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. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith Jan 16 3.53pm
    What a load of unadulterated rubbish. Kaycee’s name has been published in newpaper articles.
    Judith Jan 16 6.42pm
    It has been spelt correctly twice in the trial transcripts.
    Judith Jan 18 2.21pm
    The spelling of the dogs name has been corrected in the transcripts I have access to.
    Judith. Jan 18 2.31pm.
    I know it has been changed in the trial transcripts because I changed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith Jan 16 3.53pm
    What a load of unadulterated rubbish. Kaycee’s name has been published in newpaper articles.
    Judith Jan 16 6.42pm
    It has been spelt correctly twice in the trial transcripts.
    Judith Jan 18 2.21pm
    The spelling of the dogs name has been corrected in the transcripts I have access to.
    Judith. Jan 18 2.31pm.
    I know it has been changed in the trial transcripts I can access because I changed it.

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

    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.

    And now it 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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    I like the panic of the liar. It’s very rewarding.

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

    I like the panic of the liar. It’s very rewarding.

    Fun, don’t you think?
    I do believe he is missing his mate dotcom, he needs back up of the crazy kind.

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

    Psycho Milt (974) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 10:40 am
    So a large amount of emphasis has been place on just the measurement of the length of a bloodied sock print with no photographic backup taken at a time when forensic podiatry was in its infancy.

    In short, yes. That is exactly the case. Binnie considered this the most compelling piece of evidence, on the basis that Hentschell declared it a “complete” print despite having no means of knowing whether it really was complete or not.

    According to Binnie, we can rely on Hentschell’s expertise in order to trust his opinion on that, although we mustn’t rely on his expertise in order to trust his opinion that the print was made by a foot larger than Robin Bain’s.

    Of course he considered it the most significant piece of evidence! The first thing he would have to do is go through all the evidence to see if there was anything that ruled either David or Robin out as the perpetrator. The footprint evidence does just that – rules David out.

    Hentshchell was very strongly adamant that the print was complete right up until the retrial, and Binnie would have had access to all the debate about that in the various courts. That is the only information on that fact, so he had to rely on it.

    Binnie did make a concession acknowledging the doubt about how complete it was by saying that it was only on BoP. If he had not accepted the fact that it may not have been ‘complete’, then it would have been BRD on that single fact alone.

    What people don’t seem to realise is that the evidence against David is only compelling if approached from the view that he is guilty. Most of it can be equally well-explained innocently. So something like the footprints which can actually answer the ‘who most probably’ question is hugely important. That’s basic logic.

    The footprints were argued in the first trial as ‘could have been made’ by David. That’s logically incorrect, and demonstrates confirmation bias. It should have been ‘whose were they more probably?’

    As for relying on Hentshell’s expertise – you can’t seriously be suggesting that Hentshell’s opinion, based on nothing except ‘his experience’ should have carried more weight than the carefully done and properly measured and recorded scientific information? If so, then you don’t understand Binnie’s job, and you don’t understand evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3613
    Fact. David Bain lied about those glasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    When sprung for being a bser keep posting links to a site studied by Binnie on his way to making his conclusion of innocent on the BOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3615
    Some of the errors in Binnie’s report.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,490) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 11:19 am

    —————————

    He’s stuck. He’s just working on the fact that there are stupid people watching, and they will be impressed with his dishonesty and the lies told on the spinners web.

    You can always tell when Muggins has been shown to be wrong, he changes the subject and starts posting links to counterspin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Twisting by the pool, twisting by the pool….

    The great mouthpiece has fallen silent, not by choice but by a ‘mechanical’ failure of the throat to be unable to constantly regurgitate crap. Just lovely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3616
    Binnie gets a clip around the ear from Mike Guest.

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

    Hentshchell was very strongly adamant that the print was complete right up until the retrial…

    Then I shall repeat my question from last night that you maybe didn’t see: what mechanism do you imagine Hentschell used to establish that the “complete” prints were actually complete, ie that they had been made by a foot bloodstained from the tips of the toes to the end of the heel? His mere opinion that they were complete carries no more weight than his opinion that they were made by a foot larger than Robin Bain’s.

    As for relying on Hentshell’s expertise – you can’t seriously be suggesting that Hentshell’s opinion, based on nothing except ‘his experience’ should have carried more weight than the carefully done and properly measured and recorded scientific information?

    I can and am seriously suggesting that Hentschell’s expertise carries as much weight as “scientific” testing that demonstrated only that if the murderer had stood in a large tray of blood in Stephen’s room he would have left prints larger than his foot. That weight being a little, but not very much.

    What people don’t seem to realise is that the evidence against David is only compelling if approached from the view that he is guilty. Most of it can be equally well-explained innocently.

    Quite true. However, what other people don’t seem to realise is that the amount of innocent explaining that has to be done to discount the evidence against David Bain is in itself an affront to probability.

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

    we are over 4000 now. Did anyone notice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Dean Papa .And only a few days ago I said we would be lucky to reach 3000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Evidence like there was no strip search, evidence of the lens being videoed, evidence that David had blood on his hands and they were bruised, evidence of Womble and Anderson saying he had no marks on his face before he fell between the bed and the wall, evidence that showed he wasn’t home when daddy turned on the computer. All of this of course before we get to the forensic evidence against your fallen idol who you don’t think gets a fair go. Just like the Crown conceded the importance of the footprint evidence at the PC you’ll just have to suck it up psycho each supports the other the bloodied hands and the bloodied gloves, the fight and the damage to Robin’s hands, the blood on the towel and the blood running from his nose, the 97% confirmation of hard contact upward shots and suicide, the temple excluded as a murder site, the dna deep in the barrel having been within 1 to 2 mm. You’re a dreamer psycho and your merry men liars. Good luck on the merry go round.

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

    I don’t find reciting the Bain enthusiast’s version of the Nicene Creed at me personally very convincing, but maybe that’s just me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    When I was referring to the sock prints, it was argued that in the first trial it was accepted by both prosecution and defence that any prints were left by the killer.
    Since we are basically retrying the first trial(more exactly me) and looking at the available evidence anew, why is that established fact?
    David has admitted walking on the areas where the sock prints were found, so either by innocent transfer when he was just back from his paper round and found the family dead or revisiting the scene of the crimes as reason for evidence to be found in those places, ie looking for the lens or during the actual murders, it is perfectly reasonable for the prints to be David’s.

    So why were there none of David’s prints.

    What sort of socks were they? Were the thick absorbent cushiony ones, thin ones where you would wear two pair as it was very cold.
    Were both David and Robin wearing the same sort of socks?

    I personally can see merit in there being layers of inner and outer clothing.
    I can believe evidence as follows

    I can believe that if the Jumper was worn, that blood would have ‘bled’ through to underneath clothing
    I can believe that if the trackpants in the wash were worn, that blood would have ‘bled’ through’ to the shorts, if David is guilty.

    For arguments sake, what is more likely?

    If Robin was the murderer that the family was killed just after David left on his paper run or in the ten/fifteen minutes? before David got home, remembering that David was only gone for an hour but that Robin then also had to shower, while carefully not washing too much.

    I was reading one point regarding the towel with Robin’s blood on it found in the bathroom, was there a large amount of blood on it?

    The other thing I wondered about was the returning urine to Robin’s body procedure explaining why his shirt was pulled out.

    I do wish they had just left the bodies there in the house pending all possible appeals so we would not have to rely on all of this conjecture.

    Would the blood on the floor have been more or less capable of forming any sock prints in such a short time interval ie the span of an hour.
    This of course in light of David having blood on socks. Could that blood pattern be explained by there having been two pairs of socks worn? Anyway I digress. Clearly the blood wasn’t so dry that it did not transfer ‘innocently’ to the front of David’s shorts, if that is what is accepted.

    How much blood was there and how dry, to expect ‘complete’ prints and what sort of socks?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Go and ask mother hen.

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

    Milt
    You are totally misrepresenting what I said. Kim Jones’s evidence about recent ‘bloody’ prints was shown to be totally wrong, yes the ‘white ridged’ fingerprints were there but no human blood was found anywhere near the fingerprints despite extensive DNA testing. Similarly Milton Weir misled the 1995 Jury on where the lens was and probably didn’t plant the lens. The perjury is misleading the jury while under oath (deliberately in my view)
    The amount of ‘innocent’ explaining that has to be done, enlighten me nothing very strong here to differentiate between finder vs killler, miniscule amounts of blood and he took a bit longer to call 111, also the lack of investigation into suspect no1 gives an easy ‘no evidence found’ myth that some of you like spreading. Yes if you look at the circumstantial evidence with a guilty mind then you can convince yourself, If you use an impartial mind and apply common sense then the defence alternative are more likely.

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

    Goldnkiwi
    Robin didn’t have to shower neither did David it was never suggested at either trial that either of them did. Only idiots here have perpatrated that myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Perpetrated? Wasn’t there blood on a shower cap? I would imagine if Robin was going to change his bloody clothes and putting his clothes in the wash basket then he would shower?

    I did wonder if in that scenario Robin had gotten the previous days clothes out of the hamper that would explain what he was wearing but then what are the odds of him not having blood on those clothes via innocent transfer.

    Thinking back to that lovely example of a meltdown ( I am easily impressed as you might have gathered) and so glad I was reading at the time lol was that what the references were to? Having the urge to piss in the shower, the sound of the running water being irresistable? Is that why you say no-one showered?I appreciate that there was no real sign that Robin had washed at all. I am sure he had planned to before his appointment.

    When did David normally shower, I would have imagined after his paper round especially running it, take clothes off jump in shower fresh for the day.

    Am I correct that the shower was by the washing machine?

    Do remember to type slowly because as I believe everything I am told, apparently I am a bit thick:).

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

    The amount of ‘innocent’ explaining that has to be done, enlighten me nothing very strong here…

    Nothing very strong on its own, no – like I said, it’s the amount of it that’s the problem. I wrote out a list of it further up the thread, but that was just off the top of my head – no doubt a longer version could be compiled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    That’s a pretty impressive list. I dont really know what I could add to it.See what you think of these suggestions
    Bad luck David didn’t turn his 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 her “freaky ” brother.
    Bad luck his Gondoliers T-shirt hade a stain on it that looked like blood that was in the same area that the green jersey was thought to have blood on it.
    Bad luck that he told a female companion just before the murders that he thought something terrible was going to happen.
    A couple of them might make the grade.

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

    Shall I debunk them point by point for you Milt, as I said earlier applying common sense to them and looking at it from an impartial side certainly helps

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Why bother, how many guns do you need

    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Yet you assume he didn’t know where it was, did you state that this was a weak allegation to Dottie!

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Robin kept his clothes in Davids wardrobe, probably used the first pair of gloves he laid eyes on, yet what ‘rules’ are for which pair of gloves to wear

    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Yet identifiable prints are recoverd in less than 5% of homicide cases, also there are unidentified prints and no human DNA was found on them

    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    See above, blood is not a medium that absorbs fingerprints

    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Miniscule amounts, would be hard not to get blood on him

    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    ‘known to wear’ speculation here

    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Ditto, his aunt suddenly ‘remembered’ 5 years later

    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Very minor injuries much more consistent with the collapse described by constable Andrew

    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Point, why do we need a rational explanation of ‘why’ Robin changed his clothes

    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Misleading, red ‘blood like traces’ all over his hands, dirt speculation

    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Why bother 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.
    Dark Laundry, dim light not hard to see, ‘covered’ in blood very speculative here

    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Again no instructions on ‘how’ to leave a suicide note, He could have been in a hurry

    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Speculative interpretation

    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Big assumptions as to ‘where’ he stood, and sufficent gap for it to land where it did

    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.
    More assumptions as to timing, no established facts on times after 6.45am

    Subtotal of Milts arguments toward David
    Again 0.0000%

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

    Goldnkiwi
    There was a small amount of blood on the shower curtain from memory, yes the bathroom/laundry were 1 so shower was beside w/m. The blood on the curtain could have been from a bloody item. I think it is generally accepted that Robin probably slept in the clothes/beanie etc, probably only things changed were green jersey & socks. When did DB normally shower? who knows, speculation, but I highly doubt he would put on bloody clothes after doing so and there is no evidence or suggestion that he showered after the pr that morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    How’s this for a list?

    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.

    And now it 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.

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

    Shall I debunk them point by point for you Milt…

    Well, I see you did, but there really wasn’t any point. Like I said, none of them count for much by themselves and the defence has an innocent explanation for every one of them – the point is the cumulative effect on probability of all those things requiring an explanation. You may have missed it, but Fisher’s core criticism of Binnie’s report, a criticism shared by academic lawyers who’ve gone public, is that there’s no sign Binnie took that cumulative effect into account in his report, despite it being a basic principle of assessing evidence.

    Now let’s look at the alternative proposition: if Robin Bain were to be innocent on the balance of probabilities, what would he have to come up with innocent explanations for?

    1. Those bloody footprints are about his size.
    2. Blood smears too small to analyse but possibly from rinsing blood off his hands.
    3. Minor abrasions to his hands.
    4. His blood on a towel in the laundry.
    5. Hearsay that he was sexually abusing Laniet (although including that’s possibly unfair, since I didn’t put any of the gossip about David on his list).

    Not a long list, is it? Again, it’s off the top of my head so there are probably more, but there’s a notable difference in size between his and David’s – and no defence lawyer would break a sweat “debunking” them.

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

    Rowan (387) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    Subtotal of Milts arguments toward David
    Again 0.0000%
    ————————————–

    Totally agree, and would also like to add that,

    1. The spent shells in RB’s caravan indicate he did know where the gun was, as did Stephen (spent shells in his room too)

    2. Ownership does not prove usage. Robin’s gloves were in the caravan, would have been an extra effort to get them, why not use what was handy.

    3. No, the only identifiable prints on the rifle weren’t just David’s. You need to check your stats regarding fingerprints and suicide, and murder.

    4. Smearing is not bad luck, it is the most common reason why fingerprints can not identify who they belong to, however, there were several fingerprints found on the gun with which were identifiable as fingerprints, and if kept, may have identified who they did not belong to. These prints prove the gun was not wiped down as claimed.

    5. The blood on David’s clothing was from swipe marks where he had brushed against something solid, and not the least bit consistent with seepage from copious quantities of blood that were in Stephen’s room.

    6. The lawyer is a proven liar, evidence has been given that proves it. (pity you aren’t in the loop). The aunt had a financial incentive to remember lots of things five years later.

    7. The injuries were not consistent with a fight with Stephen. e.g. the glasses were said to have been knocked from his face causing injury, but the slight bruising on David’s face was on the wrong side for it to be that. The small bit of skin missing on his knee was probably done the same time he fainted and was pulled out by his left arm and leg. The Crown lied at the first trial and said skin found in Stephens room belonged to David. It didn’t, it was tested after the trial and was Stephen’s own skin. The Crown also said blood spots on David’s duvet were Stephen’s, they weren’t, when tested after the first trial, they were proven to be David’s. There is no evidence that David had any other injuries on him. All the injuries he did have were photographed during a strip search by Dr Pryde.

    8. So Robin changed his clothes because the other ones were blood stained and wet with his own children’s blood. I imagine a very uncomfortable feeling, even for an unbalanced person.

    9. Why would an unbalanced and extremely distressed person be worried about the washing? People like that revert to basic and immediate thoughts. How to feel more comfortable, how to explain to the only person left, how to put a stop to the pain.

    10. Dark laundry etc. As there was water on the floor of the laundry it was reasonable to think some of the clothes would be wet. Didn’t need close observation.
    11. Typical of Robin to use the computer for such things. He was a regular computer user and produced all his correspondence on it, even to his mother and family members. Perhaps he intended to write more, but was stopped when he saw David coming.

    12. The note doesn’t amount to anyone’s moral superiority over anything. You or anyone else cannot determine what Robin was thinking when he wrote that note, and gave no clarification of whether the word ‘deserve’ was in a positive or negative sense. Reading between the lines doesn’t work with a one lined message.

    13. The spent cartridge ending up in the alcove was good luck, because it supports the evidence that Robin shot himself standing with one leg bent. Where the cartridge landed was consistent with coming from that position for the shot.

    14. David did freak out. Who in their right mind wouldn’t. There is no guidelines on how a person should react when they find their family dead and the house covered in blood. David’s behaviour is consistent with some other similar cases and his lack of memory is entirely consistent with PTSD. The brain is a wonderful protector and limits memory to prevent the grief.

    The problem is that people insist on saying that Robin would have and wouldn’t have done this or that, judging him from a sane point of view. Robin was not sane the day he killed his wife and children. The person that killed them was hurting, saw no other option but to do it, and then would have wanted to make the hurt stop, so killed himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    You’re wrong about Binnie’s report psycho, it’s naive and hopeful speculation that he didn’t look at the whole picture. I clearly remember that he did and also reading that Don Mathaias saying the he did ‘intuitively’ or ‘instinctively.’ You’re getting to sound like a broken record. Your list against Robin is generously short, but that’s part of your desire to pretend he wasn’t guilty of killing his family.

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

    Further to this from Judith:

    Hentshchell was very strongly adamant that the print was complete right up until the retrial…

    Bollocks. Police Complaints Authority Report,1997, p105:

    “Mr Hentschel has been
    interviewed as part of this Review. He expressed the opinion the best
    footprint he saw would almost be a total length print but you might not see
    the extremities of the toes and heel. He agrees in hindsight he should
    have perhaps qualified his evidence by saying he may not have been able
    to see the extremities of the heel and toes.”

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

    Psycho Milt (978) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    Robin had a lot more to explain that just your little list.

    Just a few examples, not a complete list

    Why did he have spent cartridges from David’s gun in his caravan?
    Why did was he standing on one foot with the other leg bent?
    What was the reason Margaret left the house late at night the evening before?
    What was the argument about?
    Why was he thinking a buying his own gun a few weeks before?
    Why did he teach his young daughter Arawa how to put fingers in to her vagina?
    Why was he managing so poorly in his work, and why did he live in such filth?
    Why did he get so aggressive towards Laniet’s male friend?
    Why was he having temper outbursts at important meetings?
    What did he mean by the comment he made to his brother?
    What prescription was he on? etc etc
    Why did Laniet indicate to her doctor it would be hard to avoid sex for four days “because she was going to stay with her father”?

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

    Totally agree, and would also like to add…

    …that you lack reading comprehension. For the third time, yes they’re of no particular significance in themselves, and yes the defence has an explanation for every one of them. The point is their cumulative effect on probability.

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

    Psycho Milt (979) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    —————————

    Exactly, that is what he said at the PCA, when his butt was on the line.

    However, it was entirely inconsistent with what he had said earlier, and what further testing demonstrated. It was also not supported by Walsh, and Hentschel’s own notes made at the time.

    Let’s see, was there an incentive in him saying ‘may have’ – sure was, it meant he couldn’t be held responsible when proven wrong.

    If he had been sure, he would have said ‘definitely’.

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

    Milt
    The cumulative balance argument by Robert Fisher is bollocks. The evidence produced is a spiderweb and nothing is capable of standing up on its own or cumulatively. The arguments fail BOP and also in some cases common sense. Its very easy to hide behind the ‘no evidence’ myth because the cops didn’t do any investigation of suspect no1. Not suprisingly they didn’t ‘find’ any. It is speculation to say what would have shown up if firearms discharge tests or testing of blood samples had been undertaken, they still should have been! also a very weak assumption that RB didn’t know where the key to the gun was.
    The explanation for the ‘murder’ scene certainly needs to go on the list, Raftery couldn’t give it and not suprisingly stayed well clear of the lounge. The crown produced 3 pathologists who said suicide was ‘unlikely’ in 2 cases there photo analysis was shown to be rubbishand trying to claim intermediate vs distant wound. For the sake of fairness it is probably fair to rely on Dempsters evidence rather than the other 2 crown ones or the defence ones as he did the postmortem. Yet Reed showed with photos and demonstrations 12 different ways that suicide was achievable and Dempster agreed that there was nothing incompatible with suicide in any of them ie no concerns with site of entry or trajectory and they required no difficult contortions. I wonder how if he really believed that suicide was ‘unlikely’ remember he expressed his concerns to Robin Bates about aspects of his evidence. His boss Dr Gwynne definitely believed it was suicide and that it was impossible for someone else to have shot him.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,496) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 3:47 pm
    You’re wrong about Binnie’s report psycho, it’s naive and hopeful speculation that he didn’t look at the whole picture. I clearly remember that he did and also reading that Don Mathaias saying the he did ‘intuitively’ or ‘instinctively.’ You’re getting to sound like a broken record. Your list against Robin is generously short, but that’s part of your desire to pretend he wasn’t guilty of killing his family.

    ————————

    Isn’t he just, but then, that seems to be common with people called Milt! 😉

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

    Just a few examples, not a complete list

    A few examples of what? Things you don’t like about Robin Bain? I’m talking about explaining away evidence that points to him being the murderer, not filling in the details on gossip you have a morbid interest in.

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

    Exactly, that is what he said at the PCA, when his butt was on the line.

    However, it was entirely inconsistent with what he had said earlier, and what further testing demonstrated. It was also not supported by Walsh, and Hentschel’s own notes made at the time.

    Let’s see, was there an incentive in him saying ‘may have’ – sure was, it meant he couldn’t be held responsible when proven wrong.

    If he had been sure, he would have said ‘definitely’.

    Blah blah blah. Your actual task in that comment was to defend your assertion that Hentschell was “very strongly adamant that the print was complete right up until the retrial.” Care to take another shot at it?

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

    Milt, lets not rely on the most discredited document in the entire case, the PCA is the police covering its own butt and would have found that photo 62 contained a lens until it was pointed out that it didn’t by the crowns own expert. Remember ‘copybook’ investigation! Would a PCA investigation into Hutton & Co have found that they planted the bullet from AA Thomas’s gun at the Crewe farm? BTW this is a rhetorical question!

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

    The cumulative balance argument by Robert Fisher is bollocks.

    You, Nostalgia-NZ and Judith are of course far better qualified than Andrew Geddis to assess the accuracy of Fisher’s main beef with the report, but nevertheless I’m sticking with Geddis’ assessment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    So please remind me again what David was wearing when the police arrived, I am doing all this by memory and you are clearly well referenced? Why do I seem to think he was not dressed as warmly as the temperature on the day suggested would be advisable ?

    Regarding the towel in the bathroom with Robin’s blood (and no-one elses)on it, how has that been tied in to the various scenarios so far? Clearly it was not used to wipe down the gun, otherwise there would have been other blood detected?

    With those used brass shells seen in that caravan photo, (that caused so much hysteria 😉 how can their existence have anything to do with Robin seemingly snapping and shooting the whole family but one?

    It seems to me that there are two likely scenarios:
    1). That it was a planned event, with both actus reus and mens rea. That would be David with alibis etc or;
    Robin, depressed apparently but not insane woke up and got down to it.
    2). A singular event that was seemingly triggered by a family members confrontation and disclosure. Actus reus and mens rea.

    Unless someone is saying that Robin had planned this event, what relevance does it have that there were shell casings found in the caravan? I am quite curious to know if the caravan was locked when Robin was away, but clearly the ones on the table had been there awhile and clearly were not there randomly from practice shots.

    I was just thinking re inheritance etc (an interest of mine)what the message on the computer should have said ‘You are the only one who deserved to inherit (the earth, everything) clearly Robin would have had no time to update his will, the urge to murder coming over him all of a sudden. Is there a statistic regarding that?

    Where was that item which left fibres in Laniet’s head wound, the police found a lens in Stephen’s room, I do not believe they would have overlooked a blood soaked item, whether or not they were looking for it.

    Words are so emotive ‘strip search’ a medical examination would be a more apt description.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    It’s a silly avenue taken by Milt. The evidence showing suicide, site, trajectory, are all evidence in support of David as they are evidence against Robin. Judging hypothetical trials for murder against Robin are a nonsense, as would be a allegation of incest because he’s dead. Yet the aspects of his death have to accumulate all the evidence that show him to be the killer, that’s the choice, and the only choice afforded by the evidence one man or the other. And it’s here where the tears are spilt by a few wombats who say it’s not fair, so suggesting that it is unfair for a live man to defend himself in a case where he is prosecuted on the basis that there can only have been 2 killers and he is one of them. Taken to an ‘extreme’ and it is an illogical ‘extreme’ some of the JFRBainers say that it unfair because Robin is dead. Well hello should David have pleaded guilty and ‘taken the rap’ for his father? Which reminds me of the other calls ‘if I was innocent I would do this and that, blah, blah blah,’ yet of course of all recent cases of accepted false imprisonments show the victims not be of that type and typically often without any previous experience of the ‘Justice’ system. As things distill the Bain case wasn’t the perfect murder it was the imperfect murder suicide where all the evidence was available to make those conclusions and not on ‘hunches’ by Doyle in particular, that an old washing machine, that didn’t work properly, much like his logic, was a ‘perfect’ time piece. His stupidity was further displayed when he instructed his staff not to ‘chase ghosts’ and by his revelation that a potential motive for the murders was not to be pursued because he had a murder ‘to solve.’ Well, what a bloody great job he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    I doubt if anyone would be having sex for at least four days when diagnosed with an std, isn’t that where that piece of innuendo comes from, the diagnosing Dr. at the same time that Laniet is having to turn down ‘work’ on the mobile phone.

    It would seem logical to me that Laniet was aware of the std which is why she went for confirmation and treatment. A good time to go and stay with her father and away from ‘clients’. You are naughty suggesting any other inference.

    An std might not have inhibited your own sexual activity but I am sure most people would be more responsible.

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

    It’s a silly avenue taken by Milt.

    The one that everyone with legal expertise says should be taken when considering the balance of probabilities in a circumstantial evidence case, you mean? The one that Binnie says he took, and that Fisher, Geddis et al say there’s no sign he took? That being, look at the cumulative effect of the evidence, don’t just consider each piece in isolation the way Rowan and Judith prefer? Odd – it doesn’t feel silly.

    I think I’ve finally sated my appetite for flogging this particular dead horse. Thanks to all for the arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Milt 4.13

    Just read the Geddis piece. Obviously you have a different understanding to the Binnie report that he has, he says that Binnie did say that he considered the evidence cumulatively but didn’t show how, You’ve been saying that he didn’t take a cumulative view. I was interested in the splatter evidence he thought was ‘against’ David, I don’t recall it or recall reading about it. However, most of all I was interested in this part which referred to the Rex Haig compensation claim,

    ‘He found three grounds on which Mr Haig could legally challenge Mr Fisher’s report and seek a judicial review.’ Bhudson went on and on about this for days as not being a possibility, even though it was mentioned by the Minister as one of the reasons why she ‘wouldn’t’ release the Binnie report.

    However I disagree with AG overall, his ‘test’ boils down to a single point to my mind that ‘Binnie’ didn’t demonstrate his cumulative approach. I think he did, and that he did it with a complete appreciation of the evidence something with AG acknowledges he doesn’t possess. If it falls anywhere the argument is that Binnie didn’t ‘display’ his test in a way some others might follow, on that count the assumption is those making that criticism know the evidence more fully than Binnie, yet neither man claims that or reason why it was incumbent on him to spell it out anymore clearly than he did. I understand a little more about you now Milt, or should I say something has been confirmed, like other JFRBainers you ignore what you don’t like. You’ve said plainly that Binnie didn’t take the cumulative approach when clearly he not only did but that he recorded that he did. Fisher is as thick as two short planks for claiming otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Whoops see you’ve left Milt.

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

    Goldnkiwi
    David was wearing exactly what he wore on the paper round minus the red sweatshirt which was in the washing machine, this points towards him doing the washing after the pr and not before. Towel could have been used as a sponge or to wipe the gun or an apparent nosebleed when Robin puts the jersey in the laundry, no explanation for in ‘murder’ scenario as to much blood to have been transfered by David. The only DNA found was Robins yet it doesn’t mean that it was the only DNA present.
    re brass shells they more indicate Robin has access to the gun than ‘suddenly snapping’ White fibres item never found or searched for, the existence was of only established down the track with the PC review in 1997, probably went up in smoke with the house. At retrial crown tried to change tactics and suggested David removed it! Prof Ferris wasn’t even aware of it in his evidence! talk about searching for a story to fit the evidence!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Why minus the sweat shirt, I thought it was freezing?
    Plus David took his shoes off, he wouldn’t have wanted to make a mess. Understandable
    Easy enough to reset the machine to just add the sweatshirt if it was washed for a ‘particular’ reason, but then isn’t there debate over whether it was worn or not as it didn’t have a hood? I guess he must have worn it to sleep in as an hour wouldn’t have got it dirty, but then as you will say who knows.
    What nosebleed? Did he get one when he was doing the guttering? He had a head bleed and didn’t get to wipe it.
    So you think Robin had snuck in to David’s room and taken the gun before? Seems to me they were picked up from somewhere else and put on the table but then I do not have to convolute anything.
    As you seem to think that Stephen had access to the gun perhaps Stephen used the privacy of the caravan to play with it? Or David for that matter, it seems a bit mad to be firing a gun inside a house to sight it in or otherwise anyway ie the target.
    What change of tactics, responding to information as it came to hand, how unreasonable..

    Streuth clearly the police are never going to be able to enter a crime scene ever again, at least according to your rationale (such as it is)?
    A far as I am aware , and the beauty of this is I know I will be corrected if I am wrong ergo if I am not corrected I am right, David is the only person that left the premises that morning that was a family member. If anything was removed, it was removed by David, in the course of his paper run.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    David was wearing his anorak on his paper round . He lied about wearing that red sweatshirt.
    One witness at the retrial said he thought he was wearing an anorak,the other witness said he was wearing a sweatshirt with the hood up and that red sweatshirt does not have a hood. She is adamant that the hood was up,but she is not sure about the long trousers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    It does seem sensible to have been dressed warmly but then there was polar swimming involved the day? before.
    Could the witnesses have been confusing paper boys, clearly there were multiple runs, how far away from home was David’s last delivery?

    Some other paper boy delivered the Bain paper, perhaps David being earlier confused the witnesses, delivery people can be quite invisible. Just like sometimes people only see a uniform, not really identify the person wearing it.

    How old was the Bain paper boy? Or was he ‘older’ too?

    I gave one of our paper delivery ladies gloves one year, I am surprised that David didn’t wear gloves routinely, must be made of stern stuff.

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

    goldnkiwi (24) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
    A far as I am aware , and the beauty of this is I know I will be corrected if I am wrong ergo if I am not corrected I am right, David is the only person that left the premises that morning that was a family member. If anything was removed, it was removed by David, in the course of his paper run.

    ————————————–

    Nothing was removed.
    The police tried to say at the second trial, that the source of the white fibres was searched for, and not found and that David must have dumped it. Problem was, they didn’t know about the white fibres before the house was burned, they learned that later, so didn’t know about it, to search for it. In short, they tried to mislead the jury.

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

    goldnkiwi (24) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    It does seem sensible to have been dressed warmly but then there was polar swimming involved the day? before.
    Could the witnesses have been confusing paper boys, clearly there were multiple runs, how far away from home was David’s last delivery?

    Some other paper boy delivered the Bain paper, perhaps David being earlier confused the witnesses, delivery people can be quite invisible. Just like sometimes people only see a uniform, not really identify the person wearing it.

    How old was the Bain paper boy? Or was he ‘older’ too?

    I gave one of our paper delivery ladies gloves one year, I am surprised that David didn’t wear gloves routinely, must be made of stern stuff.

    David had been doing that round for a long time, the people knew him.
    Have you seen the terrain? No one, but some old hippy with no teeth and scraggy hair would need to dress warmly for it.
    The Bain house paper run, was not in the same streets as the David’s run (for obvious reasons dimwit)
    David was very fit and training for marathons, such people don’t dress warmly – you need to think before you make yourself look even more stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    How is this for someone that lied? And who routinely calls others liars, in fact tries to make profit from it.

    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.

    And now it 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.

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

    muggins (1,561) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 7:03 pm
    David was wearing his anorak on his paper round . He lied about wearing that red sweatshirt.
    One witness at the retrial said he thought he was wearing an anorak,the other witness said he was wearing a sweatshirt with the hood up and that red sweatshirt does not have a hood. She is adamant that the hood was up,but she is not sure about the long trousers.

    —————————

    You make a definitive statement “David was wearing……., He lied….”

    Then you say, just one of the witnesses THOUGHT he was wearing an anorak. The anorak was not red or anything like red!
    Another person you’ve ‘rung’ no doubt. 😉 So many people you’ve rung, so many people who don’t remember talking to you….. such a strange wee man.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,501) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    LOL , he must have a very long nose. Perhaps he uses it to dial the phone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Really, I do believe that they were probably looking for ‘blood’. I doubt if that would be overlooked if it was at any of the crime scenes. Of course if it had been ‘hidden’ any oversight would have been perfectly understandable.

    You are so right that David must have been known so I guess their impressions regarding ‘normal’ routines is reliable then.

    Why would Robin have hidden anything again? honey .;)

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,501) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    How is this for someone that lied? And who routinely calls others liars, in fact tries to make profit from it.

    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.

    And now it 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.

    The thing about all of that is Dr Pryde, in line with normal procedure, took photos of any abnormalities on David. Hence the photos of bruise on the face etc. But there are no photos of the things Muggins likes to talk about, which is further proof they did not exist.

    Now I believe he is looking for photos of David naked. Take what you like from that !!

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

    goldnkiwi (25) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    DOH!!!
    You really don’t know the evidence at all.

    The white cotton fibres were on the bullet fragments. The bullet passed through something before it hit Laniet, but the police didn’t know about that until much later.

    By time they knew about it, the house and its contents was gone. They didn’t look for the source of the white fibres, because they didn’t know about the white fibres attached to the bullets. By time they knew, the house had been burned to the ground, so when they said they’d looked for the source, of course they hadn’t.

    Now, do you understand that, or am I going to have to put it in words a five year old would understand?
    Clearly you have comprehension problems

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Exactly Judith, they would have been a significant and compelling piece of evidence had they existed. A Doctor doing a strip search and having been asked specifically to look for wounds that had recently bled, as Pryde referred to in his evidence, would have not only marked them on his chart, and included them in his evidence but they would have been photographed and still been subject of debate. In fact they would have been damning evidence against David, but of course they never existed and the only one to claim they did is the resident and proven bser.

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

    How about this.

    Laniet is shot with a bullet that fragments because it was shot through another object before hitting her.

    That other object was made of white cotton, which left white cotton fragments attached to the bullet fragments.

    When the fragments that were found both in her head and one under her body and one 2 metres away, were examined, white fibres were found. But they were not looked at until the police had finished with the crime scene, and the house was burned.

    The police tried to say in court they had looked for the source of the white fibres in the house, forgetting that when the house was standing, they didn’t know about them, so naturally wouldn’t have been searching for some white cotton fabric item.

    The police did not document every item in the house.

    No one searches for something they don’t know about – except maybe you, but then that’s understandable, isn’t it.

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

    Whoops see you’ve left Milt.

    Still sneaking a peek occasionally so did read it. I think you’re wrong, but that certainly must come as no surprise, and there doesn’t seem any likelihood that either of us might have our minds changed by further dispute so won’t try. All the best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Far from it, what ever the white ‘item’ was would have been covered in blood, any blood covered object by Laniet’s head would I venture to say have been hard to miss. Ergo it must have been removed from the scene, the police in the first instance had no idea what was of import at all. Which will be why it was great that they found the lens in Stephen’s room, which has become as it always should have been a pivotal piece of evidence. Robin did not have the opportunity to remove anything from the scene.

    I thought you already wrote like a four year old so any improvement will be a step up. 😉 lol

    Any comprehension problems are not mine, honey

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    No surprise Milt, cheers – been interesting whether you decide to continue on this subject or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Did David have ‘abnormalities’? Who knew but you, noone said.

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

    goldnkiwi (26) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 8:34 pm
    ————————

    Nothing was removed from the scene. It didn’t need to be against Laniet’s head, and the fact the fragment travelled 2 metres in the same direction, indicates it wasn’t. So your story about being covered in blood, does not fit, does it!

    The police didn’t look for an item that they didn’t know about. They were of the opinion it was a clean undisturbed shot, that had fragmented, but those fragments had fallen just outside the body.

    In fact, that story was given in evidence, and the person that gave it was shocked to know of the fragment that landed under Laniet and the other one 2 metres away. He was also shocked to know that there was blood etc on the wardrobe at the foot of the bed, indicating Laniet had been sitting it.

    He was shocked because it made a mockery of this evidence.

    The problem is, what you think doesn’t matter, because each time you post, you demonstrate more and more, how very little you actually know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    So you think that the police only look for what they know is there?
    Not much investigation at all then, no wonder you are so concerned.
    No wonder they didn’t find any of the evidence that would have exonerated David then, they can’t have been expecting to find any.
    Thanks for clearing that up, you are a treasure, do not let anyone tell you any different.;)

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

    goldnkiwi (27) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 8:50 pm
    Did David have ‘abnormalities’? Who knew but you, noone said.
    ———————————–

    You do realise that you being a proven associate of JFRB, are making them look very stupid, don’t you?

    Making statements about things you know nothing about.

    At least Muggins is informed, and believes what he says. You are just plain stupid, you don’t even know the basics regarding the evidence, and yet like to shoot your mouth off, for what? Perhaps its your intention to make them look pathetic, if it is, you’re succeeding.

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

    goldnkiwi (28) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 8:58 pm
    So you think that the police only look for what they know is there?

    ———————————-

    She there you go again, making yourself look stupid because you are ignorant.

    The police said they searched for the source of the white cotton fibres in Laniet’s room.

    But, they didn’t know about the white cotton fibres when they were in the house, so how could they have looked for the source of them?

    Comprehendo?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Hey, I am here to learn, it isn’t me that claims to know everything as if they were there themselves, being the arbiter of everyone elses opinions. Condescend as much as you like. You explain everything so well, I am agog :). Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with me. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith 3.53pm JAN 16
    What a load of unadulterated rubbish. Kaycees name has been published in newspaper articles. Liar.
    Judith 6.42pm JAN 16.
    It has been spelt twice correctly in the trial transcripts. Liar.
    Judith 2.21 pm JAN 18.
    Because the spelling has been corrected in the trial transcripts I have access to. Oh yeah!
    Judith . 2.31pm pm JAN 18.
    I know it has been changed in the transcripts I can access because I changed it. Believe or not,by Ripley.

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

    goldnkiwi (29) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 9:08 pm

    ————————-

    Here to learn? You’ve been doing this since at least 2010, and you still haven’t learned?
    Says it all really. Most people that are such slow learners come in and ask questions to learn, they don’t go making definitive statements, waiting for others to show them where they are wrong.

    Thank you for the compliment though. Yes I have spent a great deal of time researching this case and other similar cases. I think I have a reasonable grasp of the evidence, certainly a hell of a lot more than you do!

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

    muggins (1,562) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    ——————-

    Just because you don’t understand researching processes no need to get nasty Muggins, or are you trying to draw the attention away from these lies of yours?

    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.

    And now it 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.

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

    Psycho Milt (985) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    I know Psycho Milt has left the building, but I’ve been meaning to answer this, so in case he has a peek back to see if his loss is noted…

    The problem with your argument about looking at the whole of the evidence and the cumulative effect on probability is that you are ignoring the fact that there is a whole heap of missing evidence. If evidence is collected, tested, and retained with a confirmatory bias, then the ‘cumulative effect on probability’ will be inevitably to distort that probability in the direction of the original bias. ALL the evidence should be considered, not only the evidence against David. Evidence against Robin is exculpatory of David, but the effect on the probabilities of evidence which was not tested cannot be accurately assessed. The residual blood on Robin’s hands provides a suggestion that he rather than David may have been wearing the bloodied gloves, but we can’t know because the gloves and the blood on his hands were not sampled or tested, and the samples that were taken were destroyed. The evidence of incest/prostitution was not followed up at the time, and if it had been there might be something more definite to go on in terms of a motive or trigger. Robin Bain’s mental health was not properly assessed despite there being abundant signs of deterioration and crisis.

    Anyone can build a case for anything if they use a selective approach to the evidence and ignore evidence against whatever it is they are trying to prove. And therein lies the problem. If they had not been ‘trying to prove’ that David was the perpetrator, but had instead been trying to determine who had done it, there would be a great deal more evidence, and it would be less one-sided – there is enough known about the missing side of the story to know that much. You may be happy to be gulled into thinking that what was put forward was all there was, but the Privy Council, retrial and Binnie’s report shows that is not so. The cumulative effect on probability of all that needs also to be considered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Sorry that I took so long to reply I had to stop laughing at you first, you clearly have no comprehension of the word compliment or the concept of sarcasm, ironically enough lol but that is okay, I am not surprised. I am surprised at how many people do not know how to spell surprised though. One of your clones doesn’t. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith
    Scratching the bottom of the barrel with that list,aren’t you?
    Robin Bain was the only earner,apart from David’s paper round,the only job he could get.
    Robin’s salary went into the bank. Margaret drew it out. She paid off the visa on the Sunday night because it would have attracted interest if left until the 20th,then she took out $200 in cash.
    What argument?
    As you well know ,Robin Bain wanted to get rid of possums at the school. He was thinking of buying a shotgun,but Kyle cunningham suggested a rifle would be better. He obviously didn’t have access to David’s rifle,either that or David wouldn’t let him borrow it because he needed it for something else,no prizes for guessing what.
    He was an excellent teacher,just wasn’t great on paper work. Some of the best managers I ever knew were not that great at paper work.
    Psycho Milt posted a great list,your’s was rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith
    3.53pm JAN 16
    What a load of unadulterated rubbish. Kaycees name has been spelt correctly in newspaper articles. Liar.
    Judith.
    6.42pm JAN 16
    It has been spelt correctly twice in trial transcripts. Liar.
    Judith.
    2.21 JAN 18
    The spelling of the dogs name has been corrected in the transcript I have. By who?
    Judith.
    I know it has been changed in the trial transcripts I can access because I changed it. Pull the other one, you drongo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    How’s this for pure bs? A bull crapper in full flight.

    muggins (1,562) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    ——————-

    Just because you don’t understand researching processes no need to get nasty Muggins, or are you trying to draw the attention away from these lies of yours?

    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.

    And now it 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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith
    Dec 16 9.30am.
    Was the animal hurt?
    He had sex with a goat-what kind of sex?
    The type of sex is not clarified
    Was it fondling .intercourse,oral,etc.etc.
    How can any person comment without knowing the exact details?
    Sex is a very wide concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith
    Dec 16 9.30am.
    Was the animal hurt?
    He had sex with a goat-what kind of sex?
    The type of sex is not clarified.
    Was it fondling,intercourse,oral,etc.etc.
    How can any person comment without knowing the exact details?
    Sex is a very wide concept.

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

    Still, let’s all look on the bright side. If David gets compo, he can buy that motorbike he’s always wanted!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith
    Dec 16 9.30am
    Was the animal hurt?
    He had sex with a goat-what kind of sex?
    The type of sex is not clarified.
    Was it fondling, intercourse,oral.etc.etc.?
    How can a person comment without knowing the exact details?
    Sex is a very wide concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    How predictable, back to goats and more bs.

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

    More BS from guess who!
    Yes of course Margaret paid of the visa to avoid attracting interest! Been having more pyschic conversations here, obviously seeing as ‘Daddy’ has told you what he was thinking and back to the goat story LMAO
    Again no facts more bs and back to the old obsession!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Psychic? Apparently Margaret would have liked that idea if she was alive…but sadly…you know…she’s dead.
    Gee, if only Margaret had had a premonition, she would have known there was no rush to pay any bills at all.

    For that matter neither would Robin have paid Laniet’s bills, so considerate, not wanting his daughter in debt to strangers,
    I guess according to you he didn’t want her getting into debt again.

    The mentality that can find something sinister in a father paying his unemployed daughters debts is the reason why unaccompanied children can no longer be seated beside men and why men avoid the teaching profession.

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

    Goldnkiwi,
    I have no idea on Robin Bains intentions or what he was thinking so I don’t try and speculate. Maybe if you acquaint yourself with some of the earlier posts, you will get an idea of the total bs and speculation posted. ie Robins plans for the new house, how to spell the dogs name and the sinister interpretation of tattoos.
    The issue of bills is irrelevant tells you nothing

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

    goldnkiwi (31) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 10:40 pm
    Psychic? Apparently Margaret would have liked that idea if she was alive…but sadly…you know…she’s dead.
    Gee, if only Margaret had had a premonition, she would have known there was no rush to pay any bills at all.
    ———————————————-

    Margaret did have an idea though. She told a reliable friend some years beforehand that she was scared Robin would get a gun and kill them all.

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

    muggins (1,567) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 9:52 pm
    Judith
    Dec 16 9.30am.
    Was the animal hurt?
    He had sex with a goat-what kind of sex?
    The type of sex is not clarified
    Was it fondling .intercourse,oral,etc.etc.
    How can any person comment without knowing the exact details?
    Sex is a very wide concept.

    ————————————

    Can’t stay away from the subject can you. Goats, naked pictures of young men, excusing fathers engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with their daughters? Do your neighbours know your interests?

    1. The animal was displaying distress at being restrained.
    2. David did not say Buckley had sex with the goat. (that’s your fantasy) David said Buckley was doing something that was of a sexual nature and looked silly. Flashing a person in public is catagorised as being of a sexual nature by law, so as you can imagine (& seemed to being doing often) there is a huge variety of acts of a sexual nature that do not just include intercourse or shagging as you put it.
    3. No, the type of sexual nature was not clarified in Binnie’s report to the MOJ. It wasn’t the kind of act that is commonly referred to as ‘sex’. Again I point you to the words ‘sexual nature’.
    4. It was neither fondling of the goats sexual genitalia, or the goat fondling the persons genitalia, sexual intercourse or oral sex (by either the goat or the person).
    5. Perhaps a person that doesn’t know the exact details, should stop commenting on it then – namely you! If you are referring to Binnie. I believe he had access to the exact details. He was clearly seeing what David had to say about the incident.
    6. Yes, sex is a very wide concept. I’m glad you have finally accepted that. When you first started raving about the goat incident, you had decided that ‘shagging’ was the only answer. I’m sure your wife will benefit from your new knowledge.

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

    Having been musing overnight about the Binnie report, and researching the papers available, I can see why he appeared to ‘be on Bain’s side’.

    He has seen such cases in his own country, and no doubt high profile ones from other countries. He would know the emotion they engender in the wider population, which is commensurate with the amount and type of media attention the case gets.

    Now we know ,because she told us, that one jury member was encouraged to contact him trying to interfere with his deliberations.
    We know, from the email Binnie wrote to Collins in answer to Guest’s, that Chris Cooke (a man in the media who hates Karam and has good reason to) wrote to him, interfering and saying that Guest wanted to talk to him. Did he have a “Sunday” program ready to “blow this apart and make himself a name”? This meant that not only Cooke but also Guest were trying to tell Binnie how to do his job.
    We know, by the fact that he read their websites, that he had received correspondence from the JFRB and counterspin groups trying to interfere with his deliberations.

    Not being a stupid man, he would have both resented the interference of ‘know nothing’ people trying to bully him into making a particular decision, but also have recognised a fully fledged hate campaign and witch hunt. One that apparently included Bain’s first lawyer.
    This would have caused him to look deeper, and perhaps a little more favourably at Bain, than he otherwise would have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    After his conviction at the first trial: “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.”

    Did you kill your family? “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.”

    Binnie ignored the broken glasses Bain was wearing, “Inculpatory”, said the PC. Bain cannot explain, reinforcing the posit.

    Binnie was wrong in methodology and conclusion. Binnie is a dunce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Why do the stalwarts of the ‘truth’ lie so much Dennis. Silly comments about Binnie are one thing but deliberate lies are sinister. Here’s an example you must have missed.

    muggins (1,562) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    ——————-

    Just because you don’t understand researching processes no need to get nasty Muggins, or are you trying to draw the attention away from these lies of yours?

    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.

    And now it 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.

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

    But, in spite of her fear, Margaret allowed David to have a rifle.

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

    Dennis Horne (462) Says:

    Still trying to hump my leg, Puppy, or will you just keep on trying to wank in my ear?

    This tells us a lot about Dennis. Which do you prefer, Dennis? 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    After his conviction at the first trial: “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.”

    Did you kill your family? “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.”

    Binnie ignored the broken glasses Bain was wearing, “Inculpatory”, said the PC. Bain cannot explain, reinforcing the posit.

    Binnie was wrong in methodology and conclusion. Binnie is a dunce.

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

    Dennis Horne (463) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Binnie is a dunce.

    As pointed out above, the dunces are those who thought they could interfere with Binnie doing his job.
    Now they are attempting the same with cabinet. If there is any semblance of intelligence within cabinet then we will see the same outcome, if there is not and they lack integrity entirely, we won’t.

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

    Dennis Horne (463) Says:
    January 6th, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Still trying to hump my leg Puppy, or will you just keep on trying to wank in my ear?

    You haven’t told us your preference yet, Dennis. 😉

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

    Having been musing overnight about the Binnie report, and researching the papers available, I can see why he appeared to ‘be on Bain’s side’.

    He has seen such cases in his own country, and no doubt high profile ones from other countries. He would know the emotion they engender in the wider population, which is commensurate with the amount and type of media attention the case gets.

    Now we know ,because she told us, that one jury member was encouraged to contact him trying to interfere with his deliberations.
    We know, from the email Binnie wrote to Collins in answer to Guest’s, that Chris Cooke (a man in the media who hates Karam and has good reason to) wrote to him, interfering and saying that Guest wanted to talk to him. Did he have a “Sunday” program ready to “blow this apart and make himself a name”? This meant that not only Cooke but also Guest were trying to tell Binnie how to do his job.
    We know, by the fact that he read their websites, that he had received correspondence from the JFRB and counterspin groups trying to interfere with his deliberations.

    Not being a stupid man, he would have both resented the interference of ‘know nothing’ people trying to bully him into making a particular decision, but also have recognised a fully fledged hate campaign and witch hunt. One that apparently included Bain’s first lawyer.
    This would have caused him to look deeper, and perhaps a little more favourably at Bain, than he otherwise would have.

    Further to that.
    It has been noticeable that there is no indication of any of Bain’s supporters trying to interfere with the outcome. Why is that?
    Because, in the main, they conduct themselves with dignity, as opposed to grovelling. They had confidence that if the available evidence were to be thoroughly investigated it would prove Bain’s innocence, and they trusted Binnie to do the job he was contracted to do, with fairness and integrity.

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

    Dennis Horne (463) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 9:52 am
    After his conviction at the first trial: “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.”

    Did you kill your family? “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.”

    Binnie ignored the broken glasses Bain was wearing, “Inculpatory”, said the PC. Bain cannot explain, reinforcing the posit.

    Binnie was wrong in methodology and conclusion. Binnie is a dunce.

    ——————————

    Why should David not say the Judge was kind to him.
    You seem to forget that David was not a convicted criminal and having been found not guilty, has the same status as yourself and me. Would you expect the Judge to be horrible to you? I know I certainly wouldn’t expect that just because I’d applied for compensation.

    Of course David or anyone would word their answer in such a way “my core belief is I wasn’t there’.
    David has had enormous problems with memory recall, consistent with PTSD. If he simply answered ‘I wasn’t there’, he would be challenged, noting the lack of memory recall, answering as he did, solves that problem.

    Binnie was right to ignore the glasses. There was no evidential material found on them or the lens that ties them to the murders. If you are going to associate them to the murders simply because the lens was in one room and the glasses in the other, you will come unstuck, because there were many objects in Stephen’s room which belonged to other members of the family, and so on. None of that proves murder, and none of it is associated to the act of murder. More so, David would not have needed the glasses to commit murder. If you believe he did, then who shot the other Bain’s?

    Binnie’s method was not wrong, or inappropriate. If Binnie is a dunce, then god save you and the rest of humankind who have not achieved anywhere near the level that Binnie has.

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

    I find it difficult to see where Binnie is at fault by recommending compensation and payment. The guidelines very clearly ask that the QC report on those factors ….

    Cabinet Guidelines:

    4. The Queen’s Counsel shall report to the referring Minister, certifying whether he or she is satisfied that the claimant is innocent on the balance of probabilities. If concluding this is so, he or she will also recommend an appropriate amount of compensation/ex gratia payment, taking into account the following factors:
    a. the conduct of the person leading to the prosecution and conviction;
    b. whether the prosecution acted in good faith in bringing and continuing the case;
    c. whether the investigation was conducted in a reasonable and proper manner;
    d. the seriousness of the offence alleged;
    e. the seriousness of the sentence passed; and
    f. the nature and extent of the loss resulting from the conviction and sentence.

    5. Losses are in respect only of the period following conviction and are defined as follows:
    Non-pecuniary losses
    a. loss of liberty
    b. loss of reputation (taking into account the effect of any apology to the person by the Crown);
    c. loss or interruption of family or other personal relationships; and
    d. mental or emotional harm.

    Pecuniary losses
    a. loss of livelihood, including loss of earnings, with adjustments for income tax and for benefits received while incarcerated;
    b. loss of future earning abilities;
    c. loss of property or other consequential financial losses resulting from detention or imprisonment, and
    d. costs incurred by or on behalf of the person in obtaining pardon or acquittal.

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

    It was plainly obvious the defence strategy was to put sufficient doubt to the jury using Robin as the pawn in showing that it was ‘posible’ that he could of done suicide. An experianced Judge should of noticed that and done further investigation to evaluate how high the probabilty was. Judge Binnie didn’t do that.
    The biggest stumbling block anyone with anyone will have is why is Robins body so far from the curtain where there is a high degree of certainty he was shot close to that curtain.
    B Bain supporters have given a lot of BS and bluster but they don’t have an answer. There of course other odd things to do with Robins death scene that should raise concerns with whoever does a review.

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

    The biggest stumbling block anyone with anyone will have is why is Robins body so far from the curtain

    Would you care to back that up with accurate measurements taken on the day? Could you also, please, reference that information?
    If not, then we can presume you are getting it from out of your arse as muggins and Dennis are wont to do.

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

    Kanz more bluster 🙁

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

    Gamefisher
    Dempster agreed with all the demonstrations and photographs shown to him at the retrial that all (I believe there were 12) scenarios lined up with the trajectory and site of entry. He also said there was NOTHING about where the body was found that contradicted any of the demonstrations. So I think I will go with his opinion re body positioning over yours. There was NO explanation offered by the prosecution on how he was ‘murdered’ and they stayed well clear of the lounge. Even if he was moved then this could have been done after finding him and the different photos suggest he was. Clutching at straws!

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

    gamefisher (338) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 11:06 am

    ———————————–

    Until such time as you come up with the exact measurement of how far away from the chair Robin Bain’s body was, you are basing your opinion on photos taken at different angles and at an unknown time.

    The fact is, Robin Bain was in front of the curtains standing with one foot on the floor and the other bent at the knee (presumably) on the chair (which is on an angle and only touching the curtains at the back of the chair).

    You need to first provide an explanation for why he received his fatal wound in that position if it wasn’t suicide, because that is what it strongly suggests.

    Research states strongly that whilst a body does not ‘fly across a room’ as demonstrated in popular movies, it does move in the direction of the shot due to the force. The fact Robin’s right leg was supported by the chair when his left leg would have collapsed, also means his body would move in a rightward direction.

    The photo of his body shows this right leg still bent.
    As his body collapsed and the centre of gravity altered due to the weight of his head, he fell backwards to the right.

    What you are not taking into account is that the chair is not at right angles to the curtain. Therefore, with Robin standing in front of it, but not touching it with anything but his right foot, leaving space for the length of the rifle, he would have been quite a distance from the curtains, which you are using as the focus of your measurements. (Measurements you don’t actually know the exact amount of).

    This link shows a photo of one of the proposed suicide positions that fits the evidence of the spatter as well as the gun use.

    http://s1338.photobucket.com/albums/o681/Person5198/Bain%20photos/?action=view&current=gundemonstration2.jpg

    Perhaps you can provide a suggestion for a position that explains both the blood spatter on Robin, the curtains, and the final position of the body?

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

    BS and bluster coming out in bucket loads from you people look at Judith never seen a body shot in the head and comes out with the above and most likely can’t do Physics calculation to back uo her thesis. Bluster all you like it is the reviewer you need to convince.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (886) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 7:22 am
    muggins (1,567) Says:
    January 19th, 2013 at 9:52 pm
    Judith
    Dec 16 9.30am.
    Was the animal hurt?
    He had sex with a goat-what kind of sex?
    The type of sex is not clarified
    Was it fondling .intercourse,oral,etc.etc.
    How can any person comment without knowing the exact details?
    Sex is a very wide concept.

    ————————————

    Can’t stay away from the subject can you. Goats, naked pictures of young men, excusing fathers engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with their daughters? Do your neighbours know your interests?

    1. The animal was displaying distress at being restrained.
    2. David did not say Buckley had sex with the goat. (that’s your fantasy) David said Buckley was doing something that was of a sexual nature and looked silly. Flashing a person in public is catagorised as being of a sexual nature by law, so as you can imagine (& seemed to being doing often) there is a huge variety of acts of a sexual nature that do not just include intercourse or shagging as you put it.
    3. No, the type of sexual nature was not clarified in Binnie’s report to the MOJ. It wasn’t the kind of act that is commonly referred to as ‘sex’. Again I point you to the words ‘sexual nature’.
    4. It was neither fondling of the goats sexual genitalia, or the goat fondling the persons genitalia, sexual intercourse or oral sex (by either the goat or the person).
    5. Perhaps a person that doesn’t know the exact details, should stop commenting on it then – namely you! If you are referring to Binnie. I believe he had access to the exact details. He was clearly seeing what David had to say about the incident.
    6. Yes, sex is a very wide concept. I’m glad you have finally accepted that. When you first started raving about the goat incident, you had decided that ‘shagging’ was the only answer.
    Judith,you wanted to know what kind of sex Mark Buckley was having with that goat,you nosey old bat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

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

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

    gamefisher (340) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 11:45 am
    BS and bluster coming out in bucket loads from you people look at Judith never seen a body shot in the head and comes out with the above and most likely can’t do Physics calculation to back uo her thesis. Bluster all you like it is the reviewer you need to convince.
    ————————————

    You are the one full of BS and Bluster.
    You don’t have the measurements, but think you can do a physics calculation without them.

    You presume I have never seen a shot to a head. Fact is, you don’t know what I’ve seen and not seen. You might actually be very surprised if you knew the truth to that one.

    I have also researched the subject, and everything I read confirms what I have seen, that the head will move in the direction of the bullet by the force of the impact, and the position they fall in also has a lot to do with the
    location and angle of entry relative to the person’s center of mass.
    .

    There are many video clips of famous shootings that also confirm this for those who don’t want to go to the bother of reading the long complicated forensic analysis of gun shots to the head.

    Fact is gamefisher, until you produce some actual figures and explanations to support what you say, you are yourself full of guilty of being full of bluster and BS.

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

    Judish you do not have a clue I not trying to flame you.Quote” it does move in the direction of the shot due to the force” Unquote
    Do you know how much force this is?
    Do you know that in that photo that it in unlikely Robins hand would of unclasped so the 3Kg+ rifle could of influenced direction\
    You have Robin falling to the right away from the curtain.
    People are mentioning acuracy of measurement yet can’t do Physic calcs themselves
    Robin is easily 3 body length why the need for accuracy and how accurate do you need? the way you are waffling one thousands of an inch would not be accurate enough.

    Everything you are presenting is bluster

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/12/who-should-be-buying-truth-this-week/
    Judith aka the goat lady.
    If you really think that other Judith will be even contemplating paying Bain compensation after this revalation you are deluded. Unlike you that other Judith has integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (693) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 11:20 am
    The biggest stumbling block anyone with anyone will have is why is Robins body so far from the curtain

    Would you care to back that up with accurate measurements taken on the day? Could you also, please, reference that information?
    If not, then we can presume you are getting it from out of your arse as muggins and Dennis are wont to do
    Kanz
    The only person who pulls stuff out of his arse is you, but only after you have removed your head first.
    Don’t like being played for a sucker,do you.? It was like taking candy from a baby. What a plonker.
    But it is obvious you are worried that I might find out something so I will have another try next week.

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

    gamefisher (341) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 12:36 pm
    ——————————–

    Robin is not 3 body lengths away from where he would have been standing.
    Anyone can see that, even without the correct angled photo and the measurements.

    Fact is, you are throwing criticism at people for not doing the physics, but you have nothing but one photo to go on. A photo that even despite what you claim, clearly shows you are bullshitting when it comes to Robin’s body being 3 body lengths away. Robin was 5.9, that would mean he was more than 15′ away from the chair.

    Wake up!! Look at this photo. Please tell where the 3 body lengths are? The rifle is at the base of the chairs leg, the other end 30 cms from Robin. Going by your calculation, that would make the rifle at least 15 ft long.

    You’re a BS artist!

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

    muggins (1,571) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Judith aka the goat lady.
    If you really think that other Judith will be even contemplating paying Bain compensation after this revalation you are deluded. Unlike you that other Judith has integrity.

    ————————————

    Unfortunately for you, Guest didn’t bother to think about previous statements he had made, including those under oath, and has been proven since that article was printed, to be a liar. No doubt some of your important friends forgot to phone you back with that news, however, it has been given to Ms Collins, and she is fully aware of exactly what the integrity of Mr Guest is. His statement has been given the attention it deserves.

    Too bad for you huh?

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

    So you are saying Robins head is not 3 meters from the blood on the curtain so that means you must have the measurement?
    Kindly give it to us

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

    sorry,
    link to photo.

    http://s1338.photobucket.com/albums/o681/Person5198/Bain%20photos/?action=view&current=Loungescene_zps4775f4f3.png

    According to gamefisher, Robin is 3 body (lengths) from the gun and curtain.

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

    gamefisher (342) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    ………… Robin is easily 3 body length why the need for accuracy and how accurate do you need? the way you are waffling one thousands of an inch would not be accurate enough.

    You did not say 3 metres, you said 3 body length …..

    gamefisher (342) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 1:02 pm
    So you are saying Robins head is not 3 meters from the blood on the curtain so that means you must have the measurement?
    Kindly give it to us

    So you change the quote once you realise you are wrong?
    I will not give you the measurement, I will just continue to expose you for being full of bluster, because you don’t have it, and can’t therefore provide an adequate calculation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (894) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 12:57 pm
    muggins (1,571) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Judith aka the goat lady.
    If you really think that other Judith will be even contemplating paying Bain compensation after this revalation you are deluded. Unlike you that other Judith has integrity.

    ————————————

    Unfortunately for you, Guest didn’t bother to think about previous statements he had made, including those under oath, and has been proven since that article was printed, to be a liar. No doubt some of your important friends forgot to phone you back with that news, however, it has been given to Ms Collins, and she is fully aware of exactly what the integrity of Mr Guest is. His statement has been given the attention it deserves.

    Too bad for you huh?
    No,too bad for you that Judith Collins was well aware that David Bain had lied on oath long before Guest wrote her that letter.
    She had already seen Jan Clark’s statement so she knew that David Bain lied on oath about those glasses,all Guest’s letter did was confirm what she already knew. Bain wants to follow Lance Armstrong’s example,it’s never too late to confess.

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

    Judith I am not wrong I never said what part but forget about how Robin might of got killed concentrate on the measurements of 120mm, 200mm and 305mm away from curtain and a height less thaan 1meter as to how far Robins head wound was from the curtain when the blood was deposited. That meant that his whole body mass was less than 1 meter off the floor crumpled up & incapacitated yet he was found where he is.

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

    muggins (1,572) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    ———————

    Oh dear, you are getting irrational aren’t you?

    Judith Collins may have thought that when she got Guest’s letter, however, since then she has received information that Guest has not been telling the truth, and most importantly, had lied to her.

    Sorry, but this is one you have lost, and the sad part is, you don’t even realise it.

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

    http://www.odt.co.nz/51760/bain039s-body-was-moved-pathologist

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

    gamefisher (343) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
    Judith I am not wrong I never said what part but forget about how Robin might of got killed concentrate on the measurements of 120mm, 200mm and 305mm away from curtain and a height less thaan 1meter as to how far Robins head wound was from the curtain when the blood was deposited. That meant that his whole body mass was less than 1 meter off the floor crumpled up & incapacitated yet he was found where he is.

    ——————————–

    Sorry, you are wrong again, and no I won’t forget about your accusation that Robin was 3 body lengths ….. that was a monumental f-up on your behalf.

    You are also wrong about the blood on the curtain, and evidence was given that supports the blood came from a height,, as does the photos.
    The blood on the curtain has landed in an elongated pattern. This type of pattern is indication that it fell from a height, not horizontally. I know you have been given the calculations by Nostalgia NZ in this thread. I suggest you familarise yourself with them, before you again make a ‘3 body length’ error.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/presumption-of-innocence-vs-balance-of-probabilities
    Brilliant blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (897) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    muggins (1,572) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    ———————

    Oh dear, you are getting irrational aren’t you?

    Judith Collins may have thought that when she got Guest’s letter, however, since then she has received information that Guest has not been telling the truth, and most importantly, had lied to her.

    Judith,guess who has written to Judith Collins about all those lies Bain told Binnie. I am sure Collins will believe that person.
    We all know David Bain lied about those glasses and so does Judith Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

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

    He flew through the air with the greatest of ease and he didn’t even use a flying trapeze.

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

    Judith you are blustering Robins head is 3 meters away from when the blood got deposited onto the curtain and don’t you realise that you make the scenario worse for you by saying the blood was deposited from a greater height.
    This is bluster Quote”Sorry, you are wrong again, and no I won’t forget about your accusation that Robin was 3 body lengths ….. that was a monumental f-up on your behalf.

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

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/225310/haig-seek-review-his-case

    The above gives an excellent summation into Robert Fishers report into Rex Haigs compensation claim. It also could be used to accurately describe his peer review of Justice Binnies report. The following describes it up in two sentances ‘”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.’ As shown in his peer review Fishers arguments were far to academic and he had clearly not studied the evidence closely enough to suggest these ‘errors’ etc. The rope strands argument is bull the crown case is more of a spiderweb in this case.

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

    Gamefisher
    If you check out your link, you might like to help out professer Ferris on the the ‘shaking’ the dead body. Its the best explanation given by anyone trying to explain the blood on the curtain. Does Robins body look shaken to you? look at the photos of his head wound, will give this 0.0000% like your other arguments and inncorrect assumptions regarding the body.

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

    gamefisher (344) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    http://www.odt.co.nz/51760/bain039s-body-was-moved-pathologist
    ——————————
    and
    gamefisher (345) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    ————————————————

    Ferris was wrong, and at the time he gave that evidence was unaware of the blood spatter on Robin’s clothing and shoes.
    There were three other experts who gave evidence to dispute Ferris.

    Ferris was the one who said the two bullet fragments had popped out of Laniet’s brain and fallen close by. When told that one actually fell under Laniet and the other 2 metres away, he was stuck for answers, and had to admit he did not know all the evidence.

    The blood spatter on the curtains speaks for itself. Anyone can see it is an elongated pattern and not consistent with Ferris summation. Ferris was proven wrong many times during the second trial.

    There are photos that can help you. Robin’s body/head is not 3 metres away, unless he is very very tall.

    As you obviously don’t have the measurements, you can still roughly work it out. You need to know the final position of the butt of the rifle, and then the length of that rifle, which you then subtract the distance from the curtains to the left side of the chair, away from. Taking the remaining measurement, you add 30 cms, and that will take you to the left side of Robin’s body, but on an angle. You then need to work out the degree of that angle, and what the horizontal measurement would be. As you will see, Robin’s body is less than half a metre away to the right, from where he shot himself, unless of course you decide the rifle is 3 body lengths long.

    In order to work out the measurement for his head position, you need to know the arc measurement between his head when standing and where he landed, as well know his height etc. Even in a linear measurement, his head is not even 1.7 metres away from the seat of the chair, which is much lower than his height. You have to remember he was standing and the blood spatter proves that.

    When you take the fact he was vertical and now horizontal, having fallen backwards, his position is much much less than you like to believe to make it fit your scenario.

    Ferris was wrong, and didn’t have all the information. Pointless quoting him isn’t it?

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

    muggins notice that Robins hands are both semi-clasped so the right hand would have needed to unclasped to let the rifle go and the left one using the defence being able to touch the trigger needs an unclasped hand yet it is clasps as well.

    Dead and incapacitated bodies don’t normaly do that.

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

    Judith
    Funny how the trolls stick to throughly discredited evidence to support there stories, Ferris, Kim Jones & Milton Weir. Dempster actually agreed that the defence demonstrations were perfectly compatible with suicide and there was nothing about the position of the body distorted that. Hard concept for the trolls to grasp!

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

    Rowan Quote”Dr Thomson He said the blood spatter on the alcove curtain 820mm above the floor suggested Robin Bain’s head must have been “fairly close” to the curtain, although he could not be precise as he was not a spatter expert, but he thought “within a foot [305mm]”.
    He was unable to say at what height the blood and other material had exited the entry wound, but it would have happened “within milliseconds” of the bullet entering because of the increase in pressure in the skull. And if Robin Bain had been standing, he would have collapsed during the next one or two seconds.”
    Did ya read “because of the increase in pressure in the skull” what he means there that there is a pressure increase inside the cranium due to cavitation caused by the bullet.

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

    This next photo may help you more, and before you get all excited about the curtain being over the rifle. It was proven that the alcove had been entered and exited by the police, and that is why the curtain is brushed forward.

    http://s1338.photobucket.com/albums/o681/Person5198/Bain%20photos/?action=view&current=gunlandingposition_zps800ceae3.png

    As you can see, the rifle is virtually equal with the curtains.
    Look at the angle of the chair,
    Look at where the rifle is in the other photo.
    Check the length of the rifle, and the angle in which it lies.

    Now tell me again that Robin is 3 metres away from where it was when he shot himself!

    The problem with photos is they can be misleading. You have been sucked in by taking the photo at face value and constructed your BS to suit that. You are very wrong.

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

    Judith you are deliberatly missing the point Robins body and more specifically his head is too far from that blood on the curtain from a natural fall of an incapacitated body, way too far unless a horizontal/sideway force can be identified.

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

    Rowan (396) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    Judith
    Funny how the trolls stick to throughly discredited evidence to support there stories, Ferris, Kim Jones & Milton Weir. Dempster actually agreed that the defence demonstrations were perfectly compatible with suicide and there was nothing about the position of the body distorted that. Hard concept for the trolls to grasp!

    ———————————

    The fact is Rowan, despite all his b/s, he still hasn’t and can’t offer an explanation for why Robin was standing on one foot when he died. Why the spatter on the curtains is elongated which disproves horizontal, and why the measurement of Robin’s body is not the 3 body lengths he quoted, or even the 3 metre length he changed his story to.

    Dempster made an effort to warn the Crown in his letter of 16 May 2007, that they had evidence wrong, but they wouldn’t listen. They of course didn’t realise that despite having destroyed many of their photos, that Dempster found his stash.

    They do cling to it, because it is all they have. Sad lot that they are.

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

    gamefisher (348) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    ——————————–

    You can’t make that point unless you know the measurements involved, and you don’t.

    You have done nothing but guess at them. 3 body lengths, then 3 metres, etc.

    You are so far out with your estimates, it is obvious you do not know and are simply guessing. You are also forgetting to take into account other factors that effected the position.

    The facts ( the actual measurement) proves you wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Rowan (396) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    Judith
    Funny how the trolls stick to throughly discredited evidence to support there stories, Ferris, Kim Jones & Milton Weir. Dempster actually agreed that the defence demonstrations were perfectly compatible with suicide and there was nothing about the position of the body distorted that. Hard concept for the trolls to grasp!
    Rowan,
    What have omitted to tell us is that Dempster desribed the trajectory in some detail. He said he formed the view that Robin Bain’s wound was a very unusual wound for a self-inflicted wound. He said he had never seen a self inflicted wound that was close to that trajectory.
    Furthermore,it appears that David Bain accepts that there was blood under his fingerprints because he told Binnie it must have been rabbits blood.
    And are you still implying that Milton Weir planted that lens, because if you are,in spite of what I showed you yesterday,I will let him know. It won’t be hard for him to track you down.

    [DPF: Don’t refer to getting someone to track someone down as that can be interpreted as intimidation.]

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

    I am using the plan drawing that is scaled. Incidently why is that curtain over the chair and the butt of the rifle that doesn’t fit your scenario very well at all.

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

    Gamefisher
    You are confusing yourself and trying to muddy the water by making this complicated. No measurements on what ‘to far’ actually is, just your assumption of 3 metres away, also with your own interpretation of the photos as ‘clasped’

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

    gamefisher (348) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    muggins notice that Robins hands are both semi-clasped so the right hand would have needed to unclasped to let the rifle go and the left one using the defence being able to touch the trigger needs an unclasped hand yet it is clasps as well.

    Dead and incapacitated bodies don’t normaly do that.
    ———————————

    Again you are misinformed and taking the angle of the photo for your information.
    Several other photos of Robin show his hands not clasped at all. Relaxed fingers naturally fall at an angle. In order for them to be straight, it would take some effort.

    Do some research buddy. The body relaxes when at death, which is why it collapses.
    You seriously need to get real and stop watching so much TV and CSI in particular.

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

    Rowan more bluster and it is bluster unless you can come back with measurements of you own and the SHOW how Robin got there.

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

    gamefisher (350) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    Rowan more bluster and it is bluster unless you can come back with measurements of you own and the SHOW how Robin got there.
    ——————————–

    You don’t need to do anything of the sort Rowan. DON’T give him the measurement.

    He’s the one thinking he’s so cleaver, let’s see him come up with it. So far it’s been 3 body lengths, and 3 metres.

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

    gamefisher (350) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
    I am using the plan drawing that is scaled. Incidently why is that curtain over the chair and the butt of the rifle that doesn’t fit your scenario very well at all.

    —————————–

    Don’t read too good huh?

    As I have said before, the photo was taken after police had entered the alcove (checking for the gunman) and had exited it again, leaving the curtain brushed forward.

    Come on, pay attention.

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

    Judith I don’t watch CSI so you give us your measurement and calc as to why Robins body is where it is.

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

    muggins (1,576) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    I will let him know. It won’t be hard for him to track you down.

    ———————————————————

    Ewwwww, you always know when you are winning, Muggins starts making threats.

    Don’t worry, if Weir tracks you down, it will probably be to give you tickets to some sleezy show exploiting young girls and police dogs, or it could be to do some sign writing on the side of his house.

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

    Gamefisher
    How Robin got where? your the one with the ‘3 metre’ myth shall I remind you again. Dempster said there was nothing in the way Robin was lying when he was discovered that contradicts the photographs showing the various positions in which he may have shot himself.
    I think I will go with the wisdom of the pathologist who actually performed the postmortem than yours!

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

    Quote”You don’t need to do anything of the sort Rowan. DON’T give him the measurement.
    He’s the one thinking he’s so cleaver, let’s see him come up with it. So far it’s been 3 body lengths, and 3 metres.”Unquote

    In other word your haven’t got the foggiest idea and deliberately clinging to a percieved mistake of 3 meter in order to deliberately obfuscate what I am trying to explain.

    ROBIN BAIN BODY WAS MOVED with considerable effort.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (905) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
    muggins (1,576) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    I will let him know. It won’t be hard for him to track you down.

    ———————————————————

    Ewwwww, you always know when you are winning, Muggins starts making threats.

    Don’t worry, if Weir tracks you down, it will probably be to give you tickets to some sleezy show exploiting young girls and police dogs, or it could be to do some sign writing
    Judith,aka the goat lady
    I doubt that Rowan can walk and talk at the same time. Nice of you to stick up for him though,seeing as he can’t do it for himself.
    I was simply asking him if he was implying that Milton Weir had planted that lens.
    You have assured me that you don’t believe he did,and I want Rowan to assure me that he agrees with you.

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

    Gamefisher
    Even if the body was moved as you seem to be trying very hard to argue for, it doesn’t prove anything, it is likely to have been moved at some stage as the different photos show. Joe goes over this in D & G, but it doesn’t advance the ‘whodunnit’ aspect either way. It could have been moved by David when he discovered his fathers body or by Dempster, the different photos seem to suggest. The 3 metres is total speculation and very unlikely. If you look at the photos there is blood on the floor from the head wound and more blood from the wound but the 2 blood trails are seperated. This suggests a small amount of movement but would be well short of 3 metres. What is the point you are trying to make with your argument?

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

    Muggins
    STFU

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

    Look like I have made a mistake at 12:36 and it should of been body ‘width” and before you go read 16th 8:59pm

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

    You have assured me that you don’t believe he did,

    I have done no such thing.
    I did say that I didn’t know if he did, or something similar to that.
    What I know, and what I believe, are not necessarily the same thing when it comes to Milton Weir.

    However, what a person believes is not illegal. Mr ‘there are reasonable grounds to assume perjury’ Weir does not frighten anyone, especially when his messenger is a sad pathetic individual who thinks its ok to use Weir as a threat.

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

    Rowan bit late for it to be said David or the Police had moved the body but when all the other oddities are evaluated in conjuction with this a reasoned and rational person would come to the conclussion that Robin has been moved.

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

    gamefisher (353) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    Look like I have made a mistake at 12:36 and it should of been body ‘width” and before you go read 16th 8:59pm

    Yes you certainly did make a mistake, as I said, of monumental proportions.

    However, you are still making them, this quote from you as mentioned above.

    I have mentioned is that the arm resting of top of Robin body that gravity would take over and you would normally expect the arm to fall behind him

    As other photos of Robin’s body has shown. The left side of his body was partially supported by the beanbag, and therefore the arm and shoulder in such a position that they could not have fallen backwards. This also indicates the possibility that Robin’s final position may have been influenced by coming into partial contact with the beanbag.

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

    GF
    Yes but what does it tell you about the identity of the Killer, nothing, Joe makes this point in D & G, and sorry I don’t buy Ferris’s suggestions about the curtain blood splatter being caused by ‘shaking’ the dead body!

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

    a reasoned and rational person would come to the conclussion that Robin has been moved.

    You are now almost getting it.
    YES, HIS BODY HAS BEEN MOVED, BETWEEN THE PHOTOS BEING TAKEN. In one his shirt is inside his jersy, in the other it isn’t. In one his head is facing to his right, in the other, it is facing the ceiling.
    The police, or some investigator moved it.
    I don’t think they allowed Bain to rush in and change the scene, do you?

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

    muggins (1,577) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
    Kanz
    The only person who pulls stuff out of his arse is you, but only after you have removed your head first.
    Don’t like being played for a sucker,do you.? It was like taking candy from a baby. What a plonker.
    But it is obvious you are worried that I might find out something so I will have another try next week.

    Your own bull shit in your own words, can’t get any clearer than that.

    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.

    And now it 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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    don’t buy Ferris’s suggestions about the curtain blood splatter being caused by ‘shaking’ the dead body!
    Kanz (694) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    a reasoned and rational person would come to the conclussion that Robin has been moved.

    You are now almost getting it.
    YES, HIS BODY HAS BEEN MOVED, BETWEEN THE PHOTOS BEING TAKEN. In one his shirt is inside his jersy, in the other it isn’t. In one his head is facing to his right, in the other, it is facing the ceiling.
    The police, or some investigator moved it.
    Kanz
    The first person to move Robin Bain’s body was David Bain. If you could spare the time to take your head OUT OF YOUR ARSE you would see that. He could not have ended up where he did if he shot himself with one foot on that chair. Dempster said he would have fallen straight down.
    BTW,keep the caps lock off in future,if you don’t mind, YOU WANKER.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith,aka the goat lady.
    Just to let you know that the other Judith is well aware that Guest told Wright that David Bain would be admitting to wearing those glasses before he lied on oath.
    And she is also aware that David’s aunt was in the courtroom when David Bain lied on oath about those glasses
    And she has also read Binnie’s interview with Bain and she ain’t too thrilled with some of Bain’s answers,I kid you not.
    Though sometimes I kid Kanz, he is such an easy target.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    ‘gamefisher (354) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    Rowan Quote”Dr Thomson He said the blood spatter on the alcove curtain 820mm above the floor suggested Robin Bain’s head must have been “fairly close” to the curtain, although he could not be precise as he was not a spatter expert, but he thought “within a foot [305mm]“.
    He was unable to say at what height the blood and other material had exited the entry wound, but it would have happened “within milliseconds” of the bullet entering because of the increase in pressure in the skull. And if Robin Bain had been standing, he would have collapsed during the next one or two seconds.”
    Did ya read “because of the increase in pressure in the skull” what he means there that there is a pressure increase inside the cranium due to cavitation caused by the bullet.’

    If that is what Ferris said, it means he gave two explanations, one the fantastic ‘shaking’ exercise and one compatible with the defence proposition of robin being upright near the curtain. Typically, gamefisher choses the one that he feels he needs to help daddy escape the proof of suicide. Of course like Ferris gamefisher is unable to explain all the other forensics similarities between suicide and Robin’s death and relies on a body having been moved around by police, who, I guess, we are to surmise, wanted to make it look like suicide. Of course for many years the expert gamefisher thought trajectory was altered by head movement, drrh to gamefisher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Actually I may have been a little harsh with that gamefisher and your ‘forensic’ skills. But what do you think of a person who posts on Bain threads for years who is shown to be an absolute liar – does it concern you. You like Dennis seem unwilling to distance yourself from these lies:

    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.

    And now it 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.’

    Come on gamefisher, tell us your opinion on blatant bsing in order to persecute somebody. Happy to be associated with that. Is the only way to defend Robin Bain with lies?

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

    muggins (1,579) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    The first person to move Robin Bain’s body was David Bain. If you could spare the time to take your head OUT OF YOUR ARSE you would see that. He could not have ended up where he did if he shot himself with one foot on that chair. Dempster said he would have fallen straight down.
    BTW,keep the caps lock off in future,if you don’t mind, YOU WANKER.

    Someone not take their medication today then?

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

    How can a man fall straight down, when he has one foot on a chair, and the other on a floor.

    Obviously that situation is going to effect the way in which the body falls.

    One does not need to be a genius or even a forensic expert to know that.

    Dempster also said the position the body was found in was consistent with the suicide theory. His statement regarding the ‘fallen straight down’ was in reference to the timing of the fall, that is, was it delayed or did he ‘fall straight down’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Rowan I’d invite you to contact DPF about this:

    ‘And are you still implying that Milton Weir planted that lens, because if you are,in spite of what I showed you yesterday,I will let him know. It won’t be hard for him to track you down.’

    It’s clearly intended as a threat. The poster has said he has complained about you earlier over language and this is far worse. I’d also suggest to Kanz and Judith that the complain as well there is no excuse for the language he used this afternoon and I’d hardly think it isn’t comparable to that of Dotcom. This poster has exhausted his contribution, he has lied, used offensive language and now make threats, all things which he earlier denied having done on other message boards before. He or she really has really shown the true fabric that constitutes the hate campaign. Lies, threats and language from the gutters.

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

    I don’t think they allowed Bain to rush in and change the scene, do you?

    They didn’t need to. What did he do in the 25 minutes for which he conveniently has no memory? He reckons he went from room to room, obviously not bothering to call emergency services despite seeing blood “streaming” down his mother’s face, and hearing his sister gurgling. Goodness, a reasonable person might conclude that he was making sure everyone was dead…

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

    This poster has exhausted his contribution, he has lied, used offensive language and now make threats

    That’s a bit rich coming from you. You couldn’t lie straight in bed.

    Face the fact your blue eyed boy won’t be getting a brass razoo. Your incessant whining won’t change that fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Do you really imagine I think anything at all about your opinion ross, until recently you were the biggest Bain bser, bit miffed that one your ‘sisters’ has taken over? In case you didn’t notice ross ‘I’m still standing,’ just like David Bain, a PC decision, 5 not guilty verdicts, an innocent on the BOP v 0.000000. I added in two extra zeros just to cheer you up.

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

    As shown in his peer review Fishers arguments were far to (sic) academic and he had clearly not studied the evidence closely enough to suggest these ‘errors’ etc.

    Too academic? You mean, Fisher should have ignored the fact Binnie didn’t understand NZ law? Surely, you’re not that thick.

    Fisher didn’t have to study the evidence to realise that Binnie believed everything David told him. As Fisher correctly noted:

    “It has increasingly been recognised that, contrary to their own expectations, judges and juries actually have little or no ability to assess credibility through observing a witness’s demeanour. They cannot tell when a witness is lying. Without disregarding demeanour altogether, courts and other decision-makers now tend to place greater weight on other considerations such as the inherent likelihood of the witness’s story, consistency with his or her contemporaneous and subsequent behaviour, and independent sources of evidence. … Logic and experience suggest that if a suspect has lied in denying his responsibility for the crime itself, he will scarcely shrink from lying about the details. So for the purpose of drawing inferences from the surrounding facts, most decision-makers will prefer sources other than the suspect.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    ross trying to turn a dung hill into gold. Keep it up ross, way to go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Judith, you must have changed your name, (I am sure you have your reasons) but I am sure we have ‘chatted’ before and unless you have ‘changed sides’, which I doubt was from the same stance, the inference being that you are a ‘mole’ in JFRB etc. If you are who I suspect, I just wanted to say that I always liked you more than cybernana, you were my favourite, your brand of nasty was epic on TM.

    I see absolutely no point in doing all the research, you have already done so much and lets face it, I would only put my own interpretation on it, so you would not have the opportunity to ‘educate me’ and I just know you want to. lol.

    The way I see it is this, in some shape or form I probably contribute to your wages, the tax payer probably paid for your ‘research’ course, although you could be self taught ;. I have no comparison you see.

    Upshot is, why have a dog and bark yourself? You have my permission to be my researcher. I do however expect a modicum of decorum.

    I look forward to our future correspondence.

    Kind regards
    GOLDNKIWI

    P.S Judith was my mother’s name, which is a bit of a shame.

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

    The old argument from the bullshitter, ‘Binnie didn’t understand NZ law’. Maybe Ross you could look at the appendices to Binnies report. If you do so then you will find that Binnie has taken advice on the very things that Fisher is accusing him of not doing. Look at the letters from Paul Rishworth and Scott Optican. Maybe if you look at the link I posted about an investigation into Rex Haigs compensation claim you will find the criticism of his report ‘”Fisher’s finding of probable guilt was based on a hypothesis that was entirely novel and untested” much like his review of Binnies claim. But I guess it looks good to your “daddy is innocent” campaign to tell yourself that Binnie misunderstood NZ law and if you think that the court of public opinion is going to decide the compensation claim then your deluded. (but we already knew that)

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

    Quote”How can a man fall straight down, when he has one foot on a chair, and the other on a floor. “Unquote

    More bluster as rational people would understand that Robin would hit the chair but try as you might gravity will pull you straight down unless there ore other forces at play to move a body in a different direction.

    Robins head wound was 120mm-305mm from the curtain when that blood was deposited the issue is how did Robin get to where he his. This is MAJOR movement needing CONSIDERABLE effort not a slight movement tucking in a shirt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    What an unfortunate use of the word ‘mole.’ I thought being a mole was pre-requisite, male or female, to being one of the sisters. The very reason why there are such a number of them over there, well a dwindling number at least of old moles and cacklers. I’ve always enjoyed my time there, it’s such fun being a double secret, triple agent and witnessing all the little confidences being expressed only to have them confirmed by blabbermouths sent here to shore up in the Titanic. The poor dears weren’t able to rescue that beached whale washed up on the Kapiti Coast last week, what a lot of blubber finding it’s way home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Could you explain how moving the head alters the trajectory again gamefisher, I still don’t get it.

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

    Maybe Ross you could look at the appendices to Binnies report. If you do so then you will find that Binnie has taken advice on the very things that Fisher is accusing him of not doing.

    As usual you are missing the point. Binnie did not seem to understand NZ law. He could have been advised by Jesus Christ and it would have made no difference to the way he approached his task. He seemed to think the onus of proof was on the Crown. Even you are smart enough to realise the onus of proof was and is on David. How could such a great legal mind make a schoolboy error?

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

    goldnkiwi (32) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 5:11 pm
    ————————–

    What’s this, some sort of veiled threat to let me know you think you have identified me?

    You people are pretty sick.

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    I can tell you from first hand experience that Dr Fisher does not always find ‘daddy’ innocent. Dr Fisher can also cut through the self serving lies, as well as constantly changing testimony of someone accused.

    I am biased as he found a case in my favour, but he picked up on points that my lawyer made, but then had no answer to when questioned. But then there was no need, I knew chronologically how it had happened as I was present and assisted.

    Any little issues that arose in the case, that might have caused confusion, David was certainly at liberty to correct via his lawyers and by giving testimony in his own defence. Counsel and everyone else are just acting on what they were told.

    There is of course no benefit in doing that, clarifying that is, if the object of the exercise is obfuscation, not actually getting to the truth via the available evidence.

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

    According to Fisher:

    Binnie J’s approach to the evidence also included the following features:

    (a) He appeared to regard the jury acquittal as something that was relevant to the question whether David Bain had proved his innocence.
    (b) He appeared to accept David’s version of events without question except where it directly conOicted with other witnesses.
    (c) He relied on “innocent openness” defences to tum seemingly incriminating admissions or clues into points thought to support David’s genuineness and credibility.

    Of the above aspects of Binnie ]’s approach, some may have played little part in his conclusion that David Bain was innocent. In that category may well be the occasions on which he imposed an onus of proof on the Crown, drew an inference adverse to the Crown from gaps in the evidence, drew attention to the jury acquittal, or relied on “innocent openness” defences.

    More serious, however, was his decision to disregard any item of evidence that did not prove a subsidiary fact on the balance of probabilities. His approach was contrary to the law of New Zealand and to a proper understanding of probability theory. In a circumstantial evidence case, an item of evidence is relevant if it increases or reduces the likelihood of guilt (or in this case innocence). The onus and standard of proof arise only when deciding whether all ofthe evidence in its totality
    satisfies the relevant standard of proof.

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

    gamefisher (355) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    —————————

    Says a man, who still doesn’t know what the measurement was between Robin and the chair, and Robin and the curtains.

    Robin’s wound was 120mm-305mm from the curtains, based on the word on one of the Crown’s witnesses. However, that witness also said the fragments of bullet from Laniet would have fallen out of her brain and landed beside the body. He later found out one landed under her body, because she was sitting up (something else he had missed) and the other was found 2 metres away from the body, on a chair. He missed the fact the bullet was fired through a white cotton fabric too.

    So, now you believe this same expert, who said the blood came from a horizontal position to the curtains, despite the fact the pattern shows a definite elongated pattern, which other experts said indicated it have fallen from a greater height.

    At the same time as you claim all of this, you fail to explain how Robin got the blood spatter on his pants and shoes that indicates he was standing, on his left leg, with his right leg bent at the knee, when he received his fatal wound.

    Please explain how Robin, who was 5’9″ tall, could have been horizontal to the blood on the curtain, and managed to obtain blood spatter that whilst standing up? (The spatter on the pants shows he was upright).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Judith. Actually you are probably right, they were much nastier, vicious even. I will still let you be my researcher though.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (911) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    muggins (1,579) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    The first person to move Robin Bain’s body was David Bain. If you could spare the time to take your head OUT OF YOUR ARSE you would see that. He could not have ended up where he did if he shot himself with one foot on that chair. Dempster said he would have fallen straight down.
    BTW,keep the caps lock off in future,if you don’t mind, YOU WANKER.

    Someone not take their medication today then?
    Judith aka the goat lady.
    Since you so kindly asked,yes,someone is not taking their medication,and that someone is you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    The credibility of a JFRBainer:

    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.

    And now it 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.’

    Come on gamefisher, tell us your opinion on blatant bsing in order to persecute somebody. Happy to be associated with that. Is the only way to defend Robin Bain with lies?

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

    @ ross69

    [Binnie] seemed to think the onus of proof was on the Crown. Even you are smart enough to realise the onus of proof was and is on David. How could such a great legal mind make a schoolboy error?

    It was Fisher who was confused by the onus issue, not Binnie. The legal onus was on David Bain, which Binnie undoubtedly understood. Fisher however seemed to also think that the evidentiary onus was on David Bain, which it could never logically be. If it had been, there would have been no point in Binnie’s review because of course David Bain could never prove that he didn’t do any of the wacky things the Crown contended he did, and so he would have been doomed to fail on a balance of probabilities basis right from the beginning. This would be the equivalent of artificially ascribing a high probative value to all the Crown’s speculations, no matter how unlikely, and even in the complete absence of any supporting evidence, just because David Bain couldn’t prove they weren’t true. Fisher said this:

    It is perfectly possible that in these and other cases the same conclusions would have been reached without placing any ‘onus’ on the Crown … But until the evidence is independently reviewed on the merits, it is impossible to be sure.

    But it is logically impossible to simultaneously put the evidentiary onus on David Bain and independently review the evidence on its merits. Fisher’s arguments about onus are incoherent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (34) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 6:07 pm
    @ Judith. Actually you are probably right, they were much nastier, vicious even. I will still let you be my researcher though.;)

    You’re deliberately trying to identify somebody here. The only reason you’d be trying that is to intimidate them on behalf of JFRB. You’re confused in a number of ways, first of all you’re guessing, secondly you assume it’s permitted behaviour that won’t go unsanctioned, although ultimately you’re displaying that to defend Robin Bain one must lie, intimidate and threaten. You’re not doing your idol or yourself any favours.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ Quote” Could you explain how moving the head alters the trajectory again gamefisher, I still don’t get it.
    ” Unquote

    You have had it explained to you if you can’t understand it by now you never will.

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

    Judith Quote” Says a man, who still doesn’t know what the measurement was between Robin and the chair, and Robin and the curtains. ”

    So what is your measurement Judith?

    Quote”Robin’s wound was 120mm-305mm from the curtains, based on the word on one of the Crown’s witnesses.”Unquote

    The measurement were from from two experts

    I have explain a thesis on the blood spatter on his pants that is not the real issue ‘How did his body get to that position’

    Your thesis has flaws and so does Boyce one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    The problem is I do understand it gamefisher, and your claims about it go to the core of your credibility of anything to do with the lounge scene. But I would appreciate an answer, taking into account that you have badgered other for answers, as to why it is necessary for JFRBainers to lie about the case as per the examples posted here above about the strip search and the video. If it is your intention to simply lie about the case or support others that do, why not simply say so – your silence implies that you do.

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

    BTW posters will be pleased to know the goat issue is simply solved. Take the goat across first, then follow this with the wolf and bring the goat back (this is the tricky part). Then take over the cabbage, followed by the goat. Problem solved!
    Once this is understood, the question of compensation becomes simple.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ you don’tperiod. All you are good at is stalking people all over the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    1. Judith (912) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    goldnkiwi (7) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 4:10 pm
    Why was incest a catalyst? I have heard allegations of incest, Money is as likely a motive, I have heard tell that no motive as such is required for crimes. and certainly there would have been no urgency for any of those. A clear motive would make the case less muddy.
    ———————————-
    What do you mean ‘heard’? Cut the ‘innocent garbage’, you’ve been hearing and discussing the case for years.
    Quote from guilty.freeforums:
    “Feel free to include me in the greetings on JFRB.
    I was so angry today, if no-one could guess lol, I am happy to be recognised as firmly on side as opposed to not being the enemy, if that serves a collective purpose”
    goldnkiwi
    Posts: 44
    Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:41 am
    ————————-
    So perhaps you should stop pretending you’re some sort of ‘sideline’ person eh? Wouldn’t want to have to post all your comments on here now, would we?

    1. goldnkiwi (34) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    Judith (812) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    Get a grip, same group of stalkers as before, someone has issues and honey it isn’t me. Someone can’t have had a ‘daddy’ though the values of having one are debateable lol.
    Funny I do not recognise your name from before, have you been reincarnated? Even so, still nasty and vicious and cavalier with others rights. If your opinion and stance was so self explanatory, you wouldn’t have to sound so desperate and honey you do.

    1. Kanz (695) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 5:55 pm
    goldnkiwi (9) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    Get a grip, same group of stalkers as before, someone has issues and honey it isn’t me. Someone can’t have had a ‘Daddy’ though the values of having one are debateable lol.
    A person who would take her own ‘daddy’ to court over money would say that, though, wouldn’t she?
    1. goldnkiwi (34) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    Kanz (657) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 5:55 pm
    goldnkiwi (9) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    Get a grip, same group of stalkers as before, someone has issues and honey it isn’t me. Someone can’t have had a ‘Daddy’ though the values of having one are debateable lol.
    A person who would take her own ‘daddy’ to court over money would say that, though, wouldn’t she?
    Indeed she would and let’s not forget that she won, at least a moral victory, another stalker, that makes three, shall we go for four or more lol come out come out whereever you are!!!lol
    1. Judith (912) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    goldnkiwi (10) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    ————————
    A stalker? How can it be stalking when someone reads a site they are a member of and sees your comments?
    That is what happened deary. Saw the comment at the time, and was able to find it, because a very nice lady sent me a CD of the entire guilty.freeforum, apparently taken from the net by doing a google search.
    That’s not stalking honey, that’s no different than bring archived Kiwiblog threads.
    Nice try, you fail! ho hum!
    1. goldnkiwi (34) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    Judith (814) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    Wasn’t there a mole? When did it crash, must have just been after that. You must be a proponent of free speech. Much as I would like it all to be about me it is about the Bains and the minutae of their lives.
    I feel really welcome now, sheesh you all know so much about me and I am not interested in you, you are sad.

    Here I was thinking I was amongst old friends 😉

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

    Fisher however seemed to also think that the evidentiary onus was on David Bain, which it could never logically be. If it had been, there would have been no point in Binnie’s review because of course David Bain could never prove that he didn’t do any of the wacky things the Crown contended he did, and so he would have been doomed to fail on a balance of probabilities basis right from the beginning.

    You’re the one who seems confused. The onus has always been on David to prove his innocence if he expects compo. David doesn’t have to prove “any of the wacky things the Crown contended he did”. He simply has to prove he didn’t do it. He could start by proving Robin committed the murders. Thus far, he hasn’t even proved that Robin was inside the house before he was.

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

    Snarkle (20) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
    BTW posters will be pleased to know the goat issue is simply solved. Take the goat across first, then follow this with the wolf and bring the goat back (this is the tricky part). Then take over the cabbage, followed by the goat. Problem solved!
    Once this is understood, the question of compensation becomes simple.

    ——————————-

    You are presuming the wolf has not turned vegetarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    gamefisher (358) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 7:40 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ you don’tperiod. All you are good at is stalking people all over the internet.’

    About the same value as your latest ‘thesis.’ With the exception of ross I preceded the other current JFRBainers to this site. Stalking is not actually being some where already, stalking is following others as you have gamefisher. The one thing to your credit is using your TM name but apart from that you are happy to line up along side other bsers and do the same. I recall your experience in shooting hundreds of dogs that you once boasted about, but putting it politely using words like ‘cavitation’ or ‘thesis’ hardly elevate you beyond a person that is unable to understand trajectory, but who nevertheless, is prepared to continue for years, and out of ignorance, to malign David Bain with lies. I’ve heard the word cavitation applied to piston liners in diesel engines failing by a type of electrolysis, but not in regard to high speed spatter. I’ll look into that for you and see if you maintain your average mark to this point – D minus.

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

    @ ross69

    The onus has always been on David to prove his innocence if he expects compo.

    Yes, that’s what the legal onus is all about. But there is no evidentiary onus on David Bain, or not in the way Fisher interprets such an onus.

    He could start by proving Robin committed the murders.

    No, logically, he doesn’t need to do that. All he needs to do is prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Try to keep up ross. The Crown have conceded that the computer was turned on before David’s arrival, The computer was in the house. Small point I know but it shows that daddy was walking about in there, a compatible fact along with his bloody footprints. Do what you always do and quote what David or Binnie said and stay away from the evidence because it will absorb you as it has done others. As daddy was in the house before 6.45am turning on the computer, he was also in there with dead bodies, wiping blood on a towel and getting dna spatter on his trousers from a head wound that had the studied similarities of suicide. I won’t go into those now ross, because I know it makes your stomach turn and after that you have to attack Binnie or David. You’re very predictable ross, but you’re easy meat.

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

    Nostalgia you are a liar Quote” I recall your experience in shooting hundreds of dogs that you once boasted about” Unquote
    You are a liar in so far that you deliberatley take something out of context I have never boasted about this and if this type of shit continues I will have no qualms about revealing who you are.

    I have every right to defend Robin Bain

    Bullet cause cavitation end of story.

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

    Yeah, I know, I know. Had to come back to point readers to this, however: there is actually evidence of what a hard contact head wound inflicted via that silencer would look like – viz, the one in the top of Laniet’s head.

    At one point, Karam was convinced Laniet must have been shot with a .45 pistol because the entry wound in the top of her head was so big and had caused such intensive damage. The PCA investigated and reported (para 287):

    287. The size of the entry wound was taken up with Dr Dempster, Dr Thompson and
    . ESR experts. They all agree that the nature of the wound, the x-ray of the
    bullet’s path and the amount and type of lead found inside the head are all
    entirely consistent with damage inflicted by a .22 calibre weapon. It is their view
    the size of the bullet hole can invariably be larger than the bullet where it is a
    hard contact wound.

    So, if we can be sure of nothing else about Robin Bain’s death, we can at least be confident his head shot wasn’t a hard contact one.

    This PCA report really is very useful…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Do what you like gamefisher, but at least have the guts to reveal who your are. Put the details on here, or if you are shy send them to DPF. I’ve never been much interested in you, because you’re so thick but you’re welcome to follow the same path as your three erstwhile friends. Cavitation is happening inside your head sweetie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. bhudson (4,767 comments) says:

    but at least have the guts to reveal who your are.

    Well that would appear quite rich. Are you known to the postal delivery service as Mr Nostaligia, or Mr NZ, first name Nostalgia?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Yes, the PCA report is useful to show a ‘copybook’ investigation that is now accepted by the 2IC as a shambles. Enjoy holding onto that Milt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    bhudson. Crept out again. Enjoy the Haig report review about JR?
    You can find me if you like bhudson, if you’ve got the guts, all your girlfriends think they know me. Glad to see you associating with people threatening to ‘send’ people to my house, and threatening my children. I understand you easily now.

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

    Cavitation of bullets is here http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/mechanics.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Moles and worms, pots, kettles and the colour black 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    gamefisher (360) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 8:34 pm
    Cavitation of bullets is here http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/mechanics.html

    gamefisher,great work on the blood spatter,etc.. You are baffling the prodavidbainers with science.
    If the two ESR scientists are correct and Robin Bain was probably standing when he was shot there could have been a delay in the blood spurting from his head which means he could have had one leg bent before the blood spatter hit it.
    Dempster reckoned he would have fallen straight down.
    But you are the expert,and I bow to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith Dec 16th 9.30am.
    Was the animal hurt. [ I have no idea,Judith,you would have to ask the goat.]
    He had sex with the goat-what kind of sex . The type of sex is not clarified.
    Was it fondling,intercourse ,oral,etc.,etc.?
    Judith ,you are about the only person who believes Mark Buckley was having some sort of sex with a goat so give him a call.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Bow to this.

    The credibility of a JFRBainer:

    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.

    And now it 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.’

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

    Psycho Milt
    If you actually look at the evidence you will see that the size of the wound in Laniets head was caused by the shot being fired through an intermediate target (the white fibres) and that the bullet broke into 3 pieces before lodging in her head. 2 of these were found on the floor near the body and didn’t go into her head.
    Robins head wound is close contact or loose contact. The exact distance doesn’t matter however it has to be fairly minimal to explain the blood in the barrel.
    The PCA report is the most discredited report in the entire case. It is the cops investigating the cops or rather covering their own arses. Remember ‘copybook’ investigation. The report would have found that photo 62 had a lens until their own expert pointed out to them that it didn’t.

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

    Judith (915) says
    January 20th 2013 at 1053.am

    “David has enormous problems with memory recall.”

    In his first trial, David told the jury that he could remember very clearly all of the events on the morning of 20 June 1994 up to the time when he saw his mother dead. (P154 ‘David and Goliath’)

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

    @ Psycho Milt
    The Dunedin CIB was for some time the subject of amusement and ridicule in at least one other CIB in NZ. They were held up as a shining example of how not to conduct an investigation, notwithstanding the PCA whitewash. I know that’s a little tangential to the point you were making, but basically their report is not worth much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    ‘Whose your DADDY?’ lol You are, you are, spank me, bite me!!!Mankini anyone?

    It is true what the say, some ‘people’ shouldn’t be allowed to have children. Of course fatherhood has to be assumed, especially if there have been long absences, unlike Motherhood which is harder to deny.

    Funny how prisoners are very quick to cite human rights when they feel that theirs have been trampled on. They more than likely had no regard for their ‘victims’ rights. So I think Judith Collins is being very fair in her treatment of prisoners but it is right that the victims get recompensed first and fair that any surplus should go into a general slush fund.

    Does that mean the family of victims should get the reparation in the event that the victim themselves is dead?

    Judith does get the ‘hard’ questions doesn’t she.

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

    The PCA report is the most discredited report in the entire case.

    Can you point to material “discrediting” that report? And please don’t point to anything by the investigative genius who proposed a mystery gunman with a .45 pistol…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Rowan (403) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 9:34 pm

    Laniet was shot three times, are you referring to only one of those times with the ‘white cloth’. Were the fragments matched to the corresponding shots?

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

    Goldnkiwi
    The order of shots is problematic and heavily disputed. No the fragments are not satisfactorily matched to a particular shot. There is some debate as to whether the first shot was fatal or not. The ‘white fibres’ were not discovered until 1997 during the PCA investigation and the item that was the intermediate target was never found. Probably went up in smoke with the house.

    Milt
    Look at the example I gave you. Remember it was a ‘copybook’ investigation. The PCA is just something for the cops to hide behind. As I said yesterday, would a PCA investigation into the Crewe homicides have found that Hutton & Johnston have planted the bullet! I think you know the answer to this. Look at the one into Rob Pope in the Scott Watson case!

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

    Yeah, I figured it was that kind of “discredited.” If you trouble yourself to read it, you’ll find that it points out a number of instances in which Karam was correct about significant mistakes made by the investigators – as well as very patiently and thoroughly uncovering just how much of D&G is of the same quality as the claim that Laniet was shot with a .45 pistol.

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

    David has enormous problems with memory recall.

    Only when it suits him. When he was interviewed by Binnie, he suddenly remembered that he drove on that fateful weekend, after telling Binnie that he couldn’t drive because he didn’t have glasses. He admitted to driving only because Binnie had told him he’d driven! It seems that David cannot recall all the lies he’s told. That is going to prevent him from getting any compo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    The 2nd biggest bser starts again, on his ‘safest’ subject, calling other people liars. Yawn.

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

    No, logically, he doesn’t need to do that. All he needs to do is prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities

    You’re confused, dragonfly.

    If David proves his innocence on the BOP, then by implication Robin must be guilty on the BOP. Why don’t you do us all a big favour and explain, with reference to evidence, why Robin is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    gamefisher (360) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 8:34 pm
    Cavitation of bullets is here http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/mechanics.html

    Hardly a scientific journal gamefisher. But they do use the term common with engineers and mechanics describing the collapse or fine pitting of cylinder walls.

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

    But there is no evidentiary onus on David Bain

    You are wrong. If you were right, David could say Robin stood on his head before shooting himself…oh wait a minute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Okay ross. Why don’t you explain the forensic evidence against Daddy. Start with these, he bruised hands, the blood on his palms, his blood on the towel, his nose bleed, the red material under his nails, the choice of temple site, the lifting of the beanie for starters. That way you’ll make a positive contribution instead of your normal contribution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Chuck Bird (6,343 comments) says:

    I heard on the news this morning that the compensation will be a top priority when Cabinet meets soon. If Judith recommends a new report especially if it includes new interviews there will be no show of David getting a cent of our money.

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

    Why don’t you explain the forensic evidence against Daddy.

    I think you’ll find that’s David’s job. But feel free to assist.

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

    Psycho Milt (988) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Ah, so that’s where your problem lies – you are not familiar with the evidence and are being guided by the PCA report. Sorry: test shootings and an abundance of expert scientific evidence showed that Laniet’s wound was not and could not be contact, and so that using it as a benchmark for contact for Robin’s wound was just wrong. The size of the wound to Laniet’s head was caused by an intervening object such as a cushion through which she was shot. That distorted the bullet’s path causing the larger entry wound. Robin’s wound on the other hand was most definitely contact, and was admitted to be so by the crown.

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

    If Judith recommends a new report especially if it includes new interviews there will be no show of David getting a cent of our money.

    One would expect that David would be interviewed again. I wonder if he’ll change his evidence. Maybe he’ll admit he really was wearing his mother’s glasses that fateful weekend. If Lance Armstrong can tell the truth, there is hope for David. Or am I dreaming?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,938) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 7:48 am
    I heard on the news this morning that the compensation will be a top priority when Cabinet meets soon. If Judith recommends a new report especially if it includes new interviews there will be no show of David getting a cent of our money.

    So you seriously think that the legal profession of this country, not to mention other politicians and the public (75% of whom have polled saying they think compensation should be paid), will let her get away with shopping round until she gets the answer she wants?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,582) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 9:15 pm
    Judith Dec 16th 9.30am.
    Was the animal hurt. [ I have no idea,Judith,you would have to ask the goat.]
    He had sex with the goat-what kind of sex . The type of sex is not clarified.
    Was it fondling,intercourse ,oral,etc.,etc.?
    Judith ,you are about the only person who believes Mark Buckley was having some sort of sex with a goat so give him a call.

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

    I heard on the news this morning that the compensation will be a top priority when Cabinet meets soon. If Judith recommends a new report especially if it includes new interviews there will be no show of David getting a cent of our money.

    What makes you say that?
    Do you think the new interviews may include, for example, his first lawyer? I hope so, it will be interesting to see which story he tells.
    Will he tell the one he told for the PCA enquiry.
    Will he tell the one he told Collins.
    Or will there be a third one?

    The first two are far too different to be able to be used together, so I guess it will be a third.

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

    muggins (1,583) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 8:45 am

    Why would we believe a word you say, after this?

    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.

    And now it 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.’

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

    ross69 (1,804) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 7:23 am
    No, logically, he doesn’t need to do that. All he needs to do is prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities

    You’re confused, dragonfly.

    If David proves his innocence on the BOP, then by implication Robin must be guilty on the BOP. Why don’t you do us all a big favour and explain, with reference to evidence, why Robin is guilty.

    No sorry Ross, but you are wrong, the guidelines are specific, David must prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities, he does not have to show who was responsible. As an example, if he can simply prove he wasn’t there, he does not have to prove who was, and so on.

    Whilst it has become accepted that if it wasn’t David, it had to be Robin, and that there is evidence Robin committed suicide, David does not have to prove anything but his own innocence based on the balance of probabilities.
    e.g. the foot prints were too small and therefore couldn’t have been his, (he doesn’t have to prove whose they were though).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Chuck Bird (6,343 comments) says:

    So you seriously think that the legal profession of this country, not to mention other politicians and the public (75% of whom have polled saying they think compensation should be paid), will let her get away with shopping round until she gets the answer she wants?

    The public view is a lot different now that other lawyers and law professors have come out with a contrary view. In any case 99% of the public will not have looked at the report, Fisher’s review or the interview. Any half competent lawyer will not find David innocent on BoP. If they employed a researcher who was more interested in the truth than points of l was it would be extremely unlikely they would support innocent on BoP.

    If you did agree put some money on ipredict.

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

    Kanz (697) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 8:46 am

    —————————–

    I think Ross et al are presuming they will be interviewed, as they seem to consider themselves the country’s foremost experts on the evidence and have some deluded idea that they are representing the community. (Hence their ‘advice’ to the Minister etc). Fact is, they have 2000+ people who have signed their petition (many of those more than once), 500 members of JRFB (and we know some of those don’t believe David did it ;-)). That doesn’t even represent 1% of the total adult population.

    They are a joke, and as the CD (which I presume you also were sent a copy of) proves, they are a very nasty people. Ms Collins has hopefully viewed the data on that CD and realises just how stupid she is going to look if she gives that group the slightest bit of attention. I am sure the media would love to examine the contents too and see how they operate.

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

    Interesting poll on TradeME at the moment Judith.
    80 % say No Compo
    oh dear

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

    Chuck Bird (2,939) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:00 am

    If you did agree put some money on ipredict.

    Do you have shares in that site, or something? You seem to be always promoting it.

    I don’t gamble. Do you know how many people, including children and families suffer from the effects of gambling in our society? I don’t suppose it matters to someone who isn’t a kiwi, how many innocent people are harmed, but it does to me, and I will not support sites like that one, that encourage people to spend what many cannot afford. Shame on you for doing so.

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

    lazarus (44) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:08 am
    Interesting poll on TradeME at the moment Judith.
    80 % say No Compo
    oh dear

    ———————

    Trademe polls are notorious for not being in line with professionally conducted public polls. That the TM messageboard community would think that way does not surprise me at all, they are hardly indicative of the general population. (The vast majority of whom do not use the boards)

    As you well know, three other polls have resulted in approximately 75% saying that compo should be paid. Whilst many do not know if he is innocent or not, they believe that Binnie’s report should be accepted and that Collins is wrong to be fishing for an answer she likes.

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

    @ ross69

    If David proves his innocence on the BOP, then by implication Robin must be guilty on the BOP.

    Yes, if we start with the assumption that it was either Robin or David who killed the family, that’s right.

    Why don’t you do us all a big favour and explain, with reference to evidence, why Robin is guilty.

    Because it is not necessary to prove that Robin is guilty to prove that David is innocent. David does not need to prove Robin is guilty to prove himself innocent any more than you need to prove that Robin is guilty to prove that you didn’t kill the Bain family. It doesn’t matter what size the suspect pool is – the logic remains the same.

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

    No sorry Ross, but you are wrong, the guidelines are specific, David must prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities, he does not have to show who was responsible.

    Have you read the guidelines? I suspect not. The guidelines state that there has to be exceptional circumstances, otherwise David has to prove his innocence Beyond Reasonable Doubt. There are no exceptional circumstances, so BRD it is. Even Binnie – for all his incompetence – did not find David innocent BRD. In other words, Binnie thought there was doubt concerning David’s innocence. Why would that be?

    Again, if David is innocent, Robin must by implication be the offender. All David has to do is show that Robin did it…but you do have to wonder why David keeps telling porkies. I am sure you agree that that is not going to help his claim one iota.

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

    Because it is not necessary to prove that Robin is guilty to prove that David is innocent. David does not need to prove Robin is guilty to prove himself innocent any more than you need to prove that Robin is guilty to prove that you didn’t kill the Bain family. It doesn’t matter what size the suspect pool is – the logic remains the same.

    Dragonfly, I suspect you’re being deliberately obtuse. The defence have argued for some time that Robin did it. David should have no problem proving Robin killed 4 members of his family, with the exception of his beloved David of course. But David cannot even prove that Robin was inside the house before he was…not to mention Robin’s fingerprints are not on the rifle (David’s are, in pristine condition), no blood on the soles of his socks or shoes, the unlikelihood of suicide, etc

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

    Whilst many do not know if he is innocent or not, they believe that Binnie’s report should be accepted

    In other words, they believe Binnie’s report should be accepted even though they probably haven’t read it. LMAO

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

    ross69 (1,805) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:17 am
    No sorry Ross, but you are wrong, the guidelines are specific, David must prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities, he does not have to show who was responsible.

    Have you read the guidelines? I suspect not. The guidelines state that there has to be exceptional circumstances, otherwise David has to prove his innocence Beyond Reasonable Doubt. There are no exceptional circumstances, so BRD it is. Even Binnie – for all his incompetence – did not find David innocent BRD. In other words, Binnie thought there was doubt concerning David’s innocence. Why would that be?

    Again, if David is innocent, Robin must by implication be the offender. All David has to do is show that Robin did it…but you do have to wonder why David keeps telling porkies. I am sure you agree that that is not going to help his claim one iota.

    Firstly, yes I have read the guidelines, and understood them perfectly.

    Secondly, there are exceptional circumstances, many in fact. The most obvious one being the destruction of evidence before all avenues of appeal were undertaken. Others include the manner in which the Crown conducted itself, at times in a highly questionable manner. Then of course, the management of the crime scene, which did not follow the manual. The fact that evidence was ignored and not either collected or photographed, and especially the evidence that was noted, but not tested. Naturally the burning of the crime scene was the biggest ‘exceptional circumstance’. That house would not have been destroyed if the police had not given permission for that to happen. Regardless of whether David agreed or not, he can hardly have been expected to understand the consequences of that destruction.

    How many exceptional circumstances do you need? Even if just one of the many exceptional circumstances aspects had been done, David Bain would be able to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. e.g. GSR tests in a timely manner, keeping the carpet with the footprints (these things should have been done according to the manual, but weren’t)

    Binnie knew that without those things mentioned above, David’s innocence can never be proven 100%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    If you prove beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities that Robin did not kill himself then, since it is accepted it was one of the other, then David is not factually innocent.

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

    Appendix: Cabinet guidelines

    Cabinet guidelines
    Cabinet has approved guidelines for deciding whether someone is
    eligible for compensation and how much they should receive. The
    following reproduces the text of:

    Cabinet guidelines on eligibility criteria and factors to be taken
    into account in determining the size of payments

    Additional guidelines on the quantum of compensation
    payments.
    Compensation and ex gratia
    payments for persons wrongly
    convicted and imprisoned in
    criminal cases
    Criteria for eligibility and factors to be taken into account in
    determining the size of payments
    1.
    The category of claimants who shall be eligible to receive
    compensation or ex gratia payment in respect of being wrongly
    convicted of offences (qualifying persons) is limited to those
    who:
    (a)
    Have served all or part of a sentence of imprisonment;
    and either
    I.
    have had their convictions quashed on appeal,
    without order of retrial, in the High Court (summary
    convictions); Court of Appeal (including references
    under section 406 of the Crimes Act 1961); or
    Courts Martial Appeal Court or
    II.
    Have received a free pardon under section 407 of
    the Crimes Act 1961; and
    (b)
    Are alive at the time of the application.
    2.
    Any qualifying person may apply to the Minister of Justice for
    compensation or ex gratia payment and the Minister shall refer
    those cases meriting further assessment to a Queen’s Counsel
    appointed by the Minister for that purpose.
    3.
    In the case of an application by a qualifying person convicted by
    way of court martial, application should be made to the Minister
    of Defence who will consult with the Minister of Justice when
    referring cases meriting further assessment to a Queen’s
    Counsel.
    4.
    The Queen’s Counsel shall report to the referring Minister,
    certifying whether he or she is satisfied that the claimant is
    innocent on the balance of probabilities. If concluding this is so,
    he or she will also recommend an appropriate amount of
    compensation/ex gratia payment, taking into account the
    following factors:
    (a)
    the conduct of the person leading to prosecution and
    conviction;
    (b)
    whether the prosecution acted in good faith in bringing
    and continuing the case;
    (c)
    whether the investigation was conducted in a reasonable
    and proper manner;
    (d)
    the seriousness of the offence alleged;
    (e)
    the severity of the sentence passed; and
    (f)
    the nature and extent of the loss resulting from the
    conviction and sentence.

    5.
    Losses are in respect only of the period following conviction and
    are defined as follows:
    Non-pecuniary losses
    (a)
    loss of liberty;

    (b)
    loss of reputation (taking into account the effect of any
    apology to the person by the Crown);
    (c)
    loss or interruption of family or other personal
    relationships; and
    (d)
    mental or emotional harm.
    Pecuniary losses
    (a)
    loss of livelihood, including loss of earnings, with
    adjustments for income tax and for benefits received
    while incarcerated;
    (b)
    loss of future earning abilities;
    (c)
    loss of property or other consequential financial losses
    resulting from detention or imprisonment; and
    (d)
    costs incurred by or on behalf of the person in obtaining a
    pardon or acquittal.
    6.
    Compensation may comprise an ex gratia payment by the
    Crown, a public statement of the person’s innocence and in
    appropriate cases a public apology by the Crown.
    7.
    Claimants shall have no right of appeal against an assessment
    of compensation/ex gratia payment and in accepting any offer
    made they must agree to forego and discontinue any other
    claims against the Crown in respect of matters relating to the
    convictions that led to the offer of compensation/ex gratia
    payment.
    Additional guidelines on
    quantum of future
    compensation
    1.
    The calculation of compensation payments under the Cabinet
    criteria should be firmly in line with the approach taken by
    New Zealand courts in false imprisonment cases;
    2.
    The starting figure for calculating non-pecuniary losses should
    be set at $100,000 and that this base figure is to be multiplied
    on a pro rata basis by the number of years spent in custody so
    that awards for non-pecuniary losses are proportional to the
    period of detention;
    3.
    The figure obtained under the calculations referred to above
    should be then added to the figure representing the amount
    assessed for the presence/absence of the factors outlined in
    the Cabinet guidelines;
    4.
    Only those cases with truly exceptional circumstances would
    attract general compensation that is greater than $100,000, and
    that on average the relevant figure should even out around
    $100,000;
    5.
    A claimant’s pecuniary losses should be calculated separately,
    and the resulting figure should then be added to the amount
    assessed for non-pecuniary loss, the sum of which represents
    the total compensation payable to a claimant.

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

    Dennis Horne (464) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:34 am
    ——————————

    Yes Dennis, that is another way it could be achieved.

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

    e.g. the foot prints were too small and therefore couldn’t have been his, (he doesn’t have to prove whose they were though).

    From David’s own testimony, he walked throughout the house; we don’t know if anyone else did. But David admitted going from room to room, apparently looking for bodies but not phoning emergency services, despite seeing blood “streaming” down his mother’s face and hearing his sister gurgling. A reasonable person could infer that he didn’t call emergency services because he wanted to be sure they were all dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    I have submitted a letter to the Herald. It will not be published. It is a partial answer to a letter that appeared recently. The writer demanded compensation be paid because Bain cannot show factual innocence due to police incompetence. That is a Big Lie. There has been a tireless campaign based on poisonous rumours of incest. It is time to set the record straight. After Laniet moved into the schoolhouse, Robin took a lodger: did he want an observer? Probability? A menage a trois? Probability?

    I have not noticed any letters in the Herald that oppose the Binnie-Bain Axis. What happened to Fairness, Truth and Justice? What happened to reasoning and intellectual honesty? What happened to the New Zealand I was born in? Why did we send my father and his brothers to WWII to fight the Nazis and their propaganda?

    The Herald poll has no statistical validity whatsoever. It isn’t right, it isn’t even wrong. It’s propaganda. Malcolm Muggeridge derided newspapers as a record for posterity. I remember the speech well, about 1977. I remember his face wrinkled with anguish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Cabinet Guidelines:

    Rhubarb Pie
    Glazed Strawberry-Rhubarb Pie
    Ingredients:

    1 1/4 c Sugar
    1/8 ts Salt
    1/3 c Flour
    2 c Fresh strawberries
    2 c Fresh rhubarb, cut in 1″ pieces
    2 T Butter or margarine
    1 T Sugar
    1 Pastry for 2-crust pie
    Procedure:

    Combine 1 1/4 cup sugar, salt, and flour. Arrange half the strawberries and rhubarb in a pastry-lined 9 inch pie pan. Sprinkle with half the sugar mixture. Repeat with remaining fruit and sugar mixture. Dot with butter. Install top crust and flute edges to make high-standing rim. Brush top of pie with cold water and sprinkle on 1 tablespoon sugar. Cut steam vents in top crust. Bake in hot oven (425 F) 40 to 50 minutes or until rhubarb is tender and crust is browned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    The Editor, NZ Herald.

    Compensation awarded by rote ignores the moral issue just as slavish adherence to the right of law led the German people into WWII. The available evidence would not preclude demonstrating factual innocence.

    Take just one piece of the jigsaw that fits with others to complete the puzzle. Robin’s body looked like it rolled off the beanbag where he sat to pray. Within millimetres of his outstretched right hand is a 10-round ammo clip, on its edge, under a table. At first glance it looks like he dropped it. The probability it would land on its edge is 0. The police turned it? To shoot himself Robin would need to grasp the silencer with his right hand and hold the rifle accurately to his head. How and why would he hold the clip? What is the probability?

    On the silencer were two pristine fingerprints of Stephen, who was strangled, but none of Robin? Okay, fingerprints are not always left, but why were Stephen’s prints not smudged? Probability? All right, let’s argue Robin put the clip down there after he loaded the rifle. He would have needed to lean over a metre to place it under the table? Probability? Wouldn’t he just drop it where he sat, or put it on the table? Improbabilities are not proof, but this is just one weak link in a long chain of improbabilities. Only in mathematics is found absolute proof.

    No. The problem is not the lack of evidence but the abundance, some of which, like the broken glasses — powerful evidence to the Privy Council — the Binnie Report ignores. Let’s stop pretending. Our justice system needs a major overhaul. And the time to start is now.

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

    Dennis Horne (466) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:43 am

    ———————————-

    How nasty of you. You just knew I love strawberries, however, they bring me out in hives!
    But your point is made 😉

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

    there are exceptional circumstances, many in fact. The most obvious one being the destruction of evidence before all avenues of appeal were undertaken.

    That is not exceptional. Indeed, it may be fortunate for David that such evidence was destroyed.

    David’s innocence can never be proven 100%

    That’s a come down. But it misses the point. David doesn’t have to prove his innocence to such a standard, he only needs to prove it BRD. Why is he unable to meet that standard?

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

    Dennis Horne (467) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:45 am

    How many times do you need to be told. The blood spatter on Robin proves he was NOT sitting in the bean bag. The spatter could not have landed how and where it did, if he had of been. Apart from that, if he was sitting in the bean bag, and been shot in the left temple, his head flop backwards towards the right, thus keeping him in the beanbag.
    Had he somehow moved from a sitting position in the bag, whilst ‘dead’, it would have been due to the body’s centre of mass changing his position. At best being his head flopping forward would place him face first.
    On your scenario he would have had to rolled face forward and then somehow flipped onto his back. There would be blood to indicate this, and there wasn’t.

    Does one really have to now write to the editor to point out your obvious mistakes and lack of understanding of the evidence?

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

    Dennis Horne (467) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:45 am

    If that letter is not published, it would have nothing to do with the Herald indulging in propaganda.
    It would be because that letter makes no point. It is a mish mash of questions without answers, and foolish argument.

    Then again. maybe they will publish it, if only to show the illogical way the haters think, or don’t think.

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

    The writer demanded compensation be paid because Bain cannot show factual innocence due to police incompetence.

    But AA Thomas was able to prove his innocence, despite police incompetence. Indeed, police were corrupt in his case, yet Thomas was still able to prove innocence. Makes you think, doesn’t it.

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

    Judith (926) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:55 am

    Not to mention the blood spray going over and towards the back of the beanbag. If his bum was anywhere near that bean bag, when he shot himself, then it would have been shielded by his upper body.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. thedavincimode (8,078 comments) says:

    4251

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Hives? Bees? Bonnets? 🙂

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

    ross69 (1,809) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:51 am

    You seem to have comprehension problems. He cannot prove his innocence BRD due to the destruction of evidence etc.

    Fortunately such destruction of evidence is not normal in this country, which makes this case ‘exceptional’.

    The only other well known case, that I can think of, where evidence was destroyed to prevent it being further examined to prove innocence, was the Thomas case. You will of course remember the massive searches of the rubbish dump, attempting to find the evidence that had been disposed of by the police.

    We all know their reasons for destroying the evidence, so that Thomas would have difficulty proving his innocence. In fact, he has never been able to prove it 100% either.

    Obviously the police are capable of the deliberate destruction of evidence to slow or halt investigation.

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

    Dennis Horne (468) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 10:01 am
    @Judith. Hives? Buzzing? Bees? Bonnets?

    —————————

    Large red round itchy welts – extremely annoying !

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

    ross69 (1,810) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:56 am

    ———————————–

    Arthur Allan Thomas never proved his innocence.

    If you remember correctly, Rob Muldoon took the unusual step of pardoning him, without his ‘proving’ in a court of law, that he was innocent.

    In fact, if you talk to many of the older members of the Police force, they will still argue that Thomas was guilty.

    He wasn’t of course, but the evidence was not produced to clear him completely, 100%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Here is a question:
    Was the magazine placed to set the scene of murder-suicide that was initially believed by the Police but quickly discounted? Probability?

    There are many other pieces of evidence that taken together show that there is a very very high probability David Bain is not what some people want to believe. Certainty would only come if the unthinkable happened.

    Sure some of the bits of the puzzle are tatty, and the picture hazy in places; so what? It still does not look like Robin.

    1. The Privy Council considered the broken spectacles and lens in Stephen’s room as inculpatory. Bain denies he wore the glasses and his inability to explain himself reinforces that posit. Binnie waves this crucial evidence away.

    2. Nothing links Robin to the rifle except he was shot with it. No prints, nothing. David’s prints are on the rifle. Which Universe are we in?

    3. Robin had a spot of blood on his left index fingernail. Reed QC demonstrated that hand at the trigger. How did spatter get from the left temple to the left hand? Unless we have discovered a new law in physics, how likely is it Robin Bain shot himself?

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

    4. Robin’s body appears near the beanbag. Robin died instantly, dropping like a piece of meat. How did he get to the beanbag if he shot himself by the curtain, right knee on the chair, as Reed QC “explained” to the jury? Magic? Quantum leap? No. Robin Bain was shot as he went into the computer alcove behind the curtains. The spent cartridge case is there in the alcove. Robin’s body was dragged over to the beanbag, to set the scene for suicide. The killer didn’t know the only suicide scenario possible that explained the unusual left temple shot and the blood spatter on the curtains was the one Reed proposed: knee on chair by the curtain. The killer was clever but not clever enough. He didn’t foresee the trick the defence needed to play. He should have left Robin where he was.

    5. After his first trial David Bain said: “THE JUDGE WAS VERY FAIR TO ME.” Does that sound like a man protesting his innocence?

    6 When asked if he killed his family says: “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.” Well, my core believe is that I am “all there” and so are a great many other people. The jury was wrong. Baffled? Browbeaten? Bored? Biased?

    The final insult to the public: demanding compensation. The minister was right. She has given decent people time to examine this travesty of justice, and time is the great benefactor of Truth. RIP, Mr Muggeridge.

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

    The fact is, that there are very few people who are able to prove 100% innocence.

    Most cases, unless there is DNA evidence, or an extremely water tight alibi, are unable to offer complete and absolute proof or such.

    Incidently, Thomas, in gaining compensation, did not have to prove who did do it, either. The guidelines simply do not require it, and neither does a Court of law. An accused does not have to prove who did it, only that they didn’t or couldn’t have to the satisfaction of jury beyond reasonable doubt. e.g. Ewen Macdonald

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

    Judith (929) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 10:06 am

    Arthur Allan Thomas never proved his innocence.

    If you remember correctly, Rob Muldoon took the unusual step of pardoning him, without his ‘proving’ in a court of law, that he was innocent.

    Yes, isn’t it a shame that we don’t have politicians, on any side of the house, that don’t have a belief in justice as he did?
    Don’t have the courage he did?
    Or have the backbone he did?

    The present lot are too afraid of the right decision showing up the incompetence of the police and Crown law, and therefore upsetting their drinking buddies.

    Still, as been said many times, we get the leaders we deserve, which makes it obvious we don’t really deserve leaders at all.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,528) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    Do what you like gamefisher, but at least have the guts to reveal who your are. Put the details on here, or if you are shy send them to DPF. I’ve never been much interested in you, because you’re so thick but you’re welcome to follow the same path as your three erstwhile friends. Cavitation is happening inside your head sweetie.

    N-NZ, if you want this information, just give the nod.
    1 email and reply could get it all with sordid details, of a life not well lived, to go with it.
    I would be happy to reveal it to you as a comment on your blog, and you can do with it what you will.
    I have a friend who started to reveal it to me, but as you say he is so thick I couldn’t be bothered with hearing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. TripeWryter (716 comments) says:

    Rob Muldoon didn’t ‘pardon’ Arthur Alan Thomas. The Governor-General did.

    Muldoon had become uncomfortable about aspects of the Thomas case. He appointed a QC, whose double-barrel name momentarily escapes me (Adams-Smith?), to investigate. Which he did, over about a year, and he recommended the pardon.

    After Thomas was pardoned Muldoon appointed (or got the Governor-General to) a Royal Commission to inquie. Which, under the formidable retired Chief Justice of New South Wales (Mr Justice Taylor), it did.

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

    The fact is, that there are very few people who are able to prove 100% innocence.

    Still banging on about that straw man, Judith. David doesn’t has to prove 100% innocence. He just needs to prove it BRD. Why can’t he do that? Maybe it’s because of his fingerprints on the rifle, or maybe because of Stephen’s blood on his shorts, or maybe because instead of calling emergency services he decided to wait until the washing machine had finished its cycle, his lies about his mother’s glasses, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Chuck Bird (6,343 comments) says:

    Ross, sorry but you are both wrong. David has to prove innocence on the BoP not BRD according to what was done in the past.

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

    Most cases, unless there is DNA evidence, or an extremely water tight alibi, are unable to offer complete and absolute proof or such.

    Cases where an entire family has been murdered do indeed leave behind evidence. But oddly, there is a dearth of evidence implicating Robin, despite the struggle he supposedly had with Stephen, whose bed was covered in blood.

    And again, David doesn’t have to provide “absolute proof”. He only has to show that Robin killed at least one member of the family…why is he incapable of doing that?

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

    David has to prove innocence on the BoP not BRD according to what was done in the past.

    Actually, no. Aaron Farmer was awarded compo – he was innocent BRD. David Dougherty was awarded compo – he was innocent BRD. David could get away with BOP if there were exceptional circumstances. Alas, there are none.

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

    Dennis Horne (469) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 10:08 am
    Here is a question:
    Was the magazine placed to set the scene of murder-suicide that was initially believed by the Police but quickly discounted? Probability?

    There is evidence from Crown witnesses that state the magazine was picked up and put down again and they cannot confirm it was put back in the same position. It may very well have been further away from Robn’s hand. The famous photo is not reliable because it is believed to have been taken after Dr Dempster’s arrival. There is no time or photographer recorded for that photo.

    There are many other pieces of evidence that taken together show that there is a very very high probability David Bain is not what some people want to believe. Certainty would only come if the unthinkable happened.

    Sure some of the bits of the puzzle are tatty, and the picture hazy in places; so what? It still does not look like Robin.

    1. The Privy Council considered the broken spectacles and lens in Stephen’s room as inculpatory. Bain denies he wore the glasses and his inability to explain himself reinforces that posit. Binnie waves this crucial evidence away.

    There is no evidence on the glasses or the lens that indicates the glasses were worn by the killer of Stephen. The lenses were stated to have had too much dust on them to have been used recently for viewing. There were no witnesses, including a neighbour who spoke to the father and sons on the property, of David wearing glasses that weekend. A key police officer committed perjury in court about evidence concerning the glasses. Mr Guest has been proven to have lied regarding his statements about the glasses.

    2. Nothing links Robin to the rifle except he was shot with it. No prints, nothing. David’s prints are on the rifle. Which Universe are we in?

    Spent shells in his caravan prove Robin had used the rifle previously.
    It is a know fact that fingerprints are not able to identify who touched a particular object in the vast majority of cases. Fingerprints were found on the rifle that may have been Robin’s, but the ridge detail was not defined sufficiently to provide identification. David’s prints remained because they were NOT in blood, were in a material that allowed them to remain clearly, and in a position that was inconsistent with firing the rifle, and therefore not disturbed by Robin using the rifle.

    3. Robin had a spot of blood on his left index fingernail. Reed QC demonstrated that hand at the trigger. How did spatter get from the left temple to the left hand? Unless we have discovered a new law in physics, how likely is it Robin Bain shot himself?

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

    By time the photos were taken several activities had occurred in the same room involving many people. Any of which could and did knock the magazine over, and replaced it.

    4. Robin’s body appears near the beanbag. Robin died instantly, dropping like a piece of meat. How did he get to the beanbag if he shot himself by the curtain, right knee on the chair, as Reed QC “explained” to the jury? Magic? Quantum leap? No. Robin Bain was shot as he went into the computer alcove behind the curtains. The spent cartridge case is there in the alcove. Robin’s body was dragged over to the beanbag, to set the scene for suicide. The killer didn’t know the only suicide scenario possible that explained the unusual left temple shot and the blood spatter on the curtains was the one Reed proposed: knee on chair by the curtain. The killer was clever but not clever enough. He didn’t foresee the trick the defence needed to play. He should have left Robin where he was.

    But you just stated Robin was shot whilst sitting in the Bean bag. Now you say he was going into the alcove, however, that does not explain the blood spatter on him. The spent cartridge in the alcove also is consistent with the defense suicide scenario.

    If Robin’s body was dragged along the floor, there would be signs of blood drag on the carpet, there wasn’t. Robin’s body position is entirely consistent with the suicide scenario. Because you don’t know the measurements and are taking your information from a single photo, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

    If Robin was standing in front of the chair, shot in the left temple, with one leg on the chair, his body would have fallen backwards and slightly to the right, as the centre of body mass was altered by the shot and with one leg being supported by the chair the gun falling in the same direction as he dropped it. (A hand relaxes with death).
    If you take the height of Robin, and calculate the angle at which he fell, you will find he would have fallen with the left side of his body on the bean bag, but not centered. From there with the right side of his body would have slid (as the drag on the bean bag shows) until the body was stopped by the floor.

    This is obvious even in your photo. The left shoulder and arm are still on the bean bag, supported, the right knee bent and the left leg straight. The sole of his shoes being approx in line with the front legs of the chair and 30 cms to the right.
    Robin’s body fell exactly where it should have given the scenario scene, and moved approximately 32 cms to the right as the centre of mass adjusted due to the body falling on the front portion of the bean bag. As you will no doubt know, unless you are sat evenly in a bag in the middle, with the beans evenly distributed, a weighted item will slide off if the balance is unequal.
    The direction of blood on Robin’s head, also supports this. When first landing on the bean bag if flows backwards, then as the bloody slid to the right, the blood changes direction.

    Robin’s body was of course interfered with, by the police as the photos prove by the shirt being untucked.

    5. After his first trial David Bain said: “THE JUDGE WAS VERY FAIR TO ME.” Does that sound like a man protesting his innocence?

    If the judge is not seen to be fair, the entire verdict can be questioned. Of course he was ‘fair’.

    6 When asked if he killed his family says: “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.” Well, my core believe is that I am “all there” and so are a great many other people. The jury was wrong. Baffled? Browbeaten? Bored? Biased?

    Stupid statement.

    The final insult to the public: demanding compensation. The minister was right. She has given decent people time to examine this travesty of justice, and time is the great benefactor of Truth. RIP, Mr Muggeridge.

    By decent people, are you suggesting that only ‘decent people’ think Robin didn’t do it, and those that think he did, are in some way ‘indecent’?

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

    Simon Power advised Binnie:

    “A fundamental element of the Guidelines is that compensation payments are only made to persons who are innocent on the balance of probabilities of the crimes for which they were convicted. To be eligible under the Guidelines to apply for compensation, a person must:

    i. have served all or part of a sentence of imprisonment; and
    ii. either had his or her convictions quashed on appeal without a retrial being ordered or received a free pardon.

    Mr Bain’s application falls outside the Guidelines…Compensation may be paid in non-eligible or ‘outside Guidelines’ cases, however, if there are extraordinary circumstances.”

    So, clearly, in this case case, David has to do more than prove innocence on BOP.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,940) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 10:39 am
    Ross, sorry but you are both wrong. David has to prove innocence on the BoP not BRD according to what was done in the past.
    —————————-

    Exactly, and he is allowed to do that, rather than BRD, because there are exceptional circumstances.

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

    ross69 (1,814) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 10:53 am

    So, clearly, in this case case, David has to do more than prove innocence on BOP.

    The exceptional circumstances have been adequately proven by Doyle and Weir’s interviews. They reveal much about the incompetent manner the investigation was conducted, and Doyle’s admission that the evidence should not have been destroyed when all avenues of appeal had not been exhausted, is sufficient alone, to meet the criteria, without considering any of the other points.

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

    ross69 (1,814) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 9:51 am

    As you seem to be struggling Ross, I’ll start again.

    Ross, if you are saying that despite David having proved his innocence on BOP, as he has done, that compensation should be withheld because there are no extraordinary circumstances, you are desperate. If Cabinet do not compensate on that basis, then they are saying that here in NZ it is ‘ordinary’ for someone to serve time for a wrongful conviction. They are saying it’s ordinary to have a seriously inept investigation leading to the wrongful conviction. They are saying that it’s ordinary to have evidence destroyed, withheld and misrepresented. Not only that, but they will be setting a precedent of political interference of a nature that has appalling implications. Peter Ellis… Suppose that when all the procrastination has ended, it is found that as we all know, Peter Ellis did not do what he was convicted of. That the case against him was a trumped up load of superstitious nonsense and bad science, fueled by a media frenzy. What you are suggesting here will allow Cabinet to say ‘well, yes, he’s probably innocent, but there are no extraordinary circumstances. No-one’s been prosecuted or disciplined, and inept and biased investigations are normal, so suck it up’. Some justice system you want!

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

    Simon Power further advised Binnie:

    “Innocence on the balance of 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”.

    So Binnie was given clear instructions. BOP was insufficient for David.

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

    Ah, so that’s where your problem lies – you are not familiar with the evidence and are being guided by the PCA report.

    Which is, apparently, unfamiliar with the evidence(!) and “discredited” because assertions.

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

    Doyle’s admission that the evidence should not have been destroyed when all avenues of appeal had not been exhausted, is sufficient alone, to meet the criteria, without considering any of the other points.

    Wrong. It may well have been fortunate for David that some evidence was destroyed. I’d note that the vast majority of evidence was NOT destroyed. Which suggests that your conspiracy theory isn’t going to get you far.

    Power helpfully gave Binnie example of exceptional circumstances, none of which apply in this case:

    • unequivocal innocence – i.e. cases in wh ich it was demonstrable that the claimant was innocent beyond reasonable doubt, for example, due to DNA evidence, strong alibi evidence, etc; or
    • no such offence – i.e. the claimant had been convicted of an offence that did not exist in law; or
    • 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 [ed: there has been no official admission or judicial finding of serious misconduct in the investigation]

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

    Now that we know that no exceptional circumstances exist, David has to prove innocence BRD. He can’t even prove that Robin was in the house before him!

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

    After his first trial David Bain said: “THE JUDGE WAS VERY FAIR TO ME.”

    The judge also said David was a cunning bastard. Strangely, David didn’t seem to mind that description of him. 🙂

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

    ross69 (1,817) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 11:11 am

    • 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

    binnie found ” failing to take proper steps to investigate the possibility of innocence”
    Which is one of the things our ‘copy book’ cops don’t like. Mind you, they don’t like a lot of what he wrote. He didn’t fully understand that our cops ARE the law, so there was to be no finding against them.

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

    failing to take proper steps to investigate the possibility of innocence

    The police are an ‘authority” and Doyle admitted to Binnie that ‘proper steps’ were not taken. Weir also admitted to not following the manual and therefore not ‘taking proper steps’. As they were both representatives of the ‘Police Authority’, at the time of the investigation, you are, again, as usual, always, consistently – WRONG.

    It doesn’t matter what excuses they have for not doing what was prescribed in the manual, the fact is they could have, and didn’t. They made a bad judgement, which is another exceptional circumstance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Gee the hangbainers are getting very hysterical today. ross and Dennis in particular trying to reinvent the wheel. The bottom line is that cabinet will make a decision and if it’s not consistent with Binnie’s recommendations then David may or may not seek review of some type. Judging by the past the punters are best to make up their own minds on whether he’ll continue or not. Collins has said that she doesn’t want the case ‘popping up again’ or words to that effect, there seems only one way to make that happen, bet on David/Karam lying down, or ensure it goes away but making a fair payout and probably recommending a Royal Commission. The Jury were asked was it Robin or was it David and they answered, Binnie was asked to recommend whether David was innocent or not and he did. The only arguments now are about the process by which Binnie found David to be innocent and in part that relied on the forensic evidence against the dead father, evidence, part of which ross was invited to answer to bring a constructive element to the debate. But he like all other commentators avoids the evidence, perhaps because it frightens them which means they not dispassionate about it, they’re somehow moved by the idea that Robin couldn’t have been a molestor or killed his own family and the only way they can do that is with a blanket denial. For me I would have to see all the evidence against him overcome, not proven by David, but proven by a scientific and evidence based argument – there never has been one, and there never will be unfortunately to say for the ‘hangers.’

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

    Ross
    Again your best tactic in this debate ‘denial’ what does the statement
    ‘serious wrongdoing by authorities’ mean to you? or ‘failing to take proper steps to investigate the possibility of innocence’?
    I suppose you think this was a ‘copybook’ investigation like the PCA?, you also seem unable to distinguish between ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘balance of probabilities’ David does not need to prove anything BRD, thanks to Weir, Doyle & co this is impossible. The only way things could have been proven BRD would have been if David or Robin had tested positive for gunpowder residue on the day or if the blood samples on Daddy had been tested and found to belong to one of the other dead members of the familyie Stephen. It is 18.5 years to late for this!
    AA Thomas has not proven innocence BRD despite what you may think, under the law he is a pardoned murderer, this is clearly wrong to most but legally correct. Despite the police corruption in the case he has not proven innocence BRD as this is impossible, similarly no case was brought against the likely killer Demler so this does not exonerate Thomas. The findings of the Thomas commission were dismissed as an ‘opinion’ by the police much like Justice Binnie in this case.
    Your arguments for guilt are 0.0000% convincing and you seem to have been overtaken by one of your ‘twisted sisters’ as the biggest bser in this blog

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Where in any of the previous few comments did I say Robin died on the beanbag? You’ve said that twice this morning. It was something I did consider a few days ago. I stated he died by the curtains.

    If David picked up Robin’s corpse under the shoulders, the blood would be on him, and some would be shaken onto the curtain.

    Anyway, I’ve satisfied myself. A couple of weeks ago I didn’t know whether Bain was innocent, or what happened. Now I do.

    The government will do whatever’s easiest and best for them. It won’t do what’s right, any more than face the crisis in superannuation or the unfairness of the poor paying tax on earned income but not the wealthy on gain from property.

    Goodbye. Have a Happy New Year and remember, as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead.

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

    I suppose you think this was a ‘copybook’ investigation like the PCA?

    I notice you use that word in quotation marks every time you refer to the PCA report. Please cite the paragraph you are quoting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. And a special “goodbye” to you, Neuralgia, old son, you did your best to bullshit me, I’m up to my neck in it. That kept me on my toes. I shall miss you, the question is, will you miss me, and if so, by much? 🙂

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

    “ross69 (1,818) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 11:04 am
    Simon Power further advised Binnie:

    “Innocence on the balance of 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”.

    So Binnie was given clear instructions. BOP was insufficient for David.”

    Thanks for clearing that up. The David Bain camp can’t find anything exceptional because his claim falls outside the guidelines.
    The David Bain camp can’t find anything proving his innocence because he did the crimes regardless of what a jury found in 2009.

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

    Judge Binnie’s report:
    477. 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 ‘extra-ordinary 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 (underlined) – 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 (underlined), 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 interest of justice that compensation be paid” (Emphasis added) End quote.

    479. Clearly, in this case, there is no such acknowledgement of factual innocent by the Crown Law Office, nor is there any “judicial finding of serious wrongdoing by authorities”. I have already rejected as unproven the Bain team submission that Det. Sgt Weir “planted” evidence.

    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.

    482. Secondly, the expression “failing to take proper steps” is a classic description of negligence. Negligent as well as deliberate state misconduct may be thought by Cabinet to come within the Cabinet discretion.

    483. Thirdly, the expression “proper steps” invites consideration of procedure not outcome. Even if the “proper steps” (under lined) would not have yielded favourable to the accused, a full and impartial investigation is still an obligation owed to every New Zealander. In the present case, for example, the test of blood smears on Robin’s hands, which might have originated with one or other of the victims, was an obvious “proper step” to take. This was especially so when other crime scene samples (but not Robin’s blood smear samples) were taken by Chief Inspector Robinson to Melbourne for advanced DNA testing prior to the 1995 trial. We do not know what the outcome (if any) would have been, but testing the blood on Robin’s hands would certainly have been a “proper step to investigate the possibility of innocence”.

    484. Fourthly, the Minister’s letter states that “claims of extraordinary circumstances have to be considered on their merits on a case-by-case basis, as does the assessment of the interests of justice”. My observations are necessarily specific to this investigation and this case. Whether this evidence signals deeper institutional problems that existed in the Dunedin CIB in 1994-95 may now only be of historical interest.

    485. Fifthly, the words “serious (underlined) misconduct by authorities” might be interpreted by Cabinet to include consideration not only of the seriousness of what was done (or not done) by state officials but also the gravity of the consequences for the individual who is wrongfully convicted. Some who are wrongfully convicted may spend little time in jail. David Bain spent 13 years. Other may have a high reputation in the community which, despite little or no jail time, will be stigmatized forever by the wrongful conviction. There will always be some members of the community who will refuse to accept the outcome of a prosecution – whatever the outcome. In other cases the impact on the individual might be minimal.

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

    So Ross, not only did you attempt to fool people observing this thread by posting only part of the guidelines as per point 478, you clearly do not understand the requirements regarding extraordinary circumstances, and are arguing from the spot you sit on.

    I think the 2nd to last sentence of my post above must have been meant especially for you and your coven of witch sniffers.

    It appears, even if Collins tries to reject the report, she cannot deny that extraordinary circumstances exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,583) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 8:45 am
    muggins (1,582) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 9:15 pm
    Judith Dec 16th 9.30am.
    Was the animal hurt. [ I have no idea,Judith,you would have to ask the goat.]
    He had sex with the goat-what kind of sex . The type of sex is not clarified.
    Was it fondling,intercourse ,oral,etc.,etc.?
    Judith ,you are about the only person who believes Mark Buckley was having some sort of sex with a goat so give him a call.

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

    4287

    The only extraordinary circumstances was that a jury in 2009 found David Bain not Guilty against the weight of evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

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

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

    487.
    Anyone caught up in a situation similar to that confronted by David Bain on June 20
    1994 would no doubt expect to be treated by the authorities in a fair, open-minded and careful
    manner.
    488.
    Although the Privy Council decision was ostensibly based on “new evidence,” much of
    the evidence that demonstrated “an actual miscarriage of justice” could with reasonable
    diligence have been (and according to the Detective Manual should have been) found and
    evaluated by the Police prior to the 1995 trial. When these oversights and failures were

    remedied, to the extent possible, in the case presented to the 2009 jury, David Bain was
    acquitted.
    489.
    If this interpretation of the Cabinet directive is acceptable, David Bain is not required to
    prove state criminality, bad faith, ulterior motives or malicious prosecution. It would be
    sufficient, that David Bain’s 1995 wrongful conviction was brought about by an institutional
    failure on the part of the New Zealand authorities – a failure that constituted a serious and
    marked departure from the accepted standards of Police investigation of the day.
    490.
    In this particular case, the consequences for David Bain were deeply serious – not only
    in terms of 13 years of loss of liberty, but of a life that (at 22 years old) never really had a
    chance to get started.
    491.
    I suggest, respectfully, that a serious institutional failure resulting in a man spending 13
    years in prison for crimes he probably did not commit should not be considered to be “in 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
  290. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (471) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 9:45 am
    The Editor, NZ Herald.

    Compensation awarded by rote ignores the moral issue just as slavish adherence to the right of law led the German people into WWII. The available evidence would not preclude demonstrating factual innocence.

    Take just one piece of the jigsaw that fits with others to complete the puzzle. Robin’s body looked like it rolled off the beanbag where he sat to pray. Within millimetres of his outstretched right hand is a 10-round ammo clip, on its edge, under a table. At first glance it looks like he dropped it. The probability it would land on its edge is 0. The police turned it? To shoot himself Robin would need to grasp the silencer with his right hand and hold the rifle accurately to his head. How and why would he hold the clip? What is the probability?

    On the silencer were two pristine fingerprints of Stephen, who was strangled, but none of Robin? Okay, fingerprints are not always left, but why were Stephen’s prints not smudged? Probability? All right, let’s argue Robin put the clip down there after he loaded the rifle. He would have needed to lean over a metre to place it under the table? Probability? Wouldn’t he just drop it where he sat, or put it on the table? Improbabilities are not proof, but this is just one weak link in a long chain of improbabilities. Only in mathematics is found absolute proof.

    No. The problem is not the lack of evidence but the abundance, some of which, like the broken glasses — powerful evidence to the Privy Council — the Binnie Report ignores. Let’s stop pretending. Our justice system needs a major overhaul. And the time to start is now.
    Great letter,Dennis. But will the Herald do the decent thing and publish it?

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

    It is easy to understand, reading all that, why spinners like Ross, Lazarus, muggins, Dennis, insist on discussing well worn and disproven points of evidence. They are either unable or unwilling to accept that regardless of those points, David Bain qualifies for compensation based on the extraordinary circumstances that arose from the Police not taking the measures and steps they should have to ensure a safe prosecution.

    The guidelines cannot be excused, the police conduct cannot be excused, there are too many such errors where they did not follow their own procedure and conduct the tests their manual states they must.

    It doesn’t matter what the outcome of those tests might have been, we will never know. But because they did not do them, and many other things, David Bain qualifies for compensation, and even though Cabinet have the discretion to reject it, they do so at their own peril, and will then have to be accountable for that decision and any civil cases that follow, due to it.

    Compensation will eventually be paid, if not this year, then some time in the future. There is no other option.

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

    478. For ease of reference I repeat the relevant criteria for the exercise of the ‘extra-ordinary 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 (underlined) – 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 (underlined), 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 interest of justice that compensation be paid” (Emphasis added) End quote.

    Ross, please take note,

    The test of “extraordinary circumstances” is inherently open-ended and the list above cannot be treated as exhaustive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Kanz: Why would we believe a word you say, after this?

    Neither he/she or any of them can respond so pretend it doesn’t exist much like they pretend there is no evidence against dear old daddy ‘what done it.’

    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.

    And now it 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.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (471) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    @Neuralgia. And a special “goodbye” to you, Neuralgia, old son, you did your best to bullshit me, I’m up to my neck in it. That kept me on my toes. I shall miss you, the question is, will you miss me, and if so, by much?’

    Yes Dennis, much like your fellows, you’ve been up to your neck in bs for years. I merely hosed down your ugly mug in order to allow your lips to work again. But alas, as we all have seen, you simply produced more bs at the first opportunity, it must be such a problem for you.

    You may well have done a little better if you’d been less handicapped by idiots who think they should be believed on face value when already having a pedigree of bs on this subject going back years. I’m going to update your score with 3 extra zeros anyway: 0.0000000% progess.

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

    @ Psycho Milt
    how about from paragraph 8 ‘The basic investigative procedure is laid out in the Detective Manual and is
    invariably closely followed in every instance.’
    I wonder what the manuals instructions were re testing for gunshot residue, protecting the hands and clothing of the potential offenders and protecting & bagging the hands and feet before removal to the mortuary of the deceased!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Dear Judith
    Thank-you for applying for the position as my researcher. Unfortunately as you could not provide any proof of your qualifications I can not just take your word or the word of your ‘friends’ that you are sufficiently qualified.

    I am more than happy to keep you in mind for any future positions providing that you can prove that you can be objective about the material you select and are bi-partisan in your approach.

    Further more, I am happy for you to keep showing me examples of your work, because as you are no doubt aware qualifications are not the be all and end all, but the ability and dedication to do ones best for a particular job should be acknowledged and appreciated too.

    As a bit of constructive criticism that might assist you in the future, you could be a bit more assertive, assertive people are much better at getting their points across, your points get a bit lost in the rhetoric. I did also note touches of hysteria and desperation which I am sure is not indicative of your entire persona but something you might not be aware of.

    Thank-you again for your interest and all the best for the future.

    Kindest regards
    GOLDNKIWI LLB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    LLB: Long Lost Bollocks.

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

    how about from paragraph 8 ‘The basic investigative procedure is laid out in the Detective Manual and is
    invariably closely followed in every instance.’

    In other words, the PCA report doesn’t call it a copybook investigation, you simply find it useful propaganda to sneer “‘copybook’ investigation” every time you see the PCA report mentioned. I thought that was the case but it’s nice to have it confirmed.

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

    goldnkiwi (39) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 2:27 pm
    ———————

    Good lord, you’ve gone completely mad.
    Why would I want to be anyone’s researcher, and especially yours? Such a move would be a serious demotion, something I would never consider.

    LLB – Looney, Loudmouth Bull-craper?

    Obviously are you just trying to intimidate, presuming that ones own qualification is lesser value than yours?

    Nice try sweetie! But as usual, you are so far off mark, you’re wearing an arrow up your bum. 😉

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

    Psycho Milt (991) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    ———————————-

    The PCA as an organisation was so badly critiqued, that they had to change the entire thing, and the legislation that governed it.

    The PCA report on the Bain investigation, was similarly critiqued and discredited. Now why anyone would want to continue using it as a point of reference for their argument, is beyond reason.

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

    “I suggest, respectfully, that a serious institutional failure resulting in a man spending 13
    years in prison for crimes he probably did not commit should not be considered to be “in 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
  302. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were very likely to be Robin’s.
    His death is consistent with suicide.
    David got back to the house too late to have turned on the computer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,532) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 2:36 pm
    LLB: Long Lost Bollocks.
    Sorry to hear that, it must be a sore point with you. It’s okay though as no-one would have guessed if you hadn’t ‘come out’. It can be our little secret. I am sure no-one could tell just by looking at you, that must be a comfort.

    Kindest regards
    GoldnKiwi LLB (I still have mine) Well I have oft been told that I have balls, is that the same thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Sorry,Psycho Milt that I didn’t get your pseudonym on the above brilliant post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely to be David’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. Psycho Milt (3,207 comments) says:

    The PCA report on the Bain investigation, was similarly critiqued and discredited.

    Sigh. As previously requested: “Can you point to material “discrediting” that report? And please don’t point to anything by the investigative genius who proposed a mystery gunman with a .45 pistol.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Oops,
    That post has gone and repeated itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,590) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely to be David’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Cor blimey Charlie,
    It’s done it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Hey,I wonder if it will stop repeating itself if everyone else stops posting?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely to be David’s.
    muggins (1,593) Says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Sorry, my fault ,I went and posted after the last repeat. I won’t post after the next repeat and see if that works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,595) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely to be David’s.
    mu

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    From a self claimed ‘expert’ and daddy lover.

    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.

    And now it 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.’

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

    Keep posting till it hurts muggins!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    The whole anti movement displayed by the lies of one old man lying to protect another.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,533) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 3:54 pm
    ———————-

    Those particular comments appear to really upset Muggins. He doesn’t seem to like them being bought to the attention of others, and when it happens, he spams the board with repeated postings of the same thing.

    Perhaps he doesn’t really have anything new to post about regarding the case?
    I see it as an admission of losing the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,595) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely
    to be DAVIDS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Oh dear,there it goes again. It would appear it is triggered to repeat every time someone posts. Let’s see if it repeats itself after this message. Fortunately it is a post that bears repeating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,598) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    muggins (1,595) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely
    to be DAVIDS.
    muggins (1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Sock prints, why does everyone say foot prints, a foot print would presumably be easier to tell if it was complete or not. Even in the ‘pigs blood’ on sock farce in the second trial, white sock could clearly be seen around the blood. The actual ‘prints’ showed up with luminol.

    I also do not accept as fact that the ‘prints’ had to have been made by the killer, ‘innocent transfer’ or ‘innocent circumstance’ seems to be the catch cry regarding evidence that could be seen to incriminate David, so why are the ‘sock’ prints any different. If those are not David’s, why didn’t he leave prints when he ‘checked’ on the bodies? Does blood dry that quickly. Under half an hour if 6.30 is to be believed.

    I note Michael Guest stated that the murders happened at 6.30 in the first trial. (No doubt now discredited?)The allowable time that David was doing his round apparently was an hour, about the same time as the washing machine took to wash..

    If David was really efficient he should always have put the washing on before he left, then it would always have been ready just to hang out when he got back.

    So if Robin was the killer, he didn’t leave prints because he changed his socks? or ….because he wasn’t there, or the blood was only there after he left? and the prints were David’s when he found the bodies. So simple..

    There is too much reliance on the conflicting evidence regarding crown and prosecution witnesses different reports etc. It is like learning anything by rote, brainwashing happens in the same fashion.

    KISS (keep it simple stupid) rules should apply or for those that like analogies if it walks like a duck……..

    Common sense should apply for the defence of David and the defence of Robin, cross examination of witnesses by its very definition is designed to get the witness to admit to exceptions to any rule regardless of how ridiculous. No one can speak in definitives. The ridiculous happens. I note the constant reference to David as ‘probably innocent.’ Of course that also allows the commentator to say that they had always had admitted the possibilty that they were wrong.

    As a watcher of Judge Judy, 😉 I agree completely when she says that ‘if it doesn’t make sense it didn’t happen’. A good maxim to live by, the evidence against Robin in this case does not make sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Yes it did.
    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.
    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 a paddle.

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

    The argument that it was strange DB didn’t immediately ring 111 has been demolished by me in an earlier post. He was clearly desperately thinking about what lingerie his sisters would wear at the funeral.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,595) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely
    to be DAVIDS.

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

    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.

    And now it 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.

    And now 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.

    Tomorrow when that policeman is spoken to, by an honest person it will become.
    “Yes, Dr Pryde followed procedure and asked Bain to strip down so he could be examined for bruises, scratches or marks. I didn’t see him naked because I stood by the door, and Bain was behind a screen with the Doctor”

    Then muggins will say, “oh I was only joking, did you think I was serious?”

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

    Police failure to take proper steps to investigate information that Laniet had accused
    her father of incest and planned to expose him to the rest of the family on the
    weekend prior to the murders
    535.
    The Detective Manual, which Det. Sr. Sgt Doyle acknowledged as authoritative,
    specifically instructs the Police to pursue the issue of motive in their attempt to “reconstruct”
    the crime scene.
    536.
    The fact Chief Inspector Robinson considered the timing of an antiquated washing
    machine as decisive, and took no interest in information about a potential incestuous
    relationship between a suicide suspect and his daughter suggests either blinkers or a wilful
    blindness to information that did not support a “tunnel vision” of the case.
    537.
    The Police had been led almost immediately by a cell phone in Laniet’s possession to
    Dean Cottle and the incest allegation against Robin.
    538.
    Senior Det. Sgt Doyle attributed the decision not to pursue this lead to Chief Inspector
    Robinson – the head of the investigation. The only explanation – that “this was a homicide
    investigation, not an incest investigation”291 – was, in my view, untenable. The two aspects of
    the crime reconstruction were not mutually exclusive. In fact, they were intimately
    interrelated.
    —————————-

    Extraordinary circumstance!

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

    Failure to test both Robin’s body and David promptly for firearm discharge residue
    542.
    It is absolutely basic Police work in a firearms case, as laid out in the Detectives Manual
    to preserve and test samples from a suspect’s hands and clothing for firearms discharge residue
    (FDR). This will indicate if a person has recently fired a firearm. As explained in the Joint
    Police/Police Complaints Authority Report (1997), the test involves “checking suspects for
    discharge residue blown back on to [mainly] the hand[s] which held the weapon. It is to be
    expected in ideal conditions that minute particles could still be found on a live and active person
    up to two/three hours after shooting occurred – provided the firer has not washed since. On a
    dead body, the dust could remain much longer because it is only lost through movement.” (para
    134)
    543.
    The Police say they did not test David Bain the morning of 20 June because he said he
    washed his hands to remove newsprint ink. This is curious. It must be rare for the Police not
    to do a test because the individual concerned assures them that nothing of interest to the
    prosecution will be found.
    544.
    If the test had been done quickly on David and proved negative, it might have been of
    assistance to establish his innocence. On the other hand, if FDR were found on Robin’s hands,
    it would be an important indicator of suicide and would have been of great importance to the
    defence. On the prosecution theory there would be no FDR on Robin’s hands.
    545.
    Det. Sr Sgt Doyle was asked why Police had not checked David’s hands for firearms
    residue after locating him in his room at 65 Every Street. He suggested it would have been
    “insensitive” to do the test as David was then considered a victim.296 Yet by 11.00 am or so,
    David Bain was at the Police station being strip searched and tested for FDR by Dr Pryde, who
    found nothing positive.

    ———————–

    Hmmm, another extraordinary circumstance.

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

    Cartman
    Can’t even come up with your own reasons! have to use Milts list, we have been over all these arguments and they are 0.0000% convincing individually or collectively, have to repost the long list of used toilet paper multiple times because you can’t come up with your own arguments. LMAO

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

    Judith,
    Don’t you remember this was a homicide enquiry not an incest one according to Doyle. They had a ‘murder’ to solve.

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

    Rowan (408) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    Judith,
    Don’t you remember this was a homicide enquiry not an incest one according to Doyle. They had a ‘murder’ to solve.

    Really, they had 4 murders to solve, but the suicide of the 5th made solving the 4 easy. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,601) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 4:55 pm
    muggins (1,595) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested which they now accept was probably his own blood.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely
    to be DAVIDS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    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

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

    …we have been over all these arguments and they are 0.0000% convincing individually or collectively…

    I’m still waiting for either you or Judith to point out the material “discrediting” the PCA report. You seem to have found that very convincing, so I’m surprised at your reluctance to draw it to my attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    I haven’t read it Milt, all I needed to know was the conclusion, ‘copy book’ investigation.

    You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Karam thinking Laniet may have been shot with a large calibre handgun is significant. You’re right, it shows that Karam’s opinions change as he gained more information. That’s a healthy thing in my mind because it indicates not only free thinking but an ability to accept new information. Alas for you however, because you remain, like the police and Crown – locked in denial. Thought that observation might help you get some activity going inside your brain. You don’t want to be stuck like some of your mates repeating inanities or telling porkies.

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

    One of the concerns of the PCA report is that it focused on the future rather than judging the past.

    for example, its comments regarding the timing of paper round, computer, and duration of the washing machine was:

    “We conclude this section by commenting that the timing of the paper round,
    the time the computer was turned on, and the duration of the washing
    matching cycle were all very important aspects of the case. We emphasise the
    necessity for accurate time measurements to be kept and made in criminal
    investigations. (para. 132) ”

    So rather than addressing the faults in the Bain investigation and pointing out the mistakes made in assessing accurate times, instead they point to the need for accuracy in future investigations. Although an important point to make, it fails to address the issues created by the mistakes in the Bain case. Therefore, the report in faulty. This is just one example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Amazing how the vocabulary has changed since former Justice Binnie’s report, now we have phrases like my favourite ‘innocent transfer’,others like factually innocent, ‘copy book’ investigation, extra-ordinary circumstance, how about good old guilty or innocent, not based on our justice system or based on the police investigation. Just on basic common sense, no jargon, no clever wordsmiths or bombardment of opinion but gut instinct.

    We are not talking about getting off a parking ticket or speeding on a technicality here, in my opinion our collective conscience can not be akin to how I, believe that the second jury came to their determination. That they were overwhelmed by the information, tired of the arguments that only the lawyers could understand, etc. It is not a matter of David having nearly completed his sentence, so time served or as good as, and not much chance of reoffending.

    This to me is black or white, yes or no. David or Robin, no half measures or maybes. Someone committed the crime, 4 or 5 of them were committed. You can talk around in circles, repeating ad nauseum a mantra and it makes no earthly difference to who killed the Bains. Court etc and it’s rules are a social construct, a game to be played, theatre, a courts rulings are the outcome on the day, right more often than not I would hazard to say. Our human basic instinct is a pretty good compass.

    No compensation should be paid on maybes, what ifs, compensation to David should only be paid if it can be proven that Robin is guilty.

    If for some inexplicable reason based on the current evidence, this Government decided to pay compensation, I would feel strongly enough to go to Wellington to protest that decision. I would also hope that I wasn’t alone lol.

    I feel so strongly on this issue, this is the only issue that compels me to be on the same messageboard with some people I consider to be disgusting human beings and I use the term human beings loosely as I look at the bottom of my shoe.

    I can not believe that others can not see what is so bleeding obvious.

    If David is innocent then I am sorry, it was all just bad luck, you probably have more celebrity now than if you had become a singer, you would be able to give opera real pathos now, since you have sufferred, go for it there is nothing stopping you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    The language change is significant. Apart from one or two idiots, nobody now says that David was ‘covered’ in blood, or that there was no ‘strip search,’ no one says that there is a video tape of the lens or that daddy had no blood on his palms or that his dna was not deep in the barrel.

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

    If David is innocent then I am sorry, it was all just bad luck

    But it wasn’t bad luck. That is why there are extraordinary circumstances cited. There was a number of serious mistakes and omissions made by the Police investigating the crime that contributed to the wrongful imprisonment of David Bain.

    Bad luck would be if some of that evidence was destroyed by lightening, or if termites destroyed the house before all the evidence could be collected according to the prescribed processes. Incompetence, ineptitude and sheer ignorance, together with a degree of deliberate poor behaviour has nothing to do with bad luck.

    The Police, and in particular Det. Sgt Milton Weir, played a contributory role in the claim of extraordinary circumstances due to the multiple inadequacies in the Police investigation. Weir was not the sole contributor to this situation, but as the person responsible for the scene and collection of evidence, he can be justifiably singled out.

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

    I haven’t read it Milt, all I needed to know was the conclusion, ‘copy book’ investigation.

    Speaking of telling porkies – like Rowan, you need to cite the paragraph if you’re going to pretend that’s a quote. If it’s not a quote, don’t put quote marks on it.

    Judith: your answer effectively is that the PCA report hasn’t actually been discredited, you just don’t like the findings.

    Re your example, they make that recommendation regarding future practice after spending the preceding paragraphs “pointing out the mistakes made in assessing accurate times,” as required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    No blood on palms, define barrel, I agree with whoever stated that the silencer and the ‘barrel are distinct, I doubt there was blood in the barrel at all let alone ‘his’ Robin’s DNA. Strip search…emotive..medical examination more correct. I am happy to accept that the lens was found in Stephen’s room in a position consistent with the scene examination of the time. The police too are not immune to counsel getting statements of doubt in a court room. Analogous to bombardments by ‘Judith’,
    It is the bigger picture that really matters, if some idiot thinks something was an inch away from where you remembered….whatever.

    The overwhelming amount of evidence where no one piece is definitive makes it easier to say you were right, I was wrong, even when you know you were right, wearing you down causing you to doubt your own memory. Good god and then it is called perjury if you accept that there might be a slight chance that their expert might know of an exception. The lens was in Stephen’s room David had been wearing the glasses. If there had been more for the defence to go on they wouldn’t have had to work for every little bit of concession. Just goes to show what giving little concessions can do.

    Give no quarter stick to your truth. This case should be followed at every law school, someone should do a thesis on it. It is not about the process people, five people died.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    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

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

    Milt
    I can’t be bothere rereading the entire PCA report, have already pointed out errors for you. What would you expect from a report written by the police! You like to hide behind its conclusions of no wrongdoing or negligence by the cops, but this has been shown to be a load of bollocks, Doyle admits ‘amateurish’ and concedes that things weren’t done. I would rate the latest ‘errors’ uncovered by truth on the whaleoil blog as comparable to the PC investigation, of course the cops are going to try and deny wrongdoing and cover themselves. If a proper investigation was undertaken at the time then we wouldn’t be debating the ‘whodunnit’ now would we!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 4:55 pm
    muggins (1,595) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    The pro-David types rely on the following:
    Robin is claimed by witnesses to have a motive for shooting his family.
    There were some blood smears on his hands that weren’t tested which they now accept was probably his own blood.
    If the bloody footprints in the hallway were complete prints, they were likely
    to be DAVIDS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    A bullcraper at work:

    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.

    And now it 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.

    And now 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.

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

    Goldnkiwi
    It is generally not in dispute that there was blood in the barrel or that the shot to RB was a ‘contact’ wound. Maybe you could explain the blood could have come to be there, here is the relevant extract. Similarly it is also not in dispute (apart from a few idiots) that the bloody footprints were made by the killer. Looks to me like you are picking and choosing what evidence you want to support your conclusions.

    265. Dr Dempster’s view was confirmed by the belated disclosure of Mr Henstschel that
    traces of blood were found towards the mouth of the gun barrel, being “blow‐black” from the
    fatal shot. The blood could only have found its way into the barrel of the gun if its muzzle was
    in close proximity to Robin’s head when the shot was fired. The Crown Law Office correctly
    notes that the “blow back” would also be consistent with a contact shot fired into Robin’s head
    by David Bain. However, the immediate point is that the “blow back” evidence seems to refute
    the evidence of Drs Thompson and Ferris regarding a more distant shot. Moreover, the Crown
    Law Office acknowledges that the relevant literature reveals “unsurprisingly, [the Crown’s
    choice of word] the literature shows that contact wounds are likely indicative of suicide rather
    than homicide.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Good work Milt. You couldn’t get further away from daddy having bruised, battered, and bloody hands than talking about the PCA report, because they didn’t write on the subject either, they know it was daddy ‘what done it.’

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

    Cartman
    STFU, enough of your used toilet paper!

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

    Good work Milt. You couldn’t get further away from daddy having bruised, battered, and bloody hands than talking about the PCA report, because they didn’t write on the subject either, they know it was daddy ‘that done it.’

    I’ll take that to mean yes you do know very well that you’ve no business using those quote marks.

    …this has been shown to be a load of bollocks…

    By whom? When? And how? I’m asking you to substantiate just this one piece of bullshit propaganda you’re peddling. You’ve said that the PCA report is the most discredited one in the whole case, and that it’s been shown to be a load of bollocks. Well, I’ve seen nothing that discredits it and nothing that shows it to be a load of bollocks – point me to this compelling critique, if it exists.

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

    muggins: if that repeat posting is involuntary, it may be a browser issue. Try clearing the cache, or logging out of Kiwblog and then logging back in again – the problem shouldn’t survive that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    Tried that,didn’t work. I think it has something to do with the length of the thread. I reckon if everyone stops posting on this thread that message won’t repeat itself. Looks like this thread has almost finished,so the above might be the last repeat. I notice the last few lines have vanished into cyberspace.

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

    Psycho Milt (997) Says:
    January 21st, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    muggins: if that repeat posting is involuntary, it may be a browser issue. Try clearing the cache, or logging out of Kiwblog and then logging back in again – the problem shouldn’t survive that.

    Psyhco Milt, muggins is nothing more than a spammer, who even lies about the posts he is making.
    The fact that his are the only ones repeating themselves proves that.
    As can be seen by his last post, it is an attempt to shut the thread down, because facts have come to
    his attention through this thread that he wants hidden in case others are also informed of the truth.

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

    You are talking a load of rubbish Muggins. Those repeats cannot and do not happen by mistake. You are deliberately posting them in an effort to prevent others from posting opposing views to your own, which is supported by the comments you make. As such you are spamming the thread and trying to control the input into it.

    Which, demonstrates a lot about the type of person you are, and how you like to conduct yourself when people oppose your view.

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

    Judith (949) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:41 am

    You are talking a load of rubbish Muggins.

    In the many places you have seen him spamming, many of which he is now banned from, have you ever seen him talk anything but rubbish? I haven’t.

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

    Kanz (705) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:05 am

    It is also obvious because he has stupidly including the previous entry lines and times, which is only achieved via copying and pasting.

    Clearly a man of very questionable standards regarding authenticity of information.

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

    Kanz (706) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:57 am

    I understand that he is passionate about his cause. Defending a dead man that cannot defend himself, on the surface appears admirable. But when they can only do so, by falsifying information, dishonesty, intimidation, defamation and other equally questionable practices, then any level of positive attribution disappears, and is overcome by an atmosphere of sheer nastiness. None of which the subject of their campaign would appreciate or support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,608) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:50 am
    January 21st, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    muggins (1,588) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikey set of circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    What did I tell you. Someone posts a message and that message repeats itself. Oh dear, this could go on all day.

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

    muggins (1,610) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:12 am
    What did I tell you. Someone posts a message and that message repeats itself. Oh dear, this could go on all day.

    You are a very stupid man Muggins.
    Firstly because you are stupid enough to leave the evidence at the top of each posting that proves it is done by cut and paste, and therefore is not an involuntary action.
    Secondly, because it is obvious that you are attempting to stop other people from posting opposing views to your own.
    And thirdly, because it provides evidence of the claims made against you and your group of the intimidation and dishonesty that has become prevalent in the behaviour of many of the group’s members.

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

    One of the most distasteful acts of the Police investigation would have to be the provision of a contaminated DNA sample.

    —————————–
    “The provision of a contaminated DNA sample to the defence expert, Dr Arie Geursen
    580.
    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. ”

    ———————–

    So here we have not just a point of contention, but rather an act of serious misconduct by the authorities, and another reason why the application of “extraordinary circumstances” apply in the Compensation Claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstancial 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.

    The pro-Robin types find that a rather unlikely set of circumstances
    And so do the pro- Davids, apart from the couple of them that are left.
    One is now saying there was rabbits blood on the rifle after rabbitting on for years that there was no blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Oops, there it goes again. And it has added a couple of sentences at the bottom. What is going on?

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

    What I am left wondering is, why would Guest tell lies to the Minister?
    It is painfully obvious that it’s a lie, but why would he do it?

    Is it to remain in the public eye?
    Is it to justify the balls up he made of the original trial?
    Is it setting him up to be the subject of yet another TV program?

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

    Kanz (707) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 10:43 am
    —————————–

    Who knows why Guest has done what he did.

    Maybe his memory has failed him, as it does in time for many, and he forgot previous statements he had made.
    Perhaps he is trying to put together a new profession, and is putting his name out there to be noticed. He was never a particularly good lawyer, and clearly known in some capacity to Uncle Michael, which puts him on the opposite side to start with. For all I know, Uncle Michael et al, could be encouraging him to speak up, one isn’t in the same loop to have that sort of information. However they certainly have a financial incentive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    I wonder why nobody writes to the Minister telling her that Bain lied about the strip search. Surely, that would be the most damning thing the Crown could use against him, and better than any hearsay evidence from a disgraced lawyer. It would in fact have been direct evidence made under oath. Here are one ofmany JFRBainers lying aboutA bullcraper at work:

    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.

    And now it 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.

    And now 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. it:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Perhaps the police and anyone likely to be called as an expert witness should undergo professional training regarding giving evidence in court and being cross examined. I note that David did not elect to be cross examined again. Perhaps he was ‘tricked’ into his admissions. You know all of those ‘innocent’ ones that actually apparently show that the truth is being told as else why would one self incriminate.

    Strange as it may seem the police and witnesses must have felt like they were the ones on trial and were accused of a crime.

    So are you saying that there is no distinction between silencer ‘barrel’ and rifle ‘barrel’? That blood found inside the ‘whole’ assembly of the ‘barrel’ is an accurate description. That is not how I would understand it.

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

    Compensation will eventually be paid, if not this year, then some time in the future. There is no other option.

    One option is that he’ll drop his claim, realising that since it’s merely his “core belief” he’s innocent, he should wait until he is absolutely certain that he’s innocent before asking for a handout.

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

    Guest seems to be a deeply flawed human being. I’ve sometimes wondered if there might have been a connection between his association with Michael Bain (who apparently thought David was guilty right from the beginning) and his inadequate representation of David in his first trial. Or am I getting into conspiracy theory territory here? Why anyone would want to align themselves with someone like Guest is beyond me.

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

    Maybe his memory has failed him, as it does in time for many, and he forgot previous statements he had made.

    Sums David up to a T. When he told Binnie he couldn’t drive that weekend because he didn’t have his glasses, he’d apparently forgotten he’d told police that he had driven. He’d also forgotten that he’d told his aunt that he hated his father, and told Binnie that the family was “extremely close”.

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

    Guest seems to be a deeply flawed human being.

    But on the positive side, he hasn’t murdered anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    dragonfly (20) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    Guest seems to be a deeply flawed human being. I’ve sometimes wondered if there might have been a connection between his association with Michael Bain (who apparently thought David was guilty right from the beginning) and his inadequate representation of David in his first trial. Or am I getting into conspiracy theory territory here? Why anyone would want to align themselves with someone like Guest is beyond me.

    Deeply flawed,what a load of rubbish. He had three terms as a city councillor in Dunedin.
    Ok,he made a one bad mistake, so that makes him deeply flawed . Bulls**t.
    Get it through your head,dragon ,Bain lied about those glasses. He told Guest and his co counsel that he had been wearing them,and he told his aunt,whose daughter also heard that conversation that he was wearing them.
    And funny how Bain can’t remember that conversation,but he can remember how his aunt found that tattoo.

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

    dragonfly (20) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    Guest seems to be a deeply flawed human being. I’ve sometimes wondered if there might have been a connection between his association with Michael Bain (who apparently thought David was guilty right from the beginning) and his inadequate representation of David in his first trial. Or am I getting into conspiracy theory territory here? Why anyone would want to align themselves with someone like Guest is beyond me.

    No, bang on target. But more of Guest wanting to align himself with others who can be beneficial to his flagging career.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. muggins (5,093 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.

    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 the people all of the time”.

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

    muggins (1,613) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    And funny how Bain can’t remember that conversation,but he can remember how his aunt found that tattoo.

    Please post the evidence to support this statement.

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

    And funny how Bain can’t remember that conversation

    David has a terrific memory – he can remember his prisoner number (18495923) and exactly how many days he spent in prison (4613). It’s the little things, like why he didn’t call emergency services after he saw blood streaming down his mother’s face, that he cannot recall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    dragonfly (20) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    Guest seems to be a deeply flawed human being. I’ve sometimes wondered if there might have been a connection between his association with Michael Bain (who apparently thought David was guilty right from the beginning) and his inadequate representation of David in his first trial. Or am I getting into conspiracy theory territory here? Why anyone would want to align themselves with someone like Guest is beyond me.”

    There was an impetus toward David being guilty. Someone suggested to me that it might have begun with his 111 call where the operator thought it may have been a hoax call. Michael Bain easily convinced himself that Robin wasn’t the killer, why he made that decision so quickly and without the evidence to hand or even the trial having taken place is odd unless you consider that the police convinced themselves as quickly and that from then on a ‘confession’ would have been on the cards. Of course they never got one, but worse didn’t have the fortitude to back away from their ‘false’ proof, that’s when they began with the mantras, hiding evidence and so on. Interesting to note that the first person supporting the Bain family is the biggest liar about the case of all, that’s very disturbing.

    Guest brought the story, I don’t think he contributed to the MOJ other than by being influenced by buying the police story and not having the necessary detachment and probably experience. He however always knew that there were no scratches on David’s chest, so there were good clues to start fathoming that David was being railroaded. Whatever would possess a lawyer, if he did, to buy into the paper run alibi is beyond me, especially when it got so bizarre as David needing to be seen when the papers were proof that he’d delivered them – as well as the end result confirmed by Mrs Laney that he arrived home at around his usual time. But as to conspiracies he was ‘made’ a Judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (957) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    muggins (1,613) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    And funny how Bain can’t remember that conversation,but he can remember how his aunt found that tattoo.

    Please post the evidence to support this statement

    Binnie /Bain interview pages 23/24.
    And note how he lies about when he had that tattoo done. He said he had it done after his German Shepherd was put down,but that was in 1993 and he didn’t have that tattoo done until a week before the murders. Binnie wasn’t awake to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    But Binnie was awake to the bsers and there no ‘strip search.’

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

    @ muggins

    Deeply flawed,what a load of rubbish. He had three terms as a city councillor in Dunedin.

    I guess you think Graham Capill was an ok guy too then.

    Ok,he made a one bad mistake, so that makes him deeply flawed. Bulls**t.

    Graham Capill made one bad mistake too.

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

    All right, there’s one other thing she mentions on page 2578 is
    something about a tattoo that I think perhaps –
    A.
    I found, I find – I’m sorry but I find that particular part of it –
    Q.
    Mmm?
    A.
    – very strange.
    Q.
    Well that’s why –
    A.
    If you read –
    23
    Q.
    That’s why I’m asking you about it.
    A.
    Yes, okay, if you read, please read it out?
    5
    Q.
    Well, she says that you, “Had a long discussion, talked about many
    things in terms of the family about his dog, Sasha, about various things,
    that tattoo, all sorts of things,” I know somewhere else in the transcripts
    there are more ample references to the tattoo and that it was a reaction
    to something or other but what was your recall of the tattoo incident? If
    10
    you have any recall?
    A.
    Oh yes, I’ve got plenty, you know, fine – my recall is absolutely fine
    about that but the – sorry, the reaction I have to her statements about it
    in – as in how she found the tattoo and why it came up, she said she
    was sitting there stroking my arm and you’ve gotta remember this is the
    15
    middle of winter, we’re all dressed up in warm clothes so I don’t
    understand why I was sitting there in a state of shock with just a t-shirt
    on or something that exposed my arm and she would be sitting there
    stroking it to eventually expose the tattoo and see – it’s up here. It’s –
    Q.
    So it would be higher, would it be higher than the sleeve of the t-shirt?
    Yes.
    So the t-shirt would cover it?
    T-shirt would cover it.
    So the suggestion is that her fingers were creeping up under the t-shirt
    and raising it?
    25
    A.
    Well, exposed it. She says she was stroking my arm and then exposed
    the, the tattoo. So I’m sorry but that’s, you know, I don’t know why she
    would say anything of that nature but to me that’s …

    ——

    It appears to me that David is saying that she didn’t find the tattoo, that as it states previously in the transcript, he told her about it when talking to her about the family. In order to find it, as she said she did, would require him to be in summer clothing, in the middle of winter. He does not remember her finding it at all, he does however remember her story about finding it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    There goes that repeat post again and this time it has corrected a spelling mistake that has been there since it was first posted. Clever.

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

    muggins (1,615) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 1:11 pm
    ——————————-

    He doesn’t say that at all. He says he was walking past a tattoo parlour and thinking about his dog, and decided to get the tattoo done then and there. That does not mean it can’t have been sometime after the dog died. People can and do miss their pets for many years after they are gone. Again wishful thinking on your part, but the transcript says differently. You unfortunately only see what you want to in it.

    The same with the Aunt finding the tatoo. David recalls the story his Aunt told, but does not say anywhere that is what happened. In fact he questions how she could have found it in the manner she stated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    So how did she find that tattoo?

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

    “ross69 (1,822) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    Guest seems to be a deeply flawed human being.

    But on the positive side, he hasn’t murdered anyone.”

    Classic Ross. Good call.

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

    Nos
    If you listen to some of the interviews its pretty clear that Michael Bain hasn’t even looked at most of the evidence and has just ‘accepted’ without question the police case against David. I heard one where he didn’t accept that the police had made mistakes, was clinging to the ‘no evidence’ myth and was repeatedly saying ‘Robin wouldn’t have done this’ I feel sorry for him in that he should have been able to expect that the investigating cops should have done a proper job at the time but he seems in denial.
    As for Guest the less said the better, he was a disgrace, defence in 1995 pathetic, allowing unchallenged vital wrong evidence and trying to get David to plead guilty to insanity or automation!

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

    THE CONFUSION EXTENDED TO THE DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
    BETWEEN THE POLICE AND NON-POLICE WORKERS AT THE CRIME SCENE
    560.
    The Police are in charge. The experts provide their specialized knowledge but they are
    not ultimately responsible for putting the prosecution case together (although as the expertise
    becomes more erudite the Police may have to rely to a greater extent on the expert’s view of
    what should be kept). The general rule is, as Det. Sr Sgt Doyle explained,
    A.
    … generally in a situation like that there would be a
    collaborative approach between the person who was
    responsible – the Police officer who was responsible for that
    particular phase and the scientist or expert, whoever it was, it
    would be a collaborative approach on what we should do, but
    ultimately the responsibility still remains with the Police officer.
    Q.
    They’re the ones who carry this exercise forward to trial?
    A.
    Absolutely.302
    561.
    Det. Sgt Weir, the officer in charge of the scene, did not live up to this responsibility in
    important instances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Tattoo.
    A. After my German Shepherd was killed [put down after complaints due to it’s agressive behaviour-obviously David Bain did not have the affinity with animals that he told Binnie he had,not back in 1993,anway] I was quite upset about the situation.
    So upset that he waited months until he decided to have a tattoo done.

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

    The points that indicate ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are numerous and weigh heavily in the bid for compensation.

    The same names keep occurring over and over in these points. Another example above.

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

    Dragonfly
    ‘Why anyone would want to align themselves with someone like Guest is beyond me.’
    I notice that the spinners seem to leap alongside him after he sent that email to Judith Collins about the so called ‘glasses lie’ Dance of the desperate! need to cling to 18 year old evidence, another thread of there spiderweb!

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

    muggins (1,618) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 1:32 pm
    Tattoo.
    A. After my German Shepherd was killed [put down after complaints due to it’s agressive behaviour-obviously David Bain did not have the affinity with animals that he told Binnie he had,not back in 1993,anway] I was quite upset about the situation.
    So upset that he waited months until he decided to have a tattoo done.

    So people who don’t get tattoos done, are not ‘upset’. Getting a tattoo is a sign of ‘being upset’?

    There is no time limit on grief or the way people chose to memorialise the things they grieve for.

    You are stark raving mad.

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

    muggins (1,618) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    So how did she find that tattoo?

    ————————–

    Read the transcript. It tells you how she knew about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (471) Says:

    January 21st, 2013 at 9:39 am
    I have submitted a letter to the Herald. It will not be published. It is a partial answer to a letter that appeared recently. The writer demanded compensation be paid because Bain cannot show factual innocence due to police incompetence. That is a Big Lie. There has been a tireless campaign based on poisonous rumours of incest. It is time to set the record straight. After Laniet moved into the schoolhouse, Robin took a lodger: did he want an observer? Probability? A menage a trois? Probability?

    I have not noticed any letters in the Herald that oppose the Binnie-Bain Axis. What happened to Fairness, Truth and Justice? What happened to reasoning and intellectual honesty? What happened to the New Zealand I was born in? Why did we send my father and his brothers to WWII to fight the Nazis and their propaganda?

    The Herald poll has no statistical validity whatsoever. It isn’t right, it isn’t even wrong. It’s propaganda. Malcolm Muggeridge derided newspapers as a record for posterity. I remember the speech well, about 1977. I remember his face wrinkled with anguish.
    Dennis Horne (471) Says:

    Great letter,Dennis.

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

    @ Psycho Milt
    I will take the admissions of Doyle and Robinson at the retrial as sufficent to judge the PCA report. You seem to be shifting the goalposts. The report clearly states it does not set out to decide whether David was rightly or wrongly convicted in 1995.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,619) Says:

    January 20th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/presumption-of-innocence-vs-balance-of-probabilities
    Brilliant blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    I do not think I will direct my comments you all sing off the same song sheet.

    How exactly were the police meant to know that a sample was contaminated before it was tested, are you saying that it was deliberate?

    I understand the ‘blood’ inside the silencer barrel was contaminated, I guess that was due to the number of people killed with it. Who could tell, until it was tested.

    Is someone on here trying to tell me that David went to the ‘time’,’ trouble’ and ‘expense’ of getting a’professional’ tattoo? (rarely can you walk in off the street, so have to make an appointment, save up his paper money etc) of a subject that had no meaning to him. Tattoos are very symbolic, only an idiot gets one otherwise. Was he drunk when he got it , a bet, wanting to be ‘cool’.

    Two of my children have tattoos, my third child will, if he ever finds something of sufficient meaning, I have one myself, and I can assure you when I got it at 35 after a court case, it certainly had meaning, it is in memory of a watershed event, a line drawn and held.

    Perhaps David got his tattoo to record crashing a motorbike he didn’t own or in anticipation of a coming event. Perhaps David could get one for the family now, since his existing one apparently wasn’t for them. That way they could be with him always. Perhaps he could have a heart with all their names inscribed over his own heart, but then maybe he already has.

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

    What I am left wondering is, why would Guest tell lies to the Minister?
    It is painfully obvious that it’s a lie, but why would he do it?

    Er, it’s obvious? Painfully obvious? Not unless you drank the kool-aid, I suspect. If he is lying, it’s one of a hell of a ballsy lie. In fact, you’d have to say he’s got the bollocks of a horse when you consider that he’s claimed his co-counsel was present when Bain said it and that he told the Crown prosecutor about it – all this in a letter to the Minister of Justice, no less.

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

    I will take the admissions of Doyle and Robinson at the retrial as sufficent to judge the PCA report.

    In other words, no it actually hasn’t been shown to be the most discredited report in the entire case, except in your imagination.

    You seem to be shifting the goalposts. The report clearly states it does not set out to decide whether David was rightly or wrongly convicted in 1995.

    Never claimed it did – have pursued the issue only because you, Nostalgia-NZ and Judith made claims about it you couldn’t substantiate.

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

    Not quite sure what to make of Guest, one week he writes saying that the Binnie report contains errors but David should still receive compensation because of a miscarriage of justice then a week later uses supposed lies to destroy any suggestion of innocence. I think he is a distraction to the case and should just stay out of it. He did enough in 1995 to contribute to the MOJ and his subsequent actions in getting himself struck of show us what a nasty piece of work he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,620) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    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 the people all of the time”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    There goes that friggen’ repeat post again,and 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
  402. Chuck Bird (6,343 comments) says:

    Another family killer. Here is the case of a 15 year old boy who first murders his mother then his three sibling and then waits hours for his father to come home before he also murders him. Does that sound familiar?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/n-m-teen-accused-killing-family-quiet-article-1.1243888

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

    Familiar. yep I bet that son was the only one who deserved to stay…

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

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9579295/Father-killed-his-two-children-and-then-himself-after-family-split.html

    Father Kills his Two Children and then Himself.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-44032/Man-kills-wife-children–shoots-himself.html

    Man kills wife and children & shoots himself. Peter Denyer is under-stood to have been suffering from depression

    http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2121487_father_stabbed_children_then_killed_himself
    Father ‘stabbed children then killed himself’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/what-drove-a-father-to-kill-his-three-children-7962530.html

    Why would a father murder his own children? A quiet village community in Gloucestershire has been left asking just that, following the deaths of Sam, Rebecca and Charlotte Fuller, seemingly victims of a stabbing assault by their father Ceri Fuller. He killed himself.

    http://www.sott.net/article/256732-Father-shoots-wife-and-then-himself-at-daughters-16th-birthday-party

    Father shoots wife and then himself at daughter’s 16th birthday party

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57482026-504083/daryl-benway-mass-father-shoots-his-two-children-kills-one-then-himself-in-weekend-attack-authorities-say/
    Daryl Benway, Mass. father, shoots his two children, kills one, then himself in weekend attack, authorities say

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/07/28/oxford-father-shoots-children-kills-self-says/iQPty6qm3PXbZTUk3ouTlI/story.html
    Jul 29, 2012 – An Oxford man shot his two young children and then turned his gun on himself on Saturday … Oxford father shoots children, kills self, DA says … His wife had moved out, and, according to one family friend, he had lost his job.

    ——————————————

    I could keep posting, but I think Chuck will get the point.

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

    Did any of the fathers who killed their families leave just one adult son, with a message on a computer: I chose you?

    The key to success is the paper round. You can cut an alibi as fine as you like, just a minute or two does the trick…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-6383938/q-a-why-kids-kill-parents/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (54) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    Did any of the fathers who killed their families leave just one adult son, with a message on a computer: I chose you?

    The key to success is the paper round. You can cut an alibi as fine as you like, just a minute or two does the trick…

    Oliver,
    Straight to the point as usual. Those parents don’t choose one member of the family to live. Just doesn’t happen.
    And I see around 250 parents are killed by their children each year in the USA.

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

    Judith,

    You forgot Jeremy Bamber, the then 24 year old who shot and killed his parents, his sister and her two kids…and then, charmingly, blamed his sister for the killings!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber

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

    muggins (1,624) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    And I see around 250 parents are killed by their children each year in the USA.

    It’s estimated that 2,000-3,000 children and youths are murdered each year by parents or caretakers in the United States.

    Familicide: Of 909 cases of mass murder (defined as 4 victims within a 24-hour period) in the US from 1900 to 2000, more than half occurred within an immediate family. Although the total number of familicide cases are relatively rare, they are the most common form of mass killings.

    Familicide is of course where a parent kills one or more of their children, and sometimes themself.

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

    Psycho Milt (999) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Er, it’s obvious? Painfully obvious? Not unless you drank the kool-aid, I suspect. If he is lying, it’s one of a hell of a ballsy lie. In fact, you’d have to say he’s got the bollocks of a horse when you consider that he’s claimed his co-counsel was present when Bain said it and that he told the Crown prosecutor about it – all this in a letter to the Minister of Justice, no less.

    If you are able to read, then compare what he told the Police Covering Arses in a sworn affidavit, to what he wrote to Collins. Both are VERY different stories, only one can be right, if either of them are, to whom do you think he lied?

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

    It’s not that the figures lie, it’s that the liars figure.

    Nice boy versus dirty old man. Simple saying for simpletons. SSS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith
    On page 17 of the Binnie/Bain interview Bain seems to have forgotten who Nader Turner is yet on page 18 he says that he thought another member of that group said that Laniet was quite excited ,looking forward to coming home.
    Could you let me know who that person was ,please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz
    If Karam and co have written to Judith Collins telling her that Guest told the Crown prosecutor about David Bain telling him that he was wearing those glasses before the Crown prosecutor cross-examined Bain rather than after he started to cross-examine Bain and therefore that means Guest was lying, I reckon that could be counter productive.
    Judith Collins is not stupid. She will see that as a blatant attempt to discredit Guest.
    It does not matter when Guest told the prosecutor that Bain had told him and his co-counsel that he was going to admit to wearing those glasses ,the fact that he did tell them is what counts.
    And you seem to be forgetting that Bain told his aunt he had been wearing those glasses and that one of her daughters witnessed that conversation.

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

    If you are able to read, then compare what he told the Police Covering Arses in a sworn affidavit, to what he wrote to Collins.

    There’s no mention of an affidavit from Guest in the PCA report. Where can it be accessed by those able to read?

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

    muggins (1,626) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    —————————————–

    The fact he remembered ‘someone’ in the group telling him something, doesn’t mean he remembered that person’s name.

    Fact is, as time progresses, names are one of the most forgotten pieces of information, however, most people can recall incidents with greater ease, and some even phone numbers. So I fail to see what your issue is?

    Are you trying to point out that David is a normal person that has forgotten someone’s name from the many that have been mentioned in the process of his conviction and eventual acquittal?

    If that is your intent, then you have done well.

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

    It does not matter when Guest told the prosecutor that Bain had told him and his co-counsel that he was going to admit to wearing those glasses,the fact that he did tell them is what counts.

    Well, we know that Bill Wright went public in a TV doco, saying that he expected there would be no argument regarding David admitting to wearing his mother’s glasses. So, Wright backs up what Guest has told Collins. But the Bain cultists, instead of asking some questions of their blue eyed boy, decide to shoot the messenger. Predictable.

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

    muggins (1,626) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    ———————-

    Obviously you don’t have all the information regarding Guest.
    Your post indicates how little you do know on the matter, and my advice to Kanz is that he doesn’t tell you the rest.

    KANZ,

    If you are reading this, let the old boy continue to make a fool of himself.

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=F4iG4wzSUsI

    Wright confirms Guest’s statement at 31:15.

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

    Judith Collins is not stupid. She will see that as a blatant attempt to discredit Guest.

    No, she is not stupid, and will see that Guest discredited himself.
    It matters not when he lied, or who to, the fact that he couldn’t remember what he told or who he told or when he told the story, it changed. Now, if he wasn’t lying, why would the story change?
    Bain’s story, on record, has remained exactly the same for almost 18 years, how come the other ones don’t? Even the Aunt’s story has changed. Firstly it was a conversation between her and Bain, now it was her, Bain and Heidi.

    This from the PCA report,
    “The Police were unable to establish the origin of the spectacles.”
    Yet Guest said he had told them before the trial they were Margaret’s, when he said Bain would say he had worn them.
    Who was lying there?

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

    Collins has no intention of giving into thugs or anyone else.

    Maintaining the same story year in year out is almost a guarantee it’s fiction. It’s not normal.

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

    Oliver Twist (56) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Collins has no intention of giving into thugs or anyone else.

    And nor should she. Her job is to see that Justice is dispensed fairly and swiftly.
    Bain has jumped through all the hoops put before him, and should now be paid compensation.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,000) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    There’s no mention of an affidavit from Guest in the PCA report. Where can it be accessed by those able to read?

    You are right, I can’t find it in there.
    However, it is mentioned in the Thorpe report that it was common ground BEFORE the trial that he would admit to wearing them, so the affidavit must have been admitted to a hearing before that report was written.
    I notice even in there lies were told by Wright concerning the glasses.

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

    Maintaining the same story year in year out is almost a guarantee it’s fiction. It’s not normal.

    Maybe in your world the truth changes, in mine it always remains the same.
    Obviously in Guest’s world it changes too.

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

    The silent majority don’t think Bain’s innocent. Collins knows that.

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

    It’s not Truth that changes, it’s the story. People’s memories and interpretations change with time. That’s normal. You don’t understand that, Kanz, because you are not normal. You have no insight or judgement.

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

    Oliver Twist (58) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    The silent majority don’t think Bain’s innocent. Collins knows that.

    The silent majority will be the 74% who were polled and said they believed he should be paid compensation, while 19% said no. Collins definitely knows that. 😉

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

    Tell me, Kanz, when did you first believe David was innocent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (1,626) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    —————————————–

    The fact he remembered ‘someone’ in the group telling him something, doesn’t mean he remembered that person’s name.

    Fact is, as time progresses, names are one of the most forgotten pieces of information, however, most people can recall incidents with greater ease, and some even phone numbers. So I fail to see what your issue is?

    Are you trying to point out that David is a normal person that has forgotten someone’s name from the many that have been mentioned in the process of his conviction

    What my issue is ,Judith,is that Bain lied to Binnie,and once again Binnie let him get away with it. No-one came forward and said Laniet was excited to be going home,looking forward to going home that Sunday night.
    He lied, I know he lied,and you know he lied.

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

    Oliver Twist (59) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    Tell me, Kanz, when did you first believe David was innocent?

    After hearing the evidence in the retrial. Prior to that I was sure he was guilty, in other words I believed the boys in blue. How about you?

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

    What pieces of evidence persuaded you?

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

    No-one came forward and said Laniet was excited to be going home,looking forward to going home that Sunday night.

    Read Kyle Cunningham’s evidence again. 😉

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

    Oliver Twist (60) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    What pieces of evidence persuaded you?

    All of Dempster’s.
    Walsh’s, on the footprints.
    The fact that the Crown case changed so much from the first trial (as I said earlier truth doesn’t change).
    Weir’s change of evidence.
    The contact shot to the old man, including the trajectory.
    The blood on the inside of the old man’s hands.

    Far too much to bother listing here.

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

    Oliver Twist (58) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    It’s not Truth that changes, it’s the story. People’s memories and interpretations change with time. That’s normal. You don’t understand that, Kanz, because you are not normal. You have no insight or judgement.

    —————

    Whilst you are partially right, you are also partially wrong. Peoples memories deteriorate with time. They forget certain aspects, however the essence of their memories in what they remember does not change.

    For example, you may have ridden a grey horse down a beach with Fred and George. When you are older, you might recall riding a horse, not the colour, and ‘think’ it was with Fred, and someone else you can’t recall the name of, but his horse was a gelding. You might remember the times you spent with Fred ‘back then’, and be able to recall them, but you might have forgotten Fred died last year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    How is that tattoo of David’s? The one remembering his whole family?

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

    Dempster thought it wasn’t suicide, the trajectory was unusual.
    The footprints in blood are meaningless, there is no way of knowing they were complete.
    Most agree it was not close contact shot, the one close contact shot we know about has a much bigger entry hole.

    Too much too much evidence to bother listing? Much more likely the evidence is irrelevant to your faith.

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

    Forgotten Fred died last year. Was he riding with David?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Well it looks like Judith Collins is still the Minister of Justice 😉 Onwards and upwards.

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

    You are right, I can’t find it in there.
    However, it is mentioned in the Thorpe report that it was common ground BEFORE the trial that he would admit to wearing them, so the affidavit must have been admitted to a hearing before that report was written.

    Which basically means it’s not “obvious” Guest is lying, in fact there’s nothing to suggest his statement to Collins is incorrect.

    I notice even in there lies were told by Wright concerning the glasses.

    All these people lying about David Bain for no reason – there seems no end to them.

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

    Oliver Twist (62) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Dempster thought it wasn’t suicide, the trajectory was unusual.
    The footprints in blood are meaningless, there is no way of knowing they were complete.
    Most agree it was not close contact shot, the one close contact shot we know about has a much bigger entry hole.

    Dempster thought it impossible in the first trial when he had been told the rifle was 8 inches longer than it was. In the retrial he accepted than it was more than possible without any contortions, best he could say was HE had never seen one like it before.
    The footprints in the first trial and subsequently, were held to be complete Hentschel only changed that for the retrial, and tried to ‘fudge’ what he had previously maintained. Even Binnie made allowances for extra, but it didn’t help the prosecution case. Not to mention Weir describing them as being like footprints in sand.
    That shot to Laniet wasn’t close contact, it was fired through a piece of cloth or something.

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

    Which basically means it’s not “obvious” Guest is lying, in fact there’s nothing to suggest his statement to Collins is incorrect.

    Oh, it’s obvious alright. He has signed affidavits, and Wright has said that it was common ground BEFORE the first trial began.
    Guest now tells Collins that being the ethical man that he was, he told Wright AFTER Bain has testified, and 3 days before the trial ENDED.
    Both stories can’t be true.
    According to the Thorpe report, Wright said that he only left the question of the glasses ownership in the air because Bain had lied about wearing them. The truth is, he asked about the wearing well AFTER disputing the ownership.
    If only these people could remember what they said and did, when they said and did it and why they said and did it.

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

    Possible is not the same as likely or even remotely likely. Dempster had never seen one. Ever. Semantics. The trajectory did not change. Doesn’t look very persuasive to me, in context of all the other evidence – blood and so on. Amazing.

    Doesn’t matter what Hentschel thought or said, looking back now it is clear there was and is no way of being certain. Sure you hadn’t just made your mind up and grabbed at this?

    How does firing through a piece of cloth like a sheet make the entry hole bigger?

    Funny, the second trial persuaded you: “Guilty” to innocent. It didn’t persuade an unknown of jurors. Why is that, do you think?

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

    I do have some questions about those glasses, though.
    It has been accepted that Bain had a busy weekend, and nobody saw him wearing glasses.
    It seems to have been accepted that in the past he had borrowed his Mother’s glasses for watching TV, attending lectures and driving, when his weren’t available.

    My problem is, assuming he killed his family, did he think he was just going to watch a video of the murders, did he think he was going to be lectured while killing them, or did he drive to Stephen’s room?.

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

    Oliver Twist (63) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    Are you able to explain how the old man got residual blood-wash on the inside of his hand?

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

    Bain typically wore those glasses when his were unserviceable. Give us one explanation why they were broken with one lens in Stephen’s room.

    Why did he say he hadn’t seen them for a year or whatever?

    Explain why Bain asked the Police for his glasses, sometime after they arrived.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Psyco Milt floundering for stupid arguments so you’ve adopted those of ross. Meanwhile tattoos have replaced donkeys, or was it goats for the similarly un-enlightened.

    I think Michael Bain had the same faith in police that David once had. As for Mrs Clarke and all the others with ‘excuses’ for remembering things 5 or 15 years later I don’t believe a bit of it.

    Someone above in a rare coherent moment suggested that those that think David should be paid are all singing off the same song sheet, entirely true it’s called evidence. Whilst those that ‘know’ ask questions of why would somebody have done something or what they would have done in a vain attempt to disprove the obvious that robin bain killed himself. There’s every advantage in knowing the evidence, one of the best reasons is to avoid believing the lies of the JFRBainers, not one of them ever explains why they lie, none every rebukes another for lying or making a ‘mistake,’ yet they are people without much life experience and it shows time and again. The rare few that happen along that do have some brains generally depart the scene, in 19 years neither the crown or the sisters have put a coherent argument together step by step which shows either David or Robin guilty, but the defence did, easily. Though the best thing about knowing the evidence is the confidence of supporting a man fighting an ongoing MOJ, that ultimately is even a benefit for the antis and an improving society.

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

    Blood wash? Who said it was wash? Funny his hands still had soil on them when he died.

    Blood smear. Yes. Someone wiped blood off his hand.

    Tell me, someone had a shower. Who was that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Which shot to Laniet? The psychology of a shooter needing to shoot through something must be interesting? Why would someone need to do that ‘Judith’? I have heard that it is to dehumanise the activity, my guess is that it was the last shot, someone not wanting to see what a hash they had made of it, that is of course unless the object was to make Laniet suffer more, more than for example Margaret.
    Actually one would think the 5 bullet clip would have been sufficient in the first instance, since apparently the ten clip had a flaw that made it misfire? Unless of course it was always the intention to shoot each victim more than once?

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

    Oliver Twist (65) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    Blood wash? Who said it was wash? Funny his hands still had soil on them when he died.

    Blood smear. Yes. Someone wiped blood off his hand.

    Tell me, someone had a shower. Who was that?

    Because the remaining blood showed he had only rinsed his hands, not washed them.

    No, not smear, have you seen the photos?

    Where is the evidence that anybody had a shower that morning, in that house?

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

    Oliver Twist (65) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    ———————————–

    So, leaving the trajectory aside, why do you think Robin Bain died whilst standing on one leg, with the other bent at the knee, facing forward, as the blood spatter confirms, and is acknowledged by the Crown?

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

    “Third, the Crown Law Office properly concedes that many of the issues advanced in the
    1995 prosecution are no longer tenable, including the impossibility of Robin’s suicide by reason
    of the length of the rifle compared to the length of his arm, the position of Robin’s body on the
    floor of the lounge, the bouncing empty shell casing, and the placement of the 10 shot
    magazine….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (65) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 7:44 pm
    Blood wash? Who said it was wash? Funny his hands still had soil on them when he died.

    Blood smear. Yes. Someone wiped blood off his hand.

    Tell me, someone had a shower. Who was that?’

    For real, what trial transcript is your ‘information’ coming from. Not from a the music sheet of ‘Twisting by the pool?’

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

    If Robin did not have a shower, why is his body not covered in blood?

    The Crown does not accept he shot himself. If he died standing by the chair, how did he end up where he did?

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

    “Third, the Crown Law Office properly concedes that many of the issues advanced in the
    1995 prosecution are no longer tenable, including the impossibility of Robin’s suicide by reason
    of the length of the rifle compared to the length of his arm, the position of Robin’s body on the
    floor of the lounge, the bouncing empty shell casing, and the placement of the 10 shot
    magazine….”

    So much for the Crown Law Office. Haven’t a clue. No wonder Bain got a “not guilty”. Why bother having a trial? Toss a coin and send everyone home for lunch. Three months of twaddle. Being able to shoot yourself in a certain way does not mean you did. A cartridge case possibly bouncing through a gap does not mean it did or it is likely. Placement of magazine, placement of body? Yeah, and I’m Elvis Pressley and you’re Madonna.

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

    Oliver Twist (66) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:03 pm
    If Robin did not have a shower, why is his body not covered in blood?
    ——————————

    Because it was presumed he was not naked with he shot his family.

    The Crown accepts the position his body was found, as being consistent with the suicide scenario. They also concede the position in which he received his fatal shot, as proven by the blood spatter. They concede suicide was possible using the gun, and it would not have involved awkward contortions. They just haven’t gone so far as to admit those facts strongly indicate it was suicide, and of course they won’t. If they did then its game over for them, and they open themselves up to all sorts hell.

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

    Oliver Twist (67) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    A cartridge case possibly bouncing through a gap does not mean it did or it is likely.

    You really don’t know much about the evidence do you?
    There wasn’t any ‘bouncing cartridge case’.

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

    Judith (972) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:17 pm
    You really don’t know much about the evidence do you?

    How obvious is that?
    Any body who does know the evidence well says innocent.
    All except those whose arses are on the line, and those who think they have something to gain by Bain being guilty.

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

    How did the case get through into the other room? An ejected case doesn’t bounce?

    Conceding a possibility is not the same as proof. This is semantics, not science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8206317/Teen-accused-of-killing-family-had-clean-past

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

    Judith or N-NZ, are you able to help with the questions I asked here?

    Kanz (722) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    I can’t get my head around why Bain would even bother to wear those glasses to make a few close contact head shots on a dark morning.

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

    “Any body who does know the evidence well says innocent.”

    Really? I don’t think so. The police know the evidence well; they think he’s guilty. McNeish and van Beynen attended the trials, they both think he’s guilty.

    It’s only those who view the evidence a certain way who think Bain is innocent. Lala.

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

    Guest now tells Collins that being the ethical man that he was, he told Wright AFTER Bain has testified, and 3 days before the trial ENDED.

    I think we’ve been over this at least a dozen times. This is what Guest told Collins:

    “in response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did. Mr W.J. Wright, for the Crown, decided that due to the fact that we were in the closing three days of an almost three week trial, we would simply let matters lie and proceed.”

    Clearly, Guest didn’t realise David was going to lie until he did lie, 3 days from the end of the trial. You seem to think that Guest should have been able to predict that David was going to lie. He isn’t psychic. After David lied, Guest informed Wright of it. But pre-trial, Guest had apparently informed Wright that there was no dispute over David wearing his mother’s glasses. Guest probably informed Wright about other matters too.

    But I see you’re blaming the messenger and giving your blue eyed boy a free ride. What a surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Jolly Olly:

    ‘So much for the Crown Law Office. Haven’t a clue. No wonder Bain got a “not guilty”. Why bother having a trial? Toss a coin and send everyone home for lunch. Three months of twaddle. Being able to shoot yourself in a certain way does not mean you did. A cartridge case possibly bouncing through a gap does not mean it did or it is likely. Placement of magazine, placement of body? Yeah, and I’m Elvis Pressley and you’re Madonna.’

    So you don’t agree with anybody except yourself. Good start, when does the meltdown begin?

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

    Well, Bain didn’t have the glasses after Stephen broke them. He banged around the house leaving blood on the door jambs.

    Does that answer your question, Kanz?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    No-one came forward and said Laniet was excited to be going home,looking forward to going home that Sunday night.

    Read Kyle Cunningham’s evidence again.
    Kanz (722) Says:
    Bain said in that group on the Sunday. No-one in that group said Laniet was excited to be going home. The two witnesses that gave evidence she didn’t want to go home that night,she was frightened of David,he was freaky.
    But if Cunningham is right then Cottle must be lying,take your pick.

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

    muggins (1,628) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    Sources told the paper the teen had long had murder/suicide fantasies.

    Neighbors said they’d often seen Nehemiah walking around in Army fatigues.

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

    All these people lying about David Bain for no reason – there seems no end to them.

    That’s right, some 90 prosecution witnesses all lied. Even David’s lawyer lied!. Just as well David could be relied on to tell the truth. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    For liars this is who I pick:

    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.

    And now it 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.

    And now 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. it:

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

    Kanz (723) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    I do have some questions about those glasses, though.
    It has been accepted that Bain had a busy weekend, and nobody saw him wearing glasses.
    It seems to have been accepted that in the past he had borrowed his Mother’s glasses for watching TV, attending lectures and driving, when his weren’t available.

    My problem is, assuming he killed his family, did he think he was just going to watch a video of the murders, did he think he was going to be lectured while killing them, or did he drive to Stephen’s room?.

    LOL
    Whilst it would be impossible to know what he was thinking, I am reasonably sure he was not thinking any of those things. However, the house did look like someone had driven into it with a garbage truck! You might be on to something. 😉

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

    Oliver Twist (70) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    Well, Bain didn’t have the glasses after Stephen broke them. He banged around the house leaving blood on the door jambs.

    Does that answer your question, Kanz?
    ———————————

    Actually that comment proves quite the opposite.

    If he had banged into door frames, that means he was very close to them. David Bain is short sighted. His ‘up close vision’ is perfect. He just cannot see detail at a distance.

    But Robin Bain was long-sighted, and if either of the two were more likely to bang into door frames etc that they were close to, it would have been Robin Bain.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,547) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    It has been confirmed that that officer says Bain was indeed stripped naked for the body search, but that he can say he didn’t see it because Bain and Pryde were behind a screen. 😉

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

    Of course I don’t agree with the Crown Law Office. More evidence than you could shake a stick at and the sod walked free.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body
    Spot the blood on Robin Bain’s hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Even better, spot the bulls….er.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    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.
    And JC will be made aware of this. That Police officer still works for the police.

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

    in response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did. Mr W.J. Wright, for the Crown, decided that due to the fact that we were in the closing three days of an almost three week trial, we would simply let matters lie and proceed.”

    Yes, that is what he told Collins. Unfortunately for you, you posted a link earlier, where the Crown prosecutor said, himself, that he was told pretrial.

    So, was it pretrial as Wright said, or was it three days before the end of a three week trial, as Guest told Collins?
    Ya pays ya money and ya takes ya pick, huh?

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

    David Bain banged into door frames because he was in a manic panic, nothing to do with sight.

    Not easy for a nice boy to shoot Mum, strangle brother (so strong) then shoot sisters, and Dad.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,547) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:31 pm
    when does the meltdown begin?

    Already done, in another life! 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Manic panic is sure catching on.

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

    Oliver Twist (72) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    —————————————-

    Do you remember those glass frames, the ones you said were bent in three places. Well I happened to come across a photo of those glasses taken for evidential purposes and guess what ? You were wrong. 😉

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

    Oliver Twist (72) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:59 pm

    David Bain banged into door frames because he was in a manic panic, nothing to do with sight.

    But earlier you said,

    Oliver Twist (72) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 8:36 pm

    Well, Bain didn’t have the glasses after Stephen broke them. He banged around the house leaving blood on the door jambs.

    You need to take the time to work out what you really do think before posting.

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

    So, was it pretrial as Wright said, or was it three days before the trial ended as Guest told Collins?

    Obviously you think the two are mutually exclusive. Three days before the trial ended Guest didn’t know David was going to lie.

    Maybe you could answer this: Did David really hate his father, as he apparently told his aunt, or were they “extremely close”, as he told Binnie?

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

    Bain won’t get compensation. Collins won’t give in on this one. What are the chances of getting another dud review?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Oh look, ross isn’t talking about the evidence again. What a surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    But Robin Bain was long-sighted, and if either of the two were more likely to bang into door frames etc that they were close to, it would have been Robin Bain.

    Silly old him leaving his glasses in the caravan wasn’t it? I guess he wasn’t planning on reading the paper that he apparently brought in either. Didn’t plan it very well then did he.

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

    “Well, Bain didn’t have the glasses after Stephen broke them. He banged around the house leaving blood on the door jambs.”

    Which one of these statements is not true?

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

    Oh, it’s obvious alright. He has signed affidavits, and Wright has said that it was common ground BEFORE the first trial began.
    Guest now tells Collins that being the ethical man that he was, he told Wright AFTER Bain has testified, and 3 days before the trial ENDED.
    Both stories can’t be true.

    I see Ross69 has pointed out the fairly obvious flaw in this, but let’s recap: Guest says he pointed out to Wright that Bain had lied either to Guest or to the court after Bain testified he hadn’t worn those glasses for a year. Nothing in that contradicts Guest’s and Wright’s statements that their understanding before Bain testified was that he wouldn’t dispute that he was wearing the glasses that weekend. The reason Bain opted to surprise them both is something he alone is in a position to explain. He chooses not to.

    …Hentschel only changed that for the retrial…

    That is incorrect, as I’ve already pointed out to Judith on this thread.

    My problem is, assuming he killed his family, did he think he was just going to watch a video of the murders, did he think he was going to be lectured while killing them, or did he drive to Stephen’s room?

    The evidence is the evidence, regardless of your opinion of whether it’s reasonable for it to exist or not. In this instance, the evidence we have is:
    1. David Bain was known to wear the glasses when his were in for repair.
    2. According to multiple witnesses, he said he was wearing them that weekend.
    3. The next day, the glasses were damaged.
    4. The glasses were in David’s room minus one lens.
    5. The missing lens turned up in Stephen’s room.

    Your opinion on whether David Bain would actually need glasses on in order to engage in a fight to the death with his brother is irrelevant, the fact remains that items 1-5 suggest that he did so. whether he actually did or not is open to question, the fact that the glasses are evidence is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,827) Says:

    January 22nd, 2013 at 5:24 pm
    It does not matter when Guest told the prosecutor that Bain had told him and his co-counsel that he was going to admit to wearing those glasses,the fact that he did tell them is what counts.

    Well, we know that Bill Wright went public in a TV doco, saying that he expected there would be no argument regarding David admitting to wearing his mother’s glasses. So, Wright backs up what Guest has told Collins. But the Bain cultists, instead of asking some questions of their blue eyed boy, decide to shoot the messenger. Predictable.

    Exactly,Ross. Judith Collins is not stupid. She will treat all attempts to shoot the messenger with the contempt they deserve.
    She knows Bain was lying when he said he wasn’t wearing those glasses. She will have read the Binnie / Bain interview where Bain mentions that chair. What a load of bollocks. And somehow he can drive without glasses when Laniet is in the car with him but he can’t drive without glasses when she isn’t in the car with him. I bet Judith Collins had a good laugh about that.
    And how tea suddenly becomes coffee.
    In Trial by Ambush it is tea.
    At that conference it is tea.
    But in the Binnie /Bain interview it becomes coffee. I bet Judith Collins had a good laugh about that.

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

    Maybe you could answer this: Did David really hate his father, as he apparently told his aunt, or were they “extremely close”, as he told Binnie?

    Well, we know for certain what he told Binnie.
    We can’t say the same for what his Aunty has said. What was the context? What words did he actually use? Had he been led to say that? Is that simply what she thought she heard?

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

    ‘More evidence than you could shake a stick at’
    Exactly what did the crown prove at the retrial, absolutely NOTHING, none of the evidence stood up on its own cumulatively as most of the spinners seem to like. None of the crown allegations were proved at all. Most relied on erronous assumptions where the defence explanations held a lot more common sense. You need to be looking at the case with a guilty mind in order to swallow much of the crown case. 1995 evidence was shown to be demonstratably false, and certain experts misled the jury and lied Kim Jones, Hentschell and Weir.
    If you look in the lounge (which of course the crown stayed well away from) then it clearly shows that Robins death was extremely unlikely not to be self inflicted. Robin would have had to have got into the position that could self inflict the wound to be consistent with the blood splatter and then wait for David to have two gos, probability <1%
    2 crown pathologists claim suicide unlikely based on their incorrect photo analysis of a intermediate/distant wound. Dempster claims unlikely but agreed with the defence photos and demonstrations that it was straightforward and required no difficult contortions. I think there were 7 photos that Dempster agreed that showed suicide highly probable.
    The spinners seem to use their old tactics of denial and marginalise by pretending its not a contact wound and hiding behind scenarios shown to be totally wrong such as kneeling in prayer or sitting on the beanbag.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    “Which one of those statements is not true?”

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Further to this from Judith:

    Hentshchell was very strongly adamant that the print was complete right up until the retrial…

    Bollocks. Police Complaints Authority Report,1997, p105:

    “Mr Hentschel has been
    interviewed as part of this Review. He expressed the opinion the best
    footprint he saw would almost be a total length print but you might not see
    the extremities of the toes and heel. He agrees in hindsight he should
    have perhaps qualified his evidence by saying he may not have been able
    to see the extremities of the heel and toes.”
    As pointed out by Psycho Milt.

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

    Wait for it we have a new important piece of evidence not heard by the jury to decide guilt BRD once and for all. Last week it was the correct spelling of the dogs name and Davids tattoos, this week we go one better. The most important piece of evidence to decide the case is:
    whether David had intended to make Margaret a cup of tea rather than coffee

    This the best you can do Muggins LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. Scott1 (975 comments) says:

    This is the thread that never ends. It just goes on and on my friends. Some people started reading it not knowing what it was, And they’ll continue reading it forever just because…..

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

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    At trial Bain told the court that his mother had told him his father wasn’t going to be part of the new house.
    He told Binnie his father was going to have a room in the new house.
    Which one of those statements is true?
    Hard to know really. I mean Bain lied on oath in court and he lied on oath to Binnie.

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

    Well, we know for certain what he told Binnie. We can’t say the same for what his Aunty has said.

    But I think you’ll find that in a round about way he admitted to Binnie that he did indeed hate his father…which makes his claim that the family were close all the more absurd.

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

    Rowan (416) Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 9:13 pm

    Incredible, isn’t it?
    The main planks of the first trial have been destroyed and abandoned, yet they still stick to the ‘hunch’ theory. Seems we don’t really need evidence in this country now, hunches will do it.

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

    Further to the above – here’s what Hentschel said to the PCA way back in 1997:

    He agrees in hindsight he should
    have perhaps qualified his evidence by saying he may not have been able
    to see the extremities of the heel and toes.

    Of course, being an intelligent and rational man himself, the fact that it was physically impossible for him to determine whether the print included the extremities of heel and toes would have been quite obvious to him, so it’s understandable he might regard it as self-evident. In 1995, he most likely never imagined his words would be seized on by a fundamentally irrational man determined to leave no straw unclutched in seeking to convince people of Robin Bain’s guilt.

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

    Same old arguments Milt
    Still nothing to link the glasses to the killings just another string to the spiderweb. How did the ‘dusty’ lens get dislodged and in a place where it would be very unlikely to get had it been involved in the fight? Did David do a Dottie and deliberately crumple them up while removing the other lens so the bruise on the right side of his face didn’t match the missing left lens? maybe he used tweezers to move the lens clean it and place it back in Stephens room and then to take the broken frames to his room to avoid leaving any forensic material on it.
    Better explanation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt. You’re so funny. So the Crown where so confident that David was wearing the glasses, that is the reason why they hid evidence that the glasses belonged to Margaret and not David. But hold on, they don’t have single witness who saw him wearing them, but they do have some discredited witnesses that ‘claim’ David told them he was wearing. Well whoopi, there is no evidence, even from dickheads who remembered things years later while struggling with their private bits in a graveyard somewhere, that the glasses were connected to the murders/suicide.

    What might happen between yourself and yourself among gravestones late at night is fine with me. However, claiming that something of which there is no physical proof even happened, doesn’t overcome, old sunshine, daddy’s bloody hands and deliberately chosen suicide site. Work on that.

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