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. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    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.

    I suppose Fisher might well accept that he isn’t necessarily the “peer” of a political appointee who’d never sat as a judge prior to that appointment – just not for the same reason as you and N-NZ. As to intellect, if a relative dim bulb like me can read Binnie’s report and immediately spot that he’s treating the evidence on an isolated basis and making basic errors of reasoning, I hope like hell that Fisher isn’t an intellectual peer of Binnie.

    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.

    Call me guilty of argument from authority if you like, but if I’m going to take a blog commenter’s word for it on Binnie’s report, I’ll take Andrew Geddis’ ahead of yours and Dragonfly’s.

    …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.

    It certainly doesn’t reflect on him and there’s no reason he should suffer for it. However, there’s no unfairness involved – they’re already doing him a lot more of a favour than they have to in considering an ex gratia payment for him at all, so if it takes a bit longer to reach a decision because Simon Power was a pillock, that’s too bad. From Bain’s pov, it beats the hell out of my preferred option, which would have been for Power to tell him to fuck off and count his blessings.

    … he looked into the ‘reasoning’ of the report without being familiar with the whole case. That’s an impossible procedure.

    If you understand the concept of reasoning, it’s not an impossible procedure at all. You don’t have to know thing one about the case to assess the reasoning of someone writing about it. Reasoning is a process, not a particular set of facts and opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Just to clarify what you didn’t old man, what Fisher wrote was not a peer review

    We know that, for certain, which is why I had it with inverted commas around it. Further from a peer review one couldn’t get than this. I am trying (very hard) to read it again, I am up to page 23 and it is still explaining how a report should be done, and what evidence is.
    Was he asked to write a text book?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    I guess betting on a horse race could be called ‘the futures market’ too.

    Yep, basically the same thing. Ipredict is more about crowdsourcing than gambling. It’s just that right-wingers prefer their crowdsourcing to have winners and losers – it’s a ideology/morality thing.

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

    Rowan (546) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    You really should return to that place where you recently left a message, I see there is a song on there you would like. I really enjoyed it. One of those songs with lots of meaning. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    ‘ if a relative dim bulb like me can read’

    I wouldn’t go that far milt, self-promotion isn’t going to help at this stage.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Chuck Bird (6,459 comments) says:

    It is possible, in theory, that despite Fisher’s lower place in the judicial hierarchy, he could be Binnie’s intellectual peer.

    Binnie is not the intellectual peer of a drunken law a student on a pub crawl.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    If Fisher is such an intellect why has he cited Bayes’ Theorem but then demonstrated he doesn’t understand it?

    This is what Fisher said:

    The second step in the deductive process is to consider the cumulative effect of combining the probabilities stemming from each item of evidence. This may be likened to assessing the strength of the rope as a whole once all its strands are combined.

    To this statement Fisher has attached a footnote:

    Mathematically, it is the process of repeatedly applying Bayes’ theorem as the likelihood ratio of each item is progressively combined with the others.

    Later Fisher says:

    The usual analogy is the strands in the rope explanation: each strand of evidence gains strength from the other … The effect of combining [the different items of evidence] is not so much a matter of adding the various strands in the rope as multiplying them; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

    But according to Robertson and Vignaux (who Fisher references with respect to Bayes’ Theorem):

    The strength of one strand may affect the strength of the whole rope but it cannot affect the strength of another particular strand.

    And that is just a single instance of Fisher’s bullshitting ignorance – there are many others. Fisher is essentially a fraud. Binnie did not make basic errors of reasoning.

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

    Chuck Bird (2,975) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    ————————-
    How about a drunken QC at the NZ Police Social Club?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Chuck Bird (6,459 comments) says:

    Binnie did not make basic errors of reasoning.

    Yeah Right! Who does he think was doing something inappropriate with a goat – Mark Buckley or dirty David?

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

    Still with the goat aye Chuckie?
    What was Binnie’s reported reasoning on the goat then?

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

    Chuck Bird (2,976) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    ————— ————-

    You want us to read Binnie’s mind now to see what he is thinking?

    You didn’t take a little blue pill did you?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Another 1000 post thread

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Chrystal gazing.
    First thing that is going to happen[has happened] is that Bain’s compensation claim will be put on hold.
    For how long no-one knows. Probably at least six months, maybe even more than a year.
    Then either a new report will be written, or maybe a review will be carried out by three judges.
    The end result will be no compensation for David Bain.
    We have all gone over the evidence hundreds of times. So I think I will stick to quoting the best posts.
    Maybe a dozen or so a day, until I run out.
    Probably in about ten days.
    You never know ,something else might have come up by then.
    Maybe Mark Buckley will put in an appearance.
    So that’s it from me for today.
    Copulater.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Dragonfly: I don’t see any discrepancy between Fisher’s view and Robertson/Vignaux’. Robertson and Vignaux are referring to the kind of error Rowan made (I think in an earlier thread), in which he felt that if I accepted that the probability of the footprints being Robin’s is higher than them being David’s, I must accept the probability of Robin doing all the other things is thereby dramatically increased. I don’t see that Fisher is making that kind of error at all, he’s just pointing out the different pieces of evidence have a cumulative effect as well as a raw individual probability.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Fisher knew what he was going to say because his intellectual ‘peer’ required it.
    A couple of clear and basic mistakes, entering JR into the process and therefore largely compromising any Government arguments against it. An incomplete review another, but entering into an attack of this nature sets him apart from fine and clear clarity of review.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    PS.

    I forgot to say.
    I will keep voting thumbs up for for the intelligent posters and thumbs down for the dumbos.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Binnie did not make basic errors of reasoning.

    An example I can give off the top of my head is that Binnie made the same reasoning error as some commenters here: he assumes that the largest luminol footprint can be treated as a 100% complete print because Hentschel referred to it as “complete.” His argument that the footprint is very likely to be Robin’s is valid logic applied to a false premise – the problem with the premise being that in fact, Hentschel had ho means of knowing whether the largest print was 100% complete or not. The fact that he declared it complete at the first trial doesn’t alter that fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    Note what Fisher says:

    each strand of evidence gains strength from the other

    compared with what Robertson and Vignaux say:

    The strength of one strand may affect the strength of the whole rope but it cannot affect the strength of another particular strand

    Clearly Robertson and Vignaux contradict what Fisher says.

    Another example of Fisher’s cluelessness – here is a quote from Fisher:

    As each item of evidence implicating the accused is aggregated, the probability of guilt increases exponentially.

    Probabilities are always less than or equal to 1. A probability between 0 and 1 multiplied by itself (which is what `exponential’ is all about) will become smaller, not bigger. Also this supposed exponential increase in the probability of guilt with each added item of evidence does not fit with multiplication by likelihood ratios as required by Bayes’ Theorem.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    “he’s just pointing out the different pieces of evidence have a cumulative effect as well as a raw individual probability.”

    Thats it in a nutshell how the evidence should be evaluated.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    ‘Chucky’s in love…. with a goat’

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Further to the above, this quote from Fisher:

    The effect of combining [the different items of evidence] is not so much a matter of adding the various strands in the rope as multiplying them; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

    is spot on. The cumulative effect is greater than the sum of its parts, which is why Rowan and Judith offering innocent explanations for each piece of evidence against David Bain is irrelevant – the question is, what is the probability of Robin knowing the location of the key AND leaving no fingerprints on the rifle despite having to hold the metal parts that immediately took a print from Stephen, AND the glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room, AND David just happening to get victims’ blood in unlikely places on his clothing etc. Individual pieces like Robin knowing where the key was may not be very unlikely at all, but the probability against all the different things happening that way is a lot more than just adding them up.

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

    muggins (1,930) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 8:45 pm
    PS.

    I forgot to say.
    I will keep voting thumbs up for for the intelligent posters and thumbs down for the dumbos.

    —————————–
    Oh, no kidding. What a revelation, I’m sure we were all hanging out just to be told, the blinkin’ obvious.

    By the way, I was just looking at something about you. Very interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Binnie did not make basic errors of reasoning.

    I suspect you haven’t read Binnie’s report, or if you did you didn’t bother to do any analysis of it.

    At 442 of his report, he said:

    The fact David Bain sometimes wore his mother’s glasses is not proof that he did so at the relevant time. The unexplained location of the frames and lenses where they were found in the “pigsty” after the killings is just that – unexplained.

    The first sentence suggests that the Crown was required to prove that David wore his mother’s glasses on the weekend of the murders. That is incorrect. The onus of proof was on David. Despite evidence that he wore his mother’s glasses that weekend, Binnie seemed to prefer his denials.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Dear Mr Binnie

    In your email to Ms Collins of 13 December 2012, you said:

    Mr Fisher explains at para 117 that the “modern approach” is to “place greater weight on other considerations such as the inherent likelihood of the witness’s story, consistency with his or her contemporaneous and subsequent behaviour, and independent sources of evidence.” This is exactly the approach I took.

    In fact, you did not take this approach. You believed David Bain’s version of events. You would be aware that about 90 witnesses testified for the prosecution at David’s retrial. In his interview with you, David contradicted the testimony of many of these witnesses. You were entitled to doubt the veracity of some of David’s statements to you, given that they contradicted independent testimony. At 150, you said “I make no finding of credibility for or against [David’s] uncles and aunts.” You accepted David’s version of events which implies that statements made by his uncles and aunts were false. You said, also at 150:

    I believe the comments they attribute to David have to be read in light of the adversarial position he believes they had staked out in the crisis that had devastated the family.

    In other words, you did not accept the testimony of the Boyds, the Clarks, or Michael Bain. But what about where their testimony was consistent with evidence from other sources? For example, the Clarks testified that David had told them he had worn his mother’s glasses the weekend of the murders. Michael Guest informed Bill Wright that David had admitted to wearing those glasses the evening before the murders. (In addition, David told you that he could not drive a car without his glasses, before admitting that he drove a car the weekend of the murders. The implication was that he was wearing glasses while driving.) I note that the Defence tried to prevent the Boyds, the Clarks, and Michael Bain from testifying. Defence lawyer Helen Cull informed the High Court that their evidence was “irrelevant, non-probative, inadmissible opinion, unreliable and in the nature of inadmissible propensity evidence”. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and allowed them to testify. You do not mention this fact in your report; however, you mention that the Court of Appeal ruled that Mark Buckley was not permitted to testify. That shows a lack of balance.

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

    ross69 (1,949) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 9:05 pm
    Dear Mr Binnie

    —————————-

    Another person taking the little blue pills and seeing Judges where there aren’t any.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Note what Fisher says:

    each strand of evidence gains strength from the other

    compared with what Robertson and Vignaux say:

    The strength of one strand may affect the strength of the whole rope but it cannot affect the strength of another particular strand

    Clearly Robertson and Vignaux contradict what Fisher says.

    I presume Fisher means only that the rope is greater than the sum of its parts, ie the individual pieces aren’t simply additional. That’s the mainstream view of circumstantial evidence. Certainly the probability of an individual piece of evidence doesn’t affect the probability of another individual piece, but their cumulative effect is more powerful than a simple summing of their probabilities. There’s nothing unorthodox about that view of circumstantial evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Mr Binnie

    At 184, you stated:

    If Robin had committed the murders he must have been desperately discombobulated. Afterwards, if he went to the trouble of changing his clothes, as on the defence theory he must have done, he was engaged in some unknown and unknowable act of deception. The change of clothing is only one of the mysteries about what he was up to.

    The above is pure speculation. You were not asked to speculate. We simply do not know whether Robin changed his clothes. However, you seem to accept as fact that he did change his clothes, despite the fact that David told police that he believed Robin was – at the time of his death – wearing the same clothes he had worn the previous evening. That suggests that Robin went to bed in those clothes and did not change clothes after he awoke on the Monday. Curiously, you claim that if David was the killer he must be a cold calculating psychopath. But if Robin was the killer he was merely confused. It is clear that your report lacks balance and that you were predisposed to find in David’s favour.

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

    Mr Binnie

    This is a remarkably naive comment. So, because David gave an explanation as to why Laniet was present on the Sunday evening, it should be assumed to be true? Did you not consider that as David is seeking a large payout – as much as $2 million – and has a vested interest in the outcome, he might have given you answers which were inaccurate or untrue?
    ——————————-

    So when David first gave that same testimony, back in 1994, he knew that he was going to be putting in a bid for $2 million dollars for compensation for wrongful imprisonment?

    WOW, take another blue pill Ross.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt says:

    the question is, what is the probability of Robin knowing the location of the key AND leaving no fingerprints on the rifle despite having to hold the metal parts that immediately took a print from Stephen, AND the glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room, AND David just happening to get victims’ blood in unlikely places on his clothing etc.

    The way Bayes’ Theorem works is that odds ratios are multiplied by likelihood ratios. The likelihood ratio in question is the probability of the evidence given that David is innocent, divided by the probability of the evidence given that David is guilty. So, for example, with the glasses evidence, we would have the probability of the “glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room” given David is innocent, divided by the probability of the “glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room” given David is guilty. Binnie clearly assigned a likelihood ratio of one, in this case. Obviously, he did this in an intuitive way, rather than a mathematical way. This would be the case also with the other items of evidence you mention. One times one times one equals one, not some hyper-inflated exponentially increased super-value. Fisher cannot in the same breath talk about Bayes’ Theorem and the ‘sums of parts’. They simply don’t fit together. What I’m trying to explain is that Fisher makes a great show of being this academically brilliant know-it-all who understands Bayes’ Theorem, when he doesn’t understand it. Doesn’t this tell you something about the nature of the man?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    The onus of proof was on David. Despite evidence that he wore his mother’s glasses that weekend, Binnie seemed to prefer his denials.

    This after saying that he accepted Guest’s version of events. Binnie seems quite clever at saying he’s doing things he doesn’t actually do.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    I’m not competent to assess Fisher’s expertise in Bayesian statistics. He appears to understand the handling of circumstantial evidence much better than Binnie however, given that Binnie’s report shows no sign he understood it at all in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Well psycho milts cleared a few things up, he’s not competent.

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

    I presume Fisher means only that the rope is greater than the sum of its parts,

    There you go, presuming what someone else thinks. That was not what he said first off, are we to disbelieve that he said what he meant?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    So when David first gave that same testimony, back in 1994, he knew that he was going to be putting in a bid for $2 million dollars for compensation for wrongful imprisonment?

    I imagine, and I’m going out on a limb here, that at his trial he was hoping to be acquitted.

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

    The problem Fisher seems to have with Binnie’s report, as do some of the posters on here is, that he took one major piece of evidence, and used that as his major strand of his rope, rather than add together all the other pieces, all being circumstantial, and put them against that first piece to see which is the thicker.
    Imagine a circumstantial case, in which the police found 50 pieces of circumstantial (maybe) pieces of evidence. The only evidence the defence had was to prove, without doubt, that the accused was 100Kms away from the scene at the time and for a whole day either side of the crime. Should the jury believe that ‘mountain of evidence’ or the alibi, being only the one piece?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt said:

    [Fisher] appears to understand the handling of circumstantial evidence much better than Binnie however, given that Binnie’s report shows no sign he understood it at all in this case.

    This is what Binnie did:

    In Binnie’s Chapter VIII: Analysis of the Primary Issues Concerning the Physical Evidence, he lists 10 items of physical evidence. To each in turn he effectively ascribes a likelihood ratio of either one, or greater than one (in favour of David Bain). He ascribes no ratio of less than one to any item of evidence. It is completely obvious that the cumulative effect of this will be a probability (or odds ratio, depending on the formulation) that favours David Bain. This is reflected in Binnie’s statement in his para 413, “At this stage of the analysis, I believe David Bain has met the lower probabilities standard.” This may not have been worded in the pedantic manner prescribed by Fisher, but that’s because it should be obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence that this is in fact Binnie’s conclusion drawn from a cumulative assessment of the evidence so far. It is in fact the only conclusion that can be drawn given the ratios Binnie has ascribed to each item of evidence.

    In Binnie’s Chapter IX: Secondary Issues Concerning the Physical Evidence, he repeats the procedure as for the primary issues. Here he effectively assigns a likelihood ratio of one to every single item of evidence, mostly on the grounds that it’s irrelevant. Simple logic tells us that at the end of the process of a cumulative assessment of these secondary items of evidence, combined with a probability that already favours David Bain (as derived from the primary evidence), we will be left with a probability that still favours David Bain. And, in his para 462, Binnie actually states this; “For the reasons given, I do not believe the secondary issues – individually or collectively – help resolve the issue of factual innocence.”

    Finally, in Chapter XI: Summary of Conclusions as to Factual Innocence, Binnie considers the evidence cumulatively. It is beyond me what Fisher thinks the problem is. Binnie has done exactly what Fisher has said he should have done but alleged he didn’t do. Except Binnie did do it.

    I just can’t see what a prolonged, detailed cumulative assessment of a whole pile of evidence Binnie had assigned a likelihood ratio of one to would have achieved. The beauty of Binnie’s report lies in its clarity, its successful simplification of complex issues, its readability and its lack of pompousness. It is everything that Fisher’s report is not.

    And the fact remains that Fisher has pretended to understand what he does not understand. That must surely undermine his credibility. The irony of it all is that Binnie has intuitively followed the Bayes’ process that Fisher says he did not follow, and that Fisher does not in fact understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    There you go, presuming what someone else thinks. That was not what he said first off, are we to disbelieve that he said what he meant?

    I think I’m on pretty safe ground in presuming Fisher is an expert in the handling of evidence rather than in Baysian statistical analysis, but maybe that’s just me.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Kanz said:

    The problem Fisher seems to have with Binnie’s report, as do some of the posters on here is, that he took one major piece of evidence, and used that as his major strand of his rope, rather than add together all the other pieces, all being circumstantial, and put them against that first piece to see which is the thicker.

    Kanz, Fisher said Binnie did this, but he didn’t exactly do this. What Binnie essentially did was assign a very high likelihood ratio to this evidence (in favour of David Bain). This high likelihood ratio essentially out-multiplied the other likelihood ratios. This is equivalent to the alibi you speak of being assigned a high likelihood ratio, and each item of the ‘mountain of evidence’ being assigned a low likelihood ratio.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    The problem Fisher seems to have with Binnie’s report, as do some of the posters on here is, that he took one major piece of evidence, and used that as his major strand of his rope, rather than add together all the other pieces, all being circumstantial, and put them against that first piece to see which is the thicker.

    Exactly. He took one major piece of evidence, indulged himself in a glaringly obvious logical error that rendered the rest of the evidence pointless, then measured every other piece of evidence against this initial elementary failure of reasoning. Strangely enough, the rest of the evidence didn’t measure up.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt said:

    I think I’m on pretty safe ground in presuming Fisher is an expert in the handling of evidence rather than in Baysian statistical analysis, but maybe that’s just me.

    Bayes’ Theorem on its own is not about statistical analyis but basic logic. As is reasoning about evidence. If you can’t do basic logic you can’t be an expert in the handling of evidence either.

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

    Kanz, Fisher said Binnie did this, but he didn’t exactly do this. What Binnie essentially did was assign a very high likelihood ratio to this evidence (in favour of David Bain). This high likelihood ratio essentially out-multiplied the other likelihood ratios. This is equivalent to the alibi you speak of being assigned a high likelihood ratio, and each item of the ‘mountain of evidence’ being assigned a low likelihood ratio.

    Yes, I understand that, but don’t have the way with words you do.
    I believe what many of the posters on here expect is that no matter how high the likelihood ratio is for that one piece, that it should be cancelled out by the many other pieces that have little or no likelyhood ratio.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    The killer awoke before dawn, he put his socks on
    He took a mask from the ancient gallery
    And he walked on down the hall
    He went into the room where his sister lived, and then he …… …
    Paid a visit to his brother, and then he …… …
    He walked on down the hall,
    And he came to a door…and he looked inside
    Father, Yes son, I want to kill you
    Mother…I want to want to fuck you ……….

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

    Robert Fishers review was academic and legalistic, as Binnie says in response “Once again Mr Fishers analysis raises distinctions without a difference to discredit a report based on evidence he hasn’t read” its clear the finding is specifically what Judy sought. The response from Binnie was excellent, “It seems clear the Minister had already made up her mind on September 26 regarding the outcome. The only function of Mr Fisher’s “first stage” report was, according to his own recitation, to provide a rationale for a ministerial decision already taken.”

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Kanz said:

    I believe what many of the posters on here expect is that no matter how high the likelihood ratio is for that one piece, that it should be cancelled out by the many other pieces that have little or no likelyhood ratio.

    I totally agree with you about that (and I do realise you understand the issue – what bothers me is the way Binnie has been misrepresented), and it amounts to a failure of logic – one that’s hard to understand. Fisher made this mistake too (but in his case it may have been a more calculated ‘misunderstanding’ – it’s like he knew that many people would think this way.)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    The beauty of Binnie’s report lies in its clarity, its successful simplification of complex issues, its readability and its lack of pompousness.

    I don’t think you’ve read Binnie’s report. Binnie seemed to think the onus of proof was on the Crown. Is he correct?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross
    Naive aren’t you, It has already been shown that the glasses were very unlikely to have been involved in the bloody fight to the death with Stephen. The defence has already shown that, whether David was or wasn’t wearing them over the weekend is irrelevant. If you actually look at Binnies report he does not just take Davids word for it but actually states that it is likely that David did infact wear them at some stage over the weekend. There is nothing more that needs proving, nothing links the glasses to the fight with Stephen, just another tangled thread of the spiderweb.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    From Collins to Fisher:

    Justice Binnie’s reasoning is based on factual errors

    8. Justice Binnie appears to have made a number of factual errors in his report that
    have a bearing on his overall conclusions and adverse findings in relation to Crown
    witnesses. The apparent errors are:

    8.1. Justice Binnie’s statements, at paragraphs [229] – [230], that Mr Hentschel
    gave direct testimony at the 1995 trial that the size of a person’s sock
    provided a reliable indication of a person’s foot length and that the size of
    Robin’s socks excluded him from having made the prints – it appears that
    while the Crown prosecutor at the 1995 trial submitted that the prints were
    too large to have been made by Robin, Mr Hentschel did not give this
    evidence directly and did not state that sock size was a reliable ind icator of
    foot length;

    8.2. Justice Binnie’s statement, at paragraph [299], that “The 2009 jury
    eventually heard all of the evidence [relating to the “animal blood” theory]”
    – it appears that the 2009 jury heard no evidence on the “animal blood”
    theory because it was not pursued by the defence;

    8.3. Justice Binnie’s statement, at paragraph [307], that “defence expert Dr
    John Manlove testified there was no other blood in the area of David’s
    fingerprints” – Dr Manlove does not appear to have given this evidence at
    the 2009 trial, nor does it appear that any other defence witness did;

    8.4. Justice Binnie’s statement, at paragraph [287](c), that “In his 1995
    testimony, Mr Jones testified that he had “chemically enhanced” the print
    of David Bain’s left forefinger” – it appears that Mr Jones did not testify to
    this effect at the first trial (the reference to chemical enhancement was an
    error on a label attached to an exhibit), and later seek (sic) to resile from it in
    2009;

    8.5. Justice Binnie’s statement, at paragraph [101] , that “David Bain told the
    Police … Robin had already collected the newspaper” – it appears that Mr
    Bain did not say this to the Police during his initial interviews with the
    Police;

    8.6. Justice Binnie’s description of the 10 shot magazine found next to Robin’s
    body as “empty”, through paragraphs [268] – [272] is incorrect – it appears
    that the magazine contained three live rounds;

    8.7. Justice Binnie’s statement, at paragraph [57], that the Police “authorised”
    the burning down of 65 Every Street – it appears that the decision to burn
    the house was made by the Bain family which Mr Bain apparently
    consented to.

    Hmmm so if Binnie made all these errors, why would the Bain supporters want to be associated with his report?

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

    dragonfly said

    I totally agree with you about that (and I do realise you understand the issue – what bothers me is the way Binnie has been misrepresented), and it amounts to a failure of logic – one that’s hard to understand. Fisher made this mistake too (but in his case it may have been a more calculated ‘misunderstanding’ – it’s like he knew that many people would think this way.)

    I think in the long run, the problem for both Collins and Fisher is that fewer Kiwis are as simple as they think, and are playing them for.
    One thing people hate is being taken for fools when they are not, and I think the backlash will be severe and swift.
    I admired the way Binnie dealt with both of them at the end, being both polite and very stinging.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Dr. Fisher.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Beyonds website is fantastic, very entertaining, thanks Judith for the update
    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/

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

    ross69 said

    From Collins to Fisher:

    Hmmm, so she had told him what to find? Where did she get this list from, CL or the Police report?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Further,

    Analysis of innocence

    1 2. Justice Binnie’s substantive reasoning on certain key issues relating to innocence
    appears flawed:

    1 2.1. In relation to his conclusions about the maker of the luminol footprints, it is
    potentially concerning that Justice Binnie is prepared to accept that there
    is some room for imprecision in the luminol measurements, but
    nonetheless rely on them as a central plank supporting Mr Bain’s
    innocence;

    12.2. In relation to Mr Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle, Justice Binnie appears to
    be wrong, at paragraph [299] and [301 ] – [303], to state that the DNA
    results that were obtained are “inconsistent” with the blood being human.
    The fact that no human DNA was detected does not necessarily mean no
    human DNA was present – rather, it could be said that this is inconclusive
    and cannot constitute proof on the balance of probabilities that the prints
    were in animal blood. It also appears that Justice Binnie improperly
    reverses the onus of proof by concluding that it is for the Crown to prove
    that the prints were in human blood, and not for the applicant to prove that
    they were not;

    12.3. It appears questionable for Justice Binnie to treat the results of blood
    testing on the rifle by the VFSC as indicative of the appearance of the rifle
    immediately after the murders, especially in light of evidence from Mr
    Jones, which is not addressed, that the whole rifle was covered with blood.
    In rejecting Mr Jones’ evidence on this point Justice Binnie appears to
    have overlooked that Mr Hentschel gave evidence to the same effect as
    Mr Jones;

    12.4. The issue of the morning newspaper appears to be central to Justice
    Binnie’s conclusions on the timing/sequence of events, but Justice Binnie’s
    apparent acceptance that Robin brought the newspaper into the house
    (refer paragraph [101]) seems inconsistent with the actions of a man
    intending a murder/suicide.

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

    Beyonds website is fantastic, very entertaining, thanks Judith for the update
    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/

    Good, isn’t it? I particularly liked the video clip at the top of the page.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    I hope your disdain for the ‘academic’ Dr. Fisher does not extend to Prof. Joseph teacher and researcher?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    ross69 said:

    I don’t think you’ve read Binnie’s report. Binnie seemed to think the onus of proof was on the Crown. Is he correct?

    Binnie understood perfectly well that the legal onus was on David Bain. Fisher seems to think that the evidentiary onus was also on David Bain. But if it had been there would have been no point in Binnie’s review because of course David Bain could never prove that he didn’t do any of the wacky things the Crown contended he did, and so he would have been doomed to fail on a balance of probabilities basis right from the beginning. This would be the equivalent of artificially ascribing a high probative value to all the Crown’s speculations, no matter how unlikely, and even in the complete absence of any supporting evidence, just because David Bain couldn’t prove they weren’t true.

    This is what Fisher said:

    It is perfectly possible that in these and other cases the same conclusions would have been reached without placing any ‘onus’ on the Crown … But until the evidence is independently reviewed on the merits, it is impossible to be sure.

    Independently reviewing the evidence on its merits is exactly what Binnie did. Where the Crown provided “evidence” that wasn’t so much evidence as wild, unsupported speculation, Binnie rejected it on its merits. It is logically impossible to simultaneously put the evidentiary onus on David Bain and independently review the evidence on its merits. Fisher is a fuckwit.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Hmmm, so she had told him what to find?

    She told him of her concerns. If one day you decide to read the Fisher report, you will see how she reached her conclusions. She read much background material.

    But I see you’d rather criticise Collins than Binnie, despite the fact that the latter apparently made significant errors.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    The same probability for all your evidence singually and cumulatively 0.000000%, weak inferences that don’t stand up on there own or cumulatively, the better analogy in this case is a tangled spiderweb rather than strands of a rope.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    David Bain could never prove that he didn’t do any of the wacky things the Crown contended he did

    You are making shit up, which makes me less inclined to take you seriously.

    It was David who claimed the blood on the rifle was animal blood. Where’s the proof?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    She told him of her concerns. If one day you decide to read the Fisher report, you will see how she reaches her conclusions.

    Don’t you have something in reverse here?
    Read his report, to see how she reached her conclusions, yet you say she came to them first, and sent them to him? Definitely smelly.

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

    ross69 (1,957) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:50 pm

    How about Crown Law telling Binnie that Bain went inside turned on the computer, then back outside to be seen? Then they expect Bain to prove that is not what happened?
    Just how stupid are they, and you?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Independently reviewing the evidence on its merits is exactly what Binnie did.

    All the while putting the onus of proof on the Crown, and of course ignoring crucial evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross
    “12.2. In relation to Mr Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle, Justice Binnie appears to
    be wrong, at paragraph [299] and [301 ] – [303], to state that the DNA
    results that were obtained are “inconsistent” with the blood being human.
    The fact that no human DNA was detected does not necessarily mean no
    human DNA was present – rather, it could be said that this is inconclusive
    and cannot constitute proof on the balance of probabilities that the prints
    were in animal blood.”

    Kim Jones destroyed any credibility to the argument that it was human blood, with his use of a deliberate lie in 1995 to help the jury ‘understand it better’, there was never any evidence it was, and as Jones agreed in 2009 blood does not flouresce and the ridges on the fingerprint sample being white is inconsistent if the prints are ‘bloody’, Its only the twits here (like yourself) that can’t seem to get this through their thick skulls!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Canterbury University-black letter law.
    No interpretation or intent there
    Perhaps black letter law should be applied across the board
    You are outside the guidelines for compensation, full stop.
    Do not pass go.
    By trying to be fair the Government has allowed itself to be perceived as weak and malleable.
    It needs to correct that.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,958) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    What was crucial evidence that he ignored? Or are you simply quoting another mantra, this time originating from Collins?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Mr Binnie

    In regards to the issue of the bloodied opera gloves, you say at 444 and 445:

    David Bain has no explanation for how the gloves got to Stephen’s room but suggests Stephen could “quite possibly” have borrowed them at an earlier date (“cos he was well known for coming into, and borrowing stuff of mine just because he looked up to me as his big brother. He liked getting dressed up in the things that I had.”) However the appearance of the gloves in the photographs clearly suggests some involvement in the fight….The important point is that there is no evidence linking the gloves to David at any relevant time except through ownership which, as the Crown properly argued in the case of Margaret’s spectacles, is irrelevant. Robin’s hand is smaller than David’s. A smaller hand can fit in a larger glove.

    Once again, you accept David’s version of events, despite the fact he has a vested interest and has proven to be a less than reliable witness. A reasonable conclusion is that the killer wore the opera gloves while committing the murders. You have not explained why Robin, if he was the killer, would have worn the gloves. How would Robin have known where to find David’s opera gloves, and was Stephen “well known” for coming into David’s room and borrowing items? We do not know. We ought to possess at least some incredulity when David makes allegations that cannot be verified, especially if such allegations seek to exculpate him, are implausible, or are contradicted by other evidence. There is no indication that you were incredulous about anything David told you. If Stephen borrowed the opera gloves, how did they end up bloodied in his room? Remember that the onus of proof was, and remains, on David. He has not proven on the balance of probabilities that either Stephen or Robin knew where his opera gloves were, or that they took the gloves from his room.

    At 443, in regards to the opera gloves, you say:

    …it cannot be said when Robin decided to take his own life. It may have been long premeditated. It may have been in the agony of a killing spree.

    The above passage is of little assistance because it does not attempt to explain who wore the opera gloves and why. The questions remain: why did Robin decide to wear opera gloves, and why did he wear David’s gloves and not his own? You do not address these questions. Robin – if he entered the house at about 6.40 am – may (on your theory) have been inside the house at about the same time as David. It is inherently unlikely that Robin would take the time searching for David’s opera gloves when he risked being interrupted by David. Of course, Robin did not need to take such a risk because he could have worn his own gloves. Or he could have chosen not to wear gloves at all. It is worth noting that Robin’s glasses were found in his caravan which suggests he did not wear them on the morning of the murders. He may have found it difficult to search for the gloves without his glasses (he was long-sighted). There is no evidence that Robin wore David’s opera gloves on June 20. Indeed, there is no evidence to prove he was in David’s bedroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    ross69 said:

    It was David who claimed the blood on the rifle was animal blood. Where’s the proof?

    It was the Crown who claimed that David’s prints were made in human blood. Where’s the proof?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz @ 10.50
    Is this a rhetorical question? I think we already know the answer to that! As we know Binnie ignored ‘critical’ evidence, best they’ve been able to come up with so far is the correct spelling of the dogs name!
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Bayes’ Theorem on its own is not about statistical analyis but basic logic. As is reasoning about evidence. If you can’t do basic logic you can’t be an expert in the handling of evidence either.

    It would come as a great surprise to students of philosophy that a lack of familiarity with Baysian statistics equates to an inability to understand logic.

    As to Binnie’s “major strand,” he can’t do basic logic himself. You have five footprints showing as luminescence on carpet, from the same foot but in different sizes, ie in different states of completeness. The largest footprint must logically be a complete print, right? Wrong. It “must” not at all necessarily be a 100% complete print, it’s merely the largest one. As it’s showing toes and a heel, you can assume it’s at least near enough complete – ie, if it’s not 100% complete it must be close to it. This means you can set a theoretical minimum and maximum size of foot that made the print: if the print measures 28 cm, you can be reasonably confident it wasn’t made by a foot much smaller than that. You can also assume it wasn’t made by a foot a great deal larger than that, ie if a 28 cm print is showing toes and a heel it wasn’t made by some enormous motherfucker with a 40 cm foot.

    In the instance Binnie is looking at, what you can logically infer from the largest print is that if it’s 100% complete it wasn’t left by David Bain, and if it’s only 90% complete it definitely wasn’t left by Robin Bain. Binnie assigns a very high likelihood to the print not being left by David Bain, on the basis that the ESR scientist who examined it declared it a complete print. Given that the scientist can make no argument for the print being 100% complete rather than 90% complete, Binnie’s effectively committing the logical fallacy of accepting argument from authority. Worse, the scientist in question actually attempted to make clear that his use of the word “complete” could not be used in the way Binnie was trying to use it, and this attempt was rejected by Binnie, on what basically amounts to the grounds of “Too late asshole, you said it.”

    That last part is the kicker. I could understand a false premise error based on not thinking through whether the premises are actually correct or not. But to have the incorrect premise pointed out to you and to rebuff it, that’s either gross incompetence or bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Dragonfly @ 11.00
    Didn’t you know, the blood which ‘flouresced under Kim Jones Polilight, and also Davids unique fingerprints which left white ridges as opposed to black!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    Maybe you could explain why both of Davids socks showed luminesce yet only right sockprints were found?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Mr Binnie

    The evidence in this case is circumstantial. In assessing the evidence, you should have assigned probabilities to David and Robin in order to answer particular questions. For instance, who was most likely to have worn David Bain’s gloves during the course of the killings? David owned the gloves. He knew where they were kept. They presumably fitted him. David was not aware that anyone had used the gloves prior to the murders. He had owned the gloves for a relatively short time. He could not explain why they were bloodied or how they came to be in Stephen’s bedroom. You were unable to prove who wore the gloves. You approached the gloves (and other evidence) in an unorthodox manner. At 432, you said:

    The important point is that there is no evidence linking the gloves to David at any relevant time except through ownership… [and, at 449] I do not believe the secondary issues – individually or collectively – help resolve the issue of factual innocence.

    Your approach was flawed. There is no evidence that Robin knew where the gloves were kept. The gloves may not have fitted him. Also, he owned a similar pair of gloves which presumably he could have used if he had wished. If he really intended David to be the only survivor, it would make little sense for him to use David’s gloves (thereby potentially implicating David). On the available evidence, it is likely that David wore the gloves on the morning of the murders. Although it is possible that Robin wore the gloves, the probability is relatively low.

    You commented, at 438, re the 10 shot magazine:

    Its position was as consistent with suicide as with murder. The curious placement is therefore neither exculpatory nor inculpatory of David or Robin, in my opinion.

    In other words, you attached no weight to the evidence. However, it is clear that either Robin or David placed the magazine on the floor. You could and should have asked: who was more likely to have placed the magazine on the floor? You suggest in your report that if Robin was the killer, David may have been inside the house at the same time that Robin was alive. Presumably Robin would not have wanted David – as the only intended survivor – to witness him taking his (Robin’s) life. Time may have been of the essence. Why would Robin take the time to place the magazine on its edge and risk having David enter the lounge? Placing the magazine would have required Robin to bend over or kneel down on the floor. A coffee table was located near his body. It would, in all likelihood, have been easier and quicker for him to have placed the magazine on the coffee table. Alternatively, he could have thrown the magazine away, or put it in his pocket. Curiously, the magazine was just millimetres from Robin’s right hand when his body was found. Robin could not guarantee that he would not fall and knock the magazine over when he fell to the floor. Why take the time to place the magazine on its edge when he could knock it over after his body fell to the floor? More importantly, what is the probability that Robin placed the magazine on the floor? I believe it is more likely that David, not Robin, placed the magazine on the floor.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    8.7. Justice Binnie’s statement, at paragraph [57], that the Police “authorised”
    the burning down of 65 Every Street – it appears that the decision to burn
    the house was made by the Bain family which Mr Bain apparently
    consented to.

    As the police had indeed relinquished the property to the family, that allowed it to be burned down. Bain consented in as far as he was told by three uncles that they were doing it and he had to approve.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross
    Whose fingers and fingernail scrapings showed ‘residual blood like staining’ how did they get that if they were not previously covered in blood? Now I wonder what the innocent explanation for that is!
    Correct answer: Daddy wore the gloves
    Similarly how much ‘time was required’ to place the magazine!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    …and also Davids unique fingerprints which left white ridges as opposed to black!

    Indisputable evidence, surely, that David Bain is actually Satan!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Rowan (554) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    Kanz @ 10.50
    Is this a rhetorical question? I think we already know the answer to that! As we know Binnie ignored ‘critical’ evidence, best they’ve been able to come up with so far is the correct spelling of the dogs name!
    LMAO

    You can give me a smack upside of my head, I had completely forgotten about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    It was the Crown who claimed that David’s prints were made in human blood. Where’s the proof?

    The onus of proof is on David, as you well know. But you’re in good company – a former Canadian Supreme Court Judge didn’t understand that the onus was on David and not on the Crown.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,141) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 11:01 pm

    Bayes’ Theorem on its own is not about statistical analyis but basic logic. As is reasoning about evidence. If you can’t do basic logic you can’t be an expert in the handling of evidence either.

    It would come as a great surprise to students of philosophy that a lack of familiarity with Baysian statistics equates to an inability to understand logic.

    Expert at twisting what someone with the ability to think (which you seem to have missed out on), actually says, aren’t you? Either that, or you are totally unable to understand the written word.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    How about Crown Law telling Binnie that Bain went inside turned on the computer, then back outside to be seen? Then they expect Bain to prove that is not what happened?

    You’re talking nonsense. It’s David who says Robin turned on the computer. Where’s the proof? There’s no evidence that Robin had left his caravan at the time the computer was turned on. So, David’s claim must fail on this point, as it does on so many others.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Lets look at another of the spinners arguments about the position of the spare magazine. Also I don’t remember any significance being attached to it during the retrial at any stage. Yet the trolls ‘cling’ desperately to it. From the PC judgement

    118 . The court’s third key point is that the spare magazine was found
    standing upright on its narrow edge almost touching Robin’s outstretched
    right hand, a position in which it was unlikely to have fallen accidentally.
    This is a point which prosecuting counsel made to the jury in his closing
    address. But the judge did not include it in his list of the Crown’s main
    points. His only reference was to the prosecutor’s argument
    “that when you look at the position of the magazine near
    [Robin’s] right hand, the fact that it is standing on its edge, is
    explainable logically only by it being put there rather than
    having fallen out of his hand because if it had fallen, it
    would have fallen on its side”.
    It must be very questionable whether the jury attached significance to this
    point. The magazine in question was found on examination to be
    defective. A live round found beside the rifle showed signs of having
    been misfed. The possibility must exist that, the magazine having caused
    a misfeed, it was replaced and put on the floor. But even if it be accepted
    that the magazine was put in the position in which it was found and did
    not fall into that position, the question remains: who put it there? It could
    have been David. But there is no compelling reason why it could not have
    been Robin. This again is a jury question, not a question for decision by
    an appellate court. Neither singly nor cumulatively can these points fairly
    bear the weight which the third Court of Appeal gave to them. It is
    unnecessary to review the six additional points on which the court also
    relied in particular: all are contentious, and one (the state of Robin’s
    bladder) is a point which, although mentioned by the prosecutor in his
    closing address, was not mentioned by the judge in his summing up

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Are you making muffins when you ‘flouresced’?

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

    Get up with the play Ross
    Raftery conceded that Daddy was the likely one who turned on the computer.
    Subtotal of all your arguments to date 0.000000%

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

    The onus of proof is on David, as you well know. But you’re in good company – a former Canadian Supreme Court Judge didn’t understand that the onus was on David and not on the Crown.

    You are becoming irrational now.
    So, the Crown could come up with the theory that Bain made his old man dress in Bain’s clothes and do the paper run while the rest were shot, then when he arrived home, he too was shot, and that Bain would have to disprove it?

    I know, I know, I shouldn’t have said that, it will be their next theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz
    I have to laugh at the stupidity of these guys sometimes, classic!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    You’re talking nonsense. It’s David who says Robin turned on the computer. Where’s the proof? There’s no evidence that Robin had left his caravan at the time the computer was turned on. So, David’s claim must fail on this point, as it does on so many others.

    And this, in itself, proves that you haven’t read Binnie’s report.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    So, the Crown could come up with the theory…

    But we’re not talking about Crown theories, we’re talking about claims made by David. It’s David who’s claiming to be innocent – why is he having so much difficulty proving that?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    ***

    The killer awoke before dawn, he put his socks on
    He took a mask from the ancient gallery
    And he walked on down the hall
    He went into the room where his sister lived, and then he … (killed her)
    Paid a visit to his brother, and then he … (killed him)
    He walked on down the hall,
    And he came to a door…and he looked inside
    Father, Yes son, I want to KILL YOU
    Mother…I want to …. fuck you …

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Take the highway to the end of the night
    End of the night, end of the night
    Take a journey to the bright midnight
    End of the night, end of the night

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    “It must be very questionable whether the jury attached significance to this
    point. The magazine in question was found on examination to be
    defective. A live round found beside the rifle showed signs of having
    been misfed. The possibility must exist that, the magazine having caused
    a misfeed, it was replaced and put on the floor”

    This show how poor Binnies reasoning skills were, appalling in fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Maybe you could explain why both of Davids socks showed luminesce yet only right sockprints were found?

    Coming up with fanciful explanations for things is more Karam’s territory than mine. But a rather obvious one springs to mind in this instance, which I’m sure even you would be able to figure out if you spent a moment considering why, in your scenario, both of Robin’s socks showed no luminescence and right sockprints were found.

    But. as you’re a man much given to demanding explanations for this or that, why not give it a go yourself for once? Let’s see your efforts at an explanation for the condition of the glasses in David’s room. Parameters: event must not involve David Bain in any way (as he has no memory of how the glasses came to be damaged or in his room); event must damage the glasses sufficiently to cause the lenses to come out of the frames; must result in a lens ending up on the floor of Stephen’s room; must result in the remaining pieces and glasses case ending up on David’s chair without him putting them there. Extra points if the explanation covers off the witness testimony having David wearing the glasses the day before the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    I have been a believer that statician should involve in using methods such Bayesian statistics to reinforce other methods of reasoning a Judge may use. I also am a believer that Judges should use other qualified people as required in specialist field to help with their evaluation and decisions such as physicist, chemical engineers & computer graphics e.t.c why it is only pathologist and ballistic experts used in the main when other qualified people may have far better expertise.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    dragonfly (36) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 9:16 pm
    Psycho Milt says:

    the question is, what is the probability of Robin knowing the location of the key AND leaving no fingerprints on the rifle despite having to hold the metal parts that immediately took a print from Stephen, AND the glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room, AND David just happening to get victims’ blood in unlikely places on his clothing etc.

    The way Bayes’ Theorem works is that odds ratios are multiplied by likelihood ratios. The likelihood ratio in question is the probability of the evidence given that David is innocent, divided by the probability of the evidence given that David is guilty. So, for example, with the glasses evidence, we would have the probability of the “glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room” given David is innocent, divided by the probability of the “glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room” given David is guilty. Binnie clearly assigned a likelihood ratio of one, in this case. Obviously, he did this in an intuitive way, rather than a mathematical way. This would be the case also with the other items of evidence you mention. One times one times one equals one, not some hyper-inflated exponentially increased super-value. Fisher cannot in the same breath talk about Bayes’ Theorem and the ‘sums of parts’. They simply don’t fit together. What I’m trying to explain is that Fisher makes a great show of being this academically brilliant know-it-all who understands Bayes’ Theorem, when he doesn’t understand it. Doesn’t this tell you something about the nature of the man?

    “Binnie clearly assigned a likelihood ratio of one, in this case. Obviously, he did this in an intuitive way, rather than a mathematical way.” Garbage in garbage out.

    “… not some hyper-inflated exponentially increased super-value.” Considering the sock prints, how does Binnie get from P (David) = 0.5 to P (Robin) = 1.0 ? Considering the broken glasses, from evidence to pure coincidence?

    “It was Binnie’s Report that persuaded me David was innocent.” No it wasn’t. Binnie produces cards from his sleeve. Doesn’t that tell you something about the nature of the man?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    both of Robin’s socks showed no luminescence

    Yet Binnie, the Canadian Clouseau, reasoned that Robin had wandered room from room. How did he achieve that, apparently leaving behind blood-stained prints without getting any blood on his socks? No problem, said Binnie, we’ll just assume that Robin changed socks….ignoring the issue of proof. Binnie’s conclusion of “innocence” is based on similar flights of fancy and much speculation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfzXqwvtoEE

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt said:

    It would come as a great surprise to students of philosophy that a lack of familiarity with Baysian statistics equates to an inability to understand logic.

    I didn’t say (or imply) that. Binnie, for example, probably doesn’t know much, if anything, about Bayes’ Theorem, but he has a great logical ability. Remember, it was Fisher, not me, who raised the subject of Bayes’ Theorem. The only person who has come close to implying that a lack of familiarity with Bayes’ Theorem equates to an inability to understand logic is Fisher.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    William of Ockham said:

    Considering the sock prints, how does Binnie get from P (David) = 0.5 to P (Robin) = 1.0 ?

    He didn’t. If you’re going to debate probability with me, I suggest you learn something about the subject first.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/the-binnie-report-is-fundamentally-flawed

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    William of Ockham says

    February 4th, 2013 at 7:44 am
    dragonfly (36) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 9:16 pm
    Psycho Milt says:

    the question is, what is the probability of Robin knowing the location of the key AND leaving no fingerprints on the rifle despite having to hold the metal parts that immediately took a print from Stephen, AND the glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room, AND David just happening to get victims’ blood in unlikely places on his clothing etc.

    The way Bayes’ Theorem works is that odds ratios are multiplied by likelihood ratios. The likelihood ratio in question is the probability of the evidence given that David is innocent, divided by the probability of the evidence given that David is guilty. So, for example, with the glasses evidence, we would have the probability of the “glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room” given David is innocent, divided by the probability of the “glasses just happening to be broken in some unexplained way that left a lens in Stephen’s room” given David is guilty. Binnie clearly assigned a likelihood ratio of one, in this case. Obviously, he did this in an intuitive way, rather than a mathematical way. This would be the case also with the other items of evidence you mention. One times one times one equals one, not some hyper-inflated exponentially increased super-value. Fisher cannot in the same breath talk about Bayes’ Theorem and the ‘sums of parts’. They simply don’t fit together. What I’m trying to explain is that Fisher makes a great show of being this academically brilliant know-it-all who understands Bayes’ Theorem, when he doesn’t understand it. Doesn’t this tell you something about the nature of the man?

    “Binnie clearly assigned a likelihood ratio of one, in this case. Obviously, he did this in an intuitive way, rather than a mathematical way.” Garbage in garbage out.

    “… not some hyper-inflated exponentially increased super-value.” Considering the sock prints, how does Binnie get from P (David) = 0.5 to P (Robin) = 1.0 ? Considering the broken glasses, from evidence to pure coincidence?

    “It was Binnie’s Report that persuaded me David was innocent.” No it wasn’t. Binnie produces cards from his sleeve. Doesn’t that tell you something about the nature of the man?

    Certainly does.
    It shows he hasn’t got a clue on how to work out if someone is innocent on the BOP’s or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Binnie…has a great logical ability

    Such a great legal mind that he thinks Robin made blood stained footprints despite there being no blood on his socks. This great mind also believed everything David told him, despite the fact that it contradicted the evidence of numerous witnesses. If Binnie has great logicial ability, then Robert Fisher must be a genius.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Binnie produces cards from his sleeve. Doesn’t that tell you something about the nature of the man?

    What it tells me is that he is easily led.

    Mr Binnie,

    Following the release of your report, you informed the Star newspaper:

    The population in that country [New Zealand], he said, has not had the wrenching experience Canada has had of probing wrongful convictions. “The Canadian reaction is to try to get to the bottom of it. We’ll have to see what the New Zealand reaction is.”

    That is a patronising and disappointing retort in response to Justice Minister Collins’ public criticism of your report. It is apparent that you are not used to public criticism. You should have checked your facts before going public. New Zealand has been probing wrongful convictions for many years. Like Canada, New Zealand has an appeals court and a Supreme Court. In 1980, the New Zealand Government awarded Arthur Allan Thomas almost $1 million after it was established he had been wrongly convicted of double murder. An inquiry found Thomas to be probably innocent. Other wrongly convicted persons have received compensation. Importantly, the fact someone has been wrongly convicted of a crime does not mean they are innocent. Every year many offenders are either not charged or are acquitted. An acquittal does not infer innocence. An acquittal simply means that the Crown has been unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. A juror from David’s retrial wrote to you, after you were appointed to hear David’s claim for compensation, apparently informing you that she did not think David was innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    Judith, the word is drivel. incessant drivel, not dribble, incessant dribble. You embarrass yourself with this one, particularly a word that you might be inclined to use more than most use it.

    And the correct answer to this comment, is “why thank you, dotcom”.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    dragonfly (38) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 9:06 am
    William of Ockham said:

    Considering the sock prints, how does Binnie get from P (David) = 0.5 to P (Robin) = 1.0 ?

    He didn’t. If you’re going to debate probability with me, I suggest you learn something about the subject first.

    Yes he did. He decided the sock pints were Robin’s. That’s P = 1.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (612) Says:

    Kanz (484) Says: January 9th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
    Likelihood David typed the “suicide” “note” on the computer, P = 0.98
    Likelihood the glasses were broken strangling Stephen, P = 0.90
    See, even you agree that the probability of each of those two things are less than a whole number, so they carry no weight, we already knew that.

    The combined probability is 0.98 X 0.90 = 0.88 or 88%

    Bohze moi. Here is the correct answer for combined probability:

    Probability for David to do neither (1-0.98)*(1-0.90) = 0.002 or 0.2%
    Probability for David to be killer is 99.8%

    End of quote.

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

    William of Ockham (2) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 7:44 am
    “Binnie clearly assigned a likelihood ratio of one, in this case. Obviously, he did this in an intuitive way, rather than a mathematical way.” Garbage in garbage out.

    “… not some hyper-inflated exponentially increased super-value.” Considering the sock prints, how does Binnie get from P (David) = 0.5 to P (Robin) = 1.0 ? Considering the broken glasses, from evidence to pure coincidence?

    “It was Binnie’s Report that persuaded me David was innocent.” No it wasn’t. Binnie produces cards from his sleeve. Doesn’t that tell you something about the nature of the man?

    “Considering the sock prints, how does Binnie get from P (David) = 0.5 to P (Robin) = 1.0 ?”
    If you are going to argue, you should at least try to understand what it is you are arguing about. Dragonfly was using likelihood ratios not probabilities. Binnie quite obviously does not assign the probability of the sock prints being Robin’s as 1, otherwise it would be all over on that one issue. He says that the footprints are Robins ‘on the balance of probabilities’ – ie P=>,5, <1.

    Dragonfly’s point was that Fisher had criticised Binnie’s reasoning and referenced Bayes, but it is obvious that Binnie had in fact used a Bayesian approach, and that it is Fisher’s understanding of it, not Binnie’s that is wrong.

    This is what Andrew Geddis and other popularist commentators who have fallen in behind Fisher’s critique have missed. Fisher goes to some considerable lengths in his paper saying that a Bayesian approach is the correct one, but he also makes it very clear he doesn’t understand how Bayesian analysis works. He cites Robertson and Vigneaux, but demonstrably does not understand their work. Fisher’s report was a hatchet job. He was commissioned to produce a hatchet job – that much is unarguable: before he even started he and the Minister had agreed on the outcome. Why people aren’t more concerned about the implications of that just goes to show that we get the justice system we deserve.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (927) Says:
    February 3rd, 2013 at 10:42 pm
    Beyonds website is fantastic, very entertaining, thanks Judith for the update
    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/

    Good, isn’t it? I particularly liked the video clip at the top of the page.

    Yes, so did I. I just watched it again this morning, and it also reminded me of William Dot Com, he who lacks what it takes to fool anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    He decided the sock pints were Robin’s. That’s P = 1

    He certainly thought the sock prints were Robin’s. That wasn’t and isn’t such a big deal – the issue was that he gave this imprecise evidence a lot of weight. But more important evidence he basically ignored. For example, he couldn’t prove who wore the gloves, so he attached no weight to that evidence. He couldn’t prove who placed the 10 shot magazine, so placed no weight on that too. That is not the way circumstantial evidence is handled in New Zealand, but being from Canada Binnie clearly wasn’t au fait with how things are done here.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (612) Says:

    I think there are a number of problems in the background here. Until the Arthur Allan Thomas case I trusted the police and The Establishment. As it happens I was overseas at the time of the killings, which were in no way tied to Thomas except by fraud. The Peter Ellis case was total nonsense and a complete travesty. The police knew how absurd it looked, that’s why they dropped the charges against the women. Nobody would have believed those charges and Ellis would have gone free with them. There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that Scott Watson was targeted as a good prospect. The police stubbornly refused to look for the yacht that reliable witnesses had seen the victims climb aboard. Quietly and slowly a preposterous case was built on bullshit. So, I am not entirely surprised people take an anti-police stance from the start.

    The we have The Establishment. I spoke to Baragwanath some years ago about Peter Ellis. Apparently they’re “all very concerned about it”. Just as well these people are not running the sewerage system, ain’t it. We’re all be in the shit. Well, we are all in the shit because we all share the shame of the system that cannot right itself even when it knows it’s wrong.

    The police and the Establishment have themselves to blame for making it easy to get sympathy for “victims” of the system. It’s not helped when the police and prosecution make mistakes.

    For this reason, looking at David Bain, you have to start by walking into the room and seeing Robin on the floor dead. Did he kill himself? The silly police didn’t prove he didn’t, so we have to build the picture from the pieces.

    The lack of suicide letter, a message typed on the computer, the content of the message ….

    It doesn’t really lend itself to maths, I’m afraid. It’s a question of looking at bits and assigning weight to them and putting them in one box pointing at Robin or another pointing at David. The incest too must be considered; it doesn’t explain killing all and sparing David etc etc. The glasses cannot be ignored. David wore them when his were not available because he couldn’t see very well without glasses. He was almost certainly wearing them over that weekend. The chances they “just happened” to get broken that weekend are remote. Extremely remote, blood or no blood on them. No reason to have blood on them if they were knocked off, which they were judging by looking at them and the lost lens etc etc.

    Judging or assessing the implausible explanations is left to a jury. In my opinion juries are a waste of time. I think our whole system needs a total overhaul to bring it into the modern scientific world of investigation and analysis with decisions made by people with a track record of some reasoning ability and able to think straight. Not perfect but better than the fiasco of David Bain’s second trial. Bored indifferent jurors…

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (1,935) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 9:08 am
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/the-binnie-report-is-fundamentally-flawed

    I looked at this again this morning.
    What an excellent blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Binnie doesn’t write P = 1, he starts from a point that the sock prints are Robin’s. That is P = 1.

    For the broken glasses, how does he get from evidence to irrelevance?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Morning breaks cold and dank,

    alas the darkness of Bane is upon us again,

    oh tis only Judith selling her disgusting lies,

    but where is Nostalgia, has his journey wearied him ?

    The roundabout of probalities spins once more, but todays one is a Magic Roundabout …..

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/presumption-of-innocence-vs-balance-of-probabilities

    I looked at this again this morning as well.
    Another excellent blog.

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

    muggins (1,936) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 9:40 am
    muggins (1,935) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 9:08 am
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/the-binnie-report-is-fundamentally-flawed

    I looked at this again this morning.
    What an excellent blog.

    Did you forget you’d already looked at it once this morning already and posted about it?

    One of the most common signs of Alzheimer’s, is forgetting recently learned information. Others include asking for the same information over and over; and repeating the same thing over and over. People with Alzheimer’s may have trouble following or joining a conversation. They may stop in the middle of a conversation and have no idea how to continue or they may repeat themselves

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,320) Says:

    Muggins, your problem is, I know what actually happened that day with Buckley, as do many people. You clearly don’t.

    Judith,
    I admit that I don’t know what happened that day with Buckley. but what I would like to know is how do you know?
    And you say many people know.
    Were you part of a crowd of onlookers?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (1,938) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 9:08 am
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/the-binnie-report-is-fundamentally-flawed

    Judith,you are lying again.
    I just linked to that blog, at that pont I hadn’t actually looked at it.
    Then when I did look at it I thought it was worth repeating.
    Now lets have an answer as to how you knew what happened with Mark Buckley.
    Were you there, hiding in the long grass?

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

    You’ve already asked me that Muggins.

    Did you forget?
    They do recommend that when things start getting confusing, you should keep a list. Perhaps one next to your keyboard, so you can tick off the things you’ve already posted.

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

    Hark, what a sound, and too obscene for hearing,
    stirs on the earth and trembles in the air!
    Is it the thunder of the Joka appearing ?
    Is it the music of his people’s prayer ?

    Nay, tiz just Jinny braying ….

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

    William of Ockham (3) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 9:43 am

    Binnie doesn’t write P = 1, he starts from a point that the sock prints are Robin’s. That is P = 1.

    No it’s not. He says ‘on the balance of probabilities’. That means ‘probably’ Robin’s. P = <1. He obviously thinks it’s a high probability, though. If it was P=1, then the whole case was over on that point as the solicitor general agreed.

    For the broken glasses, how does he get from evidence to irrelevance?

    He explains that quite clearly perhaps you should try reading his report without prejudice. There is nothing – NOTHING – that ties the glasses or lens to the murders with any certainty. There is circumstantial evidence that suggests they *may* have been involved –the lens being found in Stephen’s room, the broken frame and other lens in David’s room. But there is also evidence that suggests they were not – there was no blood or any other tissue found on them, and there was expert evidence that they appeared to not have been worn for some considerable time. There was evidence that David had said he was wearing the glasses that weekend – from his aunt and from Guest (although Guest’s was only produced in response to criticism of his conduct). But David said he wasn’t, and there is no evidence that he was seen wearing them, while there is a lot of evidence that he was seen without glasses. So if one is looking at the evidence impartially (as Binnie was contracted to do) there is a load of waffle on either side, but nothing concrete to make either side more compelling. Therefore it’s uninformative, or a LR=1.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. dragonfly (40 comments) says:

    Judith said:

    Fisher’s report was a hatchet job. He was commissioned to produce a hatchet job – that much is unarguable: before he even started he and the Minister had agreed on the outcome.

    I agree. And it’s the ugliest thing when the State turns on its own citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,320) Says:
    January 10th, 2013 at 11:36 am
    Muggins,

    I never ever mentioned the word oral.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,207) Says:

    ————————

    Was the animal hurt? Do teenagers dob mates in? As none of us were there, I don’t think anyone can make that sort of comment as there are no details. ‘He had sex with a goat’ – what kind of sex? The type is not clarified, was it fondling, intercourse, oral, etc etc. How can any person comment without knowing the exact details of the claim being made. Sex is a very big concept that can refer to a great number of behaviours and acts. I don’t think its a conversation any of us can justifiably get into with the limited information

    Judith says she didn’t mention the word oral.
    Can anyone spot the word oral in the above post?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,325) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 10:04 am
    You’ve already asked me that Muggins.

    Did you forget?
    They do recommend that when things start getting confusing, you should keep a list. Perhaps one next to your keyboard, so you can tick off the things you’ve already posted.

    Judith, I am well aware I have asked you that question, and so have others.
    The only problem is you havn’t answered it.
    Here’s your chance.

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

    muggins (1,942) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:28 am

    You want to know how I know?

    I’ve seen the evidence. That is how I know.

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

    dragonfly (39) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:16 am
    I agree. And it’s the ugliest thing when the State turns on its own citizens.

    Yes it is ugly. Collins has allowed herself to be influenced by a group, who she has incorrectly assumed to be representative of the population, as a whole. What both don’t seem to understand, is that in order for a ‘fair’ process to be conducted, such influence is not acceptable. I think she will find, that even those who are not sure of the perpetrator, will stand up against her stance on this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,326) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 10:29 am
    muggins (1,942) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:28 am

    You want to know how I know?

    I’ve seen the evidence. That is how I know.

    Seen the evidence? You mean that David took a photo of Mark Buckley performing that deviant act?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    There is nothing – NOTHING – that ties the glasses or lens to the murders with any certainty.

    So, why did David lie? He told his lawyer he’d worn the glasses the night before the murders. But at trial, once he’d heard the Crown case, he changed his story.

    When a probable mass killer changes his story, which version should we believe?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,327) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Yes it is ugly. Collins has allowed herself to be influenced by a group, who she has incorrectly assumed to be representative of the population, as a whole. What both don’t seem to understand, is that in order for a ‘fair’ process to be conducted, such influence is not acceptable. I think she will find, that even those who are not sure of the perpetrator, will stand up against her stance on this one.

    It was Binnie who allowed himself to be influenced, not Judith Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,942) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:17 am
    Judith (1,320) Says:
    January 10th, 2013 at 11:36 am
    Muggins,

    I never ever mentioned the word oral.

    —————————

    Again you fail to provide the entire conversation at that point. You had stated that I said Mark Buckley was having oral sex with the goat, whereas I had not stated that at all. All you are doing is demonstrating your ability to twist and manipulate what people say to misrepresent it. The exact same thing you have done to the people who you say you have phoned. You’ve come on here and misrepresented what they have told you, among other things.

    I have made it perfectly clear to you I will not be telling you what the ‘act of a sexual nature that looked funny’, was. The reason I won’t do that is because I take great delight in knowing that there are many people out there, and posting on here, who do know. Those people are getting a great amount of enjoyment at watching you squirming because it is something you and your spinner friends have been unable to find out.

    For that reason, we have an agreement, no one is going to tell you. Your first statement on the matter was along the lines of ‘David Bain said Buckley was shagging a goat’ and that David was a liar for saying that. Problem for you is, David didn’t say that, or anything like that, which very much makes you – the liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,969) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 10:41 am
    There is nothing – NOTHING – that ties the glasses or lens to the murders with any certainty.

    So, why did David lie? He told his lawyer he’d worn the glasses the night before the murders. But at trial, once he’d heard the Crown case, he changed his story.

    When a probable mass killer changes his story, which version should we believe

    Not the mass killers ,obviously.
    And don’t forget he also told his aunt he had been wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend. They weren’t perfect,he said, but they got him by.
    I reckon once he had heard his aunt give her evidence and noticed she hadn’t mentioned that conversation,[and there is no reason why she would] he decided he would lie about those glasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,944) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:42 am

    It was Binnie who allowed himself to be influenced, not Judith Collins.
    ————————————–

    The only group of people that Binnie had contact with apart from the Crown, the police and David Bain’s representation, was JFRB and Counterspin.

    I suspect he was influenced by them. Anyone reading their sites would be – unfortunately not in the manner they would like.
    I believe that looking at those sites would have made Justice Binnie look a little harder at some of the evidence discussed on their, and to see the huge mistakes in that group arguments. I think we should be grateful for those groups for pointing those things out to the judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,328) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 10:46 am
    muggins (1,942) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:17 am
    Judith (1,320) Says:
    January 10th, 2013 at 11:36 am
    Muggins,

    I never ever mentioned the word oral

    Judith, please.
    You said you never ever mentioned the word oral. You lied.

    Same as David said he was completely naked.
    He was never completely naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,329) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 10:52 am
    muggins (1,944) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:42 am

    It was Binnie who allowed himself to be influenced, not Judith Collins.
    ————————————–

    The only group of people that Binnie had contact with apart from the Crown, the police and David Bain’s representation, was JFRB and Counterspin.

    Did Binnie have contact with a member of JFRB? I never knew that.
    Did Binnie have contact with a member of counterspin? I never knew that ,either.
    What I do know is that he read Trial By Ambush. I reckon he was influenced by that book. He never should have read it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Judith says: There is nothing – NOTHING – that ties the glasses or lens to the murders with any certainty.

    ross69 (1,969) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:41 am
    So, why did David lie? He told his lawyer he’d worn the glasses the night before the murders. But at trial, once he’d heard the Crown case, he changed his story.

    When a probable mass killer changes his story, which version should we believe?

    But did David lie? You accept that too readily. We don’t know that he did tell his lawyer that. All we know is that his lawyer, some time later and after he had been extensively criticised for his inadequacies in defending David, *said* that David had told him that. This from a man (Guest) who has lied and committed fraud and against other clients. So of poor credibility. When a known liar and fraud produces a story to justify his own failings, should we believe it? Even if Guest and the aunt are telling the truth as they remember it, it’s perfectly feasible that they misunderstood something David said. He might well have said that he had ‘previously’ worn his Mum’s glasses when he needed to watch TV or whatever, and they thought he meant he had worn them that weekend. Neither Guest nor the aunt can remember precise details of what David supposedly said. To say David changed his story after hearing the crown case is stupid. David already knew most of the Crown case from the depositions hearings. What he didn’t know was the business about the lens being found supposedly out in the open on top of things (now we know that’s not true, of course), or the suggestions from the Crown prosecutor that he (David) was lying about who the glasses belonged to (which we also know was untrue – David was telling the truth about that, it was the prosecutor who was being less than honest).

    And that’s the problem Binnie faced. Waffle, rumour, unverifiable evidence. Equally uncompelling for both sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,947) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:52 am

    ———————————–

    Muggins, you are clearly desperate for attention.
    You post mindless rubbish, you obsess with sexual aberration, you continue to repost your own and other people’s posts and you don’t appear to have any ability to reason.

    I feel a bit sorry for you being so desperate for attention that you live trolling through the blogs and get by simply by irritating people, but it’s a waste of my time interacting with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Janis Clark, giving evidence.

    Q. At some time there was a discussion about the glasses?
    A. Yes. later after David got up and had some breakfast we were sitting in the lounge ,David ,Heidi and myself and David sort of rubbed his eyes like that,you know, and I said ” Oh, are your’e eyes troubling you dear?”.
    Q. When you say rubbing his eyes your’e – [demonstrating]
    A. Yes,it was sort of a movement like that,just as though his eyes were troubling him. And I said ” Are your’e eyes troubling you dear? ” and he said “Yes they are a bit , I really need my glasses”.
    And I went to go and get them saying ” Where are they?” and he explained that his own glasses had been broken the previous Thursday when he was leaving his music lesson and I asked how he had been managing in the meantime and he said he had been wearing a pair of Margaret’s old glasses.
    Q. Just on that, did he indicate how much assistance or lack of assistance they gave?
    A. Yes,he said well they weren’t perfect but they got him by. And then he said his own glasses would be ready at the optician’s on the Thursday and could we perhaps organise to have them collected and I called Bob in.

    Bob Clark, giving evidence.
    I was called into the lounge where my wife had been talking to David and was informed that would I go and pick up the glasses on the Thursday which I did.

    Very compelling evidence and if David Bain had not have exersised his right to silence at the retrial there would have been no way he would have been found not guilty after being cross-examined about that conversation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Norma (6 comments) says:

    His own lawyer says he is guilty of those murders.

    Kind of hard to refute ?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,331) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 11:08 am
    muggins (1,947) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 10:52 am

    ———————————–

    I feel a bit sorry for you being so desperate for attention that you live trolling through the blogs and get by simply by irritating people, but it’s a waste of my time interacting with you.

    So why do you continue to waste your time interacting with me ,Judith?
    I know I am irritating you when I keep asking you questions you won’t answer, because you have no answer, and I know I am irritating you when I keep calling you a liar and you won’t accept that you have lied.

    And I notice that you say that lens was not found out in the open. No, it wasn’t. But there is a photo and/or video showing it out in the open when Stephen’s body was still in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,331) Says:
    January 10th, 2013 at 11:36 am
    Muggins,

    I never ever mentioned the word oral.

    Now prove yourself not to be a liar, and find the post where you say I did!

    What I said to you was a general comment that “an act of a sexual nature’, does not have to be ‘shagging’. In your mind you added oral. Great mind you have there, but perhaps it could do with hoovering.

    Judith, not only have I proved myself not to be a liar, but I have also proved you are a liar.
    But thanks for saying I have a great mind. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that myself, but I will say my mind is considerably greater than your’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    “The reason why nothing fits in the case is the appalling efforts by the investigating cops at the time…”

    Ah, Rowan, now you are repeating yet ANOTHER of what I detailed earlier as Team Karam/Bain’s strategies: –

    Cast doubt and muddy the waters courtesy of supposed police incompetence to distract from the fact that you are not actually citing any evidence, but you are making an argument from silence, “David would have been exonerated if the cops hadn’t (with Bain’s and his legal counsel Guest’s approval) allowed the house to be burned down.

    I take it that you are clutching at that straw because you are struggling to make the case against David.

    Tell you what, why don’t I just repeat the evidence (I did this earlier, but I’ll throw in a few others I have since recalled – see Judith – you don’t need exhaustive knowledge!) that is not disputed, and which is there, irrespective of police bungling: –

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

    …despite being right handed, Robin supposedly effects the suicide with his left hand in a very uncomfortable contortion with the unnecessary silencer still attached, thus increasing the likelihood that he will excruciatingly botch his suicide attempt.

    …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.

    Care to share with the class, Rowan, which of those pieces of evidence, or the overall picture they paint is a result of police incompetence?

    On second thoughts, Judith, as Stead’s expertise in fiction is probably very relevant to his assessment of the likelihood of Robin’s supposed guilt. He can no doubt spot fairy tales from a mile.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    “There is nothing – NOTHING – that ties the glasses or lens to the murders with any certainty.”

    You cannot choose what you want from the mass of evidence. It’s not a menu. You have to digest it all.

    Of course the glasses are tied to David. He used to borrow them. He used to wear them because he needed glasses to see. He was seen wearing them. He agreed he was wearing them, then changed his story. TRUTH called his a liar, he did not respond. The glasses were broken around that day, one lens was found in Stephen’s room.

    Only a completely deluded fool would not consider the possibility they were broken in the fight with Stephen.

    On the other hand, there is NOTHING that ties Robin to the rifle. That is an absolute certainty. So why is this inconvenient fact waved away? Can’t face the obvious conclusion David shot him?

    On examination, it doesn’t even look vaguely like Robin shot himself, yet you have concocted this hugely complex and convoluted story, knowing David had already told someone he could use the paper round as an alibi. Well, he was right. He did. He didn’t quite get away with murder. It took 13 years and a lot of skulduggery to get out early.

    He probably won’t kill again. He killed the people who sent him off his rocker. David Bain has no soul, he doesn’t even know if he killed his family or not. Does he ever wonder? Is he curious? Or does he really know – is acting? Clearly he’s very good at it, because some people believe him.

    Many do not. They recognise a rort when they see one. Collins has played this rather well. Given him enough rope to hang himself. Not literally, of course, that would be too much to hope for.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    But did David lie? You accept that too readily. We don’t know that he did tell his lawyer that. All we know is that his lawyer, some time later and after he had been extensively criticised for his inadequacies in defending David, *said* that David had told him that.

    You’re grasping at straws. During the trial, and pre-trial, David’s counsel informed then prosecutor Bill Wright about David’s pre-trial admission re Margaret’s glasses. Wright has confirmed this. Then there’s the aunt’s testimony. Then there is David being caught out in a lie by Binnie when David said he couldn’t drive a car that fateful weekend because he had no glasses. But he did drive that weekend, indicating that he probably was wearing glasses. David has repeatedly lied.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    TRUTH called his (sic) a liar, he did not respond.

    Yeah that is curious. I mean Joe Karam would have to be about the most litigious person in New Zealand. Yet he seems to be OK with David being called a liar.

    On the other hand, there is NOTHING that ties Robin to the rifle. That is an absolute certainty. So why is this inconvenient fact waved away?

    That’s true. But Binnie was so upset that NZ was some backwater, where the wrongly convicted never got justice, he didn’t seem to realise that a number of people had been compensated for wrongful conviction and that many had had their convictions quashed. Not only does he have difficulty with basic logic, but he’s a patronising prick.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Why isn’t that Melbourne Armourers report trotted out by The Banes, you know, the one the Crown picked up but couldn’t use because it wasn’t commissioned by them lol sound familiar.

    They who pays the piper has ownership.
    It was commissioned by the defence so the Crown were not allowed to use it, when it was given to them along with some other reports I believe.

    The one described as fruit from a poisoned tree.

    Seems to me there is much beating of the chest over evidence lost, but little over evidence to hand but never used.
    The ‘fruit’ such as it was, was poisoned for the Crown, not for the defence.

    I hope you haven’t destroyed it. 😉

    Surely that report exonerates David, all by itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith seems to have stopped interacting with everyone.
    But no doubt she will return. She can’t live without her David.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    dragonfly has obviously got the sisters panicking. But why panic, nothing else they’ve predicted has come to pass, the Binnie reports stands, the matter is before the Courts. We may even get to determine if Collin’s mistakes are as obvious as they look. That she commissioned another report because didn’t like the findings of the first and didn’t deal with it or the applicant in a fair way. It will be interesting as to who ‘first’ advised her that there were problems with the Binnie report and what in fact was said. If it prevails that she found the problems from her own legal experience she will be able to explain the reasons in detail, but it will be a lot harder if she is cross examined on them rather than making her ‘case’ in public. She will be seen to have pitted her own experience directly against Binnie, forgetting for a moment that she did it in a most unsavoury and secret way. But to this point we have the novel version of a ‘peer’ review of say a Supreme Court Decision being sent to a registrar in the District Court for analysis. Way to go Judith, cart right in front of the horse.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    The Binnie report is in the rubbish binnie and quite rightly so. That is where it should be.
    All that Karam and co have done is delay the inevitable.
    Judith Collins did not have to tell Bain’s legal team anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    ‘Unsavoury? Secret? Emotive?

    Judith Collin’s might have liked the conclusion report very much, but knew that ‘others’ would pick up the flaws in the report.
    You seem to have made the assumption that Judith Collin’s thinks that David Bain is guilty, just because she has not paid out.
    If Judith Collin’s had awarded compensation based on Ian Binnie’s report, she would still be facing a Judicial Review because the report was flawed and not to be relied upon.

    You are the tail, not the donkey, which is not the same thing as being an ass.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    The charlatan appears, cloaked in darkness,

    Will he star or will he fade, only Johnny knows, 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    It will be interesting as to who ‘first’ advised her that there were problems with the Binnie report and what in fact was said

    If you read the Fisher report and material associated with it, you’ll see that Collins had read a lot of background material and spotted problems with Binnie’s report. By that stage, Guest had informed her that David was a liar. This happened before police were given a copy.

    The problem lies not with Collins but with Binnie’s ineptness.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Why isn’t that Melbourne Armourers report trotted out by The Banes, you know, the one the Crown picked up but couldn’t use because it wasn’t commissioned by them lol sound familiar.

    Good question. At paras 258-278 of his report, Binnie discusses the possibility that Robin committed suicide. He did not refer to the opinion of then Senior Constable Henry Glaser, formerly an armourer at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. Glaser apparently said Robin’s death was unlikely to have been suicide. Why is there no mention of Glaser’s opinion, which was commissioned by Joe Karam, in Binnie’s report? Did Binnie request a copy of Glaser’s report from Karam? Did Karam supply a copy? On what basis did Glaser conclude that suicide was unlikely?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/audio/the-panel-with-jock-anderson-and-lisa-scott-31-january-2013

    Andrew Geddis reckons we are all going to be a lot older before the Bain affair is all over and I reckon he could well be right.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    It will be interesting as to who ‘first’ advised her that there were problems with the Binnie report and what in fact was said.

    My money’s on “her brain” and “probably something like ‘This makes no fucking sense whatsoever.'”

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Andrew Geddis reckons we are all going to be a lot older before the Bain affair is all over and I reckon he could well be right.

    Older and maybe wiser too. I wonder what other porkies David will tell between now and when the Justice Minister gives him the bad news. Will he elaborate on that goat story of his?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,143) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    It will be interesting as to who ‘first’ advised her that there were problems with the Binnie report and what in fact was said.

    My money’s on “her brain” and “probably something like ‘This makes no fucking sense whatsoever.’”

    Yeah, she didn’t need anyone to advise her.
    One look at it and she must have thought “That was $400000 down the drain.”

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,974) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    Andrew Geddis reckons we are all going to be a lot older before the Bain affair is all over and I reckon he could well be right.

    Older and maybe wiser too. I wonder what other porkies David will tell between now and when the Justice Minister gives him the bad news. Will he elaborate on that goat story of his?

    Judith reckons she knows the full story re that goat, but she ain’t going to tell the likes of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Be thankful for small mercies 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    But did David lie? You accept that too readily. We don’t know that he did tell his lawyer that. All we know is that his lawyer, some time later and after he had been extensively criticised for his inadequacies in defending David, *said* that David had told him that. This from a man (Guest) who has lied and committed fraud and against other clients. So of poor credibility. When a known liar and fraud produces a story to justify his own failings, should we believe it?

    Certainly not, unless he has something solid to back it up. For example, suppose that Guest claimed that he told the Crown Prosecutor about it at the time, and the gentleman in question confirmed that claim to be true? Something like that would be pretty solid backing – you’d have to be a real dumbass to claim Guest was lying if he could point to that kind of corroborating testimony.

    To say David changed his story after hearing the crown case is stupid.

    Well, it would be if he hadn’t changed his story after hearing the Crown case. As it stands, it’s more of a simple statement of fact. It’s possible that it took the sight of Weir pointing at that photo to make David Bain realise that admitting he was wearing the glasses on the Sunday evening would destroy any hope he had of acquittal, but if so he’s not very bright. It should have been obvious enough from the depositions evidence that if he was wearing those glasses on the Sunday evening they need look no further for the murderer.

    Actually, on reading that, it does make me wonder about Guest. Why wasn’t it obvious to him? Telling Wright that David Bain was going to admit wearing those glasses the Sunday evening was hardly different from telling Wright that David Bain was going to admit murdering his family. And once he saw Bain get up and claim not to have worn them, he’d have to believe Bain was guilty as charged. But he took Bain’s appeal all the way to the Privy Court and only developed pangs of conscience after Karam shat on him – quite an insight into his character, when you think about it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    David was never required to take the stand again though.
    There are rules around what you do with clients you know are guilty.

    That is why the right to silence is said not to be taken as an admission, but really…..
    If the client is literate, and we keep being told how brilliant David was/is
    Why wouldn’t he take the stand.

    It is not just necessarily not wishing to undergo cross examination but that a solicitor’s duty foremost is to the court and they can’t allow a client that they know to be guilty to mislead the court.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Just a little predictions update.

    David would be found guilty.
    David would never apply for compensation.
    David would never be found innocent.
    David wouldn’t/couldn’t seek JR

    Going by that it might be more helpful to the sisters if they predicted what they didn’t want to happen – even if didn’t work it would sure look better that 4 zero.

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

    Psycho Milt says: For example, suppose that Guest claimed that he told the Crown Prosecutor about it at the time, and the gentleman in question confirmed that claim to be true? Something like that would be pretty solid backing – you’d have to be a real dumbass to claim Guest was lying if he could point to that kind of corroborating testimony.

    Yes, you would. Unless, of course, what the Crown prosecutor has sworn on affidavit does not back him up but in fact tells a rather different story, as it does. And that, too, after the Crown prosecutor had been accused of improper practice himself and this was something which would protect him as well as Guest. Neither Guest nor the Crown prosecutor could ‘remember’ the circumstances or details of what was discussed. But both said it was *before* the trial, unlike Guest’s letter which claims it was during the trial and in response to an ethical dilemma.

    Actually, on reading that, it does make me wonder about Guest. Why wasn’t it obvious to him? Telling Wright that David Bain was going to admit wearing those glasses the Sunday evening was hardly different from telling Wright that David Bain was going to admit murdering his family. And once he saw Bain get up and claim not to have worn them, he’d have to believe Bain was guilty as charged. But he took Bain’s appeal all the way to the Privy Court and only developed pangs of conscience after Karam shat on him – quite an insight into his character, when you think about it.

    Yes, it could be quite an insight. It would have been most improper for him to have told Bill Wright anything of the sort, which is probably why he is now trying to say that he told him *during* the trial as an ethical responsibility. Also would have been badly wrong to have told Wright without David’s instruction to do so. The idea that Wright led the questioning about the ownership of the glasses in such a way as to make David look like he was lying because David had not admitted to wearing them doesn’t stand up – he did that before David was asked about wearing the glasses. It looks to me like an excuse to get out of trouble: for Guest to evade the accusations of inadequate representation, and for Wright to avoid the accusations of improper prosecutorial conduct. We already know that one of them has been willing to lie and defraud to suit his own ends, and that he is again lying and changing the story to suit somebody’s ends. Puts Wright in a difficult position – does he stick to his original version or back up Guest? He’s said nothing on the matter so far.

    If Judith Collins was genuinely concerned about Guest’s letter, the usual process would have been to at least check out the truth of it. And it doesn’t check out.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Once David Bain was found not guilty I was absolutely sure he would claim compensation. To have not done so would have been akin to him saying ” I got lucky”.

    So far as Guest not getting his story right, well it was eighteen years after he had that conversation with Bain.
    So he told Wright before Bain took the stand that Bain had told him he would admit to wearing to wearing those glasses during the weekend immediatly prior to the murders instead of after Bain lied about them,so what.
    There was apparently some discussion after Bain lied about those glasses. There was some discussion between Guest and Wright. It is probably that discussion that Guest is remembering.
    And of course this isn’t the first time Karam has tried to discredit Guest. Bain denied having told Guest about the glasses they told Sir Justice Thorp, back in 2000. Karam and Withnall, Bain’s new lawyer, said that Guest was merely trying to stave off criticism of his competence as Bain’s lawyer, they alleged.
    Their argument did not impress Thorp. He pointed out that long before Guest revealed Bain’s acknowlegment of wearing the glasses to the PCA.the Crown Law office had recorded the surprise of the Crown prosecutor when Bain denied wearing those glasses in court. He had been briefed,the prosecutor told his colleagues,that Bain would admit to having worn those glasses the previous night ,and the prosecutor had been surprised when he heard Bain tell a different story when he was in the dock.

    You will note how Judith completely ignores the testimony of Janis Clark, which I posted earlier. Looks like I am going to have to post it again,in case she didn’t see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Gamefisher @ 6.03
    It shows how appalling your comprehension skills are and also your reading ability, The piece about the spare magazine came from the PC decision not Binnies report. The magazine was changed over and the spare magazine placed on the ground, there is no reason why Daddy did this and you can shift it into Davids favour as he wouldn’t of known that there was a jammed bullet until attempting to shoot Robin, Do you suppose Robin just sat there and waited while he changed over the magazine and shot again? LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (1,957) Says:

    February 4th, 2013 at 11:20 am
    Janis Clark, giving evidence.

    Q. At some time there was a discussion about the glasses?
    A. Yes. later after David got up and had some breakfast we were sitting in the lounge ,David ,Heidi and myself and David sort of rubbed his eyes like that,you know, and I said ” Oh, are your’e eyes troubling you dear?”.
    Q. When you say rubbing his eyes your’e – [demonstrating]
    A. Yes,it was sort of a movement like that,just as though his eyes were troubling him. And I said ” Are your’e eyes troubling you dear? ” and he said “Yes they are a bit , I really need my glasses”.
    And I went to go and get them saying ” Where are they?” and he explained that his own glasses had been broken the previous Thursday when he was leaving his music lesson and I asked how he had been managing in the meantime and he said he had been wearing a pair of Margaret’s old glasses.
    Q. Just on that, did he indicate how much assistance or lack of assistance they gave?
    A. Yes,he said well they weren’t perfect but they got him by. And then he said his own glasses would be ready at the optician’s on the Thursday and could we perhaps organise to have them collected and I called Bob in.

    Bob Clark, giving evidence.
    I was called into the lounge where my wife had been talking to David and was informed that would I go and pick up the glasses on the Thursday which I did.

    Very compelling evidence and if David Bain had not have exersised his right to silence at the retrial there would have been no way he would have been found not guilty after being cross-examined about that conversation.

    Judith appears to have missed this post.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Why would Robin Bain change that magazine over when there were still three live rounds in it ?
    Why would he have placed it upright on the floor when he could have
    [a] Just dropped it
    or
    [b] Just put it on the table.
    How did his outstretched hand not knock that magazine over when it hit the floor.?
    That magazine was obviously put there by David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    If Judith Collins was genuinely concerned about Guest’s letter, the usual process would have been to at least check out the truth of it. And it doesn’t check out.

    Um, there’s a difference between cooking up an elaborate theory that involves both Bain’s defence lawyer and the Crown prosecutor conspiring to betray poor innocent David, and demonstrating that Guest’s story “doesn’t check out.”

    Perhaps you could get together with a few friends and record a reworking of Mighty Diamonds’ “Them Never Love Poor Marcus” – I’m sure “Them Never Love Poor David” could be a real success.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

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

    Have a look at this and then tell me that the force of Robin Bain’s hand hitting the ground would not have caused that magazine to fall over.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt @ 6.31

    “Maybe you could explain why both of Davids socks showed luminesce yet only right sockprints were found?

    Coming up with fanciful explanations for things is more Karam’s territory than mine. But a rather obvious one springs to mind in this instance, which I’m sure even you would be able to figure out if you spent a moment considering why, in your scenario, both of Robin’s socks showed no luminescence and right sockprints were found.

    But. as you’re a man much given to demanding explanations for this or that, why not give it a go yourself for once? Let’s see your efforts at an explanation for the condition of the glasses in David’s room. Parameters: event must not involve David Bain in any way (as he has no memory of how the glasses came to be damaged or in his room); event must damage the glasses sufficiently to cause the lenses to come out of the frames; must result in a lens ending up on the floor of Stephen’s room; must result in the remaining pieces and glasses case ending up on David’s chair without him putting them there. Extra points if the explanation covers off the witness testimony having David wearing the glasses the day before the murders.”

    One piece at a time
    Robins socks had been through the wash

    Condition of glasses in Davids room, the following is a hypothesis only, totally unable to be proven.
    The glasses are broken during an argument involving Robin and Margaret the previous evening (David claimed to hear raised voices afterwards Margaret goes down to the bank to make an 11.30pm withdrawl), Robin takes the broken specs (can’t find the broken lens) and puts it in his pocket intending to get them fixed in the morning. Robin stresses over a sleepless night and decides he can’t carry on and to carry out his actions next morning. After collecting the gun to start the rampage he realises he has the broken glasses still in his pocket and replaces it with the spare magazine leaving the broken glasses on Davids chair

    They are not even Davids glasses and all you have is one testimony 5 years after the event that he was supposedly wearing them, The lens was ‘dusty’, the above scenario could also involve Robin taking the glasses previously broken at whatever date with the intention of taking them to the optometrist to get fixed in the morning before he decided to end it all. You’ve got nothing!
    Now your explanation for Davids socks remembering they didn’t go through the wash?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I see we are now going back to the ‘right’ place to put the magazine argument, ‘why’ ‘why’ ‘why’ the favourite argument of the bullcrappers.
    Glasses don’t change anything Muggins even if you produce a photo of DB wearing them the previous day, does not link them to the events same 0.000000% difference

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    “Kimbo I notice you are very difficult at avoiding (nearly all) or twisting (the remainder) all the questions provided, by either myself Kanz, Judith or Nos I answered all yours but the best you can do is twist what I say and spit it back at me LMAO”.

    Interpret it as that if you want, Rowan. However, the “answer my questions…” tactic is part of the “atomising of the evidence” strategy I’ve outlined earlier. Team Karam-Bain may have run it successfully to get an acquittal on the criterion of “beyond reasonable doubt”. However, now they have to prove on the balance of probabilities that in effect David Bain should never have been charged in the first place. Which leads back to the list of undisputed evidence I listed on at least 4 occasions now, and the cumulative effect. As the Prosecutor said at the first trial, “If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck…”

    I note that David Bain supporters have at times been trumpeting the contribution of Bob Jones (a man whose judgement I usually hold in high esteem, even though he has always had an anti-authoritarian-police bent to his views – which is his prerogative and good luck to him…)

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10845366

    However, if you actually analyse Jones’ clinching argument, which is: –

    “So why do I care about the Bain case and, on a different tack, always maintain an open-minded scepticism about guilt in criminal cases without very clear proof?

    The answer lies in something that happened nearly half a century ago when seemingly overwhelming evidence that any jury would have convicted on, had me guilty of arson. I won’t bore you with the details but the circumstantial evidence against me for six reasons was clear-cut.

    But having decided to arrest me, the officer in charge of the inquiry, as he subsequently told me, was instructed to first go through the motions of knocking on a few nearby doors in case he was asked by my lawyer whether he had done such checks. So he did, and by an incredible chance, an old fellow said he couldn’t sleep so at an early hour had gone out to see if his newspaper had arrived, and seen a bloke in the street.

    Down to the police station and shown a book of photos he immediately picked out the fellow he’d seen who, surprise, surprise, was an arsonist only just released from prison and who, when confronted, confessed.

    I sometimes reflect on how different my life would have been had it not been for that old chap’s insomnia.

    None of this means that everyone charged with crimes are innocent for in fact 99 per cent are not”.

    …Jones, a vehement and out-spoken supporter of the compo, has actually undermined David Bain’s claim that he has established his innocence on the basis of probabilities.

    And there you have it. An admission from someone who, has acknowledged he has been directly influenced by discussion with Joe Karam, that, actually, the case against David Bain is really very strong – just as a similar/analogous case was against Bob Jones many years ago.

    I can handle David Bain and Joe Karam working within the rules of the system (which heavily favoured David Bain in regards to “beyond reasonable doubt”) to gain an acquittal. Good luck to him, even though I think the verdict was wrong. But maybe, just maybe, a bizarre set of coincidences, as happened in the example Bob Jones gave conspired against David Bain. But the Bain/Karam/Jones argument does not apply when there is compo on the line.

    Avoiding your questions, Rowan?! It is not those who think that David Bain does not deserve compo who needs to answer them.
    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    He’s said nothing on the matter so far.

    How do you know what he’s said or hasn’t said? Bill Wright recently stated: “I can confirm that prior to the trial the Crown was informed by Mr Bain’s defence counsel that he would assert that the glasses in question were in fact his mother’s but would admit to using the same at the date of the murders. I did not regard defence counsel’s statement as a breach of privilege…Mr Bain’s evidence was different at the trial.”

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    I’m sorry, I’m having trouble making out exactly what your point is when you say:

    “One more yes/no fact
    Fact: There is no individual evidence primary or secondary that relates to the deaths of M, A & L Bain they can be killed by either David or ‘Daddy’”

    If you are asking me is that a “yes” or “no” on that statement, then my answer is “yes”,a nd then, a “no”.

    An individual piece of evidence that is “primary” that tells who killed the other 4 members of the family is not present. So “no”.

    But “yes”, there is secondary evidence, but what weight you place on the respective value of one secondary piece to another depends on the cumulative picture that you believe emerges from all of them.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (1,962) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    So far as Guest not getting his story right, well it was eighteen years after he had that conversation with Bain.
    So he told Wright before Bain took the stand that Bain had told him he would admit to wearing to wearing those glasses during the weekend immediatly prior to the murders instead of after Bain lied about them,so what.
    There was apparently some discussion after Bain lied about those glasses. There was some discussion between Guest and Wright. It is probably that discussion that Guest is remembering.
    And of course this isn’t the first time Karam has tried to discredit Guest. Bain denied having told Guest about the glasses they told Sir Justice Thorp, back in 2000. Karam and Withnall, Bain’s new lawyer, said that Guest was merely trying to stave off criticism of his competence as Bain’s lawyer, they alleged.
    Their argument did not impress Thorp. He pointed out that long before Guest revealed Bain’s acknowlegment of wearing the glasses to the PCA.the Crown Law office had recorded the surprise of the Crown prosecutor when Bain denied wearing those glasses in court. He had been briefed,the prosecutor told his colleagues,that Bain would admit to having worn those glasses the previous night ,and the prosecutor had been surprised when he heard Bain tell a different story when he was in the dock.

    You will note how Judith completely ignores the testimony of Janis Clark, which I posted earlier. Looks like I am going to have to post it again,in case she didn’t see it.

    Rowan, you seem to have missed reading this post.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You miss the point but hardly suprising given your idiocracy, The views of an incompetent disbarred lawyer also do not change anything. Have to do better than this!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Manolo (21,604 comments) says:

    Bain is innocent. Bain is guilty. End of discussion.
    Now, get a life.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (1,960) Says:

    Let’s take another look at the evidence against David Bain,starting with those glasses.
    I think I can now say that most people accept that David Bain was wearing the glasses that were found in his room at least up until he went to bed on the Sunday night. And Binnie appears to accept that as well.
    So the question now is how did those glasses come to be on a chair in his room in a damaged condition when the police arrived?
    It would appear that David Bain put them on that chair before he went to bed because the glasses case is also on that chair.
    That would mean that once he had watched that video,he put the glasses in their case and took them into his room and put them somewhere in his room,probably on that chair.
    When the police arrived the glasses were no longer in that case,so someone must have taken them out of it.
    Who could that someone be?
    Well I cant see it being one of the children and I don’t think it would be Margaret,so that only leaves Robin and David.
    Next question. If it was Robin why would he take those glasses out of the case? Was he, as Karam has suggested,trying to frame David by bending the frame a little,and removing the lens?. But why would he do that? How would that implicate David?
    Those broken glasses on their own were not going to implicate David.
    It is the missing lens that was found in Stephen’s room that implicates David.
    So we now have to assume that not only did Robin bend that frame,but he also took one lens and tossed it into Stephen’s room.
    I don’t know about anybody else but that seems a bit of a stretch to me.
    I honestly believe that David Bain took those glasses out of the case ,put them on, and was wearing them when he was in Stephen’s room.
    Now the proDavidbainers will say there was no evidence suggesting that the frame and one lens was in Stephen’s room .
    Where is the blood,they cry,where are the fingerprints, just the same as those who believe Robin Bain is innocent cry,where are the fingerprints on the rifle,where is the blood from any member of his family on him,where is the blood on his watch?
    The proDavidbainers also ask why did David bring those glasses back to his room,knowing they could implicate him in the murder of Stephen?
    Because I firmly believe David Bain is guilty I will try to answer those questions raised by his supporters.
    Re the blood. I believe it would have been quite possible that those glasses were “screwed” off David Bains head when his head was forced on to a piece of carpet that had no blood on it. I don’t know why his fingerprints were at the very least,not on that lens that was found beside the frame, but I guess if it is not unusual for fingerprints to absent from a murder weapon then that means that there is no reason why there should have been any on that lens. It has been suggested that David Bain could have wiped that lens,but I don’t think he did that because there was some dust on that lens,and that dust probably came fron the carpet in Stephen Bain’s room.
    A much harder question to answer is why did David Bain bring those glasses back to his room. Why did he not just put them back in his mother’s drawer,from whence they came? They were of no use to him in that damaged state. Neither lens could be fitted back into the frame.
    All I can suggest is that David Bain wasn’t thinking staight. Things hadn’t gone to plan. He would have had many things on his mind. I believe he went into Stephen’s room when he arrived home either before or after he shot his father depending on when his father came into the house. He saw the frame and one lens lying on the floor. The other lens may have been a bit further away and he just didn’t see it. So he picked up the frame and one lens and took them back to his room.
    Perhaps he thought the police woudn’t bother to look for that missing lens.

    Is this any better Rowan?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Rowan (562) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    Muggins
    You miss the point but hardly suprising given your idiocracy, The views of an incompetent disbarred lawyer also do not change anything. Have to do better than this!

    Rowan , don’t recognise the word idiocracy. Do you mean idiosyncrasy?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    First decent shake here in a decent while, short and sharp. Hadn’t been anything of note for quite a while!
    Muggins, speculation, bullcrap and again 0.000000% convincing (much like every single post you have contributed to kiwiblog)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (1,960) Says:

    Rowan,how many times do I have to tell you.
    David’s aunt was at the trial when David was on the stand. She heard him say that he hadn’t seen those glasses for over a year and she said to herself “That’s not what he told us”. She came forward in 1999 because she had heard that Milton Weir was going to sue Joe Karam for defamation re what he had said about that lens and she thought what she had heard David tell her might help him win his case.
    We know where Milton Weir found that lens.
    We know that it was actually where he pointed to in that photo,but that is not where he found it.
    The trouble with you,Rowan, is that everything goes in one ear and out the other because there is nothing in between to stop it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Barry Hart stands accused of very similar sounding charges to those Michael Guest faced, are you saying that he was incompetent too?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Robins socks had been through the wash

    Well, it’s a start. Now, stir that grey matter out of its lethargy once more and re-consider your question “Maybe you could explain why both of Davids socks showed luminesce yet only right sockprints were found?” in light of the above deduction that socks may be washed in a washing machine. Is the germ of a possible answer starting to form?

    The glasses are broken during an argument involving Robin and Margaret the previous evening (David claimed to hear raised voices afterwards Margaret goes down to the bank to make an 11.30pm withdrawl), Robin takes the broken specs (can’t find the broken lens) and puts it in his pocket intending to get them fixed in the morning. Robin stresses over a sleepless night and decides he can’t carry on and to carry out his actions next morning. After collecting the gun to start the rampage he realises he has the broken glasses still in his pocket and replaces it with the spare magazine leaving the broken glasses on Davids chair.

    You’ve failed the requirement for a plausible explanation of how the other lens came to be on Stephen’s floor. In coming up with a likelihood for the glasses having been damaged in the struggle with Stephen, it’s not enough to say “no proof” or “it’s simply unexplained” – you can’t assess the likelihood of the glasses being used in the murders without considering what the likelihood of the alternative is. And it’s not actually very easy to come up with a plausible innocent explanation for how the glasses came to be where they were found.

    They are not even Davids glasses and all you have etc

    All I have is a prosecution story that’s a lot more plausible than any alternative scenarios thus far presented, even without solid, corroborated testimony that David Bain admitted before his first trial that he was wearing the glasses the evening before the murders. But we aren’t without such testimony, it exists.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Chuck Bird (6,459 comments) says:

    I see David requested to put things on hold. If he is smart he will play the victim and drop the whole thing. However, for obvious reason he is not very smart.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Oliver Twist (101) Says:

    Rowan. Read my lips. You are not clever. You are not funny. You are not a wit. You are not even a half-wit.

    I asked about a spot of blood, not a spot of trouble.

    Rowan, please explain how a spot of Robin’s blood got onto Robin’s left index fingernail if he shot himself. Another member of your team has already stated it is impossible to use your right hand to pull the trigger. So, he must have used his left hand. As the blood hit with some force, how did it fall from his head and hit his hand?

    Now come on, man. Man up and answer the question. You can use smoke and mirrors if you need to.
    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Avoiding the questions Milt,
    Translation you have no answer suprise suprise. You cling to a prosecution story full of holes, did David use tweezers to take the broken glasses to the chair in his room and the lens back to Stephens room to get rid of any forensic material from them? Why? on earth would he do that? The ‘tweezers’ that were never found, also would need to explain how the lens came to be ‘dusty’ and how during the fight Stephen managed to bruise the right side of Davids face while breaking the left lens.
    Whether David did or didn’t use the glasses over the weekend or what arrangement Guest thought he did or didn’t have is irrelevant. Another 0.000000% you have progressed an extra 2 zeros well done!

    Muggins
    A bit rich coming from you! Pot/Kettle black! Beyond has a very good new piece just posted on his website, describes you very very well!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Well Collins has changed her tune appropriately, pity she had to be taken to Court before doing so. She may now be understanding what the words, she often uses’ ‘fair and proper’ actually mean. That’s a big step forward. Taking into account that Collins basically ignored David and his application all last year and charged on ahead leaving him out of the loop she must now realise that behaviour was wrong or else she wouldn’t have put the application on hold and may have even dismissed the application today.

    In the meantime the sisters are still reduced to spamming the boards and promoting one of two conflicting accounts Michael Guest made about glasses that bull crapper ross denied as being dismissed as irrelevant by the COA in 2003. Well, I guess that’s what they do, repeat irrelevancies, repeat other people’s posts and keep on bullcrapping – way to go! The sisters way!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Nothing like a bit of bullsh*te, eh Nosty

    taking lessons from the duck ?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Do you ever read what you post, Nostalgia ?

    reduced to spamming the boards, repeat irrelevancies, repeat other people’s posts and keep on bullcrapping

    Sounds like your fellow Baners and yourself … 🙂

    Do you believe you are the only one who is allowed to stalk people, harass non fairytale believers, out people and make outrageous lies ?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Truthiz said

    Do you believe you are the only one who is allowed to stalk people, harass non fairytale believers, out people and make outrageous lies ?

    That is definitely the domain of JFRB and it’s adherents. They guard it jealously.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Don’t believe thats case, Kanz, but I don’t regularly visit their sites, but I doubt any of them harass or stalk anyone, but if you got evidence then lets see.

    For this merry-go-round will spin for a while and there ain’t much use arguing about the evidence or even conduct of some individuals anymore.

    The easiest piece for me, is the absurd computer note, only David could believe what he wrote.

    But yeah, lets just deal to the compensation claim, and begrudgingly (for this lad) let Bain slip in to the woodwork, Joka is another story but unrelated to this thread and he will get what he deserves and it ain’t sainthood.

    🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    The gutless wonder continues.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “For this merry-go-round will spin for a while and there ain’t much use arguing about the evidence or even conduct of some individuals anymore”

    Translation, Truthiz doesn’t have any evidence or argument, never did and is just a gutless wonder spamming DPFs blog!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Reading your posts only reinforces to me the fact that you are a fruitcake, and that you are shooting your mouth of about something you know nothing about. If I had an impartial/undecided view on Davids guilt then all you are doing is convincing me the opposite of what you say, much like the two pieces of fiction on the Bain case written by McNeish and Judith Wolfe. Your not very convincing your lies are just that obvious!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Another 0.000000%…

    Gosh, I never saw that coming…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Must be your short nearsightedness miltie.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I see Milt is avoiding the questions
    Come on Milt you progressed an extra couple of zeros, You claim that you are not quite as convinced as some of the nutters here, yet your arguments for guilt are not very difficult, have a go at some of the evidence, I answered your challenge, I thought there was less to mine!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Time for a quick summary:

    The sisters are intoxicated with the thought of glasses not involved in the suicide/murders.
    They also drive(in circles) a strip search they claimed never happened.

    Apart from those minor details their latest hero, likely to save them from their insanity, has backed away from her own concept of ‘natural justice.’

    Beyond that, everything is fine and just peachy.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    I see Milt is avoiding the questions

    Any questions in particular? You’ll have to repeat them, I’m afraid – these threads fill too quickly with repetitive drivel, insults and accusations of lying to keep track of anything substantive. Re this one:

    Maybe you could explain why both of Davids socks showed luminesce yet only right sockprints were found?

    The presence of socks in the washing machine renders this a redundant question, don’t you think? Socks on David Bain that don’t match the bloody footprints are subject to the same explanation as socks on Robin Bain that don’t match the bloody footprints. If you’d like an answer beyond the obvious one, an alternative would be that the murderer’s right sock was heavily bloodstained enough to leave a print that was complete or near-complete, but even that sock apparently only left five prints behind. A less-stained left sock could well have left no prints but still luminesced when treated with luminol.

    My arguments for guilt may not be very difficult, but you couldn’t come up with a plausible account for the defence view of the glasses evidence. It’s not surprising. To understand why, consider this: suppose Dempster were to come out tomorrow and say that yes, Robin Bain had a bleeding nose before he was shot and it looks like he stanched the blood with the laundry towel. It would prove nothing, but you could very strongly infer from it that Robin Bain was the murderer. I’d probably find it very difficult to come up with a plausible explanation for it that didn’t involve Robin Bain murdering Stephen Bain. I might be tempted to spout stuff like “Nothing connects that bleeding nose to the murders!” or “The word of a proven incompetent liar like Dempster means nothing!” or “Why no blood drips between Stephen’s room or the laundry then?” or even “This has probability of 0.0000%!”, but it would be obvious to people reading the thread just how convincing those declarations weren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Well Collins has changed her tune appropriately, pity she had to be taken to Court before doing so. She may now be understanding what the words, she often uses’ ‘fair and proper’ actually mean.

    Well, that or she recognises a golden opportunity to disengage herself from this tar baby. Today’s announcement means Collins gets to put off a decision that will be unpopular either way, possibly until someone else is Minister of Justice. And she can put the blame for it squarely on Karam/Bain/Reed. She’s probably feeling quite chuffed this evening.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    (Rowan says) Translation, Truthiz doesn’t have any evidence or argument, never did and is just a gutless wonder spamming DPFs blog!

    Out of all of the baners you probably the stupidist of them all.

    (Nost says The gutless wonder continues.

    Well we know who the real gutless wonder iz don’t we, Brian.

    As well, you continue to create our own evidence and then ask others to disprove it, childish really and a man ? of your age should be able to work the realities of this situation, like I said previous, no point spinning around on your merry-go-round.

    ONLY David could have written and believed that computer note.

    That alone is the most obvious of the evidence. But spin on till your hearts content …..

    Like I have also said previously I don’t want to keep dragging up your appalling record or name, but some times a good sharp shock is appropriate.

    Me personally, I think you are just a bitter old man, resentful of the system.

    and surely by now you realise I ain’t no lover of the system, but you just gotta get over it dude or you will be eaten up and if you try to hard to be personal with me, maybe our stars will collide and we shall see … 🙂

    Like I said, I asked and no one cares, you KNOW what that means ….

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    At 19, Binnie opined:

    I am working essentially from the written record. I believe the written record, supplemented by the interviews, is ample to enable me to fulfil my mandate, but as will be seen, there are questions of credibility arising from conflicting accounts from witnesses I did not hear that I am not in a position to resolve. However, in my view it is unnecessary for me to resolve those credibility issues for the purposes of making my recommendation.

    That is incorrect. Binnie found David to be credible and believed whatever David told him. By implication, he disbelieved what other witnesses testified to.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    and surely by now you realise I ain’t no lover of the system, but you just gotta get over it dude or you will be eaten up and if you try to hard to be personal with me, maybe our stars will collide and we shall see …

    A big, tough girl behind a computer screen, huh? Too scared to come out from behind it though, meh, not worth bothering about.

    That is incorrect. Binnie found David to be credible and believed whatever David told him. By implication, he disbelieved what other witnesses testified to.

    Repeating something makes it no more true than the first time it was said. It was untrue then, it is still so.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Kanz

    “But, but, but if you will let me take you back to the discredited evidence, the obfuscation and downright lies told in the first trial, I can prove you wrong.

    Kimbo”

    Ahh, so you are reading my posts, Kanz.

    How’s it going on answering those questions I asked: –

    “So where is the compelling facts and explanation 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?”

    …and in relation to your assertion, “There was too much blood on the towel (in the laundry) to have been picked up from that scene to have then been transferred (by David) to the towel”.

    …I have asked now on at least five occasions: –

    “How “much” is “too much”?

    Exact/approximate AGREED amount, thank you very much”

    Oh, yes. And nothing I have quoted on many occasions from the first trial has been “discredited”, or is “downright lies”, let alone an agreement reached by all parties that they have been successfully rebutted.

    All of the following facts are undisputed by Team Karam Bain. It is just the conclusions that one draws from them that is disputed. And I note NO ONE in support of David Bain has yet answered the question about whether the following ACCUMULATION of coincidences is even likely on the balance of probabilities (so that is a third question for you, Kanz): –

    Robin Bain

    …committed murder/suicide using gloves

    …that belonged to David,

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

    …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 her being in the house,

    …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

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Not at all, Kanz, you may of wondered why he never pushes it further, but he knows his limits.

    Not that any of this, will get you pass Davids bizarre computer message …

    but feel free to spin around and around ….. 🙂

    like i have said a thousand times, Nostalgia is just a bitter old man and I don’t have any other problem with him or any of yah, but face the facts, your pathetic fairytale of what happened that morning is not even up to primary school detectives …

    So spin on the carousel, as much as you like, muggins will keep cranking it up as long as you want, 😉

    Me … I will wait till the decision and go from there …..

    🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    like i have said a thousand times, Nostalgia is just a bitter old man

    Strange thing to say, I have noticed no bitterness in his posts, but your earlier ones drip with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Real Evidence from the bullshitter
    ‘only David could have written and believed the computer note’
    Well thanks Truthiz I guess this decides the case once and for all BRD, now what is the ‘right’ way to leave a suicide note, it looks like you forgot to tell Daddy this, LMAO

    Milt
    The question was the one about the socks which you had a go at, You don’t have a credible explanation for the glasses either, the crown theory is full of holes and leaves more questions than answers. I don’t discredit Dr Dempsters evidence, there is nothing to suggest he lied or that his evidence was false, the incompetence and/or lies are reserved for Weir, Hentschell, Ngamoki and the worst case of all Kim Jones. There is a perfectly credible explanation for all your evidence against David, it is all consistent with him being the finder of his fathers actions. Robin on the other hand needs far more explaining, the lounge scene and the bloody footprints especially. Robin put a bullet in his own head because he couldn’t face the consequences, its a shame he didn’t just take his own life but had to take that of four of his family members first.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,827) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    Just a little predictions update.

    David would be found guilty.
    David would never apply for compensation.
    David would never be found innocent.
    David wouldn’t/couldn’t seek JR

    Going by that it might be more helpful to the sisters if they predicted what they didn’t want to happen – even if didn’t work it would sure look better that 4 zero.

    Muggins you shoud take note of this, the subtotal of all your predictions to date, Chuck might as well. Look you have failed in all everything to date!
    Hows the travel arrangements for North Korea going?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    The fact that I don’t like, the joka and his motives, sure don’t

    The fact that don’t I like that Bain executed his whole family, sure don’t

    the fact that most of the other baners are simply anti police, anti courts, or anti Collins, or just plain stupid, I really couldn’t care less.

    🙂

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    (Rowan says) Real Evidence from the bullshitter
    ‘only David could have written and believed the computer note’
    Well thanks Truthiz I guess this decides the case once and for all BRD, now what is the ‘right’ way to leave a suicide note, it looks like you forgot to tell Daddy this,

    Yeah, well it does sort out the case, very easily.

    I have not lied about anything in these threads and he is not my daddy, but if you need a father figure I am sure bubba can come round and sort oui your needs … 😉

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    No Truthiz
    You haven’t managed to post up any ‘facts’ either, just the ‘truthiz David posted blah blah blah’ unsupported assertations with no evidence at all! This the best you can do?
    Talk about a ‘pathetic fairytale of what happened that morning…’

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Truthiz
    To most with more than half a braincell, (this obviously excludes you and Muggins) is that there is more to this case than the “right’ way to write a suicide note, it seems you like a lot of the spinners come up with your own ‘how to commit mass murder and suicide’ manual and as Robin didn’t do it the ‘right’ way then David is somehow the default killer. It also helps that the lack of a proper investigation into suspect no1, helps you hide behind the ‘no evidence against daddy’ myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Not really anymore to it than that,

    Only David could have believed his computer message …

    .
    sorry if it disturbs you so much …

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    BTW where was the famous green jersey found?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Washed, shrunk, and wet in the washing machine. Cops then hung it out on the line to dry, as I understand it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    To muggin’s list, perhaps we could add
    RB changing his mind (from slaughtering all his family and getting away with it; so carefully hiding his tracks by eg wearing gloves) to committing suicide (and therefore not bothering to cover his tracks and writing a suicide note) at the time when it was least favourable to David (but then covering his tracks yet again by wiping down the keyboard? don’t get that).
    If he’d changed his mind before finishing off his daughter (either one) – then we would have had a witness as to the events of that night in the house.
    If he’d changed his mind a few minutes later (OMG? What have I done?) he would have already started the washing machine himself (and left fingerprints on the same). He’d have had a pee. We wouldn’t have been having this discussion.
    Bad luck for DB. he deserves compensation for being so unlucky, if for no other reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    I would like to see Michael Reed QC swear on oath that he believes David Bain to be factually innocent. That would be a spectacle to behold.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    I would like to see Michael Reed QC swear on oath that he believes David Bain to be factually innocent.

    No you wouldn’t, Dotcom of Ockham.
    Know it all’s hate to be shown to be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    tropicana (6) Says:

    February 5th, 2013 at 12:07 am
    Washed, shrunk, and wet in the washing machine. Cops then hung it out on the line to dry, as I understand it.

    Correct.
    And as we all now know his mother was very particular about hand-knitted jerseys, the family practice was for them to be hand-washed.
    And while David Bain was on remand he used to ask his aunt to take his jerseys home to be washed because he didn’t want them spoiled in the prison laundry.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    Rowan

    “Kimbo
    Bit late old girl,…BTW how high are you up in JFRB? Are you going to join Kent on that flight to NK, remember for the defamation suite in order to use Karams defence of ‘honest opinion’ you have to prove that your opinion is based on facts and that the facts are not materially different from the truth rather a large bridge to cross, wouldn’t it be easier to give up now”.

    Hmm. Well, seeing as you have my gender wrong, others can safely conclude the rest of your speculations are wrong (which, indeed, they are)

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Oh, so its Kent going to North Korea, thats one sorted but who are the commies and the tory referencers …

    Not sure on your legal skills there Rowan, but how can you prove your opinion is based on fact ?

    Anyone got the details of two bizarre Bain statements,

    1: The one where thinks he may have done it in a blackout or some such

    2: The core belief one

    are they both from the Binnie report and is the blackout one from way back and rehashed for binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    What people don’t realise about the green jersey, is that is was the one most ingenious parts of David’s planning to kill his family.

    For his whole life, Margaret had repeatedly told David that if woollen stuff was machine washed, it would be shrunk. And the fact of it, became one of the most ingenious parts of David’s plan to throw the dogs off the scent.

    Please don’t underestimate the importance of the MACHINE washing of the green jersey, ingenious in that it killed two flies in one stroke. Got rid of blood, and changed it from David’s size to Robin’s size.

    Brilliant David. If you finally get away with compensation it will be just reward for this utter stroke of genius. You should be bragging about it David. A few of us know how brilliant you are, but the world needs to know of your utter genius in this master stroke.

    Or were you just lucky again, David. You washed it simply to get rid of the blood, and the shrinking was an unintended stroke of luck?

    Another important point. David washed the green pullover at a time in the defence scenario scenario, he didn’t yet know that there were dead bodies. Think this through, team. If the defence fairy tale held water — in machine washing that green pullover, FOR NO REASON, David defied everything his mother had told him to do for years. Why did you wash the green sweater David?

    People want a smoking gun. If not smoking,this gun is at least still warm.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Kanz (931) Says: February 5th, 2013 at 8:07 am
    “I would like to see Michael Reed QC swear on oath that he believes David Bain to be factually innocent.”

    No you wouldn’t, Dotcom of Ockham.
    Know it all’s hate to be shown to be wrong.

    You are quite the opposite; you revel in being wrong. It’s a gift.

    Reed QC was on TV pleading solemnly and vigorously that we believe no one on the jury thought David Bain was anything but innocent, even for a moment.

    His show – and solidarity – rather spoilt by a real-life juror appearing to say the opposite. She had earlier tried to warn Binnie J. What’s the “official view” on that juror, by the way? Is she mistaken? Part of the conspiracy? Irrelevant? Mad?

    You haven’t forgotten about her, have you? I mean, even if she’s the only one – which I doubt – 1 in 12 is over 8%, not persuaded by the Warlocks.

    No wonder you’re so desperate to get the Binnie Report accepted, the man’s one in a million.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    The usual tripe, the usual spam. Current situation Innocent on the BOP, the handling of that decision under JR.

    Status: many recycled zero heroes plugging the ‘mountain’ of evidence rubbish, relevance zero, like the jersey, the glasses progress to date none. Prospects of progress in the future zero. Overall aspects that can never be overcome by a conclusion other than murder/suicide, the body of Robin Bain and attendant features, co-ordinated by a ‘live’ blood trail. Very straight forward, no need for anxiety, just clear unambiguous facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    are they both from the Binnie report and is the blackout one from way back and rehashed for binnie.

    David’s “core belief” comment was made during his interview with Melanie Reed which took place after the retrial. (“I kept coming back to my core belief – I wasn’t there.”)

    There’s also this:

    “I’ve done a lot of soul searching and wondering whether I did or didn’t do it in the blackout, but I know I did not do it…that only leaves my father”. So, David’s default position is it must be his father because he has no memory of committing the murders. That’s not a great explanation. I never have to soul search to ascertain if I murdered anyone, but that’s just me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0Mp9IM7-qE

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    It must be awful being David Bain, waking up each morning and wondering whether he murdered his family and tried to frame his father for the killings. Think of all the “soul searching” he has to do to convince himself he’s innocent.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Status.
    Binnie’s report has long been consigned to the rubbish binnie.
    A new report will probably be written, or the cabinet may refuse to pay compensation on the basis that the blood trail leads only to David Bain.
    Bain will just carry on with his life without receiving payment for killing his family.
    All very straightforward.
    Commonsense will prevail.
    The old saying ” Bullshit beats brains” will be disproved.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Thanks Ross

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    It must be awful being one of the sisters, their ‘evidence’ all destroyed, only solace spamming, repeats and speculation that doesn’t matter. Of course things will not be improving and those that began and continued persecuting have no escape from that which they have done out of hate and ignorance.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Belinda (142 comments) says:

    It must be awesome being Judith Collins. How lucky we are to have someone so strong to stand up against bullies.
    Whatever Judith Collins decides works for me.
    How silly do you have to be to liken her to Mugabe.
    You are my hero Judith.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Of course things will not be improving and those that began and continued persecuting have no escape from that which they have done out of hate and ignorance.

    Well thats you fkd.

    .

    But yeah in general it don’t matter about the trials and individuals anymore, its really only important now to sort the compo (denied hopefully) and then sort some of the leechs out later.

    The various will continue on the merry-go-round, but this laddie signs off tonight, at the end of the night.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    So JC blinked. What a surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    No-one, anywhere, any time, will instruct this Cabinet to swallow Binnie’s bilge.

    Hope Labour goes gooey-eyed and makes it an election issue. If you look at the case and think Robin shot himself you ought to be on a benefit. Sickness benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    I remember we use to have a ‘laddiefatcat’ now there’s another with the same disposition – lack of guts.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Nay, not LFC or Chin-up,

    but I did find it funny that he posted the song excerpt on CS, just before I did on here !

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Latest news.
    The Government has agreed to put David Bain’s compensation claim on ice pending his High Court challenge.
    Prime Minister John Key said yesterday that the Cabinet had granted the formal request because Mr Bain had asked for it. He said “In the end it’s his application. If he decides to want us to slow that process down then there is no particular reason why we wouldn’t agree to that.”
    Mr Key said whether Mr Bain received compensation or not was a matter solely for the Cabinet. Ms Collins had briefed ministers and remained comfortable with her actions and “rightfully so” he said.
    Justice Binnie’s report in August 2012 said Mr Bain should receive a payout and was innocent on the balance of probabilities.
    But Ms Collins said the report was flawed and ordered a peer review by Robert Fisher,QC, that backed her concerns.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Truthiz (179) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 11:27 am
    Of course things will not be improving and those that began and continued persecuting have no escape from that which they have done out of hate and ignorance.
    ———————————-

    So that’s your problem, you are full of hate and ignorant. If you don’t mind, can we add arrogant, spiteful and ‘dried up old bag’ to your list of other personal problems, as well? You are right though, you and your friends have no escape. It’s all documented, thanks to the stupidity of your ‘administrators’.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    So that’s your problem, you are full of hate and ignorant. If you don’t mind, can we add arrogant, spiteful and ‘dried up old bag’ to your list of other personal problems, as well? You are right though, you and your friends have no escape. It’s all documented, thanks to the stupidity of your ‘administrators’.

    You foolish little duck, quack, its Nostalgias post, quack quack.

    Dried old bag would relate to relation Nostalgia, i believe, me I’m beautifully conditioned for my age. 🙂

    No escape ….. from who ? Don’t you see the only ones flushed will be you …..

    My adminstrators ? ….. Don’t believe I have any and my posts anyway else, are of no concern to me … 🙂

    Quack

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,333) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    muggins says
    I understand the blanket Bain had covering him when he was placed in the ambulance was the blanket he was wearing when Dr Pryde examined him. It would have been no problem for him to keep his upper torso covered.
    Piece of cake.

    But his torso isn’t covered in the photo.

    Don’t you think if David went to such great lengths as you claim, to keep certain parts of his body hidden from Dr Pryde, especially as they weren’t ‘private’ parts, the good Dr would not have been suspicious?

    And why would he reveal his chest to the photographer, and not to Dr Pryde?

    And why hasn’t that photographer come forward and said he saw something, after all, he would have been called to give testimony regarding taking photos?

    The fact is, David Bain was naked.

    I think you are talking rubbish, there are no ‘police officers’ that you have phoned.

    Judith, you are lying again.
    There was no photo taken of David Bain’s torso.
    If there was a photo of his torso showing those scratches the prosecution would have shown it.
    If there was a photo of his torso showing that there were no scratches on it the defence would have shown it.
    David Bain would have not have to have gone to great lengths to keep his torso covered. All he would have had to have done is have that blanket draped around his neck which would have kept his torso covered. He could have even done it with a towel.
    I phoned four police officers . Three of them were in the room with David Bain. Two apparantly left before Dr Pryde carried out his examination. David Bain was never naked while they were in the room.
    The third police officer was standing in the doorway when Pryde carried out his examination and he reported to his senior officer that Bain was never naked and his senior officer advised me what that third police officer had told him.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    More crap, the idiot wants people to believe the police were protecting David and that they lied to the Court so that the Court would know there were no scratches on David’s chest and that therefore David was innocent – the same conclusion the Jury and Binnie reached. But who were the police officers that lied to the Court and why would they lie to protect David? I know why, so they could tell their little secret to an old lady with Alzheimers 16 years later. Way to go!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Say what?
    Who said police officers lied to the court? Lied to the court about what?
    Who is that old lady with Alzheimers?
    Methinks a certain poster has got his/her wires crossed. It must be a different case he/she is posting about.
    Dear oh dear. How sad . Never mind.
    In another few months it will all be over. David Bain will have had his compensation claim turned down and all will be well with the world.
    Apart from a couple of members of the Flat Earth Society.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Aye,

    seems the old man has blown a blood vessel … 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    So, back to that Melbourne Armourers Report, is it only assumed that it said that Robin did not/ could not have committed suicide or has someone read it, and was that all it contained?

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

    In another few months it will all be over. David Bain will have had his compensation claim turned down and all will be well with the world.

    Sure, in the same way, he would be found guilty, he would not dare apply for compensation (apparently he would not wish to answer questions, haha) he would not be found to be innocent by Binnie, nobody would be sued for defamation, the defamation cases would be thrown out of court at the first opportunity, the defamation cases would be a chance of re-litigating the murder case, he would not dare sue for his inheritance.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Doyle lied according to the idiot because Doyle gave evidence about the strip search, and the officer that doesn’t exist, except in the old fairy’s mind, failed in his duty to report material and direct evidence that no strip search took place, he was complicit in an act to Defeat the Course of Justice. All these people lied, including Pryde, everyone lied except the spam master fairy. This is not only defamatory to the police involved and who are clearly known, but also maybe an offence under another statutory Act of Parliament. What a supporter to have. This ‘person’ is on record as claiming to have spoken to Weir, Weir was a senior officer at the scene. This person claims all this ‘evidence’ was reported to a senior officer who has sat on it despite it’s clear importance. Is this person saying that it was Weir, or one of the other senior officers all whom are known, and all whom gave evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Sure, in the same way, he would be found guilty, he would not dare apply for compensation (apparently he would not wish to answer questions, haha) he would not be found to be innocent by Binnie, nobody would be sued for defamation, the defamation cases would be thrown out of court at the first opportunity, the defamation cases would be a chance of re-litigating the murder case, he would not dare sue for his inheritance.’

    Is that all you’ve got.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Seems to be all about money, or is that just my take on it.

    Money is the cause of much family strife.

    That sense of entitlement denied, so money taken by stealth or force.

    Judith Collin’s is the perfect Minister for this scenario.

    Either way it is a poisoned chalice but our Judith is made of stern stuff.:)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Interesting how all the likely proponents for the sisters become ‘our,’ then we they don’t do as expected they get stalked. The perils of dealing with mad hatters.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,832) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    More crap, the idiot wants people to believe the police were protecting David and that they lied to the Court so that the Court would know there were no scratches on David’s chest and that therefore David was innocent – the same conclusion the Jury and Binnie reached. But who were the police officers that lied to the Court and why would they lie to protect David? I know why, so they could tell their little secret to an old lady with Alzheimers 16 years later. Way to go!

    well that old lady with Alzheimers must have forgotten how she told us she had been given the information by the police man, but how it was confidential. Then the same old lady later tried to tell us how ‘she’ had to apply to the policeman’s boss before she was given the information (by the boss), after it was pointed out to her that there were ‘rules’.

    I was confused. The nice wee man at the Police Commissioners office tried to help me, (that is where all requests for OIA on police matters have to go) but he said he couldn’t provide a copy of something that doesn’t exist, apparently.

    What do you reckon Nostalgia, perhaps it got lost in the post?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (932) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
    ———————

    you forgot one – how that Binnie fellow was an ‘on to it judge’ who would get to the truth of the matter, and come back with a recommendation of no compensation. If not KP et al would all fly off to North Korea.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (231) Says:
    Feb up ruary 5th, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    So, back to that Melbourne Armourers Report, is it only assumed that it said that Robin did not/ could not have committed suicide or has someone read it, and was that all it contained?

    Both Legal teams have the report the problem was it was up lifted by a police officer sent to pick Crown tests was told by the lab the report was there and it had not been paid for.The police officer returned with it foolishly and it mean the report was “fruit from the poisoned tree” and not usable by the crown.and as it had been requested by the defence they could ignore it. Had the police officer not bought it back then it would have been given to both sides. Defense Disclosure is only needed for Alibi evidence and Expert evidence, I’m would not know if it’s been paid for yet but I guess the LAS would have wanted the receipt when closing the File.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    If not KP et al would all fly off to North Korea.

    I thought it was only WR from Foxton and MS from Palmerston North who were going there. Well Binnie recommended paying compensation, why are they still here? Could it be that they are both too slimy, dishonest, self interested, corrupt pedo loving snakes in the grass even for North Korea?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Hey, it is a great example of give it a go, you have nothing to lose. Some might think that only an innocent man would put himself through that. As a strategy that has worked. Sometimes you end up living the lie.

    Others buy into the, onus of proof is on the crown, prove it.

    I would have normally considered myself to be someone on the side of the ‘underdog’.

    If a practising lawyer, I would have thought that I would be a defence lawyer not a prosecutor.

    This case, these circumstances, have completely rewritten some of my precepts.

    IMO this case has no logical defence. I appreciate that everyone is entitled to a defence.

    I appreciate that the defence lawyers are just doing their job, to the best of their ability.

    They clearly are very able, but I do not think some people should get off, even if they can

    For me this is one of those cases. Time served end of story.

    A case such as this, with the evidence as I see it, imo is indefensible.

    Hence why they have had to get creative. How much evidence is needed to convict a person.

    Let us all see the Melbourne Armourers report, in the spirit of open information, to be available to all.

    Let what is required of one to be required of all.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Hey, murderers don’t even get sent to Coventry here.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    ONLY David could have believed the note he wrote on the computer.

    🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    well that old lady with Alzheimers must have forgotten how she told us she had been given the information by the police man, but how it was confidential. Then the same old lady later tried to tell us how ‘she’ had to apply to the policeman’s boss before she was given the information (by the boss), after it was pointed out to her that there were ‘rules’.

    I was confused. The nice wee man at the Police Commissioners office tried to help me, (that is where all requests for OIA on police matters have to go) but he said he couldn’t provide a copy of something that doesn’t exist, apparently.

    What do you reckon Nostalgia, perhaps it got lost in the post? ‘

    The old lady’s brain? Possible, it might have got swamped by the stamp. She probably had to send it to Wellington because they couldn’t understand how anybody with a brain would ask for something that didn’t exist – and that’s when the trouble started. If the police Commissioner’s office ask if you actually have a brain, the trick is not to send it, but rather send a 100x magnification picture and not the ‘real’ thing because it could get lost under the stamp. Bird brains these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    I know the word is a little objectionable but if I could just say.

    ‘LLB? LOL’

    That’s what the certificate read.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Have been doing some quick research on the Bayes’ Theorem there is a good list that shows what one needs to use to come to the truth, it shows me why the JFRB group will never be able to use either basic logic or Baye’s Theorem to come to the truth. It also explains why the police went so very wrong in this case. Below is that list.

    Be honest
    Respect the evidence (whether you like it or not)
    Acknowledge our fallibility
    Don’t become devoted to an idea
    Understand Bayes’ Theorem

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Do you have a certificate? Other than a birth certificat that is.
    A little objectionable? lol
    You are far more than that!!!
    As for words that are an apt descriptor, I would be struck off. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Dotcom of Ockham @ 9.43

    “No wonder you’re so desperate to get the Binnie Report accepted, the man’s one in a million”
    How many thought Bain should be paid out in the herald poll, wasn’t it 74%, The ‘justice for Daddy’ witchhunt needs to use the trademe ones set up so they can multivote, much like there petition, can only achieve 3000 odd votes by voting multiple times. Less than 1% of the population LMAO!!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi
    “A case such as this, with the evidence as I see it, imo is indefensible”
    Don’t make me laugh you have absolutely nothing proven to any sort of standard. The defence version has NEVER markedly changed. the crown case has multiple times, evidence doesn’t actually change just the crown conspiracies, You have no explanation for the blood trail in the lounge, no evidence why Daddy ‘couldn’t’ suicide and no explanation for how he could have been murdered. You just desperately cling to discredited arguments in a lame effort to protect the reputation of your idol!
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz @ 4.51
    ‘I thought it was only WR from Foxton and MS from Palmerston North who were going there.’
    Well what is MS still doing posting his used toilet paper and spam here, does this just show that he is a dishonest, self serving piece of crap who has his head stuck far to close to his arse, and his sick mind away with the goats!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Idol, if anyone can be accused of idolatry it is you not me.
    Robin did not commit suicide, it would appear that the Melbourne Armourers report concurred with that opinion
    That is why there was that farce of a demonstration’ at the second trial.

    If you were so sure of your evidence and your stance you would not continually have to resort to argumentum ad hominem.

    You and your ilk stoop so low that you accuse individuals of paedophilia.

    If you have the proof of that, produce it.

    No matter what the provocation, I do not recall any of the Banes, being accused of that.

    That is the lowest of the low, and imo that evidences your desperation.

    You are right about one thing though, who ever committed the murders should have had the decency to commit suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    You and your ilk stoop so low that you accuse individuals of paedophilia.

    People can accuse you of stupidity, we don’t need to provide proof, you do it daily.
    I never accused anybody except the old dead man of pedophilia, the rest are pedo lovers, as in they know the old man was one, but wish to excuse it.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Sounds like someone else. You got a split personality or just need someone to agree with you so have two nom de plumes. Tell us the truth now!!!! 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi
    ‘Robin did not commit suicide, it would appear that the Melbourne Armourers report concurred with that opinion That is why there was that farce of a demonstration’ at the second trial’

    Blah blah blah
    Farce of a sucide demonstration, nice try Dempster agreed it was perfectly feasible and required no contortions, refer to my previous post about Dempsters concessions
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/hope_legal_aid_isnt_funding_this.html#comment-1090510
    The crown were obviously so concerned about the truth of there own expert that they had to bring in two other ‘experts’ to dispute his findings LMAO
    And why did they stay well clear of that lounge scene BECAUSE THEY HAD NO EXPLANATION FOR DADDYS ‘MURDER’
    really this the best you can do!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Their!!! Well it would seem to me that if there had been any equivocation in that report it would have been trotted out.

    Suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Well it would seem to me that if there had been any equivocation in that report it would have been trotted out.

    Can I give you some advice?
    Learn the meanings of the big words before you try using them to appear smart. Right now you are confirming the belief in your stupidity.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    😉 What advice? Shoot first and ask questions after?
    Perhaps your alter ego has an opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,835) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    Doyle lied according to the idiot because Doyle gave evidence about the strip search, and the officer that doesn’t exist, except in the old fairy’s mind, failed in his duty to report material and direct evidence that no strip search took place, he was complicit in an act to Defeat the Course of Justice. All these people lied, including Pryde, everyone lied except the spam master fairy.

    AS I understand it DSS Doyle was never in the Doctors Surgery and was not in the room during the Examination of Mr Bain and the transcript seems to show the cross examination was more about what is meant to be done when a suspect in a serious Crime is taken into custody or detained. Again Justice Binnie gives the Detective Manual more credence that it deserves in that it was simply a guide as to serious crime scenes were governed and what might be needed exactly the same manual was used during the investigation of the 13 deaths in the Aromoana Massacre and the Thomson Hit killing Three totally different killings same manual used.

    I’m confused as to why the three police officers who were with Mr Bain while the examination was done or very close by were never asked these questions. It is a given that no Lawyer in leading or cross examination will ask a question with out knowing the answer he expects Dr Pride was never asked at the first trial whether the examination to place. It is my thought that some has got a copy of the manual and read it and guidelines to the various tasks involved in the investigation of crimes just as Justice Binnie did. The Justice was instructed to seek guidance from various Agencies, it appears he didn’t and so read to much into various task outlines treating them as set in concrete instructions.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    …a good list that shows what one needs to use to come to the truth, it shows me why the JFRB group will never be able to use either basic logic or Baye’s Theorem to come to the truth. It also explains why the police went so very wrong in this case. Below is that list.

    Be honest
    Respect the evidence (whether you like it or not)
    Acknowledge our fallibility
    Don’t become devoted to an idea
    Understand Bayes’ Theorem

    Am currently hoping that there’s no such thing as a fatal dose of irony…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,150) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    That is why I am still researching and learning. The thing here is, the more I find the more certain of Bain’s innocence the evidence proves to be.

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

    That is why I am still researching and learning. The thing here is, the more I find the more certain of Bain’s innocence the evidence proves to be.

    I should rephrase that and say the higher the probability of his innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    “Binnie didn’t just put it ‘all’ on the luminol footprints there were a number of secondary issues…”

    No, Rowan, and I didn’t say he did, and I didn’t say such a piece of evidence existed. You did, or at least you implied it when you wrote, ““whats one piece of evidence that actually stands up against David?””.

    Now, as you confirm by the use of the phrase, “secondary issues”, Binnie made the luminol the KEY piece of evidence around which to judge, and assess, and weigh all others.

    What was your point again? You really must work on your shell-game skills

    End of Quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    “Shall I go over the idiocracy of some of your speculation”

    No, no. Rowan. What I stated was fact. Each and every one pretty much undisputed. How you interpret that (as you have done) is “speculation”.

    No, Rowan. The “black hands coming to get me” is not evidence of “total guilt”. You are engaging in a straw man argument, trying a variation on the “one piece of evidence/no one piece of evidence…” strategy. Of itself, in addition to the “premonitions of doom” it is very unusual, and highly coincidental, but possible, just possible. But put it together with the other coincidences and “unusual” and “coincidental” changes to “impossible on the balance of probabilities”. If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck…”

    Which is yet another of the Team Karam/Bain strategies.

    Dispute every fact tenaciously, atomise them from the whole effect, to distract from the cumulative effect of all of them together, which is where the case against David Bain really lies.

    As Stead skillfully argued. Judith’s argument “he doesn’t know the details like Karam” reinforces the same distraction.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    ‘Doyle lied according to the idiot because Doyle gave evidence about the strip search, and the officer that doesn’t exist, except in the old fairy’s mind, failed in his duty to report material and direct evidence that no strip search took place, he was complicit in an act to Defeat the Course of Justice. All these people lied, including Pryde, everyone lied except the spam master fairy. This is not only defamatory to the police involved and who are clearly known, but also maybe an offence under another statutory Act of Parliament. What a supporter to have. This ‘person’ is on record as claiming to have spoken to Weir, Weir was a senior officer at the scene. This person claims all this ‘evidence’ was reported to a senior officer who has sat on it despite it’s clear importance. Is this person saying that it was Weir, or one of the other senior officers all whom are known, and all whom gave evidence?’

    So was Doyle lying or was it Aunt Fanny?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    “I MUST NOT PASS OF MY SPECULATIVE BS AS FACT”

    So which of the items I have listed in my post of January 10th, 2013 at 3:09 pm is speculation.

    I’ll repeat them aagin, with editing to make it simpler, so I’ve removed editorial comment –

    Robin used gloves

    …that weren’t his own, but which belonged to David

    …and even though he was right-handed shot himself with his left hand

    …without removing the silencer, thus increasing the chances of botching the job

    …the spent cartridge went through a he small gap in the curtains and into the computer alcove.

    …David inadvertently picks up some of the blood from family

    …none of which was found on Robin,

    …there is a palm print of David’s on the washing machine which may well have been blood

    …which we know David touched because he turned it on

    …which, if he hadn’t, may have preserved evidence that could have helped identify the murderer

    …there has been an obvious struggle in Stephen’s room

    …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,

    …which would have given 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 according to the testimony of others (i.e., evidence!) David sought her out and insisted she be there for the family meeting

    ….a meeting that David doesn’t attend, but 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 coincidental with his stated “premonitions of doom” he has speaking about to friends over the last few weeks.

    …after lapsing into a state of incredible passivity, David Bain suddenly comes alive,

    …and makes detailed, meticulous, and carefully-thought out plans for the funerals, and insists in a forceful 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.

    What here isn’t “fact”, Rowan?!

    End of Quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    To use the correct title was Doyle lying or was it old Aunt Fanny Bottom?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Kimbo had no answer to any of the questions directed his way either, he used your ‘spin’ tactic by twisting the other argument and posting it back, Maybe you got the idea that it is neccessary to repost your used toilet paper from Kimbo? again you have no originality or any of your own arguments, sad really. Again you are just emphasizing what a deluded twit you are, Kimbo only fell over when he was asked the difficult questions and had to resort to spamming the blog by reposting his ‘spun out’ bs which had already been answered.
    THis the best you can do!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Not only did Doyle not know whether a strip-search was carried out or not,[and how could he know because he wasn’t even in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain] but he also didn’t know when Pryde examined Bain. He thought it was in the afternoon, when in fact that examination was in the morning.
    Do not pass go.
    Three police officers were in the room when Dr Pryde was in the room with David Bain. Two of them left the room for a few minutes. Both of them said Bain was never naked when they were in the room.
    The third police officer was standing in a doorway when Dr Pryde examined David Bain. He said Bain was never naked.
    So it will be his word against David Bain’s word.
    Do not collect $200.

    Rowan ,please note. This is not a copy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Nasty, nasty playing the man not the ball. You do know what the ball is, don’t you? Ad hominem. 😉

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

    The evidence all points to David Bain having executed his whole family.

    One thing that is glaringly obvious in this thread is the use of insults, name calling and downright abuse coming from the David Bain camp against anyone who disagrees with them. Do you all think that if you throw enough abuse about, it will blind people to the fact that you are all barking up the wrong tree??

    Karam’s mantra is summed up beautifully below.

    Kanz (936) Says:
    February 4th, 2013 at 9:29 pm
    Repeating something makes it no more true than the first time it was said. It was untrue then, it is still so.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi
    What the melbourne armourer says or doesn’t say is irrelevant, talk about shopping around for opinions that fit your theories. Heres the concessions Dempster made again in the retrial based on Bill Wrights plank that “No evidence that Daddy committed suicide”. This is from the key crown witness that actuallly did the autopsy not what some victorian armourer did or didn’t say about the matter. No wonder Bates, Raftery et al had to bring in other experts to try and discredit his evidence!

    • 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.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins STFU
    Go directly to North Korea, do not pass go and they may take the $200 of you at the border. I wonder do they have goats there, will they let you fantasise over them?
    Yes I’m ‘sure’ he is going to dispute the strip search, actually Doyle et al had every opportunity to deny it occured. They didn’t, the only one with the ridiculous ‘no strip search conspiracy’ is you, so I guess it is your word against Davids!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    I rest my case.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    I’ve read the Appeal Court Judgement on the ‘poisoned tree’ evidence about 3 years ago and it’s suffice to say the sisters version, as always, is very hopeful.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Rowan (578) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 8:07 pm
    Muggins STFU

    Yes I’m ‘sure’ he is going to dispute the strip search, actually Doyle et al had every opportunity to deny it occured. They didn’t, the only one with the ridiculous ‘no strip search conspiracy’ is you, so I guess it is your word against Davids!

    Rowan
    Can you deny or confirm if David Bain was strip-searched or not? Of course you can’t,because you were not in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain.
    Can Doyle deny or confirm whether Bain was strip- searched or not? Of course he can’t because he was not in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain.
    Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
    Btw, we have all been repeating ourselves for over a month. I am just quoting some of the best posts made during that time. None of yours qualify. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    January 10th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
    …will you kindly stop playing semantic games. For example: –

    “…and even though he was right-handed shot himself with his left hand”
    “Left temple not left hand, where is the ‘right’ way to shoot yourself”

    …overlooking the fact it is more difficult.

    “…without removing the silencer, thus increasing the chances of botching the job”
    “What, I guess old man Bain decided he was going to shot himself but it was to hard to top himself with the silencer therefore he ‘can’t have’”

    “…none of which (blood from the family) was found on Robin”,
    “factually incorrect, none of which was collected or sampled”

    “Found” means “found”. Yes, I am aware that Bain’s supporters argue there would have been if the cops had supposedly done there job right. That is still an argument from silence. It is a FACT (not speculation) that no blood from the family was FOUND on Robin.

    Didn’t say he can’t have, but as per above, it certainly makes it more difficult.

    “…there has been an obvious struggle in Stephen’s room,
    and ?

    …there is no sign of injury/bruising on Robin,
    again factually incorrect they tried to fob it of as ‘guttering injuries’ how about Dempsters photo of the bruising less than 12 hours old, I suppose he must have been doing that guttering pretty late

    …but there is on David,

    entirely explainable by bumping into a door collapsing in the presence of const Andrew”

    Overlooking the fact that supposed disputed injuries on Robin are significant, whereas injuries on David are “entirely explainable” by other reasons.

    “…this despite hearing Laniet gurgling, that doesn’t prompt him to suspect she may still be alive, and attempt to investigate/resuscitate/do something!
    Again speculation he rang 111 what ‘time’ did he hear this”

    No, according to David, he did not check Laniet, despite hearing gurgling. I’m making no point, and I’m not interpreting anything on this point other than he heard her gurgling, he said he had not checked her room, and he did not check when he heard the gurgling (at whatever time it was!)

    “Funny she Laniet went home with the intention of spilling all about the relationship with ‘daddy’ funny next morning she has 3 bullets in her head”

    OK, and who’s speculating now?! At least there were witnesses regarding David’s role in getting Laniet back at the house. I’m aware of what Cottle said, but where is the evidence, even from him, she came back that Sunday for that purpose?!

    And, yes, you are right. David’s actions are explainable as PTSD. However, experts in the matter who were there testified he was faking it. This far the only rebuttal you have given is “they were Crown witnesses”! And?! Of course they were Crown witnesses – they were giving evidence hostile to David Bain – as they were allowed. And thus far you’ve given no reason why there testimony is invalid, or even biased. What possible axe to grind did they have?!

    Or is that how it works. Any and every witness and/or expert who gives evidence against David Bain is suspect because….they give evidence against David Bain?!

    You need to take a step back, Rowan, get your paranoia under control, and get a grip, because I can’t see how you are doing David any favours.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Aunt FB wants incontestable evidence contested, even though the Crown never did. That’s what you need to be if you want to become a sister, absolutely insane. FB has it covered in spades. The nutters are abroad.

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

    Rowan (578) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 8:07 pm
    Yes I’m ‘sure’ he is going to dispute the strip search, actually Doyle et al had every opportunity to deny it occured. They didn’t, the only one with the ridiculous ‘no strip search conspiracy’ is you, so I guess it is your word against Davids!

    ———————–

    Not even the ‘phone’ friends support ‘the old lady’.

    The strip search was an issue in the second trial because of its significance to the scratches, but the Police could not find any one who had ‘seen’ the examination and were able to swear there had not been a strip search. They were left to accept Dr Pryde’s declaration that he had undertaken it as per the usual procedure and with the evidence that supported it.

    In the last 18 years, if there had been just one police employee that could have provided evidence, he/she would have been produced well before now. The ‘old lady’ is a prevaricator who has depth, but only on the surface. Deep down inside, she is shallow.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    Rowan, spare me. I have no interest whatsoever in debating with you.

    You are a complete and utter idiot, and should you choose to take up an exchange with me, you will get this same reminder and nothing more. There are certain pro-Davids I actually relish the debate with, no matter how much I disagree with them. You on the other hand, are without doubt, the most intellectually disadvantaged person that ever managed to get past the level of knowing how to turn on a computer, let alone knowing what the black things on the keyboard are.

    Rowan, you are utterly imbecilic. Keep it up, you are currently the pro-Robins’ best weapon.

    Vote: 0 0

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    I am puzzled by one of the Morlocks. He/she/it keeps referring to pedo lovers. What does he/she/it mean? Does this tunnel-dwelling lump of primitive disorganised protoplasm confuse paedophilia with incest? I guess so. What else does he/she/it confuse? Short answer: Everything.

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest? Confirm the judgement by the judge in the first trial that the witness was unreliable? That is, not easy to believe? Of course the Morlocks swallow anything. Filth goes down a treat. Ughh!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Yes Muggins
    You are spamming the blog with Kimbos discredited used toilet paper congratulations. ‘The best posts’ blah blah blah!
    Actually you don’t know either, the evidence of Dr Pryde from 1995 states it was done, he even took swabs from Davids penis! (i suppose under the blanket!) this was backed up by the other officers in 2009 as Dr Pryde was dead, you are just a fool and are making yourself look stupid by the supposed ‘phone calls’ to various witnesses, even if you did, Kanz has stated that he knows someone who is very angry with you for misrepresenting what they told you of the record so why would you tell the truth here. As noone has denied that the Strip search occured I guess it is down to your word against David, and why would they ask for an ex used car bumboy opinion? One look on here would tell them everything they need to know about you.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    I was about to say @ 8.04 that that wasn’t so hard now was it. Then 8.07 you obviously couldn’t help yourelf. Have you no self
    control?

    So at 8.04 you could not say anything definitively and neither can experts say anything 100% there are exceptions to every rule. That is the ‘doubt’ that gets exploited. The same witness does not get asked how likely or are allowed to elaborate, they are only allowed to answer the question as and how it was put to them.

    If on cross examination they are not asked to qualify the answers given the opportunity is lost.

    It is wrong with hind sight now to state that because a witness did not say something that they did not have it in mind so to do.

    If they had been asked they may well have. Note the word ‘may’, because I cannot be sure that would be the case, but it is more than likely.

    See I made a concession just like the witnesses did.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    udith (1,336) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 8:34 pm

    ———————–

    The strip search was an issue in the second trial because of its significance to the scratches, but the Police could not find any one who had ‘seen’ the examination and were able to swear there had not been a strip search. They were left to accept Dr Pryde’s declaration that he had undertaken it as per the usual procedure and with the evidence that supported it.

    In the last 18 years, if there had been just one police employee that could have provided evidence, he/she would have been produced well before now.

    The point I have been trying to make, but which seems to have eluded you, is that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked when he was examined by Dr Pryde.
    The police officer who was standing in a doorway says that Bain was never naked.
    So it will be his word against David Bain’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (1,986) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

    Rowan, spare me. I have no interest whatsoever in debating with you.

    You are a complete and utter idiot, and should you choose to take up an exchange with me, you will get this same reminder and nothing more. There are certain pro-Davids I actually relish the debate with, no matter how much I disagree with them. You on the other hand, are without doubt, the most intellectually disadvantaged person that ever managed to get past the level of knowing how to turn on a computer, let alone knowing what the black things on the keyboard are.

    Rowan, you are utterly imbecilic. Keep it up, you are currently the pro-Robins’ best weapon.

    Rowan, this post was by Dotcom, not Kimbo.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (579) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    ———-

    It’s pointless trying to get it through to him. He is too stupid to work out that clothes are worn ‘on’ the body. Without them you are classified as naked, regardless of whether there is a blanket or not.

    na·ked
    /ˈnākid/
    Adjective
    (of a person or part of the body) Without clothes.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    See over there, Will-less Bollocks of Ockamcom is preparing for another anal moment. Hold your noses chaps only the sisters can put up with such smells and atrocities of English. Even an LLB LOL wouldn’t be expected to able to withstand such horror.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Did you have a favourite brand of soap? Or didn’t it matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    ‘The police officer who was standing in a doorway says that Bain was never naked.
    So it will be his word against David Bain’s.’

    No, it’s the word of the evidence against you. No police officer has put their name to your ridiculous claim. In 10,000 pages of evidence, rulings and reports no person has said what you say and there are thousands who have been involved, not one of them comes to your defence because you are a liar and they don’t support your lies. Too simple to understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    One mention of the word ‘anal’ and LLB LOL arrives, what a big, fat, wide coincidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ. Stick it, you pathetic excuse for a human. What do get out of this? This charade. Even the experts you call tell you it wasn’t suicide. What do you do? Look for someone else to tell your lies for you? Not a shred of evidence Robin went through that palaver to shoot himself. Yeah, someone could, we saw that. But not a shred of proof anyone did.

    This is not a who-dunnit. It’s blindingly obvious. Poor David. Fancy forgetting such a drama in your life. But how convenient…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Willie dotbot, you’re so funny.
    If you ever get naked don’t forget to take your blanket off.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,844) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
    ‘The police officer who was standing in a doorway says that Bain was never naked.
    So it will be his word against David Bain’s.’

    No, it’s the word of the evidence against you. No police officer has put their name to your ridiculous claim. In 10,000 pages of evidence, rulings and reports no person has said what you say and there are thousands who have been involved, not one of them comes to your defence because you are a liar and they don’t support your lies. Too simple to understand.

    It is too simple for him to understand? If he was any more stupid he would photosynthesise in sunlight.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Well stop mentioning it, I see you more as a ‘taker’ than a ‘giver’ though. My eyes, my eyes lol
    It seems very sad that it has come down to semantics.
    Perhaps when a witness is asked for their opinion they could be given a dictionary definition to see if that is what they are agreeing to.
    Or they could be asked what their understanding of a word ie naked is?

    Perhaps you should just talk about rebuttals?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ. A truly withering response. Oh, sorry, you were being complimentary, my being funny. Thanks. We’ll have the last laugh too. Say, why not a change of occupation for your man, the gold digger? What say, grave digger?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    “If he was any more stupid he would photosynthesise in sunlight.”

    Unlike you, Judith, The Mushroom, you stay in the dark and feed on bull manure.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    But if in fact you are a LLB LOL, please, please – please please please, leave your blanket on.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

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

    But if in fact you are a LLB LOL, please, please – please please please, leave your blanket on.

    Too late,
    DON’T LOOK ETHEL…..

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Ethel, is that your daughter, the one your wife is worried about, you piece of filth?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Looks like the latest ‘Daddy didn’t do it’ piece of trash can give us the explanation that Kieran Raftery couldn’t give the jury on how Robin was ‘murdered’, remember Raftery stayed well away from that lounge, I wonder why!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Ockie from wissstockie, can you please try not to be mentally overwhelmed after just 13 posts. Apart from that – you get an Z – minus. You should be proud of that, no other brainless moron has managed the similar status of being the biggest brainless moron except one – Aunt Fanny Blanket.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Stayed away from the lounge? Very wise. A bad man jumps out from behind the curtains and shoots people in that lounge. We’ve seen the body in the photo. Has David – who “doesn’t know the evidence” – seen that photo? Or isn’t he allowed to look at the evidence in case it jogs his memory? Is it a bad memory? Hmm, I wonder.

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

    William of Ockham (13) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 9:41 pm

    Ethel, is that your daughter, the one your wife is worried about, you piece of filth?

    We are both worried about her. She is a fine young lady and we know we need to protect her from the likes of you and your mates.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ. Ooh! And here’s me thinking it’s time someone changed your battery. But no need, I can just wind you up. BOOF!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Looks like the latest ‘Daddy didn’t do it’ piece of trash can give us the explanation that Kieran Raftery couldn’t give the jury on how Robin was ‘murdered’, remember Raftery stayed well away from that lounge, I wonder why!

    Because it tells a story that he would rather wasn’t heard or seen.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    ” … we know we need to protect her from the likes of you and your mates.”

    Yeah, right.

    It’s your friends you need to watch, you silly fart.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Yes David ‘hid’ behind the curtains yet on the crown concession it was more likely that Robin turned on the computer before David got home. I suppose you will have us believe that David had two go’s while on his knees to get the upward trajectory! changing the magazine after the rifle jammed, all while Daddy stood there with his right leg raised on the chair (to account for the blood splatter in two directions) waiting for him! He then according to prof Ferris ‘shook’ the dead body to account for the blood splatter on the curtains. The scenario that you would have us believe gets a z minus! Only one person was in the lounge when Robin died. The chance of the wound not being self inflicted are not much more than 0!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    It’s your friends you need to watch, you silly fart.

    None of my friends would ever make excuses for a dirty old man who interfered with his daughters from the time they were prepubescent. Those are the ones we warn her about.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    *****
    .

    ONLY David could believe what he wrote on the computer …

    *****

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Oh, I see, you piece of imitation dog shit, you’d rather trust a man who shags goats?

    Be off with you, you hairy-arsed blow fly. Buzz off. Off.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Don’t children need to be warned about the likelihood of being murdered in their beds. Not that that would have saved the Bain children/teenagers.

    If only they had known you then, they might have been saved.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Who would have ever thought it, ockie and truthie getting jealous of one another.
    The poor, poor sisters. It’s summer and they could go twisting by the pool, hiding their great naked posteriors behind a dozen or more horse blankets stitched together.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Looks like Muggins has a serious challenger for the biggest bullcraper on kiwiblog! Come on Dotcom of Ockham, can you beat Muggins most important pieces of evidence for guilt BRD, being the correct spelling of Davids dogs name, the explanations of his tattoo, the ‘goat’ and the strip search!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Who would have ever thought it, ockie and truthie getting jealous of one another.

    That’s what happens when nursey forgets to medicate them.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (243) Says: February 5th, 2013 at 10:19 pm
    Don’t children need to be warned about the likelihood of being murdered in their beds. Not that that would have saved the Bain children/teenagers. If only they had known you then, they might have been saved.

    Stephen reported that he had woken up to find David pointing his rifle at him – BANG – but his parents persuaded him he was dreaming. David is the dreamer.

    Don’t think this goose is going to lay the golden egg though. He’s gone all constipated.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Bullcrapers these days, just when they singn a truce about not trying to prove their bullcrap status against one another, they’re right back to it, trying to fiddle with the results.

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

    Dotcom of Ockham (19) Says:
    February 5th, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    Don’t think this goose is going to lay the golden egg though. He’s gone all constipated.

    It’s not constipation you need worry about, because it is flowing real well from the other end.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ockie from wissstockie
    A subtotal for you as you are relatively new here for the efforts of the ‘daddy didn’t do it’ witchhunt

    1. PC quashed the conviction (remember it would never happen)
    2. 5x not guilty verdicts
    3. Application for compensation (he would never go there)
    4. <1% of NZ populations signatures for there petition (achieved this much by multi signing)
    5. Innocent BOP finding by retired judge
    6. Upcoming defamation action for KP

    I suppose we should congratulate counterspin as Ian Binnie looked at all the 'facts' on there website and it helped convince him of Davids innocence!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Can’t face the truth and can’t answer the question.

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?
    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?
    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Good girllock ockie, you almost doubled zero.

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

    I suppose we should congratulate counterspin as Ian Binnie looked at all the ‘facts’ on there website and it helped convince him of Davids innocence!

    Easy to see why he left the country so fast, too. He must think the country is overrun by such crazies. Then to hear the bullshit from our Minister of Justice and an ex Judge such he did, he will dissuade his countrymen from ever coming here for the sake of their sanity.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Childrens time is it ….

    Oh dear how the thread has fallen …..

    Spin round and round on the carousel weirdos, I’ll be back at 11.45 … 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    “I suppose we should congratulate counterspin as Ian Binnie looked at all the ‘facts’ on there website and it helped convince him of Davids innocence!”

    Binnie got sucked in by Karam. If he looked at Counterspin he would have realised his mistake. Instead he looks like a complete fool. The whole world is laughing at him. A second- hand copy of The Mask of Sanity is selling at over $500 on Amazon Canada. People want to know about Binnie Ninnie, my word.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Oh look
    A real worry for Muggins, Dotcom of wissstockie has discovered how to repost his reused toilet paper and to spam DPFs blog! By the looks of things he’s going to quickly be overtaken as the biggest piece of crap here!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Old truthie and willie was, so gutless.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Still no answer to the question. What about a simple yes or no? Come on, face the truth you twerps.

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?
    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?
    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Would have been good if Binnie had read MOS as well, McNeishs piece of pyschological bullcrap was pretty convincing for me that he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about. Also the other piece of fiction was also convincing in the same way, wasn’t an evidential fact in it!
    BTW Binnie did read the porn rag that is counterspin, It showed him the delusions of the desperate. Kent is doing his best impression of McNeish.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Everyone is gutless around you, Nostalgia-NZ, it’s your track record. It must give you nightmares.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    BTW Binnie did read the porn rag that is counterspin, It showed him the delusions of the desperate. Kent is doing his best impression of McNeish.

    Not only that, he read JFRB on facebook too. It’s no wonder he came to the conclusion he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Rowan, you couldn’t frighten a daffodil. You couldn’t persuade a puppet. Wait a minute, you are a puppet.

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

    Rowan, you couldn’t frighten a daffodil. You couldn’t persuade a puppet. Wait a minute, you are a puppet.

    Medication kicking in, is it Dotcom of Ockham? You seem to be getting a little calmer, there’s a good girl.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I see no evidence from the latest troll, just more spin, who are you trying to convince at last count wasn’t there about 25% of the population supporting the acts of Collins and opposing compensation. Remember less than 1% of NZ votes for the multi signed petition, LMAO.
    Your ‘opinions’ Dotcom 2 (or shall we say mini me) just show us your arrogance and delusion but if you want the rest of NZ to see this then blog on

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. William of Ockham (82 comments) says:

    Last chance.

    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?
    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?
    On the first trip to London, didn’t the Privy Council reject the appeal based on the rumour(s) of incest?

    Okay. The first appeal was dismissed. But no, the cult nags nags, nags. Eventually something cracks and they’re in like sewage.

    Collins smells something amiss. Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Truthiz (185 comments) says:

    Well, I guess some of you are never going to learn, so mistakes will repeat, like the roundabout.

    Me, in honour of Bobs birthday tomorrow, I will be having a pipe at 12.01 and a bong for breakfast …..

    and in honour of the mighty Lion , I will desist from this repetitive mumbo jumbo and wait till de man/woman decide …

    Jah Love

    🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    two small points with regard to firearm suicide and statistics drawn from them. The Hand gun is the weapon of choice with some 80% of successful suicide are with handguns and the majority of these are temple wounds either side a careful reading of NAS statistics shows there is some cross over shootings ling rifles are not a popular weapon for suicide probably because they are unweildy and specially with small calibre result in failure. There are many more CO poisoning and gas [natural or coal] figure more commonly in the NAS statistics than long rifle. I did not read of any successful crossover temple suicides but that is not to say there none
    I find the total absence of tearing around the wound to Robin is indicative of a non contact wound, I also question the almost total lack of blood splatter by on the thumb side of the right hand of Robin This would indicate a contact wound as discharge gases build up between the inner skin and the hard bone of the skull before the skin ruptures releasing a mixture of blood, discharge gases and bodily material
    I was concerned to read in Justice Binnies Report of his ruling of ineptitude against the police and pathologist for not keeping the skin around the wound as detailed in the police Manual. at no time has this ever been a requirement or an entry in the manual and is still not a requirement in the Police Code of Conduct which replaced the manual. Where Justice Binnie got this idea is anybodies guess as it has never been in the manual so it had to come from foreign source. This would be a serious breach of protocol to retain Bodily tissue that is not required and in New Zealand Law would amount to desecration of the body certain to Maori ant the law was changed considerably following the discovery that body parts were routinely retained by teaching hospitals and pathologist to study. The Donated Bodies used by Otago Medical School for student dissection all parts removed and examined are return the the body prior to the bodies being cremated to keep a piece of scin would be a dismissal offence from the school. It would appear the creation of written material needed to suit the judge view is not just a New Zealand thing Justice Binnie has a reputation for it in Canada along with 2 or 3 other Supreme Court Judges and may explain his early retirement following a case were a ruling was found to be based on non existent evidence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Lindsay, you’re interrupting an important discussion between the thread’s most eminent Bain scholars about which of them is the stupidest stinky butt – shame on you.

    I was concerned to read in Justice Binnies Report of his ruling of ineptitude against the police and pathologist for not keeping the skin around the wound as detailed in the police Manual. at no time has this ever been a requirement or an entry in the manual and is still not a requirement in the Police Code of Conduct which replaced the manual.

    It was an artifact of the defence: failure to do this thing that has never been part of police procedure was incompetence because Joe thinks they should have done it. It’s been remarkably successful as propaganda, as witnessed by Rodney Hide also declaring it a Police “failure” in a recent opinion piece.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    I read further into Bain and Beyond last night, and was interested in what Karam had to say about the Janine Law case (a particularly egregious police failure in which someone who was quite obviously raped and murdered was written up by police as having died from an asthma attack). Karam sees parallels with the Bain case, which he considers a particularly egregious police failure in which an obvious murder/suicide by Robin Bain was written up by police as murder by David Bain.

    It’s easy to imagine that the detective in charge of the Janine Law case was strongly tempted to write it off as accidental death – after all, there’s no point in unnecessarily adding to your already stressful workload, and HQ wants fewer unsolved murders on the books, not more.

    A similar temptation would have presented itself to detectives in the Bain case. At first glance, it’s entirely straightforward – another of these familicides in which the father decides that if he can’t be Boss of the Family any more, everyone has to snuff it. A few unusual features, but not too difficult or time-consuming to get it off the books.

    Now, suppose they’d done that. Coroner finds murder/suicide, and David Bain gets to use his parents’ estate to pay his debt and build that new house he wanted, and to embark on his new life as a promising young music student without the embarrassing albatross of a totally dysfunctional family around his neck – in short, everybody’s happy.

    For a little while, anyway. It wouldn’t take long for an investigative journalist or suspicious family members to poke into the details of the case. There’d be questions: The father shoots the whole family with the eldest son’s rifle, but doesn’t shoot the eldest son? He leaves a “suicide note” that contains nothing other than a declaration of the eldest son’s moral superiority over the rest of the family? He shoots everyone and himself without leaving any prints on the rifle? He goes to considerable effort to avoid leaving evidence of his crime even though shooting himself is going to make it pretty obvious who did it? The pathologist found that if it was suicide it was an unusual one? The police found the eldest son’s prints on the rifle, the victims’ blood on his clothes, injuries on him consistent with the murders and glasses he was known to wear broken with a piece in the room where the struggle with a victim took place, and yet they still called it murder/suicide by Robin Bain? What the fuck were they thinking?

    Now, then we would have had a good parallel with the Janine Law case. That one really would be worth a book or two.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    It wouldn’t take long for an investigative journalist or suspicious family members to poke into the details of the case. There’d be questions:”

    Sheer idiocy, 20 years later the questions can’t be answered as to why Robin’s death wasn’t suicide, and why he wasn’t the killer. 20 years have past and the highest law officials, and Crown Law experts can’t explain the final death scene. Just like you milt, in fact time has simply proved that the mountain of evidence didn’t exist against David and that evidence keeps emerging as to the father’s guilt. You’ve been on the case for 6 weeks milt and the only thing you’ve revealed is wasteful verbosity and on going questions over whether your arthur or martha.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,852) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 10:37 am

    ——————

    I often wonder what happened to the family photo albums. There were meant to be lots of them. Apparently the police don’t have them, left them for the family, and the family say they don’t have them. Did they get burned with the house? Why would a loving family burn them? Don’t people usually treasure such memories of their loved ones?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Sheer idiocy, 20 years later the questions can’t be answered…

    Idiocy? Questions would remain whichever way the Police took it, ie they would still have copped Karam-like levels of bullshit if they’d called it murder/suicide. They were on a hiding to nothing with this case.

    You’ve been on the case for 6 weeks milt and the only thing you’ve revealed is wasteful verbosity and on going questions over whether your arthur or martha.

    My writing lacks brevity, yes. But nobody’s perfect. Brief nominations for stupidest liar on the thread just aren’t my strong point.

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

    Idiocy? Questions would remain whichever way the Police took it, ie they would still have copped Karam-like levels of bullshit if they’d called it murder/suicide. They were on a hiding to nothing with this case.

    Rubbish. The hiding they got was because of their sheer ineptitude.

    If the police had conducted their investigation as per instructions from their manual, there would be no doubts, and those who like to protect ‘daddy’ would have had their definitive answer, one they could not deny.

    The carpet would have been kept with the sock prints. The blood on Robin’s hands would have been tested. The other fingerprints on the rifle would have been photographed. The body core temperatures would have been taken on time. The GSR tests would have been conducted as per the manual, Mrs Laney’s second statement to the police would not have gone astray, the police officer in charge of the scene would have recorded the photos according to who took them, and when, the timing of everyone’s watches would have been included in witnesses accounts, and so on.

    The police handling of this case, like the Thomas case, and many others is disgusting. There needs to be a Commission of Enquiry, regardless of who you think did it, to ensure nothing like this happens again. One mistake by the police, ok, but when there are lots of mistakes added to by an ‘orchestrated litany of lies’, then the whole country needs to take note.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    You might like to use the case of Jeffrey Gilham over in Australia as a comparasion. Son not charged at the time convicted 15 years later after uncle campaigned for 15 years to bring his nephew to justice, Conviction was quashed 3 years later but I still think it pretty likely that Jeffrey Gilham is a killer of 3.
    Your arguments based on who owned the rifle or the correct tense of a suicide note go nowhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith
    According to Milt, things like FDR tests and testing blood samples etc only exist in ‘Karams manual’ and if the manual had still been followed then nothing would have changed!
    Mind you Muggins and co would probably still be campaigning for Daddy even if he had tested positive for GSR!

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

    Rowan (588) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 12:12 pm
    Judith
    According to Milt, things like FDR tests and testing blood samples etc only exist in ‘Karams manual’ and if the manual had still been followed then nothing would have changed!
    Mind you Muggins and co would probably still be campaigning for Daddy even if he had tested positive for GSR!

    Then Milt (either the present psycho one, or ummm, the other psycho one), clearly haven’t read the manual. If it had been followed, we would not be having this conversation.

    The current manual didn’t exist for Thomas, but it did in 1994. There was no excuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    If the police had conducted their investigation as per instructions from their manual, there would be no doubts, and those who like to protect ‘daddy’ would have had their definitive answer, one they could not deny.

    This may be a dearly-held belief for you, but you can’t require others to share it. Even if something as incriminating as gunshot residue on Robin’s hands had been found, a Karam-level quibbler could explain it. For example, consider the explanations offered for how David came to have victims’ blood on the crotch of his shorts and the back of his t-shirt – anything can be explained anything away if the explainer’s belief is strong enough.

    Your arguments based on … the correct tense of a suicide note…

    Point out where I’ve made that argument. It strikes me as a very weak one and I’m surprised the prosecution used it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Then Milt (either the present psycho one, or ummm, the other psycho one), clearly haven’t read the manual.

    Indulging Rowan’s dim-bulbery doesn’t make you look any smarter, I assure you.

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

    Judith
    I put to Milt a while back what he thought the PCA would come up with had they done an investigation into the Thomas case, he seemed to acknowledge the likely result but still seems to cling to it to use the Bain one to strenghten his argument.
    It seems that just about all the high profile cases have gone this way, thats not to say that the wrong person hasn’t been convicted all the time but there are obvious cases that spring to mind, Ellis, Watson, Thomas, Tamihere (of those I would say 3 are definitely innocent and the last pretty questionable), cases like Lundy are a tough one, No case for police misconduct, I used to think he was innocent but I have since changed my view on this and think he probably did it. I think he will probably get of on ‘reasonable doubt’ if the PC decides to give him a retrial, hopefully this doesn’t happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,157) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    ————————-

    It is not my intention to try and make myself look any smarter than I already am, I assure you.

    It is my intention to do everything I can to make sure an innocent man is compensated for the 13 years he spent wrongly imprisoned, and the other 9 plus years he has spent being persecuted by a group of unhinged witch sniffers. Having this argument with you may help, it may not, but it makes me feel better seeing that as yet, none of you have offered one single valid opposing argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    “He leaves a “suicide note” that contains nothing other than a declaration of the eldest son’s moral superiority over the rest of the family?”
    Rather a speculative interpretation and implies what the note ‘should’ have said if it was genuine. Most of the trolls cling to it as ‘strong’ evidence
    The explanations for the blood are highly probable, there was a minimal amount and it would be highly incriminating if there was none. David wouldn’t have nearly the support outside of maybe Joe if there was incriminating evidence existed such as positive FDR, thanks to the investigation at the time there is none.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    More nonsense:

    ‘ Questions would remain whichever way the Police took it, ie they would still have copped Karam-like levels of bullshit if they’d called it murder/suicide. They were on a hiding to nothing with this case.’

    There is a complete narrative available to conclude the reason for Robin’s death, it has been accepted by a Jury and by Binnie, the police, could have and should have accepted it as well. Instead we have ‘we don’t know what happened in the lounge and can’t explain the evidence but David is still guilty.” Anything strike you about that milt or are you so far gone you can’t address the most basic aspects of this case that relate to Robin’s wound, his clothing, his hands, the blood as it goes on. You are so bewildered you look for single events to interrupt a chain of evidence and think that you have achieved something, the onus is now on you and the other persecutors to dismember the narrative of evidence against Robin, not a single point but the whole sequence that shows him as the killer of his family. You’ve already read more of Karam’s books than I have ever got near, but the reality is looking away from what matters, to repeat; the narrative available to conclude the reason for Robin’s death.

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

    Rowan (589) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    I agree with you, completely. There are other cases, ones that never make the papers, often not murder, but lives have been destroyed due to Police ineptitude. Of course, there are many times when it has worked the wrong way, and guilty people have gone free, again because of police ineptitude. Either way, the community suffers.

    I am not saying that the police always get it wrong. They don’t. I have a great respect for many of them, there are some good ‘guys’. I have also met some real mongrels, but then they exist everywhere.

    One day I may get to share with you why the conviction of Thomas is my motivator, but this is not the place.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith
    As you say now is not the place but just briefly do you have any view on the guilt or innocence of Len Demler as the likely perpetrator of the Crewe homicide. I have read all the recent books and would have to agree with Keith Hunters conclusion to the Missing Bloodstain that it was Demler, I thought that Ian Wisharts theory about Len Johnstone was a conspiracy theory much like the murder/suicide one proposed by Pat Booth.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    First Judith said there was a photo taken of David Bain’s torso.
    That was a lie.

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

    Rowan (591) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    I have read about the missing bloodstain theory, and its very convincing. Ian did tend to go a little over the top, however, having said that, I do think there were motivators for Johnstone that encouraged him to make sure Thomas was charged. I am not however convinced by Wisharts total argument.

    I do like Wisharts analogy of ‘the box’. I think that apply’s here too. The police select the bits of evidence that suited their scenario and discarded or ignored the rest. Anything that didn’t fit in their box, they basically ‘burned’ with the house, or threw it away when things started getting a bit hot for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    If you want to make contact Rowan you could send a comment with contact details on which I wont publish.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Then Judith said Dr Pryde drew nipples on the diagram.
    That was another lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Now she says naked means without clothes.
    Ok. But it also means without concealing cover.
    I reckon that blanket was concealing cover,but hey, I’m not the judge of that.

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

    muggins (1,992) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    First Judith said there was a photo taken of David Bain’s torso.

    ———————————-

    Prove it. Post the comment where I said exactly that there was a photo taken of David’s torso.

    What I said was that in the photo of David’s tattoo he is not wearing a shirt. I later said that the angle did not allow a view of his chest.

    Go away Muggins. I won’t be answering any more of your lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The definition of Naked is ‘without clothes’, (when referring to the person) or when referring to an object, ‘without its normal cover.’

    Either way, as clothes are the normal cover for a human being, when David Bain said he was naked, even if there was a blanked, his statement is correct.

    Muggins wants to rewrite the dictionary to prove himself right. Whatever next!

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

    Judith
    Agree with the box analagy and Ian is still a good read whatever you make of his conclusions, I have just finished his new ‘Missing Pieces’ about the Tamihere case which was better and it doesn’t look like Tamihere got a fair go regardless of whatever view of guilt or innocence you hold.
    Nos ‘Instead we have ‘we don’t know what happened in the lounge and can’t explain the evidence but David is still guilty.’
    Very good analogy, also ‘we are so arrogant and regard our belief (based on media facts only) as right’ above what any court, Judge etc may find. Also the spinners seem to think that the court of public opinion is somehow going to be a deciding factor, clearly shows there delusion

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    Robin was dead, the police had a crime to ‘solve’, you can’t make a dead man culpable”.

    Have no idea what your logic is. However, the “easy” option for the cops was what they first thought when they came across the scene with the rifle next to Robin’s dead body, and as per David’s explanation: “I came home and they were all dead”. No “crime” there. Instead open and shut, and back to the police station for coffee and donuts. No incentive or gain for them in fingering David, which only begins to happen when the physical evidence (which I have repeated many times) gives an accumulation of increasingly unlikely coincidences all pointing in the direction of….David

    “The ‘why’ questions seem to generate a lot of your conclusions, which ‘seems’ to me a poor way of looking at the evidence”.

    OK. Not sure what you are referring to. Can you give me an example, please.

    “Kimbo, can you point out the exchange…”

    Kimbo (177) Says:
    January 11th, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    @ Kanz

    “Not at all, if the head was down, face towards the floor, and the rifle was held on a horizontal plane, then the trajectory of the bullet through the head would be downwards.”

    Sorry, my mistake – quite right Kanz.

    However, if David had the rifle pointed at Robin (already stored in the alcove in anticipation of Robin being in the lounge, or David summoned/suggested his presence was required there (all plausible scenarios that others have suggested on this thread), David could have instructed Robin to assume any posture he wanted Robin to assume.

    Remember – the Crown didn’t have to account for any and every occurrence. Just a scenario that fits the evidence.

    So Rowan has insisted he can’t have been praying. I’ve given a scenario where he didn’t have to. Now the “so what?” which is the real point: –

    Care to tell me how the matter of Robin praying or not benefits David Bain’s attempt to establish his innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    End of quote.

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

    Judith
    Muggins seems to think that his conspiracy about the strip search should be held to decide whether or not it actually occured. Somehow only Prydes evidence that it did is all thats needed, there were no denials from any of Doyle et al on the matter.

    Muggins it looks like you are facing close competition for the title of ‘biggest piece of crap’ on KB, better keep up with ‘Dotcom of Okham’.

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

    Very good analogy, also ‘we are so arrogant and regard our belief (based on media facts only) as right’ above what any court, Judge etc may find. Also the spinners seem to think that the court of public opinion is somehow going to be a deciding factor, clearly shows there delusion

    They have always been deluded. The Chief Witch Sniffer is the most deluded of all. Thinks he is some sort of ‘singing psychological web producing potential politician’. Of course, the ol’ lady isn’t deluded. She’s just plain nasty. Life has been mean to her so everyone is going to pay. Had to ride her bike to work you see, was such a sad story.

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

    Just to demonstrate the witch sniffers ability to have selective recall.

    Lindsay says

    I was concerned to read in Justice Binnies Report of his ruling of ineptitude against the police and pathologist for not keeping the skin around the wound as detailed in the police Manual. at no time has this ever been a requirement or an entry in the manual.

    Then Psycho Milt spins the same yarn:

    It was an artifact of the defence: failure to do this thing that has never been part of police procedure was incompetence because Joe thinks they should have done it.

    Of course both were wrong, the Detectives Manual being used in 1994 states:

    “In fatal cases, request the pathologist to cut out an area of skin surrounding the bullet hole. Note its position”
    Chapter 22 section 18.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Judith (1,346) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    The definition of Naked is ‘without clothes’, (when referring to the person) or when referring to an object, ‘without its normal cover.’

    Either way, as clothes are the normal cover for a human being, when David Bain said he was naked, even if there was a blanked, his statement is correct.

    Muggins wants to rewrite the dictionary to prove himself right. Whatever next!

    Judith ,
    As I have already said, naked also means having no concealing cover.
    Now I reckon that David Bain was being devious when he told Binnie he was completely naked, because I reckon that blanket was concealing those scratches. But ,as I said , I’m not the judge of that.
    Btw, he was covered by a blanket,not a blanked.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    ‘Doyle lied according to the idiot because Doyle gave evidence about the strip search, and the officer that doesn’t exist, except in the old fairy’s mind, failed in his duty to report material and direct evidence that no strip search took place, he was complicit in an act to Defeat the Course of Justice. All these people lied, including Pryde, everyone lied except the spam master fairy. This is not only defamatory to the police involved and who are clearly known, but also maybe an offence under another statutory Act of Parliament. What a supporter to have. This ‘person’ is on record as claiming to have spoken to Weir, Weir was a senior officer at the scene. This person claims all this ‘evidence’ was reported to a senior officer who has sat on it despite it’s clear importance. Is this person saying that it was Weir, or one of the other senior officers all whom are known, and all whom gave evidence?’

    So was Doyle lying or was it Aunt Fanny?

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,855) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    ————————————

    Do not forget the OIA application, that wasn’t. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Once again, by the numbers.
    Doyle was not in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain,so he doesn’t know what Pryde did or did not do.
    Pryde himself never said he strip-searched Bain.
    But none of that matters now.
    What matters is that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked when in actual fact he had concealing cover, ie a blanket,so in my opinion he lied to Binnie. But as I have already said twice today, I’m not the judge of whether that was a lie or not,we will have to wait and see.
    If Pryde had said he strip-searched Bain then Binnie would not have had to ask Bain if he was naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:
    Rowan says
    “Slightly better Kimbo but still ignores much of the evidence in the lounge, and the fact that Robin was already in the lounge as conceded by the crown that he turned on the computer…”

    Not so! Just a plausible scenario they suggested. Robin could well have been there, and David walked in with the rifle. Makes no difference – the Crown (and I am repeating myself!) DID NOT HAVE TO account for any and every event perfectly.

    If what you are claiming is true, that would be cast iron proof that Robin did not commit suicide, and then Binnie would have said so. He didn’t. So kindly stop trying to turn opinions into facts, let alone weighed judgements.

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Rowan

    “As it is not tested it could have been Stephens blood we will never know for sure thanks to yet another stuff up”…

    Ho hum. Yet again, the argument from silence, which, of its very nature is always weak.

    It isn’t the absence of evidence (e.g., the cops didn’t exhaustively search and test ever inch of Robin and his clothing and test every piece of blood there, or the absence of David’s finger prints on the rifle) that is as significant as what we do know.

    Keep repeating the same things Rowan, it doesn’t change the facts we know what Joe Karam’s puppet strings look like!

    End of quotes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    “He leaves a “suicide note” that contains nothing other than a declaration of the eldest son’s moral superiority over the rest of the family?”
    Rather a speculative interpretation and implies what the note ‘should’ have said if it was genuine. Most of the trolls cling to it as ‘strong’ evidence

    So, no I didn’t actually make any argument about the grammatical case used in a suicide note, very gracious of you to admit it. Next up: please point out in what sense my comment about the suicide note was wrong. I’ll grant you that it does contain one thing other than a declaration of the eldest son’s moral superiority over the rest of the family: the word “sorry.” Anything apart from that?

    The explanations for the blood are highly probable…

    Thanks for demonstrating my point that anything can be explained away if the explainer’s belief is strong enough.

    There is a complete narrative available to conclude the reason for Robin’s death, it has been accepted by a Jury and by Binnie, the police, could have and should have accepted it as well.

    You load up juries and Privy Councils with far more than they have a responsibility to bear, but that aside… I refer you back to my earlier comment – if yours was the official version, significant questions would have remained to be asked and some Karam-style blatherer would be asking them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Yet another instance of ‘innocent openness’.
    Can’t do right for doing wrong.

    You got to feel sorry for David, I can just imagine Judith in his ear going over and over and over what was supposed to have happened that day.

    No wonder he is confused and accordingly doesn’t know the evidence. Isn’t that what Joe said?

    Between that and recovered memories, how can anything David say be relied upon, that is unless it is inconsistent with the mantra. Then he is justifiably confused I guess.

    I wonder if David is comfortable with all his supporters. I guess beggars can’t be chosers.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Let’s take another look at the evidence against David Bain,starting with those glasses.
    I think I can now say that most people accept that David Bain was wearing the glasses that were found in his room at least up until he went to bed on the Sunday night. And Binnie appears to accept that as well.
    So the question now is how did those glasses come to be on a chair in his room in a damaged condition when the police arrived?
    It would appear that David Bain put them on that chair before he went to bed because the glasses case is also on that chair.
    That would mean that once he had watched that video,he put the glasses in their case and took them into his room and put them somewhere in his room,probably on that chair.
    When the police arrived the glasses were no longer in that case,so someone must have taken them out of it.
    Who could that someone be?
    Well I cant see it being one of the children and I don’t think it would be Margaret,so that only leaves Robin and David.
    Next question. If it was Robin why would he take those glasses out of the case? Was he, as Karam has suggested,trying to frame David by bending the frame a little,and removing the lens?. But why would he do that? How would that implicate David?
    Those broken glasses on their own were not going to implicate David.
    It is the missing lens that was found in Stephen’s room that implicates David.
    So we now have to assume that not only did Robin bend that frame,but he also took one lens and tossed it into Stephen’s room.
    I don’t know about anybody else but that seems a bit of a stretch to me.
    I honestly believe that David Bain took those glasses out of the case ,put them on, and was wearing them when he was in Stephen’s room.
    Now the proDavidbainers will say there was no evidence suggesting that the frame and one lens was in Stephen’s room .
    Where is the blood,they cry,where are the fingerprints, just the same as those who believe Robin Bain is innocent cry,where are the fingerprints on the rifle,where is the blood from any member of his family on him,where is the blood on his watch?
    The proDavidbainers also ask why did David bring those glasses back to his room,knowing they could implicate him in the murder of Stephen?
    Because I firmly believe David Bain is guilty I will try to answer those questions raised by his supporters.
    Re the blood. I believe it would have been quite possible that those glasses were “screwed” off David Bains head when his head was forced on to a piece of carpet that had no blood on it. I don’t know why his fingerprints were at the very least,not on that lens that was found beside the frame, but I guess if it is not unusual for fingerprints to absent from a murder weapon then that means that there is no reason why there should have been any on that lens. It has been suggested that David Bain could have wiped that lens,but I don’t think he did that because there was some dust on that lens,and that dust probably came fron the carpet in Stephen Bain’s room.
    A much harder question to answer is why did David Bain bring those glasses back to his room. Why did he not just put them back in his mother’s drawer,from whence they came? They were of no use to him in that damaged state. Neither lens could be fitted back into the frame.
    All I can suggest is that David Bain wasn’t thinking staight. Things hadn’t gone to plan. He would have had many things on his mind. I believe he went into Stephen’s room when he arrived home either before or after he shot his father depending on when his father came into the house. He saw the frame and one lens lying on the floor. The other lens may have been a bit further away and he just didn’t see it. So he picked up the frame and one lens and took them back to his room.
    Perhaps he thought the police woudn’t bother to look for that missing lens.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Beggars can’t be choosers either lol. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Is that one red point on automatic or something?

    I feel so validated, that everything I say is wrong according to the Banes, so I must be right. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Of course both were wrong, the Detectives Manual being used in 1994 states:

    “In fatal cases, request the pathologist to cut out an area of skin surrounding the bullet hole. Note its position”
    Chapter 22 section 18.

    Hmm, I’m sure I read that it wasn’t in the manual in use at the time, in a Police response to Binnie’s report. Can’t recall where exactly that was now though, so concede the point.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (246) Says:

    February 6th, 2013 at 2:12 pm
    Is that one red point on automatic or something?

    I feel so validated, that everything I say is wrong according to the Banes, so I must be right.

    Vote: 1 0

    I always give your posts a thumbs up ,gk.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Were police lying and performing some kind of conspiracy in order to help David, or were they involved in an ‘actual’ MOJ as the Privy Council said _

    ‘Doyle lied according to the idiot because Doyle gave evidence about the strip search, and the officer that doesn’t exist, except in the old fairy’s mind, failed in his duty to report material and direct evidence that no strip search took place, he was complicit in an act to Defeat the Course of Justice. All these people lied, including Pryde, everyone lied except the spam master fairy. This is not only defamatory to the police involved and who are clearly known, but also maybe an offence under another statutory Act of Parliament. What a supporter to have. This ‘person’ is on record as claiming to have spoken to Weir, Weir was a senior officer at the scene. This person claims all this ‘evidence’ was reported to a senior officer who has sat on it despite it’s clear importance. Is this person saying that it was Weir, or one of the other senior officers all whom are known, and all whom gave evidence?’

    Was Doyle lying or was it Aunt Fanny?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    ‘…if yours was the official version, significant questions would have remained to be asked and some Karam-style blatherer would be asking them.’

    Struggling again Milt: You may yet finally understand that there is no official, the Crown were unable to explain the lounge scene, just like you – the very reason for all the off the ball talk, from Collins down to your buddies who claim the cops were lying and in some kind of criminal conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    By the numbers.
    Doyle was not in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain so he does not know whether Dr Pryde strip- searched David Bain or not.
    Simple as that.
    David Bain told Binnie he was completely naked. He was being devious because he had concealing cover by way of a blanket.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    I guess it balances out the opprobrium 😉

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

    Psycho Milt (1,160) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    Of course both were wrong, the Detectives Manual being used in 1994 states:

    “In fatal cases, request the pathologist to cut out an area of skin surrounding the bullet hole. Note its position”
    Chapter 22 section 18.

    Hmm, I’m sure I read that it wasn’t in the manual in use at the time, in a Police response to Binnie’s report. Can’t recall where exactly that was now though, so concede the point.

    Did you honestly expect the police to say Binnie was correct on any point? The police say he was wrong, so he must be wrong. Which of the two, Binnie and the police association, had anything to lose by telling the truth?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    By the ‘official’ sic version(s)

    ‘Doyle lied according to the idiot because Doyle gave evidence about the strip search, and the officer that doesn’t exist, except in the old fairy’s mind, failed in his duty to report material and direct evidence that no strip search took place, he was complicit in an act to Defeat the Course of Justice. All these people lied, including Pryde, everyone lied except the spam master fairy. This is not only defamatory to the police involved and who are clearly known, but also maybe an offence under another statutory Act of Parliament. What a supporter to have. This ‘person’ is on record as claiming to have spoken to Weir, Weir was a senior officer at the scene. This person claims all this ‘evidence’ was reported to a senior officer who has sat on it despite it’s clear importance. Is this person saying that it was Weir, or one of the other senior officers all whom are known, and all whom gave evidence?’

    in smaller detail ‘failed in his duty to report material and direct evidence that no strip search took place, he was complicit in the in an act to Defeat the Course of Justice.’

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

    This from Binnie’s report

    264. Dr Dempster disagreed with the opinion of the two other pathologists who testified for
    the prosecution at the 2009 retrial, Drs Thomson and Ferris, who both based their analysis on
    photographs of Robin’s head wound.(142)
    (142) The failure of Dr Dempster and the Police to preserve the surrounding skin was in violation of the Detectives’ Manual which provides that in
    relation to homicide cases where there is a bullet hole, that the officer in charge is to ensure that the skin around the bullet hold is cut out by
    the pathologist and kept for testing.

    The transcript is a piece of cross examination. The suggestion that skin should be cut out was made by defence counsel. The Detective manual

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

    Cont. (I hit the submit button by accident)

    This from the police report in answer to Binnie’s report.

    The transcript is a piece of cross examination. The suggestion that skin should be cut out was made by defence counsel. The Detective manual had no such guidance included in it in the 1985 reprint and has not had any since.

    This from the manual,

    “In fatal cases, request the pathologist to cut out an area of skin surrounding the bullet hole. Note its position”
    Chapter 22 section 18.

    Who is it that should be thrown out? Not Binnie.

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

    Psycho Milt @ 1.50
    Your reading a lot into that suicide note, stay/go, live/die whatever, to me it points out that Robin wanted to be gone before being discovered by David hence the use of a typed 10 word message rather than going looking through the house for pens and paper etc and possibly risk being discovered by David. However this doesn’t really add anything to the argument so all in all 0.0000% convincing either way. It was also mentioned that Robins signature letter writing style was exactly the same as the message ie,
    dear …..,
    letter content …… etc

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz
    The police response and so called ‘errors’ in Binnies report remind you of anything?
    To me it was much like the 1997 Police covering arse report!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Kanz

    Chapter 22 section 18 of which edition of the Manual?

    Can you provide a link to this?

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

    Rowan,

    The police response and so called ‘errors’ in Binnies report remind you of anything?
    To me it was much like the 1997 Police covering arse report!

    Almost read exactly the same, only shorter, didn’t it?

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

    twistedlemon

    Get your own copy, then you too can rip out the relevant pages and say they don’t exist.

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

    twistedlemon (93) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 5:24 pm
    Kanz

    Chapter 22 section 18 of which edition of the Manual?

    Can you provide a link to this?

    ——————————–

    It was an exhibit in the trials and is of course available for some people.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (2,002) Says:

    By the numbers.
    Doyle was not in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain so he does not know whether Dr Pryde strip- searched David Bain or not.
    Simple as that.
    David Bain told Binnie he was completely naked. He was being devious because he had concealing cover by way of a blanket.

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

    The police response and so called ‘errors’ in Binnies report remind you of anything?
    To me it was much like the 1997 Police covering arse report!

    Rowan, what I don’t get is why innocent people, such as our police, would feel the need to lie.

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

    It was an exhibit in the trials and is of course available for some people.

    It is obvious Binnie had a copy too, just not the investigators of the Bain murder/suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Judith

    January 12th, 2013 at 7:54 am

    Good morning. You have been doing some thinking, haven’t you?

    “Everything becomes secondary if you cannot explain Robin’s final minute/s…”

    Hmm. Depends what you mean by “explain”. Recount “exactly” what Robin did and how he did it? That was never a requirement of the Crown. Provide a plausible scenario is sufficient – which they did. Ultimately, unlike at the trials, the onus of proof is on David Bain and his supporters – NOT the other way around.

    Ultimately, the way you trotted out a lot of irrelevant information when Dennis Horne correctly pointed out Binnie never argued your scenario is simply a load of bluff and bluster to distract from the fact Dennis has your number, e.g.: –

    “Binnie provided a report on what he judged as supporting his conclusion regarding the BoP.”

    Really?! No kidding. A classic example of undisputed puff, which Dennis Horne’s mention of Binnie already clearly implied.

    “Whilst he did not specifically make an issue of this,…”

    Translation: ‘Correct, Dennis. That big long narrative I kicked the day off with, and which I insisted was self-evident truth is not reflected in the opinion of the guy who thought David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities’.

    “he supported the second trial verdict”

    Yeees, but that doesn’t mean he supported your scenario or interpretation of the evidence!

    “…and perhaps…”

    Ah Ha! Yes, anything is possible with ‘perhaps’!

    “…thought it didn’t need emphasising”

    Despite the fact Binnie wanted to demonstrate David Bain was innocent, and if your scenario REALLY was as cut and dry as you say, of course he would have spelled it out!

    “I do not know his reasons,…”

    Yes you do. You just don’t want to say. It is because your ‘scenario’ is not viewed that way by others who have considered the matter even if they think David Bain is innocent, despite your insistence it is self-evident.

    “…other than as I understand it, he was not charged with re-examining the actual physical evidence and making conclusions on that”.

    A piece of total fantasy. Check Binnie’s report! He is re-examining and considering physical evidence and making conclusions on it every second page!

    “I will have to re-read his instructions and what he has said regarding this, to really form an opinion regarding Binnie on this matter”.

    Translation: ‘Dennis Horne has called my bluff on my claim that my proposed scenario is self-evident, and I’m trying to make a dignified retreat to cover the fact I’m just winging it’.

    “This information was presented at the second trial,…”

    Not as you’ve proposed it as a scenario which “accounts for Robin’s final minute/s”, or else Binnie would have mentioned it, and you would have cited him mentioning it

    “…which IMO contributed to the not guilty verdict”.

    Some of the arguments about the evidence you have mentioned MAY have, but mentioning the second trial in the context of a discussion on compo yet again confuses reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities.

    Oh, yes, and one other glaring thing stood out in your capacity to confuse your own narrow opinion as fact:

    “It is far easier for the community to accept a deviant young man could go astray, but to accept a father, a teacher, and in fact a religious school principal could do such a thing, is extremely difficult”.

    Judith, please. Fathers, teachers, and religious school principals are a highly suspect demographic for deviance, or at least in regards to allowing prejudices to sway judgement – which you are arguing happened in the case of the police laying charges against David. Again, your argument is using a whole lot of words, to cover the fact you

    1. desperately want this to be true, and

    2. there is little likelihood it is true. Just more bluster and bluff.

    Translation of Judith’s entire post:

    ‘Yes, Dennis. Well spotted. My scenario is not self-evident as I led out with. However, I’m in this too deep to really want to admit it, so I’ll unwittingly throw around a whole bunch of words to try and distract from the fact you caught me red-handed trying to pass opinion and speculation off as fact’.

    End of quote

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

    Kanz (954) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 5:41 pm
    It was an exhibit in the trials and is of course available for some people.

    It is obvious Binnie had a copy too, just not the investigators of the Bain murder/suicide.
    ————————–

    Yes, he would have had copies or photographs of all the exhibits as part of the complex trial archive package.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Once again half-truths, quarter-truths and non-truths from the Banes.
    No supporting evidence – no links – no evidence.
    Ad hom attacks and abuse.

    Sorry, I believe the Police rather than the alternative spoutings of double murderers, checkout operators and proven liars.

    Repeating lies ad infinitum does not make them true.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kanz (954) Says:

    Rowan, what I don’t get is why innocent people, such as our police, would feel the need to lie.

    Kanz, it’s not the innocent police who felt the need to lie.
    It’s the guilty David Bain who felt the need to lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kimbo backed himself into corners and made himself look stupid, he had no answer to the blood trail evidence and would just ‘twist and spin’ the argument. But if you want to reinforce that he was a total thicko then keep posting muggins

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Did you honestly expect the police to say Binnie was correct on any point? The police say he was wrong, so he must be wrong. Which of the two, Binnie and the police association, had anything to lose by telling the truth?

    A more relevant question would be “Which of the two, Binnie or the Police Association, was more likely to be wrong about what it says in the police detective manual?” Neither of them has any strong claim to credibility. I’ve declared myself willing to accept the word of Anonymous Internet Guy who claims to be quoting from the manual, which is as far as I’m concerned more than enough under the circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Struggling again Milt: You may yet finally understand that there is no official, the Crown were unable to explain the lounge scene, just like you – the very reason for all the off the ball talk, from Collins down to your buddies who claim the cops were lying and in some kind of criminal conspiracy.

    Are you aware that a lot of what you write is incomprehensible?

    By “official version,” I mean the result of official enquiries. Currently the official version is that David Bain was accused of the crime but his guilt was unable to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Your view seems to be that the official version back in 1994 should have been a coroner’s finding of murder/suicide by Robin Bain. I’m merely pointing out that the official version you believe should have been arrived at would have left just as much room for armchair detectives to decide they knew better than the investigators. Surely it can’t be that difficult for you to grasp?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Who is lying Prdye, the police force or an idiot who has no proof except spamming since he was proven to have given at least 3 different accountss of something which nobody else supports, and which would have been a boost to a weak prosecution case.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (94) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 5:44 pm
    Sorry, I believe the Police rather than the alternative spoutings of double murderers, checkout operators and proven liars.
    ————————
    You seriously want to go there? After having your butt kicked twice, you want to return to be made a fool of for the third time? You were the one proved guilty of lying.

    You don’t need anyone to make a fool of you, you’re doing it nicely yourself.

    Of course they aren’t on line, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I suggest if you want to prove it wrong, you find the evidence you need, instead of making childish and inane threats and insults.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    “official version,”

    You can even use two words without needing a whole paragraph to explain what you mean by the use of them. The official version is that David Bain killed his family, that official version doesn’t deal with the critical evidence of evidence against the father, so it fails, just like your constant wondering off the subject into areas that don’t matter. You’re only marginally different from the idiot lying about the strip search in that you spin inanities and avoid the key evidence that shows murder suicide, yet you share the same cloak as persecutor.

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

    Judith

    What you need to know is, the police copies of the manual no longer have the relevant pages anymore. They probably went up in smoke with the Bain house, along with so much of the evidence. Blame the Bain family, not our lily white, butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths, haven’t got anything wrong, ever, police.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (2,005) Says:

    February 6th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    Once again, by the numbers.
    Doyle was not in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain,so he doesn’t know what Pryde did or did not do.
    Pryde himself never said he strip-searched Bain.
    But none of that matters now.
    What matters is that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked when in actual fact he had concealing cover, ie a blanket,so in my opinion he lied to Binnie. But as I have already said twice today, I’m not the judge of whether that was a lie or not,we will have to wait and see.
    If Pryde had said he strip-searched Bain then Binnie would not have had to ask Bain if he was naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:
    January 12th, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    @ Judith

    “You are too pathetic for words. Provide an explanation that accounts for the factual evidence or STFU”.

    No, Judith, I will not be pulled into the tar-baby that is Team Karam Bain and their supporters’ modus operandi, of trying to

    1. Atomise the evidence
    2. and then chip away at any and every piece
    3. and demand answers to their agenda-setting leading questions

    …because

    …the onus is on David Bain and his supporters to establish his innocence on the balance of probabilities. Which means directly refuting, not dodging via steps 1. , 2., and 3. mentioned above, the incredible accumulation of coincidences that saw him rightly charged in the first place.

    Unless you can do that, then you have nothing to contribute that will assist Bain get his compo (because that was the failure in Binnie’s report that saw Collins get another opinion), and so you may as well, to quote you…

    STFU

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    So who is the officer who ignored the evidence and who was the superior he reported it to, who also ignored the evidence beneficial to the Crown case. The typical proof of lies used to cover earlier lies. The police are not lying about the strip search, Pryde wasn’t, David wasn’t – but Aunt Fanny was and hence she tries to hide behind spamming, a psychotic nut who has gone from ‘protecting’ the police to announcing that they lied and continue to be involved in attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice. Just the kind of ‘help’ they don’t need.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:

    @ Judith

    “Dennis, the spatter on the curtains is on a downward trajectory, as a result of falling from a height above it and consistent with the source being in front of the curtain. It is not a rub, swipe or any other kind but direct spatter, and cannot be explained in any other manner than being caused by blood spatter from Robin standing in front of the chair, also featured in the photo.

    This proves the location of Robin at the time, the blood spatter on his clothing and footwear proves the positioning of his various body parts, i.e. that he was standing with his left leg straight and foot on the floor, and right leg bent at the knee, with his foot faced frontwards and exposed.

    That is solid proof. It cannot be played with, denied, altered in anyway.

    Given that information, and knowing from the spatter on the curtains and providing the scene was not interfered with before the photos were taken, it is then high in probability that Robin Bain was standing with one foot, his right one, on the chair besides the curtain.

    The weapon falling in a position that supports that, and also his body falling in a position that supports it. Despite what gamefisher likes to tell us about bodies collapsing, he fails to mention that position of the person whilst alive, i.e. how they are standing,with or without support from other objects like the chair, can vary how the body falls. Experts have agreed that there is nothing at all irregular with Robin’s body position, ie the location of it, given the scenario that he was standing with one foot on the chair and was wounded in the right temple, and that he did not retain hold of the weapon.

    Just as, in all suicides, left temple shots account for 5%. That is not insignificant. Accepted not as high has the right side, but still common enough to not discount it as ‘impossible or unheard of’, and as proven the postion was not impossible, and confirmed by Dr Dempster (Crown Pathologist) as not requiring unnecessary distortions to achieve.

    Do not be sucked into the game played where people try to excuse the facts by creating variables on insignificant factors.
    Until someone can provide to Collins factual evidence that disproves the blood spatter pattern on Robin, the evidence clearly indicates he committed suicide. The implications of that are huge and supercede the other aspects argued about, because it is solid factual evidence.”

    OK, Judith. So you finally supposedly have it. A single piece of undisputed evidence thta exonerates David Bain. Hooray. Now we can all pack up and go and spend our time on something else. Well done.

    Ummm…., but before we do you really should be able to document this from photos and expert testimony. You’ve even got a good and genuine guy like Dennis Horne interested in researching this some more, when, really, the onus is on you, as it is on David Bain, to establish this supposed new indisputable fact. Which, given the manner in which you have announced it, should be a very simple matter.

    Call me fussy, but it’s just I seem to remember the glasses lens, the time the computer was turned on, and then the blood on Robin’s clothes, which, if tested would prove to be from members of his family (and when tested it wasn’t) all turned out to be cases of…’crying “wolf”‘

    So let’s call the next bit “show and tell” time. You’ve insisted I give you an answer as to how it occurred. In the real adult world of establishing facts, people prove their facts, THEN they are in a position to make the claim, and invite scrutiny/test competing scenarios that fit the established facts. But despite the certainty of your rhetoric, we aren’t yet at the point of established fact. In the words of Dotcom (and this one in a long string of his requests, but obviously you missed it, or you wouldn’t have lead out with this again first thing, second morning in a row): –

    “Post your evidence if it is so important to you, in spite of it not apparently being important to anyone else. Where’s you photo? You were asked for this hours ago. Put up or shut up, Judy Baby”.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (955) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 6:20 pm
    Judith

    What you need to know is, the police copies of the manual no longer have the relevant pages anymore. They probably went up in smoke with the Bain house, along with so much of the evidence. Blame the Bain family, not our lily white, butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths, haven’t got anything wrong, ever, police.

    LOL, yes, I’m an sure the twisted one would gladly track down every copy that remains and rip them out herself if she could.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (2,008) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    muggins (2,005) Says:

    February 6th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    Once again, by the numbers.
    Doyle was not in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain,so he doesn’t know what Pryde did or did not do.
    Pryde himself never said he strip-searched Bain.
    But none of that matters now.
    What matters is that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked when in actual fact he had concealing cover, ie a blanket,so in my opinion he lied to Binnie. But as I have already said twice today, I’m not the judge of whether that was a lie or not,we will have to wait and see.
    If Pryde had said he strip-searched Bain then Binnie would not have had to ask Bain if he was naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    So the idiot is either accusing Weir or Doyle of hiding proof that there was no strip search.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,862) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    So the idiot is either accusing Weir or Doyle of hiding proof that there was no strip search.

    Worse still, he is accusing untold numbers of police of breaching the confidentiality that their job demands. How many heads will roll for this? Oh, the police don’t break the rules, so they will all call muggins a liar. Too funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    And if I understand it correctly even those contracted to do work for the police are bound by that confidentiality. So yes they will call him a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  422. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    I think the Banes should email their ‘evidence’ directly to Judith Collins. To confirm what she already knows. I mean how could she not be aware of the ‘evidence’.

    It seems incredible to me that just because Judith Collins doesn’t roll over and pay out on a flawed report, that it is automatically assumed that she thinks David is guilty.

    I mean really what possible evidence would she base such a conclusion on?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    When you answer for each other, is it just that you have forgotten which personality is on ‘top’?

    A bit hard when you talk to each other I guess, must be a ‘fun’ household.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    You can even use two words without needing a whole paragraph to explain what you mean by the use of them.

    I assume you meant “can’t” there, based on the context. You do realise, I presume, that “official version” is merely a label and essentially means nothing in itself? The very fact that you can immediately come back with a competing, incorrect definition of this case’s “official version” suggests that its not unreasonable to provide a definition.

    The official version is that David Bain killed his family.

    Well, it was up until the Privy Council overturned it. The official version since he was found not guilty is that he’s not guilty. There’s a difference between what’s official and what some officials might believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (249) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 7:02 pm
    When you answer for each other, is it just that you have forgotten which personality is on ‘top’?

    A bit hard when you talk to each other I guess, must be a ‘fun’ household.;)’

    Still stalking birdbrain. LLB LOL>

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    I’ll go for that ‘official version’ milt.

    Essentially however, the Bain case is the evidence against Robin and if it can ever exist as beyond proof of him as killer, I mean of course the abridged version – the lounge scene the evidence on his body and that around the house. He need not have been depressed an abuser a good or bad teacher or anything else – his guilt or innocence stands or falls by it, and to this time he is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Just assiduously reading your posts.;)

    Just an observation petal.

    Sensitive wee flower aren’t you.

    Strike a nerve?

    Mind you are there rules disallowing that here, as there are on TM?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. big bruv (15,508 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    Does it piss you off that Bain is never going to get one red cent from the tax payer?

    Come on man!, the majority of Kiwis think that Bain is as guilty as sin. Most think he got away with murder X 5 and your lies will not change a thing.

    I am sure you have better things to do with your time.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    The only thing you strike is your own bell of insanity. You decided to reveal that you have an LLB and then continued to act like a mindless, stalking idiot trying to connect other posters into your ‘master plan’ that would prove the impossible – that daddy ‘never what done it.’

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    When the Banes are spinning their half-truths, quarter-truths and non-truths they NEVER provide verifiable proof of their statements.

    If the Banes make a statement, the onus is on them to prove it.

    The Police state in their letter to Judith Collins that in the Detective Manual current in 1994 there was no instruction to remove and keep the skin surrounding the bullet wound.

    Sorry, I believe the Police rather than the alternative spoutings of double murderers, checkout operators and proven liars.

    Ad hom attacks and repeating lies ad infinitum do not make them true.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Does it piss you off that Bain is never going to get one red cent from the tax payer?

    Come on man!, the majority of Kiwis think that Bain is as guilty as sin. Most think he got away with murder X 5 and your lies will not change a thing.

    This from someone who thinks 19.9% is a majority. Bright boy, this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    I hang on every word you know,
    I feel like you write them just for me
    When you ‘correct me’, I know deep down
    That you only want me to see the light.

    Why oh why can’t they see you for the God you are, dispensing ‘the word’? 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (95) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    When the Banes are spinning their half-truths, quarter-truths and non-truths they NEVER provide verifiable proof of their statements.

    If the Banes make a statement, the onus is on them to prove it.

    The Police state in their letter to Judith Collins that in the Detective Manual current in 1994 there was no instruction to remove and keep the skin surrounding the bullet wound.

    Sorry, I believe the Police rather than the alternative spoutings of double murderers, checkout operators and proven liars.

    Ad hom attacks and repeating lies ad infinitum do not make them true.’

    Pure hate at work, have to love it – a idiot never changes it spots or finds a new mantra. Pure, expressed anger, just what daddy needed.

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

    MR DOYLE:
    Yes, yes, Detective Lodge. Detective Lodge had that responsibility and he’s
    an experienced detective, he should have, he should have done that.
    BINNIE J:
    Would that same answer apply, for example, in relation to the skin
    surrounding the bullet wound to Robin Bain? That the manual seems pretty
    clear that that skin should have been saved.

    So now Judge Binnie knew we would be having this conversation so decided to include it in his interview with Doyle.

    Is ignorance bliss for you Twisted ?

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

    twistedlemon (95) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    No need to get your knickers in a knot just because others have the correct information and you have to take the word of cops who need to cover their arses.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    big bruv (11,026) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    Nostalgia

    Does it piss you off that Bain is never going to get one red cent from the tax payer?

    Come on man!, the majority of Kiwis think that Bain is as guilty as sin. Most think he got away with murder X 5 and your lies will not change a thing.

    I am sure you have better things to do with your time.’

    Anybody that needs to call himself ‘big’ ‘don’t’ count. As for your predictions, keep swallowing them.

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

    So now Judge Binnie knew we would be having this conversation so decided to include it in his interview with Doyle.

    Could it be that Binnie, as with the PC, just wanted to piss the NZ Justice system off? Do you think?
    The twisted sisters and brothers do.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Oh dear.

    ‘No need to get your knickers in a knot just because others have the correct information and you have to take the word of cops who need to cover their arses.’

    What an awful image, a twistedsister in ‘tight’ and twisted knickers. Imagine the smell of the bits hanging out.

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

    Kanz (959) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Could it be that Binnie, as with the PC, just wanted to piss the NZ Justice system off? Do you think?
    The twisted sisters and brothers do.

    ——————————

    Yes, obviously he just made that bit up.

    What really annoys me is the person that printed all those copies of the manuals left here in NZ, and put it in there just to piss the NZ Justice system off too. You don’t suppose it was someone called Milt that planted it in them do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    One of Milt staunchest defenders has said he lied and covered up evidence of a strip search – so I guess she would know.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Binnie got confused between the defence cross-examination and the contents of the manual:

    “Paragraph 265 – footnote 142 asserts that the failure by the Pathologist and Police to cut out the skin around Robin Baln’s head wound was “in violation of the Detective Manual . This assertion is based on a question from Mr Reed QC in cross examination, which was not supported by the witness testimony in response. Mr Reed QC and the Hon Mr Binnie are factually incorrect. The Detective Manual did not in 1994, and does not now, contain that direction.”
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/forum/page-3615

    I am prepared to quote my sources so that you can check the veracity of my statements.

    Why are the Banes so frightened of giving sources? It must be because they play semantic games. It must be because they tell half-truths, quarter-truths and non-truths. If you check their sources, the whole truth becomes obvious.

    Why do the Banes always resort to abuse and ad hom attacks? It must be because their arguments are too weak to stand alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,870) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 8:11 pm
    One of Milt staunchest defenders has said he lied and covered up evidence of a strip search – so I guess she would know.

    LOL – yes, she has an ‘all seeing eye’, unfortunately she sits on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    A fairly average breakdown to this point, pick up your game twistiebitter.

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

    twistedlemon (96) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    I am prepared to quote my sources so that you can check the veracity of my statements.

    ———————————————–

    You have provided one of the most dishonest sites on the internet as a source. A site of whom the owner is being sued for defamation. It is also not an official source. It’s also a site for a group which you are a member of.

    And, I did give my source, and the chapter and section number. All you have to do is get hold of the Manual used in 1994 (the same year as was the manual sent to Justice Binnie by the MOJ).

    Your quoted site must have a copy, after all, surely they wouldn’t go posting information on their site if they didn’t verify its authenticity.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (96) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Why are the Banes so frightened of giving sources?
    ———————————————————-

    In an extended discussion over Spanish indemnification policy, you argued and never once gave a reference. You also never once gave a reference when you declared that Reed was present at the interview’s of the police and cross-examined them.

    In fact, you don’t use references but expect others to. Rather hypocritical of you isn’t it, but not unexpected for an habitual liar, like you, who constantly loses.

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

    twistedlemon (96) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    I am prepared to quote my sources so that you can check the veracity of my statements.

    Can you please provide an authentic source of where you got the information that a member of the defence team, (in the person of Reed) was present at the police interviews and was allowed to cross-examine them?

    When you’ve finished doing that, can you then give the reference where you got the idea that the Crown was not given the right to cross examine?

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

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/forum/page-3615

    I am prepared to quote my sources so that you can check the veracity of my statements.

    Now, that is the best joke I have heard in years, and I have heard some beauties.
    The source being a site of lies so we can check the veracity.

    ROFLMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Don’t be so critical. Twistedbutt’s lines got written by a beached whale at kapiti.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/forum/page-3615

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    So was it Doyle or Weir lying about the strip search sister?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Jimbo (214) Says:

    @ 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?

    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!”.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (2,008) Says:

    Once again, by the numbers.
    Doyle was not in the room when Dr Pryde examined Bain,so he doesn’t know what Pryde did or did not do.
    Pryde himself never said he strip-searched Bain.
    But none of that matters now.
    What matters is that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked when in actual fact he had concealing cover, ie a blanket,so in my opinion he lied to Binnie. But as I have already said three times today, I’m not the judge of whether that was a lie or not,we will have to wait and see.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Look, fanny is back to spamming.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,874) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    Look, fanny is back to spamming.
    ————————-

    Yeah, and because she can’t be trusted, someone else is writing them for her. Did she every tell you about how she had to ride her bike to work instead of driving. Poor old aunt fanny, it affected her for life.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. muggins (5,102 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.

    End of quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    The thought of a fanny that size on a bike is wot I don’t like.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Twisted butt @ 8.18
    Nice try quote from the porn rag that is counterspin, I previously challenged muggins to come up with ‘facts’ uncovered by counterspin that had not been gained via the media, the best he could come up with is the correct spelling of the dogs name! There are no facts or identifiable sources on CS, it contains spun out twisted information gained via the media and is nothing more than a glorified witchhunt, Kent relies on the PCA investigation to ‘insist it was a proper impartial investigation’, the site is also full of misinformation such as the rifle contained ‘bloody fingerprints’ again no sources and the only person who claimed this has shown to be a proven liar and totally wrong in his fingerprint analysis back in 1995. It will be interesting when Kents defamation case gets to court, he thinks he will wriggle out of it using the ‘honest opinion’ defence yet in order to do this you have to show that you have established sufficient facts and that these are not materially different from the truth. As the amount of ‘facts’ established by CS is zero his chances of convincing anyone this are 0.0000%

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    The ‘twisted sisters’ have to resort to using the police nitpicking of errors in the Binnie report, I guess it must be fatally floored, the cops don’t accept the criticisms of them! Or they are just trying to cover there arses again? yes I remember now it was a ‘copybook’ investigation.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (612) Says:

    The simple fact is, Robin was dropped by the curtains as he entered the computer alcove, was picked up under the shoulders, thereby spilling blood onto the curtains, lugged across and dumped on the beanbag, the spare magazine placed on its edge by his outstretched hand, the rifle also placed in an unlikely way, ALL TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE SUICIDE.

    That worked for a while until the pathologist entered and said it didn’t look like a real suicide. NO, IT LOOKED LIKE A FAKE SUICIDE as any only but a complete fool can see by looking at this photograph:

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

    Nothing ties Robin to the rifle. NOTHING. He didn’t even smudge Stephen’s prints on the suppressor.

    “MY CORE BELIEVE IS I WAS NOT THERE.” Yeah, core belief all right. Apple core.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  460. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Rowan (598) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Do you want to hear a joke that is about as good as twisted sister’s above? You may already have herd it, but is just as good second time around.
    A few years ago, when they were first asking for donations to fight JK in the def. case, they were telling each other that they would probably get a profit on their donations. Firstly, they are going down big time. Secondly, even if you successfully defend such a case, there is never a profit to be made. Muggins for one, was totally sucked in to that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Poor old Lord Dennis No Nuts is about to get quoted in ad nauseam.
    Well, I guess he asked for it when he signed up with 23 other nutters.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (612) Says:

    Binnie explains Discombobulation

    Robin didn’t pee before the killing spree, piss his pants strangling Stephen, visit the lavatory during his clean up.

    Robin changed his bloodied clothes (forgot underpants) before he shot himself but barely washed his hands, because they had little or no blood on them when found.

    Robin forgot to leave a suicide letter explaining himself, typing instead an immature message on the computer praising the son who habitually locked him out of the lounge/computer alcove.

    Robin didn’t grasp the muzzle (suppressor) to guide the rifle (accurately) to his temple, in order not disturb Stephen’s pristine prints, but left no prints on the rifle anywhere. He got spatter from the head wound on his left index fingernail that was supposedly near the trigger.

    Robin, now dead, realised he wasn’t going to fall with his hand outstretched near where he had placed the magazine on its edge, under the table a metre from the beanbag, so he discombobulated over to make it look like suicide.

    ========

    Cabinet combobulates

    Robin was shot dead as he entered the computer alcove, his body lifted up under the shoulders, so spilling blood onto the curtains, and dragged over and dumped on the beanbag to make it look he shot himself there. The spare magazine was placed on its edge a few millimetres from his outstretched hand. The probability of it falling that way is 0 and the rifle was also placed unconvincingly. So while the police initially thought it was suicide they very soon realised it was murder.

    End of quote

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Kanz (961) Says:

    February 6th, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    Do you want to hear a joke that is about as good as twisted sister’s above? You may already have herd it, but is just as good second time around.

    Kanz,
    I didn’t know you were a goat herd.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    ‘when in actual fact he had concealing cover’

    Muggins
    No ‘facts’ in this, and no denial from Doyle et all, that Dr Pryde strip searched David, the only suggestion that this wasn’t so is wait for it yours, so I’m sorry but am not yet convinced by anything you say, and as you have repeatedly demonstrated you are the liar in this case. Your ‘proof’ for these ‘supposed’ phone calls to various witnesses and an signed statement of what they said?
    No didn’t think so! more likely the calls didn’t even take place.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne says
    The problem we have is not the compensation. The problem is how can a man who almost certainly, based on a mass of evidence, be found not guilty? What went wrong?

    I suggest our lawyer-serving system is nothing more than an anachronistic circus. We need fundamental changes which won’t happen because the adversarial system is a gold mine. Winning matters, not truth.

    Despite what clever lawyers like Pyscho Milt say, any panel of scientists would come to the conclusion I did: The likelihood Robin killed himself approaches zero. Do lawyers have a menu when they have dinners? How do they manage to chose?

    The list is a mile long but here’s enough to convict 10 times:

    1. Normal overnight urine load despite fighting Stephen to the death and washing up.
    2. Blood spot on left index fingernail (supposed trigger hand).
    3. The lack of Robin’s prints on the rifle despite it taking other prints.
    4. Stephen’s pristine prints on suppressor not smudged where Robin would have grasped it.
    5. The difficult temple shot not mouth shot lying on the sofa or beanbag.
    6. The changing into old clothes without underpants to meet God.
    7. The location and orientation of the spare magazine on its edge.
    8. The location of body away from where he died.
    9. If he were escaping the “incest”, why not just kill himself? Why kill others? Why leave the son who locked him out of the lounge/computer alcove?
    10. No written explanation, only a pathetic “suicide” “message” praising this son.

    This demand to pay compensation to protect the integrity of the system is the equivalent of:
    THE OPERATION WAS A GREAT SUCCESS BUT THE PATIENT DIED.

    Maybe this absolute travesty of justice will mobilise enough people to demand changes. For a start, the “not proven” verdict should be made available TOMORROW.

    End of quote

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  466. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Ah, this bears repeating, it was so good.

    Rowan (598) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Do you want to hear a joke that is about as good as twisted sister’s above? You may already have heard it, but is just as good second time around.
    A few years ago, when they were first asking for donations to fight JK in the def. case, they were telling each other that they would probably get a profit on their donations. Firstly, they are going down big time. Secondly, even if you successfully defend such a case, there is never a profit to be made. Muggins for one, was totally sucked in to that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,876) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Look, fanny is back to spamming.

    Fanny? I would say Moronic Juvenile Sucker suits him better in several ways. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    Essentially however, the Bain case is the evidence against Robin and if it can ever exist as beyond proof of him as killer, I mean of course the abridged version – the lounge scene the evidence on his body and that around the house. He need not have been depressed an abuser a good or bad teacher or anything else – his guilt or innocence stands or falls by it, and to this time he is guilty.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that in the court of Nostalgia-NZ’s personal opinion, Robin Bain has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is the verdict has no standing on the outside of your head, where the rest of the universe is.

    One of Milt staunchest defenders has said he lied and covered up evidence of a strip search – so I guess she would know

    Is this just another of those incomprehensible passages you come up with, or is it part of the ongoing “which of the eminent Bain scholars on the thread is the stupidest stinky butt” debate?

    …the Binnie report, I guess it must be fatally floored…

    God give me strength. This certainly explains why you don’t seem to actually comprehend the comments you read.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    There you go patting yourself on the back again. 😉 funny really, bit sad always looking back in the past. You looking for karma?
    I hear karma is a bitch.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (252) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    Why are you so rude to your mate Psycho Milt?
    In case you hadn’t noticed, those who support the same line as you do are becoming thin on the ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    All just a wait and see, everything will be sub judice (judith) for a while, so what’s to say. I just like hanging out here since cyber pointed the way. Thanks nana.’)

    Getting to know new people, getting acquainted etc. ‘joking around’

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    Do you understand the concept of sarcasm? apparently not!

    Heres the defence questioning of Jim Doyle, notice how he trys to play dumb when asked about testing for gunshot residue, classic!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8NzHC4Xo-E&NR=1&feature=endscreen

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    @ Rowan, I’m outa here, that goldnkiwi is looking to hook up, you are on your own, mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    All I hear is Reed badgering the witness and saying highly unlikely, highly unlikely. Is that a concession? That there is nothing definitive about any of the evidence because it is ……circumstantial.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Don’t you understand sarcasm either? Perhaps Rowan could teach you a thing or two. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    Bad timing on a Law Commission Report going before Judith Collin’s when she is cited for a Judicial Review for not releasing a Government commissioned report lol, seems like a lot of people no longer want Government to be sovereign. There is enough petty bureaucracy now without Ministers or their offices having to explain every petty little thing to The Banes of this world, doesn’t anybody want to get anything done? I can just imagine it now.

    Vote for who you want to get in, get rid lof list MP’s and let them get on with their job. As it is, Minister’s are expected to know the minutiae of their portfolios. Mein gott why bother having staff. If your head is going to roll on the basis of advice, don’t take advice…simple. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. goldnkiwi (2,553 comments) says:

    The other clips are good watching too especially the Bain neighbour saying what a gentle man Robin was.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Where’d everybody go?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,165) Says:
    February 6th, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    ‘I have no doubt whatsoever that in the court of Nostalgia-NZ’s personal opinion, Robin Bain has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is the verdict has no standing on the outside of your head, where the rest of the universe is.

    Is this just another of those incomprehensible passages you come up with, or is it part of the ongoing “which of the eminent Bain scholars on the thread is the stupidest stinky butt” debate?

    God give me strength. This certainly explains why you don’t seem to actually comprehend the comments you read.’

    Speaking of ‘outside your head’ Milt, it’s actually a very big place. A place in which David Bain was found not guilty, then found innocent on the BOP, following which in a poll 74% agreed that he should be paid compensation. But keep hyperventilating and asking for spiritual intervention.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    Q. The suggestion is that whoever did the killings wore that green jersey?
    Doyle. Correct.
    Q. And it depends of course as to who was wearing that green jersey ?
    Doyle. Correct.
    Q. David has always said that the green jersey was his fathers and not his?
    Doyle . Correct.

    But David Bain,until he took the stand, always said that green jersey was Arawa’s.

    Why did Doyle lie on oath?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. corrigenda (144 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,877) Says:

    February 7th, 2013 at 4:40 pm
    following which in a poll 74% agreed that he should be paid compensation.

    Ahem (I am getting a sore throat from all these coughs) The poll was taken BEFORE it was revealed that Justice Binnie had made a proper ass of himself and his report was so flawed Judith Collins refused to give it any credence. I would dearly love to see a poll taken now that NZ has seen the comedy of errors that was the Binnie report.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. Nostalgia-NZ (6,406 comments) says:

    According to you he lied on oath about the strip search and conspired to defeat the course of justice by ignoring ‘evidence’ passed onto him by a jurnior officer who you claim as a confidant. You are the one that has called he and Weir liars, and who claims that they deliberately hid material evidence of the strip search known by you and no other. You are also the one that has been contacting witnesses, given them undertakings about confidentiality and then publishing a version of what they said on here. I think who the liar is clear, and I think you are in trouble over it.

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

    I think who the liar is clear, and I think you are in trouble over it.

    Is it possible they will say “yes, I told him that”? No way.
    I can tell you about a lady who had the same cleaning job for 17 years. One evening she went off to clean the Police station and saw something that made her worry, she then went, as usual, to clean the courthouse next, and saw something up on the board. After work she rang a family member to see if they were alright. Next afternoon she turned up for work only to find out she no longer had a job. Confidentiality is paramount.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Corrigenda
    Keep telling yourself that the poll was actually after the Binnie report had been released, the ‘Daddy didn’t do it’ campaign needed to set up online polls which they could control so as to be able to multivote. Their so called petition got a few thousand votes (less than 1% of the population of NZ) and they needed there members to vote 4 or 5 times each to achieve this
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    muggins (2,022) Says:

    February 7th, 2013 at 5:41 pm
    Q. The suggestion is that whoever did the killings wore that green jersey?
    Doyle. Correct.
    Q. And it depends of course as to who was wearing that green jersey ?
    Doyle. Correct.
    Q. David has always said that the green jersey was his fathers and not his?
    Doyle . Correct.

    But David Bain,until he took the stand, always said that green jersey was Arawa’s.

    Why did Doyle lie on oath?

    But in fact Doyle did not “lie” on oath. He had obviously forgotten that David Bain had always said,up until he took the stand ,that the green jersey the killer wore belonged to Arawa.
    And Doyle wasn’t in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain so he would not know whether Pryde strip-searched Bain or not.
    Now some posters are saying I did not contact any police officers. Ok, well if that is the case David Bain doesn’t have a problem.
    But if I did contact four police officers and one of them said he was never naked, he has got a problem.
    If any of those police officers did tell me anything it was not confidential,so far as I am concerned. If it was they surely wouldn’t have told me what they told me,if in fact,they did tell me anything.
    Maybe I made it all up. Maybe I don’t know that two police officers left the room for a few minutes. Maybe I don’t know that a third police officer was standing in a doorway while Pryde was carrying out his examination. Maybe I havn’t got an email confirming that.
    That’s a whole lot of maybe’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    corrigenda (82) Says:

    February 7th, 2013 at 5:51 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ (2,877) Says:

    February 7th, 2013 at 4:40 pm
    following which in a poll 74% agreed that he should be paid compensation.

    Ahem (I am getting a sore throat from all these coughs) The poll was taken BEFORE it was revealed that Justice Binnie had made a proper ass of himself and his report was so flawed Judith Collins refused to give it any credence. I would dearly love to see a poll taken now that NZ has seen the comedy of errors that was the Binnie report.
    corrigenda
    Exactly. People are becoming more informed by the day. I would not be at all surprised if a poll taken tomorrow would show that 80% or more are against Bain receiving any compensation.
    But the payment of compensation will not be decided by opinion polls. It will be decided by cabinet. And the way things are looking now Bain has got Buckley’s chance of receiving a penny in compensation.
    And I don’t mean Mark Buckley, who is out of the country at the moment,in case anyone is wondering why he hasn’t made any comment as yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Would that ‘poll’ be set up so you and the ‘justice for daddy’ trolls get multiple voting rights, keep dreaming old bean.
    You really show your lack of braincells with statements like the above
    ‘But the payment of compensation will not be decided by opinion polls. It will be decided by cabinet. And the way things are looking now Bain has got Buckley’s chance of receiving a penny in compensation’
    good that you can acknowledge the first part that is correct, (probably the only correct thing you have posted on KB) The rest is utter speculation and you still seem to think that voting will somehow influence it, despite what you acknowledge previously.
    Judy isn’t going to be able to wriggle out of this one, her chance of keeping her own job is getting slimmer let alone as you seem to dream ‘becoming PM’
    Keep dreaming!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  488. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    I like how the Bain cultists are getting carried away by a non-scientific poll. All the while they ignore that even David’s lawyer (former lawyer to be correct) thinks David is guilty, and wrote to the Justice Minister to tell her so. When your own lawyer is prepared to put the boot in, you know the game’s up. Alas, Joe Karam – a former rugby player who clearly took a few too many head knocks – will keep perservering, apparently unaware that he will not win this one because his blue eyed boy had told too many lies. I wonder what the polls would show now, after the public have learnt that David is a bald faced liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    The case of Chris Huhne is instructive here. Here is a man who until recently had a bright political future. But his lies over a speeding ticket have meant his career is in ruins. To think, a politican would risk his entire career over something so trivial. Yet, according to Justice Binnie, David Bain would not lie about the murders of his mother, father, sisters, and brother.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/chris-huhnes-downfall-is-another-example-of-the-amazing-risks-a-politician-will-take-8480518.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,982) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:09 am

    ———————————-

    Strange, how many times have I heard the spinners praise certain ‘non scientific’ polls, and yet now, when they go against them, suddenly they aren’t any good, anymore.

    What you say about the lawyer, would be correct if he had shown himself in his handling of other clients to have integrity and be reputable. Sadly he has not done that, quite the opposite. In fact he has shown himself to be a poor lawyer and did a shocking case of representing Bain at the first trial. He has also been proven to have lied about certain things about that case, proof of which has been sent to the Minister.

    The public hasn’t learned anything of the sort, despite what you might believe, the majority of the public do not visit your ‘wonderland’ and have ‘tea parties’ with the mad hatter and his friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,983) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:16 am
    The case of Chris Huhne is instructive here. Here is a man who until recently had a bright political future. But his lies over a speeding ticket have meant his career is in ruins. To think, a politican would risk his entire career over something so trivial.

    ——————————

    An yet, here we have Ms Collins, who repeated the lie the police had told her, that the 1994 Detective Manual did not recommended cutting the skin from around a gunshot wound. When in fact it does, and the copy that was an exhibit at the trial and owned by the police shows it. Still, she’ll use the excuse she was given bad advice, (she’s in the habit of getting bad advice) and squirm her way out of it, but she should have checked.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    > she should have checked

    Shouldn’t Binnie have done some checking of the veracity of David’s fanciful story? Shouldn’t Bnnie have checked before he said, wrongly, that police were responsible for the burning of 65 Every St? Shouldn’t Bnnie have made sure, before making a school boy faux pas, that the onus of proof was on David and not on the Crown? And how could Binnie make such simple errors regards the 10 shot magazine which he said was empty (it was not) and the clock radio (there was a separate clock and radio)?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Binnie didn’t even know how many shots David inflicted on Stephen when he murdered him. How could someone who spent a year studying the case not know the basics? Or why didn’t he check them?

    The Banes , of course, would now accuse Binnie of lying. Because, according to them, no-one ever makes a genuine mistake but always deliberately lies.

    So, is Binnie a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,984) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:31 am
    > she should have checked

    Shouldn’t Binnie have done some checking of the veracity of David’s fanciful story? Shouldn’t Bnnie have checked before he said, wrongly, that police were responsible for the burning of 65 Every St? Shouldn’t Bnnie have made sure, before making a school boy faux pas, that the onus of proof was on David and not on the Crown? And how could Binnie make such simple errors regards the 10 shot magazine which he said was empty (it was not) and the clock radio (there was a separate clock and radio)?

    ———————————

    Binnie did do some checking, and David’s story was not proven to be ‘fanciful’, so he was bound to believe it by law. That is, to make it simpler for you, the Police were unable to disprove his story, therefore it stands.

    The police were responsible for allowing the house to be burned. As a crime scene they had to give permission for that to happen. Which they gave. If they had said no, the fire service would not have burned it.

    The onus is on David to prove his innocence BRD, and if that can’t be done, to prove his innocence on the BOP, providing there are extra-ordinary circumstances. The extra-ordinary circumstances are well proven. The balance of probabilities are also proven. When it comes to deciding those, as you know a measure is done on the likelihood of what has been claimed as being true. In the absence of anything to deny, or disprove it, then a calculation is made on the facts that are available.

    So the 10 shot magazine was not empty, does that prove murder? Considering the vast amount of data and information presented to him, that he should make a small error like that, especially when it was one initially stated at trial by a witness and had to be corrected. Obviously there is conflicting evidence in the data he was provided with (he was given trial transcripts).

    There was a clock radio. It was set to go off at the same time automatically, instead of ringing as an alarm, the radio would go. See the exhibits. Whether Binnie said as ‘clock and radio’ or just clockradio is just semantics, it doesn’t add anything to the BOP, does it.

    Collins error was huge, because she lists it as a reason for rejecting a person’s report, based on ‘their’ errors. When you do such a thing, you need to make damn sure you don’t get anything wrong yourself, because they look twice as bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (97) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:44 am

    ————————————

    Oh look who is back, Counterspin’s number one stuff up.

    So what are you going to lie about today?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Psycho Milt (3,314 comments) says:

    …here we have Ms Collins, who repeated the lie the police had told her, that the 1994 Detective Manual did not recommended cutting the skin from around a gunshot wound. When in fact it does…

    If you’re confident a review of Binnie’s report would reveal a clear and deliberate lie by the Police in their response, you must be very annoyed that the Bain camp have decided to adopt delaying tactics to prevent that review. Until then, this “lie” remains an unsupported allegation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. muggins (5,102 comments) says:

    The fact that Binnie did not realise there were three rounds in that 10 round magazine was a bad mistake.
    Why would Robin Bain change magazines when there were still three live rounds in that magazine?
    Why does Binnie refer to Tania Donaldson’s first statement and not her second statement where she says she is sure she was at work no later than 6.41.?
    What happened to the evidence given by that Education Board official who said that Robin had made an appointment to see her on the Monday morning?
    Who was the police officer who asked for the laundry light to be turned on?
    Why did Bain say at trial that his father wasn’t going to be part of the house and then tells Binnie the opposite?
    Bain said he has sinced walked from Heath Street to 65 Every Street and it took him quite a bit longer than his original estimate of 2/3 minutes. How much longer? A police officer said he walked it in 2m15s. Bain must be pretty slow now.
    Bain told Binnie the dog slowed him down. He didn’t mention that to the police when he said he estimated it would take him 2/3 minutes to walk from Heath Street to home.
    Bain said he sat in a big chair in the lounge close to the TV which enabled him to watch a video on the Sunday night without the use of his mother’s glasses. He has never mentioned that chair before.
    To be fair to Binnie he seems to accept that Bain may well have worn his mother’s glasses that weekend. He just can’t figure out how they came to be in David Bain’s bedroom on the Monday morning. He sure ain’t no Sherlock Holmes.
    Bain said there was a person in that group who Laniet met up with on the Sunday who said Laniet was excited,looking forward to coming home. There was no such person.
    When Binnie showed Bain a photo of those trackpants that were in the wash that compared them to Robin Bain’s trackpants
    Binnie says that that those track pants could not have belonged to Robin. Bain says he does not recognise those track pants. Binnie says “Could be another member”. The only member of the Bain family that was taller than Robin was David.
    When Binnie asked Bain if there was a girl in the street that he was planning to rape Bain said there was no girl.
    Yet in an inteview shortly after the trial Karam said the police had located that girl in Australia.
    Binnie said Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain. Dr Pryde never said he strip-searched David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    If they had said no, the fire service would not have burned it.

    So, it wasn’t the police who burnt it? If the family hadn’t given its permission, the house would not have been burnt. The fact is the family wanted it burnt, the fire service did it. The decision had nothing to do with police. In a fit of pique directed at police, Binnie stuffed up badly.

    There was a clock radio.

    Actually, there was a radio and a separate alarm clock. How could Binnie, one of the finest legal minds in the world according to his own press, make such a basic mistake?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    So the 10 shot magazine was not empty, does that prove murder?

    What it shows is that Binnie is human and isn’t exempt from making errors. But because police made errors, he is outraged. Indeed, police errors constitute “extraordinary circumstances”, according to him. By the same logic, Binnie’s mistakes constitute extraordinary circumstances…such that the government can ignore his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,987) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 11:53 am
    If they had said no, the fire service would not have burned it.

    So, it wasn’t the police who burnt it? If the family hadn’t given its permission, the house would not have been burnt. The fact is the family wanted it burnt, the fire service did it. The decision had nothing to do with police. In a fit of pique directed at police, Binnie stuffed up badly.

    There was a clock radio.

    Actually, there was a radio and a separate alarm clock. How could Binnie, one of the finest legal minds in the world according to his own press, make such a basic mistake?

    ————————-

    You are wrong, there is a photo of the alarm/radio in the caravan, and the item was an exhibit at trial. The police also reported the ‘radio’ from the alarm clock/radio was still going when they got to the caravan. The ‘alarm’ was a radio. There was a separate tape/radio as well.

    If you check your trial transcripts you will see that permission was given by the Police to burn the house. As stated before the family wanted it burned, but because it was a crime scene the Police had to agree. The family could NOT burn it down without their permission.

    The police errors are not a matter of saying a cartridge was empty when it wasn’t, by someone that had not seen it.

    The police errors include lying, not following the manual in a large number of occasions. Failing to undertake certain investigations, destroying evidence before all avenues of redress had been explored, etc etc etc.

    The police errors are hardly a couple. Rodney Hide got to twelve and he still hadn’t touched on a number of other ‘mistakes’.

    The fact is, the police shouldn’t make errors because the life of innocent people is at stake. They should have investigated motives, they should have investigated the possibility of innocence, they should have tested all samples as per the manual, they should have taken samples as per the manual, they should have tested for GSR in the correctly timeliness, they should not have moved the bodies without ensuring they were suitably protected, they should have kept all samples of evidence like carpet etc, they should not have lost statements made by witnesses, they should have tested timeliness, they should have recorded the photos, …… and so on.

    They are there to protect society and they can hardly do that when they are bumbling bloody idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote