn’t overcome the critical evidence in the lounge; if it had then it would have borne weight on the reports conclusion. The incompetence lies with you psycho milt and your efforts to overcome clear reasoning that you can’t understand. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t give you licence to sing out ‘incompetence’ with others who hold the veiw because it opposes their ‘beliefs.’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    So another unproven allegation/piece of the jigsaw as the onus is on David to prove innocence and this unproven allegation progresses either side 0.0000% what was Binnie supposed to find! The defence has proven actual allegations ie bloody fingerprints, gurgling etc. Don’t see the need to disprove heresay allegations that don’t get of the ground! if the crown is making this allegation then its up to them to prove it!

    I know that this is doomed to become another thousand+ thread consisting mainly of “Hooray for our side” and “yah boo sucks,” but in theory at least it’s about readers’ thoughts on whether Cabinet will/won’t/should/shouldn’t commission another expensive report into this ongoing clusterfuck. Ross69 provided a couple of good examples of why Binnie’s report isn’t of acceptable quality – the question of what those examples “prove” one way or the other in the matter of the probability of Bain’s innocence is irrelevant. That’s not the subject either of the thread or of the relevant comments.

    You’re struggling again Milt. This is the point where Binnie ‘steps back’ and views the whole case to see if this issue overcomes others which indicate that Robin is more probably the killer.

    It’s no struggle to identify basic failures of reasoning and fairness in Binnie’s report. And as others more competent than me have pointed out, there is no indication in Binnie’s report that he actually did step back and assess the cumulative effect of the evidence – not that that is in any way relevant to the subject under discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Now the lunatics are back running the asylum

    and the informed, interesting debaters have moved on…..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Bain told Binnie his father was going to have a room in the new house.
    Binnie did not seem to have read the first trial transcript where Bain said his mother had made her plans and they didn’t include his father.
    Bain told Binnie that there was no key to the lounge. An absolute fabrication ,he said. Binnie does not appear to have listened to Kirsten Koch’s TVNZ interview where she said Arawa went in to David’s room to get the ley to unlock that door.
    Bain told Binnie that there was a person in that group that Laniet met up with when she was going to work on that Sunday who said that Laniet was quite excited,looking forward to coming over. Binnie does not appear to have read the retrial transcript as well as he should have or he would have known there was no person in that group who said that.
    Bain told Binnie that he waited for Laniet and Arawa to finish their shift before Arawa drove them to Countdown.
    Binnie does not seem to have read where Laniet had already finished her shift and had gone back to her flat.
    Bain told Binnie that if he sat in a big chair in the lounge he could watch a video without glasses.
    Binnie did not seem to be aware that Bain had said at trial that he used his mother’s glasses to watch TV. He never mentioned any big chair.
    Bain told Binnie he had since walked from Heath Street to 65 Every Street and it took him quite a bit longer than the 2/3 minutes he estimated. A police officer said it took him 2m 15s. I had the Dunedin City Council give me the distance and the gradient so I could duplicate that walk and it took me 3m 15s at the age of 74. Bain must be very unfit now,is all I can say.
    Bain told Binnie he was thinking of making his mother a cup of coffee,but at that conference in Perth he said it was tea.
    That cup of tea was first mentioned in Karam’s book, 18 years after the event.
    Bain told Binnie he seperated the whites from the darks. Binnie did not seem to be aware that there was light coloured and white clothing on the clothesline and coloured clothing still in the wash basket.
    Bain told Binnie he was a hard working guy chopping wood and choral singing. He must have chopped a helluva lot of wood in those two years between University studies.
    Bain told Binnie it took 29 shots to sight in the rifle. Obviously Binnie knew bugger all about how many shots it would normally take to sight a rifle in.
    Bain told Binnie he couldn’t drive without his glasses and then,in the very next breath he says he could drive without his glasses. Binnie seems to accept that without a murmer.
    First instalment. Pick the bones out of that, Judith and co.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    As already suggested the next review could be composed of a panel of three and the Government and NZ public need to show more confidence in our own judiciary and appoint NZ judges. This also allows for better efficiency and makes it easier for interviews to take place with any experts, witnesses or police that were involved with this case. With disputed evidence I can’t see any reason why further expert advice can’t be used if necessary from different disciplines and that all evidence is reviewed not just what was presented at the trials.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Vote: 1 3
    Rowan (453) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 12:11 pm
    Milt
    On your suggestion that Davids denial of organising for Laniet to be home over the weekend shouldn’t be relied on, shouldn’t evidence such as Kyle Cunninghams statement be the best indicator given that the crown is unable to prove its allegation? also more reliable than what some friend remembered after 15 years IMO
    Maybe you could look at the link Kanz posted but here it is again

    Rowan.
    And the rest of the family said Mason was talking a load of rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    It’s no struggle to identify basic failures of reasoning and fairness in Binnie’s report. And as others more competent than me have pointed out, there is no indication in Binnie’s report that he actually did step back and assess the cumulative effect of the evidence – not that that is in any way relevant to the subject under discussion.’

    All just words milt. I don’t want to ask a ‘why’ question. Binnie said he ‘stepped back’, stepping back to look over the larger picture is not unique to NZ, it’s at least part of the English Law from where the basis of our law comes. There wouldn’t be a Judge in the Commonwealth that would not use the same reasoning techniques. Binnie said he did and it’s evident in his report. An ex Judge of inferior judicial standing, probably in fact no international standing at all compared to Binnie, says otherwise with the support of the disaffected and biased – the majority of whom would have no objection to the report if it favoured their ‘stance.’ On a related note Palmer who also has an international reputation supported the way in which Binnie reported, but fundamentally Fisher was unable to show that Binnie didn’t reach the right conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    I am also of the opinion that Robin Bain or his remaining family should have legal representation I am personally uncomfortable with the thought that Robin could be consider to have committed the crimes by default as it goes against natural justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    gamefisher (364) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
    As already suggested the next review could be composed of a panel of three and the Government and NZ public need to show more confidence in our own judiciary and appoint NZ judges. This also allows for better efficiency and makes it easier for interviews to take place with any experts, witnesses or police that were involved with this case. With disputed evidence I can’t see any reason why further expert advice can’t be used if necessary from different disciplines and that all evidence is reviewed not just what was presented at the trials.

    gamefisher, while I have nothing against that suggestion, who actually made that suggestion? Was it John Key or Judith Collins or was it someone else?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    gamefisher (365) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    I am also of the opinion that Robin Bain or his remaining family should have legal representation I am personally uncomfortable with the thought that Robin could be consider to have committed the crimes by default as it goes against natural justice.

    Coudn’t agree more.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    gamefisher (364) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
    —————————————–
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857464

    Rodney Hide: A pity foreign experts aren’t as clever as us
    By Rodney Hide

    5:30 AM Sunday Jan 6, 2013

    That vast country, Canada, is a desolate wasteland for justice. A former Supreme Court judge of 14 years has been exposed in New Zealand as not understanding our law, of misapplying that law, of failing to grasp facts, of not knowing the rules of evidence, of not following his brief and of wrongly placing the onus of proof.

    It was our own Minister of Justice who exposed Justice Ian Binnie. Judith Collins believed his errors were so glaring that she was able to spot them in a quick read of the work he spent a year preparing.

    The justice-starved Canadians think Justice Binnie is good and smart. The Toronto Star described him as “one of the strongest hands on the court”. The poor things know no better.

    The British justice system is also flawed. Its Privy Council failed to follow the logic of our government’s lawyers when they explained that the New Zealand justice system properly and justly found David Bain guilty of murdering his mother, father, two sisters and brother.

    The British judges didn’t get it and concluded that Bain’s trial was a “substantial miscarriage of justice”.

    That’s because, in their view, “a fair trial ordinarily requires that the jury hears the evidence it ought to hear before returning its verdict, and should not act on evidence which is, or may be, false or misleading”.

    Our own Court of Appeal followed our government’s reasoning perfectly. But the wayward Privy Council overturned the Court of Appeal’s judgment, quashed David Bain’s multiple convictions and ordered a fresh trial.

    The Government threw everything at the retrial but – juries being juries – Bain was found not guilty of murdering his family.

    Police Commissioner Peter Marshall refuses to accept Justice Binnie’s findings that the police investigation of the Bain murders contained “egregious errors” or any “failure to investigate the possibility of innocence”.

    It’s true that Detective Senior Sergeant James Doyle agreed that police efforts to investigate the timings of David Bain’s alibi were “amateurish”; that the officer in charge of the crime scene, Detective Sergeant Weir, described the police photographs of the scene as a “shambles”; that police authorised the house where the crime took place to be burned down without all the relevant evidence collected.

    It’s true that the Privy Council found important elements of the police testimony misleading and there had been a “substantial miscarriage of justice”; that the effort to clarify the DNA of the blood with David Bain’s fingerprint on the rifle was described by an Australian forensic expert as an “unspeakable mess”; that police destroyed evidence five days before David Bain lodged his appeal.

    The Police Commissioner accepts there were errors but declares them not “egregious”. The problem, he explains, is the extraordinary scrutiny. Fortunately for the police, their work usually doesn’t receive such scrutiny.

    The Australian justice system is also not up to scratch in evaluating the New Zealand justice system. Thirty-two years ago, one of its retired judges headed the Royal Commission into the conviction of Arthur Allan Thomas. Justice Taylor fell short: he failed to give the police a fair go. He was so tough that the two lawyers representing the police walked out on him.

    The commission concluded that “[Detective Inspector Bruce] Hutton and [Detective Lenrick] Johnson planted the shellcase, exhibit 350, in the Crewe garden and that they did so to manufacture evidence that Mr Thomas’ rifle had been used in the killings”.

    The police never accepted the Royal Commission’s finding, never charged the officers for planting the evidence and never offered an apology. Justice Taylor got the Binnie treatment.

    But we have learned the lesson: Justice Minister Judith Collins has brought in Hon Robert Fisher, QC, to sort through the Bain case. As luck would have it, he is one of the two lawyers who stuck up for the police and walked out on the Royal Commission 32 years ago.

    The thinking behind this is straightforward. Overseas experts come up short every time they review our justice system. Far better we get one of our own to do it. After all, we are now developing our own justice system. And we have a Minister quite capable of dispensing it.

    By Rodney Hide

    LOL, if we didn’t look for the errors in the Police investigation, there wouldn’t be any! It’s Binnie’s fault because he looked.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    muggins

    Prof Henaghan did not envy Justice Binnie’s position and suggested it would have been easier for a panel of two or three judges to examine the case and prepare a report.
    ”I can understand why the Government did it because everyone in New Zealand had an opinion on David Bain. But at least with a panel of judges they can reality-check each other and make sure they are not being influenced by one thing.”

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/239360/end-road-bain-case

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Cartman @ 3.00

    Again you are talking a load of twaddle, I was talking about Kyle Cunningham not Michael Mayson. If you actually looked at the Mason evidence the other family members didn’t specifically recall hearing the evidence MM said he was told. They did not suggest he was not being accurate.
    So again don’t let the facts get in the way of your stories.
    LMAO

    [DPF: Rowan, please refer to other commenters by the name they post under. By not doing so, it creates disorder]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Gamefisher @ 3.04
    ‘I am also of the opinion that Robin Bain or his remaining family should have legal representation I am personally uncomfortable with the thought that Robin could be consider to have committed the crimes by default as it goes against natural justice.’

    No ‘default’ required GF only need to look at the evidence, specifically in the lounge, despite your best efforts to date your arguments that Robin didn’t suicide are 0.0000% convincing and go against strong evidence to the contary!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    gamefisher (366) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 3:23 pm
    muggins

    Prof Henaghan did not envy Justice Binnie’s position and suggested it would have been easier for a panel of two or three judges to examine the case and prepare a report.
    ”I can understand why the Government did it because everyone in New Zealand had an opinion on David Bain. But at least with a panel of judges they can reality-check each other and make sure they are not being influenced by one thing.”

    Ok, gamefisher, but I doubt that because that professor said that it will influence the Government in any way,shape or form,any more than anything we say on here will.
    But you never know.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Rowan (455) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
    No ‘default’ required GF only need to look at the evidence, specifically in the lounge, despite your best efforts to date your arguments that Robin didn’t suicide are 0.0000% convincing and go against strong evidence to the contary!

    But gamefisher has that covered. He has moved the old man’s body 3 body lengths away from the curtain. gamefisher did this all by himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan (455) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    Cartman @ 3.00

    Again you are talking a load of twaddle, I was talking about Kyle Cunningham not Michael Mayson. If you actually looked at the Mason evidence the other family members didn’t specifically recall hearing the evidence MM said he was told. They did not suggest he was not being accurate.

    So why did you bother to link to that meaningless post, primary school pupil ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body

    Robin Bain flew through the air after he supposedly shot himself and the last thing he did before he died was put that magazine upright by his hand.
    Believe it or not,by Ripley.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Try reading the whole article Cartman
    Who has less intelligence than the primary school pupil? Look in the mirror!

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

    Rowan (456) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
    Try reading the whole article Cartman
    Who has less intelligence than the primary school pupil? Look in the mirror!

    I just looked. What a handsome, intelligent looking bloke.
    I guess you don’t have a mirror, psp, they are all broken, shattered at the sight of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2388409/Bain-trial-Evidence-right-all-along
    Rowanne,
    Did I ever mention to you that Milton Weir did not plant that lens like you thought he might have done?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Why do the ‘people’ that support David stoop so rapidly to an infantile level?’ Calling names, provoking, being pathetic.
    Then they go all cry baby when they get a response.

    Perhaps you need ‘Mothers’ soothing hand to burp you?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Yes Cartman
    And we know that Simons evidence is 100% correct now don’t we! lets look at the whole story and Peter Durrants evidence given he was initially a crown expert. Also note his evidence about the photos!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573263
    I never said that Weir planted the lens only that he misled the court. Neither did Joe. Weir may have planted the lens but this is unable to be proven one way or the other.
    Nice try though, one of your best tactics twist what the other person says.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Is Joe Bain a member of the extended Bain family?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan (457) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 4:43 pm
    Yes Cartman
    And we know that Simons evidence is 100% correct now don’t we! lets look at the whole story and Peter Durrants evidence given he was initially a crown expert. Also note his evidence about the photos!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573263
    I never said that Weir planted the lens only that he misled the court. Neither did Joe. Weir may have planted the lens but this is unable to be proven one way or the other.
    Nice try though, one of your best tactics twist what the other person says.

    Rowanne,if that lens was there on the Monday morning ,as we know it was, because a photograph taken that morning shows it was there,why on earth would Milton Weir have planted it there when at that point he wasn’t even aware that those glasses in David Bain’s room were going to have any bearing on the case?
    There was a lens missing from those glasses. That lens was showing in a photograph that was taken in Stephen’s room on the Monday morning. Are you suggesting that Milton Weir found that lens elsewhere and tossed it into Stephen’s room when no-one was looking?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Don’t give them any more wild ideas. Look where all the other fantasies have got us. “A fine mess it has gotten us into’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,737) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 6:04 pm
    ——————————

    A few days ago you were saying that a video taken that morning showed the lens. When you were proven to be wrong on that, you have now changed it to ‘a photo’. You do not ‘know’ that lens was there in the morning.

    The photos taken of the crime scene by five different photographers were unable to be identified as who had take which photo, because the police officer in charge of the scene did not do his job according to the manual to ensure appropriate records were kept.

    Under oath, various photographers stated they thought it was the police job to keep records, so hadn’t kept any themselves. They couldn’t identify which photos they had taken, with some claiming to have taken the same photo.

    There was no timing recorded at all.

    Therefore, you have no proof that the photo you say was taken ‘that morning’, was taken in the morning, the afternoon, or in fact, the following day etc. No body does.

    What you do have, is information given to you by someone claiming that he was able to put the photos in the order they were taken in. Given that there was no timing recorded, and that the photographers themselves were unable to identify which photos they had taken, the negatives were destroyed on the order of Doyle and no longer exist, the person you refer to as having supplied you with that information was not part of the original investigation so was not there at the time, etc – you are deluded or extremely gullible.

    If you have to try and win points by constantly changing your story, and reinventing new ones, you clearly have nothing of substance to support your claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Neither did Joe.

    Your reading comprehension must be that of a 5-year-old if you think that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    It is absolutely no use whatsoever asking David Bain what happened on that fateful morning. Joe Karam has stated in front of television cameras from both Australia and New Zealand that “David doesn’t know the evidence”.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,044) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:01 pm
    —————-

    Wow, bitter aren’t you?

    Joe Karam at least had access to the evidence, witnesses, the trial transcripts, and other such information, including up-to-date reports as more evidence was tested etc.

    Muggins only dreams of seeing such things.

    So you choose to back a deluded old man, who has no original documentation, who thanks to his meddling has compromised the Minister, who constantly lies, misrepresents, changes comments etc, not to mention a number of unsavory acts, and what he doesn’t know, makes up. You clearly have no idea of the acts this man has committed over the past three or so years, because I don’t believe if you did, he would receive any support from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (58) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
    ————————

    Of course David doesn’t know all the evidence. Some of it takes s a great deal of understanding in ballistics, pathology, biophysical etc. David has distanced himself from that sort of stuff, and left it up to his support team.

    As do most people facing serious criminal charges for obvious reasons (well obvious to most people except you!)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Judith Jan 26 @ 7.18

    TUI anyone???

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Wow, bitter aren’t you?

    Merely pointing out a fact. Karam spent much of D & G implying in various glaringly obvious ways that Milton Weir planted evidence while being careful not to say so explicitly because there isn’t even the slightest evidence to back it up. If the Police had been anything like as duplicitous in their own approach to the case, Bain would have something worth complaining about.

    You clearly have no idea of the acts this man has committed over the past three or so years…

    For once you’ve written something correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Judith (1,051) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:12 pm
    Psycho Milt (1,044) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:01 pm
    —————-

    Wow, bitter aren’t you?

    Joe Karam at least had access to the evidence, witnesses, the trial transcripts, and other such information, including up-to-date reports as more evidence was tested etc.

    Muggins only dreams of seeing such things.

    So you choose to back a deluded old man, who has no original documentation, who thanks to his meddling has compromised the Minister, who constantly lies, misrepresents, changes comments etc, not to mention a number of unsavory acts, and what he doesn’t know, makes up. You clearly have no idea of the acts this man has committed over the past three or so years, because I don’t believe if you did, he would receive any support from you.

    …………
    Has he committed a murder? Perhaps if he had, he would have support from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (59) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    ——————————-

    Do you seriously think that Arthur Allan Thomas had an understanding of the knowledge required to sort out the markings on the cartridge issue etc? Even today, decades later that information still baffles him.

    He gave an interview after he was pardoned stating how he never understood any of it, and left it up to his support team, however, here you are, suggesting that David Bain not knowing the evidence must be untrue.

    Clearly you’ll believe anything you want, and take whatever you want out of context to win your argument, when demonstrates the quality of what you have to offer, and the distance your beliefs are from the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,045) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:24 pm
    ———————

    Yes you are right, there isn’t any evidence to prove Milton Weir planted the lens, but there is evidence that supports a person being highly suspicious of Det. Sgt Weir’s actions and testimony regarding the lens, and associated evidence (e.g. video/photos etc).

    To paint him as being ‘snowy white’ over the issue is a vast exaggeration and demonstrates a degree of gullibility or desperation. The evidence regarding the lens was messy, not precise, didn’t follow procedure per the manual etc etc, coupled with Weir lying under oath. Any person can be forgiven for being suspicious

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    David said “I came home, saw Mum’s light on and thought I would make her a cup of tea”. First that any inkling of a cup of tea being mentioned was heard, then we get “I forgot, Mum preferred coffee”…… or words to that effect. Judith, AAT has always come across as being the odd sandwich short of a picnic, not so David Bain. Another difference was that AAT was innocent!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Hmm, still annoyed about this:

    Weir may have planted the lens but this is unable to be proven one way or the other.

    This is one severely fucked-up opinion and says a lot about Rowan’s (and Karam’s for that matter) approach to this case. Consider the following statement:

    “Joe Karam may have raped and murdered a schoolgirl but this is unable to be proven one way or the other.”

    It’s a true statement, but someone who would volunteer it as a serious piece of information would be one sad cunt.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (60) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:36 pm
    AAT has always come across as being the odd sandwich short of a picnic, not so David Bain. Another difference was that AAT was innocent!!

    How someone ‘comes across’ to you, and how they really are, might be two completely different things.
    Whilst Arthur Allan Thomas was not interested in the ‘scientifics’ concerning his defense, he is, in fact, quite a clever man in other areas. A quiet unassuming man, doesn’t mean he lacks intelligence.

    The fact he was in prison when his defense was being prepared, (the same for David) also required him to leave it up to others. It is virtually impossible to conduct your own defense, whilst behind bars. But of course, you don’t make any allowances for such things. You would just rather find every little thing you can to make an issue of as if it is some kind of ultimate proof of murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Of course AAT had no idea what was going on. He wasn’t fucking there. He was just some poor neighbour some rotten police set up, and poor old Allan, he’s not the brightest pencil in the set.

    David Bain was there and we all know what he was doing there.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    You are doing a Muggins and twisting my posts! I have NEVER said that Milton Weir planted the lens simply that he misled the jury on it. Joe also makes this perfectly clear in his book and states it explicitly in Trial by Ambush on pages 327-328 that he DOES NOT believe that Weir planted the lens. Milton was stupid to try and accuse him of it during the defamation trial.
    Miltons actions in the 1995 trial are highly suspicious and a report by John Haigh QC found it very likely that perjury had been committed.
    Again for the final time I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WEIR PLANTED THE LENS!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,046) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    ——————————

    Milton Weir lied on the stand. Provided false information to mislead the jury, and you think people are ‘f up’ because they find that suspicious?

    The statement you made about Karam is not a valid example. He has never demonstrated any behaviour that would put him under suspicion for such an act.

    Weir clearly knew what he was doing when he lied, in doing so he demonstrated he was a man of questionable ethics. Lying whilst under oath, even if excused as ‘mistaken’ is serious. People are more than justified in questioning his motives, as was supported by the jury in the defamation case he took against Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi @ 4.37
    Why do you lot continually misrepresent what we say? also why the need for the ‘daddy didnt do it’ nitwits to lie and pull evidence out of their arses in order to try and make us believe your far fetched conspiracy theories?
    Pot/kettle black!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (494) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:46 pm
    Of course AAT had no idea what was going on. He wasn’t fucking there. He was just some poor neighbour some rotten police set up, and poor old Allan, he’s not the brightest pencil in the set.
    ——————————–
    Actually you are wrong. He is a talented man and although he is a quiet man, and not complicated like many, he is actually a very funny and entertaining person, who you could rely on for anything. He is the typical country guy, not some jumped up city prick, who may provide quick answers to complicated questions, but wouldn’t know what a piece of no. 8 wire was, let alone how to change a tyre.

    Give me the country boy any day. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (459) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
    ———————–

    ignore her. I don’t even bother reading her comments. She’s attention seeking. You’ll notice not even the other JFRB mob pay her much attention (although they will now I have bought it to their attention). She’s the ultimate YAWN!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Corrigenda
    Is David not remembering if Margaret wanted a cup of coffee rather than tea that morning your best evidence of him lying? geez you are getting desperate!
    again no arguments from you to support your ‘Daddy is innocent’ stance you just buy a weak discredited crown case hook line and sinker.
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Round and round we go. The lost lens pales into insignificance compared with: David Bain wore his mother’s old glasses that weekend as he always did. He agreed initially he was wearing them then changed his story. He cannot explain how they got broken. When the police arrived he asked for his glasses.

    What does that tell a person of normal intelligence and balanced mind?

    “Oh, No!”, says Mrs Dimwit in Suburbia, “He’s such a nice young man.”

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Dennis
    ‘David Bain wore his mother’s old glasses that weekend as he always did.’
    A proven fact isn’t it, what wasn’t his aunt the only witness to testify about this and wasn’t this 5 years later?
    Going nowhere sunshine!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Joe also makes this perfectly clear in his book and states it explicitly in Trial by Ambush on pages 327-328 that he DOES NOT believe that Weir planted the lens.

    Joe obviously keeps potential law suits very much in mind. But like I said, you’ve a severe problem with reading comprehension if you finish D & G without noticing him taking every opportunity to imply Weir planted evidence.

    Milton Weir lied on the stand.

    Here’s another area in which you confuse the word “know” with “believe.” There genuinely is a difference between the two, try looking them up in a dictionary or something.

    …there is evidence that supports a person being highly suspicious of Det. Sgt Weir’s actions and testimony regarding the lens…

    Once again you provide comedy gold. The evidence that Milton Weir planted the lens consists of… er… well, yeah – nothing. Zip. Squat. But apparently it’s suspicious. At the same time, you’ve devoted your life to coming up with complicated explanations for why none of the evidence against David Bain in his murder trial should raise suspicion against him. Awesome.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 6:04 pm
    ——————————

    A few days ago you were saying that a video taken that morning showed the lens. When you were proven to be wrong on that, you have now changed it to ‘a photo’. You do not ‘know’ that lens was there in the morning.

    The photos taken of the crime scene by five different photographers were unable to be identified as who had take which photo, because the police officer in charge of the scene did not do his job according to the manual to ensure appropriate records were kept.

    Under oath, various photographers stated they thought it was the police job to keep records, so hadn’t kept any themselves. They couldn’t identify which photos they had taken, with some claiming to have taken the same photo.

    There was no timing recorded at all.

    Therefore, you have no proof that the photo you say was taken ‘that morning’, was taken in the morning, the afternoon, or in fact, the following day etc. No body does.

    What you do have, is information given to you by someone claiming that he was able to put the photos in the order they were taken in. Given that there was no timing recorded, and that the photographers themselves were unable to identify which photos they had taken, the negatives were destroyed on the order of Doyle and no longer exist, the person you refer to as having supplied you with that information was not part of the original investigation so was not there at the time, etc – you are deluded or extremely gullible.

    If you have to try and win points by constantly changing your story, and reinventing new ones, you clearly have nothing of substance to support your claims.

    Judith, there was a video taken that morning ,together with still photographs. Simon Schollum spent weeks putting them in chronological order. He was able to do that by linking the video to the photographs. There was a photo and/or video taken in Stephen’s room before Stephen’s body was removed showing that lens on the floor.
    Are you still implying that Milton Weir planted that lens before Stephen’s body was removed?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Judith (1,057) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:59 pm
    Rowan (459) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
    ———————–

    ignore her. I don’t even bother reading her comments. She’s attention seeking. You’ll notice not even the other JFRB mob pay her much attention (although they will now I have bought it to their attention). She’s the ultimate YAWN!
    ……….
    Yes ‘Mother’ can I have a bed time story now please. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Fuck off, Judith. My cousin went to school (St Cuthbert’s) with Jeannette and knew her well; her father was a Stipendiary Magistrate. Arthur was regarded as the village idiot. Personally I find him pleasant enough but intelligent he is not. He was entirely bewildered by the whole business which is how he got into the mess he did. Not of course that I blame him one iota.

    Another uncle was also a SM; my first experience of courts was when I was about 10 some 60 years ago. So fuck off again.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    He cannot explain how they got broken. When the police arrived he asked for his glasses.

    If he didn’t know how they got broken, perhaps not there, not awake or whatever, then how is he meant to explain it?

    He did not ask for his glasses ‘when the police arrived’. He did ask for his glasses later on. He had come home, found his entire family dead, blood everywhere, etc etc, and you expected him to remember his glasses were in for repair, and find it inexcusable that he may have mistook the fuzzy pair he could see on the chair some distance from him, as his. Gosh, how terrible!

    The fact is, you cannot, and neither can anyone else prove the murderer wore those glasses. You also conveniently fail to account for the fact that the left lens was dusty and would have been unable to be used for vision (something Det. Sgt Weir, told the expert witness to forget about). Now, why would he do that? Important evidence that indicated the lens could not have been used for vision recently, to be ‘excluded’ from the witnesses testimony?

    The glasses matter will never be able to provide any value, either way. Get used to it, because it will never change. The only word you have is a woman, with a vested interest, who remembered something five years later. As we know, the memory deteriorates with time. I’m sure there was a conversation about David’s glasses, I just don’t think she remembers exactly what was said, and why would she, with all that was going on in her life at the time with the deaths, it would be extremely weird if five years later she remembered it word for word, like she said she did. It was hardly pertinent at the time to the investigation. There was nothing about it that was memorable enough to stick around in her memory ‘word for word’.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan (461) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 8:06 pm
    Dennis
    ‘David Bain wore his mother’s old glasses that weekend as he always did.’
    A proven fact isn’t it, what wasn’t his aunt the only witness to testify about this and wasn’t this 5 years later?
    Going nowhere sunshine!

    [name deleted by DPF] ,for the umpteenth time. David’s aunt was in court when she heard David say he hadn’t seen those glasses for over a year. When she heard him say that she said to herself “That’s not what he told us”,
    The reason she came forward five years later is because she had heard that Milton Weir was suing Joe Karam for defamation and she thought what she had to tell him might have been of some assistance.
    And it might have been. Perhaps Karam knew that she had come forward and that is why his lawyers offered Milton Weir $50000 to settle out of court.

    [DPF: I’ve warned before about naming people. 20 demerits, and please desist]

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith/[name deleted by DPF]
    David Bain told his lawyer with his co counsel present that he would be admitting to wearing those glasses on the Sunday prior. He told his aunt with her daughter present that he was wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses.
    A lens from those glasses was found in Stephen’s room . There is a photograph and/or video showing it there before Stephen’s body was removed.
    Are you still implying that Milton Weir planted that lens?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Milt @ 8.14
    Moving on from the lens
    “At the same time, you’ve devoted your life to coming up with complicated explanations for why none of the evidence against David Bain in his murder trial should raise suspicion against him. Awesome.”
    Yes you have raised ‘suspicion’ as you call it, You obviously look it with a very guilty mind when there is a better explanation for all of it, we have already been over this when you posted your list of ‘coincidences’ as you like to call them. Unfortunately your ‘twisted sister’ thought that it would be a good idea to repost this list of used toilet paper multiple times.
    None of these coincidences were strong individually and you are deluded if you think they tell you a ‘big picture’ more of a tangled spiderweb of inconsistencies. Of course ‘spinning’ them out helps convince some people a bit more.
    You would get more of a big picture if you were to look at the evidence in the lounge that you try to stay away from.

    Some yes/nos for you
    True: Robin was likely standing when he died?
    True: The crown conceded that RB likely turned on the computer
    True: According to the blood splatter and photo of Robin in TBA, Robins right knee was likely bent? (Look at the photos of TBA in your local library if you don’t believe me)
    True: A live bullet showing signs of a misfeed/misfire was found in the lounge indicating the killer of Robin had 2 gos?
    True: The shot was a contact wound with an upward trajectory of roughly 10 degrees?
    True: Dempster agreed that there was no difficult contortions required based on the photos and suicide demonstrations at the retrial?
    False: David hiding behind the curtains or shooting Robin while ‘kneeling in prayer’

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (496) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    You want to play the ‘look who I know’ game. You had a cousin… blah blah swearing blah. My uncle is a what?

    It doesn’t pay to make judgments about who someone is, and what their relationship might be to a particular person on the internet, because you risk making a total idiot of yourself. Something I learned in my first couple of weeks on the net. Clearly you haven’t.

    I’m not interested in pulling rank with you, but if you insist on this one, I will, because I am more than qualified to make such statements about a member of the Thomas family.

    My next door neighbours, sister’s aunt’s butcher, blah blah blah indeed – grow up!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Cartman
    I have heard this all before and your pathetic explanations, I don’t care what Milton was (or wasn’t as not suprisingly suspicious of your word for anything) offered for an out of court settlement. What was the result of the trial again?
    The glasses prove absolutely nothing and the court of appeal didnot regard them as significant evidence despite your misrepresentation (again) of what the privvy council said.
    Why the need to lie, misrepresent others postings and continually pull ‘evidence’ out of your arse!
    Congratulations again on being the biggest liar on kiwiblog!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    David Bain is a proven liar.

    Why would an innocent man lie?

    David Bain slaughtered his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    He was entirely bewildered by the whole business which is how he got into the mess he did. ‘

    Own goal there Dennis, blaming Arthur for being fitted up. You’re confusing yourself again, you can’t excuse the police framing Arthur because you believe he was slow in some way and therefore contributed to it, nor can you blame David for expecting the police to do their job and not commit an ‘actual miscarriage of Justice.’ Everyone has the right to expect that. You keep repeating things that ‘we all know,’ trying to convince yourself that others cant’ see the wood for the trees just like yourself. But anyway, llke your little tanty.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,047) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    At the same time, you’ve devoted your life to coming up with complicated explanations for why none of the evidence against David Bain in his murder trial should raise suspicion against him. Awesome.

    ———————

    My life? Exaggerating much? I’ve spent a fair amount of my summer holidays discussing it on here, and I’ve done a fair amount of research on the topic, because that is how I operated. I like to have the information before I make a decision about which side I’m on.

    I have never made a declaration that none of the evidence against David Bain could be regarded as suspicious. The mere fact he lived in that house makes him a suspect. I just happen to believe from my personal analysis of the information I have accessed about the case (which is substantial) that there is more that demonstrates Robin Bain was the killer.

    Please keep your vast exaggerations a little more realistic. You don’t even know my age, let alone have known me my ‘whole life’. The fact I am older than the Bain case, is evidence that you are mistaken. I could hardly have devoted my entire life to something, that didn’t exist when I was born!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (63) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Why would an innocent man lie?

    ———————–

    Can’t help you with that one, but why don’t you ask Milton Weir, he did on the stand. He even confirmed it under cross examination. “that is exactly where I found it” X 2. That is not a mistake, that is a lie. So he is probably the best person for you to talk to.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Judith specialises in half-truths and quarter-truths.

    David Bain slaughtered his family.

    Judith knows this. It is why she cannot tell the whole truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Judith
    Kim Jones would be another good one for the ‘twisted sister’ to ask!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Very good at the truth aren’t you twisted!
    Not clever enough to come up with anything of your own are you? best you can do is insult others clearly of higher intelligence than you!
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,740) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    —————————-

    You are lying, the video taken that morning did not go into Stephen’s room. The video with Stephen’s room was not taken until that afternoon, and does NOT show the lens. That was verified from the person that actually shot the original video.

    Your friend Schollum has an edited version of the video, which renders his ‘exercise’ invalid because it cannot be an exact measurement, as it has been ‘adjusted’ with parts cut out, relayed over each other etc. The person who edited that video has never been found, so it is impossible for him to know what scene on it, came in which order. Either he, or you is lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Why does David Bain tell lies?

    Because he slaughtered his family.

    Why does Judith tell lies?

    Judith is trying to distract from the fact that David bain slaughtered his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Why does Judith always accuse others of lying?

    Because she knows that David Bain slaughtered his family.

    She is trying to discredit valid witnesses. She is trying to discount valid evidence.

    [DPF: Don’t attack the motives of other commenters. Focus on the evidence, not on attacking people]

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Just wondering
    How is stating your honest belief a lie?
    On the other hand how is stating your belief as a proven fact anything but a lie and also exceedingly arrogant!
    Some of the ‘twisted sisters’ mightn’t have the intelligence to understand this one but not really that hard!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    twistedlemon has the same ‘take’ on truth as truthiz, and the same misunderstanding that ‘she’ is somehow protected by DPF from her own comments. DPF has a policy not to publish the mad ramblings of ‘people’ like twistedbitter but should they fall through the net will co-operate fully in identifying such ‘people’ and remove their posts and them in short order. Since Bain threads began here there have been a series of ‘people’ passing ‘by’ and having meltdowns of one type or another and none of them are out of the woods despite what they may have convinced themselves of, but don’t believe me.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Do all murderers lie?

    Do double murderers lie twice as much?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    How very Christine of you twistedlemon. You’d be very funny if you weren’t insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,617) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 9:22 pm
    twistedlemon has the same ‘take’ on truth as truthiz, and the same misunderstanding that ‘she’ is somehow protected by DPF from her own comments. DPF has a policy not to publish the mad ramblings of ‘people’ like twistedbitter but should they fall through the net will co-operate fully in identifying such ‘people’ and remove their posts and them in short order. Since Bain threads began here there have been a series of ‘people’ passing ‘by’ and having meltdowns of one type or another and none of them are out of the woods despite what they may have convinced themselves of, but don’t believe me.
    …………….
    You should start your own blog. You could call it out in the wilderness. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Rowan (466) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
    Corrigenda
    Is David not remembering if Margaret wanted a cup of coffee rather than tea that morning your best evidence of him lying?

    Ahem there. Doesn’t matter whether it was tea or coffee. Why did it take David Bain all this time (nearing 20 years) to remember that he saw his mother’s light on and decided to make her a cuppa something??? And where was this so-caled cuppa found?? Nowhere – because it was just another figment of his (or maybe his offsider’s) imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    You should start your own blog. You could call it out in the wilderness.’

    You’ve been taking a long time to do anything for an LLB, but I guess you’re busy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    How does that make sense? Sorry I forgot who was squeaking.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Peculiar fact that could be seen as confusing, by some. Even struck off lawyers can still claim their LLB. However to claim that one has one, without having one would be an entirely different matter. I played dress up too.

    No doubt you know all about playing ‘dress up’ too. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Well well, the offender9000 is still alive, guess f*** heads never really learn.

    The Truth iz, David Bain executed his family … simple really

    .
    oh and by the way Nostalgia, I asked and no one cares ….. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Belinda (141 comments) says:

    Why do david bain supporters insist on comparing AA Thomas with him, I can’t see any similarity at all.
    As Denis said we all know poor Arthur wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer despite Judith’s protestations of his intelligence.
    AA Thomas was naive and gullible, db is psychopathic.
    Stuffed if I know why anyone would choose to spend 24/7 on here defending him.
    If db was innocent the evidence would show it, you wouldn’t have to twist everything around and choose the most unlikely explanation for each piece of evidence to make db innocent.
    Obviously K.I.S.S doesn’t work for db supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Belinda (141 comments) says:

    Why did only one person in the ” Opera Alive” group contact db after the killings?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Belinda (141 comments) says:

    David was home schooled for most of the time in Port Moresby because the system didn’t suit his needs! The rest of the children attended the international school – it was only David. He had no friends and found great difficulty forming or sustaining relationships. Apparently no-one at the school he had attended were surprised when he was arrested.
    Even those children in PNG knew he was weird. He must have been so disturbed that he couldn’t even fit in at an unsophisticated school in PNG

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    People, people, people, full moon is not until tomorrow night. You have all come out raving a night early, back to your JFRB hole until then.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (496) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
    Fuck off, Judith. My cousin went to school (St Cuthbert’s) with Jeannette and knew her well; her father was a Stipendiary Magistrate. Arthur was regarded as the village idiot. Personally I find him pleasant enough but intelligent he is not. He was entirely bewildered by the whole business which is how he got into the mess he did. Not of course that I blame him one iota.

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,618) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 8:56 pm
    “He was entirely bewildered by the whole business which is how he got into the mess he did. ‘

    Own goal there Dennis, blaming Arthur for being fitted up. You’re confusing yourself again, you can’t excuse the police framing Arthur because you believe he was slow in some way and therefore contributed to it, nor can you blame David for expecting the police to do their job and not commit an ‘actual miscarriage of Justice.’ Everyone has the right to expect that. You keep repeating things that ‘we all know,’ trying to convince yourself that others cant’ see the wood for the trees just like yourself. But anyway, llke your little tanty.

    Horne writes: Not of course that I blame him one iota.
    Nostalgia writes: Own goal there Dennis, blaming Arthur for being fitted up. You’re confusing yourself again.

    So my “not blaming” becomes “blaming” to you.

    No wonder you seem to draw the opposite conclusion to every rational person who looks properly at the mass of evidence. It’s a simple misunderstanding. You get everything back the front. So what you really mean when you say “Robin was the killer” is “Robin was not the killer”.

    Whew, that’s a relief. It all makes perfect sense now. We’re agreed then? It’s just a problem you have with language.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. Wriggle all you like. I know the relationship between Arthur and the Crewes, in particular Jeannette, and how she regarded him, and you haven’t got a clue. I know because my cousin was a good friend of Jeannette, whom you never met.

    Since you seem so wilfully ignorant, stipendiary magistrate was what we used to call a judge. It’s not quite the local butcher or whatever you were muttering about.

    You Judith Whatever-Your-Name-Is are a charlatan. I mixed all my life with really clever legal people and you wouldn’t have a clue. You’d tell us the Moon was made of green cheese if it suited your purpose, and do you know what? We couldn’t prove you wrong. Nothing and nobody could prove you wrong. You would believe it was cheese if you ate a piece of lunar rock and it broke your teeth. You’d smile and say, “Very tasty, may I have another glass of plonk please?”

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (500) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 12:36 am
    —————————————–

    Fact is Dennis, you don’t know who I am, what age I am, and more importantly, where I come from, my back ground, my family connections etc. Because I oppose you on here, you decide based on the fact that your cousin was a ‘good friend of Jeanette, therefore I don’t know what I’m talking about. If only you knew how stupid that statement is.

    I am not about to play the ‘my daddy is bigger than your daddy’ game with you Dennis, because in order to do so, would reveal my identity, and I have learned from experience, that to do so when there are people from the JFRB group looking on, is very dangerous, and results in harassment and intimidation for not just yourself, but also your family members (including young children).

    What I can say is never underestimate just who you are talking to, simply because they don’t agree with you. Fortunately I come from a family with enough standing to have been taught that one’s connections do not automatically make you an authority on anything, but they are mighty handy to have, when needing a boost.

    When I made comment about AAT, I didn’t do so through some second or third hand information.

    I know exactly was a stipendiary magistrate was, you’re not the only person with a family that was full of such people, and in fact, is still full of people of even higher standing today. As I said Dennis, playing the ‘my daddy is…” game, can be a very silly one to play, when you have no idea who the people are, you are playing it with.

    The comments I make about the Bain case are taken from my own research into the case and from the things I learned through our fight for AAT. In fact, I could say that was probably what most influenced my career.

    I don’t know how many times you have posted absolute garbage and clearly have never examined trial transcripts etc in any great detail. I suspect your information comes from second hand sources, much like the information about your ‘cousin’. Just like you, I am entitled to my opinion, at least it is one based on experience and is informed, and not developed because my sister’s butcher’s auntie’s dog was owned by a man who lived next door to …………!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Here Dennis, have a laugh, it’s good for the soul.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10861684

    Why is it men seem to lose their minds after the age of 70?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Belinda (108) Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 10:52 pm
    db is psychopathic.

    You really are some kind of dick aren’t you.

    The one thing that David Bain has been proven not to be, is psychopathic.

    As you know, he underwent an enormous amount of psychiatric and psychological investigation both before his conviction and afterwards. Including weekly sessions. In all of the people who examined him, some for extended periods, and of whom were some of this countries foremost experts on forensic psychiatry, not one of them found any signs of psychopathic behaviour. Apart from depression associated with being in prison and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which effected his memory, there was nothing wrong with David Bain.

    I wonder how you would get on with such vigorous testing, perhaps we should call an ambulance?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Judith (1,065) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 8:11 am

    Be warned Judith, last night was just a warm up for the real full moon, which is tonight. If the place was full of raving lunatics last night, you aint seen nothin yet.
    They do display well how looney one needs to be to think the old man was a saint, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan (466) Says:

    January 26th, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    Cartman
    I have heard this all before and your pathetic explanations, I don’t care what Milton was (or wasn’t as not suprisingly suspicious of your word for anything) offered for an out of court settlement. What was the result of the trial again?
    The glasses prove absolutely nothing and the court of appeal didnot regard them as significant evidence despite your misrepresentation (again) of what the privvy council said.
    Why the need to lie, misrepresent others postings and continually pull ‘evidence’ out of your arse!
    Congratulations again on being the biggest liar on kiwiblog!
    [name deleted by DPF – see previous demerits and warning]
    By far the biggest liar on kiwiblog is Judith. I bet she can’t lie straight in bed.
    Karam’s lawyers offered Milton Weir $50000 to settle out of court. The other two detectives were offered money as well. One accepted,so you could say he won.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    This cartoon is funnier – even better for your soul.

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/news/tom-scott-cartoon

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (500) Says:

    January 27th, 2013 at 12:36 am
    @Judith. Wriggle all you like. I know the relationship between Arthur and the Crewes, in particular Jeannette, and how she regarded him, and you haven’t got a clue. I know because my cousin was a good friend of Jeannette, whom you never met.

    Since you seem so wilfully ignorant, stipendiary magistrate was what we used to call a judge. It’s not quite the local butcher or whatever you were muttering about.

    You Judith Whatever-Your-Name-Is are a charlatan. I mixed all my life with really clever legal people and you wouldn’t have a clue. You’d tell us the Moon was made of green cheese if it suited your purpose, and do you know what? We couldn’t prove you wrong. Nothing and nobody could prove you wrong. You would believe it was cheese if you ate a piece of lunar rock and it broke your teeth. You’d smile and say, “Very tasty, may I have another glass of plonk please?”

    Never a truer word spoken. Judith lies like a trooper.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (68) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 8:34 am

    Don’t go there. I can’t help but notice the crazies who link to that site, makes me think it is catchy, the craziness that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (780) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 8:22 am

    ———–

    A full moon? Oh goody, the high chief will probably make an appearance somewhere with his bongo drum. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. I didn’t read all your rigmarole. I make the point again. You claim this and that but you weren’t on the scene before the Crewes were murdered. You don’t have a clue what Jeannette thought.

    But that is not the basis of my opinion you are a charlatan. When the poisonous rumour about incest is discussed, I say, Laniet moved into the schoolhouse with her father. Robin then invited a lodger to join them.

    Now, I can tell you that, to any normal person, and I have known many many thousands intimately, that FACT alone strongly suggests Robin was not having sex with his daughter. But what do you do? You point out how cunning deviants are blah blah blah and how they operate blah blah blah. Yes, yes, yes, but they don’t deliberately complicate the environment in which they operate, they find clever ways of obviating the existing complications.

    You just get everything the wrong way round. Anything any normal person sees as straightforward, you concoct some cock-and-bull complication. You visit Timbuktu on the way to the toilet.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Never a truer word spoken. Judith lies like a trooper.’

    Troopers don’t lie Dennis, it presents a danger as you’ve seen from your ‘associates.’ They also don’t have ‘melt downs,’ another obvious ‘condition’ you suffer from. But keep up the good work you’re getting nowhere as usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    When the poisonous rumour about incest is discussed, I say, Laniet moved into the schoolhouse with her father.’

    So what does that mean in your vacant mind?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (501) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 8:48 am

    But that is not the basis of my opinion you are a charlatan. When the poisonous rumour about incest is discussed, I say, Laniet moved into the schoolhouse with her father. Robin then invited a lodger to join them.

    It is you who lies. The lodger, Kyle Cunningham testified otherwise. Do you, like muggins, tell lies to suit? or do you just not know the evidence? You will find the truth here, if you will let yourself read and understand. By the by, you will not find this on counterspin, they prefer their own spin to the truth.

    http://courtnews.co.nz/story.php?id=1927

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 50 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (501) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 8:48 am

    Now, I can tell you that, to any normal person, and I have known many many thousands intimately, that FACT alone strongly suggests Robin was not having sex with his daughter.
    —————————–

    The problem with that Dennis, is it is ‘not any normal person’ that experiences incest either personally or through close associate with its victims, perpetrators or legal processes.

    If you had bothered to take your information from professionals who deal on a daily basis with victims of incest, or from the victims themselves, or even from people close to those victims, you would know that incest is a silent and hidden crime.
    It almost always goes undetected for extended periods of time, in homes where there are other family members living – all of whom were unaware of what was going on, until the victim (usually much later) makes a disclosure.

    In most cases, the perpetrator goes to great lengths to ensure that the environment remains ‘normal’ so that any suspicions are overridden by the exact same example you provide.

    You may be surprised to know that many incest victims did not realise there was anything wrong with the relationship, at times encouraged and initiated contact, and were also often ‘sad’/heartbroken/upset when it was stopped. It is very rare for incest to be disclosed willingly by the child victim. The vast majority of incest claimants do not make a disclosure until they are mature.

    You can rubbish me all you like, but I suggest you go and research the topic instead of relying on what ‘normal’ people tell you. Normal people, those who sit on the side lines, have very little understanding of such things. People who have a close association with the crime, would never be considered ‘normal’ by you.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 56 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Disturbed by David’s behaviour as a child Margaret and Robin sought leave from the Church to take him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment and counselling. David Bain denied he had ever had psychiatric counselling.
    All family members can relate to instances of unkindness,meanness,cruelty or extreme aggressiveness by David.
    Two of the worst were kicking the toilet door down when Laniet refused to exit on demand and kicking Arawa on the ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,621) Says: January 27th, 2013 at 8:49 am
    Never a truer word spoken. Judith lies like a trooper.’

    Troopers don’t lie Dennis, it presents a danger as you’ve seen from your ‘associates.’ They also don’t have ‘melt downs,’ another obvious ‘condition’ you suffer from. But keep up the good work you’re getting nowhere as usual.

    You have a problem: I didn’t say troopers lie. I didn’t mention troopers. Ah, I know, you’re arse about face again. :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The scene photographer Gardner initially took footage on a Super VHS Panasonic videotape. He could not remember when he started taking that footage but thought it could be anytime between 10am or early afternoon. He also took still photographs.

    From Simon Schollum’s evidence.
    The top left hand corner are early photographs taken from the door of Stephen’s bedroom with the body still present .
    In the course of examining the book which the Crown gave me to analyse I did a comparison against the original scene with the body still present and you can clearly see the lens.

    And yet Judith and Rowan are still inferring that Milton Weir planted that lens. So what they are inferring is that he planted that lens before Stephen’s body was removed from the scene.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Well at least we know Weir didn’t see the Lens where he claimed it was. That’s clear to anybody with minimal brain function, others…..well. If it’s not goats its toilets or some other vehicle of bs, the nightcart that never resolved it’s losses when flush toilets came so thought it would keep producing it to prove how bad technology is. There’s a home for everyone at Kent’s funny farm.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Nowhere, like the ‘wilderness’?
    What ever happened to the good old days when ‘proper’ society ostracised scum?
    The internet has a lot to answer for.
    I bet I know what you are thinking. I bet you have thought it at least twice before.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. Yes, Judith, it wasn’t the car ran off the road into a tree it was the car went to look at something and the tree jumped in front of it. You really are dopey.

    Definitions are only definitions and a diagnosis is only an attempt to put a label on something. Often to help decide treatment. Psychiatrists can’t always diagnose those with blatant symptoms like schizophrenia. Psychopath is only an opinion based more on what people do than some medical test. Irrelevant anyway. No treatment. Someone who kills his family is not going be considered normal even if legally he’s not insane.

    Did you kill them: MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.
    What’s going on here? Programming? Denial?

    After the first trial: THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.
    Seems to have known then what he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    It’s that the LLB howling at the moon even before nightfall, maybe one of the donkey’s has done a runner.

    Are you trying to take over from ross Dennis, no original ideas apart from quotes that must mean ‘something, anything.’ Any sign of the moon yet, or are you just warming up?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    So if David said he hated the Judge Dennis wouldn’t have kept publishing the words in order to ‘prove’ something? Certainly not.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.usage.english/2008-09/msg01932.html

    I could have said Judith lies like a cretan or lies like a dog, but I preferred the phrase “Lies like a trooper”.
    And I believe Judith would prefer I use the word trooper rather that cretan or dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (503) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 9:26 am
    After the first trial: THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.

    You are very naive for someone who has such esteemed legal ancestors.

    As has been explained before, if the Judge was anything but kind to David Bain during the trial, it could be grounds for a legal challenge. Our law states that until found guilty, we are innocent. For the judge to have treated him in any other manner would have been very ‘unsafe’ for any subsequent conviction. I really can’t believe that this should take explaining, or that you would stoop to posting such nonsense, in the hopes that there are people around, stupid and naive enough to fall for such rubbish.

    Obviously despite having such ‘legal influence’ none of it has sunk it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    To whom it may concern

    Hit a nerve? I personally think you have many lol
    About all you have got though.
    Damn cheek to tell anyone else how to behave.
    We might have done away with hanging but castration should be an option
    Not much point if no ‘balls’ to start with.
    Does it ring a bell?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,745) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 9:39 am

    —————————

    As opposed to you, who just plain lies.
    ‘The lens can be seen on the video of Stephen’s room taken in the morning” – except the person that did the videoing says they did not video Stephen’s room until the afternoon, and the lens cannot be seen in the video at all.

    Now who to believe, the trial transcripts, the evidence, or Muggins, a sad and lonely old ex office boy?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Those demerits are adding up, more to add to the package of expectation around mid March.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Interesting to see Bain telling Binnie he could see that video that he watched on the Sunday night prior because he sat in a big chair close to the TV [No doubt blocking out everyone else’s view].
    At trial he said he used his mother’s glasses to watch TV. Perhaps that big chair was a recent purchase.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Sorry Dennis, for all your obvious difficulties with discerning facts from ‘dreams’ and nonsense from CS I shouldn’t have expected you to be disrespectful to NZ soldiers, only an arsewipe would do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith (1,069) Says:

    January 27th, 2013 at 9:47 am
    muggins (1,745) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 9:39 am

    —————————

    As opposed to you, who just plain lies.
    ‘The lens can be seen on the video of Stephen’s room taken in the morning” – except the person that did the videoing says they did not video Stephen’s room until the afternoon, and the lens cannot be seen in the video at all.

    Now who to believe, the trial transcripts, the evidence, or Muggins, a sad and lonely old ex office boy?

    Judith,
    Please post exact details from that copy of the transcript you have,you know,the one where you changed the dog’s name.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Interesting to read where Bain told Binnie that it was an absolute fabrication that he had a key to the lounge and could control access to it when Kirsten Koch said ,in an interview with TVNZ on June 14 2009, that Arawa had to go into David’s room to get a key to unlock the door to the front room[ lounge] while she kept a lookout for David because he didn’t like anyone going into his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,626) Says: January 27th, 2013 at 9:51 am
    Sorry Dennis, for all your obvious difficulties with discerning facts from ‘dreams’ and nonsense from CS I shouldn’t have expected you to be disrespectful to NZ soldiers, only an arsewipe would do that.

    Well the Army sent me a medal last week, so please don’t tell them what you think I said. I’m sure they would be very concerned at what you think.

    I never mentioned swearing or troopers. It was muggins quoting me. Here is what I wrote:

    Dennis Horne (503) Says: January 27th, 2013 at 12:36 am
    @Judith. Wriggle all you like. I know the relationship between Arthur and the Crewes, in particular Jeannette, and how she regarded him, and you haven’t got a clue. I know because my cousin was a good friend of Jeannette, whom you never met.

    Since you seem so wilfully ignorant, stipendiary magistrate was what we used to call a judge. It’s not quite the local butcher or whatever you were muttering about.

    You Judith Whatever-Your-Name-Is are a charlatan. I mixed all my life with really clever legal people and you wouldn’t have a clue. You’d tell us the Moon was made of green cheese if it suited your purpose, and do you know what? We couldn’t prove you wrong. Nothing and nobody could prove you wrong. You would believe it was cheese if you ate a piece of lunar rock and it broke your teeth. You’d smile and say, “Very tasty, may I have another glass of plonk please?”

    Have another go. By sheer chance you must eventually grasp the truth. Then you can try to rectify your faulty processing of the evidence that points so strongly at David Bain as the killer.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,626) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Sorry Dennis, for all your obvious difficulties with discerning facts from ‘dreams’ and nonsense from CS I shouldn’t have expected you to be disrespectful to NZ soldiers, only an arsewipe would do that.

    N-NZ, will you please defer to the all superior knowledge of someone has spent years delving into the mouths of thousands, having that much spittle on one’s hands gives much insight, did you not know that?
    Not to mention, he knows someone who knows someone.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,747) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 9:58 am
    —————————-

    That’s a bit of a stupid request isn’t muggins, you didn’t really think that through.

    Firstly, even if the system would allow me to post 3700+ pages, it would be illegal for me to do so, as any unauthorised copying of the document is prohibited without permission of the Courts.

    Secondly, small exerts are allowed to be posted, however, I could post it, and you would then say, “oh you just changed that name before you posted it”. So it would be a waste of my time.

    As I have told you. All my documentation is accessible via a research program which will find all incidences of the same word in various documents. In order to find those associations the word must be spelled the same way. Because there are many names spelled differently between the various documents, I simply used the programme to find the various spellings, and changed them all to the same spelling, which enables them to be found with the click of the button. You seem to have a problem with me using the correct spelling for Kaycee, as if its some of your ‘intellectual property”.

    Incidently, on my current computer, there are 117 incidences of the word ‘Kaycee’. I’m sure that will fascinate you and start another round of obsessive ramblings from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Bet you’re not cheeky to your gynaecologist, Kuntz. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    You just gotta love the ‘name dropping’, the ‘my daddy is bigger than your daddy’ and the ‘Army sent me’ – as if that is some sort of reason why he should be immediately believed, and everything he now states should be taken as ‘gospel’.

    Considering that someone forms his own opinion based on ‘who they know’, family ties, and the likes and not ‘what they know’, it is not at all surprising that when they are fed nothing but rubbish from JFRB and co, that they immediately believe what they are told, and continue to spread the ‘mantra’. Getting upset and abusive when others don’t fall for the same crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (505) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 10:15 am
    @Klutz. Bet you’re not cheeky to your gynaecologist, Kuntz
    ————————

    His gynaecologist is in for a hell of a shock when he turns up for the appointment and drops his pants!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Bet you’re not cheeky to your gynaecologist, Kuntz.

    You truly are losing it, that is if you ever had it.
    Have you had a gynaecologist? Are you actually an old woman, when you have tried hard to intimate you are a man? I think not, old women don’t resort to childish name calling. Why would I have a gynaecologist?
    In fact, you are going down the sexual slippery slope that muggins has been on for quite some time. Is that what being a member of counterspin does to people?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    What do normal people say? Never mind the probabilities:

    Robin killed everyone to keep them quiet but spared David; BULLSHIT.
    Robin typed a message on the computer praising David: BULLSHIT.
    Robin killed all his family laden with urine: BULLSHIT.
    Robin strangled Stephen but showed no traces: BULLSHIT.
    Robin changed into old clothes and no underpants: BULLSHIT
    Robin used the left hand to reach the trigger, the blood spot on the finger is irrelevant: BULLSHIT.
    The trajectory was upwards not very nearly horizontal: BULLSHIT.
    Robin shot himself by the curtains and jumped on the beanbag: BULLSHIT.
    Robin planted the magazine where his hand would land: BULLSHIT.
    Or the magazine landed on its edge: BULLSHIT.

    David was not wearing the glasses he agreed he was but later denied: BULLSHIT.
    David tells the truth and Binnie was right to believe him: BULLSHIT.

    Saying the judge was kind to him is protesting innocence: BULLSHIT.
    Normal to say, “My core belief I was not there”: BULLSHIT.

    Robin is the killer: BULLSHIT.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Haven’t engulfed any proctologists lately, have you, arsehole? :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne, your previous post shows clearly what you are full of, you mention it in almost every sentence.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, this thread is about Collins getting more reports, not about re litigating the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Well, well, well Dennis has had the dictionary out this morning. All these big words. Is this yet another attempt at trying to prove how smart you are? It’s Not working!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith (1,072) Says:

    January 27th, 2013 at 10:08 am
    muggins (1,747) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 9:58 am
    —————————-

    That’s a bit of a stupid request isn’t muggins, you didn’t really think that through.

    Firstly, even if the system would allow me to post 3700+ pages, it would be illegal for me to do so, as any unauthorised copying of the document is prohibited without permission of the Courts.

    Secondly, small exerts are allowed to be posted, however, I could post it, and you would then say, “oh you just changed that name before you posted it”. So it would be a waste of my time.

    As I have told you. All my documentation is accessible via a research program which will find all incidences of the same word in various documents. In order to find those associations the word must be spelled the same way. Because there are many names spelled differently between the various documents, I simply used the programme to find the various spellings, and changed them all to the same spelling, which enables them to be found with the click of the button. You seem to have a problem with me using the correct spelling for Kaycee, as if its some of your ‘intellectual property”.

    Incidently, on my current computer, there are 117 incidences of the word ‘Kaycee’. I’m sure that will fascinate you and start another round of obsessive ramblings from you.

    Judith

    In other words you are lying again.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Nothing you say will make any difference to Collins, I can assure you of that. She doesn’t even need another report, it’s only to try to get you loonies off her back.

    @Judith. I say, why didn’t Robin invite a dozen lodgers to witness the incest? Safety in numbers… Lala di lala…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Judith (1,072) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 10:08 am

    That post is wasted effort on someone who said only a few days ago he didn’t know what spamming was.
    Explaining anything that involves modern technology, is way beyond the intellect of a stupid old woman such as muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Have another go. By sheer chance you must eventually grasp the truth. Then you can try to rectify your faulty processing of the evidence that points so strongly at David Bain as the killer.’

    That’s why I said sorry Dennis, before pointing out that only an arsewipe would call kiwi troops liars. You have a ‘dotcommie’ edge to your posts Dennis. If you’re going to be frustrated by being told the real evidence then perhaps this isn’t the place for you you’re quite quickly now sliding into the style of repeating inanities that nobody bothers to read. Does it bother you at all that your ‘mates’ rely on stalking and attacking posters or their families to show they’re ‘right?’

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Seriously. Nice young man, dirty old dad. What could be simpler?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    I say, why didn’t Robin invite a dozen lodgers to witness the incest? Safety in numbers… Lala di lala…

    The dirty old man didn’t invite any lodgers in, his vulnerable young daughter Laniet did.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (508) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 10:54 am

    @Judith. I say, why didn’t Robin invite a dozen lodgers to witness the incest? Safety in numbers… Lala di lala…
    ———————-

    Robin didn’t invite the first lodger, Laniet did. see Kanz reference above.

    I notice you find the subject of incest entertaining. A source of great hilarity. Certainly easy to see why you would support Robin Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    “The police are in safe hands. It’s just the rest of us who have to worry.” – Rodney Hide
    _____________________________________________________________

    1. “It is absolutely basic police work in a firearms case, as laid out in the Detectives Manual, to preserve and test samples from a suspect’s hands and clothing for firearms discharge residue (FDR).” The police failed to do so for David. And for Robin Bain. That one test could well have proved decisive.
    2. “Det Sgt Lodge in charge of Robin’s body not only failed to preserve possible evidence of FDR but neither he nor the pathologist saw fit to preserve the skin sample surrounding Robin’s gunshot wound, thus unleashing the debate among the experts about whether the fatal shot was close, intermediate or distant.”
    3. Police watches weren’t synchronised defeating the precision timing necessary to test David Bain’s “out-of-house” alibi.
    4. Police denied the pathologist entry to the crime scene for three hours, making it impossible for him to measure body core temperatures to establish more precisely the time and sequence of death of the various members of the Bain family.
    5. Police failed to investigate information that Laniet had accused her father of incest and planned to expose him to the rest of the family on the weekend before the murders, despite the Detectives Manual specifically instructing police to pursue the issue of motive in their attempt to “reconstruct” the crime scene.
    6. Police failed to follow up on evidence of Robin Bain’s mental instability.
    7. Carpet samples subjected to the critical luminol footprint examination were not kept.
    8. The DNA sample for the “blood fingerprint” analysis was found to be an “unspeakable mess”.
    9. Police lost a crucial second statement by a key witness as well as an all-important timesheet.
    10. Photographs taken of the crime scene were a “shambles”. The date and time function on the camera was not switched on.
    11. Police destroyed crucial evidence ahead of the Bain appeal.
    12. Police misled the first jury on where the lens of the spectacles was found, knowingly gave the jury the wrong time for the switching on of the computer, and did not tell the jury that they had checked a key witness’s clock and had taken a crucial second statement from her. This was critical testimony.
    These are damning findings. The police response to Judge Binnie?
    Police Commissioner Peter Marshall put out a press release saying he “doesn’t accept” that police made “egregious errors”. He agreed there were “some errors” but that “this is one of the most scrutinised police investigations and cases in New Zealand”.
    The police denial and spin reveal the depth of the problem.
    Following Justice Binnie, and the commissioner’s response, a political system determined to uphold policing standards would have seen the Prime Minister, with cabinet agreement, asking the Governor-General to sack the commissioner and establishing an international search for a police commissioner who understands the importance of proper procedure and the need to establish a professional culture within the New Zealand Police for homicide investigation.
    Instead, Justice Minister Judith Collins led the counter-charge, giving both Justice Binnie and his report a good kicking even before she released his report.
    The police are in safe hands. It’s just the rest of us who have to worry.

    Rodney Hide

    —-
    Personally I think his list of 12 is too short, but its a start.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    I notice you find the subject of incest entertaining. A source of great hilarity. Certainly easy to see why you would support Robin Bain.

    It’s a common theme amongst the members of JFRB. Perhaps a prerequisite of joining?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,627) Says: January 27th, 2013 at 9:51 am
    Sorry Dennis, for all your obvious difficulties with discerning facts from ‘dreams’ and nonsense from CS I shouldn’t have expected you to be disrespectful to NZ soldiers, only an arsewipe would do that.

    If that’s an apology it’s ambiguous to inanity.

    By the way, did I tell Judith one of our old friends, one of the few non-family members at our wedding, was a barrister in Lincoln’s Inn? He was also a director of Interbank and the United Nations, a university professor whose books are still used, I believe, and very well connected. When my wife wanted something, he rang the chairman of NatWest, Lord … , who sent his Rolls to the station for her.

    That sort of connection does seem to send her into a rage. Jealousy, I suppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Crewe cops accused by Thomas brother

    By David Fisher
    5:30 AM Saturday Nov 10, 2012

    Mr Thomas said the hardest aspect to cope with was the lack of action by police against its own officers. Photo / File

    The brother of Arthur Allan Thomas has filed a formal complaint with police over the actions of detectives investigating the murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe.

    Des Thomas said he wanted police to open a formal investigation into claims against officers who worked on the original inquiry. He said he was unable to escape the impact the inquiry had on his family in the 42 years that had passed since the couple were murdered at their Waikato home – a killing for which his brother Arthur was twice convicted before being pardoned. A royal commission of inquiry which followed was intensely critical of police actions.

    Mr Thomas said he and his family had struggled with the effects of being linked to the case. He said the hardest aspect to cope with was the lack of action by police against its own officers.

    The recent publication of the book by investigative author Chris Birt, All The Commissioner’s Men, revealed information previously unknown to Mr Thomas. It led to the creation of a 262-page file of six separate complaints about the actions of Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton, now 83, and others involved in the inquiry.

    Mr Hutton and one other officer were singled out in the royal commission over a cartridge case said to have come from Mr Thomas’ rifle and used to convict him of murder.

    The commission, which concluded there was never any solid reason to charge Arthur Thomas, stated: “Mr Hutton and Mr (Len) Johnston planted the shell case … in the Crewe garden and they did so to manufacture evidence that Mr Thomas’ rifle had been used for the killings.”

    The Solicitor-General of the time, Paul Neazor, QC, told police there was not enough information to lay charges against Mr Hutton and Mr Johnston, who has since died.

    Des Thomas spent four months building the file, specifying allegations against Mr Hutton based on sections of the Crimes Act, the law which police use to establish evidence and prosecutions of crime.

    The claims do not directly deal with the cartridge case claims and subsequent finding by the commission.

    Instead, Des Thomas has focused on steps taken by police to build the case against Arthur Thomas. One complaint cites section 115 of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison for anyone who “conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence knowing that person to be innocent”.

    The section of the act is contrasted against the Royal Commission’s statement that “the police did not have just cause to suspect” Arthur Thomas had murdered the Crewes. “His arrest and prosecution for their murders was not justified.”

    Des Thomas has included affidavits supporting the claims from one of his other brothers, Richard Thomas. He said Arthur Thomas was not involved in the complaint, believing the nine years spent in prison meant life now had to be focused on the future rather than the past.

    “He doesn’t want anything to do with it.”

    The file was sent to police commissioner Peter Marshall on October 20 with a letter requesting a criminal investigation.

    Mr Thomas said his complaint to police was independent of the review by Detective Superintendent Andy Lovelock, which was launched in 2010 after the Crewes’ daughter Rochelle asked for a fresh inquiry into the murder of her parents.

    Mr Hutton said he did not want to comment. “I’ve got nothing to say about what Thomas has said.”

    The pressure on police to respond to questions over the Crewe case led to the appointment two years ago of Mr Lovelock to review the murder inquiry. Along with the request by Ms Crewe, Arthur Thomas’ former wife Vivien Harrison sought an independent inquiry into the case, after years of being labelled as the “mystery woman” who fed Rochelle in the days after she was left alone in the Crewes’ Waikato home after their murders.

    Police chief media adviser Grant Ogilvie confirmed receipt of the file.

    “This is currently being assessed.”

    By David Fisher

    —————————————–

    wonder if ipredict has bets going on this one. I think most of us know what the answer will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. It doesn’t matter now exactly what the police did or didn’t do, they collected enough evidence to hang him ten times over.

    Could you repeat your list again tomorrow, please, I might feel like reading it sometime if I get bored talking to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    “Pukekawa fades into the rear-view mirror, changed as New Zealand has changed. Milking sheds stand empty and broken as small dairy holdings have given way to large dairy co-operatives, edging out the sort of farm on which the Thomas boys grew up.

    Market gardens have taken their place. Farming here used to mean watching the sun rise and set with morning and evening milking. Now, farmers shield their faces, spending their days looking down at crops.

    The change is written across Des Thomas’ face, along with anger and frustration. He wants police to carry responsibility for their role instead of simply wearing the blame.

    “It’s a disgrace,” he says. Somebody needs to have the guts to say: ‘Let’s clean this thing up from one end to the other. The murders and the malpractice. It’s all about justice, in the end.” – Des Thomas quoted by David Fisher

    ——————————————

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Fortunately I come from a family with enough standing to have been taught that one’s connections do not automatically make you an authority on anything, but they are mighty handy to have, when needing a boost.

    Oh, dear Lord. Shelley Bridgeman, is that you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (511) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 11:11 am
    ——————–

    You absolute name dropping idiot!

    We could all play that game, however, most of us aren’t that stupid, or need to.

    That you should need to call on a guest from your wedding to try and legitimise what you say, proves you are getting very desperate.

    What a ‘small man’ you must be, to feel so insecure with yourself, and have no faith in your own opinions to the level that you feel the need to authenticate them in such a way. That is really sad Dennis.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Ah, a list of considerable merit. Rodney Hide at his best, not diverted from the pursuing the source of the rot and corruption. Not one word from a Nat’s MP about this fiasco, yet Hide is not deterred from straight talking on this subject – I think it’s the relative intelligence that allows, those like him, to appreciate the full implications of this crisis of the denial of not only basic rights but inconsistencies of requiring a party to accept the results of an outcome, no matter what, then refusing to do the same itself. Says something about the hangers, that they are so full of hate they can’t raise any objections against the wider implications of government destruction of rights, integrity and process – but then again what could be really expected ?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,048) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 11:20 am
    ——————-

    Who is Shelly Bridgeman?

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

    Some yes/nos for you
    True: Robin was likely standing when he died?
    True: The crown conceded that RB likely turned on the computer
    True: According to the blood splatter and photo of Robin in TBA, Robins right knee was likely bent? (Look at the photos of TBA in your local library if you don’t believe me)
    True: A live bullet showing signs of a misfeed/misfire was found in the lounge indicating the killer of Robin had 2 gos?
    True: The shot was a contact wound with an upward trajectory of roughly 10 degrees?
    True: Dempster agreed that there was no difficult contortions required based on the photos and suicide demonstrations at the retrial?
    False: David hiding behind the curtains or shooting Robin while ‘kneeling in prayer’

    Yes, I see we have left the actual subject of the post and are on to the 1000+ thread of gibbering obsessives re-litigating the case yet again. Answers to the above: “Buggered if I know” to all of them, and no particular interest in finding out because the circumstances of Robin’s death are consistent with either suicide or murder and no new evidence one way or the other is going to be found.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. Anyway, I don’t care, my father’s a policeman.

    I will just say, Robin was shot over by the curtains , pulled up under the shoulders, spilling blood on the curtains, and dragged over to make it look like he’d fallen off the beanbag. Then the magazine was planted, on its edge, by his outstretched hand.

    And that was all done by the same passer by who set fire to Bob Jones’ place, according to Jones. Either that or Jones said that happened only in about 1%, or was it 0.1% of cases?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Milt
    Translation
    You deny as you have no explanation for the evidence and you know there is no explanation consistent with murder. Remember Kieran Raftery wasn’t able to offer one either. Yet your list of unlikely coincidences barely gets of the ground, some of you seem to think it ‘enough evidence to hang him ten times over’
    This more shows how deluded some of the trolls on here are.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    This shows the arrogance of a stupid JFRB nitwit
    “If db was innocent the evidence would show it, you wouldn’t have to twist everything around and choose the most unlikely explanation for each piece of evidence to make db innocent.”

    Looks like from her posts Belinda is trying to do her best impression of a McNeish.

    Lets look at what ‘the evidence’ has done so far
    1. A successful appeal to the privvy council (remember it would ‘never happen’)
    2. 5 not guilty verdicts at the retrial where the crown were not able to prove a thing (remember COA 3 points on which ‘any reasonble jury would convict’)
    3. A innocent on BOP recommendation by a independent retired judge commissioned to investigate guilt or innocence

    Lets look at what the ‘Justice for Daddy’ witchhunt has achieved
    1. About 2-3000 signitures from their petition (while having to resort to using multiple identities to achieve <1% of the NZ population)
    2. Ian Binnie read all there 'facts' (translation = spin) on the website and decided that David was likely innocent on BOP
    3. Upcoming defamation action for Kent & Co

    I wonder who actually has to 'spin the facts' to fit the evidence remember the defence version hasn't changed for 18 years!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    The usual argument of a spinner
    Why did Robin do this if he was the killer, Why, Why, Why!
    It doesn’t fit with the ‘rules’ of the ‘right way’ to commit suicide and what a rational person ‘would’ do

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Well, I’m off for lunch, there’s pretty lean pickings here. Rowan’s too small a fry to bother with and Judith takes any old bait. Nostalgia has gone out of tune and playing the wrong note half the time. Perhaps his heart’s not really in it any more. I mean, it had to happen as the absurdity of it started to sink in.

    Leaving a message on the computer praising and exonerating yourself, whatever next?

    Saying Dad changed into his old clothes with no underpants to meet God, whatever next?

    Walking calmly over to the beanbag after being shot dead in the head near the curtains, Jesus Christ?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Well said Dennis but remember the saying about what a picture is worth?

    I wonder what a You tube clip is worth?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Rowan (469) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
    This shows the arrogance of a stupid JFRB nitwit
    “If db was innocent the evidence would show it, you wouldn’t have to twist everything around and choose the most unlikely explanation for each piece of evidence to make db innocent.”

    Looks like from her posts Belinda is trying to do her best impression of a McNeish.

    Lets look at what ‘the evidence’ has done so far
    1. A successful appeal to the privvy(sic, not a toilet) council (remember it would ‘never happen’)
    2. 5 not guilty verdicts at the retrial where the crown were not able to prove a thing (remember COA 3 points on which ‘any reasonble(sic) jury would convict’)
    3. A innocent on BOP recommendation by a(sic) independent retired judge commissioned to investigate guilt or innocence

    Lets look at what the ‘Justice for Daddy’ witchhunt has achieved
    1. About 2-3000 signitures from their petition (while having to resort to using multiple identities to achieve <1% of the NZ population)
    2. Ian Binnie read all there(sic) 'facts' (translation = spin) on the website and decided that David was likely innocent on BOP
    3. Upcoming defamation action for Kent & Co

    I wonder who actually has to 'spin the facts' to fit the evidence remember the defence version hasn't changed for 18 years!

    …………………
    The defence is a moveable feast, let us all just remember that no-one on the prosecution, Counsel or witness was accused of a crime. The only accused refused to be cross-examined again after the first fiasco.

    We have however seen how unreliable David is as a witness, apparently or conveniently due to the stress of the situation.

    Reminds me of Sgt. Schultz on Hogan's Heroes. 'I know nothink'. But really we knew the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    muggins (1,749) Says:
    Judith
    My reason for telling you the correct spelling of the dogs name and that I knew she had five puppies in her first litter was so you would realise I had inside information.
    If I have been told how the dogs name was spelt, then when I say that David kicked Arawa when she was lying on the ground I am right about that as well.
    When I say that Margaret had a strict rule that hand-knitted woolen jerseys were always to be washed by hand I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David Bain knew his sister was a prostitute long before he was arrested I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David’s parents took him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David lied three times about that tattoo I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David’s dog Sacha was put down following complaints about it’s aggessive behaviour I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David told his aunt that he had left earlier on his paper round that morning and that he had run all the way I am right about that as well.
    When I said that Margaret and Robin had resolved their differences and that the demolition of the house was imminent I am right about that as well.
    When I said that it was suggested to David that he wear a jacket or a suit to the funeral and he said he would be wearing his Harlequin jersey I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David had not invited any extended members of his family to speak at the funerals and that only teachers from Bayfield College would I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David wanted his parents cremated and his siblings buried I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David stated the grave should be for four as he wanted to be buried with the children and that he even stipulated the positioning of each body within the grave, Arawa with Stephen and he with Laniet I am right about that as well.
    When I said David stipulated that the caskets should be made of oak and have brass handles I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David wanted to celebrate Arawa’s birthday by inviting friends to go out to the grave ,play some music and dance then I am right about that as well.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    You deny as you have no explanation for the evidence and you know there is no explanation consistent with murder. Remember Kieran Raftery wasn’t able to offer one either.

    I’ve seen several possible scenarios for murder. Perhaps you’d like me to join the rest of the personality-disordered down the rabbit-hole, but I’m not going to make it my life’s work to engage in quibbling over expert so-and-so said such-and-such, which was then contradicted by some other expert, for all the world as though I was in some sense qualified to express an opinion on it. You don’t know the circumstances of Robin Bain’s death and neither does anyone else, with the possible exception of one. Evidence that can actually tell us something useful lies elsewhere, for the most part.

    Yet your list of unlikely coincidences barely gets of the ground…

    It’s called circumstantial evidence. The fact that you and Judith fail to understand the concept isn’t my problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    What are the pros and cons for having a Judicial Review?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Judith quoted

    6. Police failed to follow up on evidence of Robin Bain’s mental instability.

    Ahem again. There is absolutely no EVIDENCE of RB’s mental instability. Lots of rumour, innuendo, speculation etc but absolutely NO evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Dennis
    Your theories barely make it of the ground ie “Saying Dad changed into his old clothes with no underpants to meet God, whatever next?”
    Just a really simple one maybe he didn’t change his trousers, wouldn’t that be a possibility?, progresses your argument the usual 0.0000%

    Corrigenda
    Actually try looking at the evidence there was plenty, or maybe all those witnesses who testified about Robins state of mind were all lying! how about the letter found at the school requesting stress leave? or was that forged and planted?

    Chuck
    A shame that the video scenario is totally at odds with the forensics in the lounge, and totally implausible explains things 0.0000%

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Rowan, as I said, no evidence, just speculation by non medical persons. RB’s state of mind at any given time would depend on many things, including whether or not he liked the person he was talking to and anyone’s guess at his state of mind is just that, a guess!! I could name a few I think are mentally unstable but again I am not a medical person, it would be only my personal opinion. Also being stressed does not mean you are mentally unstable.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Well done,
    Robin didn’t change his trousers because he had no need to and there was no blood on them.
    David managed to get his brothers’ blood on the crotch of his shorts.

    You can come out of time out now, but if you misbehave again you will go back on the naughty stool. ;)

    A letter requesting stress leave sounds like the actions of a rational man. You would have me believe that Robin wasn’t.
    Would you have rather he asked for sick leave when he wasn’t sick?

    What leave description would you have liked him to use?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    try looking at photos goldnkiwi, also the statement by Detective Mark Lodge which is published as an appendix to D & G. This shows more accurately the ‘no blood’ that you refer to. There is also a considerable amount that did not come from his head wound that needs explaining to fit the ‘murder’ scenario ie red blood like traces under his fingernails.
    Maybe get your facts right before making up stories!
    Robins actions that morning are whats irrational

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Milt
    I do understand circumstantial evidence you are correct that it is circumstantial but is a very ‘weak’ case and explained more logically by David finding out what had happened that morning

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Rowan you and Kanz or Judith made a comment about a speck of blood on Robin the other day not being his own? I may be mistaken?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    http://www.gpforums.co.nz/attachment.php?s=&postid=6006876

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    You want me to refer to a work of fiction. Or are you saying that D & G is in the non-fiction section?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Three weeks before the murders Robin had told members at a genealogy meeting he went to that Margaret was thinking about having a new house built but she couldn’t afford to because she didn’t have the money.
    But sometime between then and their deaths Margaret and Robin had resolved their problems and had worked out a way for them to continue as a family- hence the two master bedrooms with interconnecting ensuite and the four bedrooms for the children/ guests.
    David saw those two master bedrooms as being for himself and his mother,an indication of his desire to have his father excluded and his own perceived importance within the family.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Yes Cartman
    been having more pyschic conversations for that info or as we all know your source = your arse

    Goldnkiwi
    I suppose that photos or detective statements now amount to ‘fiction’ in your world. For the actual source of fiction on the Bain case how about you look at the ‘justice for daddy’ website or read McNeish or In the Grip of Evil!

    Corrigenda
    Much like your evidence against Davids character or your arguments ‘he did it’ to date, didnt those stories about Davids character not actually come out for 13 years. I wonder why!

    [DPF: See previous warning about calling commenters by names, other than those they comment under. It just makes things disorderly. You may not have seen the previous warning, so no demerits this time. If everyon just refers to others by the name they comment under it would make life much easier for me as I’m getting sick of the complaints to be honest and if I get too sick of mediating I’ll just close the threads down]

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    http://static.stuff.co.nz/1236722664/605/2251605.jpg

    This pic shows bruising on David’s face, bruising which he’s never been able to explain. It also seems to show an indentation below his right eye. Possibly the sort of indentation that wearing glasses might leave…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Try loosening off your corset ross and read the trial evidence, don’t rely on a site that is in it’s third year of being sued. It makes you look like an idiot.

    I’ve got a photo that shows daddy had a nose bleed ross, and blood in his moustache, who do you think he was fighting with that morning when he got his busted up hands and a nose bleed. But it wasn’t really a fight was it ross because Stephen had already been shot by a father who, despite all, he loved.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this thread, kindly started by our host David Farrar, was about the need for a second report.
    The re litigating of the case is no longer necessary, that ‘evidence’ a few of you keep trying to spin tighter, has been kicked into touch 3 times now.

    Firstly by the Privy Counsel.
    Then by a jury of twelve unanimously.
    Now by Ian Binnie.

    Now, the nutters are calling ‘foul’ and want a rematch, but fail to see they, and their ‘evidence’, never was and never will be up to the game.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Try loosening off your corset ross and read the trial evidence, don’t rely on a site that is in it’s third year of being sued. It makes you look like an idiot.

    The site itself doesn’t make ross look like an idiot. He needs no help with that. It comes naturally.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Kanz (791) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this thread, kindly started by our host David Farrar, was about the need for a second report.
    The re litigating of the case is no longer necessary, that ‘evidence’ a few of you keep trying to spin tighter, has been kicked into touch 3 times now.

    Firstly by the Privy Counsel.(sic)Council.
    Then by a jury of twelve unanimously.
    Now by Ian Binnie.

    Now, the nutters are calling ‘foul’ and want a rematch, but fail to see they, and their ‘evidence’, never was and never will be up to the game.
    First and second jury.

    Are you just ‘new to the blogosphere” or something?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Kanz (792) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 6:29 pm
    Try loosening off your corset ross and read the trial evidence, don’t rely on a site that is in it’s third year of being sued. It makes you look like an idiot.

    The site itself doesn’t make ross look like an idiot. He needs no help with that. It comes naturally.’

    I was trying to be polite by not pointing that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    I was trying to be polite by not pointing that out.

    You may be polite, but there are a number on here who don’t deserve polite, respect or to be given any credit whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    You did want me to correct you didn’t you Kanz?

    Always happy to oblige. Do not confuse me with ‘Mother’ though,
    or you will be back on the naughty stool.:)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (108) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Whoop de do, the idiot can spell.
    Wonders never cease.
    A pity it can’t think too, but then that would be asking too much from an idiot, I have been told.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. big bruv (14,125 comments) says:

    “I’ll just close the threads down”

    Oh yes!…do it DPF, just do it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,885) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    http://static.stuff.co.nz/1236722664/605/2251605.jpg

    This pic shows bruising on David’s face, bruising which he’s never been able to explain. It also seems to show an indentation below his right eye. Possibly the sort of indentation that wearing glasses might leave…

    And here we have Ross, the photo expert! Having copied a photo off the web, he is able to ‘find’ an indentation, that despite the many Crown Forensic Experts that have gone over all the evidence, including the photos and actual physical examinations of David himself, were unable to find.

    The redness and rash on David’s face was described in detail by the doctor. But of course, Dr Ross who has never examined the person, or seen the doctors report, knows better. David still has the scars from the acne he had as a young man. I suppose next Ross will announce they are in fact scars received as the blood spatter of his so called victims hit him!!

    It appears JFRB team are now using the ‘lucky dip’ technique.

    Next they’ll be showing Marzuka’s pathetic graphic attempts, that completely ignore the evidence of the blood spatter and the close contact wound. Oh wait a minute, they already have!

    This almost equals the campaign of putting stickers on cabbages in supermarkets. LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    @ Kanz, it is not merely a matter of spelling it is a matter of interpretation, they are both words that can be used in this context, one makes sense one doesn’t. I was absolutely sure that you would not wish to be misunderstood. There is a Privy Council and there would have been Counsel there. You also asked to be corrected, I merely obliged for your edification.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    big bruv (10,982) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
    ————————

    That’s a good idea. They are all mad in here except me and Kanz, and I’m not all that sure about him! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    [DPF: See previous warning about calling commenters by names, other than those they comment under. It just makes things disorderly. You may not have seen the previous warning, so no demerits this time. If everyon just refers to others by the name they comment under it would make life much easier for me as I’m getting sick of the complaints to be honest and if I get too sick of mediating I’ll just close the threads down]

    Does that include using the right spelling and numbers if they have them etc? Or are first names ok? And can I change my name to Lady Judith, it kind of has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? ;-)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @ Lady Judith. “It kind of has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?”

    Not the ring of truth, however. :) :) :)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (63) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 3:21 pm
    Judith quoted

    6. Police failed to follow up on evidence of Robin Bain’s mental instability.

    Ahem again. There is absolutely no EVIDENCE of RB’s mental instability. Lots of rumour, innuendo, speculation etc but absolutely NO evidence.
    —————————-

    Five bodies not enough evidence for you Corrigenda?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    I’ve got a photo that shows daddy had a nose bleed ross, and blood in his moustache…

    He had his own blood in various places, what with having taken a bullet in the head an’ all. What did Dempster say about this “nosebleed?” Anything? Or was he hampered by merely having Robin Bain’s corpse in front of him, whereas you’re operating at the much more sophisticated level of looking at a photo?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    He had his own blood in various places, what with having taken a bullet in the head an’ all. What did Dempster say about this “nosebleed?” Anything? Or was he hampered by merely having Robin Bain’s corpse in front of him, whereas you’re operating at the much more sophisticated level of looking at a photo?

    He probably thought the head shot caused it, they can do that. What he was not also told about was the blood covered towel in the bathroom, that the cops thought had Stephen’s blood on. They only recently, just before the retrial, bothered to test it only to find the old man had bled profusely sometime shortly before administering the shot to his own head.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Kanz (795) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    goldnkiwi (108) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Whoop de do, the idiot can spell.
    Wonders never cease.
    A pity it can’t think too, but then that would be asking too much from an idiot, I have been told.
    ………….

    By your “Mother”?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    The re litigating of the case is no longer necessary, that ‘evidence’ a few of you keep trying to spin tighter, has been kicked into touch 3 times now.

    Firstly by the Privy Counsel.
    Then by a jury of twelve unanimously.
    Now by Ian Binnie.

    So what you’re saying is that we can trust those entrusted with authority in the justice system to reach the right decision? But only to they extent they reach decisions you agree with?

    And yes, it’s Privy Council, not Toilet Council or Privy Lawyer. Seriously, how hard can shit like this be to get right?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    He probably thought the head shot caused it, they can do that.

    In other words, Nostalgia-NZ has a photo that would definitely show a nosebleed if the bloke in the photo didn’t happen to have been shot in the head? I’ll wait for the piece from Dempster in which he says he was mistaken, if you don’t mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt. Nine years to ‘discover’ the towel had blood from heavy bleeding from Robin. A further 5 years (from memory) to identify a photo taken in the morgue showing blood wash on Robin’s hands, and you’re surprised about a photo showing a nose bleed. But step back, as Binnie did, consider the thread that runs through the evidence against Robin, bruised hands with blood and cuts to them, his blood on a towel in the laundry, put aside the footprints and the potential nosebleed of which there is evidence, match the known factors in the comparison between murder and suicide, temple shot, trajectory and so forth – and you have Robin as the killer plain as day. Dismissing Binnie’s report won’t change that, nor will commissioning a new one that doesn’t deal with all the factors of the evidence against Robin Bain. Forget also the ‘fairness’ or otherwise of the evidence, or the ‘contentions and just let the evidence tell it’s own story.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Kanz (795) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    I was trying to be polite by not pointing that out.

    You may be polite, but there are a number on here who don’t deserve polite, respect or to be given any credit whatsoever.
    ……………..

    Hey, ‘its’ on your side. Don’t be so mean. I am sure permission is asked everytime before the ‘law’ is broken.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    How the hell could a person hold an LLB and not understand Judicial Review?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    I think we should have one. It is going to get there eventually probably, so might as well just go to it.
    The prospect of there being one seems to be held as a threat to settle, so I say call the bluff. ;)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    What wounds do you know of psycho milt that Robin had that caused the bleeding? There were none that I know of, apart from the photo showing a potential nose bleed, apparent before his suicide, and the bleeding didn’t miraculously transport itself to a towel in the laundry down stairs, and be reduced by water on his hands. Look forward to your observations milt.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,633) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 7:49 pm

    How the hell could a person hold an LLB and not understand Judicial Review?
    ————————-

    I don’t believe you have to ask such a question. Lawyers rate just above carsalesmen, who rate just above politicians.

    Barmaids! They’re the ones you’ve got to look out for. Memories like steel traps. Can spot a liar and a con artist 20 metres away. That is why there are no barmaids in the JFRB club. :-)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    You knowing it all of course, I guess you do not drink then lol. You on the other hand rate murderers above all others, or so it would seem and no not necessarily David.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 52 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 48 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,753) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 8:09 pm
    But having said that,if John Key/Judith Collins were to decide on a panel of three,then I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

    Well, thank goodness for that. I’m sure they have been waiting for you to approve.
    Of course, now you’ve agreed that its ok for them have a three person panel, there won’t be any complaints, no matter what the result, will there? At least not from your honorable self?

    Or, will it be like when they appointed Binnie and you and your friends were thrilled with the decision, only to change your minds? .

    Talking about changing minds, will you be repeating the North Korea deal on whatever Collins decides, or was that just a one time thing – which appears to have been somewhat of a Claytons deal?

    Oh yes, Muggins, I’ve been meaning to tell you. They don’t appear to be any direct flights to North Korea, but I’m sure one of the sisters will loan you their broom. There’s bound to be one that hasn’t clocked up too many miles. ;-)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 70 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 141 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    What wounds do you know of psycho milt that Robin had that caused the bleeding? There were none that I know of, apart from the photo showing a potential nose bleed, apparent before his suicide, and the bleeding didn’t miraculously transport itself to a towel in the laundry down stairs, and be reduced by water on his hands. Look forward to your observations milt.

    I can’t make any observations at all about a towel and photo I’ve never seen. The question is, what do the people who have access to the evidence and are qualified to draw conclusions about it make of the theory that Robin Bain cleaned up a nosebleed he got in a fight with Stephen? I don’t know if any of them have mentioned it, but I do know the Police and ESR did luminol testing of various places in the house, and if the murderer was dripping blood from a wound I should think they’d have found evidence of it.

    That said, if the blood in the photo is possibly a nosebleed rather than a consequence of the head wound, and there’s matching blood on a towel in the laundry, it’s circumstantial evidence against Robin – same as David’s wounds that morning were circumstantial evidence against him.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 34 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 36 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    But step back, as Binnie did, consider the thread that runs through the evidence against Robin, bruised hands with blood and cuts to them, his blood on a towel in the laundry, put aside the footprints and the potential nosebleed of which there is evidence, match the known factors in the comparison between murder and suicide, temple shot, trajectory and so forth – and you have Robin as the killer plain as day.

    I saw the pictures of Robin Bain’s hands in D & G and the injuries on them looked at least a day old to me, especially that bruise. But what I think counts for jack shit, what matters is what Dempster thought of them – he’s the one with the medical degree who actually looked at them. Re the footprints, we can safely say that Robin’s are at least the minimum size required to make them, but that’s about it. The comparison between murder and suicide I don’t think anyone’s in a position to draw a definitive conclusion about, given the disputes between experts at the trial. I know you have your own views about why the various murder scenarios are contradicted by the evidence, but I recall watching video of Boyce demonstrating potential suicide positions and thinking stuff like how likely is it there are none of his prints on that barrel or silencer, and what the hell is that chair going to look like after he’s done that to it? Basically, there are questions outstanding no matter what scenario you come up with.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    you have Robin as the killer plain as day

    Is that what Henry Glaser concluded?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,886) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    Were forensic experts looking for an identation made by glasses? Possibly not.
    ——————————–

    So your argument is they only found things they were looking for?

    That would explain Det Sgt Weir finding the lens then.

    Thank you Mr Ross69. :-)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 33 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 37 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    …we can safely say that Robin’s are at least the minimum size required to make them, but that’s about it.

    Reading back, that’s unfair. If they genuinely were complete prints they were definitely not David’s, which would make them Robin’s. So the probability of them being Robin’s is higher than them being David’s, as Binnie said. He just went way too far in claiming they must be complete prints because Dempster said they were – in fact, Dempster had no basis for knowing whether they were complete or not. In short, yes, the footprints do count against Robin.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Hate to be trite but the nose and the temple are in different places, just like Robin’s body was in a different place to the blood found on the towel but with a known link; blood wash on his palms. And the photo is real, taken on the mortuary. So always the threads of evidence against Robin remain strong.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 37 Thumb down 61 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 93 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Exactly what size are David’s feet, I read somewhere that Joe Karam said that they were 300 mm. Robin’s were measured at the morgue. So unless they were measured by the same people who knows how complete they were in comparison to the other persons measurements.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    So your argument is they only found things they were looking for?

    I have no idea what they were looking for. But certainly it was apparent that there was bruising. Police might have assumed that the bruising was more important than any indentation caused by glasses. Besides, David wore glasses, so why would police think any such indentation was important?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘That said, if the blood in the photo is possibly a nosebleed rather than a consequence of the head wound, and there’s matching blood on a towel in the laundry, it’s circumstantial evidence against Robin – same as David’s wounds that morning were circumstantial evidence against him.’

    David’s wounds have a known explanation. Robin’s don’t, particularly the blood on the towel. Nobody has given an explanation for the blood on the towel or the blood wipe on the hands, I’d argue, ‘stepping back’ that it is insurmountable evidence against Robin, also clear evidence that the inquiry never investigated the possibility of his guilt and David’s innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Hentschell not Dempster pyscho. But how can accepting evidence be going ‘too far,’ particularly when the evidence is supported by known facts.

    Sorry, yes Hentschel not Dempster. I presume even Binnie was aware he was going too far, because if he really could draw the firm conclusion that it was a genuinely complete print, the rest of his report would have been unnecessary – Robin did it, David innocent beyond reasonable doubt, pay up motherfuckers.

    In the matter of “complete” prints, the relevant fact isn’t known. Without having the foot in the bloodstained sock in front of him, Hentschel wasn’t actually in a position to say whether it was a genuinely complete footprint or not. He may have appeared to be quite certain it was a complete print at the first trial, but he had no evidential basis for that certainty, and told the PCA in 1997 that he should have explained clearly at the time that it wasn’t something he could know.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Especially as it was a foot in a sock print which is even more variable.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    David’s wounds have a known explanation. Robin’s don’t, particularly the blood on the towel.

    The wound that accounts for the blood on Robin Bain has a very well known explanation. As to the towel, I’ve never noticed anyone qualified to comment on it do so. Given that the murderer cleaned himself up in that laundry, the fact there was blood from one of the people who was shot on a towel in there doesn’t strike me as particularly noteworthy in and of itself.

    Jesus, despite expressly rejecting the idea of ending up down the rabbit hole quibbling over evidence no-one here is qualified to comment on, here I am quibbling over it. This stuff is harder to quit than I thought.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 45 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    I presume even Binnie was aware he was going too far, because if he really could draw the firm conclusion that it was a genuinely complete print, the rest of his report would have been unnecessary – Robin did it, David innocent beyond reasonable doubt, pay up motherfuckers.’

    Not at all. The print evidence alone does not divorce the other material pointing to Robin, it’s not all or nothing, can’t be as you know by the test which must be applied. But to another clear point 2 witnesses, 1 crown, 1 defence, confirmed Hentschell’s evidence from the first trial. Binnie was entitled to accept evidence that was supported by others giving an endorsement to it. This ‘even Binnie’ argument lets you down psycho milt, it’s given you a mindset, the same sort of mindset that caused the police not to investigate Robin, against whom, evidence keeps emerging so much so that the case against David has collapsed upon itself to the point of needing ‘mock up’ videos, ‘confidential ‘information,’ and bizarre arguments against how a jurist reached a straight forward decision.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Jesus, despite expressly rejecting the idea of ending up down the rabbit hole quibbling over evidence no-one here is qualified to comment on, here I am quibbling over it. This stuff is harder to quit than I thought.’

    You need to understand the transference of blood psycho milt, high speed, direct or second hand, fallen, wiped, or from a nosebleed or some other bleeding that gave a consistency of pattern, full on the edges and so on, something the police ignored and continue to ignore, though in the beginning they were onto the type of bleed it came from and expected Pryde to find the source when he stripped searched David, and yes, reported no recent nose bleed.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter how many people who weren’t in a position to know whether it was a complete print or not agreed that it was a complete print. Physical reality isn’t trumped by volume of testimony. I say “even Binnie” because his report demonstrates a great many failures of reasoning, of which his view the print must be complete because Hentschel said it was is just one example.

    The case against David remains what it was: his gun, his trigger lock, his fingerprints, his gloves, his glasses, victims’ blood on his clothes, injuries on his face, various other bits and pieces I can’t remember off the top of my head. If that’s “collapsed” any time recently, I didn’t notice.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    What is ” the known explanation” for David Bain’s wounds?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt,

    You are the only one who deserved to stay

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    The case against David remains what it was: his gun, his trigger lock, his fingerprints, his gloves, his glasses, victims’ blood on his clothes, injuries on his face, various other bits and pieces I can’t remember off the top of my head. If that’s “collapsed” any time recently, I didn’t notice.’

    How predictable that you would revert to idiocy when you were unable to answer the evidence against dear daddy, and that two cookoo birds would come to your support. Well what do you know? What did Mrs Laney say again, and how many pups did the dog have?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    That would be cuckoo, Frosty Nosty, not cookoo, you repeatedly get that wrong but then that’s just you all over. ;)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    All that’s needed now is a ‘collapse’ of the evidence against daddy, but that will never happen.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    What did Mrs Laney say again

    She said David was earlier than normal that fateful morning and may have been at his gate at 6.40 am. Why did Joe Karam hang up on her?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Sorry to misspell the name of your species Dennis, not intentional.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,890) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 10:28 pm
    What did Mrs Laney say again

    She said David was earlier than normal that fateful morning and may have been at his gate at 6.40 am. Why did Joe Karam hang up on her?’

    More evidence from ross’s defence fund of lies for dear daddy.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Ah, Nosty, you know what cuckoos do. Better watch your nest. :0

    “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Judith (1,085) Says:

    January 27th, 2013 at 7:05 pm
    corrigenda (63) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 3:21 pm
    Judith quoted

    6. Police failed to follow up on evidence of Robin Bain’s mental instability.

    Ahem again. There is absolutely no EVIDENCE of RB’s mental instability. Lots of rumour, innuendo, speculation etc but absolutely NO evidence.
    —————————-

    Five bodies not enough evidence for you Corrigenda?

    Sorry I can’t follow your reasoning, maybe because there is no reasoning to your argument.

    As for no barmaids on JFRB… Wanna bet???

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Has it occurred to anyone else that this thread topic is a great way ‘ to plan to get away with the perfect murder’?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Perfect murder? Bored to death?

    “IT IS MY CORE BELIEF I WAS NOT THERE”

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 31 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    I do not think that we should forget that murders are planned in NZ more than we care to admit.
    We might not have a gun lobby in NZ like the US but most of us have access to guns,
    Lets face it, who really needs a licence, it is not like a horse and carriage or some such analogy.

    There are lots of programmes on tv that when I watch them I think to myself. (Coronation St for one )lol. For gods sake don’t give
    ‘people’ ideas. Some of my associates do not think that some people need any external help.

    I watch crime enactments and think, well that is one mistake the next person will not make.

    I read and participate in these threads and it is like being in a school for how to create a defence through obfuscation, or an alibi.
    For some theoretical, some might find it practical.

    I have had limited exposure to the prison system, what is the set up? I appreciate that ‘special prisoners’ are segregated away from general population and I guess all of those with longer sentences hang out in the same places?

    Anecdotally I am told that a petty thief will return to mainstream society a master.

    A lot of time in prison to think and plan, not much else to do.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘You need to understand the transference of blood psycho milt, high speed, direct or second hand, fallen, wiped, or from a nosebleed or some other bleeding that gave a consistency of pattern, full on the edges and so on, something the police ignored and continue to ignore, though in the beginning they were onto the type of bleed it came from and expected Pryde to find the source when he stripped searched David, and yes, reported no recent nose bleed.’

    Bit hard to get over, David didn’t have a nose bleed but Robin did.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 41 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    What makes you such an expert?
    What nose bleed??
    No wonder the jury was overwhelmed/bombarded by all this type of ‘evidence’.
    If you ever get accused of a crime you will know just what to say, n’est pas?
    It wasn’t me, I wasn’t there
    Look there was someone else within a 100 metres, it was them.
    They killed themselves.
    I am an innocent by-stander.
    It’s not fair you are picking on me etc,etc.

    Ad nauseum.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (64) Says:
    January 27th, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    —————————-

    I’m sure, after me having made the statement you can ‘find’ many barmaids on JFRB. For a starter, the ‘ex’ head, lets face it, he’s been a failed ‘politician’, a failed musician, calls himself a psychologist, although he does not have the relevant registration, failed campaigner, failed web designer – it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he had also been a failed barmaid. He certainly has the kind of voice that is screechy enough for it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 33 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Morning Nosty. Robin might have got a bleeding nose fighting Stephen, you think, but he didn’t leave any of his blood in Stephen’s room, that’s the thing; that’ll be the fault of the Police I suppose. ;)

    Any mention of Robin’s nose bleed in the pathology report? ;)

    How much blood on the towel in the laundry? Did have any estimates or photograph you feel kind enough to share?

    What do you think of this: David whacked his father on the nose and wiped up the blood after he picked him up under the shoulders, spilling blood on the curtains as Ferris said, and lugged him from the curtains over to the beanbag. Or maybe the blood wasn’t from the nose at all. Then David placed the magazine on its edge by his hand, under the table, where he would never have put it himself. You know what I mean, the set up, make it look like suicide. Fooled the police for hours. How many years has it fooled you? :)

    Shall we ask David? “David, did you kill your family?”
    “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE”

    Is that a “NO” or a “DON’T KNOW”?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 30 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Morning Lady Judith. Would you like to know more about my family and friends? My daughter-in-law is a theoretical physicist at the Max Planck Institute, the world’s premier non-university research institute. I rest my case. Sonny wot did it. ;)

    You can laugh, I don’t care, my father’s a policeman. :)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Lady Judith? Oxymoron. :)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    …David didn’t have a nose bleed but Robin did.

    Yet another of these “facts” that need quotation marks around them.

    However, just for the sake of argument let’s agree Robin had a nose bleed that morning. I recall that when considering the question of how a pair of glasses David Bain was apparently wearing on the Sunday evening came to be damaged the next morning with one lens in Stephen’s room, the responses from you, Rowan, Judith etc have been that nothing links those glasses to the murders, 0 proof is 0 proof, it’s baseless and malicious speculation and anyway the cops planted that lens, etc. So I look forward to you pointing out that nothing links this nose bleed to the murders, no proof is no proof, the nosebleed is a red herring for idiots etc. Start when ready…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Morning Psych Milt. Good game, good game.

    Let’s review the literature:
    Prof Bryan Gould thinks we should pay because he hasn’t time to read the Binnie Report.
    Sir Bob Jones thinks we should pay because there is 0.1 – 1.0% chance it was not him, or David, or something, he’d been Karamed.
    Rodney Hide thinks we should pay because he suffers cultural cringe. I mean, WHO THE FUCK DO WE THINK WE ARE?
    Prof Ken Palmer gives the Binnie Report an A*

    Pretty impressive, huh?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 32 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Morning goldnkiwi. How dare you! Lady Judith is no oxy. ;)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    That’s no Lady thats a ?
    Shall we play 20 questions?
    You start.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    That’s my knife. Pretty cutting anyway.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Ah rhetorical questions. No fun.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘though in the beginning they were onto the type of bleed it came from and expected Pryde to find the source when he stripped searched David, and yes, reported no recent nose bleed.’

    Shortened it a little, would be hard for some to follow. I know this distresses pycho milt considerably because it is evidence, the type of evidence that becomes a rope of evidence against Robin and the police investigation, and broken cotton threads in the failed case against David. As I said yesterday the evidence has become progressively stronger against Robin and weak to the point of failure against David so there is no point in another report, nobody can ‘reconstruct’ a case against David because the house of cards has collapsed, and blaming Binnie for that is removed as far as possible from the evidence as are the futile attempts of the JFRBainers arguing about the spelling of a dog’s name. Waste of money and waste of time.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    That’s no Lady thats a ?
    Shall we play 20 questions?
    You start.

    Sounds good. Safer for you to put up your 20 answers, as we may ask the wrong questions.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Compensation is a gift. Politicians decide how to spend out money. The executive or parliament vote.

    The legal system has cocked it up again. It’s an anachronistic and costly circus.

    Time to rid ourselves of the adversarial system. Too much monkey business.

    An inquisitorial approach is more likely to get closer to the truth. Examining magistrate leading the investigation. Tribunal of judges with some laymen to guard transparency. Much more emphasis on understanding probability, or likelihood.

    In the meantime two things. “Not Proven” verdict available to juries. No right to silence, but, defendants to be questioned only by judges, no cross examination unless defendant agrees.

    Now come on guys. I know we don’t agree on some things, but we probably all seek justice in out own way. Forget David Bain. Think about Peter Ellis and Scott Watson. Tamihere maybe.

    We do need a Criminal Cases Review Commision (CCRC) urgently.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Morning, Kanz. “… we may ask the wrong questions.”

    Indeed so, Kanz, indeed so. ‘)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 33 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Shortened it a little, would be hard for some to follow. I know this distresses pycho milt considerably because it is evidence, the type of evidence that becomes a rope of evidence against Robin and the police investigation, and broken cotton threads in the failed case against David. As I said yesterday the evidence has become progressively stronger against Robin and weak to the point of failure against David so there is no point in another report, nobody can ‘reconstruct’ a case against David because the house of cards has collapsed, and blaming Binnie for that is removed as far as possible from the evidence as are the futile attempts of the JFRBainers arguing about the spelling of a dog’s name. Waste of money and waste of time.

    From what I have read, the main argument against Bain being found innocent is the fact that that makes the old man guilty by default.
    The more reports or investigations the angrier these old man supporters get. Every time, there is more evidence made public that shows what the old man truly was, and that he killed his family before himself.
    Had the truth been accepted from day one most of the country would have no idea about the incest, the fact that he was losing his marbles, the fact that he was a smelly old man, the fact that he was being passed over for promotion because he wasn’t up to it etc. etc.
    In fact if the majority thought of the family at all it, they would struggle to rember even the name. There were 2 other familicides in Otago in the previous year, most people don’t even know that, let alone talk about the who and why.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    “An inquisitorial approach is more likely to get closer to the truth. ”

    Didn’t Binnie adopt an inquisitorial approach”

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Good morning fellow posters.
    Nothing I have read since my last post is going to cause John Key to change his mind, even if he was reading this thread.
    But I see there is an ongoing argument about that so called nose bleed.
    I have Dr Dempster’s number because I phoned him a couple of years ago so I will give him another call some time this week just to see what he has to say.
    Bye for now.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    We do need a Criminal Cases Review Commision (CCRC) urgently.

    In this country it would work no better than the PCA or IPCA does. We have systems now to fix these cases. This case shows that the ‘rulers’ will buck against anything that shows them in a bad light, and the degree of separation is too small.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,352) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 9:51 am

    “An inquisitorial approach is more likely to get closer to the truth. ”

    Didn’t Binnie adopt an inquisitorial approach”

    Yes, but he was only meant to inquire into Bain’s guilt, not the old man, and certainly not into how the case was handled by the authorities.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    The more reports or investigations the angrier these old man supporters get.

    Dirty stinking old man supporters! Just fancy, thinking an old man deserves fair treatment same as a young one – what’s wrong with these people?

    I know this distresses pycho milt considerably because it is evidence, the type of evidence that becomes a rope of evidence against Robin and the police investigation, and broken cotton threads in the failed case against David.

    As mentioned above: were it at some point actually to become evidence (rather than just something you firmly believe, which is by no means the same thing), it would be circumstantial evidence of exactly the same kind as the glasses, ie worthless according to Nostalgia-NZ.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    It’s ticking over very nicely. ;)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    K*** P*****
    Offline
    Joined: 24 Jul 2009
    I see a comment from M***

    I see a comment from **** ****, but not *****. BTW,, people, even if you do not comment, do like some of the comments.

    Is this to bolster their feelings of being part of a large group, when in fact there is very few who think the way they do?
    It was taken from another site that has the express purpose of denigrating Bain and Karam, and any who would publicly support these two.

    LMFAO

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Absorb this slowly psycho

    Robin’s blood was found on the towel in the laundry and until 2003 said to have been Davids.
    Pryde checked David’s nose for a recent nose bleed discovering that he hadn’t had one.
    Robin had blood wash on his hands.
    The towel was heavily stained with his bloods.
    There is a photo that shows a trace of blood coming from his nose, far below and seperated from his temple wound
    Enlarging the photo shows traces of red in his moustache.
    Robin had traces of red material under his finger nails and recent wounds to his hands.

    None of that is circumstantial evidence, try to keep up. Take one point at a time and see what you can do with it. The sum of your ‘results’ or fudging with keep all that evidence intact.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Neuralgia. Maybe he fell on is nose. Whatever. All your feeble surmise.

    NOTHING ties Robin to the rifle. No fingerprints. Nothing. He was supposed to grasp the suppressor with his right hand to hold the rifle to his left temple, but two prints of Stephen were here in a pristine state. How did he manage that without smudging the prints?

    How did he get a blood spot from spatter on his left index fingernail when he needed that hand to reach the trigger?

    Do you seriously expect us to believe a man gets out of bed, strangles and shoots his family, all with an overnight load of urine. Ever heard of the fight or flight response? It’s inconceivable.

    A bit of his own blood smeared on his unwashed hand BUT

    David had the others’ blood all over him, most likely it had soaked through from the clothes he wore when he killed them, which he then put in the washing machine.

    Yeah, I can see the difficulty believing that. I mean, it’s just too obvious. ;)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 30 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    The point, KANZ, is that the inquisitorial approach is not without controversy!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Nookin. Good morning. Of course, no pure system is perfect. I am suggesting the inquisitorial system for the investigation of serious crime. Defendants would still need counsel at trial.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,353) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 10:35 am

    The point, KANZ, is that the inquisitorial approach is not without controversy!

    Point well made, nookin.
    The problem is the knee jerk reaction people have in this country when a case goes against their own prejudices. We saw a valuable defense taken away( that of provocation) , because some didn’t like the way Weatherston handled himself on the stand, or some not nice stuff was said about his victim.
    Now they want the whole court system and investigating system that have served us for 200 years, because it didn’t return the result they wanted in the Bain case.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (530) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 10:44 am

    Hey, dude.
    Seeing as how you are such a great pilot, as you have previously told us looking for adulation, are the kids and I going to see you doing your thing at the airshow today?
    Looking forward to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Didn’t Binnie adopt an inquisitorial approach?

    Well, if an inquisitorial approach consists of believing everything that the main suspect says about a mass murder, then yes, it was inquisitorial. A reasonable person would likely conclude that such an approach showed a lack of balance and poor judgment.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Now they want the whole court system and investigating system that have served us for 200 years, because it didn’t return the result they wanted in the Bain case.

    I thought it was you who wanted the system changed…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Well, if an inquisitorial approach consists of believing everything that the main suspect says about a mass murder, then yes, it was inquisitorial. A reasonable person would likely conclude that such an approach showed a lack of balance and poor judgment.

    Considering interviewing Bain was one of the last things he did, what you say has no logic whatsoever. His questioning of Bain showed that he had already settled on much of what he thought important, and he was trying to trip Bain up to see if his conclusions held or not. His questioning of Weir and Doyle was the same, looking for clarification, on the points that stood out for him.
    If he went into this with a bias, what do you think CL may have done or said to him that caused him to have a bias against them? Maybe their, “we can tell you all you need to know, everything else you hear is wrong” type of arrogance?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Weatherston. Lovely man. Prove he killed her. Her mother nearly witnessed it. But she’d be biased anyway. Really no proof, is there?Oh well, he’ll get a tidy sum if he can get Binnie onto it. I mean the cheek of it, the girl dumping him. Who could blame him for stabbing her, what as it, a hundred and something times? Perfectly reasonable, I say.

    Kanz. How many times have I mentioned Peter Ellis and Scott Watson? Arthur Allan Thomas? I am trying to use this farce for change. Only someone completely in denial could not see what has happened here. The propaganda. The nonsense. The trickery. Maybe something as absurd as this that the legal lot have delivered us could act as a catalyst for change.

    It’s not about David Bain. But you are right. Under an inquisitorial system the case would have been done and dusted years ago. “Guilty without a shadow of a doubt.”

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    This

    Quote”I’ve got a photo that shows daddy had a nose bleed ross, and blood in his moustache” Unquote

    is now this

    Quote”Bit hard to get over, David didn’t have a nose bleed but Robin did”Unquote

    without showing a link of that so called photo

    The photo I have shows a brown stain on his moustache that doesn’t change when enhanced with colour adjustment in photoshop.
    Robin had many areas of blood including blood spots on the outside of his nose that all get enhanced when colour adjusted.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (531) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Weatherston. Lovely man. Prove he killed her. Her mother nearly witnessed it. But she’d be biased anyway. Really no proof, is there?Oh well, he’ll get a tidy sum if he can get Binnie onto it. I mean the cheek of it, the girl dumping him. Who could blame him for stabbing her, what as it, a hundred and something times? Perfectly reasonable, I say.

    Thanks for the public summary of how you view Weatherston and his case. Positive proof that we are dealing with a dyed in the wool looney tunes here.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Katz. No air show for me, Klutz, I’m not a display pilot. I never made any claim to be. I am just an old safe pilot. I could take you for a spin though, that would frighten the shit out of you. Not all of it, of course. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

    What really puzzles me is, what happened to you that you believe this gigantic chain of improbabilities? I mean, how do you make decisions at roundabouts? Or cross the road? You must have some idea of how to assess probabilities.

    Is it the allegations of sexual misconduct? Did the police once harass you? Did you have a bad experience with the courts? What is it exactly?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  422. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    I am sure that the inquisitorial system is not perfect but I think the pros and cons of it should be seriously considered.

    One drawback of the present system it that successful lawyers criminal, civil and matrimonial make their living by doing their best to misled the Court while not necessarily lying – sort of like MPs. It this is not dishonest it certainly borders on dishonesty.

    Guess where we get our judges from? Unlike some here I know some very good, honest and ethical lawyers. Unfortunately there are too my lawyers who do not accept that their first duty is a an Officer of the Court and not to their client.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Look at what has been chucked at Michael Guest for doing exactly that.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Interesting comment here, taken from a site that tries it’s hardest to rule the blogs of others.

    K*** P*****
    Offline
    Joined: 24 Jul 2009
    I see a comment from M***

    I see a comment from **** ****, but not *****. BTW,, people, even if you do not comment, do like some of the comments.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Yes, Michael Guest apparently “lied” to a client and apparently took $25K too much.

    This bloody lot lie to the whole fucking country and want to take us for millions.

    No comparison. Guest is honest, by comparison.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    His questioning of Bain showed that he had already settled on much of what he thought important, and he was trying to trip Bain up to see if his conclusions held or not.

    What you seem to be saying is that if David told Binnie that “I shot the prick”, it would have made no difference because Binnie had already made up his mind re David’s innocence.

    As for trying to trip David up, have you got any evidence of this? Binnie’s interview seemed more like a fireside chat between father and son. :)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Kanz. How will I recognise you at the air show? White stick? Minder? Dunce’s hat? Crawling under the fence? Crawling?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Kanz. How will I recognise you at the air show? White stick? Minder? Dunce’s hat?

    Nah, the good looking athletic guy who all the beautiful young chicks are flocking around. ;)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 93 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Kanz. Mate. Will you be my friend? ;)

    You’re not telling me you’re delusional, are you? :)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Nah, the good looking athletic guy who all the beautiful young chicks are flocking around

    Terry Serepisos? :) You’d have a few bruises from being kicked in the head.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Kanz (806) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:45 am
    Kanz. How will I recognise you at the air show? White stick? Minder? Dunce’s hat?

    Nah, the good looking athletic guy who all the beautiful young chicks are flocking around.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: 91 10
    ——————————

    Hey, Kanz! 91 licks? Give yourself 100 then you can change hands! :) :) :) :) :)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 242 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (536) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    Hey, Kanz! 91 licks? Give yourself 100 then you can change hands!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: 235 5
    —————————–
    Hey, Dennis! 235 ? Looks like you are into a whole lot of ‘self loving’! I’m shocked!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    anz (806) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:32 am
    Interesting comment here, taken from a site that tries it’s hardest to rule the blogs of others.

    K*** P*****
    Offline
    Joined: 24 Jul 2009
    I see a comment from M***

    I see a comment from **** ****, but not *****. BTW,, people, even if you do not comment, do like some of the comments.

    ————————–

    That’s a bit like the conversation they had a while back on how to multiple vote on something, encouraging each other. . K P was in on that conversation as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (536) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 8:32 am
    Morning Lady Judith. Would you like to know more about my family and friends? My daughter-in-law is a theoretical physicist at the Max Planck Institute, the world’s premier non-university research institute. I rest my case. Sonny wot did it.

    You can laugh, I don’t care, my father’s a policeman.
    ————————————————

    That explains a lot Dennis, especially about where your bias lies.

    Your daughter clearly got her intelligence from her mother. She must be a very kind and patient lady, and not particularly fussy.

    I don’t really want to know about your family and friends, you see Dennis, this being the internet, you could tell me anything you liked about your family, and I’d have no way of knowing if it was true or not, should I be the least bit interested.

    I do believe though, according to gossip that I am descended from a man called Adam, who was a thief (stole apples apparently), and some temptress call Eve, who found him easy to manipulate. So there you go! ;-) Fortunately of more recent years, the last 600 or so, the family appears to have got themselves together somewhat, and mostly maintained a more respectable existence.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    It just isn’t as much fun when you don’t have to stalk and find stuff out eh!!

    Mostly Respectable? So hard to talk in absolutes isn’t it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Lady Judith. I’ve missed you. I am very concerned about your lack of attention to detail. My daughter? I never mentioned her.

    But I’m glad you realise I could be lying. Lying in wait for you, perhaps? Why would I think you are gullible? Hmmm.

    Wasn’t you who gave me all those ticks was it? Oooh, you are naughty! ;) ;) ;)

    Sadly I think you are descended from bacteria, like the rest of us. Fish. “Crocodiles”. Mermaids. Apes. Plenty of scope there for the odd disconnect in the human brain, I’d say.

    I won’t ask you how Robin did all that shooting but left no prints on the rifle, because I know you can’t answer. But remind me how Robin managed to grasp the suppressor to hold the rifle (accurately) to his temple without smudging Stephen’s two pristine prints. I’t just magic hearing you singing for your supper.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Absorb this slowly psycho

    Robin’s blood was found on the towel in the laundry and until 2003 said to have been Davids.
    Pryde checked David’s nose for a recent nose bleed discovering that he hadn’t had one.
    Robin had blood wash on his hands.
    The towel was heavily stained with his bloods.
    There is a photo that shows a trace of blood coming from his nose, far below and seperated from his temple wound
    Enlarging the photo shows traces of red in his moustache.
    Robin had traces of red material under his finger nails and recent wounds to his hands.

    None of that is circumstantial evidence, try to keep up. Take one point at a time and see what you can do with it. The sum of your ‘results’ or fudging with keep all that evidence intact.

    To the extent that the items on that list are evidence at all (eg, anonymous internet guy says he sees something in a photo is not “evidence”), they are circumstantial evidence. The case consists entirely of circumstantial evidence, there is no direct evidence.

    Still, again for the sake of argument, let’s pretend it is a list of evidence. There are potential alternative explanations for all the items on the list (eg, injuries on his hands came from doing the guttering, bleeding from his nose a result of shock damage from the head wound, etc) – that’s what makes it circumstantial evidence. In cases like that, judges tell juries they have to ask themselves whether, for the accused to be innocent, he’d have to have suffered an implausible series of unlucky coincidences. With this list, the jury would need to ask themselves “How likely is it the old fella got those hand injuries from doing the guttering AND got the bleeding from the nose from something other than a fight with Stephen while trying to murder him AND that the apparent red stuff under his fingernails wasn’t blood?” (You could add “AND that those weren’t his footprints in the hall” but that isn’t on your list). If the jury finds it utterly implausible that the accused could experience this many unlucky coincidences at one sitting, they should find him guilty.

    It would be possible to do that in this case, and it’s certainly the way I’d approach it if I was asked to, but it is not the approach Binnie J took. For instance, his approach to circumstantial evidence like the glasses was that if there was nothing to prove the glasses were used in the murders, they simply didn’t count. If you think for a moment about what would prove a nosebleed by Robin was experienced in the murders, you might be able to see the flaw in Binnie’s approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 45 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    perspicacity lol

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (537) Says:

    January 28th, 2013 at 12:09 pm
    Kanz (806) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:45 am
    Kanz. How will I recognise you at the air show? White stick? Minder? Dunce’s hat?

    Nah, the good looking athletic guy who all the beautiful young chicks are flocking around.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: 91 10
    ——————————

    Hey, Kanz! 91 licks? Give yourself 100 then you can change hands!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: 237 5

    Go Dennis. 237 likes,a world record. Methinks DF has a little problem he want to take a look at.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Outside the Beltway New Zealand (OTB) has circulated this little gem from one of their North American legal contributors.

    I suspect, Judith, Kanz, Nostalgia and Rowan (plus a few others) will enjoy it, as I have as an OTB NZ contributor.

    The nutcakes will continue to rant, rave, tell lies, invent pshrink theories, (and repeats thereof), in their efforts to promote Collins’ doomed canard. :)

    ENJOY!

    A legal baseball game (with acknowledgements to the Canadian comedians of yore, Wayne and Schuster) …… :)

    The Crown at bat:

    2007 – The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. (Strike 1)

    2009 – The retrial, not guilty (in 5 hrs 50 mins.). (Strike 2)

    2012 – Collins tries to diss Justice Binnie, and gets Fisher to fire a pop-gun – (Foul)

    2012 – “…. Margaret and three of the Bain children were killed by Robin “ – Justice Binnie. (Strike 3)

    Struck out !!!

    Time for Central Government, and their investigatory/prosecutorial arms, to apologise (to A.A.Thomas, and to D. C. Bain), pay proper compensation, and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    flipper,

    You make the same mistake Binnie made. The Privy Council and retrial are irrelevant in the context of the compo claim. For a start, the onus of proof was on the Crown but now it’s on David. A subtle difference which neither you nor Binnie seem to comprehend. Struck out indeed!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    What on-going relevance does the Thomas case have to Bain?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Oh and you forgot that Karam et al went to the Privy Council in 2008 demanding an acquittal. Law lords took 5 minutes to tell Karam to bugger off. The Privy Council ordered a retrial and said David should remain in prison in the meantime. Funnily enough, there’s no mention of these facts in Binnie’s report.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    “Collins tries to diss Justice Binnie, and gets Fisher to fire a pop-gun – (Foul)”

    Seems to have been a very effective pop-gun. The Binnie report doesn’t appear on the score board — according to the umpires. An unruly section in the crowd seems somewhat disgruntled but have been over-ruled by the match officials.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Psycho

    “Still, again for the sake of argument, let’s pretend it is a list of evidence. There are potential alternative explanations for all the items on the list (eg, injuries on his hands came from doing the guttering, bleeding from his nose a result of shock damage from the head wound, etc) – that’s what makes it circumstantial evidence. In cases like that, judges tell juries they have to ask themselves whether, for the accused to be innocent, he’d have to have suffered an implausible series of unlucky coincidences. With this list, the jury would need to ask themselves “How likely is it the old fella got those hand injuries from doing the guttering AND got the bleeding from the nose from something other than a fight with Stephen while trying to murder him AND that the apparent red stuff under his fingernails wasn’t blood?” (You could add “AND that those weren’t his footprints in the hall” but that isn’t on your list). If the jury finds it utterly implausible that the accused could experience this many unlucky coincidences at one sitting, they should find him guilty”

    Still waiting for your ‘plausible’ explanation for all this? you seem to have convinced yourself that there is an innocent explanation so lets hear it!
    probability of ‘red stuff’ under the fingernails not being blood <1%
    alternative explanation for this other than residue from wearing the bloody gloves?
    Likelyhood from getting a plausible explanation from the trolls here (same as probability of it being red dye under fingernails <1%)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Oh and you forgot that Karam et al went to the Privy Council in 2008 demanding an acquittal. Law lords took 5 minutes to tell Karam to bugger off. The Privy Council ordered a retrial and said David should remain in prison in the meantime. Funnily enough, there’s no mention of these facts in Binnie’s report.

    * Karam demanded? Nobody demands anything from the PC
    *They told Karam to “Bugger off”?
    I can see why these “facts” are not mentioned, they reside in your head, alongside “the mountain of evidence”.
    That mountain turned out to be no more than a castle in the sand. Along came the tide of Karam and not only was it washed away but a rip occurred, in the name of Ian Binnie, and it is now a bloody great hole.
    Try as they might, it can’t be unsaid that Bain is innocent on the BOP, or that those bloody footprints were made by the old man.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    pscyho milt

    1.18

    The list could have been much longer but I was simply making the point that the things you raised last night, such as fingerprints etc had been answered. Where as the list against Robin hasn’t. The Crown ‘list’ is splintered at every turn, but the list against Robin endures and is added to, a majority from physical evidence and known scientific results, tables of murder v suicide and it goes on. Robin is linked one to the other and it never lets go. In David’s case the Crown had to concede the computer turn on time as proving David wasn’t home, conceded the the footprints (at the PC) would be absolute proof as to the killer, moved from analysis of the lounge to Stephen’s room toward the end of the trial, conceded the characteristics of Robin’s wound and site as being more indicative of suicide than murder. These are not miner interruptions or simply a thinning of the strands against David but a severing of them.

    It’s not only that however, where once a nose bleed was important against one of the suspects, suddenly it was of no importance against the other. When the blood on the towel ‘was’ Davids it was proof of his guilt, when it was tested (rather that ‘thought’ to have been Davids but proved to be Robins) it was no longer proof of guilt. Nothing has withstood the test of time other than the police denial that they got the wrong person. Some of those items I listed above destroy the Crown case into a series of ‘it could have beens’ but on their own they are strong, together unbreakable and they give a continuity to the events that show Robin’s guilt and David’s innocence. That is going to go away it will simply get stronger, the narrative against Robin gets stronger.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Rereading Fisher’s report. This is cool.

    (b) He appeared to accept David’s version of events without question except where it directly conflicted with other witnesses.

    What was he meant to do, say “well, nobody else has said different, so I will not take your word for it” or “Others have said that too, but I don’t believe you”?

    Is this the best person NZ has? I for one hope not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Just to assist ross, although it has to be accepted he is beyond help and at the best will stop repeating something for a short period only to resume again later with full vigour as though the thought had only suddenly occurred to him. The PC was asked for a retrial and ordered one. Whether by mistake or misadventure the PC were not asked for the conviction to be quashed, when the defence returned to ask for that no doubt they were reminded what had been asked for and granted in the original petition. I’ve always thought it was a conservative plea in the first petition, viewing a retrial as being a victory, but once the Judgement was released there might well have been the thought that had the asked the PC instead for the conviction to be quashed it would have been successful. Of course you can’t always have your cake and eat it to.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    I will give Dempster a ring tomorrow re that “supposed” bleeding nose.
    That red stuff was rust from the old guttering,bet on it.
    Whereas David had blood on his hands when he placed them on the rifle.
    He had his brother’s blood on his clothes.
    He had scratches on his chest that he hid from Dr Pryde by deft use of a blanket.
    He had bruises on his head that he couldn’t account for.
    He had a nick on his knee that he couldn’t account for.
    Hey,I found out something else.
    Robin Bain was at a geneology meeting three weeks before the murders and he told people at it that Margaret had plans to build a new house but she couldn’t afford to build it.
    Then between that time and the murders there had been a reconciliation of sorts. She and Robin had resolved their problems and had worked out a way for them to continue to be a family – hence the two master bedrooms with interconnecting ensuite and the four bedrooms for the children/guests. Robin had asked the meter reader to finalize the power account at the school because he was going to move back into town to help oversea the building of the new house in his spare time.
    That could have been the catalyst. Here was David thinking he was going to have one of those master bedrooms and then he finds out his father,who he said he hated, was going to have it instead. Enough to drive him to murder, don’t you reckon?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Robert Fisher would probably be the worst person to undertake another report which seems likely as despite seeking closure when appointing Binnie it seems that winning and protecting the image of crown law is much more important.
    Fishers conduct during the Thomas commission and close alliance with crown law show his lack of impartiality. His lack of competence has been shown by his report into the Rex Haig case and the legalistic academic nitpicking of the Binnie report shows it is he who is away with the faries on the understanding of NZ law not Binnie.
    I thought Ians response to the peer review very very good, seemed to sum it up very well.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘Kanz (808) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:32 am
    Interesting comment here, taken from a site that tries it’s hardest to rule the blogs of others.

    K*** P*****
    Offline
    Joined: 24 Jul 2009
    I see a comment from M***

    I see a comment from **** ****, but not *****. BTW,, people, even if you do not comment, do like some of the comments.’

    There’ll be no embarrassment over that. It will be justified on the basis that others do it, unfortunately for CS proof against them doesn’t equate with no proof against others.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Full of it again as usual
    ‘rust from the spouting’ the usual 0.0000% chance don’t make me laugh!
    Yes David had a very small amount of blood on his clothes, to small to see by the naked eye and only visable by luminol. Given that he went into Stephens room and around a bloody house would be much more suspicious if he had none. We have already been over the injuries all explained.
    Do your usual ‘phone a friend’ seems to be one of your best strategies, I wonder do you actually ring them! are they under oath to you? no, Can they just disclose such information over the phone without breach of privacy,? again no
    Even if they did you would give it the usual ‘spin’
    Like your continued lies about the strip search, in your words a ‘myth perpatrated by myth perpatrators’ Look in the mirror! you will see (a) the biggest proven liar on KB and (b) a myth perpatrator as you like to refer to other people as
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,897) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    Oh and you forgot that Karam et al went to the Privy Council in 2008 demanding an acquittal. Law lords took 5 minutes to tell Karam to bugger off. The Privy Council ordered a retrial and said David should remain in prison in the meantime. Funnily enough, there’s no mention of these facts in Binnie’s report.

    The findings of that report, which was applied for on 8 December 2008 and not given until 16 March 2009 (hardly 5 mins, or even five weeks as per your exaggeration).

    Karam did not DEMAND anything. And if you had bothered to read the document, you would know they were reluctant about even applying for it. As it turned out, because the trial was about to start in NZ, and the NZ Judge had already begun the process, the Privy Council had to reject the application.

    It was not mentioned in Binnie’s report, because it was not relevant to his findings. The reason it was rejected was not because Bain would not have qualified. That is your myth, an uninformed one at that.

    7. Their Lordships express no opinion as to whether, if there had been no alternative effective remedy, it would have been established that “a significant injustice has probably occurred”. They have not invited argument on the point because there plainly is an alternative effective remedy, namely, a stay application in New Zealand. That is not only an effective remedy but in their Lordships’ opinion a far more suitable remedy, as the trial judge is already seised of the case, has heard a number of interlocutory applications and is fully acquainted with all its details. Their Lordships are of course not intending to suggest that upon an application for a stay, the judge should have to reconsider questions on which he has already given interlocutory rulings and which may be relevant to the question of whether the prosecution is an abuse of process. His rulings are binding upon the appellant unless and until they are challenged through the New Zealand appellate process.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Still waiting for your ‘plausible’ explanation for all this?

    An explanation for all what? N-NZ’s beliefs about a photo he’s seen?

    I’m not the deceased’s solicitor, barrister or unpaid propagandist so aren’t actually obliged to come up with explanations on his behalf. However, since you ask:

    1. The “recent injuries.” If you can look at those photos and convince yourself those injuries occurred in the last half hour before he died, you’re delusional. No explanation because none needed.

    2. The “red substance” under the fingernails. Again, the photos – if there’s any substance that wasn’t under that grubby old bugger’s fingernails, I’d be surprised.

    3. The “bloodwash” on his hands. The only explanation required here is how he managed to clean all this blood off his hands but not the dirt.

    4. The “nosebleed.” Is thus far an assertion by a pseudonymous blog commenter. When Dempster says “Yes there was a nosebleed” and ESR says “Luminol showed the murderer was dripping blood when he made those footprints,” let’s revisit the issue.

    5. The blood on the towel in the laundry. Is blood from a guy who was shot in the head. Personally, I would find it quite suspicious if it did turn out that the blood on the towel was from a nose bleed experienced by Robin Bain that morning – but then, I find it quite suspicious that David Bain had victims’ blood on the crotch of his shorts and the back of his t-shirt, whereas you find that it “proves 0.000%” or some similar gibberish.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    I take it from Ross’s understanding of the way the Privvy council works that in quashing the conviction they just ‘felt sorry’ for David, so sent it back for the courts to decide. Does he really think that they had no view at all on the case and that they just did it to kick up a dogfight for NZ law. On this rational I suppose he thinks that Binnie actually thinks David is guilty but just decided to kick up a scandal by giving Judy an opinion he knew they wouldn’t like.
    Maybe Ross actually read the PC judgement, an ‘actual MOJ’ what does that mean to you? The PC don’t just quash the convictions to make trouble for the crown. Look what they did with Barlows latest appeal.
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Milt
    I will actually go with Dempsters view that he gave at the second trial, that the bruising was less than 12 hours old. Given that he was the examining pathologist I will trust his conclusion. To big an assumption that he got it right!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,648) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    pscyho milt
    ……….

    Honestly of all the ‘people’ that post on here, I would think you of all people could spell psycho!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  460. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,063) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    1. The “recent injuries.” If you can look at those photos and convince yourself those injuries occurred in the last half hour before he died, you’re delusional. No explanation because none needed.

    Dempster is delusional then? He, who viewed them said the closest he could get was “minutes to 12 hours old”.

    2. The “red substance” under the fingernails. Again, the photos – if there’s any substance that wasn’t under that grubby old bugger’s fingernails, I’d be surprised.

    Red food colouring from his baking? Looked enough like blood for them to take scrapings. Didn’t fit with their preconceived theory so threw them out.

    3. The “bloodwash” on his hands. The only explanation required here is how he managed to clean all this blood off his hands but not the dirt.

    He didn’t wash all of the blood off, that is why it can still be found in the photos.

    4. The “nosebleed.” Is thus far an assertion by a pseudonymous blog commenter. When Dempster says “Yes there was a nosebleed” and ESR says “Luminol showed the murderer was dripping blood when he made those footprints,” let’s revisit the issue.

    So, Dempster saying yes there was a nose bleed is not evidence enough for you?

    5. The blood on the towel in the laundry. Is blood from a guy who was shot in the head. Personally, I would find it quite suspicious if it did turn out that the blood on the towel was from a nose bleed experienced by Robin Bain that morning

    It contained no brain matter and was too great a quantity to have come from his head wound, which shows no sign of having been disturbed as with the rest of his blood in the lounge.

    Just as well psycho milt knows best, otherwise we would all be floundering.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘1. The “recent injuries.” If you can look at those photos and convince yourself those injuries occurred in the last half hour before he died, you’re delusional. No explanation because none needed.

    2. The “red substance” under the fingernails. Again, the photos – if there’s any substance that wasn’t under that grubby old bugger’s fingernails, I’d be surprised.

    3. The “bloodwash” on his hands. The only explanation required here is how he managed to clean all this blood off his hands but not the dirt.

    4. The “nosebleed.” Is thus far an assertion by a pseudonymous blog commenter. When Dempster says “Yes there was a nosebleed” and ESR says “Luminol showed the murderer was dripping blood when he made those footprints,” let’s revisit the issue.

    5. The blood on the towel in the laundry. Is blood from a guy who was shot in the head. Personally, I would find it quite suspicious if it did turn out that the blood on the towel was from a nose bleed experienced by Robin Bain that morning – but then, I find it quite suspicious that David Bain had victims’ blood on the crotch of his shorts and the back of his t-shirt, whereas you find that it “proves 0.000%” or some similar gibberish.’

    Okay psycho

    1 / We’ll take the evidence of Dempster supported by other’s, also their agreement that Pryde’s estimation was hard to substantiate.

    2/You being surprised is of no moment and merely passing off evidence as being because he was a grubby ‘old bugger.’ Doesn’t remove it from the continuity of the evidence of blood wash on his hands, injuries to his hands and his blood on the towel, probability blood and dna.

    3/The blood wash wasn’t off his hands and remained to be seen in a morgue photo found by Dempster before the re-trial. So it existed.

    4/Nosebleed, maybe you’re right. Doesn’t exist so where did the blood come from, none of his wounds were pointed to as having been able to explained that amount of blood. I was once involved in a challenge to prove that Robin’s DNA was found in the rifle and that David was strip searched, both were proved from the trial transcript. I’ve seen the photo of Robin with the blood distinctly coming from the area of his nose while other blood, from his head wound was higher on his cheek rather than across his chin. I also know that Dempster was questioned about this and what his answer was.

    5/I think I explained to you that you at least need to have a basic understanding of blood transference, I don’t know of any witness who did, or could say that blood was transferred from Robin’s wound, simply there wasn’t ‘enough’ because it was high speed spatter and the mass that flowed out as he laid dead on the floor was still intact.

    Pity your list didn’t number six because it would have been 6 boundaries off 6 poor deliveries. So all these factors remain ‘alive’ against Robin and they are but a limited few.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. big bruv (14,125 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    Are you Joe Karem or any relation to Joe Karem?

    If not then you have wasted the better part of a month making a fool of yourself. Open your eyes man, Bain is as guilty as sin.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    As I have already said, I have spoken to Dr Dempster before. All I am going to do is ask him if there was any sign that Robin Bain had a nosebleed because there are some people who reckon they have seen a photo that shows he did.
    The blood on David Bain’s shorts seeped through from his trackpants that were in the wash. Even Binnie could see those trackpants couldn’t be Robin’s .although Karam told the Law Lords of the Privy Council that they were.
    Look, I don’t really want to phone Dempster though he is easy enough to talk to,but I feel I have to because you and others keep prattling on about that so-called nosebleed.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (1,760) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Ah, the old “I wouldn’t if they didn’t”.
    Do you ever take responsibility for your own actions? I think not, you have always had a habit of blaming others, haven’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. Oliver Twist (110 comments) says:

    The way to settle compensation is simple. Effectively a referendum. Every taxpayer gets one dollar. He can keep it or give it to David.

    When he counts it, David will know exactly how many people believe him factually innocent. Might save him embarrassment at the butcher’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  466. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Nose bleed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Some of those items I listed above destroy the Crown case into a series of ‘it could have beens’ but on their own they are strong, together unbreakable and they give a continuity to the events that show Robin’s guilt and David’s innocence. That is going to go away it will simply get stronger, the narrative against Robin gets stronger.

    Er, right. I feel compelled to point out that repeatedly asserting how strong your argument is and how it’s totally destroyed opposing viewpoints doesn’t actually make your argument any stronger or opposing viewpoints any weaker, it just makes you look like a blowhard.

    Regarding the actual strength of those arguments, at issue is what evidence exists to inculpate Robin Bain vs what evidence exists to inculpate David Bain for these murders.

    In the case of Robin Bain, we have an alleged motive based on hearsay and speculation, various unqualified opinion about his mental health, the fact his death could be suicide, the fact the bloody footprints in the hallway could be his, and a great deal of wishful thinking about whether particular blood smears on his body actually were his or not. There was also his blood on a towel, although what exactly this is supposed to prove is open to question, and he had some injuries to his hands that have no obvious consistency with the murders and are extremely unlikely to have been sustained in the half hour before his death.

    In David Bain’s case, we also have various allegations about motive and character based on hearsay and speculation, the fact his gun was used, his trigger lock was unlocked, his gloves were used, his fingerprints were the only suspect’s prints on the weapon, one victim’s blood was on different and distinctly unlikely places on his clothes, glasses he was wearing the night before were broken with one piece in a victim’s room, and he had injuries consistent with the murders and definitely recent enough to match the time of the murders. He washed the clothes used in the murders.

    In the case of one of these suspects, no physical evidence links him to the murders; in the other case, a shitload of physical evidence links him to the murders. We don’t actually know which of them it was, but in terms of which is more likely, what we absolutely don’t have is a “strong” case for Robin being the killer vs a “collapsed” case for David being the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Pity your list didn’t number six because it would have been 6 boundaries off 6 poor deliveries.

    Likewise, congratulating yourself on the power of your assertions doesn’t make them powerful, or anything other than assertions. I’ll stick with what we know from the evidence ahead of what you personally find convincing from looking at photos. Although, speaking of photos, I doubt very much that Dempster was thinking of that dark purple bruise visible in the D & G photo of Robin’s hand, if he described the injuries as “minutes to 12 hours old.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    No wonder you’re a hangbainer psycho milt. You’re like a windup doll. Just try the injuries to David, both sides of the argument remembering that Pryde listed the photographed injuries to his head and Anderson and Womble gave evidence they weren’t there when they examined David, a police officer gave the same evidence but I don’t remember his name at the moment. Pryde recorded no injuries to his chest and neither did any other person present on the day. Just start with those, now that you have the big minus D for hot overcoming the forensic blood evidence against Robin. Can you simply do that without waffling on and changing the topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Kanz (809) Says:

    January 28th, 2013 at 9:47 am

    Every time, there is more evidence made public that shows what the old man truly was, and that he killed his family before himself.
    Had the truth been accepted from day one most of the country would have no idea about the incest, the fact that he was losing his marbles.

    Ahem again. Really i am getting a sore throat from all these “ahems” This is just more Karamalisations. These are all pure speculations and there is no factual evidence about any of this. It is more proof that if you spout something long enough, it becomes a “fact”. Propaganda is the tool to fool a nation.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (65) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 7:44 pm
    These are all pure speculations and there is no factual evidence about any of this

    —————————————————-

    Is that right? Then how do you explain this?

    http://s1338.photobucket.com/albums/o681/Person5198/Bain%20photos/?action=view&current=JC.png

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,065) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    I’ll stick with what we know from the evidence

    Well that’s not going to be too taxing on your memory then is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    When you recover from your headache psycho don’t forget these, I know it must hurt but you have to be brave:

    Robin’s blood was found on the towel in the laundry and until 2003 said to have been Davids.
    Pryde checked David’s nose for a recent nose bleed discovering that he hadn’t had one.
    Robin had blood wash on his hands.
    The towel was heavily stained with his bloods.
    There is a photo that shows a trace of blood coming from his nose, far below and seperated from his temple wound
    Enlarging the photo shows traces of red in his moustache.
    Robin had traces of red material under his finger nails and recent wounds to his hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    You know when someone is desperate, when they have to include ‘ownership’ as evidence of murder.

    And you know they are talking garbage, when in one breath they tell you David is a liar, and in the next breath use his statements to confirm their story.

    And you really know they have lost it, when they have to ‘phone a friend’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    No wonder you’re a hangbainer psycho milt. You’re like a windup doll.

    This is further evidence of the awesome strength and destructive power of your argument, is it?

    Well that’s not going to be too taxing on your memory then is it?

    I would say “Ditto,” but you don’t seem to present any arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    If you answered an argument in a constructive way I’d agree with you weren’t avoiding the consistent narrative that shows Robin as killer, but you don’t psycho milt. Instead you lilly hop and then act all wounded, if you want to persecute somebody at least disguise it with a compelling collection of facts, or even,, as has been asked from you for a couple of days resolve robin’s ‘blood’ problems with an argument of continuity that doesn’t rely on a ‘single look’ that you’ve accused Binnie of, but which includes ‘stepping back.’ Failing that take more instructions for HQ or have a meltdown.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    http://www.wowwiki.com/Bloodwash
    Only bloodwash I’ve heard of.
    I was prone to bleeding noses and I used to get blood on my hands. I washed them and it all came off,easy peasy.
    This bloodwash is a myth perpetrated by the myth perpetrators.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You are a bigger conspiracy theorist than Ian Wishart, The difference is Ian is a good read, no matter what his illogical conclusions are. I have just finished his latest on the Tamihere case, you are a good source of daily entertainment though but to me you seem to be doing what McNeish and the author of that other piece of fiction on the Bain case did more convincing when you take the opposite conclusion of what you are trying to argue for!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt @ 7.24
    “and he had some injuries to his hands that have no obvious consistency with the murders and are extremely unlikely to have been sustained in the half hour before his death.”
    ‘Obviously’ not maybe you could qualify your ‘extremely unlikely’ or ‘no obvious consistency’ statements or just more wild speculation again!
    “and he had injuries consistent with the murders and definitely recent enough to match the time of the murders.”
    more picking and choosing what you wish to believe eh Milt, injuries are also consistent with collapsing in the presence of const Andrew. Given you have such a ‘qualified’ opinion on the matter maybe you could explain how David had a bruise to the right side of his face while the glasses were infact missing the left lens? Maybe he did a Dottie and deliberately scrumpled up the glasses! Can you give any better suggestion than the departed nutcase?
    You also pointed out that the fact that it was Davids gun and only he knew where the keys was a very weak shallow argument previously to Dottie yet here you are trying to rely on the same ‘weak’ evidence, maybe you might like to explain why there were spent shells in the caravan if ‘Daddy’ didn’t know where the key was.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 34 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    If you answered an argument in a constructive way I’d agree with you weren’t avoiding the consistent narrative that shows Robin as killer…

    You consistently present that narrative, I’ll give you that. However, there is no constructive way to answer an argument that consists of “take my word for it, I saw it in a photo and the fact no-one qualified to assess that evidence reached the same conclusion doesn’t prevent my assertions’ destruction of the Crown case,” except to point out to the person making the argument that that is what his argument consists of.

    I’m happy to agree that if it did turn out Robin Bain was bleeding from the nose before he was shot in the head, that would be circumstantial evidence as powerful as the glasses are as evidence against David. It would link Robin to the struggle in Stephen’s room the way the glasses link David to the struggle in Stephen’s room. But Robin Bain bleeding from the nose before he was shot in the head isn’t evidence we have, it’s a firm belief you hold. Your opponents also hold some firm beliefs about things they’ve seen in photos, for example Ross69 has written on this thread that the photo of David Bain’s injuries show indentations made by glasses made on his nose. Such beliefs aren’t evidence, they’re opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Deja vu?
    From the Thomas Royal Commission, Paragraph 483 pg 114
    “At our hearings thre have been often repeated statements about whether Mr Thomas (read Bain) can be proven innocent. Such a proposition is wrong and contary to the golden thread which runs right through the system of British criminal justice, namely that the Prosecution has the duty to prove the accused guilty and until proved he had to be regarded as innocent. …. just as a Court would acquit him (David Bain) and the community thereafter accept his innocence, so we believe we are entitled to proclaim his innocent and proceed accordingly. Mr Thomas (Mr Bain) has always asserted his innocence”

    My thanks to Flipper for the commentary paper

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    ‘there is no constructive way to answer an argument that consists of “take my word for it, I saw it in a photo’

    I’m not asking you to take my word for it, or claiming that I was told on the phone. You’re most welcome to disprove my ‘assertion’ that I’ve looked at the photograph, but even then, the photograph, is but one strand of the blood evidence against daddy. You’ll get it some time soon Milt. It’s very amusing witnessing a person who attacked Binnie at length for not taking an overall or ‘stepped back’ view trying to an attack a single strand in order to break a wire rope of steel. Good work, kept it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,656) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
    Just to be perfectly clear: blood wash on his hands, a bleeding nose – the result of which of course was a slightly opaque, but clearly visible, trace across his cheek rather than his chin, while the temple blood was high on his forehead and frozen in its stream to the right.

    Vote: 1 2
    ……..
    By George, I’ve got it, you just love talking about blood and murder.

    How bizarre, accordingly you know more about what happened that day than David and I bet you even think you know more than everybody else.

    Random thought, but have you ever put your ‘theories’ to David?

    I wonder what he would think about you living and I have to say it, constantly reliving the crime that happened to his family.

    You seem to know every single intimate detail according to you, about David Cullen Bain.

    I think that is a bit creepy and shouldn’t be necessary to prove the innocence of one and the guilt of the other especially when one is alive.

    When and if this matter is ever over, whatever will you do with yourself.

    If I was you, I would be trying to keep the discussion going as long as you can, I suppose it might have got you some ‘recognition’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    OK, the complete lack of physical evidence linking Robin Bain to these murders is “a wire rope of steel.” I can honestly say I have no constructive argument to make against that. And I have to tell you that referring to Robin Bain as “daddy” not only doesn’t increase the awesome destructive power of your argument, it has the exact opposite effect.

    Rowan:

    Robin’s injuries, as seen in photos in D & G: small nicks made by contact with something sharp; an abrasion with accompanying dark purple bruise that he clearly didn’t get in the last half hour before his death. It’s not obvious how those small nicks are consistent with subduing a boy and strangling him with his own shirt.

    David’s injuries: bruises to his face; skinned knee; allegedly, finger marks across his chest. Disregarding the marks across the chest that are disputed, bruises to the face and a skinned knee actually are consistent with subduing a boy and strangling him with his own shirt. Re the ambulance and police officers not noticing the injuries when they got there, how long does it take for bruises to show up?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Further to the above:

    It’s very amusing witnessing a person who attacked Binnie at length for not taking an overall or ‘stepped back’ view trying to an attack a single strand…

    Would carry more weight if I hadn’t done exactly that, in this comment, which you promptly declared an attempt to change the subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    The comments of the Royal Commission in the Thomas case are not relevant to the present case. Its brief and terms of reference differed. The Commission was not acting pursuant to cabinet guidelines.

    However much it may conflict with the noble sentiments of the Commissioners in Thomas, the fact is that is that our judicial system necessarily involves a degree of risk that innocent people might be arrested or even convicted and do not receive compensation.

    A police officer does not require certainty in order to arrest. A police officer needs a reasonable cause to believe before making an arrest.

    Conviction of an innocent person following trial does not give rise to action for damages or compensation unless the prosecution is knowingly wrongful and the claimant makes out a case for malicious prosecution.

    The detention of somebody who is convicted of a crime of which that person is innocent is not an unlawful detention per se.

    It is extremely unlikely that any government in New Zealand provide a statutory right of compensation.

    The Cabinet guidelines have adopted a threshold for the payment of compensation. It is innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    Because the claimant is the one making the assertion, it is up to the claimant to establish the grounds for compensation. That is why the onus is on Bain.

    While the comments of the Thomas Royal commission have significant relevance in criminal law, they are not apt to deal with the current situation where a person is claiming compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  488. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Pyscho Milt
    Which to you are stronger arguments
    Fingerprints
    (a) The crown says these are ‘bloody’ and deposited during the shootings but for this to be the case then David has to have a special unique fingerprint that shows ‘white ridges’ whereas the rest of the population has standard prints. We would also need to rely on despite the fact that not a single trace of human blood was found on the rifle, there was still human DNA. Also relies on Kim Jones evidence despite him being a proven liar at the retrial
    or (b) the fingerprints were not ‘bloody’ but were latent prints old and unrelated to the murders

    Blood
    (a) in 1995 Dr Cropp specified that 2 drops of blood on the BOTTOM of Davids socks were consistent with airborne blood splatter. To achieve this David would have to have the underside of his foot face up, was he lying on the ground with his foot raised during the fight with Stephen! Also if blood soaked through an above outer layer then why was there so little blood found and it was only visable under luminol? Did David wash and put back on bloody clothes?
    or (b) David stood in a small amount of blood and the small amounts of blood are explained by secondary transfer

    Injuries
    Are the injuries consistent with a fight, did Stephen land a good punch strong enough to leave a bruise on Davids right temple while simultaneously dislodging the left hand lens. Did David then use a pair of tweezers which were never found to clean up the lens and place it back in Stephens room and remove the broken frames to his room to avoid getting blood on them.
    or (b) the injuries were more consistent with the fall described by constable Andrew or banging into a door frame in the dark house

    I would have thought the answers were obvious! similarly was it blood under those fingernails or red food colouring from baking or as your ‘twisted sister’ muggins would suggest ‘rust’ from the guttering?
    Again I will take Dr Dempsters expert opinion on the age of the injuries rather than yours!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    You also pointed out that the fact that it was Davids gun and only he knew where the keys was a very weak shallow argument previously to Dottie yet here you are trying to rely on the same ‘weak’ evidence, maybe you might like to explain why there were spent shells in the caravan if ‘Daddy’ didn’t know where the key was.

    I don’t know how many times I’ve told you this, but your inability to understand circumstantial evidence and probability are not my problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    This is not a contest to show how thick you are milt. I clearly mentioned Anderson and Womble’s evidence stating that David had no injuries to his face before he fell down that morning. Thank you for your skilled interpretation in conflict of what the pathologists said about the age of those injuries on Robin’s hands. How unfortunate for him that he had not only bruised and battered hands but a significant blood trail, But I guess you forgot about that. Perhaps you should take notes, even tick off the questions you answer and therefore don’t forget those that you don’t. Overall, very amateurish work, and only slightly better than relying on phone calls and ‘what I already told you.’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    I don’t know how many times I’ve told you this, but your inability to understand circumstantial evidence and probability are not my problem.’

    Alright then milt, if it’s so important for you to mention your problem and what isn’t your problem then why not talk to somebody that can help you, or even get somebody you know to ring up somebody they know and report straight back about what your problems are. That could be a help, and even assist you with your headache about robin bleeding every where before he killed himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Wrong socks. The socks David Bain was wearing when he stepped in that blood and left that bloody footprint went through the wash or else he flushed the bloody one down the toilet.
    There is no reason why those glasses or that lens should have blood on them. No need for Daviod Bain to use tweezers.
    I mean you reckon that blood on Robin Bain’s hand came from Stephen, yet he had no blood on his watch.
    You have to do better than that.
    And those bruises on David Bain’s head were more consistent with him being hit by his brother than anything else.
    Also Dempster said that minor abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands could be up to 24 hours old.
    I will confirm that for you tomorrow.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Which to you are stronger arguments
    Fingerprints
    (a) The crown says these are ‘bloody’ and deposited during the shootings but for this to be the case then David has to have a special unique fingerprint that shows ‘white ridges’ whereas the rest of the population has standard prints. We would also need to rely on despite the fact that not a single trace of human blood was found on the rifle, there was still human DNA. Also relies on Kim Jones evidence despite him being a proven liar at the retrial
    or (b) the fingerprints were not ‘bloody’ but were latent prints old and unrelated to the murders

    It doesn’t matter. The significant features of this evidence are: the lack of Robin Bain’s prints, despite the defence scenario necessarily having him grasp metal parts of the gun that took a readable print from a single touch by Stephen; the fact the “old” prints from David were pristine despite the gun having spent the morning being used for five murders and an intense episode of hand-to-hand combat.

    Blood
    (a) in 1995 Dr Cropp specified that 2 drops of blood on the BOTTOM of Davids socks were consistent with airborne blood splatter. To achieve this David would have to have the underside of his foot face up, was he lying on the ground with his foot raised during the fight with Stephen! Also if blood soaked through an above outer layer then why was there so little blood found and it was only visable under luminol? Did David wash and put back on bloody clothes?
    or (b) David stood in a small amount of blood and the small amounts of blood are explained by secondary transfer

    Don’t know, don’t care. Cropp was the one who saw the stains and was qualified to express opinion on how they might have got there, not me. It’s possible he was wrong, but I’m certainly not in a position to say he was. In any case, socks aren’t fixed to your foot the way shoes are – they can twist around, especially if you get in fights with people on a carpeted floor. In short, there’s no way to tell the significance.

    Injuries
    Are the injuries consistent with a fight, did Stephen land a good punch strong enough to leave a bruise on Davids right temple while simultaneously dislodging the left hand lens. Did David then use a pair of tweezers which were never found to clean up the lens and place it back in Stephens room and remove the broken frames to his room to avoid getting blood on them.
    or (b) the injuries were more consistent with the fall described by constable Andrew or banging into a door frame in the dark house

    They’re consistent with either, although you must be fucking joking with “banging into a door frame.” A punch isn’t the only kind of blow that could cause those injuries. As to the glasses, there’s no evidence regarding how they got onto David’s chair. Feel free to speculate pointlessly all you want, but while you’re at it consider that he may have put them back in his room after cleaning himself up, he may have wiped them reflexively while holding them, there’s no end to pointless speculation once you start.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Good to see you swearing milt, anybody failing to push crap uphill surely would.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Psycho @ 9.56
    Short memories shall I post one of your previous posts for you, ‘circumstantial evidence’ or ‘unsupported allegations’

    Psycho Milt (1,070) Says:
    January 13th, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    I gave 18 simple straight-forward uncomplicated reasons why David killed.

    And I pointed out two completed unsupported assertions in there. There are also very weak pieces of evidences like David being the only one who knew where the key was. Even Binnie could figure out that the most you can say for that is that David believed he was the only one who knew where the key was. There’s no proof beyond reasonable doubt either way in this case.

    As to your 10.15
    Your usual don’t know/doesn’t matter argument you accuse us of speculating yet what are “and he had some injuries to his hands that have no obvious consistency with the murders and are extremely unlikely to have been sustained in the half hour before his death” followed by a pretty poor explanation to back up your views @ 9.45 remembering the expert pathologist gave direct evidence to the contar. ‘obvious’ whats more likely isn’t it

    Given that Dr Cropp altered his view I think his evidence in 2009 reliable enough, that the blood spots were caused by standing in blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Short memories shall I post one of your previous posts for you, ‘circumstantial evidence’ or ‘unsupported allegations’

    Dotcom was presenting them as compelling evidence of David’s guilt. They aren’t, they’re comparatively weak pieces of circumstantial evidence against him. Nevertheless they are evidence. What matters is the cumulative effect of the evidence, but I know I’m wasting my time because you’ve consistently proven incapable of grasping the concept of “cumulative.”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    You know what I think. I think there is a book in it.
    Hells teeth, I am brilliant, or has all of this been written before,
    No reason why those books already written should be seen as ‘authoritative
    New theories are being thought up daily.
    Cut and paste from blogs
    Judith’s key word searches, piece of cake.
    It could be a collaboration of sorts. Not quite like a gaggle but you get the drift ;)

    It is more than half written already.
    but

    I would have to say in advance that if my pearls of wisdom were to be used, I would want a cut.
    It’s brilliant with all of the current interest, all those people that do not currently know of your existence.

    You could be famous.Sorted

    THINK OF THE MONEY!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Again look at my 8.37 your arguments are more plausible when you take from them the opposite of what you actually say! you are yet to provide a convincing argument for anything! do you actually believe that David hid his body from Dr Pryde with a towel, pathetic, or are you just arguing for the sake of it!
    Mathematical equation for you, likely probability = 1 minus (probability of muggins explanations). As most of your probabilities are 0.0000% then the chance of the opposite of what you say being likely is very close to 1 or 100%. Or is maths not your strong subject?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. Rowan (2,514 comments) says:

    Milt
    Ian Binnie goes through all the aspects of the crown and defence case, and it is well split up into ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ issues.
    Things like motive, broken spectacles, lies presented as evidence were not capable of explaining anything either way you can speculate on what is more likely until the cows come home but it was weak evidence and didn’t really advance either argument very far. It was correctly not given weight in the final conclusions. Did Ian then need to go back over it and say explicitly ‘does the cumulative effect of the inferences of the crown case shift the BOP back towards the crown’ No i.e. what does the cumulative picture of the broken glasses, small amounts of blood, gurgling etc give us? A: a tangled spiderweb that tells you NOTHING.
    The ‘ignored big picture’ argument is bull, the subtotal still very low and well short of the BOP!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    Why wouldn’t he have hidden his body? He was 22 regardless of the ‘facts’ there was much that was unknown, from now on.
    I doubt he was proud of his body but I have been surprised before ;)
    The nice Dr or nurse is aware of the general desire for modesty.
    I would have described David as gauche.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    I believe that the concept of innocent openness
    = half truths.
    = Freudian slips

    How those things can be equated to innocence on the grounds
    that only an idiot would self-incriminate
    and Ian Binnie did not think that David was an idiot is deduction worthy of Laurel and Hardy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  502. goldnkiwi (1,508 comments) says:

    @ Rowan
    Can you do anything but belittle? I think you must have been bullied or been the bully at school.

    For myself the schoolyard behaviour detracts from the point/s you are trying so hard to make.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  503. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    hi judith, long time no schmaggle bleng!

    Next they’ll be showing Marzuka’s pathetic graphic attempts, that completely ignore the evidence of the blood spatter and the close contact wound. Oh wait a minute, they already have!

    lol, they needn’t resort to that as I’m quite happy to show my “pathetic graphic attempts”. By the way thanks for using one of my pictures – I wonder where those lines correlating blood splatter end up…

    Actually, in all honesty I’m quite proud of noticing that incriminating mark on David’s nose from the morning of the murders that nicely matches the mark nose pads on glasses would make:
    https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-i5OGnHXDbY0/UOKCZrf3E7I/AAAAAAAABiw/O47s61lKA0Y/s800/bain%2520glasses6.jpg

    Also, showing that david’s toeless foot nicely fits with a 240mm toeless print was a bit of a coup:
    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-26HtE3L6n_Q/UOaKqJ2Lv1I/AAAAAAAABjs/ZX1GBHAK58k/s1200/bain%252520footprint6b.jpg

    and that footlike print in blood that nicely fits david – note direction,orientation footedness all consistent with other prints :
    http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/TSwQcCcBjaI/AAAAAAAAA5E/Peg0aFvCwcU/s0/bain%20footprint%20combo%20med.jpg
    animated comparison:
    http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/TS7CQbpr_yI/AAAAAAAAA58/hLmE5a_Ba0Q/s0/bain-foot-anim3.gif

    Notto mention my murder sim in glorious html5-o-vision, showing the unlikeliness of the defense’s suicide scenario with respect to robin’s final resting position – note sim example of robin taking defensive action quite reasonable:
    http://marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    and of course there is my physics model of the blood splatter with regards to the position and orientation of the rifle which is quite interesting too….

    Like they say, you can run but you can’t hide. I say, bring on the hyper AI of future Justice Watson 5.0, then we’ll talk balance of probabilities tending to the infinitesimals against…

    cheerio

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  504. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    marzuka (3) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:50 pm

    You did a wonderful job Marzuka, unfortunately they are so full of errors, it’s a bit difficult to know where to start.

    Even I, with my limited graphics experience know that photos can be manipulated to make anything fit within a defined area. Hence your photos of the foot prints mean nothing. You do not have the original negative, or photo to work from, therefore, you do not know whether your sizing is correct etc etc. So sorry, no points there at all. Oh yeah, and at least two of the photos you have used for the blood prints are not the ones used in court.

    Your last example using the defenses scenario, is NOT using the defenses scenario at all, and makes no account for the positioning of the blood spatter on Robin Bain. The defense maintains that Robin Bain was standing with his right leg bent at the knee and foot on the chair, he was standing in front of, not next too. The left leg was straight. This position is supported by the multi-directional pattern of the blood spatter. With this position, as the body collapsed, the right leg on the chair would interfere with the forwards movement, and eventually take the body backwards and result in it falling to the right. You also fail to account for the trajectory of the bullet, which whilst not making a huge different in the direction of the body, when applied to the head, slightly alters the centre of body mass, and influences the direction of collapse. (No, body’s do not ‘fly across rooms when shot). Also, where you have the body does not explain the blood spatter pattern on the curtains.

    The final position of Robin’s body is actual no more than 30cms from where he stood. Your photos are taken from an angle that does not show that, but video and other photos demonstrate it nicely.

    Your so called ”indentation” , is typical on any person who has worn glasses for sometime, of which the nose arch pads fit snuggly. It remains permanently even when the glasses are removed and not worn for sometime. What were you trying to proof, that David Bain wore glasses? We knew that already. I have such an indentation, but I only wear glasses for distance viewing, so when watching TV. The majority of my work is up close reading, computer work, talking to people etc. So even though I wear glasses no more than 10% of the day, and sometimes not for several days, that mark remains. Not obvious until you look close, just like the one you point out, but certainly not a sign of being in any struggle with a person.

    I too, even as an amateur could play around with photos and come up with what you have. Be proud of the fact that you can, but in all honesty, what you have produced is not supported by the factual evidence. I suggest you actually source the original photos (oh wait you can’t the police threw them out).

    As far as your David behind the curtain video. That completely opposes both the trajectory and the blood spatter on Robin, and also the blood spatter on the curtains.

    I have told you before, if you can’t match it to the actual physical blood spatter etc, you’ve wasted your time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  505. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (132) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:21 pm
    ————————

    I normally ignore you, but will make an exception on this one.

    Do you have any idea of how pathetic that comment is, coming from you. You know nothing about the evidence, barely make any comment regarding the case, and do nothing but make inane and immature comments fired at will, and obviously without using any intelligence, as if you just want to be ‘part of the conversation’. You remind me of some wanton child, who is lacking attention, so tags along with the big boys, and stands there jumping up and down on one leg, hoping that just one person will notice their are there.

    For gods sake woman, have some pride.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  506. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Your so called ”indentation” , is typical on any person who has worn glasses for sometime, of which the nose arch pads fit snuggly.

    Except that David said he had not worn his mother’s glasses at all and had therefore not worn glasses for several days. Furthermore, he said he didn’t wear glasses very much, only when driving or going to lectures or watching tv. I wear glasses about as often and I have no indentation. Hopefully, when he is interviewed next, he will be asked for an explanation.The indentation looks quite severe when you enlarge the photo.

    http://static.stuff.co.nz/1236722664/605/2251605.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  507. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,072) Says:
    … As to the glasses, there’s no evidence regarding how they got onto David’s chair. Feel free to speculate pointlessly all you want, but while you’re at it consider that he may have put them back in his room after cleaning himself up, he may have wiped them reflexively while holding them, there’s no end to pointless speculation once you start.

    Why would someone, trying to frame another person, take the glasses back to his own room, thus implicating himself?

    If he had to wipe them “reflexively while holding them”, then why is there no fingerprints on them (please see your own point about there not being any of Robin’s prints on the gun, thus implying he didn’t use it)

    Also, if he had to wipe them, and this is meant to have removed any evidence, why is there no evidence on the other lens, which had NOT been wiped, because it had so much dust on it, that it would not have been able to be used for recent viewing? Why aren’t his fingerprints on them from where he as holding them, or is he meant to have got another pair of gloves for this (see again your excuse that Robin can’t have used the gun because his finger prints weren’t on it)

    Of course, if he had found the other lens, and wiped it, the dust wouldn’t have remained, and he wouldn’t have left it in the room to incriminate himself if that was the case.

    Another factor. Physical evidence is not always plentiful, however, a dusty article, such as smooth glass, is one of the better articles to expect to find evidence on. But there was none.

    What you are asking us to believe, is that Stephen Bain was able to deliver a punch that knocked the glasses from the right side of David’s face with such force that it removed the lens, that it landed where it did (actual, not Weir’s first imaginary site). All this despite the fact that Stephen would have had to have used the hand he had been shot through to deliver that blow, and despite the copious quantity of blood on both his hands, manage to not get a drop on the lens, which the experts said would have not just ‘popped’ out, but needed to be removed with substantial force.

    Also in this same act, manage not to disturb the ‘old’ dust that remained on the lens. And don’t try Muggins old excuse that the lens sat in Stephen’s room for a couple of days and collected dust in the filthy house. The lens had dust stuck to it which was significant, and been there for some time and would prevent it being used for vision. It was not a fresh layer of dry dust from people walking very carefully around a crime scene where plastic was placed on the floors.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  508. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,898) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:19 am

    You didn’t read all of the post did you? I wear glasses and are short sighted. The majority of the time I don’t wear them because I read, use the computer, talk to people etc. I only need them for distance stuff like driving and watching tv. Both of which I do very little of. Sometimes I don’t wear them for days on end, and yet still have the slight indentation there, as David does.

    Of course, some people have a natural indentation there, and as Marzuka does not bother to analyse David’s bone structure to find out whether it is indeed a natural indentation from the structure of his nose etc – his so called evidence is a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  509. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    marzuka (3) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:50 pm

    As Judith said, so many errors not worth even talking about. I will bite and answer one.
    You have made the point before that there would be little force coming from the gunshot. How then does he, on your ‘behind the curtain ambush’ have the old man’s body, starting close to the floor, suddenly move the head up then down again to get that far, and the left leg, the most bent one, suddenly shoot out to be straight?

    LMAO

    ross69 (1,898) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:19 am
    The indentation looks quite severe when you enlarge the photo.

    A small pimple can look “quite severe” when enlarged too

    LMFAO

    This is all academic now anyway.
    Ian Binnie found, using the prosecution evidence and setting it out very clearly, that the bloody footprint was the old man’s. That can never again be explained away. If you like, it is the shell case in the Thomas case.

    The only question now is, does this Government have the guts and integrity to do the right thing?
    Or, what will they do to wriggle out, simply to save the reputations of incompetent cops and prosecutors?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  510. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    marzurka
    Where you been?
    Hey ,I’ve copied those links and will send them to the other Judith,hope that’s ok with you.
    Once she sees them it will be case closed.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  511. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Me: …there’s no end to pointless speculation once you start.

    Judith: Why would someone etc etc etc…

    Thanks for providing such a comprehensive illustration.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  512. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,763) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:53 am
    ————————-
    She has probably already seen them, I believe she has been watching this thread very closely.

    Everyone smile and wave!! ~ ~ ~ ~

    Her first question to Marzuka would probably be, and what about the same type of mark near the bulb of his nose, did Stephen poke him there with his finger? And the red dots, did Stephen stab his with needles?

    Fortunately Judith Collins has a few more brains than the spinners, although she unfortunately is biased by her ambition.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  513. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,073) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:55 am

    This is not speculation? Twisting evidence (or should I say sock?) to fit ?

    In any case, socks aren’t fixed to your foot the way shoes are – they can twist around, especially if you get in fights with people on a carpeted floor.

    At least you people are good for entertainment on a slow day.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  514. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Ian Binnie found, using the prosecution evidence and setting it out very clearly, that the bloody footprint was the old man’s. That can never again be explained away.

    Findings that back your pre-existing belief always appear very clear and convincing. However, that one of Binnie’s features a logic failure that should be obvious to anyone not looking to have their bias endorsed.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  515. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,073) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:55 am

    ——————————–

    So you can’t refute any of it and took the easy way out.
    They are not explanations, they are questions. Provide the answers, why did the lens still have dust on it, why wasn’t David’s fingerprints on the lens or the glasses, because you used the argument that if Robin had used the gun, fingerprints would have been left. Now you’re saying David used the glasses, well where are the fingerprints?

    Nice cop out on your behalf. Saves you not have to provide answers when you can’t! ;-)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  516. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith (1,099) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 8:59 am
    muggins (1,763) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:53 am
    ————————-
    She has probably already seen them, I believe she has been watching this thread very closely.

    Everyone smile and wave!! ~ ~ ~ ~

    Judith Collins watching this thread very closely. Judith, you cannot be serious !
    Of course you aren’t ,just the old Judith wind-up.
    Just like when you said you wrote to the paper about Kaycee.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  517. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    This is not speculation? Twisting evidence (or should I say sock?) to fit ?

    He asked me to speculate, I obliged.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  518. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Thurs 26 March, 2009
    Earlier, under cross examination by defence counsel Helen Cull QC, Detective Mark Lodge admitted he had been told in his briefing before today’s appearance to say he had wrapped Robin Bain’s body in a plastic bag before removal to the mortuary and that their were abrasions on his hands.

    This evidence was not given at any other trial and no photographs of the abrasions were taken, or notes taken to say where the abrasions were.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  519. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dr D said those abrasions were insignificant.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  520. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    So you can’t refute any of it and took the easy way out.

    I can’t refute baseless speculation or unanswerable questions? Well, no, I can’t. As to your questions:

    why did the lens still have dust on it? What dust? How much? Says who? More dust than would get on it from having all the crap piled up in Stephen’s room rain down on it? How much dust is that exactly?

    why wasn’t David’s fingerprints on the lens or the glasses? Why weren’t anybody’s? Someone must have touched them sometime.

    because you used the argument that if Robin had used the gun, fingerprints would have been left On the basis that Stephen left a print on that metal from a single touch. Doesn’t apply to the glasses.

    Now you’re saying David used the glasses, well where are the fingerprints? Indeed, where are the fingerprints? Is your point that nobody could have put those glasses on the chair?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  521. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,764) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:53 am
    marzurka
    Where you been?
    Hey ,I’ve copied those links and will send them to the other Judith,hope that’s ok with you.
    Once she sees them it will be case closed.

    ————————————–

    I think you will find that Ms Collins is trying to distance herself from your correspondence, given that some of it was obtained in a ‘corrupt’ manner, which compromises integrity.

    You gotta love the OIA. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  522. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith,
    I have some thankyou letters from you know who on file.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  523. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,766) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 9:28 am
    —————————

    Yes I know. They prove a link with you nicely, something I think she is now regretting, given recent events.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  524. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    She seems happy enough with the information I sent her at the weekend.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  525. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Hi, J, K, N-NZ, & and R….

    The nutters are still at it I see. It beggars belief that they believe they are going to influence the outcome by re-writing the record , and so on….. . However, some folks really are as thick as Pig S***.
    So, just to cheer them up on this bright and sunny morning…. this touch of borax :) :) :)

    In his private newsletter, Kapiti Coast financial advisor Chris Lee has an interesting slant on the Collins (what should now happen to this idiot woman?) dilemma, suggesting (well, inferring) that the Crown’s position is driven by the prospect of a multitude of Bain-type injustices May be he is right. But the silly Crown thought they would win the Susan Couch case. Mmmnnnn….. I guess that to a certain extent they did have a pyrrhic draw. Settling out of Court means there is no Supreme Court driven case law – yet.

    But to return to Lee, his January 28 newsletter says: “ ……,
    This is very often true in the world of finance and investment but I was reminded recently that the same is true elsewhere too, especially in politics

    I was also reminded that we sit in a privileged position dealing with a wide cross section of the NZ public, often learning more in one meeting than some wisdom gathered over years of growing up.

    One recent meeting reminded me of the value that rests in what is not being said when they pointed out to me that the government was not fighting the David Bain case for fear of being seen to pass judgment on his original case, nor for the singular sum of money that they may need to pay.

    The government is fighting hard because if the principles of the Bain case are found to warrant payment for the error, NZ has a large group of citizens who have suffered a similar fate to Bain (convictions quashed or proved to be incorrect on appeal, post prison time being served) and they would presumably be entitled to the same sort of outcome if money is to be the fair recompense for errors in our justice system.

    I find it a little deflating that our government may be fighting to save cash rather than move forward with the principle of improving our nation’s justice system when we seem to spend so much cash in other areas of less importance (e.g. economics of sport, poorly managed ACC and social welfare payments etc).

    The price of a failing justice system is far worse than the cash compensation that may need to be involved.
    I am some distance from the investment theme here (look for what we are not being told to discover the greatest value) but the analogy of hidden value was too relevant to ignore.

    What investment scenarios can you think of where you don’t think the complete story is being disclosed; …… “

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  526. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Judith Collins watching this thread very closely. Judith, you cannot be serious !
    Of course you aren’t ,just the old Judith wind-up.

    Hey muggins. Now you are calling Collins a liar?

    She was asked in an interview just before Christmas if she followed any blogs. She said yes, and mentioned some, this being the first one she mentioned. Bugger, aye?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  527. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4116449/Bob-Jones-to-get-80-000-in-defamation-case

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  528. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz (813) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 9:49 am
    Judith Collins watching this thread very closely. Judith, you cannot be serious !
    Of course you aren’t ,just the old Judith wind-up.

    Hey muggins. Now you are calling Collins a liar?

    She was asked in an interview just before Christmas if she followed any blogs. She said yes, and mentioned some, this being the first one she mentioned. Bugger, aye?

    Link,please.

    Mind you,I would be quite happy if she did look at the Bain threads on kiwiblog, then she would see what a bunch of nutters Bain has supporting him.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  529. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (1,769) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 9:53 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4116449/Bob-Jones-to-get-80-000-in-defamation-case

    LMAO
    Doesn’t look good for you and your mates, does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  530. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    It’s like watching the God-bothers waiting for a sign. A tear appears on a statue. A miracle! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

    Nothing ties Robin to the rifle. No fingerprints. Nothing. Stephen’s pristine prints on it are undisturbed. Right on the suppressor that Robin would have grasped with his right hand to guide it to his left temple. Stephen’s pristine prints, no smudges. Indeed a miracle. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

    Robin wakes up and strangles Stephen. Quite a battle. Struggling, struggling, struggling. Quite a bloodbath. Can he overpower him? Bang, he’s dead at last. Unimaginable stress. No. He does not piss himself. Indeed a miracle. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

    He shoots the others. Bang! bang! bang! He change his clothes and puts the bloodied ones in the laundry. He washes up. Not too much mind. Just the right amount to get rid of all that blood but not enough to remove the gardening grime. The judgement of Solomon, that. A miracle. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

    Calmly he prepares to shoot himself. Let’s think. Where shall he put the spare magazine to make it look like it fell from his hand? Oh, I know. Under the table a metre away from where he is sitting on the bean bag. BANG. Good shot. Dead as a Dodo. Oops. He’s not going to fall down with his right hand by the magazine. Hop, hop, hop, and over he goes to the beanbag. Another miracle! HAL-LE-LU-JAH! HAL-LE-LU-JAH! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH! HALLELUJAH! HAL-LE–LU—JAH!!!

    David says, “My core belief is I was not there.” (Is that a NO or a DON’T KNOW?)

    The K Team say, “Oi, see all those miracles. MONEY MONEY MONEY!”

    Cabinet says, “Fuck off, that’s no miracle, that be Karamel Kustard.”

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  531. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Mind you,I would be quite happy if she did look at the Bain threads on kiwiblog, then she would see what a bunch of nutters Bain has supporting him.

    You have no idea who is reading what on the internet, do you?
    Have you at any stage wondered how Binnie was able to read JFRB on facebook? Remember, it was a closed group before he was even approached by Power. Did you see a member join using the name Ian Binnie? Who else is able to do what he did?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  532. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz (815) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 9:58 am
    muggins (1,769) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 9:53 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4116449/Bob-Jones-to-get-80-000-in-defamation-case

    LMAO
    Doesn’t look good for you and your mates, does it?

    flipper was referring to Chris Lee. So he/she can forget about anything he said.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  533. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    flipper was referring to Chris Lee. So he/she can forget about anything he said.

    Just as the world can forget about anything you and your mates have said (as if they listened anyway) because they will soon be suffering the same fate as Chris Lee did?

    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  534. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz (816) Says:

    You have no idea who is reading what on the internet, do you?
    Have you at any stage wondered how Binnie was able to read JFRB on facebook? Remember, it was a closed group before he was even approached by Power. Did you see a member join using the name Ian Binnie? Who else is able to do what he did?

    While I was aware that Binnie had looked at counterspin [but,unfortunately, does not seem to have understood what was being wrttten on that excellent website] I was not aware he said he looked at JFRB, so could you link to where he said that,please.
    Btw, I note that no comments have been made re recent posts on JFRB, looks like all the moles and misfits have been expunged.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  535. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    flipper (1,332) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 9:47 am
    ——————————-

    Thank you Flipper,

    An excellent and timely reminder. For many it will not sink in. People like muggins will continue to think his meddling is providing the evidence for any rejection. As you say some thick as pig-s, and bask in some sort of deluded glory.

    Of course the reasons are much deeper, and more significant than the sum of $2 million. That is only a starting point for all that could, and will follow from criminal cases.

    Then there is the matter of civil cases, where people have been seriously effected by government departments doing exactly what they have done to David Bain. There is one South Island Helicopter operator that should be next in line, considering the nasty and pathetic way he has been treated by the ‘authorities’ and behind him are many more.

    Collins may have her rejection, and she may even somehow think she will get away with Fisher providing another report. They may even deny compensation, but that will not be end of it. Collins has ruined her reputation and integrity, she will never be in the top seat she so much wants thanks to this. And David Bain supporters will not lie down – we do not plan on taking flights to North Korea, just because we didn’t win this particular round.

    The muggin’s and Marzuka’s of this world, that have to lie, cheat, manipulate and misrepresent information, phone people and lie about what they’ve said – might think they are clever and believed, but sadly that is only by the people stupid enough not to know any better.

    The Government may refuse compensation because of the long and wide implications if they don’t. But that doesn’t make it right, and eventually ‘right’ will prevail.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  536. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz (816) Says:

    Just as the world can forget about anything you and your mates have said (as if they listened anyway) because they will soon be suffering the same fate as Chris Lee did.

    Soon? How soon.? And I don’t think the judge will be too happy about Karam saying on NBR online that the two ringleaders [of JFRB] will be bankrupted.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  537. Nostalgia-NZ (5,272 comments) says:

    Nookin 9.49am 28/1/13

    Because there has been a ruling that ‘an actual’ MOJ occurred in this case it can’t be ignored and won’t be if Bain has to sue. Also the Thomas Royal Commission comments could be relevant as showing a way in which MOJ’s had been settled previously or how they should be settled, in fact the comparisons on all applications whether successful or not could become relevant, because the exercise of a Prerogative must be seen to be consistent and fair, and that before considering the TBOR.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  538. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,771) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 10:28 am
    ———————–

    He mentions both those sites in his report. Clearly you haven’t read it thoroughly yourself, and yet here you are making out you are some sort of consummate expert! Oh how silly you look!

    The Justice for Robin Bain facebook page still has leaks in it, but it is no longer important. There is already sufficient data to prove the integrity, criminal behaviour and false representations made by the group, that discredits them sufficiently, to not need more.

    I do love your comment about Binnie being unable to understand the Counterspin website. That site is put together by a person claiming to be an expert in such things. That someone with Binnie’s education, experience and ability, ‘could not understand it’, according to you, makes a mockery of the web designers and administers, then doesn’t it.

    Of course Binnie understood it, but having all the authentic documentation, and evidence, he realised what a pack of garbage that site contains, and gave it the attention it deserves. I’d say the web designer should stick to singing, except he’s lousy at that too. In fact, he appears to be lousy at everything he’s tried. Except for defaming people, he’s real good at that. Something which is about to be proven in Court.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  539. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. “… just because we didn’t win this particular round.”

    Is this a white flag I see before me,
    The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
    I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
    Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
    To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
    A flag of the mind, a false creation,
    Proceeding from your heat-oppressed brain?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  540. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith (1,104) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 10:29 am

    The Government may refuse compensation because of the long and wide implications if they don’t.

    Judith,in English,please.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  541. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (539) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 10:40 am
    @Judith. “… just because we didn’t win this particular round.”

    Is this a white flag I see before me,
    The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
    I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
    Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
    To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
    A flag of the mind, a false creation,
    Proceeding from your heat-oppressed brain

    Yep,sounds very much like Judith has thrown in the towel. Or else the referee has deemed that she has taken enough punishment and given the other Judith the win by a TKO.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  542. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 34 You need to be logged in to vote
  543. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,774) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 10:41 am

    ——————————–

    It is very clear that you are unable to understand anything more than what is written by media standards. That is for a six year old to understand. I have no intention of explaining it to you, and kindly refrain from deliberately misinterpreting other peoples posts. Each time you do it, you will be called for the liar you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  544. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (539) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 10:40 am
    ———————–

    Another person who can’t read the entire post.

    Collins got the report ‘reviewed’, so we didn’t win that round….. have you got the same reading level as muggins, or is it a fault of old men in general?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  545. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith (1,107) Says:

    January 29th, 2