Hope legal aid isn’t funding this

January 30th, 2013 at 4:36 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

has filed a High Court claim against Justice Minister Judith Collins seeking a judicial review of her actions since she received the Justice Binnie report last August.

The claim includes allegations Ms Collins has breached Mr Bain’s rights to natural justice and his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, acted in bad faith, abused her power, and acted in a biased, unreasonable and predetermined manner.

Mr Bain’s long time supporter Joe Karam said in a statement today that Ms Collins had stated she intended to recommend further options to Cabinet on Monday.

“In the circumstances, a request has been made to the Crown that any further action in relation to David’s claim be deferred pending the outcome of this judicial review,” Mr Karam said.

He said Mr Bain had “anguished” over the prospect of returning to court and did so only reluctantly.

It’s a delaying tactic, which is ironic as they have complained about the delays.

Ms Collins said the compensation application fell outside Cabinet guidelines and was entirely at Cabinet’s discretion.

“I have taken steps to ensure the process is fair and proper throughout.

“Put simply, it would be unacceptable for Cabinet to base its decision for compensation on an unsafe and flawed report. That would not have resulted in justice for anyone, let alone Mr Bain.”

She said Mr Bain’s request for the Government to put the compensation application on hold while a judicial review went ahead would only result in a further delay.

Ms Collins would not comment further while the matter was before the Courts.

I would be amazed if the judicial review gets anywhere. The Bain claim for compensation in fact falls outside the Cabinet guidelines. Bain and Karam have asked for Cabinet to use their discretion to give him compensation even though he doesn’t qualify outside the guidelines. It would be highly unusual for the courts to injunct a Minister from reporting an issue to Cabinet involving a discretionary decision.

The Cabinet could in fact have just said “No, you do not qualify – go away”.

2,914 Responses to “Hope legal aid isn’t funding this”

  1. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “Of course it is obvious Robin Bain did not commit suicide.”

    Whats actually ‘obvious’ to anyone with half a braincell who actually read the forensic evidence from the lounge is that Daddy did suicide, not surprisingly Aunt Fanny doesn’t fulfil that criteria.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. One cheap shot deserves another: How’s your aim these day, Nosty?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Feeling frustrated Denny?
    Things getting you down?
    The old persecution not as easy at looks,
    bs and blunder not winning the day?
    You’ll get use to it Denny,
    always look on the bright side of life –
    somebody, somewhere might think you know what you’re talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    It is a shame that only the victims of murder get the death penalty, isn’t it!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (325) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    It is a shame that only the victims of murder get the death penalty, isn’t it!!!

    It’s OK, in the Bain case the perpetrator got it too. He carried out his own execution. Does that make you happier?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “All of the following facts are undisputed by Team Karam Bain”
    Kimbo was good for a laugh but his ‘facts’ were a joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @Kanz (1,055) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:11 am

    And I am sure I will enjoy any ride that comes along.

    Funny, that. You were too afraid to go on the last ‘ride’ you were invited to take. Hid at home and told the court you were too old and too sick to make the journey.

    LMAO
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    It would appear the only exercise you get is jumping to conclusions, usually wrong.

    It was I who was was excused hearings by the Court and your source of information is well aware of that and the circumstances. He is no better at supplying correct information than he is at recognising young women down the barrel of a shotgun.

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

    No progress for the sisters just the usual drunkards and dullards celebrating another loss.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (2,195) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 8:50 am
    Lindsay Kennard (43) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    @Judith (1,545) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    Secondly , there was only one police officer who was there when Pryde actually carried out his examination so far as I am aware and he said that David Bain was never completely naked. I am sure he would have noticed if he was.

    ————————————–

    Again, the problem you have is that he and the others you stated you talked to, don’t accept your version.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Initially there was three officers with Dr Pryde two of whom left the room and the third left for a short period before returning to observe the victim examination.

    It strikes me as inherently puzzling why the Defense would choose to cross examine the 2IC who was never in the room with Dr Pryde about what Dr Pryde did.

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that DSS Doyle would have any knowledge of what took part in the room and it is equally as inherently implausible that the police officers in the room were not cross examined. Knowing that a lawyer straight out of law school knows the maxim ‘Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer too’ so I am able to conclude they were not cross examined because their answers would not suit the defence being run.

    Lindsay,
    You have struck the nail on the head. The defence had the chance to question those police officers who were in the room when Dr Pryde was there yet they chose not to do so. It wasn’t up to the Crown to say whether or not Bain was strip-searched. The reason why the defence did not question those police officers is pretty obvious. They were worried that they might confirm that Bain was not strip-searched. It so happens that two of those police officers did leave the room for a few minutes, so they couldn’t confirm or deny whether or not Bain was strip-searched, but it does not appear the defence were aware of that because Karam asks why they were not asked a question about that strip-search in his book.
    Obviously the reason they were not asked is because they didn’t know the answer, but that should not have stopped the defence asking them. It has become very clear to me that only Dr Pryde and David Bain know for sure if Pryde saw Bain’s torso or not. Pryde never said he strip-searched David Bain. Certainly Bain was never completely naked. So that only leaves David Bain,and we know he is a liar.

    And now we have Judith lying about saying how she reckoned David Bain could have got those scratches. Of course if she did have any idea she would have told David and he would have told Binnie.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (44) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 11:30 pm
    @Kanz (1,055) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:11 am

    And I am sure I will enjoy any ride that comes along.

    Funny, that. You were too afraid to go on the last ‘ride’ you were invited to take. Hid at home and told the court you were too old and too sick to make the journey.

    LMAO
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    It would appear the only exercise you get is jumping to conclusions, usually wrong.

    It was I who was was excused hearings by the Court and your source of information is well aware of that and the circumstances. He is no better at supplying correct information than he is at recognising young women down the barrel of a shotgun.

    Lindsay,
    Kanz had me hiding at home as well.
    How much do you reckon it cost that idiot? Would it have been over $30000 ,do you reckon?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (44) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 11:30 pm
    It was I who was was excused hearings by the Court and your source of information is well aware of that and the circumstances.

    You must have forgotten. You flew to Auckland to attend a settlement conference in June 2012 (I have proof from your own facebook page), muggins didn’t even have the guts to do that, he claimed to be too old and sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Let this thread be a warning to all internet users, there are stalkers out there, who ‘really’ want to ‘know’ you.
    They intimidate citizens going about their lawful business, infiltrate and then disseminate private information.
    The Bain’ matter highlightsthese isuues but is not alone in them.
    I absolutely believe that there are much wider principles of democracy and privacy that this ‘Bain’ matter highlights.

    If ever the Government was to hold their resolve if they have one, is in this matter and alsofurther legislation is required to really protect citizens from internet bullying and breaches of their privacy.

    See the above post by Kanz(a) if anyone is in any doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Let this thread be a warning to all internet users, there are stalkers out there, who ‘really’ want to ‘know’ you.
    They intimidate citizens going about their lawful business, infiltrate and then disseminate private information.
    The Bain’ matter highlights these isuues but is not alone in them.
    I absolutely believe that there are much wider principles of democracy and privacy that this ‘Bain’ matter highlights.

    If ever the Government was to hold their resolve if they have one, is in this matter and also further legislation is required to really protect citizens from internet bullying and breaches of their privacy.

    See the above post by Kanz(a) if anyone is in any doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. At least when I make an error I try to correct it; you don’t, you just repeat it. With a growing conviction, it seems. The faith of fools. (I excuse Rowan, he is a moron.)

    Here are some photographs of Robin’s hands:
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    The nicks and marks are consistent with his repairing the guttering; Dempster said they were old. You say it’s from fighting Stephen; you made it up. The evidence is not even consistent with your story. You keep repeating it. What does that make you?

    Where is the “bloodwash” you keep talking about? You made it up. You keep repeating it. What does that make you?

    Where did the blood spot on the left index fingernail come from? You don’t have an answer. Well let me tell you how it got there, shall I? It got there because Robin had his hand up when he was shot.

    You expect me to believe David put clothes in the washing machine and did not notice the sticky blood on them, even when he left a print on the machine. Do you know what blood feels like? Sure you do.

    You expect me to believe it was Robin who wore the bloodied jersey that David put in the washing machine, telling me Robin didn’t have blood on him because he changed and washed up. So where did the blood spot on the fingernail come from? Apart from that, the story is nonsense, no evidence, made up.

    The fact is there is not one single piece of verifiable forensic evidence that points more at Robin then David, not one.
    Only what you make up. You believe what you want to believe.

    You are in good company. More than 60% of Americans say they know God exists. Where is the evidence any god exists? They make it up.

    Maybe 40% of the NZ population think David was wrongfully imprisoned and 31% don’t know. Few have studied the evidence. Not surprising, there isn’t any.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    You and your group have continually tried to breach my privacy goldnkiwi, in fact that of my family as well. I know of many others that your group have done the same to others as well, including jurors. The problem is you are not even sure of my identity, and that your fellows and you have no normal boundaries of behaviour because of your hate-lust. If you can’t get at David you’ll try to get at someone else to prove you’re ‘right.’ If I chose to take legal action that is my business, even against those that may have breached agreements. As someone who claims to have an LLB should know that’s the lawful process when others band together against family’s or children of other internet users. I’m perfectly confident in dealing lawfully when any of the hate-siters even those that claim to be coming to my house late at night, or make spurious claims to the authorities about being ‘afraid’ whilst continuing to goad the person they think they ‘know’, or claim to be ‘afraid’ of. ‘Wolf’ was unsuccessfully cried as long ago as 2010 yet some nutters still wail it out, the pattern is clear just like unsuccessfully explaining the same argument 100s of times as your nutty mates do. The indiscreet use of the internet when drunk or just deluded, or the opening of a ‘closed’ site by having advertising running is nobody’s fault except those that make the mistakes. In your case you have nothing to say about the Bain case, your job is just to ‘bait’ for reactions, it’s all transparent kid’s stuff so don’t attempt to lecture as though you are anything other than one of those that multiple votes and after calling for David to speak did everything possible to try and stop him speaking in Perth. If you ever have a lucid moment consider why a group that believes they’re are ‘right’ about Robin Bain being ‘innocent’ do so much wrong and against the Law to prove it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Dennis you are quite welcome to nitpick over what Dempster said. His evidence contradicted Pryde who said 24 hours old. It became minutes to 12 hours, somehow putting him on the roof in the hours of darkness. I never look at any CS ‘evidence’ having seen material from there photo shopped. But beyond that I do understand how to repair guttering, I also know injuries to the hands as the result of punching and I’m therefore confident not only were the injuries not from repairing guttering or even punching it. Then comes the ‘stepping back’ to look at the injuries and the bloodied hands in context of the known evidence and crime scene and it fits,supported by time, blood and circumstances. If your serious about arguing the case my advice would be to have a reliable source of information, but of course don’t listen to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Dennis @ 12.04
    Look in the mirror fuckwit!
    Why do you have to post lies, you can’t even get the statistics you quote right! talk about pathetic
    “Dempster said they were old” he actually said less than 12 hours old so anything between a few minutes and about 8pm the previous night, probability Robin was repairing guttering at that time? You previously posted some reasonable questions sort of indicated you had a small amount of intelligence, but this latest crap is on par with Aunt Fanny aka the goat fucker. “my core belief blah blah blah”
    “The fact is there is not one single piece of verifiable forensic evidence that points more at Robin then David, not one.”
    Keep telling yourself this Denny, You have no explanation of any of it or how Daddy was ‘murdered’, I guess its just your core belief but you somehow expect other people to somehow buy it. Keep dreaming!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (649) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 12:04 pm
    ———————————-

    The nicks and marks are consistent with his repairing the guttering; Dempster said they were old. You say it’s from fighting Stephen; you made it up.

    No, I’m sorry Nostalgia didn’t ‘make it up’. This is a demonstration of your lack of knowledge of the case. This aspect was part of the defense, long before you ever heard of Nostalgia.

    Where is the “bloodwash” you keep talking about? You made it up. You keep repeating it. What does that make you?

    Same again. This information was available from the time of the police investigation when it was photographed. Nostalgia didn’t ‘make it up’. What does that make him? It makes him informed about the case. What does that make you? Answer: Ignorant.

    You expect me to believe David put clothes in the washing machine and did not notice the sticky blood on them, even when he left a print on the machine. Do you know what blood feels like? Sure you do.

    The lighting in the house was so bad that the police actually went to turn lights ‘on’ that were already on. They had to set up portable lighting to be able to see. That David didn’t see any blood residue on his hands is therefore not unusual. Do not forget that he had been handling wet towels (from when the laundry had flooded the day before) and therefore any blood residue from the washing on his hands would have been diluted. Of course Nostalgia knows what blood feels like, so do I. What is your point?

    You expect me to believe it was Robin who wore the bloodied jersey that David put in the washing machine, telling me Robin didn’t have blood on him because he changed and washed up. So where did the blood spot on the fingernail come from? Apart from that, the story is nonsense, no evidence, made up.

    Plenty of evidence, you however refuse to see it as evidence. The jersey didn’t fit David, and the fibres were not sufficiently felted to explain the size difference. Robin’s clothes didn’t have blood on them because he changed, and although Robin clearly washed up to a degree, he did not do so sufficiently to get rid of all traces of blood. Blood was found under his fingernails, how did that get there? If you use the excuse of working on the spouting, then where was the injury that would have caused enough blood to be under the fingernails of both hands? Again you say made up and yet there are photos to prove it was not ‘made up’.

    The fact is there is not one single piece of verifiable forensic evidence that points more at Robin then David, not one. Only what you make up. You believe what you want to believe.

    The fact there is evidence that points to Robin is sufficient to raise doubt. There is no solid evidence against David.
    The fingerprints could have been from previous use of the gun, and this has been confirmed by experts. Yes, two sets of experts disagree, neither set is more experienced or believable than the other by law – however, the fact raises doubt, and that the prosecution sought to ‘lie’ about their evidence, certainly causes suspicion.
    The gloves and gun were only owned by David, there is no proof he wore or used them that day.
    The blood on David was agree as consistent with his having brushed against blood, not having it seeped through from other clothing. Totally explainable given the state of the house. What would have been suspicious was him having not such signs on him.
    etc, etc.

    All of the bits of evidence that you say point to David also have alternative explanations.

    I am still waiting on just one of you to explain the blood spatter pattern on Robin that shows he was standing upright, with one leg straight and the other bent at the knee at right angle. So far you give no explanation, other than in your opinion Robin’s body could not have been in its final resting place, if he had killed himself, and yet, Dr Dempster, who actually viewed Robin’s body stated that the position was possible using the defenses suicide scenario. (This was actually on the stand in Court, not in a ‘secret’ phone call)

    You are quick to accuse others of the very things you are guilty of. The one thing you cannot accuse us of though, is not knowing the evidence, unfortunately you constantly demonstrate your own ignorance of the case. It is obvious you have studied the counterspin garbage, and failed to actually inform yourself from authentic materials. Perhaps with a bit of education, you might actually get your percentages right too. We can but hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    You’d wonder why given that it is such a significant piece of evidence that Robin Bates and Kieran Raftery didn’t think to include it in there opening or closing addresses “Unexplained scratches on David” maybe because they would be making themselves look as stupid as aunt Fanny because the ONLY supporting evidence of this is what a prison officer just “happened” to remember 15 years later, the officer made no notes, took no pictures and none of his colleagues could remember the scratches. Dr Prydes evidence from 1995 clearly refers to a strip search and intimate samples being taken, his notes refer to tattoos and NOTHING ON THE CHEST, yet Aunt Fanny would have us believe that David was wearing a blanket to cover his modesty or that Dr Pryde was blind. Somehow she expects us to disprove her fantasy theory (which there is no corroborating evidence for) and also swallow what “some policeman told her” over the phone which directly contradicts the evidence they gave in court. If she had been told contradictory evidence then on which occassion would that make it a lie, in court ie perjury, or over the phone, 3 outcomes
    1. The police officers lied in court and told the truth over the phone and that is being accurately relayed here
    2. There was a phone call that occurred and what was said is being totally misrepresented here by Aunt Fanny
    3. The phone-call never existed (or at least only in Aunt Fannys head)
    Suggested probabilities for these I’d suggest probability for 1 is less than 1% and the combined probability of 2 and 3 is 99%

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,056) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 9:57 am
    Lindsay Kennard (44) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 11:30 pm
    It was I who was was excused hearings by the Court and your source of information is well aware of that and the circumstances.

    You must have forgotten. You flew to Auckland to attend a settlement conference in June 2012 (I have proof from your own facebook page), muggins didn’t even have the guts to do that.

    What a load of crap. It was settled out of court at no cost to me. I didn’t even need a lawyer. Why would I waste money going to Auckland? If I had have to have gone I would have gone. And if I had been able to get legal aid I would have gone but I didn’t qualify. And had the case been held where I live I would have gone. As soon as it was settled I was back posting on Trade Me. But it cost the other bloke plenty. I was laughing at the stupidness of it all.
    David Bain deserves friends like you Kanz, you pathetic loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,056) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 7:20 pm
    @ Dennis

    Is it your reading that needs work or simply your comprehension?

    The third option doesn’t bear thinking about. That is, you have spent so much time in the company of JFRBers you are now incapable of telling the truth.

    Kanz I’d say 3 is looking more and more likely, why let the truth get in the way of a good story!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Blood was found under his fingernails… [Citation needed]

    I am still waiting on just one of you to explain the blood spatter pattern on Robin that shows he was standing upright, with one leg straight and the other bent at the knee at right angle.

    Assuming that evidence wasn’t disputed by the Crown, you haven’t explained it either – at least, not in a way that fits the other evidence at the scene.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Look at the photos again:
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    Where is the bloodwash or blood smear?
    Where is the bruising? A few marks consistent with being whacked by the edge of something hard.

    There is blood spot on the index fingernail that can only have got there when the hand was held up as the bullet entered the head. I’ll listen to your explanation, starting now…

    What about the sock prints? A partial set of incomplete prints. So, the biggest one must be a full print from the tip of the toe to the back of the heel? How do you know? You don’t. Nobody does, whatever anyone, because there is no way of knowing. It’s a bit like fishing, you simply don’t know if the next fish will be bigger.

    @Rowan. You are excused from the discussion, moron.
    @Judith. Silly woman, get a cat or something to fuss over.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Some people I have spoken to, because David was a paper boy thought he was about 14 when the murders happened, couple that with all the hyperbole and it is not surprising that polls give the results they do. In saying that, it is important to keep the matter in the media so that one by one, a penny will drop.

    I can not get over the people who think David is probably guilty but should get compensation anyway. WTF?

    I am looking forward to the Judicial Review, it is good that there are processes to provide accountability by Government, it is a shame that others are not equally accountable for their actions. I am sure that Judith Collins and the Government will prevail.

    Now would be a good time for people to show their support for the efforts of Counterspin by signing their petition.

    Signing the petition, as far as I am aware, does not automatically make you a member of Counterspin. If it did, they would have absolutely no control of that membership.

    That would, in this environment give con-troll (sic) to the trolls on here that go where they are neither invited nor welcome lol 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    I see the bulls**t artists are at it again.
    Dempster said those insignificant abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands could be anywhere between one and 24 hours old. He only mentioned 12 hours when asked if they could be more accurately aged by using histology as a way to age an injury. He had never used that procedure himself but thought even if it was used it couldn’t age an injury closer than 12 hours.
    At the first trial he said those injuries were over 18 hours old.
    But what about David Bain’s injuries?
    Dr Pryde examined Bain at 11.20am on the Monday morning. When he was asked to age the injuries on David Bain’s head he said the range was between 7 and 13-14 hours old. 11.20am – seven = 4.20am and that means Bain received those bruises on his head long before he went on his paper round.
    Funny how the prodavids never mention that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    The blood spatter shows one leg was straight and the other was bent at the knee.

    Says who? Where are the photos of the spatter or blood lost/spilt that support this?

    How much spatter is expected when a .22 subsonic bullet (suppressed rifle) entering the temple? Was the amount found consistent with this? Or was there other bleeding, such as a torn temporal artery?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ;Dennis Horne (650) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    @Nostalgia. Look at the photos again:
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    Where is the bloodwash or blood smear?
    Where is the bruising? A few marks consistent with being whacked by the edge of something hard.

    There is blood spot on the index fingernail that can only have got there when the hand was held up as the bullet entered the head. I’ll listen to your explanation, starting now…

    What about the sock prints? A partial set of incomplete prints. So, the biggest one must be a full print from the tip of the toe to the back of the heel? How do you know? You don’t. Nobody does, whatever anyone, because there is no way of knowing. It’s a bit like fishing, you simply don’t know if the next fish will be bigger.

    @Rowan. You are excused from the discussion, moron.
    @Judith. Silly woman, get a cat or something to fuss over.

    I maybe silly, but at least I’m not stupid enough to think that the photos on Counterspin are all the photos that exist in this case. There were 300 – 400 photos used for evidence at the first trial, and about 3000 used for evidence at the second trial. Many of them being from a collection of Dr Dempster’s that the police didn’t know about.

    Now, maybe you have access to a part of Counterspin that I don’t, but what I do know is there are NOT 3,000 photos on that site. You would do well to remember that, before you start saying things like ‘where is the blood wash or blood smear’

    Remember, Counterspin only put on their site that supports their scenario.

    There is blood spot on the index fingernail that can only have got there when the hand was held up as the bullet entered the head.

    See how much you repeat the mantra. “can only have got there…”. No, that is not the only way it could have got there. No evidence was presented as to whose blood it was, and as it was coming towards the body rather than away from it, there is a higher probability it was not Robin’s blood.

    Q. Has it ever occurred to you, Doctor, that the direction that it’s coming from indicates that it might have come from someone else?
    Dempster: It certainly could have.
    A. And if it has come from someone else, obviously all your surmising and theorizing about the position when someone’s holding the gun just falls to the ground, doesn’t it?
    Dempster: That’s right.
    Q. In fact it would just be a waste of time that evidence?
    Dempster: Yes

    Keep spinning the mantra Dennis, at least it defines you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (651) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    ——————————–

    Oh for god’s sake Dennis. Get hold the trial transcripts, all you are doing is showing your ignorance. All these questions were put before the Court. All the answers were given then and there are a number of photos in the public domain that also show this.

    The majority of people posting here, on both sides know that basic stuff. You’re pathetically out of touch.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. You make statements. Instead of waffling, back them up. Where are the photographs showing the spatter and blood on the curtains that you claim show it was a-knee-on-the-chair suicide?

    I don’t care what Dempster said on one occasion in answer to a particular questions in a particular context. I want to know how the blood spot arrived on the fingernail and remained there.

    You want me to take Dempster’s answers as definitive, but Dempster didn’t think then and doesn’t think now it was suicide. Doesn’t that give you a clue something is wrong?

    You might be able to fool yourself by cutting a bit of evidence here and a bit there and stitching it together, but it doesn’t answer the question.

    The blood spot looks recent. Robin is supposed to have had a bloody fight with Stephen and yet showed little signs of blood. We are told this is because he washed up. So explain how the blood spot could have come from someone else?

    It arrived when Robin was killed. That hand must have been up in the air. He is supposed to have that hand on the trigger. How did he shoot himself, again?

    Clearly he could not have used that hand to pull the trigger. He was killed by someone else. You can pull all the “evidence” you like, it’s only like a rabbit out of a hat: a trick. It has no explanatory value. Try to grasp the concept: coherent narrative.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “I am looking forward to the Judicial Review, it is good that there are processes to provide accountability by Government, it is a shame that others are not equally accountable for their actions. I am sure that Judith Collins and the Government will prevail.”

    Goldnkiwi, you and your fellow witchsniffers have been wrong on all 5 of your predictions to date so whats one more. How sure are you compared to the previous predictions?
    Plenty of people don’t support Judys actions regardless of their individual view of guilt or innocence. How is this a fair and even process to both sides? whatever view you have, most people (aside from the witchsniffers) would agree that Collins actions are disgraceful!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Aunty Fanny lying away again, relying on Dr Pryde’s evidence re the injury when both sides at the retrial said that Pryde’s evidence was too precise on the matter and Dempster said minutes to 12 hours.

    You’re right Dennis the old man did have his hand up in the air when that airborne blood arrived on his hand when he shot one of the family. You’re getting confused between what Dempster said and what you ‘wanted’ to happen. Repeat Dempster could not confirm that the blood had not arrived on Robin’s hands from another source other than himself. ‘It certainly could have’ come from some one else, and there were a lot of other people shot that morning and only one considered to have committed suicide and he was the one with blood wash on his palms and bruised and battered hands. He was the one whose footsteps were found about the murder scene and the one that wrote ‘deserves to stay’ on the computer which was turned on before David arrived home. He was the one whose blood was found on the laundry towel and who in a mortuary photo looks to have had a blood nose, a distinct flow from his nose area, as opposed to that which flowed across his temple and down the right side of his face from a temple wound that, for you information Dennis, showed no signs of spill. That bloody towel really solves it doesn’t it Dennis, along with the bloody hands, Robin was bleeding before he shot himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Still no reason from the witchsniffers on why Daddy couldn’t and didn’t suicide, we’re down to, ‘trust me its my core belief’
    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Oh for god’s sake Dennis. Get hold the trial transcripts, all you are doing is showing your ignorance. All these questions were put before the Court. All the answers were given then and there are a number of photos in the public domain that also show this.

    Judith, Dennis will never search for information anywhere but on CS. Why? Because only by doing that can he cling to the opinion that filthy old Daddy was innocent of all he was actually guilty of. Because anybody who is of a different view to that is banned from that site to maintain their witch sniffing, lynch mob mentality intact.
    He and they continue to do what the police have done for all these years, and that is to make available only that which will support their persecution of an innocent David Bain, to the point of lying about the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis says: @Judith. You make statements. Instead of waffling, back them up. Where are the photographs showing the spatter and blood on the curtains that you claim show it was a-knee-on-the-chair suicide?

    You lost it at this point, first sentence Dennis. I did not say it was a knee on chair suicide. Please re-read what I said at “explain the blood spatter pattern on Robin that shows he was standing upright, with one leg straight and the other bent at the knee at right angle”. All I ask is that you provide a viable explanation for that.

    You can’t even read what was stated without changing it to suit yourself.

    There are plenty of photos around that show both the curtains and pants. TBA has them if you are stuck. I haven’t bothered to read the rest of your comment. It’s probably based on bullshit like your first sentence. You have the cheek to continue to base your arguments on evidence you’ve never even bothered to take the time to look at. It makes everything you say crap, until you at least take the time to check what you are refuting.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,057) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    ————————–

    He’s an ignorant fool. He’s trying to hold an argument about evidence and he’s never even seen the photos of, let alone what the pathologists etc have to say about that evidence. He’s got more and more irrational by the day. I guess in his mind he’s making sense, sadly by not knowing what he is talking about, it’s all based on ‘fairy tales’. A little bit of knowledge in the hands of a fool and what do you get – Dennis!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    You gotta laugh.
    The poster with the bulls**t degree wants us to accept those abrasions on his hands were 12 hours old when what he actually said that they could be anywhere fron 1-24 hours old, but he doesn’t want us to accept Dr Pryde’s timing of those bruises to David Bain’s head.
    Dr Pryde was the only doctor to examine those bruises on the day of the murders and he has never changed his timing of them.
    So he expects Dr Dempster to be precise but not Dr Pryde. Talk about biased!

    And it is the same with the “suicide” theory. Dr Dempster said he had never seen a ” suicide” wound of that trajectory. But the prodavids don’t ever mention that.
    And then we have this “bloodwash” theory. There is no such word as “bloodwash”. “Bloodwash” is a myth perpetrated by the myth perpetrators. If Robin Bain had washed his hands there would have been no blood on them.
    But the person that matters knows all this. She has seen at least parts of the retrial transcript. She will have no trouble deciding what is more likely to be the truth of the matter. She won’t be influenced by the waffling of the bulls**t artists.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I wonder how well Dempster actually believed the suicide impossible theory of the prosecution. His evidence at the retrial was clearly damaging enough to the prosecution case that they had to bring in other experts to try to discredit him. The best he could come up with is he hadn’t seen a wound like it before, I’ve never seen Mt Everest but does that mean it doesn’t exist. I think that his 1995 view of unlikely was influenced by the likes of Ngamokis mismeasurement of the gun and the stupid suggestion that he may have used the spare magazine in order to reach the trigger. I know that his boss Dr Gwynne never believed it was murder. Also interesting is Dempsters original post mortem notes, which were significantly different to his 1995 trial testimony, I’d tend to rely more on his first instincts the latter view probably heavily influenced by the cops turn of direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (730) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    ———————————–

    Rowan you are relying on these people having a sense of ‘sensibility’ and decency. They don’t. The will stop at nothing, including lying to try and prove themselves right.

    I have a cd that was given to me of one of their sites. A freeforum. In it you can see the ‘sisters’ putting together a ‘story’ which they decide to make public. The story briefly states that a key person broke into neighbours houses and masturbated on a dress and the police had been involved. The story was completely fabricated. From there one of them took it to the JFRB facebook page with the intention of making it public. But fortunately someone challenged them, and they had to ditch that idea.

    They discuss who posters are, and how to find them, and their families, and how to interfere in their lives both private and professional, making plans to scare them into silence. Such is the nastiness of these people.

    If they cannot win arguments in discussions, they invent ‘facts’, like we have seen muggins do. When that doesn’t work, they try intimidation, both on line, or in private life. If that doesn’t work, they target your family members, phone employers, and stir and lie in attempts to shut you up.

    But of course that is noting compared to what they have done to David and Joe Karam.

    They can’t win by the truth, so they try to win by corruption. There have been a few its worked on. Some that used to post now don’t dare for fear of what they will do. These people are freaks, and freaking mad as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Look in the mirror, you will see a good example of a bullshit artist, you couldn’t lie straight in bed! Beyonds blog sums you up very well, ‘its so easy to tell when he’s lying his lips move’
    How many emails have you sent to Judy trying to inform her of the evidence and links to CS, I heard that Ian Binnie just laughed when someone mentioned your name to him!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,200) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    ————————————–

    Is this the same Dr Pryde that you have inferred lied and defrauded the tax payer by charging for an examination he didn’t complete as per the document he signed and accepted payment for?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    @Rowan, there is a good one on there today. I would love to know who the clever person is who calls himself/herself Beyond.

    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,058) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 5:07 pm
    @Rowan, there is a good one on there today. I would love to know who the clever person is who calls himself/herself Beyond.

    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/
    ———————————

    I liked that song, I wonder what happened to it? Very catchy tune and dedicated to the right person. They should get hold of that song to play at his funeral when he finally snuffs it. Nothing could describe him better.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Absolutely classic, totally sums up Denny, its a shame we can’t post pictures here, it would probably slow it down significantly more though.

    Judith
    These people are absolute scum, they are just know alls and so absorbed in their twisted fantasy’s. They (CS) make me sick!
    Looking forward to when they get done at the court case!

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

    Dennis Horne (652) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 4:01 pm
    @Judith. You make statements. Instead of waffling, back them up. Where are the photographs showing the spatter and blood on the curtains that you claim show it was a-knee-on-the-chair suicide?

    I don’t care what Dempster said on one occasion in answer to a particular questions in a particular context. I want to know how the blood spot arrived on the fingernail and remained there.

    You want me to take Dempster’s answers as definitive, but Dempster didn’t think then and doesn’t think now it was suicide. Doesn’t that give you a clue something is wrong?

    You might be able to fool yourself by cutting a bit of evidence here and a bit there and stitching it together, but it doesn’t answer the question.

    The blood spot looks recent. Robin is supposed to have had a bloody fight with Stephen and yet showed little signs of blood. We are told this is because he washed up. So explain how the blood spot could have come from someone else?

    It arrived when Robin was killed. That hand must have been up in the air. He is supposed to have that hand on the trigger. How did he shoot himself, again?

    Clearly he could not have used that hand to pull the trigger. He was killed by someone else. You can pull all the “evidence” you like, it’s only like a rabbit out of a hat: a trick. It has no explanatory value. Try to grasp the concept: coherent narrative.

    Dennis,
    You are relying on these probainers to have a sense of decency. They have none. They wouldn’t be able to lie straight in bed. They would sell their own grandmother for sixpence if it suited them to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    So! No coherent narrative of how the blood spot got on Robin’s left index fingernail and stayed there.

    If it came from someone else, why wasn’t it washed off when he supposedly washed of all the blood from Stephen?

    It it was from his own wound, how did he have that hand up in the air and at the trigger at the same time?

    No answer. Let’s move back to the response to the “You made it up” comments. Semantics. The “you” could mean Nostalgia, could mean the collective you, doesn’t matter. (We don’t use “youse” in English.) Tangent. Anyway, from Judith’s answer, I surmise it wasn’t Nostalgia who made it up, it was someone else who made it up.

    Because there is no sign of “bloodwash”, or recent contusions consistent with “boxing” (for want of a better word). Nor does it make any sense to one the one hand say Robin washed the blood off yet didn’t, especially when he still had garden grime on his hands, showing he clearly hadn’t washed them much.

    Still no acceptance the sock prints are problematic. Even Binnie Brain noted that, even if he forgot it when he wrote his Banal Report.

    And no, I don’t know all the “evidence”. It hasn’t helped you, you can’t see the wood for the trees.

    I know enough. I know it doesn’t look at all like Robin shot himself. The lack of his prints or smudging of Stephen’s on the rifle. His body found “miles” away from the curtains where the spatter was. The shell case in the alcove. The blood spot on his fingernail. The magazine obviously placed after his body was moved. The “full” bladder. The lack of blood on his clothes and body. The silly computer message. Etc etc etc. A comprehensive and coherent narrative.

    A juror who says he is not innocent, who tried to tell Binnie; he sent her packing. The man is a dunce. Another to read Karam’s Icing and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

    ADD: “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME” and “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE”.

    VERSUS what? A lot of blather and rumours of incest. A comedy: a man with a hat with an arrow attached showing how, given enough time and practice Robin MIGHT have got a good shot to kill himself, if he got lucky. Or had a funny hat and arrow. ADD: MATERIAL TAKEN ILLEGALLY INTO THE JURY ROOM.

    Poor David Bain. Even he can not bring himself to say his father killed them all and offer any explanation why he was spared. Yes, yes, stock answer, how could David know what a madman was thinking. Cop out.

    I can’t add he won’t say his father was shagging his sister either, because the stock answer is he didn’t know. How did Robin know he didn’t know, by the way? Did David tell him he didn’t know? Hahaha. Fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (1,595) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    Rowan (730) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    ———————————–

    I have a cd that was given to me of one of their sites. A freeforum. In it you can see the ‘sisters’ putting together a ‘story’ which they decide to make public. The story briefly states that a key person broke into neighbours houses and masturbated on a dress and the police had been involved. The story was completely fabricated. From there one of them took it to the JFRB facebook page with the intention of making it public. But fortunately someone challenged them, and they had to ditch that idea.

    Judith, yes I read about that on another website,it wasn’t a freeforum. The person mentioned was David Bain. I daresay that post is still there , but I can’t remember where it was I saw it. You say that story was fabricated. Please explain how you know that.

    If they cannot win arguments in discussions, they invent ‘facts’, like we have seen muggins do. When that doesn’t work, they try intimidation, both on line, or in private life. If that doesn’t work, they target your family members, phone employers, and stir and lie in attempts to shut you up.

    But of course that is noting compared to what they have done to David and Joe Karam.

    They can’t win by the truth, so they try to win by corruption. There have been a few its worked on. Some that used to post now don’t dare for fear of what they will do. These people are freaks, and freaking mad as well.

    Vote: 2 2

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 5.42

    “You are relying on these probainers to have a sense of decency. They have none. They wouldn’t be able to lie straight in bed. They would sell their own grandmother for sixpence if it suited them to.”

    Try reading what you preach you arrogant piece of crap!, your post describes you and your JFRB scum very well,

    The ex dentist arguments only convinces me that he is ignorant, deluded by his cult following and as mad as a hatter. Should be feeling sorry for him but he is only digging his own grave.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Muggins says: …They would sell their own grandmother for sixpence if it suited them to…”

    You mean, like you sold out three long standing police employees by contacting them, and exposing them to breach of conduct and serious misconduct allegations?

    Also how you have contacted expert witnesses and published that allowing them to also be at risk for breaching the Judicature Act?

    Seems to me that you seriously need to look at your own behaviour before you start on other people. I note you posted on here that you ‘don’t care’ about the fact you’ve compromised them. You’re a complete (what was that song again?)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (2,202) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 5:42 pm
    Judith (1,595) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    Rowan (730) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    ———————————–

    I have a cd that was given to me of one of their sites. A freeforum. In it you can see the ‘sisters’ putting together a ‘story’ which they decide to make public. The story briefly states that a key person broke into neighbours houses and masturbated on a dress and the police had been involved. The story was completely fabricated. From there one of them took it to the JFRB facebook page with the intention of making it public. But fortunately someone challenged them, and they had to ditch that idea.

    Judith, yes I read about that on another website,it wasn’t a freeforum. The person mentioned was David Bain. I daresay that post is still there , but I can’t remember where it was I saw it. You say that story was fabricated. Please explain how you know that.

    Judith, I read about that incident last year, Please explain how you know that was a fabrication?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Oh dear, I seem to have upset my bum buddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    I think you show incredible fortitude under the most vile attacks.

    It would seem to me that there is no need for invective, in this debate.

    Unless in response, of course. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (329) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 6:25 pm
    I think you show incredible fortitude under the most vile attacks.

    It would seem to me that there is no need for invective, in this debate.

    Unless in response, of course.

    Some would say I am dealing with the scum of the earth. Others would not be so generous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,203) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    …Judith, I read about that incident last year, Please explain how you know that was a fabrication?

    Are you really stupid enough to think that a persons full file that at the time was held on the Wanganui computer, would not be accessed prior to a criminal conviction hearing?

    In case you are to ignorant, these files hold information about all complaints made regarding a person, including those that do not result in any action, and basically record any action/comment about a person that comes to the attention of the police, and note any action taken, be it compensation/apology etc or official complaint and action. THERE WAS NOTHING. The event did not happen.

    The story was a deliberate attempt to defame. And stop trying to act innocent. As I said, I have the CD, I know exactly who you were on that site, and which conversations you took part in. You belong to a group of people who are a nasty pack of dishonest and vengeful people who will stop at nothing.

    PS. Yes, CD has been sent to ‘you know who’. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins (2,205) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 6:31 pm
    Some would say I am dealing with the scum of the earth. Others would not be so generous.

    Seeing the groups you belong to, I would say you are up to your neck in ‘the scum of the earth’. But then it suits you. I just thank God you are not ‘dealing’ with me or mine, nor will you ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (329) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 6:25 pm
    It would seem to me that there is no need for invective, in this debate.

    Unless in response, of course.
    ————————————

    And yet, despite the fact that no one has addressed a comment to you, you find the need to comment. You seem prepared to continually make an absolute fool of yourself. You still have not contribute to any discussion regarding the evidence.

    You’re comments are all toothless and haggered, wrinkled beyond any recognition of truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,205) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Some would say I am dealing with the scum of the earth. Others would not be so generous.
    —————————————

    You’ve admitted to dealing with four police employees, Dr Dempster, and Milton Weir and others, – all scum of the earth according to you.

    That’s not a very nice thing to say.

    I’m glad you are just commenting on a blog and not ‘dealing’ with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Johnboy (19,970 comments) says:

    Good Grief!

    You must be Judith Iscariot.

    Leave it alone woman.

    Get a life!! 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Who spoke to you?
    I see you recognised yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (330) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 7:01 pm
    Who spoke to you?
    I see you recognised yourself.

    ————————–

    I notice muggins responded to you too, but didn’t get attention. Good of you to demonstrate your bias in such an obvious way. Isn’t there a bottle of plonk with your name on it, or is it empty already?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Lets compare Jeanette Crewe and Robin Bain’s final death scenes and look at the likelihood of suicide vs homicide. Pat Booth has a conspiracy theory that Jeanette committed suicide and as we all know Daddy ‘couldn’t’ have suicided

    JC, Shot above the left ear in a position that she was very likely lying on the ground
    RB, Contact wound to the temple, very likely he was standing upright at the time

    JC, Significant injury to face/jaw likely from being smashed in the face with a rifle butt, (according to Booth from a punch from her husband)
    RB, no injuries to the face

    JC, no weapon likely in possession of her or her husband
    RB, weapon in house waiting for him

    In the case of Jeanette you also need to explain other circumstantial evidence, dirty nappies on the fridge while bucket in the laundry containing napisan, no motive, evidence of someone else looking after the place etc
    All in all very unlikely although no disrespect to Pat Booth who did an excellent job in campaigning for Arthur

    The best reason why Robin ‘couldn’t’, he didn’t put the spare magazine in the right place, and the suicide note was ‘incorrectly’ written if written by him. The defence showed several ways it could have been done easily and the evidence accepted as feasible by the crown pathologist. Yet this is ‘unlikely’ according to the spinners. ‘It’s my core belief, I can’t explain his murder but I ‘know’, trust me’

    Their explanations are pathetic!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (735) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 7:15 pm
    ————————

    Excellent post.

    Of course they have nothing, but that doesn’t stop them. In order to make their list fit, they have to rely on the word of David Bain, whilst at the same time, saying he is a liar.

    And still we wait for an explanation for the blood spatter on Robin Bain. None of them have offered even a remotely possible explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Judith, where were you referred to?
    It would not surprise me if you are looking at yourself when you vent your spleen though. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @Kanz (1,059) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 9:57 am

    Lindsay Kennard (44) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 11:30 pm
    It was I who was was excused hearings by the Court and your source of information is well aware of that and the circumstances.

    You must have forgotten. You flew to Auckland to attend a settlement conference in June 2012 (I have proof from your own facebook page), muggins didn’t even have the guts to do that, he claimed to be too old and sick.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Once again your are wrong I flew to Auckland against medical advice to attend the settlement conference with my Solicitors Agent

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    …he was the one with blood wash on his palms and bruised and battered hands. He was the one whose footsteps were found about the murder scene and the one that wrote ‘deserves to stay’ on the computer which was turned on before David arrived home. He was the one whose blood was found on the laundry towel and who in a mortuary photo looks to have had a blood nose…

    Have you considered turning this set of beliefs into a creed? You know, something like the Nicene Creed – “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, etc.” It’s well suited: “We believe in the suicide of Robin Bain, the murderer of his family, maker of all suffering of his son David. And that he made the bloody sockprints; and etc.” You could just copy and paste it as necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (331) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 7:50 pm
    @ Judith, where were you referred to?
    It would not surprise me if you are looking at yourself when you vent your spleen though.
    —————————————

    I’m sorry, where did I say it was referring to me?

    I simply responded to the posts. It’s allowed you know.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Lets compare Jeanette Crewe and Robin Bain’s final death scenes and look at the likelihood of suicide vs homicide.

    Er, why? It would be totally, completely, utterly irrational to do so. There’s no similarity between them other than that both copped a bullet in the head. There are very few things that are certain about the Bain case, but one thing that absolutely is certain is that irrational thinking has nothing to contribute to any discussion of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (45) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    Once again your are wrong I flew to Auckland against medical advice to attend the settlement conference with my Solicitors Agent

    How can I be wrong when I said

    You must have forgotten. You flew to Auckland to attend a settlement conference in June 2012 (I have proof from your own facebook page), muggins didn’t even have the guts to do that, he claimed to be too old and sick.

    It seems to me you simply like saying people are wrong, then post the same as what they said, when trying to prove they are wrong. Try doing something called thinking, you may find it an exhilarating experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Johnboy (19,970 comments) says:

    Gee threads like this one make a fellow realise that the politicians really are smart cookies.

    They KNOW that NZ is populated by pathetic tossers! 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Your Clam about the other party is as false as your claims about the innocence of Mr Bain. He was never required to attend a conference as he was not represented by counsel choosing to self represent as had the forth respondent and both had setted some time before I did at the Conference so the settlement could be sealed and signed by a judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Johnboy (9,884) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 8:07 pm
    Gee threads like this one make a fellow realise that the politicians really are smart cookies.

    They KNOW that NZ is populated by pathetic tossers!

    Dear John, Oh, how I hate to write
    Dear John, I must let you know tonight
    That if this country was populated by pathetic tossers,
    there wouldn’t be another……

    generation, that is.

    Unless of course they were tosspot tossers and into AI.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Johnboy (19,970 comments) says:

    Having read only a small fraction of the crap you and the rest of the tossers have written on this dreadful thread all I can say is:

    Keep on tossing Judith. The world will not miss you when you are gone. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    A professor is giving a lecture on Paranormal Studies. To get a feel for his audience, he asks, “How many people here believe in ghosts?”
    About 90 students raise their hands.

    “Well, that’s a good start. Out of those who believe in ghosts, do any of you think you have seen a ghost?”
    About 40 students raise their hands.

    “That’s really good. I’m really glad you take this seriously. Has anyone here ever talked to a ghost?”
    About 15 students raise their hands.

    “Has anyone here ever touched a ghost?”
    Three students raise their hands.

    “That’s fantastic. Now let me ask you one question further … Have any of you ever made love to a ghost?”
    Way in the back, a student raises his hand.

    The professor takes off his glasses and says, “Son, all the years I’ve been giving this lecture, no one has ever claimed to have made love to a ghost. You’ve got to come up here and tell us about your experience.”
    The student replies with a nod and a grin, and began to make his way up to the podium.

    When he reaches the front, the professor asks, “So, Son, tell us what it’s like to have sex with a ghost?”

    “Heavens above! Oh No! From back there I thought you said … err, cor blimey … I thought you said goats.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Johnboy (9,888) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    …The world will not miss you when you are gone.
    ————————————-

    Of course it won’t. It is suffice to say that the ‘world’ does not miss anyone.
    In order for that to happen, the person/individual would need to have been known by the entire world…

    However I take your point, and will give it as much consideration as it deserves.

    Thank you. But I’m having too much fun to stop now! 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Johnboy (19,970 comments) says:

    It doesn’t take much to get you Karamites off the subject. 🙂

    I only came here to disrupt your endless circle jerk.

    Having achieved my aims so easily I shall depart forever and look for real goats elsewhere! 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    What was the question again?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    The question was why are you so thick Dennis. But don’t fret over it, wondering why you have the mental capacity of a thick plank, because, as you have shown, everybody knows it was daddy what done it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Were you a ‘daddy’ when you ‘done’ it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Donkeys these days, very predickleberry.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Wow, you must by psychic ; I bet I can read your mind too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,062) Says: February 22nd, 2013 at 9:38 pm
    The question was why are you so thick Dennis. But don’t fret over it, wondering why you have the mental capacity of a thick plank, because, as you have shown, everybody knows it was daddy what done it.

    I don’t think you’ve entered into the spirit of things, Nosty, old boy. Age and infirmity have not ameliorated your bad temper. Gout, I suppose. Not tertiary syphilis, I hope.

    Nosty had hopes of playing the wag
    Sadly, more in manners an old lag
    Clinging to his set ways of thinking
    With insults that had some a blinking
    Near the truth we must be getting
    To cause so much venomous fretting.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    you can read the level of their uncertainty of their belief by the amount of vitriol and venom in their replies to reasonable statements of fact and opinion.

    It would not be unreasonable to speculate that the level of certainty of innocence and compensation is directly inverse to the abuse showered on those who have no doubt the first verdict was correct, but accept the second verdict but believe compensation would be morally wrong and repugnant to to a large section of society.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt @ 8.00
    The comparison was to show that there were a lot of reasons why Jeanette Crewe couldn’t and didn’t suicide and absolutely no reason at all why Daddy ‘couldn’t’, you spinners are pathetic there is no rules on ‘how to commit suicide’, The crown expert agreed that all the demonstrations accurately represented the trajectory of the bullet and the site of entry and that it required no difficult contortions. The 2003 COA decision based the conclusion that it couldn’t be suicide based on the location of an exit wound that didn’t exist. Read that judgement again, it was about the same quality as the 1973 report by the retired judge into the Thomas conviction, full of speculation, bs and either very poorly informed or the delivery of a required result.
    Your good at avoiding the lounge Milt, is it just your ‘core belief’, you can’t explain but just ‘trust’ you

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Yet the Melbourne Armourer’s Report reputedly said that it wasn’t suicide too, didn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    ‘Yet the Melbourne Armourer’s Report reputedly said that it wasn’t suicide too, didn’t it?’

    Read the judgement instead of bullcrapping you idiot, the armourer’s report couldn’t, and didn’t clear robin from killing his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    So we have poems from a dentist who trys to make the sighting of any ‘new idea’ or single piece of ‘hopeful’ evidence into a swallow from which a summer never comes, accusations of vitriol from somebody with a ‘novel’ description of what a strip search is (a blood sample), aunt fanny going for a world record in bull crapping and trying to take down half the Dunedin police force with bullcrap, an LLB that can’t be understood twisting a armourer’s report that wasn’t evidence into significance
    , milt hiding fearfully from the lounge scene, all giving a total conclusion that the man with the blood on his cut and bruised hands and the bleeding nose as the killer of his own wife and children.
    A Poem
    Accusations of Vitriol
    Lies about a strip search
    Lies about everything
    Dense ambiguity and lies
    Avoidance:
    All equaling nothing, not changing the ruling of a MOJ, 5 not guilty verdicts, an innocent of the BOP or a JR that would never happen. But don’t be beat down by zero progress, look on the bright side, the fellow nutters you have discovered, a true sense of being enlightened in a world where everyone else is nuts but where your are ‘right thinking nzers’ don’t worry about the rocks ahead, celebrate your disasters for that’s all you have. If it’s raining this morning go out and sing ‘always look on the bright side of life’ and no one will notice your tears.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    The comparison was to show that there were a lot of reasons why Jeanette Crewe couldn’t and didn’t suicide and absolutely no reason at all why Daddy ‘couldn’t’

    Unless your father committed suicide, I assume you’re talking about Robin Bain. Of course he could have committed suicide. If the prosecution in 2009 had been able to prove he couldn’t have committed suicide, the jury would have sent David Bain off to finish his sentence and parole boards would by now be regarding his declarations of innocence as reasons not to offer him parole.

    At issue is the likelihood he committed suicide. There are significant problems with both the suicide and the murder theories so likelihood would be difficult to determine from looking at the lounge crime scene alone, but it’s safe to assume that whoever shot Stephen Bain also shot Robin, and there’s a stack of evidence David Bain shot Stephen vs none that Robin Bain shot him.

    Your good at avoiding the lounge Milt…

    I’m usually good at avoiding completely pointless tasks, yes. I’ve given you a list of problems with the suicide theories, and I’m sure you can come up with your own list of problems with the murder theories. Obviously it was one or the other, but we don’t have a plausible scenario for either that fits all the evidence at the scene. Experts vastly more qualified than us to express opinions on the subject disagree about whether it was likely to have been suicide or not. You might feel enthusiasm for fruitless bickering about details of the scene, but I certainly don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (334) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 6:25 pm
    I think you show incredible fortitude under the most vile attacks.

    It would seem to me that there is no need for invective, in this debate.

    Unless in response, of course.

    Some would say those losers making the vile attacks are the scum of the earth,others would not be so generous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne says
    February 22nd, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    A professor is giving a lecture on Paranormal Studies. To get a feel for his audience, he asks, “How many people here believe in ghosts?”
    About 90 students raise their hands.

    “Well, that’s a good start. Out of those who believe in ghosts, do any of you think you have seen a ghost?”
    About 40 students raise their hands.

    “That’s really good. I’m really glad you take this seriously. Has anyone here ever talked to a ghost?”
    About 15 students raise their hands.

    “Has anyone here ever touched a ghost?”
    Three students raise their hands.

    “That’s fantastic. Now let me ask you one question further … Have any of you ever made love to a ghost?”
    Way in the back, a student raises his hand.

    The professor takes off his glasses and says, “Son, all the years I’ve been giving this lecture, no one has ever claimed to have made love to a ghost. You’ve got to come up here and tell us about your experience.”
    The student replies with a nod and a grin, and began to make his way up to the podium.

    When he reaches the front, the professor asks, “So, Son, tell us what it’s like to have sex with a ghost?”

    “Heavens above! Oh No! From back there I thought you said … err, cor blimey … I thought you said goats

    Good one Dennis.
    I daresay Judith will be wondering what sort of sex it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith says
    February 22nd, 2013 at 6:40 pm
    muggins (2,203) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    …Judith, I read about that incident last year, Please explain how you know that was a fabrication?

    Are you really stupid enough to think that a persons full file that at the time was held on the Wanganui computer, would not be accessed prior to a criminal conviction hearing?

    In case you are to ignorant, these files hold information about all complaints made regarding a person, including those that do not result in any action, and basically record any action/comment about a person that comes to the attention of the police, and note any action taken, be it compensation/apology etc or official complaint and action. THERE WAS NOTHING. The event did not happen.

    The story was a deliberate attempt to defame. And stop trying to act innocent. As I said, I have the CD, I know exactly who you were on that site, and which conversations you took part in. You belong to a group of people who are a nasty pack of dishonest and vengeful people who will stop at nothing.

    PS. Yes, CD has been sent to ‘you know who’.

    Judith,
    I don’t know what site you are talking about, I am thinking david bain free forums, but I didn’t become a member of that site until just before it closed down. As I said, the first time I read about David Bain doing that was last year, or it might have been late 2011 and it wasn’t on a site I have ever posted on .
    But what say there was no complaint laid.? What say the person whose dress it was,if there was such a person, just accepted payment for a new dress?
    And talking about nasty dishonest people, speak for yourself.
    I guarantee that any impartial person looking at this thread or any other thread relating to David Bain for that matter, would have no problem working out who the nastiest dishonest people posting on it are.
    And it certainly would not be those who believe David Bain is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:


    Psycho Milt (1,229) Says: February 23rd, 2013 at 7:49 am
    Of course he [Robin Bain] could have committed suicide. If the prosecution in 2009 had been able to prove he couldn’t have committed suicide, the jury would have sent David Bain off to finish his sentence …

    Your logic is usually flawless but here you seem to make two assumptions that I do not. First, the prosecution was competent and made a clear case, second, the jury was competent and got it right. Did jurors understand the case, were some prejudiced either at the beginning, after a massive and relentless campaign over many years, or during deliberations, by material taken illegally into the jury room?

    Much is made of the spatter and blood on Robin and the curtains supposedly proving suicide. Where are the photos that support this?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (47) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 11:24 pm
    you can read the level of their uncertainty of their belief by the amount of vitriol and venom in their replies to reasonable statements of fact and opinion.

    It would not be unreasonable to speculate that the level of certainty of innocence and compensation is directly inverse to the abuse showered on those who have no doubt the first verdict was correct, but accept the second verdict but believe compensation would be morally wrong and repugnant to to a large section of society.

    Yes, the more uncertain the gang of four are the more vitriolic and abusive their replies become. That supposed strip-search is a case in point. It is patently obvious that they have no proof there was any strip-search. Judith,if one can believe her, has even gone to the extreme lenghts of putting police officers jobs at risk to try to get them to deny what they told me.
    If the defence were sure that Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain then why did they not ask those police officers that were in the room at the time? They weren’t game to do that in case they got the wrong answer. So they asked a police officer who wasn’t in the room, who had already answered an earlier question incorrectly.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Much is made of the spatter and blood on Robin and the curtains supposedly proving suicide. Where are the photos that support this?

    They were presented in court as evidence. Many have done the rounds, but you will not find them where you do your research, they don’t support the line of spin that is insisted on there.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Did the Melbourne Armourer’s Report state it unlikely to be suicide? Yes/No.

    You make much of the “not guilty” verdicts showing innocence. What is your basis for assuming the jury got it right? How do explain one juror felt so strongly Bain was not innocent that she went on TV?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:


    Kanz (1,061) Says: February 23rd, 2013 at 9:04 am
    “[DH] Much is made of the spatter and blood on Robin and the curtains supposedly proving suicide. Where are the photos that support this?”

    They were presented in court as evidence. Many have done the rounds, but you will not find them where you do your research, they don’t support the line of spin that is insisted on there.

    The photos are crucial to your claim. Where are they?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,060) Says:

    February 22nd, 2013 at 8:05 pm
    Lindsay Kennard (45) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    Once again your are wrong I flew to Auckland against medical advice to attend the settlement conference with my Solicitors Agent

    How can I be wrong when I said

    You must have forgotten. You flew to Auckland to attend a settlement conference in June 2012 (I have proof from your own facebook page), muggins didn’t even have the guts to do that, he claimed to be too old and sick.

    It seems to me you simply like saying people are wrong, then post the same as what they said, when trying to prove they are wrong. Try doing something called thinking, you may find it an exhilarating experience.

    I see Kanz is lying again.
    Why on earth would muggins pay good money to go to Auckland to respond to a fabricated harassment claim when he knew he could get a settlement that wan’t going to cost him a penny. [Actually there were some minor costs, maybe $10 all up].
    It must have cost the other party a considerable amount of money, what with having to hire a lawyer and all. What a waste of time and effort.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The photos are crucial to your claim. Where are they?

    They are not crucial, they simply support the rest of the evidence of Bain’s innocence.

    The jury saw and understood them which is why they said “Not Guilty”

    Binnie saw and understood them which is why he said

    24. I am very conscious that Robin – unlike David – is not here to speak for himself. Yet I
    believe the evidence compels the conclusion that it is more probable than not that Margaret and three of the Bain children were killed by Robin Bain before he turned the gun on himself and committed suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Was there discussion regarding a request for that Armourers report? Surely its content can be published now that David has been found ‘not guilty’?

    Absolutely independent, commissioned by the defence, clearly not deemed to be suitable for their purpose.

    It would have been trotted out if it had and heralded lol.

    A bit like the right to silence isn’t it, any assumptions drawn are magnified hugely by the deafening silence. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    It must have cost the other party a considerable amount of money, what with having to hire a lawyer and all. What a waste of time and effort.

    I would prefer to take the word of the other party. He thinks it was money well spent to save his wife and children from the harassment that the likes of you and your lynch mob were subjecting them to. The fact that he has put a stop to it speaks volumes about you and your ‘friends’.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (659) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Kanz (1,061) Says: February 23rd, 2013 at 9:04 am
    “[DH] Much is made of the spatter and blood on Robin and the curtains supposedly proving suicide. Where are the photos that support this?”

    They were presented in court as evidence. Many have done the rounds, but you will not find them where you do your research, they don’t support the line of spin that is insisted on there.

    The photos are crucial to your claim. Where are they?

    Dennis,
    I wouldn’t believe anything Kanz says.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Kanz. Where are the photos? It’s a simple question.

    So, Binnie saw the photos and said, “Blah, blah, blah… ” Yeah, yeah, what is he saying about the photos, exactly?

    So Binnie “believes” the evidence compels the conclusion … Yeah, “believes” all right. The Creed, eh?

    So juries see the evidence and get it right? So why wasn’t the verdict of the first jury right?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis,

    The photos are part of the evidence. They should be kept by the Crown/Police because this is an unsolved murder. None of the existing evidence (by rights) should have been destroyed after the second trial. However, given the sloppy handling of this case by the Police, who knows what they have done with it.

    Providing the police are doing their job, all the evidence will still be held (securely).
    I doubt very much you could convince them to show you, as you cannot (I believe) put forward a legitimate claim, other than ‘nosiness for wanting to see it. But you’re welcome to try.

    However, the defense team for David was allowed access to that material, for obvious reasons. The media were also allowed to access to certain pieces that were released by the Courts for the purpose of publication.

    How many photos have you seen to make your claims? 20 maybe 30? I’ve seen about 300, and that is only 1/10th of all that were available.

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

    So juries see the evidence and get it right? So why wasn’t the verdict of the first jury right?

    Simple,

    They were told that Weir found the lens out in the open.
    They were told the skin found in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain.
    They were told the rifle was 8 inches longer than it was.
    They were told blood fluoresces under polilight.
    They were told the old man’s foot measured 240mm and Bain’s 270mm.
    They were NOT told of, or shown, the photos showing blood on the inside of the old man’s hand.
    They were NOT told about the old man screwing his daughters.
    They were NOT told that Laniet was going to tell her mother the truth about her old man.

    That is only a small portion of the difference in the two trials.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Struggling straight away Dennis. Good work.

    ‘@Nostalgia. Did the Melbourne Armourer’s Report state it unlikely to be suicide? Yes/No.

    You make much of the “not guilty” verdicts showing innocence. What is your basis for assuming the jury got it right? How do explain one juror felt so strongly Bain was not innocent that she went on TV?’

    The Melbourne Armourers report made no confirmed claims. Therefore the stupid sisters take a distorted meaning from that. Just like the idiot who thinks the defence had to prove there was a strip search when neither side claimed there wasn’t. One Juror confirming a position that she didn’t find David ‘innocent’ but rather not guilty also means nothing. A whole lot of nothings to start the day Dennis.

    Have you now dropped your ridiculous claim that Robin’s body was shaken Dennis?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (660) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 9:09 am
    ____________________________

    The actual contents of the report you mention has never been released. There was much speculation as to what it contained, however, because it was collected by a person that was not the rightful owner, they were unable to use the report.

    The results of the tests were eventually received by the defense who successfully defend the charges and received a not guilty verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,063) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 9:27 am
    It must have cost the other party a considerable amount of money, what with having to hire a lawyer and all. What a waste of time and effort.

    I would prefer to take the word of the other party. He thinks it was money well spent to save his wife and children from the harassment that the likes of you and your lynch mob were subjecting them to. The fact that he has put a stop to it speaks volumes about you and your ‘friends’.

    Kanz, you are a loser. How could “he “put a stop to something by issuing me [or any of the others ]with a restraining order when none of them had done anything . In my case it was simply a ploy to stop me from posting on Trade Me.
    Where was the harassment you talk about? Ask him. He won’t be able to give you an answer. If there was any harassment it wasn’t from me and I don’t believe the other parties he issued a restraining order to were harassing him either. But he sure as hell was harassing me on that hate blog of his, as I pointed out to his lawyer. And Trade Me’s lawyers were aware of that as well. If Trade Me’s lawyers thought I had a case to answer they would not have lifted my suspension. What does that tell you?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Thank you. So the public can see the video of a man in a funny hat with an arrow sticking out of it hop around and eventually, with an assistant, guide a suppressor-fitted rifle to his temple at just the right angle — about as likely a story as me playing hopscotch on Queen Street — but the photos that might lead to some understanding of Robin’s death are sequestered.

    Did Binnie see these photos? Where in his report does he discuss them?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    …If Trade Me’s lawyers thought I had a case to answer they would not have lifted my suspension. What does that tell you?

    TM reinstated your posting privileges because you lied, even to them, about the terms of your settlement. As soon as they were sent a copy of it you lost those privileges permanently.

    What does that tell you?

    It tells me you are and always have been a liar. Obviously a learned trait from childhood.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,064) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 9:44 am
    So juries see the evidence and get it right? So why wasn’t the verdict of the first jury right?

    Simple,

    They were told that Weir found the lens out in the open.
    They were told the skin found in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain.
    They were told the rifle was 8 inches longer than it was.
    They were told blood fluoresces under polilight.
    They were told the old man’s foot measured 240mm and Bain’s 270mm.
    They were NOT told of, or shown, the photos showing blood on the inside of the old man’s hand.
    They were NOT told about the old man screwing his daughters.
    They were NOT told that Laniet was going to tell her mother the truth about her old man.

    That is only a small portion of the difference in the two trials.

    The first trial jury was well aware that the measurement of the rifle was incorrect.
    There is no proof that either Robin Bain or David Bain was having sex with Laniet.
    They were not told that David Bain had told his aunt he was wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend.
    They were not told that Robin Bain had made an appointment to meet an Education Board official on the Monday morning.
    They were not told that the “missing” lens was shown to be in Stephen’s room while his body was still there.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Simple,

    They were told that Weir found the lens out in the open.
    They were told the skin found in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain.
    They were told the rifle was 8 inches longer than it was.
    They were told blood fluoresces under polilight.
    They were told the old man’s foot measured 240mm and Bain’s 270mm.
    They were NOT told of, or shown, the photos showing blood on the inside of the old man’s hand.
    They were NOT told about the old man screwing his daughters.
    They were NOT told that Laniet was going to tell her mother the truth about her old man.

    That is only a small portion of the difference in the two trials.

    And another very important thing they were not told (although the police didn’t know at the time because unbelieveably hadn’t checked) that the blood on the towel was Robins and that therefore he had been ‘washing up’ before despatching himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,064) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 9:44 am
    ————————————

    They were not told that the blood spatter on Robin Bain’s clothing indicated he was standing with his right leg bent at the knee.
    They were not told of the blood spatter on Robin’s shoe.
    They were not told of the fingernail scrapings from Robin’s fingers.
    The were told that it was not possible for Laniet’s body to be gurgling despite being dead for sometime, when Dr Dempster later proved that was not the case.
    They were not told that a police officer had picked the glasses up.
    They were not told that the cartridge had been knocked over .
    They were not told that the photos were not timed and no one knew what order they were actually taken in and by whom.
    They were told the blood spot on David’s quilt was Stephen’s blood, when it was actually old blood from David.
    They were told that Robin’s bladder was ‘full’, when the capacity of his bladder had never been measured.
    They were told that the first shot to Laniet was not the one that killed her, when in fact the first shot, through the top of the head was not survivable.
    They were not told about the white fibres on the bullet fragments.
    They were given an incomplete surveyors plan of the house and contents which did not show vital pieces of furniture.
    They did not hear evidence from people who had approached the police regarding Laniet’s claims (Dairy owner etc)
    They were not told that the wash cycle on the machine more often than not completed the short wash, rather than the long wash, when the dial was turned to the top position.
    They were not told about the blood in the barrel.
    They were not told of the damaged live round lying next to the trigger guard of the rifle.
    They were not told that certain photos had been chemically enhanced.
    They were told there was blood on David’s gondeliers shirt in the washing, when it was proven later not to be blood.
    and so on…..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Judith (1,606) Says: February 23rd, 2013 at 9:50 am
    The actual contents of the report you mention has never been released. There was much speculation as to what it contained, however, because it was collected by a person that was not the rightful owner, they were unable to use the report.

    The results of the tests were eventually received by the defense who successfully defend the charges and received a not guilty verdict.

    “… never released … much speculation … unable to use … ” Another cocktail to disguise the taste and put people off the sent.

    What is he connection between the “[report] eventually received” and “successfully defend … not guilty verdict”? Seems to be a grammatical connection but not one of logic. More smoke and mirrors.

    We can all guess why the report wasn’t released. It said it wasn’t suicide.

    Dempster said it wasn’t suicide. Anyone who has seen an animal drop dead in its tracks can see the body was moved. Any man with half a brain knows it’s almost impossible for Robin to do all that fighting and killing and changing and washing and have “full” bladder. Anyone who can think for himself can see the contradiction of the blood spot and trigger hand.

    But you (lot) don’t depend on people thinking. You (lot) spread rumours of incest to prejudice the case: Dirty old man shagging his daughter versus nice young man with a promising future.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The issue of Robin Bain organising time off and a relief teacher etc, that was to be the focus of his meeting that morning, was presented at the first trial. It was stated to Ms Darlene Thompson (a teacher at the school) who did not know anything about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,067) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:12 am

    Judith (1,607) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:15 am

    Of course you are both right, the list is so extensive I don’t have the time or inclination to list further.
    But then, Dennis doesn’t really want the list, it may just destroy his ‘trust me Bain is guilty’ mantra.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (662) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:19 am
    ————————

    Idiot.

    If the report was never released, then anything you state about what was in it, is pure speculation.

    However, some people have been privy to that report because members of the defense team have allowed them to view it.

    I think we can presume that you, muggins, psycho milt, ross and goldnkiwi have not been shown that report.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Dempster said it wasn’t suicide. Anyone who has seen an animal drop dead in its tracks can see the body was moved. Any man with half a brain knows it’s almost impossible for Robin to do all that fighting and killing and changing and washing and have “full” bladder.

    There you go…. misrepresenting (or is it lying about?) what Dempster said. He never said, nor could he, that it wasn’t suicide, in fact he said it was most certainly possible without great effort.
    He NEVER said the bladder was full, he only gave the quantity that it held at death.

    Good, though, to see you admit those with only half a brain believe as you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,066) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:23 am
    Nostalgia-NZ (3,067) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:12 am

    Judith (1,607) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:15 am

    Of course you are both right, the list is so extensive I don’t have the time or inclination to list further.
    But then, Dennis doesn’t really want the list, it may just destroy his ‘trust me Bain is guilty’ mantra.

    ——————————–

    Exactly. If he hears it or reads it, then he has to deal with it, and he doesn’t want to do that!
    Firstly because he doesn’t have the skills or the knowledge to refute it (much like the Crown didn’t)
    and secondly because it would require him admitting he was wrong, and I can imagine that is something Dennis does not like doing.

    Better to just brush it aside, call it propaganda or whatever, and focus on the stuff he does know (which of course doesn’t take him very long or require much thought at all)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,065) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 9:59 am
    …If Trade Me’s lawyers thought I had a case to answer they would not have lifted my suspension. What does that tell you?

    TM reinstated your posting privileges because you lied, even to them, about the terms of your settlement. As soon as they were sent a copy of it you lost those privileges permanently.

    Kanz,
    You are an absolute bullsh**t artist
    I asked that idiot’s lawyer to send the terms of that agreement to Trade Me’s lawyers. He did not do that, so Trade Me’s lawyers had to contact him. They were then advised of the agreement and I was reinstated.
    I posted for a few months but I was asked a couple of times not to start threads relating to Bain. The last thread I started caused a problem because one David Bain supporter posted something that was defamatory. Trade Me decided that because I had started the thread I was partly to blame so they decided to give me my marching orders. I took it on the chin because they had warned me.
    So enough of the bullsh**t, you lying loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (662) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:19 am
    ———————————–

    Dempster did not say it wasn’t suicide. He agreed suicide was possible, and especially the position the body was found in, was consistent with the suicide position as per the defense scenario.

    Dempster also stated at the retrail that he never measured the capacity of Robin Bain’s bladder, and that there was not indication that it was ‘full’ and made a special point of noting that stress etc can delay the urge to urinate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,214) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:31 am

    —————————–

    Calm down old man. Take a deep breath and step away from the computer. Perhaps you need to go outside and play with your goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    you can not say what order the shots were to Laniet. Why would she be shot again, once dead?

    You will say, who can tell what an irrational person would do, but as you are one, give us your insight.

    To me the final shot to the top of the head was a coup de grace. Though not for the purposes of mercy in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis says: But you (lot) don’t depend on people thinking. You (lot) spread rumours of incest to prejudice the case: Dirty old man shagging his daughter versus nice young man with a promising future.

    The fact that Laniet had stated to several people (not just one) that she was in an incestuous relationship with her father (which even her Doctor gave evidence about), indicates it wasn’t ‘rumour’. It was evidence presented in a legitimate trial.

    I do not know if it was true or not. But there was sufficient evidence from BOTH daughters to indicate that something not appropriate had occurred between father and daughter/s.

    You are happy to absorb any piece (regardless of its source or truth) about David, and yet you criticise people for doing the same regarding Robin. You are a hypocrite, and a very uniformed one, at that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (1,612) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:35 am
    muggins (2,214) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:31 am

    —————————–

    Calm down old man. Take a deep breath and step away from the computer. Perhaps you need to go outside and play with your goat.
    Talking about goats, Judith, have you decided what sort of sex you think Mark Buckley was having with that goat?
    I believe you have decided it wasn’t oral or intercourse.
    And re that dress. What if it was never reported to the police. What if Margaret just wrote a cheque so that lady could buy a new dress?

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

    To me the final shot to the top of the head was a coup de grace. Though not for the purposes of mercy in my opinion.

    That in itself gives an interesting insight to the workings of ‘half a brain’.

    If the shot to the top of the head was the final shot, how did the shooter get the gun through the wall to shoot it? If the shot to the top of the head was the final one, how did the bullet fragment from that shot get well underneath her torso?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (336) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:39 am

    ———————————

    Oh dear, the ignoramus want’s to discuss the evidence. The shot to the top of the head was the first shot, not the final one.

    The shot to the top of Laniet’s head killed her instantly. The bullet from this shot had passed through a white cotton fabric object, causing it to make a larger than normal hole in her head. The bullet had also fragmented.

    She was sitting up at the time she received this shot, which made her then slump backwards in the bed.
    A bullet fragment from that first shot was found under her body, which could only have got there, if it was the first shot made.
    Her blood and brain matter was splattered on the wardrobe at the foot of the bed, at a height which showed she was sitting up when shot.
    There was not sufficient space between her head and the wall for her to have received this shot once lying down.

    Another fragment from the same bullet was found 2 metres away from the body.
    Dr Ferris who had given evidence saying the bullet that killed her (the one mentioned above) was not he first shot. However, he later admitted to not knowing about the bullet fragment under her body, and on the chair 2 metres away, and agreed that changed what he had first stated.

    She was probably shot again because her body was ‘gurgling’ and the killer may had thought she was still alive. However, the huge hole in her head should have indicated to him, that was not possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    gold’n kiwi says
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:39 am
    you can not say what order the shots were to Laniet. Why would she be shot again, once dead?

    You will say, who can tell what an irrational person would do, but as you are one, give us your insight.

    To me the final shot to the top of the head was a coup de grace. Though not for the purposes of mercy in my opinion.

    No not for mercy,gold’n kiwi. David knew Laniet was still alive so held held the rifle hard against her head and pulled the trigger. The hole in her head was so big that Karam thought it was caused by a .45 calibre bullet. He reckoned a couple of experts told him that , but they never came forward. Karam was worried that the killer might be still out on the street.

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

    muggins (2,215) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:44 am

    And re that dress. What if it was never reported to the police. What if Margaret just wrote a cheque so that lady could buy a new dress?

    So now, to perpetuate a story of lies, you are saying that Margaret would cover up for her son’s criminal behaviour? You truly are a sick man, one who would cover up for criminal behaviour and think nothing of it.
    Margaret was not the parent who was in to cover ups, that was the dirty old man, the one who she finally found out about so he had to kill her.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Muggins, how did Trade Me view the other poster. Are they banned too?

    Although I found that explanation interesting (as I had wanted to ask what the hints were about from ‘the other side),.

    you are just being baited and your energies have a better use to be put to.

    @ Judith, since Robin did not commit suicide, no muck racking on your part has any purpose as no ‘motive’ is necessary for you to try and create.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,215) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:44 am
    ————————–

    The whole story was constructed by your ‘twisted sisters’ in guilty.freeforums/davidbain.freeforums and then taken to JFRB. The evidence is all there. How they come up with the story, and how to add bits to it to make it more ‘interesting, before DC takes it to JFRB.

    There someone with a margin of commonsense picked up on the fact it was fake, and the story was dropped. As noted, the story was that the police were involved. The police were not only ‘not involved’ but investigation provided no record of any such incident.

    To make it clear DC, AC and those involved constructed the story. The messages etc were lifted from the site confirming this. Subsequent investigation proved there was no basis to their story.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,216) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:52 am
    ——————————————–

    There was not sufficient space between her head and the wall to make that shot. She had to have been sitting up when it was made. Your scenario is simply not possible. But that won’t stop you promoting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    I did tell the idiot that the file had been re-opened because he had breached the agreement and that he would be ‘hearing more’ about it in March. This was of course after the idiot claimed not to have had an agreement or to have signed it, so he was sent another copy and the original is still held to avoid any excuses such as those already generated. Will I listen to plaintive pleas of I’m old and sick and haven’t left the district in x amount of years again, no I won’t. Will I want to know who sent it an address claimed to be mine yes I will, along with phone calls he bragged about making.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Judith, you seem to be a very insecure person.

    I am not.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    I note the deep silence on the lists of what the first jury didn’t know. It wasn’t there fault there was a mistrial and some of their questions to the Court showed their misgivings about a narrative that didn’t make sense. One was about the timing of the Mrs Laney sighting, and the 2nd may have been the ownership of the glasses which Weir hid in order to gain a convictionl.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Projection (also projective identification):

    Projection, also called projective identification, involves the tendency to see your own unacceptable desires in other people. In other words, the desires are still there, but they’re not your desires anymore. The objective is to make yourself feel superior.

    An important motive for projection lies in the ‘projector’s’ wish to control the person who is reminding them of their low self-esteem, or feelings of inferiority, inadequacy and worthlessness, to prevent him or her from making the ‘projector’ feel bad.

    Projective identification may be differentiated from projection when the individual does not completely disavow what is projected. Instead, the person remains aware of his or her own feelings or emotions, but misattributes them and regards them as being justifiable reactions to the behaviour of the other person.

    Melanie Klein described projective identification as a common way of getting rid of the painful envy emotion and taking over the feelings that we do want to have. Kate Barrows described how this occurs: “If envy is the feeling we want to get rid of… instead of feeling envious ourselves, we project envy into the other person, subtly emphasizing his (or her) inadequacies and hinting at our supposedly superior resources. We put ourselves in the smart shoes, and try to get him to wear our shabby ones, our feeling of inadequacy.”

    What’s the bet the narcissist I’m describing here doesn’t realise it’s them but thinks it’s someone else?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Weir must truly have been prescient to have known how pivotal the glasses evidence would be so early on in the enquiry.

    So close but no cigar, I bet david wished that he hadn’t rushed his round that day eh!! What was the rush by the way, did he have to rush to do the washing, did he have an appointment, something to do?

    I guess we will just have to draw our own conclusions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    “but it’s safe to assume that whoever shot Stephen Bain also shot Robin, and there’s a stack of evidence David Bain shot Stephen vs none that Robin Bain shot him.”

    And that evidence would be Milt? There is actually very little evidence in Stephens room confirming his killer, David had a small amount of blood on his clothes, significantly less than would have been expected if it had ‘seeped’ through an outer layer of clothing and entirely consistent with secondary transfer. How about the blood underneath Robins fingernails, very consistent with wearing those gloves, the spinners and crown law have no explanation for it at all. Dempster agreed it was consistent residual staining with and CL have no other explanation, yet you point out ‘consistent with’ doesn’t neccessarily equate to what he actually thinks, maybehe thinks it was ‘red food colouring’ or ‘rust marks from the guttering’, you can have 1% for these suggestions. The bloody footprints coming out of the bedroom also indicate that the killer was??
    Subtotal of evidence pointing to David from Stephens room, I’ll be extra generous to you and give you 1%. I didn’t mention the glasses but we’ve already had this argument, no evidence that the killer was wearing glasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (339) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 11:42 am
    ——————-

    Yeah, that’s why he decided to lie about it, under oath on the stand.

    Family friends said David’s regular habit was to do the washing on his return home from his paper run. Just like he did that day.

    We don’t have to draw our own conclusions at all, well at least not those of us who know the evidence. It’s all there in the trial transcripts – both trials. But you keep drawing your own conclusions from the little you do know.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    I see the Police have a keyword search programme for social media sites.
    ‘Judith’ will be nervous, doubtless some ‘red flags’ will go up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,069) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 11:26 am
    I note the deep silence on the lists of what the first jury didn’t know.
    ——————————-

    They don’t like discussing that stuff. Just like the blood spatter pattern on Robin’s clothes. None of them have even attempted to account for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (340) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    ————————————–

    My god, what a revelation!

    Oh wait a minute I have one of those too, oh dear, in fact, anyone with an operating system above Windows 3.1 has the basic ability to do that, plus there are many free downloads on the net for people who want such a facility.

    How the hell did you get an LLB. Did they give it to you to get rid of you?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt

    “At issue is the likelihood he committed suicide. There are significant problems with both the suicide and the murder theories so likelihood would be difficult to determine from looking at the lounge crime scene alone,”

    Lets try and look at how it was ‘murder’, I’ll give you a few pointers as you seem to avoid the lounge at all costs, you are sounding like Raftery in his closing address.

    1. The computer was likely turned on at 6.42
    Denise Laneys siting must have been wrong and David must have turned on the computer before shooting Robin (why?), or alternatively Robin turned on the computer

    2. The trajectory of the bullet was approximately 10 degrees upward
    Robin must have been standing with David below him (prehaps kneeling on the floor) pointing the gun up at his head

    3. The bullet on the floor and the changing of the magazines
    Robin must waited while David had two gos at shooting him, waiting while he changed the magazine, cleared the jammed bullet and shot him again.

    4. The two directions of blood splatter on Robins trousers indicating his leg was bent at the knee on the chair
    Robin must have held that position while David repeated step 3

    All rather different than the scenarios put up in 1995 ridiculous shooting through the curtains and kneeling in prayer scenarios. Robin must have been very very cooperative in his own death!, the lengths that you would go to believe he was ‘murdered’ is ridiculous! could think of more but thats just given you some food for thought for your ‘murder’ scenario

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    🙂 The quickest way to get rid of someone is to fail them lol. I give you a fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    And that evidence would be Milt?

    His fingerprints on the murder weapon; his gloves covered in Stephen’s blood; Stephen’s blood in unlikely places on his clothes; glasses he was wearing broken with one lens in Stephen’s room; injuries to him consistent with the struggle that took place. I know you can offer endless, tiresome quibbling about that evidence, and that it’s circumstantial evidence only, nevertheless it exists.

    How about the blood underneath Robins fingernails…

    There was blood under his fingernails? I’ve seen allegations there was blood under his fingernails, but nothing beyond that.

    …yet you point out ‘consistent with’ doesn’t neccessarily equate to what he actually thinks..

    Of course it doesn’t necessarily equate to what he actually thinks. “Consistent with” means that the person using the phrase accepts a particular version of events is possible, not that they accept it’s what actually happened. You’ll note above I use the phrase “injuries consistent with the struggle.” They were “consistent with” that struggle – they were also “consistent with” any number of other ways of receiving injuries. It’s a simple phrase with a simple meaning, so you could at least make an attempt to understand it.

    The bloody footprints coming out of the bedroom also indicate that the killer was??

    The footprints could have been made by either man, so they indicate nothing about who the killer was. If they were 100% complete they were Robin’s, if they were only 95% complete they were David’s. However, we don’t know whether they were 100% complete or only 95% complete, so you, your fellow wishful thinkers on this thread and master of “lacks robustness of reasoning” Ian Binnie only make fools of yourselves by declaring them to be Robin’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    The computer was likely turned on at 6.42

    Was it? There’s a rather cutting line in Binnie’s report, in which he sarcastically remarks that the Police tried to use the Bain’s washing machine as a stopwatch, which it wasn’t. He was right to point that out. In just the same way, Karam and the defence try to use a computer with a dead CMOS battery, two detectives’ watches that weren’t checked for accuracy and Denise Laney’s inaccurate car clock as a stopwatch. That’s even worse than trying to use the washing machine as a stopwatch. Anyone proposing a computer switch-on time with a margin of error less than minutes either side is a bullshit artist.

    The trajectory of the bullet was approximately 10 degrees upward

    So? We don’t know the specifics of how Robin was shot. If David shot him, an upwards trajectory would have been possible various ways: David sitting on the alcove stool, both of them standing with the gun at David’s shoulder, Robin kneeling looking up at him, etc.

    The bullet on the floor and the changing of the magazines

    We don’t know when the magazines were changed or the bullet ejected, or why it was ejected. Feel free to speculate all you like.

    The two directions of blood splatter on Robins trousers indicating his leg was bent at the knee

    Meh. This two directions of spatter wasn’t mentioned by the Crown witnesses, and in any case it’s as much a problem for the suicide scenario as the murder one.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Regardless, how can they not be David’s, he admitted to walking in those places, it would be peculiar if they were not David’s, surely?

    There does not seem to be any suggestion that there were two differing sets of prints.

    The defence should have just admitted that they were David’s prints without accepting that it was the killer who made them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Miltie
    Going round in circles here, over to you to disprove suicide
    Your explanations
    “His fingerprints on the murder weapon; his gloves covered in Stephen’s blood; Stephen’s blood in unlikely places on his clothes; glasses he was wearing broken with one lens in Stephen’s room; injuries to him consistent with the struggle that took place. I know you can offer endless, tiresome quibbling about that evidence, and that it’s circumstantial evidence only, nevertheless it exists.”

    We are talking about Stephens room here, since when was the rifle found in Stephens room, we have been over this argument, no human blood or DNA found from the fingerprint samples. His gloves, and? you require David to use Margarets glasses and the green jersey which belonged to Robin/Arawa hence ownership (of these) is not important to you so be consistent here.
    It would be very unlikely if David had no blood on him and a lot more suspicious, hardly consistent with a struggle as so little blood, secondary transfer is much more plausible, also the family cat was wandering around the scene and another potential source of secondary transfer. Broken glasses, been over this no evidence that they were worn, how did they come to be ‘dusty’?
    Nothing very convincing either individually or collectively

    “There was blood under his fingernails? I’ve seen allegations there was blood under his fingernails, but nothing beyond that.”
    Ok red ‘bloodlike’ staining as not tested, suggested probability of it being red food colouring or rust marks, i’d go for <1%

    "Consistent with"
    Yet there is no other explanation for the evidence, the pathologist agrees, the crown offer nothing in response, what else is it 'consistent with'?

    "The footprints could have been made by either man, so they indicate nothing about who the killer was. If they were 100% complete they were Robin’s, if they were only 95% complete they were David’s. However, we don’t know whether they were 100% complete or only 95% complete, so you, your fellow wishful thinkers on this thread and master of “lacks robustness of reasoning” Ian Binnie only make fools of yourselves by declaring them to be Robin’s."

    I suppose we could assume that Hentschel was using Ngamokis ruler and undermeasured the prints but how likely is this, Hentschel examined the prints and testified they were complete, right up until he realised they couldn't be Davids so suddenly became 'incomplete' much like it suited Hutton et al not to have a sieve searched garden in the Crewe farm so they could later 'find' a bullet. If you are saying Hentshells evidence is wrong then you shouldn't be relying on any of it for your conclusions.
    Shall we go back to your argument “At issue is the likelihood they were made by Robin"

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt part 2

    “Was it? There’s a rather cutting line in Binnie’s report, in which he sarcastically remarks that the Police tried to use the Bain’s washing machine as a stopwatch, which it wasn’t. He was right to point that out. In just the same way, Karam and the defence try to use a computer with a dead CMOS battery, two detectives’ watches that weren’t checked for accuracy and Denise Laney’s inaccurate car clock as a stopwatch. That’s even worse than trying to use the washing machine as a stopwatch. Anyone proposing a computer switch-on time with a margin of error less than minutes either side is a bullshit artist.”

    Being very picky here the exact timing is not important, reread what I said, either David turned it on BEFORE killing Robin else Robin turned it on, either way makes the ‘ambush’ scenario rather difficult

    “So? We don’t know the specifics of how Robin was shot. If David shot him, an upwards trajectory would have been possible various ways: David sitting on the alcove stool, both of them standing with the gun at David’s shoulder, Robin kneeling looking up at him, etc.”
    At issue here is the likelihood Milt, totally implausible, we have been over kneeling that would give a downward trajectory! David was taller than Robin so to get an ‘upward’ trajectory needs to be lower than him.

    “We don’t know when the magazines were changed or the bullet ejected, or why it was ejected. Feel free to speculate all you like.”
    Again Milt the likelyhood, If David was the perpetrator what is one scenario of the bullet jamming prior to shooting attempt no 1? maybe he was taking pracise shots first! what happened to those bullets.

    “Meh. This two directions of spatter wasn’t mentioned by the Crown witnesses, and in any case it’s as much a problem for the suicide scenario as the murder one.”
    How is this a problem for suicide? The crown didn’t try to explain murder so didn’t mention it because they had no explanation.

    All in all 0.000000% progress from you

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Regardless, how can they not be David’s, he admitted to walking in those places, it would be peculiar if they were not David’s, surely?

    You’d think. But according to Binnie, the bloke who was walking round the house with blood on the soles of his socks was very unlikely to have left bloody footprints behind. It was the bloke with clean socks who left them.

    …over to you to disprove suicide

    You seem to have mistaken me for the prosecution at a murder trial. There’s no onus on me to disprove suicide as far as I can see. It would be impossible to do so in any case (Dennis Horne’s objections to that view aside).

    We are talking about Stephens room here, since when was the rifle found in Stephens room…

    We are talking about evidence that David Bain killed Stephen. The evidence needn’t necessarily come from any particular room.

    …we have been over this argument, no human blood or DNA found etc etc etc

    Yes, as I pointed out you can offer endless quibbling about that evidence. Nevertheless it exists.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    The likelihood that David didn’t leave the prints when he was definitely walking where they were left.

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

    Kanz (1,069) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:58 am
    muggins (2,215) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:44 am

    And re that dress. What if it was never reported to the police. What if Margaret just wrote a cheque so that lady could buy a new dress?

    So now, to perpetuate a story of lies, you are saying that Margaret would cover up for her son’s criminal behaviour?

    Kanz, so are you saying that if your mother had found out you had masturbated over her neighbours dress then she would have contacted the police?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    I see the poster with the bullsh**t degree reckons I have received a copy of an agreement signed by both parties. Let me assure him I have not. Only a month ago I phoned his lawyer and requested again that I be sent a copy. I will phone his lawyer again next week, and will send him an email as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,069) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:46 am
    To me the final shot to the top of the head was a coup de grace. Though not for the purposes of mercy in my opinion.

    That in itself gives an interesting insight to the workings of ‘half a brain’.

    If the shot to the top of the head was the final shot, how did the shooter get the gun through the wall to shoot it? If the shot to the top of the head was the final one, how did the bullet fragment from that shot get well underneath her torso?

    Ask David.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Utter crap Milt, just like everything you write.

    ‘Meh. This two directions of spatter wasn’t mentioned by the Crown witnesses, and in any case it’s as much a problem for the suicide scenario as the murder one.’

    Sheer idiocy from a bullcrap artist.

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

    muggins (2,219) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:03 am
    Kanz (1,064) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 9:44 am
    So juries see the evidence and get it right? So why wasn’t the verdict of the first jury right?

    Simple,

    They were told that Weir found the lens out in the open.
    They were told the skin found in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain.
    They were told the rifle was 8 inches longer than it was.
    They were told blood fluoresces under polilight.
    They were told the old man’s foot measured 240mm and Bain’s 270mm.
    They were NOT told of, or shown, the photos showing blood on the inside of the old man’s hand.
    They were NOT told about the old man screwing his daughters.
    They were NOT told that Laniet was going to tell her mother the truth about her old man.

    That is only a small portion of the difference in the two trials.

    The first trial jury was well aware that the measurement of the rifle was incorrect.
    The first jury were told that skin fragment found in Stephen’s room could have come from Stephen. Dr Dempster said his preference was that it could have come from the back of Stephen Bain’s hand.
    There is no proof that either Robin Bain or David Bain was having sex with Laniet.
    They were not told that David Bain had told his aunt he was wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend.
    They were not told that Robin Bain had made an appointment to meet an Education Board official on the Monday morning.
    They were not told that the “missing” lens was shown to be in Stephen’s room while Stephen’s body was still there,virtually in the same place as Milton Weir pointed to at the trial.
    They were not told that Laniet had told acquaintances that David had called a family meeting that she didn’t want to go to because he was freaky.
    Just added a bit and corrected another one of Kanz’s lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Aunt fanny the biggest liar on the internet is correcting other peoples ‘lies.’
    Yes, it’s march next week.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @goldnkiwi (342) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 11:00 am

    @ Muggins, how did Trade Me view the other poster. Are they banned too?

    Although I found that explanation interesting (as I had wanted to ask what the hints were about from ‘the other side),.

    you are just being baited and your energies have a better use to be put to.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    I never had my posting rights reinstated Trade me alleged I had been previously banned, they were unaware of course that I don’t delete emails completely instead I archive them for 7 years and so was able to prove they were wrong. They then gave me a series of dates of “warnings” I had had, so I sought disclosure and they couldn’t provide them stating they had not kept them and admitted they may have been mistaken.
    During the Harassment Act action the applicant had made an allegation I was posting using a second TM account and My lawyer made a privacy application for information about the account, TM after a bit of a grizzle provided information that the account was opened using an Auckland Address and the name on the account was not mine. I do now know the name of the account holder and address and the account was opened using a dummy email account I had with Microsoft but which I still need to deal with Windows. I was rather surprised when a new computer with windows 8 retrieved a number of emails about joining TM saying welcome and seeking verification, etc. I was very pleased to do so and change the passwords, on logging in to my account, opened about April 2011, I found my new name, Samoan I think. I had closed my TM account in frustration at the lack of honesty displayed by their Manager of Trust and Ethics.
    I have a pretty good idea who the account opener is as there has been a degree of stealth and likely illegal access to a computer. I have also had some very strange emails from a Vivien Thomas whoops Thomas Vivien about an allegation of double signing a petition but I only have acknowledgement for one and the second omits an item I always include in ‘signing’ online petitions. There are some very dangerous people out there who will go to any length to enforce their will on those they perceive as weak. I’ve also had a veiled threat from a local cop but that related to Scott Watson.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    It would seem to me that if there were pictures of blood on Robin’s hand that they would have been admitted as evidence, if indeed they existed.
    There are pictures showing that Robin’s hands were dirty, evidence that no recent washing had occurred.
    The jury were also not told of evidence considered to be too prejudicial to David.
    Nor were those witnesses called, who would apparently have been happy to have been cross examined on that evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Nos
    Didn’t you know the only safe verdict is where the prosecution were able to mislead the jury, lie and misrepresent the evidence much like Aunt Fanny here, Note there is no ‘facts’ in what she had to add to Kanzs post.
    Muggins
    What happened when the jury heard the correct ‘facts’?
    How much of the crowns fanciful allegations were ‘proven’ at the retrial?
    How long did the jury take to come back with its verdict?

    Suck it up you arrogant piece of crap you are WRONG!

    [DPF: Warning – don’t call people a price of crap or demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    WTF is ‘pictures of blood’? A new generation of sherry?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “I guarantee that any impartial person looking at this thread or any other thread relating to David Bain for that matter, would have no problem working out who the nastiest dishonest people posting on it are.
    And it certainly would not be those who believe David Bain is guilty.”

    It would be very easy for an impartial person looking at the thread to see who is the biggest liar on the internet, is pulling facts out of their arse and resorting to lying to make their point. Read Dragonflys 11.35, now I wonder who this person would be!! Not hard, Muggins remember only about 1% of the population are as deluded and full of it as you (That would be your fellow witchsniffers!)
    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Muggins, smoke and mirrors, trying to distract you. Discombobulation. Got to love that word.

    I am sure you see through it all.

    @ Lyndsay wow desperate measures indeed.

    The KISS principle is seriously lacking in this case.

    The more convoluted the evidence is, the less likely to be believed, in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Yes Rowan ‘safe verdicts’ arise from mistrials in which actual Miscarriages of Justice are perpetuated and the Crown apparently have no obligation either consistent with natural justice or basic fairness to put that right by way of compensation. The mistrial stands distinct as an issue of it’s own, a fair ‘Crown’ would recognise that with the return of 5 not guilty verdicts, or to be even more blunt and accurate appraise the flawed case they sought to take to retrial. What sort of idiots call witnesses who contradict their own witnesses? A prosecution in crisis does that, being driven by orders from above by someone not acquainted with the case but with ‘damage control’ in mind, perhaps by someone who was the Minister of Police at the time. If anything it’s our greatest failure ‘institutionalised denial’ in the face of over whelming proof and look at the cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    …the exact timing is not important…

    That’s not what Binnie thought.

    …reread what I said, either David turned it on BEFORE killing Robin else Robin turned it on, either way makes the ‘ambush’ scenario rather difficult…

    It does? How?

    …we have been over kneeling that would give a downward trajectory! David was taller than Robin so to get an ‘upward’ trajectory needs to be lower than him.

    I’m not aware that we’ve discussed this previously. Never mind. Robin kneeling doesn’t necessarily imply a downwards trajectory – him looking up at his killer’s face, killer standing and holding the rifle at waist height, upward trajectory. Doesn’t mean that’s what happened, but does mean you can’t leap to conclusions about what couldn’t have happened.

    If David was the perpetrator what is one scenario of the bullet jamming prior to shooting attempt no 1?

    In the lounge, waiting for Robin. Can’t remember how many he’s already fired. Replaces the magazine. One in chamber gets ejected. It’s been a long time since I’ve used a rifle, semi-auto or otherwise, but doubtless there are other possibilities.

    How is this (spatter in two directions on Robin’s right leg) a problem for suicide?

    Again, I haven’t seen any Crown witnesses mention this spatter that supposedly proves Robin had his right leg bent, but assuming for the sake of argument that it’s correct: what suicide scenario doesn’t have Robin’s right foot on the chair? And if his right foot was on the chair, where’s all the blood on the chair? Well, it’s on the curtain in a place that isn’t where your head would be if you had it up against a rifle braced on that chair. So, how did he get two directions of blood spatter on his right leg? Buggered if I know, but he didn’t get it from bracing a rifle on that chair, putting one foot on it and shooting himself in the head. That is why your two-directional blood spatter is as much a problem for the defence as the prosecution – neither has a scenario that explains it.

    I suppose we could assume that Hentschel was using Ngamokis ruler and undermeasured the prints but how likely is this, Hentschel examined the prints and testified they were complete, right up until he realised they couldn’t be Davids so suddenly became ‘incomplete’ much like it suited Hutton et al not to have a sieve searched garden in the Crewe farm so they could later ‘find’ a bullet. If you are saying Hentshells evidence is wrong then you shouldn’t be relying on any of it for your conclusions.

    No doubt this will prompt Nostalgia-NZ to complain about verbosity again, but there’s no point in trying to address the above drivel without filling you in on what constitutes an argument.

    An argument is a conclusion that has supporting statements called premises. An argument is valid when the conclusion must logically be true if the premises are true, eg premise 1: fish live in water; premise 2: a salmon is a fish; conclusion: a salmon lives in water. A valid argument can also be a wrong argument, ie the premises may not be true – eg premise 1: fish live in water; premise 2: an antelope is a fish; conclusion: antelopes live in water. The conclusion is true if both premises are true, but both premises aren’t true.

    Re these bloody sockprints, you are making an argument as follows:
    Premise 1: a complete sock print will tend to be longer than the foot making it.
    Premise 2: this is a complete print.
    Conclusion: the foot that made this print is shorter than the length of the print.

    It’s certainly a “valid” argument in the technical sense. However, it’s conclusion is only true if the premises are both true. Do we know the premises are both true?

    Well, we can be reasonably sure about premise 1 because Sandiford et al did all that testing. What about premise 2 – how do we know premise 2 is true?

    Well… Hentschel said it so it must be true. Er, no – Hentschel isn’t Almighty God. If Hentschel said it was complete, how did he know it was? In the absence of some kind of super powers by which he could determine just by looking at a footprint whether it was 100%, 99%, 98% etc complete, he didn’t know. Which means we don’t know premise 2 is true.

    Which in turn means your argument is valid but not very convincing. It would be true if the print were complete, but we don’t know if the print was complete. Hentschel’s evidence wasn’t wrong, it’s just been misrepresented by wishful thinkers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Expert Witnesses are a strange bunch and their evidence has to comply with legislative requirements and common law requirements as well. If asked to give an opinion they can but must qualify it with the statement thatisonly their opinion and their are other explanation which is why Dr Dempster, agreed it was possible Robin committed suicide but its was not probable,
    just as Mr Manlove agreed that Robin was ‘possibly’ murdered.

    If an expert witness states no other explanation is possible then they must explain in full how and why they are so sure and in forensics only serology can allow a positive answer. A committee of the NAS was commissioned by the US Senate to investigate and report on Forensic “science” follow the massive number of exoneration’s among Death Row inmates. Their findings were that only serology could be relied on with an confidence, all other so called science was no more than an informed guess, a number of “experts” were given identical evidence items and were then called to give evidence on the results, most came to differing conclusion, to the point that the Committee opined that if a better way could be found then Experts should be excluded from Criminal trials as very few were unbiased being more inclined to favour the bill payer in the briefs they provided and in evidence given. The other area of concern was the very poor funding and out dated labs and equipment. Funnily enough Justice Binnie presented a paper to a justice conference in 2003 on the subject of expert witnesses and the Presiding Judges place as “gate keeper” to take a very narrow view of their evidence and be sure the evidence given is unbiased and strong warnings are given to juries to not accept their evidence just because they sound knowledgeable. He advised judges to view the testimony critically and pay mind to who was paying for it in summing up or reading it in appeals.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    You’ve completely loss it now milt

    How anybody could make a claim like this is sheer nuts;

    ‘Robin kneeling doesn’t necessarily imply a downwards trajectory – him looking up at his killer’s face, Robin kneeling doesn’t necessarily imply a downwards trajectory – him looking up at his killer’s face,’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Rowan says
    Muggins
    What happened when the jury heard the correct ‘facts’?
    How much of the crowns fanciful allegations were ‘proven’ at the retrial?
    How long did the jury take to come back with its verdict?

    Suck it up you arrogant piece of crap you are WRONG

    What happened?
    The jury were so confused that they decided that there was reasonable doubt.
    And as they had been sitting there over 50 days they decided they might as well make a decision before the weekend.
    Another jury may have come to a different conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Hentschel’s premise of ‘complete’ was based on there being both strong heel and toe luminescence but there was weak luminescence that extended past his measurement points. Strong and weak are subjective assessments as the luminescence was not bright enough to Photograph. Oh for a good digital camera in 1994.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    What happened when the jury heard the correct ‘facts’?
    How much of the crowns fanciful allegations were ‘proven’ at the retrial?
    How long did the jury take to come back with its verdict?
    __________________________________________

    Suck it up you arrogant piece of crap you are WRONG
    ———————————————————-

    An opinion expressed in a strong but reasonable manner is less likely to be ignored

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    So if you’re a nutter a ‘strip search’ is actually a blood sample taken intravenously. In every jurisdiction in the world a ‘blood sample’ is not a strip search, a strip search is in fact a ‘search of the body’ with clothing removed. People giving blood samples by consent at the local clinic are actually undergoing a ‘strip search’ if you’re a nutty twisted sister.

    And now we have another ‘break through’ a downward trajectory can actually become upward if the person being shot ‘looks up.’ I’ve actually heard that one before by GF or one of the other ‘specialist’ idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Nos
    I think we need a beyond piece on Milts explanation for Robin looking up at his killer while David achieved an upward trajectory, it would be classic!
    Milt you are going round in circles, starting to sound like Gamefisher, to use your argument ‘what is the likelyhood’ in your case around 0.0000%
    Milt, do you actually believe that Muggins has been given different ‘facts’ over the phone than the said witness gave at the retrial? Wouldn’t this be perjury?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Don’t make it ‘flip’, it sounds on the edge lol. A bit like that cartridge.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (51) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    Hentschel’s premise of ‘complete’ was based on there being both strong heel and toe luminescence but there was weak luminescence that extended past his measurement points. Strong and weak are subjective assessments as the luminescence was not bright enough to Photograph. Oh for a good digital camera in 1994.

    Yes, there is no way of knowing how complete that particular sockprint was. And it did not help that the photograph did not show anything. The judge was correct when he said the footprint evidence was inconclusive.
    Had the police kept that particular piece of carpet it might have helped. Using modern techniques they might have been able to get a fairly accurate idea as to how long that footprint actually was.
    I very much doubt if the sole of that sock was soaked in blood right to the tips of the toes. And even if it was it would be natural if one was wearing a bloody sock for them to lift their toes slightly, or even scrunch them up a bit thus making their footprint smaller than it actually was.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    A complete print was and remains complete, confirmed by Walsh and Sandiford even after being belatedly denied by Henstchel after he was sprung for measuring a sock rather than an actual foot in the trial in which David Bain was framed. It’s a scumbag witness that gives evidence to frame somebody then later has to back away from it when it becomes clear that the evidence was part of the MOJ, Hentschels and Ngamoki, foot and rifle length all part of the MOJ. All the twisted sisters have left is making excuses for the liars, or lying to cover up for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    If you are ever falling down hill Rowan, simply look up and that will change your direction.

    Meanwhile the same 8 week expert also revealed that no crown witnesses mentioned the blood splatter, that must have been at the trial in Disneyland where the witnesses say one thing in the stand and then ring aunt fanny and tell her the true story later. They’re a bunch of nutters. Now we also have assassins raising their toes when they walk about in socks, it’s natural – just like taking your clothes off in the medical clinic to have blood taken out of your arm, it’s called a strip search. Keep up Rowan, this stuff is all normal in googa land.

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

    I see the word strip-search is being bandied about again.
    David Bain changed his clothes, there is no doubt about that. But he could have taken his T-shirt off with his back to Dr Pryde and then put that blanket he had in his possession over his shoulders before he turned around to face the doctor. Dr Pryde could have still seen that tattoo.
    It is obvious that Bain’s lawyers did not want a definitive answer as to whether he was strip-searched or not, otherwise they would have questioned those police officers who were in the room when Dr Pryde examined him. They were worried that one of them might have said that Dr Pryde did not strip-search David Bain.
    Those scratches are a problem. David Bain does not know how he got them and none of his supporters can come up with an expanation. I have given them a good expalnation but they don’t want to know.
    What a pity Dr Pryde had not lived for a few more years. He could have given us a definitive answer. But up until he died he never said he strip-searched David Bain.
    And I don’t think he probed David Bain’s rectum ,either, though David Bain said all his orifices were probed. But whether he probed his rectum or not is of no importance, what is important is how he came to have those scratches on his chest.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    If Robin Bain had one foot on a chair as the defence has suggested then why was there no blood found on that chair?
    And the foot on the chair is the only scenario that Karam reckons is the correct one because of those three tiny spots of blood spatter on Robin Bain’s right shoe.
    But couldn’t that blood spatter have gotten there if Robin Bain was sitting on his beanbag?
    Couldn’t it have gotten there if Robin Bain was standing upright as has been suggested?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (51) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    Hentschel’s premise of ‘complete’ was based on there being both strong heel and toe luminescence but there was weak luminescence that extended past his measurement points. Strong and weak are subjective assessments as the luminescence was not bright enough to Photograph. Oh for a good digital camera in 1994.

    Rubbish!
    Hentschel stated clearly it was complete because it was ‘from the tip of the toe to the heel’ and those were the points he had measured.

    Great pills you’re on there! 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    The live bullet on the floor of the lounge.
    There is no proof that the bullet found in the lounge was either a misfeed or a misfire. An overseas expert thought it might have been.
    When the magazines were changed over one bullet from the magazine that would have been in the rifle, that is the 10 shot magazine, would have automatically ejected. So in theory David Bain could have shot his father when the 10 shot magazine was in the rifle and then changed the magazines over. One round from the 10 shot magazine would have ejected onto the floor.
    Alternatively he could have changed magazines before his father came into the lounge.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    And it did not help that the photograph did not show anything

    Actually the photo did show something. Weir said they had not turned out. Hentschel stated the photos had come out, but they didn’t show as much as could be seen with the luminol. (another of Weir’s misinterpretations, I wonder if he’s related to muggins)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    A complete print was and remains complete, confirmed by Walsh and Sandiford…

    Here’s fun – please outline the scientific procedure by which you imagine either Walsh or Sandiford determined that the print measured by Hentschel was complete.

    If you are ever falling down hill Rowan, simply look up and that will change your direction.

    You guys do realise that the “upward” in this particular instance of “upward trajectory” refers to “upward” relative to Robin Bain’s head, right? Because it doesn’t sound like you do.

    Milt you are going round in circles, starting to sound like Gamefisher, to use your argument ‘what is the likelyhood’ in your case around 0.0000%

    The likelihood of me using the imaginary word “likelyhood” is what’s 0.0000% likely in that statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (2,225) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 4:25 pm
    Lindsay Kennard (51) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    Hentschel’s premise of ‘complete’ was based on there being both strong heel and toe luminescence but there was weak luminescence that extended past his measurement points. Strong and weak are subjective assessments as the luminescence was not bright enough to Photograph. Oh for a good digital camera in 1994.

    Yes, there is no way of knowing how complete that particular sockprint was. And it did not help that the photograph did not show anything. The judge was correct when he said the footprint evidence was inconclusive.
    Had the police kept that particular piece of carpet it might have helped. Using modern techniques they might have been able to get a fairly accurate idea as to how long that footprint actually was.
    I very much doubt if the sole of that sock was soaked in blood right to the tips of the toes. And even if it was it would be natural if one was wearing a bloody sock for them to lift their toes slightly, or even scrunch them up a bit thus making their footprint smaller than it actually was.

    Judith,
    You seem to have missed this post.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I see the idiot at 4.42 pm seems to think it was up to the defence to prove innocence, instead of the prosecution proving guilt.

    The issue of the strip search was not questioned by the Crown. They agreed it had been done. There was no reason for the Defense to prove anything else regarding it. It was not considered a point of conjecture.

    Obviously they failed to ask Muggins. Now, the question is, should the courts time have been wasted to put three police officers on the Crown, to satisfy Muggins curiosity?

    The fact is, those three police officers would have only repeated what they have in official statements. They did not observe the procedures under taken by Dr Pryde.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Hentschel stated clearly it was complete because it was ‘from the tip of the toe to the heel’ and those were the points he had measured.

    Well, I guess we can at least say that your reasoning powers are no worse than Rowan’s, Kanz’s or Nostalgia-NZ’s. Please elaborate for us on the exact forensic method Hentschel used to determine that the print extended from the tip of the toe to the end of the heel.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,226) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 5:05 pmJudith,
    You seem to have missed this post. l

    No, I read it and thought you were talking as much shit as usual, but now you seem to be ending your posts with an ‘I’.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (1,621) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    And it did not help that the photograph did not show anything

    Actually the photo did show something. Weir said they had not turned out. Hentschel stated the photos had come out, but they didn’t show as much as could be seen with the luminol. (another of Weir’s misinterpretations, I wonder if he’s related to muggins)

    Judith, I knew that because of your lack of understanding I should have been more explicit. When I said that photograph did not show anything I meant it did not show anything that might have been of any use to either the prosecution or the defence.
    Are you ,by any chance ,related to Milton Weir?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Meanwhile the same 8 week expert also revealed that no crown witnesses mentioned the blood splatter…

    I said I haven’t seen reference to a Crown witness pointing out two directions of blood spatter on the right leg of those track pants, because I haven’t. If you have seen such a reference, feel free to point it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,235) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    Hentschel stated clearly it was complete because it was ‘from the tip of the toe to the heel’ and those were the points he had measured.

    Well, I guess we can at least say that your reasoning powers are no worse than Rowan’s, Kanz’s or Nostalgia-NZ’s. Please elaborate for us on the exact forensic method Hentschel used to determine that the print extended from the tip of the toe to the end of the heel.

    ————————————-

    You’ll have to ask him that. As Lindsay pointed out, there are strict rules regarding the presenting of evidence by expert witnesses. They are not allowed to just pull something out of the butt, so I figure he probably had a method of determining it that was part of his expertise. You however I’m sure will know more, appearing to consider yourself an expert in all matters of forensic investigation. I on the other hand are guided by what I read from those experts original statements and evidence reports.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,236) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 5:14 pm
    Meanwhile the same 8 week expert also revealed that no crown witnesses mentioned the blood splatter…

    I said I haven’t seen reference to a Crown witness pointing out two directions of blood spatter on the right leg of those track pants, because I haven’t. If you have seen such a reference, feel free to point it out.

    You remind me of a child when they put their hands over their eyes and believe the person they were looking at has gone.

    Just because you haven’t bothered to inform yourself, you decide it doesn’t exist. Nice one. Wouldn’t it have been more honest to simply say, “I haven’t bothered to read the trial transcripts and relevant information so I can’t discuss that point”?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,227) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    Are you ,by any chance ,related to Milton Weir?

    According to geneticists we are all descended from a male called ‘adam’. That information appears to be supported by the Christian Bible. Personally I doubt it. When I look at an Alsatian or Deutsch Schäferhund, I just see a dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (2,227) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 5:05 pm
    muggins (2,225) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 4:25 pm
    Lindsay Kennard (51) Says:

    February 23rd, 2013 at 3:57 pm
    Hentschel’s premise of ‘complete’ was based on there being both strong heel and toe luminescence but there was weak luminescence that extended past his measurement points. Strong and weak are subjective assessments as the luminescence was not bright enough to Photograph. Oh for a good digital camera in 1994.

    Yes, there is no way of knowing how complete that particular sockprint was. And it did not help that the photograph did not show anything. The judge was correct when he said the footprint evidence was inconclusive.
    Had the police kept that particular piece of carpet it might have helped. Using modern techniques they might have been able to get a fairly accurate idea as to how long that footprint actually was.
    I very much doubt if the sole of that sock was soaked in blood right to the tips of the toes. And even if it was it would be natural if one was wearing a bloody sock for them to lift their toes slightly, or even scrunch them up a bit thus making their footprint smaller than it actually was.

    Judith,
    You seem to have missed this post.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Just because you haven’t bothered to inform yourself, you decide it doesn’t exist.

    If you can point out where I said it doesn’t exist, do so. If you can’t, stop talking shit.

    I’ve written that I haven’t seen any reference to Crown witnesses pointing out this supposed two-directional spatter. It’s not an assertion that no Crown witness did point it out, it’s a statement of fact: I haven’t seen it. If you are in a position to correct me in this matter, feel free to do so and I’ll stand corrected. If you’re not in a position to correct me, cease your yapping.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “There is no proof that the bullet found in the lounge was either a misfeed or a misfire. An overseas expert thought it might have been.”
    And there is no explanation by the crown for what it ‘is’ or any attempt to rebut the defence evidence.
    There is also no reason for David to change the magazine. Unless there was a jammed/misfired bullet and he wouldn’t know this unless he attempted to fire. So your speculation as usual 0% convincing!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    The crown stayed well away from the lounge, they have no explanation for any of it, the defence experts agreed the blood pattern on the trousers was in two directions indicating the right leg was bent at the knee and on the chair. This is the only position consistent with the blood splatter evidence. Look at the photo of Robin in TBA you can see that the right leg is bent at the knee, or did JK ‘photoshop’ it?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    I figure he probably had a method of determining it that was part of his expertise.

    You can figure what you like, but he has said that he didn’t have such a method. He told the PCA in 1997 and the court in 2009 that the print looked complete to him, ie it had toes and a heel, but the most you could say about it was that it set a minimum size. There is no physical means of determining whether a patch of luminescence that looks like a complete footprint actually is complete or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    …the defence experts agreed the blood pattern on the trousers was in two directions…

    The defence experts appear for the defence. I’m interested in whether the Crown experts agreed with them or not.

    …indicating the right leg was bent at the knee and on the chair. This is the only position consistent with the blood splatter evidence.

    It’s not consistent with the blood spatter evidence. There was none on the chair, or at least not enough that anyone seems to have thought it worth mentioning. A position consistent with the blood spatter evidence would have to put Robin Bain’s head about 1 meter off the floor, 15cm from the curtain and not directly over a chair when he was shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    There is also no reason for David to change the magazine.

    Lost track of how many he’d fired. Unlike in computer games, he didn’t have a nice readout in a HUD telling him how many shots he had left.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    The nutter is away. Uncontested evidence has to be proved or disproved in Disneyland.

    To recap this ‘person’ started at the outset by saying there was no strip search, that has changed to ‘partial’ strip search but only after the enormous proof of the strip search was disclosed, any irony there? Not one official in NZ has denied there was a strip search, in fact the details of it were signed off by an police officer who gave evidence at the trial. One thing the police clearly did according to the manual was the strip search. Yet taken it to another extreme, the police officer who ‘knows’ there was no strip search, or indeed only a ‘partial’ strip search gave no evidence about it because he was clearly assisting David Bain. Assisting the man who no stone had been left unturned to legally or illegally gain a conviction against him. Go further, the Minister of Justice’s office which appears strongly to have mounted a campaign against the findings of the Binnie report simply ignore that David ‘lied’ in his interview. So the Minister’s office is also ‘helping him out.’ But even that doesn’t make sense because the same office released ‘new’ evidence (which happened to be known for 19 years) in order to portray David as a liar. But it makes sense if you’re a deluded, senile, impotent old goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    Your making yourself look stupid here, the crown steered well away from the lounge, they have no explanation of it and so ‘avoid’ the lounge.
    Do you believe Muggins ‘no strip search’ conspiracy theory?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    You guys do realise that the “upward” in this particular instance of “upward trajectory” refers to “upward” relative to Robin Bain’s head, right? Because it doesn’t sound like you do.’

    I’ve always understood the upward trajectory, and I’ve heard all sorts of ‘explanations’ about it, one, including yours was looking upward changed trajectory, another was the angle of the head (gamefisher). You’re stuffed explaining the trajectory, it amazes me it that the Crown were allowed to offer scenarios at the first trial that were inconsistent with trajectory, it may have been that the prosecutors didn’t understand it or more likely they were pushing the envelope with it. I don’t know what Guest’s position was on it, but it remains the crown now have conceded attributes of Robin’s death being consistent with suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    ‘I said I haven’t seen reference to a Crown witness pointing out two directions of blood spatter on the right leg of those track pants, because I haven’t. If you have seen such a reference, feel free to point it out.’

    The Crown didn’t find it, a defence witness found it. Dempster, I think it was, said it would be consistent with such a pose. You do realise Milt that the defence can’t spring evidence on the Crown, therefore that is the reason why Dempster and others were told what defence witnesses were going to say so that they could comment on it.

    You’re point about the chair not having spatter on it is hopeful nonsense. You are now firmly at the point of ‘venturing’ scenarios, or evidence when you don’t know whether what you’re saying is true or not. You’ve done it several times today. Additonally asking others to confirm the conclusions of Walsh and Sandiford achieves nothing for your argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    From what you say about the footprints it sounds like you are assuming that Hentschel was totally wrong in his measurements and to submit to the 1995 jury that it was a ‘complete’ print, I’m no forensic scientist but I’m assuming that Hentschell had enough competence to get his measurement right, to much to expect from Ngamoki, If Hentschel was wrong about them being ‘complete’ then doesn’t that discredit all his evidence relating to fingerprints etc so you are trying to have this both ways, If your saying he’s wrong don’t try and rely on his evidence elsewhere.

    The crown relied heavily on your fanciful scenarios in 1995, they needed to have Robin ‘kneeling in prayer’ and David ‘hiding behind the curtains’ there was no sign of a struggle so Robin needed to be unaware of David. If Robin is kneeling his feet would be facing the floor chance of getting blood on them 0. Your explanation for an upward trajectory with Robin on the beanbag is laughable and totally inconsistent with the blood splatter. Keep going you are entertaining!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Your making yourself look stupid here, the crown steered well away from the lounge, they have no explanation of it and so ‘avoid’ the lounge

    Binnnie doesn’t seem to have shared your fixation with the lounge either. Nobody does have an explanation of it that fits all the evidence.

    Do you believe Muggins ‘no strip search’ conspiracy theory?

    I have no opinion on it one way or the other. I find it unlikely Pryde would have missed scratches if they were there, but I also find unlikely Nostalgia-NZ’s view that the fact Pryde didn’t note an injury means none existed. Bain wouldn’t have been scratched through at least two layers of clothing, he would have been bruised, and bruises can take a while to show up. I don’t think there are any definite conclusions to be drawn about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    You’re point about the chair not having spatter on it is hopeful nonsense. You are now firmly at the point of ‘venturing’ scenarios, or evidence when you don’t know whether what you’re saying is true or not.

    That’s what we’re all doing, buddy. The defence ventured a scenario regarding suicide and a chair, and I’m pointing out a fairly obvious problem with that scenario.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    It’s hypocrisy at work Rowan. When the footprint was confirmed as David’s it was right, when the same footprint was shown to be Robin’s it was wrong. If a scientist says complete that is unequivocal. In this case ‘unequivocal’ evidence in framing David using such imprecision as confirming a foot size by measuring a sock – it would be pure comedy if it weren’t part of robbing a young man of his freedom. Hentschel ‘performed’ much the same as a Texan expert for hire. Any responsible and impartial expert witness would have laid down reservations as to his methods of ‘measurement’ at the outset and noted the unreliability of that, their purpose is toward scientific evaluation, not shoring up a railroading that began when a Dunedin cop scratched his arse and suddenly knew what happened and told pliable experts what he needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    That’s what we’re all doing, buddy. The defence ventured a scenario regarding suicide and a chair, and I’m pointing out a fairly obvious problem with that scenario.’

    Where’s your evidence? You don’t have any because you are bullshitting, again.
    How are you getting on with that trajectory looking up crap?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Lets look at your ‘no strip search’ vs Bruce Huttons ‘unsieved’ garden
    To believe that the garden was unsieved then you have to believe that the detectives lied in the job sheets that they handed in, Keith Hunter goes over it well in Blood Stain, in the chapter about the Commission of Enquiry and the tactics used by Hutton, Murray Jefferies et al to cover up the evidence that the garden was searched.
    You are doing a similar thing with your stupid conspiracy theory. Dr Pryde must have been incompetent and lied in the records he made and the likes of Doyle, Van Turnhout etc must have covered it up during two trials and now confirmed it to you.
    You expect anyone to actually believe this crap!

    Milt
    Since the officer in question was referring to ‘scratches’ not ‘bruises’ then can I take it you don’t believe that David ‘must have been covered up’ according to your twisted sisters theory

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt (1,240) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    And that evidence would be Milt?

    His fingerprints on the murder weapon; his gloves covered in Stephen’s blood; Stephen’s blood in unlikely places on his clothes; glasses he was wearing broken with one lens in Stephen’s room; injuries to him consistent with the struggle that took place. I know you can offer endless, tiresome quibbling about that evidence, and that it’s circumstantial evidence only, nevertheless it exists.

    How about the blood underneath Robins fingernails…

    There was blood under his fingernails? I’ve seen allegations there was blood under his fingernails, but nothing beyond that.

    …yet you point out ‘consistent with’ doesn’t neccessarily equate to what he actually thinks..

    Of course it doesn’t necessarily equate to what he actually thinks. “Consistent with” means that the person using the phrase accepts a particular version of events is possible, not that they accept it’s what actually happened. You’ll note above I use the phrase “injuries consistent with the struggle.” They were “consistent with” that struggle – they were also “consistent with” any number of other ways of receiving injuries. It’s a simple phrase with a simple meaning, so you could at least make an attempt to understand it.

    “Consistent with ” is the standard method of explaining the likelihood of a particular circumstance being the result of a particular action or a particular action being the result of a particular circumstance alternatively it may be “inconsistent with”. It is commonly used by expert witnesses unable to give a firm answer to a question because of a legal constraint. Unless there is settled science no forensic evidence is any more likely to be more than “consistent with” The NAS report even takes issue with something long thought settled, finger prints, computer matching of prints has resulted in the same prints being matched to different people. As can be imagined this has not been greeted with shouts of joy by police and prosecutors as defenders have seized on the report in defending clients where prints are an important part.

    No one has actually done the maths on the assumption that all prints are different and the discovery that computers could get it wrong was surprising, the problem arising because computers can compare literally millions of prints a second and they can compare more points they find more close positives.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    I’ve always understood the upward trajectory, and I’ve heard all sorts of ‘explanations’ about it, one, including yours was looking upward changed trajectory, another was the angle of the head (gamefisher).

    Jesus Christ Almighty, you really don’t understand that “upward” in this instance means “relative to the victim’s head,” do you? I’d feel sorry for you if you hadn’t spent weeks going on about how stupid I must be. I’ll try to lay this out nice and clearly for you:

    “Upward” in this context does not mean “increasing its distance from the centre of the Earth,” it means “taking an angle such that it finishes at a point further towards the top of the victim’s head than it arrived at.” It means that because the only measurement of the trajectory available is the path of the bullet through the head.

    As an example, consider this: you’re lying flat on the floor; you take a pistol in your right hand, put in your mouth and pull the trigger. In terms of the centre of the Earth, your shot is on a downward trajectory. For the pathologist who examines you, the bullet enters your head through the mouth and ends up near the top of your head, ie it is on an “upward trajectory.”

    In Robin Bain’s case, the only indicator of trajectory we have is the bullet’s path through his head. Given that we don’t know whether his head was upright and level when he was shot, we have no idea whether the “upward” trajectory through his head also translates to “upward”relative to teh

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Bugger. Last sentence should read “Given that we don’t know whether his head was upright and level when he was shot, we have no idea whether the “upward” trajectory through his head also translates to “upward”relative to the centre of the Earth.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Put your finger against your thick empty skull and move it left, right, forward or backward and explain how upward becomes downward your dumb f….. A totally confirmed idiot at work, way to go dumbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    It’s hypocrisy at work Rowan. When the footprint was confirmed as David’s it was right, when the same footprint was shown to be Robin’s it was wrong.

    Bollocks. At the first trial Hentschel said the footprints must be David’s because they were too big to be Robin’s. The defence accepted that, because after all their boy had walked the hall with blood on his socks. Sandiford’s testing later showed Hentschel was wrong to assume the prints were too big to be Robin’s. At the retrial the defence tried to claim they were actually too small to be David’s, and Hentschel pointed out the obvious truth that there isn’t evidence for that conclusion. You can try and spin whatever narrative you like around those facts, but they are the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Now we are getting lectures from the deep, from the person who thinks a strip search is a blood sample. Isn’t there one sister that isn’t a nutter?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Miltie’s got people walking ‘on’ their socks, while another nutter has them walking with their toes ‘lifted’ or ‘scrunched up.’ What a cult.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Trajectory isvery important as getting that wrong can be the winning or loosing a case I attended a trial in Invercargill where a local gang member was being tried for attempting to murder a police officer by shooting him in a moving police car from another moving vehicle. The prosecution was progressing nicely until the police officer was asked by Colin Withnal QC is he was in the habit of driving on two wheels. A question that seemed to confuse the officer quite a lot but he did maqnage to answer “no”. with that Mr Withnal sat down. The next witness was the police armourer who gave evidence of the entrance and exit holes in the Car doors and close the holes were to the officer. Mr Withnal then asked the trajectory of the bullet which several cm higher on the inside than the outside. The armourer could not explain the upward trajectory he was then asked about the scene inspection to be told there was not one. Mr Withnal then tendered as exhibits a scene plan police had made and a photo of a mark on the road and a diagram of a bullet ricocheting of the road and up thought the police car. it explained the trajectory of the holes but for the prosecution it was game set and match as the attempted murder was the only charge laid and the bullet was not fired at the police car but at the road so could not be an attempt on the police officers life. The gang member walked free, He had fired to scare the police officer. The moral of the Story; Trajectory is important and can alter a case. The angle of the trajectory and the method of shooting in the left temple by aright handed person using a long rifle with a silencer fitted still are not consistent with suicide but is possible

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    ‘The moral of the story’; more crap. Firing to ‘scare’ is the same as firing to kill, with attempted murder charges alternative charges are also laid. No gang member walks away from firing a firearm in a public place, particularly whether the target is determined or not. That’s all the sisters have got, crap on top of crap.

    Contact wound, upward trajectory, temple wound, are consistent with suicide as the Crown have agreed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia.

    A guy was hunting when a gust of wind blew, the gun fell over and discharged, shooting him in the genitals. Several hours later, lying in a hospital bed, he was approached by his doctor.

    “Well, sir, I have some good news & some bad news. The good news is that you are going to be OK. The damage was local to your groin, there was very little internal damage, and we were able to remove all of the buckshot.”

    “What’s the bad news?” asked the hunter.

    “The bad news is that there was some pretty extensive buckshot damage done to your willy which left quite a few holes in it. I’m going to have to refer you to my sister.”

    “Well, I guess that isn’t too bad,” the hunter replied. “Is your sister a plastic surgeon?”

    “Not exactly,” answered the doctor. “She’s a flute player in the Symphony Orchestra. She’s going to teach you where to put your fingers so you don’t piss in your eye.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Hope you’ve recovered from that problem Denny. Urine in your eye is probably quite painful and might well have led to delusions of ‘shaken’ bodies over by the curtain. Apart from that, things could be looking up through a bung eye.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “The angle of the trajectory and the method of shooting in the left temple by aright handed person using a long rifle with a silencer fitted still are not consistent with suicide but is possible’

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2324952/Robin-Bain-suicide-feasible-expert

    Lindsay look at Dr Dempsters cross examination on the matter note 10 photos depicting how Robin could have easily suicided and Dempster agreed that any of them could accurately depict the temple wound. He also agreed that there were ‘no difficult contortions’ required
    A second piece
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573423
    Note “Yet it was difficult to understand the thought processes of someone who committed suicide, Dr Chapman said”
    You try to rationalise this, but have a very simplistic argument, I could easily make the same ‘inherently implausible’ argument for David or how about Brian Schaalfper, there is no dispute that he suicided and nothing in his character to indicate he was a psychopath.
    Just because its irrational out of character behaviour doesn’t mean it didn’t hapopen

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    Robin was very likely standing upright, kneeling in prayer was ruled out at the retrial, the crown tried to show ‘sitting’ on the beanbag but this was rejected by the forensic experts. Yet you would have it that he was unaware of the computer being on or unaware of Davids presence, Was he high on drugs prehaps! Upward trajectory in relation to a standing man requires the gun to be pointed upwards from left to right. Even Aunt Fanny acknowledges that he was most likely standing.
    Now construct a ‘murder’ scene based on that! Put your finger against your thick skull if that makes it easier to understand!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Put your finger against your thick empty skull and move it left, right, forward or backward and explain how upward becomes downward your dumb f…

    Between this and the “complete” sock prints, my faith in the reasoning ability of my fellow humans has about hit rock bottom. I’ve encountered some dim bulbs on Kiwiblog’s comments threads before, but this thread provides the most depressing example I’ve yet encountered. I withdraw and apologise for having embarrassed myself by engaging in such an unequal contest.

    Seriously, Rowan and Nostalgia-NZ – watch the video of Boyce at the trial with that funny hat on that has a steel rod showing the trajectory of the bullet, and see what happens to that steel rod when he moves his head. After watching it wave around in all directions a few times, you might start to grasp what the phrase “relative to the victim’s head” means.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    You are usually good for intelligent conversation but your tonights effort is way below par!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @Rowan (749) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    You try to rationalise this, but have a very simplistic argument, I could easily make the same ‘inherently implausible’ argument for David or how about Brian Schaalfper, there is no dispute that he suicided and nothing in his character to indicate he was a psychopath.

    He had had previous treatment for mental illness

    So you now saying it is possible there was something in David Bains character that could indicate he is a psychopath, not that that would be uncommon. Psychopathic behaviour is in fact relatively common but on rarely in killing and suicide. Those in the Commerce world who would use their work mates as ladders to the top often in tests rate as psychopath. Those who display little or no empathy, are generally emotionless are showing the conditions characteristics.

    The statistic quoted often to support the right hand left temple suicide scenario is American and relates to hand guns which in most states are freely available. A small percentage of suicides were inflicted using a handgun to the back of the head.

    The question is not ‘is it possible’ but is it probable? Most things are possible, like the black caps winning a test but it is not probable and it is in that Justice Binnie revealed his lack of strong reasoning skills he could explain them but he could not use them. Justice Panchurst has already ruled the foot print evidence advanced nothing for either side as the tests done by both sides were fatally flawed. For Justice Binnie to then overrule the Trial Judge when he did not the authority to and use that as the bench mark to evaluate evidence against beggars belief. He was not even able to understand his letter of instruction which sought advice on what the cabinet should look at, He made a finding which he was under no illusion he was not to he knew it as he says he is not to then goes ahead and does it He comments the whole thing is political anyway which he seems to assume the Cabinet is not aware of that. part of his time in politics was spent doing exactly as Judith Collins is doing, did he learn nothing from that?? I expected better from a Canadian Judge, But I guess a life mainly in politics does not really prepare a person for the rarefied air of the high bench and they go loopy like the ones here. His comment about the small talent pool is correct but it is not one engendered to please the locals and was unbecoming a judge even a retired one. Justice Taylor in Thomas was highly critical of police prosecution and DSIR but he first heard what they had to say in their defence before criticising them but again that was Justice Binnie’s terms of reference to sheet blame. As I understand Legal advise and privilege the report was legal advise to Judith Collins and there she was free to ‘get a second opinion’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    As a professional, I am called upon to write reports on matters open to interpretation. I never object to the organisation paying for the report getting a second opinion. It is their right to do so (and their or the taxpayer’s money). To object to a second opinion would be arrogant. Given that the legal opinion is built on second, third, etc opinions I am surprised there is any opposition to JC doing so.
    If the facts in the case are so clear cut, then why should anyone object here? As I have pointed out, when a second report favourable to DB arrives on the desk of the minister, a number of events of immense pleasure to DB’s supporters will occur:
    “I told you so”
    An increased payout, to compensate for the delay
    Grudging acceptance by people such as myself
    etc.
    So what’s the problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,080) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 9:49 am

    Dennis Horne @Nostalgia. Did the Melbourne Armourer’s Report state it unlikely to be suicide? Yes/No.
    What is your basis for assuming the jury got it right? How do explain one juror felt so strongly Bain was not innocent that she went on TV?

    The Melbourne Armourers report made no confirmed claims.
    One Juror confirming a position that she didn’t find David ‘innocent’ but rather not guilty also means nothing.
    Have you now dropped your ridiculous claim that Robin’s body was shaken Dennis?

    You are telling me
    1. The MAR gave no opinion as to suicide/murder? Boof!
    2. A juror going to the TV to tell everybody she didn’t think Bain innocent means nothing? Boof!
    3. Binnie, a man asked to determine factual innocence, should not listen to a juror who tries to warn him about the circumstances of the jury decision? Boof!

    No, of course I haven’t given up the idea the corpse was lifted up high under the shoulders and blood was shaken out of the head.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,069) Says: February 23rd, 2013 at 10:28 am

    Dennis Horne: Dempster said it wasn’t suicide. Anyone who has seen an animal drop dead in its tracks can see the body was moved. Any man with half a brain knows it’s almost impossible for Robin to do all that fighting and killing and changing and washing and have “full” bladder.

    There you go…. misrepresenting (or is it lying about?) what Dempster said. He never said, nor could he, that it wasn’t suicide, in fact he said it was most certainly possible without great effort. He NEVER said the bladder was full, he only gave the quantity that it held at death. Good, though, to see you admit those with only half a brain believe as you do.

    Dempster did say it wasn’t suicide. It was Dempster saying it wasn’t suicide that alerted the police, who first thought it was suicide. Dempster gave the three reasons: position of body, blood spot, “full” bladder. Note the inverted commas around “full”. It’s “shorthand” for “the large amount of urine” or “a normal overnight urine load”. But that is your (The Banes) whole strategy. Pick some point that avoids the issue and try to make an issue of it, to divert attention from what’s important. Nit picking. The fallacy of Logic Chopping.

    Robin is supposed to have got up, strangled Stephen, shot his family, put the bloodied clothes in the laundry, washed up, possibly showered, changed his clothes, prepared to shoot himself, and died with 400ml urine in his bladder. Kanz, if you believe that you can believe anything. And of course you do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Judith (1,626) Says: February 23rd, 2013 at 10:26 am

    Dennis Horne (662) Says:February 23rd, 2013 at 10:19 am
    ————————
    Idiot. If the report was never released, then anything you state about what was in it, is pure speculation. However, some people have been privy to that report because members of the defense team have allowed them to view it. I think we can presume that you, muggins, psycho milt, ross and goldnkiwi have not been shown that report.

    Of course we haven’t seen it. That’s the whole point. We can be 100% sure if it said suicide was certain or very likely we would have seen it. How would you recognise an idiot, Judith? You can’t even recognise a moron: I’ve seen you congratulate Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Judith (1,626) Says: February 23rd, 2013 at 10:41 am
    Dennis says: But you (lot) don’t depend on people thinking. You (lot) spread rumours of incest to prejudice the case: Dirty old man shagging his daughter versus nice young man with a promising future.

    The fact that Laniet had stated to several people (not just one) that she was in an incestuous relationship with her father (which even her Doctor gave evidence about), indicates it wasn’t ‘rumour’. It was evidence presented in a legitimate trial.

    I do not know if it was true or not. But there was sufficient evidence from BOTH daughters to indicate that something not appropriate had occurred between father and daughter/s.

    You are happy to absorb any piece (regardless of its source or truth) about David, and yet you criticise people for doing the same regarding Robin. You are a hypocrite, and a very uniformed one, at that.

    Complete nonsense. It is not the incest as such I am proposing is the issue. The issue is that’s what you reduce the argument to in the public mind. I am even prepared to accept for the purposes of argument that the incest could be real and a motive for murder, and I still conclude Robin did not kill himself. There are several reasons for this, not least of all he needed only kill himself to solve any problem and also there is absolutely no reason in the wide world to spare one, and especially David.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Judith (1,626) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:49 am

    She was probably shot again because her body was ‘gurgling’ and the killer may had thought she was still alive. However, the huge hole in her head should have indicated to him, that was not possible.

    Who reported hearing Laniet gurgling?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Oh WOW, the old energiser bunny is at it again.

    1. It doesn’t matter what you think about the report, or even what I think about it Dennis. You have no entitlement to see it because in this situation, you are nobody.

    2. You are not very smart are you? If that report had produced anything that was the slightest bit in the prosecutions favour, they would have had the test replicated and then been able to use their own forensic experts to provide the outcome.

    3. The report results were inconclusive, which was why it wasn’t used.

    And please stop yelling. Using bold doesn’t make you more important, it just makes you look like the pathetic arrogant and very ignorant fool you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (668) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 8:55 am
    —————————————–

    Again you show your ignorance to the facts of the case.

    David went to bed earlier than everyone else. He heard raised voices but didn’t listen to what was being said and went back to sleep.

    David was the only one in that house who didn’t know what was said in that argument. Didn’t know about he incest. Strange that he should be the only one that was allowed to live. The only one that couldn’t tell the world of the allegations about his father, whether true or not.

    You are still using the same old line Dennis. You are presuming that Robin was acting rationally. It has been said time and time again by both experts and lay people alike. Whoever killed the Bain’s did so in a psychotic episode.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (668) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 9:02 am

    Who reported hearing Laniet gurgling?

    David did. Why would he have done that if he was trying to hide something?

    Who reported that Laniet Bain’s dead body could have been still gurgling and making noises at the time David arrived home?

    Dr Dempster – the Crown Pathologist. In fact he was so concerned about the fact that the hearing of the gurgling had been misinterpreted he wrote a letter to the Crown especially to point the fact out that dead bodies do and can make noises for quite some time after death.

    Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that point Dennis. Have you changed teams?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Judith (1,627) Says: February 24th, 2013 at 9:09 am Oh WOW, the old energiser bunny is at it again.

    1. It doesn’t matter what you think about the report, or even what I think about it Dennis. You have no entitlement to see it because in this situation, you are nobody.

    2. You are not very smart are you? If that report had produced anything that was the slightest bit in the prosecutions favour, they would have had the test replicated and then been able to use their own forensic experts to provide the outcome.

    3. The report results were inconclusive, which was why it wasn’t used.

    And please stop yelling. Using bold doesn’t make you more important, it just makes you look like the pathetic arrogant and very ignorant fool you are.

    1. I don’t think anything about the report. I merely state I conclude it did not support suicide.
    2. Bollocks. The prosecution had so much evidence it was not suicide they didn’t know what to do with it.
    3. Inconclusive. The report wasn’t used because it did not support suicide.

    LOVE you too, Judith. XXX

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. David says he went to bed early. David says there was an argument. David says he didn’t hear what was said. David says he didn’t now about the incest.

    David says: “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.”

    David says: “IT IS MY CORE BELIEF I WAS NOT THERE.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (668) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 8:49 am did say it wasn’t suicide. It was Dempster saying it wasn’t suicide that alerted the police, who first thought it was suicide. Dempster gave the three reasons: position of body, blood spot, “full” bladder. Note the inverted commas around “full”. It’s “shorthand” for “the large amount of urine” or “a normal overnight urine load”. But that is your (The Banes) whole strategy. Pick some point that avoids the issue and try to make an issue of it, to divert attention from what’s important. Nit picking. The fallacy of Logic Chopping.

    Robin is supposed to have got up, strangled Stephen, shot his family, put the bloodied clothes in the laundry, washed up, possibly showered, changed his clothes, prepared to shoot himself, and died with 400ml urine in his bladder. Kanz, if you believe that you can believe anything. And of course you do.

    Dempster’s initial statement at the first trial was that Robin Bain had approximately 400 mls of urine in his bladder consistent with an overnight collection. He did NOT say it was full. The Crown suggested in was a ‘full bladder’, not Dempster. At the second trial he stated that he did not measure the capacity of Robin’s bladder and could not say it was full. He actually acknowledged that the 400 mls should have no influence. He also stated he was not a urologist, and any inference should be taken from what they had to say because it was a specialized area of medicine.

    Urologists giving evidence that whilst 400 mls might create urgency in some people, it wouldn’t in others and that it was all to do with bladder function, not the amount. It was also stated that no conclusion could be drawn from the colour of the urine, because many different things effected that (as most people know). This was especially relevant as the autopsy was not performed until 12 hours after death. Adrenaline also effected the storage of urine and the need to urinate, at times decreasing both production and the need to urinate.

    At the retrial, Dempster once he had seen the defences proposed suicide positions, Dempster stated the position of the body was consistent with that scenario.

    That just leaves one of your so called ‘Dempster Points. I am not sure which of the many ‘blood spots’, you are referring to.

    The main point is Dr Dempster NEVER stated that Robin Bain’s bladder was full, and more to the point went to great lengths on the stand in the retrial to make it known that he was not inferring it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Yes, I know a body can make sounds after death, from the gut.

    Only if the gurgling were coming from someone trying to breath would it be necessary to shoot again, as you suggested yourself. Who heard the gurgling again, and who had his fingerprints on the rifle?

    Anyway, all small points. The position of the corpse a metre away from the location of death, the lack of prints on the rifle, the alck of smudging of Stephen’s prints on the muzzle, the blood spot on the fingernail, the “full” bladder (normal overnight urine load), the carefully placed magazine, the position of the used shell case, the total lack of blood on body or clothes ….

    Goodness, it says a lot about the legal system they fucked this one up. Even let some jurors take material illegally into the jury room.

    Then the final horror: The Banal Report.

    COLLINS IS A PILLAR AMONGST PILLOCKS

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis says: 1. I don’t think anything about the report. I merely state I conclude it did not support suicide.
    2. Bollocks. The prosecution had so much evidence it was not suicide they didn’t know what to do with it.
    3. Inconclusive. The report wasn’t used because it did not support suicide.

    You’ve been reading the counterspin mantra haven’t you?

    How can you conclude it doesn’t support suicide, when you’ve never seen it? Obviously someone has told you that, so you’ve believed it.

    If the prosecution had so much evidence that proved it wasn’t suicide, why didn’t they use it? Have you read the second trial transcripts? They struggled at every point when the lounge scene was mentioned, and were completely unable to offer any alternative suggestions. They went initially with the kneeling, and when that was disproven by the blood spatter on Robin’s shoes, they went with standing in front of the curtains, however, the two directional blood spatter discounted that theory. It was also discounted by their own theory that Robin’s body would have fallen forward. There was no indication by the blood flow, or blood marks on carpet etc that this had happened.

    They were stuff, and gave up mentioning Robin and the lounge.

    The report did not offer any information to support suicide or to discount it. (which is why the police didn’t have the tests replicated) If the report had excluded suicide, as the spinners like to promote, the police would have made sure those same tests were rerun, and used the results. Commonsense Dennis, try using it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (671) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 9:48 am
    @Judith. Yes, I know a body can make sounds after death, from the gut.

    Only if the gurgling were coming from someone trying to breath would it be necessary to shoot again, as you suggested yourself. Who heard the gurgling again, and who had his fingerprints on the rifle?

    Stop trying to be smart Dennis, you aren’t.
    You asked at 9.02 Who reported hearing Laniet gurgling?

    If you had asked who heard Laniet gurgling, I would have stated obviously Robin, because he shot her another two times. And David, when he returned home also heard her body gurgling.

    You are suggesting that the murderer was calm enough and rational enough to hear a body making noises and decide whether it was struggling to breath or just body noises. That’s a bit over the top isn’t it?

    There is always the possibility that the three shots to Laniet were applied one after the other with no time gap. Perhaps the murderer had very strong feelings towards her, and the majority of his angst was targeted at her. Perhaps she had accused him of some terrible act, betrayed him? Hmmmm???

    Anyway, don’t play word games and then act like muggins and misrepresent the reply. It doesn’t win you any points.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. I have already explained why I wrote “full” in inverted commas. But thank you for proving my point. Nitpicker. Chopped Logic a feature of The Banes.

    It’s not that Robin didn’t get up and feel no urgency to pee. Clearly he did not. The point is, you are asking us to believe that he:

    1. Fought and strangled Stephen, didn’t piss his pants.
    2. Shot the others, didn’t piss his pants.
    3. Washed or showered, didn’t take a piss.
    4. Changed his clothes, didn’t take a piss.
    5. Prepared the rifle to shoot himself. In a comical fashion. And still didn’t piss his pants.

    Judith. Judith. Judith. Have you got a chimney? I’m Santa Claus.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Dennis you’re no sillier than any of the other nutters in the X -000001 team.
    What’s your view on walking with toes scrunched up or lifted would that make a complete print, or would it be proof that the sisters are all nutters?

    You’d probably love a loverly bunch of coconuts Dennis, however just purchased one but don’t stuff it down your speedos and wink at aunt fanny. Instead strip off the husk, draw a face on it drill a hole where the left temple would be, inject some blue dye into the milk, lean a piece of white cardboard against the wall, lay the coconut so that the face is parallel to the floor and shake it. Then think about what an idiot you are for a few hours. It might occur to you that a head on a dead body flops around and will by gravity go to one side, but when you shake that coconut there will be no ‘body’ attached to it and so you will have an element of control unlike some nutter shaking a corpse. In any event there will ‘blue’ milk ‘spilling’ across the left ‘cheek’ of the ‘head.’ Robin Bain had no blood running from his wound in that fashion, it went across his forehead to his right side. If Robin Bain’s head had been detached from his body it could have been controlled in the ‘shaking’ fashion but there would have still been ‘spill’ down that left cheek and other blood on his face would have been smeared like the blood on his hands was. If you don’t mind me asking Dennis do you know any witness that gave evidence that Robin’s head had been detached and sewn back on that morning?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. The gurgling of someone choking are quite different to rumblings from the gut of a corpse. Not so keen to nit pick on this point. I wonder why.

    Maybe I should say “knitpick”, the way you pick away at the edges and stitch together unrelated points. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Anyway, it’s a nice day, and I’m not going to waste it on you. 🙁 🙁 🙁

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (672) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 9:02 am
    Judith (1,626) Says:
    February 23rd, 2013 at 10:49 am

    She was probably shot again because her body was ‘gurgling’ and the killer may had thought she was still alive. However, the huge hole in her head should have indicated to him, that was not possible.

    Who reported hearing Laniet gurgling?

    David Bain. He heard her gurgling and thought she was still alive, so he shot her again. Held the rifle hard against her head and made such a huge hole that Karam thought it was made by a .45 calibre bullet and was worried the killer was still out there somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (673) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:08 am
    ——————————-
    But the injuries did not provide for Laniet to be ‘choking’. Therefore she would not have been making that sort of noise.

    Check your facts before you construct your ‘own’ theories Mr Dentist.

    You are fine to talk about knitpick. I notice you deliberately stay away from evidence you can’t twist. You’re an idiot. No wonder New Zealander’s generally have terrible teeth with idiots like you as dentists, you probably worked on their toes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Sorry if I missed your point. If there had been only a little blood on the sock it would not leave a full imprint, because some parts of the sock would not carry enough (wet) blood to mark the carpet. Don’t play dumb with me, Nosty, it’s Rowan who is the moron. Although I am thinking of downgrading Rowan to imbecile. Have a nice day. (Without me.)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,229) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:10 am
    —————————————

    See how ignorant you are. The person that likes to makes out he is an expert.

    The distance between Laniet’s head and the wall was too small for the gun to fit, and therefore the shot that left the large wound, because it was made through an article made of white cotton, was the first shot.

    When Karam made the statement regarding the size of gun, he was unaware, as was the prosecution, that there were bullet fragments with the white fibres on them. This fact had been kept a secret. When it was revealed, it completely blew Ferris evidence apart, as he was not aware of the placing of the fragments (Under Laniet’s body and chair 2 ms away) and couldn’t make those things fit within his previous testimony.

    At least Karam didn’t ‘lie’ on the stand, as it appears Ferris did, although not having all the information would have to be classed as a ‘lie’ by omission.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Show me some photos of Robin’s death scene, in particular the spatter and blood on the curtains and elsewhere.

    Otherwise, stop gurgling. You know what happens to people who gurgle, you told me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Dennis, do you still have the old man’s body being dragged whilst being held under the arms?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,090) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:05 am
    If you don’t mind me asking Dennis do you know any witness that gave evidence that Robin’s head had been detached and sewn back on that morning?

    Don’t you think his theories are ridiculous enough without you giving him more ideas?

    You’ll probably have muggins ripping the head off his goat and attempting to sew it back on to see if it’s a possibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (673) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 8:59 am
    Judith (1,626) Says: February 23rd, 2013 at 10:41 am
    Dennis says: But you (lot) don’t depend on people thinking. You (lot) spread rumours of incest to prejudice the case: Dirty old man shagging his daughter versus nice young man with a promising future.

    The fact that Laniet had stated to several people (not just one) that she was in an incestuous relationship with her father (which even her Doctor gave evidence about), indicates it wasn’t ‘rumour’. It was evidence presented in a legitimate trial.

    I do not know if it was true or not. But there was sufficient evidence from BOTH daughters to indicate that something not appropriate had occurred between father and daughter/s.

    You are happy to absorb any piece (regardless of its source or truth) about David, and yet you criticise people for doing the same regarding Robin. You are a hypocrite, and a very uniformed one, at that.

    Complete nonsense. It is not the incest as such I am proposing is the issue. The issue is that’s what you reduce the argument to in the public mind. I am even prepared to accept for the purposes of argument that the incest could be real and a motive for murder, and I still conclude Robin did not kill himself. There are several reasons for this, not least of all he needed only kill himself to solve any problem and also there is absolutely no reason in the wide world to spare one, and especially David.

    Why on earth would Robin Bain spare David? Why would he leave him to tell tales, if ,in fact there were any tales to tell?
    A schoolfriend of Laniet’s has said that Laniet had told her that David was molesting her and in fact she left home for a couple of weeks while she was still at school to get away from him. Then we have another witness who said she thought David and Laniet were boyfriend and girlfriend.
    David Bain could have had every reason to kill his family so that no secrets emerged. Why was he so insistent that Laniet come home that Sunday night for dinner and a family meeting? There was no dinner and there was no family meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (675) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:20 am
    @Judith. Show me some photos of Robin’s death scene, in particular the spatter and blood on the curtains and elsewhere.

    Otherwise, stop gurgling. You know what happens to people who gurgle, you told me.

    Is that some sort of threat that you are going to shoot me Dennis?

    I have posted links on Kiwiblog to photos of the curtains and Robin’s body before, in conversations you were taking part in. I suggest you scroll back through the threads and find the links. I have no desire to be polite to you and repost them, especially when you make masked threats of shooting me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,070) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:22 am
    Dennis, do you still have the old man’s body being dragged whilst being held under the arms?

    ——————————–

    Don’t forget the shaking. That’s really important to his scenario.
    I know, perhaps they picked him up and did the tango. A final dance for old times sake?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith(1,635) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 10:20 am
    muggins (2,229) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:10 am
    —————————————

    See how ignorant you are. The person that likes to makes out he is an expert.

    The distance between Laniet’s head and the wall was too small for the gun to fit, and therefore the shot that left the large wound, because it was made through an article made of white cotton, was the first shot.

    When Karam made the statement regarding the size of gun, he was unaware, as was the prosecution, that there were bullet fragments with the white fibres on them. This fact had been kept a secret. When it was revealed, it completely blew Ferris evidence apart, as he was not aware of the placing of the fragments (Under Laniet’s body and chair 2 ms away) and couldn’t make those things fit within his previous testimony.

    At least Karam didn’t ‘lie’ on the stand, as it appears Ferris did, although not having all the information would have to be classed as a ‘lie’ by omission.

    How could Karam lie on the stand if he didn’t take the stand?
    David Bain certainly lied on the stand when he said he hadn’t seen those glasses for months. Even Binnie seems to accept that he lied about that. His aunt knows he lied and so does his lawyer,and his co-counsel.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins (2,230) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:26 am
    There was no dinner and there was no family meeting.

    Still rabbiting on muggins?
    There is indeed photographic evidence that there was a meeting/discussion/argument that night after the video watching.
    This may require you to ring your mate Schollum again, but as he loves to talk to you that won’t be a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “How would you recognise an idiot, Judith?”
    Easy you’d read any of the dipshit ex dentist or Aunt Fannys posts
    Dennis look in the mirror you dumb fuck, do you recognise yourself?

    [DPF: 30 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “How could Karam lie on the stand if he didn’t take the stand?”

    Geez your stupid Muggins!
    Karams statement was for the PCA investigation not the retrial. If we had 5 cents for every lie you’ve told here, the total would now be up into the hundreds of dollars!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Just shot back to have a crack at your canons (canons). Oops, must be more careful with words. You really are a silly old woman, Judith. Are you “gurgling”, then? You admit it? When did I threaten you? Why would I threaten you? How could I threaten you? I don’t know you. I just repeated what you told me.

    Does David hear gurgling? Does David know you? No fear the penny might drop, Judith.

    Talking about pennies, Robin did all that fighting and killing and washing and still didn’t spend a penny? Tosh. More likely Jesus is coming to save us all. From fools. Amen.

    Still haven’t answered my question: Do you have a chimney? I want to drop something down it. NO, NO! I’m Santa Claus.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (676) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Still sticking to the ‘Bain dragged the old man’s dead body’?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Poor old Robin. Couldn’t even smudge Stephen’s pristine prints on the muzzle, the natural place to grasp a rifle to guide it to your head. Unless you had a funny hat, a funny arrow, and a funny walk. Was Robin a funny man?

    Poor old Robin. Couldn’t even leave some prints on the rifle.

    Poor old Robin. Couldn’t even knock over the magazine he so carefully put on its edge a few millimetres from his outstretched hand. After posing it so carefully under a low table a metre away from where he was sitting on the bean bag.

    Poor old Robin. Couldn’t even leave fingerprints on the spare magazine, but managed to somehow “kick” the used shell case through into the computer alcove.

    Then hobble over to the bean bag.

    We should ask Roger Hall to write a Farce.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (677) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 11:19 am

    I guess we can take from that you have now resiled from the ‘Bain dragging the old man’s dead body’ then?

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

    Milt
    Moving away from upward trajectory
    From what your saying about Hentschel it seems to me that he must have been unqualified to make a statement in 1995 that the ‘footprints’ were complete and this was just a stab in the dark. Yet it was used as a key piece of evidence in Bill Wrights summing up to convict David, are you saying that he was not competent enough to express a view on the matter and his evidence worthless?
    Similarly (putting aside our individual views of guilt or innocence here) whats your take on Kim Jones giving the 1995 jury a deliberate misstatement in order for them to understand the evidence better?
    How about Milton Weir misleading the jury on the finding of the lens?
    Robert Ngamokis mismeasurement of the rifle?

    Now why was this ruled a mistrial by the PC? I’ll leave you to work out this

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Rowan (754) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 11:25 am
    Now why was this ruled a mistrial by the PC? I’ll leave you to work out this

    I think it was you who worked this out some time ago.
    They did that just to piss NZ CL off.
    The jury thought that would be fun too, so they said not guilty.
    Then Ian Binnie thought, ‘why not?’ and decided to turn the knife once more.

    You have to feel Crown Law’s pain, don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,074) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 10:39 am
    muggins (2,230) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:26 am
    There was no dinner and there was no family meeting.

    Still rabbiting on muggins?
    There is indeed photographic evidence that there was a meeting/discussion/argument that night after the video watching.
    This may require you to ring your mate Schollum again, but as he loves to talk to you that won’t be a problem.

    Kanz, you still havn’t answered my question.
    If your mother had found out you had masturbated over her neighbours dress, would she have reported you to the police?
    The reason I ask that is because a David Bain supporter on the website that I read about that masturbating incident said that he thought that would be quite a common practise and I daresay if it had been proven to be true that is exactly what you would have said, or at least Judith would have,as she believes men having sex with goats happens more often than one would think.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    If we look at Bryan Bruces one sided documentary @ 1.06 and 1.23
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iG4wzSUsI
    Notice his reference to Dempsters post mortem notes widely at variance to the evidence he gave in the first trial, I wonder why this was? Also he gives you his ‘murder’ scenario, note how he uses the favourite ‘kneeling’ To be fair to Bryan this was obviously before the 2009 retrial but theres quite a bit missing from it, Maybe he needs Milts hand to explain the upward trajectory!
    His documentary is one sided dribble, he says things like ‘positive prints that can only have been caused by positive pressure from bloody hands’, I was disappointed by his later one after the trial where I felt he should have expanded on by explaining how the ‘bloody’ prints had white ridges and how no blood was found on the fingerprints. He demonstration on the second doco about fingerprints using his own blood was ridiculous as no one claimed that Robins hand ‘must’ have been dripping with blood, he ignores a lot and spins the rest
    His later “Who killed the Crewes” doco was of a similar quality, how does anyone believe this crap!

    Kanz
    Definitely, look at all that Karam, Reed et al have brainwashed now, incredible!

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

    Rowan (754) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 10:58 am
    “How would you recognise an idiot, Judith?”

    Just read any of Rowan’s posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (2,233) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 10:34 am
    Judith(1,635) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 10:20 am
    muggins (2,229) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:10 am
    —————————————

    At least Karam didn’t ‘lie’ on the stand, as it appears Ferris did, although not having all the information would have to be classed as a ‘lie’ by omission.

    How could Karam lie on the stand if he didn’t take the stand?
    David Bain certainly lied on the stand when he said he hadn’t seen those glasses for months. Even Binnie seems to accept that he lied about that. His aunt knows he lied and so does his lawyer,and his co-counsel.

    I am posting this for my bum buddy’s benefit.
    Dear bum buddy, it was Judith who said Karam didn’t lie on the stand.
    I was just asking her how he could have lied on the stand if he didn’t take the stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Rowan: sorry, but the discussion of the “upward trajectory” provided an OMG moment in which it finally became clear to me how foolish I was to attempt rational discussion with Bainologists.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Oh very clever Muggins you can twist what I said, how very original, why don’t you go outside and play with your goat? as you are totally incapable of comprehending common sense!

    Milt, you made an idiot of yourself all by yourself with the trajectory argument, you are normally capable of rational discussion. Putting aside your individual views, see if you can work out why the PC said the 95 trial was a mistrial

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Rowan the ‘allegation’ by a school ‘friend’ of Laniet’s was actually a poorly written piece by one of the hate-site administrators. She called it a ‘confession.’ There are copies of it still in circulation, the narrator, for it is a complete fabrication, instils in herself the understanding of an adult, sensing that something is wrong with Laniet, she prompts her to reveal all. From which a bizzare and nutty tale is revealed. Laniet is staying at the narrator’s home having fled there, yet neither the narrator, her parents, Robin or Margaret contact the police. All normal in disneyland? So Laniet has run away from home and nobody is concerned about it, the narrator’s family having a young child with them don’t bother contacting the police or the parents despite anyone with half a brain would know parents would be beside themselves if a child was lost. All just fine. It was written by the same nutter who called a graveside memorial for the Bains but nobody turned up. It also seems that she was not a friend of Laniet’s at all, but adopted her as one post mortem so that she could sympathy of message boards and the like. Yet back to the story, after all the details are revealed by Laniet and the claims about David that the sicko wrote above, all out in the open that is. Laniet simply returns home.

    As I’ve said before they’re a bunch of twisted nutters.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Lindsay @ 11.46
    Lindsay the subtotal of your psychological myths seems to be “Its highly implausible that Robin would do this, as its highly irrational and totally out of character behaviour, therefore he ‘didn’t’ do it, therefore David ‘did’ do it” Talk about a weak default argument! You can half half a point that it is irrational out of character behaviour but I don’t think you’ll find to many people trying to disagree with you on that!
    Do you have a qualification as a shrink? maybe you need a career change!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Look at this piece, flipping ridiculous!
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/fears-tamihere-would-move-body-5351240

    WTF would Tamihere try to move the dead body, even if he is guilty, surely this would be drawing attention to himself, the victims body hasn’t been found for 23 years so must be reasonably well hidden, I somehow doubt it is about to be found but anything is possible of course. I personally have significant doubts that he commited the offence but he would have been a good fit for the cops at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt.
    If I could have your attention please.
    David Bain had scratches and/or bruises on his torso. We know they were there on the Wednesday following the murders because he showed them to a female companion that day telling her he didn’t know how he got them but referring to that “missing” twenty minutes on the Monday morning.
    You have suggested that they might not have been obvious when Dr Pryde examined David Bain. Others have also suggested that. One ex rugby player said he quite often had bruises showing up a day later.
    And Bain was wearing a jersey and probably at least two T-shirts.
    The other possibility is that Dr Pryde never actually saw Bain’s torso, so he wouldn’t have known those marks were there when he examined him.
    We know he swabbed Bain’s penis,so it follows that at some point Bain would have had to remove the shorts he was wearing. My thinking is that he removed his shorts and underpants so that Pryde could give him a penile swab. Then he was given a pair of long trousers to wear. And obviously he also removed his t-shirt and was given some other clothing to wear. But did he actually remove his t-shirt when he was facing Dr Pryde.?
    Dr Pryde definitely saw Bain’s tattoo which was high up on his arm. But it is possible that Pryde could have asked Bain if he had any other marks on him and Bain showed him that tattoo. Pryde definitely asked Bain if he had any other bruises[apart from those on his head] to which Bain replied “No. ”
    My thinking is that Bain could have removed his t-shirt with his back to Dr Pryde and then put on a different set of clothes without Pryde ever seeing his torso. Bain was also in possession of a blanket.
    Bain told Binnie he was completely naked. To me that means he was in the nude. Judith disagrees. She reckons a person who has no clothes on is naked,even if they have a blanket covering their nudity.
    There was a photo in the paper earlier this week showing a number of naked people looking at paintings of nudes in an art gallery. The caption read “naked apart from their shoes].
    Then you have that strange decision by Bain’s defence team to ask a person who wasn’t in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain if Bain was strip-searched instead of asking those police officers that were in the room that question.
    In his book Trial by Ambush Karam asks why the prosecution didn’t ask those police officers if Bain was strip-searched but my question would be why didn’t the defence ask them.
    So the way I see it is as follows.
    Dr Pryde saw Bain’s torso but those marks hadn’t showed up at that point of time.
    Dr Pryde didn’t see Bain’s torso so he did not know whether those marks were there or not.

    Would you care to comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Rowan says
    Oh very clever Muggins you can twist what I said, how very original, why don’t you go outside and play with your goat? as you are totally incapable of comprehending common sense!

    Rowan, I posted that message for my bum buddy. Why are you presuming it was for you?
    Re the Privy Council. They thought a jury should hear all the new evidence.
    Re commonsense. You obviously have no commonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Muggins, how about a hospital type robe? You know the ones that do up up the back lol. I do not think one would need to completely remove shorts for a penile swab. Down to the knees sufficient if no robe involved.
    Though I will allow the male posters to know male medical examination procedures best.

    It would seem to me, that if the Melbourne Armourers report as stated above by Judith was inconclusive, that it is unlikely that the prosecution would have wanted it entered into evidence. I am assuming that when it was referred to as poisoned fruit, it was not just referred to as that by its mere existence, but because the prosecution wished to use its findings and were unable to due to the circumstances under which it was uplifted.

    Further to it being ‘inconclusive’ the defence used everything it could that showed remote ‘possiblities’ to support their case, if there was anything remotely equivocal in that report they would have used it, in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi
    My information is that Bain had a blanket not a robe. I don’t know exactly what is required when a penile swab is taken. I doubt whether anything is actually inserted. I had a narrow rod inserted many years ago, but I doubt Bain had that done to him.
    Re the armourers report. The police wanted to use it but they did not go through the correct procedure when they were given it. It would have been interesting to know what that report said. Judith will only know what she has been told,she won’t have seen it. Obviously Karam didn’t want it because he left it there. I understand the police had to pay for it.

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

    muggins (2,236) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Rowan, I posted that message for my bum buddy. Why are you presuming it was for you?
    Re the Privy Council. They thought a jury should hear all the new evidence.
    Re commonsense. You obviously have no commonsense.

    muggins, firstly to have a ‘bum buddy’ one must first have a buddy. As you don’t even have that, it simply makes you a wanker.
    Secondly, for them to think that they must first have seen that evidence was hidden or kept from the first jury.
    Thirdly, you need some type of sense to be able to call it common, you are lacking in any type.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins I was referring to your 1.01 you stupid old goat! very rich seeing you make such comments, you are just an arrogant old fool who can’t handle the truth and ‘must’ be right, Lets just see if Judith can recognise the ‘idiot’ here! not very difficult!
    Why is it so impossible for you to post anything factual here?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Rowan (758) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 10:58 am
    “How would you recognise an idiot, Judith?”
    Easy you’d read any of the dipshit ex dentist or Aunt Fannys posts
    Dennis look in the mirror you dumb fuck, do you recognise yourself?

    [DPF: 30 demerits]

    Oops!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Who cares what the Melbourne Armourers report did or didn’t say?
    Answer a stupid old goat incapable of telling or comprehending the truth! and is clutching at straws
    Its totally unnecessary to work out what actually happened in this case.
    I guess the desperate witchsniffers are just shopping around for evidence!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Or the actual probability re the scratches is that the prison officers memory was not quite correct and there were in fact no scratches at all, but hey it makes a good story, who cares if its true!
    Who is the more reliable witness
    (a) The police and Dr Prydes written evidence from 1995
    (b) What the prison officer ‘suddenly’ remembered 15 years later given that he took no notes, photos or told any of his colleagues
    Back to your knitting old bean!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Rowan (760) Says:

    Suck it up you arrogant piece of crap.

    [DPF: Warning – don’t call people a piece of crap or demerits]

    Rowan is obviously letting his frustration get the better of him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Hey Rowan, you must be getting under the skin of poor old muggins. You are far too clever for him and continue to show up his lies. This means he needs to keep running to tell teacher on you, to get you shut down. You are doing a great job, keep it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Muggins, when I read Judith’s post regarding what she intimated was within, I got the impression that she was ‘hinting’ that she had read it. Are you saying that ‘Judith’ is not of the inner circle and is only ‘told’ what others want her to know?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz
    He should make them slightly more convincing, its just so obvious, a ten year old could probably pick them up.

    Have you checked out the latest piece on Beyonds blog, he/she is really good with the cartoons. I’d like to see one showing Milts explanations of upward trajectory yesterday, what do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/53479/prison-guard-recalls-scratches-bain

    Rowan, please stop lying. That prison officer did tell his boss about those scratches. He described them very well.
    And why did David Bain turn down DS Croudis when Croudis asked him he would agree to a medical examination just before he arrested him?
    Because he didn’t want him to see those scratches, that’s why.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (348) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    @ Muggins, when I read Judith’s post regarding what she intimated was within, I got the impression that she was ‘hinting’ that she had read it. Are you saying that ‘Judith’ is not of the inner circle and is only ‘told’ what others want her to know?

    goldnkiwi
    As you are well aware, Judith lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. thedavincimode (8,078 comments) says:

    Snarkle (60) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 2:22 am

    So what’s the problem?

    You know exactly what the problem is you naughty fellow. The problem is that when some competent professionals have dealt with the matter, there will not be one single tarnished grotty brass razoo heading in the direction of D Bain. Which is as it should be.

    muggins

    Sterling effort. Keep up the good work. It’s keeping these idiots off the other threads, although you need to try and pin Judith donw more if you can because she’s escaped a couple of times.

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

    @ Rowan, good isn’t he/she? Very clever.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    I’d like to see one showing Milts explanations of upward trajectory yesterday, what do you think?

    Rowan, I’m trying to do the right thing and leave this alone, but you’re not making it easy. I have to admit I’ll be interested to see Kanz’s response to the IQ test you just set him/her.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,076) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    Hey Rowan, you must be getting under the skin of poor old muggins.

    Kanz,Rowan never got those demerits for anything he posted about me.
    But if he does call me a dumb fuck he will get more demerits, count on it.
    I see you are behaving yourself reasonably well, why is that, I wonder?
    And you still havn’t answered that question about masturbating over a woman’s dress. Would your mother have reported you to the police if she had found out you had done that, or would she have tried to keep it quiet? What do you reckon?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,239) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    ————————————-

    at least he isn’t a liar who is obsessed with anything sexual, including sex with animals like you are Muggins.

    And he certainly doesn’t support the sexual interference with young girls, like you do Muggins.
    (evidence – conversation recorded on TM in which you stated it was alright for fathers to insert their fingers or show a young girl how to insert their fingers into their vagina)

    He is also not an harasser. (Muggins has phoned people’s homes and threatened them) Evidence available via NZ Police who have received complaints from people he has done this to.

    A stalker (evidence available via. JFRB archives)

    Evidence (in case you go bleating to DPF, because you can give it but not take it)

    A liar:
    You stated you had spoken to police officers and they had told you certain things that they have stated they did not tell you, plus you said you received an email from a police employee who has not emailed you.

    You stated you had spoken to Dr Dempster and he had told you something about an issue that was 48 hours old, and he has said he did not say that, plus you lied to him about the reasons you were discussing the case with him.

    and so on. Far too many examples of your lying to list them all.

    DPF – there is evidence to prove all these points – in case you are checking because the lily-livered coward doesn’t mind stirring shyte but can’t take it when he gets it back.

    [DPF: 40 demerits. It is totally out of order to say another commenter is “obsessed with anything sexual, including sex with animals”, is a stalker etc etc.

    I am not a Judge and am not going to start weighing up alleged evidence in fights between commenters. There are courts for that.

    The purpose of these threads is to debate the compensation claim for David Bain. Not to denigrate each other.

    If you think someone has broken the law, then go to the Police.]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Rich coming from you Muggins
    How about actually reading what the article says note ‘He had drawn a diagram of the marks two years ago’ was this after he ‘suddenly’ remembered? or ‘He said he had mentioned the matter to his boss at the old Dunedin prison at the time but had made no notes.’ His boss didn’t give any evidence to back him up.
    In summary you have absolutely no evidence of there being any scratches on David other than ‘what the prison guard suddenly remembered’ 15 years later. You would have us believe that there was a conspiracy amongst the cops that Dr Pryde didn’t do his job, signed of that it was, the cops later kept this evidence away from either trial (although they firmly believe in his guilt) and now they would just release it to you over the phone!
    Make your story a bit more convincing as I say a 10 year old could pick up your lies!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,077) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    Hey Rowan, you must be getting under the skin of poor old muggins. You are far too clever for him and continue to show up his lies. This means he needs to keep running to tell teacher on you, to get you shut down. You are doing a great job, keep it up.

    ————————————-

    Yes, its hilarious isn’t it, every time he’s losing an argument, he runs off to David to get his bum wiped.
    Obviously getting sick of being proved the lying piece of … that he is!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,242) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 5:49 pm
    Rowan, please stop lying. That prison officer did tell his boss about those scratches.

    ——————————————

    Yes but the boss said he did not tell him because he would have noted it, and he didn’t.

    Who to believe eh? And he also noted years later when he reported it, that the scratches were on the opposite side to the witness that David had shown them to.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,242) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    And you still havn’t answered that question about masturbating over a woman’s dress. Would your mother have reported you to the police if she had found out you had done that, or would she have tried to keep it quiet? What do you reckon?
    —————————

    See just has to carry on and on about anything sexual. What a sick pervert.

    The incident never happened. The story was constructed on a free forums site which you are a member of under the name of DaveDunnit. DC took it to JFRB (I have screen shots of all conversations – I was not a member so I was not on the inside) Yes, I have screen shots showing the things Goldnkiwi said as well.

    You know the story isn’t true Muggins – you are just carrying it on because it has a sexual component and are probably sitting there all excited just mentioning it. You are very sick minded individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,242) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    goldnkiwi (348) Says:

    February 24th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    @ Muggins, when I read Judith’s post regarding what she intimated was within, I got the impression that she was ‘hinting’ that she had read it. Are you saying that ‘Judith’ is not of the inner circle and is only ‘told’ what others want her to know?

    _______________________________________________

    What a strange thing to say, you are a member of that site and know exactly what was said within it. One of your posts below:

    Feel free to include me in greetings on JFRB
    by goldnkiwi on Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:57 am
    I was so angry today, if no-one could guess lol, I am happy to be recognised as firmly on side as opposed to not being the enemy, if that serves a collective purpose
    goldnkiwi

    Posts: 44
    Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:41 am

    and one of DaveDunnits, who is Muggins:

    Re: Disgusting TM posters
    by Dave Dunnet on Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:53 pm
    I don’t get paranoid about anything,never have.But I have to say ash is so crude [or has been],I have to think he has done some time.But maybe not.Nothing really upsets me,though I don’t blame linz for being very annoyed about one post he got,I forget who it was from.
    …I just said that at least my farts were intelligent,whereas hers/his were stupid…

    Dave Dunnet

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Re: Disgusting TM posters
    by Dave Dunnet on Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:23 pm
    You can complain to Trade Me when you are banned. I complained about it by phone,but the moderator I spoke to said that, although it was crude,he didn’t have a problem with it.I am saving that post for when I get back on,I hope to be able to get a chance to use it,I will try to set … up.I would have liked to have been able to have replied to… post 14448 on p289 monkey see,monkey do.He left himself wide open there.And what do you see and what do you do?,I would have replied.
    Dave Dunnet

    This is why it doesn’t pay to answer muggins posts. He likes to set people up so he can complain about them, and in this case, ensure they get demerit points.

    Re: the TM forum bullying
    by Dave Dunnet on Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:59 am
    Yes,I saw that post,what a croc.But hey,here is something that will interest you.But those of you that post on Trade Me,don’t say a word,ok.Don’t mention this on any thread.And not on JFRB facebook,either,we know there are spies looking at that.
    I emailed …
    Posts: 81
    Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:14 am

    Note the joining date

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    by Dave Dunnet on Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:53 pm
    …I just said that at least my farts were intelligent,whereas hers/his were stupid…

    I see he has had an unhealthy obsession with his own arse and what it does, all that time. Must be a lifelong thing for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Muggins I know what you are saying re the blanket, but if you think of it as analogous to a hospital gowns use, one is never naked as you say, regardless of where the examination is. Modesty is preserved as much as possible.

    With mammograms even, one puts on a hospital gown and just relocates it when and where required. It is never removed totally.
    Other procedures the gown or other clothing is just adjusted, or some clothing removed ‘briefly’.

    I am not au fait with prison or customs ‘searches’. I doubt if a victim/suspect who hasn’t been charged with a crime would be subject to one of those.

    Is being partly naked an oxymoron? I think one is either naked or partially clothed/covered.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,078) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    by Dave Dunnet on Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:53 pm
    …I just said that at least my farts were intelligent,whereas hers/his were stupid…

    I see he has had an unhealthy obsession with his own arse and what it does, all that time. Must be a lifelong thing for him.

    Oh he gets far worse than that with his unhealthy obsession, but if I posted them here I would no doubt collect demerit points for repeating the filth.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    A member of what site?
    You have trotted that out before. What are you trying to intimate?
    That I have strong opinions on this case dating back to 2010?
    That behaviour such as was evidenced on the trade me thread Justice for Robin Bain by David’s supporters made me take a closer look, as the principles are so far reaching, absolutely. And what?

    The same sort of nastiness that is in this thread.

    What business is it of yours what I do, ‘Judith’?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Secret agent fanny:

    ‘Yes,I saw that post,what a croc.But hey,here is something that will interest you.But those of you that post on Trade Me,don’t say a word,ok.Don’t mention this on any thread.And not on JFRB facebook,either,we know there are spies looking at that.
    I emailed …’

    Is that off the tape?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    I guess milt is never going to show us when up is actually down. Maybe he might have worked it out in event of the time there might be a Royal Commission. He couldn’t even get called to give expert evidence. I’d like to see that. Old milt standing on his head in the witness box confirming that in that position down is actually up and that he is convinced that Robin was doing a head stand when he got shot, that’s just before his head was severed, shaken by the curtain and sewn back on. We are to presume that Robin with prudent use of a blanket during his autopsy was able to ‘trick’ Dempster and keep him from seeing the fresh stitches. Three cops were watching but they kept quite about it until aunt fanny got on the case and then they ran her up tell her about Robin and the blanketl.

    Reminds me of a scientist that you to post from Dunedin, he claimed that when people walk they place their toes down first.

    Looks like dvm is a sister, what do ya know. Twisted enough to fit right in.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    No doubt about it you have a ‘killer sense of humour’ lol

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    pro-david bainers believe everyone is entitled to an opinion – providing it is the same as theirs. the idea of collecting files on people with contrasting views belongs in a totalitarian society – not a democracy. it is disgusting!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    bort_simpson (15) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
    pro-david bainers believe everyone is entitled to an opinion – providing it is the same as theirs. the idea of collecting files on people with contrasting views belongs in a totalitarian society – not a democracy. it is disgusting!

    Then you should see some of the files they had collected and saved on the guilty.freeforum, davidbain.freeforum, and JFRB fackbook pages. Rather than just comments that David Bain supporters had made, they had also collected their personal addresses, work places, family members names and any other piece of information they could gather about them, their family, their colleagues and even neighbours.

    If you think what we have is disgusting, you would be horrified at what they have collected!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    No doubt obort is one of then Judith, that’s why he or she is so sore about it. Sprung, and too gutless to front up under ‘older’ identities.

    Meanwhile LLB LOL is Drunk In Charge of a bottle shop somewhere, probably writing poems about donkeys.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    bort_simpson (15) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 7:50 pm

    pro-david bainers believe everyone is entitled to an opinion – providing it is the same as theirs. the idea of collecting files on people with contrasting views belongs in a totalitarian society – not a democracy. it is disgusting!

    I believe everybody is entitled to differing opinions. I also believe that nobody is entitled to use lies to pervert the course of justice. I also believe that nobody is entitled to break the law in order to attempt to change the opinions of others. I find those who do that are disgusting, but then our opinions on even that differ, Que Sera Sera

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    @ Judith, how do you know what ‘they’ have collected?

    I am waiting for you to tell me why what I do is any of your business?

    I will source answers to questions wherever I please, I do not need your permission.

    Does being able to post on a blog make one a member?

    Am I a ‘member’ of Kiwiblog?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,094) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    No doubt obort is one of then Judith, that’s why he or she is so sore about it. Sprung, and too gutless to front up under ‘older’ identities.

    Do you think there is a good chance that many of the nastier things saved were penned (typed) by bort_simpson? I do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (352) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    @ Judith, how do you know what ‘they’ have collected?

    I am waiting for you to tell me why what I do is any of your business?

    I will source answers to questions wherever I please, I do not need your permission.

    Does being able to post on a blog make one a member? Am I a ‘member’ of Kiwiblog?

    I know what they have collected because I was sent some CD’s of screen shots taken from the various sites by people that were either member of the forums, or in one case, they had done a google search for their own name, and found it was being discussed on one of the forums at the time.

    It is as much my business as it is your business.

    You can source whatever you like, I’ve never tried to stop you in any way. Do what you like and I’ll do what I like, but if you are silly enough to publish it on the internet, then expect it to bite you in the butt.

    Being able to ‘log on’ to a site that requires such is generally referred to in ‘web’ speak as being a ‘member of’. People who have facebook accounts are referred to as being ‘members’ of facebook. If you (which we know you aren’t) were able to log into the online Alcoholics Anonymous site, you would be considered a member. Perhaps you should give it a try. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Come out of the closet, Killer Queen,
    Come out, come out wherever you are,
    Is that a rock I see
    Crawl on your knees
    Whatever you once were
    You will forever be. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,080) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    Do you think there is a good chance that many of the nastier things saved were penned (typed) by bort_simpson? I do.
    —————————-

    I am sure they are, but I think you find they are wearing a dress. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,094) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 8:19 pm
    No doubt obort is one of then Judith, that’s why he or she is so sore about it. Sprung, and too gutless to front up under ‘older’ identities.

    Yep, you can always tell when you’ve made an impact, they get extra ‘concerned’. I love it!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    I guess if you had a sad life you could end up liking donkeys, very affectionately, or even stealing kittens.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    There you go being psychic again. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    You could be in the main event at a ‘gumby’ rally.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Sensitive ‘wee’ petal aren’t we. 😉 You still only allowed to use plastic utensils?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Get one of them big rubber donkey ones up you, like always.
    LLB LOL>

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    I guess milt is never going to show us when up is actually down.

    It turns out Milt does not have the strength of character he might have imagined himself to have before encountering people as “special” as you and Rowan. My parents impressed on me from a young age that having a high IQ was not some kind of achievement I could take personal pride in as testament to hard work and perseverance, but instead an accident of birth, and that it would reflect weakness of character to look down on people less well endowed in the cognitive faculties dept. Therefore, I confess in advance to the weakness of character demonstrated by the following:

    The stupid! It burns! It burns!

    I still can’t believe the two of you are genuinely this thick, but your comments leave me no choice but to assume it. Apparently, when it comes to “upward trajectory,” neither of you can see past “scientist said upward,” in the same way the significant feature of the footprints is “scientist said complete.” I’ll try and spell this out in terms a colossal dumbass can understand:

    What do forensic scientists know about the shot that was fired at Robin Bain’s head? Well…

    Do they know where the shooter was and what posture he was in? No (other than that he was close to that curtain with the blood spatter on it).

    Do they have evidence of the bullet hitting or passing through walls or other objects in the room that would give them the angle of the shot? No.

    All they have to go on is the point at which the bullet entered Robin Bain’s head and the path it took through his head. That’s it – the sum total of information available about the trajectory.

    Still, that’s enough information to make Boyce’s funny hat with a steel rod indicating the point of entry and path of the bullet in Robin Bain’s head.

    The path of the bullet was “upwards” through his head, which means it finished up further towards the top of his head than it started at. This is shown pretty clearly by Boyce’s funny hat, but also by various diagrams. If Robin Bain’s head was upright and level, the angle the bullet took was 10% above the horizontal.

    Excellent. So we have an upwards trajectory of 10 degrees above horizontal, right? Well, we do if Robin Bain’s head was upright and level. But human heads aren’t fixed in position – they move around, depending on where the occupant of the head is directing his attention. For an example of this, watch the video of Boyce wearing the hat and see how little of the time the angle of that steel rod is at 10 degrees.

    Now, watching that video, suppose Boyce was to get down on his knees and look up. The steel rod would now be pointing up. But that means the trajectory is now downward towards the floor! The scientists said upward, so this couldn’t possibly happen, right? Wrong. The thing is, the scientists most likely didn’t imagine that people as short of intellectual horsepower as Rowan and Nostalgia-NZ would be considering their work – they would have figured most people would be able to take into account that the only thing the scientists actually know is the angle of that steel rod on Boyce’s hat, so “upward” refers only to the relative path through Robin Bain’s head.

    It embarrasses me that I had to write that. Not nearly as much as it should embarrass Rowan and Nostalgia-NZ, but their belief renders them impervious to reason so I guess they’re quite possibly impervious to embarrassment as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    I know you’re intent of being a dickhead milt.
    Boyce’s ‘funny hat’ was a Crown exhibit.
    Don’t feel too bad, you’re in a long line of idiots trying to get to the front to show how stupid they are.

    No marks at this point. Revise your work and try to keep hands off yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @goldnkiwi (349) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    I am not au fait with prison or customs ‘searches’. I doubt if a victim/suspect who hasn’t been charged with a crime would be subject to one of those.

    All new prisoners including on remand are searched for drugs and/or weapons prison officers can do an internal search in certain circumstances, whether remand or sentenced the prisoner will given prison clothing or if police want to test the clothing the prisoner is wearing will be issued then clothing now ‘paper’ overalls. The receiving officer notes marks scratches tattoos cuts etc before deciding whether the prisoner will see the ‘nurse’ or not. Remand prisoners go on suicide watch specially those on first arrest. Dunedin prison was a very small prison on three levels with a maximum of 60 male prisoner and at one time 4 female and was connected by tunnel to the court. I’m not sure of the reasoning behind making DB walk around the from the front door of the prison to the court as the two building are about 2.5 metres apart A photo opportunity I guess but to my mind totally uncalled for.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    You are overcomplicating things, upward is in relation to Robin standing, the crown abandoned the ‘kneeling’ when it was shown to be impossible with the blood splatter evidence, press your finger against your skull, then you might understand the trajectory.
    Ok its not absolute but its about 99.99% more likely than the ridiculous kneeling scenarios!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (55) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    The receiving officer notes marks scratches tattoos cuts etc before deciding whether the prisoner will see the ‘nurse’ or not.

    But the receiving officer in this case, apparently saw no tattoos, only ‘scratches’ on the torso. He forgot to note even them until 2007, and also forgot who else was with him when he did this search.

    Dunedin prison was a very small prison on three levels with a maximum of 60 male prisoner and at one time 4 female and was connected by tunnel to the court. I’m not sure of the reasoning behind making DB walk around the from the front door of the prison to the court as the two building are about 2.5 metres apart A photo opportunity I guess but to my mind totally uncalled for.

    It is called using the media to demonize the suspect because ‘we’ know there is little evidence with which to see him convicted unless we do. Little different to what we saw happen with Scott Watson.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    Boyce’s ‘funny hat’ was a Crown exhibit.

    My God! This changes everything! Wait – no it doesn’t…

    …the crown abandoned the ‘kneeling’ when it was shown to be impossible…

    In much the same way as Rowan abandoned ridiculing Psycho Milt for his failure to understand the simple term “upward” when it became clear what an idiot Rowan was making of himself. However, at least now you’ve adopted an actual counter-argument so I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Rowan.
    Thick as you are the truth gets under your skin
    So surprising really, that it be so thin
    Getting through to you we all do dread
    ‘Cos what’s obvious goes right over your head.

    @Nostalgia.
    Psych Milt views it all with equanimity
    Will this madness continue in perpetuity?
    Milt’s patience is legendary and logic flawless
    But your poor twisted mind couldn’t care less.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt

    The important thing The Banes dodge is the trajectory was diagonal from front to back. That is pretty hard to do without a funny hat and funny arrow. Or maybe with a mirror and practice one could get “lucky”.

    The other thing is, 10 degrees is essentially horizontal, with reference to the base if the skull.

    Thank you for continuing to comment. Much appreciated.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Describing yourself well there Dennis, you can’t handle the truth so you have to provide your twisted ‘spin’, suck it up you deluded old fool.

    Milt, you were actually making the idiot of yourself, your explanation of ‘upward’ still makes me laugh! its on a par with Gamefishers for classic stupidity!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    Your first argument was trying to pick holes in the defence scenario based on Robin standing with his right leg on the chair bent at the knee, add your upward trajectory to this, I could do with some entertainment! your 9.42 is just waffle and the mumbo jumbo adds very little to your argument.
    Robin was not kneeling, CL abandoned this theory when it was shown to be wrong, eliminate this from your scenario.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    What do you call being up a creek with a paddle?

    Rowan lol 😉

    What do you call being up a creek without a paddle?

    Judith 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Rowan.
    Your originality is matched by your wit
    Too weak and feeble to worry us a bit
    You follow an argument like a mad bat
    All you are is a bloody great twat.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    The character assassination of Scott went on for six months before he was arrested by which time he, his mother, father and siblings were seen as seen as scum of the earth. David never suffered that.

    The crown exhibit ‘hat and bar’ used in demonstrations the implausibility of suicide very convincingly as the demonstrators relied on the bar to hold the muzzle end of the rifle still as well as showing the required angle Robin was described as cadaverous and presumably not a Charles Atlas strength wise. One of the demonstrators at one stage partly released his grip to move his right hand from the rifle barrel to the silencer. Yet we are expected to believe the skinny Robin was able to support the rifle weight with his right arm stretched across his chest and hold the rifle barrel steady and on the correct angle also about 2-4 cm from his head which is close contact and at the same time have his eyes closed as had they been open they would have stayed open. So we have the weakling Robin seemingly with the rifle leaning on the same chair as he has his foot on his head twisted on an angle to get the trajectory correct holding the silencer close to his head but with his eyes closed and so unable to know if the aim remained correct, this is assuming Robin knew that he had to shoot across his head at 45 degree angle and 10 degrees upwards as it is very likely had he got it even a few degrees wrong he would only wounded himself as there are no critical areas in the frontal lobe and why many temple suicides are listed as attempted. Even handgun attempts at the temple often fail with some still being able to try again and fail again. Temple and forehead firearm suicides are the most common attempts to fail. Considering the many barriers to successful suicide in the fore head and temple, for Robin to get it right first time using such a convoluted position balancing on one foot and the Muzzle 2-4cm from his head and eyes closed is a nothing short of a miracle.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Back to lies about Robin’s strength, when in trouble a hate-siter will always bs. He was a fit ‘outdoors’ man. His nephew described his strength in carrying a bag. 12 and 13 year old boys handled 303 rifles in cadets.Crap about ‘aiming.’ Wtf is this. How much effort takes it take to convince others of being an idiot, Robin didn’t need to ‘aim’ the rifle, he leant his temple on the barrel and killed himself. More gamefisher type nonsense.

    Meanwhile Milt is determined to make himself the biggest idiot on the internet – keep going milt. Aunt Fanny, gamefisher and Dennis are way ahead but your pool of stupidity might be deeper than theirs.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (56) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 11:49 pm

    The character assassination of Scott went on for six months before he was arrested by which time he, his mother, father and siblings were seen as seen as scum of the earth. David never suffered that.

    You obviously think we are as thick as you are. The groups you belong to are STILL ,18 years later ,trying to do this to Bain.

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,099) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 7:16 am

    Back to lies about Robin’s strength, when in trouble a hate-siter will always bs.

    It is always easy to see how many of those sites each of the posters belong to by the amount of lies they tell to ‘prove’ their points. The more memberships, the more and greater the lies. Those who call themselves administrators of these sites are the most prolific liars.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Psych Milt is in the gun
    Does he have them on the run?
    He take his time and scores a hit
    Manoeuvring them deeper into the shit.

    Milt is obviously a clever man
    Whereas Nosty is just an also-ran
    Intellectual tasks being much to ask
    Nosty huffs and puffs but fails the task.

    Kanz too is as thick as a brick
    Cannot see what makes us tick
    We can all see Watson was set up
    Whereas on Bain there will be no let up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (56) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 11:49 pm
    ————————————

    Robin’s strength was noted not just be David, but by other witnesses. He may have been skinny, and lost a lot of weight, however, he had managed to pick up a very heavy box of bottled fruit (which his brother noted) and load it all by himself. That was just one example of his strength.

    So are we expected to believe that skinny Robin could lift … – Yes we are, his own brother gave evidence that he was strong.

    “Temple and forehead firearm suicides are the most common attempts to fail.”

    Temple shots are also the most common form of suicide with a firearm so it is not surprising that they are almost the most common form that fails.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (681) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 10:44 pm
    @Psycho Milt

    The important thing The Banes dodge is the trajectory was diagonal from front to back. That is pretty hard to do without a funny hat and funny arrow. Or maybe with a mirror and practice one could get “lucky”.

    The other thing is, 10 degrees is essentially horizontal, with reference to the base if the skull.

    The problem you and Milt have, is that it was achieved, and as was acknowledged in Court by Crown witnesses, it was achieved with relative ease. So do we believe you, a Dentist and a very bad poet, or the Crown Witnesses?

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

    The problem you and Milt have, is that it was achieved, and as was acknowledged in Court by Crown witnesses, it was achieved with relative ease. So do we believe you, a Dentist and a very bad poet, or the Crown Witnesses?

    Not only that, but they want us to believe the old man couldn’t line up his own head, but Bain was able to get the exact right angle, first shot, on a moving target. What a guy, he could get a job with the AOS with an aim that good. Without glasses too, Wow!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    All new prisoners including on remand are searched for drugs and/or weapons prison officers can do an internal search in certain circumstances, whether remand or sentenced the prisoner will given prison clothing or if police want to test the clothing the prisoner is wearing will be issued then clothing now ‘paper’ overalls. The receiving officer notes marks scratches tattoos cuts etc before deciding whether the prisoner will see the ‘nurse’ or not. Remand prisoners go on suicide watch specially those on first arrest. Dunedin prison was a very small prison on three levels with a maximum of 60 male prisoner and at one time 4 female and was connected by tunnel to the court. I’m not sure of the reasoning behind making DB walk around the from the front door of the prison to the court as the two building are about 2.5 metres apart A photo opportunity I guess but to my mind totally uncalled for.

    Oh god, here we have a review that is so far from reality it belongs in a book between ‘Cinderella and Rapunzel’.

    I love the tone. It starts with ALL new prisoners, and then changes to ‘if’ and ‘can’ blah blah blah.
    In other words, there are a variety of things than may be done, but not necessarily are done to new prisoners. What it doesn’t note are the rules surrounding any form of body search to offenders.

    Points of Note:
    All prison searches are done with more than one Corrections employee present who must observe the entire procedure – for accountability reasons.
    In the case of David Bain the other Corrections employee present did not see any of the marks reported years later by a guard.
    The person to whom the Prison guard said he had told, had not noted it, and could not remember being told anything about it, which given the intense media hype around the case, he was sure he would have remembered.
    The marks described by the prison officer were completely different including type, location and direction, to those described by the person who had been shown them on the Wednesday.

    Another Ripley’s moment from the Crown!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (356) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 11:08 pm

    I have no idea, but I do know that people that find themselves in that position do desperate things, like trying to bribe people into voting for them by giving them gifts.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Don’t be a silly goat. I am not a poet. I just enjoy ditties making fun at you dopey beggars.

    Of course the angle could be achieved. By a man in a funny hat with an arrow attached, and a funny walk round and round. It’s a question of probability or likelihood. You seem to think because it could happen it did happen. Wrong.

    Your claim temple shots are more common thus failures are more common: I do believe the writer is talking about percentages here, not absolute numbers. Think, Judith, think.

    @Kanz. I think if a loony were to take you by surprise and poke a rifle at you your head) you might keep very still, so as to not provoke him. Perhaps you might think you were being offered a stick of candy, you’re easily fooled.

    Nice day again. Goodbye. I’ll pop in again later, maybe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (682) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 9:06 am
    Nice day again. Goodbye. I’ll pop in again later, maybe.

    While gone perhaps you can experiment with dragging bodies while holding them under the arms and see what happens.

    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Do they know where the shooter was and what posture he was in? No (other than that he was close to that curtain with the blood spatter on it).

    Do they have evidence of the bullet hitting or passing through walls or other objects in the room that would give them the angle of the shot? No.

    All they have to go on is the point at which the bullet entered Robin Bain’s head and the path it took through his head. That’s it – the sum total of information available about the trajectory.

    Actually they know a little more than that Milt. They know for example he wasn’t behind the curtains in the alcove, because there was only spatter on one of the curtains and not the other. Therefore Robin was stood further forward than the ‘gap’ in the curtains. If the right curtain had been pushed aside to allow access to where Robin was standing, then the spatter would not have fallen where or how it did.

    They know that Robin Bain had his right leg bent at right angles at the knee, and that his left leg was vertical. They know this from the blood spatter pattern which fell in different directions on his clothing. They also know that he was not kneeling because there was spatter on his shoes.

    They know that for the blood spatter to be on the curtain where it was, that the side Robin’s wound was closest to the curtain, and that there was not room for anyone else to have made the shot between him and the curtain (remember the spatter pattern). Had there been another shooter then Robin would have had to be further back in the room, but then blood spatter would have been on both curtains.

    There is a lot they can tell, simply by the fact that only one curtain had blood on it and not the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. David Farrar (1,710 comments) says:

    I think this thread is approaching a natural death, so I am going to close it at some stage today. When there is next a development in the case, I will probably blog that, so debate can continue when there is something new to debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (682) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 9:06 am
    @Judith. Don’t be a silly goat. I am not a poet. I just enjoy ditties making fun at you dopey beggars.

    Of course the angle could be achieved. By a man in a funny hat with an arrow attached, and a funny walk round and round. It’s a question of probability or likelihood. You seem to think because it could happen it did happen. Wrong.

    Well aren’t you being the ignorant one. The Crown’s case rested on the fact that they didn’t believe it could happen. The fact that it could happen, added weight to it having ‘happened’, because it was then supported by all the other evidence.

    If the was nothing else that supported it, then fair enough, but there is a heap of evidence such as the blood spatter pattern on Robin, the curtains etc. The position which Robin was found in supports the scenario etc.

    The fact was, once it was proven that it COULD happen, the Crown was unable to make any of the evidence match a scenario which didn’t indicate suicide. They still haven’t. Even you and your friends have been unable to give a scenario that matches the evidence, without ridiculous statements like the body was picked up and shaken, and dragged etc. All of which there is no evidence for.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Even you and your friends have been unable to give a scenario that matches the evidence, without ridiculous statements like the body was picked up and shaken, and dragged etc. All of which there is no evidence for.

    More than that. The photographic evidence proves none of that was possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    David Farrar (1,670) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 9:29 am

    I think this thread is approaching a natural death, so I am going to close it at some stage today. When there is next a development in the case, I will probably blog that, so debate can continue when there is something new to debate.

    Thanks for the opportunity, anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Milt will be pleased, but probably not as much as Dennis.

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

    Something for people to ponder while waiting for more news on the Bain case.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10867446

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,087) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 10:01 am
    Something for people to ponder while waiting for more news on the Bain case.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10867446

    An excellent article that is pertinent to this thread and demonstrates the need for a Commission of Enquiry into the handling of investigations into serious criminal offenses by New Zealand Police and Forensic Experts.

    The fact that so many of us can argue for either side of the Bain case, demonstrates that the police did not do an efficient job of the initial investigation. If they had, there would not be so many points to argue. There should never be any room for questioning when a person is imprisoned.

    In both the Crewe Murders and the Bain Case, the police stuffed up badly. None of us, or our kin are immune from having the same happen to us. David Bain or Arthur Alan Thomas may not mean squat to some people, but one day it could be your son standing there in that stand being stitched up by poor and desperate police tactics.

    If for no other reason than the immense amount of Police dishonesty, ineptitude and sheer corruption, David Bain should be paid compensation. The fact he didn’t do it, couldn’t have done it and is innocent is another damn good reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    So ‘Judith’ says the shot to Laniets head with the cotton fibres was the last shot and that she was sitting up.

    Did Laniet wear a nightcap as in days of yore? Did she sit up with a pillow on her head?

    If Laniet was startled out of her sleep and sat up before being shot, what was on her head, and why was there something on her head, let alone where was it, it was nowhere to be found?

    It seems more logical to me for that shot to be the last and for something to have been placed over the bloody mess the poor girl must have been, the killer actually for once being squeamish..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Psycho Milt (3,212 comments) says:

    The fact that so many of us can argue for either side of the Bain case, demonstrates that the police did not do an efficient job of the initial investigation. If they had, there would not be so many points to argue.

    Murder investigations are carried out by humans, not gods. There’ll be mistakes in every investigation, there’ll be a bell curve in terms of number and magnitude of errors and yes, it seems the Bain investigation sits closer to one end of those curves than the other. That’s life among humans for you. Society can try and mitigate the effects of investigational errors (and the Bain case provides a list of ways of doing so), but it can’t eradicate them.

    If for no other reason than the immense amount of Police dishonesty, ineptitude and sheer corruption, David Bain should be paid compensation. The fact he didn’t do it, couldn’t have done it and is innocent is another damn good reason.

    If those reasons were true, you’d be absolutely right.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    So Judith would you like a business card toothpaste tube slider? They are very useful.;)
    http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftubemate.com%2F&ei=dIoqUcDIGYfMkgX4kYD4Aw&usg=AFQjCNF0iI8M10lrKPYYzmrkyMpCXPZvlg&sig2=SlS9sDKtj_FDZ9GO4Skfcg&bvm=bv.42768644,d.dGI

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (358) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 10:27 am
    So ‘Judith’ says the shot to Laniets head with the cotton fibres was the last shot and that she was sitting up.

    Ignorance is your best subject. I said it was the first shot, and had to be the first shot because she was sitting up, and that a fragment from that bullet was found under her body, and there was blood and brain matter on the wardrobe at the end of her bed at a height that indicated she was sitting up.

    The Crown witness, Ferris had said at the first trial it was the last shot, and that it had been the one that killed her/finished her off. However whilst he was right about it being the one that killed her, he was not right about it being the last. He did not know there had been a fragment found under her body.

    If you are going to quote me, at least get it right please.

    You clearly need to familiarise yourself with the evidence.

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

    You are right that is what I meant that you said.
    That does not however change the rest of my opinion. it is because you said first that it is so ridiculous, what was on Laniets head while she was asleep a wimple?

    You didn’t say whether you wanted a tubemate?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,087) Says: February 25th, 2013 at 9:42 am
    Even you and your friends have been unable to give a scenario that matches the evidence, without ridiculous statements like the body was picked up and shaken, and dragged etc. All of which there is no evidence for.

    More than that. The photographic evidence proves none of that was possible.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. The famous photos that prove it all, photos you neither produce or direct us to.

    Why do you think a corpse cannot be lifted under the shoulders and dragged a metre or so? There is no evidence this was not done. With difficulty, maybe, but Robin was not that heavy.

    There is no evidence Robin shot himself with a knee on the chair by the curtain either.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Showing that something the Crown said was impossible is possible proves the Crown was wrong, not that it happened or was even likely to happen. The fact that one curtain did not have spatter or blood on it means nothing more the curtain was not located there (curtains move!) or was shielded. What do we keep hearing about there being no shielding so no one else was present? You see, the more explanations you give the deeper the hole you dig.

    To believe Robin committed suicide I must believe a preposterous narrative, a long chain of improbabilities; things I know from my own life experience don’t look right.

    The fact the Crown failed to prove guilt in the second trial says far more about Crown competence and the jury than it does about the police and the evidence. Some jurors acted illegally. Oh, but that’s okay, they got the right answer. Did they? Who says?

    I admit I have not made complete sense of Robin’s death in terms of the spatter and blood. Neither have you. Where is the spatter/blood on the chair? The problem is I have nothing much to look at.

    What I have seen tells me the body was likely moved and the spare magazine was placed, on its edge or otherwise, in a place Robin would not likely have placed it, and if he had would have likely knocked over. I see the used shell case in the alcove where it would not likely have fallen.

    I know it would be most natural to grasp a rifle by the muzzle, and thus most likely Robin would have, yet Stephen’s prints were not smudged. It’s likely Robin would have left prints.

    And so the list goes on. All the “most likelys”. Most likely to just kill himself and not the others. Most likely if killing others to not spare one. Not likely David be the one spared.

    The list is never ending. Even the silly message on the computer is a “most unlikely” Robin.

    There is no evidence I have seen than points more at David than Robin.

    All you do is chop up bits and pieces and “prove” it might be otherwise. True – for some individual pieces. But even the bruises that is claimed were not there at the medical examination, would not have appeared immediately, slight to moderate bruises most likely appear the next day.

    If you can furnish some real evidence, that is photos, to back the “only suicide” explains the spatter and blood, then do so. I am still prepared to change my mind, but in the meantime my conclusion is you’re indulging in wishful thinking, fabricating fanciful explanations that defy reason, not when it’s all added together.

    I suspect the reason these “proof of suicide” photos are not bandied around is that they are, like the sock prints, problematic. Maybe there is too much blood for it to be all spatter. Maybe what the photo really show is the corpse was picked up under the shoulders, not an easy task, and blood shaken onto that particular curtain in front, and not the other. With a leg folded under the body as it collapsed, it would not get blood on it.

    Produce the photos or direct us to them, or leave us thinking you can’t see the wood for the trees. Pop on those glasses you need but tell us you don’t wear, eh.

    And yes, David, people who think you are not innocent might just shrug and say, “Well, he’s done his time, let him get on with it,” but a great many of those people feel very strongly you don’t deserve millions for it. Fortunately it ain’t gonna happen, your run of luck with a dodgy system has just run out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Plenty of evidence that Robin wasn’t dragged Dennis or ‘shaken.’ Better to distance yourself from such stupidity. Additionally, no one has ever claimed that Robin had a knee on the chair, but don’t let a soon to be expired thread stopping you from spreading the CS gospel. Get the photos and read the evidence Dennis, clear your mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,087) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 8:07 am

    Lindsay Kennard (56) Says:
    February 24th, 2013 at 11:49 pm

    The character assassination of Scott went on for six months before he was arrested by which time he, his mother, father and siblings were seen as seen as scum of the earth. David never suffered that.

    You obviously think we are as thick as you are. The groups you belong to are STILL ,18 years later ,trying to do this to Bain.

    1/ I don’t belong to any groups. As far as I am concerned personally I do not buy into the suicide scenario proposed.

    2/ Reading what suicide information that is available in New Zealand tends to show a lack of detailed planning among older people with carbon monoxide hanging and rifle shot being the commonest methods though certain geographic areas lend themselves to jumping. As to rifles almost invariably the muzzle is in the mouth or under the chin. carbon monoxide is most often in a closed garage with the motor left running or a vacumn cleaner hose into the interior of the vehicle.

    I do not accept you assertion that I and others are attempting to demonise David rather it is his actions that are deplored.

    Scott in contrast was labelled as violent [he had a conviction for common assault at age 16], he was 26 when arrested so violent seems a bit of an exaggeration. He had no history of sexual offending and in 18 months of trying police were unable to get even one ex partner to testify to any perversions or domestic violence. So Pope invented a sexual relationship between Scott and his sister to the point of interviewing Sandy’s ex husband who cast considerable doubt on the allegation so it was ‘leaked’ by Pope to Cate Brett. How do I know this? Because Brett wrote of it in her Doctorate monograph. Scott’s Parents were labelled as gang leaders and the family as gang “associates” with the claim that Scott had a Swastika tattooed on his head. Bev Watson was a small slim woman very hard working and loved and respected by all who fortunate enough to have met her. She died suddenly just before Christmas 2012 after a short illness and never got to see her “Innocent Man” free. National were in up to their noses in the political pressure on Pope to make an arrest, any arrest, because of political and family ties to one of the missing persons and I am sure do not want to see dirty linen washed in public and are happy to leave an innocent man in prison to protect the party from some very unsavory behaviour.

    Inevitably there will be some who attempt to paint David Bain as Evil incarnate, I think they are wrong even though some of his behaviour at the time would raise eye brows

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

    Just before this thread is closed I would like to respond to some of the lies about me that Judith posted yesterday.
    First, I have never harassed people on the phone and the police have never been told that I have.
    Second ,I have received emails from a police officer and I have sent David Farrar a copy of one of them which refers to that blanket that David Bain had in his possession when Dr Pryde examined him.
    Third, I did not lie to Dr Dempster.
    I phoned him because the poster with the bullsh**t degree was saying he had seen a photo showing blood around Robin Bain’s nose. I asked Dempster if he had seen that photo and he said he couldn’t remember seeing it. I asked him could there be a reason as to why blood was flowing from Robin Bain’s nose and he said if the bullet to his head had caused any minor fractures that could cause blood to come from his nose.
    I also mentioned that some of David Bain’s supporters were saying that he had said those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands were 12 hours old and he said he had looked at a photo recently and he thought those bruises could be 48 hours old.
    Bain’s supporters are deliberately misrepresenting the facts . Dempster made it quite clear at the retrial that it was impossible to age those minor abrasions accurately. He said they could be anywhere between one and 24 hours old.
    Robin Bain had been cutting branches off trees that weekend in preparation for the imminent demolition of the back of the house. He had also been replacing some spouting. Both of those activities could have caused those minor abrasions.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Quit the bullshit, Nosty. Absolutely no reason Robin could not have been lifted up and moved, shaking blood into the curtain.

    If Robin’s knee was not on the chair, where does the chair come into it?

    Never mind a wad of words from the courts, direct me to the photos showing the spatter and blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Let me take another opportunity to refresh peoples memories re the lies that David Bain has told on oath.
    First he lied when he said he did not murder any members of his family.
    Then he lied when he said he hadn’t seen those glasses in his room for months.
    Then he lied when he said he wasn’t wearing them that weekend.
    Then he lied when he said his mother had said his father wasn’t going to be part of the new house.
    Then he lied when he said he put the washing on when he came home.
    He lied when he said those track pants in the wash weren’t his.
    He lied to Binnie when he said the door to the lounge wasn’t lockable.
    He lied to Binnie when he said one of those acquaintances that Laniet met up with on the Sunday had said she was quite excited and looking forward to coming home.
    He lied to Binnie when he said he was waiting for Arawa and Laniet to finish their shift at the Museum cafe.
    He lied to Binnie when he said he had that tattoo done because he was upset about his dog being killed.
    He lied to Binnie when he said that he had since walked from Heath Street to 65 Every Street and that it took him quite a bit longer than three minutes.
    He lied to Binnie when he said he sorted the whites from the darks.
    He first told police that the green jersey the killer wore belonged to Arawa. Then when he took the stand he said it belonged to his father,so he either lied to the police or he lied on oath.
    Re that jogger. He told Binnie there was no jogger[girl] . But Karam said in an article published in the NZ Herald shortly after the retrial that two detectives had tracked that girl to Australia.
    He told the audience in Perth that when he saw his mother’s light on he thought he would make her a cup of tea.
    He told Binnie it was a cup of coffee.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Let me take the chance to remind everyone who has been caught out bsing on the Bain case more than any other. The person that knows of ‘secret’ critical evidence with held by the police but instead told to this person. The same individual who is absorbed with naked young men and goats, and who when ‘caught out’ again goes on to spam the boards or tells tales. Go tell it on the mountain.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Bad luck Dennis even the known photos of Robin show no ‘spill’ from his wound on his left side. The Crown in their submissions to Binnie made no assertion supporting your nonsense, they did however concede the elements of suicide present, close contact, upward and so on – also entrance wound sites to the head which are not murder include temple, mouth and central forehead. Of course some of us know why Robin wore the white gloves Dennis.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    You are ‘funny’ but you will be able to practice your killer sense of humour while you are away. Last chance on this thread to come out of the closet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Photos. Where are the photos?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,244) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    ——————————-

    Except Muggins, what is in that email and who it is from, and how it was obtained was not how you reported it on here. Your statement on this blog vary immensely from the time you first made comment about the phone calls to the police, to when you were informed there was an OIA application requesting copies of your contact with them, and a complaint regarding their speaking to you. None of the officers that were in charge of David Bain that day state they told you what you reported they had said.

    Dr Dempster has stated he did NOT tell you Robin’s bruises were 48 hours old, nor does he believe they were. He does not agree, when told of your statements, that he told you any of those things in the manner in which you have published them on line, and was extremely annoyed that you had done so. He stated that you did not say you would be publishing anything that you asked, and further more you asked generalised questions and were not give answers specific to Robin Bain. He also stated that as a professional and an expert witness he would not have the discussions you have reported with any anonymous person on a telephone. He also stated he does not know you personally.

    You have also phoned Dr Dempster more than once, the first time approximately three years ago in which you were told he could not really help you.

    Yes you have harassed people by the phone, and you were reported to the police for harassment by at least two people.

    You are a dishonest man, and a stupid one, because you have left a trail of your lies and deceit on here, which is being investigated. You may try to con your way out of it by sending David Farrar a single email, however that does not discount the manner in which you have discredited and compromised the professional careers of some very important people, by misrepresenting them on here. I believe you have also misrepresented them in correspondence to other people, all of which is being accessed via the OIA and of which I am positive you are about to hear a lot more about.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Evidence that points to David Bain as having murdered his family.

    [1] His [and only his] fingerprints on the rifle.
    [2] His bloody gloves in his brother’s room.
    [3] His brother’s blood on his T-shirt and shorts.
    [4] He heard his sister Laniet gurgling.
    [5] He said he put the washing machine on when he got home. Two tests showed it took an hour to go through it’s cycle and the police were in the vicinity of the machine around 45 minutes after the time Bain said he arrived home and the machine was not going.
    [6] He had bruises on his head he could not explain.
    [7] He had scratches on his torso he could not explain.
    [8] He could not explain why it took him around 20 minutes to dial 111 after finding his family dead.
    [9] He hung the paper bag up behind the door in his bedroom and removed his shoes without turning his bedroom light on.
    [10] He changed his story as to owned the green jersey the killer wore when he took the stand. He said,for the first time,that it belonged to his father when before that he had always said it belonged to Arawa.
    [11]. He told a female companion just before the murders that he thought something terrible was going to happen
    [12] He completed his paper round earlier than usual.
    [13] He mentioned to a friend a few years earlier that that he was thinking of using the paper round as an alibi to commit another crime.
    [14] A pair of his mother’s glasses were found in his room with one lens missing. That lens was later found in Stephen’s room. He told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mothers’ glasses that weekend and he also told his lawyer he had been wearing those glasses. He also said he wore a pair of his mothers’ glasses when his were unavailable.
    [15] His sister Arawa had told a friend that David had been frightening his family with his rifle.
    [16] His sister Laniet told acquaintances she met up with on the Sunday that David had called a family meeting for that night that she didn’t want to go to because she was frightened of her “freaky” brother.
    [17] His Gondoliers T-shirt had stains on it that he could not account for. He said those stains weren’t on it when he put it in the washbasket.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Why was the first trial a sham,
    because the jury was not told: –

    They were told that Weir found the lens out in the open.
    They were told the skin found in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain.
    They were told the rifle was 8 inches longer than it was.
    They were told blood fluoresces under polilight.
    They were told the old man’s foot measured 240mm and Bain’s 270mm.
    They were NOT told of, or shown, the photos showing blood on the inside of the old man’s hand.
    They were NOT told about the old man screwing his daughters.
    They were NOT told that Laniet was going to tell her mother the truth about her old man.
    They were not told that the blood spatter on Robin Bain’s clothing indicated he was standing with his right leg bent at the knee.
    They were not told of the blood spatter on Robin’s shoe.
    They were not told of the fingernail scrapings from Robin’s fingers.
    The were told that it was not possible for Laniet’s body to be gurgling despite being dead for sometime, when Dr Dempster later proved that was not the case.
    They were not told that the first shot to Laniet’s head had in fact killed her.
    They were not told of the white fibers and fragmented bullet pieces being found under Laniet.
    They were not told that a police officer had picked the glasses up.
    They were not told that the cartridge had been knocked over .
    They were not told that the photos were not timed and no one knew what order they were actually taken in and by whom.
    They were told the blood spot on David’s quilt was Stephen’s blood, when it was actually old blood from David.
    They were told that Robin’s bladder was ‘full’, when the capacity of his bladder had never been measured.
    They were told that the first shot to Laniet was not the one that killed her, when in fact the first shot, through the top of the head was not survivable.
    They were not told about the white fibres on the bullet fragments.
    They were given an incomplete surveyors plan of the house and contents which did not show vital pieces of furniture.
    They did not hear evidence from people who had approached the police regarding Laniet’s claims (Dairy owner etc)
    They were not told that the wash cycle on the machine more often than not completed the short wash, rather than the long wash, when the dial was turned to the top position.
    They were not told about the blood in the barrel.
    They were not told of the damaged live round lying next to the trigger guard of the rifle.
    They were not told that certain photos had been chemically enhanced.
    They were told there was blood on David’s gondeliers shirt in the washing, when it was proven later not to be blood.
    and so on…..

    And another very important thing they were not told (although the police didn’t know at the time because unbelieveably hadn’t checked) that the blood on the towel was Robins and that therefore he had been ‘washing up’ before despatching himself.

    Just a few of the things that the Crown used to present a case that was one of the biggest shams in NZ judicial history,

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The jury at the second trial was however told that some of the photos the police were trying to pass off as evidence had actually been taken during their re-inactments and what they were being shown as blood, was in fact tomato sauce.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Blah blah blah. The only reason you complain about any of this is you don’t want anything to come out that doesn’t suit your purpose.

    So-and-so can’t do this, can’t see that, this person can’t talk, that person doesn’t know…

    The case against Robin Bain is a load of cobblers. On the basis of likelihood: Shame and disgrace does not cause a man to kill his family and spare one. No man gets up and strangles his son and shoots his wife and daughters and dresses and washes and prepares the rifle and types a silly message and hops around to shoot himself and dies with a normal overnight load of urine (“full” bladder).

    Nothing ties Robin to the rifle, nothing. It’s all in your mind. Wishful thinking. Nothing more.

    “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.” Judith, what does that mean?

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

    Judith is lying again
    [1] David Farrar has a copy of one email that police officer sent me.
    [2] Yes, I have phoned Dempster twice. The first time he was not able to clarify anything. The second time I was more specific. I asked him if he had seen a photo that showed blood around Robin Bain’s nose. He said he could not remember seeing that photo but explained that if the bullet in Robin Bain’s head had caused any small fractures it could have caused his nose to bleed. I told him that some of David Bains supporters were saying that he had said those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands were 12 hours old and he said he had looked a photo recently and thought they could be 48 hours old.
    If any person has contacted the police saying that I was harassing them then I would like to know who that person was as I may take a case against them for falsely accusing me.
    No-one I have spoken to has been unwilling to talk to me. I always tell them who I am and what I am phoning them about. I tell them if they don’t want to carry on with the conversation then that’s ok,and we can end it. So far no-one has done that.
    So either Judith is lying or they are lying. I’m picking Judith.
    Also, so far as I can remember, I have never told anyone that what they were telling me was confidential. Certainly not in the past year ,anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    A big thanks to all those defending Robin Bain. He is clearly innocent and you made excellent points. The other side were petty, resorted to name calling and threats, and certainly had nothing credible to put forward. They appear nasty and motivated by factors other than the innocence of anyone. Robin Bain’s name needs to be cleared of the unfair smear campaign. Poor Robin, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen. They deserved to stay. R.I.P.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith said I said I received that information re the blanket via the Official Information act. I would ask her to link to where I used the word act, or where I used the term OIA.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Photos. One photo is worth a thousand lies.

    Even photos that show no blood could spill from the wound will do. (I suppose he has a cork in that hole in the head. )

    PHOTOS, PHOTOS, PHOTOS.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Sorry Dennis, repeating yourself or fanny spamming makes no difference. ‘fanny spamming’ what a useful phrase, a bit like retard LLB LOL, and all yours Dennis, all at sea wearing white gloves with a goat and a gumby donkey. Rocks straight ahead, as usual.

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

    Judith says that stain on the Gondolier’s T-shirt was proved not to be blood. The fact is it wasn’t proved to be anything.
    Another lie from the dishonest Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith said the first jury were not told Ngamoki had mis -measured the rifle.
    Guest to Ngamoki. You made a mistake ,Mr Ngamoki?
    A. Yes.
    Q. By this much ,137 millimetres?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Six inches?
    A . Yes.
    Q. How could you have got it so wrong?

    Another lie by the dishonest Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. Another great screed, a rigmarole. Who cares about all that? None of it alters the fact there is crucial evidence that suggest Robin did not kill himself. Location of body, location of rifle, location of magazine, location of shell case …. lack of blood, lack of prints … lack of explanation to kill them all … but spare David … to face the music …

    PHOTOS. Where are the photos that show the spatter/blood from Robin’s wound?

    Come on, be a sport. I’ve put up with your bitchiness, it’s time to do me a favour. Do yourself a favour. Photos. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. PHOTOS?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    As usual the biggest bser calling other people liars and now trying to drop Farrar in it.

    But wait a minute a zero hero sister is congratulating the other bsing sisters, saying what good and nice sisters they are – cheek to cheek, one hate-siter to another. Good work.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. RRM (12,290 comments) says:

    David Farrar (1,670) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 9:29 am

    I think this thread is approaching a natural death, so I am going to close it at some stage today. When there is next a development in the case, I will probably blog that, so debate can continue when there is something new to debate.

    KILL IT WITH FIRE! 😛

    http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/128/623/kill-it-with-fire-demotivational-poster-1235695993.jpg

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

    Judith said the jury were told the skin in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain. I presume she means David Bain.
    Dr Dempster said in evidence “My opinion is that the skin appears to be thicker than the piece of superficial epidermis of skin which appears to be scraped off David Bain’s knee. My preference is that it has originated from the back of Stephen Bain’s hand though I cannot be dogmatic on that point. I concede it is possible it came from David Bain’s knee.”
    So Dempster told the jury that skin was more likely to have come from Stephen Bain .

    More dishonesty from Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Dennis I have heaps of photos, more than CS I’m sure. But not putting any on here, they tend to get photo-shopped by marzuka. But the wound is clear across the left cheek, no spill showing, more soot on the higher side than the lower because of the angle, and possibly I suspect Robin flinching at the last moment. And in another, a distinct line of blood from robin’s nose, when enlarged showing blood or red in his moustache – and that ‘bloody’ towel, and that fight, all fit together.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. So there are no photos that are helpful to the strange case of a knee in the air near the chair (but not knee on the chair) suicide where Robin guides the muzzle to his brain without grasping the muzzle in case he smudges Stephen’s pristine prints and line it up for a good shot diagonally from front to back so he kills himself cleanly over by the curtains but gets spatter/blood on only one curtain and on the fingernail of the hand on the trigger and no prints on the rifle and hobbles dead to the beanbag kicking the spent case into the alcove just to piss David off and falling right where he placed the spare magazine a metre from where he sat on the beanbag and under a low table without getting any fingerprints on it?

    So. No photos?

    Going to be some time before a tribunal of judges tells Collins to stick to her guns. So to speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith is saying that the first shot to Laniet’s head killed her.

    Professor Ferris, Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia ,who said he had carried out up to 10000 post mortem examinations of which 700-800 related to gunshot wounds testified that he was quite confident that the cheek wound to Laniet’s head was the first wound. He said she would have been able to survive that wound for some considerable time. He said she would have been able to make noises that could be interpreted as gurgling noises that would indicate she was still alive. He said a groaning type sound would indicate she was still alive and that the muffling sound like water might be gurgling as air is drawn through blood in the airways.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,250) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 2:57 pm
    Judith said the first jury were not told Ngamoki had mis -measured the rifle.
    Guest to Ngamoki. You made a mistake ,Mr Ngamoki?
    A. Yes.
    Q. By this much ,137 millimetres?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Six inches?
    A . Yes.
    Q. How could you have got it so wrong?

    Another lie by the dishonest Judith.

    I said 8 inches.

    They were told the rifle was 8 inches longer than it was.

    I know most men like to say that 4 inches is six inches, but I ain’t a man, and when I say 8 inches I mean 8 inches.

    You however had demonstrated exactly how you like to misrepresent things by posting some nonsense about 6 inches, trying to distract from the truth.

    Regarding the gondaliers shirt, same thing, they jury were told it was blood at the first trial, and it was not blood. because it had no DNA present when tested after the first trial. It wasn’t proven what it was, but it was proven NOT to be blood, which is exactly what I said.

    You said that you had applied using the OIA to the police officers Boss in the previous thread to this one, then you said it wasn’t an ‘official OIA’ request but that it was an official information request. If I get the time later I will find the date and time of that post. More misrepresentation by you.

    Just because it was decided not to proceed with the complaints so they weren’t followed up on, doesn’t mean they weren’t made Muggins. Next time you won’t be so lucky.

    Dennis. I have posted links to the photos you want on kiwiblog before. If you go looking you will find them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    I see that poster with the bullsh**t degree is not so sure now that it is blood under Robin Bain’s nose.
    But as I have explained to him many times, if it was blood it could have been caused by bleeding from small fractures the bullet wound to his head might have made.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Who in their right mind would give you access to photos of murder victims or you felt an urge to seek them for yourself.
    You seem to salivate over the details as it is.
    You do seem to have a fascination for the subject.

    As an aside, I have heard it said that David was ‘found’ not to be a psychopath.

    Understanding about the directiveness of questions, were the Psychologists asked about any other possible disorders.

    I was watching something on dissociative personality disorders.

    Robin did not commit suicide or murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,251) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 3:27 pm
    ————————–

    Post the rest of the dialogue from the transcripts Muggins.

    When told about the bullet fragment under Laniet and on a chair 2 meters away, he stated he did not know about them. He was unable to offer an explanation because he was unaware of the fragments. A subsequent expert stated that the bullet fragment under Laniet meant she was alive when the shot to the top of her head was received. She would had died immediately, and her body slumped.

    With her body slumped in the bed there was not enough room for the gun between her head and the wall, for the shot to have been made, which also demonstrated it was the first shot.

    Your problem is Muggins, you like to pick just the pieces out of the transcripts that suit you. You don’t dare quote the entire transcript from that person because you know if proves you wrong. More misrepresentation from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,106) Says: February 25th, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    Dennis I have heaps of photos, more than CS I’m sure. But not putting any on here, they tend to get photo-shopped by marzuka. But the wound is clear across the left cheek, no spill showing, more soot on the higher side than the lower because of the angle, and possibly I suspect Robin flinching at the last moment. And in another, a distinct line of blood from robin’s nose, when enlarged showing blood or red in his moustache – and that ‘bloody’ towel, and that fight, all fit together.

    Nosty, you are a disappointment to me. I really thought you had brains. I see it is only bains you have. Do you have a speech impwediment?

    I have seen a photo of the wound. It is not in the cheek. The trajectory is not “upwards” in an unqualified and normal sense of the meaning of the word, related to the base of the skull, it is 10 degrees up from the horizontal, or slightly upwards. So your soot on the high side is imaginary. The slight bleeding from the nose is expected when a bullet whistles around inside the skull. When asked about the towel you gave no answers earlier; the reason being … ?

    Nah, I want to see some photos of the spatter/blood. How much, where …

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (361) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    As an aside, I have heard it said that David was ‘found’ not to be a psychopath.

    Understanding about the directiveness of questions, were the Psychologists asked about any other possible disorders.
    ————————————

    Forensic psychologists did not test for psychopathy. That was done by the Department of Corrections Psychiatrists.
    And they were asked about disorders and stated that David had suffered from Depression whilst in Prison, and PTSD. No other psychiatric or psychological disorders were found by the Psychologists and Psychiatrists that examined him.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Dennis Horne (4,083 comments) says:

    @Judith. So, as finickety as you are, recording stuff and correcting people, rabbiting on about trivial matters, making jokes about the size of you-know-what, when it comes to something else really important, like a photo to prove or at least improve your story about the knees-up suicide, you won’t oblige?

    I’m not going to play with you any more, Judith. I hate you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,252) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    Judith said the jury were told the skin in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain. I presume she means David Bain.
    Dr Dempster said in evidence “My opinion is that the skin appears to be thicker than the piece of superficial epidermis of skin which appears to be scraped off David Bain’s knee. My preference is that it has originated from the back of Stephen Bain’s hand though I cannot be dogmatic on that point. I concede it is possible it came from David Bain’s knee.”
    So Dempster told the jury that skin was more likely to have come from Stephen Bain .

    More dishonesty from Judith.

    More misrepresentation from Muggins. Yes Dr Dempster said it was possible that it came from David’s knee, however he did not say ‘was more likely…’ as Muggins just stated. (See how he likes to muddle things)

    The jury had previously heard evidence that it matched the scrape on the knee of David Bain. Dr Dempster wasn’t the only Crown Expert witness.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith is still misrepresenting the facts.
    It wasn’t proven that there was no blood on that Gondolier’s T-shirt. It was never proven what that stain was caused by. It could have been blood.
    Re the length of the rifle. The jury at the first trial were well aware that rifle had been measured incorrectly.
    I never said I used the OIA when I asked for that information as to whether Bain was completely naked or not.
    The last person I spoke to asked me to put in an official request, nothing to do with the Official Information Act.
    All he was really asking me to do was put my request[s] in writing rather than just phoning people.
    You misunderstood what I was saying. You added the word act when that word was never mentioned,so you have made a big joe h**t of yourself.
    Re those complaints . I don’t believe there were any complaints. I know who I spoke to and not one of those people had any problem speaking to me. If any of them had said thay didn’t want to talk about the case I would have said ok,thanks, goodbye. The only person that did ask me to stop phoning him was Milton Weir, he said he wanted to forget the whole thing so I said I understood that and that was the last time I phoned him.
    So I am calling you a blatant and dishonest liar, Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    When Dr Dempster said that his preference re that piece of skin found in Stephen’s room was that it originated from the back of Stephen Bain’s hand then he is saying that it is more likely that it was from the back of Stephen Bain’s hand than from anywhere else.

    Dennis, if you are looking in, Judith is lying about those photos, but I guess you already knew that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Not to mention self-aggrandising 😉 Well I will mention it anyway.;)

    Personally, I think the higher moral ground was held admirably. 🙂 See you in the next thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith said the jury had heard evidence that that piece of skin matched the scrape on David Bain’s knee.
    What they actually heard was this.
    I compared these pieces of skin with a photograph showing skin damage to the knee of the accused and it suggested to me that piece of skin could have come from the knee area,but I don’t discount the possibility that the piece of skin could have come from one of Stephen’s wounds.

    More misrepresentation of the facts by Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith says that white fibres were found under Laniet. There was no proof there were any white fibres. But if one of the shots to Laniet’s head was through a piece of cloth then someone must have got rid of that piece of cloth and that someone could only be David, because no piece of cloth with a bullet hole in it was found at the scene.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. RRM (12,290 comments) says:

    I’m not going to play with you any more, Judith. I hate you.

    Play nicely, children.

    If you haven’t got something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

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

    You added the word act when that word was never mentioned,so you have made a big joe h**t of yourself

    But you did use the word ACT.

    muggins (2,255) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    …There seems to be some confusion between my official request and a request made under the official information act…

    Now who is the joe whatever??

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

    Who was it who told the police that the washing machine cycle took between 3/4’s of an hour and an hour?
    It was David Bain, and who would know better than him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,257) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    Who was it who told the police that the washing machine cycle took between 3/4′s of an hour and an hour?
    It was David Bain, and who would know better than him.

    Mr Preston the washing machine specialist actually gave evidence to. He stated that when the dial was turned to the top position for the long cycle normally 45 mins, that many times it defaulted and did the short cycle instead. David made that statement because he thought he had selected the long cycle, but the machine was not working correctly and either cycle could have been done.

    Either way, the 111 operators did not record the police getting to David before 7.36 am and the laundry was after that, which means the washing would have had plenty of time to finish for either cycle.

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

    Judith (1,664) Says:

    February 25th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
    You added the word act when that word was never mentioned,so you have made a big joe h**t of yourself

    But you did use the word ACT.

    muggins (2,255) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    …There seems to be some confusion between my official request and a request made under the official information act…

    Now who is the joe whatever??

    I did not use the word act when I said I made that request. I used the word act when trying to explain that you were confused.
    As I am using it now.

    So that makes you an even bigger Joe H**t than you were before.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,257) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    ——————————
    Where did I say the white fibres were found under Laniet?
    I said the bullet fragment with white fibres on it was found under Laniet.

    The object that the bullet was fired through was not found, because the white fibres on the bullet fragments were not found until after the house had been destroyed. The police didn’t know they existed and had not bothered looking for them. There is nothing logged in any of the investigators notes of the looking for the source, and nothing was logged in the meeting sheets of the team that indicated they knew about it before their ‘discovery’ by forensics.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,258) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 4:40 pm
    ——————————–

    No, you stated quite clearly just a few minutes ago that you had never used the word ACT, but I just found a statement by you regarding the information where you had used it.

    :You can’t say you never did it, because it is there, used when you were talking about the information you had received. That was just what I found in this thread, there are of course other threads that I haven’t looked.

    Regarding the posting of links to photos, yes I have, and the links are still available in those posts, I suggest you look before you confirm yourself to be the lying piece of … that you are.

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

    Judith says that the jury at the first trial were not told that the cartridge was knocked over. I believe she meant to say magazine.
    Ok, but at the retrial it was made quite clear that the magazine was knocked over long after the photo of it sitting within a millimetre of Robin Bain’s hand was taken.
    Judith would have you believe it was knocked over before that photo was taken. It was not.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,258) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 4:00 pm
    Judith is still misrepresenting the facts.
    It wasn’t proven that there was no blood on that Gondolier’s T-shirt. It was never proven what that stain was caused by. It could have been blood.

    It was proven that it wasn’t blood because blood has DNA and there was no DNA found on the shirt. What is more, when they found the shirt in the laundry it was recorded as being ‘dry’ and yet in the first trial they tried to state that David must have tried to sponge blood off the shirt and left the patch of diluted blood on it. As I said, subsequent testing proved the stain wasn’t blood and there wasn’t any blood on the shirt at all. They did not do the many tests that would have been required to find out exactly what the substance was, because not being blood, it didn’t matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Dennis
    Reading your twaddle convinces me that you are as thick as pigshit and have no idea what you are talking about, you would now be second to Aunt Fanny as the biggest bullcrapper here! Don’t try and be clever with words you aren’t, and you only make yourself look stupider, time for some more pills and a doctors referral to your nearest secure psychiatric institution!
    Run along and play with your toys

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,259) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 4:47 pm
    Judith says that the jury at the first trial were not told that the cartridge was knocked over. I believe she meant to say magazine.
    Ok, but at the retrial it was made quite clear that the magazine was knocked over long after the photo of it sitting within a millimetre of Robin Bain’s hand was taken.
    Judith would have you believe it was knocked over before that photo was taken. It was not.

    More lies and misrepresentation by Muggins.

    The photos taken of the crime scene were done by 5 different police photographers. The times that the photos were taken was not recorded by the photographers and the officer in charge of the Scene did not record them either. When it came to working out who took what photo the photographers could not identify which ones they had taken.

    Therefore the time the photo of the magazine was taken is not known.

    The photos were such a mess that even photos taken by the police in their reinactment were presented to the court as originals. However it was discovered that what they were saying was blood was in fact tomato sauce.

    Some friend of Muggins (so muggins reckons) has been able to sort out the order the photos were taken in, however, it is not possible to do that because the times were not recorded, and they were not cameras that could do that. In some cases the negatives had been destroyed.

    There was also a video taken of the scene that Muggins tries to say was the original. It was not. The original was thrown out and Weir presented an edited video which he attributed the editing to a photographer who stated clearly in court that he had NOT edited it. The person who edited it and threw out the original has never been found.

    The video does not show the lens in stephens room as Muggins states it does.

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

    Judith (1,667) Says:

    February 25th, 2013 at 4:42 pm
    muggins (2,257) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    ——————————
    Where did I say the white fibres were found under Laniet?
    I said the bullet fragment with white fibres on it was found under Laniet.

    The object that the bullet was fired through was not found, because the white fibres on the bullet fragments were not found until after the house had been destroyed. The police didn’t know they existed and had not bothered looking for them. There is nothing logged in any of the investigators notes of the looking for the source, and nothing was logged in the meeting sheets of the team that indicated they knew about it before their ‘discovery’ by forensics.

    Judith, you are making a big Joe whatsit of yourself again. If a bullet fragment with white fibres on it was found under Laniet that means a bullet was found under Laniet and white fibres on that bullet was found under Laniet.
    And it was never proved what those fibres were made of.
    And the police did not have to be looking for a piece of cloth with a bullet hole in it. If it was there they would probably have found it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “Evidence that points to David Bain as having murdered his family.”

    Speculation, ‘spin’ and bullcrap is a far more accurate description for any ‘evidence’ that Aunt Fanny has posted here!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith

    ‘More lies and misrepresentation by Muggins.’

    Judith, I challenge you to find a single post in the thousands posted by him on any of the Bain threads that the silly old goat hasn’t lied, misrepresented and ‘twisted’ the evidence to suit his own conspiracy theories! Challenge for you one piece of relevant ‘factual’ evidence anywhere posted by him!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith is lying again.
    There is a video or photo showing that lens in Stephen’s room when Stephen’s body was there.
    The magazine was knocked over by Dr Dempster at around 3pm on the Monday afternoon , long after that photo was taken of it showing it to be a millimetre from Robin Bain’s outstretched hand.

    She is lying and we all know why. She does not believe that magazine could have stayed upright where it is in the photograph when Robin Bain’s outstretched hand hit the floor any more than I do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Who cares if the magazine was or wasn’t in the right position, NOTHING excludes placement by Robin, what did the PC explicitly say about this? they threw it in the garbage bin where it belongs. It is not evidence either way. Hmm wonder who has the more qualified opinion on the matter the PC or the deluded nutcase!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “She is lying and we all know why”
    Muggins ‘you’ are lying and ‘we’ all know why, you are a bullcrapper and incapable of telling the truth in this case if you tried.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,260) Says:
    February 25th, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    Judith, you are making a big Joe whatsit of yourself again. If a bullet fragment with white fibres on it was found under Laniet that means a bullet was found under Laniet and white fibres on that bullet was found under Laniet.
    And it was never proved what those fibres were made of.
    And the police did not have to be looking for a piece of cloth with a bullet hole in it. If it was there they would probably have found it.

    But Muggins, white fibres were also found on the other bullet fragments including the one found two meters away on the chair, that Ferris also knew nothing about. Mucking around with the words only demonstrates the way you like to misrepresent things to suit yourself.

    It was proved what those fibers were made of, they were cotton.

    Really? You expect given the quality of the police investigation, in which they did not cut out the carpet with the sockprints on it, and all the other incompetent things they did, that they would have found a piece of fabric or item with a hole in it that would have been very small. You have seen photos of the house. They weren’t looking for it, they were examining the scene as if the bullet was fired directly from the gun. Unless the fabric had blood on it, they would not have taken any notice of a small hole.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote