Hope legal aid isn’t funding this

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

The Herald reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Looks like the spinners are getting pretty desperate, the magazine still contained 3 bullets, And?
    We should somehow be attaching huge significance to this because somehow it proves murder one way or the other!
    ‘Why would Robin Bain change magazines when there were still three live rounds in that magazine?’
    Why would David change the magazine if there were still 3 live rounds left in the magazine? I suppose Muggins & Ross et al expect us to believe that the killer counted the bullets. Most likely there was a jam (I think from memory there were several) which caused the killer to swap over the magazine, if this was David he wouldn’t know of the jam until attempting to shoot Robin, in which case Daddy must have patiently waited for him to change the magazine and shoot him again. How cooperative of him! really you expect us to swallow this crap LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith @ 12.31
    “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.”

    Judith don’t you remember this was a ‘copybook’ enquiry as found by the PCA investigation!

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

    Muggins @ 9.34
    “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.”
    Muggins this demonstrates your total stupidity (which we already knew btw), Whats changed here? is it somehow Davids fault that Ian Binnie has suggested his innocence on BOP to cabinet, similarly is it Davids fault that Judy can’t accept his conclusions and has to go shopping around and getting Robert Fisher to nitpick the report to justify her actions. If another poll were taken then the support is likely to increase because of the disgraceful actions of Judith Collins!

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

    Rowan (605) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
    Judith @ 12.31
    “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.”

    Judith don’t you remember this was a ‘copybook’ enquiry as found by the PCA investigation!

    Straight from the archives of the CIB ‘Stuff Ups and other such Things’ Manual for illiterate and incompetent, not to mention dishonest, detectives. Their signature is all over it. That other ‘cops’ found it ‘ok’, is no surprise.

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

    The fact is, the police shouldn’t make errors because the life of innocent people is at stake.

    The fact is that if David had simply done his paper run that fateful morning, his family would still be alive.

    No doubt you also think, like David, that 13 years is sufficient for 5 murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    You cannot remove the bolt from a semi-automatic rifle without disassembling the whole rifle. For a safe unloading you
    [a] Engage the safety catch.
    [b] Remove the magazine
    [c] Pull the cocking handle back and check that the chamber is clear.
    If there is still a round in the chamber it will be ejected at stage [c] of the safety check.
    When David Bain changed magazines that live round ejected. It was never proven to either a missfire or a missfeed.
    Simple as.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Crown prosecutor Kieran Raftery told the court that Robin Bain’s alarm clock was set for 6.30am.

    “Robin Bain put the radio on when he woke up. That was a remarkably pedestrian thing to do for someone planning four murders and a suicide,” Mr Raftery said.

    “From 6.30 to quarter to seven, allowing for listening to the radio, it doesn’t give you much time for four murders and a suicide,” he said.

    Mr Raftery also said Robin brought the newspaper inside.

    Hmmmm no mention of a clock radio. What does Raftery mean when he says Robin “put the radio on”?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,988) Says:

    The fact is that if David had simply done his paper run that fateful morning, his family would still be alive.

    No doubt you also think, like David, that 13 years is sufficient for 5 murders.

    13 years, 30 years more like. That is what David Bain would get if he committed those murders today.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    A photo of Robin’s alarm clock…where’s the radio part?

    http://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/stephen-murray-examines-an-alarm-clock-from-robin-bains-news-photo/85588157

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (12,166 comments) says:

    Bain Bain?

    Bain Bain Bain!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    13 years, 30 years more like. That is what David Bain would get if he committed those murders today.

    In some countries a mass killer would be executed. At the very least they could expect to spend the rest of their life in prison. It just goes to show what David really felt about his family and what they meant to him – less than 3 years prison for each victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,991) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    A photo of Robin’s alarm clock…where’s the radio part?

    http://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/stephen-murray-examines-an-alarm-clock-from-robin-bains-news-photo/85588157

    I think they are getting mixed up with Margaret’s room. She had a clock radio.

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

    http://s1338.photobucket.com/albums/o681/Person5198/Bain%20photos/?action=view&current=Caravaninsides-1.jpg

    There is an alarm/radio listed in the exhibits as coming from the Caravan. The police note the ‘radio alarm’ was still going when they arrived. There was also a tape/radio and a clock. I am presuming it is the dark object next to the book with the skull. As you seen to have the exhibits photos perhaps you can get it from them.

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

    “Robin ‘put’ the radio on when he woke up”
    Really likely isn’t it Ross, on this basis why didn’t he turn it off after leaving the caravan? Robin had an hour to commit the crimes you are deluded if you think he ‘couldn’t’ have got up before 6.32am (but hey we already knew that!). Remember Raftery conceded that it was more likely that daddy turned on the computer, hence he was already in the lounge before David got home!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Robin was certainly reading some interesting books. I wonder if they were his background reading for the murders?

    He certainly seemed obsessed with reading about murder/death.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (606) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    —————–

    Especially when you consider Robin was a man that used low wattage light bulbs because he didn’t like paying for electricity. Why would he leave the radio going in his caravan? It started at 6.32 am, and wasn’t turned off. Probably because he wasn’t there when it went off. He was already in the house killing his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    A couple of simple Yes/Nos

    The killer was ‘counting’ the number of bullets in the magazine
    Robin patiently waited while David changed the magazines and shot him again
    The rifle jammed causing the killer to swap over the magazines

    You might like to refer to the following before you make idiotic statements about ‘no misfire or misfeed’
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2340220/Murder-scenario-barmy-Bain-defence

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Key words “The defence maintains” .
    The defence were never able to prove that live round found in the lounge was either a misfire or a misfeed.
    You will have to do better than that.
    David Bain wasn’t counting the number of bullets. He had already finished the job. But he decided to change magazines so he could use that 10 shot magazine as a prop.
    Robin didn’t have to wait ,he was already dead.
    The rifle didn’t jam.
    Please try to keep up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,374) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    Robin was certainly reading some interesting books. I wonder if they were his background reading for the murders?

    He certainly seemed obsessed with reading about murder/death.

    Those books could have been put there by David.

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

    But he decided to change magazines so he could use that 10 shot magazine as a prop.

    As a prop? For what? Why would he? You are not thinking at all.

    Those books could have been put there by David.

    Once again, how dumb and desperate are you becoming, to suggest such rubbish?

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

    Keep dreaming Muggins
    How did the ‘live’ bullet get there? Defence expert Philip Boyce said the bullet was consistent with a misfeed/misfire. The crown deny this but didn’t produce any evidence to rebut Boyces evidence
    Yes I suppose David ‘planted’ the books in the caravan just like the bullet shells, when do you suppose he got an opportunity to do this?
    ‘so he could use the magazine as a prop’ for what? utter speculation
    collective weight of your argument, again 0.000000% look you have progressed an extra 2 zeros well done!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,374) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    http://s1338.photobucket.com/albums/o681/Person5198/Bain%20photos/?action=view&current=Caravaninsides-1.jpg

    There is an alarm/radio listed in the exhibits as coming from the Caravan. The police note the ‘radio alarm’ was still going when they arrived. There was also a tape/radio and a clock. I am presuming it is the dark object next to the book with the skull. As you seen to have the exhibits photos perhaps you can get it from them.

    Sorry, no alarm radio mentioned.
    Do not pass go.
    Do not collect $200.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Rowan (608) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    Keep dreaming Muggins
    How did the ‘live’ bullet get there? Defence expert Philip Boyce said the bullet was consistent with a misfeed/misfire. The crown deny this but didn’t produce any evidence to rebut Boyces evidence
    Yes I suppose David ‘planted’ the books in the caravan just like the bullet shells, when do you suppose he got an opportunity to do this?
    ‘so he could use the magazine as a prop’ for what? utter speculation

    And Boyce could not prove that bullet was a misfeed or misfire.
    It is obvious that magazine was planted there.
    Re those shells in the caravan. No, I don’t think David Bain planted them. I believe he shot at that target from the caravan and that is how those shells got there. Robin Bain would have had no opportunity to use that rifle seeing as he was only home at the weekends.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

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

    Obviously planted, no doubt about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

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

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

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

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

    ¤ The Crown Solicitor therefore knew this fact at trial.

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

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

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

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

    End of quote.
    And now it is my great pleasure to quote the brilliant Dotcom, and plenty more where that came from.

    Vote: 0 0

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    ‘Obviously planted’ well of course given that CS thinks so!
    Muggins this is what the PC had to say about the spare magazine and also the ‘misfeed/misfire’, should I accept them or the ex car sales bumboys opinion on the matter? tough choice!

    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 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Really likely isn’t it Ross, on this basis why didn’t he turn it off after leaving the caravan?

    I thought you had all the answers.

    Was Robin dressed for school? No. He presumably was intending to return to the caravan to get dressed at some stage. Maybe he’d forgotten to turn it off. I know I sometimes forget to turn a light off, but obviously your memory is better than mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

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

    This is so especially with the highly incriminating glasses.

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

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

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

    End of another quote from the brilliant Dotcom.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,992) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Was Robin dressed for school? No. He presumably was intending to return to the caravan to get dressed at some stage. Maybe he’d forgotten to turn it off. I know I sometimes forget to turn a light off, but obviously your memory is better than mine.

    The reason Robin Bain wasn’t dressed for school was because he wasn’t going to school until later. He had an appointment with an Education Board official, which Binnie does not seem to be aware of, probably because it wasn’t mentioned in Trial by Ambush. Robin made that appointment for that Monday morning, and he obviously would have gone in to see that official before he went to school.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 3.40
    ‘The reason Robin Bain wasn’t dressed for school was because he wasn’t going to school until later. He had an appointment with an Education Board official, which Binnie does not seem to be aware of, probably because it wasn’t mentioned in Trial by Ambush. Robin made that appointment for that Monday morning, and he obviously would have gone in to see that official before he went to school.’
    Or this is again total speculation on what he ‘would’ have done, been having more psychic sessions with Daddy have we?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Rhetorical question. There was pomp earlier about veracity etc. Since honesty is clearly an issue, an informal poll if you will.

    Who here has been accused of/been convicted of a crime that they have plead not guilty too and been found guilty of, indubitably?

    Should any such person’s opinion be taken as honest on any matter, the rule that seems to be expected to apply to Crown witnesses? They ‘lied’ about this (in various opinions)so clearly they ”lied about everything else.

    Surely that would be exceedingly dishonest.

    It is apparent however that hypocrisy clearly has no pride what so ever!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I see Rowan reckons that magazine could have been placed there by Robin. But surely when his hand landed with a millimetre of it it would have fallen over. And why would Robin put it there? Why not just put it on the table? Why bother placing it at all? No ,I reckon it was put there deliberately as a prop.
    And there is no proof that the live bullet found in the lounge was either a misfeed or a misfire. It could have just ejected from the rifle when those magazines were changed over. If Robin had handled those magazines his fingerprints would have been on them. He wouldn’t have bothered to wipe them off, why would he?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Rowan (610) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    Muggins @ 3.40
    ‘The reason Robin Bain wasn’t dressed for school was because he wasn’t going to school until later. He had an appointment with an Education Board official, which Binnie does not seem to be aware of, probably because it wasn’t mentioned in Trial by Ambush. Robin made that appointment for that Monday morning, and he obviously would have gone in to see that official before he went to school.’
    Or this is again total speculation on what he ‘would’ have done, been having more psychic sessions with Daddy have we?

    Rowan, please try to nut things out.
    Robin Bain would not have driven all the way out to Taieri Beach and then come back into town and then driven all the way out to school again. Try to use the old grey matter, if indeed you have any grey matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Dotcom (1,386) Says:

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

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

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

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

    End of another Dotcom quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    When anyone asks who is accusing Doyle or Weir of lying it has to be the idiot who lies about the strip search, the same old bag that keeps spamming the boards with quotes from like minded idiots who have faced the reality of a failed cause and left. The same person to who the following was addressed, a inveterate liar with psychiatric problems related to a geriatric condition. The delusions follow a familiar path of continuous lying and then ‘hiding’ behind the quotes of others. However, this person has broken agreements, broken confidences and is unable to tell the truth and therefore is glowing example of a ‘hangbainer who thinks the following and other things for which there have been warnings are ‘simply’ lies to distract from a mission of hate.

    ‘According to you he (Doyle) lied on oath about the strip search and conspired to defeat the course of justice by ignoring ‘evidence’ passed onto him by a junior 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 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    muggins 11:44 am
    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?

    Question please muggins.

    I don’t think it was a bad mistake by Binnie. I think it was as good as Binnie telling anyone with an ounce of logic in their heads, that he (Binnie) was actually reporting something that can only point to David as having been a mass murderer.

    Isn’t it another way round from your “why would Robin change magazines”? Didn’t the genius Binnie actually say to himself “if Robin changed magazines to kill himself, then it can only have been because the 10-shot magazine had less than one bullet in it, that is “none”? So he wrote down what his head had told him, that the magazine can only have been empty.

    Binnie would never have read anywhere that the 10-shot magazine was empty, so he must have deduced it. And he did his work the wrong way round.

    Binnie should have been looking for evidence of suicide.

    Instead Binnie said because of his assumption of suicide, “I deduce that the 10-shot magazine must have been empty”. Having deduced this, later he forgot that it was only what he had deduced, and he reproduced it as fact.

    Muggins,

    Isn’t the corollary of this, tantamount to Binnie saying that if the killer changed the magazine when it still had 3 bullets in it, then the person who changed the magazine cannot have been contemplating suicide. In other words, Binnie has effectively said albeit in a roundabout way, that David was the killer.

    Complicated logic I know, but a clever mathematician would see this as Binnie declaring by a roundabout way that he deduced that David was the killer.

    This is very profound, but only to a very clever person. The Judiths, Nostalgias, Rowans and Kanzes won’t undertand it – logic far too sophisticated for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,879) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 5:06 pm
    ————————-

    You can’t believe a word he says. As at the date he told us he had received information using an OIA, he had not. The Police Commissioners office did not supply him with an answer to an OIA, because he never applied for one during the dates he mentioned.

    Every thing he say’s is crap, based on his own stuffed up interpretation of what he wants to see. Then he makes up a story about a phone call, and tells it to all the twisted spinners that it came from someone who ‘told him on the phone’, they then fall at his feet believing everything he says. Boy are they ever about to learn a hard lesson about being sucked in.

    It’s quite hilarious. I would just ignore everything he says now, and that was the official advice!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Question. Would the police have checked whether or not there was a bullet in the breech? Chamber? I read an opinion stating that that is where this person thought the ejected shell? was from. Not from a misfire etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. 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?

    ******************************************

    And Judith can’t answer this question – so she responds with an ad hom attack!
    Judith – is Binnie a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 3.55
    Quite obvious why Robin wasn’t ‘dressed in his best’ he had other intentions on where he was going to be so no need to drive out to Taeri or to keep appointments in town.

    Tropicana @ 5.14
    Good at twisting whats been said aren’t you. Maybe you could tell everyone how changing the magazine ‘obviously points to murder’, You also need to tell the law lords at the PC this as they threw out the argument also Bates, Raftery et al who forgot to emphasize its significance at the retrial. As I said to Muggins in my 3.33 who should I rely on, the PC or the deluded nutcase, not a hard choice!

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

    Not twisting anything Rowan, despite your perverting everything.
    I asked a question, because I don’t know.
    Nor do you, it seems.
    In any case, it’s got nothing to do with the PC. Got everything to do with what your hero, Binnie wrote in 2012.
    It is you who by reflex action, wants at all costs, to divert attention away from my question directed to muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Tropicana @ 5.14
    ‘Complicated logic I know, but a clever mathematician would see this as Binnie declaring by a roundabout way that he deduced that David was the killer.’
    Try no logic at all, now you really expect us to think that Ian Binnie actually thinks David is guilty, I suppose Ian Binnie like the PC ‘thought he was guilty’ but just decided to express the opposite view to Judith Collins to create a scandal for NZ.
    It is only total speculation on your part to say ‘the killer cannot have been contemplating suicide’, the evidence shows otherwise.
    Maybe you could look at my 3.33 where the PC rejected the argument about the spare magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Thanks Rowan. I’ve read your posts, and I’m not interested in engaging with you. You are foul-mouthed, and you have no intention of seeking the truth. I have no wish to, and will not, engage with you.

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

    Pot/kettle black Tropicana
    Can’t handle the truth don’t you mean, have to twist, missrepresent and lie to run a witchhunt hate campaign
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    It’s so comforting when another recycled ‘hero’ comes along and asks an ally a question. There’s not even a hint that it’s orchestrated unless you have a brain. The guileless believe that the ‘kick start’ which has always failed will not fail the next time. So Tropicana ‘happens’ along. What a surprise, most particularly how it avoids all the evidence which points to daddy’s guilt – the blood trail. And that the ‘question’ is to a ‘self exposed’ liar. A lot of ‘self exposure’ goes on with the daddy lovers.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    tropicana (40) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 5:14 pm
    muggins 11:44 am
    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?

    Question please muggins.

    I don’t think it was a bad mistake by Binnie. I think it was as good as Binnie telling anyone with an ounce of logic in their heads, that he (Binnie) was actually reporting something that can only point to David as having been a mass murderer.

    Isn’t it another way round from your “why would Robin change magazines”? Didn’t the genius Binnie actually say to himself “if Robin changed magazines to kill himself, then it can only have been because the 10-shot magazine had less than one bullet in it, that is “none”? So he wrote down what his head had told him, that the magazine can only have been empty.

    Binnie would never have read anywhere that the 10-shot magazine was empty, so he must have deduced it. And he did his work the wrong way round.

    Binnie should have been looking for evidence of suicide.

    Instead Binnie said because of his assumption of suicide, “I deduce that the 10-shot magazine must have been empty”. Having deduced this, later he forgot that it was only what he had deduced, and he reproduced it as fact.

    Muggins,

    Isn’t the corollary of this, tantamount to Binnie saying that if the killer changed the magazine when it still had 3 bullets in it, then the person who changed the magazine cannot have been contemplating suicide. In other words, Binnie has effectively said albeit in a roundabout way, that David was the killer.

    Complicated logic I know, but a clever mathematician would see this as Binnie declaring by a roundabout way that he deduced that David was the killer.

    This is very profound, but only to a very clever person. David Bain’s supporters won’t undertand it – logic far too sophisticated.

    Tropicana,yeah,you could be right. Binnie deduced David was the killer,but he didn’t want to say he was the killer.
    Same as with those glasses. Binnie seems to accept Bain was wearing those glasses ,and by doing so is saying that he accepts Bain lied on oath, but he doesn’t want to say he is the killer just because he lied on oath.
    Same as when Bain said he saw his mother’s eyes open.
    Same as when Bain told Binnie he was completely naked. Binnie would have known he would not have been completely naked.
    Same as with the goat story. Binnie would never have believed that.
    I can see a pattern developing here.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    How is asking a question – lying or twisting or misrepresenting or running a witch-hunt or hating? You’re quite mad, you know Rowan. But that will do, my last answer to you, and quite possibly my last comment on the topic. This is a very hostile place, that I don’t belong in, and a place with no intention of searching out any truth.

    And I know which side has contributed all the hostility. Why would a side which has truth in its side, constantly be so hostile?

    Day after day, nothing but hostility. Not just most comments, but in your case, Rowan, every comment spiked with barbs.
    If you had truth on your side, this would be completely unnecessary.

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

    Muggins @ 3.50
    Again the ‘why’ questions, was Daddy acting rationally, no rules on ‘where’ to place the magazine.
    “If Robin had handled those magazines his fingerprints would have been on them. He wouldn’t have bothered to wipe them off, why would he?”
    No fingerprints of Davids either and nothing on the magazine which would be a likely medium to hold fingerprints, suprise suprise none. We have been over this argument about the spare magazine, why do you think the PC threw it in the rubbish bin? The scene was not original and the body moved around in the various photos, no Robins hand did not hit it therefore it didn’t knock over, his weight also did not create an earthquake like motion in order to knock it over.
    Advances either argument a grand total of 0.0000%
    From the PC judgement, are you going to argue with them on this one?
    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Anyway, firm decision made.

    I’m not interested in hostility. Far too much fun to be had on other threads minus the hostility.

    No matter what the David-Bain-is-innocent people have to say, Rowan has made it clear in just 2 comments that he is too hostile for me.

    If he had truth on his side, all these months of hostility would have been completely unnecessary. Bye.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘Day after day, nothing but hostility. Not just most comments, but in your case, Rowan, every comment spiked with barbs.
    If you had truth on your side, this would be completely unnecessary.’

    What a familiar line. If you had truth on your side you would not lie about the strip search for example or call the cops liars. I hope Rowan feels suitably chastised by a hate-siter remonstrating with him his ‘awful’ behaviour. In the eyes of the hate-siters everything is just peachy rosy bsing away at length, and that anyone who stands in their way is ‘spiked with barbs’ and doesn’t have ‘truth’ on their side. How novel, never heard it before. Another moron in a long line of morons appears and backs up a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Not just you Tropicana
    The comment was about counterspin/JFRB and there many members posting here, I actually pointed out your spinning where you are trying to suggest that Binnie was actually suggesting David was the killer and the total illogic in this theory.
    Very good if this is your last comment on the topic.
    I only post here because I find some of the nutters narrow minds and shallow arguments humourous, hence I point it out to them, ‘truth’ or ‘fact’ is a very overrated concept on this blog!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Bye bye troppy. So long it’s been good to know ya.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I believe some of David Bain’s supporters may be talking about me when they mention Weir and the police commissioner.
    The last time I spoke to Weir would be about two years ago. So I have no idea why his name keeps coming up.
    As for the police commissioner, why on earth would I speak to him?
    I am saying, and I don’t really give two hoots as to whether David Bain’s supporters believe me or not, that I contacted four Dunedin police officers to try and find out if Bain was completely naked at some point when Dr Pryde was examining him.
    Not the police commissioner and not Milton Weir.
    Two police officers said they did not see Bain naked but they also said they were out of the room for a few minutes. The third police officer said I would have to go through his boss,which I did.
    His boss said I would have to put in an official request. I said could I email that request and he said yes, I could.
    So I did. He replied the same day confirming that the third police officer had told him that he was standing in a doorway when Dr Pryde was examining Bain and he had said Bain was never naked.
    So there you have it.
    Now if David Bain’s supporters think I am making this up, that’s ok by me. But if I am not making it up then David Bain has a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Of course that is his intent, to stifle debate, he will feel that he has won.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Whoopi, OIA inquires answered on the same day. Except no record of it, oh dear. How could it ever happen?

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

    Muggins
    As it has been pointed out to you many times there is no member of the police investigation/crown law that has ever made the claim about David not being strip searched anywhere. It is not in dispute so the only person trying to make the ridiculous claim is you. Does David or any of the defence team have a thing to worry about from you? no. Get that through your thick skull!!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    If David Bain is innocent, why would he lie about the glasses ?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Thick, but porous because in December 2012 the answer was going to be ‘soon’ because the imaginary officer was on leave until next week. A week that ‘extended’ into 2 months, yet today the ‘answer’ was returned on the same day. How could it happen if it were not just a ‘clerical’ error.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    If ‘toastie wasn’t a recycled zero hero why wouldn’t it/he/she ask a question of some relevance instead of rubbing up against a lamp post.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Strip searched is an emotive term that is trying to make people say ‘poor David’.
    It is the term not the ‘act’ that is objected to, in my opinion.

    Just call it a medical exam which is what it was, with David’s consent and the whole argument fades away, but we wouldn’t want that would we.

    Strip search in prison for example probably does not require consent as such, just probable cause, just like at customs.

    Of course you wouldn’t get the same ‘thrill’.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    ‘Strip searches’ would not routinely, if at all, be carried out by Drs. in prisons or at customs but by your ‘friendly’ enforcement folk.

    Perhaps someone who has been in prison and would care to share, could inform us authoritatively?

    David’s medical examination was performed by a DR.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    I bet that made sense to some demented person.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dr Pryde took penile samples from David, which is taken from inside the penile shaft, as well as other intimate samples.

    On what planet would that be considered a normal medical exam? That sort of examination is not part of the normal medical exam conducted on imprisonment.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    NZ Police Code of Conduct

    Confidentiality
    Information which comes into an employee’s possession in the course of their duties must be treated in confidence and only used for official purposes.

    •Official and private information is only released in accordance with applicable legislation and Police procedures, and by employees authorised to deal with requests for information.

    All enquiries for information must be sent to: –
    The Commissioner of Police

    (who of course has a number of employees to especially deal with such requests.)

    Requests take between 14-20 days (in line with current legislation)

    All requests are recorded.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Toast_them_both (3) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:21 pm
    If David Bain is innocent, why would he lie about the glasses ?

    —————————

    He didn’t lie, but others involved can’t claim the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    By the numbers.
    Dr Pryde never said he strip-searched David Bain. He is dead,so we can’t ask him.
    David Bain said he was completely naked when Dr Pryde examined him. The police officer who was standing in the doorway says he wasn’t.
    When I said I had to go through the head sherang I meant the head of detectives at the Dunedin police station.
    When he asked me to make an official request I asked him if I could email him that request.
    He said I could,so I did. He emailed me back the same day.
    The reason he wanted me to go through him is because he didn’t want people phoning his detectives direct. He wanted all requests for information to go through him. I can understand that. The first two detectives I contacted didn’t ask me to go through their boss. The third one did.
    There seems to be some confusion between my official request and a request made under the official information act.
    Not the same thing. Sorry if I have confused anyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Apparently David wouldn’t know if he was lying or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    There seems to be some confusion between my official request and a request made under the official information act.
    Not the same thing. Sorry if I have confused anyone.’

    The difference is?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I repeat: –

    NZ Police Code of Conduct

    Confidentiality
    Information which comes into an employee’s possession in the course of their duties must be treated in confidence and only used for official purposes.

    •Official and private information is only released in accordance with applicable legislation and Police procedures, and by employees authorised to deal with requests for information.

    All enquiries for information must be sent to: –
    The Commissioner of Police

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (262) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    ‘Strip searches’ would not routinely, if at all, be carried out by Drs. in prisons or at customs but by your ‘friendly’ enforcement folk.

    Perhaps someone who has been in prison and would care to share, could inform us authoritatively?

    David’s medical examination was performed by a DR.

    goldnkiwi.
    The prodavids need to have Dr Pryde strip-search David Bain, or alternatively see him completely naked so that they can say he had no scratches and/or bruises on his torso that morning.
    I am saying Dr Pryde never said he strip-searched Bain, nor did he see him naked.
    That is what all this fuss is about.
    You might like to explain how you believe he got those scratches. He says he doesn’t know,and nor do any of his supporters.
    David Bain told Binnie he was completely naked. That police officer says he wasn’t.
    But as I have already said, I am not the judge of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Just going slowly now, the reprobate is saying that a police officer released information to him not available under the OIC, despite that the request, and the information, can legally only come through The Commissioner’s Office. Apparently now, the Police Commissioner is also a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    What is the difference between an official request and a request under the official information act?
    I don’t really know. I guess if all one wants to do is ask if someone has seen David Bain naked or not, then one doesn’t have to request that information under the official information act.
    I also asked that detective if Dr Pryde had noted Bain’s tattoo on that diagram and he told me he had drawn a sort of shadow where that tattoo was. I requested that information on a seperate email.
    I don’t think that detective would have wanted me asking too many questions because it would have taken up to much of his time.
    But I really only wanted to know if that police officer who was standing in the doorway saw David Bain naked and he said he was never naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    …it avoids all the evidence which points to daddy’s guilt – the blood trail.

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but this “avoidance” seems to me a reasonable response to “evidence” that consists solely of confident assertions by someone who likes to go on about “haters” while sneeringly referring to Robin Bain as “daddy.” The closest thing this case has to a “blood trail,” or at least the closest thing it has to one that exists in the form of known evidence rather than someone’s personal opinion, is the blood found on David Bain’s clothes.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    All I ever do is phone people. I leave it to them to give me what information they are prepared to let me have. If they were to say I have to go through the Police Commissioner then I would go through the Police Commissioner, but so far no-one has asked me to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Well that’s a problem for the people you phoned, and for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,170) Says:

    February 8th, 2013 at 9:14 pm
    …it avoids all the evidence which points to daddy’s guilt – the blood trail.

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but this “avoidance” seems to me a reasonable response to “evidence” that consists solely of confident assertions by someone who likes to go on about “haters” while sneeringly referring to Robin Bain as “daddy.” The closest thing this case has to a “blood trail,” or at least the closest thing it has to one that exists in the form of known evidence rather than someone’s personal opinion, is the blood found on David Bain’s clothes.

    Exactly. The “daddy” haters hate “daddy”. The blood trail only leads to David Bain. Stephen’s blood was found on his clothes. I now see that Binnie reckons it might have got there when David Bain put those bloody clothes in the washing machine. I don’t think I’ve heard that one before.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    I was sure there must have been at least ‘one’ person who has been held at ‘Her Majesties’ pleasure in this thread.

    What a very law abiding, butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth assemblage, we have here. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    What a shame daddy’s nose bled, and that so did the lips of his ‘supporters.’

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I don’t have a problem. As I said I only phone people. What they are prepared to tell me is up to them.
    But David Bain might have a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Nobody narking either lol, now I would have guaranteed the presence of ‘narks’. 😉

    I wonder if there is a dictionary definition of nark?

    Yep, definitely got some of them here.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Got it. David might have a problem because a bull crapper, crapped as always.
    Or that an idiot got washed up on a beach in Kapiti, and became a beached whale. Oh what fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Did I mention I phoned Dr Dempster about that so-called nose bleed ? He said that if that bullet had caused any small bones to fracture in Robin Bain’s head that could have caused a light nose bleed,if in fact there was a nose bleed.
    I have a feeling that nose bleed is a myth perpetrated by a myth perpetrator.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,048) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    There is only one myth perpetrator here concerning Dr Dempster.

    Perhaps you need to phone him again, and this time turn your hearing aid on.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    David Bain might have a problem with his compensation claim if it can be proved he lied to Justice Binnie on oath.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    Well, Nostalgia ? I thought it was a very relevant question.

    Judith, Do you have some proof that he never lied ?

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

    muggins (2,049) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    —————————–

    So you’ve sent your lies to the Minister have you?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Toast_them_both (4) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    Well, Nostalgia ? I thought it was a very relevant question.

    Judith, Do you have some proof that he never lied ?

    ——————————-

    Do you have some proof that he did?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I didn’t get the impression that Dr Dempster would be too worried about me telling people what he told me. He certainly didn’t say that anything he told me was confidential. I told him the reason I was asking him about that nose bleed is because some of David Bain’s supporters were saying Stephen Bain punched his father in the nose.
    He did tell me a few other things, but I am not going to repeat them on here. Apart from the fact that he now believes those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands could be up to 48 hours old. That was in response to me saying that some of David Bain’s supporters reckoned he said they were 12 hours old.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I see someone is getting a bit nervous.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    Is there any proof of a nosebleed ?

    Hate to say it, but a couple people here seem to keen to tell lies !

    i have never heard of Robin having a nose bleed !

    I admit I don’t know all the evidence, but if you can show me where those things occured, I would appreciate it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Now you know you need our ‘Judith’s’ permission before you do anything, other wise she has to waste all her time having to find things out. You are selfish, now The Banes do nothing without checking in first, obviously, well it is to me anyway.

    Still no old lags or narks fessing up? 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    Oh, I see you are one of those people, sad

    If you can’t answer a simple question, kindly climb back in to your hole and allow some one who can answer it.

    or is it, that you can’t answer why David lied about the glasses ?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Toast_them_both (6) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    This is a blog, not a messagboard. Anyone that can be bothered to answer you, is allowed and can. I won’t answer you because you are a fake.

    Maybe someone with more patience will pamper to you, but it won’t be me. Oh yeah, and it’s not compulsory to answer anyone, so get off your high horse.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    A fake what? You can tell me, you are so good at picking ‘fakes’.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    Oh right, the only fake here appears to be you !

    So have any of you got an answer on why Bain lied about the glasses ?

    or is this just too difficult ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    i don’t think Toast_them_both is fake at all, and questions are very relevant. i have been especially impressed with muggins investigation. very thorough indeed. well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    LLB LOL, the intellectual powerhouse of the twisted sisters, illuminating brilliance – much like a matchstick in a gale.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘All I ever do is phone people. I leave it to them to give me what information they are prepared to let me have. If they were to say I have to go through the Police Commissioner then I would go through the Police Commissioner, but so far no-one has asked me to do that.’

    Called platting your own rope.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Called platting your own rope.

    Give them enough and they will hang not only themselves, but their ‘mates’ too.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    So,

    No answer to why Bain lied about the glasses ?

    And no proof of a nose bleed ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    No answer as to why Guest lied about the glasses, and a good photo showing the nose bleed, and a good photo showing the towel on which the nose bleed was wiped, and good photos showing cuts and bleeding to the old man’s hands, and others showing blood wash on his palms – all fits together, perfectly to show daddy is the ‘one what done it.’

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    When did Guest first mention the glasses to anyone ? Is there no proof he mentioned it to the Prosecuter in the first trial ?

    A photo of the nose bleed ? Where is the photo and was it mentioned in medical report ?

    What blood wash ? And was it mentioned in the report ? I seem to remember a couple of blood spots, thats all !

    Do you just make this up as you go along ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    Why would Robin wipe the computer keyboard clean of fingerprints ?

    and for that matter why would Robin wipe the rifle down ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    When did Guest first mention the glasses to anyone ? Is there no proof he mentioned it to the Prosecuter in the first trial ?

    That depends on which version, he has given, that you believe. Both can’t be right.

    A photo of the nose bleed ? Where is the photo and was it mentioned in medical report ?

    Do you have a copy of the medical report?

    What blood wash ? And was it mentioned in the report ? I seem to remember a couple of blood spots, thats all !

    Have you also seen the photos that N-NZ talks about? I have, and on the insides of the old mans hands there are no blood spots, just residual blood. Do you know what residual means?

    Do you just make this up as you go along ?

    If he makes it up, then he has first photo shopped photos then put them back in the police files. Not bad for a blogger to be able to manage, he must be very clever.

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

    Why would Robin wipe the computer keyboard clean of fingerprints ?

    and for that matter why would Robin wipe the rifle down ?

    Neither of those things were ‘wiped down’, now you are revealing your ignorance, and it is all encompassing.

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

    Toast_them_both (10) Says:
    February 9th, 2013 at 9:28 am
    Why would Robin wipe the computer keyboard clean of fingerprints ?

    and for that matter why would Robin wipe the rifle down ?
    ———————————–

    The computer keyboard was not wiped down.
    The fact there were no clear fingerprints is not unusual. The vast majority of crime scenes do not have ‘fingerprints all over the place’. People get the impression fingerprints must be left from watching too many TV programs like CSI.

    The gun was also not wiped down. It had many fingerprints still on it. However, the vast majority of those fingerprints did not leave clear enough ridges to define who they belonged to. They still existed though, and would not have, if the gun had been wiped.

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

    Kanz (970) Says:
    February 9th, 2013 at 9:35 am
    If he makes it up, then he has first photo shopped photos then put them back in the police files. Not bad for a blogger to be able to manage, he must be very clever.
    ———————————-

    Maybe you did it for him? Can you prove you’ve never been in the Dunedin Police station?
    You obviously have a computer, and seem to be mates with Nostalgia?

    Do you have photoshop?

    Can you recall where you were at all times between 20 June 1994 and August 2009?
    Please provide a list of your whereabouts during that period, or we won’t believe you had nothing to do with it.
    hmmmmm, ???? Well????

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    If David wishes to sue the Truth for its recent article, will he have to testify in court? Sorry if this has already been asked.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Maybe you did it for him? Can you prove you’ve never been in the Dunedin Police station?
    You obviously have a computer, and seem to be mates with Nostalgia?

    Do you have photoshop?

    Can you recall where you were at all times between 20 June 1994 and August 2009?
    Please provide a list of your whereabouts during that period, or we won’t believe you had nothing to do with it.
    hmmmmm, ???? Well????

    You got me.

    I changed ALL of the photos the cops took, that was what left them in such a shambles they couldn’t figure out when any of them were taken. I even managed to move the old man’s body on some of them. I also got hold of Dempster’s ones, that the cops didn’t know about, and wiped blood all over them.
    Please don’t tell N-NZ, though, he thinks they are genuine.

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

    No fingerprints on a computer keyboard, you are joking

    and was the Crown Prosecutor aware of what Bain was going to say about the glasses

    and weren’t Guest and the prosecutor surprised by Bain denying wearing the glasses ?

    Bain is a liar and by some of your responses, you are also lying, my guess is some of you are being paid to be here !

    I am not 100% convinced of his guilt, but he is a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    If David wishes to sue the Truth for its recent article, will he have to testify in court? Sorry if this has already been asked.

    Can’t see why he would bother. No body in their right mind would ever read it, and if they did would take it with a pinch of salt.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (971) Says:
    February 9th, 2013 at 10:09 am

    —————————-

    I thought as much! I figured it was either something like you said, or the police had handed it all to the local kindergarten for sorting.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Snarkle (43) Says:
    February 9th, 2013 at 10:04 am
    —————————

    Why would he? His case has been discussed in nearly every home in NZ at some stage.

    He is perfectly aware of what some people think. He also knows that there will be those that never believe him. All he worries about are those he loves and counts as friends.

    Like most mature people, he has worked out it is not the quantity of friends you have, that matters, it is the quality – and he has some wonderful friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Yes, but would he have to testify?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Hey Kanz, are you being paid for being here?

    Jeez man, where do I put my time sheet, I think I have a few hours to collect on, by the sounds of it.

    Some people are very weird. They are here because of something they believe in, but they find it strange that other people are here, because of what they also believe in. Really have to wonder about the intelligence quotation of these spinners.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Snarkle (44) Says:
    February 9th, 2013 at 10:20 am
    Yes, but would he have to testify?

    ——————————————

    Depends on the type and nature of the case. I suspect the Truth would settle out of court, because they would have received notification of the evidence against them.

    But it won’t happen, because no body cares what the Truth employees think, or you, or anyone else for that matter.

    Opinions don’t matter, the legal process does.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    A photo of the nose bleed ? Where is the photo and was it mentioned in medical report ?

    What blood wash ? And was it mentioned in the report ? I seem to remember a couple of blood spots, thats all !

    Do you just make this up as you go along ?

    Effectively, yes. No doubt the photos exist, but the nose bleed and “blood wash” they reveal to Nostalgia-NZ seem to have been completely invisible to the pathologist who examined Robin Bain. Of course, the pathologist was limited by only having the actual dead body to examine rather than photos, as well as by his lack of faith in the guilt of the deceased, so it’s understandable N-NZ would find his own assessment the more accurate one.

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

    I’m sorry Judith. My question was not specific enough. Here’s the scenario
    1. David feels his reputation has been adversely affected by an article alleging he committed perjury.
    2. He sues Truth for defamation.
    3. Truth sticks to its story.
    4. The matter goes to court.
    Does David have to testify?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    and was the Crown Prosecutor aware of what Bain was going to say about the glasses

    That’s not what Guest said in his letter to Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    and weren’t Guest and the prosecutor surprised by Bain denying wearing the glasses ?

    Yes. They were surprised because Guest had told Wright (the Crown prosecutor) that Bain wouldn’t be contesting having worn the glasses that weekend. Possible conclusions to be drawn from that:

    1. Bain realised when he saw the prosecution evidence in the trial (particularly Weir’s evidence that later turned out to be incorrect) that admitting to wearing those glasses would eradicate any possibility of acquittal, and decided to change his story.

    2. Guest was part of the enormous “Them never love poor David” conspiracy even before defending him in court.

    Relative likelihood of those possibilities is of course a matter of opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    I’m sorry Judith. My question was not specific enough. Here’s the scenario
    1. David feels his reputation has been adversely affected by an article alleging he committed perjury.
    2. He sues Truth for defamation.

    Hahaha, NOBODY would feel their reputation was affected in any way by what was printed in that toilet paper. Those who read it have their heads and hearts in the gutter before picking it up, so believe that type of rubbish before hand. I have yet to hear one person say they have changed their mind about something because they saw it written there. The truth is, nobody I associate with would ever admit to having read it on any subject.
    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    and weren’t Guest and the prosecutor surprised by Bain denying wearing the glasses ?

    Yes. They were surprised because Guest had told Wright (the Crown prosecutor) that Bain wouldn’t be contesting having worn the glasses that weekend. Possible conclusions to be drawn from that:

    That is NOT what his letter to Collins said.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    psychomilt;

    I like your ‘seem,’ a bser covering his or her arse.

    ‘seem to have been completely invisible to the pathologist who examined Robin Bain.’

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Jeesh, guys, do you belong to a secret religious order that strictly forbids use of the words “yes” “no” and “I don’t know”? Psycho Milt, do you know the answer? Seems a simple enough query to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    So you are now resorting to a struck of lawyer who has told 2 different versions of his tale, Which version is true? they can’t both be, maybe a third possibility exists that Guest misunderstood the position about the glasses. Mind you he was a hopeless incompetent lawyer and his defence in 1995 was pathetic letting key evidence go virtually unchallenged. So not that suprising really.
    More recently which version of Michael Guest should we believe from his letters before xmas.
    (1) That he believes there are errors in the Binnie report but still believes DB should be paid compensation
    (2) The so called ‘lies’ about the glasses eliminate any ‘possibility’ of innocence

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 9.47
    “He did tell me a few other things, but I am not going to repeat them on here. Apart from the fact that he now believes those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands could be up to 48 hours old. That was in response to me saying that some of David Bain’s supporters reckoned he said they were 12 hours old.”

    Nice try, why did he express the view at the trial that they were less than 12 hours old, either you didn’t call him or you did and are just spinning what he said. Given that he was under oath at the retrial then I’ll take this view as correct unless it can be proven otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    I like your ‘seem,’ a bser covering his or her arse.

    It’s a word used by people who recognise that the extent of their knowledge has limits and who lack the unshakeable conviction of the partisan, so it’s obvious enough why you’d feel contempt for someone who uses it. I wrote “seem to have been completely invisible to the pathologist” because there’s always a possibility the pathologist reached the same conclusions as you and included those conclusions in his report, but the Police, David Bain’s defence counsel, Joe Karam and all the nation’s journalists failed to notice it – not a very likely possibility, but it exists nonetheless.

    Psycho Milt, do you know the answer?

    I don’t – but he could hardly accuse Guest of libel and then refuse to give his own side of the story. If you’re trying to convince a jury the other guy’s lying, refusing to testify under oath yourself isn’t likely to help your case.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    So you are now resorting to a struck of lawyer who has told 2 different versions of his tale…

    I don’t think any of the nation’s lawyers, struck-off or otherwise, would be particularly concerned about assessments of their competence by someone who thinks reports can be “floored.”

    More recently which version of Michael Guest should we believe from his letters before xmas.
    (1) That he believes there are errors in the Binnie report but still believes DB should be paid compensation
    (2) The so called ‘lies’ about the glasses eliminate any ‘possibility’ of innocence

    I’ve encountered a number of people who think David Bain is probably guilty of murder but should be paid compensation anyway, due to having spent time in prison for a miscarriage of justice. Guest may well share their view.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    “He did tell me a few other things, but I am not going to repeat them on here. Apart from the fact that he now believes those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands could be up to 48 hours old. That was in response to me saying that some of David Bain’s supporters reckoned he said they were 12 hours old.”

    Nice try, why did he express the view at the trial that they were less than 12 hours old, either you didn’t call him or you did and are just spinning what he said. Given that he was under oath at the retrial then I’ll take this view as correct unless it can be proven otherwise.

    Rowan: note the discretion from the indiscreet. And how the little indiscretions always disfavour David but never daddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘It’s a word used by people who recognise that the extent of their knowledge has limits and who lack the unshakeable conviction of the partisan, so it’s obvious enough why you’d feel contempt for someone who uses it. I wrote “seem to have been completely invisible to the pathologist” because there’s always a possibility the pathologist reached the same conclusions as you and included those conclusions in his report, but the Police, David Bain’s defence counsel, Joe Karam and all the nation’s journalists failed to notice it – not a very likely possibility, but it exists nonetheless.’

    If you knew the evidence you wouldn’t need to use the word ‘seem’ in your hope of catching someone out lying. It’s pretty obvious which side repeats lies on here, looking at the number of versions of the strip search information is the prime example, or anything by ross. In this case you’d have know that Dempster discovered photos showing blood wash when preparing for the second trial, and it was made available to the defence. As to the blood nose, I have a copy of an original morgue photo.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho
    You obviously still don’t get the concept of sarcasm! Shall I answer the question about Guest for you? Which version of his shall we accept? neither
    Your view on the third possibility I mentioned at 11.09?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    If you knew the evidence you wouldn’t need to use the word ‘seem’ in your hope of catching someone out lying.

    1. I used the word ‘seem’ for the reasons I stated. This business of whose pants are emitting the most flames is strictly for the partisans involved.

    2. Yes yes, I know about the pathologists’ photos that were made available to the defence, and I assume you actually do have the morgue photo you mention. At issue are the conclusions you’ve drawn from those photos. You’re entitled to draw any conclusions you like from photos, but what you personally find convincing is of relevance only to yourself. To everyone else, with the possible exception of your mother, what counts are the conclusions the pathologist came to.

    Your view on the third possibility I mentioned at 11.09?

    My view is that your third possibility, that Guest mistakenly took the opposite meaning from what his client was telling him, is certainly no more unlikely than the possibility that Guest was part of the great “Them never loved poor David” conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. 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?

    ******************************************

    And Judith can’t answer this question – so she responds with an ad hom attack!
    Judith – is Binnie a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I see the prodavidbainers are still lying their heads off.
    Dr Dempster never said those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands were 12 hours old. He was referring to a procedure called hystology which apart from it’s normal use can apparently be used for ageing injuries. Dempster has never used that procedure for ageing injuries but he said even with that procedure he could not tell if the injury was a few minutes or up to 12 hours old.
    Dempster was referring to that procedure that he has never used when he mentioned 12 hours and Reed very cleverly changed his line of questioning. I have pointed all this out to those that need to know. I am sure Dempster would confirm ,if asked ,that the 12 hours he was referring to only related to that procedure he was aware of but had never used for ageing injuries.

    What he actually said was that those injuries to Robin Bain’s hands ,which he said were insignificant, could be anywhere between one and 24 hours old. At the first trial he said he believed they were over 18 hours old. He told me he now believes they could be 48 hours old.
    But as he said at the retrial it is impossible to age those injuries with any degree of accuracy.
    And the same goes for Dr Pryde. He said those injuries to David Bain were anywhere between 7 and 13 hours old when he examined him at 11.20am. That would have meant he must have received those injuries before he went on his paper round. There was general agreement that he could not be that precise.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    thank you muggins for your detailed investigation. anyone looking at all the evidence with an open mind cannot escape the fact it shows robin bain did not kill his family or himself and would not have faced charges had he lived.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Look one idiot thanking another idiot for a ‘detailed investigation.’ How unusual.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    has david ever told us why he deserved to stay? why not stephen? or arawa? what did they do to deserve death? was david any good at acting at university? why was he working as a paper boy instead of acting or singing for a crust?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Bort Simpson @ 7.28
    Whats with the ‘why’ questions, do you think this was a planned killing? or that the killer was acting rationally! Robin doesn’t need to have planned anything, he didn’t neccesarily plan to commit suicide or to spare David, he could easily have been waiting in the lounge where he could see David coming home in order to shoot him. The decision to spare David may well have been an after thought.
    If you think Muggins explanation for anything is convincing then you are seriously deluded!

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

    The usual bullcrap from the spinner. Translation I ‘know’ David is guilty, I have very little evidence to support this so I have to invent far fetched conspiracy theories. I also have no explanation for the blood trail in the lounge or Daddys ‘murder’ scene but trust me I ‘know’
    Sound like Muggins line of arguing?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    How anyone with an open mind can look at the blood trail in the lounge and explain it as ‘murder’ is beyond me. Noone to date has come close to explaining how David could have done this. The crown theories have changed several times as each of there theories has been shown to be flawed. Kieran Raftery stayed well away from the lounge at the retrial, I wonder sometimes if the prosecution lawyers actually believe the allegations they are putting forward!
    The series of coincidences you would have to believe in order for Robin to have been murdered is incredible, probability would have to be less than 5%. The rest of the evidence in the case is all circumstantial and subject to interpretation. Generally the spinners rely on twisting it to the extreme to get to the most unlikely explanation for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Poor old (A)Bort Simpson thinks David has to explain to Daddy’s note when Daddy explained it himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. big bruv (15,360 comments) says:

    “Translation I ‘know’ David is guilty, I have very little evidence to support this so I have to invent far fetched conspiracy theories”

    Lol…you have just described every single Bainiac. The entire fabricated case in support of David Bain is constructed on paper thin conspiracy theories .

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/245199/minister-releases-binnie-emails

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

    muggins (2,053) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 9:12 am

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/245199/minister-releases-binnie-emails

    A day late with this, but good to see you are willing to show your saviour up for what she is.
    This case seems to have cost at least one copper his job, let’s see if Collins is willing to put her position on the line, too.
    Which of her staff will take the fall this time? Her arrogance will be her undoing, it is only a matter of time before the public see that she has no interest in true justice.

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

    This,
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10864463

    She seems to think we should only know what she wants to tell us.
    What is she afraid of? Surely open Government is an essential part of democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Big bruv has revealed his/her true self, little sister – ‘don’t you do what your big sister done.’

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Chuck Bird (6,276 comments) says:

    I see the latest contract on David getting compo has taken another dip.

    https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=BAIN.COMP.JAN.2014

    Do any of you Bain supporters know the wedding date? Well it still take place if he doesn’t get compo?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Do any of you Bain supporters know the wedding date? Well it still take place if he doesn’t get compo?

    You not received your invitation yet Chucky?
    It must be on it’s way as we speak, they wouldn’t leave such an important person off the guest list, surely.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    From a correspondent:

    ‘Peer reviewed?
    A ‘proper’ peer review does not have a pre-set finding. Fisher’s report was a hatchet job, no more and no less. Sure, it’s wrapped up in impressive language, although that language is wrong. Just one simple example: Fisher says when pontificating about bayesian approaches:

    The usual analogy is the strands in the rope explanation: each strand of evidence gains strength from the other, so that whilst an individual strand may be insufficient to support the load (in this case proof of innocence) the combination of them may be enough. (para 47)

    Fisher cites Robertson and Vignaux, acknowledged leaders in the field of bayesian approaches to legal evidence.

    But Robertson and Vignaux say:

    The appropriate analogy when [evidence] and supporting evidence are considered is not a chain but a rope composed of several strands. The strength of one strand may affect the strength of the whole rope but it cannot affect the strength of another particular strand.

    Uh-huh. So there we have the level of understanding of Fisher of the ‘proper’ approach. That is a major error of principle by Fisher.

    Binnie, in assessing the combined evidence uses a standard logical approach known as a fortiori reasoning. There’s nothing mystical about it, it simply means that if a point is proved by some strong piece of evidence, subsequent weaker evidence are similarly proved. So for example, if a person is known to be dead, it’s logically safe to say they are not breathing. But Fisher apparently took issue with this approach.’

    When Judith asked Fisher to plat a rope it seems she didn’t realise that he was looking closely at her neck.

    The fortiori reasoning applied to the evidence of a blood nose is proved by strong evidence, the towel, the photo and the hands, but there are other inclusions, the source of water being the laundry as Robin was clearly in there bleeding and cleaning up, the source of the blood: Robin, the probable sites from where that blood came, the nose, as evidenced by the photo and PR. The timing of the evidence, the blood on the towel came before Robin’s death, the blood wash on his hands so that his palms came in contact with water also before his death. The bleeding from the nose came before death and after. There is no disruption to the evidence of a bleeding nose even when some strands are not even considered.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    N-NZ, you must be fair to Fisher.

    He was tasked with a certain finding to make by the Minister.
    Having been told they would call it a peer review of Binnie’s report, he had to make it look like he was indeed a peer of Binnie’s. He needed to pull out some big and important sounding words like bayesian, and quoting highly respected people like Robertson and Vignaux to give himself some credibility. What he didn’t do is inform himself about the meanings before using them, only to show up his ineptness in a more graphic way. Collins will be wishing she chose someone a little smarter to do her hatchet job.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,003) Says:

    February 10th, 2013 at 10:00 am
    I see the latest contract on David getting compo has taken another dip.

    https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=BAIN.COMP.JAN.2014

    Will it [the wedding] still take place if he doesn’t get compo?

    Good question.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    If Judith Collins did advise Binnie that she was going to have his report peer reviewed then why is there any need for a judical review?

    I see a prodavid is still rabbitting on about that “nosebleed”. As I have already informed him more than once Dr Dempster has advised that if the bullet to Robin Bain’s head fractured any small bones that could have caused blood to come from his nose after his body was moved.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    Binnie, in assessing the combined evidence uses a standard logical approach known as a fortiori reasoning. There’s nothing mystical about it, it simply means that if a point is proved by some strong piece of evidence, subsequent weaker evidence are similarly proved.

    He seems to think that’s what he did. Problem is, if your “strong piece of evidence” only appears strong due to you having made an elementary failure of logic, what you have is not “a fortiori reasoning” but a “lack of robustness of reasoning,” which Collins appears to have figured out the moment she read the report (and all credit to her for that – for all her obnoxious attitude, apparent empathy bypass, excessive self-satisfaction and naked ambition, she does seem to have a sharp brain).

    The fortiori reasoning applied to the evidence of a blood nose is proved by strong evidence…

    Odd that Binnie never mentioned it then. I guess he was influenced by others – after all, the pathologist, the Police, the prosecutor, the defence and Bain’s patron, the inventive and indefatigable Mr Karam all seem to have failed to recognise its strength.

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

    Evidence Big Bruv
    Or your explanation for Daddys ‘murder’ scene or you don’t have any but you just ‘know’. The entire crown case is weak conjecture and if you swallow this hook line and sinker then you are deluded (but we already know that). Helps you doesn’t it that the cops didn’t investigate Daddy as a murder suspect so you can hide behind the ‘no evidence’ myth

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Sometimes it’s obvious that if your only legal qualification is having spent time as a prisoner – your pontifications on legal arguments and evidence are a load of bollocks.

    There is no conflict between Fisher and Robertson and Vignaux. They are saying exactly the same thing: When single strands of evidence are combined ‘as a rope’ , the strength of the whole is greater than the strength of individual strands.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,055) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 11:00 am
    If Judith Collins did advise Binnie that she was going to have his report peer reviewed then why is there any need for a judical review?

    But she didn’t, did she. Which is plainly obvious in the released emails.

    I see a prodavid is still rabbitting on about that “nosebleed”. As I have already informed him more than once Dr Dempster has advised that if the bullet to Robin Bain’s head fractured any small bones that could have caused blood to come from his nose after his body was moved.

    The problem you have is that Dr Dempster does not substantiate what you have said. Further more, he is somewhat peeved that he has been misquoted by you, and that you have published it on the internet. I got the impression he is looking at this ‘options’ due to your ‘dishonest recall of the communication’.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    @judith

    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?

    ******************************************

    If Judith can’t answer this question – she will respond with an ad hom attack!

    Judith – is Binnie a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (101) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:05 pm
    ————————

    No he isn’t a liar,
    are you having a nice day? 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    But Judith – Binnie said Stephen had been shot 3 times. This is not true. So, by your standards, this makes Binnie a liar.

    Are you a hypocrite?

    Do you have double standards – one for those against David, one for those pro David?
    Do you have no standards and just play semantic games?

    Judith, please tell me: Why is Binnie not a liar when he did not tell the truth?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (102) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:20 pm
    ———————————-

    How do you know what my standards are?

    Surely you are not stupid enough to think you can judge that by what a person posts just on a blog. If that was how we judged people, then you would be judged as a dreadful liar, considering all the things you have said on here.

    Are you able to produce the information given to Binnie, to prove he was not given data that allowed him to think that?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (102) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    Twistedlemon, do you always tell lies, or do you just tell lies on here?

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

    twistedlemon (102) Says:
    February 1st, 2013 at 11:47 am
    When Binnie was interviewing David, the defence team (in the person of Reed) was allowed to examine Bain and cross-examine the police witnesses.

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

    Reed was not present at the interview of the police witnesses.
    The ‘prosecution’ was present at David’s interview and was asked if they wanted to cross-examine, but declined.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    I am a liar, but Binnie isn’t?

    But looking at Binnie’s report, he said many things which were not true. Binnie said Stephen was shot 3 times. He wasn’t. In fact, that is why I don’t believe his email where he says he wasn’t told about the peer review of his report.

    And Judith has just proved that she has double standards.

    Why am I a liar, but Binnie isn’t. Explain the difference, Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (103) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    —————————–

    The emails released between Collins and Binnie prove she did not discuss a peer review with him. Therefore he did not lie.

    You are a liar because the reports clearly showed who was present at the interviews of the police witnesses, and that Reed wasn’t there, but you stated so anyway. That information was available to you and very clear.

    Binnie had a large amount of information via the Court Transcripts, which are not always clear, are often contradicting. He then has to base his opinion on what he believes to be right.

    The difference between the two is you had clear definite and precise data, but decided to lie about it will bad intent. He did not, and his intentions were honest.

    You are also a liar because the group of idiots you hang around with in JFRB and Counterspin are also liars, so you are no doubt trying your best to be one of the crowd. You are doing very well. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    ^^^^^^

    Yes – the ad hom attacks when Judith is losing the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Poor Binnie. A whole year and $400 000 in the bank. But this ‘fine legal mind’ wasn’t able to absorb the basic facts of the crime?

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

    twistedlemon (104) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
    ^^^^^^

    —————————–

    You ask loaded questions of course you are going to get bullets fired back at you.

    Incidently, there were three bullets fired in Stephen’s room, which no doubt added to the confusion. It actually confused one of the Crown witnesses on the stand, and they had to be corrected, so it is not surprising it also confused Binnie.

    You’re still a liar, and don’t take offence, or call it an attack, because you did ask.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (105) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    ———————————-

    Strange that, because one of our finer detectives also got it wrong, on the stand.

    Stephen was shot at three times.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Almost sounds like someone couldn’t see right after they ‘lost’ ‘their’ glasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (268) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    Almost sounds like someone couldn’t see right after they ‘lost’ ‘their’ glasses.
    ———————————

    Another stupid and totally irrelevant comment from you.

    The first shot went through Stephen’s hand as he reached for the rifle, and grazed the top of his head.
    The second shot jammed,
    and the third shot killed him.

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

    ^^^^^

    Judith plays semantic games again.

    The patholgist’s report and Karam’s books are quite clear. Stephen was NOT shot 3 times.

    For $400 000 and a year’s work, Binnie should have checked his facts and got them correct.

    If he was bamboozled by this simple, basic, checkable fact – what else did he get confused about?

    In fact, Binnie seems to be quite discombobulated by the whole job.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (106) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
    ————————-

    Semantics?

    You made an out right lie. You had the truth in front of you, in a plain, clear and precise manner, but you decided to lie and say the opposite, with the intention of causing harm.

    Binnie on the other hand had a variety of conflicting statements. The gun was fired three times, and given that the evidence presented at trial by the Crown was also confusing, it was an understandable call. It was done with the best intent, and did not have any effect on the out come or decisions made for the report.

    Whether that shot had fired properly, did not change anything about the decisions made in that report.

    You’ve only posted a few times on here, and already told more lies or if you like (made mistakes), than most people.

    When Judith Collins wrongly said in her correspondence that the 1994 Detectives Manual did not say to cut the skin from around gunshot wounds, was she also incompetent, should be sacked, shouldn’t be paid etc?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    There was an awful lot of seeming activity in between those three shots.

    Was there any reason why Ian Binnie should have been told that his report was going to be peer reviewed?

    Seems to me it is not a lot different to the report not being released to the Bain camp.

    It was for the Minister to do as she saw fit.

    It would seem very sensible to me to get other opinions before telling Ian Binnie that he wasn’t up to scratch.

    To add weight that it was not just an individual opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    So Judith decides on the ‘intent’ of a statement and passes judgement.

    Is it just a coincidence that
    – all non-truths from the Bane side are the result of honest mistakes because the material is so confused and conflicting
    – all non-truths from the other side are the result of lies despite the material being crystal clear and precise?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,399) Says:

    February 10th, 2013 at 11:56 am
    muggins (2,055) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 11:00 am
    If Judith Collins did advise Binnie that she was going to have his report peer reviewed then why is there any need for a judical review?

    But she didn’t, did she. Which is plainly obvious in the released emails.

    I see a prodavid is still rabbitting on about that “nosebleed”. As I have already informed him more than once Dr Dempster has advised that if the bullet to Robin Bain’s head fractured any small bones that could have caused blood to come from his nose after his body was moved.

    The problem you have is that Dr Dempster does not substantiate what you have said. Further more, he is somewhat peeved that he has been misquoted by you, and that you have published it on the internet. I got the impression he is looking at this ‘options’ due to your ‘dishonest recall of the communication’.
    Judith
    Please link to those emails.
    Re Dempster.
    It looks like I am going to have to contact him again. I reckon what I have quoted him as telling me is pretty accurate,so I will be interested to hear what he has to say. He certainly didn’t say I was not to quote him.
    I didn’t record that conversation so it won’t be verbatim . He certainly said 48 hours and I told him some David Bain supporters were saying that they had seen a photo of Robin Bain which showed blood coming from his nose, and that they were saying that was caused by Stephen punching him. He said he couldn’t recall that photo, but that the bullet in Robin Bain’s head could have caused fractures that would have caused blood to come from his nose.
    I will see if I can get hold of him tomorrow.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    There was no nose bleed. There are no photographs. It was never mentioned by the defense, by Karam, the pathologist. It is a figment of Nos’ imagination.

    Don’t bother Dempsey by following up on non-existent facts and trivialities.

    You don’t want to pester him or he will stop talking to you – keep the phonecalls for something important.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    There wouldn’t have been any of this nonsense, if they had just let ‘our’ Judith in on the deal. There would have been none of these mistakes, a few keyword searches and Judith would have had Ian Binnie shipshape and Bristol fashion and all for free too. What a wasted opportunity. 😉 Judith has obviously not been assertive enough or proven her worth sufficiently. Even if ‘Ian’ had let her proof read it before giving it to the Minister that would have been better, after all ‘Ian’ thinks it should have been shared with the Bain camp, before peer review or shared with the public, he could have done it before giving it to the Minister, saved everybody else the bother. No? Why not? Because it was a report commissioned by the Government for their exclusive use, if they so chose!!!!

    Sorry Judith. You are the weakest link. Good-bye. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    twistedlemon says
    There was no nose bleed. There are no photographs. It was never mentioned by the defense, by Karam, the pathologist. It is a figment of Nos’ imagination.

    Don’t bother Dempsey by following up on non-existent facts and trivialities.

    You don’t want to pester him or he will stop talking to you – keep the phonecalls for something important

    I agree, but the problem is that Judith appears to have contacted him and it would appear she has given him some incorrect information.
    I will have a think about it. I have only ever contacted him twice. He is easy to talk to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    Remember muggins – Judith lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    “There was no nose bleed. There are no photographs. It was never mentioned by the defense, by Karam, the pathologist. It is a figment of Nos’ imagination.”

    Sure, just like there was no DNA in the barrel, and how there was no strip search. If you weren’t so busy stalking Judith, who sprung you lying, you might not have missed something on this blog in the last little while. Something about the nose bleed, the one which there is a photo of. But keep on going by all means, nothing like watching panic and mistakes being made. It’s all helpful.

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

    The ‘prosecution’ was present at David’s interview and was asked if they wanted to cross-examine, but declined.

    That is false. Crown Law did ask a few questions but not directly. Their questions were posed by Binnie. I have no idea why he wouldn’t let CL pose questions but allowed Reed to question David at length. Then again, it’s consistent with his pro-David stance throughout the process.

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

    David Bain might have a problem with his compensation claim if it can be proved he lied to Justice Binnie on oath.

    David told Binnie so many porkies – where would you start?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,993) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    The ‘prosecution’ was present at David’s interview and was asked if they wanted to cross-examine, but declined.

    That is false. Crown Law did ask a few questions but not directly. Their questions were posed by Binnie. I have no idea why he wouldn’t let CL pose questions but allowed Reed to question David at length. Then again, it’s consistent with his pro-David stance throughout the process.

    Therefore, they did not Cross-examine.

    The Defence was not allowed to cross-examine at the interviews of the Police. In fact, they were not allowed to be in the interviews, despite sending a representative.

    Giving of points to be asked is standard stuff and was done by Justice Binnie for both parties.

    Ms Markham was given the opportunity to ask verbal questions for Weir but declined. (page 82). Again, the same for Doyle, (page 67). No questions to ask, but clarified a point with Justice Binnie.

    You cannot hold Justice Binnie responsible for Ms Markham not taking that opportunity. The treatment was equal. The only difference was that the prosecution were allowed to be present at the interview of David Bain, but the Defence was not allowed to be present at the interviews of the two ex-police employees.

    If you are looking for some sort of imbalance, then there it is, but it’s certainly not in David’s favour at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    twistedlemon (109) Says:

    February 10th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    Remember muggins – Judith lies

    Yeah, I know. I guess if I did contact Dempster again and he told me no-one had contacted him Judith would say I was lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    For some a reading of the memo from The Auckland Law Professor Rushton [sic] and Steven Price may find some of the questions asked and answers given of interest particularly around detention and arrest and also the strip search and may be a little surprised at the advice given and how that advice was used.

    The removal of a skin sample is not mentioned in Judges Rules, Police Manual or the Evidence Act 2006. There is no mention in any requirement of skin samples in any publication relating to matters of law, criminal or civil. In fact it may breach some cultural norms to remove and keep human tissue samples.

    Steven Price on Strip searches appears to be of the opinion that a strip search without an explicit permission being given would breach the Privacy Act. I’m sure Dr Pride being a police physician would be aware of this and would have sought permission and would have made sure the escorting police were aware permission had been asked for and given. There was not then or now, except the bodily fluids legislation requiring DNA samples for certain offences, any enactment allowing police to to require a full search except when there are reasonable grounds to believe there may be illegal items on or in the person. The usual method of internal search is to hold the suspected person in custody for the required number of days.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ (2,904) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    “There was no nose bleed. There are no photographs. It was never mentioned by the defense, by Karam, the pathologist. It is a figment of Nos’ imagination.”

    Sure, just like there was no DNA in the barrel, and how there was no strip search. If you weren’t so busy stalking Judith, who sprung you lying, you might not have missed something on this blog in the last little while. Something about the nose bleed, the one which there is a photo of. But keep on going by all means, nothing like watching panic and mistakes being made. It’s all helpful.

    It seems Dr Henshal in his Brief of evidence makes no mention of blood or matter in either the barrel or barrel extension. Maybe it was a question in Cross Examination but not in his EIC.

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

    The treatment was equal

    Wrong, as I have explained. Reed questioned David and was permited to do so. Markham and Pike were now allowed to question David, except via Binnie. Why the different treatment?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    *not*

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Q. Did you look inside the silencer?
    A. Yes, I swabbed it for blood and it came up a little bit positive. I swabbed it for DNA . It was fouled in that it had blackening and lead deposits [i.e no DNA was found].
    Q. Did you swab the inside of it?
    A. Yes.
    Q. The blood inside the silencer would have come from back spatter from the wound ?
    A. I’m not sure of the history of the silencer, it could have come from anything.

    So for the umpteenth time, no DNA was found in the barrel, and the blood in the barrel could have been rabbits blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘David told Binnie so many porkies – where would you start?’

    This from the second biggest bull craper on the thread. Make a list ross if you’re not full of it, and don’t compare them to what a disgraced lawyer said in one of his two different versions, or something somebody ‘remembered’ years later.

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

    oss69 (1,996) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    The treatment was equal

    Wrong, as I have explained. Reed questioned David and was permited to do so. Markham and Pike were now allowed to question David, except via Binnie. Why the different treatment?

    ————————————–

    And Markham was allowed to question the police interviewees, but she didn’t have anything to ask.

    Their own Counsel is allowed to question them. Both had the opportunity, only Reed took it. If you want to know Markham didn’t take her opportunity, best you ask her.

    Reed was not allowed to question the police interviewess. Reed was not allowed to sit in at the Police interviews, but Markham and Pike, plus someone from the MOJ were present in David’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,904) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 3:15 pm
    “There was no nose bleed. There are no photographs. It was never mentioned by the defense, by Karam, the pathologist. It is a figment of Nos’ imagination.”

    Sure, just like there was no DNA in the barrel, and how there was no strip search. If you weren’t so busy stalking Judith, who sprung you lying, you might not have missed something on this blog in the last little while. Something about the nose bleed, the one which there is a photo of. But keep on going by all means, nothing like watching panic and mistakes being made. It’s all helpful.
    ……………….
    Nark? 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Re the live round in the lounge.
    Q. You agree with Dr Walsh that those striation marks on that bullet are attributable to the five shot magazine?
    A. I find they are attributable to the five shot magazine.
    Q. You agree that those marks are not caused as the bullet was going into the chamber as we saw on the misfeed diagram?
    A. That is correct.

    So much for that misfeed bullet in the lounge.
    Why would Robin Bain have changed magazines if there were still three live rounds in the ten shot magazine,despite Binnie repeatedly saying that magazine was empty?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Anna Sanidlands, who undertook testing of the sock print evidence for the Defence has belied her position of neutrality:

    “The politicians wanted an independent person with no knowledge of the case to come in and look at it with fresh, unbiased eyes. Binnie did that, they didn’t like it,” she said. “Why even bother if you are not going to take on board what is said?”

    Sandiford said she believed David Bain’s father Robin, also found dead from gunshot wounds at the Dunedin house in 1995, was far more likely to have been the killer. “I didn’t see any scientific evidence that suggested David Bain.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10863141

    As a forensic scientist, Sandilands should be neutral. Alas, she appears to have an axe to grind.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Johnboy (19,951 comments) says:

    Good grief. 5 Million comments and this thread is still leaking more blood than Davids family.

    Karamism is alive and well and if it it mattered in the US would have more adherents than Scientology! 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    What I would like to know is why neither Raftery nor Mander nor Bates were at the Binnie/Bain interview. They were the three people who would have the knowledge to ask Bain more questions. Binnie aked Bain plenty of pertinent questions, but he accepted many of Bain’s answers without delving deeper. Robert Fisher picked up on that,and so have I .
    Next time round Bain won’t get the armchair ride that Binnie gave him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    don’t compare them to what a disgraced lawyer said in one of his two different versions, or something somebody ‘remembered’ years later.

    That would disqualify much of what David has said, seeing as he’s recovered many of his memories, conveniently after depositions and after the Crown presented its case at trial.

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

    What I would like to know is why neither Raftery nor Mander nor Bates were at the Binnie/Bain interview.

    Good question. Maybe they were busy. Or maybe Crown Law thought Binnie would have more than half a brain and would see through David’s bullshit. They had every right to think that Binnie would actually undesrtand how circumstantial evidence is handled in NZ. If they’d known he was inept, I imagine they might have attended. Not that it would have helped.

    Oh and there might not be a next time. David might realise that he won’t be getting a brass razoo and withdraw his claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Lindsay,
    Dr Pryde never said he strip- searched David Bain.
    But what my focus is now on is the fact that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked at one point when he was being examined by Dr Pryde.
    There was a police officer who was standing in a doorway when that examination was carried out and he says that Bain was never naked.
    So either David Bain is lying or that police officer is lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Judith (1,401) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    quote”You ask loaded questions of course you are going to get bullets fired back at you.

    Incidently, there were three bullets fired in Stephen’s room, which no doubt added to the confusion. It actually confused one of the Crown witnesses on the stand, and they had to be corrected, so it is not surprising it also confused Binnie.

    You’re still a liar, and don’t take offence, or call it an attack, because you did ask.Another stupid and totally irrelevant comment from you.

    The first shot went through Stephen’s hand as he reached for the rifle, and grazed the top of his head.
    The second shot jammed,
    and the third shot killed him.”Unquote

    There were 4 empty case and no misfeeds in Steven room where do you get this information from?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    The prodavids keep rabbitting on about the two “versions” given by Michael Guest re when he advised Wright that David Bain had told him he would be admitting to wearing those glasses that were found in his room.
    I think Guest is entitled to have not recollected the exact details after 18 years.
    He told Wright before Bain was cross-examined that Bain would be admitting to wearing those glasses but when Bain started lying Wright approached Guest and the two of them had a discussion and that discussion is what Guest is probably referring to.
    And of course there is the evidence of David’s aunt. She was sitting in the courtroom when David Bain took the stand and when she heard him say that he hadn’t seen those glasses for some time and had forgotten all about them she said to herself “That’s not what he told us”.
    However, it would appear that Binnie believes Bain may have been wearing those glasses, but if he does believe that then he must have no problem accepting that David Bain lied on oath.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Poor reporting and no wonder people get it wrong you can’t have both a misfire and a jammed bullet. A misfire is not a misfeed/jammed bullet (misfeed and jammed bullet are the same).

    Quote” The rifle used to shoot the Bain family misfired five times during the killings, it was alleged in the High Court in Christchurch today.

    In cross examination of police armourer Robert Ngamoki, Bain’s counsel Helen Cull QC put it to him the rifle used in the murders had jammed five times during the shooting spree. “Unquote

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    No the police officer is not lying, none of them have ever made the claim that David wasn’t strip searched. Prydes evidence from 1995 clearly states he was. The only one making this ridiculous claim is yo,u therefore the liar in this instance is also you. I don’t think the Bain defence team have anything to worry about a raving nutcase like you, back to your knitting!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “Why would Robin Bain have changed magazines if there were still three live rounds in the ten shot magazine”
    Why would David change the magazine either? The first magazine was likely defective due to misfeed/misfire therefore changed over. How would David have known this without attempting to fire it. How likely would Daddy sit there patiently waiting for David to switch over the magazine and shoot him again?
    If there were 3 bullets left in the magazine how does this somehow prove ‘murder’ it doesn’t prove anything!

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

    gamefisher (400) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 5:27 pm
    Judith (1,401) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    quote”You ask loaded questions of course you are going to get bullets fired back at you.

    Incidently, there were three bullets fired in Stephen’s room, which no doubt added to the confusion. It actually confused one of the Crown witnesses on the stand, and they had to be corrected, so it is not surprising it also confused Binnie.

    You’re still a liar, and don’t take offence, or call it an attack, because you did ask.Another stupid and totally irrelevant comment from you.

    The first shot went through Stephen’s hand as he reached for the rifle, and grazed the top of his head.
    The second shot jammed,
    and the third shot killed him.”Unquote

    There were 4 empty case and no misfeeds in Steven room where do you get this information from?

    ——————————————————

    Actually, the scenario of a jammed bullet was the initial suggestion but I see was later discounted.

    Bullet fragments were found in his brain and at the top of his spine from the last shot. Another bullet was found embedded in his pillow (2 bullets). 2 spent cartridges under the bed, one under the dresser. Three spent cartridges in all.

    The police have no proof that the same bullet went through Stephen’s hand and grazed the top of his head, that is just what they ‘believe’ is the most likely scenario, however can not rule out that it was another shot, as there were three spent cartridges found in the room.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (626) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 5:36 pm
    Muggins
    No the police officer is not lying, none of them have ever made the claim that David wasn’t strip searched. Prydes evidence from 1995 clearly states he was. The only one making this ridiculous claim is yo,u therefore the liar in this instance is also you. I don’t think the Bain defence team have anything to worry about a raving nutcase like you, back to your knitting!

    ————————————–

    There still is no dispute from the Crown or the Police Officers who were responsible for David at the station.
    All were there to assist if needed, which they did by moving a table, and they did not observe the procedures undertaken by Dr Pryde. None saw David naked, because they did not watch.

    It appears our friend is mistaken again.

    He will of course come back tomorrow and say Dr Dempster hasn’t been contacted, however, the people who were party to that, and who matter, know differently. As will Mr muggins however, I’m sure no one is expecting him to start telling the truth now.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    The LLB LOL is getting sillier by the minute.

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

    muggins (2,063) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 5:11 pm
    What I would like to know is why neither Raftery nor Mander nor Bates were at the Binnie/Bain interview. They were the three people who would have the knowledge to ask Bain more questions. Binnie aked Bain plenty of pertinent questions, but he accepted many of Bain’s answers without delving deeper. Robert Fisher picked up on that,and so have I .
    Next time round Bain won’t get the armchair ride that Binnie gave him.

    —————————————————————-

    The Crown was asked who they would like to be interviewed, and they didn’t suggest those people. Obviously they didn’t want them involved.

    You’ve ‘picked up on it’ – what a joke! Another ‘look at me’ comment from you. You only pick up on the things you read from other people, and the voices you hear in your head.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,906) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 6:20 pm
    The LLB LOL is getting sillier by the minute.

    ————————-
    No she’s not. She’s always been this silly, she is getting more desperate though.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    The LLB LOL is getting sillier by the minute.

    From memory one bullet, or fragmented d bullet (ie is the projectile) not found, either Stephen’s room or from the vicinity of the body of Arawa? Small difference anyway the 2003 COA Judgement spoke about an exit wound from Robin’s head that never existed. Just distracting nonsense from the lemonsister.

    Of more interest is the nose bleed, the latest panic attack for the sisters.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/8075826/Compensation-for-Bain-would-be-a-travesty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    You seem fascinated by my lol, they are very hard to get, why do you not go and get your own and leave mine alone lol.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Just when the day was getting bad for the sisters;

    ‘The video does not show the lens in Stephen’s room. The video editing also cuts off at a strange time in David’s room: just as it goes to sweep across the chair with the broken glasses.’
    So this gets answered by giving part but not all the evidence about the magazine. Who would have thought it. Repeat, the video does not show the lens in Stephen’s room. It would have been among the most critical evidence of the trial and at the defamation trial, but we never saw it. Reason, because, repeat: the video does not show the lens in Stephens room.. Just like the exhibit presented by Pryde when giving evidence about the strip search shows no marks on either frontal quarter chest diagrams and if it did, just like the ‘len’s’ video it would be among the most heavily publicised pieces of evidence. Result, that ‘agent’ is a bser of the highest order.

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

    bort_simpson (4) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 6:32 pm
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/Copensation-for-Bain-would-be-a-travesty

    ——————————————————-

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/twelve-reasons-worry-about-bain-case-lf-134942

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10854684

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1212/S00088/gordon-campbell-on-judith-collins-bain-compensation-report.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Judith (1,405) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 6:07 pm
    Quote”Bullet fragments were found in his brain and at the top of his spine from the last shot. Another bullet was found embedded in his pillow (2 bullets). 2 spent cartridges under the bed, one under the dresser. Three spent cartridges in all. “Unquote

    So why are there 4 spent cartidges shown in Stevens room from the photo in ‘Trial by Ambush’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    gamefisher (401) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    ———————————

    I don’t have the book, so I don’t know why they were there. No doubt some reason as I’m sure Joe Karam knows the evidence better than I do, however, the documents I have here state three of them listed as given above.

    Perhaps you could email Joe and ask him, or maybe it says somewhere in the book.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    muggins (2,063) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Lindsay,
    Dr Pryde never said he strip- searched David Bain.

    I’m well aware of that M but I took the time to reed the advice Binnie J obtained from the Auckland Professor who sought advice from Steven Price in his capacity as a media and evidence lawyer. From a reading of the advice Binnie J placed his own interpretation on the advice

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    gamefisher (401) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    —————————–

    Found the answer. There was one found in the drawer of Stephen’s dresser. It was not known when or how it got there.

    9000+ pages, I knew the answer had to be there somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    It has a body-shaped sketch, front and back, and a closer version of the head. The brusing to the head is noted, as are the tattoos, a scar from an inguinal hernia, various grazes etc on the legs. NOTHING on the chest. There is also a tick chart to indicate samples taken.

    Incidentally: the police commentary on Binnie’s report takes issue with any number of things (usually wrongly) and in incredible detail. They do not, however, question the issue of the strip search. If there was any way they could, they would have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Might be accused of harrassment, I am sure he wouldn’t feel harrassed by you ‘Judith’.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,909) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 7:09 pm
    It has a body-shaped sketch, front and back, and a closer version of the head. The brusing to the head is noted, as are the tattoos, a scar from an inguinal hernia, various grazes etc on the legs. NOTHING on the chest. There is also a tick chart to indicate samples taken.

    Incidentally: the police commentary on Binnie’s report takes issue with any number of things (usually wrongly) and in incredible detail. They do not, however, question the issue of the strip search. If there was any way they could, they would have done.

    Plus Dr Pryde signed off he had completed the examination as per prescribed procedure. I suppose they are going to accuse him of lying now ?

    Even if these clowns don’t want to believe that, how do they expect Dr Pryde to have seen the Tattoo without seeing the chest immediately next to it. The tattoo is high on the arm, in order to view it, you would have to see the shoulder and chest area immediately next to it. According to one of the witnesses, that is where the ‘scratches’ were meant to be.

    If he was wrapped in a blanket, as Muggins claims, it would have to be lowered from the neck line to show the tattoo, thus exposing the area of both the top of the arm and chest. Alternatively the blanket could be lifted from the bottom, thus exposing the entire chest area, and the genitals. Fact is what Muggins is suggesting is not achievable, and it also isn’t true.

    He’s doing the ‘look at me’ thing again.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    martin van beynen is an experienced journalist who sat through the entire bain retrial and paid far more attention to it than some jurors. he certainly knows more about the case than a yellow jacketed gent or those hardwired with hate for authority. any reasonable person studying details can draw no other conclusion than robin bain is not guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Is that the fellow who was warned by the police to stay away from the Jurors? The same chap who mounted a campaign against Ellis, why yes, it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Judith (1,409) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Thanks for clearing that up I like to do my best to stick with the facts but mistakes do occur.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘If he was wrapped in a blanket, as Muggins claims, it would have to be lowered from the neck line to show the tattoo, thus exposing the area of both the top of the arm and chest. Alternatively the blanket could be lifted from the bottom, thus exposing the entire chest area, and the genitals. Fact is what Muggins is suggesting is not achievable, and it also isn’t true.’

    As if any police doctor would allow that, of course the police never complained that David was lying to Binnie – only aunt fanny and the girls did. Pryde’s deposition is clear, they only person it isn’t clear to is the sister calling Weir and Doyle liars and whose OIA request was by phone and happened on the same day. Watch out for flying sheets of brown stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Johnboy (19,951 comments) says:

    Amazing. No comment since 7.39. Even Karamites need to eat! 🙂

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

    The same chap who mounted a campaign against Ellis, why yes, it is.

    Actually, van Beynen was a supporter of Ellis, at least later in the piece when the scaremongering had dissipated. Interestingly, retired judge Sir Thomas Thorp and van Beynen both raised doubts about the safety of Ellis’ conviction. The same two had little doubt about David Bain’s guilt. It makes you think.

    http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2005/2005-0625_ThePress_MistOfRitual.htm

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

    N-NZ, I have a challenge for you if you dare. Others can try it too if they want some amusement.

    I would like you to put on a tee shirt, Black shorts, undies, and socks. Now, get a blanket and wrap it around yourself to keep warm. I want you to have a witness while doing this. If you have a missus, she might oblige.

    Now, I want you to strip down to nakedness (this is why the wife would be the best choice for a witness) while still keeping the blanket around you, and always covering your chest.
    I don’t believe it can be done, but would like confirmation or not from another guy.
    Have fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Johnboy (19,951 comments) says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWCSQm86UB4

    🙂

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

    martin van beynen is an experienced journalist who sat through the entire bain retrial and paid far more attention to it than some jurors.

    So true. And van Beynen didn’t think a lot of some jurors.

    Several aspects about this jury should worry us all.

    The two jurors – a man and a woman – who were seen to congratulate Bain after the verdicts and who went to his celebratory party were the same two who spent the last three weeks of the trial paying little attention to the evidence and closing addresses. They giggled and wrote messages to each other.

    The man would often sleep through parts of the afternoon.

    Initially, the woman was so disturbed by the images shown as evidence that she turned her computer screen away. By her own admission, she spent the first two weeks of the trial in tears, and the trial lost half a day because of her anguish.

    Another juror, known to another member of the media covering the trial, had a serious question mark over her ability to follow the evidence. Yet another went to congratulate Bain’s legal counsel after the verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    One juror allegedly brought case-specific material to the trial, while 3 jurors visited the crime scene of their own volition.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10848471

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Kanz (980) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
    N-NZ, I have a challenge for you if you dare. Others can try it too if they want some amusement.

    I would like you to put on a tee shirt, Black shorts, undies, and socks. Now, get a blanket and wrap it around yourself to keep warm. I want you to have a witness while doing this. If you have a missus, she might oblige.

    Now, I want you to strip down to nakedness (this is why the wife would be the best choice for a witness) while still keeping the blanket around you, and always covering your chest.
    I don’t believe it can be done, but would like confirmation or not from another guy.’

    It works for nutters. It might have worked for David if the cops are as stupid as aunt fanny reckons, or if Dr Pryde closed his eyes when David asked him so he could pull off his clothes using two hands. I can’t even get a t shirt off with one hand let alone trying to hold a blanket with the other. I like to see aunt fanny getting her incontinence diapers off with one hand with the other holding a blanket, or even old LLB LOL – actually no I wouldn’t. That would be the last thing I’d want to watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    martin van beynen is an experienced journalist who sat through the entire bain retrial and paid far more attention to it than some jurors.

    So true. And van Beynen didn’t think a lot of some jurors.

    Several aspects about this jury should worry us all.

    The two jurors – a man and a woman – who were seen to congratulate Bain after the verdicts and who went to his celebratory party were the same two who spent the last three weeks of the trial paying little attention to the evidence and closing addresses. They giggled and wrote messages to each other.

    The man would often sleep through parts of the afternoon.

    Initially, the woman was so disturbed by the images shown as evidence that she turned her computer screen away. By her own admission, she spent the first two weeks of the trial in tears, and the trial lost half a day because of her anguish.

    Another juror, known to another member of the media covering the trial, had a serious question mark over her ability to follow the evidence. Yet another went to congratulate Bain’s legal counsel after the verdict.’

    Did van beynan report that to the Court, or did he just decide to stalk the jury instead. No wonder the sisters like him so much, are you sweet on him to rossie?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,913) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    Well, buggered if I could either, but thought I may have blanket dyslexia or something. Got the pants off alright, but that tee shirt had me stuffed.
    I wonder if any of the others on here would try it. Not muggins of course, he would fall out of his walking frame and might hurt himself. I need him to stay healthy, he supplies much of the humour in my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    I thought you two ‘boys’ were an old married couple? The internet is so anonymous isn’t it?

    You two can just nark to each other ok?

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

    gamefisher (402) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    Thanks for clearing that up I like to do my best to stick with the facts but mistakes do occur.

    gamefisher, I now have a question for you, if you dare answer.

    How on earth can a demonstration in court showing something is possible be perjury? I can’t get my head around this anymore than I can get this bloody tee shirt off with one hand holding a blanket around me.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Kanz (982) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    Boyce said Robins body would of fallen slowly backwards with the demo he gave that was wrong unless you think 1.2 (+-0.2)seconds is slow for the time taken for Robin entire body to be on the ground and to fall backward would of defied the laws of physics.

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

    Ross @ 8.27
    ‘3 jurors visited the crime scene of their own volition.’
    I guess that makes it a mistrial then! really what are they going to see 15 years on. Maybe they were communicating with there spirits. Doesn’t make a difference where they went on there visit to Dunedin, hardly going to find anything new or material to the case by visiting the scene.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘goldnkiwi (274) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 8:41 pm
    I thought you two ‘boys’ were an old married couple? The internet is so anonymous isn’t it?

    You two can just nark to each other ok?’

    How’s this for an LLB LOL nutcase?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    You going to run and ‘tell’?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Martin Van Beynans reporting on this case is a bit of a joke. Shouldn’t the fact that he had a brother in the Dunedin police force at the time disqualify him from reporting his opinions. His article was about as convincing and explained the evidence about as good as Michael Laws or Muggins, avoid the evidence in the lounge, rely on the crown case as ‘gospel’ despite it being thoroughly discredited and also citing quite unsustainable claims as ‘key’ evidence. All in all his reporting is totally inaccurate, one sided and many arguments demonstratably false, all in all a joke!

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

    Gamefisher
    A really good summary of your explanations of the ‘laws of physics’ aka all your arguments to date
    Its under Tues Jan 15 on Beyonds website
    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/

    As you probably won’t look heres the relevant extract

    gamefisher (278) Says:

    January 15th, 2013 at 8:24 am

    I can find very little reference to it. Most I find is the body would of fallen straight down and would not had moved away in a voluntary way.

    Unable to provide an explanation for why Robin Bain was standing with one leg on a chair at the time he died, Gamefisher diverts attention to the position of the dead body, basing his tale on a un-referenced photograph without measurements. He would be better off consulting the ‘Walking Dead’ for his information, at least the story line is entertaining.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    drrh…

    ‘Boyce said Robins body would of fallen slowly backwards with the demo he gave that was wrong unless you think 1.2 (+-0.2)seconds is slow for the time taken for Robin entire body to be on the ground and to fall backward would of defied the laws of physics.’

    We are not going back to falling up in the air again are we? Nobody has said that Robin fell back slowly. Boyce said he collapsed at the knee, try it yourself instead of being a dicklebutt.

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

    Robert Fishers report was a hatchet job nitpicking the evidence he hadn’t even read in order to justify Judith Collins decision already made that she didn’t like the conclusions to Binnies report.
    He sites Robertson and Vignaux but demonstrates he doesn’t understand them as they actually say. The appropriate analogy when [evidence] and supporting evidence are considered is not a chain but a rope composed of several strands. The strength of one strand may affect the strength of the whole rope but it cannot affect the strength of another particular strand.

    It appears Fisher like many of the trolls here can’t get their heads around the concept that one strand cannot affect the strength of another particular one.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Rowan the law of physics are well proven all you are doing is showing how uneducated you are aqs Boyce demo was total BS and I will say it is a perjured demonstration and if Boyce wanted to sue me for defamation I would welcome to try thats how strong I believe in it was BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Rowan the law of physics are well proven all you are doing is showing how uneducated you are aqs Boyce demo was total BS and I will say it is a perjured demonstration and if Boyce wanted to sue me for defamation I would welcome to try thats how strong I believe in it was BS.’

    Nice tanty gf. But I don’t think Boyce will be suing anybody that thinks people fall up in the air. Ask your doctor for a psychiatric referral.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_cid=1&gallery_id=105680

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

    Gamefisher @ 9.59
    ‘Boyce said Robins body would of fallen slowly backwards with the demo he gave that was wrong’
    Drrh Gamefisher get the facts right Boyce didn’t say he would have fallen slowly backwards he said he would have collapsed at the knee. As beyond says you are diverting the attention away from what he said because you have no explanation for the evidence.
    I will regard Boyces evidence over yours at least until you can do significantly better than this. Get the facts straight before spinning out bs!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    gamefisher (405) Says:
    February 10th, 2013 at 10:08 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_cid=1&gallery_id=105680

    Not a good idea to post proof of your lies.
    In that clip Boyce said “my knees would buckle and I would fall backwards.” In the last demo he said “if I leaned further forward I would fall forwards, as I am now I would fall backwards”
    You may think you understand physics, Boyce understands how dead bodies fall, there is a world of difference. I will take his advice, thanks anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Then there were two Banes going drrrh… lol 9.54 & 10.12. Do try and be original or keep your personalities separate, 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Robert Fishers report was a hatchet job nitpicking the evidence he hadn’t even read in order to justify Judith Collins decision already made that she didn’t like the conclusions to Binnies report./blockquote>

    In other words, you’re not bright enough to understand Fissher’s report.

    It makes for simple reading. Declaring, by implication, that Robin Bain killed 4 members of his family is fine if the evidence fits. Alas, Binnie didn’t produce any evidence to support this, apart from the Luminol sock prints on which he placed far too much weight. So, right from the get-go, Binnie’s report was doomed. And when you drill down, you realise he made some school boy errors. For example, on occasions he thought that the onus of proof was on the Crown. The onus was NEVER on the Crown. The onus was on David throughout.

    Then there is Binnie’s reliance on David as a reliable witness. On the one hand Binnie says he makes no comment on the credibility of witnesses. But he infers that the testimony of numerous independent prosecution witnesses is worthless and can be ingored because David is the font of all wisdom! Such prescience is breath-taking. If we can take David’s word as gospel, then we should pay him now.

    Binnie wasn’t up to the task. He seems to have become emotionally involved which clearly clouded his judgment.

    Binnie also thought he could ignore evidence. For example, he gave no weight at all to the bloodied opera gloves and the 10 shot magazine placed on its edge. That’s not how circumstantial evidence works. Either David or Robin used those gloves and either one placed the magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Another useful contribution from an idiot with an LLB LOL>

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Robert Fishers report was a hatchet job nitpicking the evidence he hadn’t even read in order to justify Judith Collins decision already made that she didn’t like the conclusions to Binnies report.

    In other words, you’re not bright enough to understand Fisher’s report.

    It makes for simple reading. Declaring, by implication, that Robin Bain killed 4 members of his family is fine if the evidence fits. Alas, Binnie didn’t produce any evidence to support this, apart from the Luminol sock prints on which he placed far too much weight. So, right from the get-go, Binnie’s report was doomed. And when you drill down, you realise he made some school boy errors. For example, on occasions he thought that the onus of proof was on the Crown. The onus was NEVER on the Crown. The onus was on David throughout.

    Binnie also thought he could ignore evidence. For example, he gave no weight at all to the bloodied opera gloves and the 10 shot magazine placed on its edge. That’s not how circumstantial evidence works. Either David or Robin used those gloves and either one placed the magazine.

    Then there is Binnie’s reliance on David as a reliable witness. On the one hand Binnie says he makes no comment on the credibility of witnesses. But he infers that the testimony of numerous independent prosecution witnesses is worthless and can be ignored because David is the font of all wisdom! Such prescience is breath-taking. If we can take David’s word as gospel, then we should pay him now.

    Binnie wasn’t up to the task. He seems to have become emotionally involved which clearly clouded his judgment.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    More bs from ross who only ‘comprehends’ that which suits his failed objective of post death rehab of the dead father.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Chuck Bird (6,276 comments) says:

    Ross, good point about the over reliance on the sock prints. I just borrowed the book “Expert Witness” by Dr Anna Sandiford.

    I thought I might find something worth reading. There just three pages about the sock prints which told nothing. In her chapter about David which did not include the sock prints was just pro David spin.

    She claims the house was burned under direction of the wider Bain family. That is dishonest. She implies David did not agree to it.

    She is clearly just another Karamite.

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

    Chuck Bird (3,005) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 8:28 am
    —————————–

    Rubbish, she does not imply anything of the sort.

    That is your particular spin on how you have interpreted it.

    The extended Bain family decided they wanted it burned and visited David in prison to see if he agreed. Whilst he had no objections, he was hardly in a position to make a rational decision about it, under the circumstances. He could not have known the implications of what he was agreeing to, and was guided by the advice of his Uncles. (Who at that point he trusted, not knowing they couldn’t wait to get their hands on the family’s loot). The house was the least of David’s problems at that point.

    The family needed permission from the Police as well, as the site was a crime scene (but also when any building is deliberately burned down under such circumstances, the Fire Service and Council request Police authorisation).

    Nice to see that now that Sandiford has spoken up in defence of David Bain, you spinners are now gunning for her. You’re modus operandi is always the same. Will your group be talking about her finances, family relationships etc, like they have for other supporters that they stalk?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Binnie also thought he could ignore evidence. For example, he gave no weight at all to the bloodied opera gloves and the 10 shot magazine placed on its edge. That’s not how circumstantial evidence works. Either David or Robin used those gloves and either one placed the magazine.

    Why should Binnie have given any weight to the ‘bloodied gloves’. Ownership does not prove who used them.
    1. Robin shared a room with David and stored some gear and clothes in there. Therefore had access to them.
    2. Robin’s own gloves were in the caravan, and to get them would have needed to make a trip back to it. The gun and ammunition were in the same room.
    3. There was no evidence that indicated David could have worn those gloves.
    4. There was blood on Robin’s palms that ‘could’ have come from him wearing them.
    5. The blood was not tested to see who it belonged to. The samples were destroyed by the police.
    So of course they weren’t given any weight, because there was none to give. Your argument is like saying Margaret Bain was in possession of the family home, therefore she must have committed the murders.

    As far as the magazine is concerned, there is evidence that it was knocked over and that ‘it may not have been placed back in it’s original position’. Because the photos were not timed and their order noted, the Crown was unable to prove the original position of the magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The extended Bain family decided they wanted it burned and visited David in prison to see if he agreed. Whilst he had no objections, he was hardly in a position to make a rational decision about it, under the circumstances. He could not have known the implications of what he was agreeing to, and was guided by the advice of his Uncles. (Who at that point he trusted, not knowing they couldn’t wait to get their hands on the family’s loot). The house was the least of David’s problems at that point.

    Even then (a few days after he was charged) they were more concerned with protecting ‘their’ inheritance than supporting their nephew. If I were Bain, I would hate hearing them called family.

    Nice to see that now that Sandiford has spoken up in defence of David Bain, you spinners are now gunning for her. You’re modus operandi is always the same. Will your group be talking about her finances, family relationships etc, like they have for other supporters that they stalk?

    Of course. She should have known better than to say what she has proven. She needed to say “this is what I found, this is what it seems to mean, but as it points to the old man being guilty it must be wrong.”

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (984) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 8:55 am

    —————————–

    How did you get on taking your clothes off, with a blanket wrapped around you?

    Bet you got the Missus to help!!

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

    How did you get on taking your clothes off, with a blanket wrapped around you?

    Bet you got the Missus to help!!

    Nah, she couldn’t stop laughing, went off leaving me in a tangled mess. Ended up throwing the blanket away and cut the tee shirt off. It was my favourite one too, bloody muggins owes me a new shirt.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    muggins (2,063) Says:

    February 10th, 2013 at 5:18 pm
    Lindsay,
    Dr Pryde never said he strip- searched David Bain.
    But what my focus is now on is the fact that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked at one point when he was being examined by Dr Pryde.
    There was a police officer who was standing in a doorway when that examination was carried out and he says that Bain was never naked.
    So either David Bain is lying or that police officer is lying.

    Btw,I have seen young women at the beach change out of their wet togs and into dry clothes without showing their torso.
    And that is just using a beach towel. Easily done.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,064) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 9:23 am
    Btw,I have seen young women at the beach change out of their wet togs and into dry clothes without showing their torso.
    And that is just using a beach towel. Easily done.

    Yes I am sure you have ‘seen’ many young women at the beach and observed them undress (enough said about that) ……

    However, as you will have noted, swim suits do not have ‘arms’ in them and so one simply needs to wrap the towel around above the bust line, and take the straps down, or if it is a halter neck, over the top.

    Unfortunately for you though, it is impossible to be done with the towel wrapped around from the back, and held at the front, because the straps will not come down over the arms, this only works if it is a tie bikini.

    The position mentioned first, of course, reveals the top of the torso, and the position in which the ‘scratches’ were said to have been.

    However, getting into dry clothes, with a blanket wrapped around you and not revealing the shoulders and upper chest area at some stage, is virtually impossible, due to the need to be able to pull the shirt/top over the shoulders. Something that can’t happen if there is a blanket in the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Of course what muggins is forgetting, is that Dr Pryde was conducting an examination specifically to find evidence, indication of participation in the deaths.

    Had David Bain acted like a ‘shy young girl at the beach’ and gone to performing unusual contortions to hide his chest, and yet was willing to expose his genitals, the Doctor would have been extremely suspicious. Dr Pryde was used to doing those sorts of examinations, and was a very experienced doctor.

    Not only that, but if those so-called police ‘phone a friends’ of Muggin’s, had they been watching, they would have also noticed these extreme acts and been alerted to the suspicious behaviour by David.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Chuck Bird (6,276 comments) says:

    Judith, I have not commented on Dr Sandiford’s personal life but the book she wrote. If someone had not followed the case they would have thought that the wider Bain family had decided to burn the house down without asking David. She puts a sinister spin on it.

    What realistic alternative was there to burning the house down?

    It could be argued that the police should have kept more evidence like the carpet but that has nothing to do with the wider Bain family.

    From reading the chapter on David I concluded she is just another hired gun like a defense lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,006) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 10:05 am
    ————————————-

    She puts a sinister spin on it? Sandiford examined evidence. Evidence that neither your nor I have seen. From that examination, using her professional expertise, she found those sock prints couldn’t have been David’s, and therefore, being Robin’s ties him to the murder of his family. Do you expert her to just forget that fact and not campaign for a man who is innocent and deserves to be compensated for the time he spent wrongfully imprisoned?

    She wouldn’t be a very nice person if she did not speak out against injustice, and not tell the truth in what she found.

    The burning of the house at that time was sinister. It was done with the intention of ‘saving money’. Why would the Uncles need to save money, it wasn’t their money to save! At that point in time David Bain had not been found guilty. What happened to the innocent until proven guilty stance?

    Those Uncles wanted rid of it because it was costing money, however, as time has shown that was inadvisable, especially for David. What they should have said was ‘the house is costing money, however it is still full of your possessions David (because at that point they belonged to him), and we think you should get an independent person, perhaps a private detective to review what remains in the house, and decide whether there is anything of, not just value to you to remember your family by, but may be of value in your defense.

    They were caring Uncles alright, caring about the fact that if David was found guilty, they would financially benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Whilst we are talking about caring families. I wonder where the family photo albums went?

    Surely, caring, loving Uncles and Aunties wouldn’t have let them burn. Surely their loved ones meant more to them than that?

    No sign of them though. The family say they don’t have them. The police don’t have them. So who does? Did they burn with the house?

    Why would they be burned, unless of course the ‘family’ couldn’t care less, or maybe they had photos they didn’t want others to see. We shall never know, but it remains another ‘sinister’ act, that the family appear to be involved in making a decision that was detrimental to David.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    The burning of the house at that time was sinister. It was done with the intention of ‘saving money’. Why would the Uncles need to save money, it wasn’t their money to save! At that point in time David Bain had not been found guilty. What happened to the innocent until proven guilty stance?

    Being the good, caring people that they were, they would have been saving the money so it could be used to pay for a decent defence for their Nephew.

    What? They didn’t even do that? All that money, according to the long gone dotcom, and he was forced to use legal aid? What, or who, were they saving it for again?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kanz (986) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 10:27 am

    Being the good, caring people that they were, they would have been saving the money so it could be used to pay for a decent defence for their Nephew.

    What? They didn’t even do that? All that money, according to the long gone dotcom, and he was forced to use legal aid? What, or who, were they saving it for again?

    They not only didn’t ‘do that’, but they gave their nephew, a naive young man a lawyer who later proved himself to be extremely ‘shonky’. What were they saving for? That’s obvious, themselves!!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    What realistic alternative was there to burning the house down?

    The house is a non-issue. Even David admitted that it had to be destroyed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    This is the type of lawyer the caring ‘uncle’ would be best to represent his nephew.

    Mr Guest would, it seems, have presented some difficulties as a witness. He was struck
    off the Law Society roll of barristers and solicitors for professional misconduct on 5 November
    2001 because he “acted dishonestly for personal gain“ and had “lied to his client.”7 Michael
    Guest’s application for reinstatement of his practicing certificate was denied by the New
    Zealand Law Society as recently as 1 March 2010 because he “knowingly misled the Tribunal”
    regarding an earlier misappropriation of funds that resulted in Michael Guest’s payment to his
    former employer (a Tauranga law firm) of $22,000 “by way of restitution.”8 As of the date of this Report the name of Michael Richard Dexter Guest does not appear on the on-line register
    maintained by the Law Society of lawyers with current practising certificates. –

    His appeal was dismissed by the High Court in Wellington (Ellis, Gendall and Wild JJ.) on 29 July 2002, see Guest v Complaints Committee 2001
    of the Otago District Law Society [2004] NZAR 568. The judgment of the Court states in part that:
    [3]
    In a decision delivered on 5 November last the New Zealand Law Practitioners
    Disciplinary Tribunal found two charges of professional misconduct against the appellant, Mr
    Michael Guest, proved. The first, sequentially, involved a finding that Mr Guest had lied to his
    client. The second involved a finding that Mr Guest had charged his client $25,000 in fees when he
    had no right to do so. Both were findings that Mr Guest had abused his client’s trust, and acted
    dishonestly for personal gain.
    [4]
    The Tribunal ordered that Mr Guest’s name be struck off the roll of barristers and
    solicitors.
    ***
    [57]
    The findings of fact by the Tribunal which we have upheld involve a breach and abuse by
    Mr Guest of the client’s confidence and trust. What he told her was a lie. It was a lie against the
    client’s interests and for Mr Guest’s personal gain, in that it enabled him to charge a fee which, but
    for the lie, he could not have charged.
    [58]
    No solicitor who abuses the fundamental solicitor/client relationship in a calculated and
    deliberate way for personal gain, and to the potential detriment of the client, can be permitted to
    continue in practice…
    ***
    [59]
    The abuse of the solicitor/client relationship of confidence and trust was exacerbated by
    Mr Guest’s deliberate misleading of the arbitrator and of two fellow practitioners, again for Mr
    Guest’s personal gain. If arbitrators and Courts cannot implicitly rely upon what counsel tell them,
    then our system of justice will be imperilled. If practitioners cannot rely upon what other
    practitioners tell them in the course of professional dealings, then the practice of law will break
    down.
    [60]
    We hold that the Tribunal did not err in ordering that Mr Guest be struck off the roll of
    barristers and solicitors.
    8 See Guest v New Zealand Law Society, decision of the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, dated 14 July 2010, which
    held that Mr Guest “knowingly misled the Tribunal in both his affidavit and oral evidence at the hearing on his application for restoration” (para
    25) with respect to a misappropriation of funds which resulted in his payment to his former employer of $22,000 “by way of restitution” (para
    13). According to the Tribunal:
    As we look back at the various steps which the Appellant took, we think it is clear that he was trying
    to negotiate a path towards restoration which avoided having to refer to the Waihi client matter.
    He employed a number of approaches to this. One was to plead in the early stages that privilege
    and confidentiality applied to cloak this event. Then, when some compulsion came upon him to
    disclose the Tauranga events the Appellant gave selective and minimal disclosure to relieve the
    pressure that there had been for disclosure. When in the course of the hearing the questions arose
    in relation to Tauranga the Appellant answered them in a way that was not truthful but which
    relieved the pressure for further answers. Later when the Waihi client matter became known to
    the Law Society the Appellant has sought to cloak that with confidentiality and privilege and has
    sought to argue that questions about Tauranga seemingly answered incorrectly were
    misunderstood or misheard. We see all of this as being a sorry almost desperate overreaching by
    the Appellant for restoration to a position where he could practice as a barrister which he saw as
    within his grasp. This manipulative approach designed to keep the Waihi matter a secret from the
    Tribunal considering his fitness to be restored to the roll, is itself clearly relevant to whether Mr
    Guest is a fit and proper person to be granted a practicing certificate. [para 26]

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    She is clearly just another Karamite.

    Well, she certainly doesn’t appear to be the independent, impartial witness that she claims to be. I note that her public comments would be inadmissible opinion if she tried to repeat them in Court. She really should keep her trap shut.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,005) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 10:40 am

    The house is a non-issue. Even David admitted that it had to be destroyed.

    David was not in any fit state to have been making such a decision, and any caring family member would have acknowledged that. At the time he was asked if he agreed he was in prison, on charges of murdering his family, who he was grieving for. He was being woken every 15 minutes by the guards, on suicide watch. He was hardly capable of looking after himself, let alone considering the implications of having the house and any possible evidence to assist him, with it.

    That action by his uncles was cold, and calculating, to suit their own benefit. They deserve every ounce of criticism they get. They are not worthy of one cent of the money they in my opinion conned out of their nephew.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    This is the type of lawyer the caring ‘uncle’ would be best to represent his nephew.

    I can see now why they wouldn’t want to use ‘their’ inheritance to pay for him to defend Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    Why should Binnie have given any weight to the ‘bloodied gloves’. Ownership does not prove who used them.

    For someone who spends a lot of time poring over the evidence, you seem to have a remarkably poor grasp of what circumstantial evidence means.

    Sandiford examined evidence. Evidence that neither your nor I have seen. From that examination, using her professional expertise, she found those sock prints couldn’t have been David’s, and therefore, being Robin’s ties him to the murder of his family.

    Impressive – that’s wrong from start to finish.

    1. Sandiford didn’t examine the evidence, as it no longer exists. She probably did examine Hentschel’s report on the footprints quite thoroughly, but that’s not the same thing.

    2. She did not find the sock prints couldn’t have been David’s. If she claims to have found that, she’s a crap scientist.

    3. Nothing in Sandiford’s evidence means the prints are definitely Robin’s. Her tests support the view that if the footprint was 100% complete it could not have been David’s. On the other hand, physical reality supports the view that if the print was less than 100% complete it could not have been Robin’s, with a level of certainty you could rate as “not very certain at all” for 99% complete, through to “absolutely certain” at 90% complete.

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

    Well, she certainly doesn’t appear to be the independent, impartial witness that she claims to be. I note that her public comments would be inadmissible opinion if she tried to repeat them in Court. She really should keep her trap shut.

    Having seen for herself, in her professional capacity, incontrovertible proof of a miscarriage of justice you think she should cover it up?
    She doesn’t work for Crown Law you know.

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

    ross69 (2,006) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 10:48 am
    She is clearly just another Karamite.

    Well, she certainly doesn’t appear to be the independent, impartial witness that she claims to be. I note that her public comments would be inadmissible opinion if she tried to repeat them in Court. She really should keep her trap shut.

    So it’s alright for ex. Det. Sgt Weir to speak out, to paint ‘hang Bain’ on his house, but it’s not ok for her, a professional, who having conducted an articulate and precise investigation (according to the manual), and not an incompetent, and irresponsible one like Weir – according to you, she is not allowed to ‘speak out’?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    I wonder where the family photo albums went?

    You’ve forgotten the other things that David desperately misses:

    “The wrongful conviction of me in 1995 took away my inheritance. My Dad had a beautiful collection of string instruments and Mum had her pottery. These items are only a tiny amount of the items they collected during their lives and all have been lost to me. Further examples are Stephen’s trumpet and Arawa’s flute, a collection of opals from Australia, a collection of Royal Doulton pieces, artwork, books, music, the land and the house itself.”

    Clearly, his mother, father, brother and sisters were well down his list of priorities. For David, it’s me, me, me.

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

    according to you, she is not allowed to ‘speak out’?

    Of course she is allowed to speak out. But she shouldn’t pretend she is anything else but a partisan pro-David supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    1. Sandiford didn’t examine the evidence, as it no longer exists. She probably did examine Hentschel’s report on the footprints quite thoroughly, but that’s not the same thing.

    You are pretty much saying here, that none of the prosecution evidence can be used because it is unreliable.
    In which case the whole case should have been thrown out before it ever got to court.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    There was an argument offered at the time that the house was in danger of being burnt down, that was given as a reason for burning it down. So if anyone is ever faced with the danger of having their home burnt down the Dunedin police and part of the Bain family family have provided the answer, burn it down yourself. It’s absolutely peachy how none of the police or family
    seemed able to comprehend how traumatised David was and clearly unable to rationalise his situation. This was the young man who trusted the police, and for a while, trusted his uncles.

    But the stupidity of the logic of ‘saving’ something by burning it down is probably only surpassed by the dreamed up by police ‘alibi’ of using the paper round as cover, possibly reasonable on the surface until it became the ‘need’ for David to be seen, because if he wasn’t seen the ‘alibi’ would be of no value and newspapers already in the letter boxes was hardly proof that they’d been delivered. When people fabricate MOJ’s they invariably provide ‘reaches’ of logic that don’t fit, the burning down of the house and the ‘alibi’ are just 2 of those in the Bain case.

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

    David was not in any fit state to have been making such a decision, and any caring family member would have acknowledged that.

    Judith, David told Binnie it was the right decision to burn down the house. Are you saying that David, some 18 years later, is not in any fit state to say such a thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Seems like a lot of photos and film were made into a tribute to Robin Bain.

    David was 22 not 12, are you saying that he had no sense what so ever?

    I do not think he was worldly wise or particularly socially adept but I am sure he asked his lawyer regarding whatshould happen to the house etc. It was already condemned if I recall correctly.
    The trustees would have got legal advice also I would imagine.

    Cue….but it was Michael Guest. 😉

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

    ross69 (2,007) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 10:53 am
    I wonder where the family photo albums went?

    You’ve forgotten the other things that David desperately misses:

    “The wrongful conviction of me in 1995 took away my inheritance. My Dad had a beautiful collection of string instruments and Mum had her pottery. These items are only a tiny amount of the items they collected during their lives and all have been lost to me. Further examples are Stephen’s trumpet and Arawa’s flute, a collection of opals from Australia, a collection of Royal Doulton pieces, artwork, books, music, the land and the house itself.”

    Clearly, his mother, father, brother and sisters were well down his list of priorities. For David, it’s me, me, me.

    The murders/suicide took away his family.
    The wrongful conviction took those other things away from him.
    What was he meant to say, my wrongful conviction provided my uncles and aunties with extra money?

    Of course he was talking about himself, the subject of the discussion was ‘him’. Was he meant to break into some dialogue about some other person at that point?

    As you can see, he talks about the things that his family members held special, his mother’s poetry for example, (not of any particular financial value, but it meant something to David, because it was his mothers). His father’s string instruments, special to his Dad, there wasn’t a Stradivari, among them! Stephen’s trumpet, again special, but not worth an awful lot. Arawa’s flute – again the same thing, a musical instrument, music being so important to the family. Ok, the opals etc are of value, but note how they are listed last, after the things his family members cherished.

    I think you are doing exactly what you accuse others of, only seeing what you want to see. David gave an answer that was relevant to the question put to him. One that shows he treasured the things those members of his family treasured.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ross,

    ‘Well, she certainly doesn’t appear to be the independent, impartial witness that she claims to be. I note that her public comments would be inadmissible opinion if she tried to repeat them in Court. She really should keep her trap shut.’

    Take your own advice motormouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Why should Binnie have given any weight to the ‘bloodied gloves’. Ownership does not prove who used them.

    I never said ownership proved who used them. The gloves were circumstantial evidence. Binnie was required to weigh the evidence, not ignore it. Why would the killer use gloves? Did Robin know where the gloves were kept? Why wouldn’t he use his own gloves, and why would he use gloves at all? On the balance of probabilties, who was most likely to have worn the gloves on that fateful morning? Binnie ignored these questions, and showed his ineptitude in the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,009) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 11:00 am
    David was not in any fit state to have been making such a decision, and any caring family member would have acknowledged that.

    Judith, David told Binnie it was the right decision to burn down the house. Are you saying that David, some 18 years later, is not in any fit state to say such a thing?

    David was not in a fit state to make that decision at the time.
    Destroying the house was right, the timing wasn’t, and it wasn’t right for his defence, or investigating his innocence.
    20
    Q.
    When you say your relatives, who do you attribute the decision to?
    A.
    Well I, I can’t – I don’t know how made the decision (inaudible). I mean
    the, the, a lot of the family decisions were made by the trustees of the
    estate and that was John Boyd and Michael Bain as far as I’m I aware
    but in all honesty, I don’t…
    25
    Q.
    So the trustees come and see you on Tuesday July 5th about the
    disposal of the house?
    A.
    Mmm.
    Q.
    And I take it you had no objection to the house being demolished?
    Burned? Destroyed?
    30
    A.
    Yes I did have objections to it. I didn’t want that. But then that, if we go
    back a little bit that situation is just another, an example, really to me of
    how I was being manipulated in my, in the state of mind that I was in to
    make decisions and to have things happen with my so-called blessing.
    Q.
    Mmm.
    BAIN DAVID CULLEN INTERVIEW (23 July 2012)
    90
    A.
    They, they discussed it with me and put it in terms that made it seem
    reasonable and so in the end I have, had no come back essentially
    because even now I can’t say that it wasn’t my decision.
    Q.
    5
    A.
    Well they seem to have a couple of reasons. One is the cost of security.
    Yes.
    Q.
    Secondly, the police had taken a chainsaw to parts of the house so that
    it was –
    A.
    It was certainly –
    Q.
    – derelict.
    1 0
    A.
    Yeah, it was unliveable and, I mean I certainly – yeah look. I accept it, I
    didn’t – I wouldn’t have gone back into the house to live, definitely. The
    place would have been, possibly ended up being demolished and so
    forth but in dealt – in terms of, you know, preservation of the scene, you
    know, I don’t understand why the rush to have to burn the house down
    1 5
    and that’s only looking back in hindsight.

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

    David gave an answer that was relevant to the question put to him.

    Actually, no. It wasn’t a question he responded to. It was an affidavit that he wrote. It makes no mention of how the loss of his family has affected him, his feelings for them, or how much he misses them. Indeed, reading what David wrote I was struck by how little his family appears to have meant to him. His comment to Melanie Reid that 13 years in prison is sufficient punishment for killing 5 murders of his family just reinforces that point. The guy has no conscience. He should withdraw his compo claim. He won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ross a bsing bucket of brown stuff.

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

    ross69 (2,011) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 11:16 am
    ———————————-

    An affidavit that was not about how he ‘missed’ his family.
    As usual you take something in isolation and fail to give the entire details. The same as your conversation regarding the comment to Melanie Reid. You fail to state what the conversation was about, and how that comment was made.

    You are doing that all the time, with Sandiford and every other piece of information you post, e.g. what David told Binnie about the house. When you read the entire line of questioning, it is actually quite different to the quick comment you made.

    You wonder why David Bain was found not guilty? It’s because people didn’t take a simplistic approach like you, instead they listened to everything. When they do that, it is easy to see that David Bain is innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    You are pretty much saying here, that none of the prosecution evidence can be used because it is unreliable.

    In what way? I wrote that Sandiford couldn’t examine the sockprints evidence because one of the Police errors was that they didn’t preserve it. All she could examine was Hentschel’s description of the prints. Is that incorrect? And how does it declare the prosecution evidence unreliable?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    Why should Binnie have given any weight to the ‘bloodied gloves’. Ownership does not prove who used them.

    Just repeating that because it highlights the extent of Judith’s inability to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Come to think of it, it highlights Binnie’s poor handling of the evidence too.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    That tattoo of the family must be really special then, since the one for the dog is and let us not forget the ‘special’ gun, while we are remembering all that is held dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    You wonder why David Bain was found not guilty?

    I don’t wonder at all. You only have to look at the behaviour of some members of the jury during and after the retrial. A judge-alone trial likely would have produced a different outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Back to the paddling pool milt

    ‘Why should Binnie have given any weight to the ‘bloodied gloves’. Ownership does not prove who used them.

    Just repeating that because it highlights the extent of Judith’s inability to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Come to think of it, it highlights Binnie’s poor handling of the evidence too.’

    A ‘peer review’ from a drongo tied up with other drongoes. Way to go miltie.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Belinda (142 comments) says:

    Can a Baner tell us why david doesn’t want the judicial review?
    Love to hear a plausable reason for it, but won’t hold my breath.
    Still waiting to hear why Kaycee wouldn’t go near david after the killings.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Chuck Bird (6,276 comments) says:

    If the house was not burned down who would have paid the security? David agree because he did not want to see much of his inheritance go to pay for security.

    Is there any evidence that David did not ask for things to be looked for like the photo albums and his relations could not be bothered?

    Sandiford is definitely putting a spin on the house being burned down.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Can a Baner tell us why david doesn’t want the judicial review?

    He does want a judicial review doesn’t he?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Chuck Bird (6,276 comments) says:

    “He does want a judicial review doesn’t he?”

    Who knows? It is clear that Karam wants a judicial review though.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,009) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 12:55 pm
    If the house was not burned down who would have paid the security? David agree because he did not want to see much of his inheritance go to pay for security.’

    Got any proof of that chuck? Or just bsing away because you’re one of the sisters?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    muggins (2,064) Says:

    February 11th, 2013 at 9:23 am
    muggins (2,063) Says:

    February 10th, 2013 at 5:18 pm
    Lindsay,
    Dr Pryde never said he strip- searched David Bain.
    But what my focus is now on is the fact that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked at one point when he was being examined by Dr Pryde.
    There was a police officer who was standing in a doorway when that examination was carried out and he says that Bain was never naked.
    So either David Bain is lying or that police officer is lying.

    Btw,I have seen young women at the beach change out of their wet togs and into dry clothes without showing their torso.
    And that is just using a beach towel. Easily done.

    When Bain took off his t-shirt he would have had his back to Dr Pryde. Then he puts that blanket round his shoulders and turns back to face the good doctor,who can’t see his torso, though he can see that tattoo.

    And the prodavids are blaming Dr Pryde because he didn’t realise David was covering up those scratches.
    Why am I not surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,009) Says:

    February 11th, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    “He does want a judicial review doesn’t he?”

    Who knows? It is clear that Karam wants a judicial review though.

    I don’t see the point of a judical review.
    All that review will decide is whether or not Judith Collins should have let Karam and co know that she was having Binnie’s report peer reviewed. The judge could decide either way, but so what? All that will happen is that Judith Collins will accept the verdict and that will be that. Then Bain’s compensation claim will be taken off hold and another review will be carried out, this time by a person or persons who are more competent than Binnie was.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,013) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 1:02 pm
    Can a Baner tell us why david doesn’t want the judicial review?

    He does want a judicial review doesn’t he?

    ———————————-

    Of course he wants a review, one can’t be initiated without his approval. As stated in the media release. I am sure David did not want to go down that path, because he had mistakenly believed, Ms Collins would conduct a fair process, however, she hasn’t, so he was left with little choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Nobody is blaming Dr Pryde, everyone who has read the evidence is laughing about some nutter’s version of it, the same person who has called Weir and Doyle liars and accused them of being in a conspiracy to defeat the course of Justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    When Bain took off his t-shirt he would have had his back to Dr Pryde. Then he puts that blanket round his shoulders and turns back to face the good doctor,who can’t see his torso, though he can see that tattoo.

    And the prodavids are blaming Dr Pryde because he didn’t realise David was covering up those scratches.
    Why am I not surprised.

    Are you suggesting that David had the blanket wrapped around one shoulder, whist the other shoulder was exposed so the tattoo could be seen, however, he managed to cover the top part of his chest at the same time, and the Dr wouldn’t have found that the least bit suspicious?

    Try doing it yourself and see how it looks – you are a desperate old man trying to come up with more ‘look at me’ stuff.

    You have been sprung buddy. No one is supporting you.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Once the scene examination was completed the Police had no further requirement or responsibility for the house. What happened to the premises was then an issue for the Executors administering the estate.
    They believed that elimination of the house would help to erase the horrid memories associated with it and would effectively end the morbid and ghoulish interest shown in it.
    You can just see what would have happened if the house hadn’t been destroyed. Even with security guards there would have been University students prepared to run the gauntlet so as to get hold of a prize “memento”. There would have been students distracting the guards at the front while others entered from the back. It would have been all on for young and old.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,924) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    Nobody is blaming Dr Pryde, everyone who has read the evidence is laughing about some nutter’s version of it, the same person who has called Weir and Doyle liars and accused them of being in a conspiracy to defeat the course of Justice.

    The thing that really makes me laugh in all of this, is the idiot doesn’t even realise that all he is doing is providing more evidence to claim extra-ordinary circumstances. Even if he was believed, all it does is point out how inept the police were. And, when it is pointed out how he has misrepresented what he was told, there is still the fact that police officers have breached their code of conduct, provided information without authority, and assisted a member of the public in breaking the law regarding the contact of witnesses with intent.

    The fact is, David Bain had no clothes on. By his interpretation that is naked. By several dictionaries that is naked, and therefore he did not lie according to what many people believe.
    The fact Muggins might not interpret it that way, doesn’t matter. There is enough evidence to support that no clothes is interpreted as ‘naked’.

    It still does not prove there were any scratches.

    Either way, it is only going to be bad news for muggins and his spinners.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,067) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    —————————
    Had the ‘uncles’ and their buddy, not been more so intent on lining their own pockets and instead assisted their nephew, and client, they would have ensured that the property was reviewed by a professional individual (e.g. a private detective) to ensure that all evidence of value to the defense was removed.

    No one is disputing the house needed to be evenutally burned (probably should have been exorcised as well if Margaret’s diary is to be believed).

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    muggins (2,064) Says:

    February 11th, 2013 at 9:23 am
    muggins (2,063) Says:

    February 10th, 2013 at 5:18 pm
    Lindsay,
    Dr Pryde never said he strip- searched David Bain.
    But what my focus is now on is the fact that Bain told Binnie he was completely naked at one point when he was being examined by Dr Pryde.
    There was a police officer who was standing in a doorway when that examination was carried out and he says that Bain was never naked.
    So either David Bain is lying or that police officer is lying.

    Btw,I have seen young women at the beach change out of their wet togs and into dry clothes without showing their torso.
    And that is just using a beach towel. Easily done.

    When Bain took off his t-shirt he would have had his back to Dr Pryde. Then he puts that blanket round his shoulders and turns back to face the good doctor,who can’t see his torso, though he can see that tattoo.

    And the prodavids are blaming Dr Pryde because he didn’t realise David was covering up those scratches.
    Why am I not surprised.

    It is very easy to hold a blanket round ones neck and shoulders yet still leave ones arms exposed.
    Dr Pryde would not have been the least bit suspicious. He would not have thought Bain had any scratches on his torso, why would he? As I said the probainers are blaming Dr Pryde because David Bain tricked him.
    Why am I not surprised.
    I don’t quite know why we are arguing about those scratches. There is no doubt Bain had scratches on his torso on the Wednesday before he was arrested. He says he didn’t know how he got them and so far none of his supporters can figure that out either. Their time would be better spent trying to find out a reason why those scratches were there.
    I have given them my reason.
    Let’s see them try to come up with one half as good.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Is David in any fit state to be making decisions yet? Seems to me that decisions are still being made ‘for him.
    Is that just a way of not having to take responsibility for anything, such as the rumours perpetuated against his father?
    It wasn’t me, someone else said it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,427) Says:

    The fact is, David Bain had no clothes on. By his interpretation that is naked. By several dictionaries that is naked, and therefore he did not lie according to what many people believe.
    The fact Muggins might not interpret it that way, doesn’t matter. There is enough evidence to support that no clothes is interpreted as ‘naked’.

    It still does not prove there were any scratches.

    Judith says “The fact is ,David Bain had no clothes on”.
    And how does she know that? Because that is what Bain told Binnie. But what if it can be proved Bain lied to Binnie.
    I am aware that it can’t be proved that those scratches were there when Binnie examined Bain but nor can it be proved they weren’t there.
    Obviously Bain had a change of clothing, The photos of those bruises on his head and that nick on his knee were taken after he had removed the clothes he was wearing when he arrived at the police station. But he didn’t necessarily remove all those clothes at the same time as Judith would have you believe. He probably removed his shorts and put on his trousers and then removed his T-shirt and put on his skivvy and jersey. And he could well have had his back turned to Dr Pryde when he did that.

    What is going to be bad news for David Bain is if it can be proved he lied to Binnie when he said he was completely naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘What is going to be bad news for David Bain is if it can be proved he lied to Binnie when he said he was completely naked.’

    No one is trying to prove it, the police have made no objections. It’s just one lonely nut in nutsville. Even the Minister didn’t object to it, or Binnie in his ‘peer review.’ Nutters ‘are go.’

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I see some idiot is now blaming Weir and Doyle for not seeing those scratches.
    As far as I am aware Weir was at the crime scene when Dr Pryde was examining Bain so how his name got into the mix I really have no idea.
    So far as Doyle is concerned, as I have already explained numerous times, he wasn’t in the room when Pryde examined Bain so he doesn’t know what Pryde did or did not do.
    I mean was Doyle lying when he replied “Yes” when the defence asked him if Bain had always said that green jersey belonged to his father?
    Or was that just a case of him not remembering that Bain,up until he took the stand ,had always said that green jersey belonged to Arawa.
    I am quite prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt,even though some prodavids might not go along with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Of course that ” completely naked” remark was only mentioned in the Binnie/Bain interview, so it is far too early to know if any action has been or will be taken.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Had the ‘uncles’ and their buddy, not been more so intent on lining their own pockets

    There was only person looking for money, the same person who is still looking for money. He expects a handout from the government, despite evidence implicating him in the murder of his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Belinda (142 comments) says:

    Could a baner tell us just how long they think the extended family should have paid to keep guarding the house.
    At $1,000 a week back in 1994 you are talking big money.
    It’s very telling that most of the baners think the extended family were only after the money, shows how their sad little minds work, if only they knew who really got the money.
    Baners can’t seem to comprehend that most of us have enough money and that we would rather have our family back than their money.
    None of the extended family needed or wanted the money.
    it’s insulting to judge them by baners own sad attitudes to money.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    What Aunt Fanny says:

    ‘Of course that ” completely naked” remark was only mentioned in the Binnie/Bain interview, so it is far too early to know if any action has been or will be taken.’

    Compared to:

    It has a body-shaped sketch, front and back, and a closer version of the head. The brusing to the head is noted, as are the tattoos, a scar from an inguinal hernia, various grazes etc on the legs. NOTHING on the chest. There is also a tick chart to indicate samples taken.

    Incidentally: the police commentary on Binnie’s report takes issue with any number of things (usually wrongly) and in incredible detail. They do not, however, question the issue of the strip search. If there was any way they could, they would have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Could a twisted sister be this stupid?

    ‘Belinda (116) aks:
    February 11th, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    …. why david doesn’t want the judicial review?’

    Without breaking a sweat.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Binnie J poopooed the idea that an intelligent man like David Bain would carry out a plan
    that involved the risk that Robin Bain might get up earlier than usual, find bodies, and
    call 111.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Yet, the same Binnie J was prepared to accept that David discovered his mother with
    her eyes open, and with “blood streaming down her face”, then David heard his sister
    gurgling, in each case indicating the prospect of either of them still being alive.
    And yet David did not call 111 in this situation for up to half an hour.

    Then when police did arrive on the scene, David would not let police in the house, at this
    stage about 40 minutes after David would have had good reason to assume his mother and sister might
    actually be alive. Police had to break into the front door. The probability of this
    being so in a sane world is nearly zero.

    Were Justice Binnie asked to reconcile his expectation that Robin WOULD call 111,
    with his indifference to the fact that David DIDN’T call 111 for so long, Binnie would be
    hard-pressed to reconcile the two things.

    Were the Binnie J decision appealable, the Canadian would not be entitled to assume that his
    ruling would survive this point on appeal.

    It is just one of many points on which the Binnie J report would not survive a
    theoretical appeal, and should be rejected by Cabinet.

    The result is that Binnie J produced a not-impartial report. Binnie J set out to find
    probability of Robin having suicided, so in this aspect as well as many others, it is what
    he naturally achieved.

    Robin Bain didn’t shoot anyone. Robin Bain didn’t suicide.

    David Bain on the other hand shot and killed 5 members of his family.

    He must not be compensated for doing this.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Perhaps he might like to have a pee instead?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I see that Bain now has two tattoos.
    But nothing is noted on his chest for the simple reason that Bain was able to keep his chest covered with that blanket.
    He was never completely naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Chuck Bird (6,276 comments) says:

    Belinda, It appears you are related and know what happened more than most. Can you say if much was removed like the photo albums, and other things of value before the house was burned?

    I can imagine what a mess the house was in but how hard would have been to empty the house onto the lawn and sorted what was rubbish and either put it back on to the house to be burned or in a jumbo bin if not suitable to be deliberately burned.

    The rest of the stuff that could have been considered worth keeping like the photo albums, musical instruments and other things David mentioned and put in storage at least for a few months till a better decision could be made as to long term storage.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Binnie was convinced that David Bain wouldn’t have taken the risk of his father entering the back door and finding the bodies. But what risk was there?
    The only bedroom Robin Bain would have passed would have been Arawa’s.
    Bain told Binnie the lighting in the laundry area was poor. On top of that Arawa’s body was behind a piece of furniture.
    It is quite possible David Bain had her kneel there deliberately so that when she fell over that piece of furniture would hide her body.
    Another incorrect assumption by Binnie,taken straight from Trial by Ambush.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins and goldnkiwi, I am not sure which of the two of you this was put online for, but it was one of you, I’m certain.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/88083636@N03/8058358906/

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t touch anything you had touched with a barge pole, ’cause we know what you are lol 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross @ 7.26
    ‘Binnie also thought he could ignore evidence. For example, he gave no weight at all to the bloodied opera gloves and the 10 shot magazine placed on its edge. That’s not how circumstantial evidence works. Either David or Robin used those gloves and either one placed the magazine.’

    Geez your thick Ross!
    We have already been over this, The PC threw out the spare magazine argument, there is NOTHING in where it was found that excludes placement by Robin, You are just demonstrating your stupidity (again!) if you cling to the must have ‘landed on its edge’ myth. The scene was also not original when examined so doesn’t exclude the possibility of it being moved.
    The relevance of the ownership of the gloves, 0.000000% The crown case requires David to use Margarets glasses, Robins (or Arawas) green jersey, yet by your argument Daddy ‘couldn’t’ have done it because they were Davids gloves! irrelevant they were there and available for the killer. Robin also kept clothes in room, the gloves were probably the nearest available ones.
    Your post demonstrates that you understand Robertson and Vignaux about as well as Fisher.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 2.21
    ‘What is going to be bad news for David Bain is if it can be proved he lied to Binnie when he said he was completely naked.’
    The only thing that can/will be proved here is your continued lies about the ‘no strip search’

    ‘There is no doubt Bain had scratches on his torso on the Wednesday before he was arrested.’
    No doubt in the mind of a deluded nutcase like you. No evidence of their existance on 20 June, and the so called witness who first gave evidence in 2007 couldn’t even get his story straight.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    ” There is no evidence that indicated David could have worn those gloves.”

    David Bain’s hands were clean when they were examined. He is adamant he washed his hands before he put the washing on. He also stated he didn’t have any blood on his hands because he’d washed them. I believe he washed his hands a second time.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Let us also not forget that bruises and scratches can show up later. Not a medical opinion I admit but a mothers.
    I mean seriously, that fainting fit seems to be expected to account for a lot.
    David of course has no ‘awareness’ of how they got there.

    There’s that conspiracy again!!! Poor David.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Yawn, wake me up when the police say that David lied to Binnie about being naked (horror, without clothes) during a strip search.

    I’m still wondering why David ‘doesn’t want’ a Judicial Review, perhaps Belinda the spinner will tell us why.

    The mayor is wondering why somebody dosen’t have an ‘awareness’ of something, I’m wondering how somebody without a brain gets an LLB. Anybody ‘aware’ of the answer to that?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    No, but I am ‘aware’ that you could probably murder a burger.

    http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.murderburger.co.nz%2F&ei=oIUYUeDPBsa4iAefm4HgBA&usg=AFQjCNGg_aAc5BPv_TkyWL-2j4WOqNYl6g&sig2=YKqetbQvKvSCq5dvdK9p1A&bvm=bv.42080656,d.dGI

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Binnie J poopooed the idea that an intelligent man like David Bain would carry out a plan that involved the risk that Robin Bain might get up earlier than usual, find bodies, and call 111.
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    Yet, the same Binnie J was prepared to accept that David discovered his mother with her eyes open, and with “blood streaming down her face”, then David heard his sister gurgling, in each case indicating the prospect of either of them still being alive. And yet David did not call 111 in this situation for up to half an hour.

    Then when police did arrive on the scene, David would not let police in the house, at this stage about 40 minutes after David would have had good reason to assume his mother and sister might actually be alive. Police had to break into the front door. The probability of this being so in a sane world is nearly zero.

    If Justice Binnie was asked to reconcile his expectation that Robin WOULD call 111 – with his indifference to the fact that David DIDN’T call 111 for so long, Binnie would be hard-pressed to reconcile the two things.

    Were the Binnie J decision appealable, the Canadian would not be entitled to assume that his ruling would survive this point on appeal.

    It is just one of many points on which the Binnie J report would not survive a theoretical appeal, and should be rejected by Cabinet.

    The result is that Binnie J produced a not-impartial report. Binnie J set out to find probability of Robin having suicided, so in this aspect as well as many others, it is what he naturally achieved.

    Robin Bain didn’t shoot anyone. Robin Bain didn’t suicide.

    David Bain on the other hand shot and killed 5 members of his family.

    He must not be compensated for doing this.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Just for you)

    Murder Burger NZ Job Ad
    Contributed by: Billy

    If the name of the place isn’t enough to make you lol, you should read their job advert! Not sure if this is fake or not, especially considering their logo, but anyway I got a chuckle out of it. With stuff like “… and we need a bunch of people to hang out with, make burgers and talk shit.”, how could you afford not to work there?!?!
    From: Email from Reggie

    Right Oh, Murder Burger is opening up on Ponsonby Road in Ponsonby and we need a bunch of people to hang out with, make burgers and talk shit. No previous experience is needed as we teach you everything you need to know and we kind of factor in you buggering up something along the way.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    geez the dumb ass with the LLB has been eating rotten berries again, cos that’s some stink seeping from its butt!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Look old troppo botto has taken over the spam duties. I bet he/she/it wishes it had a hot butt and not one out of the freezer.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    http://www.supersizedmeals.com/food/GL_Gallery2/index.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=21060&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

    Look at the rest of the ad lol. 😉

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

    The following extract from Binnies report seems to sum up the spinners arguments although ‘factual’ is certainly debatable in some instances. Basically a lot of ‘spin’ and minor points that can be used to support either theory. Nothing very significant although JFRB will try to convince us that the ‘correct’ spelling of the dogs name or the ‘goat’ or their interpretation of Davids tattoos somehow shows guilt!

    Evidentiary Factors
    49. There are, of course, numerous other factual issues that play both for and against David
    Bain’s assertion of factual innocence. That is why this Report addresses David’s factual
    innocence on “a balance of probabilities” not in terms of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. By
    “numerous” I mean dozens and dozens of issues and sub‐issues generated by astute lawyers
    and their experts over almost 18 years of litigation. It is simply not feasible in this report to
    chase down each of these points and counterpoints. Nevertheless, the judgements of the Court
    of Appeal and Privy Council have brought focus to the significant issues, which I address in
    detail in this report.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Common sense approach Rowan, because finally the evidence against Daddy can’t be overcome – it’s overwhelming.

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

    The following summarises Hentschels evidence about the footprints, Notice how the theories have changed over the 15 year period. Much like the rest of the crown case! Also gives some basis for the ‘complete’ print in 1995 used to exculpate Robin as ‘larger than his sock’ I suppose we should be believing that Davids foot shrank after stepping in blood according to the trolls!

    232. At the 2009 retrial, Mr Hentschel attempted to back away from his earlier description of
    the 280 millimetre footprints as “complete”, saying that “I have always felt that the foot that
    made that print was larger than 280mm.” In other words, he was now saying, the prints
    were not complete. He elaborated on this point in a rather imprecise and unsatisfactory
    fashion:
    “The Luminol reaction as I saw it showed areas of relatively high
    intensity if you like and it was the limits of that that was measured. But
    there could have well been some small areas outside that which are
    difficult to see, all right. And that is why I’m saying that the 280 is a
    minimum measurement, it could well be a little larger. How much larger
    I don’t know”. (Emphasis added)

    233. Mr Hentschel agreed in cross‐examination that in the 15 years between the June 1994
    investigation and the 2009 retrial he had never before suggested that a 280mm footprint could
    be made by a foot larger than 280mm. “That is the first time you’ve ventured that opinion in
    this case in any courtroom or affidavit?” “Yes”.

    234. Mr Hentschel offered no scientific basis for his “larger rather than smaller” view apart
    from some last minute experiments he did with footprints in ink which he agreed were not of a
    “scientific quality” and were not at “a level you would expect for trying to determine blood
    soaked on stockinged feet walking on carpet”. What Mr Hentschel seemed to be saying is
    that because he believes David Bain to be guilty and David Bain’s foot is larger than 280mm it
    must therefore follow that the 280mm prints must have been no more than partial prints
    despite his consistent testimony for 15 years that they were complete prints.

    235. Mr Hentschel also pointed out that “because of the natural curve of the heel and toes,
    there will be parts of the foot that form part of the measurement of the foot but which do not
    contact the surface of the ground when standing.” No doubt this is true. It is also agreed
    that a person when walking leaves a larger print because of the flattening effect caused by the
    downward pressure on a moving foot. In order to make his murderous rounds the killer must
    have been moving around, not standing still. As it happens, however, “the natural curve of the
    heel and toes” and the difference between a print made by an individual when walking or
    standing, were tested by ESR scientist Kevin Walsh in 1997 (for the Joint Police/Police
    Complaints Authority review) and in 2008 (for the 2009 retrial). So we do have some empirical
    ESR data on these points, but it does not originate with Mr Hentschel.

    The Crown Law Office Submission urges acceptance of Mr Hentschel’s revised testimony
    (even if, by his account, not a revised view) on the basis that when Mr Hentschel used the word
    “complete” he simply intended to distinguish the two prints he described as being “from the
    top of toes to the heel” from the other four prints he described as “partial”. I accept that Mr
    Hentschel juxtaposed “complete” from “partial”, but it is clear Mr Hentschel also used
    “complete” in the functional sense that the print enabled him to inculpate David and exculpate
    Robin. The Bain submission simply takes the methodology that helped convict David Bain and,
    harnessing the subsequent test results of ESR scientist Mr Walsh, now uses it to David Bain’s
    advantage.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia you seem to be getting lots of attention from the Looney one.

    Just think of Shrek’s Fiona, without the teeth!

    It’s a scary sight, believe me.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,930) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 6:30 pm
    Yawn, wake me up when the police say that David lied to Binnie about being naked (horror, without clothes) during a strip search.

    Sorry, not going to happen. They’ve already got the job books which prove muggins is an unreliable historian.

    I’m still wondering why David ‘doesn’t want’ a Judicial Review, perhaps Belinda the spinner will tell us why.

    Excuse the dicky one. Of course David wants the review. It just wasn’t at the top of his wanted list, but he knows he has no other choice as Ms Collins doesn’t know what fair and equitable means. He’s taken it upon himself to teach her. David has never said he didn’t want it, only that he was reluctant to do it, – but hey, someone’s got to put the cow in her place (no he didn’t say the last bit, that was me)

    The mayor is wondering why somebody dosen’t have an ‘awareness’ of something, I’m wondering how somebody without a brain gets an LLB. Anybody ‘aware’ of the answer to that?

    Of course there is an answer to that. Or at least another example of it. Two words. Michael Guest.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Judith (1,429) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    Nostalgia you seem to be getting lots of attention from the Looney one.

    Just think of Shrek’s Fiona, without the teeth!

    It’s a scary sight, believe me.’

    A toothless wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Any press releases from the police after 20 years that David wasn’t strip searched? Or are they just relying on the biggest bullcraper on the internet. Maybe they were all asleep at the time and for the twenty years since, maybe they’ll be awake to it tomorrow and cart aunt fanny off for a medical examination to determine how a such skinny, dwarfish old goat can produce such large amounts of bovine defecation. It could be a miracle.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Looks like some of the spinners are experts at what the killer ‘would’ see and ‘do’. I wonder how many dead bodies have they seen with bullet wounds to the head. Mind you this was one of the favourite arguments of the departed nut-case Dotcom and the second biggest bullshitter on this here Ross, so the latest spinner is in good company!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,932) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    ———————–

    Nope, still no press releases.

    Mind you, we now have another version of the ‘said’ event.
    Apparently now David never took all his clothes off.
    Now according to the ‘look at me’ attention seeker, David removed a piece of clothing and replaced it with a new clothing item, so was never without clothes at all.

    That of course is different to his other versions (which I admit change all the time). In those versions the story was the Police let David keep the blanket because he was cold without clothes, and that is why he was never truly naked, because of the blanket.

    Now he was dressed under the blanket as well. Must have created a gap to poke his ‘bits’ through for sample testing, and somehow managed to reveal the tattoo through layers of clothing and a blanket.

    YAWN!

    But wait, there’s more…. or at least there will be tomorrow, when he can dream up something new over night.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. twistedlemon (110 comments) says:

    ^^^^

    ad hom attacks

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Just wondering
    What should be the collective weight of the discredited arguments. The ‘daddy didn’t do it’ crowd seem to have no understanding of Robertson and Vignaux and seem to think that the separate strands somehow draw strength from the other strands. Collective weight of 0.00000% + 0.00000% + 0.00000% + 0.00000%+……. is wait for it 0%. Much like all the spinners arguments to date!
    Yet Binnie and anyone else who doesn’t believe in David’s guilt ignore ‘the big picture’

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (636) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 9:11 pm
    ————————–

    Oh they are experts alright, legends in their own minds.

    Who let the dog out?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    I suppose we should be believing that Davids foot shrank after stepping in blood according to the trolls!

    I guess if someone as smart as Binnie could be mistaken about this, it’s no surprise at all that you should be. So far none of the poor-David enthusiasts has been willing to have a go at this, but now that you’ve brought the subject up again: please outline the mechanism by which Hentschel would be able to determine that the largest (28 cm) sock print was a 100% complete print.

    And by that I don’t mean point to where he said it was “complete” in some piece of evidence – that’s worthless. I mean, tell me exactly how he could determine that percentage; ie, what is the physical mechanism of measurement by which he could determine that he was looking not at a 92% complete print or a 97% complete print, but a 100% complete one? Take your time.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (637) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 9:22 pm
    Just wondering
    What should be the collective weight of the discredited arguments. The ‘daddy didn’t do it’ crowd seem to have no understanding of Robertson and Vignaux and seem to think that the separate strands somehow draw strength from the other strands. Collective weight of 0.00000% + 0.00000% + 0.00000% + 0.00000%+……. is wait for it 0%. Much like all the spinners arguments to date!
    Yet Binnie and anyone else who doesn’t believe in David’s guilt ignores ‘the big picture’

    ——————————-

    Well it has to be a big picture. In fact it has to be an enormous picture to fit all their particular fantasies in it.
    They’re going to write it all down one day and see if they can beat Tolkien’s record.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,182) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 9:26 pm
    ———————
    Milt, I see you made a comment about me not understanding circumstantial evidence, just because I don’t agree that the gloves being owned by David was significant.

    If you look at where I’ve said that, you will see a list of circumstantial evidence regarding Robin about the gloves. The reason why I discount David is because apart from ownership there is nothing else about the gloves that ties him to wearing them, however, there are more points about Robin that associate them with him by (circumstance). Therefore, I actually disagree with Binnie, and think there is a probative value, but it is associated with Robin.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Old milt’s come up with something stunningly stupid. Good work milt, but it doesn’t pass any of your ‘complete’ 100% stupid comments to date. Keep working on that, surely there must be some reward that results from such a stunning record. I guess you’re after the number 1 spot, the ‘strip search complete queen.’

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Johnboy (19,951 comments) says:

    There’s more scripture in this thread than the “Book of Mormon” ! 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith
    In terms of the gloves argument they choose to ignore the evidence of Dempster in the second trial, that the red ‘blood like’ stains and smears on Robins hands and fingers was consistent with residual blood staining from having worn the gloves. Apart from they were Davids nothing ties them to him and as the glasses and green jersey clearly weren’t his, ownership is irrelevant.

    Milt
    Putting aside our individual views of guilt or innocence (I’ve seen you make the claim that your not a partisan)
    Hentschel described them in 1995 as ‘complete’ heel to toe from the tip of the toe to the ball of the heel. There were also 4 ‘incomplete’ ones not showing all of these extremities. It was specifically referred in summing up by Bill Wright to exclude Robin as the perpetrator. If you look in the PC and Binnie reports then you will also see an admission to the PC law lords that the crown case could not support any of the footprints being made by Robin. These footprints stayed ‘complete’ until Hentschel changed his view based on ‘his years of expertise’ Much like a analogy I’ve given you of a certain cartridge case and bullet along with paragraph 234 from my 8.19.
    Using the crowns evidence from 1995 and reasoning the evidence now exculpates David and points strongly at Robin.
    Of course keeping the carpet would have helped but we’ve been down that argument, would that be only in the ‘Karam manual’?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    Old milt’s come up with something stunningly stupid. Good work milt, but it doesn’t pass any of your ‘complete’ 100% stupid comments to date. Keep working on that, surely there must be some reward that results from such a stunning record. I guess you’re after the number 1 spot, the ‘strip search complete queen.’

    Thank you. Your immediate resort to abuse says it all.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    Hentschel described them in 1995 as ‘complete’ heel to toe from the tip of the toe to the ball of the heel.

    You miss the point. What mechanism was available to him to allow him to say the print was complete from the very tip of the toes to the end of the heel, and not merely a print that showed toes and a heel, but could be anywhere from 90 to 100% complete? He isn’t omniscient.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    …you will see a list of circumstantial evidence regarding Robin about the gloves. The reason why I discount David is because apart from ownership there is nothing else about the gloves that ties him to wearing them, however, there are more points about Robin that associate them with him by (circumstance). Therefore, I actually disagree with Binnie, and think there is a probative value, but it is associated with Robin.

    Well, Binnie is definitely wrong about the gloves having no evidential value, about that we can agree. I’m almost afraid to ask, but what inferences can we draw about the gloves that point to Robin being the person wearing them that morning?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    How about those blood spots consistent with residual staining, how else does he get blood under his fingernails, or should that be ‘red food colouring’ as it wasn’t tested. Your suggested probabilities for each? also the innocent explanation for the blood in his fingernail scrapings given that you dislike the obvious in that he was the wearer of the gloves and had rinsed his hands but not scrubbed them. Haven’t seen any other explanation for this blood other than Joes, other than a Muggins lame attempt ‘rust marks from the guttering’. Can you do better?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    David Bain postulated that Stephen Bain might well have worn the gloves. He seemed to be reluctant to implicate Robin Bain.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. Norma (6 comments) says:

    How about those blood spots consistent with residual staining, how else does he get blood under his fingernails, or should that be ‘red food colouring’ as it wasn’t tested. Your suggested probabilities for each? also the innocent explanation for the blood in his fingernail scrapings given that you dislike the obvious in that he was the wearer of the gloves and had rinsed his hands but not scrubbed them. Haven’t seen any other explanation for this blood other than Joes, other than a Muggins lame attempt ‘rust marks from the guttering’.

    So much blood all over Robin, he must have been working at the abbatoir, not the school !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    How about those blood spots consistent with residual staining, how else does he get blood under his fingernails, or should that be ‘red food colouring’ as it wasn’t tested. Your suggested probabilities for each?

    I take it the return to asking questions means no, you can’t describe any basis on which Hentschel could know the largest sock print was a genuinely complete one. That’s unsurprising, because there is no means of knowing it.

    Re Robin Bain’s hands, I’ll take seriously the possibility they had blood on them that came from murdering people when there’s a credible explanation for how he got the blood off and left the dirt behind. Also, you make far too much of the phrase “consistent with.” It means something is possible, not probable – for example, David Bain washing his hands is “consistent with” him having had Stephen’s blood all over them, but it doesn’t mean that’s why he washed his hands.

    David Bain postulated that Stephen Bain might well have worn the gloves. He seemed to be reluctant to implicate Robin Bain.

    No wonder Joe doesn’t let David do the talking. That last bit I always find very interesting though – it seems like David Bain is very reluctant to actually say out loud that his father killed everyone. Joe Karam and Ian Binnie believe this demonstrates what a top bloke David is – even after his dad shot the family in cold blood, David still doesn’t have a bad word for him. And yes, it could mean that. Or it could mean that David Bain’s conscience won’t let him tell a particularly ugly lie about someone who loved him and was shot in the head for his trouble. There’s always two interpretations available in this case.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘Well, Binnie is definitely wrong about the gloves having no evidential value, about that we can agree. I’m almost afraid to ask, but what inferences can we draw about the gloves that point to Robin being the person wearing them that morning?’

    You should read more about the case Milt and then it’s unlikely you’d ask such stupid questions. I’ve placed on here a potential reason for Robin to have worn the gloves, but the physical evidence of his hands is the strongest evidence that he did, Binnie has dismissed the gloves and relied on stronger evidence – that’s the way it goes. You’re showing the sisters obsessiveness of fretting over minor stuff and asking questions as if the answer or lack of answer means something – when all it really means is you can’t resolve the evidence of Robin as killer, the man with the blood nose, bloodied palms and footsteps in blood about the murder scene.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘No wonder Joe doesn’t let David do the talking. That last bit I always find very interesting though – it seems like David Bain is very reluctant to actually say out loud that his father killed everyone. Joe Karam and Ian Binnie believe this demonstrates what a top bloke David is – even after his dad shot the family in cold blood, David still doesn’t have a bad word for him. And yes, it could mean that. Or it could mean that David Bain’s conscience won’t let him tell a particularly ugly lie about someone who loved him and was shot in the head for his trouble. There’s always two interpretations available in this case.’

    How do you know what Karam or Binnie believe Milt. You’re progressing toward showing what an idiot you are at a great rate of knots. You’re just as gutless as all the other sisters and dead daddy defenders. ‘Or it could mean’ what ever crap a hang bainer gets off on.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Incest has been given as the motive for suicide. But why would Robin not just kill himself, or, less likely, kill them all? The probability he would spare one, is low. The probability that one would be David, is low. Since he killed himself, the probability he would wear gloves is low.

    If the incest is true, it is equally a motive for murder. David had a motive to shoot his father and type a message on the computer indicating he (David) deserved to stay. The probability Robin typed this silly message, when he could have written a proper letter of explanation, is low.

    Robin was shot over by the curtains – there was blood on them. His body was found looking as if it had fallen out of the beanbag, a metre away. The probability he fell this way is very very low.

    The 10-shot magazine was found by his outstretched hand. He cannot have held it because he would have needed that hand to grasp the rifle. The probability he placed the magazine under the table, a metre from the bean bag he used to sit on, rather than drop it or put it on the table, is extremely low. The probability he placed it on its edge is extremely low.

    For Robin to shoot himself the way he did, the natural way to hold the rifle is by the muzzle, to guide it accurately to the left temple. He did not do so because Stephen’s fingerprints were found on the suppressor in pristine condition, that is, not smudged. The only fingerprints found on the rifle other than Stephen’s were David’s. Robin left no prints on the rifle. The probability Robin handled the rifle is extremely low.

    To reach the trigger, Robin would have needed to use his left hand, yet blood spatter was found on his left index fingernail. The probability this could occur is extremely low.

    Robin’s bladder contained 400ml of urine, a typical overnight load. Yet he is supposed to have strangled Stephen and shot the others, washed up or showered, changed his clothes, and prepared to die. The probability any man would or could do this is extremely low.

    In my opinion, Robin’s crumpled body was lifted up under the shoulders, shaking blood onto the curtains, and dragged over to the bean bag and dumped, to make it look he had fallen off the beanbag. Who killed Robin Bain and made it look like suicide? Who put the bloodied clothes (including the hand wash-only jersey) in the washing machine, without noticing all the blood?

    How is this obvious and straight forward narrative, where the probability of suicide approaches zero, countered? With some preposterous rigmarole, including the putative three or four minute paper round alibi, a complex demonstration showing that with a great deal of skill or luck Robin could have shot himself that way, the claimed pattern of the spatter which wasn’t spatter (there being too much blood), and the firm belief the sock prints can be shown to be Robin’s. It may be perfectly true that the killer made the prints, but no such conclusion can be drawn from the partial set of incomplete prints. They could have been made by either man, but Robin had no blood on his feet or socks and gardening grime on his hands. He washed away the blood and left the dirt!

    It is known David wore Margaret’s old glasses when his were unavailable. He needed them to see any distance. These glasses were found broken, with a lens in Stephens’ room. This is consistent with them being broken in a struggle with Stephen. David has no explanation; he agreed before the trial he was wearing them, but changed his mind. Robin wore glasses for reading, and would have chosen to wear them to load a magazine, yet his glasses were found in his caravan.

    To believe David Bain is factually innocent is wishful thinking, irrational nonsense that tells us more about the cult faithful than David Bain himself, who said after the first trial, “The judge was very kind to me”, but now says, “It is my core belief I was not there.” Does he not know if he killed them or not? So much for brainwashing.

    After the farce of the second trial, most people shrugged their shoulders. It was the compensation bid that enraged fair-minded and decent people, people who thought enough is enough. The truth will out and further humiliation is awaiting; Binnie is a dunce and Collins is never going to accept his twaddle, in the highly unlikely event the courts decide otherwise.

    Unfortunately for him, David Bain is surrounded not by people who have forgiven him for his treachery, but people he has fooled, and their judgement is somewhat lacking. They are in the same boat as the 9/11-Truthers and The-Americans-didn’t-land-on-the-moon: a sinking ship.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Bain told Binnie he was completely naked when Dr Pryde examined him.
    A police officer who was standing in the doorway said he was never naked.
    So either Bain is lying or that police officer is lying.
    Bain obviously changed his clothes because there are photos of him showing those bruises on his head and that nick on his knee wearing different clothes to the ones he was wearing when he arrived at the police station.
    He was always in possession of a blanket.
    He could have taken his shorts and underpants off so that Pryde could swab his penis, then put on those long trousers he was wearing in that photo.
    Then he could have taken his T-shirt off making sure that blanket covered his torso,then put a sweatshirt and jersey on with his back to Dr Pryde.
    There is no proof that Pryde ever saw Bain’s torso. There is no proof those scratches were not there on the Monday morning. We know those scratches were there on the Wednesday.
    A question for David Bain and his supporters.
    If those scratches were not there on the Monday morning then how did they come to be there on the Wednesday?
    Put simply. What did David Bain do from the time Pryde examined him until the Wednesday that would cause him to have scratches on his torso?
    I have been asking this question for three years,but to no avail.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    Binnie has dismissed the gloves and relied on stronger evidence…

    Er, no. Binnie has dismissed the gloves and relied on evidence he thought was stronger because he “lacks robustness of reasoning.” His “stronger evidence” is actually logical-fallacy-based evidence.

    Re the gloves, there are two inferences you can make from them (apart from the obvious one that the murderer was wearing them when he entered Stephen’s bedroom):

    1. The killer felt the need to take steps to conceal his identity.

    2. The killer took gloves from David Bain’s drawer for that purpose.

    So, instead of dismissing the gloves, a competent assessor of the balance of probabilities would ask himself which of the two suspects would be more likely to have felt a need to conceal his identity, and which would be more likely to use David Bain’s gloves for that purpose. That likelihood gets added to the pile, whether you’re using Bayes’ Theorem or anything else.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    How do you know what Karam or Binnie believe Milt.

    I may not be good at much, but one thing I am good at is reading. Karam and Binnie both believe it reflects credit on David Bain that he won’t say his father did it, that is clear from what they’ve written.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (613) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 8:14 am

    That was an awfully long narrative, I only read half of it, but that was enough.
    You have Bain shooting the old man, lifting him and shaking blood out onto the curtain, dragging him away from the scene, and placing the magazine, all to ‘stage’ a suicide’?
    If that was what he was doing, why shift the body? Why did he not simply place the gun either in his hand or at least touching it? Why did he not press the old man’s fingers on it to leave his prints there? That would be 2 very easy things to do, and far more effective.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (613) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 8:14 am
    Incest has been given as the motive for suicide. But why would Robin not just kill himself, or, less likely, kill them all? The probability he would spare one, is low. The probability that one would be David, is low. Since he killed himself, the probability he would wear gloves is low.

    If the incest is true, it is equally a motive for murder. David had a motive to shoot his father and type a message on the computer indicating he (David) deserved to stay. The probability Robin typed this silly message, when he could have written a proper letter of explanation, is low.

    Robin was shot over by the curtains – there was blood on them. His body was found looking as if it had fallen out of the beanbag, a metre away. The probability he fell this way is very very low.

    The 10-shot magazine was found by his outstretched hand. He cannot have held it because he would have needed that hand to grasp the rifle. The probability he placed the magazine under the table, a metre from the bean bag he used to sit on, rather than drop it or put it on the table, is extremely low. The probability he placed it on its edge is extremely low.

    For Robin to shoot himself the way he did, the natural way to hold the rifle is by the muzzle, to guide it accurately to the left temple. He did not do so because Stephen’s fingerprints were found on the suppressor in pristine condition, that is, not smudged. The only fingerprints found on the rifle other than Stephen’s were David’s. Robin left no prints on the rifle. The probability Robin handled the rifle is extremely low.

    To reach the trigger, Robin would have needed to use his left hand, yet blood spatter was found on his left index fingernail. The probability this could occur is extremely low.

    Robin’s bladder contained 400ml of urine, a typical overnight load. Yet he is supposed to have strangled Stephen and shot the others, washed up or showered, changed his clothes, and prepared to die. The probability any man would or could do this is extremely low.

    In my opinion, Robin’s crumpled body was lifted up under the shoulders, shaking blood onto the curtains, and dragged over to the bean bag and dumped, to make it look he had fallen off the beanbag. Who killed Robin Bain and made it look like suicide? Who put the bloodied clothes (including the hand wash-only jersey) in the washing machine, without noticing all the blood?

    How is this obvious and straight forward narrative, where the probability of suicide approaches zero, countered? With some preposterous rigmarole, including the putative three or four minute paper round alibi, a complex demonstration showing that with a great deal of skill or luck Robin could have shot himself that way, the claimed pattern of the spatter which wasn’t spatter (there being too much blood), and the firm belief the sock prints can be shown to be Robin’s. It may be perfectly true that the killer made the prints, but no such conclusion can be drawn from the partial set of incomplete prints. They could have been made by either man, but Robin had no blood on his feet or socks and gardening grime on his hands. He washed away the blood and left the dirt!

    It is known David wore Margaret’s old glasses when his were unavailable. He needed them to see any distance. These glasses were found broken, with a lens in Stephens’ room. This is consistent with them being broken in a struggle with Stephen. David has no explanation; he agreed before the trial he was wearing them, but changed his mind. Robin wore glasses for reading, and would have chosen to wear them to load a magazine, yet his glasses were found in his caravan.

    To believe David Bain is factually innocent is wishful thinking, irrational nonsense that tells us more about the cult faithful than David Bain himself, who said after the first trial, “The judge was very kind to me”, but now says, “It is my core belief I was not there.” Does he not know if he killed them or not? So much for brainwashing.

    After the farce of the second trial, most people shrugged their shoulders. It was the compensation bid that enraged fair-minded and decent people, people who thought enough is enough. The truth will out and further humiliation is awaiting; Binnie is a dunce and Collins is never going to accept his twaddle, in the highly unlikely event the courts decide otherwise.

    Unfortunately for him, David Bain is surrounded not by people who have forgiven him for his treachery, but people he has fooled, and their judgement is somewhat lacking. They are in the same boat as the 9/11-Truthers and The-Americans-didn’t-land-on-the-moon: a sinking ship.
    Dennis
    You forgot those people who belong to the Flat Earth Society.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Meanwhile the only idiot in nz who believes there was no strip search forgets that not one police officer or crown law official has denied it, even in their ‘meticulous’ response to Binnie’s report. The pin up gal of the hate-sites hasn’t got a brain and none of the fellow gormless idiots realise it as they chatter away asking the same questions and bsing at length.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz (991) Says: February 12th, 2013 at 8:48 am
    Dennis Horne (613) Says: February 12th, 2013 at 8:14 am

    That was an awfully long narrative, I only read half of it, but that was enough.
    You have Bain shooting the old man, lifting him and shaking blood out onto the curtain, dragging him away from the scene, and placing the magazine, all to ‘stage’ a suicide’?
    If that was what he was doing, why shift the body? Why did he not simply place the gun either in his hand or at least touching it? Why did he not press the old man’s fingers on it to leave his prints there? That would be 2 very easy things to do, and far more effective.

    You’ll have to ask David why he lugged the body over to the beanbag, but I can give two reasons. First, he surmised, quite rightly, that the natural way to shoot yourself is sitting or lying down, second, he didn’t know Reed QC was going to need the knee-on-chair by curtains scenario to show the only possible way of shooting yourself with the rifle.

    Instead of asking me why Robin’s prints are not on the rifle, you tell me why they were not, given Robin was supposed to have shot himself with it? Please.

    Why don’t you read all the narrative? There’s still time abandon ship: don a life jacket and board a lifeboat.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis, good to see you back. Can we expect another meltdown anytime soon, or will the medication prevent/lessen the likelihood of a replay? 🙂

    I’m afraid old chap, you and muggins are somewhat confused. You see the term ‘truther’/Conspiracy theorist etc, is defined as those who oppose the official stance on a given topic.

    On this particular topic David Bain had his sentence quashed by the Privy Council, was found not guilty BRD by a subsequent trial. Therefore, the official stance is he is ‘not guilty’. His status is the same as yours or mine ‘innocent’. (That is presuming you have never been found guilty of a crime and not later acquitted). Despite the rejection of Binnie’s report (and I note that as yet has not been officially done) there is no official stance that David Bain is not innocent on BRD or BoP. A rejection of the report does not alter David’s status.

    So given the standard definition of conspiracy theorist, it is actually you, and muggins and your fellow spinners who are challenging the ‘official’ stance. The ‘Flat Earth’ and ‘truther’ labels indeed belong to your good self! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (614) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 9:15 am

    There were a number of fingerprints on the rifle, not surprising that our police ‘experts’ couldn’t identify them. What that also proves is that the rifle was not wiped down as idiots suggest.
    Bain was obviously very clever, he would have known if the old man was shot while standing it would be foolish to make it look like he had been sitting as the blood on his clothes wouldn’t match that scenario.
    He would also know if he was making it look like the old man was sitting on the bean bag, it would be stupid to shake blood out on the curtain that was furthermost away.
    He would also know it would be foolish to ‘plant’ the magazine in the upright position.

    As for the ship, I am very comfortable on this one, thanks. It is not sinking either in the lake of defamation or the sea of compensation,both of which are very deep, as yours is.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Judith. Nonsense. If he were considered factually innocent then Binnie wouldn’t have scored $400,000 for his twaddle.

    It was not Bain’s sentence that was quashed by the Privy Council, based only on the opinion that the NZ Court of Appeal should not have decided the “new evidence” would not have changed the minds of jurors, but that a jury should decide. So it ordered a new trial. And said Bain should remain locked up, didn’t it?

    The fact that one juror has gone public and said she does not believe him innocent should sound warning bells for anyone not committed to Karam. The same juror tried to warn Binnie Bain, but he sent her packing.

    No doubt a good dose of whatever you’re on, Judith, would dull my brain, as it has yours, but whether it would cause me to take leave of my senses completely, as it has you, is another matter. What do you think? 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    What did Justice Binnie conclude about the glasses?
    a. DB was likely to have worn them, but it doesn’t matter
    b. DB was unlikely to have worn them
    c. Couldn’t say either way

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    The police response to Binnie’s report re the errors in it was not as meticulous as it could have been. Some errors that were not picked up.
    [1] Binnie repeatedly refers to an empty 10 shot magazine when in fact it had three live rounds in it.
    [2] Arie Geursen is not employed by the Victorian Science Centre.
    [3] Binnie says that Laniet’s parents were not aware she was a prostitute. A letter was found in Laniet’s belongings at the schoolhouse. It was from her mother and she said she was aware that Laniet was or had been a prostitute.
    [4] Binnie said that two jurors had expressed opinions on the retrial verdict ,one for and one against. So far as I am aware only one juror has expressed an opinion and she was not against the verdict,she just did not want Bain to receive any compensation.
    [5] Binnie said that Robin Bain had a clock radio. It was not a clock radio.
    So It is not surprising that the police officer compiling that report was unaware there was a police officer standing in the doorway when Dr Pryde examined David Bain.
    The police have been advised of these errors.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (614) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 9:15 am
    You’ll have to ask David why he lugged the body over to the beanbag, but I can give two reasons. First, he surmised, quite rightly, that the natural way to shoot yourself is sitting or lying down, second, he didn’t know Reed QC was going to need the knee-on-chair by curtains scenario to show the only possible way of shooting yourself with the rifle.

    Instead of asking me why Robin’s prints are not on the rifle, you tell me why they were not, given Robin was supposed to have shot himself with it? Please.

    I have read your narrative. You’ve obviously been working on it for a while. However, you are still not accounting for several realities.

    For David to have lugged the bleeding body to the bean bag would have required the head to flop forward or backwards. The head, ‘freshly wounded’, would have been bleeding (as you noted by your shaking comment). However, there was no blood either on the front of Robin where his head would have fallen, nor was there any on the floor, where it would have been had it fallen backwards. Also, had the head been ‘shaken’ as you suggest, the blood spatter would fall in an uneven pattern, showing varying positions, as the head moved. There is no evidence to support your scenario.

    The fingerprints: Firstly it is unusual to find identifying prints on any weapon. There were a number of prints found on the Bain weapon, but they had insufficient ridging detail to identify who they belonged to. The police however, should have kept those prints to at least eliminate who they didn’t belong to. They didn’t – god knows why not. There was one set of prints from David, which was NOT in blood as the Crown tried to maintain. There was one set from Stephen identified. According to your reasoning, as neither prints were in the firing position, then Stephen must have also killed someone with the gun. If you reasoning is that fingerprints on the gun mean that person used it.

    So what do you say about the DNA of two males that was found on the gun? Do we draw from that there were actually four killers? Or do we use commonsense and realise that previous usage of the gun could have resulted in fingerprints and DNA being left. As pointed out to you, the gun had not been wiped down.

    If that was the case, then if fingerprints have to be left (according to your rationale) then why weren’t David’s in a position consistent with using the weapon? Why weren’t they in blood, and why weren’t there more than one set?

    Why doesn’t the blood spatter on Robin, fit your scenario?

    I find it incredible that you make statements like Robin would have chosen – had you ever met the man? How can you possibly know he would have ‘chosen’ to do that. I can load a gun with my eyes closed, so your rationale means nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Snarkle (49) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 9:37 am
    What did Justice Binnie conclude about the glasses?
    a. DB was likely to have worn them, but it doesn’t matter
    b. DB was unlikely to have worn them
    c. Couldn’t say either way

    He seems to accept that Bain may have worn those glasses, but not on that Monday morning, which means he must also accept that Bain lied on oath when he said he hadn’t seen those glasses for some months.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Kanz. I’m not suggesting for one moment the blood was shaken onto the curtains deliberately, of course it wasn’t. It just happened as the crumpled body was lifted under the arms to get it up.

    Whatever prints were on the rifle, Robin’s apparently were not, and nor did he smudge Stephen’s pristine prints on the suppressor – the most natural place to grasp a rifle you need aim fairly accurately at your temple to get a clean shot that will kill you.

    By suggesting David would have done this or done that, you are proposing David could not or would not make mistakes. Such an argument is absurd. One mistake he made is to have placed the rifle where it would not, in all probability, have fallen, whether Robin was killed by the curtains or on the beanbag..

    Another is to have placed the magazine on its edge, near the outstretched hand, where it could not possibly have fallen, and where Robin almost certainly didn’t place it. So it looks like your argument David knew what to do doesn’t hold water. Trying to twist what we know in all probability could not have happened into claiming David is too clever to have scene-set it that way is nonsense. No normal person would believe such rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    The rifle was definitely wiped down, because blood was smeared all over it. The fact that there were still a number of partial prints on it has no relevance. Try placing some pigs blood on a rifle and then wiping it off. You will find some partial partial prints are still left on the rifle.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    [4] Binnie said that two jurors had expressed opinions on the retrial verdict ,one for and one against. So far as I am aware only one juror has expressed an opinion and she was not against the verdict,she just did not want Bain to receive any compensation.

    It might come as some surprise to you, but you are not informed of every piece of correspondence received by the MOJ, nor, when it is regarding a juror, are you entitled to receive that information. The fact that another juror came forward and opposed what the first juror had said, has been known for sometime. Copies of that correspondence would have been available to Binnie.

    Regarding your b/s statements about the strip search. Your number is up on that one, you have lied through your back teeth, just like you did over several things Dempster said to you. Oh yeah, how did you phone call go with him?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,078) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 10:00 am
    ——————————–

    Idiot. The prints were not smudged. The rifle was not wiped down.
    The ridge details still existed, it just wasn’t sufficient to determine identity. In order to meet the requirements for identity it must be 100% accurate. Because it wasn’t, they didn’t keep them. However the descriptions of them say that there was ridging showing, which how we now know they could have been used for elimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (616) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 9:56 am
    @Kanz. I’m not suggesting for one moment the blood was shaken onto the curtains deliberately, of course it wasn’t. It just happened as the crumpled body was lifted under the arms to get it up.

    Whatever prints were on the rifle, Robin’s apparently were not, and nor did he smudge Stephen’s pristine prints on the suppressor – the most natural place to grasp a rifle you need aim fairly accurately at your temple to get a clean shot that will kill you.

    By suggesting David would have done this or done that, you are proposing David could not or would not make mistakes. Such an argument is absurd. One mistake he made is to have placed the rifle where it would not, in all probability, have fallen, whether Robin was killed by the curtains or on the beanbag..

    Another is to have placed the magazine on its edge, near the outstretched hand, where it could not possibly have fallen, and where Robin almost certainly didn’t place it. So it looks like your argument David knew what to do doesn’t hold water. Trying to twist what we know in all probability could not have happened into claiming David is too clever to have scene-set it that way is nonsense. No normal person would believe such rubbish.

    Dennis,
    We are not dealing with normal people here.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Another is to have placed the magazine on its edge, near the outstretched hand, where it could not possibly have fallen, and where Robin almost certainly didn’t place it. So it looks like your argument David knew what to do doesn’t hold water. Trying to twist what we know in all probability could not have happened into claiming David is too clever to have scene-set it that way is nonsense. No normal person would believe such rubbish.

    Defining yourself as normal now are you? After that spectacular meltdown, I think you are pushing your luck with that one!

    The magazine was touched. There is no evidence that confirms its exact original position. You have no argument unless you have the exact position to prove that is exactly where it was when found. Even the person that Muggins claims saw it there, cannot confirm the photos as being ‘exactly’ how it was.

    Regarding the picking up of the body. If the body have been moved like you suggest, then as it was lifted, the blood would have gone in an ‘upward’ pattern, not downward. The blood clearly falls in a downward pattern. Even if it was accepted that it fell horizontally, it still does not account for your scenario.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    muggins (2,079) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 10:00 am
    The rifle was definitely wiped down, because blood was smeared all over it. The fact that there were still a number of partial prints on it has no relevance. Try placing some pigs blood on a rifle and then wiping it off. You will find some partial partial prints are still left on the rifle.

    Judith, do the test.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Judith. Stating that a man who wears glasses for reading would most likely take his glasses to find the trigger lock key, bullets and load a magazine doesn’t require me to know the man.

    There may not have been much bleeding, there was certainly very little spatter, and if the head was close to the curtains that is where it would have been shaken – Ferris said shaken.

    It is a matter of opinion whether David’s prints were in blood, but his prints were on the rifle, and not from months earlier in all probability. Robin’s prints were not on the rifle, anywhere. Furthermore, Stephen’s pristine prints were on the suppressor, where he grabbed the rifle to try and deflect it from himself. Trying to turn that into Stephen shooting someone just shows how desperate you are.

    You and your cult can pick away at the edges of the pieces of the jigsaw, but the pieces still all fit together. It doesn’t look like Robin Bain shot himself. To me or anyone else with their wits about them.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (616) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 9:35 am
    @Judith. Nonsense. If he were considered factually innocent then Binnie wouldn’t have scored $400,000 for his twaddle.

    It was not Bain’s sentence that was quashed by the Privy Council, based only on the opinion that the NZ Court of Appeal should not have decided the “new evidence” would not have changed the minds of jurors, but that a jury should decide. So it ordered a new trial. And said Bain should remain locked up, didn’t it?

    The fact that one juror has gone public and said she does not believe him innocent should sound warning bells for anyone not committed to Karam. The same juror tried to warn Binnie Bain, but he sent her packing.

    No doubt a good dose of whatever you’re on, Judith, would dull my brain, as it has yours, but whether it would cause me to take leave of my senses completely, as it has you, is another matter. What do you think?

    ——————————–

    I think you are past thinking rationally and should give up before you make a total and utter idiot of yourself. (you did ask)

    The order for Bain to remain in custody for the meantime was a standard housekeeping measure. An order for imprisonment is an official document that sits separately to the conviction by the Court. (Sentencing Order). The sentence first had to be quashed by the NZ Courts, and then the appropriate paper work done to release the prisoner. Which was done very quickly, however, like any process, it doesn’t happen immediately. The Privy Council cannot just order the prison gates to be ‘flung’ open. There is a legal process that must occur. It did, and David was let out of prison. You clearly don’t understand the legal process if you think that statement meant he was meant to stay in prison. (Again see my first statement)

    The fact is that two jurors have spoken up regarding the trial, as you have been told, one saying that they found DB not guilty brd, and not ‘innocent’ and she didn’t think he should get compo. The other gave quite a different and opposite opinion. Therefore, it means nothing, except you are out of the loop for what actually happens. Binnie didn’t send her packing. He rightfully told her that she, as a juror, was not meant to have contact with anyone, other than the MOJ, regarding the case. That is a requirement of law, and jurors are made aware of it. She was breaching the law, of course she was told where to go.

    Amazing how you are so badly informed on this stuff, or are you just twisting it to make a good story?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,438) Says:

    The magazine was touched. There is no evidence that confirms its exact original position.

    Judith ,you are lying again. What proof do you have that that magazine was touched before that photo was taken?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘So It is not surprising that the police officer compiling that report was unaware there was a police officer standing in the doorway when Dr Pryde examined David Bain.’

    Here we go, the police officer didn’t report it to his superior (even though last week the idiot said he reported it to Doyle or Weir,) he didn’t tell anybody about it according to the latest bs, and even though it has never been revealed anywhere at all, the ‘officer’ told aunt fanny about it. That could be true, why wouldn’t he neglect his duties, enter into a conspiracy of silence – but still tell aunt no nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    There may not have been much bleeding, there was certainly very little spatter, and if the head was close to the curtains that is where it would have been shaken – Ferris said shaken.

    It is a matter of opinion whether David’s prints were in blood, but his prints were on the rifle, and not from months earlier in all probability. Robin’s prints were not on the rifle, anywhere. Furthermore, Stephen’s pristine prints were on the suppressor, where he grabbed the rifle to try and deflect it from himself. Trying to turn that into Stephen shooting someone just shows how desperate you are.

    Ferris was proven wrong in many aspects of the investigation. He totally misjudged Laniet’s injuries and blood spatter etc. He was dumbfounded and couldn’t offer any explanation when told that Laniet had been sitting up, her brain and blood on the wardrobe at the end of her bed, and that the first bullet had killed her, had passed through a cotton fabric leaving traces on the bullet fragment (all of which he had missed) and that bullet fragments where found under the body and 2 metres away. He was unable to provide any explanation. He had got it wrong. Therefore, I don’t see him as a reliable witness on the curtain splatter either. Other witnesses stated the blood pattern was downwards. The photo of the pattern certainly looks downward to the untrained eye as well. Nostalgia understand the formula better than I do, but I can be sure, Ferris was far from competent, and proved that on the stand.

    ‘David prints’ not from months earlier in all probability? How can you support that statement. The weapon had remained unused during that time. You fail to note the position of David’s prints, but point out Stephen’s print positions. David’s prints were not in an area consistent with firing the weapon either. IF, as you insist prints must be left, why weren’t there any in that position?

    I know Stephen didn’t shoot anyone. But your argument that David must have, because his prints were on the gun, does not stack up, because Stephen’s prints were also on the gun. Neither set of prints was in a position consistent with firing the gun.

    David’s prints were not in blood, and not in a substance with any DNA. If they were put there that morning, they would have had to have been in blood. They weren’t.

    You accuse me of being desperate, but I am not having to brush over precise detailing and grab at half stories like you are. You are being very selective in what you say, and avoiding giving all the facts. You’re doing that to make a good story, and that is all it is, is a story, but not a very good one.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Judith. I don’t think poking fun at the loonies by writing doggerel would suggest a meltdown. Quite the reverse in fact, the realisation no rational discussion was possible. In fact, I have been away. Spent quite a lot of time talking to Dunedin people, actually. Interesting.

    You have no idea how blood could be shaken from a head with a hole in it. Quite possibly no blood was released until the head dropped forward, shaking blood down onto the curtain.

    The magazine may or may not have been placed on its edge, I suspect if it was knocked or moved it was put back the way it was found, but that is irrelevant. Robin would not have leaned over a metre and put it under the table.

    The talk of Robin’s nosebleed, blood smear on his hands, his sock prints — all made up. All rubbish. The rifle was wiped down and we all know by whom.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,081) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 10:26 am

    ——————————-
    The statement from the person that said they picked it up and put it down again.

    You provide evidence that the photo was taken prior to that. If you have such evidence you better inform the police, because when asked, Mr Schollum has stated he cannot provide photos that prove it. Perhaps you have a secret stash of photos dated, and timed that no one knows about.

    How did that phone call go ?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,439) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 10:03 am
    [4] Binnie said that two jurors had expressed opinions on the retrial verdict ,one for and one against. So far as I am aware only one juror has expressed an opinion and she was not against the verdict,she just did not want Bain to receive any compensation.

    It might come as some surprise to you, but you are not informed of every piece of correspondence received by the MOJ, nor, when it is regarding a juror, are you entitled to receive that information. The fact that another juror came forward and opposed what the first juror had said, has been known for sometime. Copies of that correspondence would have been available to Binnie.

    Regarding your b/s statements about the strip search. Your number is up on that one, you have lied through your back teeth, just like you did over several thing Dempster said to you.

    Judith, I have an email that says that David Bain was never naked,so my number is not up on that one.
    Re Dempster, as twistedlemon said, you are a liar,so I have decided not to contact Dempster. I am quite comfortable that I reported accurately on what he told me re the 48 hours and the “nose bleed” .
    Re those jurors. You could well be lying about that second juror. Neverthess , Binnie was still incorrect when he said one juror was against the verdict.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (618) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 10:36 am
    —————————–

    Yeah sure Dennis. Now you’ve spoken to people in Dunedin, guess what so have I? What is that meant to mean? The fact you’ve mentioned it obviously is meant to legitimate you in some manner. What a joke.

    You’re starting to sound like Muggins. You do know that Muggins has been proven to be a liar. He stated he had made an OIA application, he has been proven not to have made. Dr Dempster does not support the things Muggins has been posting on line, and basically, the NZ Police have not confirmed one word he has told us.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Judith don’t push ‘Dennis Melting Moments’ too hard, he is a fragile minded fellow. Ferris has an amused look on his face when he gave that evidence, he might have been wondering if any idiot would believe it. But it falls at the first hurdle, no blood ‘spill’ around the wound.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Judith. I didn’t say David shot anyone because his prints were on the rifle. That is not the reason I give. The reason I give is because Robin didn’t shoot himself. I add Robin’s prints were not on the rifle. Again, that is not the reason I give for concluding that, but it is consistent with it.

    The reason I know Robin did not shoot himself is that the “suicide” scene was set up. That is obvious from looking at the position of the body, the rifle, the magazine, the urine load, the childish message and a number of other things.

    If I had any doubt, it was dispelled by the “It is my core belief I was not there”. You see, Judith, I am “all there”, and you are not.

    Well, I must be off for a haircut. I doubt anyone is reading this, just thought I’d pop in and explain in simple terms what happened, in case anyone is.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,441) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 10:39 am
    muggins (2,081) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 10:26 am

    ——————————-
    The statement from the person that said they picked it up and put it down again.

    Judith. Who was the person that said they picked that magazine up and put it down again?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Now the idiot has an ’email.’ Way to go, the ever changing story of nz biggest internet bser.
    So instead of emailing the Minister or the Commissioner they emailed aunty no nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,082) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 10:41 am
    ———————-

    LOL. You either have rung Dempster and have been told where to go, or you are searching desperately for a way out of it, so it isn’t revealed what a dishonest piece of trash you are. Fact is Muggins, it is way past that point now. Authorities are involved. Complaints of misconduct have been made and pending investigation, and other links are being investigated. As I told you many times, your desire to be a ‘big noter’, has worked against you, and the group, and will assist in proving the extra ordinary circumstances required for David’s claim.

    Either you have lied, or the police have lied.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,940) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 10:48 am
    Now the idiot has an ‘email.’ Way to go, the ever changing story of nz biggest internet bser.
    So instead of emailing the Minister or the Commissioner they emailed aunty no nuts.

    ———————————–
    The posts are all there. He first said he had spoken to, then when I pointed out that police are not allowed to just ‘speak’ to, he said he had been told to email the guys boss. Then it was pointed out that information had to come via an OIA, so he posted he had made an OIA to the boss. Then it was pointed out that all OIA’s had to go through the Police Commissioners office, so he posted it wasn’t an official OIA, but is was just an official request for information. And on it goes. Sadly for him, it’s all on line, and not just on this site.

    His big noting phone calls have being going on for some time. For some reason he seemed to think that no one would ever check up on him. He was wrong. They checked and he has lied through his teeth about it, and is now trying to come up with more lies to excuse it.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    I guess we know who the ‘troll’ in Shrek was modelled on, if they had had one of course.
    I shan’t be mean because she thinks I am a Princess ;)Princess Fiona.

    A narky troll, it would seem to me that there are desperate times indeed if further ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are being trolled for. Is ‘troll’ an official title.

    Surely all the circumstances are firmly established and sufficient to support David’s claim?

    Amazing what you can find if you google the words murder and burger together 😉

    I wonder who would be Mr Stabby?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 10:39 am
    muggins (2,081) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 10:26 am

    ——————————-
    The statement from the person that said they picked it up and put it down again.

    Judith. Who was the person that said they picked that magazine up and put it down again?

    Judith, who was the person who said they picked that magazine up and put it down again?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,444) Says:

    ———————————–
    The posts are all there. He first said he had spoken to, then when I pointed out that police are not allowed to just ‘speak’ to, he said he had been told to email the guys boss. Then it was pointed out that information had to come via an OIA, so he posted he had made an OIA to the boss. Then it was pointed out that all OIA’s had to go through the Police Commissioners office, so he posted it wasn’t an official OIA, but is was just an official request for information. And on it goes. Sadly for him, it’s all on line, and not just on this site.

    His big noting phone calls have being going on for some time. For some reason he seemed to think that no one would ever check up on him. He was wrong. They checked and he has lied through his teeth about it, and is now trying to come up with more lies to excuse it.

    Judith,you are lying again.
    Over the past month or so I have phoned five police officers [six calls] I have the phone records that confirm that.
    It wasn’t until the sixth call that I was asked to put in an official request. I did so by email and it was replied to by email.
    So far as Dr Dempster goes I stand by what he told me. I don’t see the need to phone him again,specially as I have only just phoned him,and I don’t have anything more to ask him at the moment. I could phone him and ask him what he told you[ if you did ,in fact, speak to him] and we would just end up going round in circles.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    dang ignoramass with an LLB… too many rotten berries, too much gas…. kaboom!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    dang an ignoramass with an LLB… too many rotten berries, too much gas…. kaboom!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    If ever there was the epitome of a bully ‘our’ Judith would be it.

    Muggins you are anything but, the irony in your name clearly lost on ‘some’ who shall remain nameless in the wilderness lol.

    Good thing about the higher moral ground, because the Baners stoop so low, high doesn’t have to be very high lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    K.O.K you are aptly named. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    In his interview in 1994, David Bain told D. S. Croudis and D. Lowden ” I didn’t have blood on my hands as I’d washed them.” I’m wondering when he would have got blood on his hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    I’m wondering when he would have got blood on his hands.

    I’m guessing when he shot Stephen. Or maybe when he moved Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (288) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    If ever there was the epitome of a bully ‘our’ Judith would be it.

    Muggins you are anything but, the irony in your name clearly lost on ‘some’ who shall remain nameless in the wilderness lol.

    Good thing about the higher moral ground, because the Baners stoop so low, high doesn’t have to be very high lol.

    Yeah, Judith hates me contacting people.
    And of course I wouldn’t do it is she and other prodavids didn’t lie.
    But I am confused about this official information thingy. I don’t remember ever using the word “information”.
    I was only asked to make an official request. The impression I got was that I was only asked to do that because he [the boss] didn’t want me ringing up all the time. If I wanted to know something just email him. Made sense to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Or maybe when he moved Robin.

    What blood in the lounge had been smeared, apart from on the old man’s palm?

    Actually, looking at the photos, do you see the drag marks across that room? How did the police miss them? He must have really struggled to get a dead weight across that room like that without dragging, and without leaving a blood trail.
    Superman, that is what we should be calling him, not just Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,016) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    I’m wondering when he would have got blood on his hands.

    I’m guessing when he shot Stephen. Or maybe when he moved Robin.

    Binnie reckons it might have been when he put those bloody clothes in the wash.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

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

    Robin Bain flew through the air with the greatest of ease,
    And without the use of a flying trapeze.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    But I am confused about this official information thingy. I don’t remember ever using the word “information”.
    I was only asked to make an official request. The impression I got was that I was only asked to do that because he [the boss] didn’t want me ringing up all the time. If I wanted to know something just email him. Made sense to me.

    I am not surprised you don’t ‘get it’.
    The police are not permitted to give out ANY information pertaining to their work without going through the correct official channels, and even then not to just anybody who likes to be nosy.
    Even Greg King complained about how hard it was for him to gain information from them about cases he was working on, and that in an official capacity.
    To suggest that they are so loose lipped with a nosy old man who has no friends and nothing else in his life, is stupidity in it’s extreme. Only an idiot would claim it, and only imbeciles would believe it.

    I do believe that official complaints have been laid concerning this, I wonder how many of the police will admit to being so free with this information?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins (2,088) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 3:27 pm

    Still not getting enough traffic to your site of lies? Of course not, most people who are interested in the case know not to bother.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    You have nothing to ‘worry’ about then do you, since you think it has the opposite effect to what Counterspin’s aim is you should be directing people there in droves.

    Instead you seem very threatened by it and the information and opinions contained within.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Instead you seem very threatened by it and the information and opinions contained within.

    And you seem to be talking through a hole in your arse.
    I am just amused that he needs to keep putting up the link because they are gaining no traction. This won’t help, but I suppose it at least keeps you both off the streets, so it does serve a good purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,088) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    But I am confused about this official information thingy. I don’t remember ever using the word “information”.
    I was only asked to make an official request. The impression I got was that I was only asked to do that because he [the boss] didn’t want me ringing up all the time. If I wanted to know something just email him. Made sense to me.

    ——————————————–

    Muggins (1,825) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    …But ,just so we are quite clear on this.
    I phoned four police officers in Dunedin.
    Two said they did not see Bain naked, but they both said they was out of the room for a few minutes.
    The third said I would have to go through his boss, which I did.

    ….I had to email a request for official information which I did.

    Do you want more? Like when you talked about making an OIA request? And later when you said it wasn’t an OIA but just an official request etc? I suggest you go back and work out what you have said, and then fashion your future story to fit that.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Why should it be any concern of yours?
    It is not as if he has killed anyone, is it?
    Hate to see your reaction to something ‘important’.
    You would have an apoplexy.

    Is the sky falling ‘chicken’ little?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    ‘Over the past month or so I have phoned five police officers [six calls] I have the phone records that confirm that.
    It wasn’t until the sixth call that I was asked to put in an official request. I did so by email and it was replied to by email.’

    ‘But I am confused about this official information thingy.’

    Have to love it, dropping people in it all over the place because of ‘confusion.’ Interesting how somebody who can admit confusion over a basic thing such as the OIA and police procedures on information can in the next breath brag about being an expert on the Bain case, the hate-sites need aunt fanny like they need a hole in the head – though it is a mutual match. I wonder when he/she’ll spill the beans about The Press and the jurors as if it’s not not already known.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    Judith (1,445) Says:

    February 12th, 2013 at 4:00 pm
    muggins (2,088) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    But I am confused about this official information thingy. I don’t remember ever using the word “information”.
    I was only asked to make an official request. The impression I got was that I was only asked to do that because he [the boss] didn’t want me ringing up all the time. If I wanted to know something just email him. Made sense to me.

    ——————————————–

    Muggins (1,825) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    …But ,just so we are quite clear on this.
    I phoned four police officers in Dunedin.
    Two said they did not see Bain naked, but they both said they was out of the room for a few minutes.
    The third said I would have to go through his boss, which I did.

    ….I had to email a request for official information which I did.

    Do you want more? Like when you talked about making an OIA request? And later when you said it wasn’t an OIA but just an official request etc? .

    Oops, I see I did use the word information in the wrong place. . My bad.

    What I should have said was ” I had to email an official request for the information I required’.
    I guess it’s off to the guillotine for muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I see now David ‘shook’ Daddys dead body, I suggest anyone actually takes a look at the photo of Robin dead in the lounge in David & Goliath. If you think its a ‘work of fiction’ then don’t read it just look at the photo showing Robin dead in the lounge, I would link it but can’t find it online. Does the blood trail on his head look ‘shaken’ to you, look pretty clear and pristine to me Ferris’s suggestion that the dead body was shaken to cause the blood splatter on the curtain is ridiculous and would have a probability of about 0.0000%. Ferris’s evidence at the retrial was demonstrably false in all areas, it was a contact wound as shown by the blood in the barrel, He was totally wrong on the bullet evidence in Laniets room, as explained by Judith in her 10.36 post. All in all rather an embarrassment to the crown case. Talk about desperation, the crown has to resort to bringing in witnesses too discredit there own experts. And yet so many deluded trolls find their evidence convincing! Talk about shopping around for evidence to fit the stories!
    ‘The evidence that shows Daddy didn’t shoot himself’
    Yet again no explanation offered that is consistent with murder. None offered by Raftery either so back to, “I can’t explain it, but because I ‘know’ David is guilty then he must have achieved it”
    Again 0.0000% convincing

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  422. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,089) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    You clearly think you are very clever. You probably are stupid enough to think you have somehow damaged the Defence case.

    I’ll tell you what you have done, you’ve actually handed them a trump card if just one thing you’ve said is true.

    According to you, Dr Dempster, a professional pathologist and Crown witnesses, has confided in you that evidence he gave on the stand under oath, was wrong.

    You have also indicated that as an expert witness, he has broken the Judicature Act, by discussing evidence with you, which isn’t available in the public arena. Thus you have shown him to be unprofessional, with questionable integrity.

    Therefore, you have thrown every single piece of evidence provided by him, into doubt. He is clearly not competent, because evidence he stated was correct, is not. How do we know that when he said it was 400 mls of urine, it wasn’t actually 40 mls, and so on?

    So you’ve destroyed his evidence – which when considered by subsequent report reviewers, will have to be considered as “unreliable”. Do you even understand the implications of that on the ‘extra ordinary circumstances’ criteria?

    Then you have thrown the integrity of the police into the mix. You state there were four police employees who were prepared to breach their code of conduct to provide you with information about the case. (Remember how Weirs house sign went down, well now you have a similar effect). And proving them to lack integrity.

    And then there is Dr Pryde, who you now indicate, charged and was paid for an examination he did not do in full. So you are now putting the integrity of his professionalism on the line. Basically allowing everything he previously stated to also be treated as unreliable.

    If you keep this up, there will not be a Crown witness left whose evidence cannot be questioned, and whose integrity remains intact. You have compromised a lot of people, and I have a feeling, it will go deeper than this as well judging from other claims you have made.

    In short, all you have done is shown how inept, untrustworthy and incompetent the Crown witnesses were. And all for nothing, because even if what you say is true, you don’t have enough evidence to prove David Bain was not naked, by his own definition of ‘no clothes’. Evidence 19 years later, by police officers with no respect for the rules, who were involved in the case, is too late. No Court would allow it to stand, and it is too ‘unsafe’ for any QC to consider relevant.

    It’s a damn good thing you are a habitual liar, isn’t it!

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

    Judith
    Sorry to much to hope for one key phrase in your post ‘if just one thing you’ve said is true’
    This is Muggins your talking about far to big a suggestion, challenge for you find one piece of true and relevant evidence in any blog comment written by Muggins anywhere!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    @Judith

    Could this be why Bains team have requested the comp. claim be put on hold? By the time a second report is commissioned muggins will have proved that none of the prosecution witnesses can be relied on? Or will they have had each of these people investigated and fired from their jobs for leaking information to blabber mouths?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Sorry to much to hope for one key phrase in your post ‘if just one thing you’ve said is true’
    This is Muggins your talking about far to big a suggestion, challenge for you find one piece of true and relevant evidence in any blog comment written by Muggins anywhere!

    I tried, you are right. Not one thing.

    I even read today, in his words, that he has rung so many people, and NOT ONE has refused to discuss the case with him. This includes witnesses, experts, police and pathologists. Just how many people, other than the jfrb group, are that imbecilic that they would believe that?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Belinda (142 comments) says:

    What wonderful news that, the piece of crap Paul Dally is not being paroled.
    So Paul Dally is not even his real name, he had already been given a new name before he killed Karla,
    david bain must be envious and wish Karam had never “saved” him, if he’d done his sentence he probably would have got a new name, and none of us would have recognised him, and he would hopefully be getting on quietly with his life.
    david bain was so lucky to only get 16 years for killing five people, when you see someone get 17 years now for just one killing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    They asked for it to go on hold so that they could try and influence the outcome by getting a determination from the court regarding process, hoping that that will put pressure on in their favour.

    It is great seeing the law at work, interesting how the ‘intent’ of legislation can be hi jacked for personal gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Belinda (118) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    I see now.
    Bain was lucky that after his old man shot the rest of the family, then himself to save his ‘good name’, then getting stitched up by the cops, he ONLY spent 13 years inside? Then the last 4 years being hounded by a group of nutters, just to see that he doesn’t forget how ‘lucky’ he is, he really should be grateful? OK…..

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Toast_them_both (13 comments) says:

    What lying piece of shit Judith is …

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    What lying piece of shit Judith is …

    Not a nice way to speak of our Justice Minister, well at least she still is for now.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    You have your opinion, others are entitled to theirs too

    You should go get your own blog since you seem to have issue with everyone with an opposing view to yours in this one.

    I am sure David Farrar is perfectly capable of ‘policing’ the bloggers on his blog, and doesn’t need the help of the self appointed.

    I appreciate that you talk to yourself often anyway but debate does need differing points of view to be debate.

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

    Bet you could murder a burger about now? 😉 Signed Princess Fiona.
    Beats someone calling themselves a lady, when clearly they are a gutter snipe.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    david bain was so lucky to only get 16 years for killing five people, when you see someone get 17 years now for just one killing.

    Well, quite. David reckons that 13 years is sufficient punishment for mass murder. When, after his retrial, Melanie Reid asked him how he felt about people thinking he was guilty, he replied: “You would think that whether you believe I’m innocent or whether you believe I‘m guilty, you’d say ‘well, if he’s guilty, he’s served his time, let him get on with life…’”

    Clearly, he thought nothing of his family, and apparently thought nothing of killing them. As he says, he’s served his time and should be able to get on with life. The fact his family are dead, murdered in cold blood, doesn’t seem to worry him.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    So you know what people think ross, the true signs of a nutter.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    LLB LOL could finally make a point of interest in the next decade, I wonder if he or she got the LLB as a ‘mature, very mature’ student with learning problems. How kind of the Law School, or maybe they just wanted to get of rid of him of her because of the sanitation problems imposed. Way to go for the toothless minority.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Is that coming from someone that is a pus stain on the mirror of life?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    golden gumbie, ever thought of second hand dentures?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    There have been suggestions that David Bain could have got blood on his hands when he shot Stephen, moved Robin, or when he handled the bloodied clothing. These are incompatible with David Bain’s contention that he came home, went straight downstairs, and washed his hands before sorting the clothes and loading up the washing machine. His hands would have been freshly washed and clean. He stated to Police in 1994 ” I didn’t have blood on my hands as I’d washed them.” This strongly suggests that he washed his hands a second time.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    The calibre of the Banes for NZ to see. Would that be a .22? Or you still making wild stabs in the dark?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Yes, Maxine, it seems that David washed his hands twice. He must have been a clean freak 🙂

    Interesting that he locked the front door at some stage. Why would he do that? He obviously wasn’t concerned that the killer was still inside the house…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    I see the only reasons being offered on why Daddy couldn’t commit suicide are he didn’t place the magazine in the ‘right’ place and the suicide note was ‘obviously’ written by someone else. Quite a long way for the spinners to go to even get close to advancing another 0 or 2!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    Judith (1,446) Says:
    February 11th, 2013 at 8:40 am

    Rubbish, she does not imply anything of the sort.

    That is your particular spin on how you have interpreted it.

    The extended Bain family decided they wanted it burned and visited David in prison to see if he agreed. Whilst he had no objections, he was hardly in a position to make a rational decision about it, under the circumstances. He could not have known the implications of what he was agreeing to, and was guided by the advice of his Uncles. (Who at that point he trusted, not knowing they couldn’t wait to get their hands on the family’s loot). The house was the least of David’s problems at that point.

    A couple of pertinent points about the burning of the house:
    1/ The police played no part in the burning of the house they gave no permission and were not consulted regarding the fire.
    2/ The police had finished the crime scene investigation two weeks before the fire and were no longer providing security for the site and the was a concern that the house would be torched.
    3/ The interior of the house had been damaged by police when the removed doors etc which had blood wipes on them. The Dunedin City Council had issued a demolition order ordering the removal of the house with in three months or they would demolish it and charge the Estate for the work.
    4/ The executor tried to get a company to demolish the house none were willling as the section cleanup would require clearing and removal of some pretty unsavory stuff which could not go to the Fairfield tip site and require the preparation of a lined tip site.
    5/ Security was quoted at $1000 per week for the site for patrols. It was suggested the Fire Service may be interested in using the building as a training fire for volunteer brigades in the Dunedin control area. The Executor approached SFSO Jim Watson about it and he spoke to the Station CFO’s involved and SFSO Harry Greenyer[ret] who was always in favour of the training burns and if the family were willing to Waive the right to damages if the fire caused collateral damage.
    6/ It was agreed that the Fire Service would take control of the site on the day before the fire to prepare the house for training and would remain in charge until the day following the fire. SFSO Jim Watson then set about the legal preparations needed for the fire including the Service seeking police assurances, Council permissions, Fire Service clearance from the Chief Training Officer in Wellington and the Chief Fire Service Officer. Jim worked almost full time on the preparations and putting in place safety fire breaks etc. David Bain was involved in the planning as was his legal team and the Prosecutor and the DCC health inspector.
    7/ The final part was the lighting of the fire when the Fire Service Lawyers had checked all permissions etc. on the Saturday morning Volunteers from several stations around Dunedin were involved in the exercise and spent several hours entering and searching and training in the use of new fire fighting equipment. In Fire Service terms It was a successful exercise giving new Volunteers and Professional fire fighters experience working inside a real fire and unknown conditions.

    8/ I served with both Mr Watson and Mr Greenyer for seven years in the Service when both were active members of the Service, Jim Watson first as a Firefighter then as a Station Officer and Mr Greenyer was DCFO of the Invercargill Station of the NZFS. I spoke to both about the process at the Dunedin central station over several visits where Jim was stationed and Mr Greenyer had retired from the service but spent a lot of time at the station. Burning a house for training is not a common occurrence so was of interest to me and my ‘comrades’.

    The burning of the house was nor something that just happened there was meticulous planning and preparation carried out but the police were only involved to the extent that FS lawyer checked they were complete and the same question was put to the Defense, to David although he was in custody he was still the benefactor of the wills and would remain so until his conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    I see the only reasons being offered on why Daddy couldn’t commit suicide are he didn’t place the magazine in the ‘right’ place and the suicide note was ‘obviously’ written by someone else.

    Also because he just knew that if he did, then all but an old person called muggins would spell the dog’s name wrong. Couldn’t have that, now, could he/

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Wow!

    2/ The police had finished the crime scene investigation two weeks before the fire and were no longer providing security for the site and the was a concern that the house would be torched.

    It was burned on 7th July, which was only 17 days after the murder/suicide. That means the cops were only there investigating for 3 days, then handed it back to the family?

    Wow again!

    3/ The interior of the house had been damaged by police when the removed doors etc which had blood wipes on them.

    The police removed doors, yet didn’t remove some pieces of carpet that contained the sock covered footprints?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (294) Says:
    February 12th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
    K.O.K you are aptly named.
    ————————————————-

    grassy-ass LOL LOL LOL!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Maxine is having a go at topping the idiots list. He or it is inquiring about blood on David’s hands, but the blood was only on the hands of the murdering daddy, that’s why we know it was him that ‘done it.’

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

    Has it actually been suggested anywhere publicly (except by Aunt Fanny) on various blog sites that David ‘was never strip searched’? I have yet to come across a single claim by any of the police officers or crown witness that suggests this anywhere! Lets put an open challenge to the ‘Daddy didn’t do it trolls’ to find where this has been suggested. (Muggins conversations with himself don’t count), none of these ‘policeman he’s phoned’ have ever publicly suggested that the strip search didn’t occur, so the probability that they’ve actually told him the opposite is? I’ll leave that open to suggestions. Even if the calls happened the chance of muggins accurately reporting what was said would be about the same.
    Come on Muggins put up or shut up!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    I see the only reasons being offered on why Daddy couldn’t commit suicide are he didn’t place the magazine in the ‘right’ place and the suicide note was ‘obviously’ written by someone else. Quite a long way for the spinners to go to even get close to advancing another 0 or 2!

    Seems fair enough, since you couldn’t offer any basis for Hentschel to know whether the largest sock print was complete or not. However, since you’re spouting bullshit about something else now, let’s go with that. Problems with the defence scenario (Robin Bain commits suicide by putting on foot on a chair, bracing the rifle against the chair and shooting himself in the left temple):

    1. Position of the body.
    2. Lack of Robin Bain’s fingerprints on the barrel or silencer (the silencer took a print from Stephen Bain easily enough, so it likely would have taken prints from Robin too, if he held it).
    3. Blood spatter on the curtain (from a point 1m high and very close to the curtain).
    4. Blood drips on the curtain.
    5. No significant blood spatter reported on the chair (which is highly significant if you watch that courtroom video of Boyce with one foot on the chair and the rifle to his head – picture what that chair would look like if he was to put a bullet through his brain right then).
    6. No consensus among the forensic experts about whether it was a contact wound or not – the estimates range from hard contact to over a foot away.
    7. The magazine on the floor. Quibble all you like, but it looks exactly like someone put it there as a prop for a fake suicide.
    8. The spent cartridge inside the alcove, rather than in the room where the shot was fired.

    No doubt others have more, but the fact is your suicide scenario isn’t anything like as clear-cut as you make out.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Crikey dick, don’t ask Aunt Fanny to ‘put up’ Rowan. How disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Look, milties made a little list, just like a comfort cushion. I hope he doesn’t get blisters.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    As has been discussed several time, David told Binnie a number of porkies, from the glasses he says he was not wearing to the one big happy family that he says his family was. Obviously, there is another big lie regarding the blood on his hands. This is what he told Binnie:

    A. Yes . And so I washed my hands before I did the laundry.
    Q. Okay.
    A. As I said, printer’s ink is very, you know, it comes off and it, it smudges and it’s difficult to get, like , it just dirties everything. It’s horrible stuff. So, you touch clothing, it goes straight onto the clothing. It’ll actually stain white for instance.
    Q. Did you wash your se – your hands a second time after putting on the laundry?
    A. No, there was no need.

    But what about the palm print on the washing machine and what about David’s claim that he didn’t have blood on his hands because he’d washed them? When did he wash the blood off his hands? It couldn’t have been when he washed the printer’s ink off because he didn’t have blood on his hands at that stage.

    David is never going to get compo while he can’t bring himself to tell the truth.

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

    Psycho Milt @ 9.34
    Milt you can advance maybe a 1 for this, at least you tried
    Lets go over your points
    1. Position of the body.
    What about it, Dempster said there was nothing unusual about the position of the body in the various demonstrations put to him

    2. Lack of Robin Bain’s fingerprints on the barrel or silencer (the silencer took a print from Stephen Bain easily enough, so it likely would have taken prints from Robin too, if he held it).
    How likely rather subjective especially given that positive fingerprint recovery of perpetrators occurs in less than 5% of cases. Also unidentifiable fingerprints present on the gun.

    3. Blood spatter on the curtain (from a point 1m high and very close to the curtain).
    What about it, how do you explain this blood in the ‘murder’ scenario. Sorry don’t buy James Ferris’s ‘shaking the dead body’ explanation

    4. Blood drips on the curtain.
    See 3 above

    5. No significant blood spatter reported on the chair (which is highly significant if you watch that courtroom video of Boyce with one foot on the chair and the rifle to his head – picture what that chair would look like if he was to put a bullet through his brain right then).
    Open to subjective interpretation, depend on exact position of head, and details which we will never know, the chair is only one of the scenarios put to Dempster

    6. No consensus among the forensic experts about whether it was a contact wound or not – the estimates range from hard contact to over a foot away.
    We’ve been over this one, photo analysis of Thompson and Ferris clearly wrong, Blood in barrel = contact wound, you previously agreed that the probability that the blood in the barrel not being Robins would be very close to 0. Don’t do a Gamefisher here.

    7. The magazine on the floor. Quibble all you like, but it looks exactly like someone put it there as a prop for a fake suicide.
    Desperately clinging to this one aren’t you, what did the PC actually say about this! I previously put it up for you, who to believe them or you?

    8. The spent cartridge inside the alcove, rather than in the room where the shot was fired.
    There was sufficient space for this to have ejected into the alcove, see 7, also scene not original and the ‘actual’ positioning of spent shell and magazine is questionable

    Things you have specifically ignored
    1. 10 degree upward trajectory of wound
    2. Misfired/Misfed bullet in lounge
    3. Blood on body not consistent with head wound
    4. 2 directions of blood splatter on Robins trousers
    5. Blood on shoe
    6. Impossibility of ‘kneeling’ or ‘sitting’ on the bean bag
    7. Near impossibility of ‘David hiding behind the curtains’ remember on Rafterys concession Robin more likely turned on the computer before David was home
    8. The chance of David at 22 being able to replicate everything required to accurately demonstrate suicide, ie knowing everything Nos put on the link at 22 years old in the dark given that he was short sighted. No wonder Dempsters boss didn’t buy the crown murder myth!
    There you go 8 for 8, I could think of more but that will do for now, as I say you have advanced a max of 1%!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross
    Palm print blood blah blah, I don’t recall any suggestion the print was made in printers ink, It also wasn’t proven to be blood either so nice try. How accurately would you remember about when you washed your hands on 20 June 1994, doesn’t prove anything, David is recalling what he can remember to the best of his memory. Even if he washed his hands again after doing the washing then what does this supposedly prove, much like whether or not he brought in the paper would you really expect him to remember given everything that happened that morning. If this is your best effort at showing a lie then you have a way to go. Much easier to show lies from you and your loony mates!

    Nos
    You have a dirty mind!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Even if he washed his hands again after doing the washing then what does this supposedly prove?

    You’re slow tonight, Rowan, though that is par for the course. If he washed his hands twice, then he lied to Binnie. Even you should be able to understand that. And as we know, David being the poor innocent soul that he is, has no reason to lie.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ross
    Your best attempt at proving a lie, LMAO, in order to prove it is a lie you also have to show that he knew it was untrue and intended to be misleading rather than what he said to the best of his memory. Notice how I said ‘Even if’, Do you remember when you washed your hands on 20 June 1994, or even 20/6/2012?
    Read anything posted by Muggins if you want demonstrated lies!
    Your whole argument is about as convincing as how to spell the dogs name!

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

    Milt
    In terms of the footprints the basis for submitting that they were complete is the same as what Hentschel said in 1995. He must have had some basis for saying they were ‘complete’ Its just using his 1995 evidence back at him. Is it to much of an assumption that he got the measurements right, it was to much to expect from Robert Ngamoki. As you will say we criticise his incompetence, but that is in so far as suggesting that a sock was a better indicator of a foot size than the shoe. Also criticised is his change of evidence, when he realised that what he had said to exclude Robin in 1995 actually inculpates him so therefore because he believes David to be guilty then he must have made the print.

    Some of my points in my 10.11 were aimed at a ‘murder’ scenario as well as the suicide argument

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    Nostalgia: thank you for your gracious and gentlemanly response. I am not enquiring about blood on David’s hands, rather, how many times he washed them. David Bain said he didn’t have blood on his hands because he’d washed them. That implies he did have blood on his hands, before he washed them. He was adamant that he washed his hands before he sorted the clothes and loaded up the washing machine. He made no mention of washing his hands a second time.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    It was mentioned in a post further up about the witness demonstrating suicide position have a look where his right hand is . . . Yep it is holding the barrel extension right were Stevens prints were.
    In Criminal proceeding the onus/burden of proof is with the crown completely the defendant does not have to prove himself innocent.

    In civil proceedings the onus/burden of proof is with the plaintiff except in circumstances where the defendant makes a positive assertion on a matter then the onus shifts. A claim is a civil matter and the onus/burden of proof is on the claimant if The claimant says he was strip searched then he must prove on the balance of probability his assertion is true his word is not sufficient, independent proof from another source must be provided so the independent person can assess it against the standard claimed by the Crown who put forward the evidence of the court, the Claimant must prove to the required level that the Crown is wrong. This is where Rex Haig fell short he could not prove he did not know about the killing of Roderique before it happened, whether he did or not is irrelevant. Binnie J at that point accepted an unproven assertion in defiance of his instruction from Hon Simon Power. His course should have been to seek evidence to support that statement. Binnie J admits his only criminal experience was as a Junior n the matter of Paul Morin v Q in Canada whose conviction was overturned when DNA proved him factually innocent He was for much of his career a member of parliament and was junior Attorney-General on retiring from politics he was rewarded with an appointment to the Canadian Supreme Court bench His specialist knowledge is commercial law and it was for that he was appointed a QC. There is little doubt he was an accomplished Commercial Barrister but it may well have been the knowledge of that branch of law that lead to his moving the onus of proof between the claimant and the crown as he saw the Crown make a positive assertion he knowledge led to the error of requiring the crown to provide proof when in fact it was the claimant’s burden to disprove the crown assertion.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    In terms of the footprints the basis for submitting that they were complete is the same as what Hentschel said in 1995. He must have had some basis for saying they were ‘complete’

    He did. He had the basis that it looked like a complete print to him, compared to the other prints. In reality, there was no way for him to know whether it was a complete print or merely mostly complete. Which is significant because if the print was only 90-something percent complete it wasn’t Robin’s but David’s. The most you can say, given Sandiford’s tests, is that the print wasn’t made by a foot smaller than Robin’s. Hentschel’s tried to explain the limits of the word “complete” in this context as far back as 1997 and tries it again in that testimony quoted in Binnie’s report – to no avail.

    Its just using his 1995 evidence back at him

    Well, of course, weaselly lawyer’s games to catch people out are much more important than what the evidence actually shows… no, wait. Actually that’s bollocks, isn’t it? A guy who’d base an official report on bullshit like that you’d have to describe as “lacking robustness of reasoning,” I would have thought.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    There you go 8 for 8, I could think of more but that will do for now…

    Correct. There are problems with either scenario because we don’t actually know what happened. Which makes the poor-David types’ insistence that the lounge crime scene explains everything simply wrong, and a waste of time to discuss. It explains nothing.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  460. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    I am not enquiring about blood on David’s hands, rather, how many times he washed them. David Bain said he didn’t have blood on his hands because he’d washed them. That implies he did have blood on his hands, before he washed them. He was adamant that he washed his hands before he sorted the clothes and loaded up the washing machine. He made no mention of washing his hands a second time.

    Maxine, you are correct. David said he washed his hands after returning from his paper run, to remove the printers’ ink. At that stage he could not have had blood on his hands. But he has inferred that he did have blood on his hands. Indeed, there was an apparent bloodied palm print on the washing machine and drops of blood in the porcelain basin. It seems highly likely that he did wash his hands twice. As Rowan said, that’s no big deal on its own. The problem is, he told Binnie he washed his hands once. (He didn’t say he couldn’t remember.) That looks to be a lie. Why lie over something that isn’t a big deal? More importantly, if he’s prepared to lie over something like this, wouldn’t he be prepared to lie over more important stuff?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Do you remember when you washed your hands on 20 June 1994, or even 20/6/2012?

    I didn’t think you were so obtuse, Rowan. David said, shortly after the murders, that he didn’t have blood on his hands as he had washed them! The fact remains that when he washed the printers ink, he could not have had any blood on his hands. He handled the bloodied jersey, so yeah he probably did get blood on his hands from that. But then when police examined his hands, there was no blood on them. So what would you conclude – he washed his hands twice?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. Norma (6 comments) says:

    Still, having your own lawyer say you are guilty, takes the cake.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    I’m on the run, so just a short message.
    Dr Pryde never said he strip-searched David Bain. The one police officer who was standing in a doorway when Dr Pryde was examining Bain said Bain was never naked.
    No prodavidbainer can prove Bain was strip-searched.
    No prodavidbainer can explain how Bain got those scratches on his torso.
    There is no photo of David Bain’s torso.
    I believe David Bain got those scratches on his torso when he was struggling with Stephen . No prodavidbainer can disprove that or come up with another reason as to why they were there.
    There is no such word as bloodwash.
    The photo of that magazine shows that magazine in the exact position it was in when the police arrived.
    Dr Dempster said those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands could be up to 24 hours old [that is what he said at the retrial.]
    If there is a photo of Robin Bain showing some blood coming from his nose that could be caused by the bullet in his head causing minor fractures, causing blood to come from his nose.
    There is a video and/or photo showing that lens on the floor of Stephen’s room while Stephen’s body is still there.
    There was no DNA found in the silencer barrel.
    I had better go now. I am trying to get a hold of a copy of those emails between Collins and Binnie. Will let you know if I have any success.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Rowan 10.11pm last night.

    Good response and I note that psycho milt now ‘retires’ from the lounge scene just like the Crown did because they can’t resolve the evidence which points to robin as the killer. Likewise his ‘companions’ write about David washing his hands without passing notice to the fact that it was the father’s hands that were bruised cut and bloodied.

    Meanwhile the fully mental bucket case parrots away without the slightest observance to the fact that many think he is a nutter and that his insistence at being believed for what he ‘knows’ rather than for what evidence he shows supporting it merely proves his mental incapacity. If you wanted to wish a curse upon on the ‘dear daddy crew’ and thought about it even briefly, they already have it, cuckoo!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    A rough estimate as to the costs even before the hearing of the JR will go into the 100s of thousands. The issue of costs is not to be underestimated, The Crown got through to 15 to 20 million for the re trial and probably higher. This is a reason why the significant ‘leg work’ which Binnie did but Fisher did not ,on the evidence, needed to be tied in with all the available information including the tests by the Privy Council against evidence heard and ‘left out,’ along with the Jury’s decision. The idea of focusing on single points and not an overall view, will continue to fail against the complete narrative provided by Binnie drawn from the most significant sources (including his depth of experience and insightful reasoning of the evidence) – the highest Courts and fully briefed and instructed Jury. This cart before the horse idiocy promoted by a Crown Minister is myopic and backward as time is showing.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  466. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    I for one would rather the money was spent on the ‘process’ and not one cent for ‘compensation’.

    This Government is being blackmailed, pay us out, it will be cheaper!!!

    So what, any payment ex gratia or not would not be in the interests of justice in my opinion.

    It is about principle, not about money, principle does matter.

    It is certainly ironic that the public purse is paying to fight/argue with itself, when legal aid is involved that is, but incidental costs as well.

    This process that is going before the courts etc now will be setting precedents for future ‘petitioners’, so it had better be robust as well as parametres being more closely defined.

    If you are outside the guidelines for compensation, tough, if ever there was an example of give someone and inch they will take a mile, this is it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    Good response and I note that psycho milt now ‘retires’ from the lounge scene just like the Crown did because they can’t resolve the evidence which points to robin as the killer.

    As pointed out, I ‘retired from the lounge scene’ because the evidence doesn’t provide anything conclusive either way. There are as many problems with the defence scenario as with the prosecution scenario, ie the simple fact is we don’t know exactly what happened in there. You making confident assertions about the “the evidence that points to Robin as the killer” alters that situation not in the slightest.

    To which I might add, I notice you ‘retired’ from discussion of the footprints and the gloves, having nothing to offer beyond the suggestion that I’m stupid.

    As to Rowan’s “good response” at 10.11 last night – it wasn’t. I found the idea of contesting it point-by-point tiresome, so settled for pointing out the obvious conclusion to be drawn from it. However, since not contesting its foolishness point-by-point is being interpreted as an inability to support my argument:

    1. Position of the body.
    What about it, Dempster said there was nothing unusual about the position of the body in the various demonstrations put to him

    Dempster’s opinion is just that. The fact Bain’s body was some distance from the place he supposedly committed suicide is a problem for the suicide scenario.

    2. Lack of Robin Bain’s fingerprints on the barrel or silencer (the silencer took a print from Stephen Bain easily enough, so it likely would have taken prints from Robin too, if he held it).
    How likely rather subjective especially given that positive fingerprint recovery of perpetrators occurs in less than 5% of cases. Also unidentifiable fingerprints present on the gun.

    A handy statistic that is also totally irrelevant to the question of how likely it is that a man shooting himself in the head with a silencer-equipped rifle will leave fingerprints. He couldn’t have done it without holding the metal silencer or barrel, and we know the silencer took a print from Stephen Bain that morning when he touched the silencer. This is a problem for the suicide scenario.

    3. Blood spatter on the curtain (from a point 1m high and very close to the curtain).
    What about it, how do you explain this blood in the ‘murder’ scenario. Sorry don’t buy James Ferris’s ‘shaking the dead body’ explanation

    What you personally “buy” or don’t buy is irrelevant. At issue is what in the lounge scene constitutes problems for the defence scenario. This spatter constitutes a problem for the defence scenario. Blood drips ditto – how they got there isn’t for me to explain, it’s for the suicide scenario to explain.

    5. No significant blood spatter reported on the chair (which is highly significant if you watch that courtroom video of Boyce with one foot on the chair and the rifle to his head – picture what that chair would look like if he was to put a bullet through his brain right then).
    Open to subjective interpretation, depend on exact position of head, and details which we will never know, the chair is only one of the scenarios put to Dempster

    If you can look at that video of Boyce and think the chair he’s using isn’t going to cop a shitload of blood spatter, you’re delusional. Still, you’re getting there with “details we will never know.” That is exactly the point here.

    6. No consensus among the forensic experts about whether it was a contact wound or not – the estimates range from hard contact to over a foot away.
    We’ve been over this one, photo analysis of Thompson and Ferris clearly wrong, Blood in barrel = contact wound, you previously agreed that the probability that the blood in the barrel not being Robins would be very close to 0. Don’t do a Gamefisher here.

    You disagree with the Crown’s experts – I get it. Nevertheless, they remain experts and you remain not an expert. The matter is contested.

    7. The magazine on the floor. Quibble all you like, but it looks exactly like someone put it there as a prop for a fake suicide.
    Desperately clinging to this one aren’t you, what did the PC actually say about this! I previously put it up for you, who to believe them or you?

    I’m merely pointing out the magazine is a problem for the suicide scenario. The Privy Council’s assessment of its relative merits as a piece of evidence against David don’t alter that fact.

    8. The spent cartridge inside the alcove, rather than in the room where the shot was fired.
    There was sufficient space for this to have ejected into the alcove, see 7, also scene not original and the ‘actual’ positioning of spent shell and magazine is questionable

    It is indeed possible for the shell to have ejected into the alcove, but unlikely. Its position is a problem for the suicide scenario. Your views on the likelihood that the shell and magazine were put there through police incompetence or clumsiness are worthless to anyone not starting from a default position that David Bain must be innocent.

    Things you have specifically ignored
    1. 10 degree upward trajectory of wound
    2. Misfired/Misfed bullet in lounge
    3. Blood on body not consistent with head wound
    4. 2 directions of blood splatter on Robins trousers
    5. Blood on shoe
    6. Impossibility of ‘kneeling’ or ‘sitting’ on the bean bag
    7. Near impossibility of ‘David hiding behind the curtains’ remember on Rafterys concession Robin more likely turned on the computer before David was home
    8. The chance of David at 22 being able to replicate everything required to accurately demonstrate suicide, ie knowing everything Nos put on the link at 22 years old in the dark given that he was short sighted.

    Most of these have little to do with problems for the suicide scenario, but what the hell:
    1 is consistent with either suicide or murder. 2 is consistent with the magazine being changed, at any time by either suspect. 3 is indeed a problem for the murder scenario. 4, 5. Defence claims, haven’t seen Crown rebuttal of them. Problems for the murder scenario if correct. 6. Not relevant as far I can see. 7. A problem for the murder scenario. 8. He didn’t accurately simulate suicide, did he? The cops were onto him within a couple of days.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    You would bore a book to death psycho milt. just to the last part of your sermon you answers don’t relate to the questions in all circumstances so rather than repeat your mistakes:

    Upward trajectory is consistent with murder, as is close contact. The Crown have conceded that, so what a dimwit bookworm concludes on the matter is of no moment. Any explanation regarding the misfeed/misfired bullet other than suicide shows that Robin was co-operating in his own death, yet the absence of shielding of spatter shows no other person was present. You don’t go near the injuries to Robin or the blood on him because you have no explanation for it. Your task is the same as when it started explaining the evidence which points to Robin as killer, you haven’t done it. You started out above with the bloody footprints, I’m in agreement with the Saniford and Walsh, you haven’t dismantled their arguments and can’t, same with the gloves. I think Robin wore them which the explanation for blood on his hands, Binnie and the PC put it aside as unable to be determined. You’re myopic Milt, and fit in with the goat shagging, the evidence by phone calls, the hate mantras like a duck to water. Puffing on about how the lounge doesn’t matter is the resignation of defeat, but you were defeated before you began. Just a little summing up a MOJ and a retrial ordered by the PC along with a finely argued reconciliation of the evidence and links to evidence, a not guilty verdict, a finding of innocence on the BOP v well nothing, except a six week expert supporting cackling hyenas.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    Meh. If you don’t like lengthy answers, don’t bitch about people not providing them. Re your points, such as they are:

    You really should look up what something being “consistent with” something else actually means.

    Any explanation involving a misfire or misfeed would be very much in need of some supporting evidence for it.

    I don’t go near the injuries on Robin or the blood on him because it’s fairly obvious he was shot in the head.

    Re Sandiford and Walsh’s evidence, I haven’t dismantled their arguments because there’s nothing wrong with their arguments – it’s the unsupported inferences the defence, Binnie, you and however many other people are drawing from that evidence that’s wrong.

    You can declare the lounge to be whatever what you want, the evidence however doesn’t assist you with your claims.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    There was supporting evidence re the misfire or misfeed and your jump to conclusions don’t take them into account.
    Not going near the injuries or blood on Robin has nothing to do with the obvious that he had a temple wound, he had wounds to his hands and blood on him that had happened or arrived after he died. If you want daddy to be innocent you must explain those because it’s critical to his innocence not only that he ‘wasn’t’ walking around the house with blood on his socks that morning but that he also had bloodied and damaged hands. This is not a series of co-incidences nor are they are they of a minor nature – they point to the murderer.
    The evidence of the lounge does assist me, your claims and your sweeping statements also assist me, thanks.l

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Milt
    I still see no explanation for the ‘murdering Robin’ scenario. A close contact wound with an upward trajectory of roughly 10 degrees. Maybe you could explain how this is consistent with murder? David was 6’4, Robin 5’9 so would have to be lower than Robin ie on knees. The pathology proves BRD that it was a close contact wound, the two pathologists who tried to guestimate the distance did so using photos only (while admitting this was unreliable) Dempster has said since day 1 that the wound was contact and this was proven by the blood in the barrel. There is no way this would have got there from a distance shot of 30-40cm. International studies show that contact wounds are suicide in over 90% of instances.
    The length to which you would have us believe that Robin cooperated with his killer (if innocent) is unbelievable! The crowns previous 1995 scenario relied on ‘kneeling in prayer’ and ‘poking the rifle through the curtains’ both are ridiculous! and were shown to be, they now can’t explain and didn’t attempt to at at the retrial.
    As to defence claims (as far as I’m aware) the crown didn’t attempt to rebut them and instead steered the jury away from the lounge.
    How is the magazine a ‘problem for suicide, the PC threw the argument in the garbage bin, ignoring the possibility of the scene not being original, there is nothing that excludes placement by Robin, refer PC decision.
    Have to do better than this!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins

    “No prodavidbainer can prove Bain was strip-searched.
    No prodavidbainer can explain how Bain got those scratches on his torso”

    No deluded nutcase can prove that Bain wasn’t strip searched, only one claiming it is you and you have no evidence at all
    The same deluded nutcase also can’t prove the existence of the scratches, all you have is one supposed witness making the claim 15 years later, and contradicts himself.
    Time for some more pills and a doctors referral to your local pyschiatric institution!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. Psycho Milt (3,118 comments) says:

    If you want daddy to be innocent you must explain…

    And

    I still see no explanation for the ‘murdering Robin’ scenario.

    One thing at a time. I posted a response to Rowan’s crowing that those who disagree with him supposedly have little to suggest Robin didn’t commit suicide. That response pointed out some problems with the Bain defence’s suicide scenario.

    If you’d now like to change the subject to problems with the prosecution’s murder scenario, does that mean you accept that there are problems with the defence’s suicide scenario? If not, I don’t see that we’re finished with that subject yet.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Poor miltie, the world must be so imposing for you to require even thinking about more than one thing at a time, or disregarding irrelevancies. I guess it’s like when you nervously enter a long post fill of holes hoping that verbosity will overcome the various difficulties of your logic. It can’t be fun for you miltie, and if it weren’t that your ignorance was hurting other people I’d even feel sorry for you.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    A matter which needs to be thoroughly investigated by any investigator is the allegation made about Robin Bain’s Mental health, as it is critical to the murder suicide scenario put forward as a defence. There is no evidence of Robin Bain sufffered depression and he had never been prescribed anti Depressants, this is a very assertion to make as it was a major plank in the defence and had there been a record of anti depressant use it would allow the depression based murder suicide myth easier

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Robin’s mental health isn’t critical to the murder suicide, it’s the blood on his hands, the towel, and running from his nose that is. Straight forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Old miltie pretends that daddy lying on the floor with a bullet in his head and a rifle next to him, blood all over him and injuries to his hands might be a mystery, I’m sure it is in googa land.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    The scene of Robin’s death has a superficial resemblance to suicide, until one studies the position of the body, the rifle, the spare magazine and the shell case in the alcove. One notes the lack of Robin’s prints on the rifle, Stephen’s pristine prints on the suppressor (not smudged), the urine load, the lack of blood on the body or clothes, the old clothes probably worn the day before and overnight, with no underpants, means that the only survivor, the son who habitually locked him out of the lounge/computer alcove, lied about wearing the broken glasses, killed him and typed a silly immature message on the computer that would fool no one who had his wits about him. Binnie is a dunce, happily Collins is not.

    The Banes may believe the well explained old wounds on the hands from working outside (possibly fixing guttering), a towel in the laundry with an unspecified amount of blood of undetermined age, the oft-mentioned but imaginary “bloodwash” on the hands (not visible in the photograph) that cannot be blood because Robin is supposed to have washed all the other blood off (yet somehow left the gardening grime) and is probably just post mortem venous pooling, and a well explained small amount of blood from the nose due to the bullet rattling around inside the skull, somehow indicate suicide.

    Well, we’re all different. I mean, some people believe in life after death, which proves man can believe anything he sets his mind to. Anything at all, however absurd and lacking in substance or evidence. “David is innocent, he must be, I want to believe that.” Bah, humbug. You need your head read.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. Lindsay Kennard (61 comments) says:

    I am mystified how the amount of ‘blood’ on Robin Bain increases as time goes by, in 2009 there was a ‘smear’ of blood on the base of one thumb, a speck too small to test on a small finger and an allegation that if the specks of blood on the sweatshirt had been tested the they would be from other members of the family. Those tests when done resulted in the blood being shown to be from Robin Bain. The strong likely hood is that any other blood on Robin would be his own based on the premise that all the other blood found as his own.

    Conversely blood found on the Claimant was from his deceased sibling it is likely he was source of the blood found in the laundry. The blood smears on door frames at the first trial were alleged to be too high for Robin to have made them but they seem to have little or not used in the 2009 trial disappeared off the radar as perhaps too incriminating.

    Binnie J seems to been very selective in the evidence he chose to evaluate and seems to stuck only to the evidence used at the JCPC which in truth was a very small part of the evidence available for evaluation. I believe it was the very narrow view of his report that was the cause of Ms Collins concern. The report is very comprehensive but its conclusions seem to be based on a much narrower range of evidence that was easier to tie to his conclusion reached very early in his investigation. I believe his method was flawed in his choice of material he chose to study which tended to be limited to a single view, other important literature was ignored.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Dennis you idiot the blood wash is visible in the photograph and the nature of it was commented on by witnesses, also Dempster’s surprise that it hadn’t surfaced earlier in the proceedings. So for all your fanciful daydreams protecting daddy it remains he had blood wash on his palms and recent injuries to his hands precluded from the fantasy of ‘repairing’ the gutters. You only have lies and fabrications to attempt to explain why he wasn’t the killer, something that the Jury and Binnie clearly had more informed and considered determinations about. Look at the towel photo and those taken in the morgue, maybe daddy fell off his ladder as well as of his rocker and that’s how he got that blood nose, and maybe he bled profusely on the ground and walked around the house not noticing everyone was dead. Right.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (33) Says:
    February 14th, 2013 at 12:26 am
    other important literature was ignored.

    You mean he ignored the copious quantities of b/s on the JFRB and Counterspin sites? Information like Marzuka’s, which is a joke at best and doesn’t withstand scrutiny by experts in the field of forensics, nor is it numerically or graphically correct.

    <

    Lindsay Kennard (33) Says:
    February 13th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
    A matter which needs to be thoroughly investigated by any investigator

    Any investigator? Right, we’ll get someone from the SPCA’s team of investigators on to it immediately!

    Robin Bain may not have been diagnosed as Depressed, (we do not know because his doctor would not release his medical files), but Robin was exhibiting many of the symptoms synonymous with depression. These were also witnessed by people who were trained psychologists, and perfectly capable of recognising such symptoms. Depression is 101 in psychology.

    It is ridiculous to claim that without a piece of paper from a doctor and a bottle of pills, someone is not ‘depressed’.

    Sir John Kirwan’s campaign clearly hasn’t got through to you!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The scene of Robin’s death has a superficial resemblance to suicide, until one studies the position of the body, the rifle, the spare magazine and the shell case in the alcove.

    The problem is, that all you have is a bunch of photos, taken from various angles, and not timed to work from.
    Dr Dempster (Muggin’s phone pal) actually witnessed the scene and agreed on the stand, under oath, that the position of Robin’s body was consistent with the Defenses suicide scenario. The magazine had been touched, and it is not known whether it was put in its original position, and the Crown eventually accepted that the shell case in the alcove could have got there using the Defense’s suicide scenario, and fallen between the gap in the curtains. (The curtains did not reach the floor).

    You might think you are somewhat of an expert, but as you don’t know the measurements, and didn’t see the actual scene, even you have to admit that someone who did, knows a hell of a lot more than you. If Dempster, a Crown witness said it was possible, then I am sure, Binnie and everyone else with more than half a brain will accept Dempster’s acceptance of the possibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/53479/prison-guard-recalls-scratches-bain

    These were the marks that David Bain hid from Dr Pryde with that blanket. He didn’t hide them from his female companion after that beach walk, though. He showed them to her ,wondering out loud how he got them. He inferred he may have got them during that “missing” 20 minutes on the Monday morning. After more than 18 years he still can’t figure out how he got them, and nor can any of his supporters.
    I will give them a clue. Stephen Bain had fibres from the green jersey the killer wore under his fingernails which means he clawed at the wearer of that jersey.
    David Bain had claw type marks on his torso. Robin Bain had no claw type marks on his torso.
    No doubt some moron will say the female companion and the prison guard differed as to what direction those scratches went. Who cares.
    The fact is David Bain had scratches on his torso that he can’t explain.
    The prodavids blame Dr Pryde for not seeing those scratches. Easy to blame a dead man, something they have done many times.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Dempster didn’t then and doesn’t now think it was suicide, whatever he was forced to concede by the anti-scientific, quasi-religious Inquisition we pretend finds truth.

    Anything is possible. I might die in a car crash, people do all the time, or flying my aircraft into terrain.

    It is even possible I will be killed by an airliner crash landing on the roof of my house – it has happened before and it could happen again. Please prove it won’t.

    While I’m waiting, I’ll ponder how Robin changed magazines, yet left no prints on either. Ah, I know one very good answer. David wiped all prints off, as he did with the computer keyboard and other things. He forgot the suppressor of the rifle, that had Stephen’s pristine prints on it.

    David very likely did put the rifle in Robin’s hand(s), but the prints were smudged, leaving only a minute blood smear. After all, he had already wiped most of the blood off the rifle.

    So what do we have? A preposterous yarn that Robin killed himself and everybody, a claim even David himself will not agree to, and a chain of improbabilities that stretch credulity to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, versus a simple, straight forward and crisp narrative that makes perfect sense when one considers he says:

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

    One further possibility, based on what vast numbers of people believe, is that Robin will come back from the dead and save us all from further speculation. The Banes better be praying he doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Although he clearly was depressed it makes no difference to the case whether there was a clinical determination of that Judith, depressed or merely flipped out or not, doesn’t overcome the evidence pointing toward his guilt. The mantra ‘there is no forensic evidence against Robin,’ is long dead and the evidence is thick on the ground from bloody footprints to bloodied hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Good waffling Dennis, nice to see the irritation setting in again so soon. The truth is hard to overcome even for those driven to protect a dead daddy who had been found out, whose little secrets were no more.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Old phone a friend fanny is still pushing it uphill with the blanket dance.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  488. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    Where has all that blood gone?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    David Bain ,aka The blanket man.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    Thanks, muggins. The blood spatter on the left index finger. We are told Robin used his left hand to reach the trigger. What are the chances spatter reached it as he fell? One in a billion? One in a hundred billion? One in a billion billion?

    Where is the spatter on the right hand that held the rifle, most naturally and therefore almost certainly by the suppressor?

    Robin dies instantly. He drops straight down like a piece of meat, crumpled on the floor by the curtains. The only way he could get to the bean bag is if he was moved. Why was he moved? To make him more comfortable? Looking at the placement of the magazine and the rifle, an attempt was made at setting a scene of suicide. Guess who forgot the shell case in the computer alcove?

    And who would have guessed the defence would come up with the knee-on-chair scenario over by the curtains? Should have left the body over where it dropped, eh?

    Not so much the perfect crime as perfect stupidity, not seeing the wood for the trees. Bye bye…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Oops, almost forgot. We have already wasted some seven million on this cut-and-dried case. The second trial was a disgrace; the police should have appealed. Material was taken into the jury room, and we can all guess what that was. Some jurors should have been arrested.

    “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.” Hello? Cooee! The lights are on but there’s nobody home.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Good thicko comments as always Dennis, you’ve forgotten about the bent leg, the collapse at the knee the spatter in two directions, and of course the photos, of the body lying with one leg bent and the evidence of collapsing at the knee. If you weren’t so bitter and twisted you might be able to think about the point of balance with standing with one foot on the chair and collapsing at the knee but then again your mind would probably refuse to comprehend the obvious ‘what it showed,’ what that old daddy ‘done it.’ Soft at the knee just like a melting moment.

    Do you believe your sister’s assertions that the police lied and covered up evidence but told her about it Dennis?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Yes Dennis a dim light is showing in that deranged and faraway expression of hate, drooling lips and bulbous but certainly nothing human or rational at home old chapette, nice blanket though.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Entertaining seeing what the spinners have to resort to convincing themselves

    Somehow they think they have a better qualified opinion of the placement of the spare magazine than the PC
    Aunt Fanny is doing her usual ‘phone a friend’ and trying to convince us that although the witness lied under oath at the retrial they have now actually told her the truth
    No evidence of ‘incest’ or ‘depression’
    Ridiculous David ‘moving’ and ‘shaking’ the dead body scenarios
    There ‘must have been’ prints on the keyboard or magazines, although the keyboard wasn’t tested prior to examination by Cox, similarly the ‘testing’ of the magazines
    ‘the son who habitually locked him out of the lounge/computer alcove’,
    The old ‘I know, I can’t explain, have very little evidence to support but trust me’ myth
    All in all a lot of spun out speculation and down right lies from twisted deluded fools who somehow think the court of public opinion will decide the outcome of the claim.
    All they are really showing is that they are demonstratably stupid, totally ignorant and are about as convincing as Richard Dawkins, reading there spin just makes my belief in innocence stronger!
    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Nostalgia. Rubbish. There is no way Robin’s corpse could fall over with the bum over by the bean bag, given he was shot over by the curtains – leaving aside you have not proved he had a knee on the chair in the first place. Where is the blood on the chair?

    The defence concocted a scenario for suicide, everything about it from the suppressor to the temple shot is unlikely or highly unlikely. Some blood on the curtains was not spatter. How much spatter comes from a subsonic .22 when it penetrates the head?

    No, much of the blood came from spilling blood from the wound after Robin was well dead, blood shaken out when the body was lifted under the shoulders, high up to untangle the legs, so the corpse could be dragged over to the beanbag.

    Was this to make Robin more comfortable, or set the scene for suicide?

    ‘THE JUDGE WAS VERY KIND TO ME.” That was after being called a cunning killer, or words to that effect.

    How many people would protest their innocence so? Come on, give me an estimate. Please.

    PS. I don’t hate Bain. I don’t want him back in jail, even. I just don’t want him made rich at others’ expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    I just don’t want him made rich at others’ expense.

    Likewise. I find it odd that the Bain cultists have complained and continue to complain about the cost of the compo process. They don’t appear to have realised that if David was given the money that his team is spending on the process, he would be able to get on with his life. Instead, they’re giving him false hope and he’ll wind up with nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. Nostalgia-NZ (6,343 comments) says:

    Another prediction from rosso, no doubt the opposite to his prediction will apply as always.

    Dennis I know you want to believe you’re right about something, any little thing. Put down your teddy and take your thumb out of your mouth and try very hard to absorb that the wound where daddy shot himself showed no signs of spill. If that gets through finally you might be able to uncross your legs and go to the toilet. You’ll be able to sit there as long as you like swinging your little bobby socked covered tootsies. It’ll be such fun for you and the other children will be able to play with your blanket.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. Belinda (142 comments) says:

    Yes I agree with Dennis and Ross, happy to let him get on with his life as long as we don’t pay him for killing his family.

    He should be so grateful for only getting 16 years for killing five people, didn’t Lundy get 20 years for two.
    At least the baners will be able to have a new killer to defend maybe, when db gets his compo declined.
    Another cause to waste their lives on.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Yep off the the Privy Council Lundy goes.

    So much for getting rid of it.

    I am sure that the Government is aware that any precedents set now via the current Bain process will be expected to apply if Lundy is successful, but then maybe not?
    Extraordinary circumstances not withstanding or various rulings of course. I don’t have an opinion on Lundy.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. muggins (5,058 comments) says:

    And I agree with Belinda,Dennis and Ross.
    Let Bain get on with his life, but don’t pay him a penny .
    He only served 13 years, he got lucky once, but he isn’t going to get lucky twice.
    He needs to do some more excersise ,though. He told Binnie it took him more than three minutes to walk from Heath Street to 65 Every Street. A police officer took 2minutes15s. I reckon even Rowan could walk that distance in well under three minutes. Even Judith. Well, maybe not Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote