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.

729 Responses to “A new Bain report?”

  1. goldnkiwi (2,490 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
  2. goldnkiwi (2,490 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. ross69 (3,651 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Kanz (1,739 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
  10. muggins (5,052 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
  11. Psycho Milt (3,112 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
  12. 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
  13. Kanz (1,739 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
  14. Psycho Milt (3,112 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
  15. 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
  16. muggins (5,052 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
  17. Psycho Milt (3,112 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
  18. 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
  19. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Dr D said those abrasions were insignificant.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Psycho Milt (3,112 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
  21. 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
  22. muggins (5,052 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
  23. 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
  24. muggins (5,052 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
  25. flipper (5,116 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
  26. Kanz (1,739 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
  27. muggins (5,052 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
  28. muggins (5,052 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
  29. Kanz (1,739 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
  30. Dennis Horne (4,017 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
  31. Kanz (1,739 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
  32. muggins (5,052 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
  33. Kanz (1,739 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
  34. muggins (5,052 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
  35. 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
  36. muggins (5,052 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
  37. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 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
  38. 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
  39. Dennis Horne (4,017 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
  40. muggins (5,052 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
  41. muggins (5,052 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,107) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 10:51 am
    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.

    Which means you can’t explain it.

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

    Talking about Bob Jones:

    “I have no hesitation in saying there has never been a more disgraceful political
    action in the post-war years than the behaviour of the Justice Minister Judith
    Collins over the Bain compensation matter. Its breath-taking arrogance is without
    precedence. She has effectively said she disagrees with a jury’s findings after an
    exhaustive three-month trial, disagrees with the widely regarded greatest law lord
    of the past half century and his Privy Council, and disagrees with Canada’s (former)
    top judicial figure after his three-month investigation. All of this after John Key
    and his Cabinet signed off on then Justice Minister Simon Power’s proposal to seek a
    determination from Justice Binnie and achieve a once-and-for-all finality. The
    minister’s role is to uphold justice, not dispense, or twist it which is the effect of
    her intervention and disgraceful bias in showing the Binnie report to the prosecution
    but not the other side. Her banana republic behaviour has brought disgrace on her
    office. Given this precedent we could save $1 billion-plus annually by the police simply
    submitting a weekly list of their intended criminal prosecutions for the minister to tick
    either a guilty or not guilty box, an exercise one suspects would involve her in about two
    minutes.” – Sir Robert (Bob) Jones, NZ Herald, December 18, 2012

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

    “It causes us grave concern that very senior Police officers were so obviously ready to place credence on such
    unreliable, self-interested, and, in the case of the first inmate, deluded evidence. It was but another
    instance of the Police being unwilling to accept the pardon” – Thomas Royal Commission.

    “The police never accepted the [Thomas] Royal Commission’s finding, never charged the
    officers for planting the evidence, and never offered an apology. – Hon Rodney Hide, NZ Herald, Jan 6,

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Flipper when you next read here.

    I don’t think that the Government are concerned about a flood of compensation and there is a distinction between this claim and others by a wide margin of course in that the superior Court has made a ruling of fatal breach of procedure. On the other hand the point made by Chris Lee about other cases is a good reason to have a robust and sound piece of legislation in place perhaps with a proviso in place to be able to petition the GG as a fall back position much like where new evidence comes to light that might throw doubt on a conviction. The sooner the opportunity to see political influence at work is gone the better. That looms over this case now and is not welcome whatever thoughts on the Bain case might be.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,775) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 10:54 am

    Which means you can’t explain it.

    ————————————

    No, it means that you clearly cannot read, or understand the context of Flipper’s entire post, which demonstrates that point precisely.

    Do not blame other people for your ineptitude. Perhaps you should have aimed higher than office boy!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    “Judith Collins sought to “play in the bigs”. But she and her advisors have been shown to be “babes in the
    wood”, to use an NZ expression.
    They probably, almost certainly, thought they could brow-beat Justice Binnie, as they might a New Zealand
    Q.C., or judicial figure. But they did NOT see the 5000 ton freight train roaring down the tracks at 85
    mph. The tame Dunedin academics, and Wellington bureaucrats, supporting [manipulating or capturing] her,
    along with poor Robert Fisher, were all taken-aback when Ian Binnie counter-attacked, as North American
    judges and attorneys are want to do – especially when they know that they have been unjustly “dissed” by an
    overly clever lawmaker.
    They did not realise that the Hon Justice Ian Binnie, a former Minister in a nation of 30+ million, and a former
    Justice on that nation’s Supreme Court, with more than 40 years’ experience as a litigator, and quite
    accustomed to “playing in the bigs”, would never be intimidated by “an Auckland tax lawyer”, and her naive
    advisors. Only a fool would not have anticipated a counter-battery.
    “If Justice Binnie had played by Collins’ rules he would have buried her under a “pile-up”, as he did Fisher.
    Politely, of course. But he was kind, well sort of. Mrs Collins, unfortunately for her, was simply echoing her
    bureaucrats. Not a good idea when “playing in the bigs” with 2500 lb Rhinos [with apologies to Ian Binnie] !

    a North American perspective”

    ———————-

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    For a comparative balance of the intelligence of the CS spin site and the general public compare the 80 to 90% of the spinners who thought Rodney Hides sarcastic piece was a revelation that he’d ‘seen the light’ after his first article applauding Binnie’s work.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Ian Binnie found, using the prosecution evidence and setting it out very clearly, that the bloody footprint was the old man’s.

    Thanks for the chuckle.

    Dear Mr Binnie,

    At 257, you opined that “[a]ttempting to measure a blue ‘luminescence’ in the dark does not exactly give rise to laser-like accuracy.” Indeed, the tests conducted by Walsh and Sandilands produced quite different results. Walsh’s tests produced five footprints less than 290mm in length. However, the shortest footprint measured by Sandilands was 300mm. The tests of both experts produced highly variable measurements. The results strongly indicate that there must be some doubt around the reliability of the footprint evidence. However, you placed enormous weight on the footprint evidence and little or no weight on more important evidence. The fact that you placed so much weight on evidence that may be unreliable and placed little or no weight on more important, and more reliable, evidence suggests your report is unbalanced. It also suggests that you were predisposed to finding in David’s favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Judith. “Another person who can’t read the entire post.”

    I did what you do. I picked a bit and “demolished” it. Rather elegantly I thought. I could be the new Shakespeare!

    Look at the narrative you ask us to believe, Judith, it’s preposterous. A chain of improbabilities that defy reason.

    From the paper-round alibi, the dopey “suicide” message, the washing of the bloodied clothing, the staged “suicide” set complete with a normal load of urine, lack of any forensics connecting Robin to the rifle or the killing …

    If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.

    You minutely dissect tiny bits of evidence to suit your taste, but it even tastes like a duck. Roasted.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Honeybadger (517 comments) says:

    ‘we’ didnt win this particular round….., I believe, the first of many you will not win in this case
    Binnie may have done a report, but it has been proven to be fundamentally flawed

    and as for the ‘evidence’ that Binnie had available to him, I fail to see how Joe Karams books could have been counted as evidence, did he in fact, read the most comprehensive book on the case? no?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Honeybadger (517 comments) says:

    Of course, if we are to believe some of the hearsay evidence, which some of you do here, very vehemently, we must believe other hearsay evidence aslo, such as David threatening members of his family ‘with the gun!’, we must aslo believe that Laniet was scared of Dacid, and it was he who was committing the incest……
    need I go on with the hearsay?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/twelve-reasons-worry-about-bain-case-lf-134942

    Here is an example of Rodney Hide getting told what’s what. He knows nothing,he should butt out.

    Oops, I shouldn’t have linked to that,now all the crazies will want to join in. My bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    muggins (1,776) 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.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    muggins,

    Poor Rodders doesn’t have a clue. He thinks that because David was acquitted, he should be paid compo! Maybe Ewen McDonald deserves compo, too, as do hundreds of others who are acquitted each year. Hide’s ignorance is jaw-dropping.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,777) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 12:05 pm
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/twelve-reasons-worry-about-bain-case-lf-134942

    Here is an example of Rodney Hide getting told what’s what. He knows nothing,he should butt out.

    ——————————–

    Yeah, this comment really tells him that!

    #25 by Anon 5 hours ago
    Us lot are all welcome to conclude whatever we like about David Bain and whether or not he did it. Fact is, though, that he was found not guilty. After this fact Binnie was invited in. His report was not supposed to be a retrial. These personalised attacks on him and comments made by those wanting to use him as a scapegoat to vent their frustration at the outcome are, bluntly, classless and unwarranted. Worse still is Collins, who sees political mileage in attacking Binnie to play for public brownie points by indulging this misdirected national bloodlust.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,112) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 10:57 am
    Talking about Bob Jones:

    Yeah, and Bob Jones probably knows as much about the case as Rodney Hide. He should stick to what he’s good at,buying and selling property.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    You are right though Muggins, there are some raving lunatics in that site, the biggest appears to be a ‘Dennis Horne’, who as usual is making a total fool of himself by quoting most of the actual known facts and evidence, wrongly.

    His family (with all their wonderful connections) must be very proud of him. It appears he can’t even read the newpapers correctly, let alone a Court Transcript.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    His report was not supposed to be a retrial.

    Who said it was? His report was supposed to be balanced. On the score, it failed dismally. He was supposed to assign probabilities to specific pieces of evidence. Binnie failed to do that. The onus of proof was and is on David. But Binnie at times seemed to think the onus of proof was on the Crown. A competent jurist would have shown at least a little incredulity towards David’s answers, and would have been concerned at David’s attemppts to decieve. But Binnie was either unaware or unconcerned that he was being duped. A first year law student could have written a better report.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @ Judith. “His family (with all their wonderful connections) must be very proud of him.”

    They’re all dead, they’re all dead, my family’s all dead. Dead-dead-dead. Of course I didn’t kill them. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    What a joke that site is muggins, thanks for the link

    We have Kent Parker, Mike Stockdale, Lyndsey Kennard, Dotcom, Dennis Horne, Chuck Bird, Kathryn Kennedy, plus one or two others, ALL supporters of JFRB or posters from this thread, patting each others backs, and using the same old counterspin garbage to attempt to refute everything they can, use the same old propaganda, and ignoring reality and facts.

    So now your target is Rodney Hide. How pathetic are you lot!

    That’s not anyone getting told what’s what. That is the same old JFRB dribble, from the poisoned mouths of the same old dribblers.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,114) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
    muggins (1,777) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 12:05 pm
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/twelve-reasons-worry-about-bain-case-lf-134942

    Here is an example of Rodney Hide getting told what’s what. He knows nothing,he should butt out.

    ——————————–

    Yeah, this comment really tells him that!

    Not that comment, Judith ,this comment.

    Dotcom.
    The police did their job properly. Compensation must not be paid for five simple reasons-the reasons being that David Bain shot Robin,Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen Bain.
    Anyone who has closely studied the evidence would know that to be so.
    In correspondence with me Rodney Hide has said to me that he knows little of the evidence in the Bain case.

    And that is why I said that Rodney Hide should butt out.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Honeybadger (517 comments) says:

    tsk Judith, no need to attack another posters family

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 46 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,115) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    What a joke that site is muggins, thanks for the link

    We have Kent Parker, Mike Stockdale, Lyndsey Kennard, Dotcom, Dennis Horne, Chuck Bird, Kathryn Kennedy, plus one or two others, ALL supporters of JFRB or posters from this thread, patting each others backs, and using the same old counterspin garbage to attempt to refute everything they can, use the same old propaganda, and ignoring reality and facts.

    So now your target is Rodney Hide. How pathetic are you lot!

    That’s not anyone getting told what’s what. That is the same old JFRB dribble, from the poisoned mouths of the same old dribblers.

    Do I sense some frustration creeping in, Judith?
    The same old dribblers , how pathetic.
    If anyone is a dribbler it is you. A dribbler of propoganda day after day,night after night. You are pathetic,ignoring reality and facts.
    Crikey Dick, you still havn’t figured out how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room. You still keep implying Milton Weir planted it there,despite the fact that it was shown in a photo and/or video to be there before Stephen’s body was removed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    oneybadger (67) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    tsk Judith, no need to attack another posters family

    ————————–

    I was talking about a poster called ‘Dennis Horne’ on the NBR web site linked by Muggins.

    Are you suggesting that is the same as one of the posters here?
    Strange you should see the links there, I didn’t give them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,780) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    rikey Dick, you still havn’t figured out how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room. You still keep implying Milton Weir planted it there,despite the fact that it was shown in a photo and/or video to be there before Stephen’s body was removed.

    ——————————-

    So now you change your story.
    A few days ago it was in a video taken that morning.
    When told it was not videoed that morning you changed it.
    Now you change it again to being in a photo/video before Stephen’s body was moved.

    Make up your mind, what was it, or is it just another lie, and you can’t remember what you used to say about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,116) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    muggins (1,779) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    As I have already said, Judith,Rodney Hide should butt out.

    ————————————–

    Or what, you and your poisoned mates are going to keep up the discrediting campaign, stalk him, harass him, make up stories about his finances, relationships, harass his sister, attempt to destroy any of his family’s business interests, frighten the children of his family members, try to destroy reputation and work interests, make obscene and threatening phone calls, etc etc ……… just like you have to other people who have tried to do to Karam and others who defend David?

    Nice lot of people you JFRBers, Robin would have disowned the lot of you.

    Good to see you are still issuing your threats though.
    I’ll ensure Rodney gets a copy so he can begin shaking in his shoes

    Crikey Dick, Judith ,you are losing it. Who on earth has made obscene and threatening phone calls to Rodney Hide or anyone else,for that matter? Who has frightened the children of his family members?
    Who has attempted to destroy his business interests?
    Who has harassed his sister?
    Who has attempted to destroy his reputation?
    You really need to chill out, Judith, otherwise the men in white coats will be coming to take you away.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,118) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    muggins (1,780) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    Crikey Dick, you still havn’t figured out how that lens came to be in Stephen’s room. You still keep implying Milton Weir planted it there,despite the fact that it was shown in a photo and/or video to be there before Stephen’s body was removed.

    Judith, it was either a photo or a video. Stop nitpicking. And please link to where it says the video of Stephen’s room was taken in the afternoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    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 nai
    ls and recent wounds to his hands.

    Also to note when the police ‘thought’ it was David’s blood on the towel it was damning evidence against him, so it follows that because the blood is actually Robins it is damning evidence against him on a wider perspective because it links with so much other evidence: the blood wash on his palms, his injured hands, his footprints in blood about the house, everywhere he went that morning there was, as a result, blood, some which he failed to wash off his hands, some across his cheek from his nose and other red type material in his moustache. The blood from the nose, not only links to the fight with Stephen, but undermines the police investigation further because they were looking for somebody who had been ‘freely’ bleeding that morning and it was David as Dr Pryde reported in his records and evidence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,781) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    —————————

    Comprehension not a big point with you aye Muggins.

    No one said you had done those things to Rodney.
    It starts ….. or what….. and ends…… just like you have to other people .. etc.

    Clearly you either can’t read, or are ‘losing it’ yourself.
    I’m sorry old man, but the only person who has proven themselves to be losing it is you. Proof is on its way as we speak, to the people that need to see it, thanks to the boy’s in blue and your persistent need to exaggerate your own importance by skiting about your perceived phone calls.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    correction;

    should read ‘and it wasn’t David as Dr Pryde reported in his records and evidence.’

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,782) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    ————————-

    I have never implied that Weir planted that lens. That is your stuffed up ability to comprehend other peoples comments.

    The most I’ve said is I am suspicious because he lied in court – I didn’t say what those suspicions were.

    See, you like to lie, twist, misrepresent the comments of other people, just to win an argument, with some sort of perceived prize ( all in your head of course)

    But keep it up, it shows you for what you are.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,664) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
    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 nai
    ls and recent wounds to his hands.

    Also to note when the police ‘thought’ it was David’s blood on the towel it was damning evidence against him, so it follows that because the blood is actually Robins it is damning evidence against him on a wider perspective because it links with so much other evidence: the blood wash on his palms, his injured hands, his footprints in blood about the house, everywhere he went that morning there was, as a result, blood, some which he failed to wash off his hands, some across his cheek from his nose and other red type material in his moustache. The blood from the nose, not only links to the fight with Stephen, but undermines the police investigation further because they were looking for somebody who had been ‘freely’ bleeding that morning and it WASN’T David’s as Dr Pryde reported in his records and evidence

    —————————–
    You would think the flip side would work, but no, there seemed to be no such thing in the investigation.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 40 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    muggins (1,781) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 9:54 am
    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.

    She would be better off reading the Truth to see that David Bain’s most avid supporter is a convicted double killer and then she would realise that it takes one to know one.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Collins has spoken recently about the possibility of forming a panel which appears popular

    “Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis, former Law Commission president Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Labour’s justice spokesman Charles Chauvel are all urging the Government to convene a panel to consider the claim.”

    I wonder if they will ask Muggins to sit on it, with Dennis and Dotcom?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 56 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    “Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis, former Law Commission president Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Labour’s justice spokesman Charles Chauvel are all urging the Government to convene a panel to consider the claim.”

    I thought Charles wanted the government to bend over and drop its trousers.

    So, if it’s a 3 member panel, presumably two would need to find in David’s favour. What are the chances that there are two jurists as incompetent as Binnie?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Yes Mother!!!
    In future you can just tell me what you want me to say
    Along with the other
    Sycophants or in your case sickophants.

    Cut and paste that lol. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Honeybadger (517 comments) says:

    well said goldnkiwi, it does seem sometimes, that people are being told what to say, as it is very clear, they dont think for themselves

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Psycho Milt (3,112 comments) says:

    The most I’ve said is I am suspicious because he lied in court [citation needed]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,664) Says: January 29th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
    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 nai
    ls and recent wounds to his hands.

    Also to note when the police ‘thought’ it was David’s blood on the towel it was damning evidence against him, so it follows that because the blood is actually Robins it is damning evidence against him on a wider perspective because it links with so much other evidence: the blood wash on his palms, his injured hands, his footprints in blood about the house, everywhere he went that morning there was, as a result, blood, some which he failed to wash off his hands, some across his cheek from his nose and other red type material in his moustache. The blood from the nose, not only links to the fight with Stephen, but undermines the police investigation further because they were looking for somebody who had been ‘freely’ bleeding that morning and it was[‘nt] David as Dr Pryde reported in his records and evidence.

    A blood smear persistently described as blood wash. How did he wash his right hand free of blood without removing all the blood on the left hand? If he washed his hands how did he leave the garden soil on them? Blood comes off very easily since its water-based but this is magic. Or bollocks. Someone wiped his hand after death.

    Give evidence Robin had a nose bleed that day. Medical opinion, pathology report. Then I’ll tell you how the blood got on the towel in the laundry and how many sparrows were in the garden and bats in your belfry.

    Footprints are Robin’s? Disputed with good reason. No way of knowing. More wishful thinking.

    I mean, seriously, you think this trivia carries any weight against the preponderance of solid factual evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,123) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    muggins (1,779) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    As I have already said, Judith,Rodney Hide should butt out.

    ————————————–

    Or what, you and your poisoned mates are going to keep up the discrediting campaign, stalk him, harass him, make up stories about his finances, relationships, harass his sister, attempt to destroy any of his family’s business interests, frighten the children of his family members, try to destroy reputation and work interests, make obscene and threatening phone calls, etc etc ……… just like you have to other people who have tried to do to Karam and others who defend David?

    Good to see you are still issuing your threats though.
    I’ll ensure Rodney gets a copy so he can begin shaking in his shoes!!

    Judith ,who is the “him” you refer to?
    And,hey. I just realised why you are in a worse mood than usual today.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8235664/Bain-compo-decision-could-take-months

    That’s why.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Judith (1,123) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    corrigenda (66) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    She would be better off reading the Truth to see that David Bain’s most avid supporter is a convicted double killer

    ———————–

    I also note it is commonly known that Joe Karam is his most avid supporter, are you being defamatory, again?

    I think you will find Joe Karam refers to himself as David Bain’s representative, not his supporter, so the answer is no.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,123) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    muggins (1,782) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    ————————-

    I have never implied that Weir planted that lens. That is your stuffed up ability to comprehend other peoples comments.

    The most I’ve said is I am suspicious because he lied in court – I didn’t say what those suspicions were.

    See, you like to lie, twist, misrepresent the comments of other people, just to win an argument, with some sort of perceived prize ( all in your head of course)

    But keep it up, it shows you for what you are.

    Judith
    So you accept that there was a photo and/or video showing that lens on the floor of Stephen’s room before his body was removed and that therefore Milton Weir could not have planted it?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Jacob Cohen (252 comments) says:

    David Bain would be better to withdraw the compensation claim, and instead sue the appropriate Government departments for reparation for time spent in jail after the first trial, ‘unsafe’ as it was, as established by the Privy Council.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Ok.
    I have just spoken to Dr Dempster re that so called nose bleed. He does not recall that photo but said if that bullet to his head caused any minor fractures then they could have caused some blood to come out of his nose.
    I also asked him about those minor abrasions on his hands and he said he had just been looking at some photos recently and he felt those abrasions could be up to 48 hours old.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Jacob Cohen (3) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
    David Bain would be better to withdraw the compensation claim, and instead sue the appropriate Government departments for reparation for time spent in jail after the first trial, ‘unsafe’ as it was, as established by the Privy Council.

    Jacob
    Could you please post a link to where the Privy Council said the verdict at the first trial was “unsafe”.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    David Bain would be better to withdraw the compensation claim, and instead sue the appropriate Government departments for reparation for time spent in jail after the first trial, ‘unsafe’ as it was, as established by the Privy Council.

    Well, it costs money to sue. David reckons he doesn’t have any. That would be the first hurdle. Proving his innocence might be another.

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

    No Muggins, I’m not angry, I’m busy and doing several things at once.

    Good to see you give a perfect example of your ability to twist and misrepresent what a person says at 2.25pm.

    I never said there was a photo/video, and no, I have no idea of what Milton Weir did or didn’t do regarding the lens. Strange thing is, he doesn’t appear to have much of an idea either.

    Yeah, I’m sure you were hearing Dr Dempster’s voice, in fact, I’m sure you hear a lot of voices. Of course you would say he said something like that. Just like you’ve said people have said all sorts of things, that they haven’t. Fact is, Dempster isn’t saying that to anyone else but you, and I don’t believe you, and only a fool would.

    Cohen never said the Privy Council said it was unsafe, he said they had established – yet another demonstration of how you twist and misrepresent what people say. – habitual of you, isn’t it. Given those demonstrations of misrepresentation by you on here, one can only imagine what people actually do say in these ‘phone calls’ of yours, as you don’t seem to be able to translate anything efficiently.

    Ross: David might not have much money, but I know many of supporters do, including myself, and I’m more than happy to assist. 😉

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Jacob Cohen (252 comments) says:

    Muggins – Does not “unsafe’ describe the opinion of the JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL – Delivered the 10th May 2007–

    119. For all these reasons, the Board concludes that, as asked by the appellant, the appeal should be allowed, the convictions quashed and a retrial ordered. The appellant must remain in custody meanwhile. The order of the Board for a retrial does not of course restrict the duty of the Crown to decide whether a retrial now would be in the public interest. As to that the Board has heard no submissions and expresses no opinion. The parties are invited to make written submissions on the costs of these proceedings within 21 days. In closing, the Board wishes to emphasise, as it hopes is clear, that its decision imports no view whatever on the proper outcome of a retrial. Where issues have not been fully and fairly considered by a trial jury, determination of guilt is not the task of appellate courts. The Board has concluded that, in the very unusual circumstances of this case, a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. Therefore the proviso to section 385(1) cannot be applied, and the appeal must under the subsection be allowed. At any retrial it will be decided whether the appellant is guilty or not, and nothing in this judgment should influence the verdict in any way.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    David Bain has always been adamant that he washed his hands before starting the washing. He also told D. S. Croudis and D. Lowden in 1994 ” I didn’t have blood on my hands as I’d washed them.” This could be inferred that David Bain washed his hands twice.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Jacob,

    The Privy Council decision is irrelevant in the context of David’s claim for compo. Remember the onus of proof was on the Crown at the retrial, but now the onus of proof is on David. Binnie had difficulty with that concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Jacob Cohen (4) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    Muggins – Does not “unsafe’ describe the opinion of the JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL – Delivered the 10th May 2007–

    119. For all these reasons, the Board concludes that, as asked by the appellant, the appeal should be allowed, the convictions quashed and a retrial ordered. The appellant must remain in custody meanwhile. The order of the Board for a retrial does not of course restrict the duty of the Crown to decide whether a retrial now would be in the public interest. As to that the Board has heard no submissions and expresses no opinion. The parties are invited to make written submissions on the costs of these proceedings within 21 days. In closing, the Board wishes to emphasise, as it hopes is clear, that its decision imports no view whatever on the proper outcome of a retrial. Where issues have not been fully and fairly considered by a trial jury, determination of guilt is not the task of appellate courts. The Board has concluded that, in the very unusual circumstances of this case, a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. Therefore the proviso to section 385(1) cannot be applied, and the appeal must under the subsection be allowed. At any retrial it will be decided whether the appellant is guilty or not, and nothing in this judgment should influence the verdict in any way.

    Jacob,
    Short answer. No.

    What the Privy Council thought should happen is that all the new evidence that had come forward after the trial should be heard by a jury. The Court of Appeal had said it didn’t need to be heard by a jury.
    I might remind you that there was some new compelling evidence against David Bain.
    His aunt testified that he had told her he had been wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend. Had that evidence been heard at the first trial there may not have been a retrial. The jury at the first trial were not aware that Bain had told his lawyer he had been wearing those glasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith ,please.
    I asked to speak to Dr Dempster and I was put through to his phone and he answered it by saying ” Dr Dempster “. He was on his way out but said he could spare me a couple of minutes. As before I found him wery pleasant to talk to.
    You are saying that Jacob Cohen never said that the Privy Council decision was unsafe,yet shortly after that he has said he did mean it was unsafe.
    Re Milton Weir. You are beating round the bush again. When Milton Weir gave his evidence he was not aware that Schollum had been working flat-out to put those photos/ videos in chronological order.
    But Schollum was able to find a photo and/or video that showed the lens in Stephen’s room while his body was still there.
    So do you now accept that Milton Weir did not plant that lens or are you going to evade answering that question as you have done for at least ten times before.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    I have been told there is a photo showing a smear of blood on Robin Bain’s left hand.
    I would like a link to that photo just to see how large that smear is. I believe it is insignificant and could have been caused by blood spatter on that hand smearing as it hit the floor.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    ‘Jacob Cohen (4) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
    David Bain would be better to withdraw the compensation claim, and instead sue the appropriate Government departments for reparation for time spent in jail after the first trial, ‘unsafe’ as it was, as established by the Privy Council.’

    Must be very tempting, unsafe enough that it was that the conviction couldn’t stand. There’s generally not a good appreciation of what an ‘actual’ MOJ is by the robinites, nor any concern about due process. Same as well with the blood covering Robin’s moves about the house that morning. As someone pointed out above David was asked about his hands, yet the blood on Robin’s palms wasn’t made known until 2008 I think it was – which goes to the failure to investigate innocence that Binnie included in his report as an extraordinary circumstance.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    119. For all these reasons, the Board concludes that, as asked by the appellant, the appeal should be allowed, the convictions quashed and a retrial ordered. The appellant must remain in custody meanwhile. The order of the Board for a retrial does not of course restrict the duty of the Crown to decide whether a retrial now would be in the public interest. As to that the Board has heard no submissions and expresses no opinion.

    Please note ” The appellant must remain in custody meanwhile.” and “As to that the Board has heard no submissions and expresses no opinion.”

    If they didn’t think he was guilty why did they order he MUST remain in custody? Then they say they express no opinion. To me their opinion was that they thought he was guilty, why else the order he MUST remain in custody.

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

    @judith.

    Can you explain to me what Wier gained by misleading the court?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Only the lonely could read a paragraph in which it says ‘expresses no opinion’ and then claim that it describes an opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Jones claimed he ”helped the first jury by misleading them, I can’t recall what reason Weir gave. But I remember in his cross examination at the real trial and his evidence to Binnie that he said he felt that he’d lost the confidence of his fellow officers and they made jibes about him ‘finding’ evidence when he was appointed to that other unfortunate case that does’t go away.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Haha that was The Big O you are quoting. If they had “no opinion” why order he MUST remain in custody? I went online after reading the article about the double killer in the Truth to find just where and what they were quoting. In- te – rest -ing to say the least.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    @ twistedlemon

    Clearly to have something to write a chapter about in the book he was going to write in the future, if he was allowed to exercise freedom of speech that is.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Sorry my most abject apologies, I forgot to ask permission to speak, from you know who. Black leather and a whip?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,668) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    I am sure you have sympathy for how he felt, people are so cruel aren’t they. One or two little mistakes and no one lets you forget it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 53 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    I would like to see the photo that shows there was blood on Robin Bain’s palms.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    corrigenda (69) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
    119. For all these reasons, the Board concludes that, as asked by the appellant, the appeal should be allowed, the convictions quashed and a retrial ordered. The appellant must remain in custody meanwhile. The order of the Board for a retrial does not of course restrict the duty of the Crown to decide whether a retrial now would be in the public interest. As to that the Board has heard no submissions and expresses no opinion.

    Please note ” The appellant must remain in custody meanwhile.” and “As to that the Board has heard no submissions and expresses no opinion.”

    If they didn’t think he was guilty why did they order he MUST remain in custody? Then they say they express no opinion. To me their opinion was that they thought he was guilty, why else the order he MUST remain in custody.

    Yeah, that’s the way I saw it too, but Jacob seems to think they meant the verdict at the first trial was unsafe.
    But he’s a newbie, so we can forgive him for his misunderstanding.
    What made me laugh was Judith answering for him, specially when she got the answer wrong. What a hoot.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Someone does not appear to know that I contacted Dr Dempster today and asked him about that ” nosebleed” .
    He said he does not remember seeing that photo, but he also said that a nosebleed could have occured if that bullet to his head caused any minor fractures that could have caused blood to come out of his nose.
    He also said that he now thought those minor abrasions on his hands could have been up to 48 hours old.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Corrigenda @ 4.27
    “If they didn’t think he was guilty why did they order he MUST remain in custody? Then they say they express no opinion. To me their opinion was that they thought he was guilty, why else the order he MUST remain in custody.”

    This the best you can do, desperate stuff. There was never an application for the PC to decide whether or not David should be released on bail they also left it up to the crown to decide whether or not to retry the case. They gave their biggest hin to them but as we know Crown law is not very clever. For the sake of your twisted mind I suppose they actually ‘thought he was guilty’ but just decided to create trouble for crown law in NZ!
    What does an actual MOJ mean to you?

    Muggins, yes they thought the verdict was ‘safe’ thats why they quashed it, didn’t you know what the PC ‘does’, desperate stuff old bean!
    I wonder why Dempster would give you different information than what he gave at the retrial! did the phone call not occur or are you just spinning it as usual
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Belinda (142 comments) says:

    Interesting that Charles Chauvel has done 180 degree turn. Maybe he used the holidays to completely acquant himself with the facts.
    Let’s hope all MP’s have done their homework.
    I’d be happy to see a panel decide the issue as long as they had an iq over 80.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist @ 1.46
    “I mean, seriously, you think this trivia carries any weight against the preponderance of solid factual evidence?”

    LMFAO, maybe you could give us some ‘solid factual evidence’ the best your twisted sister has come up with is
    (a) how to spell the dogs name
    (b) whether David intended to make Margaret a cup of coffee rather than tea that morning
    (c) the ‘sinister’ explanation of a tattoo on Davids arm
    (d) spun out pathetic explanations of any of the actual forensic evidence, didn’t you know Davids footprints shrank after standing in blood? and in Canada blood ‘flouresces under a polight and there ‘bloody fingerprints’ show white ridges whereas here they are dark!
    Seriously this the best ‘solid factual evidence you have’ I asked muggins what facts were on the ‘justice for daddy’ webpage that weren’t available in the media? I got the above plus some more spun out shit. In order to use the ‘honest opinion’ defence in defamation you need to show you have actually established enough facts and that these are not materially different from the truth. JFRB supporters have a long way to go!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,793) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    What made me laugh was Judith answering for him, specially when she got the answer wrong. What a hoot.

    ————————-

    This is a perfect example of how these two poisonous people like to lie and misrepresent everything they do.
    Where in Jacob Cohen’s post, does it say “the Privy Council SAID the conviction was unsafe?

    ——————————————

    Jacob Cohen (4) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
    David Bain would be better to withdraw the compensation claim, and instead sue the appropriate Government departments for reparation for time spent in jail after the first trial, ‘unsafe’ as it was, as established by the Privy Council.

    ——————————————

    To Which Muggins said:

    muggins (1,793) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    Jacob
    Could you please post a link to where the Privy Council said the verdict at the first trial was “unsafe”.

    —————————————-

    My answer to that:
    Judith (1,124) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    Cohen never said the Privy Council said it was unsafe, he said they had established – yet another demonstration of how you twist and misrepresent what people say. – habitual of you, isn’t it. Given those demonstrations of misrepresentation by you on here, one can only imagine what people actually do say in these ‘phone calls’ of yours, as you don’t seem to be able to translate anything efficiently.

    ——————————-

    So as it clearly points out, you asked for where it said the Privy Council SAID – and Cohen had never used the word SAID.

    Just another demonstration of how you and your friend like to win points by lying.

    ————————

    For the stupid among us, of course he had to be retained in Custody in the meantime. The Privy Council passes their ruling, but being released into the community doesn’t just mean opening the doors. The correct procedure (involving much paper work, has to be completed to get rid of the previous conviction etc, ensure the wrongly imprisoned person has a place to go etc, before he can be released. Clearly you two are way too stupid to work that much out.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,795) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    _________________________

    There you go again. Muggins says ; LOOK AT ME; LOOK AT ME; I am so important, I phoned Dempster today LOOK AT ME!!! – Muggins.

    Trouble is Muggins, no one believes you. All these things you have ‘found out’ from your phone calls, which have been going on for years, have amounted to NOTHING, ZILCH, SQUAT, ZERO. Not only has no one of any importance ever believed you. But the people who you say have told you these ‘THINGS”, have never come forward and agreed with you.

    Now surely that tells you something doesn’t it? SOF.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Who gives a flying albatross about who phoned who today, particular when the messenger is far from reliable.

    So we’ve gone from no nose bleed to could have been one associated with the temple wound, problem is of course the nose bleed had to have happened before the fatal wound to have been accumulated on a towel in the laundry and goes a long way to proving it was ‘daddy what done it,’ particularly with that pesky blood wash on his hands. Both excellent photos.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Both excellent photos.

    Do you think, maybe, if muggins was to ring you, you could show him over the phone?
    He is dying to see them.
    What I find incredible is, when he rings people their story changes from what they said under oath.
    Do we think their stories are changing? Nah, muggins is full of shit.
    I ponder on whether or not these people realise he uses them to tell his lies?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    @ Rowan.
    Has it worked yet? The LMFAO. Some people try exercise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Has it worked yet? The LMFAO. Some people try exercise.

    Having seen for myself, even that doesn’t work for some working in liquor stores. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Fluorescence, sock prints. Where were the footprints?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Do you think, maybe, if muggins was to ring you, you could show him over the phone?
    He is dying to see them.
    What I find incredible is, when he rings people their story changes from what they said under oath.
    Do we think their stories are changing? Nah, muggins is full of shit.
    I ponder on whether or not these people realise he uses them to tell his lies?’

    What I find incredible is the stupidity of breaking the law and contacting witnesses without any lawful business to do so. But yes, the stories always change – somehow get stretched.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 33 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Ahh a drinking person, I was going to say man, but it is so hard to tell on the net. I hope you bought something, you know doing your ‘bit’ for the economy lol.

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

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 38 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Ring Ring

    “Hello”

    Er Hello, it’s Look-at-me

    Who?

    ‘Look-at me’

    Oh, you again, what this time.

    Do you know if Robin had a blood nose?

    Robin Who?

    Robin Bain

    Who’s Robin Bain?

    Robin Bain, the teacher from Dunedin, died 19 years ago, you gave testimony.

    I did?

    Yes you did.

    Just a minute, who did you say you were again?

    Look-at-Me

    You’ve rung me before haven’t you?

    Yes, several times.

    So now you want to know if Robin had a blood nose?

    Yes,

    Well I suppose he could have. Most people get blood noses at some stage.

    Thank you, I will tell my friends that he could have had one at some stage. Do you mind if I decide which stage that was?

    Pardon? What do you mean Mr Look-at-me?

    Doesn’t matter, I have enough, thank you for talking to me again.

    Mr Look-at-me – please don’t ring again.

    Oh you are so funny. Ok, till next time. Bye.

    ———————–

    What do you think Muggins, any of that sound familiar to you?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Ahh a drinking person, I was going to say man, but it is so hard to tell on the net. I hope you bought something, you know doing your ‘bit’ for the economy lol.

    Well no, the size and look of the salesperson put me off my drink for sometime. Had a look around, then got out of there quick smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Never a truer word said.

    Nothing worse than being an ‘innocent bystander’.

    Or is that just collateral damage?

    Just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Small consolation really.

    Always thought it better to be in the fray myself. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (69) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    @judith.

    Can you explain to me what Wier gained by misleading the court?
    —————————————

    I’m sorry, who is Wier? Surely not another Crown witness misleading the court?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Psycho Milt (3,112 comments) says:

    …Jacob seems to think they meant the verdict at the first trial was unsafe.

    If so, he’s right, isn’t he? I don’t think anyone on the Privy Council would accept the idea that a trial they just declared a miscarriage of justice reached a “safe” verdict. That was the whole point of quashing his conviction.

    …in Canada blood ‘flouresces under a polight…

    Seriously, would it kill you to learn how to write “fluoresces under a polilight?”

    Who gives a flying albatross about who phoned who today, particular when the messenger is far from reliable.

    …says the man declaring himself the possessor of a steel wire rope of a case against Robin Bain that consists of blog comments asserting that he has this damning photo evidence that Bain’s defence must have somehow missed.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Who said it was missed milt. Or are you just keen to continue your customary role of bull crapping?

    Go back to avoiding explaining daddy’s blood trail.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Liquor stores are used to creeps pretending to be customers all the time, usually just before they shoplift.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Well that was interesting to be able to add to the other fallen planks of the ‘mountain of evidence’ to go three zero on:

    The strip search
    The dna inside the barrell
    And now, the photo of daddy’s nose bleed

    That nose bleed is straight forward and and shows that daddy was bleeding in the bathroom before he put his own dna into the rifle while still having blood on his palms from his ‘mission’ that morning.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    The prodavids sure don’t like it when I get on the phone, do they?
    It get’s right up their bleedin’ noses.
    To recap.
    I phone the Dunedin police to check out whether Bain was ever naked when Dr Pryde examined him as he told Binnie he was.
    According to the police officer who was standing in the doorway at the time he was never naked. He always had a blanket to cover himself with. And I bet he was able to hide those marks on his torso from Dr Pryde by surreptitious use of that blanket.
    I phoned Simon Schollum to check when that lens was shown to be in Stephen’s room and he said there was a photo and/or video showing it was there before Stephen’s body was removed, which, as I have since found out, confirmed what he said at the retrial.
    I phoned Dr Dempster today and he said he had could not remember seeing a photo of Robin Bain with blood around his nose. However he did say that if the bullet wound to his head had caused any minor fractures then that could be a reason why he had blood coming from his nose.
    I told him some of David Bain’s supporters were saying that those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands were 12 hours old and he told me that he happened to be looking at those photographs recently and he now believed those abrasions could be 48 hours old.
    Now we have been told the decision on Bain’s compensation is months away. I certainly hope that I do not have to repeat this message every day until that decision is made.
    But you can be sure I will if I see
    [1] The word strip-search mentioned.
    [2] Any suggestion that Milton Weir planted that lens in Stephen’s room.
    [3] Any suggestion that the blood near Robin Bain’s nose,if there was any, got there because Stephen hit him.
    [4] Any suggestion that those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands were less than 24 hours old.
    I will only post this message once or twice a day so I can’t be accused of spamming.
    But I hope I don’t have to post it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Congrats Milt
    Yes I did make a spelling mistake, like to correct everyone on this blog. From your 10.15 last night you give the usual don’t know/doesn’t matter argument. I had attempted to point out the weakenesses of just a few of the aspects of your circumstantial case. Actually if you look at the defence arguments with an open mind they are actually a lot more plausible. We have answered every single piece of your weak spiderweb case yet the best you can come up with as a answer to the evidence against Robin is ‘don’t know/doesn’t matter’, do you actually have a single reason why Robin ‘could not’ and ‘did not’ commit suicide? just one question that so far none of the JFRB nutters have managed to answer! Good luck

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 35 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith @ 6.52
    I think he plays the conversations over and over in his head, maybe he has been hearing voices in his head, should we be worried? maybe he needs to see his doctor for more medication or preferably a referral to pyschiatric care so he can join Dottie.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    I’m sort of glad that milt made a breakthrough on a spelling mistake. I think he deserves a new mark: 0.0000000%
    Way to go miltie.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 42 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Psycho Milt (3,112 comments) says:

    do you actually have a single reason why Robin ‘could not’ and ‘did not’ commit suicide?

    Not a single, solitary one. He could have. But it seems likely he didn’t, given the evidence suggesting David was doing all the shooting that morning.

    Yes I did make a spelling mistake…

    The exact same multiple spelling mistakes, multiple times. There’s only so much a person can bear.

    Actually if you look at the defence arguments with an open mind they are actually a lot more plausible.

    An open mind, huh? That reminds me – the funniest part of D & G is when, after spending 212 pages on a ragingly one-sided polemic in support of David Bain, Joe Karam writes “Unlike the police … I have objectively analysed the evidence…” Nothing like an open mind, providing you can tell when yours isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (489) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 9:07 pm
    ——————-

    In all honesty, I think from his last post he is a very disturbed and possibly ill individual. I don’t think we should encourage him. Probably best to leave him to his own thoughts, and instead point out to those he tries to influence, the level of his instability. Perhaps even send them a copy of his posts, particularly the one above, to support the degree of his decline.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,079) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    ———————————–

    That’s not you is it Mr Harvey?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    ‘The exact same multiple spelling mistakes, multiple times. There’s only so much a person can bear.’

    Robin must have felt like you do miltie.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    What did David say to the trial judge after the judge told him he was a cold calculating bastard?

    David said “I think the judge was very kind to me”.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    After spending 13 years in prison and upon hearing the news that he was finally a free man, what was the first thing that David uttered? “Joe, what are the chances of me getting my gun back?”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 95 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Psycho Milt (3,112 comments) says:

    In all honesty, I think from his last post he is a very disturbed and possibly ill individual

    You never know, he might have taken this obsession as far as carefully compiling as many documents relating to the Bain case as he can get his hands on and setting up a research app to enable fast searching of the contents once the various terms in the documents have been painstakingly normalised. Disturbed as all get-out, I’m sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Psycho Milt (3,112 comments) says:

    The minister’s role is to uphold justice, not dispense or twist it which is the effect of her intervention and disgraceful bias in showing the Binnie report to the prosecution but not the other side. Her banana republic behaviour has brought disgrace on her office. Given this precedent we could save $1 billion-plus annually by the police simply submitting a weekly list of their intended criminal prosecutions for the minister to tick either a guilty or not guilty box, an exercise one suspects would involve her in about two minutes.

    You tell her, Bob. How dare the Minister imagine Cabinet might have the right to decide whether to dish out ex gratia payments or not? Fascists!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    I’m surprised Bob Jones doesn’t stump up some cash for NZ’s answer to Pavarotti. Maybe Bob isn’t so sure of Davd’s innocence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. RRM (12,144 comments) says:

    650 comments… because last week’s 5,000 weren’t enough, there’s still more to be said on this issue… :roll:

    They should recall him to jail and then hang him.

    I have no idea whether or not he’s guilty, but it would put an end to this insanity.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Honeybadger (517 comments) says:

    ‘Only I know what happened in the house that morning’

    ‘It is my core belief I wasnt there’

    oh dear….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    ‘It is my core belief I wasnt there’

    ‘But then again, I did do my paper run faster than usual, and I did end up with blood on my hands, bruises on my forehead and scratches on my chest…so who knows?’

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    “You would think that whether you believe that I’m innocent or whether you believe I‘m guilty, you’d say ‘well, if he’s guilty, he’s served his time, let him get on with life…’” ~ David Bain, 2009

    David seems to believe that 13 years imprisonment is sufficient punishment for five murders. He seems to believe he should be allowed to “get on with life”, guilty or not. His comment suggests he despised his family. He told Binnie that his family was “extremely close. We all loved each other dearly.” This comment has been contradicted by several witnesses. It is also inconsistent with his comment to Melanie Reid, quoted above, that even if he committed the murders, he should be able to get on with his life. Why does David think that someone who murdered his family, a family that allegedly was extremely close and loved each other dearly, should be able to get on with their life?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Another howler from Binnie:

    At 184,

    If Robin had committed the murders he must have been desperately discombobulated. Afterwards, if he went to the trouble of changing his clothes, as on the defence theory he must have done, he was engaged in some unknown and unknowable act of deception. The change of clothing is only one of the mysteries about what he was up to.

    The above is pure speculation. Binnie was not asked to speculate. Did the Bain team prove Robin changed clothes? Binnie speaks as if that’s a fact. Ironically, he claims that if David was the killer, he must be a cold calculating psychopath. But if Robin was the killer he was simply desperately discombobulated. The lack of balance is remarkable.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Psycho Milt (3,112 comments) says:

    Yes, and it was also most annoying to see the expensive “eminent jurist” resort to the kind of pointless “why would so-and-so do such-and-such if he was guilty/innocent” blather that actually amounts to “I got nothin’.”

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    How thick are you ross, Binnie says on the ‘defence theory.’ That was there speculation not Binnie’s you dumbo. I guess you get specially ‘dressed up’ and drool over what Binnie or David said. Why not deal with deal with the fight in Stephen’s room that resulted in Robin getting a blood nose.

    I note you obsession even extends to being offended that David wants to be left alone, that wouldn’t do would it ross because there are idiots about that want to spam message boards and drool. Does it offend that David has a core belief, is it the language that distresses you, or simply that you have feel you have the right to persecute him inanities while the real questions as to why he was ever charged are ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Still angry psycho? Feeling like Robin must have….’There’s only so much a person can bear.’

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Belinda (142 comments) says:

    Interesting comment that he considers 13 years sufficient for killing 5 people.
    But then he didn’t think of them as family just “those people”

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,911) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 6:31 am

    David seems to believe that 13 years imprisonment is sufficient punishment for five murders.
    ———————————————-

    So what punishment would be suitable for five deaths Ross?
    Do you think who ever murdered the Bains should have been executed 4x?

    Perhaps you go with the ‘life for a life’?

    Justice for the Crewes, execute AAT twice, but then he didn’t do it, so then what do we do, execute the people that wrongly executed an innocent man?

    I’m interested in your theory here. Don’t forget Thomas was found guilty twice, and never found not guilty. Bain was only found guilty once, and subsequently found not guilty.

    Let’s kill everyone, that will show people you shouldn’t kill!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    muggins (1,796) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
    The prodavids sure don’t like it when I get on the phone, do they?
    It get’s right up their bleedin’ noses.
    To recap.
    I phone the Dunedin police to check out whether Bain was ever naked when Dr Pryde examined him as he told Binnie he was.
    According to the police officer who was standing in the doorway at the time he was never naked. He always had a blanket to cover himself with. And I bet he was able to hide those marks on his torso from Dr Pryde by surreptitious use of that blanket.

    I phoned Dr Dempster today and he said he had could not remember seeing a photo of Robin Bain with blood around his nose. However he did say that if the bullet wound to his head had caused any minor fractures then that could be a reason why he had blood coming from his nose.

    Now we have been told the decision on Bain’s compensation is months away. I certainly hope that I do not have to repeat this message every day until that decision is made.
    But you can be sure I will if I see
    [1] The word strip-search mentioned.

    [3] Any suggestion that the blood near Robin Bain’s nose,if there was any, got there because Stephen hit him.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Blood in silencer barrel.

    Q. Did you look inside the silencer?
    A. Yes ,I swabbed it for blood and it came up a little bit positive.
    I swabbed it for DNA but it was fouled in that it had blackening and lead deposits.
    Q. That blood inside the silencer would have come from back spatter from that wound presumably?
    A. I’m not sure of the history of the silencer ,it could have come from anything.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    So what punishment would be suitable for five deaths Ross?

    Well, if someone murdered 5 members of my family – including my parents and siblings – then 13 years would be a light punishment indeed. Equivalent to less than 3 years per murder.

    Do you think that is an appropriate punishment? Jeremy Bamber, who murdered 5 members of his family, has been in prison for 26 years and will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Let’s kill everyone, that will show people you shouldn’t kill!

    Hmmm where did that come from?

    Returning to Bamber, if he spends the rest of his life in prison – as he should – he won’t get the opportunity to murder again.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    I don’t believe an idiot who has already given at least 4 different accounts as to the strip search, but none from the evidence. I believe what I read in evidence. I also believe what I see such as the photos. You’d have to be a right nutter to think first of all that a person being strip searched is ‘wearing’ a blanket and that even if the police were that incompetent to allow it, that the Doctor would tolerate it. So the ‘imaginary’ cop is either a liar or highly incompetent – and one would have to ask why it wasn’t given in evidence – only one reason because ‘look at me’ made it up. Why would police hide evidence of scratches to the chest, only one reason – they didn’t exist.

    And it remains that I have the photos of both the blood wash and nose bleed.

    ‘Would you consent to a strip search David.’
    ‘Yes, but can I wear a blanket?’
    ‘Why?’
    ‘Because I’ve got scratches on my chest I need to hide.’
    ‘Alright David, it’ll be our little secret.’
    ‘Thanks.’

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Discombobulation.

    Robin didn’t pee before the killing spree, piss his pants strangling Stephen, visit the lavatory during his clean up.

    Robin changed his bloodied clothes before he shot himself but barely washed his hands, which had little or no blood on them.

    Robin forgot to leave a suicide letter explaining himself, typing instead an immature message on the computer praising the son who habitually locked him out of the lounge/computer alcove.

    Robin didn’t grasp the muzzle (suppressor) to guide the rifle (accurately) to his temple, in order not disturb Stephen’s pristine prints. He left no prints on the rifle anywhere.

    Robin, now dead, realised he wasn’t going to fall with his hand outstretched near where he had placed the magazine on its edge under the table a metre from the beanbag, so he discombobulated over to make it look like suicide.

    OR: Robin was shot dead as he entered the computer alcove, by someone hiding in there, his body lifted up under the shoulders, spilling blood onto the curtains, and dragged over to the beanbag.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    You’re fitting right in with the loonies now Dennis. I guess you’re talking from experience about pissing your pants. You got blood on the hands right, but what about the nose bleed. See you’re stuck on ‘aiming’ the rifle, don’t you think daddy knew where his temple was. Is that the magazine that was knocked over and moved around in a series of photos? The old body being lifted up again Dennis, desperate is what desperate will do, just need to pay attention to the missing blood from around the wound and the left cheek, need to make that fit the your ‘evidence.’

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    How thick are you ross, Binnie says on the ‘defence theory.’

    How thick are you, NNZ…Binnie agrees with the defence theory! Therefore Binnie agrees that Robin must have been desperately confused to have killed. But if David was the killer, he apparently wasn’t confused at all. In fact, he was a cold calculating psychopath. Not to mention “incompetent” (Binnie’s word). Hmmm so David possibly murders 5 members of his family, gets acquitted, and is in line to receive $2 million – yet he is apparently incompetent! On the contrary, I’d say that David was bloody competent….Binnie, however, is completely inept.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. flipper (5,116 comments) says:

    ‘morning Nostalgia…
    Greetings also to Judith, Kanz, Rowan, and all the sane folks.

    N-NZ, just caught up with your 11 am. (approx.) yesterday on Lee.
    I get his newsletter for reasons other than matters legal. I don’t agree with the line he advanced, which sounds like barbecue babble to me. I thought it might give the “thick as two short plank “ brigade a diversion into reality. Instead rossiebabee came up with the howler on “the defence theory”. He probably settled on that after failing to understand discombobulated. 🙂 But the point on the Crown’s (in the widest sense) failure to recognise and deal with investigatory, prosecutorial and judicial inadequacies is worth keeping in mind.

    A LITTLE HISTORY that is not in the official record ….

    Bob Jones is right in his comments relating to Jim McLay. But it was the member for Tamaki who put the steel in Jim’s backbone. Ergo, no Crown Law and no Solicitor General presence at the Royal Commission. The Rt. Hon John Bowie (aka Peter, and Hiss and Roar) Gordon provided RDM with regular insider reports. Rob Muldoon initially thought that Gordon might have to put steel into the RC. But it soon became obvious that Taylor had seen similar specious Crown/Police lines in Australia, and was not fooled. But the REAL steel was provided by the former Archbishop. According to “Hiss and Roar”, he (Johnstone) considered Hutton, Walton and the others to be “really evil men”.

    Behind the scenes there was also another factor at play – Judicial knighthoods. RDM made it clear to the Chief Justice that unless the judiciary got its act together, judicial knighthoods would cease. That was on top of their downgrading (a message clearly sent, but not immediately understood) in the official order of precedence.

    Unfortunately, RDM got side-tracked on economic matters and his version of soft socialism. The frequenters of the Northern, Wellington and Canterbury Clubs, got a reprieve. So did the Waring Taylor street (now Molesworth Street) cowboys. It would be nice to think that J.Key could show the strength on this issue, but I suspect that he is letting Collins have enough rope… 🙂

    As Robert Eric Jones says , Collins mis-handling of Simon Power’s little petard is “the [most] disgraceful political action in the post war years”.

    So, N-NZ, J, K and R, HAND and KBO 

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Psycho Milt (3,112 comments) says:

    Feeling like Robin must have….’There’s only so much a person can bear.’

    It would be terrible wouldn’t it, driven to murder by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,083) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 10:24 am
    Feeling like Robin must have….’There’s only so much a person can bear.’

    It would be terrible wouldn’t it, driven to murder by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals…

    Milt,
    I am almost sure those broken promises,etc., relate to the new house.
    Robin Bain told members of a geneology meeting that he had organised three weeks before the murders that Margaret had plans to build a new house without him[ which is what David Bain said at the trial] but he said he wasn’t worried because they didn’t have the money to build it in any case.
    But it appears that shortly after that meeting Robin and Margaret 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. And Bain told Binnie that his father’s name was on a label showing that he was going to have a room.
    A demolition order for the back part of the house had or was being applied for which shows how imminent the start was.
    And Robin Bain had asked the Power Board meter reader to sent in a final account for the schoolhouse because he was moving back into town.
    So here we have David Bain thinking there was going to be a new house built without his father,who he said he hated, being part of it,and then he finds out that his father is going to be part of the new house.
    That could well have been the catalyst.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Mumbo jumbo and the reading of crystal balls is alive in the provinces.

    Somebody must have forgotten to tell daddy about the reconciliation because he was still sleeping in the van with murder mysteries and empty cartridge cases. If that is an indication of a ‘thawing’ in the relationship I’d hate to have seen a family feud, oh that’s right we did see one when Robin got a blood nose and blood on his palms.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Honeybadger (517 comments) says:

    hmmmm propaganda much^^^^^^^^

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Honeybadger (517 comments) says:

    tell me Nostalgia, is it a case of hero worship on your part, or a touch of envy?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    That Strip Search.

    It is entirely possible that David was allowed to keep a blanket for modesty. I don’t doubt that in the slightest.

    The fact that three policemen were present at various stages would make such a requirement, practical.

    The fact that only one of those three mentions the blanket.

    The fact that all three of them, of which were present at various times, didn’t see him naked, it not at all surprising.

    Doctor Pryde, and any Doctor for that fact, would not willing expose their ‘client’ to the stares from onlookers.

    Doctor Pryde’s examination including his having to examine the entire body for anything unusual was signed off by him. It also required him to do some standard medical tests, that involved the chest being exposed. He was also required to take intimate samples. Dr Pryde was a professional who would not have falsified his work, especially with so many witnesses.

    I am somewhat surprised that Simon Schollum hasn’t suggest to muggins he has a photo or video of the whole strip search, but maybe a certain detective took it to use in a floor show, as an interlude between the “police dogs with teenagers’ act.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,800) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 10:46 am

    And Bain told Binnie that his father’s name was on a label showing that he was going to have a room.
    ———————

    But the smallest room, the one with Robin’s name on it, was not adjoined to Margaret’s room, or even close to it.
    Her diary clearly states her feelings about her husband, so why do you keep denying that. It was an up to date record of her feelings.

    This was a man she ‘feared would get a gun and kill the family’ at one stage. She thought of him as the ‘son of the devil’, why would she want him in her bathroom, let alone bed?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Norma (6 comments) says:

    How can anyone believe he is innocent after his lawyer admitted, Bain was guilty ?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,143) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 11:29 am
    That Strip Search.

    It is entirely possible that David was allowed to keep a blanket for modesty. I don’t doubt that in the slightest.

    The fact that three policemen were present at various stages would make such a requirement, practical.

    The fact that only one of those three mentions the blanket.

    The fact that all three of them, of which were present at various times, didn’t see him naked, it not at all surprising.

    Doctor Pryde, and any Doctor for that fact, would not willing expose their ‘client’ to the stares from onlookers.

    Doctor Pryde’s examination including his having to examine the entire body for anything unusual was signed off by him. It also required him to do some standard medical tests, that involved the chest being exposed. He was also required to take intimate samples. Dr Pryde was a professional who would not have falsified his work, especially with so many witnesses.

    Judith. Two of those police officers said they never saw Bain naked, but they qualified that by saying they both left the room for a few minutes. The other police officer stood in the doorway,so he could always see David Bain.
    As I understand it he was allowed to keep that blanket that he had over him when he was on that stretcher when he was taken from the house.
    Dr Pryde never said Bain was strip-searched, but Bain obviously removed all his clothes at some stage because he was given a change of clothes.
    What I am saying is that he was never naked,as he told Justice Binnie, and it is quite posssible that he would have been able to keep his upper torso covered at all times with that blanket and thus hide those scratches and /or bruises from Dr Pryde. Why would David Bain have needed to expose his torso?
    You know it makes sense. I mean it is so bleedin’ obvious how he got those scratches.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,143) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 11:33 am
    muggins (1,800) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 10:46 am

    And Bain told Binnie that his father’s name was on a label showing that he was going to have a room.
    ———————

    But the smallest room, the one with Robin’s name on it, was not adjoined to Margaret’s room, or even close to it.
    Her diary clearly states her feelings about her husband, so why do you keep denying that. It was an up to date record of her feelings.

    Judith ,
    Please link to where it is stated that Robin Bain was going to have the smallest room.
    Also, please give your reasons as to why you think David Bain needed to lie on oath at his trail when he said his father was not going to have a room in the new house.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    muggins (1,802) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    Judith (1,123) Says:

    January 29th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    muggins (1,779) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    As I have already said, Judith,Rodney Hide should butt out.

    ————————————–

    Or what, you and your poisoned mates are going to keep up the discrediting campaign, stalk him, harass him, make up stories about his finances, relationships, harass his sister, attempt to destroy any of his family’s business interests, frighten the children of his family members, try to destroy reputation and work interests, make obscene and threatening phone calls, etc etc ……… just like you have to other people who have tried to do to Karam and others who defend David?

    Good to see you are still issuing your threats though.
    I’ll ensure Rodney gets a copy so he can begin shaking in his shoes!!

    Judith ,who is the “him” you are referring to? I thought it was Rodney, but you say it wasn’t him.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. lazarus (68 comments) says:

    Judith you are stark raving bonkers. You see conspiracy everywhere.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith
    Do you believe anyone has ever landed on the moon?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 90 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    The tattoo of his loving family? Over his heart no doubt.
    Much dearer to him than the dog I am sure.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,144) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    muggins (1,803) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    Why would David Bain have needed to expose his torso?
    ——————————————-

    Your ‘alleged’ conversation with the police officers – you’ve never shown us any proof that they took place.
    Rather difficult for me to “show ” you a phone call.
    I do have an email but I am not showing you that.
    You do realise in the photo of David’s tattoo, he is not wearing any shirt, don’t you?

    Dr Pryde could have seen that tattoo when David Bain had his T-shirt on.
    David Bain could have shown it to him voluntarily.
    Or that blanket may not have covered his upper bicep.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 156 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins (1,805) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    Dr Pryde could have seen that tattoo when David Bain had his T-shirt on.
    David Bain could have shown it to him voluntarily.
    Or that blanket may not have covered his upper bicep.

    The photo, muggins.
    Did your ‘mate’ Schollum tell you about the photo of the tattoo? The one that shows Bain had his upper body exposed?
    Perhaps he is waiting for another phone call?
    Can you report back after talking to him?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 194 Thumb down 86 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 167 Thumb down 343 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. lazarus (68 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 70 Thumb down 107 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Nostalgia-NZ (6,340 comments) says:

    Any progress on the conspiracy that the police helped David hide scratches on his chest? Or even on the question of ‘modesty’, like hiding your chest but not your privates?
    That photo is a bit of a problem showing David without a shirt, I guess he thought that showing his chest to the photographer was different than showing it to Pryde and part of the ‘agreement’ with the police to let him hide his ‘injuries.’

    That Cliff Richard’s song comes to mind about summer holidays, with a small ‘twist’ of ‘to the funny farm.’

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 204 Thumb down 101 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 177 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 186 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 86 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    So men without a shirt on are naked?
    Scratches and bruises are not always apparent, unless they are bloody
    I would say that fingernails scratching, through clothes are unlikely to show blood.
    They are also likely to show later, more like a bruise.

    ‘Judith’ I am sure you can find some stats. regarding scratches and when they become visible to the eye?
    And why despite the fact that a dog’s passing is noteworthy tattoo wise.
    The death of your entire immediate family is not. Even though David must know as a core belief that his Father must have been responsible for the deaths as he was not, there would be no need to have to include his father in it.

    Of course you could just have any of the members you felt really close to.

    Thanks your a brick!!!

    What’s that you say, you can’t just do it at a drop of the hat.
    As you are busy.

    Typical, it is so hard to get good help!!!;)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. lazarus (68 comments) says:

    seems to be quite a lot of voting going on suddenly….

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 85 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Judith (1,145) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    And why hasn’t that photographer come forward and said he saw something, after all, he would have been called to give testimony regarding taking photos?

    Judith, as Muggins’ buddy Schollum has all the photos, what is the bet, with just one more call from the all knowing muggins, he can “find” some scratches on that photo?
    These calls seem to help the witnesses “remember” things they forgot while giving evidence in court, what do you think?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 49 Thumb down 47 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Do you get off on thinking about David naked or something?
    Is it a crime to be naked?
    Is it a crime to strip search someone in an official capacity?
    Is the Dr. going to be accused of something heinous?
    Customs and prison officers do it frequently.
    What point are you actually trying to make?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (143) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
    And why despite the fact that a dog’s passing is noteworthy tattoo wise.
    The death of your entire immediate family is not.

    This is a perfect example of why your posts are not worth the time of even reading.
    How inane!
    Do you think he should have got a tattoo for his dead family before his old man shot them?
    Go try some more of the merchandise, drunks make more sense than you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 137 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    muggins (1,807) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    I understand the blanket Bain had covering him when he was placed in the ambulance was the blanket he was wearing when Dr Pryde examined him. It would have been no problem for him to keep his upper torso covered.
    Piece of cake.

    But his torso isn’t covered in the photo.

    Don’t you think if David went to such great lengths as you claim, to keep certain parts of his body hidden from Dr Pryde, especially as they weren’t ‘private’ parts, the good Dr would not have been suspicious?

    And why would he reveal his chest to the photographer, and not to Dr Pryde?

    And why hasn’t that photographer come forward and said he saw something, after all, he would have been called to give testimony regarding taking photos?

    The fact is, David Bain was naked. His clothes had been removed for testing. He may have had a blanket to shield the view from onlookers, but he remained undressed for the Doctors examination. The doctors paper work supports this, and all you can come up with are some ‘alleged’ phone calls that you can’t prove you even made, that say none of three people saw him naked, and one of those three that says he couldn’t see him naked because he had a blanket.

    However, we know the Doctor took intimate swabs and other tests which required the exposure of David Bain’s body, however, the witnesses you ‘say’ you have, never described that. So are you now saying that they didn’t happen either?

    I think you are talking rubbish, there are no ‘police officers’ that you have phoned

    Judith, please.
    Dr Pryde wanted to test David’s penis. I don’t know why. But he didn’t need to check his torso,get it?
    He did not “flash ” in front of Dr Pryde.
    He was never naked.
    You say he was naked. Prove it. Ring up the Dunedin police and ask the question, same as I did.
    And don’t lie. There is no photo showing Bain’s torso. If there had been it would have been produced at the retrial.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 252 Thumb down 172 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Kanz (822) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    goldnkiwi (143) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
    And why despite the fact that a dog’s passing is noteworthy tattoo wise.
    The death of your entire immediate family is not.

    Do you think he should have got a tattoo for his dead family before his old man shot them?

    Kanz,
    he got that tattoo as a statement of intent. That intent was to kill his family. It symbolised love and death-red rose rising, black arm band ,feathers descending . He lied to three different people as to when he had that tattoo done. Now why would he do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Kanz (822) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    goldnkiwi (143) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
    And why despite the fact that a dog’s passing is noteworthy tattoo wise.
    The death of your entire immediate family is not.

    This is a perfect example of why your posts are not worth the time of even reading.
    How inane!
    Do you think he should have got a tattoo for his dead family before his old man shot them?
    Go try some more of the merchandise, drunks make more sense than you do.
    Vote: 0 8
    …………….

    Bitchy little old thing aren’t you,
    It pains me to say it but I can see why some women were locked away for hysteria.

    Not actually a woman yet?
    You should have enough money from the shop lifting soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    LIVENewsDesk David Bain’s legal team has filed a claim against Judith Collins – seeking a judicial review of the process around his compensation report. The claim alleges the Minister breached Mr Bain’s rights to natural justice and acted in a biased and predetermined manner .

    This just keeps getting better.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (145) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 3:44 pm
    Do you get off on thinking about David naked or something?
    Is it a crime to be naked?
    Is it a crime to strip search someone in an official capacity?
    Is the Dr. going to be accused of something heinous?
    Customs and prison officers do it frequently.

    Goldnkiwi
    Bain was strip-searched by a prison guard shortly after he was arrested. That prison guard asked Bain how he got those scratches, Bain did not reply. That was the first strip-search that Bain had.
    Dr Pryde took some samples, and noted that tattoo. He did not strip-search Bain . Bain was never naked. Had he been Dr Pryde would have seen the same scratches that the prison officer saw.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    More…..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8242038/Bain-seeks-judicial-review

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 151 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    And so it came to pass lol 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 137 Thumb down 508 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,811) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    ——————————–

    What a load of Lies, just like your lies about phoning the police.

    Dr Pryde took penile samples, and other intimate samples. He also completed a full medical examination, which involved all the usual things, blood pressure, chest, heart and so on. He also had a body chart, in which he had to note certain things on David’s body. Such as nipple placement, navel etc. Then he had to also mark any scars, wounds, moles, tattoos, in fact anything different.

    Then Dr Pryde signed a statement saying he had completed this examination.

    And Muggins thinks he lied. He didn’t do the examination at all, because 3 police officers, who he has ‘supposedly spoken to’ (no proof) said they were there some of the time and never saw David naked. Note they didn’t say he wasn’t naked, just that they didn’t see it. One couldn’t see it because a blanket blocked his view.

    Despite these being serving officers of the NZ police and involved in the case, they have never come forward to offer this information, never told anyone else about it, and never wrote any of it in their notes at the time.

    Muggins is a liar and a fraud.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 586 Thumb down 106 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Obviously not confident of a panels decision. Of course they only wanted to save the country money by expecting a settlement.

    What ever happened to parliamentary discretion?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Waste of time and money. Their money.

    Really? Have you rung and offered her your support yet?

    This will open up a whole new can of worms for the Minister. Her books and correspondence on this will have to be opened. No wriggle room left.
    It is being put back where it belongs, in front of the courts.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (824) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 4:06 pm
    More…..

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8242038/Bain-seeks-judicial-review

    —————————————–

    WAHOO!!!! GO DAVID !!!!! NICE ONE JOE !!!!!!! 😉 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    ________________________________________

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 244 Thumb down 84 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (148) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    Obviously not confident of a panels decision. Of course they only wanted to save the country money by expecting a settlement.

    What ever happened to parliamentary discretion?

    Watch the news tonight. With luck they may explain in words of one syllable so you can understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    What? Didn’t you know, weren’tyou in the loop, disappointing.;)

    I was just saying the other day lol………………

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    It seems Joe doesn’t want David to get compo after all. Joe probably realised that with all of David’s lies to Binnie he had no show of getting a brass razoo. Judith Collins should gladly reciprocate.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Of course they only wanted to save the country money by expecting a settlement.

    A KFC family pack? 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,151) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    muggins (1,807) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    I understand the blanket Bain had covering him when he was placed in the ambulance was the blanket he was wearing when Dr Pryde examined him. It would have been no problem for him to keep his upper torso covered.
    Piece of cake.

    But his torso isn’t covered in the photo.

    And why would he reveal his chest to the photographer, and not to Dr Pryde?

    And why hasn’t that photographer come forward and said he saw something, after all, he would have been called to give testimony regarding taking photos?

    .

    However, we know the Doctor took intimate swabs and other tests which required the exposure of David Bain’s body, however, the witnesses you ‘say’ you have, never described that. So are you now saying that they didn’t happen either?

    I think you are talking rubbish, there are no ‘police officers’ that you have phoned.

    Judith, please stop lying. There were no photos taken of David Bain’s torso. If there had been they would have been produced at the retrial.
    I only asked the police if David Bain was naked and if there was something on that diagram that could have been that tattoo. I was told he was never naked, but that Dr Pryde had shaded in an area where that tattoo was.
    Do you understand?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,916) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 4:34 pm
    It seems Joe doesn’t want David to get compo after all. Joe probably realised that with all of David’s lies to Binnie he had no show of getting a brass razoo. Judith Collins should gladly reciprocate

    Yep, it will give Judith Collins a chance to ask David why he told all those lies to Binnie. What a hoot.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Nookin (4,483 comments) says:

    This thread has lost all semblance of rational discussion and has descended to petty ad hom attacks and manipulation. For those involved, there are actually people out here who have an interest in this debate but now that it has deteriorated to this extent it is scarcely worth following.
    It is inconceivable that 580 people have read and approved Judith’s 4.04 comment leaving one with the impression that the karma score is contrived and misleading. Much the same comments can probably be directed at some of the other like/dislike scores. As far as I am concerned, once any component of a debate appears misleading or contrived then it loses all credibility regardless of whether the position taken is right or wrong.

    This is a shame because clearly people here have a passion for this debate and have access to information or sources that others do not. They are in a position to provide greater insight. Instead, they have, to use a technical term, fucked it all up. End of thread for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,813) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    ————————–

    Where did I say there was a photo of his torso. I said there was a photo of the tattoo, in which you can see he isn’t wearing a shirt over his torso. It’s not a photo of his torso, but you can see it.

    I understand that you are lying, there was no phone call. You are either delusional or expect us all to be as stupid as your other friends. Those police officers would have been made to give evidence at the trials if it existed, because this issue was discussed in Court.

    Plus, Dr Pryde’s evidence proves you are lying too. Go away and phone another friend or ask the audience. They are probably stupid enough to believe you. Commonsense and Dr Pryde prove you wrong.

    Good thing for you, that you are wrong though, if Dr Pryde lied and falsified documentation, which you are accusing him of, then David Bain would have another issue to support his court action – more serious misconduct by the Crown.

    ‘Ding Ding’ KACHING $$$$$

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 45 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 48 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,152) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 4:42 pm
    muggins (1,813) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    ————————–

    Where did I say there was a photo of his torso. I said there was a photo of the tattoo, in which you can see he isn’t wearing a shirt over his torso. It’s not a photo of his torso, but you can see it.

    Judith,please try to stop lying. There was no photo of that tattoo,otherwise it would have been produced in court.
    And Dr Pryde can’t be blamed because David Bain deliberately hid that tattoo from him.

    I hope Judith Collins asks Bain about that.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

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

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 52 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. muggins (5,052 comments) says:

    Judith (1,159) Says:

    January 30th, 2013 at 4:59 pm
    muggins (1,815) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    ———————

    Muggins, there were more than 2000 photos taken. Only a small percentage were shown in Court.
    Get over yourself. You haven’t phoned anyone, you don’t know what you are talking about (if you did you’d know how many photos were taken) and you are too stupid to realise that Ms Collins will not get to ask David any thing like the question you suggested.

    Judith,stop lying.
    If there was a photo of Bain’s torso it would have been shown, otherwise why would the defence be asking about those scratches? They could have just asked for that photo you are lying about.
    And of course Bain will be asked questions. Not by Judith Collins, I was only winding you up.
    But ,just so we are quite clear on this.
    I phoned four police officers in Dunedin.
    Two said they did not see Bain naked, but they both said they was out of the room for a few minutes.
    The third said I would have to go through his boss, which I did.
    I had to email a request for official information which I did.
    I received an email back saying that the third police officer had been in the doorway all the time that Pryde was examining Bain and that he was never naked. He was always in possession of a blanket. I understand it was the same blanket as he had over him when he was put in that ambulance.
    And I reckon he was able to hide those scratches on his torso by deft manipulation of that blanket.

    Do you understand?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    Hi again Judith,

    Sorry for rank tardiness.

    You did a wonderful job Marzuka

    thanks :o)

    unfortunately they are so full of errors, it’s a bit difficult to know where to start.

    damn :o[

    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.

    So you’re cofident David’s actual toeless measurement contradict my analysis.

    You do not have the original negative, or photo to work from, therefore, you do not know whether your sizing is correct etc etc.

    Does one need negative to know that david’s foot was 300mm lengthwise as per sclae in my picture? That toeless print was 240mm as per sclae in my picture? Are you saying my scales are flawed ie the RELATIVE measures 300/240/280/20 are not proportionate?

    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-26HtE3L6n_Q/UOaKqJ2Lv1I/AAAAAAAABjs/ZX1GBHAK58k/s1200/bain%252520footprint6b.jpg

    So sorry, no points there at all.

    Do I get points for the right measurements? What about points for mooting the possibility thats david’s toeless foot is of order 240mm?

    Oh yeah, and at least two of the photos you have used for the blood prints are not the ones used in court. are they from the scene.

    Which two? Are they relavant to the issue of david’s foot size? Is foot size relevant to this case?

    So given onus on David to prove himself, you’d agree with me would be cool to see toeless foot right? Should get the truth to get some papparazzi shots of the foot in question for a front page exclusive lol….

    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 last sim is not the defense scenario it is robin avoiding murder, maybe you’re refering to the spaghetti modes which are probably more physically compatible with defense lol?

    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.

    I’ve actually Simulated that too. With respect to that was hoping you would offer you views regarding this, which I’ll add to the simulation so everyone can compare with actual simulation results.

    Anyways, as per defenses scenario what’s:

    Robin’s initial centre of mass velocity/height/distance for curtain.
    Robin’s final centre of mass delta ie difference from initial.
    robin’s peak centre of mass velocity.
    Also is Robin’s centre of mass closer to the curtain with his leg lift up on chair or with it straight down.

    I’ll called this Sim example “Judith Rocks!”

    You also fail to account for the trajectory of the bullet.

    My sim lets you shoot at any angle try direction mode. The gun is initialised to to left and up ie biased to favour defense but doesn’t show in psuedo recoil modes – again opt for directional to see where pointing and use keys to reposition if want.

    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.

    So your determination of the head position in my sim is what in height/distance from curtain in metres?

    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.

    So you are saying the final Centre of Mass position is only 30cm for inital centre of mass? You agree centre of mass is of crucial physical relevance right?

    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.

    permanently? Hmmm that’s not what I’ve noticed on myself or others which I tested. Do your sock marks persist permanently too? So given you yourself implicitly concur he has mark consistent with wearing glasses and given the onus in on david is to prove his his innocence, it would be a reasonably legitimate test to remove his glasses for a few days to rule out the possibility right?

    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).

    So the photos aren’t evidence of anything unless they’re originals? and any marks, bruises correlations in such photos aren’t evidence either? Does adding actual qualifying measurements from expert testimony give any evidentiary weight to non original photos?

    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.

    How?

    I have told you before, if you can’t match it to the actual physical blood spatter etc, you’ve wasted your time

    actually I have a blood splatter model too – which you obviously haven’t seen – that is why I mentioned it in my previous post about where the lines correlating blood splatter end up in my graphic you used.- Anyways, thanks again though for using my pathetic graphic attempts am honoured.

    Cheerio

    PS If have better name for you sim example do say.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    Hi Kanz,

    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?

    Simple. He’s trying to avoid getting shot ie trying to move away – how would you react to a gun in your face? Probably Your head would flinch away you hand defensively react and your Legs being levers would push upwards and out of relative crouch. All these creating momentum you away from curtains even after bullet is delivered. This is crucial and something defenss static equilibrium chair balancing contortion cannot achieve.

    Actually you’ll see in my sim that Robin acting defensively ends up quite like actual resting position, unlike the defenses drop like a stone suicide scenario with an utterly inconsistent centre of mass over a metre away from actuality.

    see sim exaple robin acting defensively:
    http://marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    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

    Unlike a pimple though, the mark is of right size, shape and position for glasses even though according to david glasses hadn’t been worn for days. Fortunately even judith implicitly concurs is a mark from wearing glasses.

    note how similar to nose pad the mark is:
    https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-i5OGnHXDbY0/UOKCZrf3E7I/AAAAAAAABiw/O47s61lKA0Y/s800/bain%2520glasses6.jpg

    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.

    Did david show binnie his foot. Do we know david’s toeless foot length? if david’s toeless foot length was around 240mm like the toeless prints were what would you think then?

    Seems to me this is quite likely:

    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-26HtE3L6n_Q/UOaKqJ2Lv1I/AAAAAAAABjs/ZX1GBHAK58k/s1200/bain%252520footprint6b.jpg

    ciao

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    Hi muggins,

    marzurka
    Where you been?

    Hmm, good question where have I 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.

    LoL. It’s all public domain, go for it.

    Cheerio

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. lazarus (68 comments) says:

    Karam was raving like a loon on ZB and National Radio this morning.
    I think even he finally realises the game is up.
    There is going to be No Compo.
    Collins won’t be backing down.
    Good thing too.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    ‘Justice,’ if that is/was the aim by blackmail would not be very democratic now would it. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    Hi again Kanz,

    Marzuka?

    Wasn’t he the fool who used a photo of the blood spill that had been under the body of Stephen where he had lain for hours, and ‘proved’ it was Bains footprint?

    Are you saying that the footlike blood print(outlined white in link bleow) in stephen’s room, a few metres from the other foot prints, which just happens to be pointing in the same direction and has the same footedness(ie right footed) as other prints, isn’t about the same length and shape as david’s foot note scale 300mm?

    note location, directon, size and shape:
    http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/TSwQcCcBjaI/AAAAAAAAA5E/Peg0aFvCwcU/s0/bain%20footprint%20combo%20med.jpg

    animated comparison of footlike print with david size foot versus robin:
    http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/TS7CQbpr_yI/AAAAAAAAA58/hLmE5a_Ba0Q/s0/bain-foot-anim3.gif

    Who has a clip of the old man’s ‘murder’ where he starts out close to the floor but his body then moves up and across the beanbag with his left leg suddenly becoming straight?

    which frames are you refering to?

    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0j3EJWKaVSI/UNA2ipsDYhI/AAAAAAAABgA/frC9Z24My5c/s0/bain%2520headshot%25205b.jpg

    Who then has a clip of the suicide where the body falls in on itself?

    lol, as a body does when having virtually zero net horizontal momentum when it ceases to function as a living body. Of course I understand that you prefer magically transfering robin centre of mass over a metre away like the defense thinks is feasible in their twilight zone physics world…

    Actually don’t recall doing a clip of defense’s suicide scenario, but I do rememeber doing a simulation that shows the defense notion of physics regarding centre of mass is utterly flawed. If you your scenario best fits the evidence I’ll be happy to to update the similuation. So, What are you calculations/numbers regarding:

    Robin’s initial centre of mass velocity/height/distance for curtain.
    Robin’s final centre of mass delta ie difference from initial.
    robin’s peak centre of mass velocity.
    Also just curious, is Robin’s centre of mass closer to the curtain with his leg lift up on chair or with it straight down and which way is the force vector under his weight acting?

    Anyways, i’ll put you answers into my sim under “Kanz’s Physic lesson” in the sim examples for the world to see and compare.

    http://marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    Cheerio

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote