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.

Tags: ,

1,274 Responses to “Guest on Bain”

  1. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    As I understand the position, Bain told Guest that he had been wearing the glasses and Guest conveyed that message to the Crown prosecutor. David then gave evidence that he had not worn the glasses for up to 12 months prior to the incident– catching the prosecutor by surprise. Then, when Bain sought a pardon, he alleged incompetence of Counsel (Guest) as one of the grounds. He argued that Guest could have called witnesses to say that he (Bain) had not been wearing the glasses.

    In any appeal (or in this case, application for a pardon) where there is an allegation of incompetence of Counsel, the appellant or (in this case) the petitioner must waive professional privilege.an appellant cannot be allowed to complain about the incompetence of Counsel and then insist on adherence to it legal professional privilege in order to close down any further enquiry into the complaint. Bain waived that privilege and Guest informed Sir Thomas Thorp that the reason why he did not call witnesses to say that Bain had not been wearing the glasses was really quite simple. Bain had admitted to Guest that he had been wearing the glasses. It was not therefore open to Guest to call contrary evidence. The story is not new. This is all recorded in reports dating back to 2000.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    I think we all know what is going to happen here:

    1. Collins will shoulder-tap a Tory mate to compile a third report.
    2. The Tory will read between the lines, and his/her report will be contrary to Binnie’s one and not find Bain innocent.
    3. Colinns will take the report to Cabinet and advise that Bain should receive no compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    I understand this story was first reported on Monday in Truth.

    Err, no. See Nookin’s informative post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (14,030 comments) says:

    Between mugging, kanz and Dotcom will chalk up 1,000+ posts on their favourite subject, the paperboy Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RF (1,446 comments) says:

    Yawn !!! Bain is a nasty piece of work and he will eventually be exposed as I believe there is more to come.

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

    Brilliant stuff, thanks Cam Slater. Whale Oil. This is what David’s former lawyer (Michael Guest) wrote to the Justice Minister 11 days ago, on December 2012

    ¤ However much of a scoundrel Justice Binnie wishes to paint me (Guest), the salient facts are these:

    ¤ Mr Bain informed both myself and my co-Counsel, that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening

    ¤ In court testimony, in response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings. My professional ethics required me to disclose the lie to the prosecution which I immediately did.

    ¤ The Crown Solicitor therefore knew this fact at trial.

    ¤ The Crown Prosecutor confirmed to him what I had told him at trial.

    ¤ The importance of the admission (to guest) of wearing the glasses the Sunday night is quite simply, a damning admission because police found the bent frame and one lens in David’s bedroom and the other lens in his murdered brother’s bedroom.

    ¤ Justice Binnie then appears to mislead you by quoting and relying upon an irrelevant passage from the Court of Appeal decision at paragraphs 21 and 22 of his recent Report to you. BUT THIS QUOTE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL was dealing with a different issue relating to the glasses because the Privy Council DID NOT KNOW of the evidence of what David Bain had told me (Guest) and what we had told the Crown Solicitor at trial.

    ¤ Consequently, it can be stated on reasonable grounds that Justice Binnie has himself succumbed to a tunnel vision approach to the assessment of all relevant evidence relating the prime question he was asked to answer.

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

    Sorry, on 21 December 2012

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

    It’s worth remembering that Michael Guest can no longer practice as a lawyer, so he’s probably more inclined to tell the truth.

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

    The capitalisation above is original in what Michael Guest wrote to Minister Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Some points that need answers, Mr F. :)

    • Now what was all that Fisher, said about the totality of “the evidence” ?

    • Was the Crown Law Office present when Binnie interviewed Bain ? Yes, or No, David. No prevarication, PLEASE.

    • Now, what about some balance, David ?. The Herald piece also carried the other side of the “story” (word used deliberately!). Why did you choose to exclude that ?. Did it not fit the “story” ?

    • Did you mention that Guest has been disbarred for lying? Did you mention that he is known in the legal profession as a serial liar?

    • Why do you continue to ignore the many, many improper (at best questionable acts (and at least one deliberate lie), which has been exposed by the documents ) by Collins and “her advisors” ?

    • Are you following a script written by Collins? You well kniw that the “Truth” newspaper “story” is likely to finish at the bottom of most kiwi holiday long drops – as are Police bleatings that have already been rejected as an attempt to relitigate matters dismissed by the PC and Binnie.

    • Billions on land claims, but two-three million for 13 years spent in prison as a consequence of a substantial miscarriage of justice (the PC words, not mine!), 74 % of New Zealanders say “enough is enough”. They, like me, see many similarities to the rear-guard action attempted by Police and Crown Law before Justice Williams, the Hon Peter Gordon, Archbishop Johnston, but most of all, Robert David Muldoon, told them to pull their heads kin. The judges caught on quickly since judicial knighthoods were at stake. :)

    • Process, Mr DPF, process, due and proper. When ?

    Answers please, David. :)

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

    “Yawn !!! Bain is a nasty piece of work and he will eventually be exposed as I believe there is more to come.”

    The father was committing the incest and kicked outside the house but David is nasty. Pfff

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

    @hamnidaV2

    Obvious and predictable politics as per normal since 1984

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

    What, flipper, and David Bain is NOT know to be a liar? Balance of probabilities. What does Guest have to gain by lying to the Justice Minister re the glasses? Reality check please.

    Besides, three (3) other witnesses had David Bain wearing the glasses within the 48 hours prior to the murders, so his admission of the fact to Michael Guest is hardly out of all other context.

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

    Hinamanu. There was neither incest, nor one shred of evidence of incest. Like many New Zealanders, you have decided this case on a “dirty old man” prejudice which fails to recognise that dirty old man syndrome is a myth. Dirty old man incidences are minuscule relative to dirty young man incidents. New Zealand ignorance and myth on this has a lot to answer for. And a totally innocent man, who was robbed of the opportunity to speak for himself, has been reviled terribly wrongly.

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

    Besides, history has a habit of showing that dirty old men, few that they are relative to dirty young men, on exposure, tend to take their own lives, but never the lives of their sexual victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    Guest’s story is validated by the fact he told the prosecutor at the time and his co-counsel was also present.

    Quite clearly he wasn’t lying, despite his later professional failings.

    Which begs the question, why did David lie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    How can a story 19 years old, reported to the Crown at the time a claim that David was going to give evidence to wearing the glasses that weekend be ‘new.’ It can only be new because of Collin’s desperation. The real story here is that the defence and the applicant were effectively left out of the circle while a hatchet job was arranged by the same people instrumental in an actual MOJ. How exciting for the disaffected. Have to feel sorry for the misfortune’s of Mr Guest and shooting himself in the foot in this way after having earlier (and after the alleged admission) confirmed his belief of David’s innocence, what a conflicted chap and how very helpful for the Minister to have found him when he was not actually lost.

    Ditto Flipper to Farrar re – the other side of the story, the more significant picture.

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

    Neuralgia, another of your shoot the messenger defences I see. You see fault in every witness. But you see no fault in the repeatedly caught-out-lying David Bain. You lost perspective a long time (not to mention your own criminal record, Neuralgia, which hardly enhances your credibility). And one more thing, plural of misfortune is misfortunes, not misfortune’s.

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

    ‘There was neither incest, nor one shred of evidence of incest.’

    Even the media stated Robyn was cast outside the house to the caravan.

    For the first time, the murder allegations against Robin Bain are laid out in Joe Karam’s … Estranged from his wife, he lived in an advanced state of squalor. ……

    The case against Robin Bain – National – NZ Herald News

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. tvb (4,494 comments) says:

    I think we have had enough reports on David Bain. Plus he got his million dollar defence paid for by legal aid. He has his life back and that is enough. I find the intervention of Michael guest quite unusual. I am not sure of the motives. They are mixed. In any event I am picking minister Collins will not be recommending compensation for Bain. If any money is offered his legal fee should be deducted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘Dexter (191) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 12:09 pm
    Guest’s story is validated by the fact he told the prosecutor at the time and his co-counsel was also present.

    Quite clearly he wasn’t lying, despite his later professional failings.

    Which begs the question, why did David lie?’

    You decide who is lying to fit your continued persecution of David Bain. I don’t accept what Guess says, but I do accept what Binnie has said on the matter whether I agree with it or not. The problem remains that you somehow expect David Bain to have kept co-operating with the false imprisonment that was being perpetuated on him. Your life experiences must be very narrow. Yet still it is 19 year old news that was followed by the PC judgement, a not guilty verdict and finding of innocent on the BOP.

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

    Hinamanu, the whole family lived in an advanced state of squalor. House or caravan or the schoolhouse where Robin lived during the school week, it was all squalor. Since when is squalor evidence of incest. You are very careless with your prejudiced allegation that have no foundation other than an assumption that an older person in your mind is the more likely to be “a dirty old man”. You are no orphan though, Hinamanu. Many NZers think Robin must have been a killer, based on nothing more substantial than this disgusting NZ myth.

    Hinamanu, despite this New Zealand myth, throughout history, there have been a lot more, massively more, dirty young men, than dirty old men.

    Hinamanu, your comments are based in bias, and not on the facts, and are not helpful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    fliiper,

    You are spinning so hard, you will make yourself dizzy.

    Bill Wright several years ago said that Guest told him that David admitted towearing the glasses. But don’t take Guest’s or Wright’s word for it, why not ask Guest’s co-counsel? Why not ask David’s aunt who said David had worn the glasses on the weekend of the murders?

    The fact remains that you think anyone who says anything negative about David must be wrong. That would mean that about 100 prosecution witnesses were wrong. What an amazing coincidence.

    Surely you cannot be that thick?

    See Bill Wright here at 31:15

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

    Doesn’t matter what Binnie said. His was a recommendation, not a finding. The decision maker is Cabinet.

    Judith Collins has called the Binnie recommendation “fatally flawed”. She is not prepared to put a “fatally flawed” recommendation to the Cabinet”.

    Nor should she. Her job is to be Justice Minister, not injustice minister.

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

    ‘an older person in your mind is the more likely to be “a dirty old man”. ‘

    No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. redeye (630 comments) says:

    Can anyone tell me the name of the plugin for Firefox that allows you to filter out selected posters. I wouldn’t mind reading some of these Bain threads but the proliferation of a couple of know-it-alls make them very difficult.

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

    Thanks, redeye, the thread is greatly enhanced by that contribution. God, there are a lot of comments police on Kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    In the same article by David Fisher, Justice Binnie says “the issue [re the glasses] was largely irrelevant because there was no evidence showing Mr Bain was wearing the glasses at the time of the murders.”

    Perjuring yourself under oath at trial and while answering Binnie’s questions is seemingly not a big deal in Canada. But in NZ, perjury carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.

    But tlaking to Binnie’s point, there was no evidence Robin wore the glasses. There is no evidence Robin got up earlier than normal on June 20. There is no evidence that Robin put bloodied clothes into the wasing basket. There is no evidence he wrote the note on the computer. There is no evidence he changed clothes. There’s no evidence he went into David’s bedroom and put on David’s opera gloves. There’s no evidence he knew where the trigger lock was, or that he picked up David’s rifle. There’s no evidence he despised his kids, let alone would want to murder three of them.

    Two things we can be sure of: Binnie’s reputation will continue to be dragged through the mud, and David won’t get any compo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. redeye (630 comments) says:

    ‘enhanced’ is a subjective term DotCom. Personally I’m not sure that any of your 650 odd posts in a week enhance anything, although I concede I have read but a small portion of them. They do suggest a level of narcissism that’s not very attractive though.

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

    Thank you again redeye. I don’t expect you to follow the complexity of the issue, which I’m prepared unlike many others to delve into. But I tell you what, feel free to ignore my posts. I guarantee you I’ll be doing the same for your posts. Now enough playing “comment policeman” eh? Not your job. And not conducive to increasing DPF’s comment statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    someone please tell me that ain’t the bloomin’ green jersey that Robin’s wearing at 55:05

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Nostalgia and Flipper,

    Crikey you lads are so desperate in your denial that I can smell it through the computer.

    Plain documented fact – David Bain lied about a crucial piece of evidence. Why? Because he knew that it would incriminate him.

    Case closed.

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

    hinamanu 12:36 pm “The case against Robin Bain – National – NZ Herald News”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Hinamanu, there is NO case against Robin Bain. There is NO evidence of Robin Bain having killed anyone, and I challenge you to produce one item of evidence that he might have. Any one piece of evidence will do. People have decided who must have been the killer, not on the evidence, but on a popularity contest. New Zealanders propensity to do this, is a national disgrace.

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

    Of course some others would be perfectly happy to swear on a stack of Bibles that Robin must be a mass murderer, purely based on their assessment of Dotcom being a narcissist. Yep, that will do. Or the Michael Guest has been disbarred as a lawyer. Sound reasoning here on either count. NOT!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (4,686) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    Nostalgia and Flipper,

    Crikey you lads are so desperate in your denial that I can smell it through the computer.

    Plain documented fact – David Bain lied about a crucial piece of evidence. Why? Because he knew that it would incriminate him.

    Case closed.’

    Try to keep up Scot Chris the Jury heard the evidence when it was presented as part of a MOJ. This isn’t new, nor apparently are Michael Guests 2 versions of it. You’re desperation overcomes you, but I’m not surprised. Would you like to explain on Mr Guest’s behalf why he is recorded as having given two versions of his belief of David’s innocence? Only one of which DPF has sought to include here BTW.

    It certainly doesn’t remove the blood from Robin’s palms, his dna from deep inside the rifle barrel, his footprints about the murder scene and everything else which proves his guilt however exciting it might be for you.

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

    Scott Chris (4,686) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    ———————-

    If this is such a crucial piece of evidence, why is there not any forensic evidence that ties it to the murder of Stephen? If those glasses were worn by the murderer, why is there no blood splatter, finger prints or some other matter that places the entire pair in Stephen’s room at the time?

    According to the JFRB s the glasses must have been removed when Stephen hit them from the wearers face. It had to have been a hard hit to remove the lens, according to the experts, so clearly Stephen, who was bleeding profusely, would have left blood on them, but he didn’t? The killer wore gloves, which were blood soaked, however, there was none of that blood on the frames or lenses, which he would have had to touch to take off. He may have removed his gloves, but as they were porous material, his hands would have been covered in blood, again, none on the glasses. The glasses had to have been touched in order to have made it back to David’s room, if we are to believe they were worn in the fight. But, there is no evidence that they were. Of course they could have been taken back once the murderer had cleaned up, but then, why would he, when he had gone to such great lengths not to incriminate himself?

    The other question is, why would David wear them? The house was dark, he knew his way round the house well, he did not need them to use the gun in such a confined area? If they were broken in the fight with Stephen, how come he managed to commit the other shootings without them? Please don’t say his shot got worse, because that is a load of rubbish, both Arawa and Laniet were awake when they were shot, making them harder targets. Whoever shot Stephen also missed, getting the top of his head instead.

    There is not one piece of evidence that ties those glasses to the murders, and there would have been had they been worn at the time. If anyone wants the truth about the glasses, how about we put Weir under a lie detector and see what he can tell us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    our Brucie’s version of events doesn’t appear to account for the empty shell casing found in the alcove

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Keeping Stock (10,406 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ said

    You decide who is lying to fit your continued persecution of David Bain. I don’t accept what Guess says, but I do accept what Binnie has said on the matter whether I agree with it or not.

    So you don’t accept what Guest said, even though there is independent verification of exactly what he told the Crown Prosecutor?

    I have no doubt that Guest is not an especially honourable lawyer. But what he has said, and what is able to be verified ought to have been considered by Justice Binnie. Binnie’s out is that it was privileged client information. However Karam and Bain severed the professional association with Michael Guest many, many years ago, and have since dissed him to all and sundry after arbitrarily ending the lawyer/client relationship. If Guest has information relevant to whether or not David Bain is

    a) a credible witness, and
    b) guilty or not guilty

    it defies the principles of natural justice that Binnie has refused to hear it. It also reinforces the ever-growing perception that Justice Binnie has only ever been interested in hearing one side of the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “If those glasses were worn by the murderer, why is there no blood splatter, finger prints or some other matter that places the entire pair in Stephen’s room at the time?”

    You’re missing the point, Judith. Why would an innocent person lie about not wearing the glasses? David told his counsel, and his aunt, that he was wearing them that weekend.

    If David perjured himself – and there seems a high probability he did – don’t you think some of his other statements to Binnie must be viewed with some scepticism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Judith

    As for your question, who knows? David did go into the batrhoom and wash his hands. Could he have washed the glasses at the same time? Of course that is supposing they had blood splatter on them – there’s no reason to suggest that should be the case. Did Robin’s beanie have blood splatter on it? I don’t think so, yet he was supposed to have shot 4 family members before shooting himself.

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

    For the 1,000th time, circumstantial evidence is just as much “evidence” today as it always has been in history. Just because evidence is not TV CSI or CSI Hawaii, or CSI Miami style forensic or scientific evidence, does not mean that there was no evidence.

    This is so especially with the highly incriminating glasses.

    David was wearing these and no other glasses Sunday night. He went to his room that Sunday night wearing the glasses.

    Next day after the murders, one lens from the glasses was found in dead Stephen’s bedroom, and the crunched up glasses frame and the other lens separated from the frames were found in David’s room. They had been wiped clear of fingerprints.

    Stephen had fought to the death in his room with his murderer, probably causing the damage to the glasses, and the loss of the left lens in Stephen’s room. And people want to tell you here and ten-thousand times elsewhere that there is “no evidence” connecting the glasses to the murders. What do you need, you dumb-arses/liars? Signed and video recorded confessions, witnessed by Jesus Christ himself, and nothing less?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Email of Ian Binnie to Melanie Webb [for Minister Collins] –
    … I add this — if Michael Guest believes he is free to disclose whatever passed between him and David Bain prior to the 1995 trial and the most devastating thing he can come up with is whether or not David Bain told him he wore Margaret’s glasses the prior weekend – I am greatly reinforced in my conclusion about factual innocence

    David should know himself if he is innocent, but mentally may not now really know, rather what in 18 years he has come to believe.
    The ambulance person thought David was faking his fit – opinion
    Michael Guest is probably the next person to really know, by direct client contact, one assumes.
    In his ‘taunt’, is Binnie saying ‘Are the glasses the only thing suggesting to Guest that David is not innocent? Is that IT?’

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

    It is now five people who are attesting to David having had the glasses on Sunday night, just hours before the murders. And people want to tell you over and over again that there is no evidence linking the glasses to the crime. Who do you believe. The facts, or Dave’s Ravers? Circumstantial evidence has been evidence since the Garden of Eden and Cain and Abel. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence today, in spite of forensics. Forensics have enhanced evidence, not replaced it.

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

    Nostalgia-nz in case you are no longer posting on the other thread, you mentioned on there a petition we could sign if we think David Bain does not deserve compensation. Could you please give me the website, I’d like to sign it ?

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

    For God’s sake, in some Sherlock Holmes stories, one cigarette butt was enough. Here we want signed witness statements from Jesus Christ himself, when the facts are staring us in the face.

    Robin Bain killed no-one. David did — 5 members of his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Belinda, the petition is here: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/add/signature

    I hope that Nostalgia signs it too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith says the killer wore gloves in Stephen’s room,and Stephen was bleeding profusely,so why wasn’t there some blood on those glasses that David Bain told five people he was wearing.
    But if Robin Bain wore those gloves why wasn’t there some blood on his watch?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith is now asking Milton Weir to sue her for defamation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Desperate is as desperate does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. BeaB (2,142 comments) says:

    yes, Dotcom, and now he wants millions so he can live in luxury while his family rots in the graves he put them in. This monster has had long and expensive trials.
    He got the justice he and his publicity-seeking mate Karam wanted. Now he should go away and try to make peace with his conscience if he has one.
    He sickens me.

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

    muggins (730) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:35 pm
    ——————-

    Asking someone to take a lie detector test under the circumstances is hardly defamation. Weir changed his evidence and proved he has the ability to be artistic with the evidence. Getting him to take a lie detector test due to his ability to alter his testimony is highly justifiable. Give him my regards next time you phone him, if he had nothing to worry about, I’m sure he’d jump at the chance to prove his obvious ‘mistake’ on the stand was his only one.

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

    Kent Parker (439) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    Belinda, the petition is here:

    I hope that Nostalgia signs it too.

    ————————————-

    How many times will you get him to sign it? Once, twice, maybe three times, like many of the other names on the petition?
    Which despite having pointed the multiple signatures on your petition, I note you still haven’t removed them.

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

    muggins (730) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    ———————-

    Are you really that ignorant to how people wear clothes? Surely one does not have to explain this to you?

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

    Belinda (65) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    Nostalgia-nz in case you are no longer posting on the other thread, you mentioned on there a petition we could sign if we think David Bain does not deserve compensation. Could you please give me the website, I’d like to sign it ?

    ————————–

    Oh now that is funny ‘Belinda’. I’m sure some will enjoy the ‘act’.

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

    As far as forensic/scientific evidence is concerned, there is only one thing that has kept pace with forensics.

    It is the criminal’s knowledge of the need to avoid forensic evidence.

    Example: As soon as fingerprints-as-evidence were documented in the late 1600s, criminals learned to wipe off their fingerprints from crime scenes. The wiping of fingerprints did not mean an instant end of prosecution of criminals, as Dave’s Ravers want New Zealand to get sucked into believing in this case.

    Don’t fall for this lying crap, New Zealand. There is a massive amount of evidence about the glasses. Otherwise why would the NZ Herald even bother with the relevance of the glasses lens, time and time and time again. This evidence is pivotal, even if it isn’t forensic evidence.

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

    Dotcom (663) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    —————–

    The Herald prints all sorts of things to sell papers.

    Now, perhaps you can explain the one piece of physical evidence that puts those glasses on the murderer at the time he engaged in the killing of Stephen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Judith, why would an innocent man lie about the glasses?

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

    Dotcom (663) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    As far as forensic/scientific evidence is concerned, there is only one thing that has kept pace with forensics.

    It is the criminal’s knowledge of the need to avoid forensic evidence.

    Example: As soon as fingerprints-as-evidence were documented in the late 1600s, criminals learned to wipe off their fingerprints from crime scenes. The wiping of fingerprints did not mean an instant end of prosecution of criminals, as Dave’s Ravers want New Zealand to get sucked into believing in this case.

    Don’t fall for this lying crap, New Zealand. There is a massive amount of evidence about the glasses. Otherwise why would the NZ Herald even bother with the relevance of the glasses lens, time and time and time again. This evidence is pivotal, even if it isn’t forensic evidence.

    ————————–

    In order for those glasses to make their way from Stephen’s room to David’s room, someone had to have taken them.

    You suggest the murderer wiped them clean of fingerprints, and yet, we know that part of the glasses were missing, so if he wiped them, he only wiped part of them. There is still no evidence on the single lens that puts it on the face of the muderer (i.e. there was no blood splatter etc on it).

    Now, presuming the murder was calm enough to wipe the glasses, why would he then place them in his room, knowing part of them was missing and could have incriminating evidence on it? Sorry, but the two actions are not compatible with your answer.

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

    The physical evidence linking is that the frames and one lens in Davids room. Even Binnie was able to work out if the lens were in Stevens room for a longer time it diminished Davids claim that he didn’t know why the glasses were in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Now, perhaps you can explain the one piece of physical evidence that puts those glasses on the murderer at the time he engaged in the killing of Stephen.

    Try David Bain’s hooter and eye sockets. They seem pretty forensic to me. Physical evidence of a place where said glasses fit like a glove and where said glasses were known to be residing during the weekend.

    But then maybe David Bain was attacked by a manic raccoon zoo escapee that knocked them off and broke them, and then a nocturnal magpie seeing the glint of lens on the ground reflected from the street light swept down, grabbed it in its beak, and flew into Stephen’s room, where perceiving it was a dead end, dropped the lens under a skateboard, before finally finding an open window two rooms down from which to escape. Somewhat in shock from the strange, but inherently possible, sequence of events, David then picked up the remains of his glasses and deposited them on his chair.

    I’m sure that explanation is plausible to the likes of Judith.

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

    Judith (205) at 2:51 pm perhaps you can explain the one piece of evidence that puts those glasses on the murderer at the time he engaged in the killing of Stephen.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    First, Judith, a question.Do you accept that at law, circumstantial evidence can be part of the evidence?

    Do you accept that at law, circumstantial evidence can be part of the evidence?

    Bet you can’t give me a straight answer by 3.30 pm today.

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

    ‘New Zealanders propensity to do this, is a national disgrace.’

    Just finished watching the Bain doco which is highly revealing. The standing magazine is highly damaging to David’s case.

    Also, Karam did not really vindicate his case when discharged from the court for libeling two police officers.

    But the real propensity now laid to New Zealander’s is their awakening to police corruption in high level cases and the onus of doubt now enshrined in the Kiwi psyche concerning police strategic prosecutions.

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

    Yes, HInamanu, catch up. There are a lot of things — maybe 100 — that are highly damaging to David’s case. Welcome to the world of evidence and not, prejudice.

    That said, this thread is about glasses.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Hey everyone, this thread was started to discuss the glasses evidence.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

    twistedlemon (30) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:56 pm
    Judith, why would an innocent man lie about the glasses?
    ————————-

    As I have said time and time again. There was more than one pair of Margaret’s glasses in the house on that day.
    David could have worn any of them, even his mother’s current pair, whilst she spent most of her time in the bedroom reading.
    Neither she nor David needed glasses for close up viewing, only for distance. When he said he wore his mother’s glasses, do you know for sure which pair he was talking about? I know Mrs Clark never asked him. As far as Guest is concerned, I find it hard to see why his memory is so clear on this issue and yet so cloudy on other factors. Again, did he make sure which pair of Ms Bain’s glasses were being referred to?

    We do not know which pair David was talking about or what the conversation with Guest was exactly, and under the circumstances, as there is no physical evidence that links the glasses to the murderer, whoever it was, it is of no use unless people make assumptions.

    Assumptions are not enough to imprison a man for 13 years.

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

    Anyway, Hinamanu. A good starting point to learn more about the case for an inquisitive mind, such as yours, is
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/open-letter-from-the-justice-for-robin-bain-group

    For an inquisitive mind, this case is better than anything ever by Agatha Christie or John Grisham.

    The outcome is obvious — David killed 5 members of his family. But the plot is better than any fiction ever.

    See you back soon, to get with the programme.

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

    Judith, 15 minutes left to accept the challenge of answering my question.

    Do you accept that at law, circumstantial evidence can be part of the evidence?

    14 minutes

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

    Dotcom (665) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    ———————-

    Yes, I believe circumstantial evidence can be part of evidence.

    But, be very weary on that one, as there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to Robin Bain.

    The fact remains, do you know which pair of Mrs Bain’s glasses David was referring to when he said he wore ‘his mothers’ glasses. There were at least two pairs. Until you can identify which pair, you don’t even have circumstantial evidence.

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

    Dotcom (667) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:16 pm
    Judith, 15 minutes left to accept the challenge of answering my question.

    Do you accept that at law, circumstantial evidence can be part of the evidence?

    14 minutes
    ————————

    You know, you have chosen to use a famous name, I guess to draw attention to yourself. Now you go demanding that people answer you in a set amount of time – you aren’t suffering from delusions of granduer are you? You haven’t started to believe you are someone with the position and importance to make such demands of others, do you?

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

    Judith at 3.14

    None of which explains why the lens from glasses worn by David the night before ended up in Stephen’s room, the room of a young man who had fought for his life and lost, and been shot in the head to be sure.

    What about Margaret’s other glasses explains the location of the dislodged lens, Judith, in a dead boy’s room.

    You wouldn’t be relying on red herring sidetrack irrelevances would you, Judith. Would you do such a thing?

    10 minutes to answer my question on circumstantial evidence, judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    If David is innocent, why did he lie about wearing the glasses?

    Why didn’t he say in court that he was wearing another pair of his mother’s glasses?

    Why did he lie?

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

    No Judith, I have been using the email address

    dotcom@inbox.com

    for years. Kim was not the only one. He just made it famous.

    Now you have 8 minutes to accept my challenge, or make a fool of yourself.

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

    Dotcom (667) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    —————-

    I just love the way you Counterspinners set each other up so you can post your link on here. So cute, so obvious.

    I know, I’ll say “petition? what petition?” and little ol’ Kenty will pop in and say “here this petition”. Pity their JFRB page has more leaks than a sieve aye, or else we might all think they are genuine.

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

    OMG this time consuming BS rehashing same old BS. Judith what did David say to the policeman in the room wasn’t it something like “Can you pass my glasses” was there two pair in that room at the time, no well common sense tells a majority of people he wanted the ones in that room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock
    January 1st, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ said
    You decide who is lying to fit your continued persecution of David Bain. I don’t accept what Guess says, but I do accept what Binnie has said on the matter whether I agree with it or not.
    So you don’t accept what Guest said, even though there is independent verification of exactly what he told the Crown Prosecutor?

    I have no doubt that Guest is not an especially honourable lawyer. But what he has said, and what is able to be verified ought to have been considered by Justice Binnie. Binnie’s out is that it was privileged client information. However Karam and Bain severed the professional association with Michael Guest many, many years ago, and have since dissed him to all and sundry after arbitrarily ending the lawyer/client relationship. If Guest has information relevant to whether or not David Bain is

    a) a credible witness, and
    b) guilty or not guilty

    it defies the principles of natural justice that Binnie has refused to hear it. It also reinforces the ever-growing perception that Justice Binnie has only ever been interested in hearing one side of the argument.’

    I’ll put it another way for you KS, I accept that Guest said two conflicting things regarding the innocence of David Bain. That’s a huge hurdle to get over. However, Binnie followed the 2003 COA Judgement on the issue of the glasses. Binnie didn’t refuse to hear it, he discarded it as relevant to his finding having already been guided to some degree of what was said by the COA. Additionally, he looked at the prospect of the importance of the glasses evidence from which it can’t be concluded, above other matters, to point to David’s guilt.

    It’s very rich that you talk about excluding one side of the argument because that is exactly what Collins did. Binnie was very careful to address the claims about the glasses from both sides and it was included no doubt in the Crown’s submissions. What you are obviously overlooking is that the ‘Guest position’ was known to the Crown at the time of the mistrial where it was used against David in a manner that constituted a MOJ.

    This is not a complicated issue, it has been well and truly canvassed before. It is a simple exercise of a smoke screen unfitting an ‘impartial’ Minister of the Crown. Collins ought never have denied Bain a reply but it is clear that she knew this issue wasn’t new and had been canvassed before. Despite the apparent excitement now Collins will learn this has fooled few people and that fingers in this plot go a long way up the chain she has said so herself.

    As Binnie has said, something to the effect ‘is this all?’ He’s absolutely right as time has proven. Too soon to get excited when all of us know the applicant has been excluded from due process, objectivity and fairness – all of which the Minister was obliged to provide.

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

    And of course, what made the Dotcom name famous, Judith?

    Crime did.

    5 minutes to stop avoiding answering my question, Judith. You wouldn’t be so whimpish would you, Judith?

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

    Dotcom (669) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    No Judith, I have been using the email address

    dotcom@inbox.com

    for years. Kim was not the only one. He just made it famous.

    Now you have 8 minutes to accept my challenge, or make a fool of yourself.

    —————————————-

    Now who is making a fool of themselves? Your question was answered at 3.17 pm. Yes, I do believe circumstantial evidence can be part of evidence. What more do you want, a note from my mummy ?

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

    Judith

    Do you accept that at law, circumstantial evidence can be part of the evidence?

    3 minutes, whimp.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘If David is innocent why did he ‘lie’ about the glasses.’ Read also ‘David said he saw no signs of abuse by his father against Laniet or Arawa.’

    Difficult route hopping from foot to foot and getting no where.

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

    Already answered, YES, I do. Jeez, you need glasses now.

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

    Thank you. Judith

    So do you say there is no circumstantial evidence in the Bain case, in relation to the glasses, the ones with one lens found in Stephen’s room, one lens in David’s room, and the crumpled frame also in David’s room?

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

    Neuralgia, so what. This thread is about glasses and Michael Guest.

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

    Hello??   Judith??

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

    I agree there is circumstantial evidence regarding the glasses, however, that evidence also goes both ways Dotgo.

    No one, despite many people seeing him out and about that weekend saw him wearing the glasses.
    The neighbour, who saw him working with his brother and father, never saw him wearing the glasses.
    Ms Clark did not recall the conversation for quite some time – she is not a young person,
    etc etc.

    Circumstantial evidence has a place in law, but in this particular example, circumstantial evidence when considered in its entirety regarding the glasses, takes us in circles and does not provide anything, unless you only consider one lot of circumstantial evidence, and ignore the other.

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

    There are 5 witnesses linking David to wearing the glasses late on the Sunday. Plus his own glasses were at the repair shop since the Thursday. Plus on the Sunday he drove to get the fish and chips, and he needs glasses to drive.

    Would you agree, Judith, that these are *circumstances* that could be relevant in this case?

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

    Dotcom (674) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    Hello?? Judith??

    ———————-

    Do you know what I do to demanding little boys?

    hmmmmm, perhaps its best you don’t find out.

    I have a life beyond answering you, if you wish me to provide you with answers to your questions I suggest you find some manners and consideration somewhere. As a female I find multi-tasking possible, but only if one prioritizes, and you don’t want to know where you come on my list of priorities!

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

    Dotcom (675) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    —————————

    There are many available answers to your statements, but just as a sample, David did not NEED his glasses to drive. He could drive without them, just as many short sighted people can (such as myself), however, by law, he could not. It was a requirement of his licence to wear glasses.

    Whilst he was not prepared to go long distances driving without his glasses, such as into town, he was prepared to pop down to the local chippy, which was only a short and familiar distance away. Something I do all the time without my glasses – (yeah I know, I’m a deviant!)

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

    But you are trying to tell the world up above from here, that there is no evidence linking the glasses to the crime. I am only giving you the chance to back up your own claim. Or was it one of many lies that Dave’s Ravers like to promote?

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

    And those things you do to little boys .. … …

    don’t be quite so quick to dismiss them … …

    could, maybe, possibly be interested in knowing just a bit more .. ..

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

    What do you think the chances were that David drove without the glasses to get the fish and chips? Judith? Realistic answer?

    He had them, so do you suppose he would have risked it? As a probability? Honest answer?

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

    Dotcom was that at night? would like to know what effect light strength has on the eye condition David had.

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

    On a scale of 1 t0 10, what do you think the chances are that between Sunday night when David was seen wearing the glasses to bed, and Monday afternoon, when cops found the glasses in three pieces:

    A) that Stephen might have had something to do with the one becoming 3 pieces?

    B) any other alternative explanation of your choice (and explanation)

    Scale of 1 to 10; where 1 is impossible, and 10 is (pardon the expression) dead certainty.

    My own answer, dead honestly is A) 9.5 and b) 1

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

    Dotcom (677) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    ———————-

    No physical evidence linking them to the crime, which under the circumstances I find it hard to believe there wasn’t, if they were worn by the murderer. I acknowledge they could have been wiped clean, but not the dislodged lens. Going by the Crown’s story, this lens was knocked from the frame with a hard blow, and possibly then trodden on Therefore it is more likely than not (balance of probabilities) that it would have had some sort of evidence on it.

    Question also needs to be asked, why if David was the murderer, and needed to wear such glasses is such circumstances (which he didn’t need to, but for the sake of an argument lets say he did), then he would have known the glasses were damaged so he wouldn’t have asked for them, and certainly wouldn’t have drawn attention to them.

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

    Winter time, gamefisher, so prolly dark.

    It is relevant too, gamefisher, that the family watched a movie together around chish and fip time. Can’t have been much of a movie for blind Dave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Binnie – “… if Michael Guest believes he is free to disclose whatever passed between him and David Bain prior to the 1995 trial and the most devastating thing he can come up with is whether or not David Bain told him he wore Margaret’s glasses the prior weekend – I am greatly reinforced in my conclusion about factual innocence …”

    So, is Binnie right? – this the most devastating thing Michael Guest can come up with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Yawn, we’ve gone from ‘streaming blood’ to ‘glasses,’ yet still no progress for the disheartened. What do ya know.

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

    The “trodden on” is a TOTAL David Bain/ Joe Karam invention. There is no such evidence of this in the entire world. Red herrings. Irrelevances. Side tracks Judith. You are the side-track expert, Judith. Are you capable of a straight answer any time soon, or does everything have to be a “woman’s answer”.

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

    Dotcom (679) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    ———————-

    Honest answer, I do it all the time to the local chippy and dairy. I see better with glasses, but I can still see without them. Because I don’t need them all the time, I’m forever putting them down and can’t be bothered finding them just to drive short distances.

    If they were geeky glasses like the pair in question, and they were my fathers, I most certainly would not have worn them.

    One point I find convincing to my argument is that David let Arawa drive them home from town, rather than he drive, despite being the only male and big brother. That says to me David did not like wearing his mothers glasses where anyone he knew would see him. I’m sure the local shops were owned by people that knew him. I don’t believe he wore those glasses and no one saw him wearing them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

     Dotcom,

    It’s worth remembering that Michael Guest can no longer practice as a lawyer, so he’s probably more inclined to tell the truth.

    Would you please explain what you mean by this?  The apparent meaning is that if he was still able to practice, then he would not be so inclined to tell the truth?

     

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

    Yvette, there was only one lie told to Michael Guest. This is the extent of his obligation. It is the extent to which he has an ethical duty to expose the deliberate and pertinent lie.

    I’m sure he would have a lot of more relevant information, but he is bound by client/lawyer confidentiality on the rest.

    So it is a case of it is the best he is ALLOWED to come up with. Why how much evidence do we need these days to prove lying in a murder case? One lie is enough usually. Why more just for Dave Bain?

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

    Dotcom (681) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    ————————–

    So the Crown is allowed to say they were knocked from the face without any evidence to support it, but the defence is not allowed to provide their explanation without supporting evidence?

    Can’t have it both ways Dotgo. I could provide the same words for the Crown, red herrings, irrelevances, side tracks. It all depends on which side of the fence you are on doesn’t it, so how about a bit of equality here.

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

    F E Smith, explanation not needed, nor will be forthcoming, sorry. Make of it whatever you want. Goes nowhere.

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

    Dotcom (682) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    Winter time, gamefisher, so prolly dark.

    It is relevant too, gamefisher, that the family watched a movie together around chish and fip time. Can’t have been much of a movie for blind Dave.

    —————————

    Depends entirely on how close David was to the TV. David was not blind without glasses. If he sat close enough, like on the stool that was reasonably close to the TV, he didn’t need his glasses to see the picture.

    Now you are getting carried away with side tracks and exaggerations Mr Dot!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    How can The Herald print an article that has the headline “You can’t prove innocence, but payout still possible, says lawyer”
    when that is patently untrue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    explanation not needed, nor will be forthcoming, sorry. Make of it whatever you want. Goes nowhere.

    Seriously? I would like an explanation as I think that there are a number of ways to take your comment and I would like to know what exactly you meant.  So an explanation is actually needed, regardless of what you say.

    The rest of your reply just makes you seem arrogant.

    I am taking your initial statement to mean that if he was a person with a current practising certificate issued by the Law Society then he would in fact be less inclined to tell the truth about the matter.

    That is quite a strong statement to make.  Also, it is probably completely wrong, but seeing you don’t want to explain, then never mind, I will leave you to your ignorance.

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

    Judith. No the Crown may not invent, but the Crown can at law, “propose” or “postulate” based on the circumstances.

    And of course the Defence go second, and have the opportunity to refute or test the Crown theories. Then it’s up to the jury (in the past but no longer). It’s now only “common sense” (rather than jury), which you seem to be unable to apply.

    If you, Judith, are still looking for rock solid proof, then I can’t give it to you. But no-one in the entire system is in need of rock solid proof any more. We are looking for — based on common sense and connecting the dots — probability of what happened.

    Probably what happened is that David wore Margaret’s glasses into Stephen’s room. David shot at Stephen and split his scalp in two, and Stephen began bleeding to death. While Stephen was bleeding to death, with his last hold on life he probably tried his poor dying best to fight off David, bending the glasses in the process, at which point one lens probably popped out of the glasses into a most inconvenient place, hidden behind one of the ice skates. Probably what happened next is that David strangled his little brother to death, then shot him at point blank in the head just to be sure. Then probably David continued on with (Counterspin disagree with this bit) with a right-lens-only full-frame monocle to carry out the killing of the rest of his family after which he washed his bloodied clothing.

    David’s murders having gone horribly off plan at the Stephen stage, and David probably knowing that police would find that left lens, David probably came up (in his own room) with an on-the-fly cover story for the glasses, that Stephen at some stage had earlier taken the glasses as a prank, and had returned the frames crumpled and the left lens missing. So David probably wiped the lens with his duvet cover (which never explained by anyone, had Stephen’s blood on its inside somehow), and still using the duvet cover David probably scrumpled up the glasses frame and dumped it on his bedroom floor, along with the wiped right lens.

    How’s them apples, Judith?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Dotcom – I’m sure [Michael Guest] would have a lot of more relevant information, but he is bound by client/lawyer confidentiality on the rest.
    _______

    So, another strike against Binnie’s credibility for questioning if Guest could be more devastating, when in fact he isn’t allowed to be.

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

    F E Smith. Hot news for you. Everyone thinks I’m arrogant. Fuck off and play on your own. We’re talking about glasses here, not Dotcom. Always has to be one of your type in the room.

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

    F E Smith, got anything, that’s anything whatsoever, to say on topic? Of course not. End of discussion. You will not be addressed by this arrogant person again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    What about the apples pleasantly offered by Mr Smith?

    Have some effect on your constitution?

    You also keep defaming David Bain over something which he has a complete defence in Law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

     Everyone thinks I’m arrogant

    Oh good, it is not just me, then.

    No the Crown may not invent, but the Crown can at law, “propose” or “postulate” based on the circumstances.

    Well, in fairness to Judith, I have seen the Crown ‘postulate’ entire scenarios based upon some very, very minimal ‘circumstances’.  Although the Crown is not supposed to invite a jury to speculate as to what happned, in practice it often does exactly that.

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

    Yvette, d’accord.

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

    Funny, Neuralgia, but the only people who matter at this stage, Cabinet, seem to disagree with that complete defence in law.

    And do you know why, Neuralgia, because defence is NOT RELEVANT any more. The defence worked and David was released from prison. He should have quit when he was ahead, and when it was a defence.

    Now it is the claimant, that’s David, who has the onus of proof. In layman’s terms, it is David who has to prove he didn’t kill anyone. And he can’t do this thing, because he did kill. He killed 5 members of his family. Defence has nothing to do with it, and hasn’t had anything to do with it for more than 3 years now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    Please tell my Judith Collins was not unduly influenced by speculation by a discredited lawyer in her public damning of the Binnie report. One again with this case there is a great deal of speculation dished up as facts. Clearly the Privy Council was not convinced, Binnie was not convinced a jury once the evidence was put properly was not convinced yet there are a bunch of experts on this blog who know Bain is guilty. Hard to fathom how they are so certain. I am not sure either way such is the circumstantial nature of the evidence

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

    4.28 you still here. whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Yvette (2,237) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    Dotcom – I’m sure [Michael Guest] would have a lot of more relevant information, but he is bound by client/lawyer confidentiality on the rest.
    _______

    So, another strike against Binnie’s credibility for questioning if Guest could be more devastating, when in fact he isn’t allowed to be.’

    You need to read up some more Yvette you’re being influenced by the 2 bob in the pound crowd. The Crown knew of Guest’s claims before the first trial. They made extensive submissions to Binnie and had the opportunity to have witnesses examined by Binnie and themselves. You’re falling into a poorly designed trap. Binnie was fully aware of Guest’s claims and considered them. He did make comment about the glasses and the weekend in question. More fool those that somehow think Binnie was ‘fooled’ or not a match for ‘crusher’ the Queen of due process. I’m just surprised that normally relatively intelligent people don’t see it, then again maybe the do and use it for reasons not associated with fairness and the fair administration of Justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    In response to Nostalgia at 3.24..

    I think Robin, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen have been excluded from due process, objectivity and fairness

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

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Cabinet ‘at this stage’ is possibly the only thing you have written that is correct.

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

    Neuralgia at 4.38

    I need that website again please that translates from Neuralgic to English (to Dotcomic).

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

    Best comment in the whole thread Honeybadger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ”Honeybadger (2) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 4:39 pm
    In response to Nostalgia at 3.24..

    I think Robin, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen have been excluded from due process, objectivity and fairness’

    They were the victims for whom the case was prosecuted and as we know now that prosecution didn’t hold weight on the test of reasonable doubt and more recently the BOP. The result of that prosecution was another person victimised and still being victimised. A man who 74% of people taking part in a recent poll said should be compensated. Are you a member of JFRB by the way?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > However, Binnie followed the 2003 COA Judgement on the issue of the glasses.

    No, he did not. Guest correctly pointed out Binnie’s mistake, just as I did to you yesterday. You can keep lying if you want, but it does you no credit at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Oh so Guest ‘correctly’ pointed out something to your satisfaction. How happy you must feel.

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

    And again, for Mark, circumstantial evidence is evidence. Circumstantial evidence is as good as any other evidence if it points to solving a whodunit. I know there is a tendency to say things like “it’s ONLY circumstantial evidence” in the pub, but in a court of law, circumstantial evidence is evidence as much as forensic TV-type evidence is evidence so long as it solves the whodunit.

    I used the example before of two people on a desert island and a murder weapon. One of the people has unequivocally been murdered with the murder weapon, and it is a typeof weapon that only a human can use, and suicide is out of the question. But there are no fingerprints. What do you say here? In one word is the modern person able to make a decision and say the other person was most likely a murderer. No. If you are under age 30, you will say innocent because your CSI forensics-on-a-plate generation can no longer link the dots. Since Aristotle, there have been murders solved without forensics. Forensics enhance modern evidence, not replace it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    NNZ

    Why don’t you troll somewhere else.

    For others they might like to read what the Court of Appeal said in 2003. They won’t find it in Binnie’s report. In fact, Binnie recently told the Justice Ministery: “Importantly, I think, the Court of Appeal dismisses the whole issue of Margaret’s glasses”. Ah, no, that would be false. Here’s what the COA had to say:

    [55] On the whole, balancing the evidence on this topic, we are left with the unexplained presence of the frame and right lens in David’s room, whereas the left lens was found separately in Stephen’s room. It must be a reasonable inference that the items found in David’s room were there because David considered the glasses to be of some use to him. The presence of the left lens in Stephen’s room, in conjunction with the remainder of the glasses being in David’s room, is consistent with the Crown’s contention and provides some support for it, particularly as David’s regular pair of glasses were away for repair. He might therefore be expected to have used the glasses in question and was unable to explain how the left lens had become separated from the frame and how the right lens had also become detached from the frame and how both came to be in his bedroom.

    [56] We conclude this discussion by noting that the glasses were of no use to Robin. He would not therefore have been wearing them. If they did have something to do with Stephen’s murder they were either planted there by Robin (and that is inconsistent with his sparing David) or they were worn by David. The new evidence raises the level of possibility that the glasses had nothing to do with the murder, on the basis that the lens had been in Stephen’s room for some time; but that tends to increase the difficulty for David of his inability to explain the presence of the frame and other lens in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Following on from para 56 of the COA’s judgment. If the glasses had nothing to do with the murders, why didn’t David simply tell jurors the truth that he apparently told Guest and his aunt?

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

    The “Bain poll” has been done to death on a thread funnily enough called “The Bain Poll” and currently running at 757 comments.

    But Neuralgia seems to have a good idea. Let’s do it all over again from the beginning here. Neuralgia, you lost the debate there convincingly, so don’t cry in your cups by starting it all over again here right from the beginning. Your comments were stupid on that thread, and they are no less stupid just from being repeated here.

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

    Can I ask two questions, and please forgive me if they have been asked and answered before.
    1. When Bain’s counsel immediately reported to the judge when DB denied using Margaret’s glasses in trial 1, would this would have been documented?
    2. When DB denied wearing the said glasses, had he heard by then the Crown evidence and the significance attached to the glasses?
    Simple yes or no please. TIA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘If they did have something to do with Stephen’s murder they were either planted there by Robin (and that is inconsistent with his sparing David)”

    ross it’s a struggle for you isn’t it?

    Is ‘if’ confirmation in your world? Sad chap. Binnie was entitled to view that as not confirming they had something to do with Stephen’s murder, along with other supporting evidence of them being dusty with no blood on them in a blood spattered room and so on. But don’t worry you’ll never get it but at least it gives you something to lie about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Mark , FES, Nostalgia, Judith et al of similar mind…..

    It would good, would it not, if:

    1. The “doltcom” answered FES’s pertinent questions on Guest;
    2. If the hopping from foot to foot, from subject to subject, by the JFRB mob and Collins supporters were to cease, and
    3. If the circular bullshit they postulate were to be sent down the long drop along with the “Truth” BS ???? :)

    As Nostalgia said about 4.30ish….

    ” …. The Crown knew of Guest’s claims before the first trial. They made extensive submissions to Binnie and had the opportunity to have witnesses examined by Binnie and themselves. You’re falling into a poorly designed trap. Binnie was fully aware of Guest’s claims and considered them. He did make comment about the glasses and the weekend in question. More fool those that somehow think Binnie was ‘fooled’ or not a match for ‘crusher’ the Queen of due process. I’m just surprised that normally relatively intelligent people don’t see it, then again maybe the do and use it for reasons not associated with fairness and the fair administration of Justice.”

    Somehow I do not think Collins will be chalking up ” Guest” as a “victory for her, for Mike Heron/CL, or for the “Molesworth Street Cowboys”.

    Sooner or later it will penetrate even the thickest of bureaucratic skulls, that they are simply persecuting David Bain, and 74 per cent of New Zealand says NO, STOP! . Sooner or later, one hopes, J.Key will summon up the courage displayed by RDM over Thomas and put an end to this perpetual Crown/Police/Collins revisionist, and re-litigation, garbage.

    It is time that the JFRB nutters and their fellow travellers engaged their child-like brains. They might then come, albeit reluctantly, to the collective conclusion that they are simply in cloud cookoo land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Mexican

    I don’t think Bain’s counsel went to the judge. Guest approached prosecutor Bill Wright who has confirmed that Guest approached him. Wright stated several years ago that he was surprised when DB denied using the glasses. Seem my comment at 12.53. There is a video of Wright talking about this very issue.

    In regards to 2, yes i think so. David testified towards the end of his 3 week trial. So yes, he would’ve heard the Crown case by then.

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

    Dotcom (694) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 4:22 pm
    If you, Judith, are still looking for rock solid proof, then I can’t give it to you. But no-one in the entire system is in need of rock solid proof any more. We are looking for — based on common sense and connecting the dots — probability of what happened.
    —————————

    Yes, you don’t have any proof, and are connecting the dots, just as I have. But my ‘dots’ along with commonsense, experience and research give me a different answer to yours. Neither of us can prove it, and I seriously doubt any one ever will (although I still think exhuming the bodies would be of some advantage).

    So, we look to why we don’t have any answers, and to those responsible for that, and there are people who can be held responsible. The police conducted a disgusting investigation, breaching their own rules and standards. For that reason you will never be able to prove guilt, and David will never be able to prove innocence. The erring side has to be on proving guilt, and because that cannot happen thanks to our ‘keystone cops’, then like it or not, compensation has to be paid.

    As distasteful it may be to those who consider David guilty, compensation must be paid, an investigation into police practices and what went wrong (and argue all you like but the investigation was seriously flawed). We have to ensure that nothing like this happens again. No innocent person should be imprisoned due to incompetence of public servants, and no guilty person should be set free due to the same incompetence. Because they are public servants, we must all pay, and for those who think Robin isn’t a murder, they must swallow a bitter pill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    So NNZ, you think Robin planted the glases in David’s room? Was that before or after he wrote “You’re the only one who deserved to stay”? :)

    Have you ever thought of becoming a comedian? I’d pay to see you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Keeping Stock (10,406 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ – you’re referring to the Herald poll of 500 people, where sampling began BEFORE either the Binnie or Fisher reports were publicly released. It would be interesting to know what the other 4,199,500 New Zealanders who WERE NOT polled think :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    I tell you who should take a lie detector test.
    David Cullen Bain.

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

    flipper (1,285) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    —————————–

    I do agree with you. It is obvious what they like to do, and there is a certain degree of organisation in their line of ‘attack’. Many, not all, have been at this a long time, and are very obvious in their method. They batter a poster for answers on certain points, hoping to draw any other readers attention away from the other issues raised. Much of what they do is discussed on their various blog/facebook pages. (All secretive of course because they are law abiding upstanding individuals with nothing to hide (choke).

    They have stated their intention is to make Ms Collins aware of their arguments, as they found out she reads this site. She may well do, but if she takes this site or any other similar site as an indication of whether she should pay compensation or not, then she is not worthy of her position. She has no choice other than to pass this on to an independent tribunal. It is the only way she and the government can save face on this and meet the standards required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    I don’t really think that you should refer to those bloody gloves as clothes. But even if you do there is really only one way to wear gloves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. wynkie (86 comments) says:

    Everyone seems totally distracted and sucked in by the Collins spin machine, whilst ignoring a more serious issue which is Collins’ calculated agenda achieved through denying procedural fairness (breach of State Services Code of Conduct) and deliberate manipulation of reports and outcomes in her favor, when she should not influence matters where either independence is required and which are operational in nature.

    There is also a disturbing trend in recent events which has emerged around Colins/her office/portfolios…

    1/a disturbing pattern of coincidental leaks / release of documents on issues /portfolios governed by Judith Collins eg., Bain in August, and twice again recently (justice), Boag memos (ACC), Greg King (justice)…..

    2/selective release/leak of documents from Collins office which defend her stance/agenda, whilst withholding those that don’t.

    3/all leaks / releases consistently seem to involve Cameron Slater and David Fisher.

    4/Collins office being overly efficient on OIA requests to perpetuate her own agenda with OIA releases with in a record breaking 5 hours, when 20 days are a normal response time eg., Slater makes OIA request at 1.27pm on 21st December and Collins office (Rachel Bowie) responds the SAME day – 21 December at 6.10pm with release of information.

    Clearly Slater and Fisher are being told by Collins/her office what to request and the information is made immediately available to them and when legitimate OIA’s aren’t possible, somehow information gets mysteriously leaked to them.

    The coincidence is too great too ignore. She can fool some of the people some of the time….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Why would David’s aunt ask him what pair of his mother’s glasses he was wearing?
    And don’t you think if he had been,as you suggest,wearing another pair of his mother’s glasses he would have told Mike Guest that?
    Wouldn’t he have told him he was wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses but not the pair that was found in his room ,instead of telling him he would be admitting to wearing the glasses that were in evidence, which he knew were the glasses that were found in his room?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    wynkie
    David Bain has managed to fool some people for years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    wynkie

    You’re a funny person, but you haven’t proven yourslf to be up to NNZ’s standard just yet.

    Those “leaks” you talk about about are commonly referred to as Official Information Act requests. Try making one, you might be surprised at the outcome.

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

    wynkie (80) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    ==========================

    Excellent summary and great observations.

    From the minute the results of the investigation were leaked, it has been obvious Ms Collins is playing games. (Typical of the woman). Cameron Slater is a hyperactive attention seeker, who often doesn’t believe a word he says, and willingly admits it.

    Guest, like Slater have less than enviable reputations. Ms Collins would do well to remember that. They would do well to remember that the woman doesn’t have a loyal bone in her body, and should the tide turn, she would not hesitate to make them one of her victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    “The apparent meaning is that if he was still able to practice, then he would not be so inclined to tell the truth?”

    as in my client Adolf is just a “normal Jerry bloke”

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

    ross69 (1,500) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    ——————————

    Have another wee read, and it might be more obvious to you. The OIA is a lot more use when one is told what to apply for. There is of course a number of documents that they won’t apply for, because the story they tell provide a completely different picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The blood in the rifle was not DNA tested and anyone who says it was is lying through their teeth.
    There was no blood deep in the barrel and anyone who says there was is lying through their teeth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    As I have said time and time again. There was more than one pair of Margaret’s glasses in the house on that day.
    David could have worn any of them

    So you’re saying David was wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend despite his sworn protestations to the contrary.

    Why would he lie Judith?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    There is no proof as to who was wearing the sock that left those bloody prints and anyone who says there was is a liar.

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

    muggins (734) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:42 pm
    ————-
    We do not know what he said or didn’t say, other than from what Guest says, and what he says.

    I have also seen Guest make a statement that he believes David Bain is innocent, now, are you going to say he was lying then, or is he lying now? Either way the results are the same, aren’t they. But I guess when you are desperate, you will hang on to it, like you have the glasses evidence, because, it’s all you have – sadly in the bigger picture, it means very little, and Crusher knows that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, in response to your question, ie, am I a member of JFRB..
    I dont recall asking you any questions here, and my personal life is just that, personal
    After all, would you like it if I started asking you personal questions?
    Keep to the subject please

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    You are living up to your name muggins? :)

    A few questions, which based upon the dolts’ refusal to respond to FES, you should should really answer:

    Are your a religous person muggins?
    Are you a Roman Catholic (I am not.) muggie ?
    If so, when did you last confess?
    Did you receive absolution for your sins?

    And further questions for Doltcom, Keeping, Rossie, et al…

    Are you religous folk Doltcom, Keeping.. , Rossie, et al ?
    Are you Roman Catholic ?
    If so, when did you last confess?
    Did you receive absolution for your sins?

    Time to face reality you idiotic fools!

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

    Scott Chris (4,687) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    ———————–

    Semantics my dear. David Bain said he was not wearing ‘that’ pair of his mothers glasses when shown them in court. There is nothing in the transcripts where clarification was sought regarding all pairs of Margaret’s glasses. Not even Binnie sought to clarify that issue. I dont’ know, and personally until someone can prove the murderer was wearing those glasses and they were in Stephen’s room being worn at the time of the murders, it is just like the blood on the gondeliers shirt, that proved not to be blood years later when it was finally tested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I see Judith is up to her usual tricks.
    When she can’t answer a question she demands that you stop asking her to answer it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You are telling porkies again. That stain on the Gondoliers t-shirt that you say “proved not to be blood”.
    So what did it prove to be?

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

    muggins (737) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    ————————

    muggins, I am a bit like you wife, I mostly ignore you because you are boring. You are like a broken record, except your record never had any worth listening to anyway. I answer you when I feel like it, and the rest of the time feel sorry for you. Must suck being you huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Interesting point that Mr Guest makes to J Collins, ie, who notified Justice Binnie that Mr Guest had been struck off? Would that have been the ‘defense side’, to discredit anything that Mr Guest may have had to say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. wynkie (86 comments) says:

    What is also disturbing is in Collins offices GREAT HASTE to release documents to Cameron Slater and David Fisher, there was a failure to conduct appropriate checks against the Official Information Act and Privacy Act which has led to a breach of privacy, where her office has of disclosing personal email addresses, private residential addresses and phone numbers, which are not published in public directories, of some of those concerned.

    One has to wonder if those individuals concerned were even consulted over the release of their private information.

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

    wynkie

    You are miles out of your depth here.

    If you want to talk about politics, there are a lot of politics threads. This thread is on a topic that clearly you have nothing to contribute to, namely whether David Bain is the Liar, Liar that his first lawyer claimed him to have been.

    Some lawyers have ethics. This particular lawyer, Mr Michael Guest, didn’t like his client lying to him, and saying something in evidence that was 180 degrees removed from what the client had said to the lawyer. On being lied to, this lawyer let his courtroom opponent know about the lie. Now the lawyer discovers 18 years later, that the client is trying to profit from the same lie. To the tune of millions of dollars.

    Now then, what does your stupid comment have to do with all of this again? If nothing, then move on, honey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Heh…

    May be we all agree on just one or two things,yes?

    DPF/Kiwiblog is racking up record postings on these threads and will obviously bury the Orca in terms of total visits, posts etc etc etc.

    That will be good for DPF and Kiwiblog, will it not ? Advertising $sssssssss ?

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

    muggins (738) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    Judith,
    You are telling porkies again. That stain on the Gondoliers t-shirt that you say “proved not to be blood”.
    So what did it prove to be?
    ============================

    The Crown maintained it was blood because of its colour, however when it was tested after the first trial, it was found to not be blood, of any kind, animal or human. It was not determined what the substance was, only that it was not blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,255) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 4:17 pm
    explanation not needed, nor will be forthcoming, sorry. Make of it whatever you want. Goes nowhere.

    Seriously? I would like an explanation as I think that there are a number of ways to take your comment and I would like to know what exactly you meant. So an explanation is actually needed, regardless of what you say.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What he means is people employ lawyers to get them off and it wouldn’t be any good for one’s reputation to put the TRUTH ahead of WINNING.

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

    Flipper, I have answered FES numerous times. You might not like my answer, but it has been answered repeatedly. Next lie, Flip?

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

    Here is the answer again, FES and Flipper. “yes” FES “yes. Now how many times do you need an answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. wynkie (86 comments) says:

    Muggins, I don’t give a rats arse about David Bain’s innocentpce or guilt, but may I suggest all those here commenting furiously upon it are merely willing pawns in Collins power and ambition trip.

    ross69, I am totally familiar with OIA’s. My point is it helps to know what to ask AND it’s all very convenient that Slater and Fisher get a replies to OIA’s within FIVE HOURS when other media outlets/journalists or mere mortals/Joe average public are made to wait a minimum of 20 days, or longer if the Minister want to push the time limits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Dotcom..
    As always, you talk crap.
    You are just as silly, and as much a buffoon, as your infamous namesake.

    Give it up.

    In case you have not come to the realisation, your stupid opinions, lies and distortions will make not a scrap of difference to the outcome of all this.

    You and your like are so stupid… if is probably impossible, but …. Lord help you!

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

    Muggins, most people have been disciplined enough to stay approximately on the topic here, which is Michael Guest and the glasses evidence. It is hard enough to keep up with others meandering all over the place without you doing the same. Please, muggins, go back to The Bain Poll if you want to wander all over the known universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,500) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:24 pm
    ‘So NNZ, you think Robin planted the glases in David’s room? Was that before or after he wrote “You’re the only one who deserved to stay”?

    Have you ever thought of becoming a comedian? I’d pay to see you.’

    That ‘if’ is a big hurdle to overcome isn’t it ross. Perhaps the COA can reconvene and have another go.

    ‘Keeping Stock (8,473) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:27 pm
    @ Nostalgia-NZ – you’re referring to the Herald poll of 500 people, where sampling began BEFORE either the Binnie or Fisher reports were publicly released. It would be interesting to know what the other 4,199,500 New Zealanders who WERE NOT polled think ‘

    You were careful with your ‘before’ weren’t you kS, not quite the full story though is it. But no doubt if the poll had suited your failed ends you’d be applauding it.

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

    Honeybadger at 6.07

    Probably the NZ Herald, or Paul Holmes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

     Some lawyers have ethics.

    Hold on, we are talking about the same Michael Guest here, aren’t we?  

    This particular lawyer, Mr Michael Guest, didn’t like his client lying to him, and saying something in evidence that was 180 degrees removed from what the client had said to the lawyer. On being lied to, this lawyer let his courtroom opponent know about the lie.

    If that is what happened, then Guest acted in a highly unethical manner and should have been disciplined for doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    How come one minute Bain tells Binnie he can’t drive without glasses and the next minute he says he can?
    And Binnie didn’t even pick him up on that.

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

    Flipper at 6.16

    They already have made a difference. I correspond with Cam Slater for example. And journos. And politicians. Have you seen this week’s The Truth? Or today’s NZ Herald. Now tell me again, how I don’t make a difference.

    Just because you only talk in this echo chamber, don’t assume I’m lazy like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘flipper (1,288) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:10 pm
    Heh…

    May be we all agree on just one or two things,yes?

    DPF/Kiwiblog is racking up record postings on these threads and will obviously bury the Orca in terms of total visits, posts etc etc etc.

    That will be good for DPF and Kiwiblog, will it not ? Advertising $sssssssss ?’

    More to it than that. Wynkie has filled a gap in the narrative. Collins has pawns at work shown obviously again.
    Collins was withholding he report because of privacy issues at one point then just released, here she has created privacy issues with the OIC releases. It would all work marvelously if the country were naive or simply starkers like the JFRB mob. Collins won’t stare down Reed and co and the more people she shits on the stronger the reaction will be against her. Train crash unfolding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Smith
    Bain told Guest that he was going to admit to wearing the glasses that were in his room and Bain’s co-counsel heard him say that as well.
    David lied about those glasses on oath,how unethical is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Wankye. You completely miss the point. The legal system has stuffed up and we are taking over. We being the people who work and keep this country ticking over, so defence lawyers can suck at the public purse and live in luxury. C’est tout fini. Bain is not getting compensation.

    @Judith. No, this is a political decision. REALITY. TRUTH. JUSTICE. Nothing to do with process and appearances. Bain is not getting compensation. Tough Titties.

    @Binnie:
    Your schoolboy report might be the catalyst for change. Adversarial system has to change. Currently the lawyers win.
    WE DEMAND THE PEOPLE WIN.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The Bain compensation claim is dead in the water.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Flipper, I have answered FES numerous times. You might not like my answer, but it has been answered repeatedly.

    Well, you had actually refused to answer, unless I missed the comment where you did answer.  Certainly I didn’t see an answer given numerous times, merely a repitition of a refusal to answer.  Those are two different things.

    here is the answer again, FES and Flipper. “yes” FES “yes.

    And that is indeed an interesting answer.  So, to be clear, you are saying that if Guest still had a practicing certificate then he would be less inclined to tell the truth about the matter.   So now there are a couple of ways to view that: either that he would not say anything, or would at least say less, or that he would in fact lie about it.  Just for clarity, please, which one do you mean?

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

    F E Smith at 6.21

    Then do something useful for once in your life: take it up with the NZLS ethics committee here:
    paul.byers@lawsociety.org.nz

    .. .. .. let us know how far you get.

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

    FES at 6.29

    One of your alternatives are both the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    DPF/Kiwiblog is racking up record postings on these threads and will obviously bury the Orca in terms of total visits, posts etc etc etc.

    That will be good for DPF and Kiwiblog, will it not ? Advertising $sssssssss ?

    That depends if anyone is silly enough to click on those ads for Asian girls or instant weight loss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Dotcom@ 6 20

    No, closer to the defense….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    so defence lawyers can suck at the public purse

    so prosecution and defence lawyers can suck at the public purse.  There, fixed it for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    take it up with the NZLS ethics committee here:

    Well, the first course of action would be a complaint to the Otago branch committee, but why would I want to complain about the actions of a former colleague who has already been struck off?

    And please get your email addresses right, the correct one, if going to the NZLS direct, would be complaints@lawsociety.org.nz

    I just want to know why you are describing apparent unethical behaviour by defence counsel as being the work of an ethical lawyer?

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

    F E Smith
    2258 comments, have they ALL been off topic.

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

    question mark

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Honeybadger (4) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 5:55 pm
    Nostalgia, in response to your question, ie, am I a member of JFRB..
    I dont recall asking you any questions here, and my personal life is just that, personal
    After all, would you like it if I started asking you personal questions?
    Keep to the subject please’

    You asked me a question at 4.39 above.
    What was your name on Trade Me?

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

    oooo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ooo, Honeybadger. Did you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Manolo (14,030 comments) says:

    The mind boggles on why DPF continues with successive, endless postings on this CRAP subject. Why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    2258 comments, have they ALL been off topic.

    Mostly.  I am easily distracted and I find people with your sort of attitude most diverting!

    But you have made 704 comments here and all of them are pointless in the grand scheme of things.

    And I disagree that my question was off topic: you appear to be making pronouncements about the court process that you shouldn’t be, like the ethics of defence counsel revealing their client’s confidences to prosecuting counsel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    4 39 was not a question, it was a statement, sorry if I confused you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (122) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    I can see it now. Dennis Horne and his not so merry band of losers storming the seat of power. Burning all court houses throughout the country, because all we need to ensure justice in this country is a facebook page and website for the disaffected.
    You should do well, after all 19.9% of the people agree with you on this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    muggins,

    sorry, missed your 6.27 question.  Perjury is not just highly unethical, but also, as you well know, illegal.  But was he lying when in the witness box or when he told his lawyer that he had the glasses in his room?  Clients lie, it is a fact of life.  Sometimes they do it when giving instructions, sometimes they do it in the witness box.  Rarely can do we conclusively know which version is actually the truth, or if either is even true.

    And I agree that the Bain compensation application appears to be dead in the water.

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

    Manolo at 6.41

    To annoy someone called Manolo whoever Manolo is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘Dennis Horne (122) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:27 pm
    @Wankye. You completely miss the point. The legal system has stuffed up and we are taking over. We being the people who work and keep this country ticking over, so defence lawyers can suck at the public purse and live in luxury. C’est tout fini. Bain is not getting compensation.

    @Judith. No, this is a political decision. REALITY. TRUTH. JUSTICE. Nothing to do with process and appearances. Bain is not getting compensation. Tough Titties.

    @Binnie:
    Your schoolboy report might be the catalyst for change. Adversarial system has to change. Currently the lawyers win.
    WE DEMAND THE PEOPLE WIN.’

    Who are the ‘we’ Dennis?
    I think I recall that you wrote that you were at the Perth conference?

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

    F E Smith so report ME instead then to:
    paul.byers@lawsociety.org.nz

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

    F E Smith, I suspect you are nothing more than the most dreaded thing on a blog: a self-appointed comments policeman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,261) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:47 pm
    muggins,

    sorry, missed your 6.27 question. Perjury is not just highly unethical, but also, as you well know, illegal. But was he lying when in the witness box or when he told his lawyer that he had the glasses in his room? Clients lie, it is a fact of life. Sometimes they do it when giving instructions, sometimes they do it in the witness box. Rarely can do we conclusively know which version is actually the truth, or if either is even true.

    And I agree that the Bain compensation application appears to be dead in the water.’

    I’ll send you a crate of the NZ wine of your choice through DPF if that is the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Semantics my dear. David Bain said he was not wearing ‘that’ pair of his mothers glasses when shown them in court.

    Oh come on Judith, and you don’t think with the subsequent whispered conferences twixt council and the crown would have cleared this “little misunderstanding” up?

    Pull the other one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    I do profess, that people posting unprotected email addresses on a wordpress website are opening themselves or other people wide to all kinds of spam. The Russian cialis resellers and penis enhancers will be on your email step within a month not just once but billions of times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    FES just happens to be one of the more astute Kiwibloggers and is usually very good on legal matters, about which he clearly knows a lot more than you.

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

    Dennis Horne, starting to warm to you. Wankye indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Dotcom,

    F E Smith so report ME instead then to:

    But I don’t know who you are! Anyway, I have never yet reported a colleague to the Law Society, and I don’t intend to start with non-justiciable non-colleagues.  At least I presume that you aren’t a colleague.

    And, no, I am not a comments policeman.  Haven’t reported anyone here, either.  I just noticed an interesting assertion that I sought some clarification on.  Still haven’t got it, mind.  After that it has solely been for the fun of seeing your haughty reaction as you dig yourself deeper.  I am enjoying myself, but I do worry about your blood pressure…

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

    So, can I just check with people. Is this sequence of events correct:
    1. DB tells Guest that he wore his mother’s spectacles
    2. In court, DB hears that the spectacles are used as evidence
    3. DB tells court he hasn’t worn them for ages
    TIA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    I know, just for a change, shall we stop debating the issue, ie, Guest on Bain, and instead start debating other posters good/bad points, or in the case of one poster, start asking personal questions of others?

    Back to the debate people, without the snarky comments….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    My thanks, MM, and a happy new year to you and yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,261) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    DH: “so defence lawyers can suck at the public purse”
    FES: “so prosecution and defence lawyers can suck at the public purse. There, fixed it for you.”
    _______________________________________

    Thank you for your “answer”, but you didn’t read the “question. No marks.

    A barrister is chosen on reputation. The defence does not get to choose the prosecution. Furthermore, it’s the QCs who suck more. Take that any way you like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Oh, and Judith, I don’t suppose you could paste up a verbatim version of the relevant testimony so that we can appraise the specific wording for ourselves.

    [I’m assuming of course that you have a copy judging by the confidence of your pronouncements.]

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

    Dennis, you don’t have the right to speak for me, or for other NZers. Whilst you may be loud on the matter, there are plenty of people who do not feel like you do. As you well know, there have been plenty of articles supporting the compensation bid and Binnie’s report. I would say in all honesty, the spread is fairly even among the public. I could say that if I surveyed my friends, those wanting compensation to be paid would far exceed those that don’t, but then my spread of friends is not characteristic of the general population. The fact there is a group (albeit a very small but bitter and twisted one) that has organised themselves to defend Robin Bain is what gives this argument more space. Take them away from this thread, and the conversation would die out. They have a vested interest in ensuring the topic keeps running, much the same as Cameron Slater.

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

    He may be, Mikenmild, but he is also a troll who knows not when to give up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    If, as has been claimed, the client/lawyer ‘privelige’ was waived way back then, is the waiver still in place? anyone know? and yes Nostalgia, that IS a question

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

    Scott Chris (4,689) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    Oh, and Judith, I don’t suppose you could paste up a verbatim version of the relevant testimony so that we can appraise the specific wording for ourselves.

    [I’m assuming of course that you have a copy judging by the confidence of your pronouncements.]

    ——————————————–

    Regarding the glasses? No I can’t. I don’t have a copy but have had access to them for research purposes. However, it is well documented that when David Bain was shown the particular glasses and asked if he had been wearing them that weekend, he said no. After all, isn’t that the essence of the argument? There is no doubt newspaper articles that reported it.

    Are you trying to say that is wrong, and he said ‘yes’ instead? I’m sure Mr Guest would like to know about that!

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

    See what I mean, Mikenmild. Not one comment from F E Smith today of any use or on topic. Yet he knows not when to give up. Still at it. FES, listen up brainssmith, I’m not wanting to play with you today. This is a topic I happen to know a lot about, no matter how many times you want to tell the world otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Denis,

    as far as I am aware, QCs don’t get any more money from Legal Aid than any other counsel. They are paid the same rate as everyone else. Moreover, for Legal Aid PC1 & PC2 matters (summary trials and jury trials with up to 10 years imprisonment as the maximum penalty), counsel of choice is no longer available in most regions (in fact, I think every region) so reputation really only matters for the more serious PC3 & PC4 cases, which aren’t that common.

    And you have the bit about the Defence choosing the Prosecution wrong, too. The Crown gets to choose every time who it is represented by, whether it be kept within the Crown Solicitor’s firm or briefed out to a barrister on the Crown List, so in fact they have more choice than the legally aided defendant,.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    If FES is a troll, then ‘Dotcom’ must be Little Billy Goat Gruff.

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

    Mexican at 6.58

    Yes, spot on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    This is a topic I happen to know a lot about

    So you keep telling us, and with quite some feeling! :D

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

    Kanz (291) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    You should do well, after all 19.9% of the people agree with you on this case.

    ——————————

    Gosh, only 19.9% ? How many times did each of them vote this time, I wonder?
    There is a famous conversation on JFRB where Kent et al talk about and give instructions on how to multi-vote on these polls.

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

    Mexican, just as he did with the green pullover (though to police, not it court). In this case the pullover was Arawa’s till the fibres from it were found under Stephen’s fingernails. Then the green pullover became Robin’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    The glasses remain a red herring. Of more interest is how Guest came to contradict himself and why it was so readily accepted by Collins. Wynkie has framed a vehicle for that. They weren’t however David’s glasses and the Crown knew that, it was an issue of credibility on which the Crown levered their MOJ. From memory the Jury returned and asked a question about that, if I’m correct it’s in the PC Judgement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    You are telling porkies again.
    That stain on the Gondolier’s T-Shirt did not test positive for anything. So it could have been blood,but it didn’t test positive for blood.
    What you have to remember is that Bain said that stain wasn’t there when he put that T-shirt in the wash.
    Also that stain was on that T-shirt in exactly the same place as the blood on that green jersey was thought to have been.
    So had that stain tested positive for anything,it would probably have been blood.

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

    And of course, Mexican, the green pullover was always David’s but evidence of this is lacking, and it didn’t help that David put the green woolen pullover through it’s first ever machine wash, all part of his plan, to shrink it from David size, to his victims’ size.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    Dotcom

    Are you still crapping on about this? Get on with it and tell us who did it.

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

    F E Smith. Stop trolling please. Do you actually have anything to say on topic today?
    Are you open to polite requests at all? Or do we have to get nasty with F E Smith?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > But was he lying when in the witness box or when he told his lawyer that he had the glasses in his room?

    Oh come on, F E Smith, it’s not like you to be obtuse. :)

    The glasses were found in his bedroom. He told his aunt soon after the murders that he’d used them that weekend. He told Guest and his co-counsel that he’d worn them the night before the murders. He’d driven a car that weekend, and he admitted to Binnie he couldn’t drive without his glasses. he denied wearing the glasses AFTER he heard the Crown case against him, in which this issue was almost certainly traversed. The COA said the evidence presented a problem for David. The glasses were no good to Robin and it was a fantasy to claim that Robin tried to frame David…so what are we left with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. lilman (965 comments) says:

    Bain proven lair that is fact.
    Never would any person,lawyer or policeman stop me from having my say at a trial where I was accused of murdering my family.His silence says to me he has something to hide and couple that with the fact he is a proven lair any comments he has made to binnie must be excluded on the basis of history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Of further note F E Smith has explained before that any such ‘admissions’ about the glasses wouldn’t be surrendered to the Crown and that the defence counsel would fully test the reliability of the Crown’s evidence, which in the case of the first trial was wrong in respect of who owned the glasses.

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

    F E Smith. I don’t want to play today. I don’t come playing on your threads, on your topics.
    As politely as I can, piss off or contribute to the debate.

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

    Mexican (6) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    So, can I just check with people. Is this sequence of events correct:
    1. DB tells Guest that he wore his mother’s spectacles
    2. In court, DB hears that the spectacles are used as evidence
    3. DB tells court he hasn’t worn them for ages
    TIA

    —————————

    Thats about it, except, which pair of his mothers glasses did he tell Guest he was wearing (there were more than one)
    Did Guest clarify which pair, or just ‘a pair’?
    When he was shown the pair of glasses that were evidence, he stated he didn’t wear that pair, did any one ask him if he did wear the other pair of his mothers glasses that weekend?
    Maybe DB hadn’t worn that pair for ages, and he wore his mother’s other pair that weekend.

    So far I’ve yet to see any evidence that clarifies which particular pair of glasses any of the parties were talking about, apart from the single pair presented to David in court.

    It appears to me that it is entirely possible none of the parties actually clarified any other than ‘mothers glasses’, which is sloppy, considering there were at least two pairs in the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Honeybadger (8) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    If, as has been claimed, the client/lawyer ‘privelige’ was waived way back then, is the waiver still in place? anyone know? and yes Nostalgia, that IS a question

    It was waived on a particular subject, and for a specific hearing.
    I note that Crown Law criticized Bain for failing to waive solicitor client privilege for the compensation hearing, although it was never requested.
    It seems the only person who thinks it has been waived is the Ex Lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Dotcom – how many hundreds of comments have you posted on Kiwiblog over the past week?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Rodders
    Dotcom think he sets the rules. He must have a brain the size of a planet. It’s a wonder he puts up with the intellectual pygmies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Dotcom @ 6.25pm……

    1. Amiable and sensible the Orca may be on some matters, he and his “truth” are away with the fishes on this issue. But then given his “give him nothing” stance, that is no surprise, is it not? If you think “corresponding” with Cam Slater is the epitome, then sleep soundly while you can. The cacophony when crusher gets her come-uppance will be exceeded only by your apology, will it not?

    2. CS in 2013 does not draw any water in National. Some folk choose to “use” him, as they choose to “use” me, or DPF or many others (Labour does the same :) ).

    3. Dotcom, you are just a silly fellow (?), out of your depth. I am sorry, notwithstanding my nautical talents, which, I add, are considerable, I can/will do nothing to save unless you are prepared to confess and repent. :)

    4. The NZ Herald does not draw any water in 2013. But some of its writers (Jones, for example) reflect the views of the folks that really matter at a political level – the sort that can and do communicate directly with J.Key on an hour by hour basis. Do you think you could correspond, sensibly, with such folk?

    5. Please, for the sake of your sanity, recognise that folk like FES and Nostalgia are so much better informed, and, ergo, better able reach sound conclusions.

    6. Good night. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    lilman (339) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:15 pm
    Bain proven lair that is fact.
    Never would any person,lawyer or policeman stop me from having my say at a trial where I was accused of murdering my family.His silence says to me he has something to hide and couple that with the fact he is a proven lair any comments he has made to binnie must be excluded on the basis of history.’

    Bain made statements and gave evidence so what are you trying to say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Scott1 (575 comments) says:

    Nostalgia/ FE Smith,
    “I am taking your initial statement to mean that if he was a person with a current practising certificate issued by the Law Society then he would in fact be less inclined to tell the truth about the matter.”

    I take it that to make any comment against a client (and to start a public fight) – is, in general, to reduce your chances of getting future clients? possibly other concequences that are not worth the trouble?

    If so I imagine a normal person would… shall we say… “talk like a politician” in regard to any correspondance (if they talked at all), until they no longer had much to risk.

    maybe you have a reason why this would not be the case?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @FESmith. What? I didn’t say QCs got more than any other counsel. I did say the defence does not get to choose the prosecution.

    @Judith. I wasn’t using the “we” with regard to not paying compensation, I was using in regard to finding the truth. I am fully aware many people hear “incest” and “such a nice boy” and their minds are made up. Among my closest and oldest friends, two surgeons, two mathematicians … not one thinks Bain is innocent.

    Bozhe moi, no wonder trials take so long and cost so much. You buggers can’t read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Scott1 (575 comments) says:

    of course maybe Guest isn’t a normal person.. I dont know, it just seems the point above is a pretty obvious one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Oh come on, F E Smith, it’s not like you to be obtuse.

    Thank you, ross, the cheque is in the post. 

    I am trying not to consider too much about the actual evidence in the Bain case because then I might form an opinion, and as that appears to confiscate one’s life it is something that I want to avoid!

    lilman,

    Well, I hope that you would at least listen to your lawyer’s advice before making up your mind if it came to such a turn of events.  I have advised plenty of defendants not to enter the witness box, not because I thought that they were guilty but for other reasons.  Each case is different, each defendant is different. 

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

    lilman (339) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:15 pm
    ———————–

    that is exactly what he did at the first trial, and he was found guilty. His evidence from the first trial was read at the second trial, what more what he meant to have said?
    People seem to think his words weren’t heard, they were. All of his evidence was read out. At the first trial he was questioned, at the second he wasn’t. Given the results of the first trial and the Crown’s use of loaded questions (have you stopped beating your wife) it was wise not to take the stand. He gave permission for medical records etc to be released to Courts as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Denis,

    my mistake. I see that there are a couple of other meanings to your expression that ‘QCs suck more’! I would point out, however, that QCs generally avoid accepting instructions from Legal Aid like it was the plague.

    I thought that perhaps you had the ‘defence doesn’t get to choose the prosecution’ bit wrong, because it just doesn’t make sense otherwise. My point was that Crown Prosecutors taking criminal matters for the Police are entirely funded from the public purse.

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

    Dotcom (716) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:13 pm
    And of course, Mexican, the green pullover was always David’s but evidence of this is lacking, and it didn’t help that David put the green woolen pullover through it’s first ever machine wash, all part of his plan, to shrink it from David size, to his victims’ size.

    —————————-

    What evidence do you have that the jersey had not been washed by hot machine wash before and already shrunk, and what evidence do you have that machine washing shrinks jerseys?

    A cold machine wash will not shrink a woollen jersey, it is the heat that shrinks them. Evidence: I do it all the time, I’m lazy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    My point was that Crown Prosecutors taking criminal matters for the Police are entirely funded from the public purse.

    I is amazing how often this simple fact is overlooked in debates about legal aid.

    I am happy for restrictions on legal aid, provided the prosecution has the same budget, including the Police and any others employed in an attempt to prove the defendant guilty. The State spends many millions to convict, they should spend the same on defense. Then the system can be called balanced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Bain waived privilege during the sacking of Guest. Can’t find the reference but it’s on the other blog somewhere.

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

    I have no problem with the fact that no one saw David wearing his mother’s glasses.
    The family can’t tell us they saw him wearing them as he killed all them.
    I can understand that no one who saw him during the day saw him wearing them, if you
    were a 22 year old trying to impress your female friends, would you be seen in your mum’s glasses. ?
    It’s a different story wearing them at home with no one laughing at you.

    Someone said there were other glasses in the house, but the only ones I can think of were the ones beside Margaret’s body, could david have used these when he broke his mother’s old pair.
    If there is a third mystery pair, can someone tell me where they were found

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

    Dennis Horne (124) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:22 pm
    ————————

    Oh come on, are we really going to play the ‘my oldest and dearest’ friends game?

    I did credit you with a few more marbles than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    A cold machine wash will not shrink a woollen jersey, it is the heat that shrinks them. Evidence: I do it all the time, I’m lazy!

    No dear. The spin cycle will shrink wool, not just heat. You should know that. Now get back to the kitchen/bedroom ;)

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

    Belinda (66) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    —————————–

    I don’t think anyone knows when or if David wore his mothers glasses or which pair.
    The pair that were next to Margaret’s bed were probably put there with the money she had withdrawn from the money machine late that night, after David had gone to bed. She would have needed her glasses to drive the car. It is just as reasonable to say she retrieved them from wherever David left them so she could do that. We do not know, but it’s as possible as any of the other scenarios.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (125) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    @Klutz. Bain waived privilege during the sacking of Guest. Can’t find the reference but it’s on the other blog somewhere.

    Learn a few things before trying to discuss adult things with adults. The waiving of privilege had NOTHING to do with Guest’s sacking.

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

    Kea (1,298) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    ————————

    Rubbish, I have washed my family’s jerseys in the machine for years. Including their homespun jerseys, and none of them have shrunk. The only one that has shrunk was when a hot cycle was used by mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. lilman (965 comments) says:

    Well if he had nothing to hide ( remember he is a proven lair ) why did he choose nto to take the stand in the following court dates.
    He had ample time to remember his evidence and yet he choose not too.
    If his testimony cant stand up to cross examination then he clearly dose not believe h e was able to present a story that was believable and would stand scrutiney, simply put he is being evasive at best,dishonset at worst.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Scott1 (182) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    Nostalgia/ FE Smith,
    “I am taking your initial statement to mean that if he was a person with a current practising certificate issued by the Law Society then he would in fact be less inclined to tell the truth about the matter.”

    I take it that to make any comment against a client (and to start a public fight) – is, in general, to reduce your chances of getting future clients? possibly other concequences that are not worth the trouble?

    If so I imagine a normal person would… shall we say… “talk like a politician” in regard to any correspondance (if they talked at all), until they no longer had much to risk.

    maybe you have a reason why this would not be the case?’

    F E Smith is the person to answer this question. On the basis of a client being unable to trust their lawyer with free and frank disclosure if they chose we wouldn’t have a justice system, We might have a counterfeit system where lawyers were in a position to be bribed or threatened by either side which wouldn’t work for very long either people would soon be at the mercy of summary judgement if they weren’t able to pay or curry some favour for their freedom. That’s my poor take on it anyway.

    But to the Bain case I think the police were ‘confident’ that they would get a confession from David himself in the first instance before he realised he was being entrapped, then later through his family, finally what Guess claimed he was told could in fact be viewed as third ‘chance’ of a confession. All failed of course and Guest compromised his claim by having also saying that his belief was that David was innocent. Only he knows why he would have thought that had the glasses ‘evidence’ was critical, indeed a form of confession, while holding the view of David’s innocence. Then it gets murkier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Judith (235) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    Dennis Horne (124) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:22 pm
    ————————

    Oh come on, are we really going to play the ‘my oldest and dearest’ friends game?

    I did credit you with a few more marbles than that.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Not interested in the truth, Judith? In response to your claim it’s split half and half.

    I am telling it as it is. I personally know only person I see from time to time who I would bother asking for an opinion, a PhD engineering from a Canadian U, who agreed with compensation on the basis he wants to end it without him thinking about it.

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

    Judith at 7:29 pm asked what evidence I had of something or other.

    Don’t need evidence of anything, Judy. David Bain is the current claimant.

    You keep forgetting, it is David who has to prove that he didn’t kill anyone. Something that he will not be able to do, because he did kill.

    He killed 5 members of his family. You keep wanting to overlook this minor detail. I have to prove nothing, Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    lilman (340) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:46 pm

    You obviously missed what F E Smith said to you at 7:23 pm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    why did he choose nto to take the stand in the following court dates.

    Because he did such a hopeless job of it that, even if he were telling the truth, he would only make things worse.  I have seen people that I firmly believe to be innocent be tied up in knots and made to look like fools by Crown counsel.  And once by a judge, but that is another story.  Being innocent does not mean you will do well giving evidence.  It is sad but true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Belinda (66) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    I have no problem with the fact that no one saw David wearing his mother’s glasses.
    The family can’t tell us they saw him wearing them as he killed all them.
    I can understand that no one who saw him during the day saw him wearing them, if you
    were a 22 year old trying to impress your female friends, would you be seen in your mum’s glasses. ?
    It’s a different story wearing them at home with no one laughing at you.

    Someone said there were other glasses in the house, but the only ones I can think of were the ones beside Margaret’s body, could david have used these when he broke his mother’s old pair.
    If there is a third mystery pair, can someone tell me where they were found’

    Defamatory crap. If you think you can prove David Bain killed his family use your name and not another person’s site.

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

    Judith are you saying David may have been wearing his mother’s current glasses and Margaret had to settle for her old pair which were found in Stephen’s room. That still leaves the problem of how the lens got into Stephen’s room and the frame into Davids.

    I can’t see any normal person expecting to get their mother to give them your best glasses to wear (certainly not to your careless
    son )
    As someone who does rely on glasses to see they are hugely important to me, I’d be happy to lend my child an old pair but certainly not my current pair.

    There doesn’t seem to be a 3rd pair anywhere.

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

    For anyone talking about which pair of glasses. David is the current claimant.

    It is for David to have to prove which pair of glasses he did or didn’t wear.
    When do we get this change from onus on the Crown to onus on the claimant.

    We don’t have to prove anything. David has the onus of proving that he didn’t kill.
    So until David proves to us that he used Margaret’s second glasses, then no compo.

    And until Dave can prove that his school mate fucked a goat, something his claim currently puts great store in, same thing, no compo. Good luck Dave, you goat.

    End of. Next case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,

    you have got it roughly correct. The ability of a client to have complete faith in the confidentiality of what is said to their lawyer, with a few very strict exceptions, is vital. If a lawyer feels that he/she has been misled then there are ways to deal with it other than informing the other side.

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

    If David’s claim relies on who owned the green pullover, and how big it was, and whether it shrinks in the wash, then let David prove his evidence

    Till he does, no compo.

    End of. Next case please.

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

    Dotcom (717) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:48 pm
    You keep forgetting, it is David who has to prove that he didn’t kill anyone.

    —————————-

    Actually, I believe that point is arguable. You are forgetting the extra-ordinary circumstances. If he is unable to prove he didn’t kill them because of the actions of, lets say the police who acted irresponsibly, then the test is not absolute proof.

    I believe that is the case here. If the police had stuck to the manual, and even just done one of many things, e.g. GSR tests in a timely manner, not destroyed evidence when they found out the matter was going to privy counsel, etc, then the matter would have been solved immediately. I believe the BoP is in David’s favour. Whether he will get compensation or not has become political, which is disgusting. The only fair and proper thing to do would be to set up a tribunal to take care of the matter. This will not go away with a refusal thanks to the manner it has been managed by Ms Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Dotcom (717) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:48 pm
    Judith at 7:29 pm asked what evidence I had of something or other.

    Don’t need evidence of anything, Judy. David Bain is the current claimant.

    You keep forgetting, it is David who has to prove that he didn’t kill anyone. Something that he will not be able to do, because he did kill.

    He killed 5 members of his family. You keep wanting to overlook this minor detail. I have to prove nothing, Judith.’

    More defamatory crap from the anonymous lawyer. But I liked your big back track from F E Smith today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,270) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    Nostalgia,

    you have got it roughly correct. The ability of a client to have complete faith in the confidentiality of what is said to their lawyer, with a few very strict exceptions, is vital. If a lawyer feels that he/she has been misled then there are ways to deal with it other than informing the other side.

    What I find particularly interesting is. It was always claimed that it was common ground between the prosecution and Guest BEFORE the first trial that Bain would admit to wearing the glasses. Now Guest says he had to tell them DURING the trial and AFTER Bain denied it. Something does smell here, and it is not fish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    Rubbish, I have washed my family’s jerseys in the machine for years. Including their homespun jerseys, and none of them have shrunk. The only one that has shrunk was when a hot cycle was used by mistake.

    Judith, have you ever wondered why electronic washing machines always default to a lower spin speed when set on the wool cycle ?

    It seems to effect some woolen articles more than others.

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

    F E Smith at 7:56 pm

    So what. It happened. Might not have been legal. But it happened.
    And the result is evidence that David has lied about the glasses.
    Just because Michael Guest acted unethically doesn’t cancel out the David Bain lie.

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

    Belinda (67) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:54 pm
    ———————–

    Margaret was short-sighted. It is well documented that she spent most of her days in her room and therefore would not have needed her glasses, however, like David, she needed them for driving, and would have needed them to go out that night to the money machine.

    Why do people insist that glasses must be worn all the time and people cannot manage without them? There is a vast difference between short and long sightedness. What if the second pair could be found and you weren’t doing anything that required the glasses e.g. reading in bed (her glasses would need to be removed for her to read), then I’m sure any mother would gladly let her son borrow hers. I know I would.
    I am unaware of any reports of Margaret leaving the house, other than late that night.

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

    Judith at 7.57

    You forget that a legal process called the PCA has found no fault on the police.

    If David wants to rely on police misfeasance or even malfeasance, still for David to prove that PCA was wrong.

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

    Nostalgia-nz @ 7.54pm not sure the reason for your unpleasantness.
    I didn’t realise we were meant to use our real names and have our own site.
    Does that mean Nostalgia is your first or last name and does that mean this is “your” site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    There he goes…just like the goat..,… click, click, suck, suck, maaaa, maaaa ….

    What a silly bird brain you are dottie !

    I have a seven year old (ex) “lamb” named Wiggles, with more sense than you, muggins,
    rossi and all your followers/surrogates. :)

    Give it up before you are rounded up with the goats.

    One final point this evening Dottie and fools: David Bain does not need to prove anything to you. You do not matter. When you realise that you will, assuredly, sleep, peacefully.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ at 7:59 pm

    I answered FES questions today repeatedly. You don’t like my answers? Suck eggs.

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

    Kea (1,299) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:04 pm
    ——————————

    Makes no difference. I wash mine on an ordinary cycle, as do other adult family members and my friends. Sure a slower spin might be more gentle, but that still doesn’t mean they shrink under an ordinary cycle. They don’t unless hot water is added.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    You forget that a legal process called the PCA has found no fault on the police.

    Please don’t post things like this when I am having a drink, too much risk of damage to the laptop!  If you put your faith in anything that the Police Compliance Authority says in its reports then I have a large bridge in Auckland to sell you!

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

    Judith (at 8:05 pm

    So what Judes? Doesn’t matter what you think. Till David proves it to Judy Collins, no compo.

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

    Dotcom (722) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:07 pm
    ——————–

    The PCA report has been sufficiently discredited that I’m surprised you even mention it. You don’t to be a genius to know that the police acted irresponsibly, hell you don’t even have to be an adult. Argue the point regarding PCA all you like, but as you well know, there are numerous mistakes made, and admitted to by Doyle and Weir to Binnie, and that were revealed in the second trial. You are really pushing it up hill if you try to argue that one. Fortunately even Collins has a brain bigger than Egor.

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

    Dotcom (723) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    ————————
    You carry on believing that if it helps you sleep better.

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

    Not the point FES. Judy Collins puts her faith in the Judge who heads what was then called the PCA. So doesn’t matter what you do to your computer. Judy Collins is who counts. Till DAvid Bain can prove the PCA was wrong, no compo.

    When will you lot (incl lawyers) get this changeover in onus of persuasion? FES for example?

    BTW, just out of interest, I was once successful in a PCA complaint, this being such a rare event you ought to be able to work out my real identity from this one piece of info (unless I am lying again).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. I tend to agree with you. If the police and prosecution completely stuffed it such that he cannot reasonably prove OBP factual innocence then he has benefit of the doubt by default, so it’s up to the state to show, POB he’s not factually innocent.

    Look at the whole case. It’s a gossamer-thin chain of improbabilities that Robin killed himself. A sample offering does the trick:

    The “suicide” “note” was written by David. Probability 99%.
    The magazine/clip fell on its edge. Probability 0%
    It was placed. P 100%
    Robin placed it under the table rather than leave it in his pocket or put it on the table. P 5%
    Robin could have placed it within a few millimetres of his hand. P 0.1%

    WE the people (excluding Judith for the sake of peace) determine Robin did not kill himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Kanz (295) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:02 pm
    F E Smith (2,270) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    Nostalgia,

    you have got it roughly correct. The ability of a client to have complete faith in the confidentiality of what is said to their lawyer, with a few very strict exceptions, is vital. If a lawyer feels that he/she has been misled then there are ways to deal with it other than informing the other side.

    What I find particularly interesting is. It was always claimed that it was common ground between the prosecution and Guest BEFORE the first trial that Bain would admit to wearing the glasses. Now Guest says he had to tell them DURING the trial and AFTER Bain denied it. Something does smell here, and it is not fish.’

    Nice twist. My memory of it is not clear but I recall being annoyed that it seemed that Guest was acting as the third prosecutor. No wonder Binnie was disparaging about the ‘that’s all.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    doesn’t cancel out the David Bain lie.

    But what if he lied to Guest and told the truth in the witness box?

    Or, or, what if, what if Guest and his co-counsel are lying, and Bain didn’t say anything about it to Guest and told the truth in the witness box?

    So many possibilities to choose from, so little benefit from considering them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,271) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:10 pm
    You forget that a legal process called the PCA has found no fault on the police.

    Please don’t post things like this when I am having a drink, too much risk of damage to the laptop! If you put your faith in anything that the Police Compliance Authority says in its reports then I have a large bridge in Auckland to sell you!
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Drink up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > But what if he lied to Guest and told the truth in the witness box?

    Keep that up and I will think you really are obtuse! :)

    Yeah we’ve been over this one…all the approximately 100 odd prosecution witnesses were unreliable/lied/suffered from alzheimers. They are all wrong but David told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,

    If it was common ground before the trial then it would most likely take the form of an agreed fact and have been memorialised somewhere, if only in a Crown note. Agreed facts are a relatively commonplace occurrence. That is completely different to Guest informing the Crown of the variance between instruction and evidence part way through the trial. If Bain had given evidence contrary to an agreed fact then you would expect some fairly vigorous cross-examination on that point.

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

    Doesn’t matter what you think of the PCA.

    Doesn’t matter what you think of the PCA Bain report.

    If David wants compo he needs to prove his claim.

    If he wants to base his claim in police misfeasance/malfeasance, he has to convince CABINET, that the PCA Bain report is defective. Good luck, David/Joe, in convincing Cabinet that they should overrule the report which after all was signed by a JUDGE.

    Cabinet does not like overruling judges. Separation of powers and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,272) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    But what if he lied to Guest and told the truth in the witness box?

    Or, or, what if, what if Guest and his co-counsel are lying, and Bain didn’t say anything about it to Guest and told the truth in the witness box?

    So many possibilities to choose from, so little benefit from considering them!

    So true. The fact that there is NO evidence that puts them in the bedroom during the murder, there is no benefit whatsoever. Just as Binnie pointed out.

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

    F E Smith, I’m absolutely correct, am I not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Bain didn’t say anything about it to Guest

    Yeah I am sure it happens all the time that defence lawyers make up shit which they then share with the prosecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    MM,

    >-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Ok, got that wrong, perhaps it is this: }:)

    (anyway, it is me expressing surprise at MM’s observation, as I would not possibly ever be like that here on KB when being like that is so much fun when Dotcom is around…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘Dotcom (724) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:09 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ at 7:59 pm

    I answered FES questions today repeatedly. You don’t like my answers? Suck eggs.’

    This from the egg sucker. Good work, more reverse gears than an Italian tank.

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

    oss69 (1,503) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    Yeah I am sure it happens all the time that defence lawyers make up shit which they then share with the prosecution.
    ——————————————–

    LOL.
    Reality’s a bummer isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > The fact that there is NO evidence that puts them in the bedroom during the murder, there is no benefit whatsoever.

    You were abducted by aliens, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    F E Smith, I’m absolutely correct, am I not?

    About what? 

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

    Doesn’t matter.

    David’s claim for compo is based in his telling Cabinet that Robin killed 4 people.

    I demand that if David can prove to Cabinet that his claim of Robin being a killer, then Cabinet should pay David $10 million. No, make that a world record $100 million.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Reality’s a bummer isn’t it?

    It is for your blue eyed boy. Now that compo is out of the question, the big question is: will he try to get his hands on the family estate, and what are his chances of success? Or will he decide that since more and more people are now thinking he slaughtered his family, he should just call it quits?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘F E Smith (2,275) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:23 pm
    Nostalgia,

    If it was common ground before the trial then it would most likely take the form of an agreed fact and have been memorialised somewhere, if only in a Crown note. Agreed facts are a relatively commonplace occurrence. That is completely different to Guest informing the Crown of the variance between instruction and evidence part way through the trial. If Bain had given evidence contrary to an agreed fact then you would expect some fairly vigorous cross-examination on that point.’

    Exactly, a tipping point aided by the false assertion that they were his glasses and not his mothers.

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

    dennis, muggins, ross69, Yvette, Kent, do you agree.

    If David can prove to Cabinet that Robin killed 4 people, David should get compo of $100 million?

    Any takers?

    F E SMITH? Balls enough to comment, Mr Brainstrust?

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

    Ross 69, want to play with this one? Balls to go with me for once.

    If David/Joe can prove Robin killed 4 people, he gets $100 million compo.

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

    Dotcom (727) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:29 pm

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

    Good lord, surely people are joking when they refer to you as a lawyer?

    David does not have to prove to the cabinet who killed his family. What rubbish you talk (oh, maybe you are a lawyer afterall, sorry FES)

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

    And Counterspin shuts the fuck up forever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Cabinet does not like overruling judges. Separation of powers and all that.

    Well, the IPCA is neither a judicial nor a legal process, so the reports that it issues are not a part of the separation of the powers.  Justice Goddard is the head of the IPCA, but not in her capacity as a judge.   Which means that that the reports do not have the same status as a judgment.  After all, Justice Baragwanath was the President of the Law Commission for a while, as is Justice Hammond now, and Cabinet routinely ignores Law Commission reports.

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

    Judith, Nostalgia, Kanz, want to play?

    Common any balls among the lot of you?

    Come on play my game, chickens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,505) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    > Reality’s a bummer isn’t it?

    It is for your blue eyed boy. Now that compo is out of the question, the big question is: will he try to get his hands on the family estate, and what are his chances of success? Or will he decide that since more and more people are now thinking he slaughtered his family, he should just call it quits?’

    Have that ‘dismantled’ feeling again ross, searching around for the tired old arguments and helpful advice. That was a big ‘if’ you sucked up, you would have done sewer pump truck proud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Dotcom

    If David can prove to Cabinet that Robin killed 4 people while David roamed the house – how did they avoid bumping into each other? – then David should be up for a knighthood. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    No problem, Judith.

    And, Dotcom, David Bain only has to prove that he is not the killer, not that Robin is the killer. Semantics, I know, but important semantics.

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

    F E Smith avoiding me question I see.

    Quick when it’s the other way round.

    Answer my question, F E

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

    Dotcom (731) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:33 pm
    And Counterspin shuts the fuck up forever.
    —————————–

    You have to offer a prize that is achievable, keeping KP and MS quiet is an unrealistic dream. Wouldn’t happen, not possible.

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

    Yeah, but I’m offering a challenge to you, chicken face.

    $100 million out of my pocket then, for David to prove he didn’t kill, by way of proving Robin did. After all that was the basis of his successful lying-fucker defence. Put up or shut up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    What question, Dotcom?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    “So many possibilities to choose from, so little benefit from considering them!”

    I think we can rule out Guest, the co-counsel and the prosecutor colluding together to invent this, which means that David quite clearly did lie on the stand.

    Given that Binnie took it upon himself to make an assessment of David’s credibility and used it to decide matters of fact, he quite clearly should have considered such evidence before doing so.

    As the Evidence Act states, evidence about veracity may be admitted if it is substantially helpful a key component of which is –

    “lack of veracity on the part of the person when under a legal obligation to tell the truth (for example, in an earlier proceeding or in a signed declaration):”

    It doesn’t get much more straight forward than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    The meltdowns are fascinating to watch.

    Mr Guest appears to have put to sea in a rusty bathtub, I wonder if he sensed a ‘way back’ in front of him? It was when he stood at the bow of the bath naked apart from a superbly placed, and discreet bus ticket, that he must have noticed the breeze blowing up his rear.

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

    C’mon, David’s defence relied on Robin having been the killer.

    So if it is good enough to rely on such slander for the defence, how about putting up or shutting the fuck up, for the millions in compo.

    What about it David. Prove your defence, and score $100 million in compo. Or fuck off into oblivion, David/Joe.

    Come on F E Smith. Where are you smart-arsed lawyer remarks now?

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

    Dotcom (733) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    Yeah, but I’m offering a challenge to you, chicken face.

    $100 million out of my pocket then, for David to prove he didn’t kill, by way of proving Robin did. After all that was the basis of his successful lying-fucker defence. Put up or shut up
    ——————————–

    Mr Dot, I have no idea who you are, or who your current delusions let you think you are, but even if I believed for one minute you had the sort of money you are suggesting, your demeanor suggests you are a fake, certainly not a gentleman, and are closer to a bully. It was not David Bain that first suggested if it wasn’t him it had to be Robin. Perhaps you might like to place your wager with the Judge that suggested it to the jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Listen up. Here’s what happened.

    They all took it in turns to commit suicide and David missed out.

    That’s more probably then the scenarios you lawyers invent. David wore the glasses as he always did when his were broken. Why wouldn’t he. Because he said so?

    Never mind. Binnie did a proper job. How do we know? Because he said so. He said he did it proper job and he wouldn’t have said he’d done a proper job if he hadn’t done a proper job.

    Well, I don’t do bullshit. I spent over 40 years a dentist, some Army service during Vietnam, and I am a pilot. I make decisions all the time on what I see. Sometimes quickly and some to save my life. I’m old and I’m bold and I’m still here.

    Half you buggers couldn’t start a motor mower and you wouldn’t know shit from clay if you fell in it.

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

    “F E Smith (2,279) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:33 pm
    Cabinet does not like overruling judges. Separation of powers and all that.

    Well, the IPCA is neither a judicial nor a legal process, so the reports that it issues are not a part of the separation of the powers. Justice Goddard is the head of the IPCA, but not in her capacity as a judge. Which means that that the reports do not have the same status as a judgment. After all, Justice Baragwanath was the President of the Law Commission for a while, as is Justice Hammond now, and Cabinet routinely ignores Law Commission reports.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Ducking for cover under legal bullshit.

    Fact is that Cabinet is not going to overrule the PCA Bain report, and find police misconduct where the PCA Bain report didn’t.

    Do you agree, F E Smith or not?

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

    Bloody lawyers. Can’t get a straight answer out of one of them.

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

    Except Guest, but he’s not a lawyer any more

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Come on F E Smith. Where are you smart-arsed lawyer remarks now?

    I have no interest in whether David Bain killed his family or not.  I don’t know and I don’t care.  Pay him compensation or do not pay him compensation, again I do not care.

    Bain served 13 years in prison because of a miscarriage of justice.  He was acquitted at the second trial.  Neither proves his guilt or his innocence.

    I firmly believe that this debate will probably never be resolved and therefore see no point to it.

    Enough for you?

    Now, when you talk about legal process and such like, that is far more interesting as it can be addressed in the abstract. 

    Plus I like it when you get riled up…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    I seem to remember a Guest, prof of Law at Otago in the 60s. Relative?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Fact is that Cabinet is not going to overrule the PCA Bain report, and find police misconduct where the PCA Bain report didn’t.

    Oh, I see.  As far as I am aware it hasn’t been asked to, so at this point the answer is no.

    That could change, I suppose, but I don’t see how.  Personally, I think that the Privy Council judgment was enough of an indictment on the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Dexter

    Leaving aside the glasses for a moment, David lied to Binnie about not hating his father. He had told an aunt that he did hate his father. When Binnie reminded him of this fact, David whined:

    “Here’s a private conversation that has been taken, you know, from what I considered to be a private, you know, situation and a confidence type of situation and now related it against me. I – that – telling my aunty what my father, father’s behaviour was like, there’s nothing wrong with that in my view. … I was a 22 year old kid trying to get on with my own life, doing my best out there in the world and just, and having a ball and having a lot of fun. …here I was showing up this picture of a wonderful, up – you know, upstanding man as my father. Well, isn’t that exactly what you would try and portray to the world? That you come from a perfect environment? And then in a private situation where I’ve ridden by grief and, you know, anger and all these other emotions and something comes out that is negative, the two aren’t mutually – aren’t exclusive.”

    He is whining about the conversation being private! Who cares? He was required to tell the truth and the whole truth, but it is clear he has an aversion to the truth. Oh and at 22 years of age, he was no kid.

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

    He did not serve 13 years because of a miscarriage of justice.

    He served 13 years because he was convicted and sentenced.

    Semantics i know, but important semantics.

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

    Sorry, that should have been addressed at our esteemed misrepresenter of facts

    So Mr F E Smith

    David Bain did not serve 13 years because of a miscarriage of justice.

    David Bain served 13 years because he was convicted and sentenced.

    Semantics I know, but important semantics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    He did not serve 13 years because of a miscarriage of justice.

    He served 13 years because he was convicted and sentenced.

    No, that is actually wrong.  The trial at which he was convicted and sentenced was found to have been a miscarriage of justice, therefore he served 13 years because of a miscarriage of justice.

    Had he been convicted at the second trial then, assuming it was found to be conducted soundly, he would have been serving a sentence of imprisonment because he had been convicted and sentenced.

     

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Dennis@8 46

    I’m old and I’m bold and I’m still here.

    Half you buggers couldn’t start a motor mower and you wouldn’t know shit from clay if you fell in it.

    Oh dear, there goes this keyboard! Dennis, I may just steal that for future, well said!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @FESmith. Not much natural curiosity, then. Can you change a light bulb? Just wondering. Not much sense of fairness either. People work all their lives, raise children, retire with next-to-nothing. (You won’t of course.) Bain might get millions if Pin-Up-Prime Minister takes fright.

    Look at the whole case. It’s a gossamer-thin chain of improbabilities that Robin killed himself. A sample offering does the trick:

    The “suicide” “note” was written by David. Probability 99%.
    The magazine/clip fell on its edge. Probability 0%
    It was placed. P 100%
    Robin placed it under the table rather than leave it in his pocket or put it on the table. P 5%
    Robin could have placed it within a few millimetres of his hand. P 0.1%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Look, ross has, after fouling his own nest on the COA judgement reverted to lies, what a surprise.

    Dennis thinks a pilot’s licence and serving in Vietnam elevates him to all seeing and all knowing. What a bunch of mixed up kids.

    Dotsome, misssome thinks there was no MOJ.

    Everything is fine in googaa land for commies.

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

    F E Smith (2,281) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 8:51 pm
    Personally, I think that the Privy Council judgment was enough of an indictment on the process.
    —————————

    The compensation decision does not require action regarding police conduct on a primary level, however, should they find under the extra-ordinary circumstances aspect in which the conduct has been identified as an issue, surely they would follow such a decision with commission of inquiry (given the example of AAT)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Denis,

    Not much natural curiosity, then.

    Oh, tons, just none at all when it comes to the Bain case.

    Can you change a light bulb?

    Yep.  Can also, build a fence, cut, bale and stack hay, drench sheep and cows, use a chainsaw, etc etc.  

    Not much sense of fairness either.

    Of course not, that is why I am a defence lawyer. /s

    Bain might get millions if Pin-Up-Prime Minister takes fright.

    And?  How is that supposed to be of concern to me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    however, should they find under the extra-ordinary circumstances aspect in which the conduct has been identified as an issue, surely they would follow such a decision with commission of inquiry (given the example of AAT)?

    Can’t think why, but it is possible. Personally I think it would be a waste of money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Margaret had a strict rule that hand-knitted garments were to be hand-washed. We don’t care how you do your washing.
    The reason why David broke the rules that morning is because he knew his mother wouldn’t be giving him a telling off for breaking the rules,because he had shot her. And we know he shot her because he said he saw the blood streaming down her face,something only the killer would see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    FES, I am glad to see you are here to contribute. What do you think about David’s allegation that he seen Mark Buckley shagging a goat or something similar? Do you think that is credible and should Binnie not questioned him more and also questioned Buckley?

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

    muggins (743) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    —————————

    Evidence of that? Have you holding seances again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    Seriously, was that an allegation? I thought it was some joke that I had missed because I have ignored the topic.

    If it was a serious allegation, then absolutely, if only for the entertainment value.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Bain told Guest he would be admitting to wearing the glasses in evidence. The glasses in his room were the glasses in evidence. So don’t make up that ridiculous story about him admitting to wearing a different pair of glasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    In an email to the Justice Ministry, Binnie says he asked the Crown and Bain if they wanted anyone interviewed and apparently he got no response. That seems to be his excuse for not talking to Guest et al….except he interviewed Doyle and Weir. Nobody put their names forward but he interviewed them nonetheless. That suggests he had a bee in his bonnet about the police from the word go.

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

    Sorry, but you might own a Delorian (spelling anyone?) and can reverse history, Mr Superman, but even politicians can’t reverse history.

    Though, rightly or wrongly, it was refreshing to get a straight answer from you.

    The JCPC application was supposed to have been submitted as soon as possible (by comparison, a civil claim to the JCPC must go in within 21 days of the decision under contest). This JCPC appeal was not. The JCPC result had effect from the date of its delivery, not 13 years earlier. And the date of its delivery was mostly a function of when it was applied for. This delay was not The Crown’s doings. We should not be compensating for David’s sloth in going to the JCPC. Especially when the delay as it turned out, played into David’s retrial hands — in the sense that the conduct of a trial after 15 years is almost always impossible. If it had been after, say a reasonable JCPC application time, David would in all likelihood been convicted a second time.

    Yes, I know all subjective observations, but Cabinet can (and should) take this subjectivity into its deliberations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Judith, put it this way:

    Did David Bain or his council offer the explanation that David was wearing another pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend during the first trial?

    Seemingly the convenient excuse only occurred to him some time later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith.
    Re jersey.
    Private communication.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > If it was a serious allegation, then absolutely, if only for the entertainment value.

    So if someone made a sexual allegation about you in regards to goats or maybe kids (!), you’d just laugh it off?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    FES….,
    I hate to mention it. :)
    But apropos Goddard, I have to ask whether there has ever been any connection between Justice Goddard and someone named Robert Fisher, QC ? Quelle ?. Rumours abound. :)
    A smsll, small world, is it not?

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

    muggins (744) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    ——————————

    According to Guest, he told David about the pair of Margaret’s glasses in evidence and David said he would admit to wearing them. Guest did NOT clarify which pair, David did not ask for clarification. Still doesn’t disprove my point. Kindly refrain from calling me a liar unless you can prove it otherwise. No evidence is available, and I have looked, that shows there was any clarification of which pair each party involved was referring to until David was shown the pair in court.

    You are barking again, without evidence to support you. How about you provide where David was informed exactly which pair of Mrs Bain’s glasses were being referred to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    FES, the follow is part of Binnie’s interview. It was not a joke.

    That wild sick story that David told about Buckley and the goat Binnie appeared to accept. I trust you seen the TV Sunday documentary.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video?vid=2783327

    Buckley and the Taylors seemed very credible to me as did Kirsten Koch. I doubt if Binnie bothered to look at the video.

    I could not believe the slack interview Binnie gave David.

    Q. The Crown Law office refers to Mr Mark Buckley?

    A. Yes .

    Q. And they say that he says that you h a d confided in him a round 1 990 that you were sexually interested in a female jogger and that you could commit the sexual offence against her, use your paper round to get away with it and as we know that evidence was eventually excluded by the Court of Appeal but what – how did you know Mark Buckley?

    A. Ah, very innocuous question after all that.

    Q. There are others to follow.

    A. Um, I’m sure there are yes. Um, Mark Buckley was, became a fairly good, well, a close friend of mine after I started in, at Bayfield High School in sixth form, 1989.

    Q. 1989, yes? And did you – were you close enough friends to exchange confidences?

    A. Ah, yes, I guess so, later – you know, after obviously a settling in period .

    Q. Did this discussion that he related to the police ever take place?

    A. No.

    Q. What reason would he have for coming up with an untruthful anecdote?

    A. Because our friendship had ended. Ah, at the, pretty much the end of, or faded out and then ended towards the end of the, our seventh form year and we essentially, you know, I – just, it all ended on bad terms.

    Q. So it was more than drifting apart? It was actually –

    A. No, no, it ended on bad terms.

    Q. And what was the – why was that?

    A. I had witnessed him – because we had goats on our property and I had witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation. I ‘m not, I wasn’t completely fooled but it was certainly, you know, looked stupid and obviously embarrassing for him. Ah, and as we know you have to do to take, get the blame away from you rself is point it at somebody else, “It was him, it was him. “So what happened is and you can see, can see in this, in the yearbook for my last year at high school –

    Q. Yes?

    A. – he made comment –

    Q. Why don’t you just read the comment into the record?

    A. Well under my photo he says well there’s several different things there, all totally innocuous but, “Known by friend as Dirty Dave ,” which was the first time I’d ever heard that phrase used and then later on , “Most embarrassing moment – ask Mark Buckley,” and finally, “Most wanted thing on a desert island ,” is, “Goat,” so he was quite obviously trying to put, you know, shift the blame of the , that situation onto me when it was him who performed this, you know, silly act.

    Q. And when silly act you’re talking of – act of a sexual nature with the goat?

    A. Yes. So that’s what ended our friendship and anything that he has to say, I mean, it’s totally untrue.

    End of topic

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

    ross69 (1,509) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:13 pm
    > If it was a serious allegation, then absolutely, if only for the entertainment value.

    So if someone made a sexual allegation about you in regards to goats or maybe kids (!), you’d just laugh it off?

    ——————————-

    Strange thing is, that despite this having been made public Mr Buckley has not yet been heard from. Overseas or not, I am sure he is aware of the matter. The internet is a powerful thing. I think you may find there is a very good explanation, and if Mr Buckley is a man of his word, you will find there is nothing in this issue that adds any weight to your claims against David.

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

    Judith at 9:06 pm asked
    —————————

    Evidence of that?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    See there you go again. No-one needs this evidence any more.

    David has to prove that he didn’t kill 5 people. And he will not be able to do this thing.

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

    Mr F E Smith

    Sorry, but you might own a Delorian (spelling anyone?) and can reverse history, Mr Superman, but even politicians can’t reverse history.

    Though, rightly or wrongly, it was refreshing to get a straight answer from you.

    The JCPC application was supposed to have been submitted as soon as possible (by comparison, a civil claim to the JCPC must go in within 21 days of the decision under contest). This JCPC appeal was not. The JCPC result had effect from the date of its delivery, not 13 years earlier. And the date of its delivery was mostly a function of when it was applied for. This delay was not The Crown’s doings. We should not be compensating for David’s sloth in going to the JCPC. Especially when the delay as it turned out, played into David’s retrial hands — in the sense that the conduct of a trial after 15 years is almost always impossible. If it had been after, say a reasonable JCPC application time, David would in all likelihood been convicted a second time.

    Yes, I know all subjective observations, but Cabinet can (and should) take this subjectivity into its deliberations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird
    The reason why Binnie didn’t question Bain further re that goat episode is because apparerntly it is common practise in Canada for men to have sexual relations with goats.
    Judith reckons Buckley could have been having oral sex with that goat. Bain didn’t specify what sort of sex it was.
    I might give Buckley a call,just to clear up all this speculation.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,871) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:16 pm
    ———————-

    And where does it say he was ‘shagging’ a goat. Amazing how sexual nature becomes instantly ‘shagging’. Maybe I have a fruitful imagination, but there are a number of things that could, as David says look like being in a sexual nature, that don’t involve actual shagging. Digging digging digging, trying to find gold where there is nothing. Amazing how many automatically think of ‘shagging a goat’ though. Quite disturbing really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. @FESmith.

    For the record I did not say I served in Vietnam and my name is spelt Dennis. So much for your ability to read and your attention to detail.

    The change a light bulb is a joke, as of course you realised. Your repartee is disappointing. Boring in fact. An uncle of mine was an SM, was much wittier. Another uncle, SM, was full of himself though. Like you. Only you’re not a judge, yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Yes, Mark Buckley has been overseas,but he is back now. We will just have to see if he decides to comment. I am picking he will,but it might not be for a week or two.

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

    muggins (746) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:22 pm
    Chuck Bird
    The reason why Binnie didn’t question Bain further re that goat episode is because apparerntly it is common practise in Canada for men to have sexual relations with goats.
    Judith reckons Buckley could have been having oral sex with that goat. Bain didn’t specify what sort of sex it was.
    I might give Buckley a call,just to clear up all this speculation.

    ——————————–

    You’re a fool muggins. Read it again, it is clear he is talking about something that ‘looked like’, didn’t say he was, or even what the act might have looked like. Strange how you and others immediately dismiss the ‘looked like’ and decided it was a definite act.

    Your dishonesty is evident when you refer to my claims of oral sex. Clearly you either can’t read or have the type of character that finds dishonesty acceptable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    “but there are a number of things that could, as David says look like being in a sexual nature, that don’t involve actual shagging”

    Like what.

    Given that David suggests this is a reason why Buckley attempted to frame him for murder, one would imagine it would be more serious than mere ‘petting’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Dotcom. Dotty, old Bean. It’s DeLorean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    It’s comforting to know that there are experts on sexual liaisons with goats on the nay sayers team, even if it is their only expertise – at least it’s something amid a whole lot of nothing. It sums up the substance of their hate message, Collin’s must be so pleased to have their support.

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

    muggins (747) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:26 pm
    Judith
    Yes, Mark Buckley has been overseas,but he is back now. We will just have to see if he decides to comment. I am picking he will,but it might not be for a week or two.
    ———————–

    Now let me guess, and when he does it will be through you.

    You are a pathetic old man. No where in any of that statement does it mention goat shagging, or any actual sexual act, but in fact something that looked like a sexual act. When you know that truth, I hope you are man enough to apologise. Somehow I doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “The reason why Binnie didn’t question Bain further re that goat episode is because apparerntly it is common practise in Canada for men to have sexual relations with goats. ”

    I wonder what part of Canada he comes from.

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

    Judith at 9:25 pm

    And where does it say he was ‘shagging’ a goat?

    Doesn’t matter. It’s up to David to explain in validating his claim. Onus of proof is on David to say what he meant and to prove it, whether it was shagging or anything else.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,052) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    It’s comforting to know that there are experts on sexual liaisons with goats on the nay sayers team, even if it is their only expertise – at least it’s something amid a whole lot of nothing. It sums up the substance of their hate message, Collin’s must be so pleased to have their support.

    ————————–

    Why would that surprise you? These are the same people that think its ok for an adult male to touch his young daughter intimately, and defend pedophiles as educating, they would sign up with the devil himself if they thought it would score a point against Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. Don’t be disingenuous. If I told people I’d seen someone who looked like you shagging on a rooftop you’d be outraged. Or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    David’s last comment to Binnie about the goat shagging was “anything that he has to say, I mean, it’s totally untrue”

    So if Buckley said David was a lovely chap who couldn’t possibly kill his family, it’s totally untrue? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    I trust you seen the TV Sunday documentary.

    Nope, all part of that having no interest in Bain thing.

    But I read the transcript that you posted;  that is just hilarious!

    I’ve no idea how it relates to anything, but being a country boy myself I am easily amused with stories like that.

     

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Re glasses.
    Bain told Guest he would admit to wearing the glasses in evidence. He knew which glasses were in evidence,which were the one’s found in his room. He knew he wasn’t going to be admitting to wearing another pair of glasses,just the ones that were found in his room.
    Mr Guest told Mr Wright that the glasses were Mrs Bain’s but the petitioner would admit to wearing them during the weekend immediatly prior to the murders.

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

    Dotcom (743) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:32 pm
    Judith at 9:25 pm

    And where does it say he was ‘shagging’ a goat?

    Doesn’t matter. It’s up to David to explain in validating his claim. Onus of proof is on David to say what he meant and to prove it, whether it was shagging or anything else.

    ——————————

    He does not have to prove anything of the sort. He did not say what the actions was, only that it looked like something, and it broke the already diminishing friendship up. David Bain can’t be responsible for what people decide to read into his statement. There is nothing there that demeans Mr Buckley, unless you have a fertile imagination. Something David can’t be held responsible for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    David seems to know what a deviant act is when he sees one.

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

    Muggins, how is that list of lies in the Bainie/Binnie interview going?

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

    muggins (748) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    ————————-

    Where is your evidence that he knew which pair were being held?

    You keep challenging us, so where is your proof that he was told exactly which pair or are you lying?

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

    Muggins, how is that list of lies in the Bainie/Binnie interview going for the potential Crimes Act s111 action?

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

    Judith at 9:42 pm

    Where is your evidence that he knew which pair .. etc .. ?

    Doesn’t matter. David is the one who has brought the current legal action. So it is for him to do the evidencing of his claim.

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

    Judith
    Binnie=Q. And when silly act you’re talking of – act of a sexual nature with the goat?
    Judith=And where does it say he was ‘shagging’ a goat. Amazing how sexual nature becomes instantly ‘shagging’.
    David=A. Yes.

    Does it matter whether the goat was shagging or vice versa it was a deviant act.
    What is of concern is this statement of Davids
    “so he was quite obviously trying to put, you know, shift the blame of the , that situation onto me when it was him who performed this, you know, silly act.”

    I think we may see more of this if Buckley step forward into the limelight.

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

    Dennis Horne (134) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    ————————

    Where does the transcript mention shagging. I realise that many NZ males think that sex is ‘shagging’, but it may interest you to know that actions of a sexual nature can be a variety of things, and actions that ‘look like’ a sexual action can be an even wider variety of things.

    You are and many others are reading something into it, that it does not say. I guess you are motivated, but you are seriously barking up the wrong tree with this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. If that’s me you are referring to, who, according to you, was defending paedophiles and so on, you are very much mistaken. I did no such thing. I simply pointed out the difference between sexual and clinical touching, to make a point. Do you seriously think I would advocate paedophilia or incest, using my own name, even if I were so persuaded, which I am not? I am implacably opposed to homosexual marriage too. You are a very silly woman. Nothing so silly as a silly woman.

    Are you good looking? That would make up for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    So stating that someone performed a sexual act with a goat is not at all demeaning towards them…

    We don’t all live in Hamilton Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Lets see…

    We have Dennis ( I did not serve in Vietnam, and my name is spelt Dennis. sob, sob!) Horne, Muggins, Dotcom (he stole my pseudo!), Ross69 (Lord help us.), Honeybadger, Scott Chris, Chuck Bird, Belinda, Kent Parker and a few others. You would have done well as members of the Stasi. I wonder what happened to them (????) .

    You are such silly people, and you take yourselves so seriously. You really do need Mason Clinic help. But rest assured: better minds than yours will resolve this matter.

    I look forward to the day that Collins tries to crush Michael Reed. “Game, set and match to Mr Reed : six love, six love, six love. :)

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

    Dennis Horne (135) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    —————————–

    No it wasn’t you Dennis. You must realise by now that many people conversing here have history beyond this website. The people I was referring to know exactly who they are, and the circumstances surrounding what I said. Sorry if you thought I meant you.

    Never claimed not to be silly.
    Good looking is a subjective judgement. I prefer ‘drop dead gorgeous’ ! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. This has gone beyond a joke, woman. Where did I say anything about shagging in the transcript? I said that if I told people I saw SOMEONE who looked like you…

    In other words, innuendo…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Binnie asked Bain if he meant Buckley was having an act of sexual nature with a goat to which Bain replied “Yes”.
    You think he might have been having oral sex with that goat. Ok ,maybe he might have been,but he would have needed to get the goats consent first,because if the goat didn’t want Buckley having oral sex with it he might have bitten Buckley’s John Thomas off.

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

    Dexter (194) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:50 pm
    So stating that someone performed a sexual act with a goat is not at all demeaning towards them…

    We don’t all live in Hamilton Judith.
    —————————–

    But he did not claim he was committing an act of a sexual nature with a goat, he says it looked like he was.
    There is a very big difference there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Judith (254) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:33 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ (2,052) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    It’s comforting to know that there are experts on sexual liaisons with goats on the nay sayers team, even if it is their only expertise – at least it’s something amid a whole lot of nothing. It sums up the substance of their hate message, Collin’s must be so pleased to have their support.

    ————————–

    Why would that surprise you? These are the same people that think its ok for an adult male to touch his young daughter intimately, and defend pedophiles as educating, they would sign up with the devil himself if they thought it would score a point against Karam.’

    I’m not surprised at all, I merely encourage them to continue to display their depravity as they so willingly do.

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

    Hey Dennis. This was on Whale Oil today.

    What’s the difference between possum roadkill and lawyer roadkill?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Skid marks for the possums.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    A slight correction to my previous post. I said ‘he” but it could have been ”she’.

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

    muggins (750) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    ——————–

    Taking part of the conversation does not work, and thank goodness those who have to make a decision will not take isolated lines for their information. Read the entire line of questioning regarding this aspect, you idiot. You really are a desperate fool, and I’m over talking to you. You might fool your stupid counterspin friends with your selective judgments and statements, but you don’t fool anyone with both sides of their brains working.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. All is forgiven. I’m on my knees. I’ll be able to get up when my wife stops trying to kick me in the goolies for flirting. She’s French, you know. (Brash.)

    No apology required re paedophilia, my mistake. Please forgive me. I don’t like being misunderstood, I pride myself on being precise. And right, of course, I’m a man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    Well given the insinuation is that the act was sufficiently humiliating enough to make Buckley try and frame David for multiple murders….

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

    Judith / Kanz / Nostalgia / filpper / david bain …. all liars

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Re glasses.
    Refer Court of Appeal hearing para 283.

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

    Dennis Horne (137) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 9:58 pm
    @Judith. All is forgiven. I’m on my knees. I’ll be able to get up when my wife stops trying to kick me in the goolies for flirting. She’s French, you know. (Brash.)

    No apology required re paedophilia, my mistake. Please forgive me. I don’t like being misunderstood, I pride myself on being precise. And right, of course, I’m a man.

    —————————-

    No, you were right, I should have been clearer, given our previous conversation, but then being a man you were bound to get it wrong either way. Tell your wife to stop kicking you, I find laxative in the coffee is a far better solution. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘Dexter (195) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 10:00 pm
    Well given the insinuation is that the act was sufficiently humiliating enough to make Buckley try and frame David for multiple murders….’

    Far from it Dexter.

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

    Truthiz (70) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 10:01 pm

    ———————–

    Talking about laxatives, here’s a person that works better than castor oil.

    Nighty nite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @flapper. I was rectifying the error in a claim made by another and pointing out the inability of a defence lawyer to repeatedly overlook detail. Do you seriously think I care my name is misspelt? You’re building sandcastles in the air and living in them. Silly Billy.

    Well, that’a it for me. Game over. No compensation for Bain unless the politicians see votes in it.

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

    The Goverment pays compensation then just before the next election a book comes out “Robin Bain didn’t do it, setting the record straight” could they risk it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. Scott1 (575 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,
    not sure I entirely agree that you can’t have some sort of higher standards above client representation, but regardless of that

    “Only he knows why he would have thought that had the glasses ‘evidence’ was critical, indeed a form of confession, while holding the view of David’s innocence. Then it gets murkier.”

    I think we can guess here.
    I dont see Guest as having an incentive to sink his own case – or that he would be so stupid as to do it in this manner… even if he was a lier and porn watcher.
    So I take it that Guest felt that he was doing his job here (You can feel free to make the legal case that he was mistaken).
    He is then upset that he gets blamed for doing what he thought was the right thing. And this turns a ‘professional’ attitude towards bain into a rather different one.

    there is some saying along the lines of : never infer evil intent where… somthing else will do…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Scott1 (575 comments) says:

    maybe I missed a point there…
    I imagine a good lawyer doesn’t really run his own personal trial to determine if the client is guilty or not – instead they just “act as if” and so if anyone asks you you probably say yes or they hedge it with”well he is either innocent… or somthing or other…”.

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

    Nighty nite. Judith (260) Says: January 1st, 2013 at 10:07 pm”

    oh dear, we flushed Cybernana down the toilet … lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Scott1 (184) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 10:16 pm
    Nostalgia,
    not sure I entirely agree that you can’t have some sort of higher standards above client representation, but regardless of that

    “Only he knows why he would have thought that had the glasses ‘evidence’ was critical, indeed a form of confession, while holding the view of David’s innocence. Then it gets murkier.”

    I think we can guess here.
    I dont see Guest as having an incentive to sink his own case – or that he would be so stupid as to do it in this manner… even if he was a lier and porn watcher.
    So I take it that Guest felt that he was doing his job here (You can feel free to make the legal case that he was mistaken).
    He is then upset that he gets blamed for doing what he thought was the right thing. And this turns a ‘professional’ attitude towards bain into a rather different one.

    there is some saying along the lines of : never infer evil intent where… somthing else will do…’

    Guest was establishing a relationship with the Crown in furthering his career, something we see he failed to take advantage from. His eye wasn’t on his client but rather on his prospects and relationship within the Dunedin legal fraternity, later it seems his interest was concentrated of his client’s r money. It’s a fine fellow that Judith has chosen to drag herself out of the crap, and funny to watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Truthiz (71) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 10:24 pm
    Nighty nite. Judith (260) Says: January 1st, 2013 at 10:07 pm”

    oh dear, we flushed Cybernana down the toilet … lol’

    Another gutless wonder from Counterspin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    What have fireworks and David Bain got in common?

    We both know they kill but we let them off anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    What did Joe Karam say when he was accused of beating his wife?

    “At least I’m not a murderer like some people I know”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    hmmm, I seem to be compartmentalized already by flipper, and with the anti bainers no less, people seem very quick to point and abuse on any of the Bain threads, which to me, shows the utter rabidness of some

    It seems there are very few here who are actually discussing the ‘Guest on Bain’ issue, its a bit more like a kindergarten..

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,056) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    Another gutless wonder from Counterspin.””

    Have to disagree, I have never tried to shoot a bouncer, because he threw me out …..

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

    Let alone be stupid enough to miss my target and kill an innocent young woman, eh Brian …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Truthiz (74) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    I read a quote today that is very pertinent to you.

    ” Holding resentment is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies.”

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

    That’s a great quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Belinda (69) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 11:34 pm

    That’s a great quote.

    I liked it, that is why I will remember it.

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

    Resentment … hardly, your drinking buddy and ex cellmate ain’t worthy of resentment.

    .
    a much more aligned quote for you is,

    “Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Truthiz (75) Says:
    January 1st, 2013 at 11:49 pm

    Hey, you can hold onto your hatred and bitterness as long as you like. As the quote shows, it won’t hurt me.

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

    Truth is, he is your friend and fellow supporter, not mine, and that it ain’t hate or bitterness .

    Simply the TRUTH.

    http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Data/mcdonaldbrian.htm

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

    and if you really want to find out about your friend, try googling him with court actions and uncover his stalking procedures, thats with out including his hate blog, where he delights in naming everyone he can find out about.

    But as I said previously, he may well of turned over a new leaf, but some how I doubt it …

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

    I’m expecting big things later today. Watch this space. Another surprise from the

    Logician-Magician

    Tony Dotcom

    (Very big things)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Truthiz (77) Says:

    January 2nd, 2013 at 12:11 am
    Truth is, he is your friend and fellow supporter, not mine, and that it ain’t hate or bitterness .

    Simply the TRUTH.

    and that is the person who was asking me personal questions? ie, any name I may have had on trademe? sounds verrrry stalkerish indeed, and not a person I would wish to know anything about me, thank you very much for the heads up Truthiz, very much appreciated, and I will be a little bit cautious now, thank you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    how big, Dotcom? I await with bated breath

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

    I believe, if you do your time then for most people, thats it,

    unless its someone close to yourself that died, then anythings possible.

    Its not personal against people, but showing slants against Collins, (who I never liked ! ) or the court system, nz lawyers,pigs ….

    but really it stares you in the face, what happened, so we must decide whether he goes back to jail for at least three years or he is totally reformed ?

    http://www.livescience.com/16585-psychopaths-speech-language.html

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

    And with that, 26 hours in to the new year,

    I bid you all farewell, till the decision of the cabinet !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Azeraph (607 comments) says:

    We need to put this to rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Scott1 (575 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ,
    ahh… Ok that makes a little sense (although Im not convinced)…

    that is pretty disturbing then if you are correct that his interests do lie in sabotaging his own case. Because then so too do, it would appear, a lot of lawyers… And we are talking about somthing that could be done in a million different and very subtle ways many completly undetectable from our perspective.

    Such a system sounds like it is broken, maybe time to change it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    [The editor, NZ Herald. I haven’t seen any letters amongst the myriad you publish that are for Collins, truth and decency. Is the job of a newspaper to shift the wheat from the chaff and print the chaff?]

    It is inexplicable! Not accept The Report? Mr Binnie claims David Bain is probably innocent (the prime consideration for compensation). Flawed in method and wrong in conclusion? Why?

    I show you a skeleton and ask what it is. You don’t know. I show you two skeletons, a cow and a horse. Choose! Right answer!

    Is the killer David or his father, Robin. No proof, make a choice. That is not what Binnie did. He tried to prove it wasn’t David. That is why he ignores the glasses (no blood equals irrelevant). But the glasses are part of the difference between Robin and David. Broken in the strangling of Stephen (David) or coincidental (Robin)?

    Did Robin type a suicide “note” on the computer, or David? No proof. Horse or cow? Does a school teacher write and sign a piece of paper, explain himself, using the right tense? Or, does a boy type a message on a computer because he can’t forge his father’s writing, “you are the only one who deserved to stay”?

    Does a rifle clip fall on its side, under a table, millimetres from a hand, prior to suicide, or is it placed after the killing? Horse or bull?

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

    btw is it possible to put this question to Justice Binnie:
    “Given that DB responded one way to his lawyer and another to the court, is it not possible that DB is capable of misleading a lawyer? Even one that is trying to help?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Azeraph (67) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 7:30 am
    We need to put this to rest.
    —————————————
    No we don’t. If the Establishment had its way we’re still be eating poorly under candlelight after a hard day in the fields behind a horse believing the Earth was 6000 years old and the Sun went around it.

    I know lawyers don’t care about truth or fairness but it’s political now. The people, or some of them, do care. The politicians will watch.

    And when the apathetic majority find out a man who killed his entire family is to get millions, when they have next to nothing after a lifetime of work, because “it’s the system”, and that’s all that matters to lawyers, they will accept that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Truthiz (79) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 2:03 am
    And with that, 26 hours in to the new year,

    I bid you all farewell, till the decision of the cabinet !!!

    Perhaps not a ‘fare’ as you imagine. Nice little runner though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. Scott1 (575 comments) says:

    If we accept the defence that I laid out earlier (and karam seems to use) with the memory of the purple eyes, david’s memory of the events are corrupted. Ie they are probably littered with things that karam said were possible or that he dreamed about etc (whether he was the killer or not).

    And therefore regardless of innocence or guilt it is likely that any early comments he makes are more likely to be true than later comments if they conflict even though, of course, david will think the opposite.

    There should be some research out there on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    From yesterday’s Whaleoil OIA items –
    The Police analysis of Hon Mr Binnie’s report identifies forty eight points which the Police believe are inaccurate or mis-characterise the evidence.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/118519382/Truth-OIA-response-from-Justice-Minister

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Does a rifle clip fall on its side, under a table, millimetres from a hand, prior to suicide, or is it placed after the killing? Horse or bull?”

    Dennis you’re slowly descending into the fog, the police tried to blame Dempster for placing the magazine, he denied it. Somebody replaced it after it was knocked down, or kicked over, and it was placed several times for several different photographs and is therefore of no moment. What wasn’t placed were the blood smears on Robin’s palms or his dna inside the rifle barrel. Deal with certainties and not abstracts if you must attempt to solve the case without knowing all the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Yes, nothing would surprise me. The scoundrels allowed SCF to join the guarantee scheme when it was effectively bankrupt, paid out not only on the deposits but the interest too, to the punters who knew a rort when they saw one.

    A few millions to a killer is nothing. Trouble is, people might look at this differently. We’ve got plenty of time to keep the fire smouldering and you can’t put it out. Not now. Truth’s coming out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Really. Next you’ll be telling me there’s not proof anyone was killed. They all committed suicide one after the other and David missed out on the fun.

    Anyway, the “note” on the computer was not written by Robin, it was written by David, who could not forge his father’s handwriting and signature. That is obvious and enough. I don’t need to know all the facts.

    You don’t have to complete the jigsaw to see the picture.

    (Show me any significant amount of blood up the rifling of any rifle with a suppressor fitted. Show me the blood was Robin’s. Prove to me the magazine was moved prior to the photograph.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Scott1 (186) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 8:15 am
    Nostalgia-NZ,
    ahh… Ok that makes a little sense (although Im not convinced)…

    that is pretty disturbing then if you are correct that his interests do lie in sabotaging his own case. Because then so too do, it would appear, a lot of lawyers… And we are talking about somthing that could be done in a million different and very subtle ways man’y completly undetectable from our perspective.

    Such a system sounds like it is broken, maybe time to change it?’

    It’s far from all broken, the way the system cannot right itself is broken. It took seconds for the decision to be made to charge David within days of the killings and before the inquiry was complete, the reverse of that has been the system protecting itself for nearly 2 decades to this point with a Minister fully involved. Freer access to the Courts for cases such as that of Thomas, Ellis and Watson and not through the Executive, an independent prosecuting authority with an independent review system and NZ agreement on UN covenants as to compensation for false imprisonment. Ask yourself how Robin got blood smears on his palms, if you don’t have a realistic answer to that you’ll understand why David should never have been charged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Damn, no edit function. The blood on Robin’s hands was whose? No fingerprints belonging to Robin on the rifle either?

    You might be able to descend others into the fog but I am a pilot, remember, I don’t do fog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  422. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (143) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 9:14 am

    @Neuralgia. Damn, no edit function. The blood on Robin’s hands was whose? No fingerprints belonging to Robin on the rifle either?

    Not collected or tested, remember? Being smears and inside his palms, it cannot be from his head wound. Now, even thicko police would have realised that, and collected some, but no, the police on this investigation were smart cops, so they didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    So Mr Horne…..

    1. Since you appear certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, do tell us. Who was (were?) the person (s ?) who killed the Bains? Names, if you please.

    2. Have you not got it into your child-like brain that neither the five independent Privy Council law lords, nor Binnie, nor Reed, nor Karam, nor Bain…..nor Joe Blow, have to show or prove to you, a single thing. You do not matter. What is it about that, that you and your like cannot understand ? (And bye the bye: Please answer F E Smith’s questions of yesterday. :)

    3. In the scheme of things, you folk are simply parasitic germs, looking foir a home. A bed bug is a higher form of life. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, if you want to quote someone try putting the quote between the following html tags
    <blockquote>Put your quote here<blockquote/>
    The result looks like this

    This is the quote

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    sorry that should be <blockquote>Put your quote here</blockquote>

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Come to think of it, given the state of the Bain home, perhaps the bed bugs are guilty. Alternatively, try Elvis or the dingo. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    flipper (1,294) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 9:29 am

    Come to think of it, given the state of the Bain home, perhaps the bed bugs are guilty. Alternatively, try Elvis or the dingo. :)

    It was the dingo, it has now been found guilty of the Chamberlain killing and was left free all these years, the cops not looking for it. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Sorry Dennis you are deep in the fog already and it’s of your own making. Blood on Robin’s hands never tested, but be clear blood on his palms smeared and diluted. His blood on a towel in the laundry. Many unidentified prints on the rifle, that is unable to be determined, therefore not excluded as being Robin’s. Spend some time and read of the low percentage of fingerprints found on murder weapons because of oil, checkered surfaces and so on. In this case the firearm was ‘rendered’ safe by a police officer wearing gloves.

    The Crown abandoned the lounge scene late in the trial, yet it is the lounge scene and the footprints that provide the most significant evidence – something which Binnie and the PC saw readily.

    I’m sure you understand what a smear is and that a smear can’t arrive after his death and on his palms, nor be consistent with ‘blood wash.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Yvette (2,845 comments) says:

    Would someone more familiar with the evidence relating to the rifle please tell me, Does the last shot fired leave the spent cartridge in the breach thingie until further manual bolt action ejects the shell, or does the shell eject automatically?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    I’ll have to get someone to show me that Kent, one of the young one will no doubt be able to teach me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @flapper. Bain must show he is probably factually innocent for compensation, paid at the discretion of cabinet.

    Please repeat the question from FESmith, I must have missed it.

    Just as he missed the point I was making about the defence not choosing the prosecution. The prosecution doesn’t need to tout for business, like the defence lawyers, so has no incentive to favour always winning over truth.

    By the way, I was dentist for over 40 years, I don’t do insults. I do reality. I have a MSc from UCH Medical School, London. The law is not reality, truth or justice. It is a contrived system that you twerps try to keep consistent and profitable, but persistently fails. The second trial was a farce and one juror, maybe more, knows he’s not innocent. Of course, that doesn’t count because it’s not in the rules you make up. Truth? Reality? Justice? Who cares, as FE Smith said himself said in as many words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I see the bulls**t artist is at it again.
    That photo of the magazine was taken before Dempster entered the house.
    Ask Simon Schollum,who put all those photos in chronological order.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (563 comments) says:

    Yvette, if the rifle was a semi auto (which I think it was) the spent cartridge would automatically eject when the rifle is fired. If it was a bolt action it would require a manual movement from the user to bring a new round into the breach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, I suggested it because it would make your posts easier to read. But then, DPF should really get more stuff happening on this blog, such as editing and quoting. Although maybe that would be a bad thing. There are already too many comments on this post and we don’t want to encourage too many more!

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

    Yvette if the ammo clip/magazine still has another bullet in it another will reload automatically into the breech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    What I want to know is what happened to the doggie bag.?
    I mean surely Bain took a doggie bag with him when he went on his paper rounds,or did he just let Kaycee crap over everyone’s front verges?
    So what happened to that doggie bag? Maybe Bain put that bloody sock in it and hid it somewhere on his paper round.
    Find that doggie bag ,it might prove to be the smoking gun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Ask Simon Schollum,who put all those photos in chronological order.

    Ah, Simon Schollum, the one who ‘found’ the lens again in a photo that it wasn’t.
    Can you suggest how the police saw that magazine from the doorway, when Robin’s hand was under the table? There were a number of photos taken from that angle, none of which show a magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The blood in the rifle was not tested for DNA. Anybody who says it was is a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    That photo was taken before Dempster entered the house. Ask Simon Schollum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Hysteria rises again, the frantic denial of evidence that can only be confirmed by asking someone and not by the transcript.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins,
    Simon Schollum wasn’t there, he was brought into the fray before the retrial to prove a lost point for the prosecution. He was able to put some of the photos into chronological order in Stephen’s room, by the fact that the body was still there, that is all. Hell, the one you are talking about was of a hand, a magazine and carpet, it could have been taken at anytime. Simon Schollum is not a psychic is he? Maybe Robin told him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    For the sake of the argument I will accept there is no forensic evidence: Did Robin type the suicide “note” on the computer instead of writing a note whose authorship could be verified, or did David type the note because he couldn’t forge his father’s writing and signature?

    “Sorry, you’re the only one who deserved to stay.” (From memory.)

    Written by a “thicko” cop or the goat? That is the question the lawyers ask.

    By the bye (not bye the bye, flapper), maybe Robin had a nose bleed and used the towel in the laundry. Much more likely than changing his clothes but not scrubbing his hands to meet his Maker.

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

    muggins (758) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 9:53 am
    ——————————–

    “Crap all over everyone’s gardens”? It was a small dog, not an elephant with diarrhea. Less dramatics please!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Simon Schollum spent weeks putting those crime scene photos into chronological order. He is the only person to have done that. At least one photo showing that magazine next to Robin Bain’s hand was taken before Dempster arrived at the scene.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Judith (261) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:26 am

    You need to understand muggins has an unhealthy obsession with bodily functions and parts. Just leave him alone in his dottage to think about such things.

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

    muggins (758) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 9:45 am

    Ask Simon Schollum,who put all those photos in chronological order.

    All the photos were unable to be put in chronological order because the majority of the photographers had not kept notes of which photos they had taken, the angles, the settings, and in which order they were taken. Some blamed the police for not keeping record, some blamed each other, some even said they had both taken one particular photo. In short, it was a mess.
    Its a place I definitely wouldn’t go if I was you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Kaycee was a medium sized dog. You wouldn’t have wanted her crapping on your lawn. Specially before you picked up your paper. Specially if it was dark and you couldn’t see the crap. You might have put your foot right in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, if you want to quote someone try putting the quote between the following html tags

    Put your quote here

    The result looks like this

    This is the quote

    Testing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    You are the one whom seems to be obsessed by vaginas and clitorises. Specially Arawa’s. Does that mean you are in your declining years?

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

    Going by the condition of the Bain house, they don’t strike me as the type of people who would worry about the dog crapping anywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,063) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:32 am

    Yep, you got it. Kent has taught you something, then? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Please don’t misquote me.
    I used the word verges ,not gardens. There is a difference ,you know.

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

    muggins (760) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:32 am

    ————————————-

    Kaycee was not a large dog, and in the totality of dog species would be considered small-medium.
    Whilst a male dog will mark it’s territory by urinating in many places, a female (unless on heat) will usually urinate in less places.
    Bowel motions are not produced to mark territory, and most dogs will not urinate and poop in the same area. They usually do not produce multiple bowel motions within a period of 2 hours (if they do, then then are sick). Kaycee was a health dog, who may have produced one bowel motion that morning, and as dogs are creatures of habit, probably produced it in the long grass on the Bain family property or thereabouts, before she left for the paper run.

    Now, perhaps you, being such an expert phone caller, might like to phone the people who bought the property and see if they located any of Kaycee’s bowel motions, and kept them for analysis. Or I’m sure you know someone you could phone, who knows someone who witnessed the dog doing it’s business, that could give you their statement, or better still, maybe Mr Schollum has it on photo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (145) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:09 am
    For the sake of the argument I will accept there is no forensic evidence: Did Robin type the suicide “note” on the computer instead of writing a note whose authorship could be verified, or did David type the note because he couldn’t forge his father’s writing and signature?

    “Sorry, you’re the only one who deserved to stay.” (From memory.)

    Written by a “thicko” cop or the goat? That is the question the lawyers ask.

    By the bye (not bye the bye, flapper), maybe Robin had a nose bleed and used the towel in the laundry. Much more likely than changing his clothes but not scrubbing his hands to meet his Maker.

    Ah the nose bleed, consistent with a fight and injuries to his hands. Fighting with Stephen, or simply ”accidental like his footprints throughout the scene? Be careful of the fog may lift.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Belinda
    I agree. I understand there was dog crap in the house. I guess the point I was trying to make is that David Bain did not give a stuff whether Kaycee crapped on people’s verges or not. Nothing annoys me more than seeing dog crap when I am out walking. Fortunately by far the majority of people who walk their dogs carry a doggie bag,so one sees very little dog crap. Of course Kaycee might have crapped in the house before she accompanied David on his paper round but I doubt she would have due to the early start time. She probably took a dump about 15 minutes into the round.

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

    Dennis have you or your friends done any physic calculation as to what force or kinetic energy would be needed to force Robins body sideways
    C&P
    However, there is a myth, kept alive by portrayals of shooting victims on television and in films being hurled backwards, that victims are actually “knocked down” or displaced by being struck with the force of a bullet. In fact, real gunshot victims relate that they had no immediate reaction. (Fackler, 1998) The maximum momentum transferred from different small arms projectiles, inluding large caliber rifles and shotguns, to an 80 kg body is only 0.01 to 0.18 m/s, negligible compared to the 1 to 2 m/s velocity of a pedestrian. (Karger and Knewbuehl, 1996) Incapacitation of gunshot victims is primarily a function of the area of the body wounded. Immediate incapacitation may occur with gunshot wounds to the brain and upper cervical cord.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Judith

    All the photos were unable to be put in chronological order because the majority of the photographers had not kept notes of which photos they had taken, the angles, the settings, and in which order they were taken. Some blamed the police for not keeping record, some blamed each other, some even said they had both taken one particular photo. In short, it was a mess.
    Its a place I definitely wouldn’t go if I was you!

    Just like the strip search and the dna inside the barrel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    One photo of that magazine next to Robin Bain’s hand was taken before Dempster came into the house. Ask Simom Schollum if you don’t believe me.

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

    muggins (763) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:46 am
    ————————————-

    I guess the point I was trying to make is that David Bain did not give a stuff whether Kaycee crapped on people’s verges or not.

    You are getting really desperate now. You don’t have a single piece of evidence that supports whether the dog even passed a bowel motion that morning, or if it did, where it did that, and under what circumstances. You don’t know if David carried poop bags, or used a newspaper and cleaned up the mess. You know nothing, and yet you try to use it in this argument as another reason to discredit David Bain. This argument is absolute proof of your lack of rationality, that is exhibited in other points you make. You really show your cards here. Well done. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  460. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    There is no proof there was a strip search,and even Kanz agrees that the blood in the barrel was not tested for DNA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Hysteria rules at 10.54

    We are not to believe the evidence, the whole thrust of the anti mob – believe them instead. Sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    I don’t think a subsriber to the ODT would be too happy getting a paper covered in dogshit.
    And if David did carry a doggie bag what did he do with it?

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

    muggins (764) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:52 am
    ——————————

    Muggins if I phoned someone every time I didn’t believe you, my phone bill would higher than yours.

    Mr Schollum was not in the house at the appropriate time, and therefore anything he has to say is not a primary source, and invalid. Get the person who took the photo and provide their notes taken on the day that records the time the photo was taken and from what angle, and I will believe you. (You might like to pass that evidence on to the Crown to, because they don’t have it either)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Hysteria rules at 10.50 and 10.53.

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

    The big question is why did David even take that dog that particular morning as it is plainly obvious that it was not a regular occurrence because dogs can be fat and fit and gain fitness very quickly like within a week and loose there fitness slowly.

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

    muggins (766) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:57 am

    And if David did carry a doggie bag what did he do with it?

    I don’t know if the dog even pooped that morning, or if David Bain did carry a doggie bag, but if he did, and Kaycee did poop, I know exactly what I’d like to do with the contents of that bag. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    One of the photos showing that magazine next to Robin Bain’s hand was taken before Dempster entered the house.

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

    I have a photo that shows the curtain hanging over the but of the rifle too blurry to of been photoshoped but have no idea where I got it from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    gamefisher (129) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:59 am

    What are you talking about? Every witness who would normally see him also said he usually had the dog with him. Why would you try to muddy up the waters when it has been accepted, by all involved, that it was his normal practise. Running out of silly things to say are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    If a dog hasn’t pooped before it goes for a run it usually stops and poops sometime during that run,usually sooner rather than later.
    And I am surprised that you don’t know whether or not Kaycee pooped that morning because,according to you, you know everything else that happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    gamefisher
    One witness,maybe two ,said they saw the dog that morning. Kaycee was a solid ,very fit dog,about five years old.

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

    muggins (769) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:01 am

    One of the photos showing that magazine next to Robin Bain’s hand was taken before Dempster entered the house.

    ————————-

    Prove it! Provide the photographers name, time, and angle/lighting etc. The things required in the manual that must be recorded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Re photo
    Check with Simon Schollum.

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

    Dennis Horne at 8:36 am

    Absolutely brother. Hallelujah to that! Says it all.

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

    I couldn’t care less where the dog crapped but would love to know why the dog wouldn’t go near David Bain when db arrived at the Clark’s house.
    Don’t know much about dogs but wouldn’t it run to the person who it was most familiar with, when it was stressed. It must have picked up on all the emotion in the house that day,
    If only the dog could talk we’d know it all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith,
    How about we move on from the dog to the goat. Tell me again what sort of sex you reckon Buckley was having with that goat. I am absolutely sure that Bain made that story up,but you seem to be prepared to believe it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (771) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:05 am

    Have you lost your touch here? Why have you not phoned casey and asked her? she would tell you…..

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

    muggins (771) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:13 am
    Judith
    Re photo
    Check with Simon Schollum.

    ——————–

    So you can’t provide the evidence to support your claim. I happen to know that Crown were unable to prove when their photos were taken, and also that Mr Schollum was NOT in the house at the time you say that photo was taken.

    Anything he has to add is merely speculation, unless he has somehow uncovered the records of one of the other photographers, in which case he should hand them on to the appropriate people. I am not about to phone any witnesses, unlike yourself, I have standards, and those include not disturbing the privacy of private individuals, unless I am acting in some official capacity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Good morning,Dotcom.
    Look,I do sincerely apologise for going off topic,but you have to blame Judith,she keeps leading me astray.
    I understand you are going to reveal something to us this morning.

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

    muggins (772) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:17 am

    —————————-

    Please provide the evidence where Bain said Buckley was having sex with the goat?

    The only evidence I am aware of is that Bain stated clearly the action ‘looked like’, which is vastly different to actually doing. But you being an expert on animals, and obviously now including sexual aspects I’m sure will be able to tell a different tale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Belinda (71) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:17 am

    I couldn’t care less where the dog crapped but would love to know why the dog wouldn’t go near David Bain when db arrived at the Clark’s house.

    Lies that you have picked up from the hate sites.
    Dunne, the policeman who was visiting Bain at the house says otherwise, why would he lie about it?
    I would change my source of information if I were you, that is if you want the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    I will contact Simon Schollum,but not for a day or two. Then I should be able to confirm that at least one photo of that magazine next to Robin Bain’s hand was taken before Dr Dempster entered the house.

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

    Muggins re: 11:08 So this statement to Binnie is a lie

    At the time I , it’s not accurate because I’ve since walked it myself and it
    took quite a bit longer. And considering you know I was having to wait
    for Casey, my dog , um, you know, she’s not as fit as our
    1 0 German Shepherd , not as athletic. You know, she’s a , more of a barrel
    on legs than -

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

    muggins (774) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:25 am
    Judith
    I will contact Simon Schollum,but not for a day or two. Then I should be able to confirm that at least one photo of that magazine next to Robin Bain’s hand was taken before Dr Dempster entered the house.
    ——————————

    I am sorry, but your words are not ‘evidence’ or proof.

    You will require a signed document from the man, who will also have to prove his source as being probable and authentic, if you wish to make statements that change existing Crown records. Surely you aren’t idiot enough to expect us to believe it, just because you say it, when Crown evidence clearly shows differently?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    When Kaycee arrived at David’s aunt’s house she called to David to come and meet her. When David appeared Kaycee slunk behind the person that brought her over. Neither made any move to go to each other.
    Thereafter Kaycee only went to David when he commanded her to do so. When he was visited in prison Bain never asked about Kaycee.

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

    gamefisher (131) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:26 am
    Muggins re: 11:08 So this statement to Binnie is a lie

    At the time I , it’s not accurate because I’ve since walked it myself and it
    took quite a bit longer. And considering you know I was having to wait
    for Casey, my dog , um, you know, she’s not as fit as our
    1 0 German Shepherd , not as athletic. You know, she’s a , more of a barrel
    on legs than –

    ————————–

    Where is the lie in that gamefisher?

    It is a well known fact that german shepherds usually have much more endurance than a dog like Kaycee. To call Binnie a liar is taking your desperation to a new level. Kaycee could still have been a fit dog for her size and breed, however, regardless of how fit she was, she would never be able to compete with the ability of a fit german shepherd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith,
    If Simon Schollum has seen a photo of that magazine next to Robin Bain’s hands that confirms it was taken before Dr Dempster entered the house then I expect you to accept that he is telling the truth. Not everyone tells lies,you know.

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

    muggins (775) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:34 am
    ———————–

    you really talk some crap and clearly know very little about dogs, especially when in foreign places.

    I know many people who have lost or been separated from their pets who never mention them, because of the pain involved. Dealing with the loss of a pet, including separation, and even the loss of a loved one, is often handled by never mentioning them again. You know very little about the grief involved in separation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (775) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:34 am

    If the dog had been left tied up and not fed at the death house until after David was delivered to the Clark house, she would have been too traumatized to go to anybody. Do you know what time that was? I am sure a phone call will answer that for you.

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

    muggins (776) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:39 am
    —————————–

    How does Schollum know it was taken before Dr Dempster entered the house?
    I’ve seen the same photo and it is not date and time stamped. The Crown were unable to provide the photographer, or any evidence that proved the time the photo was taken, so how is it that Schollum, who wasn’t even there at the time, is able to?

    He might think he knows when it was taken, but that proves absolutely nothing, especially when the man could not have even witnessed the photo being taken.

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

    Judith what drugs are you on where did I say Binnie lied and the rest is C&P out of David’s statement david is lying about how unfit Casey the dog was

    gamefisher (131) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:26 am
    Muggins re: 11:08 So this statement to Binnie is a lie

    At the time I , it’s not accurate because I’ve since walked it myself and it
    took quite a bit longer. And considering you know I was having to wait
    for Casey, my dog , um, you know, she’s not as fit as our
    1 0 German Shepherd , not as athletic. You know, she’s a , more of a barrel
    on legs than –

    ————————–

    Where is the lie in that gamefisher?

    It is a well known fact that german shepherds usually have much more endurance than a dog like Kaycee. To call Binnie a liar is taking your desperation to a new level. Kaycee could still have been a fit dog for her size and breed, however, regardless of how fit she was, she would never be able to compete with the ability of a fit german shepherd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Judith (273) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:44 am

    He too is a magician. He can ‘find’ lenses in photos where they never were. How can you question the validity of what such a clever man says?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Bain is lying through his teeth.
    First of all any fit adult person under the age of 60 could walk from Heath Street to 65 Every Street in under three minutes.
    I walked the same distance at the same gradient 1:6 in 3m 15 and I was 74 at the time. in actual fact the gradient I walked was slightly steeper. The first 60m from Heath Street is a 1:9 gradient. The gradient I walked was all 1:6.
    One of the members of our group took 2m37s to walk the distance at the age of 57.
    And Bain never mentioned anything about Kaycee slowing him down when he was interviewed and asked how long it would take him to walk from Heath Street to home. He estimated it would take him 2/3 minutes which is pretty much spot on ,providing he didn’t run from Heath Street to home,which he may well have done.

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

    Muggins, to make it even clearer for you. If you automatically believe everything you are told in these phone calls you make, without asking for proof of how these people have got their information, then you would be the most unreliable witness around, and clearly not a thing you retell from these phone calls has any weight.

    Try passing off a photo in court when you cannot provide the photographer, the time etc, and see where it gets you.

    You have just given perfect reasoning for no one to believe a thing you repeat from these ‘phone calls’ of yours – that is “if he says it was, then you believe him”.

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

    Kanz can you give me a source for where Dunne says what happened when David bain and dog were reunited?
    Are you calling the Clarkes liars?
    I’m happy to be proved wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Re photo.
    I will check all that out with Schollum.

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

    Kanz (310) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:46 am
    —————-

    I think Muggins has revealed the reason for his name. He believes everything people tell him in photo calls, and doesn’t apply objectivity or rationality to his findings. That makes him a mug. Now he’s telling us how he’s walked that distance, and yet, in other places, he got someone to walk it for him. He’s a mug, but I’m not. Listening to his tales has become nothing but a source of hilarity.

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

    opps, no edit, that should be ‘phone calls’. I don’t think muggins would be required for photo calls!

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

    Belinda (72) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 11:53 am
    ————————

    You weren’t talking to me but I’ll give you my opinion anyway.

    I think the Clarkes are elderly people who like most aged people have poor recall ability. I also think at the time of the first trial they were under stress, and by the time of the second trial, they had a financial incentive that may have muddled their thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Kaycee was brought to David’s aunt’s place shortly after David arrived there. David told his aunt to give Kaycee the “evil eye” if she didn’t do what she was told.
    And I repeat. David never once asked about Kaycee when he was visited in prison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    So, Nostalgia, now when you post, only put the quote between the blockquote tags and not the entire post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  502. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Are you saying David’s aunt is lying to protect her share of the estate?

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

    muggins at 11:59 am

    500th comment, muggins

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  504. Scott1 (575 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ
    Now you are back to dealing with the police’s choice to charge David. Which is a completely different issue from the motive for Guest. If you wanted to make that relevant the question would be whether the prosecution has an incentive to get convictions. in which case you would again be making an argument against the adversarial system which on the defense’s side you seem to prefer in its unrestrained form.

    I’m not sure your suggestions are unambiguously improvements…
    One can argue that it is better for justice to take a life time for everyone than for it to never arrive for some or it is better that all criminals go free than one innocent person is imprisoned – but in practice policy makers cannot work with that.

    I understand from an earlier post that most if not all countries that signed up to it don’t enact it for pragmatic reasons? is that correct?

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

    Judith what age do you call elderly?
    I’d estimate they were probably late 40s early 50’s.
    Why on earth are you trying to portray them as old and doddery. That’s scraping the barrel.
    Why not tell us your age so we can decide whether you are old and doddery and have lost the plot.
    It’s beyond belief the lengths david supporters go to some time.
    If david was innocent you wouldn’t have to invent ridiculous stuff to try and disecredit them.

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

    Dennis Horne, I still prefer the term “didn’t kill anyone” to things like “factually innocent”. Books have been written on the words “factually” and “innocent”, whereas “didn’t kill anyone” says pretty unequivocally what you mean. (And yes, I know what the Cabinet instruction says.)

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

    Example. If Ian Binnie had been asked to decide these questions?

    Is Robin Bain likely to have been a killer?

    Is David Bain likely to have been a killer? .. ..

    .. .. I suspect the result of his report would have been very, very different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  508. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    As a matter of interest ,how does one check out the number of comments one has made if one wants to do that?

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

    I said the Clarkes are elderly people. Which they are, no matter what angle you like to take.
    I said at the first trial they were stressed, didn’t say they were old then.
    I said that financial incentives can muddle thinking. There is plenty of evidence to support that.

    I never said they lied. I simply said their recall was effected by several things, and never gave an opinion as to whether that was voluntary or merely due to what they were experiencing. I see you all like to put your own spin on it though, nice one!

    My age has nothing to do with it Belinda, you are the person calling them ‘doddery’. ( Besides I’m sure you and your stalking partner already have that information)

    Even a young witness can become muddled when there are external and internal stressors.

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

    muggins (at 10:38 am
    Judith
    I used the word verges ,not gardens.

    In reference to which, the vaginas or the clitorises?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  511. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Belinda
    You are pobably pretty much right re the Clark’s age at the time of the murders.
    When Mrs Clark finished giving her evidence at the trial she then listened to David giving his evidence. When she heard him say he hadn’t seen those glasses for over a year she said to herself “That’s not what he told us”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  512. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    You are hilarious.

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

    muggins at 11:22 am
    I do sincerely apologise for going off topic

    Genuinely, muggins, nothing you say is off topic. I have learnt a great deal from you. Keep going.

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

    OK Judith how about just saying how old you think the Clarks are to be called elderly.
    It’s such a simple question doesn’t require any spin, then posters can decide if the Clarkes age is relevant to their recall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  515. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Belinda
    Just as a matter of interest,do you have a stalking partner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  516. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    David had very little recall,or so he would have us believe.

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

    Judith (278) at 11:22 am

    Please provide the evidence where Bain said Buckley was having sex with the goat?

    Don’t need evidence of anything Judith.

    When are you going to get it, Judith. As part of his claim for compensation, David Bain said this stuff. It is his onus to satisfy Cabinet, that his compo claim is based on fact.

    Judith, get off this criminal court stuff. Actions in the criminal courts ended more than 3 years ago.

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

    Dotcom (761) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 12:36 pm
    ———————

    Wow, aren’t you the bossy one. Where did I mention Court?

    I asked the person for evidence that David had said Buckley was having sex with the goat? Nothing to do with any Court.
    The person failed to notice the words ‘looked like’.

    You sir, are reading what you want to see so you can then climb on your high horse and pass judgment. I am perfectly aware of what the Cabinet needs to make a decision, and you are quite wrong, there is provision for a positive decision that is based on extra-ordinary circumstances. Bain does not have to prove he is 100% innocent.

    I do not know why you have the desire to control the conversation to suit exactly what you think it should be. I cannot help you with that, however, I can recommend a good therapist well trained in dealing with people with control issues.

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

    muggins 12:22 pm

    how does one check out the number of comments one has made if one wants to do that?

    Your own number of comments in next to your nickname. The 500th was in reference to the number of comments on this thread.

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

    Belinda (74) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    —————-

    You are an idiot. Not a nice person, and a stalker, but I’ll play your game.

    In my opinion, anyone that qualifies for superannuation is elderly. Happy now? Don’t bother reposting my answer, I’m sure they are all reading it.

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

    So David had another pair of his own

    C&P quote” Some time the following week, Bain called her and said he had broken his glasses when he had fallen in his music teacher’s garden.

    He said he had an old pair, but he did not wear them. ” unquote

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

    Judith 12:43 pm
    Bain does not have to prove he is 100% innocent

    Correct. He has to prove it on BoP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  523. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    I see you have been knighted. Do I have to call you Sir Dotcom from now on?
    And I havn’t been able to work out how many comments I have made. The only number I can see next to my name isn’t changing.
    And I see Judith has taken my advice and gone from the dog back to the goat.
    Anyway,I’m off for my constitutional,see you later alligator.

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

    muggins 12:53 pm
    see you later alligator

    Muggins, showing your age with ‘later alligator’ (Bill Haley and the Comets) “In a while crocodile”

    Muggins, your number of posts is now showing as 786. Next time you post it will show 787, but it will change for every post you ever made, as the new 787. Next post after that, you will become 788, etc. I am right on your heals, at 764 in posting this one.

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

    muggins 12:53 pm
    Dotcom, do I have to call you Sir Dotcom?

    Not at all. “Your Excellency” or just “Excellency” will suffice.

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

    Thankyou Judith so we have established the Clarkes are not elderly, I assume you agree, that is a huge breakthrough and a relief.
    Back to the original question after this pointless diversion, can you give me a source where Dunne says what happened when david was reunited with the dog?
    As I said in my original post, if I am wrong with my information I’m happy to retract it.

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

    Judith 12:43 pm
    Where did I mention Court?

    Women’s logic, Judes. You didn’t mention court, but I did. This is the nature of conversations. You say one thing. I either agree of disagree. If I disagree I try to say why I disagree. In this instance, I disagreed, and I told you why, namely that your silly little line of logic is 3 years out of date according to where the Bain matter has progressed to while you haven’t been paying attention.

    Now, as I was saying. David Bain has claimed compensation. To get compensation, David has to prove on BoP that he isn’t a killer.

    In an attempt to prove that he is not a killer, he has said some things that are not sustainable. Until those things have been verified to be sustainable, natural justice should apply, and David should not get his compensation on the basis of what can readily be shown to be false claims by David Bain.

    Comprende, mi amigo? (Ooo, look at that — Spanish too)

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

    I can’t believe you fucking idiots are still banging on with this crap. you are never going to agree so give it up.
    It’s a nice day get out and enjoy your lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  529. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    gamefisher (133) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 10:48 am
    Dennis have you or your friends done any physics calculation as to what force or kinetic energy would be needed to force Robins body sideways
    C&P
    However, there is a myth, kept alive by portrayals of shooting victims on television and in films being hurled backwards, that victims are actually “knocked down” or displaced by being struck with the force of a bullet. In fact, real gunshot victims relate that they had no immediate reaction. (Fackler, 1998) The maximum momentum transferred from different small arms projectiles, inluding large caliber rifles and shotguns, to an 80 kg body is only 0.01 to 0.18 m/s, negligible compared to the 1 to 2 m/s velocity of a pedestrian. (Karger and Knewbuehl, 1996) Incapacitation of gunshot victims is primarily a function of the area of the body wounded. Immediate incapacitation may occur with gunshot wounds to the brain and upper cervical cord.

    You asked me about a force to move a head, which I show again below. I’m sorry I don’t really understand your new question. Are you asking me the force to topple a limp body? Looking at the photo it seems possible Robin might roll off the bean bag, but the splatter is on the curtains, isn’t it? I don’t have a clear picture of the situation. Could for example, David have hidden behind the curtains and pushed them forward as he positioned the rifle to Robin’s head? I would say if Robin’s eyes were closed and David was quiet he could almost touch Robin’s head and then either a last minute thrust of the rifle or the startle effect would topple Robin. Sorry, I haven’t been much help/

    Send an email with more detail to dotcom@inbox.com and ask him to forward it to me.

    About 300N (newton) ie about 30kg force (divide 300 by 9.81), acting through the centre of mass (horizontally) over a distance of 0.1m (10cm) will have the required effect of moving 4.5kg about 3m in 0.45s. The force acts for about 3ms.

    If you sketch a graph of v against t you will see the graph is constrained by shape and area enclosed (the distance travelled in time of 0.45 seconds) to have a particular form.

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

    Why are you here Frankdb, telling us we shouldn’t be here?

    Fuck there are a lot of “comment police” on Kiwiblog.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,066) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 8:46 am

    Perhaps not a ‘fare’ as you imagine. Nice little runner though.:::::
    *
    Not at all, gave you a couple of hours to reply, but you knew what was coming so stopped posting, pity Kanz couldn’t keep his mouth shout, if he had, nothing much would have been exposed.

    Like I said, I am not really in to that, and you may have indeed turned a leaf, but your comments and lies lead me to believe otherwise.

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

    You cheeky bugger, Dennis. I charge for being a post office, I’ll have you know.

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

    Bugger, You offed yourself Tiz. I figured we were clear of you for weeks to come.

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

    Now, as I was saying. David Bain has claimed compensation. To get compensation, David has to prove on BoP that he isn’t a killer.

    Nice to see you are now adding BoP to your comment. You’re getting there….. slowly.
    The rest of your diatribe – crap, but then you knew that, didn’t you. ;-)

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

    I have always based my comments on BoP. Never anything different. Don’t have to say it in every comment, do I, just for those who can’t keep up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  536. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    I for one Dotcom, appreciated Truthiz’s headsup, I cant speak for anyone else, but it gave me an inkling of what is at work here

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

    780 comments now based on BoP, repeatedly telling peops to stop talking BRD language. Can’t be repeating the phrase in every post, like you repeat bile in every post, Judes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  538. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    If David Bain has to prove his innocence on the blanace of probibilities, I dont think it is ever going to happen, not with a QC who goes into the interview with an open mind

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

    Belinda (75) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    The Clarks are indeed elderly. As both now pass my personally defined age to qualify.

    My dear lady, I wouldn’t lift my fingers from the keyboard to search for a link for you, let alone go to the bother of picking up my research. Don’t kid yourself. I know exactly who you are, and who you mix with. Your innocent act may fool those easily fooled, but I am not one of them. You are better suited to your stalking, you seem to forget about holes. Still not plugged.

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

    Honey.
    Truthiz and I are on the same side. But she resents the fact that I have new thoughts, and new ideas, and spews her bile to repeatedly tell me what an idiot I am. I am one of Robin Bain’s best assets, and I don’t need Tiz around damaging my contributions incessantly. Best not to take sides on this Honey, and neither will I.

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

    Honeybadger (14) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    QC and ‘open mind’ are incompatible. I doubt any such thing exists.
    No single person of any qualification should be responsible for this. There is only one proper and sensible course of action and that is using the recommendations made by the Law Commission and establish a tribunal to deal with the matter, completely isolating the government from the final decision. Due to Collins mismanagement, no solution she instigates will be a safe one.

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

    Dotcom (782) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    I have always based my comments on BoP.
    ——————

    not true, you have not clarified the BoP, and may times said he must prove innocence/that he did not kill. You also fail to address the extra-ordinary circumstances with the same energy you give to everything else, and yet, it is just as important to overall decision.

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

    It isn’t a question of “If David Bain has to prove his innocence” It is not a question. It is a fact. This is exactly what David has to prove. He has to prove that David Bain didn’t kill anyone.

    Best way he can to this is to prove that Robin killed. And of course, David Bain cannot do this thing. He cannot do it because he knows that Robin killed no-one.

    Once again I say that if David Bain will recall his current claim (of about $2 million), I will personally pay him $20 million, if he can prove that Robin Bain killed his wife and 3 of his kids.

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

    Judith, you lie.

    I have never said any such thing. I have said consistently what I absolutely know to be what I know. End of story.

    Now if you want to sidetrack this thread on this pointless point, rest assured I will simply call you Judith the Liar every time I refer to you, and I will move on. Do you have anything to say at this point on the topic itself. Bet you can’t.

    You know that I am one of the least flame-bating commenters here Judith. I comment on topic with very few exceptions. Don’t take me on, on this. You will end up hurt. Right now, I am going back on topic. Bet you can’t.

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

    As to extraordinary circumstances, I have commented on why this is irrelevant.

    Extraordinary circumstances are whatever Cabinet wants them to be, so in a practical sense, Cabinet can find that David being right-handed is sufficient for extraordinary circumstances.

    The question of extraordinary circumstances is simply not worth mentioning, because i hate typing the word extraordinary — it forces me to have to look at the keyboard, which is something I hate having to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  546. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    so Judith, are you saying replace Collins and give the replacement the problem?

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

    That’s what Simon Power did, Honey. Set Judith up with the problem, then cut and ran. Noting of course that so has Binnie. Set NZ up, then cut and ran.

    And here good friends is why we should never do this again. Binnie set us up, and headed out of Houston on the next plane, so no one could lynch him and string him up by the neck.

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

    No Honey, I am not saying replace Collins at all.

    In 1998 the Law Commission produced a document making recommendations regarding the issue of wrongful imprisonment. Their recommendation was for an independent tribunal to be set up which handled such matters. For obvious reasons, of which the current topic is a perfect example, such a decision should never be made by government and allowed to be influenced by politics. Existing law allows for Ms Collins to establish such a tribunal to deal with this matter, and would not necessitate new legislation.

    It is the only fair and just way of managing it. Any decision, either for or against compensation for Bain made by Collins and cabinet under the current circumstances is very unsafe. So is a decision made on the recommendations of Fisher or Binnie, given the recent events. I do not think Collins has any option, but of course that would mean she would need commonsense, and to lessen her arrogance. Something I doubt she will do unless pushed to.

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

    Dotcom (788) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    ————————

    Get off your high horse and keep your pompus acts and words for the court room. I’ve dealt with more lawyers than you’ve had hot dinners dear. Call me any name you wish, you’re all bluster and no substance. I’m just glad I don’t have to pay inflated fees for your words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  550. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    Judith is right. A tribunal would be the most logical step. And we don’t need to outsource it, the Thorpe report showed us the need for it and also the fact that we have perfectly capable and exceptional legal talents here to staff it.

    The overwhelming legal consensus on Binnies report is that it’s intrinsically flawed with far too many obvious errors to be accepted, however Fishers report even if perfect, given it’s conception will also never be accepted.

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

    Dallas, not Houston. Houston was the one at the front end of ” .. we have a problem”.

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

    Judith 3:11 pm .. I’m just glad I don’t have to pay inflated fees for your words.

    Mutual darling. i’m glad you don’t too. There are no fees high enough.

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

    Dotcom (793) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    ———————-

    LOL, you really are cute!

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

    Honey, what Judith told you is not right. That 1998 Law Commission document does not apply to this case, because technically there has been no wrongful imprisonment. The imprisonment occurred as a result of a legitimate conviction/sentencing.

    When the JCPC quashed the conviction, if it had also dismissed the option of a retrial, then the 1998 Law Comm document would have applied.

    Doesn’t matter the originating authority, the need right now, and I’m sure Judith will agree, is for David Bain to have to show on the balance of probability that he killed no-one.

    (There is also the technical need for exc.. circ.. but exc.. circ.. can be whatever Cabinet wants them to be, so they are an academic stipulation — after all if Cabinet decides that David’s wearing funny jumpers is exc.. circ.. then who is going to tell Cabinet that David wearing funny jumpers is not exc.. circ..)

    Best way for David to prove that he killed no-one is to prove that someone else did. But of course, he will not be able to do this thing, so oobla-dee oobla-da life goes on, without compensation.

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

    comment 555

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  556. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Dotcom (795) Says:

    January 2nd, 2013 at 3:33 pm
    Honey, what Judith told you is not right. That 1998 Law Commission document does not apply to this case, because technically there has been no wrongful imprisonment. The imprisonment occurred as a result of a legitimate conviction/sentencing.

    Yes, that was my thought too, the conviction was legitimate, and Dexter is right also, in that Binnies rport was so flawed as to be unacceptable, so possibly a tribunual is the way to go, with everyone being interviewed, none of this ‘if David said so it must be true’

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

    Spot on, Honey. You have the makings of a great career in politics.

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

    On the other hand, our Judes here, should not give up her night job, whatever IT might be.

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

    Once again for all the world to see.

    If David Bain will retract his claim on the taxpayer, I will personally multiply his potential return tenfold. If David can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that Robin Bain killed Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen, then I will personally pay David Bain $20 million. No other questions asked.

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

    Judith why are you so rude when people ask you logical questions?
    I ask what I think are civil questions and only get rude responses.
    I still don’t understand why you’d try to mislead people here into thinking the Clarks who were probably only late 40s were elderly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  561. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Belinda (76) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    Linda…. bugger, I forgot to add the B….
    Judith never said they ‘were’ elderly, she said they ‘are’. Who was it that constantly pretended to be asking questions, then twisting the answers they were given, on TM? Oh I remember now, no wonder I forgot the B.

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

    Belinda (76) Says:

    January 2nd, 2013 at 4:25 pm
    Judith why are you so rude when people ask you logical questions?

    As I see it, its playing the player and not the ball. I think one of my first posts here, if not the first was, its all smoke and mirrors

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

    Dennis Horne re 1:54 will do when I get home at 7PM my email doesn’t work that well on a dongle.

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

    I remember that comment Honeybadger. Nothing like a warm welcome, eh?

    As you know my email address is public here. You think the insults fly here? You ought to see my inbox last two weeks. Can’t repeat some of the stuff.

    Nevertheless, I got one email reminding me, from one of our own, that we have a standard to maintain. Ah well, I do my best, but I must admit to being human (sometimes).

    Yes, that person who reminded me. You are right. And we are doing pretty well generally. I must watch my pees and cues more, for the greater good. For justice for Robin Bain.

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

    Belinda (76) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 4:25 pm
    Judith why are you so rude when people ask you logical questions?
    I ask what I think are civil questions and only get rude responses.
    ————————–

    It is quite simple Belinda, because I know who you are. I also note that whilst its ok for people like Dotcom who are also personally rude, it is me you single out for your criticism. As I have said, you may think you are fooling some people, and no doubt you do, but I am not playing your game. You are a stalker, you are part of a group that harasses people, and their family’s simply because they support David Bain. Due to that sort of behaviour, you deserve no respect. I may be personally rude to you on here, but that is nothing compared to what you and your acquaintances do to innocent people who do not even post here or elsewhere.
    Oh yes,
    And, when you feign your answer and pretend great hurt, don’t forget I’m still have access to the same site you do, so please, don’t insult yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  566. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Is there anybody there? I cannot prove I am here. Should that bother me?

    Lawyers win by ablation. By the time they finish there’s nothing left except the bill. And no one is any the wiser. The smartest lawyer in the SI has even adopted the name Ablate-Kerr QC.

    Our adversarial system is an expensive farce. The courts are but a stage to cock and coo. An examining magistrate (cf France) would shred the veil woven by unctuous lawyers; expose the ugly face of truth.

    I have just been out for a long walk; the sea air did wonders.

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

    Honeybadger (17) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 4:57 pm
    ———————-

    Yes I’m sure it was one of your first under this identity. Again you fool no one. You people need to first plug up your leaks, then secondly stop using the same expressions from site to site. If you must try and play the innocent, at least make a decent effort of it, and don’t send messages via your sites, you know damn well they are not safe. How many times do you need to be told?

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

    families, not family’s

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

    Dennis Horne (147) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:18 pm
    Is there anybody there? I cannot prove I am here. Should that bother me?
    —————————————————–

    If freckles were lovely, and day was night,
    And measles were nice and a lie warn’t a lie,
    Life would be delight,—
    But things couldn’t go right
    For in such a sad plight
    I wouldn’t be I.

    If earth was heaven and now was hence,
    And past was present, and false was true,
    There might be some sense
    But I’d be in suspense
    For on such a pretense
    You wouldn’t be you.

    If fear was plucky, and globes were square,
    And dirt was cleanly and tears were glee
    Things would seem fair,—
    Yet they’d all despair,
    For if here was there
    We wouldn’t be we.

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

    5.20 pm, of course attributed to none other than the late great e.e. cummings.

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

    This French system you talk of, ce n’est pas parfait.

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

    Dotcom (804) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:19 pm
    families, not family’s
    ————-
    Now you’re the english teacher?
    You gonna give me detention too for not writing proper?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  573. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. aka Drop-Dead-Georgeous. (I did still love you this morning.)

    My understanding is Binnie’s extraordinary circumstances are rooted in the inadequacy of the police investigation.

    If their investigation is wholly inadequate, where does he find the evidence to find Bain factually innocent (OBP)?

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

    I think what you might have meant to say is “thank you”

    as I did when someone pointed out to me that I had used “there” when I meant “they’re”

    My only words were “thank you”, Judith.

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

    Dotcom (806) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:27 pm
    ——————-

    In all honesty, how much fun would that be?

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

    So want to come in there, Dennis. I’ll stand aside for you though, and I’ll try not to nitpick.
    (Not that I think any conversation on this level with Judes will last very long.)

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

    Dennis Horne (148) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:27 pm
    @Judith. aka Drop-Dead-Georgeous. (I did still love you this morning.)

    My understanding is Binnie’s extraordinary circumstances are rooted in the inadequacy of the police investigation.

    If their investigation is wholly inadequate, where does he find the evidence to find Bain factually innocent (OBP)?

    ———————————–

    The fact is, he can’t. However, it is my belief that there is room for a decision, that allows compensation to be paid under those circumstances. It comes down to BoP. If the balance is tipped sufficiently that although not 100% (because that is impossible due to the bungling) it indicates that there is a high probability that Bain did not do it, then it allows them to pay compensation.

    Now clearly we disagree on that balance, however, it comes back to why can’t either of us prove our case. Fact is we can’t, not because there wasn’t evidence, but because those charged with the collection and analysis of that evidence did not do their assigned task correctly. Like or not, I believe the law allows for payment due to that issue alone, and even though for many it will be a bitter pill, that is how it is when people, paid by our taxes, do not do the job they are meant to.

    Had the problem arisen by the actions of some person not acting in an official capacity, then no, no compensation, but these were officials, with prescribed procedures and charged with a legal responsibility. We are going to have to pay for these incompetence.

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

    Judith :: Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    Don’t kid yourself. I know exactly who you are, and who you mix with. Your innocent act may fool those easily fooled, but I am not one of them. You are better suited to your stalking, you seem to forget about holes. Still not plugged.

    Judith :: Jan 2nd, 2013 at 5:14 pm
    It is quite simple Belinda, because I know who you are. As I have said, you may think you are fooling some people, and no doubt you do, but I am not playing your game. You are a stalker (roflol), you are part of a group that harasses people ~~~ don’t forget I’m still have access to the same site you do …
    +++++++

    Hmmm, seems Nos is not the only stalker on here

    Sounds so much like Cybernana ….

    but anyhow, I will wait for the cabinet decision, and we can go from there ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  579. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Mrs Clark certainly wasn’t elderly when she heard David Bain lie on oath when he said he hadn’t seen those glasses for over a year.

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

    Judith 5:30 pm
    how much fun would that be?

    Touche, says it all really.

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

    And I know, Dennis, couldn’t be bothered finding the accent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  582. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    I read a good idea today, well it will be acceptable to the nongs from the hate sites anyway.
    It was, it now needs to be heard by 2 NZ QCs so “they can bolster the Crown’s case”. Even those who belong to JFRB obviously understand that the Crown case needs ‘bolstering’ as it will not stand up to any unbiased scrutiny.

    Bain, you can start planning what to do with your millions.

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

    Truthiz (81) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:41 pm
    ———————-

    You are wrong, but I suspect that is something you are very used to being. I don’t stalk people, I collect information and send it to those who need to see it. It is important for them to see how the stories distributed by JFRB are constructed and gathered. It provides balance and allows them to see your group at its best.

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

    Kanz it has already been suggested and I think 3 QC’s are needed.

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

    Judith 5:37 pm
    these were officials, with prescribed procedures and charged with a legal responsibility. We are going to have to pay for these incompetence.

    But this is not the claim that David Bain has made. He has claimed for wrongful imprisonment. We cannot answer this claim by saying, “In answer to your claim for improper imprisonment — no, there was no wrongful imprisonment, but here is some money anyway for police incompetence”.

    And separately, what police incompetence is there, that Cabinet admits to?

    And thirdly, even if there was police incompetence, the correct payout for it is tens of thousands of dollars, not millions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  586. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dotcom
    While I don’t want to waste your Excellency’s invaluable time I have to tell you that you are in error when you say that everytime a person posts the number besides their name increases by one.
    The number beside my name against the first post I made on this particular thread was 787. Since then I have posted about 50 times on this thread and the number beside my name is still 787.
    Your ‘umble servant
    muggins

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

    muggins (788) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:56 pm
    Dotcom
    While I don’t want to waste your Excellency’s invaluable time I have to tell you that you are in error when you say that everytime a person posts the number besides their name increases by one.
    The number beside my name against the first post I made on this particular thread was 787. Since then I have posted about 50 times on this thread and the number beside my name is still 787.
    Your ‘umble servant
    muggins

    ——————————

    Oh dear!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  588. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    gamefisher (135) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Kanz it has already been suggested and I think 3 QC’s are needed.

    So they can “bolster the Crown’s case”? Are you of the opinion that is needed too?

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

    ‘If David Bain will retract his claim on the taxpayer, I will personally multiply his potential return tenfold. ‘

    That offer can be forwarded to Joe Karam right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  590. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (788) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    Dotcom
    While I don’t want to waste your Excellency’s invaluable time I have to tell you that you are in error when you say that everytime a person posts the number besides their name increases by one.
    The number beside my name against the first post I made on this particular thread was 787. Since then I have posted about 50 times on this thread and the number beside my name is still 787.
    Your ‘umble servant
    muggins

    So says the oh so clever muggins. Perhaps you can ring Bain’s Aunty? She may have some information for you. LMFAO

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

    Dotcom (814) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    ———————–
    I agree with you regarding the sum of payout, however, I disagree with the comment regarding wrongful imprisonment. There were and have been sufficient judicial decisions regarding the first trial to support the wrongful imprisonment claim. I do understand your argument, I just think there is room to allow what I am proposing.

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

    Judith // January 2nd, 2013 at 5:49 pm::
    Says:
    ” You are wrong, but I suspect that is something you are very used to being. I don’t stalk people, I collect information and send it to those who need to see it. It is important for them to see how the stories distributed by JFRB are constructed and gathered. It provides balance and allows them to see your group at its best. ”

    :::

    hmmm, “I don’t stalk people, I collect information and send it to those who need to see it” !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  593. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. Thank you for you honesty. As, you say, I disagree. I think there is ample evidence to say David is not innocent, BoP.

    The “note” on computer was written by David: P (David) = 0.98
    Not hand written, signed, on paper, no verifiable authorship (anonymity), immaturity of style, lack of any explanation for sparing David, only mentions David, use of past tense (deserved).

    That does it for me. Then I’d need a lot of convincing Robin strangled Stephen and changed his clothes, then killed himself with a normal overnight load of urine. That is two extremely stressful occurrences yet plenty of time. P (David): 0.98

    There’s more but that’s enough. If I look in the sky I see an aeroplane not a flying saucer. Maybe flying sorcerer when I look in the courtroom.

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

    Dennis Horne (149) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    —————————

    I have my own opinion regarding the note, that is not supported by others, but I’ll tell you anyway.
    Firstly, that Robin used the PC is not unusual. That computer had other personal correspondence etc on it, demonstrating that Robin used it for more than just his business/school stuff.

    Secondly, you, like most others are taking the word ‘deserved’ to be a positive thing. David ‘deserved’ to stay in this wonderful world, whilst death is viewed as a negative. BUT, suicide victims often choose death because this world is ‘no longer a good place to be’, in short it is horrible. I believe Robin’s religious beliefs allowed him to think that the afterlife was the best place, which is why he took his family with him, except David, who perhaps, ‘deserved’ to stay in this wretched world, for some reason. Of course, I accept it is not a view others subscribed to but it is one based on knowledge.

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

    Yes, muggins, and you are now showing 788, and counting. Me, just went over 800. Come on, muggins, keep up. Next one will be 789. One more and you will be showing .. er .. … er .. .. er .. .. bugger, ran out of fingers.

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

    ruthiz (82) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    ————————
    Yes, I copy comments. I don’t bother to find out who the people are behind them, I don’t phone them, harass them or any other such actions. Can you say the same – without lying? Don’t bother answering. I already have the comments that prove you do.

    As an example, you will remember a line of conversation regarding a house break in. It was of course a complete lie, however, that did not stop members of your group getting carried away and even suggesting police had been involved etc. Now, I happened to think that particular conversation demonstrated nicely how members of JFRB construct their arguments and accusations, I felt it, along with others, was important for people who receive copious quantities of correspondence from your group, to see how you go about making up the stories you do. As I said, it provides balance, but it is not stalking those who write that nonsense, I prefer to stay right away from them.

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

    Dotcom (818) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    ————————-
    That is so unfair. Had I made the same comments that Muggins made about the numbers, you would have given me a right old serving! What a let down Mr Dot. Where is the equality?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  598. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (149) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    The “note” on computer was written by David: P (David) = 0.98
    Not hand written, signed, on paper, no verifiable authorship (anonymity), immaturity of style, lack of any explanation for sparing David, only mentions David, use of past tense (deserved).

    Even his fellow school teacher testified that Robin used the computer all the time, and hated paper work. As for the ‘deserved’ of course it was in the past tense, the others were already dead, hence in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  599. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You say you provide balance.
    I would say 99.9% of adult New Zealanders who have read Binnie’s interview with David Bain do not believe his story that he saw Mark Buckley having a sexual encounter with a goat. Probably 99.99%. Possibly 99.999%.
    Yet you believe it,the only thing you are not sure about is what sort of sexual encounter it was.
    So much for your credibilty.

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

    Yep, I’m just a fat fuck
    who lives in a darkened room masturbating to my own posts.

    Hope it helps for you to have this confirmed.

    Love and kisses

    john Bond aka Tony Dotcom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  601. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Bain, you can start planning what to do with your millions

    I didn’t realise he’d won Lotto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  602. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. You are clever (enough). The tense is simply wrong. If you are writing in the present you do not use the past to refer to a future event. It sounds like the writer is mimicking the man who is dead.

    For example. You are saying goodbye to someone you are leaving forever (like my forebears did). You say: It’s been really wonderful to have known you.” You might say: You’re the only one who deserves to stay here in this beautiful house. You do not say: You are the only one who deserved to stay here. That’s looking back.

    Now, I know its a small point, but for me it’s all part of the pattern pointing at David. I accept one could say death is a lucky escape, especially with 72 virgins and so on.

    Sorry, I do not accept a man of Robin’s age, used to writing, would type a suicide note on a computer. Unless you can show he was a really evil bastard I can’t accept that as likely. I know some silly kid might do it because he doesn’t have a pen or it’s spur of the moment, but this was planned.

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

    muggins (789) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    —————————–

    Such wisdom from a man who can’t even work out the numbering system of his posts?

    If 99.99% of the adult population saw Bain say that, then we have an even bigger reading problem than we thought.
    The complete conversation makes it clear that the behaviour ‘looked like’, and not that it was.

    Personally, like your understanding of the numbering system here, I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about. Go back and re-read that entire line of questioning.

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

    Sorry Email reply from dotcom@inbox.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  605. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    As I have said many times Robin Bain hand wrote a letter to his mother every week and he also hand wrote letters to his sister and brother’s regularly. Had he committed suicide and decided that before he did he would leave a note it would have been hand written.
    That typing of a suicide note by the killer has been done many times. It’s a well known trick. The killer doesn’t always get away with it.

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

    Judith 6:02 pm
    There have been sufficient judicial decisions regarding the first trial to support the wrongful imprisonment claim.

    No. The imprisonment was never wrongful. It was based on a legitimate conviction/sentence. And in what happened later, neither courts nor Cabinet has access to a DeLorean (tah DH). We cannot turn a legitimate conviction/sentence/stretch into a wrongful one. We cannot say it was wrong.

    What we can do, and it is what Cabinet says we must do, is say that if the conviction/sentence/stretch should never have occurred in the first place, then we can compensate. So how do we determine whether it should never have occurred in the first place? First, we ask the question. Do we know if David Bain was a killer? And the answer is “no, we don’t know this”.

    So we are back to where we began. And no matter what anyone thinks we OUGHT to do, first we have to determine, because no court has determined it since 1995, and the 1995 decision is quashed, whether with what we know now, David killed his family.

    So we keep coming back to where we were. David has claimed compensation. He is the originator or the suit, so he has the persuasive onus. We cannot change this.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    But there is a bright note.

    I can change everything. If David retracts his Cabinet claim, I will personally pay him — okay, make it $25 million — if he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Robin Bain killed M, A, L and S. No questions asked.

    I want Judith Collins to make David/Joe this same offer. How can we make this happen?

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

    See, Your Mugginess, you are now showing 790.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  608. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith
    Binnie asked Bain if he meant a sexual encounter to which he replied”yes”.
    And you accept that because you have said he might have meant oral sex.

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

    [Does this make Dennis, His Horniness]

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

    Dennis Horne (150) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:28 pm
    —————————–
    Did you know that Robin ensured his school was the first to get an internet connection ?
    Robin was computer crazy and spent a great deal of time teaching people at his family history group how to use them.

    Regarding the tense. If Robin was referring to his family/children, and had already helped them ‘on their way’ then the past tense is perfectly acceptable. You are the only one that deserved to stay (the rest having gone on already).

    You are the only one (out of them all) that deserved to be here and suffer?

    We don’t know, but I think when it comes to a confused mind, like the killer had, thinking within the square will never provide the answers.

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

    791, muggins. Do you get it now?

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

    muggins (791) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    ———————-

    I have never mentioned oral sex, that is your fabrication Muggins.

    I said something of a sexual nature, and I pointed out to you that does not limit it to intercourse. Prior to Binnie’s questioning the word sexual encounter, Bain made it clear that he witnessed something that ‘looked like’ ….. later clarified as a sexual encounter. You cannot take part of the conversation to make you story work. I realise that is your habit, but like the numbering system, it makes a fool of you.

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

    Judith (6:28 pm
    Such wisdom from a man who can’t even work out the numbering system of his posts?

    Don’t be so rude. Why couldn’t you help the man, peasant.

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

    Dotcom (822) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    See, Your Mugginess, you are now showing 790.

    Dotcom (822) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    791, muggins. Do you get it now?

    ——————–

    Are you going to do this all night? Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  615. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    See, Your Mugginess, you are now showing 790.

    Yes but his very first post on this thread says 790 too. Lmao

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

    ‘Don’t be so rude. Why couldn’t you help the man, peasant.’

    No reply for me Dotcom?

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

    Judith at 6:16 pm Says:

    Yes, I copy comments. I don’t bother to find out who the people are behind them, I don’t phone them, harass them or any other such actions. Can you say the same – without lying? :::: I have never have phoned or harassed anybody …


    stop members of your ??? group ~~~ people who receive copious quantities of correspondence from your group, ??? ~~~ to see how you ??? go about making up the stories you do. :::: Weird, I never knew i was a member of JFRB, I do remember asking about joining the secret society (lol), but never did.

    but anyhow, will wait to see what cabinet does and then we can go from there …

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

    Dotcom (823) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    ——————-

    Because for more years than I care to count, this man has passed himself off as some kind of genius who is able to understand the complex mathematical equations involved in forensic investigation, whilst demeaning the rest of us as mere plebs, unable to understand what he does.

    I would have helped, but I had to dash for the WC before I pee’d my pants! It happens when I am in fits of uncontrolled laughter!

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

    Mr Bond, please reply to the other questions apart from being a fat fuck.

    You are the fucking idiot I was really meaning, you just keep on prattling about something that happened 2 decades ago and you were not there. and what is your beef with this case and why so personal, who are you in reality and what is the true motive? or are you just a fat fuck who lives in a darkened room masturbating to your own posts?

    Obviously I would like to know who you are and your motives not your reply, which was…

    Yep, I’m just a fat fuck
    who lives in a darkened room masturbating to my own posts.

    Hope it helps for you to have this confirmed.

    Love and kisses

    john Bond aka Tony Dotcom.

    So who are you?? big boy

    [DPF: 50 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  620. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Judith, I dont know who you think I am, but I can assure you, I am no member of any sites. I think you are confused

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  621. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Judith. You are clever (enough). The tense is simply wrong. If you are writing in the present you do not use the past to refer to a future event. It sounds like the writer is mimicking the man who is dead.

    No, Dennis, the tense was perfectly acceptable. It made perfect sense as Robin would be dead when David read the message.

    It doesn’t prove that Robin wrote it, but it certainly doesn’t evince that he didn’t.

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

    Sorry if I am not the most articulate but I’m more used to kicking down a door and getting to the bottom of things with the least amount of paperwork as possible.

    Ya know what I mean?

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

    Anyway, how do we know the police didn’t stand the gun magazine up

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

    Honeybadger (18) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:45 pm
    Judith, I dont know who you think I am, but I can assure you, I am no member of any sites. I think you are confused
    —————

    And yet you have to be a member of this site to post here, which kind of makes a mockery of your statement doesn’t it?
    Of course you aren’t a member of any sites, and I’m Queen Elizabeth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  625. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    ‘you paople’, says Judith

    ‘those people’, said David….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  626. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    Judith

    Will you be crushed when he is told to fuck off and doesn’t get a bean?

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

    thedavincimode (4,225) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    ————————-
    No, I won’t be. I am old and wise enough to know that the law is an ass. I accept this is a very difficult case. Should compensation not be given, it will only reconfirm my belief in our legal system.

    What it will do however, is add energy to my personal campaign to ensure systems are developed so this does not happen again, and that our police force learn from their mistakes. This is not the first and won’t be the last case they have stuffed up to protect their own hides. I would also like to see a tribunal is established to deal fairly and in a just manner with any other such cases that arise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  628. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    “Anyway, how do we know the police didn’t stand the gun magazine up”

    What so now the Police are in on David’s plan to make it look like Robin killed himself?

    Even by conspiracy theory standards the notion that they wanted to frame either party for the murders within minutes of attending the scene is just ludicrous.

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

    a truly independent police complaints authority would be a good place to start… but the police giving up their get out of jail card would not be welcomed.

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

    hinamanu (1,974) Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 6:49 pm
    Anyway, how do we know the police didn’t stand the gun magazine up

    ———————

    We don’t, but their position means we are meant to believe them when they say they didn’t.
    In Court a policeman’s word is usually considered to be of more value than a member of the public.
    In days gone by, that may have been the case, however, I doubt most members of the public are that naive, now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  631. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    bhudson
    No, Dennis, the tense was perfectly acceptable. It made perfect sense as Robin would be dead when David read the message.

    and it would have been natural for him to say, ‘deserves’, not deserved, I think you can all go round and round on this one, but it would have been written on paper if Robin had written it, just my opinion

    and yes Judith, you are right, I am a member of this site of course, I just dont know what sites you are talking about, you have confused me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  632. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    “but the police giving up their get out of jail card would not be welcomed.

    What a load of nonsense. Have you been living under a rock the past few years?

    They are more than willing to charge their own, and given the amount of acquittals perhaps do so even when the evidence isn’t quite there just to be seen to be fair.

    And the IPCA has released more than a few recent damning reports any suggestion that they are biased is equally ludicrous.

    Do some reading before making yourself look like a fool.

    Vote: