Guest on Bain

January 1st, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

David Fisher at NZ Herald reports:

’s first defence lawyer has emailed Justice Minister Judith Collins to say that, in his opinion, his former client had made a “damning admission” which in his view “shatters any suggestion of innocence”.

The email was sent by disbarred lawyer Michael Guest to the Minister of Justice on September 10, just weeks after she received a report from retired Canadian Justice Ian Binnie saying Mr Bain was “factually innocent” and should be compensated.

Mr Guest’s email became a factor in the decision to have Justice Binnie’s report peer reviewed. On September 26, Mrs Collins wrote to retired Justice Robert Fisher saying Mr Guest’s email, concerns from the police and her own issues “led me to consider that I need to proceed to this peer review”.

Mrs Collins confirmed the link to the Herald, saying it added to concerns raised by herself, the police and the Crown Law Office.

Mr Guest claimed in his email he was prompted to contact Mrs Collins after reading reports Mr Bain had been found “innocent”.

In a personal email, Mr Guest expressed his view to Mrs Collins which stated “finding that [Mr Bain] is innocent is not a correct conclusion”.

Mr Guest claimed he was freed from client confidentiality because of an earlier waiver by Mr Bain. He said he was concerned because neither he nor his co-counsel had been interviewed by Justice Binnie as part of the inquiry.

I would have thought that was sensible to do, even if you didn’t treat his views as determinative.

The claims focus on whether Mr Bain was wearing his mother’s glasses the weekend before the murders – the frame was found in his room and a lens in his brother Stephen’s room.

Mr Guest said he was told by Mr Bain he had been wearing the glasses. He said Justice Binnie could have found a way to take a different view on the evidence about the glasses “but, in my opinion, it shatters any suggestion of innocence”.

There seem to be two main possibilities. Either David Bain told the truth to his lawyer Guest, and later lied about it.

Or David Bain has always denied wearing the glasses the weekend before the murders, and his former lawyer has invented the story.

I understand this story was first reported on Monday in Truth. Their website may have more details later today.

Truth has put online the documents released under the OIA. The letter from Police listing the errors in Binnie’s report is very detailed.

1,274 Responses to “Guest on Bain”

  1. Dotcom (1,386 comments) says:

    Happy New Millennium

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

    Well Muggins – that’s what you get from depressed, weak old men who have just fought off 14 year olds, shot their families, changed out of their bloody clothes and dropped them off at the laundry, tip-toed back so as to avoid all the bloody foot prints and then popped on clean socks and shoes in order to meet their maker – do you really think he would have bothered to remove the silencer and use his right hand to pull the trigger to fire the bullet into his left temple while both his feet were on the floor???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    I notice that Bain told Binnie that the first he knew about Laniet being a prostitute was when a police officer told him after he was arrested. He said he didn’t believe it at the time. He said he thought the police were just using shock tactics to make him confess.
    Hang on a second.
    When David was in the Opera Alive company he heard fellow members talking about their association with Laniet and he used to become enraged by this.
    Of course he knew she was a prostitute.
    Liar.liar,pants on fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Yvette
    muggins accepts your ‘umble apology. It would appear that it wasn’t only muggins that didn’t know how the numbering system worked. I wasn’t in the least bit interested until the hon.Dotcom pointed out how many posts I had made on this thread which caused me to do a countback which confused me somewhat.
    However,I reckon I am up with the play now. This should be message 824.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Am I right or am I right!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    You see,that is the difference between me and those David Bain supporters. I learn. They don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    This will be message 827.

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

    Yvette (2,244) Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 9:09 pm

    Lies in the first point, no need to read the others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    This will be message 828. Don’t stop me,I’m on a roll.
    Only joking. I’m off to beddybyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz,your next post will be #362.
    What do you think about Bain lying to Binnie about not knowing Laniet was a sex worker? He had known that for over a year.

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

    muggins (829) Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 9:40 pm

    Prove it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rodders (1,790 comments) says:

    nasska @ 9.02pm 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Relatively meaningful meltdown from dotcom, I hope he wasn’t upset by Winston’s comment. Then come the D- team, things could be looking up for them. The what do you ‘reckons’ have been let out to play for a few minutes. I can’t wait to hear about the van door.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Your next post will be #363.
    I have it in writing and intend to pass it on to you know who.

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

    I can’t wait to hear about the van door.

    I would much rather hear about muggins’s theory about the glasses, and his phone calls to Laney, Hentschell, Weir, Doyle, Clarke, and almost everyone else in Dunners, not to mention Australia and Kapiti. More fun than a bullfight.

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

    muggins (830) Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    I have many fairy tales in writing too. Who do you think wants to receive them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Hullo,hullo.
    I see the van door has come up again.
    Is this the van door that Daryl Young said he saw Robin Bain come out of. The back door that coudn’t be opened?
    Of course Karam said he meant the sliding door in the rear of the van. Problem is that van didn’t have a sliding door.
    Oh dear,oh dear.

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

    muggins (831) Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    You seem to see liars everywhere you look. Your mirror too close?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Yawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz . Your next post will be #365.
    I dont do fairy tales. I leave them to the David Bain supporters. Do you really believe that David Bain didn’t know Laniet was on the game.? If you do believe that then more fool you. And more fool Binnie for believing that as well.

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

    muggins (832) Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    I know that Weir knew, I guess he thought all of Dunners did, huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Milton’s had an interesting relationship with the Bains.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,106) Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    I see it now. According to muggins everything Bain said was a lie. His family are not dead at all, they are hiding somewhere waiting for Bain to get the millions he will be getting, then pop up for their shares.

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

    He claimed to be David Bain, but he is a liar, he is an imposter pretending to be Bain, just so he could be locked up for 13 years and get a couple mill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott1 (950 comments) says:

    Nostalgia (7.35pm),
    I thought the house was burnt with davids consent? are you saying that isnt the case?

    Nostalgia (8:13pm),

    now if he was doing that
    (eg pointing the gun at people and intimidating them) now you would be getting closer to familicide behaviour…
    Is that documented somwhere?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Scott1 (950 comments) says:

    Not saying that one action makes a profile, but at least it is somthing of the right sort of nature… depending on the context…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    The house was burnt down with David’s consent if you consider that a young man faced with the horror that he experienced could give informed consent.

    Margaret’s friend gave the evidence about her (Margaret’s concerns as to what she considered Robin was capable of.)

    The comment made by Maggie Barry was on Radio Live and presumably is traced back to evidence.

    I wonder why Robin didn’t have any firearm, although he been trying to buy one to be kept at the school. The easy answer would be that Margaret wouldn’t allow it because of his instability and threats.

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

    if you consider that a young man faced with the horror that he experienced could give informed consent.

    Well, in the days after the murders, David stayed with Bob and Janice Clark. According to Janice, David said that his family saw death “as a celebration”. He apparently did not want any of the family wearing black at the victims’ funerals. He wanted to attend the funerals wearing a brightly coloured jersey. According to Val Boyd, he “knew exactly what flowers he wanted for each of the coffins and what each of the family should wear, including jewellery. He wanted Arawa to wear a gown and her super-bra.” He had decided what music would be played. Binnie could have asked David if he recalled making these statements. Did he think it was appropriate to celebrate the murders of his family? Did he think it was appropriate to be telling the wider family what they should wear and how the victims should be dressed? Did he think it was appropriate to dictate to his family re the funeral arrangements?

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

    So Tomorrow, Friday 4 January

    Friday 4 January, Robin Bain fans let us know what their plans are for making sure that John Key doesn’t do something stupid, right team?

    Friday 4 January, Robin Bain fans start to work out a plan right for dropping this stupid and incessant arguing here and work out how we get the message across to Cabinet that we demand that Cabinet comply with the Law, right.

    Anyone wanting to talk about how this might be done, might want to start by sharing their thoughts with some of the rest of us. We can talk at my email address which you have.

    So that’s it then, right. Friday we stop this tirade, and we get down to some real work. Agreed?

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

    According to Dr Sam Vaknin,

    The narcissist is a micro-manager. He exerts control over the minutest details and behaviours. He punishes severely and abuses withholders of information and those who fail to conform to his wishes and goals.

    The narcissist does not respect the boundaries and privacy of his reluctant adherents. He ignores their wishes and treats them as objects or instruments of gratification. He seeks to control both situations and people compulsively.

    He strongly disapproves of others’ personal autonomy and independence. Even innocuous activities, such as meeting a friend or visiting one’s family require his permission. Gradually, he isolates his nearest and dearest until they are fully dependent on him emotionally, sexually, financially, and socially.

    He acts in a patronising and condescending manner and criticises often. He alternates between emphasising the minutest faults (devalues) and exaggerating the talents, traits, and skills (idealises) of the members of his cult. He is wildly unrealistic in his expectations – which legitimises his subsequent abusive conduct.

    The narcissist claims to be infallible, superior, talented, skilful, omnipotent, and omniscient. He often lies and confabulates to support these unfounded claims. Within his cult, he expects awe, admiration, adulation, and constant attention commensurate with his outlandish stories and assertions. He reinterprets reality to fit his fantasies.

    That sounds remarkably like David Bain. Laniet was scare of him, and he apparently was jealous of her relationships and broke all of them up. He allegedly intimidated the family with a gun. He tried to micro-manage the funerals, down to what the victims would wear and the songs to be played. He wanted some of the victims buried and others cremated! He compares himself to Jonathon Lemalu and reckons he could have been a great opera singer. He talked and still talks about his loving supportive family, which was a fantasy. The family’s possessions, he says, belong to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Mark (1,609 comments) says:

    Dotcom (902) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 4:40 pm
    Mark, you have no idea of what you are talking about. The situation has moved along way beyond guilt. David Bain is not guilty as you still want to talk about. And he never will be guilty again.

    But he wants compensation, and i know you will want to argue with me, but please don’t, you will only embarrass yourself.

    He has to prove on the balance of probabilities that he didn’t kill anyone. Nothing to do with a question of guilt. If you don’t understand this, it’s okay you, like most of New Zealand, are out of your depth. It partly explains why Barristers take 10 years to get their full qualifications, and you never will.

    Dotcom you are one of the idiots who put forward supposition as fact so i would get of your high horse a bit. Bain will never be able to prove his innocence and I have never postulated that he could but as hopeless as his case may be the crap dished up on this blog as fact and proof of his guilt has already been rejected by the courts.

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

    @ross69 “Did he think it was appropriate to dictate to his family re the funeral arrangements?”

    If my immediate family were suddenly killed, I’d act in a similar manner – the clothes, the jewellery, the music, and suchlike. If my extended family found it inappropriate that I chose to bury my son in the football shirt of his favorite player, say, then they can go take a running jump. I know my family much better than they do – my attitude would be that they should butt out and be supportive. As for the bright jerseys and “celebration” angle – I’ve been to a funeral recently were the deceased herself (cancer) had asked for something similar.

    At my father’s funeral, one of my brothers got quite obsessed and a bit strange about the arrangements – so much so, that listening to the minister’s address I wondered if we were burying the right man. We just let him go for it, it seemed like his way of coping/grieving. And, no, my brother didn’t murder my father (he died in a hospice of cancer).

    Funerals are odd things.

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

    Funerals are odd things.

    None as strange as this one it seems. Bain’s extended family even counted how often he blew his nose, to prove that their grief was greater than his. How dare he be chief mourner, he needed to respect his elders AND BETTERS. It matters not that they were too posh to visit while the family were still alive, they MUST be deferred to while the media are watching. Family? Not in my world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    SGA
    Funerals may be odd things.
    But would you suggest that a birthday party for one of the deceased be held on the Sunday after the funeral?
    David wanted to have a birthday party for Arawa on Sunday 26 June and ask Arawa’s friends over. He said they could take a cassette player out to the grave ,play some music and dance there.
    David was adamant that his parents be cremated and the children buried. He stated the grave should be for four as he wanted to be buried with the children also. He even stipulated the positioning of each body within the grave,Arawa with Stephen,he with Laniet.
    He said he wanted to sing at the funeral . He said if he couldn’t sing alone then he wanted the Male Voice Choir to sing for Robin and he would sing with them.
    He described in detail what form the service should take, and who should speak for each member of the family. They were all to be teachers from Bayfield High School.

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

    The difference between adversarial vs inquisitorial justice system the defence were able to show it was posible(how ever remote) that a person could commit suicide that way but what they didn’t prove is that Robin DID actualy commit suicide. With our adversarial system the defence don’t seem too be allowed to come back and ask the defence (and vice versa) to prove it is suicide.
    What astounds me is Binnie was not constrained by this protocol and didn’t ask these crucial questions because if David can’t prove that Robin committed suicide on the balance of probabilities then by default he can’t prove he is innocent. In saying that I don’t think anyone could prove that Robin committed suicide beyond reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    From all accounts Robin Bain had never owned a firearm. Not since he was married,anyway. He was thinking of purchasing a firearm to shoot possums at the school. He asked the boarder who lived with him if he should get a shotgun but the boarder said he thought a rifle would be a better bet.
    What does that tell you?
    [1] That Robin didn’t really have a clue re firearms and
    [2] He had no intention of borrowing David’s.

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

    gamefisher (148) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 9:14 am

    For God’s sake man give it up.
    Ask muggins for his illegal copy of the retrial transcript and find out what Dempster said.
    Remember Dempster? he was the pathologist who viewed Robin in the lounge. He was the pathologist who did the autopsy on Robin.
    He was the pathologist who wrote to Robin Bates within days of the PC decision suggesting that they have another close look at the case before going ahead with a retrial.
    He was the pathologist who produced photos of blood on the inside of Robin’s hands.
    He was the pathologist who said the abrasion/bruise on Robin’s hand was less than 12 hours old when he died.
    He was the pathologist who conceded that not only was suicide not impossible, but easily done.

    And He was a Crown witness.

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

    If my immediate family were suddenly killed, I’d act in a similar manner – the clothes, the jewellery, the music, and suchlike

    I’d be the opposite. I’d be feeling guilty that I was the only one who “deserved to stay”. Why did my siblings and mother deserve to die? I’d be consumed with grief and guilt. I’d also be thinking what could have caused my father to do what he did. Wanting my sister to wear a super-bra would be the last thing on my mind. 🙂

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

    ross69 (1,562) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 9:45 am

    Bully for you. All that shows is that everyone of us is different. I for one am grateful for that, I would hate to be the same as you, muggins, gamefisher, truthiz, and all the other idiots who jump through hoops trying to prove lies are truth.

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

    He was the pathologist who conceded that not only was suicide not impossible, but easily done.

    He was the pathologist who said suicide was unlikely. He had good support from other experts, including one commissioned by Karam! Did Karam tell Binnie about Henry Glaser’s conclusion that suicide was unlikely, or did he forget to mention it?

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

    All that shows is that everyone of us is different.

    Oh yes, David is very different. 😉

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

    the defence were able to show it was posible(how ever remote) that a person could commit suicide that way but what they didn’t prove is that Robin DID actualy commit suicide.

    Exactly. And the eminent jurist from Canada believed that because it was possible that Robin killed himself, he didn’t need to concern himself with the LIKELIHOOD that Robin did so. The fact is that a minority (20-30%) of suicide victims leave suicide notes. But in this case there was one, albeit an unusual one. It is statistically improbable that Robin would shoot himself in the left temple. Not to mention he was wearing headgear and of course used a silencer. With all these improbabilities, how likely was it that Robin killed himself?

    http://forensic.sc.su.ac.th/seminar/seminarii52/51312321.pdf

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

    It’s been suggested that Robin Bain didn’t own a firearm because Margaret Bain wouldn’t allow it because of ” his instability and threats.” But there was a rifle in the house, easily accessible, so that should have been of great concern to Margaret.

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

    He was the pathologist who said suicide was unlikely.

    He was the pathologist who could not be bullied into changing his testimony as was tried.
    He alone did far more damage to the Crown case than any of the defence witnesses, and he was there and saw the evidence with his own eyes.

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

    @ross69 “I’d be the opposite.”

    And if, for argument’s sake, David Bain had behaved the *opposite* way, you wouldn’t be telling us how his lack interest in his family’s funeral arrangements showed what a cold hearted person he was? Somehow I think you would.

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

    But there was a rifle in the house, easily accessible, so that should have been of great concern to Margaret.

    Her concerns proved to be valid. Once he had access to a gun he did what his wife had feared.

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

    SGA (139) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 10:02 am

    Don’t worry, ross69 and his mates say that too. Every move he made and every word he uttered has been used to prove

    He didn’t care about his dead family
    He took too much interest, (in an unhealthy way) in his dead family.
    He spoke too clearly and concisely to have been emotionally affected.
    He spoke strangely and in riddles, proving he was a murderer.
    He was hungry after not having eaten for about 20 hours. Now, come on, only a murderer would be hungry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Dr Dempster,at the retrial ,re wound to Robin Bain’s head.
    My conclusion is that it was unlikely to be a self inflicted gunshot wound but I couldn’t exclude that entirely.
    The main reason why I have come to that conclusion is the trajectory and the difficulty of accessing the trigger with the rifle held in that position.

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

    HEY, DOTCOM!!! MR FARRAR SNEERED AT BINNIE FOR USING THE ODD CAPITAL LETTER, I WOULD GUESS BECAUSE HE HIT THE CAPS LOCK KEY INADVERTENTLY. AND NOW YOU’RE DOING IT DELIBERATELY? MORON IS FAR TOO WEAK A WORD. BIGOT AND FOOL SPRING TO MIND.

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

    muggins (835) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 10:19 am

    That was when he was giving his evidence in chief, and following the line the prosecution had lead him. If there is just one small honest bone in your body muggins, you would print his response to the defence, after having seen the evidence they had.

    Reed: Once again, it seems that it is perfectly feasable in this position to shoot yourself, should you so wish
    Dempster: It would seem so
    Q: Those are a combination of positions, aren’t they?
    A: Yes
    Q: And you agree that in each of them it is quite possible to shoot yourself?
    A: To activate the firearm, yes at that particular angle.
    Q: And you don’t have to contort yourself in any particular, with any particular difficulty, do you?
    A: No.

    You see, muggins, the truth is a hard pill for you to swallow, is it not?

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

    Kanz where about in the lounge was Robin shot a more exact location within 30cm range will do

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    So the number one bull crapper is sprung again. But wait, hold on – I’ll just a make a phone call to myself and see what crap I can dream up next. Be thankful that lot are on Collin’s side.

    SGA hits the nail on the head whatever he did he’d be criticised for, just like he’s a liar when it suits them and telling the truth when it does.

    Whatever David had planned for his family’s funeral, which is none of my business anyway, it would never have got the blood smears off the husband’s hands whose wife was afraid he might shoot her.

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

    Kanz where about in the lounge was Robin shot a more exact location within 30cm range will do

    I have no idea of the measurements. Have you thought of asking muggins to ring somebody? They could make some up for you.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,110) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 10:51 am

    Saw some good logic from them this morning.
    The newspaper apparently is crucial evidence. If the father brought it in it proves the father is innocent, but if Bain brought it in it proves Bain is guilty. Great logic, what do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz
    In an earlier post you gave the defence’s version. I gave the prosecution’s version.
    If you had done the decent thing and given the prosecutions version in the first place I wouldn’t have had to post it.
    But you didn’t.
    And you are lying when you say that Dempster said those abrasions to Robin Bain’s hands were less than 12 hours old. You might like to post from your illegal copy of the transcript showing us just where Dempster said that.
    If you are game enough,because you know I can take you apart on that .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Why would Robin Bain bring the paper in if he was going to commit suicide?
    But did he bring it in?
    David said he didn’t bring it in,but then he goes on to say he normally brought it in if he ran the paper round which is what he did that morning. So why didn’t he do what he normally did?
    Or is he lying for some reason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Kanz 10.55

    About as stupid the claims that there was no strip search or dna deep in the rifle. But I’m happy to see them keep working against themselves, they don’t really need an opposition they provide it themselves.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,111) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Along with providing great entertainment.
    Now, I see muggins lying about the age Dempster put on those marks to the old man’s hand. If we thought he was guessing it would, maybe, be acceptable, but he has the transcript, so knows the truth. We know he is straight out lying, the question is why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Rev Cairns,when confronted by a young man who wanted to orchestrate the funeral of his loved ones,be chief mourner and lead singer,the prime attraction ,said he felt something was terribly wrong.
    He said one of the worst things he ever had to do was to try to stop David from stage-managing the whole affair.
    He said,on reflection, that he now feels everything had been prepared and planned long before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    C’mon Kanz,enough of the bullshit. Post that part of the transcript where Dempster said those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands were less than 12 hours old.

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

    muggins (839) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 11:13 am

    You have it there, if you wish to honest at all, you will find it, put it up and apologise. The trouble for you is, it takes a man to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz
    There was no DNA deep in the rifle. Post that part of the transcript that says there was.
    There is no proof that David Bain was strip-searched. Post that part of the transcript that says there was.
    I am really enjoying myself at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Kanz

    Because there is nothing left but lies and incidentals that however much life and bluster is blown into them can’t change the fact of Robin’s suicide. Collins may be learning that now. Others have expressed interest in what she will do next, I’m interest in what Reed will do next, a man very successful in civil law that won the most significant criminal case in New Zealand history and became involved, as he has said, because it was an injustice. Imagine the ‘regard’ he must have for the liars abroad and those, including a Minister, who impeach his reputation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz
    You are the one who is telling lies.
    You know it and I know it.
    And that is why you won’t post from the transcript.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Ah the panic of being seen as a liar sets in. Great to watch the multi post meltdowns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Reed will know that Bain is a lost cause now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Anyway I have had enough of the bulls**t for now.
    Will return later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    The only idiot in NZ who doesn’t know there was a strip search. A cuckoo bird just flew by.

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

    ‘Reed will know that Bain is a lost cause now.’

    It seems Bain has become lost since he filed for recompense

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

    Kanz, thank you for your response. That was my point- Margaret Bain was well aware that David Bain owned a rifle that was accessible to Robin Bain. So, she was concerned enough to forbid Robin to buy a rifle, but not overly concerned that he had access to David’s?

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

    Mark 8:04 am .. proof of his guilt has already been rejected by the courts.

    Mark, you are the weakest link. This has been acknowledged on these threads, what, a thousand times already(?), no more than by me. Mark, a pre-teen blog might be a better match for your talents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    Bain was lost the minute he signed the 50/50 contract with Joe Karam, in my opinion

    found that passage in the book yet kanz?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    kanz, page 20….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    And as usual, kanz goes quiet when he is caught quoting something wrong, either mistakenly, or deliberately, as I am sure
    he wouldnt just say what he was told to say? surely not?,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    One push for compensation seems based on the supposition Bain cannot prove factual innocence because there is insufficient evidence. Convenient but false, there is evidence, although the system made a mess of it. The argument is reminiscent of Zeno’s Paradox.

    I set off for town and walk half way, stop for a rest. I then set off again, walk half way and stop, and so on, never reaching town. That this is absurd is calculus and common sense. Yet this is how the defence operates, claiming each piece of evidence against Bain never quite gets there. They may be right, but there’s more.

    Add up each incomplete piece and the picture may be fuzzy but it’s decidedly recognisable. That’s why few who think quantitatively think Robin Bain killed himself.

    Why do some people need to see the complete pieces before they see the incomplete picture? They don’t want to. That’s largely explained by the “nice” factor and Mr Binnie’s “normal”.

    Add it up: Your father kills your mother (and family) and leaves you to explain it. How would you feel and what would you say?

    David says: The core of my belief is that I was not there.

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

    ‘Bain was lost the minute he signed the 50/50 contract with Joe Karam, in my opinion’

    So you saying Karam conspired with Bain for profit and he set out to meet with Bain for exactly that ?

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

    Winston 10:32 am
    MORON BIGOT AND FOOL SPRING TO MIND.

    Thank you Winston. I can suggest a couple of POLICE blogs that might be more befitting your talents, and the talents of all the other Kiwiblog comments-police trolls, who never have anything to say on topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    hinamanu, it ceased being about Bain a long time ago now, now it is all about the compensation

    as one law professor said after the retrial verdict, Bain has been lucky, he should take his freedom and live quietly

    that will never happen

    just my opinion

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

    On many counts, 12.43 is a masterpiece. I strongly recommend people bookmark it as an all-time classic.

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

    Btw, Dennis.

    Zeno’s paradox works as well if you get 80 percent of the way with each outing, which is more of a metaphor for the situation we have here.

    [But Dennis, there is a good chance that only two people here will understand what you and I have just said, and its significance.]

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

    Thank you honeybadger at 1.21.

    Dotcom just became one of a team of two people trying to get this message across.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @hinamanu. I would guess he’s saying that, looking back, it might not have been advisable, because now it might look grasping. I think Karam believes David is innocent. History shows that some people believe anything they want, so it’s not a reliable guide to reality.

    The NZ Herald thinks “innocence” doesn’t matter any more, the time for looking at evidence has passed. What’s important now is to maintain the system, even if it means papering over the cracks in a house of cards.

    The delightful flipper has spared us some of his valuable time to explain how the ruling class rule, which includes whipping women like Collins into submission.

    I think there will be a lot of pressure on Collins to find a compromise. Such is politics. Democracy is the art of selling little lies to the people because the cost of truth is too high. They choke on it.

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

    Three

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

    Fwiw, I think Karam knows that David killed. But there are no book sales here.

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

    Now then, how many people have written to the Prime Minister today? I have.
    J.Key@ministers.govt.nz

    Same format for others such as Collins

    Firstinitial.lastname@ministers.govt.nz

    so
    J.Collins@ministers.govt.nz etc .. ..

    Important that we NOT emphasise the guilt or innocence, but rather emphasise the integrity of the system.
    We little people ought not be bullied into accepting a compromise which defeats the law.

    The law applies equally to everyone, otherwise there is no law (Dicey’s Principles)

    If David Bain is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that he is not a killer,
    then till he does this, the Government should not be compromising in favour of David Bain,
    and at the expense of the poor old taxpayer.

    Go to it team. Remember the Prime Minister’s office read every email.

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

    Kanz, Nostalgia, Judith, Flipper, please ignore the last comment.

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

    You will notice that my letter does not mention the complex question of guilt or innocence. Simply as I do always, I talk of whether David Bain killed or not. Feel free to copy or amend my email. No problem with copying. They all get looked at in the PM’s office.

    Dear Prime Minister; Minister

    I am writing to you to ask that Cabinet respect the integrity of the law when it comes to deciding whether or not David Bain should get compensation for his imprisonment.

    So far David Bain has not been able to prove on the balance of probabilities that he did not kill his family.

    Until he does prove he is not a killer, by law he is not entitled to compensation.

    Please don’t hurt us small fry in society. We small people have massive respect for the law and the integrity of the law.

    Albert Venn Dicey said that the law must apply equally to everyone, otherwise we cease to have “law”. A V Dicey called this an essential of the Rule of Law. Without it Law ceases to rule us, and we cease to be a civil society.

    Please Prime Minister, don’t short change us on our law.

    Please don’t pay David Bain compensation by way of a purely political decision which poo-poos the law.

    Respectfully

    Dotcom (my real name supplied)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    From the Herald in 2000, Karam said:

    “I’m not anti-police. I’m quite a redneck on matters of crime and punishment. I have absolutely no problem with cops in general. I didn’t think David was innocent but I did think that his conviction was extraordinarily unsafe. And when I got the bum’s rush from them on it, I thought something was up.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    “I didnt think David was innocent”

    hmmm

    comments?

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

    Dotcom it will be done by me. Also I will try to convince someone to write a book “Robin Bain is innocent, setting the record straight” irrespective of the compensation outcome.

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

    Only things from me gamefisher are first, thanks, I don’t get many compliments here. But you saying you will copy my email to the PM is very flattering. Second, that book, may it make the Joe Karam books look like the lying corrupting fairy tales that they have always been. (Assuming you are not already a wealthy man, as gamefishers might tend to be), I hope the book brings you the first of many millions.

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

    After all, gamefisher, no matter what, David Bain gave us a better story of murder and intrigue, that Agatha Christie or John Grisham ever did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kea (15,179 comments) says:

    After all, gamefisher, no matter what, David Bain gave us a better story of murder and intrigue, that Agatha Christie or John Grisham ever did.

    Not really. We knew “who done it” 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    Why is it that when you started posting today the two main probainers stopped?

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

    Dotcom 2:47 lol no I will send it in my own dyslexic lauguage. As for the book I feel strongly that there has to be someone that has to give an opposite reply to what has been very publicly written about him. All I want to do is give whoever may wish the overwhelming evidence that shows Robin did not commit suicide nor commit murder. A book may come out even before I get the opportunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Here is an interesting titbit.
    Binnie is asking Bain about the trackpants that were in the wash.
    Q. The exhibit is in the crimes book at p44. They are comparing your track pants with Robin Bain’s track pants and their measuring them indicating that the track pants pulled out of the wash could not belong to Robin.
    A. Well ,in all honesty I don’t recognise those track pants. Those I cannot say belong to me .Um…
    Q.Could be another member-
    A. But I definitely two other pairs that I had,one being a red colour and one being a grey colour.

    Trial by Ambush. The submissions prepared by the author Joe Karam for the Privy Council listing errors and omissions in the Court of Appeal decision.
    Error #7. David Bain’s track pants had been through the wash.
    He did not own the track pants. They belonged to Robin Bain.

    Hang on a second. David Bain told Binnie he did not recognise those track pants. He did not say they belonged to his father.
    So how come Karam has told the Law Lords of the Privy Council that they did?
    Did David tell him that ? That is the only way he could have known.
    Does it matter? Well,yes,it does. The Crown believe that blood from Stephen on David Bain’s shorts may have soaked through from outer clothing,ie those track pants. But if David wasn’t wearing those track pants then the defence can say that he might have innocently transferred that blood when he touched his brother on seeing him dead.
    Might be worth my while droppping a note to a superior person,do you reckon?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Longknives (6,115 comments) says:

    David Bain seems to forget a lot of things- Thank Heavens he has Joe Karam to answer all those pesky questions for him…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    0.00000 progress today. Sum total of progress so far 0.00000.

    How about a letter to the Prime Minister from the ‘little people,’ he might not be Irish but maybe he likes little people, like naughty dwarfs and pixies. I’m sure he can hardly wait.

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

    You’re right muggins. No show yet by the probainers.

    I like this new word “probainers”. Has a ring of “contortionist” about it.

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

    Sorry, probainers = new at least to me.

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

    So Robin couldn’t leave prints on that rifle, yet if he was the culprit would had extensively handled the rifle yet David prints are still on there in pristine condition & undamaged condition in a spot that would of been handled . So either somehow Robin didn’t damage the prints or they were put on there afterwards by David by one handling yet Robin couldn’t leave any. You have to be increditably stupid to believe this nonsense.

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

    muggins 3:22 pm .. Might be worth my while dropping a note to a superior person,do you reckon?

    Why, muggins? Why would you drop such a note? What would you be hoping to achieve by dropping such a note?

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

    gamefisher 4:10 pm .. You have to be incredibly stupid to believe this nonsense. ..

    Okay, I’m not incredibly stupid, and I don’t believe it. Now what?

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

    Dotcom re 4:30 do as you have done in emailing Key and Co with your concerns and hope that the NZ QC are able to do the job properly that Binnie was meant to do. And incidently you are not stipid far from it. In the Truth article it said Binnie suffered from tunnel vision in regard to Bain compensation and that is what his followers all suffer from.

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

    I also had a part to play in the Truth article itself, through my corresponding with Cam Slater. I predict that I may as well have had a part to play in the follow up front page which might appear in next week’s The Truth. Fingers crossed. The Truth is the only newspaper with us at this stage, and Cameron Slater regularly and openly disses David Farrar, so Can Slater is probably not reading here. Maybe I’m wrong. I can only try my best.

    Like F E Smith was at pains to say on this blog thread repeatedly yesterday, and the unbearably arrogant Flipper turd. I’d hate to have either of these elitist lawyer pricks tell me that they told me so. I’m hoping to be able to tell them that I told them so. I’m working on it. But the odds are stacked against us. And politics is against us. And time is against us. And as far as David Bain goes, recent history is against us.

    I can’t do it on my own.

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

    In my humble opinion, not one opinion about one ounce of evidence has been swung as a result of the now 4,000 comments in recent days on Kiwiblog.

    Perhaps, and I am open to debate on this, but just perhaps, it might be time to change gears, and go for a change in the direction of our approach. Just maybe, a small change in the angle of our tack, might be worth considering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ ross69, January 3rd, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    “According to Janice, David said that his family saw death “as a celebration”. He apparently did not want any of the family wearing black at the victims’ funerals. He wanted to attend the funerals wearing a brightly coloured jersey. According to Val Boyd, he “knew exactly what flowers he wanted for each of the coffins and what each of the family should wear, including jewellery. He wanted Arawa to wear a gown and her super-bra.” He had decided what music would be played. Binnie could have asked David if he recalled making these statements. Did he think it was appropriate to celebrate the murders of his family? Did he think it was appropriate to be telling the wider family what they should wear and how the victims should be dressed? Did he think it was appropriate to dictate to his family re the funeral arrangements?”

    Actually, ross69, even though I think the second jury got it wrong, and the incredible stream of other coincidences confirm the near-certainty of the circumstantial case against David Bain, on the matter of the funeral arrangements, no, I don’t think any of the things David tried to do with the family funeral arrangements were ‘inappropriate’ (as you seem to be suggesting). Some families DO view death as a celebration, or at least the funeral should be a celebration. Also, insisting on certain items of clothing that were special to them, or which you especially remembered them is not inappropriate in the ‘celebration/ grieving’ process. In the light of the ‘shock’ (if you believe David is innocent) of the multiple-tragedy, tthen seeking to choreograph and micro-manage funeral details could be interpreted as an attempt to regain a form of psychological equilibrium through controlling the external environment.

    Your post was in response to Nostalgia-NZ’s post of January 3rd, 2013 at 10:44 pm, where he stated, in regards to Bain’s consent to the razing of the Every Street house, “if you consider that a young man faced with the horror that he experienced could give informed consent”. Nostalgia-NZ is clutching at straws, because it was also consented to by Bain’s legal team at the time. And now, with the deed having been done, it simply serves as a convenient pretext for Bain’s supporters to make the argument from silence, “Evidence that could exonerate David was probably destroyed due to police incompetence…”.

    However, despite Nostalgia-NZ grasping at straws, there is a crucial difference between the time David Bain was insisting on the funeral arrangements, and when he, via his legal team, consented to razing the house – he was in prison, no doubt despairing (whether he did it or not) at his predicament. None of which detracts from the fact that Bain, with the informed and professional agreement of his agreement, agreed with the destruction. Which means in a sensible debate the door should be closed forever to accusations of police incompetence in the matter of allowing the destruction.

    I admire your zeal, and otherwise very good judgement on the Bain murders, but, no, even though Bain’s behaviour over the funeral arrangements MAY confirm a wider pattern of pre-meditation and passive-aggressive control (which was James McNeish’s interesting and I think probably valid thesis when searching out a potential motive for David), in and of themselves they were a valid, if quirky responses to mass family funeral in unexpected circumstances.

    But put it in the wider context, and it does raise some interesting questions…

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

    See, at least we are sharing the faith. Anyone have any idea of what Counterspin are up to? Any of the 600 or so members of Counterspin had as much as one item of news from Counterspin in the last what, one year. Anyone from Counterspin like to share the message, and let us know if the rumours are true that Counterspin is in a spin? Do we just pack our bags, and leave this all in the capable hands of John Key, and his biggest and bestest friend forever, Judith Collins? Or do we argue over fingerprints and blood spatter and bullet magazines for another 4,000 comments, still changing the opinions of exactly no-one?

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

    See what you get. “Actually some families do see funerals as a celebration”

    Never mind the FACT that such families are few and far between, if there is one such family, the debate is lost in this logic-deprived stupid Hell of a debate.

    Fuck, “some families celebrate at funerals” What sort of a standard of argument is this?

    What a depraved set of tossers engage in such utter bullshit, and decide murder on the basis of it. What have we done to ourselves?

    Fuck, “some families do celebrate funerals” – and fuck the idiots who use such twisted stupidity seemingly to run their fucked up lives.

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

    “some families do see funerals as a celebration”

    Name one, fucktard.

    And David Bain doesn’t count as the one.

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

    There, that’s that argument done and dusted. Next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Kimbo. Greetings. I think the death of a life well lived might be celebrated at the funeral, but this is something else altogether. Here we have a family slaughtered; one is spared. There is nothing to celebrate in such a gobfull of the ugly side of human nature. Furthermore, here we have a man who apparently spent a lot of time at home gardening with his mother, showing no anger toward his father for killing his mother and destroying his life.

    One can make all the excuses under the Sun for people’s behaviour during stress and loss, give all sorts of explanations, but the only one that makes any sense to me is that David knew bloody well his father had killed no one.

    We saw with Mahon and Erebus that judges are just as likely to get the wrong end of the stick as anyone else. We are about to see the same nonsense in the case of the Jetstar pilot who took off from Queenstown before ECT (evening civil twilight) but after SOPs (standard operating procedures, ie company regulations) because the CAA are out to get him and the judge hasn’t got a clue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dotcom

    ““some families do see funerals as a celebration”…Name one, fucktard”.

    Given that your psychotic response probably renders you as a poor barometer for what is ‘normal’, I’ll offer that our family does.

    We sorrow at the loss, but also seek to celebrate and affirm the life of the family member or friend who died.

    Many families do. Go out to a cemetery, see all the bright flowers, coloured windmills, and (in some cases) toys that mourners/celebrators leave. The model of Queen Victoria closeting herself away in black for 40 years at the death of her dear Albert has long been recognised as psychologically unhelpful. Part of the transition through the grief process can include an element of celebration. If that is “unacceptable” to your sub-cultural or cultural perspective…tough. That’s your problem, not mine.

    Judging by your intemperate posts, it seems your family’s way of mourning in death may not be much different from how it celebrates at a wedding…there is just one less drunk. Either way, whether you hit the bottle early today or not, don’t ever call me a fucktard.

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

    But … … name one, fucktard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    Good to encounter a sensible response. Also, my on-going gratitude for your patient giving of information when we shared a thread on Erebus a number of months ago. As I said then, I hope I am a much wiser man regarding what I previously thought was the excellent judgement of Justice Mahon.

    “One can make all the excuses under the Sun for people’s behaviour during stress and loss, give all sorts of explanations, but the only one that makes any sense to me is that David knew bloody well his father had killed no one”

    Umm, as stated, there is much in the Bain murders that confirms to my mind “David did it”. The funeral arrangements don’t. At best it is a matter of secondary importance that can take on a greater import IF you place it in the context of the other evidence.

    However, I don’t think, as ross69 seems to be citing it, that in and of itself it proves much.

    People do different and unusual things at times of loss. Call me a callous bastard, but for some reason I seem to automatically revert into a ‘que sera’ attitude. I did when my best friend died in tragic circumstances where someone else was responsible. I loved him dearly, but he’s gone, and me feeling bad or concerned about it is not going to change it. Part of me maybe wishes I reacted differently (and I do on little things). Interestingly his wife also externally seemed to take the same approach, including making a request not too much different from David Bain’s request to be given back his rifle. There’s nowt so queer as folks, especially in unusual circumstances…

    Just saying…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Dotty, old Bean I can well understand your frustration because I share it, but we must just wait developments. The Herald has taken this stance because it cannot see past process and systems. For the Herald this is not about innocence, it’s about the system being bad to Bain, specifically the police. Now the police may not have done a brilliant job, but there was enough evidence to convict Bain had the jury not wrongly concluded a conviction made no difference to anything any more.

    The Herald had the same trouble with the Anzac Day helicopter crash. Whatever deficiencies may reside within the Air Force, the final fatal decision was that of the pilot when, while overflying the sea, he turned towards high ground when he flew into cloud. Furthermore, when one flies at the limit of one’s skills, one is never safe, no matter how good the training, simply because the limit of one’s skill is changing with training. Sometimes you can never be good enough if you push the limits. The Herald just doesn’t get that. I know several people who are cancelling it. Pity really.

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

    This is a retard debate. No matter what you say there has to be one fucktard in the crowd. All sense of reason was lost … … well come to think of it, was never found to be lost.

    The debate is formulaic. Robin fans appeal to reason. Probainers come up with one wildly out of context and out of all sense of reality retort, and the circle starts again.

    What is the point? Where does it go? No-one wins. Each feeding each others fat egos. Where are the brains? Where is the commons sense?

    Is this the future of blogs? Does this reflect the future of human reasoning.

    Fuck I’m glad I spent the majority of my life in the 20th Century.

    I have never witnessed such utter craziness in my entire … …

    There always has to be one fucktard in the crowd… (and yes the utterly clever response to this will be thzt Dotcom is the fucktard. Oh haw amzingly clever you all are.)

    There is no reasoning here. You waste your time answering that crap to Kimbo. Do you really think you are going to change any single thing in Kimbo? Seriously. Utterly stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dotcom

    “But … … name one”

    I realise you are a thick bastard, but you also can’t read properly (little surprise).

    I did.

    “our family does”

    I also mentioned

    …”Go out to a cemetery, see all the bright flowers, coloured windmills, and (in some cases) toys that mourners/celebrators leave”.

    Now, do you want some crayons to copy that out with, or would that be a risky venture as you are likely to start eating them? Either way, I think Dotcom needs some time-out on the naughty chair, maybe writing out some lines like, “I must not be an obnoxious, inattentive, abusive, ignorant…fucktard”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Kimbo. I congratulate you on being the first person to succumb to my rationality, although I am working very hard on flipper, who seems very resistant to my charm, I must say. Wilful is the word.

    I am sorry about your friend, but was your friend shot by your father?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dotcom

    “I also had a part to play in the Truth article itself, through my corresponding with Cam Slater. I predict that I may as well have had a part to play in the follow up front page which might appear in next week’s The Truth. Fingers crossed. The Truth is the only newspaper with us at this stage, and Cameron Slater regularly and openly disses David Farrar, so Can Slater is probably not reading here. Maybe I’m wrong. I can only try my best.

    Like F E Smith was at pains to say on this blog thread repeatedly yesterday, and the unbearably arrogant Flipper turd. I’d hate to have either of these elitist lawyer pricks tell me that they told me so. I’m hoping to be able to tell them that I told them so. I’m working on it. But the odds are stacked against us. And politics is against us. And time is against us. And as far as David Bain goes, recent history is against us.

    I can’t do it on my own.”

    I Dunno. With all your self-adminstered praise and name-dropping, I would have thought someone who was such a legend in his own mind wouldn’t have any trouble at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Hon Dotcom
    Re note.
    Just a wind-up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    “I am sorry about your friend, but was your friend shot by your father?”

    No. Killed in a road accident. Granted not the same scenario. However the sudden loss, and the possibility of recriminations were dynamics in the play. But no, the person responsible was not known to the mourners, let alone an intimate like Robin.

    Look, I remember David Bain earlier this year being interviewed, and it is the same stuff with his dad. “I dunno why he did it…” within the context of a puff-ball interview where lots of folks were saying, “he seems so genuine”.

    Yes he does. But on this same site I posted then my misgivings at the time, and I’ll repeat them. David Bain is 22 when it happens, and lacks the capacity/research knowledge to understand how to assess what happens. Yeah..ok…at a stretch I can consider that plausible (and bear in mind the allegation of incest didn’t arise until late near the end of the first trial a year later).

    However, David Bain did have rather a LOT of spare time on his hands to do some research, and study his family dynamics with academic tools, not only to satisfy his own curiosity, and with the greater incentive that it may help get his arse out of prison, and yet even now…”I dunno” – even though he is the one person who was in an intimate position to know.

    Instead it is Mr Passive-Aggressive again, manipulating someone else (Joe Karam) to do the running for him.

    THAT to me confirms a pattern McNeish first high-lighted. So yes, the funeral arrangements are unusual, and do fit the pattern. But it is going too far to say (ross69 seemed to imply, and you stated), that it is the “only one that makes any sense” (although you did also specify “to me” – which is fair enough. That is your opinion, just as what I have stated is obviously mine).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Kimbo. Naturally, I am speaking within the context of the circumstances, I am not saying every person who behaved in this way has just killed his family.

    Personally, and I suspect none of us are as different from Bain as we might like to think, I would be totally devastated, bewildered and chanting obsessively: But why did he do it, why did he do it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    I am going to tell a little story about human nature and stress.

    A school dental nurse sent me a young girl to have some teeth extracted. I numbed the gum first and was about to give the injections when the mother, who was English, started crying. The patient was good and I started to remove the tooth. The father, from the middle east I guess, came into the surgery and promptly fainted.

    When it was all over, I put my hand on the kid’s shoulder and said: Now you be a good girl and take mummy and daddy home and look after them.

    Needless to say, I never saw any of them again, which was a great relief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    “For the Herald this is not about innocence, it’s about the system being bad to Bain, specifically the police. Now the police may not have done a brilliant job, but there was enough evidence to convict Bain had the jury not wrongly concluded a conviction made no difference to anything any more”.

    That’s a fair comment. Whether you admire or despise Joe Karam, he has been outstanding at packaging and framing a story that the media loves to run with – “the ‘system’ shafting the ‘little guy'”. Note to Dotcom if you want to sway public opinion, learn how to package it, rather than throwing your teddy out of the cot whenever the uncontrollable dynamic of free speech washes up on your door. Either that, or learn to look the other way. What person moans about the supposedly risible contents of a thread and carries on participating?!

    That type of story has been around since Sacco and Vanzetti, then the supposed doubts over Bruno Richard Hauptmann (Lindbergh baby kidnapping), Caryl Chessman, and Rubin “Hurricane” Carter (all of whom were almost certainly guilty). The media gets a double-bite, reporting on the evil threat at their trial (and think about how Peter Ellis, Scott Watson, Mark Lundy, and Ewen McDonald were all presented), but then they get a second, even longer running story to milk with the “innocent-man-wronged” saga.

    If you are worried about the Herald, or Joe Karam, or what is said in blogland swaying the official response, I’d say, ordinarily, possibly, yes. It can happen.

    But I rest reasonably secure in the knowledge that with the current Minister of Justice, proper process, rather than loud and emotive voices will determine the outcome.

    Mind you, like rust, Joe Karam never sleeps, and if the Crusher doesn’t make the recommendation for Bain’s compensation to cabinet, he’ll be around for another 20 years trying to pressure a MoJ who thinks he will. But then Peter Ellis, even now, hasn’t been successful (which to my mind is an injustice), so maybe the system is more robust than you think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    “But why did he do it, why did he do it?”

    Sorry, do you mean the unusual funeral arrangements, or the murders?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    …oh, I see, “why did he (Robin) do it?”

    Bugger, just when I was trying to disprove Dotcom’s thesis that I was a bit slow on the up-take. 🙂

    Yes, as I posted above, even though David Bain spent 13 years in prison, he never came up with anything. Just Dean Cottle (hah!) and Joe Karam doing the running for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Kimbo. I mean I would be numb and unable to function for some time, happy to leave the arrangements to others. I do venture David Bain would be the same, because he has dependent personality. Some people are very self-contained. We all tend to become so with age and experience, especially if life’s been tough. “What doesn’t break you makes you.”

    I should have been more guarded; said I assigned a high likelihood to that being the explanation rather than claiming it was the only explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Kimbo. Dotty’s okay he’s just feeling very frustrated. I cut my teeth on the silly anti-fluoridationists. I learned arguing with the alternative healthcare friggy-pooh cult that you have to accept they slither and slide through the undergrowth. That is why they never see the wood for the trees. And end up biting your arse if you let your guard down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    …yes, I do see your point.

    As I said, David Bain certainly spent 13 years in prison being very passive compared to, say, Scott Watson, or Peter Ellis, or even a relatively…how shall I phrase this?…slow individual like Arthur Alan Thomas. At least the last 10 years of that stint were under the watchful eye of Joe Karam, who has kept a tight control over what David Bain says in public contexts and especially for media consumption. Nevertheless, the picture that emerges of the persona of David Bain in pressure situations is that of a frozen deer caught in the head lights.

    Certainly the defence and Karam tried to argue that David Bain froze/blanked out when he first found Margaret’s (or was it after he found Stephen or Arawa second?) dead body, which led to the unaccounted for 20-25 minutes before he called 111 – again, another of the seemingly unlikely/unlucky coincidences/events that make up a preposterous string.

    Yet this burst of micro-managing activity at the funeral arrangements, especially given the harrowing circumstances, and the supposed murderer included amongst those being buried.

    I wouldn’t hang a man on that evidence alone, and I’m not sure I even agree with your “high likelihood”, but I’m happy with “suspicious in the circumstances”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    “I cut my teeth on the silly anti-fluoridationists”.

    You are too kind. You mean “cultists”.

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

    Alas, Dotcom, such are my limitations that I can make absolutely no sense of any of your comments. But feel free to post a couple a couple of POLICE blogs that might be more befitting my talents. Whatever they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Well Dennis you must have more than a few bites on the arse by now. I think from the time you lost your way with Robin’s fingerprints not being on the rifle you retired into generalities. Who could blame you. It’s far easier to talk in landscapes and the motives of the herald and so forth when the evidence keeps biting you on the arse, and safer as well. I’ve yet to hear a conclusive argument as to David’s guilt, not one that relies on correct facts and forensic evidence. 26 detectives search for 2 years to find it before the retrial and failed, because simply David isn’t guilty.

    Kimbo there’s comfort for the disaffected to talk about the funeral arrangements and so forth as though they have some meaning, but nothing about the funeral arrangements or burning down the house resolves the evidence that Robin suicided. It’s all smoke screens. You mentioned that David agreed through Guest to have the house burnt down. The relationship between Guest and David is not necessarily straight forward, however it remains the police and family wanted to burn the house down. They thought it was all over Rover, an echo of the police mistakes right from the beginning. To put a defendant in the loop of whether or not evidence should be destroyed is insane and I stick by the confusion David must have been going through at the time with an uncle visiting him and reporting the conversations to the police and no doubt asking questions at their behest. The police were responsible for the evidence end of story and they had not preserved it all by the time was burnt down. And that burning down, as bizarre as the paper run alibi, burnt down for fear that it would be burnt down.

    Though it remains David has proved his innocence on the BOP that line is drawn in the sand and I predict it will be impossible to erase because the evidence is clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Longknives (6,115 comments) says:

    “That type of story has been around since Sacco and Vanzetti, then the supposed doubts over Bruno Richard Hauptmann (Lindbergh baby kidnapping), Caryl Chessman, and Rubin “Hurricane” Carter (all of whom were almost certainly guilty).”

    It makes my blood boil when people who have watched that laughable Hurricane movie with Denzil Washington start spouting Hurricane Carter as an ‘inspiration’ and a ‘peaceful man’ etc etc
    Then you mention that the guy was a well known violent criminal- The response is usually something like ‘But they never mentioned that in the movie or the song’…

    http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/song.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    “You mentioned that David agreed through Guest to have the house burnt down. The relationship between Guest and David is not necessarily straight forward, however it remains the police and family wanted to burn the house down…”

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Translation: David Bain agreed that it was ok, and

    Implication: In any normal debate his defenders lose the right to run the, “if only they hadn’t, it could nave exonerated David, which is another example of the police incopetence” scenario,

    which, contrary to your denial, “nothing about the funeral arrangements or burning down the house resolves the evidence…”

    is negated when you come out with, “an echo of the police mistakes right from the beginning…The police were responsible for the evidence end of story and they had not preserved it all by the time was burnt down. And that burning down, as bizarre as the paper run alibi, burnt down for fear that it would be burnt down”.

    “To put a defendant in the loop of whether or not evidence should be destroyed is insane”.

    No, it is called keeping your client up-to-date. Isn’t it David Bain’s defenders narrative that Guest botched his defence? Watch out, you’re straying from the script!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Longknives

    “It makes my blood boil when people who have watched that laughable Hurricane movie with Denzil Washington start spouting Hurricane Carter as an ‘inspiration’ and a ‘peaceful man’ etc etc.”

    Yes. I loved it when Karam flew Carter out for propaganda purposes, and the paid-flunky Carter says, “as soon as I met him I could tell he didn’t do it”.

    Persuasive evidence from a persuasive expert. Yeah, right!

    Thankfully Judith Collins seems immune to such tricks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Haven’t detected any bites on the arse, or stinging rebukes. Haven’t even scratched my head. Maybe this will explain reality to you, perhaps you missed it during your afternoon nap.

    One push for compensation seems based on the supposition Bain cannot prove factual innocence because there is insufficient evidence. Convenient but false, there is evidence, although the system made a mess of it. The argument is reminiscent of Zeno’s Paradox.

    I set off for town and walk half way, stop for a rest. I then set off again, walk half way and stop, and so on, never reaching town. That this is absurd is calculus and common sense. Yet this is how the defence operates, claiming each piece of evidence against Bain never quite gets there. They may be right, but there’s more.

    Add up each incomplete piece and the picture may be fuzzy but it’s decidedly recognisable. That’s why few who think quantitatively think Robin Bain killed himself.

    Why do some people need to see the complete pieces before they see the incomplete picture? They don’t want to. That’s largely explained by the “nice” factor and Mr Binnie’s “normal”.

    Add it up: Your father kills your mother (and family) and leaves you to explain it. How would you feel and what would you say?

    David says: My core belief is I was not there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    ‘Keeping your client up to date.’

    No way, in this case it was asking a client’s consent for something to happen that he couldn’t possibly have understood the consequences of. But there was no need for haste anyway, all the crap about the house isn’t safe so let’s burn it down. But as I said it’s no really an issue now. Depending on which version from Guest you prefer as to David’s innocence or guilt you can see the relationship was deeply conflicted and potentially compromised.

    I don’t work to a script sunshine and you’ve had you two bobs worth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Stick with that stuff Dennis, don’t stray into the evidence.

    Binnie, Karam, Reed and the Law Lords think quantitatively which was demonstrated and applied to the Bain case. I know it might be hard but evidence is actually a neutral sum, that where quantitative reasoning is applied, not by starting as you have, along with your fellows, from a belief and rejecting all which opposes it. Fairly interesting old son but hardly complicated.

    Let me ask you again. Did you write that you went to the Perth conference, or was I mistaken? Secondly do you believe there
    was a strip search performed on David Bain by Dr Pryde commencing at 11am on the day of the crimes?

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

    Nostalgia-NZ Jan 3rd 10.44 pm Says: “The house was burnt down with David’s consent”

    Finally the truth …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Dennis Horne

    “That’s why few who think quantitatively think Robin Bain killed himself”.

    Not so sure I’d agree with “think quantitatively”. It is human nature for us to try and “squeeze” data into a pre-set schema, or take a selective view of it when it doesn’t fit what we think/want the the big picture to be. Case in point, Nostalgia-NZ, “Depending on which version from Guest you prefer as to David’s innocence or guilt you can see the relationship was deeply conflicted and potentially compromised”, yet he doesn’t seem to think David Bain (whom Guest told the judge and Prosecutor at the time of the first trial had lied under oath) has the same problem. Hmm, a bit of a cognitive disconnect.

    Inductive-deductive and back again is how the process works. I agree with your assessment that, “Add up each incomplete piece and the picture may be fuzzy but it’s decidedly recognisable.”. The big picture emerges from the data, and make sense of the data from the big picture, back and forth.

    But the Karam strategy is primarily to atomise (break all the individual bits up from one another so there is no ‘unusual pattern of unlikely coincidences’), or question the veracity of each and every piece.

    You are trying to lead Nostalgia-NZ somewhere where his volition has determined he will no go, no matter what facts you bring to the attention of his cognition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. I did not write I was at the Perth conference, I didn’t answer when you asked earlier because I thought it was just idle curiosity. I’m not on some sort of list, am I? I have no informed opinion on the problematic strip search. I would expect there to have been some kind of medical examination if there was a doctor present. Perfunctory or otherwise I have no idea. The doctor did discover a tattoo that David said he had done years ago whereas it was weeks. So how do you guys know when he’s telling the truth?

    The law lords were very much taken with the fact David said things that incriminated himself. So they decided that he told the truth? Sometimes or always?

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

    Kimbo (61) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 9:23 pm

    Which is why most commentators who understand that are calling for a Bayesian approach be used in the furthering of this claim. There cannot be anybody within our justice system who hasn’t already formed an opinion on this case. That system is unbiased and takes everything into account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    !Kimbo. I was constrained to 200 words although the Herald will not publish it anyway. Most people have very little idea of how to assess probabilities, nor can they address multi-factorial problems. The Robin-did-it scenario depends on a long list of improbabilities which must be multiplied.

    Reed showed that it was possible, with a bit of practice, to shoot yourself the way Robin did, and that was enough doubt for some jurors who could then ignore the preponderance of the evidence. The evidence was there for a conviction.

    Binnie says he did the job properly because if he hadn’t done the job properly he wouldn’t have said he’d done the job properly.

    Any idea how long the Privy Council spent on the case? Two hours maximum? (I’m retiring now.)

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

    What happened that morning is so obvious and staring you ALL in your face.

    The only things that remain are,

    1: Bain volunteers to go back to prison for 3 more years.

    2: We force Bain back to prison for 3 more years.

    3: We accept that Bain has been rehabililated.

    .
    🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Truthiz (87) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at’ 9:48 pm’

    I haven’t heard that you’ve sent those wee details on, feeling a little shy?

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

    I haven’t heard that you’ve sent those wee details on, feeling a little shy?

    Fearful of being held to account I would say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Dennis.

    I don’t blame you for retiring, things do get quite difficult on a lonely soap box.

    The ‘strip search’ is actually an idiot test. If you believe there was no strip search then it’s to the idiot box you go. If you do understand the facts of it there’s room for informed, logical and quantitative debate. I sort of like that word Dennis, ‘quantitative.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    What Kanz wouldn’t post earlier today re the age of those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands.
    Dempster. Determining the age of injuries either by by hand or by examination with the naked eye or microscopic examination is quite difficult.
    I can’t say whether it’s occured in the last hour or the last 24 hours.
    At the first trial Dempster said he thought those abrasions,which he said were insignificant,were over 18 hours old.
    So don’t believe Kanz’s bullshit when he says Dempster said they were under 12 hours old.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    There is no proof that David Bain was strip-searched. However I hope to have proof whether he was or he wasn’t early next week.

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

    muggins (847) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    Now you and I both know that is not true, but we can expect nothing less from you, can we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz is a bullshit artist par excellence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Be patient. I expect to hear it from the horses mouth early next week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Sorry,thought you were talking about the strip-search.
    Re those abrasions,you’ve got the transcript,prove me wrong.

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

    muggins (850) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 10:08 pm

    If you spent less time talking to horses, and more time looking at the evidence it is possible, (note I don’t say probable because who knows with you,) that you will finally start to understand you are on a hiding to nothing.

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

    Re those abrasions,you’ve got the transcript,prove me wrong.

    Better to watch you lying, knowing that you are. Simply want to see how long you will continue with the lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Mention the word idiot and look who happens along Kanz. What a coincidence.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,121) Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    You talkin’ ’bout me???? You’ll get a bit of what I offered muggins the other day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    idiot==kanz, the one who thought Joe Karam hadnt signed a 50/50 contract with David Bain for half of any proceeds, obviously, kanz was repeating what he had been told to say, or he thinks Joe was lying when he wrote that on page 20 of his book ‘david and goliath’

    but of course, we do know there were many mistakes (Joe’s own opinion) in that book…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Psycho Milt (3,099 comments) says:

    The ‘strip search’ is actually an idiot test.

    I’d class it more as an odd obsession you have. Presumably David Bain was strip-searched, although it’s not obvious why you place such absolute faith in the doctor having followed the process as laid down in the manual – after all, Weir et al had their own manual, featuring a process for investigating a homicide crime scene, and don’t seem to have followed it. I wouldn’t regard someone who doesn’t share your certainty about this as an idiot – at best you could regard them as overly sceptical.

    This story really does reflect on Binnie’s competence. As Guest points out, Bain’s admission is a damning one – and yet Binnie didn’t see fit to interview Guest or his colleague on Bain’s defence, on the basis that Bain claimed client confidentiality. Collins should bin his report on that basis alone, because Binnie had a job to do in this report: assess David Bain’s case for compensation on the grounds that he’s innocent on the balance of probabilities. And instead of doing that, Binnie sits there while Bain and Karam tell him that the defence lawyer in his first trial didn’t do his job properly and hey that stuff about the glasses is all bullshit, but, er, no you can’t go and ask that defence lawyer for his version of events because that would a breach of client confidentiality. To which, instead of telling Bain and Karam that if they want any chance of seeing the cash they’ll stop trying to screw him around, Binnie says Right you are guv’nor. That is astonishingly incompetent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Honeybadger begins to post at familiar times somehow confused that Kanz, like the rest of us, knows about the ‘fall back’ position when losing the evidence argument an implication that honeybadger thinks proves something. Perhaps it should be spelt out, like it was on CS and TM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Nothing to presume. Read the evidence psychomilt, stop guessing in order to continue embarrasing yourself. Like I said an idiot test.

    As for daydreaming about the Guest claim, Binnie accepted it so why would he need to talk to Guest. The police have had that information for nearly 20 years. Read the report a few times. Do some homework sunshine.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,123) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 7:42 am

    Can I ask you a few questions? Not personal but about the case.
    I will start anyway.
    Can the truth change?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Scott Chris (7,499 comments) says:

    there is much in the Bain murders that confirms to my mind “David did it”. The funeral arrangements don’t. At best it is a matter of secondary importance that can take on a greater import IF you place it in the context of the other evidence.

    Yeah true, but I’ve always found the fact that David wished to sing at his family’s funeral rather revealing. Fits the narcissistic psychological template. (though I do concede that I am predisposed to want to make it fit having been convinced beyond reasonable doubt of David Bain’s guilt by the more substantial evidence presented by the prosecution)

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

    Fits the narcissistic psychological template.

    Not according to those trained to recognise such conditions in their work on a daily basis, and have examined him. But what do they know, huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Sofia (960 comments) says:

    C K Stead [a writer and emeritus professor at the University of Auckland] explains why he is not surprised that Justice Minister Judith Collins ordered a review of the Binnie report on the Bain case –

    … there is nothing at all that can tie Robin to the murder weapon except that he was killed with it!

    … What kind of source is the accused for the truth of the matter in a case of murder?

    … In every case where the original police enquiry failed to preserve, or to look for, evidence … 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. There are certainly no grounds for saying, or implying, that these pieces of “lost evidence” lead one to the conclusion that David Bain is “factually innocent”.

    … 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
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857352

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

    So, C K Stead doesn’t think Robin the murderer should be labelled that? Tough, he did it, history can record it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    but nostalgia, history does not record that, it records that Robin’s life was unlawfully taken

    you will have to spell out what CS and TM are? I have an idea TM is trademe, but I dont go to that site at all, cs I have no idea

    I do like the balance that C K Stead has bought to the table, well done for bringing it in Sofia, makes for interesting reading this lovely morning

    and nostalgia, play the ball , not the player, seems to be a very nasty habit you have

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    sorry, kanz, it was you the first comment above should have been addressed too

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Chuck Bird (6,268 comments) says:

    I wonder if the latest Op Ed means a real change in the thinking at or if they will still cherry pick the comments they will allow.

    I think it fair enough if they reject comments like David is guilty as sin or the that he is a psychopathic killer. However, they should certainly allow comments like I believe he has not proved his innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    I will be commenting today. If anyone does not get a reasonable comment published please email me preferably with the comment.

    chuckbirdnz@gmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    You are presuming that David Bain was strip-searched. He may have been,but there again he may not have been.
    There is absoulutely nothing in the transcript that gives us a definitive answer. One witness who was questioned said he believed that Bain was thoroughly examined, but he wasn’t in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain so he can’t be sure.
    Dr Pryde is dead. He has never said he strip-searched David Bain. He made some notes on a diagram,but they don’t prove Bain was strip-searched.
    Three police officers were in the room when Pryde examined Bain. I have spoken to two of them. Bain was not strip-searched when they were in the room but they both left the room for a few minutes and he may have been strip-searched in their absence. I havn’t been able to contact the third police officer as yet,but hope to do so next week.
    This is part of what Karam wrote about that supposed strip-search in Trial by Ambush.
    “When Dr Pryde strip-searched David,DS Dunne and Constable Van Turnhout were present. They gave evidence at both trials. In particular,at the second trial,because Dr Pryde was dead by then and could not give evidence ,the opportunity was available for them to deny that the doctor had strip-searched David or,alternatively,to say the scratches were there but the doctor failed to record them on the diagram or note them on his examination form, They did neither.”
    I have now found out why they did neither. They were both out of the room for a few minutes so they couldn’t be sure whether Dr Pryde strip-searched Bain or not.
    And it seems strange to me that Karam would write that,if he was 100% sure that Bain was strip-searched.

    Of course the Davidbainites would want you to beleve that David Bain somehow got those scratches and/or bruises on his torso after Pryde carried out his examination. Neither they,nor David Bain, have ever been able explain how those marks came to be there. The obvious explanation is that Stephen Bain caused them. The clue is those fibres from the green jersey that the killer wore that were found under his fingernails. There were no marks on Robin Bain’s torso.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Good to see the NZ Herald showing some balance at long last.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    And I see Kanz still has not referred me to that part of the illegal copy of the transcript that he has where Dr Dempster said,according to him,that those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands were less than 12 hours old.
    Why am I not surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz
    No ,the truth that David Bain shot dead five members of his family can’t change. Suck it up.

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

    muggins (855) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 9:45 am

    How many cases has the defence put for what Bain did and saw that morning?

    Answer 1. They have ALWAYS maintained he got up, did his paper run, came home to find his family dead, and dialed 111

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

    How many have the police/prosecution had?
    Several.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Scott Chris

    “Yeah true, but I’ve always found the fact that David wished to sing at his family’s funeral rather revealing. Fits the narcissistic psychological template. (though I do concede that I am predisposed to want to make it fit having been convinced beyond reasonable doubt of David Bain’s guilt by the more substantial evidence presented by the prosecution)”.

    As do I. All of us fit the pieces to the big picture, and the big picture to the pieces. It is what we do when the two don’t fit that is the key point. Which is why, when fitting and discarding, as much as I share those same thoughts about Bain and the funeral arrangements, I’d prefer to suspend it, or put it in a category, “there is not THAT much weight to this (compared to a whole bunch of other stuff!) that makes it compelling for reinforcing the big picture”. As much as I agree with ross69’s and Dotcom’s (when he isn’t throwing a tantrum) overall assessment, I think they have got a bit too close and emotionally involved on that one issue.

    I also forgot to mention the other strategies that the defence and Karam have used (which are standard if you are going to chip away at a circumstantial case), besides

    1. atomising the evidence (isolating each piece so you don’t see the whole effect),

    2. attack each individual piece so the “whole picture” never gets to emerge.

    and they are

    3. attack the credibility, motives, and objectivity of the police who collected the evidence/formed the circumstantial case as they collected the evidence/supposedly went down a wrong trail collecting more evidence because they were fitting the pieces wrong in the first place, and so overlooked/missed the chance to collect other evidence that would have exonerated David. So when you confront Nostalgia-NZ with the fact that David Bain consented to the razing of the house, he rationalises that a. David couldn’t have made an informed decision in the circumstances, and b. Guest was also incompetent and is compromised (which conveniently also allows Nostalgia-NZ to discard this latest piece of troublesome evidence against David that is the glasses lens and resulting alleged perjury).

    4. Hold to one piece of evidence that supposedly “proves” David didn’t do it. In other words, the prosecution was built on a sine qua non, and, due to the “facts” since uncovered, that piece is now removed, and the whole edifice of the case against Bain crumbles.

    Interestingly, in light of Michael Guest’s correspondence with Binnie and Collins, the glasses lens in Stephen’s room was the FIRST such piece of evidence Bain supporters used to point to, long before Karam got involved, as it was supposedly “covered in dust”, and “found in a position in Stephen’s room that indicated it had been there for some time”.

    Other pieces of evidence that were supposedly going to “blow the case against David out of the water” have included the time the computer was turned on (there are plausible scenarios by which Robin could have turned it on, and David used that as a spontaneous opportunity to type the note), and the supposed blood from members of the family on Robin (which, like the destruction of the house and the “evidence that could have cleared David” is an argument from silence, and therefore weak, especially if you don’t think the big picture points to Robin). Incidentally, I am alarmed that a supposedly astute jurist like Binnie can just throw his hands up and decide, “yep, he should be compensated”, not on the evidence that is there, but because he bought into the jaundiced line, “but there could have been, if the cops hadn’t…”

    5. Move goal posts between reasonable doubt (which applied in the trials), balance of probabilities (which is more or less “common sense”), and “establishing innocence on the balance of probabilities as a minimum requirement” (which is the threshold for compensation, and whether you are applying that same rigour to David or Robin.

    I saw earlier in this thread some were disputing whether a establishing David’s innocence can be done without establishing Robin did it. Well, as the judge made the point in the first trial, the two are linked. One of the two of ’em did it. Establish within the scope of reasonable doubt that Robin MAY have done it (as didn’t happen with the first trial, but certainly did with the second – that was the narrative the defence ran with!) and that is the flip side of the verdict re David. YCommon sense/balance of probabilities is determined by how you fit the pieces together, But to establish innocence, by implication David has to PROVE Robin did it. Or at least we should be able to see it, clear as day.

    Instead there is still this circumstantial tapestry of unusual and unlucky coincidences and unusual behaviour by David in the context (funeral arrangements, supposed premonitions of doom, etc.) that is pieced togther from the individual pieces, that give context to one another. As Bryan Bruce astutely questioned, “What PHYSICAL evidence is there to connect Robin Bain to the murders” (answer: NONE!). Because David Bain’s team can’t do it, they arbitrarily move the type of the three tests (reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities, establishing innocence) between Robin or David. Is pure smole and mirrors.

    For example, the same folks who are insistent it is sooooo hard to pin David on any of the physical evidence, are very willing to throw out that “reasonable doubt” test when trumpeting the alleged “fact” of Robin’s molestation of Laniet. And round and round it goes, shifting goal posts/measuring tools between the two. Look at what Karam and Reed have run since the acquittal. It has basically been “David was found ‘not guilty’ (where according to one of the jurors he received the full benefit of the weight in his favour of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, and he never bothered, as was his right, to take the stand, and if Robin had been alive and accused in court he would have a had a lawyer to plead reasonable doubt in his defence),

    …therefore he should be compensated (where an entirely different test is applied). That Is nonsense.

    And that is basically what is happening on this thread. Variations on those 5 arguments, and back and forth from the big picture to the little pieces, and the little pieces into the big picture that one has already adopted. And when others don’t agree, some folks try to force others to their point of view and when it doesn’t happen losing their temper, or scoffing at one another, or challenging others with, “answer me this…”, or using sweeping statements re guilt or innocence, or soothsayers predictions of the certainty of what will be….

    But it is good to dialogue with thoughtful posters like you, and Dennis Horne, and ross69 (when he isn’t too close to the action, and letting silly people get the better of him).

    My assessment: Not a cent of tax-payer money to compensate David Bain, or at least not on Karam and Binnie’s faulty reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Poor old Mr Stead is upset that Binnie accepted the ‘defence’ expert Walsh’s testimony on the footprint evidence. Well hello Karl, he was a prosecution witness. Gets a bit boring after that, forgets that Manlove’s evidence showed that armourer’s claims about ‘poli-light’ were deliberately false to ‘help’ the Jury understand that gun oil was actually blood. Transverses the funeral arrangements and asks the familiar ‘why’ questions in terms of Robin’s behaviour – silly chap should have read the Privy Council report. Most of all and more to the point of this thread, completely misses the bus that despite criticism of his interviewing style under oath rejected that David wasn’t wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend, something I don’t agree with, but exactly the position Binnie took.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    I notice the mantra continues no injuries to Robin, no blood on his hands, no footprint evidence, weak and frail, full bladder, yet the first three of these are forensic proof of his guilt and the upward trajectory shot and his blood found deep inside the barrel conclusive proof. But let’s talk about the funeral, yawn. Or the strip search that ‘didn’t’ happen, yawn – but wait Pryde might have filled out a form, and it ‘might’ be an exhibit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (470 comments) says:

    A very well though out and written post Kimbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (470 comments) says:

    A very well thought out and written post Kimbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (470 comments) says:

    Darn, no edit .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Psycho Milt (3,099 comments) says:

    As for daydreaming about the Guest claim, Binnie accepted it so why would he need to talk to Guest. The police have had that information for nearly 20 years. Read the report a few times. Do some homework sunshine.

    “Why would he need to talk to Guest?” Seriously? How about “Because the claim for compensation is partly based on allegations of incompetence against Guest?” Or “Because according to Guest, David Bain deliberately lied under oath about evidence that implicates him?” David Bain seemed to feel those broken glasses were so indicative of his guilt that he had to lie about them, but Binnie airily dismisses that as insignificant – Collins should be demanding a refund.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Psycho Milt (3,099 comments) says:

    You are presuming that David Bain was strip-searched. He may have been,but there again he may not have been.

    Well, yeah. It’s possible that he wasn’t, but highly unlikely I would have thought. I just don’t see the point of Nostalgia-NZ’s bizarre obsession with whether the guy was strip-searched or not.

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

    How about “Because the claim for compensation is partly based on allegations of incompetence against Guest?”

    Familiarise yourself with Binnie’s report before making such outrageous claims.
    He refused to entertain any complaint of the first defence simply because Guest didn’t have the right of reply.
    You will need something better to hang your hat on than that.

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

    I just don’t see the point of Nostalgia-NZ’s bizarre obsession with whether the guy was strip-searched or not.

    That obsession sits squarely on muggins shoulder. To the point he claims to have rung several police from the case to find out whether or not it occurred.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, how ‘deep’ inside the barrel? can you give a guestimate? or do you have difinitive proof of the depth? just wondering

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Scott Chris (7,499 comments) says:

    Other pieces of evidence that were supposedly going to “blow the case against David out of the water” have included the time the computer was turned on (there are plausible scenarios by which Robin could have turned it on, and David used that as a spontaneous opportunity to type the note)

    Yes, I think this is a likely scenario. The ‘note’ appears to be hastily and impulsively composed, (not to mention the unusual use of the past tense given the purported context) once again yeilding an insight into the distorted, self-justifying cognitive processes a psychopath.

    To their credit, Karam and Reed are masters of obfuscation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Psycho Milt (3,099 comments) says:

    He refused to entertain any complaint of the first defence simply because Guest didn’t have the right of reply.

    Sure. He interviewed Bain and Karam at length, heard everything they had to allege about what Guest should or shouldn’t have done at the first trial, but had no need to fear that those opinions might influence him because he’s resolutely impervious to the frailties affecting lesser humans. Or something. He also sat through their obfuscations about Guest’s evidence that Bain lied under oath at his first trial and decided that really there was no need to follow any of that up with Guest, because after all David Bain is a credible witness and the broken glasses aren’t important anyway (even though they were apparently important enough for David Bain to be willing to perjure himself to avoid being connected with them).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt of course he had a strip search and intimate swabs taken: clearly showing, as it should have been that he was a suspect that first morning. But police deny that. The most important factor though is the strip search, right down to recording scars, a piece of flesh missing from one leg, tattoos, proves that David didn’t have scratch marks on his chest, a lie which has been used against him, and continues to be by a solo voice but no longer his contemporaries who’ve realised the bs won’t fill the gaps in the narrative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    I’ve never read that Karam was interviewed psycho-milt. As for the glasses, how far do you expect a person to co-operate in being framed? The police were lying about who owned the glasses for a very good reason, get that right before criticising the defence case. The police actually buried that evidence and made the glasses ownership a credibility all the while knowing their assertion was false.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    I see the poster with a bullshit degree is still perpetrating the myth that there was blood found deep in the barrel.
    And that the trajectory of the shot to Robin Bain’s head means that he must have committed suicide.
    And that Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain when there is no proof that he did.
    And that the sockprint evidence was conclusive when it most certainly wasn’t.
    And that the fact Robin Bain had smears of blood on his hands somehow links him to the murders.
    He is getting more desperate by the minute,and we all know why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Deep enough to have passed through the suppressor.

    Scott Chris: the suicide note another old faithful, at least you’ve learnt that David didn’t turn the computer on, another plank crashing to the ground. I’ve read that the grammar was absolutely correct, not that it makes any difference to me if you’ll just explain how that blood wash got on Robin’s palms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ Kanz

    “”How about “Because the claim for compensation is partly based on allegations of incompetence against Guest?”

    Familiarise yourself with Binnie’s report before making such outrageous claims”.

    No, Kanz, you need to familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word, “claim”. Binnie didn’t make the claim. Karam, Reed, and Bain did. Binnie simply heard it.

    And while Karam, Reed and Bain may not have FORMALLY stated it, they have implied incompetence against Guest, and even worse, certainly in the light of his latest foray into the Bain saga.

    Also, “Binnie…refused to entertain any complaint of the first defence simply because Guest didn’t have the right of reply”.

    Which is an irrelevancy, because I am not talking about what Binnie thought about Guest’s competence, but rtaher, as you have confirmed, someone was making the complaint or implying Guest was incompetent.

    But now that you’ve introduced the matter of Binnie dealings with Guest, that is a good point to consider the pious legal nonsense that was Binnie’s judgement over legal privilege. Which according to Guest was a nonsense, as he explained in his letter to Judith Collins on 21 December 2011, “Trenchant and continual criticism of me by the Bain team surely waived privilege from the early stages. There is common law authority to that effect”. And also, David Bain is no longer on trial. The “not guilty” verdict has been established and cannot be overturned. Instead, Binnie’s “mandate (was) to express an opinion about whether or not…David Bain is FACTUALLY (my emphasis) innocent of the five killings”.

    How can you determine the facts unless you hear from his first defence lawyer who, of his own volition is coming forward and saying, “I’ve got something important to tell you to the furtherance of you fulfilling your mandate”.

    Like I said before, the time for testing for “reasonable doubt”, and attendant safeguards such as “legal privilege” is over. Instead, if we are to “establish innocence on the balance of probabilities as a minimum requirement” ALL the facts need to come to the light.

    That Binnie couldn’t even work out he was no longer in a court room, and even if he was, legal privilege didn’t apply, just confirms how incompetent his judgement was.

    So no, I’m very happy with where I’ve hung my hat in regards to the Bain team’s attacks on Michael Guest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Look nannies back, must be on a toll call ban.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Psycho Milt (3,099 comments) says:

    As for the glasses, how far do you expect a person to co-operate in being framed?

    Nice conspiracy theory you have going there. As for the glasses: Bain tells Guest he was wearing the glasses that weekend. Bain tells the court he wasn’t. He also tells Binnie he wasn’t – possibly because, if he was wearing them that weekend he’s got a hell of a job on his hands to explain the state they were found in on the morning of the murders. Or possibly because it’s the truth and Guest is lying as part of the conspiracy to frame David Bain. Gee, there’s that balance of probabilities thing again…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Scott Chris (7,499 comments) says:

    not that it makes any difference to me if you’ll just explain how that blood wash got on Robin’s palms.

    Nostalgia, it’s simple. Quite possibly, as Robin was confronted with the wrong end of the barrel of a gun he instinctively threw his hands up, palms facing him, which were then lightly spattered with his own blood as the bullet impacted. When he fell a couple of the spots smeared.

    Now tell me why this isn’t a reasonable and logical explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    correction to above – Guest’s letter to Collins was 21 December 2012, not 2011

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. thedavincimode (8,034 comments) says:

    Now tell me why this isn’t a reasonable and logical explanation

    Relevance of reasonable and logical explanations?

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

    Dear, oh Dear ….
    C. K. Stead disagrees with Binnie and Palmer. So what.

    Should the Herald devote oodles of space of the views of a geriatric writer of fiction? Should it not, publish in full the Binnie, Fisher, and Binnie on Binnie reports, before turning to a McNeish-like clone in Stead?

    The fact that the octogenarian, left wing, Stead has totally misunderstood what the Privy Council said about Crown “evidence”, and their experience-based, considered opinion, not to mention Binnie’s pulverisation of Fisher, seems to indicate that Mr Stead (like many other KB contributors here) neither read the PC, nor Binnie on Fisher, and has failed, in his ineptitude (but self-admitted lack of expertise in law), to grasp the totality of Binnie’s report.

    Before the nay-sayers embark on another silly exercise in delusion, let me reiterate my personal position (especially for the benefit of idiots like Doltcom, Horne et al).

    DISCLAIMER:

    • I do not know David Bain
    • I have never met him
    • I do not know Karam, or Reed and have never met them.
    • I do NOT KNOW whether Basin is innocent or guilty of the crimes with which he was tried (properly, not the mistrial and MoJ) and found NOT GUILTY..
    • I do not believe the State should improperly use its powers to persecute any individual.
    • I do not rely upon my “qualifications, experience,” or any other matter. I have reached my position, to use that currently much defamed (and ignored) phrase, on the “balance of probabilities”, and due process.

    • Due process should prevail above all else in determining the outcome of discussion on Bain.

    Having, I hope, made my starting point clear, I have arrived at my view thus:

    1. Bain was found guilty of murder
    2. Eventually, when the case was allowed to reach the Privy Council, the Judicial Committee of the PC says Bain suffered a “substantial miscarriage of justice, on five specific, non-technical grounds”.
    3. The Privy Council, comprising five (5) independent law lords, including at least one described as being the greatest in memory (whatever that means), gave NZ authorities a nudge and a wink suggesting no retrial.
    4. NZ authorities press for and undertake re-trial
    5. Bain was found not guilty (forget about the beyond a reasonable doubt crap). Not guilty by a jury means not guilty in law. No Ifs, no buts, no maybes. Period.
    6. The retrial was largely ( I suspect) driven by the Crown being unable to present as they did in the mistrial, the five areas where the PC said there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice.
    7. Ergo, Bain was unjustly incarcerated for 13 years and suffered in other ways (financial depredation, for one)
    8. The then Min of J, Power, presumably with an OK from Cabinet appoints Binnie to answer the question: is he (Bain) innocent on the balance of probabilities?
    9. Binnie says “Yes” and that compensation should be paid. (NOTE: Not innocent beyond a reasonable doubt t. Innocent, by the civil standard of, the balance of probabilities.
    10. The argument as to whether Binnie exceeded his brief is a smoke screen, a diversion, and a crazy attempt by Collins to defend a broken prosecution / judicial system.
    11. Every day that Collins/Cabinet/Caucus/ National/Us (I am proudly a NP member and an Electorate Executive member, but like all NP, members have an ability to speak for myself) , shilly shally around , adds a day of infamy to our political/judicial system.
    12. It is time the issue was put to bed a la A. A. Thomas.
    13. All that is required is for John Key to show that he has the same intestinal fortitude as R.D. Muldoon.
    14. Then….let us all turn to Peter Ellis. 🙂

    And now I plan to enjoy a wonderfully sunny Saturday and allow the brain freaks to dig beneath their nadir.

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

    Correction
    2nd Para above”
    “Binnie on Fisher”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    nostalgia, but of course, you have ‘proof’ of the depth somewhere? or is that just a guestimate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ flipper

    Despite playing the man and not the ball in the first half of your post, and after wading tjhrough your disclaimer, and from the point where you wrote, “I have arrived at my view thus…”, I followed your train of thought, and you were building well, until…

    “6. the retrial was largely ( I suspect) driven by the Crown being unable to present as they did in the mistrial, the five areas where the PC said there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice 7. Ergo, Bain was unjustly incarcerated for 13 years and suffered in other ways…”

    “I suspect” is not a launching bad for “ergo”. Call Stead geriatric all you want. At least he can follow through with a consistent and logical train of thought.

    And whether Stead read what the Privy Council had to say is irrelevant. They were ruling in regards to the legal process. They made the point that a JURY had to make a decison regarding “facts” which determine guilty or not guilty – something which obviously the PC declined to do.

    But now we are beyond the point of weighing by “beyond reasonable doubt”, and on to weihing by “establishing innocence. They are different standards, with different tests, and different methods – as evidenced by the fact David Bain got to have his say to Binnie, rather than declining to testify as at the second trial. Stead therefore weighed the facts as he sees them (which the Privy refused to do!). Which means the initial premise of your flawed thread is wrong as well.

    Enjoy your Saturday.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ flipper

    “Due process should prevail above all else in determining the outcome of discussion on Bain”.

    No it shouldn’t (although it plays a part in the determination process), or at least is doesn’t if the DISCUSSION is concerning Bain’s claim for COMPENSATION, unless you get to magically erase and replace the original terms of reference for the Binnie inquiry, which are the same terms which also bind cabinet in respective of any compensation pay-out: –

    “establish innocence on the balance of probabilities as a minimum requirement”.

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

    Kimbo re 9:49 excellent post.

    I am one who advocates that to claim innocence David has to prove to the interviwer/s that Robin is guilty of both murder and suicide a massive hurdle.

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

    Kimbo…

    Agree on ad hominem …. But Stead has lived on it, engaged in it, all his political life. 🙂

    Withdraw “suspect.” No substitution necessary, Kimbo.

    The Privy Council said much more, in relation to the totality of the Crown’s case, than simply that the COA should not “act” as a jury. And let us not forget the PC admission by Collins (now J.) on luminol and foot prints ,which destroyed the Crown’s case.

    My 7 above relates to 5 not 6. (My minor ordering error, as a re-read will establish. 🙂 )

    Due process?

    Without it all fails under our system. It would have failed Thomas had it not been for Williams, Gordon, Johnston, and Muldoon. And, I might add, eventually, Jim McLay.
    Stet. 🙂

    Say Kimbo,
    Can you point me to the Statute that sets out the Cabinet procedure for compensation following unjustified incarceration? On the recommendation of Graham the then Cabinet decided not to accept the LC recommendation. A Cabinet policy was adopted. But it has no standing in statute law, does it? Neither do related Cabinet minutes, do they? We are talking here about Cabinet “policy”:, nothing more, are we not? 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    nostalgia, but how far in depth?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ flipper

    “Due process?

    Without it all fails under our system”.

    Agreed. But when it comes to determining if Bain has established his innocence (not just ‘not guilty’ with the benefit of reasonable doubt), you rewind to the morning of 21 June 1994, establish and interpret the facts and likely probabilities that can be established existed then, and ignore the “due process” that came after.

    Once you’ve done that, you decide if David Bain has established his innocence/established Robin’s guilt on the balance of probabilities at a minimum.

    I’m not making the rules that cabinet has to follow. Just reporting them.

    If this is about changing the cabinet manual, so that a person who is subsequently found ‘not guilty’ at a second trial, or has their conviction quashed as a result of an appeal, should AUTOMATICALLY receive compensation, then debate that. But don’t confuse that argument two with the Bain compensation claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Kimbo (5,785 comments) says:

    @ flipper

    “Without it all fails under our system. It would have failed Thomas had it not been for Williams, Gordon, Johnston, and Muldoon. And, I might add, eventually, Jim McLay”.

    Hmm. A false analogy. With Thomas there was one clear piece of evidence (the cartridge case, which Sprott established beyond any but the most unreasonable doubt) could not have got there other than by being planted.

    Other than the axle (which, once the planted cartridge case was in the play, also became suspect), there was NO physical evidence to link Thomas to the Crewe murders, let alone put him at the scene.

    Also they didn’t have a 3rd Thomas trial so a jury could hear the new evidence (which the PC in the Bain appeal determined is the domain of a jury). Instead, the Crown exercised its prerogative by pardoning Thomas (something David Bain has never been granted) because a palpable miscarriage of justice due to the one incontrovertible piece of evidence had occurred. Thomas may have done it (and other than a few die-hards, no one now thinks he did), but on the basis of the facts that were now clear, there is no way Thomas should have even been charged in the first place. The cartridge case was a sine qua non.

    They then paid Thomas compensation ex gratia, and THEN held a subsequent inquiry to determine, on the balance of probabilities how the cartridge case came to be in the Crewe’s garden (amongst other things, but THAT was the primary issue). Answer: It was deliberately planted by someone whom, due to the passage of time, and despite our suspicions, we are unlikely to ever convict for perverting the course of justice, as that person(s)y would get the benefit of any reasonable doubt it they were ever charged and tried.

    A very different scenario from David Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    so so very different kimbo, neer the twain shall meet

    I wonder, if Michael Guest has ever thought of writing a book? ‘fiction’ of course….

    Come on nostalgia, how deep in the ‘barrel’ was the blood? or perhaps just in the silencer, maybe..

    I bet there are a few people who wish they had never seen a gun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (4,693) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 11:27 am

    Shows your difficulties with this case Scott Chris, the word is ‘smear’ what came out of Robin’s wound was spatter. So he got that blood from somewhere else in the house that morning, wiped his own blood all over that towel in the laundry as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    As deep as a fatladdiecat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (884) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 11:23 am

    So now you’re defending ‘an actual miscarriage of Justice’ as not resulting in somebody being framed by planted or hidden evidence. There was a wealth of evidence hidden in the first trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Psycho Milt (3,099 comments) says:

    I don’t think either the Privy Council or Ian Binnie has suggested David Bain was framed. As for “hidden” evidence, there was evidence “hidden” from the second trial as well, at the request of the defence – maybe Bain should pay the Crown compensation out of the compensation it pays him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    Re blood on Robin Bain’s hands.
    He threw his left hand up and got blood spatter on it which smeared when his hand hit the carpet.
    You know it makes sense,I know it makes sense.
    But try telling that to the Davidbainites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    There was blood in the barrel of the silencer.
    One phone call will confirm that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    All the Law Lords of the Privy Council said was that a jury should hear all the new evidence.
    They said they wished to make it clear that it’s decision imports no view whatsoever on the proper outcome of a retrial. Determination of guilt is not the task of the appellate courts.
    They said that Bain must remain in custody until a retrial is ordered.
    Amongst other things they said that David’s account was that he arrived home at around 6.42-6.43am.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    What do you think a MOJ is then Psycho Milt, a normal event in policing? At least you understand there was a strip search, we can move you up a class. I bet you’re relieved because there’ll be no hogging phone and getting hung up on.

    So now spatter is smears is bloodwash. I thought people only threw hands up when they got shot in cowboy movies, somebody is on the wrong channel. Really helping out the Crown case though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Isn’t it amazing how Robin Bain managed to wash his hands and yet still leave some blood on them. Anyone who believes that must live in cloud cuckoo land,
    And where is the evidence that says that David Bain was strip-searched?
    I know he says he was, but who can believe anything he says?

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

    Is there any reference background as to how the Muldoon cabinet handled the Arthur Thomas compensation case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Scott1 (950 comments) says:

    like this?

    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/r.christie/thomas_royal_commission_1980.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    what on earth is a fatcat, and how does that equate to depth of blood in a silencer?

    if you dont know nostalgia, just say so, stop beating around the bush, for heavens sake!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    Muggins, I admire the way Robin was able to wash his hands that morning (apparently) but still able to leave dirt on them from the day before, pretty clever of him really

    STILL waiting for nostalgia to define the depth of blood in the silencer….should I hold my breath? both nostalgia and kanz go quiet when they are asked something persistently but they cannot answer unless it is with a lie…. ie, the 50/50 contract Joe Karam has with David Bain over any proceeds

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Blood in barrel, get something right will you. You are starting to badger people, in fact you’ve done it since you came here, old habit’s die hard.

    Is there an idiot here that despite all his other fantasies believes there was no blood on his idol’s palms? What do you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    One poster here believes that only rifles have barrels. I am here to inform him that silencers have barrels too.
    But I agree that Robin Bain had smears of blood on his left hand which could well have gotten there when the blood spatter on his hand smeared when his left hand hit the floor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Drrh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    blood in barrel? how deep? you keep saying ‘deep in the barrel’, so I am asking, again, please define the depth, otherwise I will just decide you are like kanz, and use abuse when you cannot answer a simple question, ie, the 50/50 contract, which he has never accepted, he cant have read Joe’s book yet, or thinks Joe was lying…

    and I see the penny has dropped, badger by name, badger by nature

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

    In what way does it matter how deep in the barrel the blood was? It was inside the barrel. It can only get there from a contact wound shot. It can only have gotten there from the last shot.
    Once again we would all know exactly where the blood was, and whose blood it was if Hentschell had known how to do his job, and if he had done his job properly. There was so very much that he cocked up.

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

    It matters;

    because Nostalgia says Robine blood DNA is way deep down the barrel of the gun ….

    this is absurd.

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

    Robins*

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

    Truthiz (89) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    Blood definitely was inside the barrel, what is absurd about saying that? We will never know how deep it went because Hentschell didn’t know how to or didn’t do his job. That is the absurd part about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Don’t be devious. A Davidbainite has been saying for yonks that there was blood deep in the barrel. There is no way he would know that. It is a myth perpetrated by a myth perpetrator.
    But if it was Robin Bain’s blood,and we don’t even know that it was,then it got there because he was shot at close range,not because he committed suicide.
    And Hentschel did do his job. He found smears of blood inside the barrel. He didn’t have to say how deep they were. The blood was probably just inside the barrel.

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

    muggins (868) Says:
    January 5th, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    It is you who is obfuscating (now there is a new word you can use over and over again). Hentschels case notes said “he found blood inside the barrel of the rifle” that is, the rifle not the silencer. Did he get yet another thing wrong, or is his memory fading?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Just for slow learners, how about deeper than the length of the suppressor.
    Please enjoy your headaches.

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

    Please enjoy your headaches.

    Well they do have a bitter pill coming their way, so that may help with the headaches, although one suspects it will actually turn their stomachs.

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

    Three choices …

    1: Bain volunteers to go back to jail.

    2: We force Bain to go back to jail

    3: We accept that Bain is rehabilitated.

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

    only three more years …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    truthiz

    Cat still got your tongue, or a gutless wonder after all. I’d say the later.

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

    Cat still got your tongue, or a gutless wonder after all. I’d say the later.

    Gutless wonder? Looks more like a chicken shit wanker to me. Makes the rest of us look awesome in comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    Kanz (404) Says:

    January 5th, 2013 at 9:01 pm
    Once again we would all know exactly where the blood was, and whose blood it was if Hentschell had known how to do his job, and if he had done his job properly. There was so very much that he cocked up.

    so! there it is, you dont know where the blood was! at last, someone not scared of telling the truth! about time, thank you kanz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    Kanz (404) Says:

    January 5th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
    Cat still got your tongue, or a gutless wonder after all. I’d say the later.

    Gutless wonder? Looks more like a chicken shit wanker to me. Makes the rest of us look awesome in comparison.

    hm, we all know how looks can be deceiving

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

    Honeybadger (54) Says:

    I said “exactly”, what do you not understand about that. Hentschel wrote in his case notes when he found it that it was “in the barrel of the rifle” he did not say inside the silencer, suppressor or whatever else. In the barrel of the rifle is clear, is it not? However long the silencer was (I don’t know for sure) the blood had traveled beyond that. Of course, that could be challenged if Hentschel were now to say “Bugger, put yet another mistake down to me, I got it wrong again”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    BUT kanz, you said yourself ”Once again we would all know exactly where the blood was, and whose blood it was if Hentschell had known how to do his job,”

    so? please explain, ‘exactly’

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

    Judith: I’m sorry, but you’re wrong-the Clarks aren’t elderly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Dennis Horne (4,017 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 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Those case notes. Could you post them,please.
    According to your illegal copy of the retrial transcript those case notes record that blood was found on the silencer,extensive smearing and traces of blood were found inside the barrel,positive. The word rifle is not mentioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. muggins (5,050 comments) says:

    Maxine
    Judith appears to have flown the coop.
    I don’t believe we have heard from her since I posted her message where she said she believed David was telling the truth when he said he saw Mark Buckley having sexual relations with a goat. I reckon she is about the only person in New Zealand who believes that story.
    Maybe she is hanging her head in shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    tails between legs time?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    Could Robin Bain have got blood on his hands from somewhere inside or outside the house on Sunday, then wiped his hands all over the towel that was found in the laundry?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Psycho Milt (3,099 comments) says:

    In terms of probability, Occam’s Razor suggests his blood was on the towel in the laundry because the bloke who shot him at very close range had some blood splatter to clean off the hand nearest the shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Robin changed to be clean but did not scrub his hands clean. “Cleanliness is next to godliness.”

    Did he change his underpants?

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

    There is no evidence that Robin changed clothes…I mean, he was wearing a beanie and tracksuit pants and top, something which he presumably wouldn’t have worn to school let alone to meet his maker. In all likelihood, he did what he normally did on that fateful morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    I dont know if anyone here listens to the radio at night, but I put one on late last night as I was working, and it was all about Bain, most of the callers seemed to think he is guilty, only a mattering (three I counted) thought it was Robin. I dont know who the host was, but I would listen to him again, very balanced

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    mattering? smattering, sorry

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Chuck Bird (6,268 comments) says:

    Honey, was it NewstalkZB?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Sofia (960 comments) says:

    It was Cam Slater, NewstalkZB

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Chuck Bird (6,268 comments) says:

    I see the Herald has changes it mind on accepting comments for the Op Ed “CK Stead: Why judge was wrong on Bain”

    Maybe that is because the public are changing their view about poor David.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    Yes, Chuck, it was newstalk zb. I didnt realise it was Cam Slater though Sofia, thanks for filling in that gap for me

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

    Robin changed to be clean but did not scrub his hands clean. “Cleanliness is next to godliness.”

    Did he change his underpants?

    He was wearing no underpants when he shot himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    tsk, kanz….
    by the way Kanz, what do you make of the fact, that David admitted wearing the glasses on the evening before the murders, and the fact one lens and the bent frame was found in his room on the morning he called the police, but the other lens was found in the room of his murdered brother, he admitted this fact to Michael Guest and Michaels co counsel beofre he testified, and then he told a blatant lie on the stand, perjury to say the least dont you think?

    no evidence to say Robin shot himself, but enormous forensic evidence to show he was murdered, and that is what his death certificate says, ‘life unlawfully taken’

    David Bain will not receive compensation, not only has he lied in court, he has also lied to Binnie re those glasses, shame David, shame

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

    Good god, another person who likes to stretch the truth beyond all proportions!

    Honeybadger, according to Guest, David admitted to wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses, he NEVER admitted to “and the fact one lens and the bent frame was found in his room on the morning he called the police, but the other lens was found in the room of his murdered brother”.

    Now, perhaps you’d like to prove, firstly that the conversation with Guest ever occurred, because clearly his is a man with questionable standards (proven), and secondly, that if the conversation did happen, that David was informed exactly which pair of the two possible pairs, Guest was talking about ? Hmmmm? Will wait on that one, because even Guest hasn’t said he specified which pair.

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

    Dennis Horne (240) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 7:09 am

    Changing clothes, covered in blood is obvious, the permeated pores would not have been in the poor lighting, and therefore his hands were probably only rinsed under the tap. (The police needed to bring in extra lighting to be able to see. Robin didn’t like paying power bills, and used to make sure all the bulbs were low wattage).

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

    I appear to have been missed, and no I was not anywhere with my tail between my legs, but I’m sure you would all like to know exactly what I’ve been doing, and all going well, within about 23 days or so, you will 🙂

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

    Guest is a disgrace. Hardly new evidence this is been known for 18 years.
    Oh thats right MG was the idiot lawyer who tried to get David to plead guilty to automisation or insanity in 1995, he conceded vital evidence of Hentschell (shown in 2009) to be totally false and tried to innocently explain critical evidence shown to be demonstratly false Jones, Weir etc. He has since been struck of for lying to a client. Joe Karams latest interview summed him up pretty well

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

    Actually Rowan, Guest is permitted to practise law. Obviously you’re ok with David perjuring himself. But you still haven’t explained why an innocent person would do that. It makes you think, eh.

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

    Ross, Guest has both a personal and financial incentive for doing what has. That can be a big motivator for someone who has much ground to make up regarding his integrity. Strangely enough, his peers in general are appalled by this current episode. It appears rather than gain lost respect, he has slid further down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    oooooooh, twist twist twist

    David admitted to Michael Guest, and his co counsel that he was wearing THOSE glasses the night before the murders, those glasses Judith, remember the ones? the ones where the frame and ONE lens was in his room that morning and he asked for those glasses, the other lens was found in his murdered brother’s room. Now you can twist those FACTS as much as you like, spin spin spin all you want, but you cannot get away from the FACT he asked for those glasses, perjury much?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    Ross, they dont think, that is the problem…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Right time of day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    ‘Psycho Milt (916) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 6:37 am
    In terms of probability, Occam’s Razor suggests his blood was on the towel in the laundry because the bloke who shot him at very close range had some blood splatter to clean off the hand nearest the shot.’

    You put a lot of faith in Michael Guest Psycho Milt, believe him without hesitation. Karam recently called him a cheat and a fraud.

    As for the blood on the towel, it wasn’t spatter and it was fresh and in copious amounts. I can see you’re going the dotcom way, hopeful use of imagination. But by all means continue on with Robin set up David scenario, or the death scene. That matters more that information 19 years old that suddenly becomes new.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    ”ross69 (1,730) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
    Actually Rowan, Guest is permitted to practise law. Obviously you’re ok with David perjuring himself. But you still haven’t explained why an innocent person would do that. It makes you think, eh.’

    Since when?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    Dennis was labouring under the washed hands thing. They were washed as attested by the blood wiped on the towel, they weren’t probably cleaned as the morgue photos show.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Nostalgia-NZ (6,337 comments) says:

    ‘Chuck Bird (2,918) Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 9:20 am
    I see the Herald has changes it mind on accepting comments for the Op Ed “CK Stead: Why judge was wrong on Bain”

    Maybe that is because the public are changing their view about poor David.’

    Should have been ‘properly cleaned’ above.

    Maybe somebody told them that most of the negative comments were from your site Chuck. They wouldn’t need to look very hard to see the similarity between them and of course wouldn’t want the system manipulated by a small group that have multi voted in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Honeybadger (515 comments) says:

    ^^^^^^ paranoia, much?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote