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. flipper (5,296 comments) says:

    Hi Judith.
    Good input that will be quoted elsewhere. Thanks.

    The comment by something, self-named as lazarus, is revealing…. as is the non de plume.

    I look forward to the day when all this settled in favour of Mr Bain, and all the idiot mob gather on a river bank, or somewhere appropriate, and follow the “Jones Guyanan cult” path to oblivion. They will, of course, need to find the goat to deliver the cyanide. 🙂

    Once that journey is complete they will be able to ask Robin why he did it! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nookin (4,570 comments) says:

    Flipper
    I know that those who disagree with you are capable of caustic comment and are equally provocative but have you ever considered that a person who considers that those who disagree with him should be euthanised –simply by reason of the fact that they view matters differently — might be in need of urgent medical care and should not be allowed anywhere near the justice system?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Well, you all still here …

    Another brilliant day in Paradise, but you are still toiling away in your boxes …

    Have fun folks, on the merry-go-round of possibilities, I’m off to the beach ….. 🙂

    Remember, David wrote the computer message and then everything else falls in to place …

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    lazarus (68) Says:

    February 1st, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    The only desperation I can see is in the Karam/Bain camp.
    The Application by Karam/Bain is their final gambit and doomed to failure.
    So long suckers.
    Oh by suckers I mean
    judith, nos, kanz, rowan, flipper (other assorted loons) et al
    There is going to be NO COMPO ever get it.
    Sorry in case you didn’t understand
    NO COMPO IS GOING TO BE PAID EVER EVER EVER

    Amen to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Nookin. Be kind to flipper, just quietly pick up his toys. Please. It’s going to be very hard for him to realise he’s wrong; just a washed-up old blowhard who Key ignores. Key isn’t going to sack Collins and Collins isn’t going to pay killers. No court is going to make her; not now, not later, not ever. The chances of getting another report from another dunce are quite low.

    “STEPHEN COULD HAVE BEEN SUCH A STRONG MAN.” Yes, we know. Quite a struggle, wasn’t it? Blood everywhere.

    “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.” A man protesting his innocence?
    “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.” Is that a “NO” or a “DON’T KNOW”?

    “DAVID DOESN’T KNOW THE EVIDENCE.” Does he know Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (71) Says:

    February 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am
    When Binnie was interviewing David, the defence team (in the person of Reed) was allowed to examine Bain and cross-examine the police witnesses.

    The prosecution was not allowed this same right. Why not?

    They will be next time round.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Joe Karam is very keen on the process being fair and equitable. I agree with him, as I am sure Judith does..

    So there must be a very good reason why the defence were given different (and superior) rights of examination to the prosecution. Otherwise Joe Karam would be requesting equal rights for both sides, wouldn’t he?

    Judith will know the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    This is who was at Doyles’ interview

    Date of Interview: 1 9 July 2012
    Place : John Wickliffe House, Dunedin
    Attendees Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)

    This is who was at Weir’s interview

    Date of Interview: 19 July 2012
    Place: John Wickliffe House, Dunedin
    Attendees Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)

    This is who was at Bain’s interview

    Date of Interview: 23 July 2012
    Place: Copthorne Hotel , Auckland
    Attendees: John Pike and Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)
    Michael Reed CQ
    Matthew Karam
    Joe Karam
    Stuart McGilvray (Ministry of Justice)

    Look fair to you?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (582) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 8:07 am
    @Judith. Mornin’, m’Lady. “Illegal to stalk, harass. defame.” Shall we compare numbers for homicide?

    @goldnkiwi. How many murderers in the groups you mention?
    Vote: 8 11
    ………….
    Trick question lol I would guess none?
    In saying that however, there does seem to be ‘infiltration’, look at all that hysteria last night
    With nom de plumes etc who would know.
    Why would someone so vociferously on David’s side such as ‘Judith’, be privy to who was logging into the ‘free forums’.
    I can’t imagine that they would be welcome, let alone seeing what was posted or not. If ‘Judith’ belongs, anyone could, I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    So who decided who could be present at the witness examinations?

    Who decided who could have the right to examine witnesses directly?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,857) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 4:03 pm
    twistedlemon (71) Says:

    February 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am
    When Binnie was interviewing David, the defence team (in the person of Reed) was allowed to examine Bain and cross-examine the police witnesses.

    How could Reed cross-examine the police witnesses, when he wasn’t present at their interview?

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

    How could Reed cross-examine the police witnesses, when he wasn’t at there interview?

    When have either muggins or twistedlemon ever been seen to tell the truth? It just pisses them off that the truth is so easily searched. I see old Dennis, on other comments pages, still saying the old man invited Cunningham to board with him. Does this mean he is incapable of understanding the evidence, or that he spreads lies as wide as possible?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    So why wasn’t Reed present? Was he not invited? Did he decline an invitation to be present?

    Did Binnie decide who could be present?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Lets look at the favourite argument of some of the Bsers
    “Nothing ties Robin to the rifle. NOTHING”

    And what exactly ties David to the rifle? It was his and had a old set of fingerprints shown not to be ‘bloody’ despite the nutters keep clinging to Kim Jones discredited evidence shown to be totally wrong.
    Similarly what links David to Margaret Bains broken glasses, Robins green jersey or the bloody gloves?
    The idiots will keep ranting about the lens in Stephens room which ‘must have been dislodged during a bloody struggle’ yet no forensic evidence suggests it was involved and it was ‘dusty’ and found in a place where it was unlikely to have got as a result of being dislodged in a violent struggle.
    Also we will be told that it was Davids gloves yes correct but ownership is irrelevant based on the glasses and the jersey, Robin also kept clothes in Davids room and they were probably the first pair of gloves he laid eyes on. Also based on the ‘red blood like’ staining and smears on Robins hands and palms, also traces of blood under his fingernails are totally consistent with Robin being the wearer of the bloody gloves. I don’t recall any blood traces on Davids hands or fingernails.
    Lastly the green jersey, Robins or Arawas depending on who you believe, both were 5’9, David being over 2 metres tall would never have fitted it (as shown in 1995), if he had worn it then there should have been considerably more blood around the V neck and wrist areas. Yet the trolls expect us to believe the jersey ‘shrunk’ in the wash.

    In summary the ownership of the rifle and the misinformation about the lens gets us nowhere and is easily spun out to fit the different scenarios, yet none of the idiots can get close to explaining the blood staining on Daddy, yet the bloody gloves and jersey point clearly away from David

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith
    These trolls haven’t even read the interviews, yet they offer wild speculation and bs as you have just pulled up the ‘twisted sister’ on

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

    twistedlemon (73) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:02 pm
    ———————-
    If you see on page 101 of David Bain’s interview, Binnie had asked a number of questions on behalf of the Crown Law Office. He then asks Mr Reed if he wishes to ‘re-examine’.

    The same process would applied for Weir and Doyle. Their representative was the Crown Law Office. If you read their interviews you will see Ms Markham’s input is recorded. The only difference being, that Bain’s representative, was not allowed any input or to attend those interviews.

    The Bain team was not present at Weir and Doyle’s interviews, however, the Crown Law Office was allowed to attend Bain’s interview.

    The Crown Law Office was not representing the Government, their representative was from MOJ.

    The only bias in that process was not in David Bain’s favour. But good of you to point out there was some definite inequality of treatment.

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

    Kanz (849) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    ———————————–

    I agree, they now attempt to draw the attention away from their definitive statement:-

    twistedlemon (71) Says:

    February 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am
    When Binnie was interviewing David, the defence team (in the person of Reed) was allowed to examine Bain and cross-examine the police witnesses.

    Which was of course, incorrect. Although to be fair, I have seen the same thing posted before on here by a spinner, so they may have just been taken in by another spinner’s lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Did Bain’s defense team want to attend the interview with the detectives?
    Did they ask to be present? Were they turned down?
    Why didn’t Karam and Reed insist on a presence?
    Who decided who could attend?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Quote: Mr Karam has secured the confidence of one this countries most esteemed experts in Constitutional Law.
    Clearly, people far more important than you, do not share your sentiments.

    Ahem, it was my understanding that once legal aid was denied, Karam was funding the appeal. In which case the solicitors are being paid by the hour, and their personal confidence/opinion counts for absolutely ZILCH, only billable hours (in 6 minute increments) are what counts. And anyway, who says he is important??

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,745) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 9:43 am
    … I accept that David Bain need only address his own situation …

    We would all dearly love to see David Bain address his own situation, unfortunately he is not allowed to open his mouth in case he puts his rather large foot in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    We would all dearly love to see David Bain address his own situation, unfortunately he is not allowed to open his mouth in case he puts his rather large foot in it.

    Yes, the one that is far too large to have left the bloody prints in Margaret’s room. We have noticed, as did Binnie.

    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (74) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:40 pm
    ———————–

    Legal aid was not applied for in the matter of the Judicial Review. Do you always have to misrepresent such things?

    It must be quite difficult for you to not be ‘in the loop’ and actually know what, if any financial arrangements are made pertaining to the Judicial Review.

    If it’s of any help, Prof. Joseph does not often take cases. It is extremely rare, and as a man of substantial means, he has no need to do so. I think you can safely say, for Prof. Joseph, this is not about ‘the money’.

    I do hope you are not now going to start an analysis of Prof. Joseph’s financial circumstances as you did for Joe Karam. We all know how that sort of carry on goes, don’t we?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (75) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    We would all dearly love to see David Bain address his own situation, unfortunately he is not allowed to open his mouth in case he puts his rather large foot in it.
    ————————

    However, in the last six months, David Bain has given a television interview, two magazine interviews and spoken at a conference in Perth.

    In the next breath you will be saying he is an attention seeker. Let’s face it, you will pick fault with anything he does. We get the message.

    David is shy, has been his whole life. It is not unusual or unexpected for him to have a representative speak for him in some cases. AAT did, despite what one of your clown friends likes to say. AAT frequently turned down interviews, and tried to avoid the public attention by appointing a member of his support team to speak on his behalf. But you wouldn’t dare come on here and run that behaviour down.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (75) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    Did Bain’s defense team want to attend the interview with the detectives?
    Did they ask to be present? Were they turned down?
    Why didn’t Karam and Reed insist on a presence?
    Who decided who could attend?

    Why do you ask these questions after stating

    twistedlemon (75) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am

    When Binnie was interviewing David, the defence team (in the person of Reed) was allowed to examine Bain and cross-examine the police witnesses.

    The prosecution was not allowed this same right. Why not?

    Are you a cop? They say what has happened, then look for the evidence to fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (850) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:47 pm
    We would all dearly love to see David Bain address his own situation, unfortunately he is not allowed to open his mouth in case he puts his rather large foot in it.

    Yes, the one that is far too large to have left the bloody prints in Margaret’s room. We have noticed, as did Binnie.

    LMFAO

    ————————–

    LOL – I enjoyed that! 😉 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Judith (1,243) Says:

    Legal aid was not applied for in the matter of the Judicial Review.

    You obviously read a different news report to the one I did, but these things happen.

    I think you can safely say, for Prof. Joseph, this is not about ‘the money’.

    You may say what you please, but did Prof Joseph actually say “It is not about the money” and did he actually say it was pro bono?? Or are you putting words in his mouth?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (76) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    ————————–

    Nice try, but it’s actually none of your business. Make of it whatever you like

    You have already lied about it saying legal aid was denied, when it was never applied for, so I’m sure you are more than capable of making up all sorts of lies to cover any situation you want to defame the one man in NZ that I really hope you do upset.

    I think Prof. Joseph could teach you a very important lesson about telling the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    I think the jury of public opinion could be undecided about that, how large are they?
    The same person that measured Robin’s feet should measure David’s. Soon 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The same person that measured Robin’s feet should measure David’s. Soon

    Why is that? Does he have a loan of Ngamoki’s ruler?

    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Judith (1,246) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:06 pm
    muggins (1,857) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 4:03 pm
    twistedlemon (71) Says:

    February 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am
    When Binnie was interviewing David, the defence team (in the person of Reed) was allowed to examine Bain and cross-examine the police witnesses.

    How could Reed cross-examine the police witnesses, when he wasn’t present at their interview?’

    He was actually hiding behind a blanket, for modesty reasons of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. flipper (5,296 comments) says:

    Sorry Nookie child et al…

    i would never advocate the spending of public monies to “put down” your mob. That would be a waste.

    If you read what I said (but given your comments, I doubt that you have reached a level of comprehension comparable to that of my eight (8) year old grandson), I was suggesting (not advocating), that given your crass stupidity you would very likely (just like Jones’ cult) commit mass, riutual suicide.

    If you do, you will be able to ask Robin why he killed the others, will you not? 🙂

    Give it up you silly fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Then it would be like with like, mind you Robin’s would have been taken when he was ‘lying down’.
    Where does one measure a foot from?
    The same person would presumably measure in the same fashion.
    So David can lie down with his heels firmly on a slab and his feet measured to the tip of toe.
    So difficult as it is not as if they are squared off.

    The only person I recall reading as having measured David’s feet is Joe.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Judith (1,246) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    twistedlemon (73) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 5:02 pm
    ———————-
    If you see on page 101 of David Bain’s interview, Binnie had asked a number of questions on behalf of the Crown Law Office. He then asks Mr Reed if he wishes to ‘re-examine’.

    So, were the the defence allowed the same input in the other interviews, or was even this process weighted towards the Crown?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Has Joseph stated that he believes David Bain factually innocent? Privately? Publicly?

    Has he stated he believes Bain should receive compensation? Privately? Publicly?

    Or is this merely a constitutional matter? Whether the courts can interfere with the day-to-day business of a democratically elected government?

    ———————-

    @Katz. You really are a fool. If you have a child Laniet’s age invite someone to stay in your home it is with your permission and in this case the lodger is your guest. If you don’t want the person you say “No, sorry” and in this case Robin could have made any number of excuses, including, for example, “This is the schoolhouse and it for our family only”. The rubbish you people talk. Incest or no incest he clearly didn’t shoot himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The only person I recall reading as having measured David’s feet is Joe.

    Which proves only one thing.
    You need to do more reading.

    HINT: You won’t find the truth on any of the sites you get your information and instructions from.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    If you have a child Laniet’s age invite someone to stay in your home it is with your permission and in this case the lodger is your guest. If you don’t want the person you say “No, sorry” and in this case Robin could have made any number of excuses, including, for example, “This is the schoolhouse and it for our family only”. The rubbish you people talk.

    Know from experience, do you?
    Laniet was not a child, she was 18. I have read, but can’t put my finger on it right now, that she not only invited him to board there, but stayed up talking to him into the early hours of the morning, to keep herself safe from the old man. The reason you say the old man would say no is the very reason Laniet wanted him there.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    flipper (1,342) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 6:42 pm
    Sorry Nookie child et al…

    i would never advocate the spending of public monies to “put down” your mob. That would be a waste.

    If you read what I said (but given your comments, I doubt that you have reached a level of comprehension comparable to that of my eight (8) year old grandson), I was suggesting (not advocating), that given your crass stupidity you would very likely (just like Jones’ cult) commit mass, riutual suicide.

    If you do, you will be able to ask Robin why he killed the others, will you not?

    Give it up you silly fool.’

    I did notice note that distinction flipper. Nookin generally keeps things pretty well aligned, but he was off the point with that one this morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Cue key word search……………

    I was thinking that there should be a competition…..

    No prizes per se, except for immortality 😉

    There seems to be a lot of infantile ‘collective name’ calling by David’s team.

    Would Robin’s team like to make some suggestions for a ‘collective name’ for ‘them?

    Re foot measurement
    I wish to be on record as saying that I would not accept Kanz’s (sounds like cancers) word for how big his ‘fish’ is. 😉
    Let alone the size of David’s feet.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (853) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    So, were the the defence allowed the same input in the other interviews, or was even this process weighted towards the Crown?

    ——————–

    In Weir and Doyle’s interview, David’s representatives were not allowed to be present in the interview. They did give questions to be asked, just as the Crown did for David, which is normal procedure, but the only other person present in the interview, was Ms Markham. Ms Markham was asked if she wanted to cross-examine, but declined.

    The Bain team did actually send a representative with the intention of attending, but they were not allowed to be present in the room during the interview.

    I don’t consider that to be fair, or balanced, especially when you see the line up David had to face.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    ‘Where does one measure a foot from?’

    From under the armpit?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Re foot measurement
    I wish to be on record as saying that I would not accept Kanz’s (sounds like cancers) word for how big his ‘fish’ is. 😉
    Let alone the size of David’s feet

    But you would be happy if Robert Ngamoki measured them? He works for the Police, and we know he can take measurements.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Maybe if it was a slighty withered ‘wild child’ from the sixties, complete with unkempt nails curving back under the foot and in need of a good clip, from across the road whilst wearing a wooden clothes peg on the nose. Far out man.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (583) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    @Katz. You really are a fool. If you have a child Laniet’s age invite someone to stay in your home it is with your permission and in this case the lodger is your guest. If you don’t want the person you say “No, sorry” and in this case Robin could have made any number of excuses, including, for example, “This is the schoolhouse and it for our family only”. The rubbish you people talk. Incest or no incest he clearly didn’t shoot himself.
    ———————————-

    This was a man that was not allowed to live in the house with his family,
    who handed over his wages to his estranged wife, who was left with a pitiful sum for himself,
    whose wife and children were planning a new house he didn’t want,
    a man who was making no headway in his career, despite applying for lots of positions,
    whose ability to do the tasks assigned to his professional position was lacking,
    who couldn’t even manage his own personal hygiene needs,
    who appears to have had little control over anything very much in his life,

    and you want to claim that he would have had the ‘balls’ to say ‘No sorry’ to his daughter at that point in his life?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Obtuse, if one foot is measured lying down, (somehow I doubt that Robin was standing up) then a comparative foot measurement should be taken similarly, not with weight on it, when that measurement is then relied upon as too large, to have made the ‘prints’.

    With or without socks.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Well, that’s a new one Robin wasn’t standing up when he was walking around.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Maybe if it was a slighty withered ‘wild child’ from the sixties, complete with unkempt nails curving back under the foot and in need of a good clip, from across the road whilst wearing a wooden clothes peg on the nose. Far out man.

    Seen goldnkiwi’s feet then, huh?

    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Fortunately not.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    @judith If “The Bain team did actually send a representative with the intention of attending, but they were not allowed to be present in the room during the interview.” exactly WHO said they were not allowed to be present?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Kanz. “Know from experience, do you?
    Laniet was not a child, she was 18. I have read, but can’t put my finger on it right now, that she not only invited him to board there, but stayed up talking to him into the early hours of the morning, to keep herself safe from the old man. The reason you say the old man would say no is the very reason Laniet wanted him there.”

    You really are something else. Laniet was his child, yes/no? If Laniet invited a lodger to stay in the house provided by the school then Robin’s approval can be assumed. The school provided the house for Robin and it was therefore his house, and Laniet certainly had no authority to invite anyone.

    And she stayed up all night talking did she, to avoid her father? Then why did she move in with him? Why didn’t she go back to the family home where her mother was?

    She wasn’t frightened of her freaky brother was she? She certainly had good reason to be. He locked them out of the lounge/computer alcove and threatened them with the rifle.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Judith (1,248) Says:
    You have already lied about it saying legal aid was denied, when it was never applied for, so I’m sure you are more than capable of making up all sorts of lies to cover any situation you want to defame the one man in NZ that I really hope you do upset.

    Why don’t you read what is actually posted? I never said legal aid was denied. I said “it was my understanding” which means I wasn’t sure of the situation which is totaly different. The rest was put in the nature of questions, not statements. Incidently, you didn’t answer my questions so I can presume you don’t know the answers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    And she stayed up all night talking did she, to avoid her father? Then why did she move in with him? Why didn’t she go back to the family home where her mother was?’

    She did Dennis, and that’s when daddy flipped out.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    And she stayed up all night talking did she, to avoid her father? Then why did she move in with him? Why didn’t she go back to the family home where her mother was?

    She didn’t move in with him until she knew an older male friend of hers would be there too. Do you not understand anything?
    She was home that fateful weekend to talk to her Mother about moving home, AND TELLING HER WHAT THE OLD MAN WAS ALL ABOUT.
    This will not be found on your pedo loving sites, but can be found in the retrial transcripts. That is why you say you are not interested in reading Kyle Cunningham’s evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    The incest is irrelevant. Whatever Robin was David Bain is a freak. “My core belief is I was not there.” No/Know/Don’t Know?

    The footprints prove nothing. A partial set of incomplete prints that even the man who measured them and said they were David’s doesn’t really know what he was looking at. The only importance they have is that Binnie decided they were Robin’s. Probably came to him in the night. Binnie, you are a dunce. Your report is going to be shredded. Goodbye.

    Any sign Joseph thinks David Bain is innocent? No.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (77) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    —————————–

    The JFRB Theme Song, sung by Corrigenda, and accompanied of course by their esteemed leader, so it’s all sung out of tune.

    Come on everybody clap your hands
    Now you’re looking good
    I’m gonna sing my song and you won’t take long
    We gotta do the twist and it goes like this

    Come on let’s twist again like we did last summer
    Yea, let’s twist again like we did last year
    Do you remember when things were really hummin’
    Yea, let’s twist again, twistin’ time is here

    Yeah round ‘n around ‘n up ‘n down we go again ……..

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    I never said legal aid was denied. I said “it was my understanding” which means I wasn’t sure of the situation which is totaly different.

    Does saying “it is my understanding” set the scene for then telling lies? Or is it that the people you get “your understanding” from lying to you and you just pass it on? Either way, spreading lies, gossip and rumour is all the pedo lovers have left.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Any sign Joseph thinks David Bain is innocent? No.’

    Every sign he thinks David has been denied natural justice, fair treatment and his rights under TBORA. But don’t worry about that tailspin Dennis.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Judith, how about some:

    ‘twisting by the pool…’

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The footprints prove nothing. A partial set of incomplete prints that even the man who measured them and said they were David’s doesn’t really know what he was looking at.

    Finally, Old Dennis is getting the tiniest glimmer. He can see that the prosecution experts were guessing, even they didn’t know what they were doing or seeing or saying.
    Binnie called it what? The egregious errors of the Dunedin Police.
    Most would just call it the usual NZ system fuck up.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    I don’t care about the incest. It doesn’t explain the forensics.

    What I want to know is how a man shoots himself without smudging pristine prints on the muzzle of the rifle, by far the most natural place to hold it when guiding it to the left temple. Why his prints are not on the rifle, somewhere. Why David’s prints are but don’t count. Yeah, yeah, they’re old. Like an old wives’ tale.

    I want to know how the blood spot got onto the left index fingernail when that hand was supposedly at the trigger.

    I want to know how many men in a million would get up and fight and strangle and shoot and change and wash and still hold 400ml urine.

    I want to know why anyone would think Robin wouldn’t just kill himself if he were feeling guilty about incest.

    I want to know why he spared only David, the arsehole who locked him out of the lounge/computer alcove.

    I want to know why anyone in his right mind would believe Robin typed the immature self-serving message on the computer when he had all night to write a letter explaining himself.

    And if one senior judge in the whole country believes this crap I’d be very surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    David wrote the note on the computer, its really that simple …


    But you all enjoy, the merry-go-round …. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Do you ever feel like you’re going blah, blah blah Dennis? Stupid questions only stupid questions make, but keep chasing your tail.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    ‘Where does one measure a foot from?’

    From under the armpit?
    ……………………………………

    try from the ass

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    It’s not the fault of the Dunedin police the sock prints were partial and incomplete. The socks obviously didn’t have much blood on them.

    David’s socks had blood on them. Of course, forgot, that means he innocent.

    Robin’s socks had no blood on them. Of course, forgot, he’s guilty.

    So another lawyer wants us to pay Bain compensation whether he’s innocent or not? Is that what you crackpots are saying?

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

    Dennis Horne (586) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Maybe you could ask Hentschel those questions. You say he didn’t know his own job but guessed anyway, so he could do some guessing for you on these too.
    The incest doesn’t explain the forensics, but it does explain the reason that the forensics in the lounge point to it being the scene of the old man’s suicide.

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

    It’s not the fault of the Dunedin police the sock prints were partial and incomplete.

    It’s not Bain’s fault that the Dunedin police described what they saw as complete, encompassing heel and toes, prints.

    LMAO, you truly are a comedian Dennis.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Do you ever feel like you’re going blah, blah blah Dennis? Stupid questions only stupid questions make, but keep chasing your tail.

    He does seem to be getting quite hysterical. He needs to stop confusing himself, do you think it is from all of that spinning?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter what the police saw, said they saw or anything else. There is no way of knowing if the prints were complete when they were so faint and indistinct.

    The incest certainly doesn’t explain the magazine on its edge a few millimetres away from Robin’s outstretched hand. He certainly didn’t drop it there or put it there. Miles away from the beanbag and under the low table.

    Again, no senior judge in the country believes this crap. You ain’t going to get any sympathy from the High Court on your hare-brained scheme to interfere with the day-to-day business of government.

    Anyway, I’m off for caviar and Champagne now. You stay and play quietly amongst yourselves. Lalalala……..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    It would give anybody a headache, particularly where there are big gaps, very big gaps, in the brain matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Judith (1,249) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    You are wrong, this is part of the chorus of their theme song, courtesy of Simple Image

    And now we’re Spinning, spinning, spinning
    Spinning, spinning through this magic land
    getting back to the beginning of the end
    that we once had

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Bye bye Dennis, don’t forget to do a little name dropping in the pool – while you’re twisting by it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The incest certainly doesn’t explain the magazine on its edge a few millimetres away from Robin’s outstretched hand.

    No, that was explained by the police themselves when they said they had to stand it up for the photograph.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Man, that Dennis is sure some guy. He has spoken to EVERY senior Judge in the country and knows what they think. All I can say is, WOW what a guy.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Go Dennis …..

    But it was Wolf Blass and steak for this laddie …

    have a good one and remember u all

    David wrote the note on the computer … easy as that

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Gutless wonders these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Chuck Bird (6,569 comments) says:

    I just finished reading “Missing Pieces” by Ian Wishart about how David Tamihere was not given a fair trial. When a new report is done hopefully by a panel that includes someone with a science degree it will be the end of the road for David Bain.

    You guys could do something useful and put your efforts into helping someone who is quite likely not guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    January 27th, 2013 at 9:28 pm
    Dear Mr Binnie,

    In a press release of 12 December 2012, you said:

    “It is a curious feature of this case that all of the ‘external’ judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt. By far the most prominent, of course, were the five judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council…”

    The Privy Council did not assess or deliver a verdict on David’s guilt. Indeed, the Privy Council said that deciding the issue of guilt was not its role. It opined:

    “the issue of guilt is one for a properly informed and directed jury, not for an appellate court. … Where issues have not been fully and fairly considered by a trial jury, determination of guilt is not the task of appellate courts.”

    A curious feature of your report is that it fails to mention how, in 2008, Joe Karam and Michael Reed QC petitioned the Privy Council to acquit David. Law lords deliberated for just five minutes before reaching a decision. They said it was a matter for “the New Zealand courts”.

    It is unclear to whom you are referring when you mention “all of the external judges”. The only external judges that have traversed the evidence are the Privy Council judges and you. However, as mentioned, the Privy Council did not acquit or exonerate David. The Privy Council ordered a retrial and said that David should remain in prison in the meantime. The fact is that the only “external” judge to have rejected the Crown’s arguments in regards to David’s guilt is you. It is unclear why you used or, more correctly, misused the Privy Council judgment in an attempt to bolster your position. That judgment is irrelevant in the context of David’s claim for compensation.

    Binnie doesn’t know which side is up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    This was a man that was not allowed to live in the house with his family,
    who handed over his wages to his estranged wife, who was left with a pitiful sum for himself,
    whose wife and children were planning a new house he didn’t want,
    a man who was making no headway in his career, despite applying for lots of positions,
    whose ability to do the tasks assigned to his professional position was lacking,
    who couldn’t even manage his own personal hygiene needs,
    who appears to have had little control over anything very much in his life,

    Well, I guess the above is at least as convincing as the stuff about David being a loner weirdo whose career had peaked at newspaper delivery boy, who had very odd relationships with his parents and at least one sister, frequent odd mental episodes, a determination to build a house with him taking his father’s place, a habit of controlling and intimidating his sisters and an expressed interest in using his paper round for an alibi so he could commit a crime – ie, not very.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    That could explain Dennis’s double hernia Kanz, finding out that the police stood the magazine up for the photograph. What a big shock for such a famous fellow who the army just awarded a medal. That took a long while, maybe they couldn’t find him because he left in a hurry from some difficult situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,967) Says:

    February 1st, 2013 at 8:57 pm
    I just finished reading “Missing Pieces” by Ian Wishart about how David Tamihere was not given a fair trial. When a new report is done hopefully by a panel that includes someone with a science degree it will be the end of the road for David Bain.

    You guys could do something useful and put your efforts into helping someone who is quite likely not guilty.

    Chuck,
    How come Tamihere was driving round in the Swedish tourists car with all their gear in it without a care in the world?
    Answer. Because he knew they wouldn’t be reporting it missing
    And how did he know that?
    Answer. Because he knew they were dead.
    And how did he know that?
    Answer. Because he had killed them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    I’ve heard of the dance of the 7 veils, but how about the dance of 7 blankets?
    It could happen; particularly if you were obsessed about naked young men and even got sketches of one.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    It’s not Bain’s fault that the Dunedin police described what they saw as complete, encompassing heel and toes, prints

    Indeed it’s not Bain’s fault Hentschel described the print as complete despite having no means of knowing whether it actually was or not. But Hentschel must have been correct, right? Surely a prosecution witness couldn’t have been wrong about something?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    It’s a circumstantial case, which means the question is whether David Bain is more likely to be the murderer, or merely the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shit luck he suffered that morning:

    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s rifle instead of buying one himself.
    Bad luck that Robin found out where the key to unlock it was.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to use David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable suspect’s prints on the rifle were old ones of David’s.
    Bad luck that these hadn’t been smeared by all the activity carried out with the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David got victims’ blood in various places on his clothes through innocent transfer.
    Bad luck that glasses he was known to wear were found broken with one piece in the room where the struggle took place.
    Bad luck he told his lawyer and his aunt that he’d been wearing those glasses the day before the murders.
    Bad luck he managed to injure himself that morning in ways consist with having struggled with Stephen.
    Bad luck that Robin decided to change his blood-stained clothes for some tatty old ones before he shot himself.
    Bad luck that Robin managed to clean the blood off his hands without removing the dirt.
    Bad luck that Robin left the blood-stained murdering outfit in the washing basket instead of washing it.
    Bad luck David didn’t notice when he washed the clothes that they were covered in blood and he was getting it on his hands and transferring it to various items in the laundry.
    Bad luck Robin typed a suicide note on the computer instead of hand writing one.
    Bad luck the note amounted to a declaration of David’s moral superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck the spent cartridge from Robin’s suicide ended up in the computer alcove.
    Bad luck that David spent a while freaking out before thinking to call 111.

    The pro Robin’s think that is an unlikely set of circumstances and now most of the pro David’s do as well.
    The penny has finally dropped for most of them.
    Like that old saying “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all of the time”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (588) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 8:18 pm
    It doesn’t matter what the police saw, said they saw or anything else.
    ———————————————–

    LOL.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Indeed it’s not Bain’s fault Hentschel described the print as complete despite having no means of knowing whether it actually was or not. But Hentschel must have been correct, right? Surely a prosecution witness couldn’t have been wrong about something?

    Two of them must have been wrong in this instance. Weir described it as a footprint you would leave in sand. Sounds pretty complete to me, unless of course both of these men were pissed when they saw it/them.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    arzuka (6) Says:
    January 28th, 2013 at 11:50 pm
    hi judith, long time no schmaggle bleng!

    Next they’ll be showing Marzuka’s pathetic graphic attempts, that completely ignore the evidence of the blood spatter and the close contact wound. Oh wait a minute, they already have!

    lol, they needn’t resort to that as I’m quite happy to show my “pathetic graphic attempts”. By the way thanks for using one of my pictures – I wonder where those lines correlating blood splatter end up…

    Actually, in all honesty I’m quite proud of noticing that incriminating mark on David’s nose from the morning of the murders that nicely matches the mark nose pads on glasses would make:
    https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-i5OGnHXDbY0/UOKCZrf3E7I/AAAAAAAABiw/O47s61lKA0Y/s800/bain%2520glasses6.jpg

    Also, showing that david’s toeless foot nicely fits with a 240mm toeless print was a bit of a coup:
    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-26HtE3L6n_Q/UOaKqJ2Lv1I/AAAAAAAABjs/ZX1GBHAK58k/s1200/bain%252520footprint6b.jpg

    and that footlike print in blood that nicely fits david – note direction,orientation footedness all consistent with other prints :
    http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/TSwQcCcBjaI/AAAAAAAAA5E/Peg0aFvCwcU/s0/bain%20footprint%20combo%20med.jpg
    animated comparison:
    http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/TS7CQbpr_yI/AAAAAAAAA58/hLmE5a_Ba0Q/s0/bain-foot-anim3.gif

    Notto mention my murder sim in glorious html5-o-vision, showing the unlikeliness of the defense’s suicide scenario with respect to robin’s final resting position – note sim example of robin taking defensive action quite reasonable:
    http://marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    and of course there is my physics model of the blood splatter with regards to the position and orientation of the rifle which is quite interesting too….

    Like they say, you can run but you can’t hide. I say, bring on the hyper AI of future Justice Watson 5.0, then we’ll talk balance of probabilities tending to the infinitesimals against…

    cheerio

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    quote”I don’t care about the incest. It doesn’t explain the forensics.
    What I want to know is how a man shoots himself without smudging pristine prints on the muzzle of the rifle, by far the most natural place to hold it when guiding it to the left temple. Why his prints are not on the rifle, somewhere. Why David’s prints are but don’t count. Yeah, yeah, they’re old. Like an old wives’ tale.
    I want to know how the blood spot got onto the left index fingernail when that hand was supposedly at the trigger.
    I want to know how many men in a million would get up and fight and strangle and shoot and change and wash and still hold 400ml urine.
    I want to know why anyone would think Robin wouldn’t just kill himself if he were feeling guilty about incest.
    I want to know why he spared only David, the arsehole who locked him out of the lounge/computer alcove.
    I want to know why anyone in his right mind would believe Robin typed the immature self-serving message on the computer when he had all night to write a letter explaining himself.
    And if one senior judge in the whole country believes this crap I’d be very surprised.” unquote

    A brief but good summary.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    What a spammer!

    All the dickleheads have got left.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith
    You said that the correct spelling of Kaycee’s name was in the retrial transcript.
    It wasn’t. You lied.
    You said it was spelt correctly in a newspaper .
    It wasn’t . You lied.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Noone gives a flying f*** how to spell the dogs name, stop spamming kiwiblog with all your bs! you have demonstrated time and time again what a pathetic liar you are! seriously get help!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Oh look, the dog poop experts have arrived.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Give it a break Rowan, it could be quite important to know how to spell the dog’s name if you were going to one of them shows.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Chuck @ 8.57
    I’ve just finished it as well, was better than his previous conspiracy theory about the Thomas case, Ian is a good read but I don’t know about some of his conclusions. I don’t believe Tamihere got a fair go but I don’t know about innocence, certainly not BRD for me.
    Maybe you could look at the Bain case with a bit more of an open mind, you seriously let the so called ‘goat shagging’ story decide the case for you?, case for prosecution is just to weak and full of holes.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    gamefisher (381) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    I don’t care about the incest.

    Another pedo lover, must be a few of them around. At least 550, they all belong to JFRB. Some are pedo lovers, but there must be a fair few who are pedos themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    This is a new one

    quote”I want to know why anyone in his right mind would believe Robin typed the immature self-serving message on the computer when he had all night to write a letter explaining himself.”

    As well as that he could of had 20 minutes (+-5) spare to write a note before he was meant to of turned the computer on.

    Let the D Bain team BS flow in increasing amounts.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Weak argument Gamefisher
    Full of speculation, what if the blood on daddys finger was Stephens, Dempster said it could be consistent with having got there from shooting someone else, also total speculation that ‘David controlled Robins access to the lounge’ been over most of it before, oh and the plonkers favourite argument ‘why’, as if Robin was thinking rationally at the time and had planned anything.
    Gets the usual 0.000000%

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Kanz (868) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Quote” gamefisher (381) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    I don’t care about the incest.

    Another pedo lover, must be a few of them around. At least 550, they all belong to JFRB. Some are pedo lovers, but there must be a fair few who are pedos themselves.”unquote
    That was a qoute of someone elses and you have misquoted it so it is obvious you do not know NZ defamation laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Quote”Weak argument Gamefisher
    Full of speculation, what if the blood on daddys finger was Stephens,”

    Yes you are full of ‘speculation’ believing that the blood on Robin finger was Stevens bit like Karam saying the blood on Robins pants was someone else in the family but it wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    Rather a lot of speculation in your character assassination of David, any evidence of this that didn’t ‘suddenly turn up 20 years after’ the event by people with an axe to grind or were bullied into making statements by the lynch mob.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Nice try Gamefisher
    How much of the blood on Robin was tested? none prior to 1995 trial and a minimal amount afterwards, Maybe you could explain the red ‘bloodlike’ staining on his palms and under his fingernails, also the copius amounts of blood on him that didn’t come from his headwound? Nope didn’t think so!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Quote”Nice try Gamefisher
    How much of the blood on Robin was tested? none prior to 1995 trial and a minimal amount afterwards, Maybe you could explain the red ‘bloodlike’ staining on his palms and under his fingernails, also the copius amounts of blood on him that didn’t come from his headwound? Nope didn’t think so!” Unquote

    Citation or link

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    GF
    If you look in the appendices to D & G in your local library there is a statement by Det Mark Lodge the officer in charge of Robins body, also the photos of Robin lying dead in the lounge, I know you will say it is ‘fiction’ but the photos and reprinted detective statement is all you need to look at. Or are we now to believe the reprinted statement is not authentic and the photos are lying?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Rowan (523) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    GF
    If you look in the appendices to D & G in your local library there is a statement by Det Mark Lodge the officer in charge of Robins body, also the photos of Robin lying dead in the lounge, I know you will say it is ‘fiction’ but the photos and reprinted detective statement is all you need to look at. Or are we now to believe the reprinted statement is not authentic and the photos are lying?

    Det. Mark Lodge, like Hentschel and Weir, didn’t know what he was seeing. By all accounts a lot of the investigators had the same problems. Jones didn’t know what he saw luminesing, or what colour the ridges of the prints were. Weir didn’t know where he found the lens. Ngamoki didn’t know how to read the measurements on a ruler. Lots of don’t know going on there.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Quote”Or are we now to believe the reprinted statement is not authentic and the photos are lying?” unquote

    Not back to this BS arguement fro 3 years ago what blood is there on Robins hand because in that photo that is not blood on the exterior but blood accumulated in the veins etc being the lowest part of Robin body not covered by clothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Quote”Ngamoki didn’t know how to read the measurements on a ruler.” unquote

    A very common mistake with everyone and what guarantees can you give me that Hentschel didn’t make a mistake as well and I have seen many people make mistakes measuring and the difference when the numerical numbers 8 & 9 are invlolved are greater still as they are more easily mistaken. Eg 280 could of been mistaken for 290

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Lodges statement Gamefisher, or did he get that wrong as well? given his stuff ups in not protecting the hands and clothing before the body was removed is it to much to assume that his notes might be correct?
    Re 10.40 8 inches Gamefisher a reasonable ‘common mistake’

    Kanz, Jones should have realised it was red food colouring under Robins fingernails or as Muggins is ‘certain of’ rust marks from the guttering!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Two of them must have been wrong in this instance. Weir described it as a footprint you would leave in sand. Sounds pretty complete to me, unless of course both of these men were pissed when they saw it/them.

    Perhaps you could fill us in on the mechanism they used to establish that it was a genuinely complete print, rather than one that looked complete in that it showed toes and a heel. A 28cm print covers 93% of a 30cm foot. How good do you figure Hentschel, Weir or anyone else is at distinguishing a 93% complete print from a 100% complete one based on luminescence of a piece of carpet?

    Rather a lot of speculation in your character assassination of David…

    You bet your ass, which is why I rated it no more credible than Judith’s character assassination of Robin.

    How much of the blood on Robin was tested? none prior to 1995 trial and a minimal amount afterwards…

    Wrong, and wrong. Not that that surprises me at all.

    If you look in the appendices to D & G in your local library there is a statement by Det Mark Lodge the officer in charge of Robins body…

    Not in my library’s copy there ain’t. Just Cottle’s statement and the judge’s summing up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    David wrote the message on the computer ……. itz that simple …

    🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    ‘Det. Mark Lodge, like Hentschel and Weir, didn’t know what he was seeing. By all accounts a lot of the investigators had the same problems. Jones didn’t know what he saw luminesing, or what colour the ridges of the prints were. Weir didn’t know where he found the lens. Ngamoki didn’t know how to read the measurements on a ruler. Lots of don’t know going on there.”

    Yes all ‘common’ mistakes, like Doyle destroying the blood samples from Robin’s clothes but keeping the clothes with the cut out samples removed. Why would they not have tested them as a matter of routine to establish guilt or innocence, oh that’s right they ‘knew’ who was guilty and didn’t need the evidence. And in every case, an extraordinary co-incidence; everything thrown out or over which there was some mistake always favoured the police case – how extraordinary. Pity they ‘forgot’ to throw out the morgue photos showing the blood on daddy’s palms and his nose bleed, but ‘they’ couldn’t get at them because they were under the control of the Pathologists, honest men not trying to protect themselves or the dead father.

    But the arguments about the evidence are over, just stuff now for the sisters to keep bsing about while the rest off us look ahead to the JR that was never going to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Judith. Please pass this on to your daughter. 🙂

    A guy is looking for a place in the university library. He asks a girl: “Do you mind if I sit beside you?”

    She replies in a loud voice: “I DON ‘T WANT TO SPEND THE NIGHT WITH YOU!”

    The others stare at him, he is truly embarrassed and finds another table. After a few minutes, she walks over to him and says with a laugh: “I study psychology, and I know what a man is thinking. I guess you feel embarrassed, right?”

    In a loud voice he responds: “$500 FOR ONE NIGHT? THAT ‘S TOO MUCH!” Everybody looks at the girl in shock.

    He whispers in her ear: “I study law, and I know how to screw people.”

    Judith, tell Liz the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Who is Liz Dennis, have you joined the stalkers of families? Are you trying to intimidate Judith into silence by mentioning the name of somebody you believe to be associated with her? Are your arguments so hopeless that you have become beside yourself with anger and need now to threaten who you believe to children or relatives of other posters who you cannot subdue with either insults or lies, you who claim to be an ex vet.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    That Truth article was commenting on that double murderers obsession withe pedos, I assume that to mean paedophiles.

    Kanz has a big thing about pedos- any link?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. big bruv (15,556 comments) says:

    So..612 comments later have we actually found out if Legal Aid is funding this?

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

    big bruv (11,002) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:11 am

    So..612 comments later have we actually found out if Legal Aid is funding this?

    ———————————-

    No, legal aid is not funding this which was clearly stated in the initial press release.

    There was no application for legal aid either, and therefore, despite what some have stated, there was no denial of legal aid.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (589) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:07 am

    —————————

    I will pass the message on to my daughter that you think she knows how to screw people. But I suspect her husband has already complimented her talent in that area. She will probably require more information about her stalker though.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Perhaps David’s lawyers work on a contingency basis as they are so confident of success?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Judith (1,252) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:25 am
    Dennis Horne (589) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:07 am

    —————————

    I will pass the message on to my daughter that you think she knows how to screw people. But I suspect her husband has already complimented her talent in that area. She will probably require more information about her stalker though.
    Vote: 0 0
    ………………..
    That’s sick talking about a daughter like that, on a public forum.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Any progress on measuring a ‘foot?’ Or even on the failed hate campaign.

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

    goldnkiwi (188) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:29 am
    That’s sick talking about a daughter like that, on a public forum.
    —————————-

    someone’s got a dirty mind then!

    My daughter is very good at making money by charging big fees, her husband loves it. What were you thinking? 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Let’s review the evidence against Robin.

    1. There is a rumour about incest. A man who had an arrest warrant out to force him to appear said so. The judge said, “I’m not allowing the jury to hear this crap.”

    2. There is a rumour he was depressed. Not surprising. His wife whom he loved was going insane. His arshole son locked them out of the lounge/computer alcove and threatened them with his rifle. Stephen woke up on morning with David at his bedside going BANG BANG. He was told it was a dream.

    3. There is no forensic evidence. No fingerprints, blood, nothing. The sock prints could be either man’s; Binnie agreed.

    4. A group of supporters “KNOW” he is guilty. “Daddy did it”, they chant. Loonies.

    Have I forgotten anything?

    ==================

    @Klutz. You are a very confused man. On and on you go about paedophilia. Some kind of fascination for you? Paedophilia involves under age children. In NZ and UK the age of consent is 16, in France 15, in Spain 14, in some countries there is no limit, intercourse is forbidden outside marriage.

    I have seen no evidence that anyone here has defended let alone supported paedophilia. Or incest. Sorry we can’t help you on that. Maybe try your priest. You are Catholic, aren’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    That you couldn’t possibly have a daughter, else you would not be so crass.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (188) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:29 am
    Judith (1,252) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:25 am
    Dennis Horne (589) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:07 am

    —————————

    I will pass the message on to my daughter that you think she knows how to screw people. But I suspect her husband has already complimented her talent in that area. She will probably require more information about her stalker though.
    Vote: 0 0
    ………………..
    That’s sick talking about a daughter like that, on a public forum.’

    Who says she has a daughter and what business is it of yours. Oh that’s right that’s what that site ‘Guilty’ is set up for.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    @Klutz. You are a very confused man. On and on you go about paedophilia. Some kind of fascination for you? Paedophilia involves under age children. In NZ and UK the age of consent is 16, in France 15, in Spain 14, in some countries there is no limit, intercourse is forbidden outside marriage.

    I have seen no evidence that anyone here has defended let alone supported paedophilia. Or incest. Sorry we can’t help you on that. Maybe try your priest. You are Catholic, aren’t you?’

    Expert on the subject Dennis? It was only a few minutes ago that you were naming names of those you believed to be the children of other posters. Standing by that?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (188) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:26 am
    Perhaps David’s lawyers work on a contingency basis as they are so confident of success?

    what a stupid question, kick this ass!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,253) Says:

    January 31st, 2013 at 10:21 pm
    muggins (1,852) Says:
    January 31st, 2013 at 10:08 pm
    ———————
    The photo doesn’t show any scratches, and wouldn’t even if they were there. It is of the tattoo, side on, however, it is possible to see that there is no shirt on the chest area.

    Dr Prydes diagram shows the tattoo, which is immediately adjacent to the area where the scratches were said to be by one of the witnesses. Pryde could not have seen the tattoo, without seeing that area of the body adjacent to it. In order to reveal the tattoo, and not any scratches on that side, he would have had to have lifted any blanket up over his head, and kept part of it over his chest, whilst revealing the top of his arm. An entirely difficult procedure and one that would have immediately made anyone suspicious. Especially as in doing that he would have revealed his genitals.

    Of course, there is the possibility that the scratches were on the left side (which will be your next argument as the other witness said they were on that side), except Dr Pryde noted the immunisation scars on the very top of David’s left arm. Again they could not be examined and measured, without lifting the bulk of any blanket upwards, thus revealing everything

    Judith,stop lying.
    There was a photo taken of those bruises on David Bain’s head.
    There was a photo taken of that nick on his knee.

    There were no photos taken of
    [1] David Bain’s hands.
    [2] David Bain’s feet.
    [3] David Bain’s tattoo.
    [4] David Bain’s torso.
    [5] David Bain’s back.
    [6] David Bain’s penis. [ Praise be to God.]
    [7] David Bain’s hairy gunga.

    Dr Pryde could have seen that tattoo while Bain had that blanket draped around his neck and torso.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Judith. Thanks for the laugh, m’Lady. As I’ve said before, there’s nothing as silly as a silly woman.

    Let’s be honest. Your lot have screwed us for millions and want more. I don’t think it was common decency and a sense of proportion that stopped you from applying for legal aid. I think we can all assume you knew you would have been told to fuck off.

    I do hope this matter is heard. It should be. I hope it’s three senior judges. It should be. I do hope it costs an arm and a leg. Do you have a pound of flesh to spare? 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    what a stupid question, kick this ass!

    Kick it? KICK?
    A wide mouth shovel would only hit one small portion of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    It is a great word ‘guilty’!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Yet more spam.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    When a Jury says ‘not guilty’ five times it twists the sisters up in knots from which they never unwind. Poor twisted sisters, such lonely souls with their dogs, cats and asses.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Let’s review the evidence against Robin.

    1. There is a rumour about incest. A man who had an arrest warrant out to force him to appear said so. The judge said, “I’m not allowing the jury to hear this crap.”

    2. There is a rumour he was depressed. Not surprising. His wife whom he loved was going insane. His arshole son locked them out of the lounge/computer alcove and threatened them with his rifle. Stephen woke up on morning with David at his bedside going BANG BANG. He was told it was a dream.

    3. There is no forensic evidence. No fingerprints, blood, nothing. The sock prints could be either man’s; Binnie agreed.

    4. A group of supporters “KNOW” he is guilty. “Daddy did it”, they chant. Loonies. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Have I forgotten anything? 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    I have seen no evidence that anyone here has defended let alone supported paedophilia. Or incest. Sorry we can’t help you on that. Maybe try your priest. You are Catholic, aren’t you?

    You want to see where the minds of your mates reside? Try this for and example and see who it is that always moves the conversation to such things.

    There were no photos taken of
    [6] David Bain’s penis. [ Praise be to God.]
    [7] David Bain’s hairy gunga.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Juries don’t always say not guilty though do they. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,771) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:46 am
    Yet more spam.

    they hail from the far, far, far, far, far away land of Spam-a-lot

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Have I forgotten anything? ‘

    Yes you have Dennis. The second Jury heard the incest allegations, in fairly well full detail and they came from shopkeepers, a Doctor and the list goes on. Have you heard the verdict the second jury gave or have you been busy stalking?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    What’s upsetting the Banes is, all the nonsense of the Privy Council and costly circus of the second trial DON’T COUNT IN THE CABINET DELIBERATIONS.

    That’s what this is all about. You can fuck with the anachronistic lawyer-serving legal system, BUT KEY AND COLLINS ARE NOT SWAYED BY PROPAGANDA TO ASSUME BAIN IS FACTUALLY INNOCENT.

    Mind you, who is? People too stupid to think for 10 minutes and a bunch of loonies . Lala-de-lala.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Yes you have Dennis. The second Jury heard the incest allegations, in fairly well full detail and they came from shopkeepers, a Doctor and the list goes on. Have you heard the verdict the second jury gave or have you been busy stalking?

    He was more likely too busy extracting some poor person’s wallet through his/her mouth, while telling himself he was getting to know them ‘intimately’.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    It’s got to be a pretty big ass to only have a tiny portion covered by a wide-mouth shovel. How would you measure an ass that big – the width of 15 wide mouth shovels?

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,771) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:37 am
    Who says she has a daughter and what business is it of yours. Oh that’s right that’s what that site ‘Guilty’ is set up for.

    Exactly, she’s just peeved that along with her ‘twisted sisters’ in more almost five years of trying, they have not only been unable to find out who any children might be, they still haven’t come close to finding out who I am, my profession, my contacts and associates, and most of who I work for and why I so strongly support David. She has no idea of whether I even have daughter/s, son’s, an elephant or a tiger or maybe a canary, let alone whether I have ever reproduced. The only thing she does know for sure is I am not a good speller. That must narrow the field down to about 3/4’s of NZ’s population.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    That’s what this is all about. You can fuck with the anachronistic lawyer-serving legal system, BUT KEY AND COLLINS ARE NOT SWAYED BY PROPAGANDA TO ASSUME BAIN IS FACTUALLY INNOCENT.

    The fools swamping them with the mountain of ‘facts’ taken from counterspin are hoping that they are swayed by propaganda. In fact they are counting on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    What are you trying to ‘intimate’ now?

    Got to love the English language. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. So, let me see.

    On the one hand we have some rumours of Robin’s incest.

    On the other we have a mass of forensic evidence and circumstantial against David Bain. Blood, fingerprints, silly messages.

    By jove I’ve got it, Robin killed the lot. Left David to verify it. What the fuck? Nutty as fruitcake. Mad as a hatter.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (593) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:58 am
    What’s upsetting the Banes is,

    What is probably upsetting the Bain’s is, the fact that despite you liking to pass yourself off as some expert on the facts of the case, you can’t even spell their name right!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    It’s got to be a pretty big ass to only have a tiny portion covered by a wide-mouth shovel. How would you measure an ass that big – the width of 15 wide mouth shovels?

    Huge.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    What is probably upsetting the Bain’s is, the fact that despite you liking to pass yourself off as some expert on the facts of the case, you can’t even spell their name right!

    Such feelings of frustration and impotence are causing them to become so irrational that correct spelling is the last thing they think about.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (594) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:04 am
    @Neuralgia. So, let me see.

    On the one hand we have some rumours of Robin’s incest.

    On the other we have a mass of forensic evidence and circumstantial against David Bain. Blood, fingerprints, silly messages.

    Dennis, calm down. You can’t even spell Bain correctly, what makes you think you have the ability to judge what the evidence is. Fact is, if the evidence was as you say it is, the result from both the Privy Council and the Second Trial would have been very different.

    There is no solid proof, there never has been. The first trial was deemed a ‘miscarriage of justice’ because the evidence and the process was incorrect. You are being sucked in and for a supposedly intelligent man with ‘connections’, you are showing yourself to be an unstable, angry and ignorant fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Judith. Really? Having one of your “thick” periods today? You are a bane too, m’lady. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    By the way, “their” is plural. You should say “his” or construct the sentence to avoid disagreement. This lack of attention is very worrying, Not. It explains how your brain malfunctions: compartmentalise. The evidence is in front of your very eyes.

    “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.”

    “IT IS MY CORE BELIEF I WAS NOT THERE.” Is that a denial or an apple core?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,253) Says:
    January 20th, 2013 at 7:22

    Was the animal hurt?

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

    Judith, one meaning of the word “shagging” is “have sexual intercourse with” so I believe I was entitled to use that word.
    I mean I could have used the word “buggering” but I refrained from doing that.
    So you are saying that Mark Buckley might have “flashed” that goat. I don’t really see the point of anyone “flashing ” a goat. Can you give me any reason why someone would want to do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (594) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:51 am

    Have I forgotten anything?

    Yes, you’ve forgotten how to spell the most used word in this argument. BAIN.

    That’s B – A – I – N.

    How can you trust yourself to get anything right, when you can’t even spell the name of the family whose deaths you are trying to solve?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (595) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:12 am
    @Judith. Really? Having one of your “thick” periods today? You are a bane too, m’lady.

    By the way, “their” is plural. You should say “his” or construct the sentence to avoid disagreement. This lack of attention is very worrying, Not. It explains how your brain malfunctions: compartmentalise. The evidence is in front of your very eyes.

    “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.”

    “IT IS MY CORE BELIEF I WAS NOT THERE.” Is that a denial or an apple core?

    Apple core.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    The most stupid bit is that people try to blame David for the allegations of incest, but that was never his evidence it came from others. People, unconnected to one another in many cases and with no reason to lie. However, the main problem is the police deliberately chose not to investigate it. They spent more time ‘investigating’ Joe Karam than what they spent on investigating the prime suspect of both the murders and incest. If anybody could of cleared him it would have been the police instead they chose to hide it – but that didn’t work so perhaps they knew not to take the risk at the outset and that it was better to try and hide it, like the electronic diary.

    We can see by the irrational comments Dennis and others, that for some the incest overshadows all else, but the facts are the forensics, still unexplained after 20 years by the Crown, show that the Jury got it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    It is not I who has the spelling wrong, it’s the whole world:

    bane n.
    1. Fatal injury or ruin: “Hath some fond lover tic’d thee to thy bane?” (George Herbert).
    2. a. A cause of harm, ruin, or death: “Obedience,/Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,/Makes slaves of men” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
    b. A source of persistent annoyance or exasperation: “The spellings of foreign names are often the bane of busy copy editors” (Norm Goldstein).
    3. A deadly poison.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    Now, how apt is that? 🙂 🙂 🙂

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

    muggins (1,864) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:13 am
    ————————-

    Stop trying to be clever Muggins, you can’t do it.

    I have never stated what the act of a sexual nature that looked funny, was.
    I have given you lots of examples of things that can be considered of a sexual nature, that aren’t shagging.

    You can twist and misrepresent what I have said all you like, but you only make yourself look extremely silly. Just like you did yesterday when you reposted a comment that Reed had cross-examined the Police Witnesses at their interviews, when he wasn’t even present in their interviews.

    Get your mind out of the gutter, you have become obsessed with a goat. I am not going to tell you what it was, I prefer to see you squirming. I love the ‘I know something you don’t know’ expression. It really bothers you.

    Don’t address comments about the goat to me again, I will not be telling you what you want to know, I will instead wait for the truth to come out, and see you made a huge fool of.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    I have seen no evidence that anyone here has defended let alone supported paedophilia. Or incest. Sorry we can’t help you on that. Maybe try your priest. You are Catholic, aren’t you?

    Hey, Dennis, want more recent proof of what thinking excites your mates? Don’t tell me this is a normal thought process when discussing a Judicial review.

    Judith, one meaning of the word “shagging” is “have sexual intercourse with” so I believe I was entitled to use that word.
    I mean I could have used the word “buggering” but I refrained from doing that.
    So you are saying that Mark Buckley might have “flashed” that goat. I don’t really see the point of anyone “flashing ” a goat. Can you give me any reason why someone would want to do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Muggins, don’t stop playing the goat, I think Kanz wants to hop on. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    And Dennis gives his full approval. Birds of a feather and all that…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    The essence of sisters campaign, stalking mixed with lurid sex talk.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Dennis is that in response to my ‘competition’ regarding a collective name for David’s supporters? I declare that the winner, albeit the only entry lol congratulations.

    Hopefully it will widely adopted. ‘The Banes’, nothing to do with David or Robin at all, which of course they aren’t.
    Other than hanging on coat tails that is.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    kimbo says

    Actually, all I did was lay out some facts that are essentially undisputed. There is no speculation and 100% undisputed fact that Robin had to have

    …committed murder/suicide using gloves

    …that belonged to David,

    …even though he was right-handed he did so with his left

    …and killed himself with a rifle with the silencer still attached,

    …and the spent cartridge case ended up in the computer alcove,

    …and there was no blood from the family found on Robin

    …but there was on David,

    …as well as a palm print of David’s that may have been blood on the washing machine

    …which he turned on thus altering evidence that could have identified the killer,

    …and despite a life-and-death struggle in Stephen’s room there was no sign of injury/bruising on Robin

    …but there was on David,

    …who was unable to account for approximately 20 minutes before calling 111,

    …other than lapsing into shock which expert eye-witnesses in shock described as “faking it”,

    …and despite from his own recollection David said he didn’t check all the rooms, he said during the call, “they’re all dead”,

    …despite hearing Laniet gurgling, whose room he said he didn’t check,

    …and whose presence in the house according to the testimony of others David had pressed for,

    …yet he didn’t attend the family meeting which was the pretext for her to David doesn’t attend,

    …but he does recount hearing raised voices while trying to sleep in his bed room,

    …and he had been talking to friends in the weeks leading up to June 20 1994 about a sense of impending doom

    Good post,kimbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    If there’s anything I love more than a fair fight it’s an unfair fight.

    So what can you tell Cabinet about David’s factual innocence?

    1.
    2.
    Buckle my shoe.
    3.
    4.
    Shut the door. No compensation. Goodbye.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    udith (1,258) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:22 am
    muggins (1,864) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:13 am
    ————————-

    Stop trying to be clever Muggins, you can’t do it.

    I have never stated what the act of a sexual nature that looked funny, was.
    I have given you lots of examples of things that can be considered of a sexual nature, that aren’t shagging.

    Don’t address comments about the goat to me again, I will not be telling you what you want to know, I will instead wait for the truth to come out, and see you made a huge fool of.

    So you reckon the truth about what act of sexual nature you believe Mark Buckley committed on that goat will come out, Judith? Is David going to announce it on TV? Will he be giving a demonstration of that sexual act? Will there be a live goat there for him to demonstrate on?
    Can’t wait.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Robin said: “You killed them.”

    David said: “You don’t have a leg to stand on.” 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (598) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:26 am
    Muggins, don’t stop playing the goat, I think Kanz wants to hop on.

    Yeah, that’s the impression I got.
    Just so long as he lets Judith know the time and place,so she can watch and report back.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Oh here we go again, JFRB singing their same old songs twisting and spinning, whilst spamming the boards with the same old messages from other posters, because they don’t have the intelligence to provide an argument of their own. And then there is the old insane one, who resorts to nursery rhythms because he doesn’t really know the facts of the case.

    How very funny.

    And whilst they are acting like children, the mail arrives, and those results keep coming in that prove the Goat obsessed ex-office boy, has been telling huge – gigantic – enormous porkies.

    I love Saturdays.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    gamefisher (387) Says:

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

    Good post,gamefisher.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Not to mention what they are doing wrong and how they could do it better. lol 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The essence of sisters campaign, stalking mixed with lurid sex talk.

    Correct, they no longer even pretend to be interested in the Bain case. Simply use it to indulge their pornographic fantasies, and prove which gutter they really live in.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,253) Says:

    January 31st, 2013 at 10:21 pm
    That photo doesn’t show any scratches, and wouldn’t even if they were there. It is of the tattoo, side on, however, it is possible to see that there is no shirt on the chest area.

    Judith,stop lying.

    There were no photos taken of
    [1] David Bain’s hands.
    [2] David Bain’s feet.
    [3] David Bain’s tattoo.
    [4] David Bain’s torso.
    [5] David Bain’s back.
    [6] David Bain’s penis. [ Praise be to God.]
    [7] David Bain’s hairy gunga.

    Judith,you really should not talk about other posters lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @goldnkiwi. Don’t forget the dance band:

    David and his swinging Banes. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Clarification: The “swinging” refers to the monkey business, not any actual hanging. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    And so the carousel continues …

    round and round they go …

    where will they end up …..

    Me, its bacon and eggs and then take the missus (hard working lass) out to the beach, a late lunch, then off to the Kingslander for a brew with the lads before going to the park and watching the Phoenix.

    And don’t forget, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, then its probably Judith … 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Why would you mention the names of those you to believe to be other posters children Dennis?
    Simple question.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,870) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:52 am
    —————————-

    Unfortunately for you Muggins, your ship has not only sailed, but it has sunk. You ‘so called’ sources of information have not provided any floatation devices to keep you afloat, in fact, they’ve actually pulled the plug and exposed a very big hole (in your stories)

    You are sunk, dead in the water, exposed, only you are too stupid to realise it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith
    I have that interview where Binnie mentions Mark Buckley and,as you say,it is quite long.
    But in the first half Bain only discusses his friendship with Buckley.
    He doesn’t mention the goat until Binnie asks Bain why his friendship with Buckley ended on bad terms and that is when Bain said he saw Bucley performing a deviant act with a goat which he later confirms was an act of a sexual nature.
    ———————-
    Judith says,in reply
    That is correct but prior to that is the clarification that it was something that looked silly. He never actually says he was shagging the goat as you imply, in fact, he never says what it was, and especially that it was as serious as shagging a goat. Had Buckley done anything as physical as you suggest, it certainly would not be classified as ‘looked silly’. I know what it was, and I know what it was is mentioned in the documents given to Binnie, and therefore presume he knows to. I guess you could clarify it as sexual because of what it looked like, but not by what it actually was. For that reason, you are totally wrong and the only people Buckley can have a go at, is the people who have automatically assumed the worse.

    Judith,
    I reckon any act of a sexual nature that was committed on a goat would look silly.
    Are you saying that if vou saw someone shagging a goat it wouldn’t look silly to you?
    It certainly would look silly to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Truthiz (154) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:07 am
    And so the carousel continues …

    round and round they go …

    where will they end up …..

    Me, its bacon and eggs and then take the missus (hard working lass) out to the beach, a late lunch, then off to the Kingslander for a brew with the lads before going to the park and watching the Phoenix.

    And don’t forget, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, then its probably Judith …

    Vote: 20 0.

    Watching the Phoenix? You’re a tiger for punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. owlize (2 comments) says:

    ac·quit·tal
    /əˈkwitl/
    Noun
    A judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged: “the trial resulted in an acquittal”.
    Synonyms
    absolution – discharge – release – exoneration

    I am astounded at the smoke and mirrors that surrounds this issue. Regardless of which ‘camp’ you are in .. The Privy Council found complete miscarriage of justice in David Bains first trial …. That led to his incarceration for close to 13 years .. and then his release on bail until the second trial (2009) where ALL the evidence was presented and where he was found aquitted … found NOT guilty. Note the meaning of the word ‘acquittal’ above. The claim for compensation for wrongful imprisonment is legitimate and no other person in this land has the right to determine ‘on the balance of probabilities’ David’s innocence or guilt …. to decide to pay or not. What a load of cods wallop !! The NZ legal court system of judge and jury aquitted him of the crimes charged against him. The minister and govt need to stop playing judge and jury … Wasting taxpayers money cherry picking the answer they want. What a witch hunt … I have no faith in our antiquated and biased legal system where in my life time I have seen too many innocent people firstly convicted by the police who are meant to be upholders of the law … But in many instances have been acting judge and jury deciding a persons guilt in the volatile energy and emotional charge of being ‘on the scene’. Corruption of justice starts right there and the ‘apple of their eye’ does not stand a chance. This person has just found themselves in an untenable situation of extreme traumatic experience. Of course they are going to do weird things … Say weird things .. Not remember things … it is natural for the human brain to respond this way as anyone who has suffered extreme trauma will tell you. Why is this country not overhauling the antiquated legal system into a more manageable, fair and transparent court system where all the evidence …not just select bits of it, are presented to the jury ???

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,084) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    …given that David Bain doesn’t have a legal right to compensation.

    David Bain, does have a legal right to have the correct process followed though.
    This court case is not about the Compensation as such, it is ensuring the correct process is followed, and it doesn’t appear it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:
    January 13th, 2013 at 9:16 am
    @ Judith

    It’s deconstruct Judith’s rationalising again: –

    “You do get carried away with the truth don’t you.
    Firstly, start at the bottom, there was never any suggestion David was planning to rape a jogger. Rape was never mentioned by those witnesses and was inserted by the police – proven. Those two witnesses did not say is was a plan, but more of a ‘I could do this’ type of statement. Again proven in the statements”.

    Overlooking the reality that if you say, “I could do this” (or something to that effect, you are planning. Whether you are simply fantasising, imagining, passing time, or deliberately ticking boxes in your mind about how you will accomplish it, it indicates a state of mind that is prepared to explore a possibility that had similarities to elements of 20 June 1994. Yet again, Judith says, “it’s not red! It’s scarlet!”.

    “The witness who says she saw David intimidating the family with a gun, – again exaggerating, the word intimidation is subjective, and as there is not supporting data, e.g. complaints to the police, action from the parents to limit gun us, no statements by any of the so called ‘intimidated’ people to others, I think the witness is mistaken in what they think they saw”.

    On what authority does Judith get to decide that the testimony and interpretation of a witness, who was there, and reported what she saw, was “subjective”?! Look again at Judith’s explanation above and there is really only one reason Judith has offered – she doesn’t like it as it doesn’t fit her preconception David Bain is innocent….therefore the witness MUST be wrong.

    “David was confused, in shock and no sure what was going on. Any one that thinks that coming home to find your family dead and the house covered in blood would act like a rational and unconfused person lives in a dream world. David’s behaviour was highly consistent with the shock he was under. To have been cool calm and collected would indicate psychopathy, and five experts who have spent lengthy time examining him, have agreed there is no evidence of that in him.”

    Yeah, ok, a possibility. Nevertheless, it doesn’t remove the fact there were witnesses who said David seemed unsure if he could be the killer

    “Whilst some said they think he was feigning a fit, the notes taken at the time by various police and ambulance state exactly that he fainted. Some people changed their story between writing note at the scene and giving evidence on the stand. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether that is lying or not, or simply changing their story to suit the Crowns scenario”.

    Hmmm. A possibility, especially as the witnesses at the second trial were being asked some 15 years after the event to recall, and your memory, certainly in the light of the continual public discussion over the Bain case in the meantime was unavoidable, and that can play on a person’s subconscious. However, that can be said of any and every eye witness, whether they were favourable to David in their recollections of Robin and supposed incest, or hostile. And it ultimately doesn’t detract from the fact that experienced staff on the scene, experts in trauma, who no doubt did suspect he was faking it, wrote up in their notes what they could state as fact as there was no way of knowing for 100% sure he was faking).

    “The evidence proves it wasn’t David that bought Laniet back, but that Arawa drove, and David was a passenger. Does that mean that Arawa is also going to be accused of forcing her sister? Why aren’t there witnesses that state Laniet was forced into the car etc?”

    Rationalising at its finest! This is just shell game semantics. David didn’t have a car, and Arawa didn’t end up the only one alive with the rest of her family dead. And “Why aren’t there witnesses that state Laniet was forced into the car etc?”. Not only is that an argument from silence, but it overlooks the fact that with Arawa there, it resulted in increased psychological pressure on her to go, because not one, but two members of her family had put themselves out to be there to pick her up. It is very plausible, and fits with the manipulative nature of David Bain that he would have roped the unwitting Arawa into his plan to get Laniet back to the home. Notwithstanding, all of Judith’s comments do not detract from the fact witnesses were clear – David had insisted in an aggressive manner that Laniet come back home, and it was aggressive enough to not only disturb her, but also significant enough to warrant mention to others. And then she and all the rest of her family end up dead the next morning, but only David “deserved to stay”

    “David did have scratches on his chest, but not until after the day of the murders. There is NO witness that said he had them on the day and he was strip searched. The bruise was not there when the police and ambulance first arrived and was not noticed until David had fainted and fallen in a position where he had to be dragged out by his feet”.

    Again, arguments from silence. The police and ambulance staff arrive at a chaotic death scene, having to process a myriad of data, starting with establishing there is not an armed gunman present, and if any of the victims are still alive, and we get carping criticism that they didn’t notice injuries straight away – which, like injuries do, can become more apparent over the next 24 hours.

    “There is NO witness that said he had them on the day and he was strip searched”.

    “Re the glasses. there were NO witnesses who saw David wearing his mothers glasses that weekend despite his being at several events and seeing many people”.

    Except David himself, who briefed his lawyer to that effect.

    “The paper run witnesses based their evidence on the times they picked up their papers, they actually could not give the time their papers were normally delivered, only the time they would collect them from the box, and on this morning, they had collected them earlier than normal, so therefore presumed the papers were delivered earlier than normal. When this was pointed out, they agreed. David did complete his run in one of his quicker, but not unusually quicker times. The times of his runs varied, dependent on many factors”

    And yet again we get shell-game sematics and lots of unnecessary details to detract from the fact that, as ross69 said, David finished his paper round earlier than normal – which Judith is acknowledging. And something very significant happened back at 65 Every Street that day. Hands up all those who can tell us what it was, and why, if David was preparing to slay his father, what the incentive to get the run done early was?

    “You have yet to pick muggins up on the countless times he has lied in this thread alone. e.g. David said Buckley shagged a goat. That is a proven lie, muggins is therefore a liar, so shall we now call everything he says is a lie, or shall we assume he was mistaken and accept that sometimes people do make mistakes?”

    Oh, yes, as Judith clarified earlier, ““He didn’t see him having any sort of sex with the goat, he saw him doing an act of a sexual nature that looked silly”. Which is yet another case of rationalising, “it’s not red! It’s scarlet!”.

    Vote: 0 0

    Another good post by Kimbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    lastmanstanding (957) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 4:58 pm
    I have yet to have an explaination of what Judge Binnie was required to do. Why was he hired and what was his TORs. It seems that unless his TORs were to determine whether or not Bain should get any compo then there was no earthly reason to hire him. If compo or no compo WTF did my taxes pay for.
    And this bint Collins seems to have no quarms about wasting my taxes on endless reports.

    I suspect she doesnt have the guts to say NO and so hoped that Binnie would say NO for her.

    Yet another of the gutless pollies that we are saddled with.

    I think Collins has shown incredible guts by taking the steps she has. She has effectively ruined her career and desire to one day be PM, by demonstrating her obvious bias in this matter. Had she said ‘no’, based on a report that said ‘yes’, she would have been challenged, so instead she followed a process that excluded the right of the applicant to fair and equitable treatment. She managed the outcome by selection a person she had previously determined what the answer to his ‘claytons’ peer review would be. She has also given the ‘finger’ to a very important and influential international Judge.

    That shows guts, however it also shows stupidity. Now she is facing a heavy court battle, that will cost the tax payer even more money. Another report will still be required, and if she goes with Fisher, it is likely to result in another challenge, due to his lack of impartiality, which will result in yet another report being required.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    The most stupid bit is that people try to blame David for the allegations of incest, but that was never his evidence it came from others. People, unconnected to one another in many cases and with no reason to lie. However, the main problem is the police deliberately chose not to investigate it. They spent more time ‘investigating’ Joe Karam than what they spent on investigating the prime suspect of both the murders and incest. If anybody could of cleared him it would have been the police instead they chose to hide it – but that didn’t work so perhaps they knew not to take the risk at the outset and that it was better to try and hide it, like the electronic diary.

    Wow – the irrationality of the “poor David” theorist in microcosm.
    1. Which people try to blame David for the allegations of incest? Do they exist outside your own mind?
    2. The Police did investigate the obvious suspect, and found that the evidence at the scene pointed very strongly away from him and towards someone else. When assessing the relative merits of physical evidence vs gossip, strangely enough they found physical evidence more compelling.
    3. You’re effectively alleging a criminal conspiracy by the NZ Police, with no basis for it, and let’s repeat that because it’s quite significant, no basis for it other than your firm belief that David is innocent and therefore the Police must have framed him.
    4. The allegation of conspiracy extends to accusing police staff of hiding diaries to prevent the “truth” of David’s innocence coming out – criminal misconduct which would be impossible to keep secret and from which the officers taking such a ridiculously high risk would have nothing to gain.

    Taking the above into account, it’s hardly suprising that you also accuse others of a “hate campaign” while sneeringly referring to Robin Bain as “daddy.” Irrationality and hypocrisy often go together.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    David Bain, does have a legal right to have the correct process followed though.

    Karam and Reed may believe the judiciary will have an opinion on what the correct process is for Cabinet to make a decision that’s entirely discretionary, but it strikes me as more likely they just consider it a useful delaying tactic.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    quote”David Bain, does have a legal right to have the correct process followed though.
    This court case is not about the Compensation as such, it is ensuring the correct process is followed, and it doesn’t appear it was.”unquote

    And what part of the process wasn’t followed?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    I see now, Collins has appointed a friend of the family to the role of director of human rights proceedings, against the advice of officials.
    She really does see herself as running this country her way. Having people who owe favours in roles that can make decisions she wants. Just how stupid does she think the NZ public are?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Collins will be the next Prime Minister, I reckon.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Collins will be the next Prime Minister, I reckon.

    Only if the national party and the voters are as stupid as you are. If you are happy with corruption at the highest levels, then you are on your own. Well, not maybe on your own there will be a few more simpletons to join you, but they are in the minority.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,107) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:45 am
    ————————-

    Of course part of it is to delay the process from going any further until concerns has been addressed. That is obvious and confirmed by the request that Ms Collins halt all action until the JR is completed.

    No great secret there, sunshine.

    However, regarding the other reasons for the review, I am very sure that Prof. Joseph would not be adding his name to this, if he was not convinced, firstly that it is the right thing to do, and secondly, that the Judiciary will feel the same way, that the process undertaken by Ms Collins, especially regarding the unfair manner in which she included some parties, but not others, was fundamentally flawed, and ‘did not follow the basic requirement that the process be equitable’.

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

    Kanz (880) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 11:04 am
    I see now, Collins has appointed a friend of the family to the role of director of human rights proceedings, against the advice of officials.
    She really does see herself as running this country her way. Having people who owe favours in roles that can make decisions she wants. Just how stupid does she think the NZ public are?

    ———————————

    She is obviously taking her measure of the NZ Public stupidity from the correspondence she receives from Muggins. She thinks they are all as stupid as him. However, she does support that decision from the correspondence she gets from KP, VP, and the twisted sisters. They all reconfirm her belief, by offering examples of just how stupid they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. owlize (2 comments) says:

    I guess the ‘did he … Didn’t he is going to continue till the end of time. One point I would like to make about the debate as to it wasn’t murder / suicide …. ‘why would Robin Bain shoot himself thru left temple when he is right handed? he couldn’t reach the trigger ‘ …..
    The trigger is some way along the entire length of the rifle …. the right hand can reach around so the thumb can push the trigger back. If the person is kneeling on the ground … The rifle butt can rest on the ground …. it doesn’t have to be held by the left hand … leaving fingerprints … How do I know ??? because my son died by suicide using a high powered rifle, just like this.

    He has been found not guilty of the murder of his family …. His first trial was flawed with serious issues of mistrial. He spent 13 years in prison. I wish this country as a whole would just step forward and compensate the man so he can get on with the rest of his life … Which no doubt will have to be elsewhere in this world if he is to have any semblance of ‘normal’ life. After what he has suffered / been through / experienced it is extremely important to note he is not insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    She is obviously taking her measure of the NZ Public stupidity from the correspondence she receives from Muggins. She thinks they are all as stupid as him. However, she does support that decision from the correspondence she gets from KP, VP, and the twisted sisters. They all reconfirm her belief, by offering examples of just how stupid they are.

    If she sees them as representative of the Kiwi voter, then it is easy to see where her arrogance of ‘knowing better’ comes from.
    Most people watch to see how far things are taken, then vote accordingly. Rather than interfere with the process, they observe the pollies and vote according to the integrity they see displayed.
    Lots of bad news here for National and in particular Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    did not follow the basic requirement that the process be equitable’.

    Judith I don’t think that there is any written requirement that the process be fair or equitable, rather it’s taken as a given, and an expectation that it should be plainly evident. That’s getting right to the heart of this – the fairness expected of an executive decision. Collins has kept repeating whose decision it is, in fact she should not only have been keeping all parties informed and active in the process but publicly make her role clear as neutral, not beating the drums about who was boss. She doesn’t seem to even mildly appreciate the gravity of exercising a political power.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt. You joined the debate 5 weeks ago according to you. Therefore you shouldn’t assume you know anything about what allegations have been made by some of the idiots of your ‘side’, the twisted sisters, have previously said, such as that David should have pleaded guilty and served his time to save the good name of the family. They like you are idiots, but you more so because they are at work here everyday telling lies, explaining phone calls and coming up with mantras and you can’t work that out.

    If the diary isn’t hidden where is it? Try learning more about the case if you want to defend daddy.

    I have all the proof I need regarding the inquiry teams behaviour because it has been ruled by our Highest Court to have been a MOJ, what part of that don’t you understand? Anyway you stick with the animal ‘stories’ they’ll be less challenging for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,777) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 11:44 am
    —————————-

    You are right, there isn’t a written requirement, it is something that underlines every process, regardless of whether it is guided by legislation or not.

    Collins is too arrogant to appreciate the damage she is doing but the whisper in John’s ear is ‘get rid of this NOW’. If he doesn’t and it is still active in 2014, regardless of what the decision, it will work against him, and he knows it. Better to end it now, and hope it is forgotten, than risk it being foremost in the public’s mind and risk disrupting his very tenuous hold on power.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,107) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:39 am

    and

    Psycho Milt (1,105) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 10:42 pm
    You bet your ass, which is why I rated it no more credible than Judith’s character assassination of Robin.

    Comments like that from you really make me laugh.

    Robin Bain had been a strong caring man, whose three greatest loves were his God, his family, and teaching.

    In PNG, he held a top position in his career. He was doing the work of his ‘God’, and surrounded by his young children, living in a manner he enjoyed. He was young, fit and healthy, had everything he needed provided, and was able to do well financially.

    Then he returned to New Zealand, against his wishes.

    His wife, who once shared his love of his ‘God’, lost her faith and began to worship alternative spiritual beings. A vast contrast to Robin’s beliefs.

    His children became teenagers, and like most teenagers, started to become independent, no longer ‘needing’ him as much as they used to.

    In his professional capacity, he had to take a teaching position well below his previous one. It is well documented how this was very difficult for him. He constantly applied for higher positions, but was never successful. He took that rejection poorly and demonstrated his frustration.

    As a man of deep religious conviction, he believed in the sanctity of marriage, but his wife rejected him, he was removed from the marital bed, from handling the family finances, from being the head of the family. He even had to argue to for use of a chainsaw. In short, he was disenfranchised, made to suffer the embarrassment of sleeping in a caravan on his own property, a physical symbol of the decline in his status.

    His situation began to affect his health, he lost weight, looked gaunt, was described as cadaver like, and physically smelled from lack of hygiene. He presented to friends and colleagues as anguished and agitated, and even though his doctor would not release his medical records, people with qualifications in psychology, described him as depressed. His brother noted the negative change in him.

    It also affected his ability to do his job well. He demonstrated some poor judgement, made bad decisions as a teacher, and failed dismally to do the tasks required of him as a principal. As the paperwork mounted, it was obvious that catching up was never going to happen.

    Robin Bain was a good man, no one is disputing that. But he was a man that didn’t adapt to change, and aging failed to provide anything positive for him. As the world moved on around him, Robin didn’t keep up, couldn’t keep up and fell behind.

    Perhaps as his affections were rejected by his wife, he turned to his daughters, and allowed fatherly love to become something else, we do not know for sure, but Laniet became a very troubled girl.

    Whether there was incest or not, doesn’t matter, the accusation of it, something that went against his three strongest principles – his religion, his family and his teaching – could have been the final push that saw him tumble over that thin edge of sanity. An edge he had been wobbling on the top of for some time.

    What annoys me most is those who claim to want Justice for Robin Bain. Who insist in applying the measure of a ‘right mind’ when considering the probability of his final acts.
    Where were they when he needed them? Where was that brother that noticed he was struggling, but willingly put him on a plane to return alone to a life he was clearly not handling? Why didn’t those colleagues who noted his struggling do something to help him? Where was that ‘aunty’ and sister that remembers so much word for word, but couldn’t be bothered calling on the family to offer support; instead distancing herself from a marriage in trouble? Where were the community; the friends, the colleagues, and the extended family who now like to pretend nothing was ‘so bad’?

    For most of his life Robin had been a wonderful man, but that changed. I do besmirch the characters of people that knew him, and if anyone is to blame it is those people, who through their ignorance, their judgmental attitudes, their embarrassment, their laziness and their sheer snobbery, failed to step up and help when it was so obviously needed. They are the ones with blood on their hands, and sadly many of them are also members of JFRB.

    One All Black has been prominent in this case, but just maybe a few of you should start to listen to another All Black, John Kirwan. Because until some of you start to look and accept what depression did to Robin, then these types of tragic events will continue to happen. It does not matter that there wasn’t an official diagnosis, any fool, even an old one cannot deny Robin Bain was struggling, and he was no longer a man with the strength of character, he once had

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    I miss the postings of Kimbo and Nookin.

    Kimbo neatly dissected Judith’s comments and revealed them for the quarter truths and non-truths they are.

    Nookin is always pertinent and cuts to the chase with ease.

    Any genuine requests for information or discussion are met with prevarication and undeserved derision by team Bain-Karam.
    The Counterspinners are merely providing them with a platform for their propaganda.

    Raise the game or let the thread die.

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

    twistedlemon (77) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 12:39 pm (77)
    ———————–

    Are you meaning lies, like this one of yours

    twistedlemon (77) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am
    When Binnie was interviewing David, the defence team (in the person of Reed) was allowed to examine Bain and cross-examine the police witnesses.

    The prosecution was not allowed this same right.

    Reed was not present at the Police interviews.
    Ms Markham was asked if she wished to cross-examine at David’s interview, but declined.

    Doyle’s Interview
    Date of Interview: 1 9 July 2012
    Place : John Wickliffe House, Dunedin
    Attendees Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)

    Weir’s interview

    Date of Interview: 19 July 2012
    Place: John Wickliffe House, Dunedin
    Attendees Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)

    Bain’s interview

    Date of Interview: 23 July 2012
    Place: Copthorne Hotel , Auckland
    Attendees: John Pike and Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)
    Michael Reed CQ
    Matthew Karam
    Joe Karam
    Stuart McGilvray (Ministry of Justice)

    Nothing but a complete lie from you.

    What was that you were saying about requests for information? Well there is your straight answer, no propaganda in that.

    Perhaps you need to raise your own game, currently it’s sitting in the gutter.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    What crap, all daddy’s team are doing is spamming the boards, stalking and talking about lurid sex after making outrageous claims about evidence they can’t resolve – same as they’ve always done.

    Nookin would never be a member of CS and kimbo was an expert at painting himself into corners.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I see the goat fker can’t even come up with his own posts any more and has to repost Kimbos used toilet paper, LMAO

    Psycho Milt
    Try looking at the actual evidence, re the blood staining on Robin you are just in denial, there were significant amounts not collected or tested, try qualifying some of your statements ie ‘The Police did investigate the obvious suspect’ really yet they had done no testing of any of the blood samples and didnot protect his body and burnt down the house and all remaining evidence after 3 weeks.
    Remember the ESR found traces that could have been David Doughertys semen in the girls underpants, and he was found to be innocent.
    Heres a link to some of the blood staining on Robin, maybe you could explain how it came from his ‘head wound’? won’t be suprised when your lame attempt gets the usual 0.0000%!
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2294937/Detective-did-not-act-by-the-book

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,266) Says:

    She is obviously taking her measure of the NZ Public stupidity from the correspondence she receives from Muggins. She thinks they are all as stupid as him. However, she does support that decision from the correspondence she gets from KP, VP, and the twisted sisters. They all reconfirm her belief, by offering examples of just how stupid they are.

    You are quite right,Judith.
    Everytime I send JC anything I get a letter back saying ” Stop sending me this information, muggins, you stupid old git. What makes you think I need your advice when I am quite capable of working out that David Bain is guilty by myself.
    It is bad enough having Karam in my ear without you as well. Please desist, you silly old fool”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Rowan (525) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    I see the goat fker can’t even come up with his own posts any more and has to repost Kimbos used toilet paper, LMAO

    I had no idea David Bain was posting on kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Jacob Cohen (254 comments) says:

    Judith 12:10

    Unfortunately a similar tale of woes could be ascribed to David’s mental health – as reflected in his words in Karam’s booklet Innocent saying “being constantly crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, by all I once held dear”.

    Speculation of David or Robin’s mental disposition, without medical records, get you not one iota nearer the truth.

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

    Sound words, Why don’t you follow your own advice Muggins?
    “Please desist, you silly old fool”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/02/caption-contest-25/

    Judith gets a mention on whaleoil’s caption contest.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Judith

    “…you can’t provide an explanation regarding the fact that Robin committed suicide, and for the Crown’s acceptance of that fact.”

    Because you have yet to provide, despite being asked on numerous occasions, for the photos that show the blood splatter on the curtains in a “downward trajectory, as a result of falling from a height above it and consistent with the source being in front of the curtain”, and support from experts to support your interpretation of the alleged physical evidence.

    @ Dennis Horne

    I admire your willingness to go the go the extra mile with Judith on this matter, including conducting your own private research. Might I suggest, based on Judith’s track record, clear axe to grind, agenda-setting leading questions, and failure to put up or shut up, that you are dealing with someone using the same modus operandi as a cold-reading psychic. Chase this likely chimera, and you can be very sure, once it proves elusive, you don’t need to worry, as, just like a bus, there will be another coming along very shortly. The ball is in Judith’s court, and has been for over 24 hours since she led with this yesterday morning. It should be a relatively straight-forward matter to produce it, rather than evasions of questions, including the most obvious of all that you pointed out, “Why didn’t Binnie see it this way”. But then I’m sure I’m not telling you anything that hasn’t occurred to you already…

    But then I could be wrong, and maybe Judith really does have expert opinion that premonitions of doom and “black hands coming to get me” is eye witness testimony from spirit world exonerating David.

    Kimbo bowls Judith around her legs.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    If the diary isn’t hidden where is it?

    PCA/Police Bain Review Report, 1997, para 236:

    f) Missing Diary

    Mr Karam refers to Cottle saying he thought Laniet had a list of all
    her clients in her personal diary and adds “this diary along with
    many other items appears to have disappeared.”
    [italics in original]

    On 24 June 1994, during the course of the search of the bedroom in
    which Laniet Bain was found, Police located a battery operated
    calculator in the pocket of a leather jacket. Its mechanism
    included a clock and a telephone memo. Stored in the memo were
    a series of names and telephone numbers. These were all
    checked. Some of the telephone numbers showed no subscriber
    details. It appears that this is the electronic diary referred to by
    Karam, which “appears to have disappeared”. It was held by the
    Police until it was returned to the Trustees on 19 January 1996.
    There is no record of other items missing as alleged.

    g) Supposed Telephone List of Clients/Acquaintances

    Apparently this is one of the other items Mr Karam believes may
    have “disappeared”.

    In June 1994, Michael Bain located at the house at Taieri beach a
    book allegedly belonging to Laniet with a series of names and
    phone numbers in it This was given to the Police during the
    investigation and the telephone numbers checked. It was finally
    returned to the Trustees on 19 January 1996.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    I have all the proof I need regarding the inquiry teams behaviour because it has been ruled by our Highest Court to have been a MOJ, what part of that don’t you understand?

    I understand it perfectly. If the Police errors had not been made, the jury could perhaps have reached a different verdict. That made the first trial a miscarriage of justice. It most definitely does not mean the Privy Council endorses your delusions about a criminal conspiracy by the NZ Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Nookin (4,570 comments) says:

    Nost NZ

    What is CS?

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

    Jacob Cohen (12) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    —————–

    The problem with your example of David’s writing, is that it was written well after the events, and whilst he was incarcerated. Of course he was depressed, disappointed, upset, his dreams were shattered, his plans destroyed (he had aspirations of finishing Uni and starting a career) promises made by others broken to him, by people he held dear – perhaps dear Aunty played in role in that. Perhaps he was referring to his father who killed his family. There are many examples of promises that were broken by people he held ‘dear’.

    You are really grabbing at straws trying to associate that historically, when it was written at a time of obvious anguish. However, coming up with that piece does place you firmly on the inside of JFRB – it is one of their favourite pieces of information they like to misrepresent.

    A professional diagnosis doesn’t matter, Robin displayed sufficient behaviours that you cannot ignore as ‘one offs’.

    In the period leading up to the deaths, Robin was unstable, his behaviour around others and the manner in which he conducted himself in his personal and professional capacity, cannot simply be excluded just because a doctor didn’t sanction it. Doctors aren’t always informed of what their patients are doing outside a consultation. There were plenty of witnesses of excellent integrity and professional standing to Robin’s struggle. So you statement doesn’t stand.

    David had a debt of $2000.
    He had finally found a course of study he loved and was doing very well in.
    He had a girlfriend for the first time.
    He was involved in a number of musical and community productions, which he enjoyed.
    He was physically fit, training for marathons, and had finally found a group of friends he felt at ease with.
    He was a bossy big brother,
    He argued with his father over the chainsaw.

    So tell me, with all the behaviours that Robin displayed and an analysis of his position, do you really believe he was a fine, stable upstanding specimen of mental wellbeing?

    Robin was certainly the person most likely to succeed, at losing it!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Judith (1,267) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    Well, yes, I see you can elaborate on your narrative to whatever extent needed. As you may recall, James McNeish was able to elaborate his narrative about David’s mental state to a significant part of an entire book – and yet, I’m quite sure you’re able to figure out that that is not a reason to find his speculation any more convincing. McNeish at least accepts that he’s speculating, whereas you adopt the traditional propagandist’s approach of sprinkling enough facts among the speculation to give an undiscerning reader the impression of truth.

    Where was that brother that noticed he was struggling, but willingly put him on a plane to return alone to a life he was clearly not handling? Why didn’t those colleagues who noted his struggling do something to help him? Where was that ‘aunty’ and sister that remembers so much word for word, but couldn’t be bothered calling on the family to offer support; instead distancing herself from a marriage in trouble? Where were the community; the friends, the colleagues, and the extended family who now like to pretend nothing was ‘so bad’?

    Have you considered at all, perhaps even momentarily before dismissing it as wildly unlikely, that perhaps the reason Robin Bain’s family, colleagues and friends didn’t stage some kind of intervention to address his mental problems was because they had the advantage of assessing his mental state through actually knowing him, rather than through your supposedly superior method of reading Joe Karam’s books?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You are just making yourself look sillier and sillier by reposting Kimbos used toilet paper, Kimbo like you was good at manipulating what people say and twisting and avoiding the questions, the subtotal of the evidence put forward by him being 0.000000% (again). You have already proven that you are the biggest liar on KB, congratulations!, yes now Judith Collins will be the next PM, she has about as much chance as you! LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho
    Touch of desperation resorting to McNeish, he was clearly out of his depth despite his best efforts at being a shrink, MOS is psychological BS, in a way it is good at convincing the reader the opposite of what it is arguing (much like muggins)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    muggins (1,876) Says:

    Kanz
    I agree with you that the spelling of the dogs name is not important.
    As I have already explained to both Judith and Rowan,
    My reason for telling you the correct spelling of the dogs name and the fact that I knew she had five puppies in her first litter was so you would realise I had inside information.
    If I have been told how the dogs name was spelt, then when I say that David kicked Arawa when she was lying on the ground I am right about that as well.
    When I say that Margaret had a strict rule that hand-knitted woolen jerseys were always to be washed by hand I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David Bain knew his sister was a prostitute long before he was arrested I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David’s parents took him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David lied three times about that tattoo I am right about that as well.
    When I say that David’s dog Sacha was put down following complaints about it’s aggessive behaviour I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David told his aunt that he had left earlier on his paper round that morning and that he had run all the way I am right about that as well.
    When I said that Margaret and Robin had resolved their differences and that the demolition of the house was imminent I am right about that as well.
    When I said that it was suggested to David that he wear a jacket or a suit to the funeral and he said he would be wearing his Harlequin jersey I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David had not invited any extended members of his family to speak at the funerals and that only teachers from Bayfield College would I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David wanted his parents cremated and his siblings buried I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David stated the grave should be for four as he wanted to be buried with the children and that he even stipulated the positioning of each body within the grave, Arawa with Stephen and he with Laniet I am right about that as well.
    When I said David stipulated that the caskets should be made of oak and have brass handles I am right about that as well.
    When I said that David wanted to celebrate Arawa’s birthday by inviting friends to go out to the grave ,play some music and dance there,I am right about that as well.
    That is why I told you the correct spelling of Arawa’s dogs’ name.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Yes we know Muggins
    The ‘inside source’ of information being your arse, as usual are you right about anything? no
    LMFAO
    We however are right in that you are a delusional twit badly in need of pyschiatric help. Good luck with that!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,110) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Have you considered at all, perhaps even momentarily before dismissing it as wildly unlikely, that perhaps the reason Robin Bain’s family, colleagues and friends didn’t stage some kind of intervention to address his mental problems was because they had the advantage of assessing his mental state through actually knowing him, rather than through your supposedly superior method of reading Joe Karam’s books?

    —————————–

    I have read the trial transcripts and every official document released, pertaining to this case, have you?

    My opinion is based on them, not karam’s books. I actually disagree with some of Joe’s conclusions.

    If you read what the witnesses had to say, if you examine the evidence produced by the photos, the records of education dept, etc, it is clear. You can attempt to discount it in any manner you like, but my account of Robin is taken from the evidence, such as Margaret’s diaries, the factual information of Robin’s Education Board record, his addresses, his physical appearance as stated by people who had seen him, records of his employment applications, his bank records, school publications, evidence of his religious affiliations, testimony from family, and friends etc and his diary – all of it is available on record.

    None of those that recognised the problems Robin had, stood up and said we didn’t think he needed help.

    McNeish made a diagnosis, one that he had neither the qualification or experience to do, and one that he has been proven no less than by five experienced professionals, to be wrong. Mc Neish started his book ‘ on a Tuesday’, that set the scene.

    Point out any factual detail in my analysis, that was not offered in evidence by witnesses or record.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (529) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    ——————–
    Oh he did have some inside sources, trouble is, what they told him and what he says they told him is very different. He is about to learn a very very big lesson about what happens when he tells someone ‘this is between you and me’, and what happens when you misrepresent what that person says by publishing it on the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,267) Says:

    My reason for telling you the correct spelling of the dogs name was so you would realise I had inside information.
    ——————————————

    What a load of unadulterated rubbish. Kaycee’s name has been published in newpaper articles.

    You must have a very long nose.

    And after I pointed it out to Judith the reason why I had mentioned the correct spelling of the dogs name it upset her so much she lied. She said it had been published in newspaper articles.
    It had not.
    So Judith’s already very long nose got longer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Point out any factual detail in my analysis, that was not offered in evidence by witnesses or record.

    The successful propagandist presents and frames the facts to suitable dramatic effect, and sprinkles in a few non-factual but extremely damaging phrases prefaced with “in short” or “perhaps.”

    I could never be arsed engaging in a similar exercise for David Bain, but it’s obvious enough how you could draw up a suitable narrative from “facts” alleged by witnesses:

    Loner; bullied at school; described as a bit weird; claimed to experience trances and constant deja vu; smothered by his mother, influenced by her deranged religious ideas and drawn into her unrealisable fantasy about a new house that would exclude Robin Bain and yet be funded by him; holder of an idealised view of his family that was impervious to reality; discussed how he could use his paper round as an alibi for a crime; a failed student; an unemployment beneficiary; never held a job of higher rank than paper boy; in financial difficulty; had a “premonition” of something terrible happening a few days before it did.

    You seem to have a lot of time on your hands for reading trial transcripts, witness statements and the like, Judith – why don’t you have a go? There’s plenty to work with there.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,267) Says:

    Judith
    When you get back from wherever it is you have been could you please link to any article where the dogs name is spelt correctly.
    ————————–

    My message that I was going for a while was to Rowan.

    Secondly your question regarding the dogs name, well to save me going to the bother to look it up, it is published on JFRB and on Counterspin, it has also been published on davidbain.freeforums and guilty.freeforums, and in all those places whilst you have been one of the publishers you are not the only publisher, nor were you the first publisher of it on at least two of those sites. I note it has also been published on nostalgia-nz.blogspot and unspinningmoments.blogspot.

    It has also been spelt correctly twice in the trial transcripts and incorrectly the other times.

    So it appears you do not have the ‘insider’ knowledge you like to claim you do.

    Then Judith dug herself deeper in a hole by saying it had been spelt twice correctly in the trial transcripts.
    It had not. Another lie.
    An even longer nose for Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt picks up the gauntlet – and wins convincingly.

    Judith can only respond with the usual Team Karam-Bain techniques – (to quote Tom Scott) ” discounting testimony and discrediting any evidence that doesn’t suit.”

    Roll of honour:
    Kimbo
    Nookin
    Psycho Milt

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Oh – and for Rowan’s benefit, seeing as he seems to have the reading comprehension of a primary school student: the above comments re David Bain are offered to point out Judith’s foolishness, not to suggest that a narrative based on those “facts” would accurately describe David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,270) Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 9:58 am
    An independent fingerprint consultant does not believe David Bain’s fingerprints on his rifle were made with blood on his fingers.
    Carl Lloyd explained his views to defence counsel Paul Morten on the 50th day of the trial of Bain for the 1994 murder of his family, in the High Court at Christchurch.
    If the fingerprints were made in blood – blood is red, and the stock of the rifle is brown – using white light the image would be dark red, and the ridges would be dark and not light, the court was told.
    Referring to photographs taken by David Stedman, a police fingerprints section photographer in 1994, he said, “These are white ridges, so the marks can’t be in blood”.
    He did not agree with crown witness Kim Jones, who previously told the court the fingerprints were made in blood.
    He showed the jury photographs taken with his fingerprints in blood on the stock of the rifle.
    They showed that the prints were black, and he said the significance was that nothing would make white ridges if you had blood on your fingers.

    Mr Lloyd: “There is nothing to suggest that those marks are in blood. My opinion is that they are not in blood”.
    A black and white photograph taken of fingerprints on the rifle, under special lighting, showed prints of the opposite colour expected.
    The photograph produced to support Mr Jones’ evidence was actually a reversal of the original image taken, Mr Lloyd said.

    It does not seem that David Bain thought much of what Carl Lloyd had to say because he told Binnie it must have been rabbits blood that was on the rifle.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,270) Says:
    January 16th, 2013 at 10:23 pm
    .

    So Muggins, someone told you the dogs name and how to spell it because it reflects they type of dog she was, and you are claiming that you had exclusive knowledge of that because a member of the family told you, and that David Bain wouldn’t know the dogs name, how to spell it or how it got that name.

    Judith,if David Bain knew how to spell the dogs name, and I am not saying he didn’t know, then why didn’t he tell Joe?
    But, it doesn’t matter whether David Bain knew how to spell the dogs name or not, he was not the source of my information.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,112) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    You seem to have a lot of time on your hands for reading trial transcripts, witness statements and the like, Judith – why don’t you have a go? There’s plenty to work with there.

    ————————————-

    I’ve been reading stuff since well before the second trial. Not quite sure what you are wanting me to have a go at, but if you are meaning the things you point out about David, I already have.

    Many of those things have logical explanations. E.g. His academic situation – He was on a student allowance and had a part-time job – like many many students do. He had pulled out of one course of study that didn’t suit him and he failed in, and returned to different discipline, in which he was doing very well. There are many students the same age as David was who haven’t even had part-time positions, and then those that pick up rubbish for extra cash, not to mention those that prostitute themselves. That is hardly a unique or different situation.

    The problem you have is that we have the benefit of extensive psychological and psychiatric examination of David Bain. This was carried out from the time he was arrested. All the qualified and professional forensic psychiatrists and psychologists, contracted to explore issues of mental illnesses, and behavioural problems with David, put him under vigorous and intensive examination for years, and found NOTHING.

    Unlike Robin, who you like to point out there was no such ‘testing’, we do know with David that he did not suffer from anything other than PTSD and depression associated with being imprisoned.

    For you and the other spinners that raises a problem, because you like to discount any suggestion of Robin being mentally ill because there was no diagnosis presented to the Courts, so therefore, you must accept that David was not afflicted in any way, because he has been diagnosed and found not to have any of the things you and others like to suggest he does have.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    David can not be the only one who would gain from the ‘windfall’ of compensation,
    There must be a whole gravy train around the David Bain caboose.
    In for a penny in for a pound now David.
    The stress of ‘owing’ so many people for their good graces must be ‘extraordinary.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,270) Says:

    I didn’t lie. Because the spelling of the Dogs name has been corrected in the transcripts that I have access to. So it is spelt correctly in the transcripts!

    And the dogs name dog appear in a newspaper spelt correctly. As I didn’t give you the name of the newspaper, how can you deny it? Have you checked every newspaper from every town in NZ to verify that? NO, you haven’t.

    And now Judith is saying that in the copy of the transcript she has access to the dogs name is spelt correctly.
    Can you believe that? No, you can not.
    And she is still saying the dogs name is spelt correctly in a newspaper. Hmmmm.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,270) Says:

    I know its been changed on the trial transcript I can access, because when it was transferred to a word document, for ease of referencing, I changed it! You can select any word have it change that same word throughout the entire document. You don’t have to go through all 3700+ pages.

    They don’t put editors letters on line. Can’t link, sorry!

    And now Judith is saying it is spelt correctly on the trial transcript she has access to because she changed it.
    Can anyone believe anything that Judith says?

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

    muggins (1,884) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    But, it doesn’t matter whether David Bain knew how to spell the dogs name or not, he was not the source of my information.

    ——————————-

    The problem you have with some of your sources of information, is that they say you are lying too. They are abandoning you like rats off a sinking ship. In fact, I don’t think even rats can jump away from a ship at the speed in which these people are distancing themselves from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    PR campaigns – written with reference to the conviction of James Hanratty in the UK in 1961 but relevant to the Bain case. Hanratty’s PR campaign was supported by John and Yoko Lennon as well as respected journalists:

    “The 40-year media campaign

    Forty years of excruciating hell for the families and friends of the victims, one dead, one crippled for life .

    Investigative journalists such as Bob Woffinden and Paul Foot wrote articles and books about the case, stubbornly certain that James Hanratty was innocent and that the case was a miscarriage of justice.

    Paul Foot was a highly-respected campaigning journalist who worked for Private Eye, the Daily Mirror and The Guardian.

    ……………………..

    The DNA tests carried out by the FFS that finally provided definitive proof that James Hanratty killed Michael Gregsten and raped and shot Valerie Storie more or less stopped the bandwagon dead in its tracks.

    But there had been for decades almost fanatical and very vociferous support for someone who’d been unanimously convicted of murder, many of whom stood to gain, though it didnt have too much effect except to have the case looked at and found solid twice.

    James Hanratty’s supporters claimed that he had no motive, that the police framed him, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated by the government’s experts. NONE of this was proved. Unless there is actual proof of dastardly plots and contamination, these claims against the authorities are unfruitful and unfair.

    The most important lesson to be learnt from the A6 murder case is that a bandwagon of journalists, politicians, human rights campaigners, lawyers, writers, filmmakers and celebrities being absolutely convinced of someone’s innocence does not make him or her innocent in fact.

    Even intelligent and well-intentioned people like Paul Foot and David Steel can mistakenly believe a killer is innocent and shrug off the pain the victims’ families must feel.”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Many of those things have logical explanations.

    Funny how you can spot that straight away if the victim of the propaganda is Mr D. Bain, but remain utterly unable to see it if the victim is Mr R. Bain.

    For you and the other spinners that raises a problem, because you like to discount any suggestion of Robin being mentally ill because there was no diagnosis presented to the Courts…

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but yes I certainly do discount suggestions of someone being mentally ill when the suggestions are being made by armchair detectives who’ve read some witness testimony.

    The problem you have is that we have the benefit of extensive psychological and psychiatric examination of David Bain. This was carried out from the time he was arrested.

    In what sense is that a problem I have? I’ve never suggested David Bain is mentally ill. As your reading comprehension seems to be as poor as Rowan’s, let me spell it out for you: I pointed out those propaganda “facts” about David Bain because I thought you might be able to make the connection between the malicious foolishness of using that stuff to invent a bullshit narrative about his mental state, and your own malicious foolishness in writing a similarly bullshit narrative about Robin Bain’s mental state. Obviously, that was a forlorn hope on my part.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    ‘I understand it perfectly. If the Police errors had not been made, the jury could perhaps have reached a different verdict. That made the first trial a miscarriage of justice. It most definitely does not mean the Privy Council endorses your delusions about a criminal conspiracy by the NZ Police.’

    So hiding evidence is an ‘error’ Milt, and so is throwing it out – well why even bother with evidence at all.

    The PCA report you refer to was made redundant by evidence given at the trial about the diary. Try to stop relying on bits you find that have been superseded. But I do note you staying as far away from the lounge scene as possible – who could blame you milt, all your forays there have resulted in confirmation of your idiocy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,387) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    Nost NZ

    What is CS?’

    It’s a site called Counterspin.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Judith – you have not yet answered my question:

    Can you name the countries where an acquittal in such circumstances results in an immediate recognition of wrongful imprisonment, and the cheque is written?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,113) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    ————————

    Yes it is true with Robin we have the evidence, but no diagnosis, with David we the evidence (e.g. being bullied) but we have a clear diagnosis, which disproves the ‘propaganda’ of him being psychotic etc, and provides explanation.

    So we should just discount Robin’s behaviour according to you, because its propaganda? But it wasn’t propaganda, it was also factual evidence. The photos of his office, the job applications, his diary, he physical appearance etc, cannot be classed as propaganda.

    Sure, it has been used to promote a point of view, I accept that, and therefore used as propaganda, just like David’s. But it is also ‘evidence’, solid evidence, that stands alone and collectively to provide the same outcome.

    When you put the evidence (as in what was previously mentioned) for David together, it fails the collective examination.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Getting back to what this particular blog is about, it is notable that the D Bain supporters have a lot to say about Davids rights but seem to be forgetting that other people have rights as well (collectively or individualy) and the Goverment is our representative to those rights. D Bain team say they had a right to had seen both reports before the public, but hang on a minute that excludes the rights of the people of NZ plus those named in the report as they are the ones that will pay for any compensation so don’t they also have a right to see these documents as well. On the same basis that the PC found flaws in the first trial and an eventual retrial doesn’ that mean the NZ public don’t have to accept such a flawed report such as Binnies and basicaly that is what Judith Collins is saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (80) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 4:13 pm
    ————————————–

    Why don’t you post the links to where you got your information that Reed cross examined the police in their interview with Binnie first.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Definition of evidence

    Noun
    The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    Does Robin being supposedly depressed or committing incest meet the standard required to be called evidence?

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

    gamefisher (389) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 4:21 pm
    ————————-

    Are you suggesting that public opinion should effect the outcome of the compensation bid?

    David Bain was the applicant. He and the government were the main parties. Of course he had the right to see it before the public.

    Those people mentioned in it had their chance in Court to have their say. The transcripts were given to Binnie. They also have the right to take legal action if they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    gamefisher (390) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    ————————-
    Who said it was evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith @ 4.20
    “When you put the evidence (as in what was previously mentioned) for David together, it fails the collective examination.”
    Like when you put collectively together all of the spinners arguments you still get pretty close to 0.0000% convincing!
    Don’t understand what Milt is trying to argue here as he’s not (at least according to him) trying to argue that David was mentally ill, he has a funny way of showing it!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,274) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 3:54 pm
    muggins (1,884) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    But, it doesn’t matter whether David Bain knew how to spell the dogs name or not, he was not the source of my information.

    ——————————-

    The problem you have with some of your sources of information, is that they say you are lying too. They are abandoning you like rats off a sinking ship. In fact, I don’t think even rats can jump away from a ship at the speed in which these people are distancing themselves from you.

    And who would those so-called rats be, Judith?
    And don’t say you can’t tell me that.
    You are lying again.

    Got you worried,havn’t I?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Gamefisher
    Sorry to disappoint you but Judy does not get to run the claim by the court of public opinion, the decision is reserved exclusively for cabinet. Therefore your opinion (or mine or anyone elses) has 0.0000% weighting towards the outcome. Why is that so difficult for the idiots to get through their thick skulls!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Anyway it looks established that David doesn’t have legal aid even though he certainly should, also what the focus of the JR will be. While meanwhile the sisters have had to resort to spamming and cutting and pasting, speaking about sex with animals and so on, so nothing unusual on that front. No convincing arguments from them as to why JR shouldn’t apply, in fact an apparent distinct lack of knowledge about the procedure that hasn’t give rise to one mantra at this point. They simply lurch from heroes to zeros, anybody with an apparent open mind is welcomed but if they cross the line they become an immediate target. No doubt the digging on Philip Joseph has begun but the ‘ever hopefuls’ don’t seem to have twigged that Joseph wrote a quite damning analysis on Fisher report on Rex Haig, in which he set out several reasons why the decision could be reviewed, also thereby revealing that both he and Fisher accept review as a process that could apply here. I’d say that Fisher may have ‘learnt’ that approach when his own report into Haig was caned by the academic, now Fisher is the position that he will be seen as the ‘trogan horse’ that delivered the fatal blow into Crown hopes of whitewashing the compensation.

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

    Rowan (530) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    ————————–

    He is trying to point out that Robin’s actions and behaviour can look like something they aren’t, by saying that David had things when put together also looked like something, they might not have been.

    Its a bit like the twisted one. She is hoping by raising old questions she’s asked and I haven’t answered, that I will forget her lies.

    They are game playing. I’m sitting in the sun with my laptop and a lime spritzer. May as well be getting up the twisted ones nose as well!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    muggins (1,886) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    Judith (1,270) Says:

    I know its been changed on the trial transcript I can access, because when it was transferred to a word document, for ease of referencing, I changed it! You can select any word have it change that same word throughout the entire document. You don’t have to go through all 3700+ pages.

    They don’t put editors letters on line. Can’t link, sorry!

    And now Judith is saying it is spelt correctly on the trial transcript she has access to because she changed it.
    Can anyone believe anything that Judith says?

    And on top of that she says it was spelt correctly in a newspaper because she wrote a letter to a newspaper spelling the dogs name correctly.
    Now why on earth would Judith write a letter to the paper about Arawa’s dog?
    But even if she did,the reason she spelt the dogs name correctly is because she knew how to spell it correctly because I have been spelling it correctly for years.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Question to Judith: Can you name the countries where an acquittal in such circumstances results in an immediate recognition of wrongful imprisonment, and the cheque is written?

    Judith will not answer my question because there are no major countries which do this.

    Yet another quarter-truth.
    Yet another evasion.
    Yet another abusive response.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,886) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    ————————
    Not at all Muggins.
    Do you really think I am not stroppy enough to have not only checked your sources but to have followed through with what I learned?

    You underestimate me dear chap.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (81) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Judith will not answer my question because there are no major countries which do this.
    ——————-

    You stupid idiot, do you like being made a fool of?

    Spain, in their Constitution promises compensation for wrongful imprisonment immediately upon the finding of a miscarriage of justice.

    That’s one for you, which makes you a liar, again. Of course now you will go into a great diatribe on how Spain cannot be considered a ‘Main’ country.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10848471

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Karam’s basis for challenging the Bain verdict has been a series of “what ifs”.
    I have my own “what ifs”.

    • What if a competent policeman has- thanks to Karam’s efforts – had a career wrecked for no good reason? ‘:
    • What if an innocent murdered man has been branded as an incestuous father, and an entire family of murdered people has
    effectively been maligned, through Karam’s incest claim, on what is no more than hearsay?
    • What if a community has been encouraged to lose a little faith in its police for reasons which may, in the end, not be valid?
    • What if, in a police force already suffering from recruitment problems, individual police are to be singled out for attack as one way of undermiining future trials?
    • What if Karam’s book had not been hyped up on an arbitrary media whim?
    • What if he was not a former All Black?
    • What if the police and jury really did get it right, all those years ago?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,279) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 4:44 pm
    muggins (1,886) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    ————————
    Not at all Muggins.
    Do you really think I am not stroppy enough to have not only checked your sources but to have followed through with what I learned?

    You underestimate me dear chap.

    Ok, Judith.
    Well I can be just as stroppy as you,so next week I will contact those people whose names I have mentioned and ask if they have changed their minds about anything they have told me.
    I won’t have to contact Schollum,because it turns out what he told me was only confirming what he said at the retrial anyway. And I won’t have to contact my “inside” informant as you have no idea who that person is. So there are really only a couple of people I will have to contact.
    Piece of cake.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Proof of innocence required:

    NZ
    US
    Canada
    Mexico
    UK
    France
    Italy
    Germany
    + more.

    Doesn’t look like NZ is out of kilter on this one!

    This list is long – like the list of forensic evidence pointing to DB as the killer.

    The list of forensic evidence pointing to Robin is non-existent.
    Like Judith’s list!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,889) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    ————–
    Actually no Muggins, not just a couple of people. I have been gathering my information for as long as you have been posting on the internet regarding this case, including names mentioned on JFRB, Counterspin, and the freeforums.

    You have quite a habit of posting information you have received from ‘phoning’ people.

    Of course, unlike you I don’t contact them directly, you see, I know it is illegal to contact witnesses and jury members. Instead, I use the correct methods. Much more fruitful in the end.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Twisted
    Pretend, deny, lie, spin thats what your good at. In addition to your list What if you are wrong?
    The ‘non existant’ evidence so far has achieved
    1. The Privvy Council quashing the conviction
    2. 5x not guilty verdicts
    3. An innocent on the BOP by a retired high court judge commissioned by the MOJ

    The ‘Daddy didn’t do it’ witchhunt has achieved
    1. Ian Binnie read all the so called ‘facts’ on the JFRB website and it helped convince him of Davids innocence. To date there one and only achievement (unless you count upcoming defamation trials), well done to Kent on that one!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (83) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    ————————

    You stated there were no major countries, I gave you one.

    Now you start twisting to redefine the terms, and to try and make your lies a little less obvious.

    Just demonstrates your level of dishonesty further. Nice one twisted.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    “The Constitution of Spain guarantees compensation in cases of miscarriage of justice.

    The case known as “El crimen de Cuenca” (the crime of Cuenca) where in 1910 two peasants were convicted of the murder of another peasant who had disappeared even though the body was never found. Some years later the disappeared peasant showed up again and proved the conviction was wrongful.

    The so-called “Wanninkhof case” where Dolores Vazquez was convicted of the murder of Rocío Wanninkhof in 1999. Later DNA evidence exonerated her.”

    Unfortunately for Judith – Spain defines a miscarriage of justice as where a conviction has been quashed and no retrial has taken place.

    Yet another un-truth. Not even a quarter truth!
    Add Spain to the list of countries which has similar rules to NZ!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (83) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    ———————–
    Actually, just a small mistake on your list, there are a couple states in the US that do pay upon ‘miscarriage of justice’, and one of the countries on your list is in the process of enacting legislation to change their system.

    Let’s see if you can work out who those states and country are ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Proof of innocence required before compensation is paid:

    NZ
    Spain
    US
    Canada
    Mexico
    UK
    France
    Italy
    Germany
    + more.

    Countries which pay out automatically on acquittal at second trial:
    None

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Nookin (4,570 comments) says:

    Nost NZ

    You are right, then. I am not a member of CS or any other lobby group and nor do I want to be. My focus on this thread is the process which, from a jurisprudential point of view, is intriguing. I suspect that this is why Phil Joseph is involved — not because of any moral judgment that he may have made.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    In Germany compensation doesn’t require proof of innocence, whilst in England there is a statutory measure with a right of appeal. So twistedlemon’s ship has two big holes in the bum before it even puts to sea, just like the ‘mountain of evidence’ against David.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (82) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    What if the police hierarchy, for once, admit they messed up badly?

    What if Crown Law admit, for once, that once Bain was charged they were determined to follow through to the bitter end and gain a conviction, and retain it, at all costs?

    What if the police investigated the incest claims when they were first informed of them?

    Most Kiwis will forgive if the people responsible would only own up to their mistakes, and attempt to put things right. If asked why they have a distrust of the NZ police and justice system they will mention the Crewe murders. Not so much because of the planted evidence, but because the police, as an organisation, continue to deny any wrongdoing, and cling to the line that Thomas is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    But I do note you staying as far away from the lounge scene as possible…

    OK, so in other words yes you have no basis whatsoever for your belief in a criminal conspiracy against David Bain. And yes, I have no desire to be drawn into further quibbling about things we don’t and won’t know, to no purpose other than allowing you the opportunity to repeat various assertions and declare yourself the destroyer of the Crown case. The list of unpleasant and pointless activities a person chooses not to engage in is generally a long one.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (84) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    ——————————-

    Wrong again twisted.

    Those cases you mention -retrospectively applied.
    You need to check your facts. My comment was regarding the legislation as at the date of my comment. Their constitution has been recently modified regarding miscarriage of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (85) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    Countries which pay out automatically on acquittal at second trial:

    ——————————-
    Changing the terms of definition – misrepresentation

    What a great display of your dishonesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Judith.

    You are confusing ‘miscarriage of justice’ with ‘wrongful conviction’.
    Be aware that ‘miscarriage of justice’ can mean different things in different legal systems.
    Please confine yourself to comparing apples with apples.

    Proof of innocence required:

    NZ
    Spain
    US
    Canada
    Mexico
    UK
    France
    Italy
    Germany
    + more.

    Automatic payment after second trial:
    None

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (86) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    ————————–

    Twisted, go back to my original post, from where you asked the question. That defines the terms. Don’t start telling me what I’m ‘confused’ over. I think I understand this a damn sight more than you and your lies have demonstrated. You are posting from a search list. Already you are wrong, because not all the States in the US have the same laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Firstly, that in New Zealand, unlike some other countries, where an acquittal in such circumstances results in an immediate recognition of wrongful imprisonment, and the cheque is written, wrongfully imprisoned individuals must be exposed to such a process, in order to receive compensation, for what has already been defined by law.

    This was my post.

    Now base your argument from that, without twisting.

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

    owlize (2) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 11:29 am

    I guess the ‘did he … Didn’t he is going to continue till the end of time. One point I would like to make about the debate as to it wasn’t murder / suicide …. ‘why would Robin Bain shoot himself thru left temple when he is right handed? he couldn’t reach the trigger ‘ …..
    The trigger is some way along the entire length of the rifle …. the right hand can reach around so the thumb can push the trigger back. If the person is kneeling on the ground … The rifle butt can rest on the ground …. it doesn’t have to be held by the left hand … leaving fingerprints … How do I know ??? because my son died by suicide using a high powered rifle, just like this.

    He has been found not guilty of the murder of his family …. His first trial was flawed with serious issues of mistrial. He spent 13 years in prison. I wish this country as a whole would just step forward and compensate the man so he can get on with the rest of his life … Which no doubt will have to be elsewhere in this world if he is to have any semblance of ‘normal’ life. After what he has suffered / been through / experienced it is extremely important to note he is not insane.

    Owlize, sorry I missed your post this morning.
    Firstly, my condolences on losing your son in such a horrific way.
    I too have known someone who died this way, but not as close.

    The points you make are very valid, and most of the country see it as you do. There will always be the few, so filled with hatred for their fellow man, that they must continue with their propaganda campaign against an innocent man.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,114) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    But I do note you staying as far away from the lounge scene as possible…

    OK, so in other words yes you have no basis whatsoever for your belief in a criminal conspiracy against David Bain. And yes, I have no desire to be drawn into further quibbling about things we don’t and won’t know, to no purpose other than allowing you the opportunity to repeat various assertions and declare yourself the destroyer of the Crown case. The list of unpleasant and pointless activities a person chooses not to engage in is generally a long one.’

    And where did I say there was a criminal conspiracy, or where did I say I was the destroyer of the Crown case, you are nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,286) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:21 pm
    muggins (1,889) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    ————–
    Actually no Muggins, not just a couple of people. I have been gathering my information for as long as you have been posting on the internet regarding this case, including names mentioned on JFRB, Counterspin, and the freeforums.

    You have quite a habit of posting information you have received from ‘phoning’ people.

    Of course, unlike you I don’t contact them directly, you see, I know it is illegal to contact witnesses and jury members. Instead, I use the correct methods. Much more fruitful in the end.

    I have emails on file as well,Judith.
    But I will still contact a couple of those people. My main focus is regarding that lie Bain told Binnie when he said he was completely naked when Dr Pryde examined him. I wan’t to make absoulutely sure that what I have been told hasn’t changed in the past few days.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,784) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 5:35 pm
    In Germany compensation doesn’t require proof of innocence, whilst in England there is a statutory measure with a right of appeal. So twistedlemon’s ship has two big holes in the bum before it even puts to sea, just like the ‘mountain of evidence’ against David.’

    Didn’t you read that twistedlemon (gee that’s a nice name).
    But you’ve also missed the boat about the JR it’s not about a compensation scheme that needs to have proof of evidence, it’s about due process, natural justice and TBORA. Nice try on trying to move the goal posts. There would be no complaint from David if the process was fair, I’ve read that he contracted into an arrangement with the Ministry, but I don’t have proof of that at the moment – but I’m sure it is something the Court will be interested in if it’s true.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Judith (1,278) Says:
    January 31st, 2013 at 8:37 pm
    That’s for me to know, and to pass on for those who need to see.

    FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE?????

    Who exactly are “those who need to see” that you report to and why do you need to tell tales on this blogsite? So you can get your next lot of instructions eh?

    Judith (1,278) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 11:21 am
    ……. I am very sure that Prof. Joseph would not be adding his name to this, if he was not convinced, firstly that it is the right thing to do……

    I see you are presupposing and putting words in Prof’s mouth again. Does he know you are doing this?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    owlize (2) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 11:29 am
    ——————–

    I too, am sorry I missed your post. I completely overlooked it, and just noticed it when Kanz commented.

    You raise some very valid points. It is so nice to hear a fresh view.

    I hope you are still reading, and will post again. Sometimes we need reminding of the things that really matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Most developed Countries allow for compensation if a person is found ‘factually innocent’ that is not the issue here NZ needs a report that can stand up to scrutiny declaring D Bain ‘factually innocent’.

    Judith re:- why do you twist what people say all the time.

    Yes NZ citizen have rights just as much as D Bain and yes they have they rights to influence not to have their own rights impinged by having what is a shoddy report forced upon them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (78) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 6:17 pm
    Judith (1,278) Says:
    January 31st, 2013 at 8:37 pm
    That’s for me to know, and to pass on for those who need to see.

    FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE????? FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO SEE?????

    Who exactly are “those who need to see”

    If someone is breaking the law, and misrepresenting other peoples words, and publishing other people’s comments on the internet, without their permission, then there are ‘people that need to know that’, namely those who are being misrepresented etc.

    Judith (1,278) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 11:21 am
    ……. I am very sure that Prof. Joseph would not be adding his name to this, if he was not convinced, firstly that it is the right thing to do……

    I see you are presupposing and putting words in Prof’s mouth again. Does he know you are doing this?

    ——
    How does me saying ‘I am very sure’, equate with “putting words in Prof’s mouth”. I didn’t say he had said that, or quoted him as saying that. I gave my opinion on what I think regarding why he was involved.

    I think you are getting really desperate here. Obviously trolling through my posts trying to find anything you can. I must be making an impact, you don’t target people unless they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    The silly thing is that if David had not said he was completely naked I probably wouldn’t have bothered to contact anyone.
    But I could just not envisage ever being completely naked. So I made a few phone calls. And it turns out he was never naked. He always had a blanket in his possession.
    So no-one knows for sure if those scratches and/or bruises were there when Dr Pryde examined him.
    But he can’t explain them, and nor can any of his supporters.
    Looking at it impartially one would have to think that he got those scratches and/or bruises when he was struggling with Stephen, hence those jersey fibres under Stephen’s fingernails.
    Despite what Judith has said, no photos were taken of his torso. Photos were taken of those bruises on his head and that nick on his knee. But no photos were taken of his torso.
    I remember a couple of years back where a poster on Trade Me said there was a photo showing those scratches and another poster going under the pseudonym of cybernana became most irate,saying there was no such photo.
    And turns out she was right. That other poster had to back down. There was no photo showing those scratches and there was no photo showing there were no scratches.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The silly thing is that if David had not said he was completely naked I probably wouldn’t have bothered to contact anyone

    Yet another lie.
    You found out about that in December 2012. You have been contacting people such as Weir, and bragging about it on other sites since 2010.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Judith (1,288) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 6:28 pm
    If someone is breaking the law, and misrepresenting other peoples words, and publishing other people’s comments on the internet, without their permission, then there are ‘people that need to know that’, namely those who are being misrepresented etc.

    Now that is a very sweeping statement if ever there was one. So, who are you reporting to? Did you get a rap over the knuckles for opening your mouth and letting the cat out of the bag? Tattletales are the lowest of the low.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Tattletales are the lowest of the low.

    Not in my book. Liars are much lower, and we have a fair few on here.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Q.
    Mmm. Can you describe just what physical examination was carried out
    5
    by Dr Pryde?
    A.
    Sure. He, um, I – until he arrived, I stayed completely wrapped up with
    this blanket thing and I wasn’t – and the detectives told me not to move
    as much as possible just to try and stay still. I was seated through all
    that time then when Dr Pryde arrived he supervised, explained what he
    1 0
    was going to do. The table was, I was fairly close to the back of the
    room and there was a table right there so the detectives had to move
    the table away from me to give the doctor room to work with me. Um,
    he then went through the various series of things, starting with making
    me strip and examining –
    15
    Q.
    You say “strip”, did you –
    A.
    Take off, naked – take –
    Q.
    – take all of the clothing or what did you take off?
    A.
    – all the clothes that I had on at the time were taken off.
    Q.
    So were you naked at the – some point in the examination?
    20
    A.
    Yes. Completely naked.
    25
    30
    Q.
    So if there were marks on your chest at that point –
    A.
    Oh yes.
    Q.
    – they would have been evident to Dr Pryde?
    A.
    Very much, another example of the stuff that’s come up that’s just

    proven to be ridiculously false.
    What samples did Dr Pryde take?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Nookin 5.32

    Nost NZ

    You are right, then. I am not a member of CS or any other lobby group and nor do I want to be. My focus on this thread is the process which, from a jurisprudential point of view, is intriguing. I suspect that this is why Phil Joseph is involved — not because of any moral judgment that he may have made.’

    It’s massively interesting Nookin, I had a specific interest in those sections of the BORA you published here recently about 4 years ago. To see that things have gone in a circle and that Act now being in the play is a big step forward in constitutional Law IMO. My version was typically more direct because I don’t like the cap in hand approach, as to me the case is very clear. That aside, and purely wild speculation, I think Phil Joseph may have some views on compensation generally perhaps along the lines of the Law Commission’s report, but overall the idea of a person essentially being stripped of rights by a Government power probably doesn’t rest easily with him. As I said on here the other day this might prove to be the opening of Pandora’s Box of issues. The Bain case in the small print is no longer about David Bain or his family. The pity is in the wider sense that some of the issues raised need to be resolved but obviously will not if every one’s ‘friend’ a settlement happens along.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    corrigenda (79) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    Now that is a very sweeping statement if ever there was one. So, who are you reporting to? Did you get a rap over the knuckles for opening your mouth and letting the cat out of the bag? Tattletales are the lowest of the low.

    Reporting someone to the relevant authority for breaking the law, is not ‘tattling’. Are you suggesting that your friend should be allowed to publish statements made by another person, especially a witness in a criminal case, and alter those statements however he likes, without being held accountable for that?

    You must be worried to be making such a deal. Your concerns are justified. Pity you can’t ‘undo’ the internet? 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    So were you naked at the – some point in the examination?
    20
    A.
    Yes. Completely naked.’

    That’s pretty hard to follow. How about I was naked except for being wrapped up in a blanket, or I was flying except my feet were on the ground, or just ‘cuckoo.’

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    N-NZ, he is a stickler for due process, which as anyone can see hasn’t been followed in this case. This is an example of what riles him.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3712160/Shunning-of-due-process-repugnant-says-law-academic

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    “Firstly, that in New Zealand, unlike some other countries, where an acquittal in such circumstances results in an immediate recognition of wrongful imprisonment, and the cheque is written, wrongfully imprisoned individuals must be exposed to such a process, in order to receive compensation, for what has already been defined by law.”

    Judith: Name a country where an acquittal in such circumstances (ie after a second trial) results in an immedite recognition of wrongful imprisonment, and the cheque is written – as you claim above.

    Spain does not.

    No more half truths, quarter truths or non-truths, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (87) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    —————–
    Did you notice the ‘such circumstances’ –
    Spain does so, when there is a miscarriage of justice ending a period of incarceration, followed by an acquittal, they pay, and have done for at least six months.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (87) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    No more half truths, quarter truths or non-truths, please.

    ————————————–

    Are you meaning lies, like this one of yours

    twistedlemon (77) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am
    When Binnie was interviewing David, the defence team (in the person of Reed) was allowed to examine Bain and cross-examine the police witnesses.

    The prosecution was not allowed this same right.

    Reed was not present at the Police interviews.
    Ms Markham was asked if she wished to cross-examine at David’s interview, but declined.

    Doyle’s Interview
    Date of Interview: 1 9 July 2012
    Place : John Wickliffe House, Dunedin
    Attendees Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)

    Weir’s interview

    Date of Interview: 19 July 2012
    Place: John Wickliffe House, Dunedin
    Attendees Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)

    Bain’s interview

    Date of Interview: 23 July 2012
    Place: Copthorne Hotel , Auckland
    Attendees: John Pike and Annabel Markham (Crown Law Office)
    Michael Reed CQ
    Matthew Karam
    Joe Karam
    Stuart McGilvray (Ministry of Justice)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (886) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:10 pm
    ———————

    Wow, he is on-to-it. A very astute and intelligent man. Knows his stuff obviously.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    You are wrong about Spain Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,787) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:05 pm
    ———————-

    The problem with that is, it means they have to believe David when he said he was naked, and they obviously don’t.

    They not doubt believe that having made the Detectives move the desk back for more room, David was able to remove his clothing, whilst keeping the blanket firmly wrapped around himself.

    Perhaps he got the detectives to hold the blanket tight around him, whilst he shimmied out of his clothing, underneath. That wouldn’t have been very suspicious.

    Maybe they even held the blanket for him whilst he poked his ‘equipment’ out through a gap, so it could be swabbed etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (88) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    ——————
    No I am not.
    They have various levels of qualification, which I’m sure you’ve seen. Go back and read them again.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    You are wrong about the interviews twisted, and about Germany, and about England. Just thought you might like to know because you and someone else have been planning a little trap, and ended up in it yourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Look out all you good people in blog land.
    Auntie ‘Judith’ has your number and she isn’t afraid to use it. 😉

    Cue key word search: Brain

    It does not compute, it does not compute.

    Cue key word search: Pinky

    What shall we do now, Brain?

    I think we should collate everything anyone has ever said about….anything, the citizens must know their place.

    We do not need ‘Big Brother’ in NZ we have ‘Judith’ !!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,788) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    She is wrong about Spain too. Spain guarantees compensation for those wrongly convicted and imprisoned because of judicial error and/or the “abnormal operation” of the administration of justice. A ruling of miscarriage of justice is confirmation of the second point i.e. the administration of justice was deemed to be wrong, or abnormal. The same ‘such circumstances’ as the Bain case are covered by this qualification in their Constitution.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Isn’t that like talking to yourself ‘Judith’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    You’re also wrong about Spain twisted because a MOJ is an abnormal operation. I’m reluctant to go any further with comments about ‘abnormal’ twisted. I might look up a few more of your list just to help you out, Canada and Aussie have systems similar to ours, but I hope you realise it’s not about what system is in place here primarily, it’s about the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    It is the same old problem with Judith.

    Repeat your half-truth, quarter truth or non-truth long enough and hope it becomes ‘fact’ in the public mind.
    Add a little personal abuse, to try and bully the opposition.

    Spain pays out if innocence is proven. So does NZ.
    The ‘murdered’person turning up is proof of innocence. Cheque written.
    Acquittal at second trial is not evidence of either innocence or wrongful imprisonment.

    Nice try Judith – but you are wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    The 19 points of Alex Dempster conceded at the retrial, completely destroyed Bill Wrights 3 planks from 1995. For the idiots Dempster was the CROWN witness in the case not the defence one. Lets see the trolls answers for these!

    Plank A (The mass of evidence against David)

    • That Laniet Bain could have been making gurgling noises when David arrived home from his paper round if Robin had shot her three times in the head 15 or more minutes before David got home, and that the Crown had overstated matters in the first trial as far as his evidence was concerned on this issue.

    • In a further matter that will be discussed in relation to the death of Laniet and the gurgling evidence, Dempster agreed that he did not examine the bullet fragments from Laniet’s head or the bullet fragments found external to her body. He accepted that if these bullet fragments contained white fibres, it meant that the bullet must have been fired through an intermediate target of white fabric and that when that happens this can cause unusual entry wounds like the one in the top of her head.

    • That if Stephen Bain, lying almost naked on the floor in the freezing house, had been killed by David about 4 a.m. as the Crown postulated, his body would have got cold much quicker than Margaret, Arawa and Laniet.

    Plank B (No Evidence that Robin committed suicide)

    • Dempster was aware of reports that showed that right-handed people sometimes shot themselves in the left temple when committing suicide. One report indicated that this occurred one in every eight times and that it was perfectly feasible that Robin Bain was one of those eight.

    • That the wound to Robin Bain was a contact wound.

    • That contact wounds to the head are in 90 percent of cases the result of suicide. Putting it another way, fewer than 10 percent of contact wounds are the result of homicide.

    • That suicide by Robin Bain in any or all of the positions demonstrated by the defence was perfectly feasible and did not require any contortions of the body.

    • That when he first entered room A where Robin Bain’s body was found, he could hear the whirr of the computer fan, making untenable the proposition that Robin came in and knelt down to pray unaware that someone was behind the curtains where the computer was located.

    • Based upon the new evidence that he had put to him from defence pathologists Prof Cordner and Dr Chapman, he accepted that the site of entry and the angle and trajectory of the shot were the fact quite normal and did not exclude suicide at all.

    • He agreed that the test firing results done with the rifle matched his original measurements of the wound to Robin Bain.

    • That when he examined Robin Bain’s gunshot wound he noticed a number of skin defects including blackheads and that those sorts of things are hard to distinguish when just looking at photos.

    • That if the live bullet found on the floor beside the rifle had got there as a result of a misfeed, that was hardly compatible with homicide because a person, Robin Bain, would be very unlikely to just stand there while a killer cleared the bullet and reloaded.

    • There was nothing in the way Robin’s body was lying when he was discovered that contradicts the photographs showing the various positions in which he may have shot himself.

    Plank C (No evidence Daddy shot anyone else)

    • That the blood splash on the index fingernail of Robin Bain could have got there as a result of Robin Bain shooting someone else.

    • That none of the blood on Robin Bain’s hands had been tested and that if any of that was the blood of anyone other than Robin, it would have dramatically changed his view of what happened.

    • He was very concerned that two samples collected from Robin Bain’s hands had been destroyed.

    • The bruise/abrasion on the back of Robin Bain’s hand had happened sometime in the 12 hours between nightfall the previous day and his death.

    • He accepted that the red staining running around the top of the left thumb of Robin Bain was likely to be blood and similarly with the red smear on the base of the thumb, and that neither of these was collected as a sample.

    • He said that the Crown thesis relating to 400 ml of urine in Robin’s bladder missed the point. He accepted that he was not a urologist and it was a complex area of medicine. He accepted that the important point as put to him was the way the bladder functioned rather than the amount or quality of liquid retained and also that the urge to urinate can be overridden by external events

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Interesting timing regarding questioning of Judith Collins and appointments she has made.
    Right when we have a Human Rights question.

    I for one do not arbitrarily believe in coincidences.;)

    I do hope no-one tries to ‘influence’ any process.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Bullshit Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Well as the sun sets in the west, the karamites continue with their bullshite.

    Hope you all got out doors today at some point …

    🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    • That the blood splash on the index fingernail of Robin Bain could have got there as a result of Robin Bain shooting someone else.’

    That was a bit naughty.

    So was the police not testing that blood from robin’s hands that milt reckoned was tested, old milts been telling a few porkies.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Truthiz what do you think of the name ‘the Banes’ I ran a competition regarding a collective name for David’s supporters then it has nothing to do with anyone. Dennis won 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Old Judge Judy has been involved in a process that has seen her acquaintances appointed to position. But she said there was no need to be concerned about conflict of interest because there hadn’t been one, I like the way she finds herself not guilty so readily and makes sure she doesn’t distance herself from potential conflicts of interest. That’s excellent judgement, just like dissing another lawyer of superior standing to her publicly.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Mobile phone hot spots are good for getting away, with ones ‘laptop’ 😉 Thanks Truthiz

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Well Truthiz
    I guess as you have no arguments to counter any of the above you just have to resort to your old tactic of denial, They are not ‘my’ points but actually Dempsters. I don’t actually see any reference to any evidence from you at all, just the ‘facts’ or rather the ‘spin’
    This the best you can do?
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (89) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    “cuando en virtud de recurso de revisión se dicte sentencia absolutoria, los interesados en ella o sus herederos tendrán derecho a las indemnizaciones civiles a que hubiere lugar, según el derecho común, las cuales serán satisfechas por el Estado”

    You are wrong. All you have done is ‘google’ and found the basic answer. This is directly from the Constitution. It roughly translates in common language as as being when the case is reheard, and the accused is exonerated by judgement then compensation is paid to the interested parties (being the accused/s) and that Spanish law allows the interested party/s heirs in common law to recover the indemnity if the interested party is deceased.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    That the blood splash on the index fingernail of Robin Bain could have got there as a result of Robin Bain shooting someone else.

    This would be from the someone else he shot after cleaning off the blood from his fight with Stephen, right?

    So was the police not testing that blood from robin’s hands that milt reckoned was tested, old milts been telling a few porkies.

    I realise accusing each other of lying is de rigeur for Bain threads, but would really rather not go there. I’ve pointed out that our literacy-challenged fellow commenter was wrong in saying the Police didn’t have the blood on Robin tested. The blood on his clothes was tested, and was all his.

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

    Pscycho MIlt,

    The blood on Robin, as opposed to the blood on Robin’s clothes?

    Personally I see a big difference there.

    As far as I am aware, the blood on the clothes was tested, the blood on Robin was not.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Further to the above (sorry to repeat my own comments, but for some reason I have a philosophical objection to being accused of lying):

    Rowan: How much of the blood on Robin was tested? none prior to 1995 trial and a minimal amount afterwards…

    Me: Wrong, and wrong. Not that that surprises me at all.

    Blood on his clothes was spot-tested before the 1995 trial, and comprehensively tested for the Police/PCA investigation. It was all his.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Over in the ‘Now that’s a resignation letter’ thread

    My first thought was whether ‘judith’ worked there lol

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Actually milt the blood on Robin’s clothes wasn’t all tested, the cut out samples were destroyed but the clothes kept.

    As for blood splash he simply may have missed it, or gone back to finish Laniet off, after he got changed, so, to use your word, ‘right?’

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    The blood on Robin, as opposed to the blood on Robin’s clothes?

    Personally I see a big difference there.

    In which case, we’re talking about the blood on his head from his own wound, which wasn’t tested for fairly obvious reasons and which hopefully none of you are yet deranged enough to speculate came from other family members – or the two small blood smears on his hands. If Rowan wants to say the Police didn’t have those two small blood smears on Robin Bain’s hands tested, fine. If he wants to spout some bullshit about “none” of the blood on Robin being tested, he can get told he’s wrong as he is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Imagine somebody with an LLB finishing off every sentence with a LOL, I suppose it could happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    As for blood splash he simply may have missed it, or gone back to finish Laniet off, after he got changed, so, to use your word, ‘right?’

    Or he might have nipped out to top some dero whose body was never found, anything’s possible in Speculationville.

    As to “he might have missed it,” I guess that’s plausible, since he also missed all the dirt on his hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Just like Pantene.;) It does happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    I suggest, Judith, that you have not done your homework.

    The term ‘Miscarriage of Justice” is defined in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The same definition applies to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is the definition which applies in the Spanish Constitution.

    You have confused the MoJ as used by the Privy Council with the MoJ defined for the European documents.

    Go research these documents to which Spain is a party. Acquittal on second trial does not qualify for compensation in Spain. It is not covered by the Constitution.

    Come back when you are properly informed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I can’t be bothered hanging around for Twistedlemon.
    She is wrong. Article 21 proves her wrong. The quote from the Constitution proves her wrong, and Spanish Judicial Law proves her wrong.

    Article 121 [Indemnification]
    Damages caused by judicial error and those which may result from the abnormal operation of the Administration of Justice shall provide the right to an indemnification by the State, in accordance with the law.

    She is obviously googling to find the answer, and coming up with generalised stuff. The articles which allow for compensation to be paid from a special fund set up for cases with circumstances like David Bain’s are governed firstly in the Constitution under the above mentioned article 21, then confirmed in three different places in their legislation. They do not require another process finding innocence. A judicial finding of not guilty after a miscarriage of justice/wrongful imprisonment is sufficient.

    She can argue all she likes. But she is forgetting to include the judicial judgement of not guilty in her research. Her problem, not mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Every? There you go exaggerating again. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Don’t get angry milt, you are trying to prove the un-proveable. What 2 small blood smears on robin’s hands? How small does a sample have to be to not be relevant, particularly in places like the hands of the family annihilator? But at least you’re talking about the blood, how do you reckon that blood got on daddy’s palms and where did his blood on the laundry towel come from.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    You are ‘spinning’ the facts here, most of the blood was NOT tested, a small amount was tested prior to the PCA investigation and found to be Robins, you make a big jump to ‘all’ which is just misleading.
    “In which case, we’re talking about the blood on his head from his own wound, which wasn’t tested for fairly obvious reasons”
    This include the red ‘blood like’ substance under his fingers, that come from his head wound to?
    Heres a link I put up before which you didn’t seem to look at, again I suppose the blood ‘all came from his head wound’!
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2294937/Detective-did-not-act-by-the-book

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (90) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:21 pm

    ——————————-
    See answer above.

    I suggest you concentrate on the Spanish Constitution.
    Article 21 is your starting point. From there you can follow it through their various legislative definitions to see that you are wrong. You are looking at wrongful imprisonment in general and not where there has been a subsequent finding of not guilty.

    I did warn you to check the ‘such circumstances’ but you were too arrogant to do that.

    You’re obviously getting yourself terribly confused.

    Have a good night Ms “Reed’ cross examined the police’

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,299) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 6:48 pm
    Q.
    Mmm. Can you describe just what physical examination was carried out
    5
    by Dr Pryde?
    A.
    Sure. He, um, I – until he arrived, I stayed completely wrapped up with
    this blanket thing and I wasn’t – and the detectives told me not to move
    as much as possible just to try and stay still. I was seated through all
    that time then when Dr Pryde arrived he supervised, explained what he
    1 0
    was going to do. The table was, I was fairly close to the back of the
    room and there was a table right there so the detectives had to move
    the table away from me to give the doctor room to work with me. Um,
    he then went through the various series of things, starting with making
    me strip and examining –
    15
    Q.
    You say “strip”, did you –
    A.
    Take off, naked – take –
    Q.
    – take all of the clothing or what did you take off?
    A.
    – all the clothes that I had on at the time were taken off.
    Q.
    So were you naked at the – some point in the examination?
    20
    A.
    Yes. Completely naked.
    25
    30
    Q.
    So if there were marks on your chest at that point –
    A.
    Oh yes.
    Q.
    – they would have been evident to Dr Pryde?
    A.
    Very much, another example of the stuff that’s come up that’s just

    proven to be ridiculously false.

    Thankyou for posting that,Judith.
    Two of the detectives apparently left the room. The third detective was in the doorway watching Dr Pryde examine David Bain. He says he was never naked. He was always in possession of that blanket.
    So it will be his word against David Bain’s word.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    As to “he might have missed it,” I guess that’s plausible, since he also missed all the dirt on his hands’

    How dirt on his hands is relevant to the blood found there is getting a bit twisted milt.
    Don’t get angry about your sad case, but please explain which 2 small smears on robin’s hands your talking about, then the smears on his palms and the blood on the laundry towel. No need to get angry about any of that if you have a p plausible explanation, just keep calm and connect each piece together.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,794) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:16 pm
    Imagine somebody with an LLB finishing off every sentence with a LOL, I suppose it could happen

    a dumb ass with a law degree LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Just wondering which sick creep downvoted owlize’s comment about his/her son.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, Judith, but you are not correct.

    Reversal of a conviction does not necessarily qualify as a miscarriage of justice under Spanish law. Your quotation does not address this fact and is therefore misleading. There has to be an acknowledgement of innocence – not just reasonable doubt.

    Do your homework.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    So it will be his word against David Bain’s word.’

    So name the detective and show where he gave the evidence, there’s no suppression orders tjhat apply, not one word of it in two trials, the PC judgement, Binnies report or even the internal police conduct investigation.

    Publish it on here because there isn’t anybody else in the world who has seen it. Go right ahead if you’re not full of crap. But if you are full of crap prove it by not printing it, easy as.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Don’t get angry milt, you are trying to prove the un-proveable. What 2 small blood smears on robin’s hands? How small does a sample have to be to not be relevant, particularly in places like the hands of the family annihilator? But at least you’re talking about the blood, how do you reckon that blood got on daddy’s palms and where did his blood on the laundry towel come from.

    Indeed, I shouldn’t be prompted to anger by the views of people who hold fundamentally irrational beliefs. I apologise.

    I’m not sure at what point a blood smear is small enough to become irrelevant, but you could always ask the great authority on this case, Joe Karam. He accounts for Stephen Bain’s blood on the crotch of David’s shorts by scientifically determining it to be “a smidgeon,” and elsewhere informing us that this blood in the seam of a pair of black shorts was “invisible to the naked eye.” He seems better qualified than me to offer an opinion on the subject.

    As to how the blood got on Robin Bain’s palms, surely that’s for you to explain? You’re the one making the allegations.

    You are ‘spinning’ the facts here, most of the blood was NOT tested, a small amount was tested prior to the PCA investigation and found to be Robins, you make a big jump to ‘all’ which is just misleading.

    That really would be a whole lot more credible if you hadn’t already proudly declared that you haven’t read the PCA report.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (91) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:45 pm
    I’m sorry, Judith, but you are not correct.

    Reversal of a conviction does not necessarily qualify as a miscarriage of justice under Spanish law. Your quotation does not address this fact and is therefore misleading. There has to be an acknowledgement of innocence – not just reasonable doubt.

    Do your homework.’

    blah blah blah.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (91) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    Again you are wrong.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/87846508/The-Spanish-Constitution

    You have the wording quoted above. A subsequent judicial finding of ‘not guilty’ allows for compensation to be paid. Or as they call it ‘indemnification’.

    You are clearly lying, because the links and references prove you so. You have not provided any sources for your claims, because you can’t.

    You have done nothing but quote a multi-national Human Rights document.

    Had there not been a subsequent judicial judgement, you would be right, but in this case, with ‘such circumstances’ you are VERY VERY WRONG.

    You can stubbornly stamp your foot as many times as you like, but I’ve provided supporting references etc.
    You are blowing out your butt – you do it so well and no doubt your friends believe you, after all, they believe muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Also:

    please explain … the blood on the laundry towel.

    On this matter, I can only defer to independent, objective and respected international jurist Ian Binnie, who considered the evidence of the broken glasses, determined nothing tied it to the murders and wrote it off as “unexplained.” If that’s how a top judge being paid shitloads of our cash deals with the evidence, this humble blog-comments blatherer is happy to follow his example.

    I’d also be happy to defer to Binnie’s specific findings regarding this towel. What did he say about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Further also: can anyone explain why we should be giving a shit what Spanish law has to say on the matter of whether David Bain would qualify for compensation if he was a Spaniard? I haven’t noticed we take our lead from Spanish law on any other matters.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,797) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 9:50 pm
    ————————-

    Unfortunately for twistedlemon, she cannot tell the difference between a reversal of conviction and a subsequent finding of ‘not guilty’.

    Two very different things in law. Still at least whilst she’s breaking her butt on this, she’s not telling lies or stalking/harassing some other person.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Poor old milt needs a hand to explain how the blood got on daddy’s palms, or the cuts and bruises to his hands, or his blood on the laundry towel, the close contact wound to his head, why there was not gunshot hole through robin’s beanie, what robin was
    doing walking about the house among his dead family, he’s a very needy fellow old milt.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I have read it actually Pyscho
    I just didn’t reread it to re find whatever it was you were previously asking me about it being a ‘copybook’ enquiry. You are pretty desperate if you cling to this as evidence. The cops will use it as ‘exonerating’ themselves but it is really the police covering there own arses, they would have also found that photo 62 contained a lens until their own expert pointed out that it did not.
    Come on lets see if you can find 19 points of defence evidence that point to David as the killer, I did for Robin using crown evidence! Good luck

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Of all the blood on Robin Bain’s clothing that was tested virtually all was found to be his own blood.
    So it would follow that all the other blood on him was his blood also. Obviously the blood from his head wound was his blood.
    There is no such thing as bloodwash. That is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
    Fresh blood washes off very easily. So had Robin Bain washed his hands he would have had no blood on them.
    Therefore he did not wash his hands. Therefore any blood on his hands would have been his blood.
    Karam said in David & Goliath Page 203 “I have no doubt that if the blood staining on Robin’s clothing had been analysed for blood grouping it would have been proved to be blood from the deceased members of his family. The nature of these bloody stains on Robin’s attire and body is such that they could not have got there as a result of finding dead bodies. It could not have got there from his own wound in the process of being murdered”.
    From the PCA Report,1997.
    “We re-submitted the garments for retesting and DNA analysis [there have been significant advances in this field since the original investigation] and have been advised that those further tests established all identifiable blood on those garments could have come from Robin and none of it was Stephen’s.
    On the track pants nine areas of bloodstaining were sampled. Of the spots analysed 23 could have come from Robin alone.
    Two stains produced partial profiles that could only have come from Robin or David. One stain could have come from Laniet,Robin or David.
    On the T-shirt a small bloodstain could only have come from Robin.
    On the dark blue sweatshirt from which seven samples of bloodstaining were analysed ,six of these could only have come from Robin. No results were obtained from the other sample.
    Blood analysed from the short sleeved shirt could only have come from Robin Bain.
    So Karam knew that his statement in the 1997 edition of David and Goliath was incorrect ,yet he did not take the opportunity of correcting it in the preface of the 2007 edition.
    Yet he still insists that the blood on Robin Bain’s hands came from Stephen.
    He got it completely wrong about the blood on Robin Bain’s clothing and there is no doubt he has got it completely wrong about the blood on his hands.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,121) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    Twistedlemon asked me to provide a country that pays compensation for wrongful imprisonment (without a requirement for innocence). She was quoting something I posted to Flipper in which I said there was countries that did this in ‘such circumstances’.

    I said Spain. Because in their Constitution under Article 21 (as quoted above) it prescribes it. It is clarified in their legislation in several places. Wrongful imprisonment/miscarriage of justice is not sufficient unless there has been a proving of innocence, OR a subsequent judicial finding of not guilty – as there was in the Bain Case.

    Twisted is trying to twist her way around it by using the words reversal of conviction, saying that alone is not enough, which is true, but I did not say reversal of conviction, I said such circumstances, thus a finding of not guilty like Bain had.

    ……….. boring, and I’m over it. She has the references but she won’t pull her head in, so I’m wasting my time.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    You don’t take being wrong very graciously do you, Judith!

    If compensation is automatic under the constitution, explain to me why Dolores Vazquez hasn’t been paid?

    http://www.surinenglish.com/20121031/news/costasol-malaga/dolores-vzquez-take-rejected-201210311239.html

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (92) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:10 pm
    ————————
    She was not paid out because she was not retried, but acquitted when another was charged.
    Their law is specific, there must be a judicial judgement of innocence (not acquittal) or not guilty. She had neither of those things. How could you even think that was similar?

    I feel for her, but she falls outside the legislation.
    Again, I told you right back at the beginning of this to watch the ‘such circumstances’, because I knew where you were going. You should have listened.

    It is you who are wrong, I’m sorry, but the same applies to you, you are not handling it well at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Those photos show blood wash on robin’s palms and blood coming from his nose, but I’d like to know the name of the detective that keeps getting quoted on here about the blanket. I’m going to check out the transcript and see what evidence he gave about it. His evidence will be easy to find, but maybe he lied or maybe the biggest bullcrapper on the Bain case lied, again and again.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Judith: it was a rhetorical question. I’m aware the answer is that you can’t resist an opportunity for pedantic quibbling.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    STFU, you are completely wrong about everything you have posted in any of the Bain threads! You constantly misrepresent and ‘spin’ the facts, lie and pull ‘facts’ out of your arse to support your conspiracy theories!
    Hasn’t it been pointed out to you on other blogs where you explicitly stated that Ian Binnies decision would be final no matter what! also where you would be moving to if he found for David, again more lies you have told. You are a twisted pathetic old fool with serious issues, get help!

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

    Psycho Milt (1,122) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    —————————-

    Hey, I refused to answer her constant comments for quite while. She kept at it and at it, requesting an answer, so I gave it to her, and now she keeps pushing stupid irrelevant stuff, and it’s all my fault for answering her?

    Not the least bit biased are you!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    You are pretty desperate if you cling to this as evidence.

    I am indeed just desperate and crazy enough to imagine the Police might know something about the evidence they gathered. Call it a personality disorder.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Poor old milt needs a hand to explain how the blood got on daddy’s palms, or the cuts and bruises to his hands, or his blood on the laundry towel, the close contact wound to his head, why there was not gunshot hole through robin’s beanie, what robin was
    doing walking about the house among his dead family, he’s a very needy fellow old milt.

    Translation: Nostalgia-NZ can’t explain it either.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Get help with that personality disorder milt it’s affecting your personality.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,124) Says:
    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    ————————-

    He has answered that question, many times on Kiwiblog. I don’t know if you have seen it or not. I don’t blame him not giving you an precise answer. You RB supporters seem to think it’s a great game to ask repetitive questions, as if it’s some sort of game to ‘wind us up’ or wear us out, by having to answer it all.

    Frankly, I hope he doesn’t repeat himself for you. You would not do the same for him, and he has nothing to prove, he’s already done that time and time again.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    I thought we were done with the evidence …

    but noooooo,

    ok I got one,

    David wrote the note on the computer and everything else falls into place …..

    🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Kimble (4,636 comments) says:

    What. The. Fuck.

    He did it. It’s obvious. What sort of retard…?

    The Bainglorious Set are NZ’s 911 Truther’s. And I bet you thought that title would go to the Paintergate crowd, right Milt?

    I must find someway to merge the Bain and Gay Marriage threads. If only to allow me the opportunity to coin the term “Bigotard”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    See my opinion poll question would be how many people think Robin wrote the note on the computer …

    My guess is, other than the Karamophiles it is less than 20%.

    and once you figure out it was David who wrote the note on the computer, then the rest is simple ….. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    And I bet you thought that title would go to the Paintergate crowd, right Milt?

    You’ve got me there – up until December I would have put Paintergate way out in front.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    C&P from lower article

    “Lawyers and law professors view the world very much from the view of decisions being able to be repeatedly appealed, without looking at other consequences of not getting on and making decisions.”

    In other words they operate to the ‘letter of the law” and not to the ‘intent of the law”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3712160/Shunning-of-due-process-repugnant-says-law-academic

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    This from a REAL scientist. Does it make the armchair ones feel stupid? No, they are too stupid to see it. Gamefisher wants a scientist to look at the case, presumably not this one. LMAO

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10863141

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    What evidence is there Robin killed himself?

    The natural place to grasp a rifle to hold it accurately to your temple is by the muzzle, the suppressor/silencer. Two pristine prints of Stephen were found here. How come they were not smudged?

    How come Stephen’s prints were found but not Robin’s? Robin wasn’t wearing gloves when he died. How come David’s prints were found but dismissed as old? An old wives’ tale?

    Robin died over by the curtains. His body was picked up by the shoulders, shaking blood onto the curtains, and lugged over to the beanbag. The magazine found by his outstretched right hand placed there. It was on its edge, a metre away from the beanbag where he often sat, and under (not on) the table. The shell case was found in the computer alcove behind the curtains. How did it get there?

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

    This is how a dead body falls:
    http://marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    The body was moved and the scene set for suicide. It’s perfectly obvious and consistent with the childish self-serving message on the computer.

    A partial set of incomplete sock prints that Hentschel, the expert who did the luminol test, said were David’s. How can you trust his measurements but not his opinion? In fact, Hentshel didn’t know exactly what he was looking at and nor does the silly woman. Her bias gives her away. It’s not her business to offer an opinion on compensation. If she thinks the Binnie Report is sound, she is another dunce.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Rowan (537) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:23 pm
    Muggins
    STFU, you are completely wrong about everything you have posted in any of the Bain threads! You constantly misrepresent and ‘spin’ the facts, lie and pull ‘facts’ out of your arse to support your conspiracy theories!
    Hasn’t it been pointed out to you on other blogs where you explicitly stated that Ian Binnies decision would be final no matter what! also where you would be moving to if he found for David, again more lies you have told. You are a twisted pathetic old fool with serious issues, get help!

    Rowan,
    At the time I said I would accept Binnie’s decision I didn’t know that he was incompetent. I thought he at least wouldn’t accept everything Bain told him at face value. Turns out I was wrong, and so were a lot of other people,so I am in good company.
    I can understand your frustration. So near ,and yet so far. But there is no need to take your frustrations out on me.

    As for liars, take a look at Judith.
    She said she had seen a photo of David’s tattoo showing part of his torso . There was no such photo.
    She said that the word Kaycee had been spelt correctly in the retrial transcript. Another lie.
    She said she had seen the word Kaycee spelt correctly in a newspaper editorial. Another lie.
    She said she had written a letter to a paper mentioning Arawa’s dog’s name . Another lie.
    She said Rodney Hide was being harassed,etc.,etc. Another lie.

    And that is just over the past couple of weeks.
    There is one way to stop me posting, Rowan.
    All the other Bain related threads have “died”.
    I am not posting on any of them. If the same happens with this thread,then I won’t continue posting on it on my own.
    But until that happens you are going to have to put up with me.
    Suck it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Flipper

    I’ve read what you’ve quoted, and your argument seems to be that the Thomas Royal Commission said, “not guilty” =
    “innocent” = “pay compensation”.

    However, you have overlooked two key phrases within their reasoning as it APPLIED SPECIFIALLY and EXCLUSIVELY to Thomas (that are not applicable to David Bain).

    “…Once we are satisfied the Prosecution case against Mr Thomas has not been proved (AND WE ARE SO SATISFIED ON THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE BEFORE US) (my emphasis)….. then, JUST AS A COURT WOULD ACQUIT HIM (my emphasis)…and the community thereafter accept his innocence, so we believe we are entitled to proclaim him innocent and proceed accordingly. Mr Thomas has always asserted his innocence”.

    The problem with this line of reasoning is that the Privy Council ruling in the Bain appeal said that NO ONE has the authority to determine the legally-binding facts of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”, other than a jury. It was because the Court of Appeal pre-empted a jury decision (as the Royal Commission did in the Thomas example you are placing so much weight on), that they had the second trial for Bain.

    But a jury NEVER got to hear the new evidence in the Thomas case. Also, a Royal Commission DOES NOT make judgements that set legal precedents.

    Instead, they function as instruments of the executive, not the judiciary. Most of your confusion stems from your inability to separate out the three branches of government, the third being the legislative, which have their own non-over-lapping spheres. Judges don’t make the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, and politicians don’t make the decisions of judges. Yes, common sense may say, “David Bain was found ‘not guilty’, and the Thomas Royal Commission made a ‘common sense’ (NOT legally binding decision) that a man in a similar (but not identitical!) situation (imprisoned/conviction overturned, by pardon in one case, quashing and subsequent ‘not guilty’ in the other) should be compensated. However, this is not about ‘common sense’. It is about working through the constructs that are “legal”, “allowed”, and “falling outside the usual guidelines of executive (not legal!) power – and keeping those spheres separate as is required. The bian team can’t have it both ways. They got a re-trial because no one gets to decide facts other than a jury. OK. The jury is sovereign. However, no one gets to decide compensation other than the executive. The executive is sovereign. Separation of powers in action.

    Also, the Thomas Royal Commission said,

    ” Taking ALL THESE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT (my emphasis)…it is our view that Mr Thomas is entitled to have the question of compensation determined on the basis that he is innocent. To determine it on any other
    basis would be to do him the gravest injustice”.

    …and what did “these factors” include?

    ”…the injustice done to him by MANUFACTURED evidence”.

    …which does not apply in the Bain case, notwithstanding the efforts of Joe Karam.

    Apples and ranges, flipper, apples and oranges…

    Another excellent post by Kimbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    How can you trust his measurements but not his opinion?

    Dennis, you asking that question has blown the small amount of credibility you had out of the water.
    If you can’t grasp the simple fact that measurements can’t change (except when they are Ngamoki’s measurements), but that opinions do all the time, then it’s kindergarten for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3672

    Another excellent blog by Kent Parker.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins, that site not getting any traffic or traction?
    It’s a bit low using David Farrar’s popular blog to divert users to the sinking one.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Kanz

    ” So, he shot himself but moments before he kicked the bucket he managed to go into the laundry and wipe himself clean.

    To any who may still be searching for the truth, this is a good example of the workings of a mind that would have you believe Bain is guilty. Any brain that would/could work like that is incapable of logical thought, let alone intelligent debate”.

    How so Kanz? I know Karam has made the argument that if you are committing murder/suicide you may do unusual things. Yeah…ok…maybe. But why is repeating the scenario as you and Karam would have us believe a case of “any brain that would/could work like that is incapable of logical thought, let alone intelligent debate” when ross69 is simply stating a non-editorialised supposed fact as you would have us believe it? Or didn’t Robin (in addition to supposedly wearing his son’s gloves when committing the murders), “moments before he kicked the bucket”, (went) “into the laundry and wipe(d) himself clean” before “he shot himself”?! That has to have happened for David Bain to get compo.

    To the real point at issue: Why is it “patently obvious” that the blood on the towel in laundry “couldn’t have come from the suicide scene”? Why can’t it have been left there by David IF he was the one doing a clean up after murdering his dad?

    It is all very well saying, “the police had it coming from the clean up from Stephen. In the first trial they had it coming from Bain having cleaned up after the fight they claim he had with Stephen (but subsequent testing showed it was from Robin)”. However, I’d suggest that is a red-herring, because the Crown never had to account for every detail of supposed events 100% accurately. Instead, they had to give plausible and likely scenarios.

    Unless you can demonstrate conclusively that the blood COULDN’T have come from the site of death of Robin, I’m struggling to see how it benefits David Bain’s compensation claim in any way. It is not unusual, indeed it is likely expected to have some of Robin’s blood in the bathroom if David murdered him, and cleaned up afterwards.

    Yet another excellent post by Kimbo,well worth repeating.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kanz (889) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 8:56 am
    muggins, that site not getting any traffic or traction?
    It’s a bit low using David Farrar’s popular blog to divert users to the sinking one.

    Say what?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    But until that happens you are going to have to put up with me.
    Suck it up.’

    Somebody’s going to be sucking it up alright.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. flipper (5,296 comments) says:

    Muggins and Kimbo….
    Absolute crap.
    You really have become desperate.

    When all is done, and Bain wins (his JR/BOR action or J.Key tells silly Collins to pull her head in, and is properly compensated) what will you do?

    Will you and your cult follow the Guyana Jones’ example?

    That would have the useful function of increasing New Zealand’s average level of intelligence (with apologies to RDM who must be shaking his head in disgust at your low grade theatrics and other antics 🙂 ).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3673

    Sounds like someone is a trifle upset.
    Oh dear,how sad, never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Well a forensic scientist says she saw no forensic evidence against David, how very sad for the twisted sisters, even the blokette one.

    Interesting that somebody mentioned Kent, the man abandoned by his ‘financial’ backers and unable to pay for legal representation. I thought his trial might have been going to be one of the more interesting ones this year by virtue of how quick it will be over and accounting that Kent has tested the Court’s patience and there will be no more ‘delays.’

    But in fact it will be the JR that takes centre stage if Collins doesn’t get the push or folds, again.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne Re:- 8:31 am Yes and don’t forget the pristen fingerprints of D Bain on rifle.

    It is a pity that a computer aniamation wasn’t done showing how Robin may have fallen once shot which would then show just how unlikely Robin could of ended up where he was found. Marzuka’s animation is excellent in showing what can be done and afterall New Zealand is where the Hobbit film have been made so why isn’t this expertised use to show Robin’s death scene. A picture or action display is worth a thousand words. Philip Boyce display would of had a major influence on the Juries decisions yet his display was almost to the point of perjuring himself (a) he used a guide rod not showing how awkward it realy was(b) he only showed contact display none at the further distances(c) holding onto the barrel when the silencer was more natural (c) saying Robin would fall backwards defying the laws of gravity and physics.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Kanz. It’s not about my credibility. It’s about the fact that nobody knows what the sock prints truly represented; Hentschel measured something he thought was something but how does he know what, exactly? He offered an opinion: David’s. Are you suggesting he is a liar or mistaken? If he is mistaken, how can you rely on the measurements being what he said? It’s still only an opinion. A bit of blood on the bottom of a sock, it’s not a footprint in sand.

    The sock prints are problematic and indeterminate. Looking at them, they could belong to either man. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

    To focus on the sock prints is absurd. There is a massive amount of incontrovertible evidence and none of it supports David as innocent.

    The Banes are a cult. The more absurd their position becomes, the more faith they have David is innocent. From the pathetic excuse typed on the computer to the urine load after fighting and strangling Stephen and washing up and changing, from the blood on David to the position of Robin’s body and the planted magazine.

    Anyone who believes Robin killed himself is very seriously deluded.

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

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/71164.html#comments

    No question that this is one of the twisted sisters. Which one? sounds like goldnkiwi to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    flipper (1,343) Says:

    February 3rd, 2013 at 9:04 am
    Muggins and Kimbo….
    (with apologies to RDM who must be shaking his head in disgust kiver

    flipper,who is RDM and what does kiver mean?

    Btw. I seem to remember that it wasn’t all that long ago when you posted a comment on the General thread beseeching one D Farrar to close down a certain thread. Maybe you need to beseech him again ,this time re this thread,if you don’t like what is being posted.
    Good luck with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. Chuck Bird (6,569 comments) says:

    I wonder if Dr Sandiford has studied forensic psychiatry. If so perhaps she could tell us who was most likely to have sex with a goat – Mark Buckley, a respectable businessman or dirty David?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Next stage, after constitutional question regarding rights, Judith Collins taking defamation proceedings. 😉

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

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3674

    I wonder if anyone is working for Kent Parker “pro bono”?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    I was wondering if the ‘double murderer’ mentioned in ‘Truth’ was ever found to be insane?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Btw. I seem to remember that it wasn’t all that long ago when you posted a comment on the General thread beseeching one D Farrar to close down a certain thread. Maybe you need to beseech him again ,this time re this thread,if you don’t like what is being posted.
    Good luck with that.

    Still trying to run somebody else’s successful blog because your one can’t make the grade? Sad, sad old man.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (204) Says:

    February 3rd, 2013 at 9:22 am
    Next stage, after constitutional question regarding rights, Judith Collins taking defamation proceedings.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

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

    I was wondering if the ‘double murderer’ mentioned in ‘Truth’ was ever found to be insane?

    Still promoting that dirty rag? I wouldn’t even use it to wipe my arse, would rather use a dock leaf, it’s cleaner.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins, how are you getting on with justifying this lie?

    The silly thing is that if David had not said he was completely naked I probably wouldn’t have bothered to contact anyone

    Yet another lie.
    You found out about that in December 2012. You have been contacting people such as Weir, and bragging about it on other sites since 2010.

    Still playing the “he started it” that most left behind in childhood? Time you started getting a backbone old man.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    @ (Kanz a) I am sure they would prefer it too.;)
    Who could guess where you have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    I will take that as a no to the insanity question then.
    You would know I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (207) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 9:39 am

    This will be a lesson to you not to leave a message again, it has gone viral. You are famous.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/71164.html#comments

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

    Chuck Bird (2,971) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 9:19 am
    I wonder if Dr Sandiford has studied forensic psychiatry. If so perhaps she could tell us who was most likely to have sex with a goat – Mark Buckley, a respectable businessman or dirty David?

    I would say she would NOT be saying David Bain given the list below.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10706385

    Retired Engineer

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/08/12/1123353482292.html

    Finance Company Director

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10702200

    Jockey

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/10/24/mb-bestiality-charge-cfb-shilo.html

    Armed Forces

    http://newzeelend.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/new-zealand-synonymous-with-child-porn-and-bestiality/

    Former St Johns Area Manager

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

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ muggins

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

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

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

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

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

    I want our $400k back!

    Another excellent post by Kimbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    $20 is a lot when you’ve got no teeth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kanz (894) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 9:36 am
    muggins, how are you getting on with justifying this lie?

    The silly thing is that if David had not said he was completely naked I probably wouldn’t have bothered to contact anyone

    Yet another lie.
    You found out about that in December 2012. You have been contacting people such as Weir, and bragging about it on other sites since 2010.

    Still playing the “he started it” that most left behind in childhood? Time you started getting a backbone old man.

    Kanz,
    You are lying again.
    It is true I did ask if anyone knew if David Bain was strip-searched. No-one was able to give me a definitive answer.
    But my thinking was he might have just been asked to drop his trousers and lift his T-shirt.
    It wasn’t until he said he was completely naked that I smelt a rat. I just couldn’t envisage Dr Pryde asking him to remove all his clothes without allowing him to cover himself in some way. It wasn’t as if he was in prison.
    Anyway,as I have already said, it will be his word against that police officer’s word.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Sensitive wee flower aren’t you, you and Kanz a
    Amazing how murder is such a laudable occupation
    All murderers should become heroes,
    Obviously providing a civic duty,
    What is lower than a murderer?

    You should know.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Sandiford said an inadequate police investigation, substandard forensic science and a poorly prepared defence were the main causes of wrongful imprisonment.

    How strange – all three applied in the case of David Bain.

    owlize said

    This person has just found themselves in an untenable situation of extreme traumatic experience. Of course they are going to do weird things … Say weird things .. Not remember things … it is natural for the human brain to respond this way as anyone who has suffered extreme trauma will tell you.

    You are so right about this owlize. It really annoys me that some people make such a big deal that David Bain’s memory was affected by what happened and make out he was only pretending. Talk about a lack of imagination and empathy.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    In the absence of evidence David’s word wins.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Kanz

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

    Hmm.

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

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

    Another excellent post by Kimbo.

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

    muggins, still trying to justify? This is what you said.

    I probably wouldn’t have bothered to contact ANYONE

    You have been contacting witnesses for 3 years now, and bragging about it on other sites.
    It is good to see you have realised you can’t post using your own words without lying, so have taken to posting other people’s, that allows you to blame somebody else, your favourite pastime.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    That is quite funny even for you. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    You are so right about this owlize. It really annoys me that some people make such a big deal that David Bain’s memory was affected by what happened and make out he was only pretending. Talk about a lack of imagination and empathy.

    dragonfly, IMO it displays a lack of humanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    There was no lacking in imagination in planning the crime or after to explain away evidence but you are right there was an amazing lack of empathy for the victims, the real victims, the ones who died looking at their killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3676

    Looks like we will all be posting on here for the next year or two.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Murderers are known for their lack of humanity, you are quite right. Perhaps you should take that up with one.

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

    dragonfly (24) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:04 am

    owlize said

    “This person has just found themselves in an untenable situation of extreme traumatic experience. Of course they are going to do weird things … Say weird things .. Not remember things … it is natural for the human brain to respond this way as anyone who has suffered extreme trauma will tell you.”

    You are so right about this owlize. It really annoys me that some people make such a big deal that David Bain’s memory was affected by what happened and make out he was only pretending. Talk about a lack of imagination and empathy.

    You are so right. These people not only lack empathy, but they obviously lack life experience, and in some cases apparent contact with other human beings. Fortunately there has been much work and research done on the effects of traumatic stress, on both behaviour and memory.

    What needs to be pointed out, is the vast majority of the JFRB active members (all 20 of them) are connected in some manner to either the police, the ambulance, the school, Crown witnesses or the extended family. They are like ‘what they are’, because they cannot accept that their ‘connection’ might have been wrong, or what Robin did, says about them and what they might be capable of.

    There are also those who are feeling guilty, they did nothing to help, when they could and should have, so they have to say it wasn’t Robin, to absolve themselves of that guilt. They are prepared to lie, defame, stalk and harass anyone (or their family) that stands in their way,

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    “In the absence of evidence David’s word wins.”
    Well, yes- if it wasn’t for the inconvenient fact that it also means RB is a murdering father. Imagine what Greg King would have made of this, if the positions were reversed, and DB was giving this as evidence for the prosecution. He would inform the jury in no uncertain terms that there was absolutely NO evidence that backed up DB’s assertion apart form his word. You can bet your bottom dollar he would also have pointed out that it was also in DB’s interest to claim he had been strip searched, and asked, quite rightly, whether we should accept his word for it. I can just imagine him saying to the jury “he was strip searched- and not one other person remembers or has documented this? Dare you convict RB on this? Dare you add it to – blah, blah blah”
    That’s the point for me. I don’t really care if DB gets compensation. I do care, however, that RB receives a fraction of the defence DB has rightly been entitled to.
    Let me put it this way N-NZ. Suppose for a moment that the bullet didn’t kill RB (it could have happened easily ). Then it is conceivable, is it not, that RB could have recovered from the injury and found himself in court charged with murder. Do you imagine for one moment a defence lawyer failing to ridicule the prosecution to high heaven over the apparently trivial matter of the killer wearing gloves? “Why, for the love of God, did RB wear gloves? Can any of you imagine for one moment doing this, no matter how distressed your were? Why, for the love of God, change clothes- but not put on underwear?” and so on and so on.
    Finally, let me put one other hypothetical case to you. Imagine a colleague of yours is accused of a serious crime, and claims he is innocent because you did it. A trial is held, he is found guilty, much to your relief. AFter appeal, he is found not guilty BRD. He then applies for compensation.
    Would you not want it made extremely clear that you have a very clear interest? That just because your colleague is not guilty BRD means in no way that you are therefore guilty? Would you not want the authorities to consider matters extremely thoroughly before making a decision?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    muggins (1,906) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 6:32 pm
    The silly thing is that if David had not said he was completely naked I probably wouldn’t have bothered to contact anyone.
    But I could just not envisage ever being completely naked. So I made a few phone calls. And it turns out he was never naked. He always had a blanket in his possession.
    So no-one knows for sure if those scratches and/or bruises were there when Dr Pryde examined him.
    But he can’t explain them, and nor can any of his supporters.
    Looking at it impartially one would have to think that he got those scratches and/or bruises when he was struggling with Stephen, hence those jersey fibres under Stephen’s fingernails.
    Despite what Judith has said, no photos were taken of his torso. Photos were taken of those bruises on his head and that nick on his knee.

    Kanz, don’t be so obtuse.
    I said that I would not have contacted anyone if David Bain had not said he was completely naked.It should have been obvious to anyone that I was only referring to Bain saying he was completely naked. I had never contacted anyone before about him being completely naked because I never thought he would have been running around in that room in the nuddy.
    And I now know that he wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Kanz

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

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

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

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Kanz, don’t be so obtuse.
    I said that I would not have contacted ANYONE if David Bain had not said he was completely naked.

    There you go again. Did you contact Laney because Bain said he was naked? What did she have to say about that?

    You are now trying to blame Bain, after blaming other posters, because there are very wide ranging and damaging consequences not only for you, but for many of the people you claim to have contacted and have quoted.
    Enjoy the ride, it is gonna be a wild one. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Snarkle I was referring to the unsubstantiated claim that the evidence of the strip search, accepted by all parties without question, is down to David’s word against an unknown cop. What’s your view on that?

    As to you assertions about something I clearly wasn’t referring to, I don’t have to accept anybody’s word on the Robin v David, I agree with Anne Saniford, no forensic evidence against David that she saw, and from my own part overwhelming, and continuing to build evidence of Robin’s guilt. 20 years and more forensic evidence against Robin, statisitical evidence 97% against his death not being suicide before visiting the thus far unanswered questions about the blood trial he left and about his hands in particular. All emotion out of it, as it should be, Robin clearly killed himself.

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

    Kanz (897) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:43 am

    Further to that, I know for certain that at least one of those you have contacted, on a ‘private talk’ basis is very angry that you then went public when misrepresenting what he said.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Blood trial, what an apt way of putting it, where was the blood? On David.

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

    Rachel, Karen wants her money back.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/71164.html#comments

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

    Kanz (897) Says:

    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:43 am
    Kanz, don’t be so obtuse.
    I said that I would not have contacted anyone if David Bain had not said he was completely naked.

    There you go again. Did you contact Laney because Bain said he was naked? What did she have to say about that?

    You are now trying to blame Bain, after blaming other posters, because there are very wide ranging and damaging consequences not only for you, but for many of the people you claim to have contacted and have quoted.
    Enjoy the ride, it is gonna be a wild one.

    There you go again Kanz ,being as obtuse as ever.
    I did not ask Denise Laney if she saw David Bain naked. And I certainly don’t think Denise Laney will be in any trouble because I contacted her. Martin van Beynen also contacted her and she said virtually the same thing to him as she said to me, even down to saying that the last time he rang her Karam hung up on her.
    And I am enjoying the ride,thankyou,but I bet David Bain isn’t.
    And now I am going to spend an hour walking in the sun.
    Copulater.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Hmm. Greg King would have thrown his hands up, and walked away? Not even bothered with the fact that the killer wore gloves? C’mon NNZ, do you really think a good defence lawyer would have had NOTHING to offer in RB’s defence? Given the way he is alleged to have killed himself, it could easily have happened.
    And the answer to my last 3 questions?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Well I see none of the fools is able to come up with an counter argument to have a go at debunking any of the 19 points of forensic evidence conceded by Dr Dempster at the retrial, thats just 19 points conceded by the key crown witness, I think we could add another 19 without to much trouble! So much for the ‘non existant evidence!

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/hope_legal_aid_isnt_funding_this.html#comment-1090510

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    I just read the rest of your post snarkle, haven’t you read Doyle’s evidence regarding the strip search or Prydes. Trying to evoke some help by mentioning Greg King is mindless, the man was far too bright to ignore the evidence in chief of witnesses who he cross examined. You must be in a very strange place if you think Doyle and Prydes evidence didn’t happen and that the onus was on David to show he’d been strip search when he has absolutely no reason to question it, and the only reason you are is because you are trying to twist the truth that he had no scratches on his chest recorded in either the Doctor’s notes, his evidence or the prescribed diagram chart. This is just the inanity that a handful of nutters continue on in the crusade, continuing to provoke comment that will inevitably be negative against Robin and consequently his wider family who don’t support the sites in any way, and whom, I’m sure, wouldn’t appreciated the comments about goats and such that is really the base coarseness of the campaign, naked young men, incest, and perversion.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    A tone of desperation, the idiot is trying to speculate on a hypothetical trial for Daddy, Yes of course a good defence lawyer would have been able to offer defence and argue aspects of the evidence against them. Thats there role doesn’t change the evidence though. Greg King recently did a good job in Ewen McDonalds defence, case against him wasn’t strong but does this make EM innocent!
    Similarly what would have happened in a hypothetical trial of Len Demler. Of course the defence lawyer would challenge aspects of the evidence, again case not that strong but did Demler kill his daughter and son in law? IMO definitely

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

    And I am enjoying the ride,thankyou,but I bet David Bain isn’t.

    Bain has been on the roller coaster for years now, he knows how to ride it.
    In your case the ride is still at the terminal, but the switches have been flicked already.
    None of your “but they started it”, “but I am a sick old man”, “but I have never been in trouble before”, “but I have no other hobbies”, “but my Dad wouldn’t let me go to university and I am a frustrated old man now”, will help.

    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Snarkle. The Banes don’t do hypothetical. Or reality. They do: “Daddy did it.”

    Truth is a pain
    The Moon is cheese
    I love Bain
    What a wheeze.

    Truth is irrelevant
    We bullshit our way
    Into court galavant
    So Binnie can play
    His part in this farce
    This man who laughs
    May end on his arse.

    Truth is a irrelevant
    We want money
    Or our mission gallant
    Ends up in a dunny.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Rowan (538) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:56 am
    Well I see none of the fools is able to come up with an counter argument to have a go at debunking any of the 19 points of forensic evidence conceded by Dr Dempster at the retrial, thats just 19 points conceded by the key crown witness, I think we could add another 19 without to much trouble! So much for the ‘non existant evidence!

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/hope_legal_aid_isnt_funding_this.html#comment-1090510

    If they can’t get past 19 how will they possibly get past 59 or 109 with more stuff emerging by the day.
    Looking at the photo of robin’s left hand with the spatter heading toward the body there is also residual blood staining showing on the next two fingers, so not only on the palms – a general washup, matching that towel, and generally bruised and battered hands. The wash is actually more significant than the spatter I think because it goes to prove the old man washing up and links to the gloves and that towel.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Yes, I agree it’s hypothetical, but it is a real possibility RB could have survived, and then been charged with 4 counts of homicide. Luckily for him, Greg King is on the case, and the jury agrees with him that they just cannot imagine why on earth RB wore gloves when intending to kill his family. Despite their doubts they find RB is not guilty BRD (BUT NOT INNOCENT). Of course, Greg King has persuaded the jury that someone else who knew his way round a silenced .22 was the real killer, and shot RB and tried to make it look like suicide. Oh, I almost forgot. Greg King had a FIELD DAY with the fingerprints on the rifle! “How dare you convict this man when SOMEONE ELSE’S fingerprints are on the gun, etc” . I’m sure we can all picture this.
    OK Rowan, we’re nearly there. Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the last steps in the logic.
    1. Does the fact that RB has been found not guilty BRD mean DB is therefore guilty of murder?
    2. RB now applies for compensation for wrongful arrest. Maybe one of the policemen investigating the case made a mistake. Does not the legal system have to make as sure as feasible that any compensation IN NO WAY implies DB is guilty of murder?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,909) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:52 am
    Copulater.

    LOL Oh dear, if I laugh any more I’ll ‘pee my pants’.

    What is it your are trying to tell us Muggins, that you are some sort ‘f— up’.

    We already knew that!! LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Oh, and Greg King had a field day with RB’s hands as well. “You are asked to believe my client washed his hands in just such a way as to leave behind dirt from the previous day. For the love of God, why did he wash his hands? and if he was to wash them- heaven knows why- why only do it partially?”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Well I see none of the fools is able to come up with an counter argument to have a go at debunking any of the 19 points of forensic evidence conceded by Dr Dempster at the retrial…

    I expect the “fools” you picture yourself doing battle with saw no reason to dispute the fact that Dempster was happy to admit alternative scenarios to the Crown’s one were possible. Your assessment of this as some kind of rhetorical victory is odd, but unsurprising.

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

    Snarkle (38) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 11:16 am

    Yes, I agree it’s hypothetical, but it is a real possibility RB could have survived, and then been charged with 4 counts of homicide. Luckily for him, Greg King is on the case,

    Greg King was a clever man. He would have checked out the size of the footprints, as he did in his last high profile case.
    Along with the rest of the evidence, he would have advised his client to plead guilty, with extenuating circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    What dirt from the previous day snarkle? But we do know about the blood Robin didn’t manage to get off. If Robin had survived he would have been a lifeless wreck, much fitting the description given by a witness who said that leading up to the murders ‘he was dead behind the eyes.’ Men like that kill themselves, just like Robin did. Greg King would have fought to have him committed as insane and not fit to plead, failing that he would have argued for an acquittal on the basis of insanity from which the Judge would have been compelled to detain him an institution for the insane at the ‘Queen’s pleasure’ still however leaving his son emotionally wrought and shattered.

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

    Big assumptions Snarkle
    I see the favourite question of a bullcrapper ‘why’, as if this was planned or he was thinking rationally at the time! maybe he didn’t intend to shoot himself or to spare David. And your case doesn’t get of the ground as Daddy pleads guilty? (given your ridiculous assumptions I’ll just add one of mine in).
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Rowan is a blowin’
    From his fat arse
    Praise most glowin’
    His part in this farce

    He’s actually a moron
    Mental age of twelve
    Sniffs gas with boron
    Reality does not delve

    Rowan is a smokin’
    From his fat arse
    His arguments mowin’
    Like long grass.

    [DPF: 40 demerits. Next time will get a suspension probably]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Bit of brief research, doesn’t look like there is any New Zealander who killed his family en masse and survived that wasn’t judged as insane apart from Ratima (sp?) another distinquishing mark against Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    So come on Kanz, and Rowan. The court is yours. Let’s delve into the rich mine of legal wisdom here, and see how you would present matters to the jury. Remember, you have to prove RB guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How on earth do you answer Greg King when he asks
    “Why, in the name of God, did RB wear gloves and change his clothes”
    Remember, “he was a crazy old man and who cares?” won’t do. You’re trying to prove RB murdered his children. Anything you say will be ripped to shreds by the best brain in the business.
    If you give up on this one and put it into the “too hard” basket, posted by someone obviously incapable of tying his shoes without detailed, written instructions, then (it follows) you have implicitly accepted it would be hard to pin murder/suicide on RB. It then follows we need to be very careful before assuming DB is “factually innocent”. Perhaps double checking Binnie’s report wouldn’t be such a bad idea.
    After all, what Binnie put David through was a cake walk compared to what Greg King would have done to DB, if it meant he could get RB off the charge of murder.
    I don’t care about compensation. I have suggested before DB be offered a deal- here’s some money, sign here where it says “my father has not been proved guilty of murder BRD”.This deal can’t be done apparently. Do you think he would sign such a deal?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    I mean, it is just a statement of fact. Would DB sign and take the money? And what would JK advise?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    I had a flick through “Bain and Beyond” yesterday to see where Rowan gets his views on the PCA report from, and found this highly amusing – Karam offers his modest assessment of the impact of “David and Goliath” on the NZ Police:

    No doubt they were staggered. Never before had such a determined, reasoned and sustained expose been made of police procedures, police culture and police investigation methods.

    I can honestly say that it’s the level of critical self-awareness and perceptive thoughtfulness displayed in those lines that make Joe Karam’s books what they are.

    I was also tickled by his outrage that James McNeish said to him “You know, your trouble is that you let the facts get in the way of the truth.” To a literate reader familiar with Karam’s work, it’s an obvious admonishment that Karam’s concentration on inspecting and disputing the details of the case is no substitute for looking at the overall, cumulative effect of the evidence. To Karam, it’s just a nonsense statement by a fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  422. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Dennis
    STFU, look in the mirror you are just a fuckwit pull your head out of your arse!
    This the best you can do! LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Greg King was a clever man. He would have checked out the size of the footprints, as he did in his last high profile case.

    He would. In doing so, he would have noticed there was no way for Hentschel to distinguish between a footprint that was 100% complete and one that was 93% complete, and shredded any attempt to claim the prints must have been made by Robin. No doubt he would also have done what Marzuka did – consider the size of one of the prints without toes and see whose foot that matched.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    So come on Kanz, and Rowan. The court is yours.
    How on earth do you answer Greg King when he asks

    Greg King would not have been asking those questions. Having already advised his client to plead guilty, to save the ignominy of the incest, smelly old man, wife kicking him out of the house etc. stories becoming public knowledge.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Greg King would not have been asking those questions. Having already advised his client to plead guilty…

    I’m trying to picture Greg King advising a client to plead guilty when there’s only circumstantial evidence and none of it connects him to the crime – but it’s not a picture that comes easily…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Rowan. Can you not respond with a bit of doggerel? You’re no fun. What you are is a moron. What are you? Say it again. Moron. Your mental age is nearer eight than 12. I made a mistake.

    “THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME”

    “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE”

    Can you explain why Bain thought the judge was so kind? Was it the description of a cunning, what was it, psychopath, he thought was generous? He must have believed then he was there, at the time, don’t you think?

    Can you explain why David believes he was not there? Has he forgotten? Why does he need a “core” belief? In denial? Is he just uncertain? Does he want to know?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Marzuka?

    Wasn’t he the fool who used a photo of the blood spill that had been under the body of Stephen where he had lain for hours, and ‘proved’ it was Bains footprint?
    Who has a clip of the old man’s ‘murder’ where he starts out close to the floor but his body then moves up and across the beanbag with his left leg suddenly becoming straight?
    Who then has a clip of the suicide where the body falls in on itself?

    And you think his work is worth recommending?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    So it seems that the D Bain team is seeking a judicial review under Bill of Right 1990 section 27.

    This is a civil matter and at this stage the Govt have commissioned a report so I would have thought anyone including Govt have a legal right to get another report done if the first is first is fatally flawed. If the Govt does commission a second report it would have to be a process substantially different and more robust than the first (e.g. panel of 3 Judges) otherwise they get accused of shopping around and then would definitely infringe on the right of D Bain.

    I do believe that a person could sue for compensation and that then would then raise question ”are gratuitous rights enforceable?”. I personally do believe they could be but there is still a standard required and that plaintiff must still show that they are ‘factually innocent’ to the civil standard of ’balance of probabilities’. That means any report must meet a standard that if the matter did to go to Court it would withstand the same scrutiny by a judge or a jury (jury in civil cases are rare).

    Being a civil mater I not sure what process the Govt have done wrong so far but it will be interesting. I am of the opinion the NZ public had as much right to view Binnies and Fishers report as the D Bain team as it is the NZ taxpayer who have also got rights and are paying for all this.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Kanz 12:13 pm Marzuka is no fool and as expected I figured that one of you would not be able to grasp
    the significance of that java script display on how a body should fall and the picture in the background is only for display. What marzuka has shown is with more resources a computer animated display of Robin falling can be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Kanz. Robin was shot dead and died instantly. He crumpled up and fell where he died. How did he get over to the beanbag?

    Robin was lifted up by the shoulders – shaking blood onto the curtains – lugged over, dumped and posed. The magazine was placed by his outstretched hand. The rifle was placed nearby, but not where it would probably have fallen naturally.

    It looks like a suicide scene. The police thought so too, until they realised the scene had been set.

    Then everything fell into place. The silly paper round alibi. The silly computer message. The lack of blood on Robin. The lack of Robin’s prints on the rifle. David’s prints clear but Stephen’s prints not smudged. The used cartridge case in the computer alcove.

    The clothes David washed, without noticing all that blood… No informed rational person could construe this as proving Robin killed himself.

    Good luck getting sympathy from the High Court. Good luck the court telling the government it must make a gift to David Bain.

    Can the court award costs to the Crown? Who will pay?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,309) Says:

    February 3rd, 2013 at 11:17 am
    muggins (1,909) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:52 am
    Copulater.

    LOL Oh dear, if I laugh any more I’ll ‘pee my pants’.

    What is it your are trying to tell us Muggins, that you are some sort ‘f— up’.

    Do you wear pants, Judith?
    I am not trying to tell you anything.
    But while I have your attention can you explain to me why you lied when you said there was a photo of David Bain’s tattoo that showed part of his torso?
    I mean cybernana posted on Trade Me back in early 2010 that there was no photo of those scratches on David Bain’s torso and I am sure you are well acquainted with cybernana.
    Copusooner.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Snarkle

    ‘Let’s delve into the rich mine of legal wisdom here,’

    None of us need look further than what the PC quoted on this subject of Robin’s mind, and which Binnie also relied upon. Of course the PC may have made a further comment about the gloves had they known about the blood wash on Robin’s palms.

    All your attempts to re-invent the wheel have turned out squares.

    You understand as much about JR and the TBORA as what you do about forensics gamefisher.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (607) Says:

    February 3rd, 2013 at 11:38 am
    Rowan is a blowin’
    From his fat arse
    Praise most glowin’
    His part in this farce

    He’s actually a moron
    Mental age of twelve
    Sniffs gas with boron
    Reality does not delve

    Rowan is a smokin’
    From his fat arse
    His arguments mowin’
    Like long grass

    And so say all of us.

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

    muggins (1,911) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 12:46 pm
    Do you wear pants, Judith?

    You declare you are a copulater and now you are asking me if I wear pants.

    What sort of creep are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    I understand Anna Sandiford has already become a target of the JFRBainer stalkers, probably for saying this.

    “Sandiford said she believed David Bain’s father Robin, also found dead from gunshot wounds at the Dunedin house in 1995, was far more likely to have been the killer. “I didn’t see any scientific evidence that suggested David Bain.”

    Just shows what dicks marzuka and the sisters on here are.
    Will she be the next ‘enemy’ of the ‘hangers?’ One of the idiots claims to have written to her to research the Bain case when if the digit had even one brain cell (a rare event for a sister I agree) he would know she studied the case at length and the results of her tests, which agreed with Walsh from the Crown, put daddy walking about among the dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Jimbo (214) Says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If it looks like a duck,has got feathers ,waddles and goes quack, almost certainly it is a duck.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Judith (1,310) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 11:17 am
    muggins (1,909) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:52 am
    Copulater.

    LOL Oh dear, if I laugh any more I’ll ‘pee my pants’.

    Judith, you said you would “pee your pants”.
    So I asked you if you wore pants. Do you wear pants?
    Copulator.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You’re not one of those people.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    It looks like the trolls have to resort to lame insults because they have no answer to the evidence, Do us a favour Dennis and do a Dotcom temper tantrum throw your toys out of the cot, and get DPF to ban you.
    Muggins you seriously need a doctors referral to a psychiatric institution.
    No arguments of your own as usual, have to post Kimbos reused toilet paper, as I previously pointed out all you do to someone with an objective mind is convincing them what a nutcase you are and the opposite of your argument!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,914) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    I’m happy to discuss with Bain supporters who can challenge my assumptions in a sensible and coherent way.

    Will that require them to declare whether they wear pants or not, and does that mean you are going to adopt a new style and start to comment in a sensible and coherent way too?

    I note the use of the word assumption. I am glad you have finally admitted that is all they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Kanz

    “There was too much blood on the towel to have been picked up from that scene to have then been transferred to the towel”.

    How “much” is “too much”?

    Exact/approximate AGREED amount, thank you very much

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    ‘The Banes of Our Lives’ 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    muggins (1,915) Says:

    February 3rd, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    Kimbo (214) Says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You’re not one of those people.

    Judith,
    The above was a straight quote from Kimbo. You are thinking the last two sentences were added by me.
    They were not. However, just to clear up any confusion, I will end all my quotes with the words “end of quote” in future.
    Re pants. I just thought you might be a skirt wearer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. Psycho Milt (3,367 comments) says:

    Marzuka?

    Wasn’t he the fool who used a photo of the blood spill that had been under the body of Stephen where he had lain for hours, and ‘proved’ it was Bains footprint?

    I’ve no idea. But his point that the measurement of print that didn’t include the toes would also reveal something is a good one.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    Is this a reference to the Freudian bit about needing to go to the toilet? David needed to pee, but Robin apparently didn’t need to pee with a full overnight bladder while:

    a) bringing in the paper (or did he, noting that David’s accounts of this like so many other things has changed to the swings in the case evidence)
    b) locating the rifle, ammo, trigger key, and loading the rifle
    c) killing his wife
    d) parting Stephen’s hair with a 22 bullet
    e) fighting to the death with Stephen
    f) shooting the dead Stephen in the head, just to keep the “in the head” pattern intact
    g) fixing an apparent bullet misfeed in Stephen’s room
    h) killing one of his daughters
    i) killing the other of his daughters
    j) taking off his bloodied clothes and shoes (right next to the toilet)
    k) washing/showering the blood off himself (right next to the toilet)
    l) putting back on the clothes and shoes he’d had on the day before “to meet his maker”
    m) going back upstairs and typing the message on the computer
    n) changing the ammo clips over
    o) fixing up another apparent bullet misfeed
    p) shooting himself in the most difficult way that a right-handed person could possibly conceive of shooting themself (and spilling less than half a cc of blood (that’s less than a pin-head) over his hands in the process).

    .. .. all of this while still retaining a painful amount of pee in his bladder.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Compared to:

    Robin came in. David pleaded with Robin to come over urgently towards David’s sniper’s blind ..

    And he is cut down dead by David’s sniper bullet, full bladder and all.

    Which do you think is the more likely?

    I don’t even think it is a contest.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I happen to think that anyone who thinks all that could have taken place while Robin had a full night’s accumulation of pee in his bladder is for the looney bin. Yet David needed to pee, just to begin his speech in Perth.

    How Freudian was David’s opening remark in Perth? He thought he needed to pee.

    End of quote.

    I thought I would give Kimbo a rest,let Dottie have a turn.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I think 8 would be a to high mental age for Dennis the dipshit maybe 3 as he can walk and talk but not much more!

    Snarkle, a hypothetical argument based on total assumptions whats the point? You however being the self appointed expert you are will have no trouble explaining the lounge as the final ‘murder’ scene. Remember Kieran Raftery couldn’t explain it either and stayed well away from it. You guys are good at doing likewise. This requires very little assumption just looks at the basic forensic evidence. Easy as pie, see my 8.23 last night for some of variables to consider. Remember for Daddy to be innocent you need to show why he ‘could not’ and ‘did not’ commit suicide. Good luck

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Rowan (542) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    It looks like the trolls have to resort to lame insults because they have no answer to the evidence, Do us a favour Dennis and do a Dotcom temper tantrum throw your toys out of the cot, and get DPF to ban you.
    Muggins you seriously need a doctors referral to a psychiatric institution.
    No arguments of your own as usual, have to post Kimbos reused toilet paper, as I previously pointed out all you do to someone with an objective mind is convincing them what a nutcase you are and the opposite of your argument!

    A “lame” insult from a frustrated Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Rowan (543) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 10:23 pm
    Muggins
    STFU, you are completely wrong about everything you have posted in any of the Bain threads! You constantly misrepresent and ‘spin’ the facts, lie and pull ‘facts’ out of your arse to support your conspiracy theories!
    Hasn’t it been pointed out to you on other blogs where you explicitly stated that Ian Binnies decision would be final no matter what! also where you would be moving to if he found for David, again more lies you have told. You are a twisted pathetic old fool with serious issues, get help!

    Another “lame” insult from a frustrated Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Robin had no need to ‘suicide,’ he hadn’t killed anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3680

    Another excellent blog by Kent Parker.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/3679

    An interesting blog by Kent Parker.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Perhaps that ‘frustrated’ Rowan would like that $20.00 to take his hand out to dinner? lol

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    I am sure Rowan is very ‘handy’ to have…..around

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

    Rachel, Karen wants her $20 back

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/71164.html#comments

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins, you seem to have missed this, I will repeat it for you.

    And I am enjoying the ride,thankyou,but I bet David Bain isn’t.

    Bain has been on the roller coaster for years now, he knows how to ride it.
    In your case the ride is still at the terminal, but the switches have been flicked already.
    None of your “but they started it”, “but I am a sick old man”, “but I have never been in trouble before”, “but I have no other hobbies”, “but my Dad wouldn’t let me go to university and I am a frustrated old man now”, will help.

    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    And wishes to donate it to a ‘worthy’ cause such as yourself no doubt, she sounded ‘charitable. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (607) Says: February 3rd, 2013 at 11:38 am

    Rowan is a blowin’
    From his fat arse
    Praise most glowin’
    His part in this farce

    He’s actually a moron
    Mental age of twelve
    Sniffs gas with boron
    Reality does not delve

    Rowan is a smokin’
    From his fat arse
    His arguments blowin’
    Like long grass.

    [DPF: 40 demerits. Next time will get a suspension probably]
    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    Insults from nasty runts – vicious and gay
    Paedophiles and sympathisers – that’s okay.
    Introduce a touch of light-hearted humour
    Forty demerits from Farrar come your way.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Like to join Dennis Muggins? Do us a favour and do a Dotcom throw your toys out of the cot

    Dennis @ 11.38
    [DPF: 40 demerits. Next time will get a suspension probably]

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Look what the cat threw up @ 4.12
    get a life Dennis, your pathetic do us a favour and get DPF to ban you!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  460. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    Rowan (545) Says: February 3rd, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    Look what the cat threw up @ 4.12
    get a life Dennis, your pathetic do us a favour and get DPF to ban you!

    Rowan. It’s not “your pathetic” it’s “you’re pathetic”. IGNORANUS.

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

    Dennis, it’s not IGNORANUS, it’s ignoramus. Unless of course, you share muggins’ fascination with other men’s backsides.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. Chuck Bird (6,569 comments) says:

    Rowan don’t be bitter because you have lost. There is now a new contract out on ipredict that goes to 1 Jan 2014. I wonder who the mug(s) were who tried to keep the price up. As I have tried to tell you lot David’s best bet is to try Oprah.

    https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=BAIN.COMP.JAN.2014

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    Rowan says.. Your (dotcom’s) subjective probabilities prove absolutely nothing!! ..

    Rowan, for once you got it right, even with two exclamation points, just in case I didn’t see the first one.

    I don’t know how many times I have to say it, Rowan, but I can’t say it in every single comment. I don’t have to prove anything. I don’t try to prove anything. It’s really odd that you lumber me with what just about everyone except me is doing. The reality is that as I say, over and over again, we can’t prove a damned thing. None of us can. None of us need to.

    But we don’t have to Rowan. That’s why I don’t try to. I know that I don’t have to. As things stand, it is for David Bain to prove to Cabinet, and not to anyone else, that he didn’t kill. He hasn’t yet proved this, and until he does he can’t get compo, Rowan. Get with the program Rowan. Until David proves to Cabinet that he didn’t kill, he gets nothing.

    Nothing that we say here (that I say here) changes David Bain’s obligation to convince Cabinet that he didn’t kill.

    End of Quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    And so the merry-go-round spins

    round and round

    where will it end up only Johnny knows ….. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Klutz. Wrong. I said what I meant. And no, I don’t have a fascination with men’s arses. You obviously do. It seems to have escaped you attention women have arses too. But then you’re dopey enough to think Robin killed himself. Unbelievable…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  466. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Kanz (906) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 4:35 pm
    Dennis, it’s not IGNORANUS, it’s ignoramus.

    Kanz,
    Dennis was replying to Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,973) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Perhaps you could private message Rachel or Karen to put their $20 on. They both sound like JFRBers. We know at least one of them likes to gamble.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/71164.html#comments

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    Rowan, the same Dempster that you selectively quote also said that he didn’t think Robin suicided. You have to be comprehensive in what you take into account, not find only the facts that fit your predetermination, like Binnie did.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Dennis was replying to Rowan.

    And he tells us he has no interest in other men’s arses, Yeah, right…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    I thought Dennis ‘poetry’ was a helpful display and at the core of what CS represents, but if anything demanded demerits I would have thought it was his yesterday’s attempt to silence another member of the debate by mentioning the name he implied was her daughter. Have to be pretty uneasy about a group banded together to ‘protect’ against allegations of abuse, and who while once were ‘horrified’ about the Buckley incident, now replay it with barely hidden delight.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    Rowan 8:14 pm .. A couple of questions for the ‘daddy didn’t do it’ .. wits

    But they don’t matter Rowan. Get with the program. Do you really think that a refusal to compo David is going to be reversed by your getting these trivial questions answered? They really don’t help decide anything Rowan.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    But didn’t know where Stokes Valley is. Thanks google. I am sure the $20 working girls know you by name though and laugh.
    Pay by the minute?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. SGA (3,955 comments) says:

    WARNING: Excessive posting on KiwiBain can Damage your Health.

    Early (first?) post on KiwiBain

    “This is no longer about the law. It is about logic and probability. Want
    the truth? Look to science. Give the job to those who can grasp
    complexity. Include a theoretical physicist and mathematician. Back them
    up with a few researchers to validate the evidence they use.”

    600+ posts later

    “Rowan is a blowin’
    From his fat arse
    Praise most glowin’
    His part in this farce

    He’s actually a moron
    Mental age of twelve
    Sniffs gas with boron
    Reality does not delve

    …”

    You’ve all been warned…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    How come Australians are sensible enough to see a motive in sole-and immediate-inheritance, but we New Zealanders don’t want to offend mass murderers by even daring to suggest money as a motive?

    The parallels between this Australian case and David Bain’s mass murder of his family are extraordinary, right down to the murderer test driving a motor vehicle in anticipation of the inheritance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @Neuralgia. Your inferences, your problem. You cannot be blamed. You have some difficulty regarding killers with anything but sympathy. Outright admiration, perhaps, if they get away with it. Not everyone does.

    Enjoy your time with The Banes. I guess a mad lot is better than nothing. Cheerio, old bean, it’s been a pleasure not knowing you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    I know lots of stuff takes time to sink in. The idea that the Binnie report has been canned as yet to be confirmed. So arguing what David has to ‘prove’ may be irrelevant. To this point he has proved it to Binnie, from that point the handling of the report has been such that it is now under an attempt to be Judicially Reviewed and as we also all know Collins is no longer commenting about it. All of that will happen in Court. I remember Joe Karam saying before christmas that the report should be honoured so there is no suggestion that is off the agenda.

    And on the subject of the review I did read the very good point in recent days about Fisher’s ability to ‘peer’ review. Review or appeal always goes upward in experience, not downward as the case is here. Engineers reviewing the work of the other engineers in the design or construction progress go further up the ladder for review, they don’t get the painters of the bridge for example to do the review. That will be another big issue here, ‘peer’ review by a lesser mortal.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Farewell Dennis

    I’m sure you can ask Daddy all about what happened when you meet him IN HELL!

    I don’t gamble Chuck, and if you think the court of public opinion is going to decide the outcome in this case your deluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,813) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    Next thing we know, they could be asking a retired dentist to ‘peer review’ it. After all, he knows ‘thousands of people intimately’.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    Smear on Robin’s hands? Too easy. If there is any smear that is.

    David had 20-odd minutes to stage the scene. He had plenty of bloodied items. Wipes one of them on Robin’s hand as part of his staging. Presto, smear on Robin’s hands, if that’s what you want.

    Can I prove it? Can you prove Robin shot himself? Can I prove it? Can you prove Robin shot Stephen? Can I prove it? Can you prove Robin shot Margaret? Or Laniet? Or Arawa?

    Proof became irrelevant a year ago. You asked for an explanation. You’ve got an explanation.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    Sorry to see you go Dennis old chap. You started off rather well, but then something happened – almost a character change, or perhaps the inner self busting to get out, hardly uncommon to see meltdowns from the twisted sisters even those that thought they ought to have been called Lord Percy Pedal.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    Do juries want to be considered the ‘peers’ of those accused of murder and abuse?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. muggins (5,117 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:
    January 9th, 2013 at 7:19 pm
    No wonder Bain has been found “factually innocent”

    You wish, Kanzie. David has been found factually innocent of nothing till Judith, John, Phil, Tony, Steven, Hekia, Paula, David, Christopher, Jonathan, Tim, Kate, Nathan, Craig, Amy and Chris say he is.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. Dennis Horne (4,237 comments) says:

    @SGA. The Banes are beyond science and reasoning. They depend on trickery and law, which go hand in hand in our anachronistic system. Surely you don’t expect me to be serious? There are some clever lawyers banging their heads on this lot, getting nothing but abuse.

    Teasing them is cruel, but great fun, like fly fishing, getting the poor animals to snap at feathers. A reflex, really, they can’t help it.

    “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.” Cor, blimey, some people believe anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    The parallels between this Australian case and David Bain’s mass murder of his family are extraordinary, right down to the murderer test driving a motor vehicle in anticipation of the inheritance.

    What car did David test drive? Links?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    A symbolic answer to snarkles question about white gloves this morning. Certainly not an advance on the PC Judgement’s view on the matter of Robin’s behaviour, and later adopted by Binnie:

    ‘It is easy to understand the purpose of an apron for stone workers as it served to carry their tools and protect them from the stones they worked. Likewise gloves were a necessary part of their wear to protect their hands and the hands were critical to their work. To the early masons, the hands were the source of their labor and represented the builder within them. The hands were the seat of feeling and allowed them to perform the action of creating buildings from stone. Not only to protect the hands were gloves needed, they were to preserve the cleanliness of the hands, thus insuring the perfection of the work. Thus the White Gloves were to represent the innocence of the act performed and purity in action. It is not without forethought that our ancient Brethren wore their white gloves before the King.’

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ said

    That will be another big issue here, ‘peer’ review by a lesser mortal.

    It is possible, in theory, that despite Fisher’s lower place in the judicial hierarchy, he could be Binnie’s intellectual peer. But it is evident from his so-called peer review that he is not. Fisher is about as difficult to understand as Michael Guest. Neither have integrity, and both appear to be nowhere near as smart as they hold themselves out to be. It is clear that Collins somehow knew that Fisher would come up with what she wanted. I am utterly baffled by the wide (and mindless) acceptance that Fisher’s criticisms of Binnie’s report have merit. A lot of people seem to have no trouble seeing the emperor’s clothes.

    Kanz said:

    Next thing we know, they could be asking a retired dentist to ‘peer review’ it.

    Now, now – a retired dentist might do every bit as good a job at ‘peer review’ as a retired High Court Judge 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. Chuck Bird (6,569 comments) says:

    “I don’t gamble Chuck”

    Rowan. If you are not too bright and do not have much money that is a wise policy.

    Ipredict is not about public opinion. It is similar to the futures market. Does that make sense to you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  488. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Ipredict is not about public opinion. It is similar to the futures market. Does that make sense to you?

    It is gambling, no different to going to the TAB. I guess betting on a horse race could be called ‘the futures market’ too.

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

    dragonfly (25) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 5:55 pm
    Now, now – a retired dentist might do every bit as good a job at ‘peer review’ as a retired High Court Judge

    ——————————–

    He might do, but if present company is anything to go by, one would have trouble getting past the contents page.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. goldnkiwi (2,715 comments) says:

    So the white gloves were symbolic of absolution? Very Freudian. Let my ‘purity’ of action show by my wearing my white gloves.
    Out, out damn spot.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    “I am utterly baffled by the wide (and mindless) acceptance that Fisher’s criticisms of Binnie’s report have merit. A lot of people seem to have no trouble seeing the emperor’s clothes.”

    I’m not convinced that it’s anything more than satisfying a prejudice dragonfly. It’s clear many accepted the ‘criticism’ without even having read it, so there is a populist element for sure. The number of those that supported, even with silence, a public dismembering of Binnie was disappointing. On one hand I can see that as some motivation behind the JR, while on the other I accept readily if the Binnie report is so ‘flawed,’ as Collins has claimed, then the responsibility is not David Bains, and for him to draw product of that is another unfairness.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi (220) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    So the white gloves were symbolic of absolution? Very Freudian. Let my ‘purity’ of action show by my wearing my white gloves
    ———————

    Obviously you’ve never been a debutante or been to a formal ball of any significance. Never mind, there are plenty of people that don’t understand such things.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ said

    …while on the other I accept readily if the Binnie report is so ‘flawed,’ …

    I have looked closely at both Binnie’s and Fisher’s reports. Binnie’s report is a beautiful piece of work. Fisher’s is a logical catastrophe. Binnie’s report was what brought me to the belief that David Bain is innocent. It perturbs me that so many of our allegedly ‘finest legal minds’ semi-endorse Fisher’s report. Have they not read it properly, or are they just dumb?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Binnie’s report is a beautiful piece of work

    Beautiful if you suffer from Asperger’s, perhaps, but otherwise it’s a shocker.

    I suggest you have not read it properly. It contains many howlers.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    Hi again Kanz,

    Marzuka?

    Wasn’t he the fool who used a photo of the blood spill that had been under the body of Stephen where he had lain for hours, and ‘proved’ it was Bains footprint?

    Are you saying that the footlike blood print(outlined white in link bleow) in stephen’s room, a few metres from the other foot prints, which just happens to be pointing in the same direction and has the same footedness(ie right footed) as other prints, isn’t about the same length and shape as david’s foot note scale 300mm?

    note location, directon, size and shape:
    http://lh6.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/TSwQcCcBjaI/AAAAAAAAA5E/Peg0aFvCwcU/s0/bain%20footprint%20combo%20med.jpg

    animated comparison of footlike print with david size foot versus robin:
    http://lh3.ggpht.com/_zGKapt7iWLI/TS7CQbpr_yI/AAAAAAAAA58/hLmE5a_Ba0Q/s0/bain-foot-anim3.gif

    Who has a clip of the old man’s ‘murder’ where he starts out close to the floor but his body then moves up and across the beanbag with his left leg suddenly becoming straight?

    which frames are you refering to?

    https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0j3EJWKaVSI/UNA2ipsDYhI/AAAAAAAABgA/frC9Z24My5c/s0/bain%2520headshot%25205b.jpg

    Who then has a clip of the suicide where the body falls in on itself?

    lol, as a body does when having virtually zero net horizontal momentum when it ceases to function as a living body. Of course I understand that you prefer magically transfering robin centre of mass over a metre away like the defense thinks is feasible in their twilight zone physics world…

    Actually don’t recall doing a clip of defense’s suicide scenario, but I do rememeber doing a simulation that shows the defense notion of physics regarding centre of mass is utterly flawed. If you your scenario best fits the evidence I’ll be happy to to update the similuation. So, What are you calculations/numbers regarding:

    Robin’s initial centre of mass velocity/height/distance for curtain.
    Robin’s final centre of mass delta ie difference from initial.
    robin’s peak centre of mass velocity.
    Also just curious, is Robin’s centre of mass closer to the curtain with his leg lift up on chair or with it straight down and which way is the force vector under his weight acting?

    Anyways, i’ll put you answers into my sim under “Kanz’s Physic lesson” in the sim examples for the world to see and compare.

    http://marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    I have looked closely at both Binnie’s and Fisher’s reports. Binnie’s report is a beautiful piece of work. Fisher’s is a logical catastrophe. Binnie’s report was what brought me to the belief that David Bain is innocent. It perturbs me that so many of our allegedly ‘finest legal minds’ semi-endorse Fisher’s report. Have they not read it properly, or are they just dumb?

    To be fair to Fisher. It is very hard to write a ‘peer review’ when you have not only been told what to find, but have CL and the Police hierarchy breathing down your neck.
    What all of this has done, is cause me to see conspiracy all over this, just as it was present in the Crewe murders. If anybody thinks it was just Hutton, they are very wrong.
    Never before have I been into conspiracy theories, but this one stinks, and the smell is not coming from the old dead man.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    What all of this has done, is cause me to see conspiracy all over this, just as it was present in the Crewe murders.

    We know you think all 90 prosecution witnesses perjured themselves. Fortunately, Fisher believes man really did land on the moon.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. Nostalgia-NZ (6,430 comments) says:

    ‘I have looked closely at both Binnie’s and Fisher’s reports. Binnie’s report is a beautiful piece of work. Fisher’s is a logical catastrophe. Binnie’s report was what brought me to the belief that David Bain is innocent. It perturbs me that so many of our allegedly ‘finest legal minds’ semi-endorse Fisher’s report. Have they not read it properly, or are they just dumb?’

    The endorsements seem just as cluttered as Fisher’s review, which started from a base that he looked into the ‘reasoning’ of the report without being familiar with the whole case. That’s an impossible procedure. In one respect to journey into the mind and thinking of Binnie, despite not knowing the landscapes, details and mysteries revealed in 7 or 8 thousand pages of reports, letters, findings and a long series of hearings, trials and so on couldn’t be done. A ‘peer’ doesn’t merely watch how he, who he reviews, mounts or dismounts his case – he travels the whole journey, having in his or her mind similar examinations of such judicial experience to be able to offer a fine assessment of at less the same quality of the report that’s being reviewed.

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

    Kanz (911) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 7:02 pm
    ———————–

    Just to clarify what you didn’t old man, what Fisher wrote was not a peer review, and Collins is wrong calling it one. Fisher gave Collin’s a written opinion on Binnie’s report, at true peer review has a defined process….. none of which Collins or Fisher followed. 🙂

    These clowns think its a peer review because Collins ‘said so’ ! The concept is way above any of their heads to even try to explain to them by written word, and it would take to long by smoke signal.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    And so we drift into the abyss

    sinking sinking sinking

    never to arise to the light …..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote