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.

Tags: , ,

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

  1. Eisenhower (134 comments) says:

    Another 800 comments?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    KiwiBlog should be renamed KiwiBain.
    The obsession continues.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    having a Bain thread continually on the go, all a part of DPF’s cunning plan to capture the number one spot in the next blog rankings !!

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

    Same old story – Collins will find a Tory to compile a third report that does not find Bain innocent. She will take the report to Cabinet and state Bain should not recieve compensation.

    There are two sides in this debate. The majority in Cabinet think Bain is guilty and do not want him to receive compensation.

    It makes a mockery of a civil society, but that’s Tory politics for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Archer (156 comments) says:

    I agree with the three previous posters. I’m going to read a post then leave a comment complaining that people are reading posts and leaving comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    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

    Before I read Binnie’s report, I assumed that’s what he’d done – which made his finding extremely counter-intuitive. On reading the thing you find he’s actually gone through and re-hashed the question of whether each piece of evidence proves David Bain’s guilt or not. That the answer tends to be “Not” is anything but counter-intuitive, but that’s not what he was asked to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (12,388 comments) says:

    At what stage did the Bain case become on of left v right?

    I thought it was about justice (or the lack of it for Robin Bain).

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

    Too many people are very confused about the compensation process. Bain has to prove he is innocent, not show miscarriage of justice, poor evidence gathering, or the fact he was found not guilty shows he is innocent. There has to be not one bit of doubt about who did it and there just is not, as CK Stead has pointed out.

    For some reason it has now turned into a left vs right argument. Take a look at the comment here from Sanctuary: http://robertwinter.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/as-i-wrote-other-day-bain-case-is.html

    In short, Sanctuary says he probably did it but I hate right wingers so pay him money.

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

    This has always been about Left v Right. Just look at who thinks he should be paid compensation and those who seek to discredit the Binnie report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. big bruv (12,388 comments) says:

    hamnida

    So what you are saying is that the left don’t care if Bain is innocent or not, they want him to be paid compensation so they can claim a victory over the government.

    Come to think of it that is pretty normal behaviour for the left, they have no problems wasting tax payer money at any time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Reid (15,604 comments) says:

    This has always been about Left v Right. Just look at who thinks he should be paid compensation and those who seek to discredit the Binnie report.

    I think he should be compensated and I’m not a lefty. Sometimes my fellow conservatives just get a little totally confused and start tilting at the wrong windmill, in this case, the one called ‘did Bain do it’ rather than the correct one, called ‘has the system dispensed justice in this case.’ Note that the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with the former and you can explain that all you like to the silly old conservatives using logic galore, but just like Don Quixote, the silly old fools just ignore the whole thing and keep charging at the same old meme, in thread after thread after thread after thread, just like the idiot lefties do with AGW.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    This has always been about Left v Right. Just look at who thinks he should be paid compensation and those who seek to discredit the Binnie report

    If that were true, it would mean people on the left tend to be overly gullible and reckless with taxpayers’ money. I expect you’ll find a lot of takers for your view on this blog…

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

    Big Burv – No, but I have noticed a Left/Right divide in the whole debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    So far, no dotcom lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    ‘If that were true, it would mean people on the left tend to be overly gullible and reckless with taxpayers’ money. I expect you’ll find a lot of takers for your view on this blog…’

    The Beehive are as much troughers as any long term beneficiary

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Lance (2,311 comments) says:

    Ham-N-eggs v2

    So whats a Tory in terms of NZ politics?

    Haven’t heard of a Tory party in NZ. Maybe you are confusing cloth capped British politics with NZ politics?
    In which case it appears you uphold the class system.

    Personally I think the class system sucks the sweat off dead men’s balls.
    But you obviously think otherwise.

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

    I would like to ask a theoretical question. Is it possible for an agreement to be drawn up which says:
    “1. The Crown acknowledges that if certain evidence (as discussed bt the PC) if presented at the first trial might have lead to a not guilty verdict. Compensation will be paid.
    2. Nothing in this agreement implies in any way that Robin Bain has been proven guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.”
    And then ask DB to sign on the dotted line?
    That way, nobody comes out as a loser even though nobody emerges a clear winner either. After all, statement number 2 is a fact, as indeed is statement number 2.

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

    Sorry, number 1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. thedavincimode (6,133 comments) says:

    Left vs Right??

    If indeed further evidence was in fact required to prove that hamhead is a delusional fuckwit of the first order, then this is it. If the 4,000 odd posts in the last month have highlighted anything, it is that for the first time ever, a number of campers at opposite poles of the political spectrum have actually agreed on something for the first time. The “something” being that David Bain killed his family and should not get a single pesato of taxpayer money.

    What is the process hamhead? Do you just think shit up that suits your odd outlook on the world, makes you feel better about yourself, and then post it here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    The dear Professor falls at the first hurdle, the evidence Binnie accepted regarding the footprint was the Crown’s own witness not that of the defence. One expert for the defence and a second expert for the Crown agreed on the footprint evidence as well. It’s in the report, but maybe Karl was reading Women’s Day.

    Despite DPF implying otherwise, Binnie was appointed for an independent report, it’s just that Ms Collins didn’t like it.

    But you are exonerating Robin with such a statement which wasn’t the point of the application Mexican. But what the heck I’d imagine that any such rejoinder wouldn’t be objectionable to most reasonable people that make up the 74% of the population who think David should be paid. I think nevertheless it will end up in Court first to confirm the status or otherwise of Binnie’s report then the way in which it was dealt with by the Minister.

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

    I think I just proved my point.

    If the issue is not political, then why does Judith Collins front the matter? Why does a Bain post on a Right wing blog draw 800 comments in the middle of summer.

    Most Tories I speak to think Bain is guilty. Most liberals don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Mexican

    “Is it possible for an agreement to be drawn up which says:

    “1. The Crown acknowledges that if certain evidence (as discussed bt the PC) if presented at the first trial might have lead to a not guilty verdict. Compensation will be paid.
    2. Nothing in this agreement implies in any way that Robin Bain has been proven guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.”
    And then ask DB to sign on the dotted line?””

    Nope. Sorry, I wouldn’t be happy with that compromise.

    We should not be responsible for David Bain’s lawyer supposedly failing to adequately prepare the case with the tax-payer funded legal aid, nor for David Bain supposedly failing to instruct his lawyer sufficiently, nor for David Bain performing so badly on the stand when he chose to testify on his own behalf at the first trial.

    And from what I understand the PC did not enter into discussion on whether, “certain evidence if presented at the first trial might have lead to a not guilty verdict”, other than to say,

    …”we have no opinion, because it is not our prerogative to determine facts,

    …nor is it the prerogative of the courts of appeal who have said it wouldn’t have lead to a not guilty verdict anyway (so therefore the verdict of the jury in the first trial is quashed, not because it was wrong, but because they didn’t get to hear this new evidence),

    …because that prerogative lies solely with a jury.

    The jury made its decision, based on the criteria of reasonable doubt that heavily favoured David. The onus was on the Prosecution.

    Now the onus is rightly on David, especially a dead man’s reputation is inextricably on the line. You may favour phrases such as, “Nothing in this agreement implies in any way that Robin Bain has been proven guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt”. Robin was never tried subject to “reasonable doubt”. Instead his reputation has been maligned by people who rejoice that David has been acquitted on the basis of,”reasonable doubt”, but they NEVER applied the same criterion to Robin.

    Like the judge said at the first trial, “Who did it? Robin or David?”. The question of the FACTS of the case have never changed.

    You get to malign the dead to stir up public support for an appeal and re-trial process, and gain a resulting acquittal. Good luck to you if you get away with it. You don’t to get compensation for maligning the dead, or dodging the question of Robin’s guilt when you have to establish your innocence/Robin’s guilt (because they are the two sides to the one coin) on the balance of probabilities as a minimum standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thedavincimode (6,133 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    Still with the bare-faced distortions? It’s great that you’re continuing with this instead of doing anything enjoyable or useful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. thedavincimode (6,133 comments) says:

    Most Tories I speak to think Bain is guilty. Most liberals don’t.

    Heh. There’s a whole lotta insight right there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. thedavincimode (6,133 comments) says:

    ##@*& edit :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. alex (298 comments) says:

    Surely, as adults, we can consider this case as more than just left vs right? Are we really that sad? (Cue various tribalists pointing the finger at the other side)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wreck1080 (3,533 comments) says:

    “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.”

    To some, the procedure is only correct when it finds against David Bain.

    Really!

    I don’t think anyone can legitimately state whether Bain is guilty or innocent. Only that there is insufficient evidence to determine this. An opinion is rather meaningless.

    And, I can only presume Canada has a rubbish justice system if people supposedly as incompetent as Binnie can reach such great heights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    I don’t think anyone can legitimately state whether Bain is guilty or innocent. Only that there is insufficient evidence to determine this. An opinion is rather meaningless.

    Quite correct. And if Cabinet had taken that view, Bain would be owed a sum total $0.00 and we could have skipped Simon Power’s expensive farce of an independent report. However, they didn’t take that view, they decided Bain would be owed compensation if an independent report found he was innocent on the balance of probabilities. Unfortunately, the bloke they got to do the report doesn’t seem to understand the term ‘balance of probabilities,’ so we’re back at square one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    hamnidav2 said

    This has always been about Left v Right. Just look at who thinks he should be paid compensation and those who seek to discredit the Binnie report.

    A sweeping generalisation, surely. No compo for Bain is one of the few areas where I agree with ross69 :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “And, I can only presume Canada has a rubbish justice system if people supposedly as incompetent as Binnie can reach such great heights. ”

    We give them New Year’s Honours

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    The dear Professor falls at the first hurdle, the evidence Binnie accepted regarding the footprint was the Crown’s own witness not that of the defence.

    As usual, you are wrong. What Mr Walsh’s tests showed quite clearly is that a foot about 300mm (Walsh’s own foot is 298mm) could make smaller prints. The argument from Bain’s camp is that because his foot is 300mm, there is no way it could make a print of 280mm. Wrong!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    Nostalgia_NZ said

    Despite DPF implying otherwise, Binnie was appointed for an independent report, it’s just that Ms Collins didn’t like it.

    And Justice Binnie was given Terms of Reference in writing from former Justice Minister Simon Power which Binnie chose not to follow. That he made a recommendation on compensation having NOT been asked to make such a recommendation suggests that he took a less-than-impartial stance.

    Given the legal and factual issues that have been raised in the Binnie report, Judith Collins would have been totally negligent in her role as Minister had she not sought an alternative opinion, and merely written a cheque out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (4,235) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 2:38 pm

    Are you saying Peter Walsh was a defence witness as well? Poor old karl criticised Binnie for accepting Crown evidence.

    Sorry KS Judith Collins was never going to write a cheque out, it was to be a cabinet decision. One of her publicised objections for which she went behind Binnie’s back was because of Guest saying that David told him that he wore his mother’s glasses that weekend. If you bother reading the Binnie report rather than make it up as Karl appears to have done, you’ll see that Binnie concluded that David was wearing the glasses that weekend. Collins has painted herself into a corner, probably also with use of the OIC Act. A report being released in 5 hours after a request must be a record, the normal time is 20 days but you already knew that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. kowtow (6,734 comments) says:

    ham ‘n eggs

    this aint a “right wing blog”,it’s progressive,so more akin to your shitforbrains outlook on life.

    Canadian justice system? Undermined and compromised years ago by the same progressive shit that’s doing for the west all over. It’s not going to improve till the sharia courts are up and running. And given the way our shit pollies are running the show that’s a lot closer than most realise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘A sweeping generalisation, surely. No compo for Bain is one of the few areas where I agree with ross69 ‘

    An indication of desperation surely, but I like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (12,388 comments) says:

    kowtow

    This blog is not right wing enough for you?

    Should DPF start and end the day with a prayer?, perhaps you would like him to shut the blog down every Sunday?

    Please do tell DPF what he could do to improve his blog in your eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sofia (785 comments) says:

    For the others the seemingly unending dysfunction, mess, and shame is ended.
    In a moment I too will be free. We will all be as one. But not you.
    SORRY YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    I think nevertheless it will end up in Court first to confirm the status or otherwise of Binnie’s report then the way in which it was dealt with by the Minister.

    NN-Z

    On what point of law? The process the report relates to is not a legal process; it is neither proscribed by law, nor subject to testing in court from the way the Cabinet guideline has been reported.

    If it ended up in court, the action would be as meaningless as the CIR on asset sales. Somehow I don’t think it would accepted for a hearing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. pq (728 comments) says:

    I am hoping we will hear what our sportsmen have to say, especially famous sportsmen,
    all blacks, also what does Billy T James think

    The Bain thing is now a runaway train. The second trial itself was an exaggerated piece of theatre of the absurd which created emotional responses such that Jurors arrived at Bain parties after the event .
    Over at the Farrar article on Bain there are well over 1000 replies, and the thing talks about quantitative evidence and Beynesian probability.
    It is its own subsidiary theatre of the absurd.
    But this Bain train wreck has changed its plunging course, slowly and surely and it is heading against Bain, even Michael Guest has changed his attitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. UglyTruth (3,147 comments) says:

    wreck1080 (2,579) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    And, I can only presume Canada has a rubbish justice system if people supposedly as incompetent as Binnie can reach such great heights.

    NZ & Canada have different legal systems. Canada looks to English common law, which places more value on ethics that NZ’s civil system. For example, the NZ judicial system will sometimes commit overt fraud, AFAIK this isn’t the case in Canada.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Sofia (785 comments) says:

    pq – yes, a little like knowing all the characters and locations of LORD OF THE RINGS or levels HALO.
    I wonder if Joe has the game rights and those for the Bain app all sorted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    big bruv suggests:

    So what you are saying is that the left don’t care if Bain is innocent or not, they want him to be paid compensation so they can claim a victory over the government.

    They can’t see past the fact that two icons of the Right, FIGJAM Power and “Crusher” Collins, have made such an almighty mess of the simple job of commissioning and receiving a report that the government now appears hopelessly compromised and will suffer a hit no matter what it does – but slightly worse if it pays out, so that is their preferred option.

    But that’s politics, which has nothing to do with justice and certainly nothing to do with prudent and properly justified expenditure of tax revenue – after all, there’s always the option of dipping deeper into the wallets of the few dozen people left with a job.

    That the left are able to view the mess with such glee is entirely the fault of the aforementioned heroes of the right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (6,734 comments) says:

    bigot bruv brings his obsessive hatred of religion to everything…..what a bore…….big bore

    big bruv the bigotted bore……zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Dazzaman (1,114 comments) says:

    Just got back from Foxton Beach…..the weather is glorious, the sea fantastic.

    I see it’s groundhog day still at Kiwiblog though…

    Any guesses how many comments from the deluded bainiacs & no-life anti-bainiacs, you know who you’s are, will make on this thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    “No, but I have noticed a Left/Right divide in the whole debate.”

    Really?

    Have you read Flipper’s credentials?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rex
    I am sure that when Simon Power appointed Binnie to review Bain’s compensation[and there were other judges he looked at] he thought Binnie would be the best man to do the job. Unfortunately Binnie wasn’t up to it.
    In hindsight Power shouldn’t have gone overseas,but it appears that he was bending over backwards to please Karam and co.
    He should have just got Robert Fisher to do the job.
    And Judith Collins,through no fault of her own ,has been left to clean up the mess.
    The police have found 60 odd errors and/or incorrect assumptions in Binnie’s report.
    As for his interview with Bain,I thought he did a pretty good job so far as asking Bain the right questions was concerned,but he gave him an armchair ride. He let Bain get away with,dare I say it,murder.
    What about where Bain said he saw he friend having a sexual encounter with a goat? Surely Binnie should have asked Bain some more questions about that. I would suggest that 99.99% of people who have read that interview do not believe that story.
    And then this are the trackpants,the glasses,etc.,etc. It is not good enough that Binnie seems to accept that Bain hadn’t been wearing those glasses that weekend,specially with David’s aunt’s evidence in front of him. On top of that he knew that Bain had told his lawyer that he had been wearing those glasses that weekend. Yet Binnie says he doesn’t know how those glasses came to be in David Bain’s room.
    Seems bloomin’ obvious to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Tookinator (195 comments) says:

    The Bain house deliberately burnt down to hide evidence that John Key was involved…
    Mike Smith investigates…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    bhudson.

    The Minister said she took advice from Crown Law to the effect that if the report was released some of those mentioned in it might seek JR. Even though I think JR would apply for other reasons anyway, Collins can’t have her cake and it too. The interesting thing is that despite those ‘concerns’ she, when under pressure, released the report anyway, conflicted mayhem even before considering that she kept the applicant out of the loop, and indeed the author of the report. Another example of Collin’s ‘due process’ releasing the report to the police and Crown immediately and to the applicant months later and from what I’ve seen ‘after’ it’s release to the media. Fair and just – you bet. It’s actually better for it to be back in the Courts, the Minister has shown she is far from neutral by her own actions and words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins (861) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    It is not good enough that Binnie seems to accept that Bain hadn’t been wearing those glasses that weekend,specially with David’s aunt’s evidence in front of him.

    Lying again, this is what Binnie ACTUALLY said re the glasses. He did not take Bain’s word for anything.

    415. Conflicting recollections of the weekend were given by other witnesses. I have not had
    the opportunity of hearing these witnesses (other than David Bain) and their conflicting
    accounts and I am unable to make findings of credibility either way. However, the issue is not
    whether he was wearing the glasses the previous weekend but whether (which he denies) he
    was wearing them on the morning of 20 June.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    muggins says:

    I am sure that when Simon Power appointed Binnie to review Bain’s compensation[and there were other judges he looked at] he thought Binnie would be the best man to do the job.

    I’m given to understand that Binnie’s legal experience was entirely in commercial, international and constitutional law. Why would Power choose someone with no criminal experience to adjudicate a case as complex and controversial as Bain’s?

    I do think he needed to look overseas because NZ’s legal profession – like its other professions – are a small a relatively closed group and it’s easy to give the perception of bias. But had he decided Canada was his only option there are other Justices, like Moldaver J who do have extensive criminal practice backgrounds. There’s also any number of eminent Australian jurists who would have done a better job – or at least would have been better equipped to do so by virtue of a far deeper understanding of criminal law.

    And Judith Collins,through no fault of her own ,has been left to clean up the mess.

    It’s true she inherited Power’s mess, but her handling of it has been arrogant and disrespectful to Binnie who, despite his failings as an examiner of criminal fact, is an international jurist of exemplary reputation in his specialist areas of law. She should not have referred the Binnie report to the Solicitor-General as though this were another source of independent advice when in fact it was the prosecution; certainly not without also making it available at the same time to the defence.

    Just think for a moment if Collins had received the Binnie report, kept her mouth shut about Binnie, and quietly commissioned a review. One of two things could then have happened. Either Binnie might have accepted some or all of the criticism and agreed to alter his report. Part of what I do for a living is the writing of reports; if a client quietly says to me, “Look, we think you’ve missed the mark here because…” I’ll at least consider a re-write. If they responded by publicly calling me incompetent I’d dig in to protect my reputation and because I’m only human. As Binnie has done. Or had he failed to alter it himself, she could have simultaneously presented the report and the rebuttal and gone through it calmly, point by point, taking at least some of the public with her.

    Instead she let her combative approach to just about everything overtake her when she received a report she didn’t like, or probably expect. That was an error of judgement – and let’s not forget that whether she is right in her criticism of Binnie is moot when considering the appropriateness of her response to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    It just about all academic now. Have a look at ipredict.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @NN-Z,

    By all means, point to the provision in the Cabinet guideline which states that Cabinat have to accept any and all findings of any report commissioned.

    I think the concern about JR raised with Collins was to do with persons/orgs criticised within the report who had not had the opportunity at the time to respond (e.g. Police), nor the opportunity to review the peer-review.

    But you still need a point of law for the case to back to the Courts on. Particularly problematic it would seem

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

    Whoever reviews the compensation need to find Robin factually guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that is a very big hurdle.
    I personally doubt he will get paid compensation based being innocent but not to say he won’t get paid due to being incarcerated for an excessive time under the Bill of Rights 1990 section 25 (b).
    How he should be compensated this way will be very complex as he was even declined a hearing by the Privy Council initialy. The admissibility of hearsay was not allowed in 1994 but the Evidence Act 2006 section 16-22 changed that and at least two of the nine points the Privy Council based their decision was based on allowing hearsay

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Whoever reviews the compensation need to find Robin factually guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that is a very big hurdle.

    Absolute twaddle, you do talk such rubbish.
    Who did they prove guilty in the A A Thomas case before he was paid compensation?
    Who did they prove guilty in the Aaron Farmer case when he was paid?
    Who did they prove guilty in the Jaden Knight & Philip Johnston case when they were paid?

    Nobody, the police don’t want to know who did these crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ gamefisher

    “Whoever reviews the compensation need to find Robin factually guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that is a very big hurdle”.

    No it is worse than that. They need to establish on the balance of probabilities at the minimum that Robin did it/David didn’t.

    An impossible hurdle if one follows the criteria, I would suggest.

    So plan II kicks into gear from the Bain/Karam team, the same one that worked eventually to secure David a re-trial and acquittal – malign the dead, sway public opinion so that people get fatigued over the detail, and just go, “Ah, bugger it! Pay him to make it go away…”

    Thankfully Collins is made of sterner stuff, but who knows what sort of MoJ we will get in future – and full credit to former All Black Joe Karam, he knows how to play the long game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rex
    I

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Even on your narrow view bhudson, then Bain didn’t have the opportunity to respond either or review the ‘peer’ review. Like the minister you expect to be all one-sided. I imagine our Supreme Court would look carefully at a ‘self-appointed’ cabinet rule that denies citizen rights. If an inmate can take the ministry on over a smoking ban, then convincing a Court that being denied natural justice under the BOR wouldn’t be hard. Or just suing for damages could do. But review is probably the first stop, or a multi-faceted approach. You too soon imagine people giving up, been no sign of it yet despite the many predictions and advice as to what David ‘should do.’ To my mind he’s been far too conservative, better to have just sued at the outset than played this game of a Government presiding over justice and not the Courts. He has an arguable loss and always has since the 5 not guilty verdicts and an earlier ruling of an ‘actual’ MOJ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Kanz 7.49

    Yes precedent also becomes a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rex
    I too have written reports.
    I believe that the problem was that the conclusion of Binnie’s report was leaked. That meant the Davidbainites were all over Collins wanting her to pay out. So she came out fighting, and I have no problem with her doing that. Then Binnie tried to defend himself. Ok,I have no problem with him doing that. And if he had only made a couple of errors,ok,he could have changed them.
    But the fact is that at the end of the day,had he corrected all his errors then he would not have been able to say Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities.
    And I am not just referring to his report here. In my opinion the way he let Bain off the hook many times when he was interviewing him was nothing short of scandalous.

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

    Kimbo re:7:53 I agree I was just polite when I said big hurdle it is more like an impossible task if all the evidence is reviewed not just that what was presented at the trials.

    Kanz which of those trial did they say it was the accused or another name accused. The Bain trials are unusual in that respect and the defence used it as a main plank of their defence they can’t now do a u turn. Beside it may legally OK for people to defame Robin Bain including Judge Binnie by default but it is morally wrong. For our own Government to defame one of its own former citizens and upset remaining family members will not sit well with the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Re glasses.
    It should have been obvious to Binnie that if David Bain was wearing those glasses that weekend then he would have also been wearing them on the Monday morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    To my mind he’s been far too conservative…

    Perhaps he doesn’t share your almost religious faith in his innocence…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Re glasses.
    It should have been obvious to Binnie that David’s aunt would have no reason to make up that story re David Bain telling her he was wearing his mother’s glasses.
    And of course,had he interviewed Mike Guest,as he should have,it would have been obvious to him that Guest was telling the truth,also.
    Yet he still couldn’t work out how those glasses came to be in David Bain’s room.
    I mean it is so bleedin’ obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. RF (1,140 comments) says:

    FFS Bain is guilty. Pay the useless prick zilch.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Steve (North Shore) (4,330 comments) says:

    Why was the house burnt down? Why was the house not just dismantled and recycled? How many houses are razed after a murder scene as such?

    Old timbers with old secrets maybe?

    At the end of the day David Bain has come out as not guilty, not that he did not do it. So pay the money and fix up the fucked up Justice System in NZ.

    Oh yeah, you lawyers are such corksoakers, money money money, fucking Taxpayer’s money

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ muggins

    “It should have been obvious to Binnie that if David Bain was wearing those glasses that weekend then he would have also been wearing them on the Monday morning”.

    Ah, but when confronted on the mater, Binnie said, “Importantly, I think, the Court of Appeal dismissed the whole issue of Margaret’s glasses (Hey! Didn’t the Privy Council rule that juries determine facts, not appeal courts! What is Binnie doing citing a court to buttress his opinion when courts have no relevance in determining facts?!) and whether David Bain had worn them etc saying…”the glasses and lens issue has not featured significantly in our analysis of the strength of thr (sic) Crown’s case against David. It does not in any way tend to exculpate David” — a conclusion I (Binnie) agreed with”.

    Plus, Binnie added, “I add this — if Michael Guest believes he is free to pass what happened between him and David Bain prior to the 1995 trial (which he was, because not only had legal privilege been waived as a result of Team Karam/Bain’s continual criticism of Guest, but also Binnie was meant to determine what really happened based on ALL the facts!) and the most devastating thing he can come with is whether or not David told him he wore Margaret’s glasses the prior weekend — I am greatly reinforced in my conclusion about the factual innocence.”

    And why did Binnie decide that alleged perjury on the part of David Bain, as well as evidence that connected him with the murder in Stephen’s room was not “obvious” (to quote you, muggins)?

    “I would not have said it if it were not so”, according to the great Canadian jurist. That’s right, the same argument that parents give 4 year olds when they ask, “Why?”. “Because I say”

    I want our $400k back!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    An executive power can’t be without review, not in a democracy. Another problem for Judy is that not only must it be fairly applied, but consistently as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    An executive power can’t be without review, not in a democracy. Another problem for Judy is that not only must it be fairly applied, but consistently as well.

    What remains to be seen is whether or not she understands the meaning of either of those words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Steve (North Shore) (4,330 comments) says:

    The guilty/not guilty thing is seperate.
    Binnie applied the Law as it stands?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Steve (North Shore)

    “The guilty/not guilty thing is seperate”.

    Yes

    “Binnie applied the Law as it stands?”

    ‘Applied the law’ was not relevant to Binnie task. It was determining the facts and deciding is Bain had established on the balance of probabilities as a minimum”, according to the brief he was given.

    And he failed at that, irrespective of the conclusions he reached.

    Is a basic skill you teach anyone doing an exam: “Answer the question, answer the question, answer the question…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    I imagine our Supreme Court would look carefully at a ‘self-appointed’ cabinet rule that denies citizen rights.

    Bain does not qualify for compensation under law. The Cabinet consideration is a political decision – There is nothing for the Supreme Court to review.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Applied the law’ was not relevant to Binnie task. It was determining the facts and deciding is Bain had established on the balance of probabilities as a minimum”, according to the brief he was given.

    And he failed at that, irrespective of the conclusions he reached.

    How could one possibly fail at that? Failed to decide it as the Solicitor General and Crown Law wanted him to, but that is not failing the task as given. He “determined the facts and decided”, which is the task he was commissioned to do. The place he went over his brief was to ‘recommend compensation’ he was not asked to do that.
    He was asked to show whether or not in his opinion there were exceptional circumstances. He did that too. The problem he had there was, it is common knowledge in this country our police only conduct ‘copybook’ investigations, he determined they hadn’t. Now, we can’t have an outsider saying such things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Steve (North Shore) (4,330 comments) says:

    I thought Binnie was just looking at the Law side, not the compensation/guilty or not side.
    Not how much, not the did/did not do; just the way the Law stands

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. UglyTruth (3,147 comments) says:

    Steve, at common law the issues of factual innocence and compensation for wrongful imprisonment are inextricably linked, so Binnie’s common law (Canadian) background would support his position re compensation. But of course NZ’s civil system doesn’t see it that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    “An executive power can’t be without review, not in a democracy.”

    Aside from a full hearing of the issue (qua OJ), in what format would you envisage the review would take place? If the decision is susceptible to review, and I have my doubts, a court is not going to overturn a decision simply because it disagrees with the outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    But of course NZ’s civil system doesn’t see it that way.

    NZ’s system can never see it that way. To do so is to admit the system can make mistakes and get it wrong. The Kiwi way is not to ever do that, particularly when it is a foreigner pointing out the mistakes and failures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Binnie certainly got it wrong,but he doesn’t want to admit it. It’s the Canadian way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Kanz

    “He (Binnie) “determined the facts and decided”, which is the task he was commissioned to do. The place he went over his brief was to ‘recommend compensation’ he was not asked to do that.

    Hmm.

    So where is the compelling facts and explanantion in Binnie’s report that “establish on the balance of probabilities as a minimum” that Robin did it? That, on the basis of the facts of the case are a requirement if David is to establish his innocence.

    Which meant that if Binnie the botched the first question, any recommendation of “exceptional circumstances” he made is rendered void. As Binnie said, “the onus is on Daid Bain to establish his factual innocence as a condition precedent to compensation…in short my mandate is to express an opinion about whether or not David Bain is factually innocent, and IF SO (my emphasis) whether the circumstances of his conviction were so extraordinary as to warrant an ex gratia payment of compensation…”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    @Kimbo

    I can only surmise from that you either haven’t read his report, or are unable to understand written English. He spelt it out very plainly in that report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Of course not Nookin, but it will have to consider over turning a decision that hasn’t been applied fairly, by precedent, or by due process – not least because it attempts a total government power over the rights of an individual to be entitled to due process and access to the Courts. If a person is stripped of the normal checks and balances of legislation by an executive control of their rights, then we are no longer a free country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Kanz

    “I can only surmise from that you either haven’t read his report, or are unable to understand written English. He spelt it out very plainly in that report”.

    Translation: I’m still bluffing, even though I’ve been called. It isn’t there, because if it was it would be straight-forward to outline with a salient summary. Instead, I’m trying to stonewall using Binnie’s logic, “I did, because I wouldn’t have said it unless I did”. Veeeery compelling argument.

    I’ll give you a hint to help you along, Kanz: ‘luminol’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    I’ll give you a hint to help you along, Kanz: ‘luminol’.

    If that were the only point he made his decision on, it would be as easy as that yes, but he evaluated a great deal more than that. It requires reading the whole document. I have no need to bluff, I would far rather people actually read his words, than what might be my spin on it.

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

    Only three options …

    Bain volunteers to go back to jail for three more years

    We force Bain to go back to jail for three more years.

    We accept that Bain is rehabilitated … ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Kanz

    “If that were the only point he made his decision on, it would be as easy as that yes,…”

    No, it wasn’t the only point, but it was most certainly the crucial point, the foundation, around which all other evidence was assessed by Binnie.

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

    With that foot print hopefully and I suspect it will be put under closer scrutiny by who ever reviews the compensation bid with the aid of independent and experianced forensic podiatry. The reliance on this as a main plank and a link of Robin to the murders may be found seriously flawed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    Rodney has finally worked out that Binnie is a ninny

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

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857464

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    It should have been obvious to Binnie that if David Bain was wearing those glasses that weekend then he would have also been wearing them on the Monday morning.

    Binnie considered that and concluded (rightly) that Bain wearing the glasses at the weekend doesn’t necessarily mean he was wearing them on the Monday morning.

    Which would be fine if he was a juror considering whether David Bain is proved guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. But Binnie wasn’t a juror considering proof, he was theoretically at least an independent assessor looking at what evidence made David Bain more likely or less likely to be the murderer. If he was doing the job he was hired to do, he’d recognise his conclusion as Nowhere Fucking Near Good Enough. Here are the conclusions a competent assessor would have drawn if he accepted Bain was wearing the glasses that weekend (and Binnie says he did accept that):

    1. Mr Bain now has a task on his hands to explain how glasses he was wearing a day or two before the murders came to be broken the morning of the murders with a missing lens found where the murderer struggled with one of the victims. Inability to explain it substantially increases the likelihood of his being the murderer.

    2. Mr Bain now has a task on his hands to explain why he told his defence lawyer he was wearing those glasses a day or two before the murders but told the court the opposite, how exactly this doesn’t constitute perjury, and in what sense he can portray this as reflecting his innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    You’d assume The Crown or Collins would resist this compensation bid being taken to the Courts, and if they did the argument against their opposition could be that the executive power has been applied unfairly, is inconsistent with the intention of the exercise of the power, public interest, the decision having become political, the overall gravity in terms of freedom and the intentions of the BOR never to have been anticipated to be subjugated by political whim.

    On the other hand they could welcome it so as to have some structure and advice offered by the Courts, perhaps even on the subject of future legislation so such debacles don’t repeat. All said and done as this case and others have shown politicians in the role of judges or ‘King’ are poorly equipped to administer fair justice and due process. I’d argue what Collins has decided to do could be seen as a continuation of the MOJ. I think as people put aside personal opinions on the Bain case concern about this procedure will grow, probably beginning from the time that Collin’s decided to ‘shop around’ for a political expedient.

    power

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    You’ve jumped way ahead of yourself Psycho Milt. David Bain doesn’t have to explain anything about glasses of which there is no proof were used in the murders. A little difficult for you to follow I understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Judith Collins must do nothing, absolutely nothing. That is the best strategy now. It is Bain who must prove factual innocence on the basis of probability, not the state. Time is the great benefactor of truth.

    Once the public see the injustice of oiling the squeaky wheel of Karam’s bandwagon, Collins can make up her own mind confident of public backing. It is a political decision after all, not a legal one, so she is perfectly entitled to do. Sure Karam will carry on like a rhinoceros charge, so what? The media doesn’t like backing the wrong horse, it’ll be a dead duck. The circus just left town. Karma.

    It’s also a political decision in the political sense: Image. A strong woman who knows her own mind. Stands her ground. Knows how to do things. Gets things done. Come on, Mrs Collins, threaten the wimps with your handbag.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Like you Dennis she has already blinked. But at least you admit, that which she can’t, her ‘neutrality’ is driven by politics. Nothing wrong about being strong for sure, but fairness is also part of strength.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    You’d assume The Crown or Collins would resist this compensation bid being taken to the Courts, and if they did the argument against their opposition could be that the executive power has been applied unfairly, is inconsistent with the intention of the exercise of the power, public interest, the decision having become political, the overall gravity in terms of freedom and the intentions of the BOR never to have been anticipated to be subjugated by political whim.

    NN-Z,

    Except the Courts have no authority to presume the meaning, intention, or, indeed, due process, of the Cabinet guideline – it relates to a political decision and not one bound by a specific NZ statute (at least, not that you have been able to demonstrate.)

    It is not a matter of law for a Court to adjudicate on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Rodney has finally worked out that Binnie is a ninny

    Chuck,

    I think you’ll find he has done no such thing – that article is so heavily laced with sarcasm, it near drips from the electronic ink.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857464

    Rodney cuts through the bs, and nicely links the ‘worldwide’ failures of Justice from which dear old NZ remains ‘intact,’ for now at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    I think you’ll find he has done no such thing – that article is so heavily laced with sarcasm, it near drips from the electronic ink.

    I have heard it said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. It is obviously still not low enough for Chuck to understand it. LMFAO. Chuck you are a clown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    bhudson your view is too narrow, an executive power can never have been intended to strip people of their rights, particularly where, as in this case, reviewing grave ‘error’s by the state resulting in false imprisonment. Doug Graham’s medicine just won’t do. And for a recent view of the state grudgingly accepting blame look at the case of Susan Couch.

    Fertile ground for Hide to dismantled state cronyism as he did brilliantly well in the link above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    bhudson your view is too narrow, an executive power can never have been intended to strip people of their rights

    NN-Z,

    But the Cabinet authority does no such thing. Bain’s case falls outside the parameters for compensation and is only possible now at the discretion of Cabinet (which it has a guideline to help to frame, not dictate, it’s consideration and decision-making.)

    Their is no ‘right’ to be contested – there is no ‘right’ to compensation under law in this specific case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    “I have heard it said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.”

    Indeed. Poor old Rodders. Most famous for dropping his dance partner on her head. Then for being the so called “perk buster” who got caught with his snout in the trough. Where’s dotcom when you need him? He needs to drop the hypocritical pool of diarrhoea Hyde another note, but maybe a little less polite this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    ^^ “There” not “Their” – damn edit function

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Sofia (785 comments) says:

    Great importance is placed on the glasses David was or wasn’t wearing.
    The lost lens in found in Stephen’s room and some evidence implies it had been there for a while.
    My question, which may seem dumb to some, but still …
    When David was purportedly wearing the glasses at the weekend, were both lenses in the frames?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    David Bain doesn’t have to explain anything about glasses of which there is no proof were used in the murders.

    But evidence that he lied about wearing them might raise valid concerns as to the veracity of other statements he has made. That could well be pertinent to an assessment on the balance of probabilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    But evidence that he lied about wearing them might raise valid concerns as to the veracity of other statements he has made. That could well be pertinent to an assessment on the balance of probabilities.

    As with Weir’s lying to the first jury concerning where he found the lens (albeit accidentally). As with Jones’s lying to the first jury about the fingerprints (He apparently was simply trying to make sure they understood) fluorescing under polilight.
    It does need to be fair, doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    bhudson, you too addicted to all-things Bain, a Bainite? I cannot believe it! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5753063/Parliaments-heavy-hitter-bids-adieu
    I have always quite like Rodney Hide, but he ain’t the sharpest knife in the drawer,in my ‘umble opinion. A perkbuster hoist with his own petard.
    What he doesn’t seem to realise is that Binnie’s report is riddled with errors,and he let Bain off the hook a number of times when he interviewed him.
    It doesn’t matter that Binnie was a Supreme Court judge for 13 years,a political appointment I might add. He still got it wrong when he came to the conclusion that Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    No Manolo. I keep out of the ‘did he or didn’t he’ argument – my own view on Bain’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant. I just like to make an observation here and there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    David Bain doesn’t have to explain anything about glasses of which there is no proof were used in the murders.

    You seem confused. David Bain indeed didn’t have to explain anything about glasses that can’t be proved to have been used in the murders at his trial. This isn’t his trial – it’s supposed to be an independent assessor looking at whether Bain’s innocent on balance of probabilities. So: if glasses he was wearing at the weekend are broken on the morning of the murders with one lens in the room where the murderer struggled with one of his victims, does that make him somewhat more likely, or somewhat less likely, to be the murderer? It’s a fairly straightforward question with a fairly simple answer, no need for confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Is the new Kimbo the short-lived Dotcom reborn?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “I have heard it said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. It is obviously still not low enough for Chuck to understand it. LMFAO. Chuck you are a clown.”

    I admit I skimmed it after reading the headline. After I emailed Rodney Binnie’s interview of David highlighting the bit about the goat I thought he had done a flip flop as it would not have been the first time.

    It did not take long to read the interview of David to see Binnie gave David a soft ride. I quote Rodney below.

    A former Supreme Court judge of 14 years has been exposed in New Zealand as not understanding our law, of misapplying that law, of failing to grasp facts, of not knowing the rules of evidence, of not following his brief and of wrongly placing the onus of proof.

    Much of that is true so that is probably why I missed Rodney’s attempt a sarcasm.

    Binnie had no experience in criminal law and needed Fisher to point out the obvious.

    If you think David will get a any compo why not put some money on Ipredict?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Sofia
    When Bain told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing those glasses that were found in his room he didn’t say there was a lens missing.
    When he told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend he said they weren’t perfect but they got him by. He didn’t say there was a lens missing.
    An expert who checked the frame said that both lenses would have popped out at the same time.
    The Law Lords of the Privy Council said that the Crown’s thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him was a strong one.
    The Davidbainers will try to make out that somehow the fact that the lens from those glasses that was found in Stephen’s room had nothing to do with Stephen’s murder.
    The Law Lords of the Privy Council think otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kim Jones thought the jury wouldn’t understand what he was saying about the blood on/or under those fingerprints and going by the jury’s not guilty verdict at the retrial ,who could blame him.
    Having said that, I believe C.K. Stead has hit the nail on the head. The jury thought that because Bain had served 13 years in prison,and because there was so much conflicting evidence,let’s find him not guilty and get out of here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins (871) Says:
    January 6th, 2013 at 9:57 am

    Kim Jones flat out lied. Either that, or like Hentschel, had no idea what he was doing. No excuses, these were meant to be people who were professionals in their respective fields, and knew what “truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth” meant. Pity they didn’t mean it when they swore the oath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ bhudson

    “Is the new Kimbo the short-lived Dotcom reborn?”

    No.

    Just spent more time re-reading the Binnie report again.

    He falls into the trap of atomistically analysing each piece of evidence without placing it in the context of the whole. It is all very well saying that the Crown insisted on such-and-such at the first trial (e.g., who most likely made the foot prints, time the computer was turned on), and saying that as the Crown presented them as sine qua nons at the time, well…that means if subsequently there turns out to be some doubt/room for an alternate explanation, that means it must contribute to David’s innocence.

    Wrong, for two reasons.

    1. The Crown never had to account for any and every piece of evidence. The evidence in the Bain case are not like links in a linear chain, they are like an interlocking tapestry. It is a fallacy by Team Karam/Bain that there is “one piece of evidence that ties the whole case together, and the whole deck of cards tumbles without it” (as happened with Arthur Allan Thomas and the cartridge case).

    Instead it was the Crown’s task to present the evidence and give plausible scenarios, not explain in exact and perfect detail how any and everything was done (so if there was something that could be interpreted in another way, it didn’t dismiss the case against David Bain). The reason for that is…

    2. The Crown’s primary case against David Bain was not any one piece of evidence, but the incredible accumulation of unlikely coincidences and unusual circumstances that occurred, which directed all the physical evidence away from Robin Bain, and towards David Bain. In and of themselves, they could have just been coincidences. Together they lead a careful judge to the conclusion that the Prosecutor put to the jury, “If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck…”

    For Binnie to cherry-pick a part of the Crown’s argument to reach his conclusion, when it overlooks how that argument should be seen in relation to the whole, is nonsense. I don’t have a problem with a minute and searing examination of every strand in the rope. Of course an inquiry should do that! But what Binnie never does is take a step back, and compare the individual strands to the whole. If he had done that, and argued the case, then…yes…as much as I think David Bain did it, I can agree we got our money’s worth paying Binnie, and Bain should get compo.

    However, Binnie never did it. Instead he bought in hook, line, and sinker to the atomising strategy on the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Forget what other say, Rodney. Think for yourself.

    A man needs glasses to see well. He breaks his and sends them for repair. As usual, he borrows and uses a pair belonging to his mother. One weekend they too get broken. Careless boy. It just happens to be the weekend his entire family is murdered. Coincidence? Yep, part of the huge mass of improbabilities that mean he might not be the killer.

    Now look at some improbabilities Robin is the killer. No suicide letter but types immature message on computer, wipes keyboard. Unlikely but lucky shot. No prints on rifle. Frail but strangles Stephen. No blood on clothes. (Changes clothes to meet his Maker!) Rubbish motive. Putative motive doesn’t explain sparing David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Those case notes record that blood was found on the silencer and extensive smearing and traces of blood were also found inside the barrel,positive.
    Where does it say the word rifle?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Pity David Bain didn’t tell the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he took the stand at his trail. Had he done so he would have saved the New Zealand taxpayer millions of dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. flipper (3,276 comments) says:

    In the light if the continuing debate, and in particular Rodney Hide’s Sundays Herald piece, the following extracts from the report of the Thomas Royal Commission appear distinctly relevant. There was even the (futile) legal attempt to derail the process by questioning the meaning of “Free pardon”.

    The situation today is little different from 1980, with one exception: the Government, by Cabinet Minute, has adopted a procedure in relation to compensation. It is nothing more or less than an administrative instruction. (And, as such, it and its application, is reviewable under the BoR, is it not?) It is not Statute Law, or even “law” made under regulation. The Cabinet Manual, as such, is not law, so let us not go there as a ‘hidey hole”: (No pun intended). :)

    For those that insist Bain should/must prove his innocence (see below for the Thomas RC findings on that matter) , or that Bain should prove that Robin “did it”, please read, and understand what the Thomas Royal Commission found and said. To Mrs Collins and her silly Crown Law/Police (Molesworth Street Cowboys), and to those who wish to ignore the deliberations, conclusions, findings and recommendations of five (5) independent, PC Law Lords, and one (1) independent, senior Canadian jurist, it is reasonable to suggest, with due humility, that the history of what happened to Thomas should guide us on Bain.

    The fact that the investigatory and prosecutorial arms of Government have never accepted the Thomas outcome is to their everlasting shame. But they also shame all New Zealanders. A repeat oif this infamy cannot be tolerated.

    So, to reduce the size of this comment I have included only some sections of the Thomas RC Report., All readers can check the veracity by accessing the full unexpurgated report on Wikipedia (it is a non-alterable version), or by going to the Government archives. ) The Para numbers have been included for ease of reference.

    • TERM OF REFERENCE 6
    “What sum, if any, should be paid by way of Compensation to
    Arthur Allan Thomas Following upon the Grant of the Free Pardon?”

    • 474. Compensation is not claimable as of right. It is in the nature of an
    ex gratia payment, sometimes made by the Government following the
    granting of a free pardon, or the quashing of a conviction. Being in the
    nature of an ex gratia payment, there are no principles of law applicable
    which can be said to be binding.

    • 476. However, the Home Office in England has provided for our
    information the guidelines under which compensation is usually assessed
    there and these have been very helpful.

    • 477. There, following a decision from the Home Secretary that
    compensation should be offered in a particular case, an explanatory note
    is sent to the claimant. We quote from its contents: .
    “A decision to make an ex gratia payment from public funds does not
    imply any admission of legal liability; it is not, indeed, based on
    considerations of liability, for which there are appropriate remedies at
    civil law. The payment is offered in recognition of the hardship caused
    by a wrongful conviction or charge and notwithstanding that the
    circumstances may give no grounds for a claim for civil damages.”

    • 478. The free pardon granted to Arthur Allan Thomas on 17 December
    1979 included the following words:
    “And whereas it has been made to appear from a report to the Prime
    Minister by Robert Alexander Adams-Smith QC, that there is real
    doubt whether it can properly be contended that the case against the
    said Arthur Allan Thomas was proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

    • 479. Section 407 of The Crimes Act 1961 states:
    “Effect of free pardon. Where any person convicted of any offence
    is granted a free pardon by Her Majesty, or by the Governor-General in
    the exercise of any powers vested in him in that behalf, that person shall
    be deemed never to have committed that offence: provided that the
    granting of a free pardon shall not affect anything lawfully done or the
    consequences of anything unlawfully done before it is granted.”

    • 480. We have now been given some guidance by a full Court of the
    High Court of New Zealand concerning the effect of this pardon. In their
    decision dated 29 August 1980 the full Court stated:
    “In the terms of the pardon Thomas is to be considered to have been
    wrongly convicted, and he cannot be charged again with the murder of
    either Harvey or Jeanette Crewe.”
    “He is, by reason of the pardon, deemed to have been wrongly
    convicted.”
    “The language of section 407 does not indicate any intention to
    create any such radical departure from the normal effect of a
    prerogative pardon as would be involved in reading into the language
    an intention to create a statutory fiction, the obliteration by force of law
    of the acts of the person pardoned. It is much more sensibly read to be
    as, first a reaffirmation of the basic effect of the prerogative pardon,
    and, secondly, an attempt to minimise residual legal disabilities or
    attainders.”

    • 481. We approach the question of the compensation in the light of that
    guidance, and also in the light of our findings as set out earlier in this
    report.

    • 482. The pardon alone makes it clear that Mr Thomas should never
    have been convicted of the crimes, since there was a real doubt as to his
    guilt. He should accordingly have been found not guilty by the juries. ……

    • 483. At our hearings there have been often repeated statements about
    whether Mr Thomas can be proved innocent. Such a proposition concerns
    us. It seems to imply that there falls on to him some onus positively to
    prove himself innocent. Such a proposition is wrong and contrary to the
    golden thread which runs right through the system of British criminal
    justice, namely that the Prosecution has the duty to prove the accused
    guilty and until so proved he had to be regarded as innocent. Once we are
    satisfied the Prosecution case against Mr Thomas has not been proved
    (and we are so satisfied on the totality of evidence before us) then, just as a
    Court would acquit him and the community thereafter accept his
    innocence, so we believe we are entitled to proclaim him innocent and
    proceed accordingly. Mr Thomas has always asserted his innocence.
    Taking all these factors into account, along with the pardon, it is our view
    that Mr Thomas is entitled to have the question of compensation
    determined on the basis that he is innocent. To determine it on any other
    basis would be to do him the gravest injustice. [ : ]

    • 484. This Commission is privileged to have been given the task of
    righting wrongs done to Thomas, by exposing the injustice done to him by
    manufactured evidence. We cannot erase the wrong verdicts or allow the
    dismissed appeals.

    • 485. The British system of criminal justice is an adversary system. It
    receives only such facts as are put before it by the parties, discovering only
    so much of the truth as this permits. Any such system to function properly
    is dependent upon fair and truthful information being put before it. ….

    • 486. This Commission is not in an adversary situation. We have
    searched for the truth, probed, inquired, and interrogated where we
    thought necessary; made our displeasure apparent at prevarication and
    reluctance to speak the truth. We have not been content with so much of
    the truth as some saw fit to put before us. With the aid of scientists we
    were able to demolish the cornerstone of the Crown case, exhibit 350, and
    demonstrate that it was not put in the Crewe garden by the hand of the
    murderer. It was put there by the hand of one whose duty was to
    investigate fairly and honestly, but who in dereliction of that duty, in
    breach of his obligation to uphold the law, and departing from all
    standards of fairness fabricated this evidence to procure a conviction of
    murder. He swore falsely, and beyond a peradventure, was responsible for
    Thomas being twice convicted, his appeals thrice dismissed, and for his
    spending 9 years of his life in prison; to be released as a result of sustained
    public refusal to accept these decisions. The investigation ordered by the
    Government led finally to his being granted a free pardon and released by
    the ultimate Court of a democratic system—what Lord Denning calls
    ‘The High Court of Parliament.’ Common decency and the conscience of
    society at large demand that Mr Thomas be generously compensated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Yes or no answer please.
    Do you believe that David Bain saw his friend at the time having a sexual encounter with a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Kimbo. Very very good analysis. That is precisely what happened. I think you have some close association with the NZ Herald. Can we expect something like this to see this appear? If my inference is wrong about Herald, send as opinion piece, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    flipper
    Thomas did not murder the Crewe’s . David Bain did murder his family.
    There is a difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @flipper. Read only your introduction. No comparison to Thomas case. Thomas was set up by the police; Sprott and Booth showed it. The case against Thomas was weak and collapsed.

    Bain is completely different. It’s all there to see. The people who can’t see it have mostly been Karamed.

    Read again Kimbo’s analysis. Take your time. Since you can hide, unlike chump Hide, behind a pseudonym, you can change your mind without looking like a blowhard. Bob.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    …and despite Robin supposedly committing murder-suicide, he uses gloves…and not his own, but David’s.

    …spent cartridge case flies out of rifle and into the small gap in the curtains and into the computer alcove, which now looks like a sniper’s nest, and the most likely place from where Robin was shot.

    …David inadvertently picks up some of the blood from family (which, as you noted is not found on Robin), and leaves a bloody palm print on the washing machine, which he turns on…thus ‘inadvertently’ altering evidence that could have helped establish who the killer was and wasn’t.

    …Stephen’s room is obviously the scene of a violent struggle, but despite this, there is no sign of injury/bruising on Robin, but…there is on David, which he is unable to account for.

    …David “collapses’ into shock and vagueness of memory (which experienced ambulance staff who arrive on the scene describe as “faking it”) for approximately 20 minutes before calling 111, thus ‘inadvertently’ giving him enough time to attempt to frame the scene/await inevitable arrival of police.

    …according to David’s account to the police he doesn’t check on all the members of his family, yet says on the phone, “they’re all dead”. This despite hearing Laniet gurgling, that doesn’t prompt him to suspect she may still be alive, and attempt to investigate/resuscitate/do something!

    …Laniet doesn’t usually sleep over at the Bain house any more, but she did that evening, because David sought her out and insisted she be there for the family meeting….a meeting that David doesn’t attend, but, conveniently, he does recount hearing raised voices while trying to sleep in his bed room.

    …family all dead, and David mumbling about “black hands coming to get me”, which is strangely coincidental with the vague but stated “premonitions of doom” he has speaking about to friends over the last few weeks.

    …after lapsing into a state of incredible passivity, he suddenly comes alive, and makes detailed, meticulous, and carefully-thought out plans for the funerals, and insists in a forceful and aggressive manner that they be adhered to – then, once charged, and throughout the subsequent trial (and pretty much the entire incarceration) passively sits by while others do the running.

    Like I said, if Binnie had put that cumulative tapestry under the spot light, and examined it, and explained why this is not an unlikely accumulation of coincidences, and therefore it has been established that David is innocent/Robin did it on the balance of probabilities as a minimum…I could accept that. Pay the compo.

    But it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Re that blood in the barrel.
    According to your illegal copy of the retrial transcript the word rifle is not mentioned.
    But you say it is in the case notes you have. Would you mind terribly if I asked you to post a copy of those case notes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. flipper (3,276 comments) says:

    muggins….

    What planet do you exist on?

    The jury, in the only proper trial held, found him not guilty.

    All the diversions, revisions and relitigation being attempted by you, and others (inckuding one operating under a pseudo legal cloak) are an indication that you have no sense of reality – or shame.

    Period. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    No, I’m not connected with the Herald. I’ll think about sending it, but it is really just an additional supplement to what C K Stead argued very well yesterday morning about Binnie’s flawed approach. Bear in mind Binnie may be an expert in understanding and applying the law, but his brief was primarily about weighing and sifting facts. Judges may do that a lot, but they don’t have a specialised mortgage on that skill.

    I note that Rodney Hide raised some good, fair, and valid questions about the NZ police, and the NZ justice system in the Herald this morning. However, whether the police botched the investigation or not, the pieces of evidence that make the case against Bain are not really rebutted by that allegation. Sort of shades of Captains Collins and Cassin, Air NZ, and Erebus, and Mahon interpreting the institutional mistakes as the primary point at issue.

    However, even if you just leave the disputed pieces of evidence as of secondary or provisional weight, and put the rocks in place that are not in dispute, it is the sheer accumulation of coincidences, which Hide never addresses, and nor, as I’ve posted above did Binnie. Instead, it is buying into the “little guy against the system” narrative that Karam used to get the appeal/retrial process going (shades of Mahon!). Karam didn’t title his book, “David vs Goliath” for nothing!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Scott Chris (5,684 comments) says:

    Kimbo, your 10.44 post is a brilliant and perspicacious summary of the implausibility of David Bain’s purported version of events – not to mention the very high quality of your prose. I suspect you are a professional wordsmith of some kind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Binnie says: Quack Quack QC. Dunce.

    As much as it would pain me to admit Karam was right, I might change my mind, despite the compelling case against Bain, let him win Lotto, if he wasn’t such an obvious puppet.

    I remember when Schapelle Corby learned her fate. The look of horror and disbelief came from her soul. People asked me if I’d heard of acting. That was no acting.

    I know people say you can’t tell if people are lying. Well, you might not when you interview them, but if you watch them sooner or later they give themselves away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    flipper
    The only proper trial was the first trial.
    However I accept the retrial jury’s verdict of not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
    And,as we all know,at least one of those jurors does not want to see Bain paid any compensation.
    She obviously does not believe he is innocent. I wonder how many other jurors agree with her.
    Maybe all eleven of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. flipper (3,276 comments) says:

    There was once a BBC radio comedy show caled “Around the Horne”.
    Kenneth Horne was full of nonbsense so his show quickly passed its use-by date .

    The Dennis Horne show (and that of others of his ilk) on Kiwiblog is likewise shallow, full of crap, with self delusion added for self aggrandisement.

    Have fun children. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @flipper. Are you really as thick as you demand us to believe? Possibly.

    It’s gone passed the legal process. Not convincing a dopey jury beyond doubt in a complex case that they perceived as not mattering any more is one thing, persuading clever and educated people of probable innocence is something else all together.

    I’ll give you the benefit and conclude you have been Karamed. Bob’s your uncle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @flipper. Still trying to hump my leg, Puppy. Do you want another earful from me, or will you just keep on trying to wank in my ear? Bob.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. flipper (3,276 comments) says:

    Do you not understand what the Privy Council said/did muggins?

    It said the “first trial” was a “mis-trial” (the effect of its decision) and quashed the result.
    In A B C language muggins, dotcom, horne, kimbo et al, it (the mis-trial) was wiped, revoked scrubbed, erased, except for the written record which was frequently examined (was it not?) during the only proper trial.

    God, you lot are thick !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @flipper. NOT GUILTY is NOT the equivalence of INNOCENT.

    That the Twin towers collapsed like a controlled demolition does not mean it was a controlled demolition.

    The flag “fluttered” on the moon does not mean the landing was a fraud.

    You may understand how to get people’s money but you remain an opinionated domineering blowhard. Bob.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ flipper

    …but as has been explained to you flipper, despite your attempts to draw a false analogy with the Thomas case and subsequent compo payout, that is not grounds for compensation.

    I don’t make the rules – I just report them.

    Here is an example of someone who was convicted, spent time in prison, had the verdict overturned…and didn’t qualify for compo: -

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1750606/Rex-Haig-denied-compensation

    Hence the requirement for Bain to establish on the balance of probabilities his innocence/Robin did it as a minimum requirement on the basis of the facts, irrespective of the first or second trial verdicts. It’s 21 June 1994, suspend/lay aside what happened in the 18 and a half years after. Just assemble the facts that can be determined as they existed on that day, and then decide…whodunnit.

    Put the boot on the other foot. You are the executor of Robin’s estate, and, say, he had life insurance, but it doesn’t pay out for suicide. You received the payment back in 1995 partly (but not exclusively) based on the verdict of the first trial (even if David had been acquitted at the first trial, that doesn’t mean a civil case can’t be brought against him – e.g. OJ Simpson).

    Now teh estate of Robin Bain are asked to pay it back because of the second verdict? No way! You haven’t had your chance to establish Robin’s innocence. Irrespective of how long David Bain spent in prison, or whether he was subsequently acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt (which highly favours him, and puts the onus on the Crown!), you, the estate of Robin Bain have not had the chance to have your case heard on the balance of probabilities.

    If you want to argue there should be a change to the status quo, fair enough. This ain’t the thread for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    i would love to see Fisher’s 189 page report that recommended that Rex Haig not get compensated and see how his logic worked in that case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Mark (1,303 comments) says:

    Collins has left herself no option but to commission a second report which in itself is fine if she was not happy with the first report and felt it had fundamental issues. The issue for her now is to try to manage this without being seen to be shopping for an opinion she likes and that is not going to be an easy task for her. Her attack of Binnie through the media showed unbelievably poor judgement from a minister with such lofty ambition. She has a tendency to try to cultivate this persona of being tough and uncompromising and at times it undoes the good work she does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Mark. With respect, don’t agree. Remember Muldoon. Collins just needs wait for the Herald to stop backing the wrong horse. One comment after Hide’s satire. Really? One? I sent three. Hide and Dunne and Gould add up to a row of has beens. Jones will fall flat on his face on this one.

    Collins needs just walk into Cabinet and say: No compensation. Key won’t dare sack her. Two bob to a knob of goat shit Key thinks Bain is guilty, anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    Chuck,
    From what I have read of Fisher’s work (although not that case but i understand others have read it and have this opinion), Fisher doesn’t appear to entirely live up to his own standard.

    I guess Fisher would say there it is a matter of degree and that there is a line to be crossedvand I’m sure many bain supporters would, if things were reversed, be very much in favour of “a high standard being held for the operation of the justice system”…

    But anyway – this makes it all the more a tough job for the person who does a second report because they need it to be of a VERY high standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Mark & Dennis Horne

    “The issue for her now is to try to manage this without being seen to be shopping for an opinion she likes and that is not going to be an easy task for her…She has a tendency to try to cultivate this persona of being tough and uncompromising and at times it undoes the good work she does”.

    I think your take on Collins is wrong. I think, like Muldoon, she is a “conviction politician”. She doesn’t cultivate a persona. What you see is what you get. That is what polarises people, and makes it seem she is ‘acting’ tough. Like Muldoon she has a natural aversion to public policy being determined by pressure groups, and, all credit to Joe Karam, over the past 15 years he has learnt to operate and succeed as a one-man pressure group.

    Accordingly, Collins asked for another report not because she disagreed with Binnie’ conclusions (although she very well may have – but she is honest and skilled enough to suspend her prejudices when fulfilling her public offices), but because she saw/suspected that the process by which Binnie reached his conclusion was flawed. She exercised her ministerial prerogative to get a second opinion, because the buck stops with her on what gets recommended to cabinet.

    ..however,

    @ Dennis Horne

    …as much as I agree with the Muldoon comparison, you are incorrect I think on your understanding on how this will work out. Joe Karam has had 15 years experience manipulating the media, and feeding it the juicy, “little guy against the system” story, that the Herald, amongst others, will continue to run with. Eventually it may very well end up the right horse, not on the merits of the case, but because “persistence beats resistance”.

    Don’t believe me? What was the verdict in the second trial and how much weight did Joe Karam repeating the hear say of alleged incest by Robin until it seeped down into the collective national sub-conscious play in the final verdict? Answer: Lots!

    At the moment Collins’ integrity is the only thing keeping the compo issue alive – there was expedient political gain/dodging a bullet by passing the parcel (sorry to mangle metaphors!) for her in taking the soft option of saying, “the commissioned report from Justice Binnie recommends compensation…so that is what I will recommend to cabinet”. She didn’t do that.

    But in politics and public perception (and one feeds the other), when it comes to what sells in a complex matter like the Bain case, bullshit triumphs over substance most of the time. Many people are not willing nor able to take the time to assess the complex facts – hey, they can’t even balance their cheque-book, nor make astute financial and life decisions. Instead, life is just unfair because of stuff that the corrupt politicians are doing.

    So when the Herald runs with a set of stories that it is the little guy against the system, and Collins is part of the problem, that will strike a rich and on-going vein. Don’t believe me? What is the thing people remember above all others about Erebus? “An orchestrated litany of lies (by Air NZ)…”

    And to be fair to the Herald, C K Stead’s article was a good balance to Hide…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Kimbo. Yes, but the problem is the Herald thinks it’s being “balanced”. I know that for a fact. The Herald,as opposed to opinion and letter writers, does not challenge the quality of the Binnie Report. Furthermore, it is not concerned with evidence because it feels the matter has gone past there. Truth? Doesn’t matter? Where is balance when one is right and the other is wrong? Now, I know that does not contradict what you are saying.

    I personally had the same trouble with the Auckland Star many years ago. I went, with a former DSIR scientist and director of an Institute, to see editor and the executive editor about their “balance” on fluoridation. I said to him: “Yes, but you take a handful of gold and balance it against a handful of feathers.” He had the grace to laugh.

    This is a great deal more straight forward than TE901. Erebus is technical and beyond many people.

    But it does show, again, judges are no better than anyone else at finding truth, they just know the law, usually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I was going to reply to flipper but I see there is no need to as others have explained the facts to him better than I could have.
    I see Kanz hasn’t as yet answered a couple of my questions, put them in the too hard basket,no doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ muggins

    “I was going to reply to flipper but I see there is no need to as others have explained the facts to him better than I could have.”

    But in many cases of adjusting personal belief, it is not a matter of the quality of the explanation, it is the volition of the recipient

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

    Some journalistic balance for Robin Bain would be good. He was never part of the big bad system, poor bastard.

    Robin’s only sin was being an older male, at the back end of three generations of the badly miscued ‘Stranger Danger’ meme, a dangerous myth long since discredited by world authorities (including NZ police), but still not yet relinquished by a society which hangs on to its favourite urban myths for dear life. Still in New Zealand, being an older male is proof positive of sexual deviance, when the reality is that sexual deviance is the province of dirty young men; and only very rarely indeed, of dirty old men. And isn’t it an urban myth that Joe Karam took maximum advantage of.

    When does Robin Bain’s defence get to be aired, NZ Herald? Binnie? John Key? Flipper?

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

    I should have ended that comment with the obvious. Robin Bain killed no-one. Nor is there one shred of proof that he did; there being a truck-load of proof that he didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Just reread from bhudson reply to me this morning who believes there is no escape from executive power whether wielded fairly or unfairly. We’ll have to disagree on that bhudson, there are other fish to fry for now.

    Somebody sent me copies of a number of commentators here who convinced themselves on CS that Rodney had seen the light, in effect that is the core intellect failure of those that argue against David Bain. They ask for evidence that they have already read a 100 times but are unable or unwilling to absorb. They rally to anybody that will share their views and attack those that don’t. An example yesterday: not one critical comment on the Stead piece despite the dear man confusing witnesses and criticising Binnie for accepting the word of a ‘defence’ witness who in fact was a Crown witness. Critical mistakes passing without comment. Even accepting without comment that Stead in fact attacked the jury for having a particular mindset, absolute crystal ball drivel, but to the anti lot confirming their right to have also attacked the jury over the years.

    Now we have the suggestion of ‘perjury,’ this follows the retrial (as flipper says the only trial, because a mistrial counts for nothing) in which police admitted ‘assisting’ the jury by lying to them. No talk of perjury there, all hunky dory. Something of the fashion of the police reactions Hide wrote about today. No irony there folks – all par for the course.

    Someone sent me a suggestion of who dotcom in fact is, a newspaper person. Now I see others consider he has morphed into Kimbo how very interesting.

    But of most genuine interest is that contained in flipper 10.25 which appears to have gone over everyone’s head much as Hide’s svelte sarcasm passed over the witch sniffers. And in particular #483. Kanz mentioned other compensation decided under cabinet rules which show precedent. The precedent must start, or should start with The Thomas case because, in the order of importance it was also a Royal Commission, #483 reflects on the issues bhudson is unwilling to acknowledge in the long history of English and British Law. If I remember correctly F E Smith writing a couple of weeks ago that he felt the Bain case actually ended with the PC decision in terms of compensation, something I’ve thought for a long time as well – and if not there at the second ‘bite of the cherry’ the retrial. In fact we see now a 3rd and 4th bite attended by ridiculous public comment of what jurors were thinking, or what Bain must have been thinking mostly driven by people not bright enough to even understand sarcasm let alone due process and procedure. I could say the culmination of that was dotcom’s ‘blood streaming’ or anything by our phone correspondent for the insane. She’s not done yet folks more medicine to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    “This is a great deal more straight forward than TE901. Erebus is technical and beyond many people.”

    No, I don’t think so, or at least there isn’t if you get the key facts in place that makes sense of the complexity (and there is complexity in the Bain case – luminol, angle of trajectory, blood samples, etc.)

    Captain Collins flying VMC should not have descended below 16,000 feet. Everything else, including Air New Zealand’s incorrect flight co-ordinates their subsequent cover-up/stone-walling at the inquiry is dramatic distracting detail.

    There is no physical evidence or string of unusual coincidences connecting Robin Bain to the murder of his family, but there are both connecting David. Everything else, including NZ Police’s mistakes and/or incompetence is dramatic distracting detail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Kimbo when you’ve got over congratulating yourself would you explain the blood wash on Robin’s hands and his dna inside the barrel, also perhaps his blood on the laundry towel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    NN-Z,

    #483 is not related to compensation as such. It is arguing that AAT should be considered as being innocent for the purposes of considering compensation because the commission did not find him to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I think you will find the Cabinet guideline the Bain claim is being assessed under is very clear that the test for the consideration of compensation is ‘balance of probabilities’ and not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Perhaps the guidelines have changed since the AAT compensation.

    #474, however, is an item that you would do well to pay close attention to. I have highlighted the most important parts for you:

    • 474. Compensation is not claimable as of right. It is in the nature of an
    ex gratia payment, sometimes made by the Government following the
    granting of a free pardon, or the quashing of a conviction. Being in the
    nature of an ex gratia payment, there are no principles of law applicable
    which can be said to be binding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    As others have been explaining for the last few days (and I think most around here is learning to take whatever you say about individual pieces of evidence as provisional subject to verification/with a large dollop of salt): -

    “Blood on Robin’s hands” – his own, spray and splatter from the shot that killed him

    “his dna inside the barrel” – spray and splatter from the shot that killed him (and why are you owed an answer when you haven’t answered the question that muggins has been asking on numerous occasion, “how far inside the barrel?” is an interesting illustration of your duck-in/duck-out dynamic)

    “his blood on the laundry towel” – would that be the same laundry where David’s bloody hand print was found on the washing machine?!

    None of which connects Robin to the murder of the other four dead members of his family.

    To repeat: “There is no physical evidence or string of unusual coincidences connecting Robin Bain to the murder of his family, but there are both connecting David”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    kimbo falls over immediately. There was spatter on Robin’s hands for sure, also on his trousers, but what was on his palms was smeared blood, shown in a photo taken in the mortuary. Blood diffused by water. It doesn’t matter how much you repeat your mantras they’ve all been disproved. Your ‘attack’ on Binnie isn’t evidence based, your just pandering to an audience that want to believe they’re not wrong, easily done in fact but they not among the 74%, probably not even 1%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    bhudson I’m sure the guidelines are predated by the Thomas case, in fact were a protocol adopted when NZ didn’t accept a proposal from the Law Commission and opted out of a UN convention on automatic procedures for compensation. Somehow you seem to think that I don’t understand the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ or the executive power for compensation whereas I simply don’t agree with in the first instance and don’t accept that it can over rule the BOR nor can it be unfairly administered, you obviously think it can – the very basis of a test, one for the Courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    “…but what was on his palms was smeared blood, shown in a photo taken in the mortuary. Blood diffused by water”.

    Which, if it were truly fact, rather than opinion, would likely have resulted in David Bain never being charged.

    Instead, it was a disputed opinion, an allegation/interpretation by the defence which was put to the jury.

    Assignment for Nostalgia-NZ:

    Write out 100 times, “I must not attempt to pass off opinion as fact”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    [I] don’t accept that it can over rule the BOR nor can it be unfairly administered, you obviously think it can – the very basis of a test, one for the Courts.

    NN-Z,

    Given there are no principles of law binding on this process and decision (refer quote above from the Royal Commission) you have no grounds for the test in court you seem to be relying on.

    Your argument, as unfounded as it is, is becoming reminiscent of something from Vincent Siemer, or Penny Bright.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Sorry a fact, in photos produced by Dempster. Need to do some homework Kimbo but you’re right it proves he should never have been charged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    Ex gratia is just that. No obligation to pay. No right to receive. BORA doesn’t come into it. At a pinch, some could be done if the minister was acting in bad faith, but she isn’t. She is following due process. Binnie didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    Bugger the edit

    “…something could be done……”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    “Sorry a fact, in photos produced by Dempster”.

    That it was, “smeared”. Fact.

    That it was “Blood diffused by water”. Opinion

    Another 100 lines: ““I must still not attempt to pass off opinion as fact”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    bhudson:

    Your whining, normal as it is on this subject, is becoming reminiscent of those that said David would never be found not guilty and then later, never be found innocent on the BOP. Both have happened.

    Natural Justice gets a mention here as does public body and even review.

    27. Right to justice-

    (1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.

    (2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.

    When Doug Graham rejected the recommendation from the LC for a law on Compensation the ‘rules’ were put in place as a substitution, it can’t have been the intention that the guidelines would be anything other than fairly and consistently administered. So as you negatively drone on that there are no principles of Law involved, David Bain might be considering that because the guidelines were the substitute to having a Law governing compensation and backing a UN mandate for such a Law that the rules were binding to the principle of Natural justice and are therefore reviewable, only a Court could decide that ot bhudson on KB. But perhaps you might win the task of arguing on behalf of Judith that proper process was followed and natural justice wasn’t denied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    It’s good to see NNZ likes facts.

    How about the fact that Stephen’s blood was found on David (but not on Robin)…
    And what about the fact that David hated his father…
    And the fact he cannot account for the scratches and bruises found on his chest and forehead respectively…
    His fingerprints were found on the rifle in pristine condition, but alas Robin’s weren’t…
    The glasses belonging to his mother, glasses he said he hadn’t seen in a year, were found in his bedroom…
    The fact he did his paper run earlier than normal…
    The fact he stood to inherit a lot of money with the deaths of his family…
    The fact he saw blood streaming down his mother’s place but didn’t call police or an ambulance…
    The fact he spent a considerable period of time in the house, apparently unconcerned that he could be shot…
    The fact he washed apparently blood stained clothes…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    The fact he saw blood streaming down his mother’s *face*…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    If she wasn’t acting in bad faith Nookin she would have expressed her concerns to Binnie in order to have them resolved. She even went to the extent of claiming he didn’t understand NZ law when in fact he’d taken instructions on that. Hate to repeat that one of her ‘concerns’ was Guest saying David told him he was wearing the glasses that weekend something which the Binnie report confirmed on the BOP. Add to that excluding the applicant from even knowing about the ‘peer’ review and it goes on. So I’ll take the ‘at a pinch.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    At least you got to the ‘smeared’ bit Kimbo after starting out with spatter. BOP water, consistent with the laundry towel, and that bloody palm print, no proof it was blood. Bad luck on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @NN-Z,

    I try – I realise its futile, but I try.

    No one is being denied the right to justice here. Why don’t you reflect on Nookin’s comment above – he understands the position. And he is quite clear that, based on what we know, Collins could not even be accused of acting in bad faith.

    Yet you continue. And now accuse me of whining simply because I care enough to remind you that your argument is groundless. And then you post that comment, quoting some (unnamed source) on natural justice. You really have sunk to the Siemer/Bright level of legal argument (that is anything but.)

    By the way, as I am hopelessly optimistic, our Parliament is sovereign – if it didn’t adopt a UN mandate then there is no way that a New Zealand court can find that the government is in breach of it. Our courts are not sovereign. Parliament is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Incidentally, NN-Z, there is a rather simple pointer to the next option if Cabinet reject compensation – Parliament. Parliament is sovereign. It can overrule the Cabinet decision.

    Have someone (Joe Karam perhaps?) sponsor a Private Bill to Parliament to legislate compensation for Bain. That will trump any legal or non-legal process explored to date.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    She even went to the extent of claiming he didn’t understand NZ law when in fact he’d taken instructions on that.

    Which makes his Report all the more baffling. There was really no excuse as to why he seemed confused about who the onus of proof was on. At various times, he believed the onus of proof was on the Crown. That was incorrect.

    Binnie’s report is a shambles. The fact you continue to defend it speaks volumes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    The fact you keep bsing speaks volumes ross. I suppose you’ve still got a sore toe from falling over that bloody big ‘if.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    and that bloody palm print, no proof it was blood. Bad luck on that.

    Except, NN-Z, its no longer a court requiring ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Someone making an assessment for Cabinet on ‘balance of probabilities’ could assess the liklihood that it was blood. And then map conclusions from that.

    Bad luck on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Here we go again. The poster with the bullshit degree is still trying to tell us that Robin Bain washed his hands yet still left blood on them. Talk about a myth perpetrator.
    And he is still saying Robin Bain’s DNA was in the barrel. The blood in the barrel was never tested for DNA.
    But at least he is no longer saying that the blood was deep in the barrel,so there is hope for him yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    For example, at 214, Binnie makes what can only be termed a schoolboy error. He says:

    “This ‘pop in and out’ theory is a positive assertion by the Crown Law Office to explain away Mrs Laney’s testimony (or at least undermine its significance) and it is up to the Crown Law Office to prove facts that establish the ‘pop in and out’ theory it positively asserts – not up to David Bain to refute them.”

    That comment would be absolutely correct if David were being prosecuted – the onus of proof would be on the Crown. But here the onus is on David. How Binnie could be confused by NZ law when he was assisted by two experts is mind-boggling. Why anyone would try to defend this incompetence is also mind-boggling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    bhudson.

    Didn’t act in bad faith while spending 3 months excluding both Binnie and Bain from her concerns, get real.
    Feel free to take as many liberties as you like but I never said that the Government could be in breach of a UN mandate or Law that it wasn’t a party to. You’re doing that round and round in circles thing, you must be getting excited.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. pq (728 comments) says:

    thats right Ross , immediately above , but we are not confused.
    The question I ask is how did we get this idiot Binnie on the case in the first place

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Feel free to take as many liberties as you like but I never said that the Government could be in breach of a UN mandate or Law that it wasn’t a party to.

    Oh really, NN-Z?? Your words:

    So as you negatively drone on that there are no principles of Law involved, David Bain might be considering that because the guidelines were the substitute to having a Law governing compensation and backing a UN mandate for such a Law that the rules were binding to the principle of Natural justice and are therefore reviewable

    To paraphrase The Castle: “Get your hand off it NN-Z”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    how did we get this idiot Binnie on the case in the first place

    It’s pretty simple really. The cult of Bain wanted an overseas judge, believing that no local judge had the independence or expertise to come to the “right” decision. They got their wish. Alas, Binnie wasn’t up to the task. Ironically, a local jursit will probably be called upon to do what he was unable to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Poor old ross, how can anybody refute something that hasn’t been positively asserted. Your trying to argue that whatever the Crown said, whether it had merit or not, David had to refute it. He had to prove his innocence on the BOP taking into account the factuality of assertions made against him, not something dream up on the third or fourth try. But I doubt you’ll ever get it. That’s the difference in the intellect of Binnie and Ms Collins, she accepted a whole range of things, some of which were dreamed up off the cuff from police of what ‘might’ of happened and expects them to be refuted. It goes back to the daydream you swallowed of David ‘needing’ to be seen on the paper round.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    NNZ – here was your opportunity to show you know something about NZ law and you failed. I know I was being optimistic but still…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    David claims Robin killed himself. The onus of proof is therefore on David to show that Robin killed himself. Where is the proof?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Kimbo (85) Says:
    January 6th, 2013 at 4:14 pm
    @ Dennis Horne: “This is a great deal more straight forward than TE901. Erebus is technical and beyond many people.”

    No, I don’t think so… Captain Collins flying VMC should not have descended below 16,000 feet…

    Kimbo, your analysis of Bain case is spot on and you are a clever man. (Not Pat Booth are you?) Collins was flying IVR in clear air or VMC when he descended. He might well have been legal VMC under CARs and SOPs when he hit Erebus. What he was not doing was fulfilling his obligations under law for VFR in VMC in terms of navigation and identification or interpretation of or reference to the surface. In short, he should have satisfied himself he could see and avoid the mountain he knew was nearby before he descended below MSA; other pilots did despite the claptrap from silly people. Sorry, it it technical, whereas any intelligent person can see the case against Bain if he looks and can add.

    The incest thing was “brilliant”, or was it? It’s quite common for women to accuse men when trying to screw them during divorce and so on, so I’m told. If people know nothing else about this case, they “know” about the incest, as you say. Probably lies and totally irrelevant – doesn’t explain anything. David was spared to tell everyone? Tommyrot, the lot.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ, you said “An example yesterday: not one critical comment on the Stead piece despite the dear man confusing witnesses and criticising Binnie for accepting the word of a ‘defence’ witness who in fact was a Crown witness. Critical mistakes passing without comment.”

    I did try, a little bit. over here:
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/01/ck-stead-slams-binnie-report-as-showing-clear-bias/

    I also made a comment on CK Stead’s opinion piece, but for some reason the Herald doesn’t seem to be publishing any comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Bugger this edit, flying IFR in clear air… (Forgot the )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    A fail from you is actually a pass mark ross.

    Even dear mrbhudson who started out that there was no prospect of review finally admitted there could be if there was ‘bad faith.’ It’s all looking good and even one of the cuckoos who convinced themselves that Hide’s article was an indication of a change of mind on the compo has fallen, or been pushed, out the nest to join you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    dragonfly

    No the Herald are not accepting comments on Karl’s opinion piece at this point. It could start tomorrow, or perhaps they’ve realised a couple of critical flaws crept through the editing process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    “At least you got to the ‘smeared’ bit Kimbo after starting out with spatter”.

    Ho hum. You really must work on your shell-game skills.

    NN asks, “would you explain the blood wash on Robin’s hands…?” (Note the assumption slipped in with the word, “wash”)

    Kimbo responds in good faith, not wanting to distract from the primary and undisputed point at issue that it is agreed there WAS indeed smeared (not washed!) blood on Robin’s hands: “his own, spray and splatter from the shot that killed him” (Note Kimbo did not say it stayed “splattered”, as he is well aware, as NN and anyone familiar with the case is, that the Crown contended that it was Robin’s hand rubbing against something as his dead body fell that could have caused the smearing)

    NN springs his trap: “Sorry a fact, in photos produced by Dempster”. (Thus deliberately confusing the agreed fact there was smeared blood on Robin’s hands with the disputed fact it was smeared as a result of washing).

    Kimbo responds: “That it was, “smeared”. Fact. That it was “Blood diffused by water”. Opinion

    NN tries to insist his trap has worked: “At least you got to the ‘smeared’ bit Kimbo after starting out with spatter”

    A number of months ago, NN, when I participated in threads on the Bain case, I said I would no longer respond to your posts due to your willful and unethical means of misrepresenting, obfuscating, and side-tracking sensible discussion. Months down the track, and nothing has changed.

    I’m happy to discuss with Bain supporters who can challenge my assumptions in a sensible and coherent way.

    You’re not one of those people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Even dear mrbhudson who started out that there was no prospect of review finally admitted there could be if there was ‘bad faith.’

    Oh no NN-Z. I agree with Nookin that Collins has not acted in bad faith. I’ll stick with no prospect of review. I’d say the Private Bill is your best option.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    [blockquote]She even went to the extent of claiming he didn’t understand NZ law when in fact he’d taken instructions on that.[/blockquote]

    To be fair, only on the points he requested and the answers remained well within that scope even to the point of leaving some scope for the questions to be considered unanswered. unless he got a more wholistic review that I haven’t seen. That methodology would never really guarantee that you are within the law.

    I take it her position is that the concerns were so substantial that to fix them would require completely revisiting the report, if fisher is 100% correct then I guess that would be a fair response…. So even if that was mistaken it is easy enough to see her as acting is good faith assuming that she believed those same things as appear in the report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    I sympathise with you kimbo, starting out with spatter, admitting the blood wash/smears in short order and adding to the forensic evidence against Robin wasn’t on you agenda. There there, it’s tough getting off the soap box and down to the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ

    If you are going to persist with the shell-game you really must add something else in your repertoire to pull of the distraction other than variations of, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    No, not Pat Booth (great man that he is).

    Nor a journalist of any description.

    Just a foot-soldier citizen with a few technical skills in another discipline that I bring when satisfying my curiosity about stuff like the Bain case, and Erebus, and whatever takes my fancy.

    Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Prof Mark Henaghan says the Government’s decision will be the end of the line for David. In other words, it won’t be able to be challenged in the courts. If David is denied compensation, he will have to consider other avenues, such as the family’s inheritance.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Kimbo

    Don’t be so modest. It takes rare skill to go from claiming there is no forensic evidence against Robin Bain, to debating the evidence in the next minute. Well done.

    ross

    Oh goody. Mark Henaghan has predicted the end of the line for David, maybe he deserves a gold star like all the others that made the same prediction over the years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    If you want to tell of two posters in the same thread, as bhudson indicated before, it isnt that hard to do. Anonymity on the internet is largely an illusion against a smart and determined investigator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I wonder if the poster with the bulls**t degree believes David Bain was telling the truth when he said he saw his only friend having sexual relations with a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Pat Booth reckoned Jeanette Crewe committed suicide by shooting herself in the back of the head.
    Mind you,if Robin Bain had been shot in the back of the head the Davidbainites would still say he committed suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    And so come the goat herders, bringing their ‘special’ help to the failed case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    NN-Z,

    Your obstinate refusal to accept reality around the compensation process in this case and the consequences of a refusal to pay by Cabinet, reminds me of an episode of Blackadder.

    Series II – they are off to explore the new world…

    Edmund: I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.
    Rum: Opinion is divided on the subject.
    Edmund: Oh, really?
    Rum: Yahs. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn’t.

    You’re the captain…

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

    One minute they say Robin is a dirty smelly old man next they say he showered to meet his maker. Somehow he showered washing blood out of his hair and off his face but left blood on his hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Mind you, if Robin Bain had been shot in the back of the head the Davidbainites would still say he committed suicide.

    If Robin had shot himself 5 times, David would claim it was suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Somehow he showered washing blood out of his hair and off his face but left blood on his hands.

    He also left a fair dollop of blood on his forehead…there were other ways he could have killed himself that would have been less messy.

    Curiosuly, although David was apparently his favourite person and the only one who deserved to live, Robin couldn’t use the word “David” in the suicide note. How weird is that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    One minute they say Robin is a dirty smelly old man next they say he showered to meet his maker.

    By whom was it suggested that either Bain or his old man showered that morning? Nobody, not Crown or defence have ever said the shower was used, in fact, they both claim it wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    I’m sure blackadder is a favourite of yours bhudson and that you know all the lines to every show.

    I like your attempts at retracting from your obstinance with agreement that ‘if’ Ms Collins acted in ‘bad faith’ she is accountable to the question of natural justice. But you said what you said when agreeing with Nookin on the subject. Don’t be so wishy washy, it makes you sound so fake.

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

    The fact that they never used that someone showered was done at the predisposition hearing and both crown a defence agreed that it could of been either David or Robin. What? are we to believe that the killer got no blood on his head and hair in the struglle with Steven what utter nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Don’t pre-dispose yourself so easily gamefisher otherwise the goat herder might expect some ‘favours’ from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Hows the vitamin D deficency going , gentlemen this is what awaits you if you’re not careful and sit at the computer all day-

    Rickets is a disorder caused by a lack of vitamin D, calcium, or phosphate. It leads to softening and weakening of the bones. Symptoms: Bone pain or tenderness Arms; Legs; Pelvis; Spine. Dental deformities Delayed formation of …your genitals

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    NN-Z,

    For clarity, as it appears t be so,etching you lack when referring to others, Nookin said:

    At a pinch, some could be done if the minister was acting in bad faith, but she isn’t. She is following due process.

    To reiterate, I agree completely with Nookin here – there is no chance of review as Collims is acting in good faith.

    No retraction from me. Save your semantic TradeMe community notices word games for…well…TradeMe really.

    How is that planning going for the sponsoring of a Private Bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    ^^ “so,etching” = “something”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Better to be a goat herder than a goat shagger. I hope the Aussies don’t get wind of this. I mean they already think we are a nation of sheep shaggers.

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

    If anyone thinks the shower wasn’t used that morning needs to read this

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/48927/jury-sees-bloody-items-bain-house

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Excellent effort blackadder all four hooves in the mouth on same goat track.
    I bey you’re excited about tomorrow – if your doodle works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @NN-Z,

    I’ll leave you to Siemer and Bright governor. At least you’ll be with like minds

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    I guess there’s nothing like being herded bhudson, I’m sure you enjoy it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @NN-Z,

    Because you seem to need the reiteration of every point in every comment, else it is some sort of retraction, let me just crystallise this for you:

    1. Compensation in this case would be ex gratia and therefore no legal principle for review exists.
    2. Several legal experts are in agreement, not only that Binnie got it [the process, if not the detemination] wrong, but some are also publicly stating that this process is the final ‘throw of the dice’ for compensation – it works or its all over (Henaghan and Dawkins are two)
    3. Nookin stated very clearly that there are no legal principles for reviewing the Cabinet decision
    4. Nookin stated very clearly that he believes that Collins has acted in good faith
    5. Nookin stated very clearly that only “at a pinch” could he think that, maybe, a challenge based on good faith could be raised – which is not to say that such a challenge could be raised, but that, in the absence of any legal principles to base a review on, that is the only thing he could think of that could possibly be tried.
    6. Which is not to say that it is a viable sense for contest

    I think you have spent too much time on TradeMe. The only thing you have corralled is yourself into the same pen as Vincent Siemer and Penny Bright with your quasi-legal semantic contortions. That is not considered particularly good company; on this blog, or in the courts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Simon Power informed 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 merely being innocent on the balance of probabilities isn’t enough for David, even if it could be demonstrated that he was probably innocent. David has to show he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    > David has to show he is innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

    Even Binnie didn’t think that was the case…so the government can say no to compo right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Dirty Rat (377 comments) says:

    Has Sam Hunt been asked his opinion yet?

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

    Don’t bother Dirty Rat, he’d probably say:
    “I’ve been thinking about poor Robin Bain
    It really gives me quite a bad pain
    He’s shot everyone he loves
    But why did he wear gloves?
    It’s left his son with a lot to explain”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    You were the sunshine of the pile
    The one to make me smile
    But I shot ‘em all in the end
    Only one did off me fend
    ‘n I was stronger by a mile

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    bhudson

    Repeating yourself might make some sense to you.
    You’ve admitted there might be a chance of review if Collins acted in bad faith, that’ll do thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Have you ever though, just once, that you could be wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    Some thoughts on scenarios for Robin being the murderer…

    Putting myself in the shoes of “murderer robin” and walking around the house killing people, when David returns would dominate my thoughts. I’d be thinking through if he had to come back or if he her the dog or if everything took too long, if I was in the shower or somthing when david returned.. what would happen?

    Good chances the answer would be “shoot him” but even if it wasn’t it would probably be something I’d (as a familicide psychology) would want to be in control of, which makes it odd to bother cleaning up and also odd he didn’t just take the next step and shoot David.. what if David comes in while I’m playing around with the shower curtain and the shower cap? that is like going on a paper run in the middle of a murder spree… in some ways worse.

    And all this about the gloves and potential wiping down of items – seems to imply that Robin wanted to frame David or to get away with mass murder. both of which are pretty optimistic (even if the 1st actually happened it relied on certain things going the right way and this sort of murder is usually about maintaining control). But then he would need to have changed his mind at the end with the note on the computer, unless it was self referential and written earlier in which case he changed his mind about killing david.

    either way it seems to require a change of mind at the end… maybe dog barking caused a panic… but it does seem odd after planning a mass murder and executing most of it you end up changing your mind…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    David kills his family. That is unbelievable.
    Robin kills his family. That is unbelievable.
    Robin kills his family and spares David. That is a miracle.

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

    Arawa get to be head prefect
    Arawa starts studying to be a teacher following her fathers footsteps
    David fails at Uni
    David at 22 is still a paper boy
    David refuses a job with an Uncle
    David is the one that deserves to live
    That last line is unbelievable

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Repeating yourself might make some sense to you.

    N-NZ,

    I find I have to with you as you have a habit of not taking in what you read, but what you want to read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @bhudson. People are Karamed. Facts are Karamilzed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Very gracious of you bhudson, I guess you needed special help with comprehension matters and therefore think that reiteration is the way to go. Would be a good idea to keep reading the evidence instead of diverting into the false hope that repeating things will make certain things go away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    instead of diverting into the false hope that repeating things will make certain things go away.

    Like claiming you can contest a political decision, bound by no legal principle, on the basis of ‘natural justice’ and some view that there ‘is no way that the executive could possibly be able to do something without a right of judicial review’?

    What would your argument be NN-Z? “It’s the vibe of the thing” [the Dennis Denuto approach.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Mr Horne, it took me a long time to make my mind up about the evidence during which time I had interest but no opinion. People kept giving me ‘information’ that simply wasn’t true, that feature probably spoke more about the Bain case or any other. I don’t recall ever seeing in print about David’s strip search, and only a minor mention of the dna inside the rifle. Information about the blood smears on Robin’s palms only can out in recent years, and even more recently of the probable prospect that he’d had a nose bleed. That’s at the core of this case, not glasses, not a funeral and not ‘why woulds).

    So first of all I didn’t have an opinion, once I did and since then there has been absolutely nothing which holds water in the previous allegations against David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ. I accept there was a time you had no opinion, as it was for all of us. Thank you for taking my question seriously, but you haven’t answered it. Here it is again:

    Have you ever though, just once, that you could be wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    First of all that it shouldn’t be a political decision bhudson, the minister was unable to resist not being seen and acting as absolutely neutral. For example she sewed discontent about the report first of all to try and keep in secret and then later, and under pressure, to denigrate it. I think without Fisher she may have struggled to find a lawyer willingly to engage with her on a clandestine attack against Binnie. She should have done what Binnie did with all correspondence for example copy it to each party and not go into a huddle with the police and crown. Stand aside on the matter if for example she felt the criticism of the prosecution of the retrial and all the money spent on it was a reflection of her time as Minister of Police.

    Rodney Hide’s article yesterday is one of the best informed pieces written on the ‘politics’ of the situation to date. Likewise an earlier article by him where he said that reading the Binnie report had resulted in lifting a ‘deeply held predjudice’ great language with which he also described the real difference in the quality of logic and underlying tone of both Fisher and Binnie’s report.

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

    Dennis Horne @bhudson. People are Karamed. Facts are Karamilzed.
    This was very evident in Cameron Slater’s excellent talkback show on newstalk live yesterday evening. Cameron is very conversant with the true facts of the case and quickly sorted any misconceptions. As he said the media has been flooded with this misinformation for 12 years.
    The simplicity of the average Pro-Bainer was there to hear with one of the callers “If he is guilty he should say so, otherwise he should get compensation.” LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Yes I have Dennis, when faced with ‘conclusive’ evidence that turned out not to be what it was claimed. An example was the claims that the trigger couldn’t have been reached by Robin, so I got the measurements made a rudimentary model and found he could easily have done so. I was told that by people who either hadn’t tried to the same thing, or who, as some continue now, just lied about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    First of all that it shouldn’t be a political decision

    But it is NN-Z. And no Court can change that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    An example was the claims that the trigger couldn’t have been reached by Robin

    Well, yes, Robin could have reached the trigger, just as he could have performed a triple back summersault. That is not the issue. The issue is, was he likely to have shot himself?

    Binnie’s conclusion that David is factually innocent requires, by implication, Robin Bain to be factually guilty of murdering Arawa, Stephen, Laniet and Margaret. From reading his report and from traversing the evidence it is apparent that:

    * There is insufficient evidence to prove that Robin exited his caravan before 6.32 am on the morning of the murders
    * There is insufficient evidence to prove that Robin handled the rifle on the morning of the murders
    * There is insufficient evidence to prove that Robin entered David’s bedroom on the morning of the murders
    * There is insufficient evidence to prove that Robin changed his clothes, as alleged by the defence
    * There is insufficient evidence to prove that Robin killed himself
    * There is insufficient evidence to prove that Robin wrote the suicide note on the computer
    * There is insufficient evidence to prove that Robin wore David’s opera gloves on the morning of the murders

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Sofia (785 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ – An example was the claims that the trigger couldn’t have been reached by Robin, so I got the measurements made a rudimentary model and found he could easily have done so.
    ___________

    When you did that, what gap did you allow between your left temple and what equalled the end of the silencer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Belinda (126 comments) says:

    I heard the talkback last night, it was excellent. NZers are going to be angry when they realise they have been conned . Some of the media are getting the courage to speak up at long last despite all the threats.
    Good on you Cameron Slater for having the courage to tell NZ that the Emperor has no clothes.
    Will the Herald do another poll now that Binnies report has been found so flawed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Actually I don’t recall seeing any confirmation that there was a strip-search.
    Of course David Bain told Binnie he was naked when Dr Pryde examined him but no-one has ever confirmed that.
    The fact that there was blood on Robin Bain’s hands was mentioned in the PCA Report back in 1997,it did not only just come out in recent years. And of course those blood smears on Robin Bain’s left hand were most likely caused by blood spatter on that hand smearing when his hand hit the carpet.
    The nose bleed scenario has only very recently been mentioned by the poster with the bulls**t degree. There was no mention of Robin having a nose bleed at the retrial. But if he did have a nose bleed the most likely cause of it would be that David had to punch his father to keep him quiet, and this could account for Robin Bain’s blood being on that towel in the laundry. David could have used that towel to wipe the blood from his fathers face.
    The blood in the barrel was not tested for DNA so we will never know for sure whose blood it was. But if it was Robin Bain’s blood that just confirms what Dr Dempster said. He said the wound to Robin Bain’s head was a close contact would,so it is quite likely some of the blood from that wound went into the barrel.
    Those glasses are the key. David told at least four people that he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses,in fact he told his lawyer and co-counsel that he had been wearing the glasses that were found in his room.
    Even the Law Lords of the Privy Council agree that the Crown thesis that David Bain was wearing those glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen before shooting him is a strong one based on the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    NZers are going to be angry when they realise they have been conned

    I’m not sure I agree…David is most unlikely to get any payout, and I suspect more and more people will conclude he murdered his family. By the end of the process, he might wish he had never applied for compo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/01/cactus-on-rodney-hides-shark-jumping/

    Rodney Hide well informed?
    Cactus Kate ain’t too sure about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    No gap sofia to be consistent with the contact wound. However because I am taller than what Robin was I was easily able to ‘over reach’ the nail I had banged into the dowel to replicate the trigger position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    The blood smears evidence was only revealed before the second trial during the period of preparation by Dempster, and was from photos taken in the mortuary and not previously produced. But the only idiot in the country who thinks there was no strip search wouldn’t know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Belinda (126 comments) says:

    ross69@ 9.42am
    Hiis best option would be to quietly leave this country for good.
    I do feel sorry for the bride to be though, what a hard row to hoe she has.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I carried out a test to see how David Bain could have left those fingerprints on the rifle.
    I used a reverse left hand grip and wiped the rifle with a cloth using my right hand. Worked a treat.
    I reckon David Bain used that grip when he wiped the blood off the rifle when he was in Stephen’s room. He used his gloves,and that is why they were so bloody.
    He was quite possibly wearing gloves when he shot his father,and just forgot he had left that set of prints from earlier.
    You know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. flipper (3,276 comments) says:

    The idiosyncratic meanderings (thus named because as one door is closed by the logic of Nostalgia and Kanz, the idiot brigade switches from one foot to another), and futile attempts to rewrite and re-litigate, thereby fictionalising the Bain case, continue by the demented few.

    Yesterday I commented on the similarity between Thomas and Bain.

    Of course the”hangbainers” (nice sobriquet that, Nostalgia :) ) insist that there is no comparison between the two. But if they took the trouble to put aside their pre-conceptions, and take even just a cursory peek at the record they will, surely, grey matter permitting, accept that 32 years after Thomas the “crown’s agencies” are engaged in a repeat performance.

    Rodney Hide noted yesterday that the Police, to their everlasting discredit, continue to resist the Thomas pardon and the Royal Commission. Indeed the Royal Commission itself, at Para circa 280 of its full report, notes, with some displeasure, their (Police) continued obstruction.

    Has it not occurred to you, “hangbainers”, that this is exactly what has occurred with Bain? No? Well what about their letter claiming Binnie made 28 errors?

    Well, bad as that is from the basic presumption that the law also to Police, it is not as bad as their futile attempts to introduce Thomas’s supposed prison cell “confessions” by pathological liars sand the clinically insane (as established by clinical evidence to the Commission). Fisher, granted he was the junior, refused to accept the admonition by the Commission to cease and desist. Fisher and Henry claimed the Police would not so instruct them. (Well, a defensible position, perhaps?). Nevertheless, the Royal Commission censured the Police for their attempted use of fiction.

    Then there is the persistent claim that Bain must prove his innocence. Rubbish.

    By law, following the finding of the jury (bear in mind, please, that the crown’s first attempt to try Bain was “expunged”), Bain is presumed to be innocent.

    Before you go into orbit hangbainers, let me remind you of what was stated by the Thomas Royal Commission (In case you do not realise it, Bain still has the choice of a JR or a suit for damages pursuant to the BoR, or both. That is also (minus BoR) the position in the UK.), said on that matter since it will be one legal foundation block upon which his case can, with some confidence that the Supreme Court will agree, be built. I quote:

    • ” 483. At our hearings there have been often repeated statements about
    whether Mr Thomas can be proved innocent. Such a proposition concerns
    us.

    ” It seems to imply that there falls on to him some onus positively to
    prove himself innocent. Such a proposition is wrong and contrary to the
    golden thread which runs right through the system of British criminal
    justice, namely that the Prosecution has the duty to prove the accused
    guilty and until so proved he had to be regarded as innocent.

    ” Once we are satisfied the Prosecution case against Mr Thomas has not been proved
    (and we are so satisfied on the totality of evidence before us) then, just as a
    Court would acquit him and the community thereafter accept his
    innocence, so we believe we are entitled to proclaim him innocent and
    proceed accordingly. Mr Thomas has always asserted his innocence.

    ” Taking all these factors into account, along with the pardon, it is our view
    that Mr Thomas is entitled to have the question of compensation
    determined on the basis that he is innocent. To determine it on any other
    basis would be to do him the gravest injustice.

    • ” 484. This Commission is privileged to have been given the task of
    righting wrongs done to Thomas, by exposing the injustice done to him by
    manufactured evidence. We cannot erase the wrong verdicts or allow the
    dismissed appeals.”

    :) :) :)

    Now, nay-sayers, idiiots et al, what is it about that that you do not understand? :)

    It is time to shut up your shop and go back to early childhood learning centres to start a basic education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

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

    What blood smears?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ. Thank you. You may have detected I am struggling to take this seriously any more. Hence “Karamed” and “Karamilized”.

    You are telling me it’s not just your faith which deepens with each challenge. I do understand that a piece of evidence would cause you to reason and accept or reason and reject. It’s the way you do it that’s suspect.

    You seem to suffer from some kind of splitting. Reaching the trigger of the rifle is an example. Yes, it’s possible, but is it likely? You make up you mind Yes/No. Black or White. He did or he didn’t. Of course that is true but we will never know by studying that fact per se. We must assign a likelihood. The decision he did or didn’t must be a likelihood assigned a posteriori not a priori. Binnie made the same mistake.

    It’s like looking for a “smoking gun” and finding one, where there are none, thinking there must be one. There are none against David but there are none against Robin either. This is why you cling to such things as the smear of Robin’s hands are wash, that whatever blood in the rifle means suicide.

    It’s an error in reasoning. Unfortunately all the evidence is problematical, none more so than the footprints that so captured and enchanted Binnie Brain.

    The only way to view the evidence is by studying the likelihood of each event, not merely assigning a 0 or a 1. There is a huge amount of evidence that points somewhat to David, and virtually none that points somewhat to Robin.

    Now, for all intents and purposes, I will never win Lotto. The chances are close to zero. But someone wins.

    So, against all the odds, that despite all the mass of bits of evidence pointing clearly or somewhat at David, it is still possible he is innocent. Possible. Possible in the same way I could win Lotto, but I won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @flipper. I’ll read your rant later. Tell me:

    Is the decision of a jury in a trial an accurate and reliable indication of factual innocence or guilt?

    Do you think Macdonald, found not guilty of murder, is factually innocent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    flipper,good to see you back.
    I thought those men in white coats must have called and taken you away.
    Hey,absolutely no similarity between Thomas and Bain.
    Thomas was framed,Bain was not.
    I heard a whisper that David Bain is going to release a single,first verse goes like this.

    I cant get no
    com pensation
    I cant get no
    com pensation
    And I tried and I tried and I tried and I tried
    I cant get no,I cant get no
    I cant get no com pensation.

    With apologies to Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. flipper (3,276 comments) says:

    ’round the Horne….

    Quoting a Royal Commission is a rant? God help you. No earthly being can.

    In law, he (Bain) is innocent. In law, McDonald is innocent of the murder. Period. Do yoiu still not understsnd what “not guilty”: means in law?
    My view (I do not have one on McDonald) is irrelevant.

    As for muggins….desperate stuff old girl …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Sofia (785 comments) says:

    muggins – Thomas was framed, Bain was not.
    ______________

    Unless, of course, by Robin … despite what the silly computer message said

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    Flipper you talk like many lawyers. If you are that is a reason why many people have little respect for lawyers. Too many are more interested in the law than justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @flipper. Why keep quoting this and that? What is your basis for believing Bain innocent BoP? The history of the case and various findings and decisions? Appeals to Authority? Can you think for yourself?

    You are wrong: Macdonald is not guilty in law, not factually innocent. You don’t have an opinion on Macdonald? So it’s not a general interest in truth and justice that you have, just a special interest in Bain?

    Apart from your lack of attention to detail (not McDonald) you seem unable to grasp that “factually innocent” reflects reality, not what the legal system has determined.

    Do you think anyone found not guilty in law might have difficulty proving factual innocence: Yes or No?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Only one person made a comment on Hide. Yeah, right. Hide, you are a galoot.
    ,
    No comments on Stead, facility closed. Truth, eh, NZ Herald? So still 70% favour compensation? Yeah, right.

    COLLINS IS A PILLAR AMONGST PILLOCKS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. flipper (3,276 comments) says:

    For all gthe thick and four short plank “hangbainer”: brigade, innocence of a crime, the Thomas Royal Commission , building on NZ and UK case law, stated:

    : • ” 483. At our hearings there have been often repeated statements about
    whether Mr Thomas can be proved innocent. Such a proposition concerns
    us.

    ” It seems to imply that there falls on to him some onus positively to
    prove himself innocent. Such a proposition is wrong and contrary to the
    golden thread which runs right through the system of British criminal
    justice, namely that the Prosecution has the duty to prove the accused
    guilty and until so proved he had to be regarded as innocent. ”

    Now if you idiots wish to change that, there is only one way: persuade Judith Collins (or whomsoever you nominate), to introduce a Bill to the Parliament, redefining “not guilty” in the manner you wish to impose, and hope that he or she can convince the Parliament of the need for New Zealand to break away from the British criminal justice system.

    Good luck! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @flipper. In law, the accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

    For Bain to be granted a payment to which he has no entitlement in law, but is at the discretion of the state, he must prove to the Minister he is innocent, OR prove there is insufficient evidence for him to do so, that is he was wrongfully charged in the first place, that being there insufficient or no evidence against him

    Now, that is a layman’s interpretation, so I will retract if I am wrong.

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

    Robin Bain the mircle man
    He defied the odds of being 1 out of 30 to shoot himself in the left temple
    He defied the odds of a rifle landing over 30cm 1 out of 14 times
    He defied gravity and landed over 1 meter away from where he should of
    He defieds the odds of not knocking a ammo clip/magazine over by mm’s (finely balance on its curved edge)
    He defied odds by not getting fingerprints on the rifle
    He defied the odd of not putting any indentation in the bean bags by not falling on it despite getting shot by the curtain & chair there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    The $400,000 payment for the entirely useless Binnie Report could have been saved if we did one simple thing routinely.

    We ask the jury for a “guilty” or “not guilty” verdict. Another category of “not proven” could be useful but would still require unanimity or near.

    It would be quite easy to record, in the jury room, secretly if need be, how many jurors feel the accused is innocent.

    If say nine jurors (75%) feel David Bain is probably or completely innocent, I would accept that as being as close to the truth as we are ever likely to get. Unless the unthinkable happens.

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

    Flipper says: Your patrience is extraordinary, Nostalgia and Kanz. My wife reckons you would both excell as “early childhood” teachers, should you ever tire of your existing professions.

    Guess you don’t really know, who your new friends are …..

    Judith says: I don’t stalk people, I collect information and send it to those who need to see it.

    Still very odd behaviour …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Like Binnie Dennis, and although I unquestionably don’t rate myself in anywhere near his company, I looked at the individual pieces of evidence and then the totality.

    I don’t look upon the case with faith one way or the other to do so would be bizarre, my ‘investment’ is only to the extent of the tests against known evidence singularly and in totality. There are simply a series of facts, some which are argued to be complex – something which I think is a cop out used for lack of progress and to elevate the commentator in a way they might take liberties or appear all knowing. That elevation is something we see here daily, a commentator who is convinced he can convince others by relaying conversations he claims to have had with others. That’s a good example of the ‘faith’ some have in being right where they may as well be claiming to have ‘conversed’ with the dead. I’ve read religious zealots fantasising over watching David been lynched as this person watched using torch light. Unfortunately that’s an indication of some of those attracted to the strange world of the late Robin Bain. So I look at the lounge scene connecting the laundry blood belonging to Robin, the smears and injuries to his hands, the upward trajectory and so on, unconcern by those that parrot why did Robin ‘set up’ David, or ‘why didn’t Robin shoot David’ questions of which there is no answer to satisfy the nervous. An interesting recent trend is that once the investigation was held to be ‘copy book’ and therefore David was guilty now it’s held to be ‘shoddy’ and therefore David is guilty. Any irony for you there Dennis.

    I appreciate that you are struggling to take this seriously anymore Dennis, your ‘enthusiasm’ might be dampened by the circles some of your fellows pursue with clock like efficiency, when one circle is found to have been exhausted, an earlier one since abandoned is taken up again with full enthusiasm that a different result is to be expected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Wgo are you truthiz? You’re willing to ‘out’ others but not so keen in revealing who you are yourself. I still haven’t heard that you’ve forwarded on about yourself what you’re so willing to reveal about others. Anyway I understand a letter is coming your way, try not to crap yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Thank you. I am struggling to take it seriously because it’s so absurd. How people look at the same scene or narrative or picture or facts and often about half decide one thing and half the other. You can talk until you’re blue in the face but it’s black or white to some people and never grey.

    Leaving that aside, you say: An interesting recent trend is that once the investigation was held to be ‘copy book’ and therefore David was guilty now it’s held to be ‘shoddy’ and therefore David is guilty. Any irony for you there Dennis.

    Sorry, Nostaglia, that is simply not true. The investigation was not copy book but there is plenty of evidence. No one has suggested Bain is guilty because there it was “shoddy” (insufficient evidence). I said that there could possibly be an argument he could not prove his innocence is there were insufficient or no evidence. No irony. Just logic.

    Now, I tell you I don’t trust the police. They do suffer from group think and the top cops are politicians not working detectives. That is why I go back to first principles and decide myself the odds that Robin killed himself. It is possible he did. But I really don’t think so. As is the case with so many complex but not necessarily technical problems, in the end it’s a matter of personal preference. My gut tells me Bain is not factually innocent. My head tells me there is a remote possibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Flipper

    I’ve read what you’ve quoted, and your argument seems to be that the Thomas Royal Commission said, “not guilty” =
    “innocent” = “pay compensation”.

    However, you have overlooked two key phrases within their reasoning as it APPLIED SPECIFIALLY and EXCLUSIVELY to Thomas (that are not applicable to David Bain).

    “…Once we are satisfied the Prosecution case against Mr Thomas has not been proved (AND WE ARE SO SATISFIED ON THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE BEFORE US) (my emphasis)….. then, JUST AS A COURT WOULD ACQUIT HIM (my emphasis)…and the community thereafter accept his innocence, so we believe we are entitled to proclaim him innocent and proceed accordingly. Mr Thomas has always asserted his innocence”.

    The problem with this line of reasoning is that the Privy Council ruling in the Bain appeal said that NO ONE has the authority to determine the legally-binding facts of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”, other than a jury. It was because the Court of Appeal pre-empted a jury decision (as the Royal Commission did in the Thomas example you are placing so much weight on), that they had the second trial for Bain.

    But a jury NEVER got to hear the new evidence in the Thomas case. Also, a Royal Commission DOES NOT make judgements that set legal precedents.

    Instead, they function as instruments of the executive, not the judiciary. Most of your confusion stems from your inability to separate out the three branches of government, the third being the legislative, which have their own non-over-lapping spheres. Judges don’t make the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, and politicians don’t make the decisions of judges. Yes, common sense may say, “David Bain was found ‘not guilty’, and the Thomas Royal Commission made a ‘common sense’ (NOT legally binding decision) that a man in a similar (but not identitical!) situation (imprisoned/conviction overturned, by pardon in one case, quashing and subsequent ‘not guilty’ in the other) should be compensated. However, this is not about ‘common sense’. It is about working through the constructs that are “legal”, “allowed”, and “falling outside the usual guidelines of executive (not legal!) power – and keeping those spheres separate as is required. The bian team can’t have it both ways. They got a re-trial because no one gets to decide facts other than a jury. OK. The jury is sovereign. However, no one gets to decide compensation other than the executive. The executive is sovereign. Separation of powers in action.

    Also, the Thomas Royal Commission said,

    ” Taking ALL THESE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT (my emphasis)…it is our view that Mr Thomas is entitled to have the question of compensation determined on the basis that he is innocent. To determine it on any other
    basis would be to do him the gravest injustice”.

    …and what did “these factors” include?

    ”…the injustice done to him by MANUFACTURED evidence”.

    …which does not apply in the Bain case, notwithstanding the efforts of Joe Karam.

    Apples and ranges, flipper, apples and oranges…

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

    Ross69 when you say:

    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..

    It is easy to argue with you.

    But if you were to say:

    It is highly improbable that ..
    It is highly improbable that ..
    It is highly improbable that ..
    It is highly improbable that ..
    It is highly improbable that ..
    It is highly improbable that ..
    It is highly improbable that ..

    It would become almost impossible to argue with you.

    And the correct standard these days is probability, not proof.

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

    I think this is not being taken so seriously anymore, because the truth is so obvious.

    David executed his whole family, its as simple az that.

    and he got very lucky at the second trial.

    If he volunteers to go back to prison for three more years, then I guess most people would be satisfied.

    .
    Some would still like to hang him, as we should have done for all the other murderers.

    Yes, unfortunately we would have hung poor Arthur, but when I think about all the other scumbags who would now be 6 ft under, :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ flipper

    …and furthermore,. not only DON”t Royal Commissions make legally binding decisions, they also don’t make EXECUTIVELY BINDING decisions. They simply recommend.

    And their recommendations can be wrong, or treated as wrong/disregarded by executive to whom they recommend.

    Which Collins did in the case of the Binne report, and why she is free to ignore the Thomas Commission as having set a precedent she is bound by.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Kimbo. Thank you again. Pat Booth? More in hope than expectation: someone should be writing a book.

    It’s a study of people coming to a fork in the road and taking it.

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

    muggins 9:37
    Those glasses are the key

    Disagree slightly. The glasses were the key to a decision on the question of beyond reasonable doubt.

    Urine is the key to a balance of probabilities debate.

    Robin Bain is extremely unlikely to have been able to obtain and load the murder weapon, commit 4 murders, fight to the death with Stephen clean up, fold up the shower curtain and cap, change his clothes, type on the computer, and suicide, all with a full overnight bladder.

    Much, much, much more likely to have occurred is that on Robin’s arrival in the house, David convincingly beckoned Robin to his sniper’s blind (the alcove) before Robin had had a chance to pee, and Bang, you’re dead too, full bladder and all.

    Who can argue with these competing probabilities?

    Ask 100 people to take this information alone, and decide who is most likely to have been the killer. I’ll give you an almost 100 percent David = killer answer.

    The glasses would be unlikely to produce nearly 100 percent, muggins. The urine probability would.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Ross69 when you say:

    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..
    There is insufficient evidence to prove that ..

    It is easy to argue with you.

    Really? The onus of proof is on David…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    flipper,
    David Bain is not innocent and he won’t be receiving any compensation . Suck it up,old girl.

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

    Speaking of such matters, what is the explanation for Robin wearing gloves? On the balance of probabilities, I mean. If he had taken as much trouble with the suicide note as he did with the gloves, we would not be having these discussions. I have an open mind on this, and am willing to consider any explanation.
    So
    why did RB bother to wear gloves?

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

    Sofia. In your debate above over the length of the rifle for the improbably suicide, you opponent used a mocked up rifle which produced no blood, as did the Irish expert in Court. And so too apparently did Robin.

    Because according to their suicide mock-up bullshit, Robin didn’t bleed over the hand holding the silencer. It is extremely probable that Robin’s head-wound would have produced a litre or more of blood, AT HIGH PRESSURE, spewing immediately onto and all over his silencer hand. Where the fuck is that blood on Robin’s suicide hand? Where the fuck is the suicide blood on Robin’s hand? There would have been a litre of it all gushing all over, spewing all over, that hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    I still reckon the glasses are the best evidence and so do the Law Lords of the privy.
    Otherwise your post has passed the muggins test .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    So why did RB bother to wear gloves?

    And why did he wear a beanie? And why leave the light and radio on in his caravan? Maybe he was intending to go back to the caravan to get dressed for work….

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

    Or as David himself said he saw it (on his mother’s face) “streaming” all over the suicide silencer hand.

    “Streaming” all over the suicide silencer hand.

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

    Yes, muggins. I don’t mean to make light of the glasses persuasion.

    But the case for the glasses, takes a slightly higher level of intellect, and we are talking about New Zealanders here who are the decision-makers.

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

    Even New Zealanders can relate to the call of nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    And don’t forget that Robin Bain needed glasses to read. His glasses were found in the caravan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @flipper,

    While the Royal Commission may have had the latitude to proclaim that guilty beyond reasonable doubt was the test to exclude compensation, the Cabinet guideline in place today requires that the claimant be found to be innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    As an ex gratia payment and (as noted by the Royal Commission also) not bound by any legal principle, Cabinet are able to set this criteria (somewhat tougher criterion to the BRD the Commission claimed.)

    Not in dispute (to my knowledge, at least):

    - Bain does not qualify for compensation
    - The only avenue for compensation is at the discretion of Cabinet and requires the demonstration of both innocence on BoP and extraordinary circumstances which warrant compensation

    That being the case, the it is a question in BoP and will come down to the discretion of Cabinet and, being ex gratia, there is no legal principle to challenge the decision.

    As to suing for damages, as you indicated Bain could, what Act and clause will he be able to do that under?

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

    Muggins, stop your unhelpful stubbornness.

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

    See, muggins, I made an important point, but you had to go and devalue it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    And of course there is that appointment Robin Bain made on the Friday with that Education Board official.
    He made an appointment to see her on the Monday morning so as to obtain extra funds for some special needs children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    What point was that,your Excellency?
    I thought all your points were important,or are you now saying some of them are not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Dotcom. Dotty old Bean, he might have wiped the copious blood from the wound on the towel in the laundry. That is why he was not found where he was shot, very near the curtains. He went for a walk.

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

    Belinda 9:59
    I do feel sorry for the bride to be though, what a hard row to hoe she has.

    Belinda, the lady in question is one of the more prolific contributors to this debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    The lady in question is one of the more prolific contributors to this debate????????????????????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    More about what ‘never’ happened.

    Pryde’s evidence trial 1

    I subsequently travelled to the offices of the Criminal Investigation Branch here in Dunedin and shortly after 11 35 am that morning I spoke with and examined the accused David Bain. I made notes of my examination. I seek His Honours leave to refer to those (no objection by defence Counsel). I examined David Bain in one of the rooms in the CIB. I obtained his permission for an examination. I explained to him that I had been requested to examine him and to obtain body and fluid samples from him. These would be used as evidence by the police and I asked him whether he was agreeable to this, to my examining him and he agreed to allow the examination. He appeared calm and subdued and was quietly spoken. He made no spontaneous conversation but answered my questions. There was no sign of intoxication. He had a mild acned or pimply face. His nails were clean, no dirt or debris under the nails. I noted recent bruising to his head area. I listed three areas, one was the right temple. About here (indicates right temple). That was about 3 square cms in area. A small bruise above the right eye or a little lower down , 1 cm by half a cm. Some bruising to the right cheek (indicates) below the right eye. This was 1 and a half crns by 1 cm. By recent bruising, roughly it would be about 10 hours old. There was also a small injury on the inner aspect of the right knee. This was a skinned abrasion, a small flap of skin remained at the area. This again was about 10 hours old. Other older features were noted, there was a tattoo on his left upper arm, feathers, a band and a rose. I obtained his pulse, this was a low normal of about 60 beats per minute. For a young man who is involved in running, a fit young man, that is not abnormal. It is quite normal. He had a surgical scar on the left groin where he had had a small operation as a child and he had a right small rupture, a hernia. I obtained from the accused various samples. I have a list of them here – I obtained blood from the vein, hair samples, swabs from various parts of his body and smears from various parts of his body. There is a set procedure that I go through. My initial specimen taking was from a special kit which is used to find evidence for firearms activity. That is firearm residue on the skin, that is firearm activity. These were all labelled and sealed. They were sealed in appropriate containers, labelled and handed to a police officer, a Mr Ross. I have referred to the bruising I noticed and also the skin, the laceration on the inside of the knee. As to the origin of these injuries, I asked him how his injuries had occurred and he replied that he didnt know. I also inspected the nose of Mr Bain during my examination. There was no evidence of any recent bleeding or any injury to the nose. The bruises that I observed and described, they wouldnt have caused any bleeding. There would have been a certain oozing of blood from them but no noticeable bleeding. The laceration to the knee that I referred to, it wasnt specifically laceration, more of a graze than a laceration. There was some oozing from the area but no obvious bleeding. From these injuries that I observed, there were no injury that would have produced any
    blood staining anywhere.
    XXM
    What time was it you noted the bruising in the examination at the CIB? I recored the hr as at 11.20 and recorded the bruising first at the commencement of the examination. You also took samples from the groin and the penis of the accused? Yes. There was a thorough examination of him by you? yes. So it wasnt just obtaining some blood and looking for debris and things of that nature? No, it was a thorough examination.

    The form: it has a body-shaped sketch, front and back, and a closer version of the head. The brusing to the head is noted, as are the tattoos, a scar from an inguinal hernia, various grazes etc on the legs. NOTHING on the chest. There is also a tick chart to indicate samples taken.

    Incidentally: the police commentary on Binnie’s report takes issue with any number of things (usually wrongly) and in incredible detail. They do not, however, question the issue of the strip search. If there was any way they could, they would have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Dennis
    I agree.
    After Robin shot himself ,and not wanting to have too much blood on his person before he went to meet his maker,he went down to the bathroom and wiped as much blood as he could off himself using that towel.
    Then back upstairs and into the lounge to fall down dead just before David came in the door.
    You know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘Dotcom (947) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
    Sofia. In your debate above over the length of the rifle for the improbably suicide, you opponent used a mocked up rifle which produced no blood, as did the Irish expert in Court. And so too apparently did Robin.

    Because according to their suicide mock-up bullshit, Robin didn’t bleed over the hand holding the silencer. It is extremely probable that Robin’s head-wound would have produced a litre or more of blood, AT HIGH PRESSURE, spewing immediately onto and all over his silencer hand. Where the fuck is that blood on Robin’s suicide hand? Where the fuck is the suicide blood on Robin’s hand? There would have been a litre of it all gushing all over, spewing all over, that hand.’

    You live in deep bewilderment dotcom and continue to make a fool of yourself. High speed ‘spatter’ doesn’t spew. That’s what you do each time you post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    NNNZ

    Yeah I think we’ve covered the strip search. I said previously that I thought there had been one, and that it was of little importance, except that David had bruising on his forehead which he couldn’t explain. Similarly, he was subsequently found to have scratches on his chest which he couldn’t explain.

    Of course, David could have said no to the strip search. He forgot to say that to Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I do not see the words “strip-search’”in Dr Pryde’s evidence.
    However what I do see is that Dr Pryde said that bruising on Bain’s head was about 10 hours old.
    Pryde examined David Bain at 11.20am. Minus 10 hours = 1.20am.
    I wonder how David Bain came to get a bruise on his head at 1.20am?
    Banging his head against the wall, maybe.
    I expect to hear from the police officer named later this week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Banging his head against the wall, maybe.

    I know the feeling. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    So I look at the lounge scene connecting the laundry blood belonging to Robin…

    Could you elaborate on your view that Robin Bain’s blood in the laundry was evidence he was the killer? It strikes me as evidence someone else shot him, if anything.

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

    muggins 1:29
    After Robin shot himself ,and not wanting to have too much blood on his person before he went to meet his maker,he went down to the bathroom and wiped as much blood as he could off himself using that towel. Then back upstairs and into the lounge to fall down dead just before David came in the door.

    Can I point a small, though slightly obscured, win for us here, we “hangbainers” (as Flipper has invented as a sobriquet (sobriquet indeed!!)). Pompous prat. Same pompous prats who dines regularly with the other pompous prat, Sir Bob Jones.

    So my small win it this.

    You will note that I never engage with the N-NZ (not NN-Z, btw).

    But sometimes N-NZ engages with me. And when N-NZ engages with me, N-NZ rarely contradicts what I have said, but attacks the messenger.

    This messenger-attacking just happened again in response to this. If Robin Bain suicided, “hangbainers”, where is the blood that would have spewed out all over the suicider’s silencer-holding hand?

    Messenger-attacking from N-NZ is usually an admission of defeat. And so it is in this instance.

    So one more time, because very few people actually get this. If Robin Bain suicided, where is the blood that would have spewed out all over the suicider’s silencer-holding hand? Where is the probability of suicide in this? Surely the absence of suicide blood is indicative of a high probability of murder.

    At last, a couple of you have “got” this, but you have had to resort to use of sarcasm to go with it. It has only taken two weeks for you to “get” the significance of this. Come one team. Where is the blood on Robin’s suicide hand?

    Where is the missing blood on Robin’s-suicide-silencer hand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,585) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    You mean subsequent to the strip search ross?

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr13rG7YmNY

    Where’s the blood on the hand holding the barrel/silencer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘Psycho Milt (895) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    So I look at the lounge scene connecting the laundry blood belonging to Robin…

    Could you elaborate on your view that Robin Bain’s blood in the laundry was evidence he was the killer? It strikes me as evidence someone else shot him, if anything.’

    So his blood was transported from the lounge to the laundry, I’d be interested in your explanation on that.

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

    Note also that Boyce shows ONLY rifle/temple contact options.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    So his blood was transported from the lounge to the laundry, I’d be interested in your explanation on that

    Well, clearly Robin didn’t shoot himself and then walk into the laundry…so I await your explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Old dotty is bewildered. The spatter on Robin’s hand was recorded in evidence, – thumb and fingernail from memory, along with the damage to his hands from fighting with somebody that morning. Have a 5 minute read on high speed spatter and become a ‘expert’ on that as well.

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

    Robins bloody DNA deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep down the barrel of the gun.

    except he won’t say how far or where the evidence for that is.

    Robins bloody hands

    really, I mean seriously, a couple of bloodspots barely 2mm each, tho if you listen Joe, 2mm is wow like 2 inches.
    .
    I suppose we should be grateful, Nost now admits that David consented for the house to be burnt down.

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

    Also note the ignorance of the witness, Boyce, in saying that the first thing he would do if he shot himself in the head, is let go of the rifle

    This so-called expert is an idiot. When people shoot themselves in the head, they don’t let go of anything. They are too dead to let go of anything. Anyone who has read the forensic articles on this, knows it to be so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @muggins

    “I do not see the words “strip-search’”in Dr Pryde’s evidence.”

    To be fair to Nostalgia-NZ (not that he deserves it based on his obfuscation!), Dr Pryde’s testimony as quoted says: -

    “He (David Bain) had a surgical scar on the left groin where he had had a small operation as a child and he had a right small rupture, a hernia”….

    which IMPLIES a strip search (yes, I know, the irony – the poster who gets to play musical chairs over the meaning of the words “smeared”, and “barrel”, and demand answers to his “have you stopped beating your wife?” questions, and plays “gotcha” when you try to debate the undisputed facts within his loaded questions allows himself the latitude to use inference when it suits his argument!).

    However, there is the possibility that Dr Pryde didn’t conduct a strip-search, but instead conducted a selective spot-investigation, and relied on David’s advice re his groin. However, on the balance of probabilities, it seems like a strip search, or at least what David Bain interpreted as a strip search, was done.

    …and at the risk of pissing off Mr Bossy…

    @ Dotcom

    “…Urine is the key to a balance of probabilities debate”.

    No it isn’t.

    There is no “key” single piece of evidence. That is the mistake that Binnie made when he arbitrarily interpreted the luminol/foot prints evidence as the “key” by which to interpret everything else.

    It is trying to rely on a”key” piece of evidence that has been the Karam strategy right from the beginning – a sine qua non, that would cause the supposed “house of cards to tumble”.

    So we originally had the lens (“covered in dust”, and “in a position that indicated they had been there more than a few days”) which kicked off public misgivings (now conveniently dismissed by Karam when Michael Guest alleged the matter of his former client’s perjury).

    …then it was the time the computer was turned on (overlooking the possibility Robin turned it on as it took a while to warm up, knelt in prayer, David came in, Robin had no reason to suspect he was doing anything other than going to the alcove to go on the computer, and David shot him with the rifle he had stored there in anticipation of Robin’s prayer posture, and then, as a matter of convenient and unexpected opportunity, David typed the note – a plausible scenario fitting within the Crown’s requirement that they did not have to account for very detail).

    …then it was the blood on Robin Bain, that, if tested, would confirm he had blood from other members of the family on him (..which was tested – and he didn’t, now conveniently forgotten by Karam).

    …then, as per the narrative Nostalgia-NZ is running it is the smeared (not “washed”) blood stains on Robin’s hands (which can be explained by splatter from the fatal shot rubbing against the carpet as he fell dead.

    Anyone who argues “there is one key piece of evidence” falls into the “atomising of the evidence” trap, which Binnie did. Break the evidence up, weigh and sift each one individually, and ONLY THEN fit them all together. Wrong! As per Fisher’s report, and as per the essential thrust of the Crown’s case, and the reason David Bain was charged in the first place (and rightly so, which is why he does not deserve compensation),

    …is the sheer weight of the ACCUMULATED unusual circumstances and unlikely coincidences, any of which are possible/maybe plausible on its own, but when taken together, establish that Robin is innocent on the balance of probabilities to a minimum standard. The evidence is an interlocking tapestry, each piece sometimes provisional, but much beyond dispute (a man supposedly committing murder-suicide uses his son’s gloves), not links in a chain where one piece is key, or the whole case collapses without it.

    If you want to rebut Team Bain/Karam, rather than relying on the naked force of public anger you play according to the right game-plan that saw Bain charged in the first place, not the “move the goal posts/atomise the evidence/one key piece of evidence” approach they have been successful for Karam up to this point. Or at least you do as long as you have a Minister of Justice with integrity like Judith Collins.

    And whatever else, Robin deserves to have justice done for him, in a way that satisfies juris prudence. His son may have taken much away from him, and Joe Karam may have dragged the memory of a dead man unable to defend himself through the mud, but only those who want justice for Robin have the capacity to compromise further on the methods by which the matter of compensation can be justly decided.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Belinda (126 comments) says:

    Dotcom I need more clues as to which person here could possibly be the new Mrs Bain.
    None strike me as a demure guide leader and schoolteacher.
    All good if one of them here is her, sounds like David will have met his match and won’t want to piss her off.

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

    Oh well, enough of the chatter, I am off to the beach for a swim, Mission Bay, if u are keen Nost,

    maybe I can show you the depth of your problem.

    Enjoy yourselves people ……..

    :)

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

    Consider:

    a) Less than HALF A MILLILITRE of blood actually found on Robin’s suicide-silencer-hand:
    Compared to:

    b) the probable ONE LITRE OF BLOOD and brain material which would have been (David’s word) “streaming” all over his suicide-silencer-hand.

    Where are the 999.5 millilitres of blood and brain material that did/didn’t “stream” all over the hand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    You will have noted that the proDavidbainites prefer to discuss the so-called evidence against Robin Bain rather than the actual evidence against David Bain which is what I prefer to discuss.
    They do that because they don’t want to discuss the evidence against David Bain.
    I agree that Robin Bain’s silencer holding hand should have had blood on it. Not only that,he should have left his fingerprints on that silencer.
    Of course the pro Davidbainites or pro Davidbainers,whatever you prefer to call them, would probably suggest that Robin Bain washed his hands after supposedly committing suicide.
    No,no,I take that back. They have already said that Robin Bain did wash his hands but somehow left smears of blood on his left hand.

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

    @ Dotcom, “…Urine is the key to a balance of probabilities debate”. No it isn’t.

    Stop arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me. If your point is that “there is no key piece of evidence”, they why did you not say exactly the same thing to muggins, when he referred to a “key” a few posts before I referred to a “key”.

    Now stop your arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Belinda (126 comments) says:

    Kimbo whoever you are, your posts are brilliant. I hope they can reach more people than read here.
    I really do think you should write a book.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Truthiz (97) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    You’d be the one wearing pink, and a gutless wonder sign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    along with the damage to his hands from fighting with somebody that morning

    Nonsense.

    The pathologist who examined him found no evidence that Robin had injuries to his hand or anywhere consistent with a fight.

    The best the defense could come up with was an expert who stated that four small marks on his hand could ‘possibly’ have come from teeth marks but when questioned admitted that they could have come from a myriad of other everyday incidents. That hypothesis was also dependent upon the utterly ludicrous proposition of Robin stealing and wearing a pair of Davids opera gloves which was contradicted by David’s own account that the gloves were in Stephens room because he liked to play dress up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ muggins

    “I agree that Robin Bain’s silencer holding hand should have had blood on it.”

    Indded. But like the lack of Robin’s finger prints on the rifle (which is unfavourable to david Bain), or the razing of 65 Every Street with all attendant destruction of evidence that may have implicated Robin (which is favourable to David Bain),

    …they are all arguments from silence, and therefore are weak.

    It is only the accummulation of unlikely/implausible/damn near impossible coincidences that makes the case for Robin’s innocence. Arguments from silence are of little value, and a distraction from the primary issue. Especially when they are a Karam speciality. Don’t allow this to be played by the rules Karam has been using for 15 years!

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

    And in any case, mr Universe, no-one more than I has used the jigsaw puzzle analogy with few pieces missing, but you can still see the big picture when you stand back.

    But even I can’t say everything in every comment.

    Stop arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me, please Kimbo. Nowadays in this debate people are regularly saying things about the case, that I introduced (and that’s good) but that at the time, they argued with me about. Such as who used the shower/hand basin and retained a full bladder, and the probabilities between putting the ammo clip on the coffee table or on the floor, the lack of fingerprints on both ammo clips, and David in Perth having twice said that he saw “blood streaming down his mother’s face”.

    Now stop arguing with me for the sake of your favourite sport of arguing with me, mr universe.

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

    Now then mr universe.

    Answer the question.

    Which is more probable?

    a) that Robing might have retained a full bladder while he obtained and loaded the murder weapon, committed 4 murders, fought to the death with Stephen, cleaned up, folded up the shower curtain and cap, changed his clothes, typed on the computer, and suicided, all with a full overnight bladder.

    OR

    b) that on Robin’s arrival in the house, David convincingly beckoned Robin to his sniper’s blind (the alcove) before Robin had had a chance to pee, and Bang, you’re dead too, full bladder and all.

    (a) or (b) mr universe?

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,188) Says: You’d be the one wearing pink, and a gutless wonder sign.

    nah, black shorts and a white t shirt.

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Dexter (265 comments) says:

    I don’t think you want Kimbo to take you to school again Dotcom.

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

    No thanks Dexter. And this comment helps how?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dotcom

    “If your point is that “there is no key piece of evidence”, they why did you not say exactly the same thing to muggins, when he referred to a “key” a few posts before I referred to a “key”.

    1. Because you were the end of the thread perpetuating the error

    2. Because you are becoming paranoid and over-personalising any post that doesn’t agree with you (subsequent to my post to you, I did direct another at muggins on the matter of arguments from silence which you had previously participated in).

    3. Because you are the most vociferous in demanding how this should be debated/how it must be interpreted, as evidenced by your free and repeated use of commands to others to “Stop…”, as well as the invitation you gave when you posted, in regards to your “urine is the key” post, “Who can argue with these competing probabilities?”.

    If you don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question (be it rhetorical or otherwise)!

    Now I realise you think you are playing a key role, parading the fact you have written to the PM, demanding to know if the compo is going to be decided on the basis of good decision making process as set out in the cabinet guidelines, and not political pressure (and ironically, if you wrote such a letter it is an attempted act of political pressure in and of itself).

    Let me tell you for free why it is a waste of time: If Key does answer, it will be, to the effect of, “No we won’t…”. Which is pretty much what any Government of whatever political persuasion, and irrespective of personnel will say.

    Which doesn’t really tell you what they will REALLY do.

    However, I will also tell you for free what they will likely do as well: If you think David Bain does not deserve compo, only a fool would ask such a question of the current administration, when Collins has already demonstrated in spades political expediency won’t happen on her watch.

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

    Now, as I have declared a few times now. I stayed away from the online Bain debate for years, because I learned a long time ago, that online netiquette and I are incompatible. Can we take this as an acknowledgement on my part, and a given.

    Should I declare this with every comment I make? It would get very boring.

    I came here to help to dispel the plethora of myths that were floating around on Kiwiblog Bain threads, and I have managed to get some myths cleared up, even if it was with some degree of difficulty.

    Now then, as I have demonstrated several times, I have much to contribute. I have just as much right to do so as anyone else here. Please think twice before engaging in your favourite sport of Dotcom bashing. That’s all. Pause before engaging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    So his blood was transported from the lounge to the laundry, I’d be interested in your explanation on that.

    But that’s why I’m not seeing your argument. The explanation that immediately springs to mind is that Robin Bain’s blood was probably transported from the lounge to the laundry on a hand or other body parts of the person who shot him. That person doing the transporting obviously couldn’t have been Robin Bain, so I’m wondering why you look on this as evidence Robin Bain did the shooting. Are you assuming his blood in the laundry was unrelated to his head wound?

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

    Are you seriously decrying my writing to Ministers and to the PM to let them know what this one voter thinks?

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

    Answer the question.

    Now then, does ANYONE wish to take on the question of probability?

    Which is more probable?

    a) that Robin might have retained a full bladder while he obtained and loaded the murder weapon, committed 4 murders, fought to the death with Stephen, cleaned up, folded up the shower curtain and cap, changed his clothes, typed on the computer, and suicided, all with a full overnight bladder.

    OR

    b) that on Robin’s arrival in the house, David convincingly beckoned Robin to his sniper’s blind (the alcove) before Robin had had a chance to pee, and Bang, you’re dead too, full bladder and all.

    (a) or (b) more probable anyone?

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

    With the gun to the head suicide the questions are
    1. Can you can put a rifle to your head and fire a bullet into yor head
    2. Can you make an accurate shot with contact
    3. Can you make an accurate shot near contact
    4. Where is the easiest place to hold barrel or silencer.
    Answers
    1. Yes!
    2. No! you can be as much as 70 degrees(35 either side) out compared to the accurate shot to Robin
    3. No! you may not even hit the temple and can be 100 degree out compared to the shot of Robins
    4. Silencer! Yet all the defence demos they deliberatly hold the barrel unless ask where is the easiest.

    Why 4. because it would have to answer why no blood on Robins hand at such a close range

    Thanks for bringing this up Dotcom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Dotcom (960) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    The most probable answer is that Robin got up much earlier than what you would have us believe, and relieved himself before embarking on his destructive activity that morning. As was found during the autopsy, he had an enlarged prostate gland which had hindered the complete voiding of his bladder.
    Before he arrived at the lounge, he had not only walked the freezing cold distance from the caravan to the house, causing the urge to pee, but he would also have walked right through the house, past the toilet, to quietly pray? Not likely at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dotcom

    “Now then mr universe.

    Answer the question.

    Which is more probable?”

    Hmm. So you do want to argue? Or at least on your terms, when it suits you, over the matters you get to choose. You may not realise it, but have a look again at Nostalgia-NZ’s posts, and ask yourself, “Am I the opposite side of the same coin?’.

    Back to your question (and note, Dotcom, I don’t feel threatened, exasperated, or frustrated by it. Instead, it just is. Take a breath, ignore the clearly unreasonable like Nostalgia-NZ, and concentrate on the issue. Don’t like the fact I’m giving you advice in the form of commands? Then stop telling people to “Stop…” all the time).

    Yes, IF Robin’s bladder was full, it is clearly more likely he did not shoot the members of his family.

    However, in and of itself it does not carry anywhere near as much weight because there are reasonable rebuttals in response, such as: -

    …if having a full bladder is such a discomfort, why didn’t Robin go to the toilet first thing he got up irrespective of whether he was intending to murder his family or pray in the lounge (and he was sleeping in a caravan in Dunedin in the middle of winter the day before the shortest day)?

    …Robin was an older man, more likely to have restricted urinary function, irrespective of whether he was going to commit murder/pray (and if it was murder, you could make an argument that his state of mind over-rode his attention to ordinarily pressing bodily functions.

    …finally, the fact the bladder was “full” is disputed by Team Bain/Karam. Part of their strategy, after you atomise, you chip away at any and every detail, throwing doubt and confusion over details that are disputable.

    Don’t believe me? It sums up Nostalgia-NZ’s strategy whenever you or he throw out questions on intricate details, “Tell me…”

    Your very question highlights you are still pitching this according to the agenda and game plan of Bain/Karam. Big picture wins this thing, not “little picture” atomising and arguing over the significance and likelihood of individual pieces. Stay on that message, rather than playing on the away field. And learn to take constructive criticism.

    You don’t like the answer? Then don’t ask the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    gamefisher (163) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    dotcom would have you looking for a litre of blood on Robin’s hand, when there was less than a litre of blood anywhere in that room. Apart from in Stephen’s room, where he had been shot in the hand creasing the scalp, and was still alive for sometime with his blood pumping at an increased rate, there was not a litre spilt from any of the wounds of the deceased.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dotcom

    “Are you seriously decrying my writing to Ministers and to the PM to let them know what this one voter thinks?”

    No, I’m amused and a tad irritated you seem to think it gives you some moral or logical force to tell others what they should and shoudn’t post in a forum of public discourse and debate.

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

    Kimbo, if your 3.30 didn’t just atomise, then no-one ever did.

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

    And if you are going to quote me, mr universe, do so without editing.

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

    Wait for it.

    Here comes the atomiser .. .. ..

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

    Kanz that is one detail that dotcom has got wrong but it doesn’t deminish what he is saying Robin should of had a LOT more blood on his hand, also note his hand is being demostrated as below the temple so gravity would also pull the blood downwards on top of any other momentum.

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

    Disclaimer for Mr universe. Online netiquette and I are self-declared to be incompatible.

    Mr universe, are you seriously decrying me for sharing what I sent to the PM with the invitation for others to not have to reinvent the wheel, by having to learn the process for themselves, as distinct from copying what I’d already done?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt 3-13

    Yes, and not high velocity blood spatter that came from Robin’s head wound.

    High velocity blood spatter:
    A high velocity force moves blood greater than 50
    metres per second and the bloodstains are usually
    smaller than mm and appear as fine spray or misting.
    High velocity blood spatter can be caused by highspeed machinery such as chain saws and wood
    chippers.

    What was accumulated on the towel was low speed spatter exiting a wound at around 1.5m per second, a cut, a blood nose. The DNA Dotcom is ‘looking’ for was a mist that exited Robin’s head wound, with some heavier ‘drops’ which reached the curtain, not a gush by any means – impossible. The blood on the towel was low speed as told by it’s volume. The significant oozing blood from the temple was long after Robin was dead and on the floor. The high speed spatter was ‘back’ spatter because it exited from the entry wound. The idea that Robin got blood ‘smears’ not spatter on his palms at the time of his suicide, or that it was transferred there by contacting the carpet, throwing his hands up is ridiculous. So the towel remains important as to what Robin was doing before his death and why he was bleeding. You’ll note in the details of Pryde’s strip search above that he examined David’s nose for bleeding, all part of the procedure of looking for wounds consistent with a fight and why suspects hands are so important to investigators. David’s of course were blood and blemish free, Robin’s weren’t.

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

    No, I’m amused and a tad irritated you seem to think it gives you some moral or logical force to tell others what they should and shouldn’t post in a forum of public discourse and debate.

    What, Mr Universe, and you haven’t just told me what I should and shouldn’t post in this public forum? GMAFB.

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

    That bruise and would on the back of Robins hand could of bleed and if Robin didn’t wash much as we are led to believe then that could account for any or all of the blood.

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

    Thanks gamefisher, I stand corrected.

    Do we know how much blood actually spills from a temple wound by 22 rifle bullet at short range.

    According to probainers, we are to believe it is half a cc (about the size of a pinhead) but I have some difficulty with swallowing this.

    And according to David Bain, it apparently “streams” down faces, but doesn’t “stream” down hands.

    Or could it be that murder blood “streams” down, but suicide blood doesn’t “stream”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    gamefisher (164) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    That is simply one of many that he has gotten wrong. If you are happy being sucked in by one who must make such outrageous claims to make a point, then good luck to you. The more weight you give to such claims the more devastating it is going to be for you when Bain is paid his compensation.

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

    Or perhaps mother’s blood “streams”, but father’s blood doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dotcim

    “Kimbo, if your 3.30 didn’t just atomise, then no-one ever did”.

    I don’t see it that way – but I’m open to you making the case (and a statement is not making a case. You need to demonstrate with facts that I’ve “atomsied”).

    I initially confined my discussion in 3:30 to the atomising your post in 2:53 sought to confine discussion to (and I will edit your quote again so that the thrust of your atomiisng either/or question is clear. However, if I have quoted you out of context, demonstrate how, rather than huffing and puffing implying you have some moral weight to have your every word listened to with with unquestioning obedience…)

    “…Answer the question.

    Which is more probable?

    a) that Robing might have retained a full bladder…committed 4 murders…and suicided, all with a full overnight bladder.

    OR

    b) that…David (shot)…Robin…before Robin had had a chance to pee…

    (a) or (b)…?”

    Over to you how I wasn’t working within your pre-set atomising question…

    And a reminder: If you don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question or make the statement in a forum for public discourse and debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    That bruise and would on the back of Robins hand could of bleed and if Robin didn’t wash much as we are led to believe then that could account for any or all of the blood.

    gamefisher, have you seen the photo of the towel? I have, there was far too much blood to have come from that fresh bruise/abrasion on the old man’s hand.

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

    So, Kanz, how much blood did “stream” down Margaret’s face, that David actually said he saw “streaming”?

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

    I have trouble picturing half a cc of blood, “streaming”.

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

    Kimbo, whatever.

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

    Note how the probainer just changed the subject.

    (this comment is for anyone who recently accused hangbainers of doing this, which just happens to have been the same person who recently made Dotcom the current topic, and who insists on keeping Dotcom as the main topic, while Dotcom is actually trying repeatedly to get back to topic which DPF suggested that it might be).

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

    Kanz I don’t have a problem that David get paid compensation but it is up to him and his team to show that he is “innocent” not the legal status we all have “presumption of innocence” on BOP which he won’t be able to do.
    When Binnie’s report was first leaked I thought he had found something astounding no one else had the so called “smoking gun” but it was nothing of the sort just a rehash of Bain supporters views.
    I hope that other experts are called in to review crucial and disputed evidence by who ever does the review and I don’t know why Binnie didn’t he wasn’t qualified to discount disputed evidence the way he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Winston (43 comments) says:

    Well, thank goodness that the NZ press has paid a shit novelist and “poet”, and all-round mediocre writer, with no legal expertise whatsoever to deliver an opinion. Seriously, this is just getting beyond a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Things are toughening up now as to the blood on Robin’s palms and the ‘lack’ of blood oozing from his wound, and the question of the towel – the newly appointed ‘defenders’ are doing no better than their predecessors, in fact possibly even worse because of their guess work not even remotely based on evidence or forensics.

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

    Dotcom @ 4:05
    Yes that is their tactic or they stop posting until the subject get changed.

    Robins hand was vulnerable to the 3 types of blood splatter.
    1. High speed from bullet impact
    2. Blood from damaged arteries & viens
    3. Blood and brain mater from the brain cavity

    It is more awkard to hold the rifle at the barrel than the silencer and if it isn’t a contact shot you haven’t a clue how accurate your shot is going to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Well, thank goodness that the NZ press has paid a shit novelist and “poet”, and all-round mediocre writer, with no legal expertise whatsoever to deliver an opinion. Seriously, this is just getting beyond a joke.

    I agree with you Winston. It has the exact same ring about it as the Thomas case did, as flipper has so eloquently shown above.
    The jumping up and down of the naysayers, and the he said/she said of those who will never be wrong. The same, “why didn’t they get a qualified Kiwi to look into it?” the same “How dare he criticise our unimpeachable police?” “How dare he criticise our judiciary and systems?”. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    I see, your argument is the blood on the towel indicates Robin Bain was in a fight with someone before he died, which certainly would point the finger at him. If he were alive, rather than dead from a wound that caused significant bleeding, it would be very damning evidence. As things stand, it’s more like the glasses evidence – doesn’t prove anything on its own, but helps build a case. Thanks for the response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    It is more awkard to hold the rifle at the barrel than the silencer and if it isn’t a contact shot you haven’t a clue how accurate your shot is going to be.

    It WAS a contact shot, which was how the old man knew it would be accurate before he pulled the trigger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    You’re confused again gamefisher, your claims jump all over the place. Robin was never going to miss his temple and didn’t need to aim, he lent his head on the silencer. For somebody offering to assist with a book you’ve a hell of a lot to learn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dotcom

    “What, Mr Universe, and you haven’t just told me what I should and shouldn’t post in this public forum? GMAFB”.

    No, but in contrast, I don’t think whether or not I have written to the PM gives any moral or logical weight to my arguments. Especially when there is much in your arguments (which detract from the good points you make) that show you are the one of the two of us engaging is such logically worthless rhetoric such as,

    “Stop arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me…

    …Now stop your arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me.

    …And in any case, mr Universe…

    …Stop arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me,

    …Now stop arguing with me for the sake of your favourite sport (No egotism or paranoia there, Dotcom!) of arguing with me, mr universe.

    …Now then mr universe…Answer the question….Which is more probable?…(a) or (b) mr universe?

    …Now, as I have declared a few times now…I learned a long time ago, that online netiquette (sic) and I are incompatible (then why grizzle and argue the point when you are called out on it?! Instead, clean up your act. You are a big boy capable of doing it – in contrast to Nostalgia-NZ who seems to have some genuine integrity problems)

    …I came here to help to dispel the plethora of myths that were floating around on Kiwiblog Bain threads (fair enough. Nothing wrond with that), and I have managed to get some myths cleared up (a bit egotistical, and it usually carries more weight if you let others highlight your effectiveness, instead than banging your own drum), even if it was with some degree of difficulty. Now then, as I have demonstrated several times, I have much to contribute (not blowing our own trumpet?!). I have just as much right to do so as anyone else here (indded you do!). Please think twice before engaging in your favourite sport of Dotcom bashing (Paranoia and egotism again. If you don’t like your posts being criticised…don’t post!). That’s all. Pause before engaging (The egotism of your perceived ‘importance’ in this discussion is amusing. ‘Steel fists and a glass jaw’ sum it up, I think).

    …Answer the question (hey, haven’t you posted this before?!)…Now then, does ANYONE wish to take on the question of probability? Which is more probable? a)…OR b) …(a) or (b) more probable anyone?

    …And if you are going to quote me, mr universe,…

    …Wait for it. Here comes the atomiser .. .. ..

    …Disclaimer for Mr universe. Online netiquette (can you at leats learn to spell it right?!) and I are self-declared to be incompatible.

    …Mr universe, are you seriously decrying me for…

    …GMAFB”.

    Don’t like the answer? Then don’t ask the question.

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

    So gamefisher. You and I know have seen the same forensic reports on the internet, so this is a patsie question.

    Some right-handers wishing to off themselves, actually do manage to shoot themselves in the left temple with a rifle with silencer fitted. So doesn’t this mean that probably all right-handers wishing to off themselves are likely to do the same?

    For this is what apparently, the probainers would have us believe, that because one did, on a balance of probability, that all must have. Seems to me to be an odd way for a right-hander with a rifle with a silencer, to off themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (897) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    It can be taken much further than that. Because it was patently obvious that it couldn’t have come from the suicide scene, the police had it coming from the clean up from Stephen. In the first trial they had it coming from Bain having cleaned up after the fight they claim he had with Stephen. It wasn’t tested until much later only to be found it was the old man’s blood. By the way, when it was found the blood was fresh.

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

    Didn’t read your 4.24, Kimbo, and won’t be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Didn’t read your 4.24, Kimbo, and won’t be.

    Awww, poor dotcom, has Kimbo hurt your little feelings? Mummy will kiss them better for you, or if you no longer have a mummy, muggins will fit the bill nicely.

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

    Netiquette: noun ne-ti-kut or ‘ne-ti,kit
    1. Internet etiquette, courtesy and consideration for others using shared services, mailing lists, etc

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

    Kanz (4:35 pm Awww, poor dotcom, has Kimbo hurt your little feelings?

    Yep, I don’t take very well to internet basics. I thought I’d already admitted this, Kanz. Do I have to re-state is with every post? I’m a polite person IRL, and the internet is not the place for me.

    Besides, I’d much rather be commenting on the topic given us by DPF, and DPF’s topic does not include me. So thanks for your concern, Kanz, even if it is jilted concern.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Dotcom

    I stand corrected, and I am hopefully a slightly wiser and more knowledgeable man (some may argue there is not much of abase level to work from).

    Thank you.

    You are bloody good and compelling when you stick to the facts

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

    Thanks, Kimbo. You too.

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

    Those that say the shot was a contact as opposed to close contact shiw us the evidence

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    It wasn’t tested until much later only to be found it was the old man’s blood.

    So, he shot himself but moments before he kicked the bucket he managed to go into the laundry and wipe himself clean.

    His name’s been dragged through the mud, but by God what a damn considerate fellow. :)

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

    Forensic firearms expert Philip Boyce was recalled to the witness box to report on a further test he had done with the Bain rifle

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/56872/bain-murder-scene-contaminated-defence?page=0%2C1

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    So, he shot himself but moments before he kicked the bucket he managed to go into the laundry and wipe himself clean.

    To any who may still be searching for the truth, this is a good example of the workings of a mind that would have you believe Bain is guilty. Any brain that would/could work like that is incapable of logical thought, let alone intelligent debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Forensic firearms expert Philip Boyce was recalled to the witness box to report on a further test he had done with the Bain rifle

    None of which alters the fact that Dempster, the pathologist who examined the wound in the flesh, said it was a contact shot. He saw the size of the wound,(4mm entry wound) surrounded by a ring of soot about 10mm in diameter. He maintained it was a contact shot. It matters not how far from his head the old man could have reached the trigger, the silencer was touching the skin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    You mean a brain like your’s, Kanz.
    And Kanz,you never answered my question.
    Do you or do you not believe that David Bain saw his one and only friend having sexual relations with a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    No, I don’t. Just as I know that Bain never claimed the guy had sexual relations with a goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Yes, Dr Dempster did say it was a close contact shot. That just means that David Bain held the rifle close to his father’s head when he shot him.
    One of the wounds to Laniet’s head was a hard contact shot which just means the David Bain pressed the rifle hard against her head when he shot her.
    The hole was so big that Karam thought it was made with a .45 bullet. He was worried that the killer might be still out in the streets.

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

    Kanz 4:53 .. .. this is a good example of the workings of a mind that would have you believe Bain is guilty.

    Kanz, please get with the program. No-one needs to prove David is guilty any more. David has to prove he isn’t a killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Oh and muggins, that guy was not a friend of Bain’s. Bain had and has good people as friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    There wasn’t significant bleeding from Robin’s head wound, but he had bled significantly that morning as his ‘fresh’ blood on the towel shows.

    Kanz, the resident expert and long distance caller, claimed that Robin’s blood was identified as being on the towel at the first trial. I can recall that it was much later, 2006?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Bain to Binnie,
    I had witnessed him-because we have goats on our property and I had witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation.
    Binnie to Bain. And when you say silly act your talking of an act of sexual nature with a goat?
    Bain to Binnie. Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Bain to Binnie. Mark Buckley was a close friend of mine after I started in Bayfield High School.

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

    Kanz 5:01 .. .. None of which alters the fact that Dempster, the pathologist .. ..

    Would this be the same Dempster whose conclusion was that the gunshot wound was “unlikely to be a self inflicted”?

    And the same Dempster who concluded this on the basis of “the trajectory and the difficulty of accessing the trigger with the rifle held in that position”?

    Kanz, you can be a worry at times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Kanz, the resident expert and long distance caller, claimed that Robin’s blood was identified as being on the towel at the first trial. I can recall that it was much later, 2006?

    Almost correct, it was tested and found to be the old man’s in 2002 by the ESR in Auckland. The test was requested by the prosecution, but also attended by Joe Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Robin Bain’s blood on that towel does not mean he bled significantly that morning. That is a myth perpetrated by a myth perpetrator.
    However Robin Bain did bleed quite significantly when David Bain shot him in the head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Would this be the same Dempster whose conclusion was that the gunshot wound was “unlikely to be a self inflicted”?

    Yes, when he had not examined the rifle himself but was told (as was the first jury) by Ngamoki that the rifle was 8 inches longer than it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kimbo,
    I wouldnt advise you to have that old girl Kanz to be your mummy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    The fact that Ngamoki said the rifle was eight inches longer than it was made no difference at the end of the day because the actual rifle was used in the demonstrations.
    Which reminds me.
    Kanz ,you were going to have a look at your illegal copy of the retrial transcipt and tell me where is said blood was found in the rifle barrel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    David Bain was never going to miss his father’s temple because he held the rifle almost up against it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Re blood on towel. How fresh is fresh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    How do you know which door Robin Bain entered the house from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Kanz

    ” So, he shot himself but moments before he kicked the bucket he managed to go into the laundry and wipe himself clean.

    To any who may still be searching for the truth, this is a good example of the workings of a mind that would have you believe Bain is guilty. Any brain that would/could work like that is incapable of logical thought, let alone intelligent debate”.

    How so Kanz? I know Karam has made the argument that if you are committing murder/suicide you may do unusual things. Yeah…ok…maybe. But why is repeating the scenario as you and Karam would have us believe a case of “any brain that would/could work like that is incapable of logical thought, let alone intelligent debate” when ross69 is simply stating a non-editorialised supposed fact as you would have us believe it? Or didn’t Robin (in addition to supposedly wearing his son’s gloves when committing the murders), “moments before he kicked the bucket”, (went) “into the laundry and wipe(d) himself clean” before “he shot himself”?! That has to have happened for David Bain to get compo.

    To the real point at issue: Why is it “patently obvious” that the blood on the towel in laundry “couldn’t have come from the suicide scene”? Why can’t it have been left there by David IF he was the one doing a clean up after murdering his dad?

    It is all very well saying, “the police had it coming from the clean up from Stephen. In the first trial they had it coming from Bain having cleaned up after the fight they claim he had with Stephen (but subsequent testing showed it was from Robin)”. However, I’d suggest that is a red-herring, because the Crown never had to account for every detail of supposed events 100% accurately. Instead, they had to give plausible and likely scenarios.

    Unless you can demonstrate conclusively that the blood COULDN’T have come from the site of death of Robin, I’m struggling to see how it benefits David Bain’s compensation claim in any way. It is not unusual, indeed it is likely expected to have some of Robin’s blood in the bathroom if David murdered him, and cleaned up afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kimbo
    Re maybe or maybe not strip-search.
    Dr Pryde could have seen all those things without having Bain remove his T-shirt.
    I should have a definitive answer for you later this week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    The idiot rambles on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Dr Dempster said those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands were insignificant.
    At the first trial he said they were over 18 hours old,at the second trial he said they could be anywhere between one and 24 hours old.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Why would Robin Bain change magazines when the one on the floor still had three live rounds in it[even though Binnie thought it was empty]?
    And how would he have changed magazines without leaving his fingerprints on either silencer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Kimbo/Dotcom it’s hard to tell the difference. One of you were looking for blood in the lounge that didn’t exist, now you look for ‘conclusive’ evidence that the copious and fresh blood on the towel couldn’t have come from the lounge. Because there is no scientific possibility that the blood came from the head wound, and therefore not the lounge, the answer is obvious it came from another low speed impact wound from an event which happened somewhere else in the house that morning. The police were ‘so confident’ that it was David’s and therefore he was the murderer that they didn’t even bother testing it until this century, they were right it was from the killer – except as we now know that was Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    If Robin Bain had a bleeding nose, and that has only been suggested in the last couple of weeks by the poster with the Bulls**t degree,then he could only have gotten it from David Bain punching him in the nose.
    And if David Bain did punch his father in the nose and cause it to bleed that would account for his father’s blood being on that towel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    I know that Bain never claimed the guy had sexual relations with a goat.

    How do you know that? Is David now distancing himself from his bizarre allegation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    So you reckon David Bain was lying when he said he saw his friend having an act of sexual nature with a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    @Kimbo,

    There was no shielding of the blood splatter from Robin’s initial headshotto where it landed (the curtain and floor), showing there was no other person getting that on them.
    There was no disturbance to the blood oozing from the head to the floor, so it couldn’t have been gotten from there.
    There was no brain tissue on the towel as there had to have been if the blood had come from the initial shot.
    There was too much blood on the towel to have been picked up from that scene to have then been transferred to the towel.
    The blood on the towel was deposited directly onto the towel rather than have been transference of a previous transference.
    Simple, really.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ 5:48.. .. The idiot rambles on.. ..

    Usually not advisable for you to admit these things, N-NZ. Strategically, not good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    For the goat f…ers;

    Q. If the case note records that, “Blood was found on the silencer, extensive smearing and traces of blood were also found inside the barrel, positive,” that’s what it’s saying here. Does that accord with the answer you gave Mr Mander in relation to the vacuum effect and hard contact wound?
    A. Oh it does, it indicates that, I mean, there are a number of people who have been shot. It indicates that at least one of those suffered a relatively hard contact wound.
    QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT (ie Panckhurst):
    Q. One of those Mr Ross, I take it that if there’s blood in the barrel it would have to be from the last firing of the rifle that it was vacuumed in?
    A. It is far more likely sir because of the movement of the gases, the bullet is designed that it fits very, very snugly into the barrel so any biological material would largely be removed, so it really comes down to the final shot.

    Blood deep inside the barrel, deeper than the depth of the silencer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. CharlieBrown (792 comments) says:

    By paying David Bain compensation the government would be saying that Robin Bain probably did it. That would be a travesty without giving Robin a trial. As David proved, you don’t need to give evidence in your own trial.

    Anyone with an analytical brain would believe that david most likely did it. If David did it then I hope he gets whats coming to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. CharlieBrown (792 comments) says:

    I mean I hope he gets what he deserves, when he meets his maker.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ 5:56 .. .. Kimbo/Dotcom One of you were looking for blood in the lounge ..

    Can we get with the program please. Can’t speak for Kimbo, but I’m not looking for anything, except proof from David Bain that he didn’t kill anyone. Not sure how many times I have to point out this current reality.

    The above blockquote is based in a piece of history that ended more than a year ago, with David’s compo claim. Since that moment in time, no-one needs to prove anything, except David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘Dotcom (979) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ 5:48.. .. The idiot rambles on.. ..

    Usually not advisable for you to admit these things, N-NZ. Strategically, not good.’

    I didn’t actually mean you but I can’t say the term doesn’t equally apply.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. CharlieBrown (792 comments) says:

    dammit – how come we can’t edit our posts within 5 minutes of writing them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Kanz

    “There was too much blood on the towel to have been picked up from that scene to have then been transferred to the towel”.

    How “much” is “too much”?

    Exact/approximate AGREED amount, thank you very much

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Don’t trouble yourself dotcom, somebody trained in the law and commissioned to do the job, has already confirmed that David is innocent. No other official inquiry is under way to this point though there are reports that some individuals are struggling with the idea of strip searches and that copious blood ‘pours’ from a head wound. Odd chaps.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ 5:56 .. .. blood in the lounge that didn’t exist .. ..

    N-NZ, I am merely pointing out for the assistance of David’s compo claim that he is going to struggle with the claim, if he cannot explain the absence of blood on Robin’s hand after this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr13rG7YmNY

    Now you can deny this all you like. But if you don’t assist David with an appropriate explanation, then it might be just one of the things that tips a decision-maker (a Cabinet Minister for example) away from granting compo, and towards not granting compo.

    I totally agree, N-NZ, you don’t have to prove anything to me. (Though to be fair, I am trying to help you by pointing out the ultimate futility of your task.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    For the sheep shaggers.
    Blood in barrel.
    Note the words “far more likely”.
    Also note that this particular witness got the order of shots to Laniet’s head the wrong way round.
    Also note the witness does not use the words deep,rifle,or silencer.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ 6:16 .. Dotcom, can’t say the term doesn’t equally apply to you ..

    Why thank you, N-NZ, one of the milder rebukes addressed to me in recent times. Very gentle of you.

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

    400th comment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    So you reckon David Bain was lying when he said he saw his best friend having an act of sexual nature with a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘(Though to be fair, I am trying to help you by pointing out the ultimate futility of your task.)’

    No need to be fair Dotcom, doing very nicely with the 5 not guilty verdicts and the finding of innocent on the BOP. For tests of futility please observe your own behaviour of pushing it uphill.

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

    Of if you like, exactly 6,077th post on 11 Bain murders Kiwiblog threads since 1 December.

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

    6,080th

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

    Nearly there, folks. We’ll have it all decided momentarily.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ 6:38 .. For tests of futility please observe your own behaviour of pushing it uphill ..

    Get with the program N-NZ. I’m not pushing anything. It is for David to push. David is the one claiming compo. David is the one who has the hill to climb. Don’t you see, he has not yet convinced Crusher that he is entitled to compo. Get with the program, N-NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    987 posts says you are the one doing the pushing. Not to mention the letters/emails, claims to have been instrumental in the Truth articles. What a great deal of trouble to go to if you are not pushing a barrow.

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

    Why thank you Kanz. Just hoping against hope to keep you, and David’s compo claim (and Cabinet) honest.

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

    A poster in an earlier comment stated that “David’s hands were, of course, blood and blemish free.” That’s quite right; David told Police ” I didn’t have blood on my hands because I’d washed them.” He was also adamant that he washed his hands when he arrived home, before loading up the washing machine. Did he wash his hands twice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Maxine
    David washed his hands at least once because he had blood on them
    We don’t know if he had printers ink on his hands because he may have worn gloves as did other paper boys in Dunedin that morning.
    I would say he washed blood from his hands after putting that blood soaked washing in the basket. He would have had blood on his hands when he took off those gloves, So he washed his hands before he went on his paper round.
    Then he may well have got some more blood on his hands moving his father’s body which would mean he would have had to wash them again.

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

    And of course there was plenty of time as well on David’s hands (not just blood on his hands). From the time of David saying that he saw blood “streaming down” his mother’s face, till he called 111, something like 20-25 minutes elapsed. No compulsion to answer this question, but for those who wish to play — who among you reading this, on finding your mother with blood “streaming down her face” would take as long as 20-25 minutes to call 111? Any takers for this hypothetical question? In my ever so humble opinion, I think David has some gaps to fill in if he is to convince Cabinet (as he must do) that he is not a killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Dotcom (990) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 9:47 pm

    You might as well make it an hour. Go on, claim that he spent an hour after finding his Mother, that would be no different to what you claim here, only a little bit bigger. No different to you earlier claiming that the glasses were screwed up like a piece of paper. You might be good to debate with, if you could just stick with the facts. But as you can’t (they do too well showing Bain’s innocence) you are no better to debate with than your mate muggins.

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

    Thank you for your response Muggins. So it could be inferred from his statement that David Bain knew he had blood on his hands when he washed them? It’s just one of the wee conundrums about timing, similar to Robin Bain’s changing his clothes to “meet his maker” BEFORE going back upstairs and BEFORE he decided to commit suicide. A bit of a head-scratcher.

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

    Dotcom – as we know David wasn’t/isn’t always truthful. How do you know the blood he refers to seeing streaming down his mother’s face when he returned home wasn’t actually what he saw earlier on, before he went on his paper round? I think the time between arriving home and phoning 111 was spent waiting for his father to come in. Some say he wouldn’t have risked having his father walk in to find the bodies, I believe he locked his father out of the house. If Robin had found the house locked up he would simply have gone back to the caravan until his son had arrived home to let him inside the house. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it…

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

    David Bain was questioned about the time of the hand washing- he was adamant he had washed them before putting the washing on. And after handling bloodied garments, touching Stephen Bain, stumbling “panic-stricken” around the house, blundering into doors, touching blood-spotted light switches, his hands were clean when examined. . .

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

    Why would Robin Bain have cause to look in the bedrooms that early on a dark winter’s morning? David Bain is the only person who knows whether his mother’s light was on or not when he arrived home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Maxine (20) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    Very good question. Robin probably wouldn’t have. That is why his bloody footprint in Margaret’s room proves he was the killer of his family and himself, just as Binnie concluded.

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

    Maxine and Blossom.

    Please don’t ask me to explain what happened. I only know what I know. As I keep on saying, it is for David to explain to Cabinet, which he has not yet done, how these things all fit his story of Robin having suicided. In my humble opinion David’s version of events leaves far too many questions. It is not my job to prove anything. I do consider it my job to ensure that the David’s application for compo does not allow David to get compensated while David has not filled in these blanks.

    Again, Maxine and Blossom, ask David to fill in the blanks, not me. I can’t, I won’t, and I don’t have to.

    Blossom, all I know is what David twice told the conference in Perth — that on his return from the paper round and having put a wash on, he found is mother with “blood streaming down her face”. And if you fit this with the rest of David’s fiction, the blood on his mother’s face would have stopped “streaming” a long time earlier. I can’t reconcile the two except by inference. It seems to me that for 18 years since David killed his mother, that sight has been driving him nuts. He had a sympathetic audience in Perth, and he simply couldn’t resist letting it blurt out. He was really revealing what he really saw when he shot his own mother. But for the sake of his fan club in Perth, he migrated the image to a different scenario.

    If anyone wants a PDF copy of David’s speech in Perth, then email me and I will return it. There is no PDF version of it online, but there is (low quality) video a quick google away. dotcom@inbox.com for the PDF. A word of caution. The video of him in Perth will probably make you want to vomit.

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

    By the way, the auditors just came through and it’s not 6,080 at all. We missed one thread out, sorry.

    It’s 12 threads since 1 December, and the total including my anticipation of this here comment, is right up to the minute accurate at 6,332.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    Dotcom – If anyone wants a PDF copy of David’s speech in Perth, then email me and I will return it. There is no PDF version of it online, but there is (low quality) video a quick google away.
    __________

    However, unless there is a mistake –

    David Bain’s Perth speech: full transcript
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6568127/David-Bains-Perth-speech-full-transcript

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  422. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    Dotcom – … who among you reading this, on finding your mother with blood “streaming down her face” would take as long as 20-25 minutes to call 111?
    _________

    A little more than that – who among you reading this, on finding your mother with blood “streaming down her face”, and hearing your sister still gurgling, would take as long as 20-25 minutes to call 111?
    Oui, pédant, je sais

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. Kimbo (402 comments) says:

    @ Kanz

    Despite you posting three times after I asked, I still don’t appear to have received an answer from you re the following: -

    “There was too much blood on the towel to have been picked up from that scene to have then been transferred to the towel”.

    How “much” is “too much”?

    Exact/approximate AGREED amount, thank you very much

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

    TWO and a HALF hours,

    you mthrfkrs just surprised me ….

    :)

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

    Dotcom: with all due respect etc etc., nowhere in my post did I ask you, or anybody for that matter, to explain anything to me. It’s David Bain’s task to explain to Cabinet; I’m merely interested to hear people’s opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Early on in David’s Perth speech he says:

    On Monday June 20, 1994, at 5.30am my night’s sleep was broken by my alarm. A few minutes later I got out of bed, dressed and ran out the door to do my paper run. An hour or so later I returned home and any sense of peace in my life was forever taken away when I found my mother dead in bed, blood streaming down her face.

    Aside from the “blood streaming down” his mother’s face, he indicates he left for his paper run shortly after 5.30 am. He also says it took him an “hour or so”. So, he may have left home at around 5.35 am and returned at 6.35 am. Given the media attention that would be given to the speech, I’m very surprised he didn’t state with any certainty when he returned home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Another comment from the same speech:

    …her life seemed to derail from the so-called correct path and I did my best to stay in touch and when she had problems or moved flats always answered her call to help. Unfortunately it was to me she sought help in the days leading up to the 20th of June. It was one of the most painful aspects of the tragedy that I only learned of this through a friend after everything became my nightmare. Due to my attention being focused on my own life and all the fantastic things I was getting involved in I was unaware of the malevolent undercurrents that were happening in my own family. I often wish I could have done something. If I had only seen her on that day when she sought my help this could have been the one thing that might have changed the outcome.

    What malevolent undercurrents is he referring to? David says if “I had only seen her on the day she sought my help”. But David did see Laniet on the weekend…she had the whole weekend to tell him her problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    That speech was almost certainly not written by David Bain. It was written by the other Bane.

    QUESTION: What are the various explanations for the towel in the laundry with Robin’s blood? (How much blood?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    The Suspects

    The Suspects was interesting watching last night. It is true stories about crime in Oz – mainly murders. It would be good if Binnie had watched something like this.

    It showed what should be obvious to anyone who is not a ninny. That is someone who will kill has no problem lying and putting on an act about their grief.

    Having a basic knowledge about human behaviour if more important than having some qualification in commercial law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    From the quote of ross69 above –
    Due to my attention being focused on my own life and all the fantastic things I was getting involved in I was unaware of the malevolent undercurrents that were happening in my own family.

    compare to …
    “being constantly crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, by all I once held dear”.
    – David, in Karam’s booklet “Innocent”

    Also to wonder about
    Laniet was going home to a confrontation regarding incest
    Laniet was at home because David organized it

    Laniet had seeked David’s help [Unfortunately it was to me she sought help in the days leading up to the 20th of June. It was one of the most painful aspects of the tragedy that I only learned of this through a friend after everything became my nightmare.]
    If David organized Laniet to be home that weekend had may have had time to discuss what she had seeked him for at that time or anytime during the weekend.

    But, Perth –
    Standing here today my actual memories of that morning are totally confused. From the moment I found my family, the trauma of it all the time that had elapsed, all the evidence I have been listening to, the TV programmes, the police reconstructions and either of the trials might have caused this. However I will try and fill in the gaps a little for you in order to show what it was I experienced to have the effect of filling me with the intense feeling of fear and confusion. At the time all I wanted to do was find my father because he would help me to fix it … When the police finally got there about 25 minutes later I think I had already started blocking out what had happened because when they talked to each other that they had found five bodies I panicked again and I think I fainted.
    Then David, goes on to mention things that may be selectively remembered, but I do suspect he now may not know the actual truth himself.
    Karam has in some interviews said in effect that David does not know the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Yes, Chuck, it was interesting. Especially the case about the woman who had her hubby murdered so she could get an insurance payout. Although David stood to gain a lot financially, Binnie thought David had no motive to kill.

    Of course, if you look at cases like Jeremy Bamber and the Menendez brothers, those crimes were likely to have been motivated by the prospect of financial gain…and they show that young men can murder their parents! Supporters of David seem to have difficulty understanding that concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Karam has in some interviews said in effect that David does not know the evidence.

    David himself has said that it is his “core belief” that he is innocent. That suggests he isn’t too sure…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    ross69 – Although David stood to gain a lot financially, Binnie thought David had no motive to kill.
    ________________

    There would appear to be plenty in the background of what seems to have been a fairly dysfunctional family to motivate David to end what he could see as just an ongoing mess – to wipe the slate clean, in acting out his newspaper run alibi fantasy, to start again with massive excuses for any failures, enormous sympathy, and a financial benefit which, while substantial, wouldn’t be the main motivator. The degree of mental imbalance need not fall into any classification that medical examination easily defines.
    David’s own words, in Karam’s INNOCENT, “being constantly crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, by all I once held dear”

    From his underachievement at university to changing patterns within the family, accounts of manipulation of other family members, the changes relating to the re-building of the house, the motorbike crash and money owed, an argument with both parents in the prior week, criticism of his treatment of Stephen and sisters days before the event – no factor spectacular it itself, but all building to a condition which provides seemingly more motive than is so readily assigned to Robin.

    detachment – ≤i>The ambulance staff had a finger monitor on David at the time of his “convulsion” but readings did not alter, nor did his eyes roll back.  This caused them to believe they were witnessing a “Hollywood”. These were extremely experienced officers and said they did not need to give him any medical assistance and he did not require further assessment for trauma or shock at the hospital.

    There is quite a number of questions Binnie could have asked, and with a more demanding, less passive, approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    The Crown never claimed a motive Yvette. But keep on dreaming.

    The defence said Robin had one, without anyone needing to speculate on whether there was evidence of it or not.

    I note nobody has managed to get the blood off Robin’s palms, just as he didn’t manage himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    Nostalgia
    I have read many of your comments. In response to your “But keep on dreaming” I could perhaps mention “There’s none so blind as those who will not see” but then you’d likely not see anything in that.

    You do obviously know more of the cases and evidence than I, and if the Crown never claimed a motive, that will be another mistake to add to those they are accused of.

    A prior mental health patient may have made a better job of interviewing David on motive, than did Binnie.

    Now make a another glib dismissal if you wish … or move on
    How far from Robin’s temple did the experts suggest the end of the silencer must have been for the wound to appear as it did?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. The Crown never claimed a motive. So the Crown case is the definitive study and to be believed, then? The “incest exposure” is pure fabrication to claim the moral high ground and make people shrink back from thinking about it. Like someone asks for a fish and you offer a very large live eel. Ugh!

    It’s possible David had what my old mother called a “brainstorm”. People do have them: Jamison, a pilot, put the Mikhail Lermontov on the rocks behind the lighthouse.

    I believe things just got too much for David. I don’t think it was the money as such, I don’t think he thought that far. He just “decided” if he could get rid of the problem he could live happily ever after. There is clearly something very wrong with him. There is nothing much there, he is hollow. Knock! knock! and an echo of Karam is heard. Or a bit about the lost opera career versus horse riding.

    Bain is no threat any more. I don’t care that he’s out. But he’s already cost a fortune. The PC decision was a technicality (a jury ought to have decided not the CoA) and the second trial was a complete farce (jurors hugging him etc). I shall be very cross if Bain gets his hands on more money than 99% of the people who work all their lives and go without to pay for lawyers and others to indulge themselves in this sheer bloody nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    I hear that Lance Armstong is going to come clean so maybe there is hope that David will. If he did I wonder what Karam would do – jump off Sky Tower or trow David off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Yvette

    I’ve no idea of what Binnie considered about ‘motive,’ if I’ve read it I’ve forgotten about it. Generally, it’s clear that Binnie dealt with the circumstances of the deaths, opportunity. He concluded that on BOP David wasn’t home when the computer was turned on, he accepted the evidence of Walsh’s evidence (who indeed tried to change it at the second trial) as to draw the conclusion on the BOP that Robin walked about the death scene contemporaneously with the killings, he was aware of the blood wash on Robin’s palms, and Robin’s fresh blood on the laundry towel, he exposed the myth of the lost time, he profiled the two men and so it goes on even if there was an alleged motive of some substance against David it couldn’t overcome the clear evidence against Robin. It’s deeper than that of course in detail, but you can see the comparison between actual evidence versus an alleged motive, one is a maybe the other is binding and strong.

    The Crown called 3 witnesses who all contradicted each other on the distance or lack of distance between the rifle and Robin’s temple. The Crown understood, as most of us do, the further away from the temple the less chance of suicide. However, Dempster and the Defence witnesses prevailed with contact or close contact – borne out by the details of the wound. In my opinion the Crown made a classic and destructive mistake in trying to extend the distance of the shot because it merely highlighted the hopelessness of their case. All witnesses were in agreement as to the shot being upward trajectory, a powerful factor in analysing self-inflicted death by firearm. Another factor establishing suicide is the ‘vacuum’ effect that drew Robin’s dna deep into the barrel. I could say ‘shallow’ into the barrel but that would be a misrepresentation because to reach the barrel the dna had to first travel the full distance of the silencer a virtual extension of the barrel. Somebody will argue that the dna may have been somebody else’s but on the BOP it was Robin’s, hard contact wound and last shot. The expert cross examined by the Judge about it said the ‘bullet’ fits snugly into the barrel. In fact the ‘bullet’ is oversized so that gas does not escape around it as it fires, hence the expert confirming ‘most certainly’ or what ever words he used, to say that the dna arrived in the barrel after the last bullet was fired, in fact immediately after as high speed spatter exhausted from Robins wound at around 50m per second in a fine mist. Once Robin’s leg collapsed he and the rifle were parting company, or perhaps before from the recoil, but as soon as the vacuum within the barrel was replaced the air inside was at atmospheric pressure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    According to Kanz we are mates. I had no idea you were a mate. You live and you learn.
    Except for proDavidbainers of course. They live,but they don’t learn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    It does not matter how close or how far the silencer was from Robin Bain’s head.
    The fact is David Bain still shot him. That wound could have been a hard contact wound just the same as one of those wounds to Laniet’s head was. David Bain shot her as well.
    The difference between Robin and Laniet is that Robin flew a considerable distance after he was shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Maxine
    I believe Margaret’s light was on when David arrived home.
    I believe David left it on deliberately.
    Margaret Bain may have been in the habit of turning her light on before Robin entered the house. If Robin entered the house and saw her light wasn’t on he might have gone to check on her. David would not have wanted him doing that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    There is absolutely no way that the bloody sockprint can be linked to Robin Bain,anymore than it can be linked to David Bain. As the judge said, the sockprint evidence is inconclusive.
    Suck it up.

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

    Was the anorak in the van and the fingerless gloves in the pockets ever tested for blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6568127/David-Bains-Perth-speech-full-transcript

    Here we have David Bain telling the audience that he saw his mothers light on before he went downstairs and thought he would make her a cup of tea.
    Karam mentions that cup of tea in his book Trial by Ambush,only he has Bain seeing his mother’s light on when he came upstairs after doing the washing.
    By the time Bain was interviewed by Binnie that cup of tea had become a cup of coffee.
    Binnie asks David why he didn’t make that cup of tea/coffee before he came upstairs.
    Dave said he was all sweaty. I would have thought Davey boy would have had a shower before he came back upstairs.
    The first time that cup of tea/coffee was mentioned in public was in Trial by Ambush, almost eighteen years after the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    gamefisher
    No blood was found on that anorak or those gloves.
    However,it is possible that David Bain wore that anorak on his paper round.
    One witness said he thought Bain was wearing an anorak,another witness said Bain was wearing a sweatshirt with a hood and that the hood was up. Bain said he was wearing a sweatshirt that he put in the washing machine when he got home.
    That sweatshirt did not have a hood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Belinda (126 comments) says:

    Totally agree with Dennis, no way was that speech written by David, I think it was written by a professional writer.
    I’ve never read it before, sounds like there were as many mistakes in it as the Binnie report.

    It leapt out at me how the paper run suddenly “takes an hour or so” previously David said 40-45 mins but we can’t have people querying where he could easily have been 45 mins later after leaving home at 5.45am.

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

    That setup with the silencer would never of created a suck-back action. The gases inside silencer would not behave in that manner a minute suck-back will happen with a unsilenced rifle it happens in millseconds and only sucks back a few mm’s.

    Up to you people who you want to believe back understanding how gases work is my area of expertise. Even the experts can get it wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    The first line of that speech is kinda interesting. Anyone mentioned it yet? Perhaps it was said innocently, or could it carry more sinister undertones?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,203) Says: January 8th, 2013 at 9:44 am /// Yvette

    … it’s clear that Binnie dealt with the circumstances of the deaths, opportunity. He concluded that on BOP David wasn’t home when the computer was turned on,

    Binnie concluded BoP Robin turned the computer on. He did indeed. Why? How? Correctly? Binnie said he did the job properly because if he hadn’t he wouldn’t have said he had.

    One needs assign a probability to each event. Let’s say we accept it’s more likely Robin turned the computer on because David was too late. What is the likelihood witnesses got their timings right to within a few minutes? Did any look at a watch? How accurate was the turn-on/start-up time determined? I don’t see much here to say it was one or the other who turned it on, a few minutes is within the probable margin of error. Either man could have turned it on.

    Look at the message: Does not explain reason for suicide, serves only to exonerate David, sense of it is in wrong time frame, cannot verify authorship, no prints on keyboard.

    Common sense tells an unbiased observer the computer was most likely turned on by David. He had much to gain if anyone believed it and absolutely nothing suggests he couldn’t have or didn’t, nothing.

    Then add, considering suicide: Why would Robin not just kill himself, having decided to kill the others why spare one, why would that one be David?

    And the probability of David turning on the computer becomes very very high.

    Now, what was Binnie’s reasoning again? Ah, I know. He told us he did it properly because he wouldn’t have told us he’d done it properly if he hadn’t done it properly. We really have no idea how he arrived at his conclusion. Don’t get any marks for answers with no workings. Binnie, Dunce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @gamefisher. I believe you. That’s how a suppressor works. Stops the “crack”.

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

    Dean Papa, is this a reference to the Freudian bit about needing to go to the toilet? David needed to pee, but Robin apparently didn’t need to pee with a full overnight bladder while:

    a) bringing in the paper (or did he, noting that David’s accounts of this like so many other things has changed to the swings in the case evidence)
    b) locating the rifle, ammo, trigger key, and loading the rifle
    c) killing his wife
    d) parting Stephen’s hair with a 22 bullet
    e) fighting to the death with Stephen
    f) shooting the dead Stephen in the head, just to keep the “in the head” pattern intact
    g) fixing an apparent bullet misfeed in Stephen’s room
    h) killing one of his daughters
    i) killing the other of his daughters
    j) taking off his bloodied clothes and shoes (right next to the toilet)
    k) washing/showering the blood off himself (right next to the toilet)
    l) putting back on the clothes and shoes he’d had on the day before “to meet his maker”
    m) going back upstairs and typing the message on the computer
    n) changing the ammo clips over
    o) fixing up another apparent bullet misfeed
    p) shooting himself in the most difficult way that a right-handed person could possibly conceive of shooting themself (and spilling less than half a cc of blood (that’s less than a pin-head) over his hands in the process).

    .. .. all of this while still retaining a painful amount of pee in his bladder.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Compared to:

    Robin came in. David pleaded with Robin to come over urgently towards David’s sniper’s blind ..

    And he is cut down dead by David’s sniper bullet, full bladder and all.

    Which do you think is the more likely?

    I don’t even think it is a contest.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I happen to think that anyone who thinks all that could have taken place while Robin had a full night’s accumulation of pee in his bladder is for the looney bin. Yet David needed to pee, just to begin his speech in Perth.

    How Freudian was David’s opening remark in Perth? He thought he needed to pee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Binnie makes incorrect assumptions.
    For example,he writes
    Robin Bain sometimes used a downstairs door to come in from the caravan. This would have led him directly to the scene of the murders. Had Robin done this on the morning of the 20th June he would have immediatly discovered the carnage while David was out and called the police before David got home.
    The only bedroom that Robin Bain would have passed if he came into the house via the downstairs door was Arawa’s.
    David Bain had told Binnie that the lighting in that area was very poor. Arawa’s body was behind a piece of furniture,so even if Robin Bain had happened to have glanced towards her room he wouldn’t have seen her body anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    or perhaps it was intended as a joke? Did the audience laugh, or were they not as familiar with the case to get the humour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    Perhaps it was David’s way of giving the big FU to dotcom, and other detractors. Public speaking can be very nerve wracking, as is murdering your family. If David could give his speech with a full bladder, then there is no reason to believe Robin couldn’t do the same, or murder his family, as the case may be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    For example,he writes Robin Bain sometimes used a downstairs door to come in from the caravan.

    Presumably David told Binnie this…and of course Binnie accepted it as fact. Just as Binnie accepted as fact that Robin entered the house between 6.40 am and 7.10 am. We don’t know when Robin normally entered the house…

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

    Try it when you get up tomorrow morning, Dean Papa, and let us know the results.

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

    muggins (924) 12:39 Binnie makes incorrect assumptions. For example,he writes

    So, muggins, how does this help a probabilities judgment decision by Cabinet? I for one, and I am but only one, me ol’ china, I can’t quite see how Cabinet might be interested in this.

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

    I, speaking as just one person, I just can’t see Cabinet being interested in whether Robin Bain came in from downstairs, or upstairs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Is there any hard evidence Robin died after the paper round? He was bigger than the others and the body would have cooled more slowly. No expert gave an opinion and it’s impossible to give more than a time range of a few hours anyway.

    I think it’s quite likely David woke Robin up, told him something terrible had happened up at the house and to come on up immediately; he’d go on back. That would account for the bladder full and the lack of concern about his father discovering the bodies.

    Furthermore, it’s possible David killed them all intending to kill himself. When it came time he couldn’t quite face it so he decided he’d do the paper round first. When he came back the exercise and fresh air cleared his muddled brain so he concocted the “suicide” “note”. I believe someone with David’s cunning could have conned his father into writing something on paper that would have suited his purpose better than an unbelievable message on a computer.

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

    In any case, Dean Papa, the question at this point in time is not whether Dean Papa thinks it is possible. The question, should you dare to undertake it Dean Papa, is what are the chances one way or the other.

    I can just see Cabinet now, deciding this poignant point. I know, says Jerry, let’s give Dean Papa a call and let’s see if he thinks it is possible at all. Then we will decide probability on the result of what Dean Papa thinks is possible or not.

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

    Dennis. you forget me ol’ mate, that the whole thing was planned by David with some degree of precision, for at least 16 months. And David’s planning did not include David’s taking his own life. The planning included David’s enhancing to a significant degree David’s chances of no longer remaining a prostitute-excluding virgin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    and Dotcom, it was a cold winter’s morn, which would have increased the urgency to pee. Poor Robin, he was probably looking forward to that pee, but never got to have it. Instead, we was struck down by an assassin’s bullet, with a bladder that was to remain unemptied (although I’d have thought there might be an involuntary emptying of the bladder on expiration, or is that not always the case. Anyone?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Dotcom. No, I forgot nothing, Dotty, old Bean. I merely add it to the mix. I say cocktail, you say cocktale. Anyway, you haven’t given an opinion on my main point (the one that isn’t introduced with a “furthermore”). Doesn’t it make complete sense Robin was killed before the paper round? That would negate the silly argument David didn’t do it because he would have been too concerned Robin might stumble on the bodies. Who argued that again? Ah, I know. Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    Are you writing to cabinet?
    Also it appears you believe that when David Bain bought that rifle he already had murder in mind.
    Is it not possible,Excellency, that David Bain simply wanted a rifle of his own to shoot rabbits with rather than have to borrow one?
    Not that I am saying your assumption is without foundation. You may be correct. But it does seem to me that 16 months is one helluva long lead-up time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    ross69
    When Barbara Neasmith was staying with the Bain’s in 1991 she said Robin Bain came into the house from the caravan and go up the steps to the front lounge to pray.
    When I was speaking to Barbara not so long ago I asked her if she happened to hear Robin to go to the toilet before he came up the stairs and she said that she didn’t, and she also said she didn’t think to ask him if he did.

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

    Dennis. The opera gloves?

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

    Sorry, the opera gloves relates to the post-furthermore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Dean Papa. The sphincters may open on death:
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/716463_5

    More important I think is the fight or flight response, I cannot see Robin strangling his son and not peeing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response

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

    No, muggins, me ol’ china, I was referring more to the time of the purchase of the silencer, specifically. Commonplace today, in fact a preferred option today, but very rare in rabbit shooting in 1993.

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

    No, Dennis, nothing yet. Dad brought in the paper, no he didn’t, yes he did, no he didn’t, could have been part of the ploy — a very effective ploy I might add, ‘cos everyone bought it as a ploy. At lest everyone bought the ploy till David told Binnie face to face that David brought in the paper himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Dotcom. Yes, forgot the opera gloves. (I’m going dotty?) Perhaps it was a ritual. Anyway, makes no difference.

    What about the proposition Robin died before the paper round? You know it makes sense.

    Nobody should underestimate the importance of writing to Collins in support and to Key in hope.

    Nobody should assume there’s only one person using pseudonyms like Klutz and Neuralgia.

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

    Dean Papa, as regards voluntary evacuation on being shot dead.

    Try it when you get up tomorrow morning, Dean Papa, and let us know the results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Dotty, behave yourself, please. In any case, if he wrote on his computer, “You are the only one who deserved to know”, would you believe himt?

    Going out again now. Is TRUTH out tomorrow?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Dennis
    There is no evidence that Robin Bain was killed after the paper round,although his body was warmer than all the others so it is accepted that he was the last to die. There is a theory that David may have interrupted his paper round and gone home and shot his father,but looking at the map of his paper round and the timings of people who either heard or saw him I doubt that he could have done that.
    Robin Bain’s radio was on,his alarm was set for 6.32am,so I believe we have to accept that he was alive up until around that time.
    No-one knows when he came into the house. It is possible that David could have gone out to the caravan and told him something terrible had happened so as to entice him into the house. I havn’t heard that suggested before but that idea has merit.
    I keep going back to that 20 minute delay between David Bain arriving home and phoning 111.
    One theory I have is that when David Bain arrived home at around 6.42/6.43 am by his reckoning or a minute or two later as per Denise Laney’s sighting of him he was expecting to find his father in the lounge. His intention was to shoot him then and immediatly phone 111. But because Robin Bain had an appointment with an Education Board official that morning he may have stayed in bed . He would have been in no hurry to get up because he wasn’t going to school at the usual time.
    David waits and waits. By around 7am he decides he can’t wait any longer so he goes out to the caravan and tells his father something terrible has happened to get him into the house. Once he gets him into the house he somehow gets him to go into the lounge and kills him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    Re purchase of silencer. I had one in 1996.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Dennis,
    Sorry,
    Because of the warmth of his body it is accepted that Robin Bain was not shot as early as 5.45am.
    Also his alarm was set for 6.32am and his radio was going. Just as well for you that the opposition appears to have waved the white flag,otherwise Kanz and that other fellow whose pseudonym I am not allowed to mention on pain of death would be all over you like a rash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    gamefisher (171) Says:
    January 8th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    That setup with the silencer would never of created a suck-back action. The gases inside silencer would not behave in that manner a minute suck-back will happen with a unsilenced rifle it happens in millseconds and only sucks back a few mm’s.

    Up to you people who you want to believe back understanding how gases work is my area of expertise. Even the experts can get it wrong.

    That might be one of your silliest yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    It suited the Crown’s case to have Robin Bain bringing the paper in. That way they could say that Robin Bain was going about his normal Monday and Tuesday morning routine.
    And of course they could argue that why would Robin Bain bring the paper in if he was going to commit suicide.

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

    Thanks muggins, I’ll be sure to let Judith Collins know that you bought a silencer in 1996. This info should be a game changer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Oops,
    Spoke too soon.
    The poster with the bull***t degree is back.
    And he knows how gases work because he probably farts a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom.
    Only too happy to be of service,Excellency.

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

    Yes, muggins me ol’ china, and it is of course the “why would a person planning suicide bring in the paper” argument which led to David finally coming clean, finally telling the truth, that it was actually he himself, David, who had brought in the newspaper.

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

    muggins me ol’ china, kind of similar to the green pullover being his sister’s. Till green fibres were found under Stephen’s fingernails, when suddenly David “remembered” that the pullover was Robin’s. Yeah, and the Pope is a protestant.

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

    muggins me ol’ china, whether Robin was dead or not, his radio alarm would have gone off at 6.32 am. And of course there would have been no-one to turn it off, an often asked question being why would Robin have left it on, “on” being the condition that police found it later.

    (Phew bad sentence construction. Never say in one sentence, what can be said in two.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (226) Says:
    January 8th, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    You’ve slipped deeply into the guess work campaigners yet you claim to have read Binnie’s report. The evidence about the computer turn on time is clear, it’s the most reliable of all the information regarding the timing that morning. The witness was specific and her car clock was checked for accuracy. It was also one of the grounds which the PC ruled constituted an actual MOJ.
    I’m sure it doesn’t worry you but you’ve become like the other lilly leef hoppers with the exception you first run down Binnie, then say why he got something wrong, yet you don’t know the evidence. You attack a single point, think you’ve made progress on it (and in fact happen) then denigrate the whole. If you indeed have some professional training you’re breaking all the rules of what you were taught, either that or parts of the grey matter went on holiday and never returned.

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

    Dennis, there are essentially three theories. The PR-then-5 theory, the 4 + 1 theory, and what you are suggesting, the 5-then-PR.

    I’m sure cops would have considered all three, especially when they originally went for PR-then-5.

    So when they changed from PR-then-5, surely their first reaction would have been to consider 5-then-PR. 4 + 1 is an odd ball, and a sixth sense tells me the cops would have had a damned good reason for such an unlikely option.

    The only problem that I can think of is a very subjective one. We all believe that David’s plan was to use his newspaper round as an alibi. The 5-then-PR does not take advantage of the paper round as an alibi. Kind of tail-wagging-the-dog logic, but at least YOU will see what I’m getting at.

    A sixth sense is telling me that the cops had a reason to prefer 4 + 1 over 5-then-PR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘Dotcom (1,008) Says:
    January 8th, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    muggins me ol’ china, whether Robin was dead or not, his radio alarm would have gone off at 6.32 am. And of course there would have been no-one to turn it off, an often asked question being why would Robin have left it on, “on” being the condition that police found it later.

    (Phew bad sentence construction. Never say in one sentence, what can be said in two.)’

    Yes probably a bad sentence construction. But amazingly you’ve made a lie of one of the oldest arguments of the hangers, those that always claimed that Robin had been in bed until 6.32 because that was when his alarm was set. Silly hangers aren’t they?

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

    Mr Weir, if you are watching, perhaps you could help Dennis on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    David Bain didn’t actually say he brought the paper in. He said the paper was where he normally put it if he had brought it in.
    He said he didn’t recall seeing the paper in the house when he entered it on 20th June.
    The difference between what he told Binnie and what he told DS Dunne on 21 June 1994 is that way back then he said he didn’t bring the paper in. He didn’t say that to Binnie. But he didn’t say he did bring it in,either,your Excellency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    Yes ,there has been some discussion about whether that alarm was on or off,but the proDavidBainers have given up on that one,probably because they realise they misunderstood what the detective who checked that alarm was saying.
    But what about the radio,Excellency?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Robin had been in bed until 6.32 because that was when his alarm was set

    Well, actually, he might have been in bed longer seeing as he turned his radio on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    The witness was specific and her car clock was checked for accuracy

    Is that the same witness who Joe Karam hung up on because her evidence didn’t suit him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I see the poster with the bulls**t degree is still trying to say that the computer turn-on time is clear.
    In fact it is not clear. The computer start-up time was retested by a police computer expert in 1997[Binnie actually thought he worked for the ESR, but who cares what Binnie thought] and that police officer ,using improved technology,said the computer could have been turned on between 6.39 and 6.49am.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    ross69,
    Yes same witness. Laney mentioned that to me two years before it was published in a newspaper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I see Binnie is saying that green jersey belonged to Robin Bain. Now how would he know that,may I ask.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    This is getting boring, I think I’ll ring somebody up about the strip search – there must be somebody that still takes my calls apart from the nice doctor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    Dotcom, you great big tit, I’d like your thoughts on the following. I’ve mentioned it before, but not sure if it had already been discussed.

    In Binnie’s interview with Davey, Binnie asks David why he would look for Robin in the lounge. (page 46)

    Q. Now when you spoke to the police, you said you went in search of your father and the question is why would you look for your father in the lounge?

    To which David replies

    A. Ah , again I can only give you what I made in my, in the statements and, and in evidence and so on and that was really his influence, he was most concentrated , he spent a lot of time in that room either working on the computer or praying or, you know, discussing things with visitors that he might have had.

    So, according to David, Robin spent a lot of time on the computer, or praying. This praying then, must have been a ‘habit’, or a ‘ritual’ that Robin performed on a regular basis in the lounge. Hence David’s mentioning of it. Otherwise why mention it at all?

    Shortly after this, Binnie adjourns the interview.

    On resumption, Binnie presses David further regarding Robin praying in the lounge. (page 50)

    Q. In terms of Robin’s practice in the morning, the – you referred a few moments ago to he would go to the lounge when he was doing his personal things and you mentioned praying -

    A. Mhm .

    Q. – as one of the things? Was there a ritual that he had in the morning in relation to prayer?

    A. Not that I remember. The only rituals that I ever really observed was, you know, reading in the paper, he liked , he liked reading the paper and he would make himself a cup of coffee and have some breakfast and to shower and head off to school.

    Q. Now there is , there is one witness who said that she observed your father at prayer?

    A. Yeah , Barbara Neasmith observed him doing it on a, you know, regular basis and , um . . .

    Q. And what is your recollection?

    A. Well it didn’t happen on a regular basis at our home because he wasn’t there between Monday, well , all Monday through to Friday evening.

    Q. When he was there?

    A. So when he was there? No, it wasn’t a regular habitual thing. He would – sometimes he would go in there after an argument with Mum. Sometimes he would go in there , yes, first thing in the morning and just sit and contemplate for a while no matter what, what he was doing . Um , at other times he might do that, um, you know, mid way through the day on the weekend.

    Q. When you did see him in prayer, was he on his knees?

    A. No

    Q . What position did he pray in generally speaking?

    A. Ah , well I don’t know what he was doing but he was in contemplation , I would say either sitting on the bean bag or in one of the chairs , the lounge chairs, comfortable chairs that are in , arm chairs, sorry.

    Q . When you talk about a bean bag , this is a kind of a piece of furniture? It’s a fluffy thing that you can sit on like a chair?

    A. Yeah, well it’s a , it’s a big loose bag that’s filled with little polystyrene balls.

    Q. Mmm .

    A . And so when you sit into it, it moulds around your body.

    Q . It serves the purpose of a chair?

    A. Oh , it’s a chair, yes.

    So, according to David, although he wasn’t sure, he said Robin appeared to be in contemplation, sitting on a bean bag or in a chair. So why then did David call it praying, when it does not seem to be obviously recognisable as such?

    The original police theory was that Robin was praying at the time he was shot by David. Could there be some truth to this? Certainly, if David is the killer, then it seems reasonable to believe that David had a plan in mind to make Robin’s death look like a suicide. while the empty shell casing found in the computer alcove seems to support such a theory.

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

    Well, all that was a waste of time, Dean Papa. I don’t do house calls.

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

    499

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

    500th comment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    Not a total waste of time Dot. It is now recorded in the archives, for reference, for future generations who might still be debating this matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  502. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Dean

    How would David know what his father was up to? It sounds like David knew more than he was letting on to Binnie.

    David said Robin wasn’t there “all Monday through to Friday evening”. In fact he was there Monday mornings. David initially says Robin prayed but later backs away from that word when asked about the position Robin was in when he prayed. Hmmm he seems somewhat defensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  503. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    David was likely being deceptive there, pity he couldn’t have been hooked up to a polygraph during Binnie’s interview

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  504. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    I do house calls,so maybe I can help.
    When Barbara Neasmith was visiting the Bain’s at Robin Bain’s request in 1991[ She was an old friend and she came over from Sydney- Robin wanted her to bring Margaret "back to God"] she accidently went into the lounge one morning and saw Robin either sitting or kneeling in front of the fireplace . She demonstrated by closing her eyes, putting her hands on her cheeks and inclining her head. She said he was praying.
    I note that David Bin told Bainie his father wasn’t there Monday to Friday but in actual fact he came home after school on Monday’s. Then on Tuesday mornings he went back to school and came home again on Friday’s.
    The police thought that Robin Bain may have been shot from behind the alcove curtain while he was kneeling on his beanbag,partly because of that spent shell in the alcove, but at the retrial an ESR scientist told the Court that Robin Bain was most likely standing when he was shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  505. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I see a proDavidbainer is going to ring someone about that strip-search. Obviously he isn’t so sure now that David Bain was strip-searched after saying for yonks that he was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  506. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘Dean Papa (277) Says:
    January 8th, 2013 at 3:36 pm’

    On how to make something from nothing.

    Not a new one, just a continuation of the circling to find something that isn’t there. But on the premise that ‘your’ theory was right could you explain how a upward trajectory shot was achieved?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  507. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    muggins
    most likely standing, but not definitely. If David did have a plan, then it was crucial that Robin’s death was to have the appearance of a suicide, otherwise it was all over for David. That should be obvious. That David allegedly did his paper run in between the killings, I think, makes it very probable that David did indeed have in mind a plan or method by which he would be able to shoot Robin from close range. This plan must have hinged on some habit or ritual that Robin performed. Perhaps that ritual was not praying, but I wouldn’t rule that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  508. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    “could you explain how a upward trajectory shot was achieved?”

    from the position of the shooter, I’d have thought?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  509. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    How many weeks have I been saying I’m going to ring somebody this week…..dementia the curse of the bs….ers

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

    Thank for the house call muggins me ol’ china. Your house call will change everything about the Cabinet decision. Glad I didn’t waste my time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  511. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    Yes,had David Bain shot his father in the back of the head I don’t think even the most ardent proDavidbainers would be saying he committed suicide,though one couldn’t be too sure about that.
    So he would have done his best to make it look like it could be suicide. It would have looked better if he had shot his father in the right temple. I now believe he shot his father when Robin was standing upright. It would be more natural for a right-handed person to shoot a person facing them in the left temple,in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  512. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dot.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if Judith Collins turns down the compensation claim without even going to cabinet.

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

    Dean Papa 4:35 David’s plan must have hinged on some habit or ritual that Robin performed.

    What a load of crap. You’re worse at making assumptions than the Hon Justice Ian Binnie.

    What if David simply yelled at his dad, FOR EXAMPLE, when Robin came in the front door “Hey Dad, help, help, I’m hurt, come and help me, I’m over at the computer. Then as Robin approached David’s sniper’s blind (the curtains), he says (pointing a rifle square into Robin’s face) — “Now get down on your knees, you fucking old bastard, and say you last prayers”.

    We simply don’t know how this part played out, so we shouldn’t be making things up like the Hon Justice Ian Binnie likes to do. There are enough fairy tales out there already, without you adding more, dean papa.

    You are out of your league, dean papa. Stop increasing DPF’s comment count for nothing.

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

    muggins 4:49
    I wouldn’t be surprised if Judith Collins turns down the compensation claim without even going to cabinet.

    muggins me ol’ china, you be a lot more confident than I be, though for once I hope I be dead wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  515. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    muggins
    you appear to the be the expert here. What is the evidence regarding blood splatter in the lounge? I note there’s what appears to be a newspaper in the crime scene photo. Did that have splatter on it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  516. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    That’s right Dean Papa, which would exclude praying or sitting and would be impossible for David to have achieved without bending in some way. I think Binnie refers to the ridiculousness of Robin co-operating in some way while David achieved what is readily defined as a suicide shot. That high speed spatter wasn’t shielded, another factor that removed a second person from the scene. The Crown Pathologist’s boss expressed his disquiet over the years as to how a young man was able to reconstruct the perfect suicide forensics, the answer that had obviously bothered him was that David didn’t. Whatever has been attributed to him over the years, and there has been heaps of bs, particularly about his intellect, nobody has been able to show that David would have understood that the last shot, unlike all the others fired that morning needed to be upward rather than downward. All factors in the consideration of his being found innocent on the BOP. Something that readily escape those that trawl conversations vainly searching for clues that will never overcome the forensic proof against Robin.

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

    Dean Papa, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle cautioned us about a hundred years ago, not to find facts to fit our theories. He expects us amateur sleuths to do the opposite and find solutions that fit the full range of known facts. Says Sir Arthur, every time you come up with a constrained theory, you restrict the likelihood of your finding the solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  518. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    Dotcom, while that scenario is possble, David going face to face with Robin would appear a little out a character given the manner of the other killings. Also, a confrontation with Robin risked the possibility of a killing that was not consistent with a suicide. As I said, if David is the killer, then these killings were planned. Your scenario, while possible, doesn’t fit in with a plan in which David would feel in control.

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

    Dean Papa, you are clutching at straws. Your theory is just that, theory, and you want to criticise mine on a load of crap additional theory which you know nothing about. Dean Papa, you are out of your depth. Go away, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  520. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Dotcom 4.51

    I hope you’re not on the payroll for somebody you’re doing an bloody awful job. Robin down David above doesn’t work, but it’s been interesting watching you as your views becoming increasingly irrelevant and at odds with the evidence. You give the impression of somebody who read bad information and got excited by over confidence and what you could see so obviously that others couldn’t. Maybe now you’re realising how tough it’s been for the police and Crown to turn murders/suicide into something else.

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

    Dotcom says: Dean Papa, you are clutching at straws. Your theory is just that, theory, and you want to criticise mine on a load of crap additional theory which you know nothing about. Dean Papa, you are out of your depth. Go away, please.

    I thinkits time you retired, Ipissintheshowerallthetime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  522. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    quite possibly, David was crouched behind the curtain, waiting for Robin’s entrance. He then shot Robin, from a position giving rise to the upward trajectory as reported. Robin must have been close to the curtains at the moment he was shot. David then moved Robin to the position in which he was found.

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

    Slightly better, Dean Papa now where have I heard that before. At least this time you used the word “might” rather than the “must’ as in “must have hinged on some habit or ritual that Robin performed”

    Better, Dean Papa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  524. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    I apologise if I gave the impression of criticising your theory, Dot. I just believe mine is more plausible. But that’s only my opinion. Both scenarios are of course possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  525. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘Dean Papa (284) Says:
    January 8th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
    quite possibly, David was crouched behind the curtain, waiting for Robin’s entrance. He then shot Robin, from a position giving rise to the upward trajectory as reported. Robin must have been close to the curtains at the moment he was shot. David then moved Robin to the position in which he was found.’

    Still no where near.

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

    Dean Papa 5:19 Both scenarios are of course possible.

    Excellent progress, Dean Papa. But still closing doors where closure is not reflective of the FACTS.

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

    Just like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, David Bain set many false leads for us to follow. Sir Arthur was a bit of an expert at tempting us to take the most obvious path, at the expense of the alternative but subtler prizewinner.

    For example (and only slightly off our journey today). So, FOR EXAMPLE, how many have asked “Is it really a coincidence that David’s own glasses were conveniently broken and put into a repair shop on Thursday 16 June 1994?”

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

    Actually, there is no better compliment here than when one of the probainers says to you “nowhere near”.

    This is almost guaranteed to be an blindside acknowledgement that indeed, you might very well be remarkably close to spot on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  529. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Interesting to see the BS from the usual JFRB team, Dotcom, Ross and the usual trolls.
    Really important evidence which will determine 100% one way or the other on “who the murderer was”
    Tony, Ipissintheshowerdotcom, I have learnt the real importance of the following from you in the different Bain polls and I must contact you if I decide to commit mass murder and/or suicide! especially
    1. The “correct” tense of the suicide note
    2. The “right” place to shoot oneself
    3. Where you should “place” the spare magazine
    4. What only the killer would “know/see/do” when faced in a similar situation
    5. The “rational” explanations of what a killer (or finder) “would” and “wouldn’t” do
    etc etc.
    Your subjective probabilities prove absolutely nothing!!
    Somehow you and yiour fellow idiots seem to think that the court of public opinion is somehow going to decide the Bain compensation claim! By all means send your petition of 3000 odd multiple signed signatures to Judith Collins opposing compensation. Do you really think she will give a flying f… what your so called ‘legal opinion’ is, I mean you seem to think you are the only “expert” whose “factual” opinion actually counts. Do you think that you know more than Robin Bates and Kieran Raftery did at the second trial? They didn’t attempt to offer any explanation at all for Robins death scenario (I wonder why!!) and tried desperately to cling to the so called glasses evidence that the original idiot defence lawyer is trying to dredge up again after 18 years.
    Do us all a favour and go back to psyciatric care.

    @ Dean Papa
    Yes this sounds really likely! DB was lying on the floor sticking the rifle tip out of the curtains. David then ‘shook’ RBs dead body to account for the blood splatter on the curtains, this was crown expert James Ferris best explanation for the blood splatter. Your ridiculous scenario is about as likely as Len Johnstones AAT ‘shooting from the kitchen louvre windows’ in the crewe case.

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

    Dotty old man (who pisses in the shower regardless of the rest of family.)

    Go make a cup of tea and sit down before your head explodes or your brains leak out your arse.

    People can express their own views anyway they like, even Nostalgia, and if you don’t like it, 2FB. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  531. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    “Is it really a coincidence that David’s own glasses were conveniently broken and put into a repair shop on Thursday 16 June 1994?”

    perhaps not Dot. And if so, then this would be more evidence of the planning on David’s part. Hence I think your “Hey Dad, help help” scenario is even less likely. Although still a possibility, of course.

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

    Seeing as it has come up again today, I confess that I did indeed piss in the shower this morning. Anyone else admit to this flagitious debauchery?

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

    You don’t seem to get it, dean papa, it really doesn’t matter what you think of my FOR EXAMPLE demonstration that your “must have been” was not indeed “must have been”. In fact, your own “maybe” was incompatible with the said previous “must have been”.

    I try to exclude nothing that the facts don’t preclude. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle told me not to, so if you want to, continue your arguing for the sake of arguing with an authority better than Sir Arthur. After all, he made millions from this stuff, at a time when millions were like billions today. By comparison, dean papa, you know nothing — though ever so slowly you may be learning.

    I suspect that you might even be biased in your assumptions in this case, for no better reasoning than who is offering the alternative FOR EXAMPLE — namely the person you have been insulting for the last 2 weeks. Now there’s a sound basis to take your case to Court on. Your Honour, don’t listen to him. I can piss twice as high as he can.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ 2:10 Quote”That might be one of your silliest yet.”unquote so with that statement you can tell us how much gas the propellant from a subsonic 22 makes and the cubic capacity of the silencer is. If you can’t tell us that it is not worth carrying on the debate.
    Because the fact are using a defence expert Robin could not of suicided quote” He said it had been possible to reach the trigger on the rifle with the end of the barrel held up to 12cm away from the head.
    In his evidence yesterday, he said he had calculated that the rifle could have been held between 18cm and 22cm from Robin Bain’s head at the time the fatal shot was fired”

    Can’t people see that the defence expert is actualy saying Robin Bain couldn’t of suicided.
    1.Note! he could only reach trigger up to 12cm
    2 Note! he calculated the shot to Robin was between 18cm and 22cm from his head
    That is a 6cm-10cm further reach

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  535. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    dean,
    i agree with your methodology – but actually I prefer dotcoms scenario a little on that same method…

    In David’s position (dubious eyesight and all) I would be far more worried about not getting the final “kill” than about the cleanup afterwards, and would really want to get a very close shot that would certainly kill him. thoughts about cleaning up would be secondary, particularly after the screw up with Stephen. You’d probably want to be standing so that you could move forward if required, for example to shove the gun up to his head.

    Then calling him over and threatening him a bit before getting really close and taking the shot would be a control thing…

    the upward trajectory is interesting…Im not sure if they proved that the shot was indeed in an upward direction or if it could have been related to his head being tilted by the gun pushing against it? (or some other such scenario) maybe the others here know.

    anyway assuming that it was upwards – it does seem a little unlikely that david would have his body in a lower position than robin whilst threatening robin but also tit would be a bit odd or that he would have been in a farily immobile position while waiting.

    if he is kneeling “up” and david has ducked down I guess naturally he does hold the gun down a bit at the back (well below his own head) and up at the front (to meet robin’s) any gun users care to comment?

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

    Rowan 5:41 pm .. Your (dotcom’s) subjective probabilities prove absolutely nothing!! ..

    Rowan, for once you got it right, even with two exclamation points, just in case I didn’t see the first one.

    I don’t know how many times I have to say it, Rowan, but I can’t say it in every single comment. I don’t have to prove anything. I don’t try to prove anything. It’s really odd that you lumber me with what just about everyone except me is doing. The reality is that as I say, over and over again, we can’t prove a damned thing. None of us can. None of us need to.

    But we don’t have to Rowan. That’s why I don’t try to. I know that I don’t have to. As things stand, it is for David Bain to prove to Cabinet, and not to anyone else, that he didn’t kill. He hasn’t yet proved this, and until he does he can’t get compo, Rowan. Get with the program Rowan. Until David proves to Cabinet that he didn’t kill, he gets nothing.

    Nothing that we say here (that I say here) changes David Bain’s obligation to convince Cabinet that he didn’t kill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  537. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Gamefisher
    Interpret from the evidence what you want, On the crowns own evidence from Dr Dempster it is a contact or near contact wound. The up to 22cm is irrelevant. If Robin had decided that he was going to commit suicide, then would he not do it because it was ‘to hard’!!
    Note Dempster agreed that the defence propositions were totally feasible and required no contortions, Yes he said that in his view it was unlikely but as this was the objective not really suprising. I wonder if he actually believed it
    Maybe you could give the explanation for Robins death scenario that Kieran Raftery was unable to give the jury, taking into account the upwards trajectory of the bullet? hmm David was lying on the floor!!

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

    gamefisher 6:06 .. Can’t people see it ..

    I noticed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  539. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    I would have thought that it would be possible to tell the difference between a 0cm wound (consistant with suicide and some murders) with a 1cm-10cm wound (likely to be murder)…. Im a little surprised it is somthing that has to be debated…

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

    Rowan says: taking into account the upwards trajectory of the bullet

    Your proof that the shot was an upwards trajectory ?

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

    Rowan, the same Dempster that you selectively quote also said that he didn’t think Robin suicided. You have to be comprehensive in what you take into account, not find only the facts that fit your predetermination, like Binnie did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  542. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    Newspaper in what crime scene photo?
    Re blood spatter. Depends which expert you want to believe. I am not an expert on blood spatter,though I do know how to spell the word spatter. Many people think it is spelt splatter.

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

    Truth iz, get with the program. The only person who needs to prove anything is David.

    He has to convince Cabinet that he isn’t a mass murderer. Which is going to be difficult, seeing as he is a mass murderer.

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

    muggins me ol’ china, he’s talking about the free local paper on the chaise lounge next to the bean bag.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  545. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Good to see you back.
    Havn’t you heard? An ESR scientist now believes Robin Bain was most likely standing upright when he was shot.
    You need to keep up with the play.

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

    muggins me ol’ china, see what happens when you do house calls for free. Nek minit they all want them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  547. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    There was a misfed bullet in Arawa’s room so it would appear she co-operated with David when he shot her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  548. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Tony
    Yet your arguments for guilt seem to me to be based on the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ way of doing things. Maybe the killer wasn’t acting ‘rationally’
    Yes nothing can really be proven BRD now because of the stupid incompetence of the idiot cops at the time and the misinformation used to convict in 1995. How are we supposed to draw convincing conclusions from the evidence of crown experts eg Jones, Weir, Hentschell when it was shown at the retrial to be demonstratably wrong!! You try to marginalise these arguments used against them by the defence on the crowns own evidence and pretend the incest allegations don’t exist, maybe tell yourself that enough and you might believe it! I suppose the murder stories in the newsletter are ‘unsubstantiated’
    I rely on the likes of Binnie and the PC who have examined all the evidence rather than trying to make out I know better, like most of the idiots on these polls.
    There is no evidence at all that either DB or RB were calculating pyscopaths so do you really think that this was a planned killing? More likely to me in a fit of temporary insanity by a depressed 58 year old man who couldn’t live with what he had done and took his own life afterwards. Dangerous to speculate on the intentions maybe he didn’t intend to commit suicide or to spare David.

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

    upwards trajectory lol not this BS again it is a 7-10 degree angle above the vertical plane only if Robin was holding his head in the normal upright position. Did anyone see how Robin was holding his head that morning apart from the killer so hopefully the answer is a resounding NO! it is just a description of the angle.

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

    opps horizontal plane

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  551. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Muggins
    I have been out of the country since new year.
    Yes this kind of doesn’t fit with the kneeling scenario which was the best that the crown could come up with, note all the suicide demonstrations at the retrial were standing upwards so nothing new there. As I said Kieran Raftery wasn’t able to explain this in his closing address, he somehow neglected to mention the lounge at all and instead desperately tried to ‘cling’ to Stephens room as a positive link to the murders. Seeing as you think you know the crowns case better than they do maybe you can?
    Why do so many idiots think that the court of public opinion is going to decide the compensation claim!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  552. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    I would have thought that it would be possible to tell the difference between a 0cm wound (consistant with suicide and some murders) with a 1cm-10cm wound (likely to be murder)…. Im a little surprised it is somthing that has to be debated…

    The wound was 4mm with a 10mm ring of soot surrounding it. It was a contact shot.

    Your proof that the shot was an upwards trajectory ?

    Proof was given from the autopsy in the first trial. Familiarise yourself with the evidence before making yourself look so stupid.

    Havn’t you heard? An ESR scientist now believes Robin Bain was most likely standing upright when he was shot.

    He doesn’t “now believe” it was given in evidence in the retrial. Familiarise yourself with the evidence before making yourself look so stupid.

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

    Rowan ? ..

    So your proof the shot was an upward trajectory ?

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

    Negative Kanz,

    the shot was close contact, definitely NOT contact ….

    but why let the truth get in the way of your story …….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  555. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    the shot was close contact, definitely NOT contact

    Know better than the pathologist who viewed the wond, do you? He said it was contact. I will take his word for it, thanks anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  556. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    wond= wound

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

    Quote”The wound was 4mm with a 10mm ring of soot surrounding it. It was a contact shot.” unquote

    How does a 8mm hole (silencer exit) make a 10mm ring of soot. Any link of photos to this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  558. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    muggins
    spatter and splatter are different words. But spatter is the more correct one to use in this case. In the photo I am referring to there is what looks to be a magazine (perhaps not a newspaper as I said) sitting on a sheepskin, on a couch of sorts. What was that magazine doing there? It looks as if it is nearly falling off? I’d have thought it would be mentioned in the trial, and you have a transacript, I believe?

    gamefisher
    excellent point. Robin’s head could have been bowed while preying at the time of his execution. Only conjecture of course. Hopefully, one day, David might fill in the details for us. But for poor N-NZ, Kanz, and Rowan, there is no such hope since Robin can’t tell them due to the fact that David murdered him.

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

    When you guys have decided on the angle of the dangle, could one of you let Judith Collins know so she can decide David’s compo claim which is hanging delicately balanced on your findings.

    Could you please work of the basis of a joint communique when you have reached an accord, please.

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

    Yes, muggins me ol’ china, I saw the duplicitous cover up by dean papa in relation to his question:

    .. What is the evidence regarding blood splatter in the lounge ..

    Smarmy cop-out Dean Papa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  561. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ”gamefisher (175) Says:
    January 8th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    upwards trajectory lol not this BS again it is a 7-10 degree angle above the vertical plane only if Robin was holding his head in the normal upright position. Did anyone see how Robin was holding his head that morning apart from the killer so hopefully the answer is a resounding NO! it is just a description of the angle.’

    Actually, this is your stupidest so far. Why don’t you stick your finger……on your bleeding thick temple and move you head left and right – then explain to the other children how many of the angles created are not upward trajectory. Maybe then ,some folks might not think that your expertise on ‘gas’ that you claimed earlier today, was not blowing it out your bottom.

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

    And see what I mean about house calls muggins me ol’ china. Now they demand house calls from you. With not a word of thanks as yet for earlier house calls.

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

    What was that magazine doing there? It looks as if it is nearly falling off? I’d have thought it would be mentioned in the trial, and you have a transcript, I believe?

    Right now, muggins, jump to it.

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

    Piss off, Dean Papa, you are the weakest link.

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

    Horizontal plane for those with a brain

    http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/brains/slice/terminology

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

    Dean Papa 7:18 pm muggins
    spatter and splatter are different words. But spatter is the more correct one to use in this case.

    Then why didn’t you use it you smarmy prick?

    Actually, I think the correct thing to have said to muggins me ol’ china, was thank you, you are correct muggins me ol’ china, I will use spatter next time, instead of the splatter which I incorrectly used last time.

    You fucking conceited prick.

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

    I see Kimbo also likes “splatter”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  568. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    Yes a very good explanation for the Robin ‘murder’ theory, currently about as plausible as AAT shooting Harvey and Jeanette Crewe through the open louvre windows on a wet and rainy night. Mind you Raftery wasn’t able to explain the murder scenario either and the best explanation for the blood splatter was the James Ferris’s ‘shaking the dead body’, given you idiots think you know the crown case better than they do maybe you could give a plausible explanation rather than the bs you post here. Look at the clips of the suicide demonstrations, the rifle was in an upwards trajectory in each one. Hmm maybe David must have been lying down shooting upwards!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  569. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ‘gamefisher (176) Says:
    January 8th, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    Horizontal plane for those with a brain

    http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/brains/slice/terminology

    Nice link, pity you don’t understand it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  570. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    “Why don’t you stick your finger……on your bleeding thick temple ”

    tried this
    I only got one angle for me and a test subject (surprising them with a finger to the head!) We move our heads back a bit (in my cae pushed by the finger a bit in their case just instinctive) such that if gun was otherwise going to be exactly on the horizontal plane of the brain I get an upward angle.. just a few degrees.

    anyone else want to try?

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

    So your proof, is that fool in the court case two people committing suicide …

    Any other proof of upward trajectory ?

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

    Dr Dempster Quote”The bullet entered Robin Bain’s skull through the front of the bone in the temple area. It then travelled diagonally backwards across the base of the skull at a 45-degree angle and about 5 degrees to 8 degrees upwards. ” unquote

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/50815/wound-039very-unusual039-if-self-inflicted?page=0%2C0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  573. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    A couple of questions for the ‘daddy didn’t do it’ nitwits based on the cross examination of the crowns own evidence at the retrial
    1. How come the ridges of Davids ‘bloody’ fingerprints on the rifle were white, when it was actually pointed out to Kim Jones (and he agreed) that they would be white if in fact it was a ‘bloody’ print, Its hard to see how his 1995 deliberate misstatement to the jury wasn’t perjury!!
    2. How a ‘complete’ footprint would come out smaller than the actual foot, given there were 2 complete and 4 incomplete footprints (assuming Hentschels measurements were correct) I mean this is like the Thomas case where they couldn’t rule out the possibility of a category 4 cartridge case containing a number 8 bullet despite never being able to find a bullet where it did!! Hard to see why Guest tried to innocently explain these away as Davids footprints, but given his total lack of competence not suprising!! how difficult would it be to challenge Hentshells 1995 evidence based on the size of the socks being a better indicator of the foot size than the foot measurement!
    3. How the blood in the barrell was anyone elses other than Robin, the best explanation I got on the earlier blog was from Ross that David shot an animal after shooting Robin and that it was animal blood!! really?
    You seem to be able to post endless speculation about unimportant things like the ‘correct’ position of the rifle magazine and the ‘correct’ tense of the suicide note but if you can give me a logical explanation of the above and the RB ‘murder’ scenario then I will retract everything I have said to date.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  574. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Collected McNeish’s “The Mask of Sanity” from the library and read the NZ Herald. Two letters backing Binnie Bain, none backing Collins today, same as yesterday. Incredible. No one is writing any letters pointing out Binnie is wrong in his method and wrong in his conclusion. It’s a funny old world, funny old Herald. Two friends have cancelled it.

    @Neuralgia. Binnie could not establish the time David Bain returned within minutes. Now, listen to me and I will explain to you again. This no longer a question of law or for the law. This a question of reasoning and probability. I am not interested what the Toffs in London thought or said. They didn’t believe Bain would incriminate himself. They decided a jury should hear “new” evidence, so directed a retrial. I am not interested in what Binnie concluded. Binnie is a dunce. I don’t even care what the Crown case was. Ken Palmer wrote to the Herald claiming Binnie deserved an A pass for his report. Palmer was a Crown Prosecutor for, 30 years was it? No wonder the system is such a fucking mess. It’s full of donks.

    I think it’s quite possible Robin was shot before David went on his paper round. Now, think of the implications of that, eh? Remember the pathologist didn’t get into the house before lunchtime and Robin had a lot of clothing on and a beanie. Do you know how much heat is lost through the head? Lots.

    The angle of the shot slightly upwards tells us nothing about the inclination of the head. Nothing. What we need to do is to enact the scene. How do you get that shot and the spatter (splatter is spatter) about a metre off the floor and unimpeded onto the curtains?

    Well, despite your carping, David could have been behind the curtains and out of range of the spatter. Especially if Robin was sitting with the left side of his head towards the curtains. Which he would have been, looking at the photo. Furthermore, if he knew Robin would be sitting low he would quite naturally be kneeling himself, to be at the right height.

    Incidentally, a silencer is also called a suppressor or a modifier. A modifier because it modifies the gas flow. A rifle with a modifier does not behave the same way as one without. In any case it’s probably irrelevant, If Robin was motionless with his eyes closed David could have poked the rifle at him pushing his head away slightly.That would account for the angle. David didn’t need glasses at that range.

    By the way, I have seen a photo of the broken glasses. They don’t look mangled to me. Fairly intact would be my description.

    Binnie chooses to ignore the broken glasses. Mind you, Binnie ignored the rifle too. It didn’t have Robin’s fingerprints on it. Binnie isn’t right, Binnie isn’t even wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  575. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Collected McNeish’s “The Mask of Sanity” from the library and read the NZ Herald. Two letters backing Binnie Bain, none backing Collins today, same as yesterday. Incredible. No one is writing any letters pointing out Binnie is wrong in his method and wrong in his conclusion. It’s a funny old world, funny old Herald. Two friends have cancelled it.

    @Neuralgia. Binnie could not establish the time David Bain returned within minutes. Now, listen to me and I will explain to you again. This no longer a question of law or for the law. This a question of reasoning and probability. I am not interested what the Toffs in London thought or said. They didn’t believe Bain would incriminate himself. They decided a jury should hear “new” evidence, so directed a retrial. I am not interested in what Binnie concluded. Binnie is a dunce. I don’t even care what the Crown case was. Ken Palmer wrote to the Herald claiming Binnie deserved an A pass for his report. Palmer was a Crown Prosecutor for, 30 years was it? No wonder the system is such a fucking mess. It’s full of donks.

    I think it’s quite possible Robin was shot before David went on his paper round. Now, think of the implications of that, eh? Remember the pathologist didn’t get into the house before lunchtime and Robin had a lot of clothing on and a beanie. Do you know how much heat is lost through the head? Lots.

    The angle of the shot slightly upwards tells us nothing about the inclination of the head. Nothing. What we need to do is to enact the scene. How do you get that shot and the spatter (splatter is spatter) about a metre off the floor and unimpeded onto the curtains?

    Well, despite your carping, David could have been behind the curtains and out of range of the spatter. Especially if Robin was sitting with the left side of his head towards the curtains. Which he would have been, looking at the photo. Furthermore, if he knew Robin would be sitting low he would quite naturally be kneeling himself, to be at the right height.

    Incidentally, a silencer is also called a suppressor or a modifier. A modifier because it modifies the gas flow. A rifle with a modifier does not behave the same way as one without. In any case it’s probably irrelevant, If Robin was motionless with his eyes closed David could have poked the rifle at him pushing his head away slightly.That would account for the angle. David didn’t need glasses at that range.

    By the way, I have seen a photo of the broken glasses. They don’t look mangled to me. Fairly intact would be my description.

    Binnie chooses to ignore the broken glasses. Mind you, Binnie ignored the rifle too. It didn’t have Robin’s fingerprints on it. Binnie isn’t right, he isn’t even wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  576. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    if you can give me a logical explanation of the above and the RB ‘murder’ scenario then I will retract everything I have said to date.

    Nobody can. Not the police, not Crown Law, not the Solicitor General, which is why they wish to reiterate the fact that the PCA found it to be a copy book investigation. Believe that and you can believe anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  577. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    There was an excellent interview on the radio today it can be heard here, at 7.13am http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Audio.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  578. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Worst interview I have ever heard in my whole dang life.
    Hey Kanz.
    You still havn’t answered my question,.
    Do you believe David Bain was telling the truth when he said he saw his best friend having a sexual encounter with a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  579. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    How a ‘complete’ footprint would come out smaller than the actual foot

    If you study Walsh’s tests, you’ll see he did exactly that. Some of his prints came out smaller than the actual foot, while the defense’s prints came out bigger. That should have rung alarm bells with Binnie, but of course he was not up to the task and so glossed over this issue.

    You make the same basic error that Binnie made – focusing on the footprints and ignoring other evidence. Maybe you could give a logical explanation as to why David had Stephen’s blood on him, why he didn’t help his mother after he saw blood streaming down her face, why David has memory loss for 20-25 minutes, why he can’t explain the bruises and scratches on his body, why he was the only one who deserved to live, why Robin wore a beanie, why David lied about not wearing his mother’s glasses, etc, etc.

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

    Rowan 8:14 pm .. A couple of questions for the ‘daddy didn’t do it’ .. wits

    But they don’t matter Rowan. Get with the program. Do you really think that a refusal to compo David is going to be reversed by your getting these trivial questions answered? They really don’t help decide anything Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  581. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan
    You promised me a few days ago that you would never reply to me again.
    That New Year’s resolution didn’t last long.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  582. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Seeing as we are stiill on speaking terms do you believe David Bain when he said he saw his best friend having a sexual encounter with a goat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  583. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Look at the clips of the suicide demonstrations

    I have and they are most unlikely…even Karam’s expert – Henry Glaser – said suicide was unlikely. Tell me where I can find mention of Glaser’s findings in Binnie’s report? They’re not mentioned!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  584. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    If you can’t explain the evidence get the goat f…ers in, provided they not busy on the phone or with flatulence problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  585. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    If you don’t think the court of public opinion is going to decide the compensation claim then why are you bothering to post on this thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  586. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    But they don’t matter Rowan. Get with the program. Do you really think that a refusal to compo David is going to be reversed by your getting these trivial questions answered? They really don’t help decide anything Rowan.

    Says a poster who claimed last week to have bought a pair of glasses simply to throw around the room and see how they broke? Did you think that would make any difference to the compensation claim?

    LMFAO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  587. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    You’ve got as much effluent in you as a sewerage station ross, considered listing yourself on the stockmarket?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  588. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    I have and they are most unlikely…even Karam’s expert – Henry Glaser – said suicide was unlikely. Tell me where I can find mention of Glaser’s findings in Binnie’s report? They’re not mentioned!

    A number of people said it was unlikely too, your point is?
    Almost everybody in NZ believed it unlikely that the police would have planted evidence in the Thomas case too. Unlikely doesn’t mean impossible. Now that would have carried some weight, the word impossible, was that in the report?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  589. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    The sheep shaggers can’t explain why David Bain lied on oath about those glasses.
    They can’t explain how he got his brother’s blood on his clothes.
    They can’t explain how a pristine set of his fingerprints came to be on the rifle.
    They can’t explain how he got those bruises on his face.
    They can’t explain how he got’those bruises and/ or scratches on his torso.
    They can’t explain why he did his paper round earlier than usual that morning.
    They can’t explain why he didn’t bring the paper in when he normally did if he ran the paper round.
    They can’t explain why he waited 20 minutes to phone the emergency services.
    They can’t explain why he changed his story re ownership of the green jersey the killer wore.
    They can’t explain why he washed that jersey in the washing machine when his mother had given strict instuctions that all hand knitted garments were to be washed by hand.
    They can’t explain why that Gondolier’s T-shirt had a stain that appeared to be blood on it that David Bain said wasn’t there when he put that T-shirt in the wash basket.
    They can’t explain why he told the emergency phone operator that all his family were dead and then said shortly afterwards that he only saw his mother and father.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  590. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    I dont have a gun but thinking about the blood in the barrel,

    think what would happen if the silencer already had blood on it due to lots of contact shots… Im wondering if the air spaces in the silencer (that I presume exist to allow the gas to expand and reduce the sound waves), could hold a bit of blood as the result of some activity…..

    now you fire a bullet – but the gas cannot fully evacuate all the air spaces before the bullet comes through so there is some
    drawback (from blood already at the back of the silencer) because there would not be enough time during the shot for it to be entirely forced out before the bullet.

    I have some reason to believe this would occur because people talk about needing to regularly clean supressors – but if the bullet fully cleaned it then you would not need to – you would just fire another bullet!

    did they ever do actual tests firing a 22 into one of those fake heads? probably would have been a good idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  591. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Muggins,

    The Bain cultists also can’t explain why Robin shagged around before he killed himself. His body was clearly the warmest, so presumably he thought he’d have a read of the paper and a cup of tea before he topped himself. Of course, at any time David could have interrupted him. Unbelievable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  592. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Muggins
    I believe it was a mutual thing and that I mentioned that it was a requirement to have half a braincell in order to reply to my posts that you don’t appear to have, seeing as you posted your usual retarded replies then I replied. Your posts normally make me laugh and aren’t worth the effort of replying to hence I don’t waste my time. As a final reply to your never ending rant about the goat, I don’t regard the supposed schoolboy conversations which didn’t come out for 20 years as evidence, Maybe we could balance the argument with the suppressed details of what Margaret told her friend how she was terribly worried about what her husband might do to the family with a loaded gun.
    I just laugh at some of the twisted views of sad individuals (such as yourself), maybe you and the rest of the JFRB witchhunt should take that flight to north korea. LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  593. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Unlikely doesn’t mean impossible

    But in your world, unlikely means possible which means innocence. LMAO

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

    For some reason Dennis is having trouble commenting at the moment.
    He asked me to post this for him:
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Collected McNeish’s “The Mask of Sanity” from the library and read the
    NZ Herald. Two letters backing Binnie Bain, none backing Collins today,
    same as yesterday. Incredible. No one is writing any letters pointing
    out Binnie is wrong in his method and wrong in his conclusion. It’s a
    funny old world, funny old Herald. Two friends have cancelled it.

    @Neuralgia. Binnie could not establish the time David Bain returned
    within minutes. Now, listen to me and I will explain to you again. This
    no longer a question of law or for the law. This a question of reasoning
    and probability. I am not interested what the Toffs in London thought or
    said. They didn’t believe Bain would incriminate himself. They decided a
    jury should hear “new” evidence, so directed a retrial. I am not
    interested in what Binnie concluded. I don’t even care what the Crown
    case was. Ken Palmer wrote to the Herald claiming Binnie deserved an A
    pass for his report. Palmer was a Crown Prosecutor for, 30 years was it?
    No wonder the system is such a mess. It’s full of plonkers.

    I think it’s quite possible Robin was shot before David went on his
    paper round. Now, think of the implications of that, eh? Remember the
    pathologist didn’t get into the house before lunchtime and Robin had a
    lot of clothing on and a beanie. Do you know how much heat is lost
    through the head? Lots.

    The angle of the shot slightly upwards tells us nothing about the
    inclination of the head. Nothing. What we need to do is to enact the
    scene. How do you get that shot and the spatter (splatter is spatter)
    about a metre off the floor and unimpeded onto the curtains?

    Well, despite your carping, David could have been behind the curtains
    and out of range of the spatter. Especially if Robin was sitting with
    the left side of his head towards the curtains. Which he would have
    been, looking at the photo. Furthermore, if he knew Robin would be
    sitting low he would quite naturally be kneeling himself, to be at the
    right height.

    Incidentally, a silencer is also called a suppressor or a modifier. A
    modifier because it modifies the gas flow. A rifle with a modifier does
    not behave the same way as one without. In any case it’s probably
    irrelevant, If Robin was motionless with his eyes closed David could
    have poked the rifle at him pushing his head away slightly.That would
    account for the angle. David didn’t need glasses at that range.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  595. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    You are replying to me again,even though you say you are wasting your time doing so.
    If Margaret Bain was worried about what her husband might do to her family with a gun then why the hell did she let David buy one. After all Robin had never owned a rifle.
    And,btw,that wound to Robin Bains head was a close contact wound.
    And you still havn’t answered my question re the goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  596. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    I don’t regard the supposed schoolboy conversations which didn’t come out for 20 years as evidence

    Except the evidence came out before the first trial regarding David’s desire to rape a jogger. I see maths isn’t your strong point. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  597. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Again Ross another retarted post, maybe if you look at Kevan Walshs evidence he said the footprint would have to be ‘incomplete’
    Hmm why did David have Stephens blood on him, well Stephens room was a blood bath, how would David go in and not come out with blood on him? there was also the family cat moving around the scene as a potential source of secondary contamination. ‘Bruises and scratchs’ sound like your mate muggins on pretending the existence of these scratches that weren’t found on 20 June, the bruises are consisent with fainting in the presence of constable Andrew or bumping in to a door in the dark bloody house.
    Endless argument as usual about the ‘correct’ tense of the suicide note, Is that really the best you can do? Why did Robin wear a beanie’ hmm retard maybe it was cold, I notice the bullet wounds didn’t go through either the beanie or hoodie.
    The usual discreditedited glasses argument, we don’t even no where they were actually found thanks to Milton Weir, hmm why did he produce false testimony in 1995 and why despite being involved in a violent bloody death struggle with Stephen, was there not one scrap of evidence that linked them to the killing?
    ‘Why did Robin shag around ……. Yes more speculation and assumption as to what he did or didnt or do funny his body was the warmest considering he was the last to die.
    Considering your explanations of the evidence to date maybe check out the facts first, as Binnie said none of the arguments meet the BOP, try applying common sense to them first. What is the cumulative weight of the spiderweb of ‘evidence’ and speculation that is the crown case, Answer jack shit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  598. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    In case you decide to answer this question have you ever wondered why there was a pristine set of David Bain’s prints on the rifle yet no fingerprints at all of Robin’s ?
    Also, Reed to Dempster. Up until recently it was thought that the Crown case was that Robin was kneeling but it now seems he was probably standing.
    Dempster. Yes.
    So Reed accepts that Robin Bain was probably standing when that shot was fired.
    The blood in the barrel was never tested for DNA so we will never know whose blood it was.
    Just like the blood on that odd pair of shoes in David Bain’s room was never tested for DNA so we will never know whose blood it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  599. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Could you explain the word retarted for muggins ,please, as he is buggered if he can find it in his dictionary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  600. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Collected McNeish’s “The Mask of Sanity” from the library and read the NZ Herald. Two letters backing Binnie Bain, none backing Collins today, same as yesterday. Incredible. No one is writing any letters pointing out Binnie is wrong in his method and wrong in his conclusion.

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

    I wouldn’t mind being retarted muggins me ol’ china, been a while since the old girl departed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  602. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Binnie could not establish the time David Bain returned within minutes. Now, listen to me and I will explain to you again. This no longer a question of law or for the law. This a question of reasoning and probability. I am not interested what the Toffs in London thought or said. They didn’t believe Bain would incriminate himself. They decided a jury should hear “new” evidence, so directed a retrial. I am not interested in what Binnie concluded. I don’t even care what the Crown case was. Ken Palmer wrote to the Herald claiming Binnie deserved an A pass for his report. Palmer was a Crown Prosecutor for, 30 years was it? No wonder the system is such a mess. It’s full of plonkers.

    I think it’s possible Robin was shot before David went on his paper round. Now, think of the implications of that, eh? Remember the pathologist didn’t get into the house before lunchtime and Robin had a lot of clothing on and a beanie. Do you know how much heat is lost through the head? Lots.

    The angle of the shot slightly upwards tells us nothing about the inclination of the head. Nothing. What we need to do is to enact the scene. How do you get that shot and the spatter (splatter is spatter) about a metre off the floor and unimpeded onto the curtains?

    Well, despite your carping, David could have been behind the curtains and out of range of the spatter. Especially if Robin was sitting with the left side of his head towards the curtains. Which he would have been, looking at the photo. Furthermore, if he knew Robin would be sitting low he would quite naturally be kneeling himself, to be at the right height.

    Incidentally, a silencer is also called a suppressor or a modifier. A modifier because it modifies the gas flow. A rifle with a modifier does not behave the same way as one without. In any case it’s probably irrelevant, If Robin was motionless with his eyes closed David could have poked the rifle at him pushing his head away slightly.That would account for the angle. David didn’t need glasses at that range.

    By the way, I have seen a photo of the broken glasses. They don’t look mangled to me. Fairly intact would be my description.

    Binnie chooses to ignore the broken glasses. Mind you, Binnie ignored the rifle too. It didn’t have Robin’s fingerprints on it. Binnie isn’t right, Binnie isn’t even wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  603. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    My apologies.
    It was not you who said that wound to Robin Bain’s head was a contact wound ,it was Mrs Kanz.
    This despite the fact that it was referred to as a close contact wound at least twenty times in her illegal copy of the retrial transcript.

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

    Hey, hi Dennis.

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

    600 comments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  606. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    funny his body was the warmest considering he was the last to die.

    Hmmm so the second to last one to die would presumably be just as warm, seeing as Robin would have shot himself straight after, no? Or maybe, as I suggested, he decided to have a cup of tea and a read of the paper…

    how would David go in and not come out with blood on him?

    So, just by standing inside Stephen’s room, he managed to get blood on his crotch! Physics must have changed from when I was a kid.

    maybe it was cold

    Yeah that’d be it…here Robin is thinking about killing 4 membrs of his family without being interrupted by David and he’s more concerned about keeping his head warm. Quite lucky he didn’t get any blood on that beanie, or on his socks, or on the soles of his shoes. LMAO

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

    6520 comments since 1 December

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

    http://www.pathologyexpert.com/boards/forensics/gsw.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  609. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Muggins
    As I mentioned before you need half a braincell to answer my posts, last answer retard,
    “Just like the blood on that odd pair of shoes in David Bain’s room was never tested for DNA so we will never know whose blood it was”
    absolute lies, the shoes were not sent to ESR prior to the first trial they were only given a visual examination and sent to ESR AFTER 1995,
    Pristine set of DB prints blah blah blah, It was accepted by the Jury at the retrial (and the 2003 court of appeal decision against David) that identifiable fingerprints of perpatrators are seldom found on the gun, and that this occured in less than about 5% of cases, there were also about 10 unidentified fingerprints (you sound like Michael Laws harping on about fingerprints in the interview with Joe Karam. Only Kim Jones throughly discreditedited testimony about ‘bloody prints flourescing under the polilight’
    He admitted at the retrial that his 1995 testimony was a DELIBARATE MISSTATEMENT to the jury so it would be ‘easier for them to understand’ and was also in dispute with Hentschell. Again you avoid the question
    How was the fingerprint ‘bloody’ yet the ridges were white wheras the ridges should be black. Tell me yes or no
    IS GIVING A DELIBARATE MISSTATEMENT TO A JURY PERJURY? and just yes or no will suffice don’t need you retarded spiel about the so called conversations with crown witnesses that you have supposedly rang and the ‘evidence’ you keep pulling out of your arse

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  610. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-empty-shell-casing
    Dean Papa
    I have found that photo and I can only presume there was no blood on that paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  611. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Dotty, g’day. Had to have a lobotomy this afternoon so I could engage Neuralgia, Klutz and team with more sympathy and understanding. It’s a struggle.

    Collected McNeish’s “The Mask of Sanity” from the library and read the NZ Herald. Two letters backing Binnie Bain, none backing Collins today, same as yesterday. Incredible. No one is writing any letters pointing out Binnie is wrong in his method and wrong in his conclusion. It’s a funny old world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  612. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    !Rowan. Are you telling me you can pick up a rifle, manoeuvre it into a position and shoot yourself and leave no prints on it anywhere?

    I’ve got something you could demonstrate that with if you are so confident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  613. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Stop lying. Those odd shoes were delivered to the ESR for examination on 13 April 1995. Forensic examinations were carried out on 26 April 1995 and blood was found on both those shoes.
    The Crown wanted to introduce them as evidence but Guest refused on the basis he didn’t have time to prepare fot it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  614. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Dennis
    The ambulance officer Craig Wombwell testified that the bodies were warm to touch when he checked them about 8am, Robin was the warmest and the others were of similar warmth but not as warm as Robin but consistent with dying in the last hour to hour and a half, yes it would have been much better had Dempster examined the bodies sooner to get a better indication. However why don’t you apply common sense to this argument. That the body of Stephen Bain lying naked except for a pair of underpants was warm to touch despite lying on a floor of zero degrees celcius for around 3 hours on the crowns own scenario. Try it out and see how warm you are no need to be a dead body, yet he was of similar warmth of Margaret, Arawa and Laniet. I notice the court of appeal speculation “that this can be explained by his violent struggle to survive” Try exercising first and apply common sense. Probability of Stephen dying at 5am <5% but what do you suggest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  615. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    identifiable fingerprints of perpatrators are seldom found on the gun

    So, Rowan, that was quite a coincidence that David’s were found on the gun in such good condition, and also a partial print of Stephen’s was found.

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

    And Rowan, do you think you could possibly make one comment without it including crass insults from the very first line. Is this really what young people have to look forward to for the remainder of your share of the 21st Century? Jesus, I’m glad I spent the bulk of my life living in the halfway decent 20th Century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  617. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Rowan. Are you saying they were killed closer to the time David returned from the paper round and not before he left?

    I don’t attach a great significance to an ambulance officer touching one body and saying it’s warmer or cooler than another. It’s far too subjective. How well trained was he to judge times of death?

    I make the point again. Robin was heavily dressed with his head covered. He would cool much more slowly than Stephen. If measured temperature were all similar that would be significant.

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

    And Rowan, you can’t make your case, half based on the Defence scenario, and switch midstream to “on the Crown’s own scenario”. Sorry, but it tends to destroy all your credibility and makes your comments undeserving of the time needed to read them from that sort of intellectual jolt onwards. Insults belted out in the first line of most of your comments, tend to have the same “stop-reading-now” effect. Perhaps not the best strategy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  619. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Muggins again maybe you could back up your lies about the shoes

    220. It is a curious fact, however, that when ESR tested the inside of David Bain’s Laser
    running shoes – the ones in which he had inserted his bloodied socks (on the “four before one
    after” theory) to run his paper route – no trace of blood was found. The Joint Report of the
    Police/Police Complaints Authority states:
    David told Police he wore a pair of Laser shoes on the paper run.
    They were located in his room and were inspected by
    investigators but through oversight were not sent for full ESR
    examination. The only forensic attention they received was a
    visual check during the trial. No blood was detected. … It has
    been confirmed in the course of our [post‐trial 1997 investigation
    by ESR] that the Laser shoes had no blood on them. (emphasis
    added)

    Ross/Dennis This was not an issue in dispute by the jury or the court of appeal, so why are we debating it here. Blood does not absorb fingerprints. Ross you seem to have a lot of faith in Kim Jones evidence of ‘pristine bloody prints’ bloody is that because they ‘flouresced under the polilight’ Kim Jones is discredited by his own evidence and his deliberate misstatement to the jury in 1995, again how were the ridges of the ‘bloody’ prints white when Jones agreed they should be black if they were made in blood. the whole fingerprint evidence is an unspeakable mess how can you be expecteted to draw any impartial conclusions from them (btw impartial means consider the evidence to support the conclusion not select the evidence to form the conclusion already formed which most of you don’t seem to be able to distinguish)
    You can answer my question to Muggins and just yes or no will do.
    Is giving a deliberate misstatement to a jury considered perjury in your world?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  620. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Dennis
    It supports the scenario that they died after David left to do the paper round not at 5am as the crown suggest, It would of been of greater benefit to have Dempster to examine the bodies earlier on to get a better indication as to the time they died but applying common sense suggests that Stephen wasn’t lying almost naked on the floor for around 3 hours.
    Im off to get over my jetlag don’t appreciate long hall plane flights

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  621. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Rowan

    How much blood did Robin have on his socks? None. So, he managed to kill 4 members of his family, wander around the house and yet he gets no blood on his socks or on the soles of his shoes. Yet David wanders round the house and gets blood on his t-shirt, on the crotch of his shorts, and socks.

    I have seen the fingerprints from the rifle. They do indicate they’re in pristine condition. See at 28.50 of this doco.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iG4wzSUsI&feature=player_embedded

    Do you agree that David perjured himself when he denied he’d seen or worn his mother’s glasses for the last year before the murders?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  622. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Stephen wasn’t lying almost naked on the floor for around 3 hours.

    That’s because he was wearing a t-shirt, and you’ve invented the gap of 3 hours…did it take David 3 hours to do his paper run? He said it took him about 40 minutes. It may have been just over an hour between the deaths of Robin and Stephen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  623. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Is it possible to pick up a rifle without leaving prints somewhere on it, barrel or (wooden) stock?

    I’m going to read McNeish’s The Mask of Sanity now, and fall asleep.

    Remember, time is the great benefactor of truth. No wonder Collins waited until near Christmas to drop a bomb on Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  624. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @ross69. Put it down to the “long hall” flight. Must have been a bloody long hall – to get jet lag and lose all sense of time.

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

    End is nigh,

    dear david, rot in hell …

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

    Tiz, hope you are right.

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

    So the socks that David was found wearing are the one that made the bloodied footprint beacause the lazers that he wore on his paper run were only visualy checked. quote “The only forensic attention they received was a
    visual check during the trial. No blood was detected.”unquote

    Of course they would no longer leave any visable blood in the shoes as what blood that would transfer had already been transfered to the carpet, not only with the visable but David would had done more walking around.

    Having done test myself blood at 5 degrees blood clots fairly quickly on carpet 10-20 minutes and have always found it wrong that they say David got blood on his socks visiting Stevens room after the paper run. When looking at the photos of Steven room the blood was not where a person would step into.

    220. It is a curious fact, however, that when ESR tested the inside of David Bain’s Laser
    running shoes – the ones in which he had inserted his bloodied socks (on the “four before one
    after” theory) to run his paper route – no trace of blood was found. The Joint Report of the
    Police/Police Complaints Authority states:
    David told Police he wore a pair of Laser shoes on the paper run.
    They were located in his room and were inspected by
    investigators but through oversight were not sent for full ESR
    examination. The only forensic attention they received was a
    visual check during the trial. No blood was detected. … It has
    been confirmed in the course of our [post‐trial 1997 investigation
    by ESR] that the Laser shoes had no blood on them. (emphasis
    added)

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

    As far as “speculation and assumption as to what he (Robin) did or didn’t do,” Joe Karam happily does that on P 213 of ‘David and Goliath.’ He has Robin Bain waiting for up to twenty minutes in the computer alcove for David to come home. This was part of Joe Karam’s ” I have objectively examined the evidence… .and it’s the only possible scenario that fits the evidence.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  629. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Maxine

    Binnie also speculates. He reckons that Robin got up earlier than 6.32 am, though he doesn’t substantiate that claim with any evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  630. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    muggins, this *interesting* tidbit ..

    Stephen told a school friend’s older brother (Nick Greet) that he had woken and found David standing at the end of his bed (with his gun) and he had said “Bang!”. Stephen was so unnerved by this he challenged David about this later in the presence of other family members but was told he must have been dreaming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  631. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,606) Says:
    January 8th, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    Stephen wasn’t lying almost naked on the floor for around 3 hours.

    That’s because he was wearing a t-shirt, and you’ve invented the gap of 3 hours…did it take David 3 hours to do his paper run? He said it took him about 40 minutes. It may have been just over an hour between the deaths of Robin and Stephen.

    You have all made much of the “20 minutes between Bain arriving home and ringing 111″
    How long did it take for the police to let the ambulance officers in?

    As these times have been important to you fiction up until now, you need to include them in this narrative too.
    So if Stephen were shot immediately before Bain went on the paper run, there is 2 hours. Now what of the time you claim Bain spent cleaning up? More time? Well that blows your new theory out of the room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  632. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    Hey Dotcom, you cockhead!!

    You may have noticed the orange lamp on the floor of the computer alcove, and the chair that was pulled out a little further than normal. I have a theory that might explain this! Robin is sitting at the computer. David sneaks up behind, and whacks him on the head. He then drags Robin through the gap in the curtain, just further enough to give the distance of 120mm horizontal direction from curtains, as claimed by the Crown. He shoots him, either contact or very close to it. This scenario also fits in with a height of 1 metre for the origin of blood spatter on the curtains. David then moves Robin into position he was found. Of course, a problem with this theory is that no injury to Robin’s head consistent with this scenario was found. But perhaps evidence was there, but was missed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  633. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    one clarification to this theory, David manoeuvres Robin into a sitting postion, then shoots him. Does that make sense?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  634. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Dean Papa (289) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 7:29 am

    one clarification to this theory. Does that make sense?

    What doesn’t make sense is the fact that to prove Bain guilty, you all need to keep changing what ‘might’ have happened.
    The defense case has ALWAYS been.
    Bain got up, went on his paper run, arrived home, put the washing on, found hid family dead, and rang 111. It has remained the same for 18 years and all the evidence collected fits this without exception.
    The Crown case has changed several times, and as shown above in the many posts, needs stretching, skewing, more theories, lying, what abouts, maybes etc to try making the evidence fit the theories, yet it still doesn’t all fit. Round pegs do not fit into square holes, no matter how you twist and turn them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  635. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Round pegs DO fit into square holes but square pegs don’t fit into round holes unless you do an awful lot of work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  636. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (232) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 8:01 am

    Round pegs may go into square holes, but the will never FIT.
    I can see you are having fun twisting and turning your pegs trying to prove otherwise. Even the smallest child will stop trying after a short time and find the correct shaped hole. Not you nutters, shave a little off here, drill out the hole a little there, put some filling in this corner. Give up, it doesn’t fit, it will never fit, and in the meantime you will never lose the frustration.

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

    We all can come up with different scenarios but all that does is confuse the issue. It is the defence scenario that counts as this is the one that the Jury made their decision on at the last trial the crown didn’t give one.
    So the situation that David is in he has to convince who ever reviews the compensation bid that his father Robin suicided not show that it was posible. The obstacle he faces are
    1. Why against odds of 30 to 1 his father used the left temple
    2. Where or the location in the lounge did he think his father was shot then explain how he got to lay where he was found
    3. The jury would of placed a lot of faith in Philip Boyce rifle on rod demonstration yet he was reacalled to the stand and said after further test that the rifle was 18cm-22cm away when the shot was fired and the futhest the trigger could be reached was 15cm.
    4. He would have to explain why his father is so far away from the blood on the curtain when experts say Robins head was only 120-200mm away when that blood ejected there.
    5. Why the odds of 14 to 1 of the rifle ending further away from the body than 30cm
    6. Despite it already being odd that the magazine was where it was and on it’s edge why Robins hand didn’t knock it over.
    7. Why weren’t Robins finger prints on that rifle yet David’s were there in pristine condition

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  638. Scott Chris (5,684 comments) says:

    Sir Arthur Conan Doyle cautioned us about a hundred years ago, not to find facts to fit our theories. He expects us amateur sleuths to do the opposite and find solutions that fit the full range of known facts. Says Sir Arthur, every time you come up with a constrained theory, you restrict the likelihood of your finding the solution.

    Good post Dotcom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  639. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Seem’s Michael Guest has accepted Joe’s comments about him on the radio yesterday. An odd choice by the Minister relying on information 18 years old, as is attacking somebody she helped choose for the job of the review. Things are not stacking up with her public statements compared to reality.

    Ironic that the Crown should get a 7th time to ‘explain’ the suicide scene and still fail miserably to the point of not even trying. Hard bsing about facts, probably why they get the brainless sisters to do it.

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

    Binnie place much emphasis on the footprints so the foot print evidence will have to be reviewed by forensic podiatrist the thing they should be looking for
    1. Why are there 1-3 missing footprint and would they impact on the evidence value.
    2. How quick does blood clot on carpet at the temperature that morning
    3. Do a proper practical test of a print of David on carpet and then compare it for size not only length but width.
    4. Compare the shape
    5. Enhance using program such as photoshop the luminol print to see if in fact the print was a full print.
    6. Compare the blood on Davids socks by putting them on his foot and measuring the extremities of the blood on them to see if they may match the 280mm measurement.(If posible)
    7. Ask David how he managed to get blood on them when most of the blood was around the edge of the room and not where you would normaly step.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  641. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Re Stephen’s body temperature.
    Dr Thomson advised that the assessmment of body temperature by palpitation is notoriously difficult. He ageed with Mr Karam that given the climate in Dunedin and Stephen’s lack of clothing he would be expected to lose more heat than other members of his family.
    Against this,however,would be the period of undoubted exertion prior to death during which Stephen’s body temperature may have been elevated.
    Dr Dempster said that determining the time of death by body temperature has a range of error which is quite significant. He said that up to 12-14 hours the accuracy rate is plus or minus 2.8 hours.
    So it is impossible to know exactly when David Bain shot his mother and siblings. I am guessing probably between 5am and 5.30am.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  642. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    3. The jury would of placed a lot of faith in Philip Boyce rifle on rod demonstration yet he was reacalled to the stand and said after further test that the rifle was 18cm-22cm away when the shot was fired and the futhest the trigger could be reached was 15cm.

    A perfect example of what my previous post pointed out. Evidence must be stretched, skewed or just plain lied about.

    Phillip Boyce never gave evidence as to the distance of the shot. He was asked how far from the head could the rifle have been held, he guessed as that was not his evidence in chief, came back the next day and said his guess was wrong. This was his actual evidence.
    “Boyce said sooting around Robin’s bullet wound was consistent with the silencer being held directly to his head. Powder burns said to indicate the shot was distant were skin defects and not the result of propellants burns. “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  643. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    gamefisher (180) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 8:08 am

    You seem to be unable to absorb the fact that this is not about you coming out with ridiculous slants of evidence time and time again. You get challenged on one thing then hop to another without reflecting on the exposure of your credibility from being continually stretched. Keep things tidy, explain just a couple of your claims, for example how a person couldn’t aim at their own temple when suiciding – listening to you nobody has ever suicided using a rifle. The the another that the ‘vacuum’ effect doesn’t work with a silencer. These are points critical to your continued attacks against David Bain, do the decent thing and either prove what you say or withdraw them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  644. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Seems Joe Karam now accepts that Michael Guest was telling the truth when he said that David had told him he was wearing those glasses that were found in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  645. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    gamefisher (181) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 8:30 am
    1. Why are there 1-3 missing footprint and would they impact on the evidence value.

    LMAO
    Missing footprints will NOT alter the measurements of the remaining ones. Those found fitted the old man, but were too small for Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  646. Scott Chris (5,684 comments) says:

    Nostalgia;

    Stephen’s DNA was found in blood samples on:

    1) Front left of David’s T-shirt
    2) Upper back of David’s T-shirt
    3) Crutch of David’s shorts
    4) David’s socks

    Please describe in detail a scenario in which Stephen’s blood can ‘accidentally’ end up in all these places.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  647. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins (957) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 8:37 am

    Seems Joe Karam now accepts that Michael Guest was telling the truth when he said that David had told him he was wearing those glasses that were found in his room.

    On what do you base that lie? Karam, on the radio yesterday, called Guest a liar and fraudster. In your twisted world that might be accepting, but in the real world it is far from it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  648. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Oh, muggins, and you said above that you had heard the interview so why would you now lie about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  649. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Re shoes.
    You are talking about the Laser shoes that David Bain said he wore.
    The police believe he was wearing that odd pair of shoes.
    In all my posts I have referred to that odd pair of shoes,but you seem to have confused them with those Lasers.
    David Bain said he took his shoes off in front of the cupboard and that is exactly where those odd pair of shoes were.
    As I have explained to you countless times that odd pair of shoes were found to have blood on them after the deposition hearings had closed. The police asked Michael Guest if he would allow them to bring them in as evidence but Guest refused on the grounds that he didn’t have time to prepare for it.
    Because those shoes weren’t part of the evidence they were destoyed and therefore could not later be tested for DNA.
    Had they been I believe the blood on them may well have been Stephen’s blood. In my opinion the police should not have destroyed those shoes.
    Rowan,you need to improve your comprehension skills. When I use the term “odd pair of shoes” I mean “odd pair of shoes”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  650. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Who gives a damn what Karam says?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  651. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    For the umpteenth time the sockprint evidence was inconclusive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  652. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins (959) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Kanz
    Who gives a damn what Karam says?

    Muggins must, or she would not see the need to lie about it as above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  653. Maua Faleauto (1 comment) says:

    The prosecution’s case against David Bain was crippled, mentally retarded and shy. Evidence was not gathered, only one eye used and asap burnt the crime scene as if it was a case of teenage acne to be hastily covered up.
    https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/520823977930031/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  654. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins (960) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 9:00 am

    Kanz
    For the umpteenth time the sockprint evidence was inconclusive.

    It was very conclusive in the first trial, when it was fudged and skewed to show they were Bain’s prints.
    It is inconclusive when the truth was shown in the retrial and they were the old man’s prints.

    Another round peg? Well, let’s just throw that one out.
    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  655. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-bain-testified-that-he-was-the-only-person-who-knew-the-location-of-the-trigger-lock-keys
    Rowan,
    Just to make it absolutely clear to you what shoes I was talking about it was that odd pair of shoes in front of the cupboard ,exactly where David Bain said he took his shoes off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  656. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    8,41

    Please go round and round in circles quietly. There is nothing new for you to find in your failed quest to prove what the police and Crown were unable to prove. Try explaining how it is that Robin died with blood smears on his palms, that might put you out of your misery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  657. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz,old girl,
    I was reading between the lines.
    That interview was posted on JRFB early yesterday and caused most members to spew.
    Just as well my wife was out when I listened to it, she would not have believed the language I used.
    But then I realised that Karam was only trying to wind everyone up,and that he really thought that Guest was as pure as the driven snow.
    After all,David Bain’s co-counsel was in attendance when Bain told Guest he had been wearing those glasses and I note that Karam does not mention her.
    By the way,Kanz,you still havn’t told me whether you believe David Bain’s story about his friend and that goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  658. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Kanz (444) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 9:05

    Yes it was a 100% conclusive, then suddenly it wasn’t. None of the experts would back Walsh when he tried to change it, so the fact remains that old daddy was walking about the death scene, just at remains that David’s running shoes were clean as a whistle. The reprobate who is ‘inventing’ nonsense about the ‘other’ shoes claimed that they were tested and had blood found in them but it wasn’t allowed in as evidence, just proving what a liar he is, again. That’s all they have lies about strip searches and running shoes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  659. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz,old girl.
    The sockprint evidence was inconclusive. Suck it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  660. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    David Bain’s running shoes were clean as a whistle,but they are probably not the ones he wore on his paper round. He said he took the ones he was wearing off in front of the cupboard,and ,as that photo shows,there they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  661. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan
    I see there was a long hall on your plane.
    What was it used for,may I ask? Ten pin bowling?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  662. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,220) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 9:16 am

    It is all perfectly clear to anybody who is not certifiable, isn’t it?
    Is it possible that in the dementia ward at the old folks home, there is a bank of computers? I imagine the staff allowing these nutters to use them to shut them up and keep them busy. They sit around and convince each other (using a whole new ‘theory’) which they then can’t wait to tell the world via the internet. JFRB, counterspin, kiwiblog, in fact any site will do as long as they can use them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  663. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Speaking of sucking things up, after they finish sucking up the running shoes, the footprints, the blood on daddy’s palms, the strip search, and if they have any room left – they might also like to suck up the fact that despite what Guess has claimed, I don’t know that the second lawyer has ever confirmed the claims publicly – if they have, then no need to suck that up and I’m sure they full enough of crap anyway.

    Joe was rather direct in his appraisal of Michael.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  664. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    The sockprint evidence was inconclusive. Suck it up.

    Binnie found it to be very conclusive. I see neither Fisher nor Collins have touched that hot potato when dissing Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  665. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Boyce said sooting around Robin’s bullet wound was consistent with the silencer being held directly to his head.
    Yeah, so David held the silencer directly to his head. So what else is new?

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

    N-NZ and Kanz
    Suppose Guest’s co-counsel states on the record that David Bain did agree he wore those glasses that weekend.
    Would you change your mind about anything?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  667. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    You have forget about Binnie. His report has been binned,too many errors in it. I mean he didn’t even know that magazine on the floor had three live rounds in it. Plus another 50 odd errors or incorrect assumptions. I mean he said that green jersey belonged to Robin Bain. How did he manage to come to that conclusion? And so on and so on.

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

    come to think of it, what do you suppose Joe would say in that situation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  669. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Mexican

    If they can also show that those glasses had ANYTHING on them that conclusively tied them to the murder, yes my mind would change on something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  670. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    come to think of it, what do you suppose Joe would say in that situation?

    Ask him. It is a fair bet that muggins can furnish you with the phone number.

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

    That shower thingy. I did it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  672. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Does some or most of your mail FIT into your letterbox? If it doesn’t, where does it go? Onto the ground, back to the office? Do tell. Give me a story that fits the facts. Make it entertaining, I’m getting bored.

    You see, Klutz, you and Neuralgia can wriggle and squirm and redefine words, but nobody would believe Robin wrote that message on the computer unless they had already decided David was innocent. David is spared by Robin and writes the message himself. Hahahaha.

    Nobody believes you can pick up a rifle and kill yourself *in an unlikely way) and not leave prints somewhere on the rifle. Nobody rational. Nevertheless, you do, so kindly explain it to me. Take your time but make it good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  673. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Try reading this article, all of it. It may just open your eyes a little, I don’t hold out too much hope on that though.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/4663393/Dead-man-was-abusive-ex-wife-says

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  674. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Binnie determined that the foot lengths found in favour of David Bain,ignoring the fact that Bain said he walked through the area where the footprints were in bloodied socks.

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

    If I were to label Joe Karam as a liar and a crook, I imagine that would be direct appraisal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  676. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/gonzales-sef.htm

    Kanz,
    Ring any bells?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  677. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    muggins (968) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 9:56 am

    That straight jacket you have placed yourself in is getting tighter.
    The fact that Bain walked in that area (which he doesn’t deny) cannot alter the fact that the old man left the prints.

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

    Dean Papa 7:25 .. Hey Dotcom, you cockhead!! .. ..

    Tautology Dean Papa. Simply Hey cockhead would have done. Everyone will know it is me you are talking to. And two exclamation marks does not make a statement any more dramatic than one didn’t, so yet another tautology.

    Dean Papa, you are the weakest link, and you stupid theories that don’t fit any evidence are strikingly embarrassing to you, so why are you here? (One question mark)

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

    Kanz
    But would it not suggest David B had mislead the court in the first trial?
    If so, would you change your mind and accept DB is capable of being misleading?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  680. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    You are the one in the straightjacket.
    David Bain said he walked in the area in bloody socks,so he could have left those sockprints.
    But I believe he left them earlier. I mean the sock that left those prints must have had a bloodsoaked sole so David would have made sure he put it in the wash,hence that odd sock on the washing line.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  681. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Binnie said the newspaper was in the house before David Bain arrived home ignoring the fact that Bain appears to contradict this in the Binnie/Bain interview.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  682. Kanz (1,222 comments) says:

    Kanz
    But would it not suggest David B had mislead the court in the first trial?
    If so, would you change your mind and accept DB is capable of being misleading?

    Yes it would, in the same way as I accept it for Weir, Jones and Hentschel, all who have been proved to have lied and misled the jury in the first trial. Two of which have even said so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  683. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Karam asks “Who is C K Stead ?” and he then says “He should stick to writing poems” so he obviously knows who he is.
    I would say to Karam “Who is Bob Jones?. He should stick to buying and selling property”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  684. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Would you like to quote from your illegal copy of the retrial trancript where any witness has said he lied at the first trail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  685. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Binnie said Stephen Bain died from three shots to the head. Do you agree?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  686. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Binnie said that target found in David Bain’s room was drawn by Robin. Care to explain how he knew that?

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

    So, if DB was misleading in his answers in the first trial- does this in any way affect his status as a reliable witness?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  688. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Binnie said that that green jersey that the killer wore belonged to Robin Bain. Care to explain how he knew that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  689. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Mexican
    David Bain lied at the first trial,and he would have lied again at the retrial. That is why the defence made sure he kept stum at the retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  690. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Kultz. Yes, I accept one can kill and leave no prints on a rifle. Something to do with oil on the rifle and on the hands, isn’t it?

    But Robin had blood smeared on his hand, wouldn’t that be immiscible with the gun oil? And wasn’t Stephen holding the barrel of the rifle during the struggle? Did his fingerprints not appear either? And then there were David’s prints on the rifle.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/4663393/Dead-man-was-abusive-ex-wife-says
    A murder/suicide for sure. He left a letter. Robin didn’t leave a letter. Someone typed a message on a computer. Could have been a well trained goat that had had a lot of close contact with humans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  691. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Klutz. While you await instructions from Karam HQ, ponder this:

    Does your mail fit in your letter box? Okay, I’ll rephrase that: Does your mail go into your letterbox? I mean, generally?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  692. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Binnie to Bain.
    Q. What running shoes were you wearing?
    A. A pair of running shoes .That’s as specific as I can get.

    But Binnie does not accept that answer,for some unknown reason. So he goes on to ask Bain

    Q. Which pair did you use on the paper run?
    A. It would have been the newer pair.
    Q. In any event you are clear that it was the newer pair of running shoes that you wore on the paper route that morning?
    A. Yes.

    So one minute Bain is saying he can’t be specific about what running shoes he was wearing,but then ,with the help of Binnie,
    he says he would have been wearing the newer pair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  693. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Waiting,waiting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  694. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I think I will go for my daily constitutional. By the time I get back Kanz will have been told how to reply to my questions,hopefully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  695. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Now 69 comments have appeared after the Stead piece:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857352

    Most agree with Stead, whoever he is or was. Doesn’t matter, the article was a very good analysis. Binnie was wrong in method and in conclusion.

    Keep stalling, Judith. Give the people time to realise this is not a decision for the law system. It’s a political decision. Bow to Binnie or stand for truth and justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  696. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Kanz (451) Says: January 9th, 2013 at 9:45 am TO Mexican
    If they can also show that those glasses had ANYTHING on them that conclusively tied them to the murder, yes my mind would change on something.

    And what exactly ties Robin to the computer message? Oh, I know, it “exonerates” David. Well, how very convenient. Couldn’t have written it himself, could he? That would have been really convenient. And so easy, too!

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

    It was the goat I tell you. David was the only one who deserved to stay as he was the only one who had defended the goat. Obviously the goat used a computer because goat handwriting is not possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  698. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    So one minute Bain is saying he can’t be specific about what running shoes he was wearing,but then,with the help of Binnie, he says he would have been wearing the newer pair.

    Yeah Binnie does his best to help out poor David, for whom Binnie clearly feels sorry. Just look at how many times Binnie interrupts David when is floundering. Just as well Binnie isn’t the host of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  699. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Karam asks “Who is C K Stead ?”

    Stead has more common sense in his little finger than Karam has in his entire body. That’s why Karam hasn’t heard of him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  700. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Reading the pro-Bain comments on the Herald, some dullards still can’t see the difference between not guilty and factually innocent.

    The prime test for compensation – innocence, factual not presumed – is not a matter of law; it is a matter of logic and probabilities. Each piece of evidence must be weighted then all considered together. How one does this depends on the pictures one has in mind and the feature examined first; where one starts drawing.

    Binnie waves away the broken glasses. True, glasses get broken all the time. Indeed, David had recently broken his and borrowed his mother’s. These were broken about the time someone strangled his brother. Let’s say that points at David rather than Robin only slightly. But then, one lens was found in Stephen’s bedroom. And then David has no explanation for the glasses, or the missing lens. Finally, he told his lawyer he was wearing them and the court he wasn’t. Does this bit of evidence point at David or Robin? Decide, then combine that with other bits of evidence. Note: (Im)probabilities are multiplied, not added.

    Binnie started with an incomplete series of partial footprints that–with a special test–showed signs of blood. Everybody agrees the prints are the killer’s. But how does that help if nobody can determine whose they are? It’s not a good point to start drawing pictures, or conclusions. Unless, of course, you read Karam’s books and nothing else, eh, Binnie Brain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  701. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Dennis

    The footprint evidence is far from conclusive. The tests done by Walsh and Sandiland were essentially the same. Yet Sandiland produced footprints that were consistently above 300mm, yet Walsh had many below 300mm, including one that was a mere 286mm…a similar size to the infamous Luminol print. Such disparity between the Walsh and Sandliand results should have rung alarm bells with Binnie, but his sympathy for David was so great that he lost all semblance of objectivity.

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

    For those probainers (and for anyone else interested) who keep on saying, wrongly, that there is “no evidence” linking the glasses to the crime scene, you need to read this Wikipedia page.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

    Within the Wikipedia page you will find this quote

    the most commonly reported effect [of the CSI effect] is that jurors are wrongly acquitting defendants despite overwhelming evidence of guilt

    Now you will just have to accept that I didn’t include this line in Wikipedia — the line has been in Wikipedia for a long time.

    The CSI effect is very real, and in my ever so ‘umble, I believe it was the difference between the 1994 investigation being acceptable to a 1995 jury, but the same 1994 investigation being unacceptable to a 2009 jury.

    To say there was “no evidence” linking the glasses to the crime scene is simply the probainers say that there is “physical evidence”.

    One day during your lifetimes probainers, the shoe will be on the other foot, and you same people are guaranteed to be complaining when an obviously guilty accused gets off because there were insufficient numbers of micro-fibres, despite overwhelming amounts of “common sense evidence”. I hope that the victims on these false acquittals in the future probainers, will not be you personally or your families. (Actually, I just lied — I hope that it *does* happen to you or your close relatives, and I hope that it happens very soon.)

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

    .. the probainers saying that there is “no physical evidence” ..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  704. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Dennis you’re becoming hysterical. If you’ve read the Binnie report it would be clear to you that Binnie read everything available about the case in terms of all the proceedings.

    Mexican asked me above if it would change my mind if Guest had support from the other lawyer, no. But it would at hold some water as to his credibility. He’s been savaged by Karam – yet remains quiet. Just as the prosecution have been savaged and now rely on a novelist and a couple of old farts to support their fairy tales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  705. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Just as the prosecution have been savaged and now rely on a novelist and a couple of old farts to support their fairy tales

    You really should be a comedian…have you heard of Professor Kevin Dawkins from Otago University, Auckland University associate professor Bill Hodge, Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Otago, Mark Henaghan, and Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis?

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

    Nostalgia-NZ9:08 .. Please go round and round in circles quietly ..

    I like this line. Don’t like who said it much, but good line.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  707. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Dotty, you were right and you are right. Will anyone ever be convicted now? Even with that rotten bastard Weatherston was trying to excuse himself by arguing provocation. Didn’t need a trial. Mother saw him, more or less.

    Macdonald is another one. Lucky the case as presented was weak; his history of other serious crimes not heard by the jury. The rigmarole about the diving boots paled into insignificance compared with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  708. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    muggins, me old fruit, did you notice in that photo inside the computer alcove, that there seemed to be a number of writing pads readily available? I couldn’t spot a pencil in the photo, although I’d imagine there would be one somewhere. Perhaps in the drawer? You have a copy of the trial transcripts, was that point raised at any stage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  709. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Binnie says he did the job properly because if he hadn’t done the job he wouldn’t have said he’d done the job properly. Didn’t show his workings. He just made the answer up. No marks. Fail. Binnie Brain is a dunce.

    I’m off to the beach now. Tootle pip.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  710. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Tootie pip old bun hope the grabs enjoy your tootsies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  711. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    That wouldn’t be a set of pens to the left of the keyboard, muggins??

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

    ross69 11:35 am .. Just as well Binnie isn’t the host of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire ..

    Great line, thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  713. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    I have just looked at Kanz’s copy of the retrial transcript while he was away and all I could find was a reference to pens and pencils in David’s room.
    So you can sort of understand why Robin Bain might have typed that message, because he wouldn’t have known about those pens and pencils less than a stones throw away.

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

    N-NZ 12:00 pm .. .. Just as the prosecution now rely on a novelist .. ..

    What? And Joe Karam isn’t a great writer of fiction ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  715. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Btw,DP
    Splatter = splash noisily ,a noisy splashing sound.
    Spatter = scatter or fall in small bits or drops.
    But hey,we all make mistakes. I have just realised I made a spelling mistake myself earlier today when I typed stum instead of shtum.

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

    N-NZ 12:00 pm .. .. Just as the prosecution now rely on a novelist .. ..

    What prosecution would that be N-NZ? Is there a criminal case in the ether that the rest of us are not aware of?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  717. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Ross
    Maybe you could actually examine the facts instead of trying to twist what I say and avoid the questions, If the fingerprints were ‘pristine and bloody’ as claimed by Jones then how were the ridges of the ‘bloody’ print white and not dark?
    It was the crowns own scenario that Stephen died around 5am BEFORE the paper round given the ambulance officers examination was around 7.45am then how long had he been lying on the floor dead. I see maths isn’t your strong subject. Hmm was Milton Weir perjuring himself in 1995 about the glasses? I don’t recall anyone in 1995 testifying about DB wearing glasses that weekend only his Aunt in the retrial 15 years later, not having testified in 1995, hmm do you remember what shoes/glasses etc were you wearing on 20 June 1994? Whether David was wearing or not wearing the glasses on the saturday or sunday is irrelevant yet you are desperately trying to cling to them as a direct link to the killings,
    Hmm minute amounts of blood yet ‘obviously’ enough to be consistent with the blood bath in Stephens room, there is also the family cat to consider as a potential source of secondary contamination.
    So far your arguments to date fail the common sense test let alone the BOP!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  718. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Yes Muggins
    you regulary pull this “odd” pair of shoes out of your arse, however in your desperate attempts to show David to be lying all you do is lie and invent extra ‘evidence’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  719. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dottie.
    Karam write fiction ? Never.
    Mind you he did reckon that Robin might have come across those glasses and decide to leave them in David’s room.
    He did reckon he might have bent them a bit ,making sure not to leave any tell-tale prints,and leave them on the chair in David’s room.
    He did reckon that the blood on Robin’s hands had got there from handling the bloody rifle.
    But that was back in 2007. A great deal of water has passed under the bridge since then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  720. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    I am not pulling that odd pair of shoes out of your arse,there is no room for them there as your head takes up all the room.
    I linked you to the photo, I told you what the police said,suck it up.

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

    Scott Chris (4,699) Says:

    January 9th, 2013 at 8:41 am
    Nostalgia;

    Stephen’s DNA was found in blood samples on:

    1) Front left of David’s T-shirt
    2) Upper back of David’s T-shirt
    3) Crutch of David’s shorts
    4) David’s socks

    Please describe in detail a scenario in which Stephen’s blood can ‘accidentally’ end up in all these places

    There is no possible explaination for either2 or 3 other than David was the killer and had struggled with his brother. Case closed. Oh wait maybe David was rolling round on the floor for 2 or dry humping for 3. You know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  722. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    It was the crowns own scenario that Stephen died around 5am BEFORE the paper round given the ambulance officers examination was around 7.45am then how long had he been lying on the floor dead.

    How long had Robin been lying dead?

    Hmm was Milton Weir perjuring himself in 1995 about the glasses?

    To the best of my knowledge, Weir was never a suspect in the murder of 5 people. Quite a subtle difference there, eh. The question which you’ve consistently avoided is – why would an innocent person lie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  723. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Oh wait maybe David was rolling round on the floor for 2 or dry humping for 3

    So the goat was no longer around?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  724. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    David’s aunt was listening to him giving evidence at the trial back in 1995. When she heard him say that he hadn’t seen those glasses for over a year she said to herself “That’s not what he told us”. She mentioned that conversation that she had with David to the police in 1999.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  725. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    there is also the family cat to consider

    In the Chamberlain case, the dingo did it; in the Bain case, the cat did it. Yeah it’s more plausible than Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  726. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    The only person who committed perjury was Daryl Young at the retrial when he said he saw Robin Bain come out of the back door of his van which Bryan Bruce proved was impossible because there was no access out of that door.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  727. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    ross

    “To the best of my knowledge, Weir was never a suspect in the murder of 5 people. Quite a subtle difference there, eh. The question which you’ve consistently avoided is – why would an innocent person lie?”

    On that basis ross you must be as guilty as f…., along with your strip search mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  728. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    On that basis ross you must be as guilty as f….

    Nah I wasn’t in Every St on 20 June 1994.

    Getting back to the question, why would David lie? He’s a victim, isn’t he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  729. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    There is no proof that Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain. Bain did tell Binnie he was completely naked at one point when Pryde was carrying out his examination, but Bain also told Binnie he saw his friend committing an act of a sexual nature with a goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  730. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    According to Binnie: “I am glad to discuss Mr Guest’s e-mail and the ‘glasses issue’ with the Minister at whatever length she thinks appropriate.”

    I might flick him an email since he’s happy to discuss the issue. Maybe he’ll explain why David would lie…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  731. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Still pulling more evidence from your arse muggins, your shit does stink! You are one sad sick seriously disturbed motherf””er
    Have you even actually bothered ringing these various crown witnesses, maybe this is all out of your arse as well? Even if you have they are under no oath to you and can tell you whatever you want to hear, or you can twist whatever they tell you to fit your conspiracy theories,
    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/
    Maybe you can be a man of your word and join your collegues on the flight to North Korea!

    [DPF: Tone down the personal abuse please. Debating evidence and the case is fine, but please refrain from calling people who disagree with you such names]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  732. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Yes I’m sure the Bain defence team forked out a generous payment to Darryl Young to perjure himself in court, I mean it was of course pretty ‘prime facia’ evidence of who did it BRD wasn’t it. He could easily have been referring to the side door and also as Bryan Bruce didn’t seem to consider a seperate occassion than whatever the date on the sales docket Bryan found and used to ‘discredit’ the evidence
    This the best you can do LMAO

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

    Ross

    I have now discounted the goat theory on the basis that it would be difficult for a goat to fire the 22 from behind the curtain. I am now left with the most obvious conclusion that it was indeed David who was the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  734. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan
    That side door you refer to was adjacent to the passenger door. Had Robin Bain come out that door Young could have seen the whole of the interior of the van.
    Karam reckoned Young came out of the sliding door at the rear of the van,only problem with that theory is that that van had no sliding door.
    Young has said he didn’t want to give evidence and we all know why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  735. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    FYI, muggins

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/splatter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  736. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    What has that blog got to do with muggins?
    And hey,you might like to tone it down a bit,you never know who is watching.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  737. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    If you actually have a look on the blog about the flight to North Korea (its near the top)
    “Had Robin Bain come out that door Young could have seen the whole of the interior of the van.”
    hmm that would depend on exactly how far the door was open and how close DY was to the door anyway really significant evidence to the case isn’t it?
    I normally regard Bryan Bruces series highly and some of the cases he has done but he did a piss poor job of this and the latest ‘who killed the crewe episode’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  738. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spatter
    FYI, Dean Papa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  739. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Why would muggins look at that blog?
    Re door. If that side door was open ernough for Robin Bain to come out of it then Young would have been able to see there was no-one else in that van. Stop trying to make excuses for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  740. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Sounds like an interesting book.

    http://news.usf.edu/article/templates/?a=5078&z=123

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  741. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Pleased to see you have toned down the personal abuse as requested by DF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  742. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Muggins
    really important piece of ‘prime facia’ evidence of guilt or innocence isn’t it? I’m sure it was no 1 on the juries summing up list.
    Really is this the best you can come up with? Kim Jones and Milton Weir actually admitted their 1995 evidence was wrong. Yet you still desperately try to cling to their claims, I can’t prove that they set out to mislead the jury but logically if you actually look at the evidence how is it an ‘innocent mistake’?

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

    muggins me ol’ china, I can think of three works of fiction by Joe Karam:

    David and Goliath
    Bain and Beyond
    Trial by Ambush

    What would you call them other than works of fiction, muggins me ol’ china,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  744. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    I have followed these threads intermittantly and acknowledge that I have not absorbed all of the comments. The goat issue seems to me to be somewhat incongruous.

    Quite aside from the fact that Buckley appears to have made known David’s alleged comments about using the paper-run as an alibi before these murders took place, I find David’s explanation for Buckley’s motive to be somewhat perplexing. Buckley, according to David, came forth with the allegations because David had this “hold” over Buckley (ie knowledge of the so-called goat shagging). David attributed bad faith to Buckley because of this incident and David’s knowledge of it.

    Now, if Buckley had really shagged a goat, would he really have needlessly antogonised David by concocting the alibi story knowing that David would no doubt break his silence of many years and heap ridicule on Buckley?

    Possibilities

    1. In the absence of corroboration, David’s explanation defies credulity. David had not previously disclosed the allegation, nor, as far as I am aware, had he threatened to do so. Why, therefore, would Buckley want to bring attention to himself and risk exposure? It would be a different story if David had gone public before Buckley made the comments about the paper run -Buckley could be said to be acting in revenge.
    2. If Buckley had shagged a goat and was prepared to risk exposure by revealing David’s own subterfuge (paper run alibi), doesn’t that add to Buckley’s credibility?

    Comments?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  745. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    “…intermittently….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  746. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Comments Nookin?

    Pryde’s evidence trial 1

    I subsequently travelled to the offices of the Criminal Investigation Branch here in Dunedin and shortly after 11 35 am that morning I spoke with and examined the accused David Bain. I made notes of my examination. I seek His Honours leave to refer to those (no objection by defence Counsel). I examined David Bain in one of the rooms in the CIB. I obtained his permission for an examination. I explained to him that I had been requested to examine him and to obtain body and fluid samples from him. These would be used as evidence by the police and I asked him whether he was agreeable to this, to my examining him and he agreed to allow the examination. He appeared calm and subdued and was quietly spoken. He made no spontaneous conversation but answered my questions. There was no sign of intoxication. He had a mild acned or pimply face. His nails were clean, no dirt or debris under the nails. I noted recent bruising to his head area. I listed three areas, one was the right temple. About here (indicates right temple). That was about 3 square cms in area. A small bruise above the right eye or a little lower down , 1 cm by half a cm. Some bruising to the right cheek (indicates) below the right eye. This was 1 and a half crns by 1 cm. By recent bruising, roughly it would be about 10 hours old. There was also a small injury on the inner aspect of the right knee. This was a skinned abrasion, a small flap of skin remained at the area. This again was about 10 hours old. Other older features were noted, there was a tattoo on his left upper arm, feathers, a band and a rose. I obtained his pulse, this was a low normal of about 60 beats per minute. For a young man who is involved in running, a fit young man, that is not abnormal. It is quite normal. He had a surgical scar on the left groin where he had had a small operation as a child and he had a right small rupture, a hernia. I obtained from the accused various samples. I have a list of them here – I obtained blood from the vein, hair samples, swabs from various parts of his body and smears from various parts of his body. There is a set procedure that I go through. My initial specimen taking was from a special kit which is used to find evidence for firearms activity. That is firearm residue on the skin, that is firearm activity. These were all labelled and sealed. They were sealed in appropriate containers, labelled and handed to a police officer, a Mr Ross. I have referred to the bruising I noticed and also the skin, the laceration on the inside of the knee. As to the origin of these injuries, I asked him how his injuries had occurred and he replied that he didnt know. I also inspected the nose of Mr Bain during my examination. There was no evidence of any recent bleeding or any injury to the nose. The bruises that I observed and described, they wouldnt have caused any bleeding. There would have been a certain oozing of blood from them but no noticeable bleeding. The laceration to the knee that I referred to, it wasnt specifically laceration, more of a graze than a laceration. There was some oozing from the area but no obvious bleeding. From these injuries that I observed, there were no injury that would have produced any
    blood staining anywhere.
    XXM
    What time was it you noted the bruising in the examination at the CIB? I recored the hr as at 11.20 and recorded the bruising first at the commencement of the examination. You also took samples from the groin and the penis of the accused? Yes. There was a thorough examination of him by you? yes. So it wasnt just obtaining some blood and looking for debris and things of that nature? No, it was a thorough examination.

    The ’10 hours’ was an ambush – ie a departure from the deposition. Otherwise it’s all about the timing of the bruising and whether anything could have left blood – presumably to eliminate David as the source of blood on the towel etc.

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

    I’d still like to know if the Bains ever had goats on the Every Street property? If they didn’t well like a lot of Davids testimony its just not credible. Rather like Karam making it up as you go along if you will…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  748. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    NNZ
    Is that a response or an invitation?

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

    Rowan 2:21 pm
    [DPF: Tone down the personal abuse please. Debating evidence and the case is fine, but please refrain from calling people who disagree with you such names]

    Just in case you didn’t page up to see it Rowan.

    Btw, it’s “jury’s summing up list” not “juries summing up list”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  750. Nostalgia-NZ (4,698 comments) says:

    Asking if you think Pryde’s examination was a strip search?

    As for the goat thing, I don’t think it is material and too bizarre to be an invention anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  751. Belinda (126 comments) says:

    Thankyou DPF some of the posters here, make one reluctant to join in the debate, why is it necessary to abuse posters and use foul language?
    Amazing that the Herald allowed all those negative comments about david bain, wouldn’t have happened a few weeks ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  752. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    As for the goat thing, I don’t think it is material

    It’s material because David isn’t trustworthy.

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

    Does anyone perhaps know why there were no fingerprints on the gun in the deaths of Desmond Winnie, Deborah Honeyfield and Ray Honeyfield?

    Palmerston North Detective Sergeant Gary Milligan, if you are watching, could you please let us know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  754. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Amazing that the Herald allowed all those negative comments about david bain, wouldn’t have happened a few weeks ago.

    Well, I said the other day that the longer this process lasts, more and more people will see David for what he is. Who knows, he might decide to withdraw his claim for compensation…but somehow I doubt that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  755. Scott Chris (5,684 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    Once again you evaded my question and went on to waffle about something unrelated.

    I take it you have no plausible explanation as to how Stephen’s blood was found on:

    1) Front left of David’s T-shirt
    2) Upper back of David’s T-shirt
    3) Crutch of David’s shorts
    4) David’s socks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  756. Nookin (2,891 comments) says:

    NNS

    On the face of the transcript, it indicates a detailed examination. “Strip search”, as a term, is somewhat equivocal. Someone gave close attention to his physical condition. I cannot comment on whether is is more or less intrusive than one would expect in the circumstances

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

    N-NZ 3:53 pm .. As for the goat thing, I don’t think it is material ..

    It’s material because David has almost certainly lied. Why would an innocent David need to lie?

    Why would he first say the green pullover was his sister’s, then later when it is found that fibres from it are under Stephen’s fingernails, suddenly he changes over to the pullover being Robin’s?

    Why would he say that Robin brought in the newspaper, then for whatever reason, clearly indicate to Ian Binnie that he (David) brought the newspaper in?

    Why would an innocent David need to lie? By contrast, Robin hasn’t lied once.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  758. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Doctcom,

    Re your questions about fingerprints, the following comes from a Stuff article:

    Mr Scott also described how there were no fingerprints on the rifle, which police found between Mr Winnie’s legs, saying it was not that uncommon.

    “It may well be that the offender wore gloves or wiped the firearm clean. I’m satisfied that … finding a a firearm without prints is not necessarily indicative of anything sinister,” he said.

    “It may have related to the condition of the firearm or the fact that the firearm had to be handled by police after the deaths. It may have related to packaging of the firearm”.

    BTW, no indication if the killer shot himself in the left temple…he did leave a suicide note but not on a computer. No indication of whether anyone deserved to stay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  759. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Hon Dottie
    Re Winnie ,police could give no explanation .

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

    Ross69 4:15 pm .. Amazing that the Herald allowed all those negative comments about DB

    Didn’t publish mine among those 69, so Auntie still being selective (and yes, I know this invites a predictable proDavid response).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  761. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10708424
    But Winnie did leave a hand-written suicide note.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  762. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    “Weather conditions may be a contributing factor in the lack of prints. In cold weather, the pores that exude perspiration tend to close. In hot weather, the opposite is true—too much perspiration causes the recordings of the prints to be spotty and distorted. The ridges must contain some sweat, grease, oil, or other foreign matter or no latent print will be left on the item that was touched.

    A large percentage of latent prints are ‘lost’ before they are received at the lab for analysis because of poor handling or packaging of items to be examined. Most crime labs readily dispense information and assistance to police who may be having difficulty or problems with evidence retrieval.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  763. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Weir told the jury that the lens was not where he found it. But he still found that lens in Stephen’s room,so it still ties David Bain to Stephen’s murder.
    And according to Simon Schollum Weir actually was pointing to that lens as it turns out,but that wasn’t where he found it.
    Jones ,despite being bullied by Reed,still believes David Bain’s fingers had blood on them when he placed them on the rifle.
    Binnie to Bain. So the best you can do on those fingerprints is that they are in animal blood going back to the summer?
    Bain to Binnie. Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  764. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    I see another proDavidbainer believes Bain’s story about the goat is true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  765. muggins (2,904 comments) says:

    lazarus
    Yes,the Bain’s had four goats at one stage. We don’t know how many were nanny goats or how many were billy goats and we