C K Stead on the Bain case

January 5th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

writes in the Herald:

As Dr Fisher points out, a circumstantial case depends on the strength of a single rope made up of many strands, any one of which may be insufficient. Justice Binnie’s method is to begin with the Luminol footprints, the weakest strand (at least in the sense of being the most technical and therefore technically arguable), declare it favours , and then bring each of the other strands in the case up against those footprints and find it wanting. And it is to the footprints he returns first in his “Summary and conclusions as to factual innocence” (p.138).

Yet even Justice Binnie admits “‘luminescence’ in the dark does not exactly give rise to laser-like accuracy”, and agrees “there must be some room for error in the Luminol measurement” (p.79/257). It seems strange, therefore, that he has “no hesitation in recommending that the Minister accept the results of the tests of Mr Walsh” [for the Defence] (p.77/251), and proceeds from that point in a manner which suggests the case for innocence has been made and needs only be demonstrated by reiterating the defence argument against each of the other strands.

His consequent bias is apparent in statements like the following: “It is only the fingerprint blood that can tie David Bain rather than Robin Bain to the killings.”Only? And there is nothing at all that can tie Robin to the murder weapon except that he was killed with it!

Another example of this bias: “Nothing has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence, considered item by item both individually and collectively, and considered in the light of my interview with David Bain” [my italics] … “persuade me that David Bain is factually innocent” (p.139/ 463). But why should items of fact, none of which, Justice Binnie concedes, is “free of difficulty”, be considered “in the light of” the accused’s own testimony, which is more likely than any other to be false?

A further example: “If David Bain’s recollection … is accepted, and I do accept it, then the force of the prosecution’s argument … is much diminished” (p.38/124). But of course if we only have to go to David Bain for the truth, then the prosecution’s argument is not just diminished – it’s dead! What kind of source is the accused for the truth of the matter in a case of murder?

As several law professors have also pointed out, Binnie measured evidence one by one against the footprint, rather than consider it in the totality. And his statement that only the fingerprint blood ties David to the killings is staggering.

Predisposed as he is, Justice Binnie is able to wave away David’s brother’s blood on his clothes; the broken glasses at the murder scene which were of use to David but not to Robin; David’s fingerprints on the murder weapon and his handprint on the washing machine; David’s admission that he heard his sister gurgling and that he alone knew where the trigger key to the rifle was hidden; the blood on David’s gloves – and many other finer strands in that rope of circumstantial evidence. Instead of David Bain as the killer, Justice Binnie offers us (since there is no third alternative) a murder by the father, Robin, who must have worn gloves (why?) while killing his wife and children, then changed his clothes and put the blood-stained ones in the washing basket (again, why?) before killing himself, still with a silencer on the rifle (why?) and having first turned on the computer to write his confession rather than writing it by hand. Justice Binnie dispenses, it seems to me almost casually, with each of these elements, as with David’s strange behaviour after the murders.

Why would you spare your son, only to then frame him for the crime, yet also do a confession so he is not blamed, but also do a confession in a way that can’t prove you wrote it?

In every case where the original police enquiry failed to preserve, or to look for, evidence – Robin’s hands which should have been checked for gunshot residue, and fingernails for any signs of a fight with Steven, the bloodstained carpet, the whole house which was allowed to be burned down – the David Bain team has used this failure as if here was a piece of evidence that would have cleared his name; and Justice Binnie has tended to follow them in this. But in each case it could be (and in my view equally or more likely was) the destruction of an incontrovertibly damning piece of evidence for the prosecution.

The Police did make mistakes. I agree that if they had not, there is no guarantee at all they would have favoured David.

One final word against the payment of compensation: to say, as Justice Binnie does, that the “factual innocence” of David has been established clearly implies the “factual guilt” of the father, Robin. Yet no case has ever been made against him, except by implication. And if the case were made, it would be so much weaker than the one against his son that it would not stand inspection for more than a few minutes. I don’t think a decision by the New Zealand Government should be allowed to label Robin Bain the murderer of his family.

If one accepts that the only two possibilities are David did it, or Robin did it, what I’d like to see in an properly done independent report is a summary of the evidence for both cases. Here’s how it happened if David did it, and what evidence there is for it, and here’s how it happened if Robin did it, and what evidence there is for it – with the evidence considered in totality – not in isolation.

I’m not opposed to compensation if an independent report that applies the correct procedure to the evidence reaches the conclusion that Robin was the more likely killer than David. I’ll be surprised, but prepared to accept it. Sadly for all, the Binnie report didn’t qualify.

4,919 Responses to “C K Stead on the Bain case”

  1. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,631) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    ————————————-

    Your imaginary friend like you is a liar.

    If he was a member of the police team and present during the strip search, then he would have been called to give testimony at the time the issue was first raised. He would, also being a member of the police, been duty bound to come forward with this information before now. He would also have been required to make notes at the time.

    You also forget that Dr Pryde’s notes still exist and discount what you claim. The documentation he filled out required him to examine David Bain’s entire body, noting various aspects, including examining the entire body noting things such as birth marks, nipple colour, shape (inverted or not) and so on. He must also check for any bruises, cuts, scratches etc, and photograph anything that may be evidence of the persons involvement in the crime.

    Please explain, how such an examination could have been conducted without Dr Pryor actually visually examining the naked body?

    Do not forget, David Bain’s entire set of clothing had been removed and placed in evidence bags as well, which proves he was naked. If your friend couldn’t see anything, it was because his vision was blocked by a blanket, used exactly for that purpose, too protect modesty. However, the doctor was not an ‘onlooker’, especially when penile samples were involved.

    What you are suggesting is fantasy. If you were right, the defense could have had all of Dr Pryde’s evidence thrown out because he falsified his records, if not the entire case.

    We all know the police were incompetent, but they were not zoombies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz @ 9.28
    Yes and mostly by the crown own experts! it really made me laugh hearing them try to bring in experts to dispute there own experts, and they are trying to prove things BRD, more like shopping round for theories that fit!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Nothing to link Robin to the rifle.

    David’s prints.

    Stephen’s prints.

    Explain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Binnie/Bain interview.
    Q. There is some evidence about the lounge and the computer room that the door of the lounge had a lock on it . Is that right?
    A. I can’t say that there were any lockable doors.

    That’s funny ,because when a friend of Arawa’s visited the house one day the lounge door was locked and Arawa had to go into David’s room to get a key while she kept a lookout for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    David asked the Police for “his” glasses. Why, if he hadn’t been wearing them? Oh, I know, he was going to tell the court he wasn’t wearing them, because the Police didn’t give them to him. Or some other rigmarole. La la la.

    Bain, everyone will be watching you, wherever you go, you FREAK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    In a recent poll of JFRBainers 99.9% confirmed having an attraction to graveyards, goblins and funny bits to do with the nether regions. The 00.1% who claimed not to have had similar experiences, or lifestyles,, wanted it pointed out that ram fleeces and horns attached to their naked bodies, behind curtains of course, made them itchy and wanting to go to the toilet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    …but they do have some discredited witnesses that ‘claim’ David told them he was wearing.

    There’s that word “discredited” again, which seems to have suffered the same fate as “know” and “fact” on this thread. Just as “know” doesn’t mean “firmly believe,” “discredited” doesn’t mean “something I’d prefer didn’t exist.”

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

    But hold on, they don’t have single witness who saw him wearing them

    Five witnesses saw him wearing glasses…coincidentally all were shot dead.

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

    Rowan (419) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    Kanz @ 9.28
    Yes and mostly by the crown own experts! it really made me laugh hearing them try to bring in experts to dispute there own experts, and they are trying to prove things BRD, more like shopping round for theories that fit!

    Is that what is called “fitting up”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (77) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:25 pm
    Well, Bain didn’t have the glasses after Stephen broke them. He banged around the house leaving blood on the door jambs.

    NNZ. “Or rather the affirmative, both those statements are true and I can prove it. Heck, instead I’ll go cautiously and when you tell me which statement isn’t true I’ll say the other is. It’s such fun, I think I’ll tap my toe.”

    Yes, I agree, both statements are true. Pleased you agree.

    The statements are not contradictory. Better tell your mate, Kanz.

    Oops, you fell into that one, Nostalgia-NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Who let Dotty back on here? Surely they aren’t providing the internet at the funny farm, are they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith
    David Bain had that blanket that he was given when he left the house. He could have always kept that blanket over him when he was changing out of his clothes,just like some women do when they change out of wet swimming gear at the beach .
    One does not see them naked. I can assure you that police officer was standing in the doorway and he did not see David Bain naked.
    I was able to confirm that Pryde had shaded an area on that diagram where Bain’s tattoo was so he obviously saw that tattoo. But he could have seen that tattoo without Bain having to expose his torso.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    I don’t care about any of the Bains. I don’t like being conned. Neither does Judith Collins. She ain’t backing down, loonies. Take a hike.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Isn’t it amazing how the spinners like to cling to the glasses.

    Fact is, the glasses do not tie David Bain to the murders in any way, because even if he did wear them that weekend, and lied about them, because he was scared of being accused of something he didn’t do, there is NOT ONE bit of physical evidence that proves those glasses were worn by the murderer, and plenty of ‘circumstantial evidence’ as to why they would not have been worn by David.

    The only evidence that ties them in any manner is the fact that one dusty lens was found in Stephen’s room and the rest in David’s. However, there were many items belonging to all members of the family found in Stephen’s room, just as there were such items found in the other rooms.

    The glasses mean and prove nothing. Even if you came up with a photo of David wearing them on Sunday afternoon, it would still not prove murder, or alter the BOP in any manner.

    You spinners have spent the last few years getting excited over something worth nothing, zilch, zippo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    The Privy Council thought the glasses powerful evidence. Are we now agreed the PC don’t know what’s what, and should have let the original conviction stand?

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

    even if he did wear them that weekend, and lied about them

    Seems like you agree that he lied. But why would David perjure himself and do it again with Binnie? I thought David was as pure as the driven snow…now we find out that he’ll lie when it suits him. Like when he said to Binnie he hadn’t been driving that fateful weekend. Another lie, told to presumably hide the fact he wore glasses that weekend. But if the glasses were so meaningless, as you claim, then David has no reason to lie. He lies for a reason…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    I’m just wondering if Ollie is going to reveal his or her favourite graveside position and whether it involves goats and cartridges spinning under curtains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Nothing ties the rifle to Robin. Nothing, zilch, zippo. Robin is excused. Who killed Robin? Ah, David!

    You people are so funny. Lalalala

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,636) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:52 pm
    Judith
    David Bain had that blanket that he was given when he left the house. He could have always kept that blanket over him when he was changing out of his clothes,just like some women do when they change out of wet swimming gear at the beach .
    One does not see them naked. I can assure you that police officer was standing in the doorway and he did not see David Bain naked.
    I was able to confirm that Pryde had shaded an area on that diagram where Bain’s tattoo was so he obviously saw that tattoo. But he could have seen that tattoo without Bain having to expose his torso.

    ————————————–

    You are correct, that police officer probably did not see David Bain naked. Because he was not close enough to see because a blanket was in the way.

    (Incidently, the blanket that was around David Bain when he left the house was removed for testing, along with his clothes and any other items, like his quilt that he had come into contact with)

    Your policeman friend however, was not Dr Pryde, who was able to see David’s body, noted he had conducted the examination as per instructions.

    Tell me Muggins, how did Dr Pryde manage to note David’s nipples on the diagram, if he didn’t examine his chest?

    You are talking crap. Your friend did not see David Bain naked, and neither did the other two officers. That does not mean he was not naked. They were not conducting the up-close and extremely personal examination that Dr Pryde did.

    You are playing with words, and Collins will see straight through you.

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

    The glasses mean and prove nothing.

    In theory, that’s true So, David has absolutely no reason to lie about wearing them. But he does lie, repeatedly. Clearly the glasses do mean something…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,831) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:03 pm
    —————————

    Ross, you are not clever enough to play word games with me.
    Don’t even try.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (80) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:01 pm
    The Privy Council thought the glasses powerful evidence. Are we now agreed the PC don’t know what’s what, and should have let the original conviction stand
    Oliver,it is Judith who is getting excited about those glasses.
    As the Law Lords of the Privy Council have said, the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before killing him is certainly a strong one based on the evidence.
    I am sure Judith Collins is aware of what those Law Lords said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    I hope there isn’t a trip metre recording the ‘person, or persons’ who most call David a liar, working on here. That could be difficult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,832) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:07 pm
    Clearly the glasses do mean something…
    ———————————

    You idiot. Every forensic expert working for the Crown in this country tried to associate those glasses with the deaths and failed. Now you think you can?

    Be my guest (but not Mr Guest, because he is a proven liar, whereas you are just thick)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Judith knows about glasses. Half full, half empty. Glug, glug, glug.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Those glasses. Broke spontaneously. Lens bounced into Stephen’s bedroom. Boink, boink, boink.

    That rifle. Robin never laid a finger on it. Bang, bang, bang ->->->->->->->->->->->->->DAVID

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Yvette (3,019 comments) says:

    Bienvenue à nouveau, Dotcom

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

    Oliver Twist (83) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    You appear to be having a similar meltdown to the dear departed dotcom. Careful, we know where he is now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Bonsoir Madame, comment allez-vous ce soir?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (83) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:19 pm
    Those glasses. Broke spontaneously. Lens bounced into Stephen’s bedroom. Boink, boink, boink.

    That rifle. Robin never laid a finger on it. Bang, bang, bang ->->->->->->->->->->->->->DAVID

    ————————————-

    Go home Dotty. Don’t pass go, don’t collect $200.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Get out of jail free?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (731) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:21 pm
    ———————

    You have to admit it was kind of clever of Dotty to start his new identity just before having a meltdown that included the most vile condemnation of DPF. I suppose he wouldn’t have been quite so brave, had he not already had a back up.

    Now we are expected to play, personally I think him best ignored. I wonder who he’ll be next?
    I think it was Yvette that picked up Oliver the first or second time he posted – back then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    The glasses mean and prove nothing. Even if you came up with a photo of David wearing them on Sunday afternoon, it would still not prove murder, or alter the BOP in any manner.

    Your inability to grasp the concepts of circumstantial evidence or the balance of probabilities doesn’t alter the existence of the circumstantial evidence or its effect on the balance of probabilities. I also see “the lens was dusty” has become another of those “facts” that really need quote marks to warn readers of disputed assertions ahead.

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

    Judith (984) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    As with the multiple signings of their petition, they need a few names each to make them feel as if they have company. Apparently they all talk to themselves as well so they can pretend to have friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Yvette ne me connait pas, elle sait bien la verite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (732) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:37 pm
    Judith (984) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    As with the multiple signings of their petition, they need a few names each to make them feel as if they have company. Apparently they all talk to themselves as well so they can pretend to have friends.

    —————————

    Oh they do have friends. Muggins has two policemen friends, one who commits perjury and the other who can’t see through blankets and screens. Still doesn’t stop him talking to himself though (in between making imaginary phone calls).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    480. The Minister’s letter states, as set out above, that “failing to take proper steps to investigate the possibility of innocence” may qualify as “serious wrongdoing by authorities”, although not every instance of negligent (as opposed to malevolent) Police failure would justify compensation. Something more is required.

    481. It is significant that the Minister speaks of the “possibility” of innocence – not probability. The Police are expected to pursue avenues of investigation that might reasonably uncover evidence probative of innocence – not only those leads that seem to offer a definitive outcome e.g. DNA testing. The Crown Law Office cites R. v. Donaldson (1995) 2 NZLR 641 as authority for the relatively low standard imposed on the Police to collect or preserve evidence that is inconsistent with guilt for purposes of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Further, in terms of civil liability, the Crown Law Office states that “Police liability in the common law of New Zealand is firmly based on advertent misconduct (i.e. not mere negligence), malicious prosecution or misfeasance”. However, for the present purposes, this standard is too stringent. If such deliberate misconduct could be proven a claimant would be entitled to compensation as a matter of right in the civil courts 0 not an ex gratia payment at the sole discretion of Cabinet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Isn’t it funny how you can smell the desperation of an apologist lol @ Judith. You are a most forgiving person, I know I can do no wrong with a ‘person’ like you, your bounty and compassion for humankind knows no bounds. someone trying for a technicality to get off does not mean that no crime was committed in the first instance. There was no conspiracy, the evidence is overwhelming, there is so much of it but strangely non of it exonerating for David, ‘factual innocence’ if found is not innocent, it is technical speak and jargon. There is such a thing as ‘pardoned,’ ‘innocent’, I have not seen those words, everything has a rider, a qualifier, an all but. (You will probably read all butt, but then I know you only see what you want to. 😉

    I do not note the same in arguments for the innocence of Robin Bain. The evidence speaks for itself and does not require desperate argument.

    I am most impressed at how many posters visit and post here, I hear there are some very lonely blogs out there crying for attention in the wilderness.

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

    I do not note the same in arguments for the innocence of Robin Bain. The evidence speaks for itself and does not require desperate argument.

    Correct. You will not hear the arguments for the innocence of the old man. As you say, the evidence speaks for itself.

    Whose were the bloody footprints, His.
    Who turned the computer on? He did.
    Who has blood on his hands? He does.
    Who gave himself and upward trajectory gunshot wound to his head going front to back? He did.
    Who had wounds on his hands less than 12 hours old? He did.
    Who put his foot up on a chair to easily reach the trigger? He did.
    Who shot the rest of his family within an hour of his own death? He did.
    Who was about to be disgraced publicly? He was.
    Who lived in squalor, and was in a go nowhere job? He was.
    Who wasn’t even performing that job properly? Him.
    Who was trapped in a loveless marriage? He was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    ‘However, for the present purposes, this standard is too stringent. If such deliberate misconduct could be proven a claimant would be entitled to compensation as a matter of right in the civil courts 0 not an ex gratia payment at the sole discretion of Cabinet.’

    So back to the ‘direct’ route Judith if Collins wants to dishonour her obligations. Something for the idiots to consider if they think David won’t be paid out. It wouldn’t be in his interests but there’d be satisfaction seeing the police and Crown sued, in particular watching the cross examination of Doyle and others. If they have any brains they’ll be crapping themselves and hoping Cabinet pays. Plenty more ways to skin this cat, a private prosecution against Weir for conspiring to defeat the Course of Justice is but one, a conviction of that type, the PC decision and Binnie’s finding make the result of the money wasted on the pathetic retrial look like small change compared to the likely result of a civil claim. I’ve always been in favour of that route because of the obvious conflict of interests in the Crown reviewing it’s own conduct whether through cabinet or not.

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

    Let’s analyse the lies of the strip search now, shall we?
    First there was

    Queston,

    Kanz (667) Says:
    January 14th, 2013 at 8:33 am

    N-NZ
    Is time not up for muggin’s cop mate getting his famous phone call?
    What is your guess for him going silent on it?
    I can see 2 reasons for it
    1 It confirmed the strip search and also that there were no wounds on Bain’s chest.
    2 He was told to bugger offf and has his tail between his legs.

    Answer

    muggins (1,536) Says:
    January 14th, 2013 at 8:47 am

    Kanz
    Wrong on both counts ,I’m afraid.
    I do have the info,but I have been told I must keep it confidential for the time being.

    That becomes….

    muggins (1,536) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    I did ask Scollum if he had seen a photo of David Bain naked but he said if there was such a photo it wouldn’t have been released. I am still working on the “maybe” strip-search but I havn’t been able to contact the police officer I need to talk to,I think he must be on holiday.

    After that we have

    Now here is some interesting information. The third police officer that was in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain said he was standing in the doorway,and he did not see David Bain naked at any time.

    Which is now

    He could have always kept that blanket over him when he was changing out of his clothes,just like some women do when they change out of wet swimming gear at the beach .

    So, what it boils down to is,
    muggins is upset that he didn’t see a naked man
    Bain was strip searched but allowed the warmth of a blanket over his shoulders for warmth and modesty.

    muggins is the biggest liar on here.
    Finally the old woman has won a trophy, one that no body else ever wanted (except perhaps for dotcom) but muggins held him out for the win. “MOST PROMISING LIAR ON KIWIBLOG”

    Hey muggins, ever thought of becoming a cop?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Threats, blackmail will only strengthen Collins’ resolve not to pay. No compensation today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.

    Good luck getting a private prosecution started against Weir. But all information welcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    So cops are big liars, Kanz? Do you have a criminal record, by any chance?

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

    Oliver Twist (88) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 7:18 am

    So cops are big liars, Kanz? Do you have a criminal record, by any chance?

    Not even a traffic ticket, you?
    Oh, some of the cops in the Bain case admitted to lying to the first jury. What do you think of that?

    Cops lie = verdict guilty
    Cops come clean = verdict not guilty

    Interesting, don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Who didn’t kill his family save the jealous son?
    Who didn’t write a suicide letter?
    Who had no blood on his clothes?
    Who had no prints on the rifle?
    Who had a lot of pee in him?
    Whose trajectory was not vertical?
    Who didn’t have his left hand at the trigger?
    Who left no forensics in Stephen’s room?
    Who didn’t wash his bloody clothes?
    Who didn’t have his glasses?
    Who had a proper job?
    Who was loved by his pupils?
    Who didn’t cuddle Mummy?
    Who wasn’t consider a freak?

    Who spread the lies about INCEST?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Kanz, why did Martin van Beynen write, after the second trial, Bain was guilty? In the newspaper. Guilty.

    I guess he had a traffic ticket.

    You’re an old woman, Kanz. An old woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (375 comments) says:

    Who had the greater stressor?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. lazarus (68 comments) says:

    “Oliver Twist (90) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:55 pm
    I don’t care about any of the Bains. I don’t like being conned. Neither does Judith Collins. She ain’t backing down, loonies. Take a hike.”

    Very well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Who had the most to gain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (734) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 6:43 am
    I do not note the same in arguments for the innocence of Robin Bain. The evidence speaks for itself and does not require desperate argument.

    Correct. You will not hear the arguments for the innocence of the old man. As you say, the evidence speaks for itself.

    Whose were the bloody footprints, His.
    Who turned the computer on? He did.
    Who has blood on his hands? He does.
    Who gave himself and upward trajectory gunshot wound to his head going front to back? He did.
    Who had wounds on his hands less than 12 hours old? He did.
    Who put his foot up on a chair to easily reach the trigger? He did.
    Who shot the rest of his family within an hour of his own death? He did.
    Who was about to be disgraced publicly? He was.
    Who lived in squalor, and was in a go nowhere job? He was.
    Who wasn’t even performing that job properly? Him.
    Who was trapped in a loveless marriage? He was.

    =======================

    Who became irrational and upset at a meeting in front of his colleagues? He did
    Who told his brother he hated the ‘situation’ at home? Yep, he did.
    Who became aggressive towards a male that had been alone with Laniet? Him again
    Who had displayed signs of depression in front of people qualified to recognise it? Him
    Who had poor personal hygiene and smelt really bad? He did.
    Who allowed and encouraged his pupils to focus on violence by publishing stories about death & violence? He did
    Whose office had piles and piles of unanswered mail, avoided paper work and rubbish scattered through it? His
    Who taught his young daughter how to insert fingers into her vagina? Him again
    Who was known by his wife as the ‘son of the devil’? Him
    Whose wife did not want him as a husband? His
    Whose wife stated she was scared he would get a gun and kill them all? Yep, his wife.
    Who had recently been turned down for every job they applied for? Him
    Who made the five targets ? Him
    Who had mentioned getting his own gun? Him
    Who was made to live in an old filthy caravan, like some inferior being? Him

    the list goes on…………

    and on it goes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Who shot his mother and father, his brother and sisters?
    Who left a dodgy message on the computer?
    Who predicted something awful was going to happen?
    Who does the wider family think is the killer?
    Who doesn’t deny it in a believable way?
    Who “forgets” and tells lies?
    Who is a conman?
    CONMAN!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Puzzled in Ekatahuna (287) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:01 am
    Who had the greater stressor?

    ——————————–

    Robin Bain.
    His stress level was extreme.
    Failing to complete the tasks associated with his employment.
    Pressure to improve the schools rating from a previous bad report.
    Failure to secure positions he applied for, and advance in his career.
    Stuck in a position he felt was below his experience and capability levels.
    Estranged from his wife.
    A child accusing him of incest.
    Very little money in his bank (his wife handling all the finances and leaving him with little)
    Signs of Depression and aggression.
    Physically unwell. Looking gaunt and like ‘death’.

    Verses:
    David finding a university course he was doing well in.
    Being chosen as class rep.
    Performing and taking part in several community events.
    Training for marathons
    Having his first girlfriend.

    Negative – crashing a motorbike during a test ride and needing to pay for damages.
    Arguing with his father over the use of the family chainsaw.
    Acting like a big brother and being bossy at times, especially when asked to organise his siblings on behalf of his mother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (92) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:17 am

    Who does the wider family think is the killer?
    ————————————-

    The wider family barely knew the children.
    They did not visit the house often, were not close enough to witness the family dynamics.
    Some had only seen the children a handful of times in their entire lives.
    Not to mention the financial incentive to them to have those beliefs.

    David’s grandmother who did know the family (Robin’s mother) believed in David’s innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    lazarus (50) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:08 am
    “Oliver Twist (90) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:55 pm
    I don’t care about any of the Bains. I don’t like being conned. Neither does Judith Collins. She ain’t backing down, loonies. Take a hike.”

    Very well said.

    Very kind of you, I’m sure, Lazarus. You are a saint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Judith says:
    Verses:
    David finding a university course he was doing well in.
    Being chosen as class rep.
    Performing and taking part in several community events.
    Training for marathons
    Having his first girlfriend.

    Verses? Doesn’t rhyme or chime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    …some of the cops in the Bain case admitted to lying to the first jury. [citation needed]

    And:

    Whose were the bloody footprints, His.
    Who turned the computer on? He did.
    Who has blood on his hands? He does.
    Who gave himself and upward trajectory gunshot wound to his head going front to back? He did.
    Who had wounds on his hands less than 12 hours old? He did.
    Who put his foot up on a chair to easily reach the trigger? He did.
    Who shot the rest of his family within an hour of his own death? He did.
    Who was about to be disgraced publicly? He was.
    Who lived in squalor, and was in a go nowhere job? He was.
    Who wasn’t even performing that job properly? Him.
    Who was trapped in a loveless marriage? He was.

    It’s pretty funny that you should post that list after spending much of the thread ridiculing ‘hangbainers’ as malicious, foolish mis-representers of the evidence…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (92) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 7:18 am
    So cops are big liars,

    Misleading Evidence Regarding the Finding of the Left Lens
    604.
    The Privy Council held that Det. Sgt Weir had misled the 1995 jury regarding the location
    where the left hand spectacle lens was found in Stephen’s bedroom. As stated, Det. Sgt Weir
    has freely acknowledged the “photo 62” error.
    605.
    It will be recalled that at the 1995 trial Det. Sgt Weir testified that while examining
    Stephen’s bedroom on 23 June 1994, he noted:
    “The photo 62 was taken on the Monday as Stephen’s body is still there
    and the lens is on the underneath side of the skate” … “on the Thursday
    the lens, as seen in photo 62, that is the position I found it when I found
    it on Thursday”.321

    Q.
    “And the lens was found partially under the ice skate?”
    A.
    “Yes it was found as you can see it although I accept it is difficult
    to see it in photo 62, that is exactly how it was.” (Emphasis
    added).
    606.
    In fact, Det. Sgt Weir later admitted, when confronted with the analysis of the
    photograph by Mr Peter Durrant who was engaged in 1997 for the Police/Police Complaints
    Authority Joint Inquiry, that photo 62 did not show the lens exactly as it was. In fact photo 62
    did not show the lens at all. It seems a piece of plastic created a “specular effect” that Det. Sgt
    Weir pounced on to portray the lens in a location that, as the Privy Council noted, was more
    favourable to the prosecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    Who became aggressive towards a male that had been alone with Laniet?

    As an example of worryingly abnormal behaviour from a father re his daughter, this one is comedy gold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. thedavincimode (8,118 comments) says:

    Judith

    re stressors –

    Wouldn’t killing his family be a stressor too?

    How will he cope with getting absolutely no money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    609.
    This was another instance of pre-trial evidence being treated as fresh evidence because
    the Police failed to put fairly before the jury what they knew prior to the 1995 trial to be the
    facts. The Privy Council pointed out that the jury:
    “never heard the full evidence and never heard Mrs Laney cross-
    examined, because the defence did not know her clock had been
    checked by the Police and did not know she had made a second
    statement… It is noteworthy that the trial jury asked to be reminded of
    what Mrs Laney had said, presumably because they were concerned
    about either her identification or her estimate of time. It may be that
    the fresh evidence would have allayed their concern. This fresh evidence
    could reasonably have been regarded as strengthening the second peg
    of David’s argument.”323 (emphasis added)
    Comment: Mrs Laney’s evidence was of central importance to David Bain’s attempt to
    defend himself. The fudging of this evidence, and the prosecution’s use of this fudge to
    obscure her clear identification of David Bain, was a serious failure to present evidence
    of the “possibility of innocence”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Robin killed his family owing to stress. Why and how did he chose David to live?

    Yeah, it’s all a cunning plan to punish David. Not writing a note to explain it all. Mean, nasty, horrible man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    When is a lie, not a lie?

    622.
    More significantly, the Auckland jury found in favour of Mr Karam that the defence had
    established underlying facts sufficient to support Mr Karam’s honest belief in the allegation of
    perjury against Det. Sgt Weir as giving rise to the defence of fair comment. The questions
    posed to the jury in respect of Det. Sgt Weir and the jury’s responses are set out below in a
    footnote.335 The Jury found that Mr Karam’s allegation of perjury was based on facts alleged in
    his book and that such facts were proven to the jury’s satisfaction to be true or not materially
    different from the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,007) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:31 am
    Who became aggressive towards a male that had been alone with Laniet?

    As an example of worryingly abnormal behaviour from a father re his daughter, this one is comedy gold.
    ——————————-

    You need to read the account of what happened, before you can judge it. There is parental concern, then there is irrational behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    623.
    Det. Sgt Weir, as the officer in charge of the crime scene, has been at the centre of
    controversy since 1997. In my interview with him in Dunedin on July 19, 2012 I thought he
    spoke quite candidly, although much embittered by what has happened. The integrity of his
    work on the Bain case has been faulted by at least two independent sources – an Auckland jury
    in the defamation case just mentioned, and by his fellow Police officers whose suspicion and
    distrust, he says, led him to quit the Police altogether in May 1999.
    (iv)
    Mr Weir’s Premature Departure from the Police Force
    624.
    In my interview he said the repercussions from the Bain case “affected my career in the
    Police, obviously” and as an example:
    A.
    I worked on a murder inquiry in the Marlborough Sounds here, which
    were, a young couple had gone missing and a person was subsequently
    arrested for their, or charged with their murders. But during the
    inquiry, when it was, when the staff involved in the scene examination
    were having trouble sort of finding stuff, somebody joked, “We’ll send
    Milton there and we’ll find some,” you know, “And he’ll find some
    evidence for us.” Things like that.
    Q.
    So evidence on demand.
    A.
    Yeah, I became the brunt of some Police humour which may or may not
    have been harmless but it certainly wasn’t for me. (pp. 78-79)
    625.
    He left the police force many years before the normal retirement age afterwards.
    (v)
    Police Triumphalism
    626.
    After the Court of Appeal rejected David Bain’s appeal Det. Sgt Weir threw what seems
    to have been a victory party. Amongst other things he spray painted a sign over the door of his
    house proclaiming “Hang Bain”.
    Comment: Det. Sgt Weir occupied a key position in what was one of the most significant
    criminal investigations in the history of the Dunedin Police. The HANG BAIN sign
    betrayed an unacceptable level of rancorous partisanship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    “We’ll send
    Milton there and we’ll find some,” you know, “And he’ll find some
    evidence for us.”

    What a strange comment for one of his colleagues to make.
    I wonder what led them to think such a thing? 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    Do you know Robin and Laniet were living in the INCESTUAL schoolhouse with a lodger?

    Shame on this lodger for not spilling the beans. Excusing this vile man. Wicked. Evil. Devil. Lala d’ lala. Loonies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (96) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:42 am
    ——————————-

    Incest frequently occurs in households where entire families, sometimes grandparents and extended family too, and no-one is aware of the incest, until the victim discloses it, or on the rare occasion the perpetrator is caught, or makes an unsolicited confession.

    In almost all cases of incest, other household members will state they had no idea of what was happening, although in reflection, can remember some ‘signs’ that they had misread at the time.

    You need to do some serious reading before spouting your mouth off Dotty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case, which means the question is whether David Bain is more likely to be the murderer, or merely the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shit luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    There goes that repeating post again, I reckon it must get triggered off by another repeating post. Will just wait and see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    muggins. Don’t worry, his bad luck hasn’t run out yet. How does NO COMPENSATION sound?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    @ Judith

    Who became aggressive towards a male that had been alone with Laniet? … You need to read the account of what happened, before you can judge it. There is parental concern, then there is irrational behaviour.

    Do you know where we can read this Judith? It’s just that I did think Psycho Milt had a point here in that Robin’s behaviour with this would not necessarily rate as abnormal, any more than the way David was to his siblings was abnormal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    muggins (1,639) Says:

    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:48 am
    It’s a circumstantial case, which means the question is whether David Bain is more likely to be the murderer, or merely the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shit luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    muggins,

    It’s also bad luck that David apparently told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they recalled David’s plan.
    Further bad luck that several witnesses said he was earlier on his paper run that fateful morning.
    Even more back luck with scratches on his chest which apparently have no connection to the murders.
    Not to mention the odd decision of right-handed Robin to shoot himself in the left temple after, oddly, placing a magazine on it side.

    Given all that bad luck, do you think he’s finally going to get lucky and get a $2 million handout? He certainly deserves a change of fortunes. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    There it goes again. Maybe it does 2:1?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    dragonfly (22) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:58 am
    ——————————
    Will look for the references and get back to you soon.

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

    How will he cope with getting absolutely no money?

    I presume David and his fiance will be welcome to stay at Uncle Joe’s…as long as David doesn’t call Joe family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    23rd, 2013 at 8:58 am
    muggins (1,639) Says:

    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:48 am
    It’s a circumstantial case, which means the question is whether David Bain is more likely to be the murderer, or merely the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shit luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    There it goes again,only this time it has added a few more “bad lucks”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,834) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 9:10 am
    How will he cope with getting absolutely no money?

    I presume David and his fiance will be welcome to stay at Uncle Joe’s…as long as David doesn’t call Joe family.’

    You’re turning into a gutless wonder ross. Whoops, sorry – you already were one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Judith. At last a list that isn’t full of lies or from a hate-site. You could have added the murder v suicide table, which concludes daddy is the one ‘what done it.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    muggins (1,643) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:58 pm
    January 21st, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    Here is some interesting information. The third police officer that was in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain said he was standing in the doorway,and he did not see David Bain naked at any time.
    From the Binnie/Bain interview page 58.
    Q. When you say strip,did you-?
    A. Take off naked-take-
    Q. Take off all the clothing or what did you take off?
    A. All the clothes that I had on at the time were taken off.
    Q. So you were naked at some point in the examination?
    A. Yes, Completely naked.
    Q. So if there were any marks on your chest at that point-
    A. Oh,yes.
    Q.They would be evident to Dr Pryde?
    A. Very much ,another example of the stuff that’s come up that’s just proven to be ridiculously false.

    I reckon David Bain might be up the creek without paddle. He had a blanket and he made bloody sure those marks on his torso were covered by that blanket at all times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Thanks for the update Kanz. Did we ever find the names of the two perverts from Dunedin that did a special picture for another pervert with an interest in naked young men?

    Queston,

    Kanz (667) Says:
    January 14th, 2013 at 8:33 am

    N-NZ
    Is time not up for muggin’s cop mate getting his famous phone call?
    What is your guess for him going silent on it?
    I can see 2 reasons for it
    1 It confirmed the strip search and also that there were no wounds on Bain’s chest.
    2 He was told to bugger offf and has his tail between his legs.

    Answer

    muggins (1,536) Says:
    January 14th, 2013 at 8:47 am

    Kanz
    Wrong on both counts ,I’m afraid.
    I do have the info,but I have been told I must keep it confidential for the time being.

    That becomes….

    muggins (1,536) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    I did ask Scollum if he had seen a photo of David Bain naked but he said if there was such a photo it wouldn’t have been released. I am still working on the “maybe” strip-search but I havn’t been able to contact the police officer I need to talk to,I think he must be on holiday.

    After that we have

    Now here is some interesting information. The third police officer that was in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain said he was standing in the doorway,and he did not see David Bain naked at any time.

    Which is now

    He could have always kept that blanket over him when he was changing out of his clothes,just like some women do when they change out of wet swimming gear at the beach .

    So, what it boils down to is,
    muggins is upset that he didn’t see a naked man
    Bain was strip searched but allowed the warmth of a blanket over his shoulders for warmth and modesty.

    muggins is the biggest liar on here.
    Finally the old woman has won a trophy, one that no body else ever wanted (except perhaps for dotcom) but muggins held him out for the win. “MOST PROMISING LIAR ON KIWIBLOG”

    Hey muggins, ever thought of becoming a cop?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dragonfly:

    The evidence was from a statement made to the police by Alan James Hunter, a flat mate of Laniet’s who had seen her as recently as on the Friday nights before the deaths and had been a close friend who Laniet had often confided in. He referred to Robin’s attitude towards Laniet as being ‘weird and strange’.

    He stated he had gotten to know her well. He gave evidence that on the Tuesday morning of the previous week Robin had called at the flat. Hunter described him as being a ‘ strange guy in a very bad mood’. Noted him as ‘agitated’. When he was told Laniet was in the shower, and she had said to tell him she would be down later . Hunter described Robin’s clenched fists etc and stated “he just lost it”.

    Perhaps that is ‘normal’ parents act, but the parents I know don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Rowan
    My reason for telling you the correct spelling of the dogs name and that I knew she had five puppies in her first litter was so you would realise I had inside information.
    If I have been told how the dogs name was spelt, then when I say that David kicked Arawa when she was lying on the ground I am right about that as well.
    When I say that Margaret had a strict rule that hand-knitted woolen jerseys were always to be washed by hand I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David Bain knew his sister was a prostitute long before he was arrested I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David’s parents took him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David lied three times about that tattoo I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David’s dog Sacha was put down following complaints about it’s aggessive behaviour I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David told his aunt that he had left earlier on his paper round that morning and that he had run all the way I am right about that as well.
    When I said that Margaret and Robin had resolved their differences and that the demolition of the house was imminent I am right about that as well.
    When I said that it was suggested to David that he wear a jacket or a suit to the funeral and he said he would be wearing his Harlequin jersey I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David had not invited any extended members of his family to speak at the funerals and that only teachers from Bayfield College would I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David wanted his parents cremated and his siblings buried I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David stated the grave should be for four as he wanted to be buried with the children and that he even stipulated the positioning of each body within the grave, Arawa with Stephen and he with Laniet I am right about that as well.
    When I said David stipulated that the caskets should be made of oak and have brass handles I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David wanted to celebrate Arawa’s birthday by inviting friends to go out to the grave ,play some music and dance there,I am right about that as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    The Police thought initially they were dealing with suicide. At the medical examination David Bain was treated as a victim, not a suspect.

    It is extremely unlikely he was ever completely naked at any time. He was more a patient, not a criminal being strip searched.

    Isn’t there a photo showing bruising on his forehead?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    muggins (1,639) Says:

    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:48 am
    It’s a circumstantial case, which means the question is whether David Bain is more likely to be the murderer, or merely the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shit luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. RRM (12,451 comments) says:

    😮 Holy four-and-a-half thousand post thread, Batman!

    (Day 11,498 of not really giving a fuck about David Bain, commencing!) 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Oliver Twist (361 comments) says:

    So Robin was strange and one day he was in a bad mood, angry and frustrated because his daughter wasn’t ready to go and he was in a hurry. Yep, the answer is: KILL THEM ALL. Except David. I repeat, except David. Makes sense, you know it does.

    David was considered a freak. Didn’t one psychologist predict he would develop psychiatric problems if not treated?

    Bain’s worse bit of luck is not being able to come to terms with what he did. There’s nothing there, no knowledge, no past, no feeling, no soul. Just a lot of “I forget”, “I wouldn’t have said that”, “You-know”, “He was doing something funny with the goat”, (“You mean to say you believe me?”), “I could have been a famous opera singer…” or “I could have been a famous paper boy forever”. A mockery of a man.

    Not even infamous. Doesn’t even look like a killer. Such a nice boy. Bad luck about the huge mass of evidence and damning forensics. Bad luck Collins isn’t fooled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    23rd, 2013 at 8:48 am
    It’s a circumstantial case, which means the question is whether David Bain is more likely to be the murderer, or merely the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shit luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case which means the question is whether David Bain is more likely to be the murderer or the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shit luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Dean Papa (788 comments) says:

    yup, we are over 4,500, and I don’t think 5,000 is out of the question!

    progress has not slowed as much as I thought it would after the departure of Dotcom,

    muggins,
    do we know if the lamp on the floor in the alcove was in working order? Can we tell if it had recently been there (fallen perhaps?) or had it been there a while (dust?).
    Also, what was the piece of paper on the floor next to that lamp? While the papers sitting on the drawer appear as if they are very close to the edge, close to falling off. Perhaps someone was looking for something? Perhaps they couldn’t find it and got annoyed, and knocked the lamp over. What could they have been looking for? A pencil, perhaps?

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

    we need to archive the first 4000 posts in this thread, like they do on wikipedia talk pages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    When he was told Laniet was in the shower, and she had said to tell him she would be down later . Hunter described Robin’s clenched fists etc and stated “he just lost it”.

    If I recall my Karam correctly, Hunter’s elaboration on “he just lost it” was that it consisted of clenching his fists in annoyance and saying something like “I’ll wait then.” Poor Hunter must have been in fear for his life at such an astonishing display of naked aggression.

    Of course, to Joe, Judith and various others who’ve cast any pretence at rational objectivity aside, recollections like this of Robin are credible witness testimony, whereas similar recollections of David are discredited, malicious gossip. The need to maintain such a level of cognitive dissonance is why the role of unpaid propagandist is not one for the ordinary person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Dean Papa.
    Sorry,can’t help you there. Judith might be able to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    Robin had arranged to pick Laniet up on his way to school and she wasn’t ready,so he was naturally a bit pissed off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case which means that either David Bain murdered his family or else he is the victim of some unfortunate coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shitty luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were pristine ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one lens in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his co-counsel and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #4

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case which means that either David Bain murdered his family or else he is victim of some unbelievable coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shitty luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,008) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 10:29 am

    ————————–

    It is not Karam’s ‘elaboration’ that you should take your information from.
    Read Hunter’s statement to the police, it is more explicit and cannot be seen as being ‘selective’ by a third party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #5.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (375 comments) says:

    GOOD LUCK FOR DAVID that muggins has now lost it enough that he is destroying his own position by repeating stuff in a fucking stupid way which is just starting to simply piss people off.
    If Collins, for example, happens to glance at the this thread time to time, after it possibly being pointed out to her, I’m sure she’d be impressed, muggins
    GOOD LUCK FOR DAVID muggins has turned into a fuckwit.
    Dotcom #2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    They were bloody sock prints, for someone obviously anally retentive about the ‘evidence’ you would think that sock prints wouldn’t be too hard to make stick would you. The ‘footprints’ were nobodies !!!! Nobody obviously had a very busy day that day. Am looking forward to seeing David’s new tattoo remembering the family.

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

    Didn’t one psychologist predict he would develop psychiatric problems if not treated?

    Well, he did have a bad dose of malaria just before he turned 16. Studies of Vietnam vets have shown that malaria can have serious consequences re mental health and can pre-dispose some to become violent.

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

    Much ado has been said about no GSR test it seems it would of been a pointless exercise anyway.

    quote”In all thirteen cases in which .22 caliber firearms
    were used by the victim the GSR test was negative as a result of the absence of antimony
    and or barium in the primer of the .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

    Also not taken into consideration what impact that brand of silencer would of had on GSR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Puzzled totally agree

    Cartman @ 9.34
    Your ‘inside source’ of information being again your arse again. You are a deluded twisted individual. Congratulations on being the biggest liar on kiwiblog!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case. Either David Bain murdered his family or else he is the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, then here is the rather astonishing extent of the shitty luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #6.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case. Either David Bain murdered his family or else he is the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shitty luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one lens in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consistent with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck he seperated the whites from the coloureds but put whites in the washing machine and left coloureds in the wash basket.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Might as well go straight to Judicial Review. Or should that be ‘Judithal’ 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #7

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    The famous old argument of the spinners, why did Robin do such and such if he was the killer! pointless argument why go out and shoot 4 members of your family!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Puzzled.
    It’s not me,honest,it’s the computer that is doing it.
    Judith Collins looking at this thread. You cannot be serious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case. Either David Bain murdered his family or else he is the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shitty luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Rowan (421) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 11:33 am
    Puzzled totally agree

    Cartman @ 9.34
    Your ‘inside source’ of information being again your arse again. You are a deluded twisted individual. Congratulations on being the biggest liar on kiwiblog!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #8

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    I expect to get full credit if ‘Judithal’ now becomes trendy. Collins of course 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It is a circumstantial case. Either David Bain murdered his family or he is the victin victim of some unbelievable coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shitty luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #9.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case. Either David Bain murdered his family or else he is the victim of of some extraordinary coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shitty luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Groundhog day #10.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    @ Judith on what evidence do you rely on to say that the first shot to Laniet killed her. Why ever were there three, then? If the first one was effective there was no ‘need’for any more, or do you think the extras were just for fun a bit of sport. Seems to me the cheek shot was first, hence the gurgling, a second shot to ‘finish’ the job and then just to be sure and not wanting to see the mess the poor girl was in, the shot through the white cotton thingy that was nowhere to be found. Because the police were apparently not looking for blood!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    I reckon that that repeat post is triggered off by other people posting.
    Obviously it will repeat itself after this post,but if there are no more posts it might stop.
    And that would not be a bad thing. Since Hon Dottie left the excitement has gone. He was like a shooting star.
    Gone but not forgotten.
    R.I.P Dotcom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case. Either David Bain murdered his family or else he is the victim of some extraordinary coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the bad luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,560) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 12:13 pm
    Rowan (421) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 11:33 am
    Puzzled totally agree

    Cartman @ 9.34
    Your ‘inside source’ of information being again your arse again. You are a deluded twisted individual. Congratulations on being the biggest liar on kiwiblog!

    How true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    But I only just got here and I was catching up with old ‘friends’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    I think it is disgusting that posters on this forum basically think they can blackmail the taxpayers of NZ via the Government into paying an ex gratia payment by threatening that they will keep pursuing it and cost more money in the long run. It would be a huge miscarriage of justice to settle because of a squeaky wheel. Any settlement should be on merit not on blackmail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. David Farrar (1,740 comments) says:

    I’ve had a couple of people say that the comments here are getting very repetitive and some people are just reposting previous comments. I doubt anyone is left reading this except those with a passionate view on the David or Robin side of the debate.

    How about we let this thread die. I’m sure there will be several more news stories in future which I’ll blog on, as decisions are made – and that will provide opportunities for ongoing debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Good idea ,David.
    But I reckon people will keep posting unless you close the comments off.

    [DPF: I’ll do that if I have to]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Ok.
    Well,it looks like you won’t have to. The cease fire is holding.
    And, as you say,there will be more Bain threads.
    I don’t reckon we will have to wait very long for the next one, and it will be all on for young and old again.

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

    Just a shame that muggins has bullied his way into spoiling this thread on some one else’s blog.
    This is not new, though, he did the same on TradeMe until he was banned.
    It is only those who have something to lose by allowing honest debate that get it closed down.

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

    As can be seen here, taken from another blog where he brags about it.
    I have removed the name because it is a real name.

    Wed, 23/01/2013 – 1:41pm
    #25
    M*** S********
    Online
    Joined: 19 Nov 2009
    C K Stead blog.

    I have just killed off that blog My thanks to K*** P*****.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8213614/No-decision-on-Bain-compensation
    Don’t you worry Kanz ,there will no doubt be a new thread starting up .
    And talking about bullying , who was it threatened to come down to *********** and sort me out?
    And who was it started making repetitive posts?
    You want to live by the sword,Kanz,you gotta be prepared to die by the sword.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    David
    Wouldn’t it just be better to filter out the spam and bs from a certain poster, I notice he hasn’t managed to post anything else than unsourced unsubstainated crap and lies in any of the Bain polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    I see the compensation matter has been before cabinet already today 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. lazarus (68 comments) says:

    Hey Kanz.
    You a member of “Justice For Robin Bain”
    Good to see you are finally coming round to the right way of thinking.
    Well done.

    Rowan.
    That Goat must be getting real sore now.
    Why don’t you give it a rest and put it back in the paddock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Yvette (3,019 comments) says:

    “Cabinet has not made any decision on the next steps for the application,” Collins said. “As Mr Bain’s application falls outside the Cabinet guidelines, Mr Bain has no entitlement to compensation. Any decision regarding compensation is entirely at Cabinet’s discretion.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Looks like I didn’t kill this thread off after all.
    But that’s ok. So long as no-one else repeats a post I won’t either.
    It’s just that two can play at that game and I learnt how to play it better.
    But I reckon this thread has become redundant.
    The latest news is there has been no decision on Bain’s compensation,and it looks like any decision could be some time away.
    Maybe time for a new thread,thereagain maybe not.
    Depends on the boss.

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

    Looks like I didn’t kill this thread off after all.

    Obviously your aim was not as good as Robin Bain’s was, then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    Kanz: when I was gullible enough to imagine muggins was having some actual problem that was resulting in repeat posts, you wrote:

    As can be seen by his last post, it is an attempt to shut the thread down…

    On that point at least, we are in full and comprehensive agreement. There is no reason muggins could have for spamming the thread to get it closed that reflects well on him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Kanz (738) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    As can be seen here, taken from another blog where he brags about it.
    I have removed the name because it is a real name.

    Wed, 23/01/2013 – 1:41pm
    #25
    M*** S********
    Online
    Joined: 19 Nov 2009
    C K Stead blog.

    I have just killed off that blog My thanks to K*** P*****.’

    Bullshit and spam, sums up Counterspin.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,014) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    Kanz: when I was gullible enough to imagine muggins was having some actual problem that was resulting in repeat posts,

    I could see you were being sucked in by his lies on that, which is why I tried to warn you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    muggins (1,674) Says:

    January 23rd, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    It is a circumstantial case. Either David Bain murdered his family or he is the victim of some unbelievable coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shitty luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she did not want to go home that Sunday night because she was frightened of David,she said he was freaky.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s t-shirt had a stain on it in the same area that the green jersey apparently had blood on it.
    Bad luck he told a female companion that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told Gareth Taylor and Mark Buckley about his desire to rape a jogger and further bad luck that they remembered David’s plan.
    Bad luck that several witnesses said he was early on his paper round that fateful morning.
    Bad luck that he had scratches and/or bruises on his torso that he couldn’t remember anything about. Hand of God,perhaps?
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached,while standing with one foot on a chair,a feat that has never been achieved before nor is it likely to ever happen again.
    Bad luck his father placed that magazine on it’s side a milimetre from his hand.
    Bad luck his father took that magazine out of the rifle when it still had three live bullets in it.
    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
    muggins (1,649) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    So long as no-one else repeats a post I won’t either.

    Manipulation and intimidation to stop people posting opposing views to yours. Very uncool Muggins.

    The question does arise though, why would K*** P***** want this thread stopped, and why would he need thanks from you for helping with that?

    Isn’t he meant to be the ‘face’ of the Counterspin Campaign, and JFRB?

    Those sorts of tactics do not say much for the honesty and transparency expected from legitimate and respectable groups. I suspect with your help, the group has just provided another example for why they should be treated with a great deal of suspicion when they attempt to contribute any input in decisions regarding this case.

    Threatening phone calls, harassment orders, defamation and now intimidation and manipulation. JFRB sounds more like a gathering of the mongrel mob, than ‘upstanding members of society’. Shame on the lot of you. 🙁

    And to add to that, you then decide to do it again, as if giving the finger to our patient host. Disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Pycho Milt.
    Give me a break.
    Kanz and co were posting repetitive posts about me. There was no way I was going to let those pricks get away with that.
    So I posted repetitive posts,ok.
    What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
    And they are up to their old tricks again.
    My apologies for fooling you, I thought most computer literate posters would have realised what I was doing. In fact when you asked me to log off and log back on I thought you were playing along with me.
    But Kanz started it. So don’t blame me for retaliating. I don’t give in to bullies.
    And don’t forget he threatened to come down to H********** and sort me out. That post cost him 40 demerits. He was lucky he didn’t get more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Kanz (739) Says:

    January 23rd, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    Looks like I didn’t kill this thread off after all.

    Obviously your aim was not as good as Robin Bain’s was, then.
    Kanz,don’t try to be dumber than you already are.
    My aim wasn’t as good as David’s ,although he did take three shots to finish Laniet off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Oh to have a ‘finger’ emoticon and a ‘finger down throat’ one lol. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Aww poor Lazarus,
    have we hurt your little feelings? Mummy will kiss them better for you, or if you no longer have a mummy, muggins will fit the bill nicely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Premature celebration and now back to spewing about being sprung.

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

    Premature celebration and now back to spewing about being sprung.

    Again. How many times has that been now? Must admit I have lost count.
    Did you notice? After sucking up to DPF he then went straight back to doing the same thing that DPF had warned about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Premature ‘celebration’, euphemism? One should spout on subjects ones know about. See you found one 🙂

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

    Yvette (2,273) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    “Cabinet has not made any decision on the next steps for the application,” Collins said. “As Mr Bain’s application falls outside the Cabinet guidelines, Mr Bain has no entitlement to compensation. Any decision regarding compensation is entirely at Cabinet’s discretion.”

    It always has been at Cabinet’s discretion. When compensation was applied for, Cabinet decided to call in a top Jurist from overseas, one who has had no previous knowledge or bias about the case, to investigate whether or not Bain was innocent and if he was, were there exceptional circumstances that applied.
    Unfortunately he did that job too well, and hurt the feelings of our Police and Crown Law office. They have been crying about it ever since and Mother Collins has promised to make it feel better for them.

    If that is the type of Justice the people of this country want, then God help them, because he will be the only one who can.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Mad is as mad will do Kanz. Talk about giving him or herself up, the whole hate-campaign captured in a few premature words. Have to enjoy it. Perhaps they’re upset that the Minister didn’t throw it out today as they so fervently predicted, perhaps it’s not so easy to dismiss the fact ‘that it won’t go away’ just because Collins might want it to.

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

    So is everyone happy for Fisher to carry out the next step, whatever Cabinet decides that will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    What’s the rush? Today was the first day Cabinet sat, anything Judithal does will be considered and with the support of her colleagues, it did seem to confirm the regard that the Ian Binnie report is held in though. 😉

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,564) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    KP desperately wants it to go against Bain, in the hope it will save his arse in the defamation case.
    What he fails to see is, the lies he published about Karam had sweet FA to do with Bain or his compensation claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Belinda (104) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    So is everyone happy for Fisher to carry out the next step, whatever Cabinet decides that will be.

    I think it would be a very big mistake for Collins to get Fisher to do the review. Because of who he represents, using him is not ‘safe’ and will allow any decision to be questioned. It will not provide the finality that Collins seeks, and will continue to cause her problems if she takes that track.

    Her only sensible option is to accept the argument provided by Binnie. Whilst there are questions surrounding glasses, in reality they make very little difference. Binnie provides all the answers that were requested, and provides answers to follow up comments from Collins. There is nothing in that report that is not based on sound reasoning and judgement. The primary argument being that extraordinary circumstances resulting from actions and/or lack of action by the Crown, contributed to the inability to prove innocence BRD.

    However, as the report does not give the answer Ms Collins wanted, and so she will continue to fish to get what she wants. Eventually costing the taxpayer much more than if she settled now.

    A second option would be to put together a tribunal of experienced people that operate separately to the Crown, and entrust them with the decision. This can be done without any legislative changes.

    This is not going to go away. Paying compensation will end it. (Even if it leaves some with indigestion). Not payment compensation and wiping Binnie’s report, will ensure it will continue for as long as it takes. She is being arrogant. That will cost her a career if she continues, and especially if she uses Fisher for another report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Who was whining about ‘blackmail’ this morning? I can’t remember. Who was predicting that it was ‘all over rover’ when cabinet next met, I can’t remember that either. But I can remember the PC decision, the 5 not guilty verdicts in record time and the finding of Innocent on the BOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Judithal review 😉 not by ‘our’ Judith’ though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Belinda (104) Says:

    January 23rd, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    So is everyone happy for Fisher to carry out the next step, whatever Cabinet decides that will be.

    Yes,Belinda, the word is that is how it will play out.
    If Fisher decides Bain is innocent on the BOP’s he will get paid compensation,and if Fisher finds that Bain isn’t innocent on the BOP’s he won’t get paid any compensation.
    All very straightforward. The majority of people are sick and tired of all this pandering.

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

    So is everyone happy for Fisher to carry out the next step, whatever Cabinet decides that will be

    The Bain cultists won’t be happy, and already Judith is whining. She knows that David will almost certainly be interviewed again, at which point he will no doubt tell more lies. That clearly will not be a winning strategy.

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

    If Fisher decides Bain is innocent on the BOP’s he will get paid compensation

    I don’t think so. Fisher would also have to find extraordinary circumstances. There are none. For David to be given a handout, he needs to be found innocent BRD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Yes, David should be interviewed on his own. He is a big grown up now, should definitely know the ropes and shouldn’t need his hand held.

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

    Eventually costing the taxpayer much more than if she settled now.

    Maths isn’t your strong point, Judith. If the government settled now, it might pay David up to $2 million. Another review won’t cost anything like that. When it’s all over, the process might have cost $1 million….surely a small price to pay for justice.

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

    I don’t think so. Fisher would also have to find extraordinary circumstances. There are none. For David to be given a handout, he needs to be found innocent BRD.

    According to the ‘word of ross69’.
    Not according to natural justice, previous protocol, or the Government guidelines.
    Try again ross69.

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

    David should be interviewed on his own. He is a big grown up now, should definitely know the ropes and shouldn’t need his hand held.

    Of course. Karam and Reed weren’t, to the best of my knowledge, at 65 Every St on 20 June 1994. Their input is not needed.

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

    Not according to natural justice, previous protocol, or the Government guidelines.

    You clearly haven’t read the Guidelines. Collins alluded to them today when she said “Mr Bain has no entitlement to compensation. Any decision regarding compensation is entirely at Cabinet’s discretion”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Natural justice should include that someone be held accountable for the murders at 65 Every Street, 4 or 5. If it was Robin prove it. Or are you apologists going to say that evidence to convict Robin has gone the same way as all those pieces of evidence that would apparently have exonerated David.

    Perhaps David should pray for a resolution, that finds him innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    How’d you like them apples ross. The application you predicted would be chucked out remains alive. The thread one of the sisters was trying to destroy at the behest of Kent Parker also remains alive, at least for now. There, there. Think up some more bs, filled a bath with it and take a swim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Things are getting spooky, suggestions of praying for resolution. Lock up the graveyards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,842) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 6:34 pmI don’t think so. Fisher would also have to find extraordinary circumstances. There are none. For David to be given a handout, he needs to be found innocent BRD.

    Your argument that there is not any extraordinary circumstances does not wash. Judge Binnie identified many such circumstances, some of which were the result of serious misconduct. Whilst you can argue about glasses, and gloves and who owned the gun, you cannot argue that the police did not follow their manual and could not provide adequate reason for not doing so. That was confirmed by both Weir and Doyle during interview. Nothing to do with Binnie’s interpretation. Their words are very clear.

    Any subsequent report will also have to address the issue of extraordinary circumstances and cannot just ‘forget’ what has occurred. For example,
    The provision of a contaminated DNA sample to the defence expert, Dr Arie Geursen
    Dr Geursen described having his work rendered useless by ESR’s supply to him of a
    contaminated DNA sample for testing as an “unspeakable mess”

    314. Analysis of the “fingerprint
    blood sample” was of key importance to the defence. ESR rendered it impossible for the
    defence expert to do his work.

    Comment: ESR’s conduct on this occasion, though presumably inadvertent, was seriously
    prejudicial to David Bain’s fair trial rights. I would describe such negligent conduct by the
    authorities as misconduct. In this instance it was serious misconduct given the importance of the
    “bloody fingerprint” controversy and the serious consequences of his error in David Bain’s ability
    to defend himself.

    You clearly haven’t read the Guidelines. Collins alluded to them today when she said “Mr Bain has no entitlement to compensation. Any decision regarding compensation is entirely at Cabinet’s discretion”.

    You clearly don’t understand either. No one in New Zealand has an entitlement to compensation even if they have DNA evidence of their innocence. This is because we do not have legislation to enable that. Compensation is totally at the grace of Cabinet, and although they have guidelines, there is nothing that forces them to make a decision either way. All Collins was doing was confirming that.

    However, a person has the right to take civil action, and as it has already been proven there were several areas of serious misconduct by the police, success in this area is likely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    When compensation was applied for, Cabinet decided to call in a top Jurist from overseas, one who has had no previous knowledge or bias about the case, to investigate whether or not Bain was innocent and if he was, were there exceptional circumstances that applied.
    Unfortunately he did that job too well…

    So “well” in fact that the Minister responsible, the lawyer she got to peer review it and various law academics all immediately noticed a major problem with how he’d treated the evidence. Following that, the Minister’s ability to use the report as the basis for a handout of up to $2 mil of taxpayers’ hard-earned dosh approximates to 0.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    muggins: I have a terrible habit of presuming people are commenting in good faith unless there’s evidence they aren’t. That comes back to bite me occasionally, but for the most part I find it’s reciprocated. Yes, Kanz et al were repeatedly posting a set of your comments edited to try and make you look foolish. So? Their own comments provide plenty of unsubstantiated assertions or downright foolishness (eg I recall a comment in which Nostalgia-NZ clearly suggested the Police planted evidence), which would allow you to respond in kind. Instead you not only tried to get the thread shut down by spamming it, you lied about what you were doing. Its hard to see that in a good light.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    314. Analysis of the “fingerprint
    blood sample” was of key importance to the defence. ESR rendered it impossible for the
    defence expert to do his work.

    Comment: ESR’s conduct on this occasion, though presumably inadvertent, was seriously
    prejudicial to David Bain’s fair trial rights. I would describe such negligent conduct by the
    authorities as misconduct. In this instance it was serious misconduct given the importance of the
    “bloody fingerprint” controversy and the serious consequences of his error in David Bain’s ability
    to defend himself.

    Kind of an odd stance for Binnie to take, given that further up his report he’s declared the fingerprints to be of little significance because it can be expected that David’s fingerprints were on David’s gun. Per Binnie, the evidence is of little consequence if it might help the prosecution, but vitally important if it might help the defence. I expect most of Fisher’s time reviewing this report was spent walking about telling himself to calm down before writing anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    The prayer suggestion should appeal to David unless he shunned his Fathers ways and was an adherent of his Mothers, I think a prayer could help. God only knows everything else has been tried. You might want to ask David about graveyards and wanting to have a party.

    There are people who do that though, Mobsters for example, bikers, hardly main stream society.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    What’s the difference between planting evidence, hiding or destroying it – the ultimate design is to mislead a Jury. In this case that happened psycho milt, and it was ruled an Actual Miscarriage of Justice. Your ‘mate’ lied about evidence after big-noting about being an expert, then tried to hide it, far worse that because it’s intended to persecute a man, in your case you merely got sucked in and taken for a ride by an amateur. You’re offended at being lied to by a person that does it as a matter of course, but what about the target of his lies psycho milt, a real person acquitted by a jury after spending 13 years falsely imprisoned – you being made a mug of is of no moment compared to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,016) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 7:12 pm
    When compensation was applied for, Cabinet decided to call in a top Jurist from overseas, one who has had no previous knowledge or bias about the case, to investigate whether or not Bain was innocent and if he was, were there exceptional circumstances that applied.
    Unfortunately he did that job too well…

    So “well” in fact that the Minister responsible, the lawyer she got to peer review it and various law academics all immediately noticed a major problem with how he’d treated the evidence. Following that, the Minister’s ability to use the report as the basis for a handout of up to $2 mil of taxpayers’ hard-earned dosh approximates to 0.

    ————————————

    However, there are also various law academics who agree with how Binnie had treated the evidence. Collins will naturally choose to ignore them, as she does anyone that doesn’t give her what she wants. Regardless of that point, there are many points of evidence that cannot return any other finding that what Binnie did. Sure you can add conjecture etc, but the reality is, that he cannot do that, and if something, such as the ownership of the gloves, proves nothing. He has no option but to do exactly what he did. Just as any reviewer will also do.

    Do not forget that he has the Privy Council decision to support the majority of his findings. No reviewer can discount those findings either.

    Disregarding the glasses evidence, which cannot be tied to the murders, so are therefore not of any value, especially now that evidence has proven Guest’s recall is not correct. Binnie’s findings were sufficient to support his conclusion, which alone would not allow compensation to be paid, because it is not innocent BRD.

    This then, by the Cabinet’s own guidelines allowed the measure of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, and argue all you like, but even the PCA report supports some of those conclusions. Both Weir and Doyle’s evidence also supported that finding, and if another report is done according to the same criteria, it too will have no option but to come to the same conclusion – that in some instances there was serious misconduct by the authorities that proves extraordinary circumstances.

    The next person doing a report could of course not ask the relevant questions of Doyle and Weir, and come to a different conclusion, but unfortunately cannot ‘un-ask’ what has already been asked. It is there recorded, and in writing, and cannot be excluded, even with a rejection of Binnie’s report.

    I believe that even with a second report, the government will find itself in the same position and due to EC’s, will have no option but to pay compensation. I think Collins is aware of this now, but has basically backed herself in a corner by reacting too soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,018) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 7:45 pm

    ———————

    You miss the point of the section that Binnie’s comment pertaining to what you quote was made.

    That particular section was dealing with the police’s obligation to investigate the possibility of innocence and do whatever they can to determine it. Thus the provision of a clean and precise sample to the defense for testing is carrying out that obligation.

    The point was NOT that they were fingerprints, they could have been any part of the evidence. It was the fact that the ESR attempted to hinder the defense (and therefore interfere with the possibility of establishing innocence) by supplying a sample they knew was contaminated. The point was, not the item but the action taken by ESR and the implications of that.

    Binnie was right in finding it serious misconduct, and any other investigation will have no option but to see that particular action, the same way. As I said, there are some things that cannot be determined any other way than how Binnie found them.

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

    http://keithrankin.co.nz/rf/20121213_Inference-Justice_the-Bain-case.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    There was plenty of evidence to convict David, that does not make him falsely imprisoned or innocent. In my opinion the police had more than enough reason to take the matter to court. Prove Robin guilty and I will go quietly, but you can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Plenty of evidence, then why wasn’t he convicted?
    And if the first trial was a ‘good’ one, then why was it a MOJ?
    Or could I more simply say, in reverence to your LLB, how, how, how Deliah?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt @ 7.34
    He does that on his own.
    Re the fingerprint ‘strand’ until someone can prove that (a) bloody fingerprints can be found on a rifle with white ridges and (b) that there was any human blood from the fingerprint sample taken from the rifle then the fingerprints argument takes you nowhere. What was shown to be highly likely at the retrial is that the fingerprints were not made in blood despite the protests of Kim Jones who was shown to have lied under oath in 1995 and deliberately gave the 1995 jury incorrect information. Yes I can’t prove it was ‘deliberate’but he would have to have been totally incompetent to not have realised, note when cross examined at the retrial on it he said ‘I don’t have a comment to make on that sir’. Argument proves nothing and was shown to be so at the retrial.

    Goldnkiwi
    Yet nothing stands up when you look at it more critically and many things don’t. The entire case is more of a spiderweb than a rope!

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

    No one in New Zealand has an entitlement to compensation even if they have DNA evidence of their innocence. This is because we do not have legislation to enable that. Compensation is totally at the grace of Cabinet, and although they have guidelines, there is nothing that forces them to make a decision either way. All Collins was doing was confirming that.

    The fact is that some claimants qualify for compensation, because they have “received a free pardon or have had their convictions quashed on appeal without order of retrial”. That doesn’t apply in this case. “In making the guidelines, Cabinet reserved the discretion to pay compensation to an applicant who was not eligible in extraordinary circumstances, where it is in the interests of justice”.

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

    I believe that even with a second report, the government will find itself in the same position and due to EC’s, will have no option but to pay compensation.

    I suggest you buy a Lotto ticket, as you are obviously feeling very lucky. In the meantime, read Fisher’s report. He alludes to the fact there are no ECs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,845) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    ——————————

    They may meet the criteria, but there is no ‘entitlement’ by law for compensation to be paid to anyone, even if their convictions were quashed in a court of law. It is still up to Cabinet to decide, and they can reject an application, even on those terms (if they dare).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    ross you seem to be counting on the fact that the compensation bid wasn’t dismissed as a victory. I suppose it is for you after all those losses. Things could be looking up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    The following extract seems an accurate description of Robert Fishers report into Rex Haigs compensation claim from a few years back. Also could be used to describe his review of Binnies report, I found his report way to legalistic and academic.

    The December 2010 report by Prof Joseph, a School of Law professor at the University of Canterbury, criticised Mr Fisher’s findings as legally and factually baseless.

    “Fisher’s finding of probable guilt was based on a hypothesis that was entirely novel and untested. Furthermore, Haig had no opportunity to rebut or challenge the hypothesis,” Prof Joseph said.

    Mr Fisher went outside the parameters of the initial Crown and defence cases. He played no part in the proceedings leading to Mr Haig’s conviction or the subsequent quashing of it, did not personally interview witnesses, was not involved in gathering evidence and did not attend the trial, he said.

    “He was, for all intents and purposes, a casual bystander. Yet Fisher could be confident that he, and only he, really knew what happened on the boat when Roderique was murdered. Such prescience is truly admirable,” Prof Joseph said.

    He found three grounds on which Mr Haig could legally challenge Mr Fisher’s report and seek a judicial review.

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

    At 151 and 155, Fisher says,

    The third example of a potentially qualifying extraordinary circumstance serious wrongdoing by authorities – is less easy to reconcile with the International Covenant from which New Zealand’s ex gratia compensation process sprang. Article 1 4(6) of the Covenant is concerned with the question whether “a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice”. The miscarriage of justice in question is impliedly the applicant’s wrongful conviction. Article 1 4(6) is concerned with the question whether there is fresh evidence demonstrating innocence, not whether authorities have misconducted themselves as an end in itself.

    The founding object of the ex gratia compensation discretion was to compensate the innocent, not to discipline misconduct by authorities. This suggests that the ex gratia compensation discretion will be used for the purpose of regulating the conduct of the police and other officials only sparingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,845) Says:

    In the meantime, read Fisher’s report. He alludes to the fact there are no ECs.

    ——————————–

    And, thanks to Fisher making such comments, without having investigated the matter to its full extent, that will make it easy to prove anything he produces was preconceived, and the country will be faced with seeking a third report.

    Mr Fisher would have done better to keep his opinion on ‘what is’, until he had undertaken the correct and prescribed procedure to determine that. By demonstrating his preference before conducting and investigating the matter fully, he has again made anything he subsequently produces ‘unsafe’. Even a man of Fisher’s professional standing is not meant to have decided a conclusion before conducting his own research. A peer review did not require him to undertake such research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    You seem very confident Ross
    Will you be joining Kent & co in moving to North Korea if cabinet chooses to pay up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Chuck Bird (6,479 comments) says:

    “Will you be joining Kent & co in moving to North Korea if cabinet chooses to pay up?”

    North Korea treats mass murderers very well. Do you think that is an example NZ should follow.

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

    ross69 (1,845) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    The fact is that some claimants qualify for compensation, because they have “received a free pardon or have had their convictions quashed on appeal without order of retrial”.

    Wrong again.
    The Court of appeal quashed Rex Haig’s conviction and said there would be no retrial, that was in 2006.
    Fisher did the review on that case and recommended no compensation be paid, as per expectation.
    It does pay to research before making such emphatic statements.

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

    In addition, Fisher wrote:

    83. It is also implicit in the terms of reference that in order to qualify as relevant the misconduct must have had some plausible nexus, however indirect, with the sentence for which compensation is now claimed.

    84. The alternative is effectively the argument that the ex gratia payment regime was intended as an opportunity for an inquiry into police or departmental conduct in general, regardless of any nexus with the imprisonment for which compensation is now sought.

    85. I cannot believe that that was intended. That society should root out poor practices in its public institutions is undeniable. However there are many other agencies, procedures and opportunities for inquiries ofthat nature. Some, such as
    inquiries instituted by the Commissioner of Police, are internal to the institutions involved. Others, such as the Independent Police Conduct Authority, are conducted by external agencies under general rules and guidelines. Still others, such as
    Commissions of Inquiry, are conducted by ad hoc agencies set up for the purpose. But if an ad hoc agency is set up to inquire into official conduct, the terms of reference will be closely defined, procedural safeguards will be set in place for those involved, the decision-maker will be chosen for expertise in the area, and appropriate resources will be provided.

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

    the country will be faced with seeking a third report.

    Whatever, it won’t change the outcome – no handout for your blue eyed boy.

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

    Fisher did the review on that case and recommended no compensation be paid, as per expectation.

    Because Fisher didn’t find that Haig was innocent on BOP. But unlike Haig, David doesn’t qualify for compo so has to prove innocence BRD.

    Fisher also reviewed the Aaron Farmer claim and found that Farmer should be paid compo. Did you expect that?

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

    You seem very confident Ross

    I am confident that the next reviewer won’t be incompetent like Binnie was. But even for all his ineptness, and despite falling over himself to believe David’s version of events, Binnie found reasonable doubt about David’s innocence. Why was that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    How can Bain be responsible for the Government flying Binnie ‘in cold’, in such a manner, that according to the Government, he went outside a brief of procedure. David Bain isn’t responsible for the Government’s ineptitude in the law, or passing on information that apparently resides with ‘two’ interpretations. This simply continues the MOJ. My feeling is that the Court is the only place to have the Government’s ‘message’ to its own agent clarified, otherwise there are no boundaries or fair interpretations set.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    BINNIE’S REPORT GETS IT ALL RIGHT.

    Justice Ian Binnie’s report on David Bain is an exemplary document. It deserves an A grade. The gathering and analysis of the evidence, consideration of the relevant legal issues, and conclusions are measure and compelling.
    The report properly places the onus on Mr Bain to establish he did not kill his family. The report finds in his favour after a detailed consideration of all evidence and submissions from both prosecution and defence viewpoints.
    The analysis includes an in-depth interview of Mr Bain, conducted in the presence of the Crown lawyers. Justice Binnie takes an overview on all the evidence before coming to his conclusions. He makes not error in his methodology and reasoning.
    Secondly, Justice Binnie does not exceed his mandate in concluding that exceptional circumstances can be found for compensation. His advice is modest. The report is consistent with the Privy Council decision that found a miscarriage of justice.

    By comparison, the report of Robert Fisher, QC, is flawed. It says Justice Binnie made fundamental errors of principle in assessing innocence, and misconduct by authorities. The analysis does not sustain either of these allegations.

    My assessment is based on experience as a former prosecutor in the Crown’s Solicitors Office, and more than 30 years lecturing in criminal law.

    Kenneth Palmer,
    Associate professor of law,
    Auckland University.

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

    ross69 (1,849) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:56 pm

    You had stated earlier that anyone who has their conviction quashed by the COA and no retrial is ordered, then that person is ENTITLED to compensation. The mention of Haig proves that wrong.
    His conviction was quashed, no retrial was ordered, and he did not get compensation.
    As Judith had pointed out earlier, there is never an entitlement, it is ALWAYS at the discretion of Cabinet.

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

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/c/compensation-for-aaron-farmer/compensation-for-aaron-farmer-hon-robert-fisher-qcs-report-for-ministry-of-justice-on-compensation-claim-by-aaron-lance-farmer-dated-25-february-2010

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,850) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:56 pm
    David doesn’t qualify for compo so has to prove innocence BRD

    ——————————–

    You still don’t seem to understand the basics in this situation.
    David Bain does not have to prove he is innocent BRD.
    If he can prove he is innocent on the BoP’s AND there are extraordinary cases, that still allows for compensation to be paid.

    I’ve pointed this out to you before, and provided the Cabinet Guidelines document. Do I need to repost it for you to read?

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

    You had stated earlier that anyone who has their conviction quashed by the COA and no retrial is ordered, then that person is ENTITLED to compensation.

    I didn’t say that at all. But nice try at putting words into my mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Be a nice change if you had words in your mouth instead of bull…t ross.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    What’s the difference between planting evidence, hiding or destroying it – the ultimate design is to mislead a Jury. In this case that happened psycho milt, and it was ruled an Actual Miscarriage of Justice. Your ‘mate’ lied about evidence after big-noting about being an expert, then tried to hide it, far worse that because it’s intended to persecute a man…

    You Bain devotees would have a lot more credibility if you stuck to the facts and avoided loads of old cobblers about the evil conspiracy to persecute David Bain.

    The point was NOT that they were fingerprints, they could have been any part of the evidence. It was the fact that the ESR attempted to hinder the defense (and therefore interfere with the possibility of establishing innocence) by supplying a sample they knew was contaminated. The point was, not the item but the action taken by ESR and the implications of that.

    Binnie was right in finding it serious misconduct, and any other investigation will have no option but to see that particular action, the same way. As I said, there are some things that cannot be determined any other way than how Binnie found them.

    Can’t be determined any other way than how Binnie found it? Well, you just managed that apparently impossible feat, by writing “the ESR attempted to hinder the defense” (sic), and didn’t even notice yourself doing it. Apparently it’s not difficult at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross
    You are deluded, Haig didn’t ‘qualify’ for compensation as you put it, neither did Aaron Farmer. Compensation is a discretionary decision for cabinet. Bain does not have to prove innocence BRD as you keep saying it is on BOP only.

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

    ross69 (1,851) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/c/compensation-for-aaron-farmer/compensation-for-aaron-farmer-hon-robert-fisher-qcs-report-for-ministry-of-justice-on-compensation-claim-by-aaron-lance-farmer-dated-25-february-2010

    Oh, I know the case well.
    I know Aaron’s Mother. I know what the injustice system put her through. I know the pressure she was put under by a certain segment of our community to drop the claim, in fact to drop the COA case before he had his conviction quashed. I know she, along with the rest of her family, will never trust the NZ police again.
    Do you know how long it was after Fisher supplied that report to the minister that they finally made a decision on it?

    If you think what that family received at the hands of our government and it’s agencies was justice, then you have a warped sense of what justice really is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    So the Miscarriage of Justice ‘only’ happened because of hidden and destroyed evidence psycho milt. That wouldn’t be organised would it, there’d be nobody in control of that heading it toward a particular destination. And when do you next expect the ‘tooth’ fairy to visit?

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

    ross69 (1,852) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 9:09 pm

    You had stated earlier that anyone who has their conviction quashed by the COA and no retrial is ordered, then that person is ENTITLED to compensation.

    I didn’t say that at all. But nice try at putting words into my mouth

    Really? This is your unedited post. Nice try at denying it though.

    ross69 (1,852) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    No one in New Zealand has an entitlement to compensation even if they have DNA evidence of their innocence. This is because we do not have legislation to enable that. Compensation is totally at the grace of Cabinet, and although they have guidelines, there is nothing that forces them to make a decision either way. All Collins was doing was confirming that.

    The fact is that some claimants qualify for compensation, because they have “received a free pardon or have had their convictions quashed on appeal without order of retrial”. That doesn’t apply in this case. “In making the guidelines, Cabinet reserved the discretion to pay compensation to an applicant who was not eligible in extraordinary circumstances, where it is in the interests of justice”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,019) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 9:17 pm
    ———————————

    You would be right, except for the fact that the ESR admitted they knew of the contamination and deliberately kept it hidden.

    There is no other conclusion that can be drawn from that, than the intention was to hinder the defence.
    The Crown is required to take all steps to establish innocence, in this situation they hindered that process, and that is serious as it breaches their prescribed purpose. Whether you think it was ‘just a joke’, or any other reason you might like to draw, the fact they knew, and did not attempt to remedy the situation, makes it an extraordinary circumstance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    I love spiderwebs all those ropes forming a pattern of strength 😉 I think that is a brilliant analogy. Not just one rope but many.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    I love spiderwebs all those ropes forming a pattern of strength 😉 I think that is a brilliant analogy. Not just one rope but many.

    Judith (1,009) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 9:05 pm
    ross69 (1,850) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 8:56 pm
    David doesn’t qualify for compo so has to prove innocence BRD

    ——————————–

    You still don’t seem to understand the basics in this situation.
    David Bain does not have to prove he is innocent BRD.
    If he can prove he is innocent on the BoP’s AND there are extraordinary cases, that still allows for compensation to be paid.

    I’ve pointed this out to you before, and provided the Cabinet Guidelines document. Do I need to repost it for you to read?

    Yes, there is provision to ALLOW for it but it still doesn’t command it. It is still up to cabinet. Cabinet does not have to allow anything, just like a referendum isn’t binding on cabinet neither should anything to do with this matter be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    You would be right, except for the fact that the ESR admitted they knew of the contamination and deliberately kept it hidden.

    That would be shocking news, if you hadn’t previously displayed a surprising inability to grasp the meaning of the words “know,” “fact” and “discredited.”

    There is no other conclusion that can be drawn from that, than the intention was to hinder the defence.

    Apparently there is, since Binnie drew an other conclusion and you declared no other conclusion than Binnie’s was possible. Do you actually read the stuff you write before posting it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    ‘cabinet neither’

    Such poor English from an LLB, but what the heck it’s better than a donkey race.

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

    Really? This is your unedited post.

    Thanks, so where did I say claimants were ENTITLED to compo? Nowhere. However, some claimants qualify for compo, quite a different story. Haig qualified for compo but he was not entitled to it because he was not innocent on BOP. David doesn’t even qualify, but if he could prove BRD that he was innocent, he might get a handout.

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

    Thanks, so where did I say claimants were ENTITLED to compo? Nowhere. However, some claimants qualify for compo, quite a different story.

    “qual·i·fy
    /ˈkwäləˌfī/
    Verb

    Be entitled to a particular benefit or privilege by fulfilling a necessary condition: “we qualify for compensation”.

    “qual‧i‧fy past tense and past participle qualified, present participle qualifying, third person singular qualifies
    1
    have a right
    [intransitive and transitive] to have the right to have or do something, or to give someone this right: “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross
    qualified/entitled blah blah
    No claimaints ‘qualify’ for compensation. Haig and Farmer didn’t ‘qualify’. It is a discretionary cabinet decision. Bain is not entitled to compensatation but if he proves on BOP to cabinet (which they don’t seem to want to accept) then he might get a payout same as in the Thomas case. You are confusing yourself here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    I have a terrible habit of believing people are commenting in good faith unless there’s evidence they aren’t. That comes back to bite me occasionally, but for the most part I find it’s reciprocated. Yes, Kanz et al were repeatedly posting a set of your comments edited to try and make you look foolish. So? Their own comments provide plenty of unsubstantiated assertions or downright foolishness (eg I recall a comment in which Nostalgia-NZ clearly suggested the Police planted evidence), which would allow you to respond in kind. Instead you not only tried to get the thread shut down by spamming it, you lied about what you were doing. Its hard to see any justification in that.
    Says Psycho Milt.
    First of all,Psycho,
    I must have posted a dozen times re that planting of evidence. What about me phoning Schollum and getting it from the horses mouth. And what did those prodavidpricks do? Some of them still implied Weir planted that lens. So I take umbrage at you telling me I didn’t respond in kind. I would suggest I responded many more times than you did.
    And another thing, while I have heard the word “spamming” I had no idea that is what I was doing.
    So it is ok for Kanz and Judith and that other prick whose pseudonym I am not allowed to use in case he sues me, it is ok for them to spam but it is not ok for me to spam?
    The way I look at it Psycho,is that if they don’t play by the rules then why should I ?
    And if they hadn’t started “spamming” then I wouldn’t have tried to find out how to “spam’ back.
    So don’t give me a hard time. I apologised to you and you should have accepted my apology and not kept whining about what I had done.

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

    It is a discretionary cabinet decision

    Based on specific guidelines…for which David doesn’t qualify. So, yes, in his case he needs to prove innocence BRD.

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

    Or, to quote Judith Collins:

    “As Mr Bain’s application falls outside the cabinet guidelines, Mr Bain has no entitlement to compensation. Any decision regarding compensation is entirely at cabinet’s discretion.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Yes, there is provision to ALLOW for it but it still doesn’t command it. It is still up to cabinet. Cabinet does not have to allow anything, just like a referendum isn’t binding on cabinet, neither should anything to do with this matter be.

    Sorry missed the comma, anyone with a modicum of literacy would have understood proper England and grammar. Guess that isn’t you huh.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    I see this thread seems to have gone away from the evidence and now the arguments are about procedural matters.
    I am not the slightest bit interested in arguing the toss about them.
    I believe that Fisher will probably be asked to review Bain’s claim for compensation. Whether he will interview Bain I do not know. He may want to follow up on some of the answers he gave Binnie.
    But at the end of the day he will present his report . Judith Collins will look at it and make a decision.
    So unless something else comes up,that’s my lot, unless ,of course ,some prodavidbainer decides he/she wants me to come back by harassing me.
    Which they may well do.

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

    Wish DPF would start a new thread, this one is wasting my bandwidth and taking too long to load.
    Must be all that spam.

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

    Ross69, this from Power’s letter to Binnie. No mention of BRD I see.

    3 8 . Innocence on the balance o f probabilities is a minimum requirement, consistent
    with the Guidelines for eligible claimants. But the bar is set higher for claims that
    fall outside the Guidelines – something more is required that demonstrates that the
    circumstances are extraordinary. This is because the discretion should not be
    used in a way that would undermine the Guidelines .
    39. Although there can never be an exhaustive list of the kind of circumstances that
    might be regarded as “extraordinary”, the mere fact that an appeal has been
    allowed could never, of itself, suffice. To qualify as extraordinary, the
    circumstances must include some feature which takes the claimant’s case outside
    the ordinary run of cases in which appeals have been allowed . “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Does being ‘lucky’ count as extraordinary? I think it is extraordinary that this country is having to waste time and resources on this one issue. If cabinet do allow a payment to be made, I hope it is for the ‘right’ reasons, not just to make them go away.

    Some of the precedents and procedures applicable to this drama will hold the law in good stead, so it is not wasted. Other cases that might be eligible for compensation are no doubt watching avidly, so money spent now is not necessarily wasted.

    This is what the law does, and the purveyors look for ways to hone their craft.

    Judicial reviews and commissions of enquiry provide lessons of hindsight, thank goodness and are not crystal balls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:


    ‘And another thing, while I have heard the word “spamming” I had no idea that is what I was doing.’

    Ain’t that the truth. Should be the published motto of the JFRBainers – no idea of what they’re doing. So much for the bravado of going to put what he or she likes on KB and that ‘no one’ was going to stop him or her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Instead of looking at the cross word for a bit of mental stimulation try reading anything written by gk late at night, or in fact anytime, to see if you can make head or tails of it. Prayers and crystal balls all in one day.

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

    Ross69, this from Power’s letter to Binnie. No mention of BRD I see.

    You obviously didn’t read all of the letter:

    The test of “extraordinary circumstances” is inherently open-ended and the list above cannot be treated as exhaustive. There may be rare cases where there are other extraordinary features that render it in the interests of justice that compensation be paid. The onus is on the claimant to show that his or her case has extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice that the compensation claim be considered. This includes the requirement to prove innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    41. If a claimant wishes to demonstrate that he or she falls within the class of cases described as “unequivocal innocence”, the applicant must establish his or her innocence to the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

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

    • whether you are satisfied that Mr Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities and, if so, whether he is also innocent beyond reasonable doubt; and
    • any factors particular to Mr Bain’s case (apart from your assessment of innocence beyond reasonable doubt) that you consider are relevant to the Executive’s assessment of whether there are extraordinary circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice to consider his claim.

    Given that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case, David does have to prove innocence BRD. Indeed, why do you think Power asked Binnie to determine if David had proved his innocence BRD?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,856) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 7:14 am
    Given that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case, David does have to prove innocence BRD. Indeed, why do you think Power asked Binnie to determine if David had proved his innocence BRD?

    1. Power asked Binnie to determine if he proved his innocence BRD, in order to test one of the possible criterias.
    If that is not passed, then the alternative is that the applicant must prove innocence on Balance of Probabities, providing there are also ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

    Clearly you have very little understanding of such documentation, because this has been explained to you before. It is an ‘if/or’ type criteria. That is, if one standard isn’t met, then the second must apply.

    2. Extraordinary Circumstances do apply in this case. Something that even someone with your limited ability to understand basic concepts should be able to work that out.

    “The terms of the Cabinet directive are clear. While proof of factual innocence on a
    balance of probabilities is a condition precedent to compensation, it is not by itself sufficient to
    warrant recommendation of an ex gratia payment.
    478.
    For ease of reference I repeat the relevant criteria for the exercise of the “extraordinary
    circumstances” discretion set out in the Minister’s letter to me of 10 November 2011 as
    follows:
    “Examples of such circumstance include, but are not limited to, serious
    wrongdoing by authorities – i.e. an official admission or judicial finding
    of serious misconduct in the investigation and prosecution of the case.
    Examples might include bringing or continuing proceedings in bad faith,
    failing to take proper steps to investigate the possibility of innocence,
    the planting of evidence or suborning perjury.
    The test of “extraordinary circumstances” is inherently open-ended and
    the list above cannot be treated as exhaustive. There may be rare cases
    where there are other extraordinary features that render it in the
    interests of justice that compensation be paid.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/243466/new-bain-compo-report-likely
    John Key also said “There is other work he [Fisher] could do,or another person could do ,either domestically or off-shore.”
    Mr key said that while he was mindful of the cost “it is actually important that we reach a robust conclusion”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,856) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 7:14 am
    Given that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case, David does have to prove innocence BRD. Indeed, why do you think Power asked Binnie to determine if David had proved his innocence BRD?

    Sorry, but the other post published before I finished it, so I have started again.

    It appears you have great difficulty understanding the documents involved. This has been explained to you before, and obviously you cannot comprehend.

    1. The terms of the Cabinet directive are clear. While proof of factual innocence on a
    balance of probabilities is a condition precedent to compensation, it is not by itself sufficient to
    warrant recommendation of an ex gratia payment.
    478.
    For ease of reference I repeat the relevant criteria for the exercise of the “extraordinary
    circumstances” discretion set out in the Minister’s letter to me of 10 November 2011 as
    follows:
    “Examples of such circumstance include, but are not limited to, serious
    wrongdoing by authorities – i.e. an official admission or judicial finding
    of serious misconduct in the investigation and prosecution of the case.
    Examples might include bringing or continuing proceedings in bad faith,
    failing to take proper steps to investigate the possibility of innocence,
    the planting of evidence or suborning perjury.
    The test of “extraordinary circumstances” is inherently open-ended and
    the list above cannot be treated as exhaustive. There may be rare cases
    where there are other extraordinary features that render it in the
    interests of justice that compensation be paid.”

    2. Please note ‘“Examples of such circumstance include, but are not limited to, serious
    wrongdoing by authorities – i.e. an official admission or judicial finding

    of serious misconduct in the investigation and prosecution of the case,

    Examples might include bringing or continuing proceedings in bad faith,

    failing to take proper steps to investigate the possibility of innocence,

    the planting of evidence or suborning perjury.

    Now, try and understand this, read it slowly once or twice, and if you have trouble with the big words, just ask, ok?

    The minister (Power) stated in his letter that examples of ‘serious wrongdoings’ by Authorities can include
    “failing to take proper steps to investigate the possibility of innocence’.

    NOW, please note the word ‘possibility’, because that is important. That is not ‘probability. So what that means is that at every possible juncture, where there is evidence that might provide some possibility that the accused did not commit the crime, they must investigate it. They must take proper steps.

    THEN, the ‘failing to take proper steps’ becomes important. Which is a ‘classic description of negligence.

    ALSO, the ‘proper steps’ refers to the procedure, not the outcome. So if they have not followed the proper procedure, it does not matter what the outcome might have been, but they must conduct the investigation in the ‘proper’ (in this case as prescribed by their manual. (is is starting sound familiar yet? Go back and read it again if is isn’t).

    AS WELL AS, the words ‘serious misconduct by the authorities’. So that is the seriousness of things that are done, or not done that are serious, but also what level of gravity of the consequences to the person concerned, e.g. 13 years in prison, because the police did not take steps to test GSR when they could have, the ESR knowingly sent contaminated samples to the defence, the destruction of evidence before testing it, and so on.

    You may like to fool yourself into thinking there weren’t any extraordinary circumstances, but there are, and even Madame Collins cannot deny it. She can question whether some of them apply, but there are at least five, that no matter how she tries, she cannot dispute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. lazarus (68 comments) says:

    Hey Nos
    Looks like “The Truth” is going to be a good read this week.
    More about Davids lies and the lies of his supporters…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/justice-ian-binnie-and-faggoty-dress-party-rv-p-134759

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    lazarus (52) Says:

    January 24th, 2013 at 7:59 am
    Hey Nos
    Looks like “The Truth” is going to be a good read this week.
    More about Davids lies and the lies of his supporters
    Yep, the truth is coming out about all those lying supporters.
    I reckon we should just leave this thread to Judith and co so they can lie to themselves.
    Just so long as they don’t start spamming again.
    Otherwise I will have to spam back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The problem for you muggins, is that you, and Ross, the media and even Judith Collins can attempt to discredit anyone you like, however, the actual facts of the case will not change.

    Weir cannot undo his perjury, they cannot go back and complete the tests they should have taken, they cannot alter the evidence of blood spatter on Robin etc. They cannot prove the glasses were worn, they cannot alter anything that matters.

    So this campaign to discredit Binnie, and David Bain supporters, will not have any effect what-so-ever on the result but will just turn into a slinging match, that distracts the public’s attention. If Collins can be proven to be influenced by any of it, she will be required to hand the case over to someone else. So I would tread very carefully, if I was you, because she is already bordering on falling over that edge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith ,don’t try threatening me,you know it isn’t going to work.
    As if Judith Collins would take any notice of a retired office boy. Get real.
    Bordering of falling over the edge, in your dreams. You have been listening to too much propanganda.
    It seems to me that John Key is giving her his full support.
    There will be another report carried out. Judith Collins will look at it and make a decision.
    Get that through your thick noggin.

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

    Judith (1,013) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:12 am

    It is because the evidence supports Bain’s case that they feel the need to muddy the waters.
    Fortunately Kiwis hate dirty fights, and dodgy dealings. We saw it in the Thomas case, we are seeing it here too. The filthier and more public it becomes the less Collins can justify using a Kiwi QC to look into it. There are far too many have already said they are putting their mud pies before Fisher. The media, actually is doing a great job, ensuring that it will need to go overseas again as Key suggested it might.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,684) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:30 am
    Judith ,don’t try threatening me,you know it isn’t going to work.
    As if Judith Collins would take any notice of a retired office boy. Get real.
    Bordering of falling over the edge, in your dreams. You have been listening to too much propanganda.
    It seems to me that John Key is giving her his full support.
    There will be another report carried out. Judith Collins will look at it and make a decision.
    Get that through your thick noggin.

    ———————————–

    You seem to not understand the difference between a threat and advice. Which is understandable given the display of your behaviour on this thread in the last few days. Clearly you are losing it, becoming irrational and succumbing to the effects of age.

    Fact is, if I wouldn’t waste my time threatening you. I would quite simply use the copious quantities of material I have that reveal your previous comments and actions, and demonstrate exactly the very sad, nasty person you are, to those that need to see them (if I haven’t ready which could be why you are not getting the responses you desire) ;-).

    Whilst I’m at it, did you really think that your ‘so called’ phone calls would not be checked up on? The results were very interesting.

    There is much can be said about you, however this is not the place for that old man.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (750) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:30 am
    Judith (1,013) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:12 am

    It is because the evidence supports Bain’s case that they feel the need to muddy the waters.
    Fortunately Kiwis hate dirty fights, and dodgy dealings.

    Yes they do, and unfortunately not just in the case, but in JFRB there is a very big file of evidence that reveals the dodgy dealings and intimidation. It meanders down a path that leads to certain doors, behind which certain people will not be impressed at the ‘loose lips’ that have tied them together. 😉

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

    the actual facts of the case will not change.

    That is a problem for David, not anyone else. Having said that, David’s account could well change if he’s interviewed again. Next time he might remember that he did drive that weekend and he did tell his aunt about those glasses he was wearing. He might explain why he saw blood streaming down his mother’s face and didn’t try to help her. We live in hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    What’s happened to the spammer whammer? But he didn’t know what he was doing.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,577) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:09 am

    What’s happened to the spammer whammer? But he didn’t know what he was doing.

    Getting new strategy orders from his boss?
    That one didn’t work (have any of them?) it simply showed him up as a liar and dirty dealer to people who didn’t already know he was.
    He has, single handedly, discredited himself on every public blog that he has ever taken part in. He is probably looking for another one that doesn’t yet know him and his tactics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    I also just found out he contacted someone that he doesn’t pay for ‘advice.’ But his call wasn’t returned because the person involved had already told him in writing that he wouldn’t be accepting any ‘calls’ from him in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith
    Are you still implying ,despite what I have told you,and shown you, that Milton Weir planted that lens?
    And are you stll saying,despite all the evidence,that David Bain was not wearing those glasses that weekend?
    And don’t threaten me ,Judith.
    You have told more lies on this thread than anyone. In fact every post you make is a lie. You said you wouldn’t be posting any more on this thread,remember?
    I said I wouldn’t post unless something else came up, and something else did come up.
    You said you wouldn’t post ,fullstop.
    As I said,there will be another report done. Judith Collins will review that report and make a decision.
    It looks like there are only four people left posting on this thread,so we are all virtually talking to ourselves.
    We must all be a bit mad.

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

    muggins (1,685) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:58 am
    We must all be a bit mad.

    Speaking for yourself?

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,578) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:49 am

    I also just found out he contacted someone that he doesn’t pay for ‘advice.’ But his call wasn’t returned because the person involved had already told him in writing that he wouldn’t be accepting any ‘calls’ from him in the future.

    Panicking? So he should, he has gone too far this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,685) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:58 am
    Judith
    Are you still implying ,despite what I have told you,and shown you, that Milton Weir planted that lens?

    —————————

    You are a stupid old man. I have not implied Milton Weir planted anything, I have stated he committed perjury, which he did when he deliberately changed his evidence and in doing so, misled the jury. I am able to make that call, because a judicial decision supports it.

    If you see that as a threat, poor you! diddums. You are clearly irrational and unable to distinguish statements clearly. Your behaviour has proven that. Yes, I said I wouldn’t post anymore at one stage, as the thread had become negatively effected by Dotcoms postings, however, when he was removed, I made the decision to return. I am allowed to change my mind.

    It’s not as though I stated I had phoned people, that I never had!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Cartman @ 10.58

    “You have told more lies on this thread than anyone. In fact every post you make is a lie. You said you wouldn’t be posting any more on this thread,remember?”

    Pot/Kettle black?
    I notice Judith can actually back up what she posts unlike some spammers! who can only publish unsubstantiated myths, bs and what ‘some cop told me’
    You are a stupid irrational old man who has to lie and ‘find’ evidence out of your arse to fit your conspiracy theories!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I have copied this post from another blog, and I am sorry, but I don’t know the writers proper name to attribute it to them, however, it is an excellent post that makes some very good points, so I hope they do not take offence at my repost.

    ——————————

    Collins gave 3 possible alternatives in that interview that she was going to present to Cabinet: 1)make a decision based on the two reports (Binnie’s and Fisher’s); 2) Get Fisher to do another report; 3) get someone else to do another report.

    There is another option which she and the Government have overlooked, which is to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, as the Bain team have asked for and the Government seem to have strenuously resisted. When the Royal Commission was held into the Arthur Allan Thomas case, it was a shameful circus with the police booing and cheering as if they were at a rugby match, Fisher and other council for the police suggesting the judges were biased etc. The Police and the then solicitor-general refused to accept the findings of the Commission.

    The manipulation of the findings by Binnie based on the police review provided and on Fisher’s report suggests a similar dogmatic refusal to accept that they got it wrong, and a similar arrogant belief that they – the police – should be beyond criticism and beyond normal expectations of professionalism, and that once again they are being supported in this by Fisher. Only this time, Fisher was supposed to be independent.

    The political bias shown by Collins: uncritical acceptance of the findings by Police and Fisher, refusal to release the report to the Bain team, failing to give the Bain team the same opportunity to respond to the report as was given to the Police; has led to the unavoidable accusations of opinion-shopping. The use of Fisher to do the hatchet job was unsubtle and obvious. The pre-ordained outcome of Fisher’s review was an obvious contradiction of any claimed independence, and shows there was no integrity to the process.

    This stinks of corruption, and any claims by Collins of wanting a fair process and wanting to see justice to be done are flatly contradicted by her actions on this.

    It is time for those who genuinely care about justice to stand up and be counted, and to refuse to accept this charade.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    You are a stupid old man. I have not implied Milton Weir planted anything, I have stated he committed perjury, which he did when he deliberately changed his evidence and in doing so, misled the jury. I am able to make that call, because a judicial decision supports it.

    Actually, you are able to make that call because no-one much cares whether a bewildered obsessive libels someone on a comments thread. But feel free to prove me wrong about that by posting the judicial decision that declared Milton Weir committed perjury.

    I have not implied Milton Weir planted anything

    True enough, that’s more Joe Karam’s territory – and Rowan, Nostalgia-NZ et al, but their info comes from him so it’s basically the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    If you actually look at my posts then you will see that I like Judith said that Weir misled the jury as to where the jury was found, I never said the lens was planted, and neither did Joe Karam. Looks like your seeing what you want to see from the posts. Weir was stupid to make the claim that Joe said he planted the lens during the high court defamation trial because nowhere in D & G does it actually say that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,021) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 12:28 pm
    ——————-

    Another that twists words. Now where did I say there was a judicial decision that declared Milton Weir committed perjury?

    ” I am able to make that call, because a judicial decision supports it ”

    That decision is of course, the defamation case bought by Milton Weir, which he lost because statements about perjury were true, or not materially different from the truth.

    Details dear Milty, one simple word, but vastly different to ‘declared’.

    ———————————————————-

    It will be recalled that at the 1995 trial Det. Sgt Weir testified that while examining
    Stephen’s bedroom on 23 June 1994, he noted:
    “The photo 62 was taken on the Monday as Stephen’s body is still there
    and the lens is on the underneath side of the skate” … “on the Thursday
    the lens, as seen in photo 62, that is the position I found it when I found
    it on Thursday”.

    Q.
    “And the lens was found partially under the ice skate?”
    A.
    “Yes it was found as you can see it although I accept it is difficult
    to see it in photo 62, that is exactly how it was.”

    606.
    In fact, Det. Sgt Weir later admitted, when confronted with the analysis of the
    photograph by Mr Peter Durrant who was engaged in 1997 for the Police/Police Complaints
    Authority Joint Inquiry, that photo 62 did not show the lens exactly as it was. In fact photo 62
    did not show the lens at all.

    —————————————–

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    http://truth.co.nz/in-truth-this-week/?fb_source=pubv1

    I wonder who that double killer is?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Rowan (430) Says:

    January 24th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
    Milt
    If you actually look at my posts then you will see that I like Judith said that Weir misled the jury as to where the jury was found, I never said the lens was planted, and neither did Joe Karam. Looks like your seeing what you want to see from the posts. Weir was stupid to make the claim that Joe said he planted the lens during the high court defamation trial because
    nowhere in D & G does it actually say that.

    Rowan,if Weir was stupid to make that claim why did Karam’s lawyers offer him $50000 to settle out of court?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    The poster with the bullshit degree Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:49 am

    I also just found out he contacted someone that he doesn’t pay for ‘advice.’ But his call wasn’t returned because the person involved had already told him in writing that he wouldn’t be accepting any ‘calls’ from him in the future.

    Well either his lawyer is lying to him or the poster with the bullshit degree is lying.
    I have only had one letter from his lawyer and that was a couple of years ago,plus I received a couple of emails at the same time.
    The reason I have to keep contacting that lawyer is because he has repeatedly agreed to send me a copy of a signed agreement. I think the fact he hasn’t sent that copy is because the other party has never signed it, hence there is no agreement.
    However, just in case I am wrong I have changed the name on this post.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Im my book a genuine mistake is not ‘perjury’ and to say some has committed ‘perjury’ that person then has to be able to prove intent to ‘perjure’ otherwise they are entering into ‘libel’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Kanz (753) Says:

    January 14th, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    Oliver Twist (32) Says:
    January 14th, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    @Rowan. The blood was tested. One spot of Robin’s blood landed with some force on Robin’s LEFT index fingernail. It’s in Dempster’s pathology report.

    My last post on this thread.

    Kanz,lying again. Every time you post you lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Chuck Bird (6,479 comments) says:

    The following video about Binnie is well worth to 30 minutes viewing. It shows how dishonest he is . He and David are well suited. Power should checked this dodgy dude out before recommending him. He left Judith a mess to sort out.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    Weir was stupid to make the claim that Joe said he planted the lens during the high court defamation trial because nowhere in D & G does it actually say that.

    Indeed it doesn’t – throughout D & G, Karam continually and not-at-all-subtly implies that Weir planted evidence and lied to the jury but is careful never to explicitly say so. I don’t doubt that Karam’s publisher had much better legal advice than Milton Weir did, but as far as I’m concerned, if someone spends an entire book trying to persuade me that Milton Weir planted evidence and lied to a jury, the question of whether or not he states it explicitly anywhere is irrelevant. You, Judith and Nostalgia-NZ attempt to pull the same trick but really aren’t as good at it.

    That decision is of course, the defamation case bought by Milton Weir, which he lost because statements about perjury were true, or not materially different from the truth.

    Which he lost because the jury unsurprisingly found Joe Karam was entitled to his opinion, as long as he wasn’t so foolish as to explicitly state that opinion in his book. You on the other hand are so foolish as to explicitly state it, but as I pointed out, no-one cares much if a bewildered obsessive libels them on a comments thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Oh dear, I ‘didn’t’ hear a phone message that never happened that either I ‘lied’ about or that a lawyer ‘lied’ about.

    Everyone is lying except one person, heck.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Based on the conditions placed on the Watson Defence team [An oath of secrecy sworn before a High Court Judge] before they were asked [note ‘asked’] to comment on the report of Kristy McDonald QC into the Ministry of Justice instructions to investigate instead of the petition of Scott Watson, it is reasonably clear with holding the cabinet requested report and legal advice is not normally supplied to the petitioner or claimant as it involves privileged legal advice to the Minister.
    In Watson the privilege waiver applied only to Mike Antunovic, Greg King and one other. Scott could be shown it but could not read it nor make notes and Chris Watson was specifically excluded from seeing it.

    Power’s letter of instruction is reasonably clear, considering his is a lawyer, the the Justice was assess innocence to either of the two standards, then if he believed the appropriate standard had been met to suggest specific circumstances Cabinet could look to to assess if the circumstance met the extraordinary standard. The Minister’s letter reminded Justice Binnie he was not to make any finding apart from the innocence standard that was strictly the function of cabinet. The Justice did a credible job of the innocence section, but seems in his enthusiasm to settle all stepped into the area he was told not to, so acted altra vires. I believe had the Learned Justice remained inside his brief the report would have probably been accepted and a decision made.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    @Judith

    If you see that as a threat, poor you! diddums. You are clearly irrational and unable to distinguish statements clearly. Your behaviour has proven that. Yes, I said I wouldn’t post anymore at one stage, as the thread had become negatively effected (sic)by Dotcoms postings, however, when he was removed, I made the decision to return. I am allowed to change my mind.

    ‘Affected’ I think you will find.

    Just checked the bottom of my shoe, and yup there ‘it’ was. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Chuck Bird (6,479 comments) says:

    @Lindsay “the Learned Justice”

    The sooner we get rid of the idea that judges are near infallible and also tone down the court room procedures that inflates there already inflated egos the sooner we will get justice.

    If you check the link you will see that Binnie is not only a fool but an arrogant fool who cares nothing about justice.

    We need real judicial accountability. The idea that appealing to a higher court produces a just result is rubbish.

    There are certainly some good judges with decent standard of ethics – some very high. However, because judges all are first lawyers we end up with some with very low ethical standards.

    I certainly do not automatically respect someone because they managed to get themselves appointed as a judge to suit their narcissistic personalities.

    I am not a criminal but a civil litigant fighting a former lawyer who is crooked as a dogs hind leg and his barrister who is not much better.

    The only way we will get a just system is to hold judges accountable and consider getting rid of the adversarial system which encourages dishonesty amongst our future judges.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Cartman @ 2.04
    Thanks for pointing out the post but if you actually read all of the post you will find it is your bumbuddy Oliver Twists lie that Kanz had reposted. Maybe you could have added the last couple of lines where Kanz actually points out the lie. Another of your tactics twisting our posts right back at us. Shows us your level of intelligence like your arguments 0.000000%.
    As to the defamation trial back in 2000 what actually happened again? Weir was stupid enough to make the claim and it got thrown out along with all the other ones. As I have pointed out to you to help with Kents upcoming defamation. In order to use the ‘honest opinion’ defence you need to show that you have (a) established enough ‘facts’ and (b) the facts are not materially different from the truth. To date the ‘daddy didn’t do it’ witchhunt has established no facts that haven’t been reported in the media (how to spell the dogs name is utterly irrelevant) and they have a long way to go before getting close to (b) as the amount of spun out bs on that site is incredible!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    @ Rowan
    If you do not want to read the ‘bullshit’ on a site lol don’t go there. I have been invited to read the ‘odd’ blog, lol by the odd ‘odd’ blogger before, but deign not to. I would rather look at the bottom of my shoe. Much the same thing. 😉

    I am sure you do not get invited anywhere!! I certainly do not think you should go anywhere where you are a) not invited and b) likely to be unwelcome, but I suppose it gives you purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    muggins (1,689) Says:

    January 24th, 2013 at 2:04 pm
    Kanz (753) Says:

    My last post on this thread.

    Kanz lied. And that means he is lying every time he posts,just like Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. lazarus (68 comments) says:

    Welcome to the Dance of the Desperate.
    Yes. When the Joe Karam psycophants don’t like something they read they go tell their master.
    When you are losing or about to lose, well just threaten legal action.

    I’m telling on you.

    What are you? five Rowan?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    muggins (1,690) Says:

    January 24th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    The poster with the bullshit degree Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:49 am

    I also just found out he contacted someone that he doesn’t pay for ‘advice.’ But his call wasn’t returned because the person involved had already told him in writing that he wouldn’t be accepting any ‘calls’ from him in the future.

    Well either his lawyer is lying to him or the poster with the bullshit degree is lying.
    I have only had one letter from his lawyer and that was a couple of years ago,plus I received a couple of emails at the same time.
    The reason I have to keep contacting that lawyer is because he has repeatedly agreed to send me a copy of a signed agreement. I think the fact he hasn’t sent that copy is because the other party has never signed it, hence there is no agreement.
    However, just in case I am wrong I have changed the name of that poster.
    As I have already said,I have had no letter from that lawyer since 2010.
    As I have already said, I contacted that lawyer[and will do so again] because he still has not sent me a signed copy of an agreement he has promised to send me at least three times.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Cartman
    Does the following show the same applies to you? or are you allowed to change your mind? I notice noone did comment on this between this and your next post.

    muggins (1,690) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 10:14 pm
    I see this thread seems to have gone away from the evidence and now the arguments are about procedural matters.
    I am not the slightest bit interested in arguing the toss about them.
    I believe that Fisher will probably be asked to review Bain’s claim for compensation. Whether he will interview Bain I do not know. He may want to follow up on some of the answers he gave Binnie.
    But at the end of the day he will present his report . Judith Collins will look at it and make a decision.
    So unless something else comes up,that’s my lot, unless ,of course ,some prodavidbainer decides he/she wants me to come back by harassing me.
    Which they may well do.

    Therefore how are you not ‘lying’ every time you post? translation you are lying just like you are with the ‘facts’ you keep pulling out of your arse!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Better watch out Cartman
    Lazarus wants to join in with you and your sick fantasies about that goat!

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

    Rowan (431) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Cartman @ 2.04
    Thanks for pointing out the post but if you actually read all of the post you will find it is your bumbuddy Oliver Twists lie that Kanz had reposted. Maybe you could have added the last couple of lines where Kanz actually points out the lie. Another of your tactics twisting our posts right back at us. Shows us your level of intelligence like your arguments 0.000000%.

    It is all they have. Just as they have been doing to Bain for the last 18 years. The fact is, they don’t twist our posts at us, but use somebody else’s words to call us liars.
    Unfortunately for poor, desperate old muggins, he also reposts the time of the original post and anybody can see from that he is the one lying. It is fun watching such a public meltdown, though.
    I noticed Psycho Milt yesterday say that we had edited muggins’ posts when showing him up, they were never tampered with in any way, simply reposting what he had said word for word. Still, if all else fails (as it is certainly doing) then make stories up to fit. At least that is the counterspin way.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Of course I believe my Lawyer and my own ears, the essence of the relationship. I don’t believe the ‘person’ who was told to stop contacting him. Funny that. I also believe what I read, saw and signed, that which I have stuck with and am taking advice on it having been breached, more than once, the previous costs involved, the remedies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Strange I know, but could David please be referred to as David not Bain? I find the use of surnames where there are other distinguishments rude. Same with Ian Binnie not just Binnie, regardless of stance.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,580) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    Of course I believe my Lawyer and my own ears, the essence of the relationship. I don’t believe the ‘person’ who was told to stop contacting him. Funny that. I also believe what I read, saw and signed, that which I have stuck with and am taking advice on it having been breached, more than once, the previous costs involved, the remedies.

    What? You believe your lawyer and your own ears before believing the ‘honest to goodness, trust me’ muggins?
    He wouldn’t lie, would he?
    It seems to me he wants your lawyer to do his work for him, he deserves nothing. Not advice, not respect, he is not entitled to a copy of what is essentially your agreement, you have bought and paid for it, has he? If he continues to phone your lawyer, he could find a harassment charge against him, particularly after being asked not to, and in writing.
    I do hope the advice you receive is to return it to court, many of us have seen the heaps of times he has broken that agreement, and this time go him for all the costs to date. You might as well have his money. Just be aware, he will even try lying about being himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    A question. How could RB have changed in the laundry without getting blood from the pullover on his face/neck/hair? If so, he must have used his hands to wash it off?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    @ Kanz re commissioning parties, absolutely the information belongs to them, just as Ian Binnies report was commissioned by the Government. How is this any different?

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

    This is different because the Government paid for it with our taxes. What is paid for with taxes belongs to the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    I noticed Psycho Milt yesterday say that we had edited muggins’ posts when showing him up, they were never tampered with in any way, simply reposting what he had said word for word. Still, if all else fails (as it is certainly doing) then make stories up to fit.

    I didn’t read the posts in question as they seemed to be part of some obscure feud among Bain obsessives, but did notice that they were compiled from several different comments. That, to me and every other literate speaker of the English language, constitutes “editing.” I also have no doubt that the particular pieces of text included in the compilation were selected with a particular effect in mind, which also constitutes “editing.” Given that various Karam followers on the thread seem unfamiliar with the meanings of “know,” “fact” and “discredited,” I guess it should come as no surprise if other words prove equally confusing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    It was provided to the people, I see no distinguishment, the same applied to the Melbourne armourers report? didn’t it, although why it didn’t exonerate David either I guess only those that were privy to it will know.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    A question. How could RB have changed in the laundry without getting blood from the pullover on his face/neck/hair? If so, he must have used his hands to wash it off?

    It’s a question that applies equally to David if it was him wearing the jersey.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    What is bothering me about RB changing is that perhaps we need to add it to the list of damned unlucky breaks that have affected DB. Firstly , I presume RB didn’t. Walk out to the caravan either naked oer covered in bloody clothes to get the change. So he must have known in advance that his scheme for quick silent slaughter wasn’t going to work, so he brings the change in in advance. Then he changes his bloody clothes (including one he has to pull over his head) in a dark room (dark enough to fool DB re the blood on his clothes) without leaving a single bloody footprint. Just see how unlucky DB was- one small footprint, and he would never have been charged. Finally, RB. washes his face/neck or whatever with his hands in just such a way as to leave dirt.
    Really, has anyone in NZ been as unlucky as DB?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Sorry about the vague “his clothes” meant “the clothes”

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

    Snarkle (24) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    What is bothering me about RB changing is that perhaps we need to add it to the list of damned unlucky breaks that have affected DB. Firstly , I presume RB didn’t. Walk out to the caravan either naked oer covered in bloody clothes to get the change. So he must have known in advance that his scheme for quick silent slaughter wasn’t going to work, so he brings the change in in advance. Then he changes his bloody clothes (including one he has to pull over his head) in a dark room (dark enough to fool DB re the blood on his clothes) without leaving a single bloody footprint. Just see how unlucky DB was- one small footprint, and he would never have been charged. Finally, RB. washes his face/neck or whatever with his hands in just such a way as to leave dirt.
    Really, has anyone in NZ been as unlucky as DB?

    ————————————————-

    RB kept his clothes in David’s room. He didn’t have to walk outside the house to get the clothes. The green jersey had neckline that wasn’t ‘tight’ over the head. You are also presuming that blood from Stephen would have got round the top neckline area, it may not have. Especially considering Stephen would have weakened quickly due to his excessive blood loss. The rest of the jersey is more than big enough to be removed which coming into contact with the head.

    The blood on David’s clothes was not a huge amount. Was not seepage but swipe marks, the largest being on the back of the shirt.

    And there were two complete footprints left, too small to be David’s, but our incompetent Police, in particular Milton Weir, didn’t have the sample kept because he apparently didn’t read the manual, or if he did, he choose to ignore the responsibilities of his position. Consequently, there has been dispute over those prints.

    When is complete, not complete? When the Dunedin CIB are involved!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Snarkle (24) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 5:40 pm
    A question. How could RB have changed in the laundry without getting blood from the pullover on his face/neck/hair? If so, he must have used his hands to wash it off?’

    You’re going against the ‘party line’ because daddy did have ‘blood wash’ on his hands. Critical evidence against him. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Is there always a poll vote? lol Sounds like pole vault. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Sock print, for someone that is such a pedantic apologist your description of the ‘print’ is ridiculous.

    Easy for David to have got a jersey of his father’s to wear then, since they were apparently in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Should you be allowed to vote for your own posts? I assume you can. As I shall not I guess I won’t get any love. lol Self love does not count people.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    Easy for David to have got a jersey of his father’s to wear then, since they were apparently in his room.

    Judith does a good line in “knowing” things, with “knowing” in quotation marks because I get the impression she really does imagine she “knows” them. We actually have no basis for knowing whether the jersey was Robin’s, whether it was stored in David’s wardrobe, whether the footprints were his or David’s, or whether the bloodstains on David’s clothes seeped through from a murdering outfit or not.

    Snarkle: interesting post. Certainly, David’s clothes suggest there are significant drawbacks in merely removing outer layers of murdering clothes and leaving the lower layers in place, so if it was Robin he would have had to completely change the clothes and clean himself up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    So, he kills his family, goes to DB’s room for clothes, goes to the dark laundry, changes clothes without leaving a single footprint, gets a small amount of blood on his hands (what was the estimated volume of blood on his hands BTW?), doesn’t need to wash his face/neck despite fooling around with bloody clothes in a dark room, and goes to a third room for the express purpose of writing the worse suicide note ever…
    Do you not agree that DB is indeed unlucky that that at no point in all this RB left no incriminating evidence? One small footprint in the laundry would have been all…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Sorry, meant “naked footprint”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,026) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 7:27 pm
    Easy for David to have got a jersey of his father’s to wear then, since they were apparently in his room.

    Judith does a good line in “knowing” things, with “knowing” in quotation marks because I get the impression she really does imagine she “knows” them. We actually have no basis for knowing whether the jersey was Robin’s, whether it was stored in David’s wardrobe, whether the footprints were his or David’s, or whether the bloodstains on David’s clothes seeped through from a murdering outfit or not.

    ——————————-

    The blood on David’s clothes were described as ‘swipe’ marks by both the Crown and the Defense and not at all consistent with blood seepage through the green jersey. David’s under layer was crewe neck, however there was no blood in that area that would have been exposed by the V of the green jersey. Apparently you know more though. Perhaps you could tell us your qualifications, and when you had the opportunity to examine the evidence in question?

    You are right, Robin probably only wore it for the photo. Maybe he took it off one of his daughters whilst she was still wearing it?

    Point is, it was too small for David, and not because of shrinkage. The fibres of the jersey were not sufficiently felted to account for the size variation.

    I did not say the jersey was stored in David’s wardrobe. That was your own invention. However, as Robin’s other clothes were stored in David’s room, it is reasonable to conclude that it could have been.

    I certainly do not ‘know’ it all, however, it wouldn’t be hard to know more than snarkle, going from his comments, e.g. he clearly doesn’t know the laundry floor was wet, so footprints would not have remained.
    I am reasonably well informed, having studied almost every official document. Have you even sighted the trial transcripts Milt or do you form your opinions from what you are told by other people?

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

    Snarkle (26) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    Sorry, meant “naked footprint”

    —————————-

    It doesn’t matter whether it was naked or not, the laundry floor was wet. Footprints would not have survived.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @ Chuch
    The reference to the Learned Justice was a little tongue in cheek. I have watched the Canadian Supreme Court item and found it very disturbing when put alongside the Bain report.
    Binnie appears to like to support what he sees as the underdog as the case discussed Binnie totally ignores factual evidence to throw stones at some one with whom he thinks has non pc views. He would have fitted into the Court of Appeal hearing for Scott Watson seamlessly.

    This Case is tying up justice to a totally unacceptable level with others seeking justice being refused funding or having to wait on official to move as they prepare at even less than their usual crippled geriatric snail pace. More that four [4] years waiting on a report on a petition to the Governor General for an appeal court hearing and there appears to be no chance for another two [2] years.
    Bain served a total of 13 years and in that time had three trips to the CoA two applications to the JCPC one failed one successful, three [I believe] Petitions to the GG.
    This whole matter needs to be put to bed by perhaps an admission that things did fall a bit below perfect but it was done by a team in the main with extensive experience in multiple homicides [Aromoana] and ESR strapped for cash as the Experiments of 1984-1999 of user pays cut efficiency everywhere. I personally do not believe compensation should be paid as I do not believe the only viable alternative Robin, given the strident insistence of his having been deeply depressed, would have chosen the method or the manner. Depression sufferers when in an episode are extremely self centred and see the solution to problems as being in themselves and the best way is suicide. Those left will be better off and can on with their lives free of sufferer dragging them down. Depression sufferers don’t kill anyone but them selves those with other mental health problems AND depression can and do commit mass homicide depression sufferer with out other serious mental illness if they kill limit themselves to one, themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Snarkle (26) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    So, he kills his family, goes to DB’s room for clothes, goes to the dark laundry, changes clothes without leaving a single footprint, gets a small amount of blood on his hands (what was the estimated volume of blood on his hands BTW?), doesn’t need to wash his face/neck despite fooling around with bloody clothes in a dark room, and goes to a third room for the express purpose of writing the worse suicide note ever…
    Do you not agree that DB is indeed unlucky that that at no point in all this RB left no incriminating evidence? One small footprint in the laundry would have been all…’

    How would a ‘small’ amount of blood on his palms be insignificant? You keep repeating ‘luck.’ Well, daddy was ‘unlucky’ to die with blood on his hands because it showed what he’d been up to that morning. But of course Robin could never have anticipated that investigators would overlook the obvious and concentrate on the obscure, and of course there is little cause to predict what daddy was thinking.

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

    Judith
    Hmm laundry floor wet eh? Any bloodstaining on Robin’s socks, by any chance? Or did he manage to balance on one foot, pull of the bloodstained sock, put on a clean one; then repeat there, slip it into his shoe, then the same again? In a room so dark DB couldn’t see blood?
    Do you not agree that DB was just the teensiest bit unlucky here?
    BTW what was the estimated blood volume on RB’s hands?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Snarkle (27) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    Judith
    Hmm laundry floor wet eh? Any bloodstaining on Robin’s socks, by any chance? Or did he manage to balance on one foot, pull of the bloodstained sock, put on a clean one; then repeat there, slip it into his shoe, then the same again? In a room so dark DB couldn’t see blood?
    Do you not agree that DB was just the teensiest bit unlucky here?
    BTW what was the estimated blood volume on RB’s hands?’

    How quaint, you make a definitive statement and then ask questions to confirm it. You may think it is unusual but have you considered supporting your statements with facts rather than fishing around for them afterwards?

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

    Snarkle (27) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    ———————

    Have you never walked from the bathroom to your bedroom to finish dressing? Most people I know just take the essentials to the bathroom and put socks, shoes, etc on once back in their rooms. But hey, they might all be weird and the Bain’s the only normal ones!

    The investigating police had to set up special lighting in the house in order to see anything very much, because the light bulbs were all low wattage. A habit of Robin’s apparently, he like to save power.

    No I don’t think David Bain was unlucky. I think the CIB in Dunedin were incompetent, irresponsible and unprepared. That is not bad luck. Luck has nothing to do with it, as it could and should have been prevented. They should have conducted their investigation according to the manual. If they had, we would not be having this conversation. If they had done just one of many things e.g. GSR tests, kept the carpet with the footprints on it, tested the blood on Robin’s hands, under his fingernails etc, this case would have been solved 18 years ago, and a whole heap of old folks would have the new hips they need, instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Lindsay @ 7.53
    “Binnie appears to like to support what he sees as the underdog as the case discussed Binnie totally ignores factual evidence to throw stones at some one with whom he thinks has non pc views”
    Maybe you could elaborate on what ‘factual evidence’ Binnie has ignored? Every aspect has been covered, discredited evidence that the spinners ‘cling to’ such as Kim Jones lies about fingerprints have been given the rightful conclusion, ie fingerprints not in blood so doesn’t advance your argument for guilt. IB ‘ignored the big picture’ is bull just Judy doesn’t like the conclusions!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Blood speck on Robin’s finger, his own

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    Robin only has to remove his socks and the green jersey that is it, certainly not as hard as you people make it. Lack of photos and blood testing certainly help convince you that ‘Daddy is innocent’ The green jersey was about 5 inches to small for David so if he had worn it then it would be expected to have significantly more blood especially around his wrists and the neck area. I notice some idiots trying to run the ‘shrunk’ in the wash myth yet it was Robins (or Arawas) jersey they were 5’9, David 6’4, does this really sound likely to you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (78) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    Blood speck on Robin’s finger, his own’

    Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi,
    Not tested so no way of ‘knowing’ that. Dempster agreed it was consistent with coming from someone else ie fight with Stephen. Nice try.

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

    goldnkiwi (78) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    Blood speck on Robin’s finger, his own

    Donkey tell you that, did it?
    Nobody knows whose it was because our ever so clever police decided they would leave it and simply guess at the origin.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Of course, at least toward the end Robin wasn’t trying to hide anything, his actions were very evident. Though even in the beginning he simply wore his own green jersey. But maybe one of the dear sisters might like to explain the evidence that puts that jersey on David and not on daddy. That could be a help.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. Chuck Bird (6,479 comments) says:

    @Lindsay Kennard

    You raise some very good points. I do not see why we went to the extra expense of paying for someone from overseas. Are our judges bias or was the idea to spend money to show an unbiased referee?

    I am in a civil case against a former lawyer who owes money all over the place but can put on a good front. It would be nice if a could ask for an out of town judge or a least on I was sure did not drink at the Northern Club with him in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Luminol reacts with ferric acid in the blood. so only red bloods are visible with, there’s no DNA in the red cells. also depending on the quantity of red cells luminol luminescence can destroy al all the ferric acid and luminol will not react again. The ESR technician would have known if the stains were reusable that the photos did not print would seem to indicate the prints were not very bright. so taking the prints would not seemed viable then. It is futile to look at testing systems used now and say the should have waited.
    Carried to its logical extreme no trials involving Forensics in case a new process or test might be found in twenty years, it’s just not feasible.
    Project Innocence has shown in some of its successful appeals and exonerations even after 30 years and DNA proving innocence it was only a factor in the conviction with a number of other issues even to the extent of the conviction based on offender confession in part.
    Hindsight is 20/20 but it must focus on what actually existed not what would have been nice to have had. In spite all that was wrong far more was right. In spite of all protests burning the house was the only solution as no demolition firms were willing to do the job. As soon as police handed the scene back the family were responsible for all services including security which was costed to $1000 per week. No Executer is going to be willing to authorise the amount for 13 years just in case there was a later second trial as the cost not allowing for inflation is $676,000 then there’s rates … think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Oh dear someone was trying to pin the tail on the donkey with a big whopper.

    I need a little help about the ‘current’ favorite position of the sisters. Is it the case that Robin set David up, or that David set Robin up? Maybe Kent could help clear that up, otherwise it looks like the sisters are doing in ‘both’ ways and that would be a bit naughty.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    I am reasonably well informed, having studied almost every official document. Have you even sighted the trial transcripts Milt or do you form your opinions from what you are told by other people?

    I form my opinions in the full awareness that they’re opinions, not knowledge. You should try it sometime.

    But maybe one of the dear sisters might like to explain the evidence that puts that jersey on David and not on daddy.

    I’m nobody’s sister, but do find that a funny comment. The only thing that links the person you sneeringly call “daddy” (an insight into your character, like it or not) to that jersey is probability, and I seem to recall you and various others rejecting that outright as a basis for considering something to be evidence, when applied to David. (Or should I be getting into the swing of things and calling him “sonny?”)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    @ Lindsay
    A pity Robin doesnt fit your ‘profile’ of a perpatrator of familicide. Didn’t know there were any rules, its a shame that he didn’t just shoot himself. He would have had considerable motive to shoot Margaret and Laniet (even if allegations were untrue would still be very shameful), Arawa and Stephen were probably unfortunate witnesses. I do not believe there was any ‘planning’ to the event, Maybe Robin didn’t plan to shoot himself or to spare David, probably lucky for David he was out of the house at the time. Depression was the only motive suggested for the Schlaepfer family massacre, does this qualify your rules/perpetrator profile?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @ Rowan (436) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:25 pm

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

    Watch this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    I’m nobody’s sister, but do find that a funny comment. The only thing that links the person you sneeringly call “daddy” (an insight into your character, like it or not) to that jersey is probability, and I seem to recall you and various others rejecting that outright as a basis for considering something to be evidence, when applied to David. (Or should I be getting into the swing of things and calling him “sonny?”)’

    Good work milt, a post that must have made sense to somebody. Good to see you losing what little cool you had.
    By all means call David ‘sonny’ if you like. I hope you feel more relaxed after displaying your inner most feelings.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,947) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    You ask if our judges are biased, then go on to point out you think they are or at least in your case?
    Welcome to the NZ form of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    The green jersey was about 5 inches to small for David so if he had worn it then it would be expected to have significantly more blood especially around his wrists and the neck area.

    “If it does not fit, you must acquit.” It actually made more sense in OJ Simpson’s case than in David’s. Perhaps David is as innocent as OJ was?

    Consider the following:

    1. Someone wanting to not be suspected of murder might not trouble himself overly much about whether using someone else’s clothes for a murdering outfit will leave him sartorially embarrassed. The people who see you in it won’t be around to laugh at how silly you looked.

    2. Neither you nor anyone else knows what blood was where on the murderer’s clothes. It seems very likely there was some on the right shoulder of the jersey, but that’s about it. We also have reason to suspect that the murderer had some on his shorts and t-shirt, but even that’s only a suspicion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    I hope you feel more relaxed after displaying your inner most feelings.

    My contempt for the way Bainaholics sneer at different family members depending on which side of the partisan divide they sit isn’t an “innermost feeling,” it’s one I’m quite happy to acknowledge publicly.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    One big problem I have with the Binnie report is if he was requested to enquire into this matter and sent copies of court transcripts, evidence etc, what other contact was made? And by whom? If the only paperwork he received was official, which is how it should have been, then how come he knew about certain books written by a certain someone who was not a witness, never gave evidence in any court, and in fact had no connection at all to the first trial and yet Binnie asked to be supplied with copies of same?? That makes me very suspicious about how much input there was from that certain person and how much notice was taken of it. For the report to be fair and seen to be fair, the only things taken into account should have been cold hard facts and forensic evidence, not hearsay, innuendo, rumours etc.

    That Truth article must be worrying to the proDavidBain camp if the main public support they get is from a double killer, one who stabbed a partygoer to death and then shot an innocent bystander in the head with a shotgun!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Lindsay @ 9.15
    I have watched it. I find the cases to different to compare, Yes there is stuff ignored in the Canadian case but comparing apples and oranges. Again what has Ian specifically ignored in this case? If you look hard at the forensics in the lounge in this case, ie upward trajectory, leg bent at the knee (as indicated by two directions of blood splatter plus photo in Joe Karams book), misfired bullet, likely standing (on the crowns scenario in front of the closed curtains while not hearing or noticing the computer, blood on his body not consistent with his head wound then I just find the explanation for Robins murder scene (which Raftery was unable to give and steered well clear of), then it is just far to implausible for the wound not to be self inflicted.
    The items not used in the final conclusion (secondary issues in the report) ie broken glasses, gurgling, small amounts of blood etc just don’t go far enough to proving anything.
    I found Robert Fishers report far to legalistic and academic much like the criticism of his report into the Rex Haig case.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,028) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    ————————

    We all have opinions. Much of what I comment on is opinion, a lot of it is knowledge. Can I suggest you take the time to gain some knowledge, which will in turn provide you with a more ‘informed’ set of opinions. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Chuck Bird (6,479 comments) says:

    “You ask if our judges are biased, then go on to point out you think they are or at least in your case?
    Welcome to the NZ form of justice.”

    Can you name a country where the police do not stuff up some major murder enquirers? Can you name a country where all judges are 100% honest and will always stand down or at least disclose a perceived conflict of interest?

    Just because the police made some stupid stuff ups in this case does not mean David is innocent.

    There are miscarriages of justice and not enough open justice. I think it unlikely that Scott Watson is not guilty and the police acted quite unethically in his case as opposed to incompetently in the Bain case.

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

    corrigenda (54) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:40 pm
    ————————

    I was more concerned with the fact he read the Justice for Robin Bain facebook page and Counterspin site, which are full of ” hearsay, innuendo, rumours etc.” Not to mention defamatory statements, intimidation, threats, harassment plans, and out right lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith
    Shouldn’t we be congratulating counterspin? Ian Binnie read it all and became convinced of Davids innocence! their one and only achievement to date. I thought he should have read McNeish and the other book as well as JKs as they were also quite good at conveying the opposite meaning that they intended. McNeish was out of his depth as a shrink!

    @ Corrienda
    How is this individual the ‘main public support’? Truth is just a distraction to the compensation issue, Guest is a disgrace, this is not ‘new evidence’ that he is trolling.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Well thanks milt. I’m glad you’ve cleared the air by speaking about your difficulties.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Just a small insignificant thing;

    Robin Bain was shorter than David but was of a heavier build so if a jersey was tight on David then it would be even tighter on Robin.

    At one Stage on Trade Me it was pretty much common grown Margaret Cullen Bain was an experienced knitter and was emphatic knitted garments were hand washed NO exceptions, she was the knitter of the garments so what she said was ‘law’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,948) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:47 pm

    Can you name a country where the police do not stuff up some major murder enquirers? Can you name a country where all judges are 100% honest and will always stand down or at least disclose a perceived conflict of interest?

    Just because the police made some stupid stuff ups in this case does not mean David is innocent.

    ————————
    I just want to comment on this part of your post.

    You are perfectly right, it does not mean David is innocent because the police stuffed up. But it does mean that he could have been prevented from proving his innocence BRD, and the actual perpetrator was not found, due to those stuff ups.

    The issue remains, do we allow one man to be imprisoned for 13 years, when there is not sufficient honest evidence to find him guilty, or do we look at the causes for why the perpetrator can not be established in this case, and learn so such mistakes are not repeated.

    How would you feel if that was you behind bars for something you didn’t do, but couldn’t prove, because the very people charged with establishing if you were innocent, or guilty, did not follow the procedure required of their position?

    Do not forget, the police job was to investigate innocence as much as guilt. They did not even attempt to do that.

    You want to get angry, then target those responsible for this mess. When our employees stuff up, we all pay. The police are our employees.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Judith (1,025) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    Some good reading on those sites.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (19) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
    ————————–

    And of course, all children always do exactly what their mothers say and those that don’t are murderers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Chuck @ 9.47
    ‘I think it unlikely that Scott Watson is not guilty’
    Really on what grounds? no evidence in this case at all, could put the same case against any other lone male yachtsman with a boat there at the time! as Keith Hunter says in Trial by Trickery the best evidence against him was the cellmate confession. This is a weaker case than the one Hutton & co stitched up against AA Thomas.
    No proper identification of SW
    No identification of Blade
    Plenty of difference between SW and the ‘mystery man’
    etc etc

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    How’s it going corri, feeling any better?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    corrigenda (54) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 9:40 pm

    One big problem I have with the Binnie report is if he was requested to enquire into this matter and sent copies of court transcripts, evidence etc, what other contact was made? And by whom? If the only paperwork he received was official, which is how it should have been, then how come he knew about certain books written by a certain someone who was not a witness, never gave evidence in any court, and in fact had no connection at all to the first trial and yet Binnie asked to be supplied with copies of same?? That makes me very suspicious about how much input there was from that certain person and how much notice was taken of it. For the report to be fair and seen to be fair, the only things taken into account should have been cold hard facts and forensic evidence, not hearsay, innuendo, rumours etc.

    He knew about the books because Crown Law, in their submissions, also sent a copy of the PCA report. That report was done specifically to give the investigating cops a ‘clean bill of health’ in answer to the first book. It was Crown Law who told him of their existence.
    You can be as suspicious as you like, but first you need to acquaint yourself with the facts, rather than gossip and innuendo.

    Any person who would publicly admit to reading NZ’s worst ever ‘soft porn’ rag and believe what it says (worse still recommends it), in my opinion, is destitute of any self respect whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (55) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
    ———————-

    I have read them. But the point is, you say Binnie didn’t get any facts and truths, and yet he had read those site, so you are saying there are no truths or facts on those sites as well. I hope they don’t cancel your membership.

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

    I must say thank you to the person who sent the very interesting PDFs I received tonight. I haven’t finished reading them yet, but it is good so far. Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    I’m sorry- must have missed it- how much blood (estimated volume) on RB’s hands?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    I would guess you lot have nothing in common with donkeys;) especially the males amongst ‘you lot’. lol They are loyal true to type and have not been bastardised, unlike some on here lol and they would not be the ones picking up the soap!!!.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    @ Kanz
    When does your subsciption end?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Soap drops, looks at bottom of shoe. The truth will out!!!;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,590) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:20 pm
    How’s it going corri, feeling any better?

    Vote: 1 1

    Reckon the answer would be much!!!! 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    You are perfectly right, it does not mean David is innocent because the police stuffed up. But it does mean that he could have been prevented from proving his innocence BRD, and the actual perpetrator was not found, due to those stuff ups.

    Actually, the Police mistakes are the very reason David Bain didn’t serve his full sentence – ie, it was the mistakes that got the first trial declared a miscarriage of justice and that got him a retrial in front of a jury soaked in more than a decade of Karam’s “David Bain is innocent” propaganda.

    Karam argues that if the Police hadn’t made those mistakes, David Bain would have been found not guilty at the first trial, but that’s a bit of a forlorn hope.

    For one thing, if Milton Weir hadn’t found a photo that looked like it showed a lens around the place where he found the lens, the total effect on the jury would have been that he didn’t have a picture to show them. Nothing gained for David there.

    For another, the PCA report looked into Anderson’s errors with recording the computer start-up time and found the errors pretty much cancelled each other out, ie if he hadn’t made the mistakes they still would have had a 6.44 start-up time for the jury.

    For another, Guest didn’t put Denise Laney on the stand because he was sure she wouldn’t remain certain under cross-examination about that 6.45 am sighting. Based on her comments here, that was a justifiable view even if Police had provided him with her second statement.

    Another was the failure to bag Robin’s hands to test for gunshot residue, but even if some had been found on him and none on David, the prosecution could have argued it got on Robin via being shot and David had none because he’d washed his hands.

    The big one is of course the testimony alleging Robin was raping his daughter. If the Police had made sure Cottle took the stand, one thing we can be sure of is that he wouldn’t have enjoyed being cross-examined by Wright at all, and wouldn’t have appeared a credible witness at the end of it.

    I have a suspicion Joe Karam and David Bain should be very grateful for those Police mistakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    psycho milt ‘predictions’ of what might have happened or suspicions of others being ‘grateful’ simply show how retarded your opinion is. With everything you’ve posted you’ve failed to dent Binnie’s opinion that it was probable that Robin killed his family, you haven’t struck a single blow against the powerful forensic evidence against the dead father, you’ve lived with predictions and suspicions just like the sisters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Either way, it is hard for ‘most’ of us to get into the killer psyche. what forensic evidence against Robin? Yep dead is dead, unless you are gurgling of course, and then it is too close to call.
    What do you think we should do to murderers in this country, high tea, a knighthood?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (83) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 8:44 am

    Either way, it is hard for ‘most’ of us to get into the killer psyche. what forensic evidence against Robin? Yep dead is dead, unless you are gurgling of course, and then it is too close to call.
    What do you think we should do to murderers in this country, high tea, a knighthood?

    You are becoming totally irrational.
    I have yet to see anyone suggest that Robin Bain receive a knighthood posthumously, or be taken out to tea.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    With everything you’ve posted you’ve failed to dent Binnie’s opinion that it was probable that Robin killed his family…

    Binnie wrecked that himself with an approach to the evidence so obviously wrong the Minister wouldn’t accept the report.

    …you haven’t struck a single blow against the powerful forensic evidence against the dead father…

    Given that this “powerful forensic evidence” exists only in your own mind I haven’t felt a great need to address it.

    …you’ve lived with predictions and suspicions just like the sisters.

    Or to put it another way, instead of convincing myself that I “know” what happened I’ve recognised that there is plenty we don’t and won’t know about this case, and have expressed opinions on that basis. Others seem to prefer an approach of making bold assertions based on nothing more than personal belief, but I’m not embarrassed about my failure to follow suit.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Kanz (761) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 9:41 am
    goldnkiwi (83) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 8:44 am

    Either way, it is hard for ‘most’ of us to get into the killer psyche. what forensic evidence against Robin? Yep dead is dead, unless you are gurgling of course, and then it is too close to call.
    What do you think we should do to murderers in this country, high tea, a knighthood?

    You are becoming totally irrational.
    I have yet to see anyone suggest that Robin Bain receive a knighthood posthumously, or be taken out to tea.

    Well ,obviously he can’t be taken out to tea seeing as David killed him.

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

    muggins (1,692) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:18 am

    And you have always been irrational, as can be seen above, in your many attempts at making DPF do what you want.

    You have become more irrational since you found out that Bain was indeed strip searched, and no scratch marks existed on his torso.

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

    “…you haven’t struck a single blow against the powerful forensic evidence against the dead father…

    Given that this “powerful forensic evidence” exists only in your own mind I haven’t felt a great need to address it.”

    Amen Brother.

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

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2388409/Bain-trial-Evidence-right-all-along

    Milton Weir did not plant that lens.

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

    Kanz (762) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:27 am
    muggins (1,692) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:18 am

    You have become more irrational since you found out that Bain was indeed strip searched, and no scratch marks existed on his torso.
    David Bain was not strip-searched. That is a myth perpetrated by myth perpertrators. A police officer was standing in the doorway when Pryde examined him and he said he never saw Bain naked[ fortunately for him] .He said he always had a blanket to cover himself with.
    Kanz,you do realise that you said you would never post on this thread again so every time you do post you tell a lie?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    There is a poster on this thread who have made big news this morning,lets call him the poster with the bullshit degree.
    Now he was raving on about his lawyer writing to muggins telling him not to contact him again. Well,as muggins had not received a letter from that lawyer for about two years he thought he had better contact said lawyer to see where that letter had got to.
    That lawyer was surprised to hear he had written a letter to muggins recently ,he said it must be a year since he last wrote to him[actually two years]. We had a bit of a chat and that lawyer said that muggins was free to contact him at any time.
    Muggins again asked him to send him a copy of that contract.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,031) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 7:43 am
    You are perfectly right, it does not mean David is innocent because the police stuffed up. But it does mean that he could have been prevented from proving his innocence BRD, and the actual perpetrator was not found, due to those stuff ups.

    Actually, the Police mistakes are the very reason David Bain didn’t serve his full sentence – ie, it was the mistakes that got the first trial declared a miscarriage of justice and that got him a retrial in front of a jury soaked in more than a decade of Karam’s “David Bain is innocent” propaganda.

    Karam argues that if the Police hadn’t made those mistakes, David Bain would have been found not guilty at the first trial, but that’s a bit of a forlorn hope.

    For one thing, if Milton Weir hadn’t found a photo that looked like it showed a lens around the place where he found the lens, the total effect on the jury would have been that he didn’t have a picture to show them. Nothing gained for David there.

    For another, the PCA report looked into Anderson’s errors with recording the computer start-up time and found the errors pretty much cancelled each other out, ie if he hadn’t made the mistakes they still would have had a 6.44 start-up time for the jury.

    For another, Guest didn’t put Denise Laney on the stand because he was sure she wouldn’t remain certain under cross-examination about that 6.45 am sighting. Based on her comments here, that was a justifiable view even if Police had provided him with her second statement.

    Another was the failure to bag Robin’s hands to test for gunshot residue, but even if some had been found on him and none on David, the prosecution could have argued it got on Robin via being shot and David had none because he’d washed his hands.

    The big one is of course the testimony alleging Robin was raping his daughter. If the Police had made sure Cottle took the stand, one thing we can be sure of is that he wouldn’t have enjoyed being cross-examined by Wright at all, and wouldn’t have appeared a credible witness at the end of it.

    I have a suspicion Joe Karam and David Bain should be very grateful for those police mistakes.
    More than a suspicion I reckon,Milt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    muggins January 21st, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    Here is some interesting information. The third police officer that was in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain said he was standing in the doorway,and he did not see David Bain naked at any time.
    From the Binnie/Bain interview page 58.
    Q. When you say strip,did you-?
    A. Take off naked-take-
    Q. Take off all the clothing or what did you take off?
    A. All the clothes that I had on at the time were taken off.
    Q. So you were naked at some point in the examination?
    A. Yes, Completely naked.
    Q. So if there were any marks on your chest at that point-
    A. Oh,yes.
    Q.They would be evident to Dr Pryde?
    A. Very much ,another example of the stuff that’s come up that’s just proven to be ridiculously false.

    I reckon David Bain might be up the creek without paddle. He had a blanket and he made bloody sure he kept those scratches/bruises covered with it. He was never naked.

    David Bain was never naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Read some interesting stuff today. One being that because Fisher hadn’t read the entire documentation he could reach an ‘overview’ of Binnie’s conclusions, his was simply a paid ‘mechanical’ approach to satisfy the Minister, to appreciated Binnie’s reasoning and his ‘step back’ overall take on the evidence, Fisher needed to know the evidence. Basic failure in approach.

    Second point a discussion that the Bain case was a strategic miss-step of John Key, overshadowing his blunder on the SOE sales.

    Third point, that David should withdraw the compensation claim and sue.

    I agree with all 3. The first is protocol of professional and reasoned exercise of Executive Powers. The second is a political observation from a person who seldom make any political comment. The third was from a correspondent and the one I have most agreement with: Collins and Key have already shown they can’t be trusted, even to the point of turning on their own agent in a most destructive way, following that what situation is really left open to David. He knows that the Executive is not to be trusted but that in the Courts he has a fair chance and the normal rights to appeal.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    ‘You have become more irrational since you found out that Bain was indeed strip searched, and no scratch marks existed on his torso.’

    There’s no way back for the bser Kanz.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    oldnkiwi (83) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    Blood speck on Robin’s finger his own.

    Of course it was. It got there when he had his left hand up to his head at the moment he was shot.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,593) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 11:15 am

    All excellent points.

    They also show why the Justice Dept wanted the Privy Council to be taken out of the picture for NZers.
    While it was in place, it removed the absolute power they wanted to be able to exercise over the people of this country. What I don’t understand is, why seemingly intelligent people are happy with that. Considering this case is proving that the present Government has no intention of seeing Justice being served.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith
    You said that the spelling of Kaycee’s correct name was in the retrial transcript.
    It wasn’t. You lied.
    You said it was spelt correctly in a newspaper .
    It wasn’t . You lied.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,698) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 10:18 am
    ——————-

    LOL Oh dear !!!!!!

    LOLOLOLOL

    I have to say, when someone loses it on the internet, it certainly demonstrates the type of person they are. Hilarious!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    How’s those phonecalls coming along sunshine, actually managed to connect to any of the people you say you’ve spoken to yet? LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    The Law Lords of the Privy Council said that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is a strong one based on the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,699) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 11:53 am
    ——————–

    No I didn’t. Kaycee’s name is spelled correctly in the trial transcripts I have.

    And the dogs name was spelled correctly in a letter to the editor of our local paper. I know this, because I wrote that letter.

    So I’m sorry, but I managed to prove the point I was trying to make at the time, that you are unable to competently assess comments, and only see what you wish to see, interpreting anything said according to what you want it to read.

    Kaycee’s name is spelled correction in the trial transcripts and it has been in the newspaper!

    Your question should have been, whose trial transcripts, and which newspaper. Instead you just presumed, and then made a fool of yourself. Which you do so well!!! 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith says
    ——————-

    LOL Oh dear !!!!!!

    I have to say, when someone loses it on the internet, it certainly demonstrates the type of person they are. Hilarious!!

    That someone who is losing it is you,Judith.
    And as usual, Gregory J. was very pleasant, he had just returned from a holiday and had some catching up to do.
    I reckon I know of one client he would rather not be associated with.
    And of course you do realise that you have said you would never post again on this thread,so that every time you do you are telling a lie?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith
    If you did in fact write a letter to the paper about the Bain family dog,the only reason you spelt the dogs name correctly is because I told you how to spell it.
    And please stop lying about the dogs name being spelt correctly in the retrial transcripts,it was always spelt Casey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Speaking of lies I’m looking at a document that doesn’t exist, and on which also doesn’t exist an original signature and a date 20/9/11. That along with a record of 13 breaches means I’ve completed a quick visit to the city and a file search.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,701) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 11:58 am
    The Law Lords of the Privy Council said that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is a strong one based on the evidence.
    —————————

    This is what the PRIVY COUNCIL ACTUALLY SAID (not the deliberate misrepresentation from the JFRB member, Muggins above)

    110. The Crown is right in its contention that the ownership of the glasses, as opposed to the wearing of them on the morning of 20 June, was not in itself a live issue at the trial. But Mr Sanderson was understood to say that theglasses were David’s, David said they were not his but his mother’s and David was then cross-examined in a way that (as the third Court of Appeal accepted) impugned his credibility. If ownership of the glasses was in itself an immaterial matter, David’s credibility was certainly not: the central question the jury had to resolve was whether they could be sure that David’s account of events was untrue. While it cannot be known what motivated the jury to ask the question as to whose the glasses were, according to Mr Sanderson, it may have been because they saw in this a valuable indication of David’s credibility or lack of it. If Mr Sanderson’s fresh evidence be accepted, the jury were given an answer which did not reflect his revised opinion and could have led the jury, reasonably in the circumstances, to draw an inference unfairly adverse to David.
    The left-hand lens
    111. Detective Sergeant Weir told the jury that he had found the left-hand lens in a visible and exposed position in which, as is now accepted, he had not seen or found it. His evidence to the jury was more consistent with the Crown’s case that the lens had become dislodged during a struggle than the finding of the lens, covered in dust, under other articles on the floor. The third Court of Appeal accepted that the jury had undoubtedly been misled by the officer’s evidence. From the jury’s point of view it did not matter that, as the court also held, the misleading was not deliberate. Nor, in the Board’s view, with respect, is it determinative that the glasses and the lens had not featured significantly in the third Court of Appeal’s analysis of the strength of the case against David. What matters is what the trial jury made of the incorrect evidence and, even more importantly, what they would have made of the correct evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. Nostalgia-NZ (6,410 comments) says:

    Nothing like the naked, unspun version Judith.

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

    muggins (1,702) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    And of course you do realise that you have said you would never post again on this thread,so that every time you do you are telling a lie?

    ————————————————

    You have had it explained to you why I changed my mind, but as you like to misrepresent everything you read, it is not surprising you continue with this sort of comment. All you are doing is confirming the point I am trying to make about you, that you deliberately misrepresent the information, because you are either too old, too stupid, or know you cannot win by ignoring the facts.

    Fact was, I said that has Dotcom had been removed from the thread, I had changed my mind and was going to post again. You are demonstrating your integrity well. Keep it up, it’s not far off zero now.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,595) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 12:28 pm
    Nothing like the naked, unspun version Judith.

    Our Muggin’s is not one to the let the truth get in the way of a good story. !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith
    So Robin didn’t want to have the victims blood on his clothes but was quite happy to have it on his hands.

    Vote: 0 0

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Rowan (440) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    Chuck @ 9.47
    ‘I think it unlikely that Scott Watson is not guilty’
    Really on what grounds? no evidence in this case at all, could put the same case against any other lone male yachtsman with a boat there at the time! as Keith Hunter says in Trial by Trickery the best evidence against him was the cellmate confession. This is a weaker case than the one Hutton & co stitched up against AA Thomas.
    No proper identification of SW
    No identification of Blade
    Plenty of difference between SW and the ‘mystery man’
    etc etc

    three things that point to inncence
    1/ Guy wallace was shown the photo of Scott Watson taken at 9.30pm New Years Eve and with out hesitation sid no that was not the man in the bar of on the Naiad.
    Four months later and a month after some witnesses had seen the third photo montage [the use of montages even moved the IPCA to conclude that it use had the scope to destroy all the identifications first by the 3 month delay, second because there was no explanation of why particular photos were used and third there was no documentation made saying the process had been faulty and because the police did not say it was wrong, Justice Goddard could not say so either. I have the full report and parts of it are scathing of police and behaviour but Justice Goddard always excused the misconduct as being because of the pressure.
    2/ Guy Wallace was seaman with 10 years experience and knows how to tell the length of a vessel you are alongside if you know the length of your own vessel The Naiad was 6 metres long, Scott’s Blade 7.5 metres and the ketch 13 metres. Guy knew the vessel he was alongside was twice the length of the Naiad. Further Blade freeboard [distance between water level and deck] was/is the same as Blade, the ketch required those boarding to be assisted to climb on board as the deck was 6-700mm higher than the Naiad.
    3/ Blade is steel, white with no portholes, the ketch was wooden, white with a blue/dark strip with portholes at eye level from the Naiad. Wood and steel feel totally different no matter how dark it is. At least 9 witnesses came forward to police and told of seeing the ketch anchored in the channel about 2-250 metres from the Furneaux Jetty including two of the three Furneaux Naiad drivers.
    I will state unequivocally that Scott Watson is completely innocent of being involved in the disappearance of the two young people Just as strongly I state Rob Pope knows this but was determined to get his ambition back on track to be commissioner of police and he almost made it. I further state Paul Davison QC and Deputy Solicitor General Nicola Crutchley deliberately lied to the Court and Jury in their opening and closing addresses.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Scott Watson may well be innocent,but David Bain sure as hell isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    This is what the PRIVY COUNCIL ACTUALLY SAID (not the deliberate misrepresentation from the JFRB member, Muggins above)

    And if you weren’t busy with your own misrepresentation, you’d have pointed out that the relevant lines do feature in the Privy Council report, but only in the form of a quote taken from the second Appeal Court judgement – ie it was the second Appeal Court, not the Privy Council, which said:

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

    So no, not necessarily the Privy Council’s view at all, although they did feel it worth quoting.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:
    January 12th, 2013 at 4:07 pm
    Judith 3:56 pm So again, if you have an explanation for that (the blood spatter on Robin) then lets hear it.

    So again, Judith, as you were addressed hours ago, put up or shut up. Post your evidence if it is so important to you, in spite of it not apparently being important to anyone else. Where’s you photo? You were asked for this hours ago. Put up or shut up, Judy Baby.

    Hon Dottie may not be around ,but his posts still are.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,032) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    —————————

    My point was what the Law Lords actually had said, which was NOT what muggins had quoted.

    Maybe you wanted to know who actually said them, but I fail to see how what you want, has anything to do with the point I wanted to make? Am I meant to have some sort of crystal ball to predict what information you would like before I post.

    In my opinion it was irrelevant to my argument who said them, just that it WAS NOT THE LAW LORDS. The Privy Council decision of course takes precedence.

    I do note though, how you liked to pick some sort of fault with my comment, and yet, are prepared to let Muggins go despite the fact he tried to pass the comment off as being said by the Law Lords, when it wasn’t. Nice diversion!

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

    muggins (1,705) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    ——————————–

    So now instead of spamming the boards with repetitive posts of your own, you are now going to spam it by reposting a banned person’s posts. You are the most pathetic individual I’ve ever met. Why don’t you go and call some of those people for real this time. They are rather confused as to why you would say you’ve phoned them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    ith (1,035) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    muggins (1,705) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    ——————————–

    So now instead of spamming the boards with repetitive posts of your own, you are now going to spam it by reposting a banned person’s posts. You are the most pathetic individual I’ve ever met. Why don’t you go and call some of those people for real this time. They are rather confused as to why you would say you’ve phoned them.

    Judy,baby,when did we meet?
    Call some of which people?
    The last person I called re Bain was Gregory J at around 5pm yesterday.
    A few days ago I contacted the Dunedin Police.
    A few days before that I contacted Simon Schollum.,
    So who is confused?
    And today I phoned the local Community Law Office and thay tell me that if I havn’t been sent a copy of an agreement signed by both parties after asking for it a number of times and even having a copy of an email from that lawyer advising he would send it then I don’t have a problem.
    And hey,I am not spamming. I am not going to repost that post of Dotcom’s . I might quote some more of his posts,I might not. It is just that you mentioned him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,032) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    This is what the PRIVY COUNCIL ACTUALLY SAID (not the deliberate misrepresentation from the JFRB member, Muggins above)

    And if you weren’t busy with your own misrepresentation, you’d have pointed out that the relevant lines do feature in the Privy Council report, but only in the form of a quote taken from the second Appeal Court judgement – ie it was the second Appeal Court, not the Privy Council, which said:

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

    So no, not necessarily the Privy Council’s view at all, although they did feel it was worth quoting.

    Thanks for that Milt. In actual fact what happened was someone quoted that on another website. Looks like they got it wrong. But I didn’t check. My bad. I must have quoted that twenty times, but no-one has queried it until today.
    But at the end of the day everyone except a couple of die hard prodavids knows that David Bain was wearing those glasses that weekend and that he lied on oath when he said he hadn’t worn them for a year previous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    There’s some confusion as to what defamation is. An inference that some one committed an illegal act can be seen as defamation “if a reasonable person ” could believe and act on it for instance ‘lower the person in the estimation of a reasonable person’. Trouble is there is no reasonable people posting here [includes me] as both sides have deep and passionately held belief as to the truth.
    What one side sees as defamation the other sees as fair comment It’s a little like a pup chasing its tail that wont stop until it collapses from exhaustion, trouble is the tail’s still there to be chased.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Ministry of Justice report,paras 321/322.
    Para 321.The final submission made by the petitioner is that there is no evidence at all he was wearing that were found in his and Stephen’s in the period between his own spectacles being broken and the time of the murders. In addition ,he submits that his defence counsel failed to adduce evidence that he was not wearing the spectacles during this time.

    Para 322. In short ,we reject this submission. According to written and oral submissions made to officials by defence counsel at trial, Mr Guest ,and the Crown Solicitor , Mr Wright, the evidence the petitioner gave at trial that he had not worn the spectacles that were found in his room for a year previously came as a surprise to both parties.
    That is because,prior to trial,the petitioner had informed Mr Guest that had been wearing the spectacles in the days prior to the murders and would give evidence that he had been wearing the spectacles on the Sunday.

    And of course we now know that David Bain told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses while his were being repaired. He said they weren’t perfect but that they got him by.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Muggins said: A few days before that I contacted Simon Schollum.

    Interesting comment.

    When you ‘spoke’ to Mr Schollum, did you make him aware that you would be publishing the details of what he told you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Lindsay @ 12.46
    I think you should bring this to the attention of Chuck, If you look closely at my post I reposted the SW guilty allegation from his. I certainly don’t believe Watson is guilty as there is absolutely no evidence at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. lazarus (68 comments) says:

    Davids chances of Compo?

    ipredict 2.7%

    This is a prediction site where people gamble on outcomes with real money. (not opinions)

    I think that a fat lady may be banging out a tune soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    (1,036) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 2:52 pm
    Muggins said: A few days before that I contacted Simon Schollum.

    Interesting comment.

    When you ‘spoke’ to Mr Schollum, did you make him aware that you would be publishing the details of what he told you?

    Most of those details had already been published,Judith. But nothing he told me was off the record.
    Nor was anything that I posted about that police officer who was standing in the doorway when Dr Pryde examined David Bain off the record.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,711) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    Terribly sorry muggins, but it is too late for that. Because some of the comments you have published above in this thread, were not included in the second trial.

    I assume you are aware of the State Services Contract and the Police Code of Conduct?

    Code of Conduct for New Zealand Police

    Information which comes into an employee’s possession in the course of their duties must be treated in confidence and only used for official purposes.

    Care is taken with the handling of information, including ensuring it is only used in accordance with applicable legislation and recognised standards, policies and directives.


    Employees do not access or use confidential, personal, or sensitive information for personal purposes or advantage, or divulge such information to another person outside of official duties or as otherwise required by law.


    Employees do not access personal information for the purpose of satisfying curiosity.


    Official and private information is only released in accordance with applicable legislation and Police procedures, and by employees authorised to deal with requests for information.

    Serious Misconduct (long list, but one in particular stands out):

    •allowing unauthorised access to, or disclosure of any matter or information in relation to Police business;

    ——————————————

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

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2388409/Bain-trial-Evidence-right-all-along

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Why does anyone have to explain themselves to ‘Judith’?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Now, two things arise from this Muggins.

    You expect us to believe that these people were prepared to breach their Code of Conduct by an act that could fall under the serious misconduct criteria, just to provide you with information that is not available in the public arena?

    OR,

    These people, namely Schollum, did breach the conditions of his employment, by having the said conversation with you, just as you have outlined above, therefore demonstrating he is a person of low integrity and standards.

    Personally I take option no.1., unless he is a stupid old man like yourself who is so intent on being a know-it-all, that he failed to think of the consequences of his actions.

    Either way – official complaint likely. 🙂

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

    muggins (1,712) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    ———————————

    Yes, Muggins, but the fact is, there are things you have stated you were told by Mr Schollum,, that are not in his testimony, that have been conducted as part of police business, since the second trial etc. You have also stated you were told by others of their movements at certain times, that are also not in the public domain, and are ‘part of police business’.

    What you don’t seem to understand is, that Police employees are not just allowed to talk to anyone about anything they like. There are very strict guidelines and rules about what they can and can’t say, and they must get permission in order to give certain information. Now, as you are not a next-of-kin or acting in an official capacity for another government department, or Courts, you are NOT someone who is an approved person to tell ‘all and sundry’ to.

    As much as you might think you are ‘that’ important, you are not.

    So again I say, it is more likely that these conversations didn’t happen, and you are lying, than it is that these experienced people would risk disciplinary action, just for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Judith (1,038) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Now, two things arise from this Muggins.

    One being the Police Code of Conduct did not exist in 1994-6 it followed the Bazley report n about 2008

    Two being Terms and Conditions of employment for police pretty much said “if you can do and get away with it go ahead” Scollum seems a common name in police The Timaru Photographer is Schollum the Dunedin officer you mention and of course mr schollum of the rickard rape trial fame.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (22) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    ——————————

    But according to Muggins, Schollum did not have the conversation with him in 1994, he had the conversation with him in 2013, and is thereby bound by the Code of Conduct, which is retrospective in all police matters.

    Yes, the name Schollum does appear to crop up in a negative manner quite often in police matters. Perhaps it is a common name?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith,
    If what you are saying is true,what can I say.?
    I have had an email re that police officer who said David Bain was never naked,so it’s there for everyone to see.
    So far as Schollum goes,well the only thing that he told me that hasn’t been reported is that those photos showing that magazine and the position of Robin Bain’s body were showing the position of that magazine and Robin Bain’s body as they were when the police arrived. I hope he doesn’t get the sack for that.
    Fact is,Judith ,David Bain lied to Binnie when he said he was naked,and he may well be in hot water over that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    udith (1,040) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 4:01 pm
    Lindsay Kennard (22) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    ——————————

    But according to Muggins, Schollum did not have the conversation with him in 1994, he had the conversation with him in 2013, and is thereby bound by the Code of Conduct, which is retrospective in all police matters.

    Yes, the name Schollum does appear to crop up in a negative manner quite often in police matters. Perhaps it is a common name?
    Judith, I have had a couple of conversations with Simon Schollum.
    However,if you want to pursue this matter with the police,be my guest. No skin off my nose.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:
    January 12th, 2013 at 10:17 pm
    Pics promised but not delivered

    Judith, PU or STFU

    Judith,seeing as you havn’ t shut the firetruck up, what happened to those pics?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    ‘Judith’ can play Mother at high tea, with NZ murderers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith to police head sherang.

    J. The police have been telling muggins thing they ought not to have told him.
    PHS. What sort of things.?
    J. Well they told him David Bain was never naked when Dr Pryde examined him.
    PHS. Hardly crime of the century. What’s you point?
    J. Well David told Justice Binnie he was naked.
    PHS. Was he on oath when he said that?
    J. Yes.
    PHS. So he committed perjury. Dear oh dear. I will just check to see how long he will go to prison for doing that.
    J. D’oh.

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

    muggins (1,715) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    —————

    Sorry, I was busy doing something else.

    I posted the links. I don’t know how to post actual pictures on here.

    I did removed the photos from the links I posted a few days later as I had given plenty of time for them to be seen.

    So how about you STFU and stop fighting Dotty’s battles for him, and concentrate on your own issues, and the people you’ve ‘dropped in it’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Now children you know ‘Mother’ knows best.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @ milt
    The big one is of course the testimony alleging Robin was raping his daughter. If the Police had made sure Cottle took the stand, one thing we can be sure of is that he wouldn’t have enjoyed being cross-examined by Wright at all, and wouldn’t have appeared a credible witness at the end of it.

    until the arrest warrant was issued Police played not part in the non appearance of Cottle The subpoena to give evidence was a defence one meaning the defence were responsible to see it was served by a process server. The crown had fulfilled the legal obligation they had to supply statements etc. to the defense. But I agree Bill Wright would have had a field day in cross examination and Guest would have had to walk on eggshells to not have his witness drop a twenty tonne bomb on his defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Kanz (764) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:21 pm

    Any person who would publicly admit to reading NZ’s worst ever ‘soft porn’ rag and believe what it says (worse still recommends it), in my opinion, is destitute of any self respect whatsoever.

    Well Kanz, methinks you had better do some more homework. Truth has only published what a great many of us have known for many years. Better check just who is behind some of the defending posts on here!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    I think they already know. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink and do not have an issue with ‘it’. I was curious about who had just joined the blogosphere, they must have been crying in the wilderness for years lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith (1,042) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    muggins (1,715) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    —————

    Sorry, I was busy doing something else.

    I posted the links. I don’t know how to post actual pictures on here.

    I did removed the photos from the links I posted a few days later as I had given plenty of time for them to be seen.

    So how about you STFU and stop fighting Dotty’s battles for him, and concentrate on your own issues, and the people you’ve ‘dropped in it

    Judith,
    Would you please link to those links you removed those photos from.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Judith (1,042) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    muggins (1,715) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    —————

    Sorry, I was busy doing something else.

    So how about you STFU and stop fighting Dotty’s battles for him, and concentrate on your own issues, and the people you’ve ‘dropped in it.

    You mean David?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Kanz (764) Says:
    January 24th, 2013 at 10:21 pm

    Any person who would publicly admit to reading NZ’s worst ever ‘soft porn’ rag and believe what it says (worse still recommends it), in my opinion, is destitute of any self respect whatsoever.

    So you subscibe to the Truth then,Kanz?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    High tea as opposed to high fives? So refined and effete.:)

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

    corrigenda (56) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    Well Kanz, methinks you had better do some more homework. Truth has only published what a great many of us have known for many years. Better check just who is behind some of the defending posts on here!!!

    Why would I care who posts here? I have no idea who you are, not do I care.
    You could be one of the sleazy page 3 girls ( are they still on page three and throughout the rest of the rag as they used to be?) for all I care. I remember it used to contain a couple of pages of sensationalist garbage, most of which was untrue, a few pages of nude/semi nude trollops to titillate, then heaps of pages of adverts for sexual aids (for those who couldn’t do what the previous pages made them want) and ‘massage parlours (for those who couldn’t find anyone to join them.

    As I said anyone who would buy or read that trash has no self respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    until the arrest warrant was issued Police played not part in the non appearance of Cottle

    True – that one wasn’t based on the findings of anyone qualified to make findings, it was based on Karam implying that the Police actively attempted to prevent Cottle from testifying. In hindsight I shouldn’t have treated it as a serious point.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Kanz (766) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    Can’t you afford your subscription anymore?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Well Kanz, methinks thou doth protest too much. You also seem to know an awful lot about the layout of said paper that you deny having anything to do with let alone read. In fact you know a damn sight more about it than I do. I read the story about the double killer being David Bain’s biggest supporter online, I did not buy it. That “trash” you refer to happens to be the “truth”, same as the name of the paper. It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks or says about the Truth, it does not alter the fact that one of David Bains most public supporters is a double killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Well Kanz, methinks thou doth protest too much. You also seem to know an awful lot about the layout of said paper that you deny having anything to do with let alone read.

    So, the layout hasn’t changed since the 50s?

    It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks or says about the Truth, it does not alter the fact that one of David Bains most public supporters is a double killer.

    Proves my point precisely.
    Joe Karam is Bain’s most public supporter, followed by Reed. Neither of them are killers. Still, you can choose to read whatever you wish.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Quote” Premature celebration and now back to spewing about being sprung.” Unquote

    For you maybe! but for me there are 5 victims who will never get to celebrate their life to it’s fullest potentual and that was cut short by a person they thought loved them and the person that cut it short was not Robin.

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

    For you maybe! but for me there are 5 victims who will never get to celebrate their life to it’s fullest potentual and that was cut short by a person they thought loved them and the person that cut it short was not Robin.

    4 of those remain victims whoever was responsible. The evidence found in the lounge shows it most certainly was the old man, but you will only see what you want to see.
    Karam, who knows the evidence better than anyone said “if it is put before the PC it will be found to be a MOJ”, he was laughed at then proved to be right.
    Karam said “If the true evidence is put before another jury Bain will be found not guilty” he was laughed at then proved to be right.
    Karam said “if the evidence was put before any overseas QC or better, and that person able to conduct his/her own enquiry, Bain will be found to be innocent” he was laughed at then proved to be right.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Didn’t you know
    The only opinion that counts is the JFRB one, they clearly know more than the PC, jury and judge! Karam & Bain et al have clearly brainwashed the previous mentioned 3!
    Or so some idiots would have us think!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Aren’t they paid supporters?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Sounds like the big, bad wolf is a huffing and a puffing, at the brick shit house, you wouldn’t want to leave anyone ‘special’ out of the loop now would you? Please acknowledge the faithful. One would have to say, and one does ‘if I had an advocate like ‘that’, I wouldn’t wonder why anyone thought I was guilty’.

    Probably thought he was ‘innocent’ too and is now fighting vicariously, sad really.

    I was wondering whether murderers tell their children who they ‘really’ are or is that ‘what’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Where has everyone gone? Just after I have found a way to get to the reply box in less than ten seconds I find there is nothing to reply to.
    I was going to link to some more of Hon Dottie’s comments,but what the point if there is no-one around to read them.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:
    January 13th, 2013 at 8:10 pm
    Snarkle, now the forces of evil are being dishonest with you, and you have followed these threads with interests, so you deserve better than being lied to by the Dark Side.

    I will not lie to you.

    If the jury found that David Bain PROBABLY KILLED, then the jury was obliged to find him not guilty. The only juror who has come out publicly and spoken of her jury decision has said that she and perhaps others on the jury thought David PROBABLY KILLED

    So, we don’t know about the rest of the jury.

    But the first thing a jury is asked is “have you reached a verdict”: then “are you unanimous in that verdict”?. So if (a) one juror said that she thought that David probably killed and (b) the jury declared that they were unanimous, then (c) all the jury must have thought that David probably killed.

    And again. if David probably killed, then two things arise AT LAW:

    David is entitled to a not guilty verdict

    David is NOT entitled to compensation.

    I’m sorry to have to say that Nostalgia is utterly wrong (for all his good intentions and assuredly commendable hard work).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    Just whippd over to the other thread, do you think it was my question about what murderers tell their children?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. thedavincimode (8,118 comments) says:

    Karam, who knows the evidence better than anyone said “if it is put before the PC it will be found to be a MOJ”, he was laughed at then proved to be right.

    Karam was limited in his options though. For example, what were the prospects of him saying: “if it is put before the PC we’re fucked”?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. Psycho Milt (3,316 comments) says:

    So if (a) one juror said that she thought that David probably killed and (b) the jury declared that they were unanimous, then (c) all the jury must have thought that David probably killed.

    Sigh. Major logic fail via non sequitur. Easily-understood example: Jury is asked whether a particular object is a fish or not, and reaches the verdict no it’s not a fish. So if (a) one juror said she thought it was actually a bird and (b) the jury declared they were unanimous in their verdict, then (c) no actually, not all the jury “must have” thought it was a bird, FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. goldnkiwi (2,562 comments) says:

    NZ Bed time stories.

    Once upon a time, at 65 Every St in Dunedin, there was a 22 year old paperboy called David……

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Dennis Horne (4,234 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (103) Says: January 26th, 2013 at 6:45 pm NZ Bed time stories.

    Once upon a time, at 65 Every St in Dunedin, there was a 22 year old paperboy called David……

    He was the only one who deserved to stay

    According to his dad, who shot the rest of the family to prove it. Now, wasn’t that a wicked thing to do children? All that killing just to prove David was the only one who deserved to stay.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. muggins (5,108 comments) says:

    muggins (1,749) Says:
    January 23rd, 2013 at 9:34 am
    Rowan
    My reason for telling you the correct spelling of the dogs name and that I knew she had five puppies in her first litter was so you would realise I had inside information.
    If I have been told how the dogs name was spelt, then when I say that David kicked Arawa when she was lying on the ground I am right about that as well.
    When I say that Margaret had a strict rule that hand-knitted woolen jerseys were always to be washed by hand I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David Bain knew his sister was a prostitute long before he was arrested I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David’s parents took him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David lied three times about that tattoo I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David’s dog Sacha was put down following complaints about it’s aggessive behaviour I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David told his aunt that he had left earlier on his paper round that morning and that he had run all the way I am right about that as well.
    When I said that Margaret and Robin had resolved their differences and that the demolition of the house was imminent I am right about that as well.
    When I said that it was suggested to David that he wear a jacket or a suit to the funeral and he said he would be wearing his Harlequin jersey I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David had not invited any extended members of his family to speak at the funerals and that only teachers from Bayfield College would I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David wanted his parents cremated and his siblings buried I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David stated the grave should be for four as he wanted to be buried with the children and that he even stipulated the positioning of each body within the grave, Arawa with Stephen and he with Laniet I am right about that as well.
    When I said David stipulated that the caskets should be made of oak and have brass handles I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David wanted to celebrate Arawa’s birthday by inviting friends to go out to the grave ,play some music and dance then I am right about that as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. thedavincimode (8,118 comments) says:

    Congratulations muggins.

    You said you would be the last one standing. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote