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. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Look the sisters are ‘willing’ to make concessions. Who gives a flying cartwheel, the man was imprisoned for 13 years under a MOJ and must be compensated. And why wouldn’t they concede when they’ve already lost.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    David Bain murdered his family. He must not be paid for doing it. And he won’t be, not while Judith Collins is Minister of Justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Your a twit and have posted nothing but lies on any of the bain threads. Sorry but you don’t make decisions for Judy on what ‘will or won’t’ happen, and yor opinions are not ‘facts’, have you ever thought what if you are wrong? you clearly are also barking mad and incapable of rational discussion. You have lost all 5 of your predictions to date good luck on the sixth! Will you be moving to North Korea if 6 happens?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Shouldn’t that be good luck to David?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    I have never been wrong six times in a row. That means David Bain won’t get lucky again.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Goodbye compensation claim.

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

    Goodbye compensation claim.

    Good for you muggins. Finally accepting that compensation WILL be paid to Bain, and withdrawing from your objection to it.
    I would too, even if just to keep your ‘wrong 5 times in a row’ record intact. If I was often wrong 5 times in a row, I think I would stop making predictions.

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

    Kanz (1,003) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 10:27 am

    ———————————-

    Oh do be nice. He is right one time out of six apparently. It does make for some interesting facts though, that’s at least 1748 times he’s been wrong on here. Take the amount of re-posts and spam away from the total, and it means he’s virtually never right, and by his own admission too. He’s clearly reached a pivotal level in his self-awareness. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Come to think of it, I don’t know if I have made five incorrect predictions.
    I didn’t think the Privy Council would say there was a miscarriage of justice, though when I realised that all they were really saying was that all the new evidence should be heard I understood their decision.
    I didn’t think the jury would find Bain not guilty and I still don’t understand why all the jurors went along with that decision.
    I was expecting either a guilty verdict or a hung jury.
    I certainly did not think any competent judge would find Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities and it turns out I was right.
    So that only makes two predictions out of three I got wrong.
    And my next prediction is that Bain will not be getting any compensation.
    If my last prediction is correct then I will have two correct predictions and two incorrect predictions.
    Not a bad result.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    An idiot who thought that Denise Laney was a defence witness calls an international jurist incompetent, just another myopic, potion drnking, hate-siter.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    An idiot who thinks a person can wash blood off their hands but still leave some blood on them is just another myopic David Bain supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    A Canadian judge who thought Bain was wearing no outer clothing when it was obvious that he was the owner of those track pants that were found in the washing machine is not very competent ,in my opinion.
    The same judge could not understand how those glasses came to be in David Bain’s room, even though he thought Bain may have worn them the day before ain’t all that flash in the reasoning department, in my opinion.
    Now if the Prodavids want to carry on with this be my guest. I was just starting to get withdrawal symptons.

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

    muggins (2,107) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    Now if the Prodavids want to carry on with this be my guest. I was just starting to get withdrawal symptons.

    Even that is a lie, you posted about the Bain case in a different thread before saying this, so no withdrawal at all

    Lundy gets a Privvy Council appeal

    muggins (2,107) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    but I liken it to the ESR scientist in the Bain case saying those drops of blood on the socks Bain was wearing falling from above. I mean it is obvious that the sole of one sock would have been pretty much saturated with blood, apart from the tops of the toes and the back part of the heels, so why muddy the waters by bringing another sock into the equation?

    What is the chance that muggins will one day, just once, tell the truth?

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

    Kanz (1,004) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    What is the chance that muggins will one day, just once, tell the truth?

    ————————————

    According to him, a one in six chance. He’s admitted it himself that five out of every six things he says is wrong.
    Of course we don’t know whether when he made that statement, it was the 6th out of six. If it was any lower, then it will of course be a wrong one, and it is much higher than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The idiot thinks washing hands can’t leave blood wash on them. Well he/she should check out it’s mouth after the next rinse out and see that it’s still full of crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Gee, Muggins how does it feel to be more reviled than those that commit murder, I would have thought there were few ‘things’ lower than a murderer, except a multiple murderer and paedophiles, imo, at worst and I do not agree, the Banes accuse you of lying.

    When on God’s earth does that come remotely close to being worse than a murderer.

    You were not instrumental in the prosecution or anything to do with the Bain trial/s? as far as I am aware, not that even that should single you out, fyou are merely expressing your opinion based on your investigations and your beliefs and instinct.

    What sort of society do we live in, where one can be harangued by someone else for holding a contrary view to theirs.

    You know what else. It is also not a crime in this country, yet, to be honestly mistaken in that belief, if one finds oneself to have been mistaken, based on available information.

    As we are told ad nauseum, all information sf not made available to the plebs, only ‘Judith’and her flunkies knows it all.

    And Joe of course, even various councelbut not David apparently.

    There is plenty of evidence in this case to allow anybody to form their counter views.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    LLB LOL has been in the bottle shop again, what a dickleberry.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    What a great word, I guess there is a word for everything, but you!!!;) You defy description.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,464) Says:

    February 15th, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    ————————————

    According to him, a one in six chance. He’s admitted it himself that five out of every six things he says is wrong.
    Of course we don’t know whether when he made that statement, it was the 6th out of six. If it was any lower, then it will of course be a wrong one, and it is much higher than that

    Judith, you are lying again. Rowan said my last five predictions were wrong. When I had a think about it I realised he was either lying or he couldn’t count. I only made two incorrect predictions,which I reckon, all things considered,isn’t too bad.
    So my next prediction [re Bain, I have made other predictions not pertaining to Bain which have proved to be correct] my next prediction re Bain is that he will not receive any compensation.

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

    Sorry Muggins, but this is your exact post. How can I be lying when it comes ‘straight from the asses mouth’

    muggins (2,110) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 9:12 am
    I have never been wrong six times in a row. That means David Bain won’t get lucky again.

    If you have never been wrong six times in a row, then you must have been wrong five times in a row at some stage by basic inference.

    If you are going to accuse someone of lying, you should at least make sure there is not a post that ruins your accusations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (299) Says:

    February 15th, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    Gee, Muggins how does it feel to be more reviled than those that commit murder, I would have thought there were few ‘things’ lower than a murderer, except a multiple murderer and paedophiles, imo, at worst and I do not agree, the Banes accuse you of lying.

    When on God’s earth does that come remotely close to being worse than a murderer.

    You were not instrumental in the prosecution or anything to do with the Bain trial/s? as far as I am aware, not that even that should single you out, fyou are merely expressing your opinion based on your investigations and your beliefs and instinct.

    What sort of society do we live in, where one can be harangued by someone else for holding a contrary view to theirs.

    You know what else. It is also not a crime in this country, yet, to be honestly mistaken in that belief, if one finds oneself to have been mistaken, based on available information.

    As we are told ad nauseum, all information sf not made available to the plebs, only ‘Judith’and her flunkies knows it all.

    And Joe of course, even various councelbut not David apparently.

    There is plenty of evidence in this case to allow anybody to form their counter views.

    goldnkiwi
    The prodavids hate me with a vengeance. They don’t like it up them . They specially don’t like me contacting people.
    And I rarely make a mistake. But if I do make one [re Laney being a defence witness,a mistake I made three years ago,] they never let me hear the end of it. It is all an attempt to discredit me, and it didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
    But it seems that this thread has had it’s day. We will just have to wait for something else to come up.
    I guess that judical inquiry will be the next “Bain” news item,unless he gets married in the meantime.
    I don’t understand why there needs to be a judical inquiry. I have seen all the emails between Collins and Binnie. It is obvious Binnie was made aware that his report was going to be peer reviewed back in September,so what is all the fuss about?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,468) Says:

    February 16th, 2013 at 8:55 am
    Sorry Muggins, but this is your exact post. How can I be lying when it comes ‘straight from the asses mouth’

    muggins (2,110) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 9:12 am
    I have never been wrong six times in a row. That means David Bain won’t get lucky again.

    If you have never been wrong six times in a row, then you must have been wrong five times in a row at some stage by basic inference.

    Judith , just because I said I have never been wrong six times in a row does not mean I am inferring I have been wrong five times in a row. It just means what it says. And you are being devious again. I was replying to a post by Rowan re predictions, not re actual facts.
    So not only are you a liar, but you are a devious individual as well. But we all knew that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The biggest bull crapper on the internet who has accused Weir and Doyle of perjury calls other posters liars, twisted old fanny.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Getting back to a key issue, Judith Collins advised Bryce Johns of the Herald why she approached Justice Fisher to peer review Binnie’s report.

    She said that, firstly, David Bain was not criticised by Binnie, so David did not “have the same need for right of reply” as did police, who Binnie accused of “serious misconduct”. Police needed to be given a chance to respond to such an accusation. Therefore they needed to see Binnie’s report. Hardly a surprise there. Second, if she had given Bain a copy of the report, he might have thought all his Xmases had come at once. There was no need to get his hopes up, especially when she knew that Binnie’s report was unlikely to be kosha. Thirdly, Collins says that David’s claim doesn’t meet the guidelines and is soley at Cabinet’s discretion. “It is my responsibility to provide the best and most robust advice on Mr Bain’s application to Cabinet, and it is completely appropriate for me to request any advice and take any actions I consider necessary”. On that point I think she is correct. It would be interesting to know if David or Joe informed Collins that they were planning a judicial review. I suspect not. They of course were not required to tell her of their plans, just as she was not required to tell them of hers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Would the poster with the bulls**t degree please enlighten us as to what a twisted fanny is?
    And he/she might also like to explain where and when Weir and Doyle perjured themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Where is the link for that article ross. Seems obtuse reasoning by Collins. On the face of it ‘right of reply’ is not a given and if police were entitled to a right of reply then why wasn’t David allowed the same on the ‘wearing the glasses’ issue ‘that weekend’ question? She didn’t deal with it in a even handed way, and giving reasons now instead of writing to all parties and noting the concerns or setting out her intentions and asking for responses shows the cart firmly in front of the horse. Nothing in the Binnie report over reaches the PC decision that an MOJ had taken place, they details of which, and the particular police involved have been known for years. As is the result of Weir suing Karam. So that point doesn’t hold water. Even the question about whether or not the goat story should have been made public undermines her reasoning, the public didn’t need to know that, it was harmful to Buckley and simply something for the hate-siters to indulge in their fantasies.

    Her patronising second point also doesn’t hold water, the Minister has virtually threatened David through the media, saying he might not like things in the report, that being the case she defeats her own first point. Her third point is simply padding for the two earlier points not holding water. The police themselves have said that parts of the inquiry were a shambles, a far cry from the mantra ‘copy book’ of years earlier. All in all, Collins clandestine efforts, the facilitation of her department to give legs to ‘new’ evidence 19 years old in the media speak more loudly that her own self congratulations about fairness. Yet we still don’t know what legal opinion she based her criticism of Binnie’s report on, and the who gave that opinion, we may yet find it was the Minister herself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Ex gratia payment, at discretion of Government.
    Report commissioned by the Government for the Government’s information.

    I hope that the public will finally see how self-serving, this ‘fight’ for justice is.
    It is rorting the system.
    IMO the asking for a Judicial review is that once the Government has said not to compensation there are no further appeals/petitions(such as they are and have been in the past) available. Hence it could be considered as pre emptive, manipulative even, to try and influence the outcome that they think has been signalled by Judith Collin’s not blindly taking Ian Binnie’s advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    I see a certain poster is saying the “goat” story as told by David Bain is harmful to Mark Buckley. I would suggest that the only person that story harms is David Bain. By telling Binnie that story any credibility David Bain may have had goes right out the window.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt
    “You really should look up what something being “consistent with” something else actually means.”
    You have a point but in the absence of an alternative plausible explanation as to what ‘actually’ happened or any alternative explanation at all for the evidence I’m inclined to believe it. No answers from the crown or the trolls for any of the forensic evidence implicating Daddy surprise surprise, better to stay well away from the lounge and resort to the ‘trust me, I know, I can’t explain it and have very little evidence to support it, but I know!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Goat fondling is apparently acceptable behaviour for hill billies and old aunt fanny’s, the only ones up in arms about it were the hate-siters….for a little while before spamming the boards about it for weeks, making jokes about it etc, what a way to support robin bain.

    I see the confidence of the sisters about the JR is ebbing away, reminding me of the ridge of blood wash on robin’s thumb that I was looking at this morning in a photo. I must check again because I think that was of his right, no sorry left hand, taken with the mortuary camera and some how ‘lost’ for years. Thank goodness that further proof of Robin’s guilt turned up and wasn’t destroyed. I’ll have to check again if the photo showing the probable nose bleed was among those previously ‘lost.’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Aunt Fanny has to twist what she said in order to pretend that she wasn’t wrong 5 times
    Heres the list
    1 & 2 Wrong about the PC (it would never get heard or quashed)
    3 Wrong about the retrial (No jury would find not guilty)
    4 Wrong about David not applying for compensation (they won’t go there)
    5 Wrong about Justice Binnie (No judge can find anything else but guilty)

    LMFAO

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

    Rowan (661) Says:
    February 16th, 2013 at 3:28 pm
    ——————————

    Auntie Fanny is seldom right.

    Now she’s reached a conclusion on the goat story, however, she doesn’t know what the goat story is, but she’s not one to let that get in the way – no siree! She’s just bounced right in there and decided who is at fault anyway.

    There is one thing you can say about Auntie Fanny, she’s certainly “a few facts short”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Give the old biddy a break, for about 5 seconds, then stand on her neck again to stem the flow of bullcrap. Please be advised to dress in a diving suit with a mask, flippers and gloves on to avoid bullcrap contamination. Destroy your protective clothing immediately after use in a furnace and thank your lucky stars if you avoided further contamination from her well-known flatulence problem.

    But you can add to the list;
    The claim there was no DNA in the barrel.
    That Mrs Laney was a defence witness.
    That David wasn’t strip searched.
    That David didn’t have intimate samples taken.
    That there was a ‘dance of the blankets’ in the Dunedin police station that morning.
    That a junior officer reported the blanket dance to a senior officer.
    The senior officer never gave evidence about the blanket but did about the strip search.
    The senior officer was ‘covering up’ for David in some kind of criminal conspiracy to defeat the course of justice.

    That makes 13 at least, all effectively predictions because the old sow didn’t know and bullcrapped about them, and the water’s 3 foot 9 and rising.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chuck Bird (6,272 comments) says:

    The Mask of Sanity makes some interesting reading. If there were weird sexual behaviour going on it was much more likely to have been David than Mark Buckley.

    It is stated for a friend that Steven used to hop into bed with his mother for a cuddle at 14. it sounds there was a lot of weird behaviour in the family. There was certainly more motive for David to do the killings than Robin. There was gossip about the family but it was just gossip. If David killed the family the secrets would die with the family and as an added bonus he would get a large inheritance.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Cuddles are weird?

    If Robin killed the family secrets would die, but as it is they persisted into the national psyche.

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

    There was certainly more motive for David to do the killings than Robin. There was gossip about the family but it was just gossip. If David killed the family the secrets would die with the family and as an added bonus he would get a large inheritance.

    A good example of how old Chuckie’s mind works. He would kill his family to stop gossip being spread, and thinks a couple of propertys are worth killing his family for.

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

    Chuck @ 4.33
    MOS was psychological bull from an author who had no experience as a shrink and was way out of his depth on this case, he makes huge factual errors and relies on evidence of pyschologists who had NEVER MET David to support his ridiculous insanity diagnosis. How about David meeting Peter Ellis in jail, despite Peter Ellis serving his entire sentance in Rolleston prison!

    ‘There was certainly more motive for David to do the killings than Robin’
    Bull crap, David had no motive at all other than your wild speculation about financial gain, Robin had plenty, where to start.
    You’ve really let the Buckley ‘goat shagging’ story cloud your judgement on this one Chuck, why not actually look at the evidence, specifically in the lounge.

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

    Cuddles with your Mother at that age in bed are weird,
    Robin paying Laniet’s debts at the dairy aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    February 16th, 2013 at 3:28 pm
    Aunt Fanny has to twist what she said in order to pretend that she wasn’t wrong 5 times
    Heres the list
    1 & 2 Wrong about the PC (it would never get heard or quashed)
    3 Wrong about the retrial (No jury would find not guilty)
    4 Wrong about David not applying for compensation (they won’t go there)
    5 Wrong about Justice Binnie (No judge can find anything else but guilty)

    Rowan, I see arithmetic isn’t your strong suit.
    [1] I did not believe the Privy Council would say there should be a retrial.
    [2] I did not believe a jury would find Bain not guilty.

    I said right from the day the jury came to that verdict that Bain would be asking for compensation, hence those “No Compensation for David Bain” adverts that were placed in late 2009 and early 2010 . After about five were placed the newspapers were threatened with court action so that was the end of that. The way I saw it was that Bain had to make a claim,otherwise people would say he knew he got lucky with that retrial verdict. And they still say that, but he really had no option but to make a claim. That was my prediction. There were other people that believed he wouldn’t claim, but I wasn’t one of them.
    Re Binnie. As his report has been deemed to be incorrect then I think it is fair to say that so far I am right about that.
    What is more ,when I heard that Binnie had found Bain innocent I predicted that Collins would have his report peer reveiwed.
    So that is two correct predictions and two incorrect predictions plus one still to be resolved.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    There was no DNA found in the silencer barrel.
    David Bain was not strip – searched.
    David Bain was always in possession of a blanket when Dr Pryde was carrying out his examination. He was never completely naked, even though he told Binnie he was.
    I was always of the opinion that Bain may have had intimate samples taken. I do not believe he had every orifice examined as he told people at that conference in Perth.
    No senior officer could confirm whether or not Dr Pryde strip-searched Bain because no senior officer was in the room when Pryde carried out his examination. You cannot confirm what you do not know.
    As for some senior officer covering up for David Bain, that sounds to me like the the rantings and ravings of an inmate of a mental asylum. The only person covering up David Bain was David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,024) Says:

    February 16th, 2013 at 4:33 pm
    The Mask of Sanity makes some interesting reading. If there were weird sexual behaviour going on it was much more likely to have been David than Mark Buckley.

    It is stated for a friend that Steven used to hop into bed with his mother for a cuddle at 14. it sounds there was a lot of weird behaviour in the family. There was certainly more motive for David to do the killings than Robin. There was gossip about the family but it was just gossip. If David killed the family the secrets would die with the family and as an added bonus he would get a large inheritance

    Well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Bullcrap on top of bullcrap from the world’s biggest bullcrapper.

    Now we have Bain ‘had to’ make a claim. Aunt fanny doesn’t realise all the bullcrap and inventions of the hate-siters are at her feet because one twisted sister represents them all, just as what one sister says represents all their views and predictions. We once had one who had ‘seen’ photos of scratches on David’s chest from when they had ‘worked’ in a Dunedin Law office, and another who had a copy of Laniet’s PM report which showed Laniet had never been pregnant. More recently we have had aunt fannys record of 14 pieces of bullcrap in a row have just risen by a few more. What do ya know?

    For a quotient of their collective comprehension they celebrated almost for a day a recent Rodney Hide piece which sarcastically exposed NZ’s record on the Bain case and others, poor chappettes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Aunt fanny’s dementia is setting in: silencer and barrel, deep inside the barrel the length of that silencer and further.

    A. It wasn’t provided to me, so it’s something which I haven’t seen.
    Q. If the case note records that, “Blood was found on the silencer, extensive smearing and traces of blood were also found inside the barrel, positive,” that’s what it’s saying here. Does that accord with the answer you gave Mr Mander in relation to the vacuum effect and hard contact wound?
    A.. Oh it does, it indicates that, I mean, there are a number of people who have been shot. It indicates that at least one of those suffered a relatively hard contact wound.
    QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT (ie Panckhurst):
    Q. One of those Mr Ross, I take it that if there’s blood in the barrel it would have to be from the last firing of the rifle that it was vacuumed in?
    A. It is far more likely sir because of the movement of the gases, the bullet is designed that it fits very, very snugly into the barrel so any biological material would largely be removed, so it really comes down to the final shot.

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

    Muggins Says:
    David Bain was always in possession of a blanket when Dr Pryde was carrying out his examination. He was never completely naked, even though he told Binnie he was.
    I was always of the opinion that Bain may have had intimate samples taken. I do not believe he had every orifice examined as he told people at that conference in Perth.
    No senior officer could confirm whether or not Dr Pryde strip-searched Bain because no senior officer was in the room when Pryde carried out his examination. You cannot confirm what you do not know.
    As for some senior officer covering up for David Bain, that sounds to me like the the rantings and ravings of an inmate of a mental asylum. The only person covering up David Bain was David Bain.

    You are a lying piece of crap Muggins. You change your story with every post you make. Now that you are aware your comments on here have been checked up on, you change your story yet again.

    Now you state you made predictions regarding a peer review. You didn’t even know what a peer review really was. There is only one way you would have any idea about a peer review before it was announced. Thanks to your ‘look at me’ desire it’s game set and match! David will get compensation and Ms Collins will be collecting the dole.

    Can’t help yourself can you – have to be the big ‘I am’ ! You’re an idiot.

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

    Why should David get anything by default? That is how David has got to this position now, by default. By putting his Father in the frame.

    David shouldn’t get anything just because a t might not have been crossed or an i dotted. There is no compelling evidence that Robin did anything out of the ordinary that fateful day.

    You say this and that
    David says nothing
    David has not proven his innocence, to any degree in my opinion.

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

    Rowan (662) Says:
    February 16th, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Chuck @ 4.33
    MOS was psychological bull from an author who had no experience as a shrink and was way out of his depth on this case, he makes huge factual errors and relies on evidence of pyschologists who had NEVER MET David to support his ridiculous insanity diagnosis. How about David meeting Peter Ellis in jail, despite Peter Ellis serving his entire sentance in Rolleston prison!

    I would suggest you read A City Possessed Peter Ellis was mainstream at Christchurch Mens Prison for about 5 years before he was forced to Rolleston to serve out his time after refusing to appear before the parole board He was held in the low security unit until he was ejected from prison as he had completed his 2/3 sentence FRD. Peter had the courage of his knowledge of his innocence to refuse segregation and was never attacked by inmates the usual life for child abusers in mainstream infact the inmates were very angry at his move. Peter refused to do the sex offenders course at Rolleston
    I suggest a little research before you make a complete prat of yourself . . . You’re well on the way though.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (34) Says:
    February 16th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    ———————————
    You also need to check your facts. You are wrong in some of the information you give regarding Ellis. If you are going to pull someone else up on mistakes, at least make sure you haven’t made any yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Have to hand it to McNeish, he knew when he was beat and refused to defend his fictional work once it was exposed at the trial.

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

    Unlike other writers of fiction?

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

    muggins (2,117) Says:
    February 16th, 2013 at 5:40 pm
    I said right from the day the jury came to that verdict that Bain would be asking for compensation, hence those “No Compensation for David Bain” adverts that were placed in late 2009 and early 2010 . After about five were placed the newspapers were threatened with court action so that was the end of that. The way I saw it was that Bain had to make a claim,otherwise people would say he knew he got lucky with that retrial verdict. And they still say that, but he really had no option but to make a claim. That was my prediction. There were other people that believed he wouldn’t claim, but I wasn’t one of them.

    I wonder who this poster was on another blog? 😛

    Submitted by M*** S******** on Sun, 31/10/2010 – 10:29am.
    Is Karam stalling

    It is hard to know what Karam might be up to.

    So far as the compensation claim goes,I have a feeling that it just might have been abandoned.It was always a long shot,and now that a juror has come forward and said that the jury did not think that Robin Bain was guilty,but they had some doubt about David Bain being guilty,how could David Bain possibly receive compensation?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Well that proves why aunt fanny has got bunion problems, her privates are twisted. Poor twisted fannys.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Seems to me that there is still stalling going on. 😉 That sounds like it was written today lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    It was you dimwit.

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

    Goldnkiwi

    “David shouldn’t get anything just because a t might not have been crossed or an i dotted. There is no compelling evidence that Robin did anything out of the ordinary that fateful day.

    You say this and that
    David says nothing
    David has not proven his innocence, to any degree in my opinion.”

    Sorry to disappoint you Goldnkiwi but your ‘opinion’ has nothing to do with it and as usual you are wrong again. David has proved his innocence to cabinet, there is nothing further they can do to do so, Judy doesn’t like the conclusions so is trying to weasel her way out of doing the decent thing. The process was fair and reasonable to both sides, was supposed to bring finality but its clear that crown law only wants vindication for themselves.
    You can pretend to yourself all you like that ‘no evidence exists against Daddy’ but who are you really trying to convince? yourself, certainly helps that the police investigation didn’t want there to be and didn’t look for any, remember it was a ‘copybook’ investigation.
    Your fall into the pattern of the usual trolls arguments, “trust me, I know, I have very little evidence to support and can’t explain the evidence against, but trust me”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You have proved absolutely nothing in any of your arguments for guilt all you have proven is that you are a lying piece of crap!
    You should make your lies a bit more convincing, its so easy to see, as Kanz has just shown with prediction (4)

    “Re Binnie. As his report has been deemed to be incorrect then I think it is fair to say that so far I am right about that”
    Wrong and wrong, Judy doesn’t like the conclusions so hired Fisher to do a nitpick of the conclusions without studying the evidence to justify the decision she had already made.
    Have yet to find anything factual or relevant on any Bain thread!

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

    Muggins
    You have proved absolutely nothing in any of your arguments for guilt all you have proven is that you are a lying piece of crap!

    He will be back to say, “I will stop posting lies when you people stop posting on the subject. It is all your fault.” “I wouldn’t need to post lies if you would just accept Bain is guilty, and the cops did a sterling job.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Re compensation claim.
    My prediction in 2009 was that there would be a compensation claim and that is why those adverts were placed. Then when that juror came foward a year later I thought maybe my prediction was wrong. But it turns out I was right all along.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    More crap, even when aunt fanny gets sprung red hot the only reaction is more lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    muggins (2,118) Says:

    February 1st, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    It’s a circumstantial case, which means the question is whether David Bain is more likely to be the murderer, or merely the victim of some unlucky coincidences. If he’s not the murderer, here is the rather astonishing extent of the shit luck he suffered that morning:

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

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

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    muggins (2,119) Says:

    February 2nd, 2013 at 8:44 am
    Judith (1,253) Says:

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

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

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

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

    There were no photos taken of
    [1] David Bain’s hands.
    [2] David Bain’s feet.
    [3] David Bain’s torso.
    [4] David Bain’s back.
    [5] David Bain’s penis and/or genitals.

    Also, Bain told the audience in Perth that every orifice had been examined so that means Dr Pryde must have examined his rectum/anus/ arse or whatever you like to call it and I bet there are no photos of that either.

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

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    muggins (2,120) Says:

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

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

    Judith ,I don’t remember you answering my question .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    muggins (2,121) Says:

    Judith (1,267) Says:
    ————————–

    It has also been spelt correctly twice in the trial transcripts and incorrectly the other times. [re the spelling of Arawa’s dogs’ name].

    It had not. It was always spelt Casey. Another lie.
    An even longer nose for Judith.

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

    muggins (2,120) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 9:07 am

    ———————————

    you are a total idiot. You don’t even know the evidence from the first trial, presented by Dr Pryde himself, let alone what was presented at the second trial. Every time you open your mouth you demonstrate more of your ignorance and dishonesty, not to mention your extreme desperation to be noticed and to be right (at any cost, by telling lies, breaking laws etc).

    In your desire to bring attention to yourself, you don’t care who you implicate, or what you have to do to make yourself seen and heard. Pathetic, truly pathetic. You are a sad old fart who just has to be noticed, and since no one listens when you tell the truth, you tell lies hoping people will look at you. They notice alright, and it reflects poorly on your group as a whole, and removes any sense of legitimacy from their campaign.

    Best part is you’ve done it all yourself. No one else could have discredited them more than you have.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    When you get caught bsing for about the 1000th time, spam the boards. Yawn.

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

    Muggins
    I have answered your questions about the goat story, over and over again.

    You have been told several times, that I am not going to tell you what happened.
    But you continue to repost comments over and over. Stop asking, because you are not going to be told the answer. We have all decided you don’t need to know.

    Do you really think the way you carry on in such an obsessive manner makes you look professional and believable?

    It actually just confirms what Rowan and Nostalgia and Kanz say about you.

    You are showing yourself to be a desperate, unbalanced, obsessive and dishonest man, who is grabbing desperately at anything to draw attention to himself.

    Not very admirable at all Muggins.

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

    Or maybe the correct spelling of Davids dogs name is Casey, not that its of any relevance to the case just another example of Muggins lying.

    Its easy to see where CS gets its ‘little known facts’ from, ie the ‘symbolism’ of Davids tattoos, the voodoo explanations for the target boards and the pyschological bullcrap. Sound like MOS anyone!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith
    The Jan 19 “wifey know best” entry on http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/
    seems to sum up Muggins pretty well, I’ve noticed there are quite a few entries that support this, he is an attention seeking prat, why let the truth get in the way of a good story!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith,
    The only people who seem to be interested in anything I post now are the gang of four,all of whom have proved to be dishonest liars. I am certainly not posting to seek their attention.
    But as it is my hobby to post the true facts about David Bain I will keep doing so ,but not so often as previously because of the lack of interest. I sort of feel I have got to the stage I am talking to myself,apart from the three stooges plus one.

    Re the goat. My question was “Are you saying that if you saw someone shagging a goat it wouldn’t look silly to you?”.
    I am no longer interested in what David Bain may or may not have told you. I wouldn’t believe a word either you or he said about anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    muggins (2,123) Says:

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

    Of course I guess it would be fair to say that David Bain wasn’t thinking straight. I mean if he had been thinking straight he wouldn’t have killed all five members of his family with a .22 rifle, would he?

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

    Muggins
    “There was no DNA found in the silencer barrel.
    David Bain was not strip – searched.
    David Bain was always in possession of a blanket when Dr Pryde was carrying out his examination. He was never completely naked, even though he told Binnie he was.”

    Any proof of any of the above? no didn’t think so just more lies

    “But as it is my hobby to post the true facts about David Bain”
    Looking forward to seeing just one ‘true fact’ so far none in any of your 2000+ posts to date!
    only ‘dishonest liar’ around here is you, you couldn’t lie straight in bed!

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

    Rowan (667) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 10:15 am

    ——————

    You can always tell when he has made a stuff up, and is trying to distance himself, he starts reposting all his garbage, hoping that due to the quantity of his posts, people won’t actually reading the ones where he has stuffed up big time, and realise what a liar he is.

    Of course he has nothing to support his statements. I cannot believe that the ‘head’ of Counterspin and all their members have been blindly accepting his words for so long, without actually checking up on him, and finding out the way he has lied and misrepresented what he has been told. Bigger fools them, I guess, too obsessed to want to know the actual truth.

    However, in the end it is just a sad reflection on the group as a whole, and demonstrates the incompetency and inaccuracy of their claims.

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

    muggins (2,124) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 10:07 am

    But as it is my hobby to post the true facts about David Bain

    But you don’t post true facts Muggins. You post about statements you say you have received from various people you have phoned, however, those people do not agree with what you have posted as being a ‘fair and accurate account’ of what they have told you. There is also the discrepancies in the manner you say you obtained the ‘said’ information, and how those involved say you gained it, and at times, ‘didn’t gain it’.

    I doubt you would know a true fact if it bit you on your pathetic butt. None of what you have ever posted about this case has been a ‘true fact’, most of it is lies, misrepresentation of what others have said, and plain fantasy. Your opinion, thoughts etc are not ‘facts’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    FE Smith put up an excellent and tragic link about an English MOJ in General Debate yesterday. Well worth reading, very very sad. In that particular case, a genuine suicide, with a genuine suicide note, that resulted in the deceased woman’s husband ending up serving life for her murder. For 16 years proof of his innocence was held by police who at the trial said that the man had forced the woman to write and sign the suicide note. Among other things about hidden evidence such as in the Bain case where times and ownership of things were hidden the results are that police ‘fill the gaps’ with a narration they know not to be true. One thing for sure is that the bainers, had there been a written suicide note rather than one typed on a computer, would have said that that Robin had been ‘forced’ to write the note, just as they did with the genuine one in England where the wife was said to have been forced to write her genuine suicide note and the biggest bser of all would have led the hate charge.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith @ 10.36
    You’d have to wonder wouldn’t you, Does Kent actually believe his bumbuddys claims that he has first hand testimony from the cops that directly contradicts the evidence they gave in court and ‘proves’ that David was never strip searched etc. I wonder in which instance were they lying! but I guess we know the answer to that!
    I put out the challenge to Muggins on one of the previous threads to show any facts on CS that weren’t gained via the media, the best I got back was the ‘correct’ spelling of the dogs name. I also pointed out that this isn’t going to go far in the ‘honest opinion’ defence that they think they are going to adopt in the upcoming defamation proceedings. They are truely pathetic!

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,996) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 11:24 am
    ————————

    That was an extremely sad situation, but something that highlights the same problems that occur here with our own police, and in so many cases.

    Predominantly we presume they get it right. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that sometimes they don’t.
    More often than not in those they are getting wrong, they are filling the gaps in their chosen scenario with ’empty spaces’ where evidence that exists has been ignored, disposed of, or worse, lied about.

    People say it’s only one or two, but it is not. Many other cases are simply not media worthy, so we don’t hear about them. Lets fact it, if Joe Karam hadn’t picked up on David’s fight, the media wouldn’t have paid it any attention. If AAT’s family and friends had refused to back down (despite great pressure to do so) he would have rotted in prison. And what about Tamihere, why is he still in prison? Because as yet, no one is championing his cause, and making a fuss on his behalf. There are rumblings but no loud voice advocating.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Of course you mean Watson Judith. I think he’s in his 3rd year of an Application to the GG. The last I read about it was there had been a proposed finding by the Lawyer investigating (Kirsty McDonald?) it and I think Power had advised that Greg King could give consideration to the report and no doubt endorse it or raise any concerns in order for it to be sorted out before it progressed further. In fact another ‘precedent’ against the actions of Collins here in shutting out the applicant.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    And what about Tamihere, why is he still in prison?

    He isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,052) Says:

    February 17th, 2013 at 5:24 pm
    And what about Tamihere, why is he still in prison?

    He isn’t.

    Methinks Judith has been on the sauce again.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Chuck Bird (6,272 comments) says:

    There is a difference AAT is innocent. Tamihere may be innocent. David Bain is not innocent.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (2,997) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 4:56 pm
    ———————–

    Yes I did mean Watson, and was also thinking of others like Tamihere and Ellis.
    Was also thinking it was time to mow the lawns! Which are now done!

    There are other cases which have no doubt suffered from police ineptitude. One that springs to mind is Kirsty Bentley. If the cops hadn’t been so intent on trying to pin it on family, then maybe they might have got the perpetrator.

    I wonder how many other ‘silent’ cases, those that most of us have forgotten about, lay unresolved due to the police trying too hard to convict the wrong person, and in doing so, let the guilty party get away?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Q. Did you have a look inside the silencer to see what was inside it?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And what did it have inside it?
    A. It had nothing inside it,it is open.
    Q. Any baffles or any kind of material?
    A. There were no baffles. 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.
    Q. Did you swab the inside of it?
    A. Yes.
    Q. The blood on the inside of 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 there you have it. No DNA was found in the silencer barrel, and the rifle barrel was never mentioned when Ross was asked who the blood in the barrel might have come from. He was talking about the silencer barrel. He got the order of shots to Laniet’s head the wrong way around, so he could well be wrong about whose blood was in the barrel as well.
    It might have been rabbits blood , the same rabbit that David Bain told Binnie about.

    Has anyone been able to confirm if Dr Pryde examined David Bain’s rectum? Maybe I should check with that police officer who was standing in the doorway when Pryde carried out his examination, see if he saw David bending over showing Dr Pryde his bare arse. Nah, don’t think I will bother, Bain would have covered it with that blanket.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,029) Says:

    February 17th, 2013 at 5:38 pm
    There is a difference AAT is innocent. Tamihere may be innocent. David Bain is not innocent.

    Chuck, Tamihere was driving the Swedish tourists car around with their camping gear in the back as if he owned it.
    Would he have done that if he knew the first thing they would have done when they found someone had stolen their car would have been to contact the police? I don’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Watson was a convenient fall guy as there was no other suspect, there is no case against him you could make the same case against any lone male yachtsman that was in the sounds at the time. Tamihere was similar, and didn’t help his cause by stealing the victims car, he would have been convenient suspect for Hughes having previously been in trouble with the law and on the run, I think he probably was a thief only. Ellis was a ridiculous witchhunt. The John Barlow case is an interesting one, I think 3 trials was probably unfair but would have thought that he was the most likely killer, was very strange behaviour from him if he is innocent.

    Chuck
    I haven’t heard any evidence from you to support your 5.38, other than the usual ‘goat’ shagging, looks like your just the “I know he’s guilty, I have very little evidence and can’t explain but trust me, I know” types
    Not very convincing

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins
    Get over your stupid obsession with Davids rectum!
    Also don’t bother with your pathetic explanations or ‘evidence’ that you continually troll from your arse

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “It might have been rabbits blood , the same rabbit that David Bain told Binnie about.”

    Classic stupidity Muggins, so now after shooting Daddy, David then goes out and then shoots a rabbit close contact! suggested probability of this? I don’t recall any dead animals discovered there, your explanations get more and more stupid as you post!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chuck Bird (6,272 comments) says:

    “Chuck
    I haven’t heard any evidence from you to support your 5.38, other than the usual ‘goat’ shagging, looks like your just the “I know he’s guilty, I have very little evidence and can’t explain but trust me, I know” types
    Not very convincing”

    It is just my opinion along with many others. When there is a new report the vast majority of the public will also agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Chuck
    Like the 19.9% ‘vast majority’ of people that currently share your opinion, how many times did you vote in that poll? LMAO
    Sorry to disappoint you but your ‘opinion’ has nothing to do with the outcome here.
    Amazing what some people think, Karam, Reed et al have brainwashed the PC, the jury and the judge to date, but somehow would regard their ‘opinion’ above this, or would that just be, they are just that arrogant!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The idiot doesn’t even understand what he posts Rowan. Because it was ‘fouled’ the idiot thinks it wasn’t dna, blood is dna. The dna may not always be identifiable. He’s certifiably insane and apparently a bum bandit going by his 5.45 filth.

    But I prefer the clarity of this from the same witness and also his answer to a question from the Judge.

    Q. If the case note records that, “Blood was found on the silencer, extensive smearing and traces of blood were also found inside the barrel, positive,” that’s what it’s saying here. Does that accord with the answer you gave Mr Mander in relation to the vacuum effect and hard contact wound?
    A.. Oh it does, it indicates that, I mean, there are a number of people who have been shot. It indicates that at least one of those suffered a relatively hard contact wound.

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

    Rowan (672) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    Muggins
    Get over your stupid obsession with Davids rectum!
    Also don’t bother with your pathetic explanations or ‘evidence’ that you continually troll from your arse
    —————————-

    I know, he’s going from disgusting to plain revolting.
    Shouldn’t his name be on some sort of list somewhere?

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

    Rowan (672) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    “It might have been rabbits blood , the same rabbit that David Bain told Binnie about.”

    Classic stupidity Muggins, so now after shooting Daddy, David then goes out and then shoots a rabbit close contact! suggested probability of this? I don’t recall any dead animals discovered there, your explanations get more and more stupid as you post!!

    —————————————

    He’s getting more and more desperate. Please don’t make him talk about animals, god knows where he’ll take that conversation – he manages to reach the depths of indecency very quickly.

    And his imagination knows no limit, soon he’ll be telling us Dr Pryde took the penile samples via the throat.

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

    I know, he’s going from disgusting to plain revolting.
    Shouldn’t his name be on some sort of list somewhere?

    I would say it is, isn’t there a register for people like him?
    What a revolting old senile man, with absolutely NOTHING to offer the world, except filth. No wonder he hero worships the old man Bain.

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

    Kanz (1,008) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 6:56 pm
    I know, he’s going from disgusting to plain revolting.
    Shouldn’t his name be on some sort of list somewhere?

    I would say it is, isn’t there a register for people like him?
    What a revolting old senile man, with absolutely NOTHING to offer the world, except filth. No wonder he hero worships the old man Bain.
    ————————————

    What amazes me is the other spinners are justifying our criticism by suggesting he is making some good points, which is why we single him out. We are trying to stop him posting because he’s doing damage – he’s doing damage alright, but only to their already tarnished reputation.

    Apparently they don’t see anything wrong with an old man who thinks it ok for a father to ‘finger’ his little girl, and be fascinated with the sort of things he’s demonstrated above.

    You have to wonder about the combined mentality of the group.

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

    Seems to me Muggins that you must be doing an effective job, because all they can do is insult you.

    I do hope the Banes nastiness does not put others off posting their opinion. I am positive that is what it is intended to do.

    Lots of things on for Judith Collins, but I do not get the impression that she lets herself be bullied.

    So nobody else should let the ‘bullies’ win either.

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

    You have to wonder about the combined mentality of the group.

    Nothing to wonder about, it is obviously in the gutter along with his. They say ‘birds of a feather’ and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/lundy_gets_a_privvy_council_appeal.html/comment-page-1#comment-1098255

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Oh look, the nose bleed, anonymous wimp has crept back. What a surprise. Thanks for the confirmation I’m not a liar, sucker.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi
    A simple yes/no for you
    Do you believe that your bumbuddy Muggins has inside information from the investigating officers?, which contradicts the evidence they gave under oath in court and proves that ‘David was not strip searched’, ‘Robins injuries were over 24 hours old’ etc etc. Do you seriously believe that they perjured themselves while under oath and would now freely give a member of the public the ‘truth’ over the phone? and liberty to tell this to the world?
    Answers from any other JFRBs are also appreciated

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

    N-NZ I have to commend on your latest on your blog post, it brings up some interesting points.

    http://nostalgia-nz.blogspot.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Having really thought hard about what level of intelligence Muggins possesses he seems to have a similar level to Eric Cartman from South Park, the episode where Cartman realises he can crap out his mouth by shoving food up his butt is hilarious, Muggins is doing his best effort to emulate Erics achievement because every post I have read from him is pure crap.
    The troll cried to DPF when I responded to him as this so now the analogy is just in my mind. He is a good source of daily entertainment though!

    A good response from N-NZ, good advice if you get more than about 3 posts to digest!
    “Give the old biddy a break, for about 5 seconds, then stand on her neck again to stem the flow of bullcrap. Please be advised to dress in a diving suit with a mask, flippers and gloves on to avoid bullcrap contamination. Destroy your protective clothing immediately after use in a furnace and thank your lucky stars if you avoided further contamination from her well-known flatulence problem.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    You do not get to prescribe what I say, nor do you get to define me, nor for that matter anybody else who does not share your view.

    You should look a bit closer to home, if you want to revile someone.

    I am not interested in your ‘little’ games.

    Robin Bain did not commit suicide.

    It is the Banes who sing from the same pathetic song sheet.

    You would not have to be so vicious if you truly believed in the ‘righteousness’ of your cause. The facts should speak for themselves, and if they could I doubt they would use you as their mouthpiece.

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

    Actually Goldnkiwi the facts do speak for themselves, loud and clear, your explanations of anything to date 0.000000%, Your posts seem very good at avoiding any ‘facts’ or explanations. Suck it up Daddy committed 4 murders followed by suicide.
    Anyone who would place their own personal opinion on the matter above the PC and the Judge is an arrogant troll.

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

    Kanz @ 10.53
    It was excellent wasn’t it, as Nos says in his 11.24 in reference to a similar case in the UK
    “One thing for sure is that the bainers, had there been a written suicide note rather than one typed on a computer, would have said that that Robin had been ‘forced’ to write the note, ”
    Would have to agree with this as well, the favourite arguments for why Daddy ‘couldn’t’ commit suicide, the grammatical sense of the typed suicide note, as if there are a set of rules on how to do it the ‘right’ way

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    Robin Bain did not commit suicide.

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

    Rowan (676) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 11:26 pm
    Kanz @ 10.53
    It was excellent wasn’t it, as Nos says in his 11.24 in reference to a similar case in the UK
    “One thing for sure is that the bainers, had there been a written suicide note rather than one typed on a computer, would have said that that Robin had been ‘forced’ to write the note, ”
    Would have to agree with this as well, the favourite arguments for why Daddy ‘couldn’t’ commit suicide, the grammatical sense of the typed suicide note, as if there are a set of rules on how to do it the ‘right’ way

    Despite the two variations of how the note was typed, what really got to me was the fact there was those variations.
    It appears to be just another stuff up or deliberate manipulation to make the evidence ‘fit’ the CIB’s chosen scenario. Once that is decided, then all witnesses are expected to fall in line. Dempster, being a professional doesn’t seem prepared to do that. This was evidenced by his letter to the crown prior to the second trial, in which he makes it very clear he was not happy with their stance.

    Once, is a mistake, twice is carelessness, but in this case, it seems to have been the rule ‘if it don’t fit, change it till it does’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Rowan (676) Says:

    February 17th, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    “It might have been rabbits blood , the same rabbit that David Bain told Binnie about.”

    Rowan, there is no need for you to repeat everything I say.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The spammer bull craper with the finger on the repeat button, doesn’t want Rowan to repeat everything she says because that’s her job.

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

    @ Rowan, is this your blog? Get your own if you want to dictate what others do.
    It’s okay ‘Mummy’ will kiss it better, after all you are only 14 n’est pas?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Imagine being kissed by gumby.

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

    goldnkiwi (306) Says:
    February 17th, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    You would not have to be so vicious if you truly believed in the ‘righteousness’ of your cause. The facts should speak for themselves, and if they could I doubt they would use you as their mouthpiece.

    ———————————–

    I usually ignore you, because you seriously never have anything worthwhile or sensible to contribute. That is still the case, however, in this case I’ll make a difference.

    It is our belief in the righteousness of our cause that makes people like you intolerable to deal with. You clearly know very little of the facts. On the odd occasion you have branched out to discuss them, you have almost without fail, been wrong. So your decision to believe David Bain is guilty, is clearly not made on any rational decision, but is purely emotionally based. You have proven your inability to understand the evidence, or even know it and yet despite that, have decided that someone, who the privy council, a trial and a Supreme Court Judge, all think the opposite, are wrong.

    You throw your accusations around as if it is the people that believe in David, who are the deviant ones, and yet we have those decisions behind us. In fact, our line is the official line, David Bain is an innocent person. That is his status by law. You and your sad group of witch sniffers, are the ‘conspiracy theorists’.

    I feel very strongly about people who are imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, who have the normal opportunities we all have removed from them, because the one organisation charged with ensuring the offender was found in an efficient and correct manner, instead conducted their investigation like a pack of incompetent cowboys, who had never seen a manual, let alone referred to it. Made worse by the fact that once they had arrested the wrong person so hastily and their mistakes started to be obvious when test results were returned, instead of admitting their errors, they instead changed their evidence and attempted to manipulate the situation to save their own butts. On top of this, those involved, via friends, family and acquaintances then carried out a campaign through the media and wherever possible to ensure that ‘version’ was presented to the public. A public which is mostly ignorant to the actual facts of the case, because it is fed the stupid garbage you and your brainless pack of clown friends like to perpetuate.

    So yes, do I feel vicious about you? Too right. Using the old expression, I wouldn’t cross the road to p*ss on you if you were on fire, but I might gladly take a crap on your grave afterwards, such is the contempt I feel for people who ignorantly defend a cause they have absolutely no idea of what the reality is.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Rowan (676) Says:

    February 17th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    Muggins
    Get over your stupid obsession with Davids rectum!

    Rowan, let me assure you,bum buddy, that I am not obsessed with David Bain’s rectum.
    He told that Perth audience that every orifice was examined and his rectum would have been one of those orifices.
    I was just wondering if there was any proof of that. For example, according to Judith there are thousands of photos and I just would like to know if there is a photo of Dr Pryde examining David Bain’s rectum.
    Or is there a diagram with David Bain’s rectum marked on it, showing it to be clear of any foreign object?

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

    muggins (2,128) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 8:30 am

    Rowan, there is no need for you to repeat everything I say.

    Why not, you repeat it over and over every time you are proved wrong, and go on a spamming campaign?

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

    muggins (2,129) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 8:42 am
    Rowan, let me assure you,bum buddy, that I am not obsessed with David Bain’s rectum.
    He told that Perth audience that every orifice was examined and his rectum would have been one of those orifices.

    You are a sicko aren’t you?

    You take great delight in talking about private body parts whenever you get the opportunity, don’t you. Do you sit there getting all excited seeing the words on the screen or something even more revolting?

    David had a wide variety of tests done by Dr Pryde, including the taking of swabs, collection of blood, fingernail scrapings and other such things to see if there was evidence of some sort to prove or eliminate participation in the murders, and or, possible sexual activity either by him or on him.

    Now, use your filthy mind, and think about that. And perhaps keep the box of tissues handy, because no doubt those thoughts will excite you further, you sad sad man.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    I feel I should make a correction to my previous post. David Bain actually said every part of his body was probed,not examined. So I guess what I would like to know is whether there are any photos of his rectum being probed,or failing that a diagram showing it being probed.
    I don’t believe his rectum was probed, but if Judith says there is a photo showing it being probed then I will believe her because ,as we all know, Judith never lies [ well hardly ever, or maybe quite often] .

    And Rowan might be able to assist ,because he is always talking about bum buddies,or should that be bum buddy’s, so he appears to be somewhat of an expert in that area.

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

    Rowan (676) Says:

    February 17th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    Muggins
    Get over your stupid obsession with Davids rectum!

    It isn’t his fault that he hasn’t been able to get it up for years, it’s his age that does it. His memory doesn’t even allow him to remember what it was like when he could. All he has left is his imagination and porn sites, so imagining photos of Bain’s rectum has to suffice him.

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

    muggins (2,130) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 8:59 am

    You disgusting sick filthy man.

    Now you use the deaths of the Bain family to conduct some online pornographic dialogue, either for your own satisfaction, or in some weird point scoring exercise. Either way it is disgusting. You couldn’t care less about Justice for Robin Bain, you are just using the whole thing for your own private needs – the desire to be noticed, and some sort of sexual gratification.

    Just when I didn’t think you could go any lower, you surprise me yet again.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,489) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 8:55 am

    David had a wide variety of tests done by Dr Pryde, including the taking of swabs, collection of blood, fingernail scrapings and other such things to see if there was evidence of some sort to prove or eliminate participation in the murders, and or, possible sexual activity either by him or on him.

    Judith, I am aware some tests were carried out, but I do not believe a rectum probe was one of them. Are you able to confirm that such a test was carried out? I mean surely Dr Pryde would not have thought what you are suggesting about that sexual activity?
    And good to see you are no longer saying David Bain was strip-searched,if,in fact, you have ever said that he was.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    More filth from the leader of the sisters with the bum fascination.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,490) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 9:08 am
    muggins (2,130) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 8:59 am

    You disgusting sick filthy man.

    Judith, I did not call anyone a disgusting sick filthy man. I did call Rowan a bum buddy. It is a term of endearment he uses frequently so I didn’t think he would take exception to that, but please don’t accuse me of doing something I did not do.

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

    Muggins

    This is the last time I will comment to you regarding anything ‘sexual’ to do with the Bain case.
    I firmly believe you have some form of deviant obsession with that aspect of the case which provides you with some sort of personal gratification – hence the constant raising of it.

    1. David Bain was strip searched.
    2. When a person undergoes an examination where there is a possibility of a sexual activity, and especially in a situation where the victim is suffering from memory loss and exhibiting signs of extreme stress, then they are examined for any signs of sexual activity, either by themselves, or by others against them. David Bain being male, would have undergone the procedures relevant to his sex to ensure that. It would have been pointless, for example take penile swabs, without testing for other signs of sexual activity.

    3. Dr Pryde took the standard range of samples associated to investigate the possibility that David Bain was either the perpetrator or a victim. That required him to examine him fully for any signs that could point to either of those possible conclusions. Why take fingernail scrapings, and not check the rest of the body for evidence?

    Now, can you please buy yourself a homosexual magazine or something and conduct your ‘need for gratification’ elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,491) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 9:27 am
    Muggins

    This is the last time I will comment to you regarding anything ‘sexual’ to do with the Bain case.

    1. David Bain was strip searched.
    2. When a person undergoes an examination where there is a possibility of a sexual activity, and especially in a situation where the victim is suffering from memory loss and exhibiting signs of extreme stress, then they are examined for any signs of sexual activity, either by themselves, or by others against them. David Bain being male, would have undergone the procedures relevant to his sex to ensure that. It would have been pointless, for example take penile swabs, without testing for other signs of sexual activity.

    3. Dr Pryde took the standard range of samples associated to investigate the possibility that David Bain was either the perpetrator or a victim. That required him to examine him fully for any signs that could point to either of those possible conclusions. Why take fingernail scrapings, and not check the rest of the body for evidence?

    Judith, there is no proof that Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain. He certainly never said he did.
    So far as that rectum probe goes, it seems you are saying that David Bain did have one. I don’t think he did, but he says he did and you say he did, so I guess I am in the minority. But then you said that Mark Buckley might have had oral sex with that goat and I think you are way off track there. I doubt that there is anyone else on the planet thinks that is what could have taken place.
    I bid you adieu for the time being.
    Copulater.

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

    @ Judith.

    Get over yourself.
    It would seem to me any perversions perpetrated on this blog are by you and your cohorts, others seems to be in response to your initial ‘attacks’or the twisting of someone elses comment.

    You have invited yourself on to this blog and seem to think that gives you some proprietary right, you, no moreso than anyone else.

    Perhaps you should go and set up your own blog and direct traffic there as you are only interested in your own diatribe.

    If in fact your sycophants are not all the split personalities of ‘one,’ that will make two of you and you can be as ascerbic as you like.;)

    In the meantime try to show some restraint, you are vile but you could at least try to keep up a bit of a veneer. 😉

    I do not need to justify myself to you, nor does anybody else.

    I do not need to debate the evidence, it is subject to interpretation and certainly not by your dictates.

    I do not believe that Robin Bain committed suicide, until I see compelling contrary evidence to that, that is my belief.

    According to you, team Bane has won, so you can rest on your laurels now.

    You do not have to try and convince people of your cause, according to you the majority of people already agree with you, or else lol.

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

    goldnkiwi (308) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 10:39 am
    ——————————–

    eww aren’t you the hyped up hypocrite – ever tried practising what you preach?

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

    Judith (1,492) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 10:43 am

    It seems all that is left of the old man’s cheer squad are one filthy old man and one lush. Hardly robust support, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    @ Judith 🙂

    Ever tried being a normal person?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    LLB LOL has never made a pertinent comment, all it wants to do is influence her take on the personalities of other posters on the debate as though that somehow influences the evidence that can’t be answered against Robin Bain. To her credit she candidly admits, though perhaps only by sheer stupidity, knowing nothing about the facts of the case but everything about persecution. Meanwhile Aunt Fanny concentrates on what she sees in the mirror which ain’t pretty, and must look awfully like that which obssesses her.

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

    goldnkiwi (309) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 11:03 am
    @ Judith

    Ever tried being a normal person?
    ————————————

    I don’t have to try, it comes naturally to me. But if you’d like some suggestions to assist you in achieving it, just ask, I’m sure there are plenty here that would like to tell you where to go.

    Anyway, rather than concentrating on your need for self improvement, why don’t you discuss some of the evidence. Just one piece that you know something about, perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    It is our belief in the righteousness of our cause that makes people like you intolerable to deal with.

    Well, that much was obvious. Apparently it also makes you impervious to reasoned argument, but that applies to most strongly-held beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (309) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 11:03 am
    @ Judith

    Ever tried being a normal person?

    Judith try to be normal? You can put that question in the “too hard for Judith to answer” basket.
    I mean how can a person who thinks Mark Buckley might have had oral sex with a goat be normal?

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

    @ Judith
    Thanks for the offer of travel advice, but I know exactly where I am headed and how to get there. 😉

    I do not need to be scurrilous, to try and make myself out to be important and relevant.

    I can feel pity for those that do though.

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

    The Spam voting against comment favourable to Robin Bain and in support of those who choose to resort to sarcasm and name calling does nothing to convince undecided people to believe in the cause they espouse so vehemently rather the opposite may be true and they may be destroying the very credibility the argument the cause has.

    Sometimes it is better to close the screen and be thought a bigoted fool than put fingers to the keys and remove all doubt

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    You don’t have a reasoned argument milt, you have a series of theories most often based on incorrect or ‘hopefully right’ facts. Nothing that can string together in any continuity and present Robin as anything other than guilty. In 5 years I haven’t seen a single reasoned argument against Robin’s guilt or David’s innocence, neither from the Crown nor from the vigilantes, as a typical example look no further than the ‘goat’ and ‘strip search’ expert. Or Dennis unable to overcome the ‘no spill’ fact from Robin’s wound in his fantastic lounge scene scenario. Ross’s ‘misunderstanding of the COA Judgement or the most recent humdinger that ‘DNA is not DNA’ as quoted direct from evidence and not understood. All said and done if the Crown couldn’t demonstrate it nobody can because it doesn’t exist except for it’s contemporary status – murder suicide.

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

    muggins (2,134) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    goldnkiwi (309) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 11:03 am
    @ Judith

    Ever tried being a normal person?

    Judith try to be normal? You can put that question in the “too hard for Judith to answer” basket.
    I mean how can a person who thinks Mark Buckley might have had oral sex with a goat be normal?

    ————————-

    I never said Mark Buckley might have had oral sex with a goat – again you prove your dishonesty by misrepresenting what people said.

    I stated an act of a sexual nature could include a variety of things, and gave gave some examples (only some) of the sort of things it that could be considered ‘acts of a sexual nature. I did not define them to acts of a sexual nature specifically with goats.

    Your dirty mind however made that association, and you continue to repost the same association, like some demented fool, who is no doubt ‘getting his rocks off’ at the same time.

    However, thanks for the timely reminder for me, and everyone else at how you like to misrepresent what people say – there are a couple of police officers particularly annoyed that you publish such misrepresented comments.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (35) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
    ————————–

    What on earth are you rambling about now? In case you didn’t know, the ability to spam vote was stopped more than a week ago. Take another one of whatever it is you’re on these days, clearly one pill isn’t enough!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    I guess anyone that didn’t spam vote wouldn’t know that!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    i have renewed sympathy for school teachers. how many times do pro-david bainers have to be shown? robin bain did not suicide. they are like mice on a treadmill hoping to get to the end. it goes from sad to pathetic. it’s unlikely even a confession would make any impression on such embedded delusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    i mean to say. imagine teaching pro-david bainers!! impossible!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    What have you got to teach anybody, how to be a gutless stalker hiding behind a new handle?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    In 5 years I haven’t seen a single reasoned argument against Robin’s guilt or David’s innocence…

    Well, no, of course you haven’t. But that’s not because no reasoned arguments have been presented, it’s because your strong belief renders you impervious to reasoned argument.

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

    “how many times do pro-david bainers have to be shown? robin bain did not suicide”

    Yes you have a very convincing argument for that don’t you, maybe you could post just one piece of evidence to show that Daddy ‘couldn’t’ and ‘didn’t’ commit suicide. So far the best arguments from your twisted sisters is he didn’t put the magazine in the ‘right’ place and he didn’t use correct grammer for the typed suicide note, not the ‘right’ way to commit suicide obviously!
    Maybe you could give the explanation that Kieran Raftery couldn’t of how Daddy was ‘murdered’, nope didn’t think so, just another arrogant deluded troll, Maybe look in the mirror if you want to see someone sad and pathetic!

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

    goldnkiwi (311) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    I guess anyone that didn’t spam vote wouldn’t know that!!!
    —————————————–

    If you had paid the slightest bit of attention to what people post instead of inanely ‘flapping your jaws’, you would know that I reported a fault in the voting system that allowed multiple voting to David the day it was introduced. Since that time I kept him up to date with any other faults I found in the system.

    The first fault occurred simply by double clicking my mouse. An old habit from years back when it double clicking was necessary.

    But never mind, I guess you just like to have something to say – it’s not like you’ve got anything constructive to discuss regarding the case, considering you know F all about the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Which is another way to congratulate yourself on failure Milt. You have no reasoned argument, saying somebody is resistant to something which doesn’t exist is a simple cop out. Taken to its natural extreme it becomes as it is now: we won’t tell you our narrative consistent with the facts either because a/ we’ve told you before ‘bort simpson,’ b/ we can’t be bothered telling you because you’d reject it, c/ the simple trust me ‘I’m right, I know.’ The later most often attended with knowing guarantees from ‘contacts’ who gave evidence opposite to what the messenger describes.

    But anyway milt as I recall it you never progressed in the lounge scene before beginning to drop big allegations of what David or Robin did, but of which there was no proof or alternative explanations. But anyway stick with the distant ‘theories,’ the ‘reasons’ why you have or will not reveal a consistent narrative – it’s safer as the Crown discovered, but also fails.

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

    Amazing how Karam, Reed, Bain et al have managed to brainwash the Privvy Council, The jury at the second trial and an international retired judge! the amount of idiots that would place there opinion above these as ‘facts’ is amazing!, and they somehow think the court of public opinion will decide the case! It really makes me laugh that they have to resort to voting multiple times on the ‘Justice for Daddy’ petition in order to achieve votes from less than 1% of the population of NZ.
    Am sure the petition will make good toilet paper when its finally presented.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,497) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 9:27 am
    Muggins

    This is the last time I will comment to you regarding anything ‘sexual’ to do with the Bain case.

    Judith,9.27am.

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

    There is no doubt about it you are just a ‘wonderful’ human being;)
    Taking all of these things upon yourself, pointing out faults etc.
    Were you asked for your opinion?
    Were you asked for yourself, I doubt it
    Iit is called self aggrandisement. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,497) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    muggins (2,134) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    goldnkiwi (309) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 11:03 am
    @ Judith

    Ever tried being a normal person?

    Judith try to be normal? You can put that question in the “too hard for Judith to answer” basket.
    I mean how can a person who thinks Mark Buckley might have had oral sex with a goat be normal?

    ————————-

    I never said Mark Buckley might have had oral sex with a goat – again you prove your dishonesty by misrepresenting what people said.

    I stated an act of a sexual nature could include a variety of things, and gave gave some examples (only some) of the sort of things it that could be considered ‘acts of a sexual nature. I did not define them to acts of a sexual nature specifically with goats.

    Judith 11.03am same day.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Since you are discussing things sexual to do with the Bain case shortly after you said you wouldn’t be, could I just ask you this question.
    What are those other examples of a sexual nature you think Mark Buckley could have been performing with that goat?
    I mean as I recall you said oral, intercourse ,etc.,etc. So what did you mean when you said etc.,etc?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Calling Rowan, my bum buddy. Come in Rowan.

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

    muggins (2,137) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    Ask Buckley what he did with the goat, he may just give you a private demo, you would like that, wouldn’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Look the nuts are at it again, one spamming because she’s been sprung for the 37,549 th time bsing. And the other is frustrated because her stalking pendulum has blown a fuse, either that or she ran the battery flat using her big pink thingy she calls donkey bro- take your pick.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Re voting.
    With the votes not reaching double figures it just goes to show how many people are still interested in this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    muggins 5:56 you are right muggins. everyone is pretty much all bained out. thanks for your posts though. you, and other pro-robins, make a lot more sense than some others.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,007) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    ——————————-

    Yeah, then they log off, and back on with their other identity, and congratulate themselves for a job well-done.

    I note the toothless wonder still isn’t able to discuss one piece of evidence, and the attention seeker only has one topic that excites him – dirty filthy piece of trash that he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Make ‘sense’ to bull crapping idiots.

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

    How can they even try to claim the investigation was competent. The Detective in Charge of the Scene, had no prior experience with homicide, let alone mass fatalities? Weir was out of his depth from the beginning, no wonder mistakes were made, either unintentionally for deliberately by some involved. What was Robinson thinking?

    BINNIE J:
    Prior to June 1994 had you been assigned as officer in charge of the scene
    on another homicide – any other homicide case?
    MR WEIR: No I hadn’t.
    BINNIE J: Mhm. Was this a first assignment as officer in charge of the scene in relation
    to any crime?
    MR WEIR: No, I had obviously been involved in scene examinations, robberies for
    example and serious burglaries and that sort of thing, but certainly I’d never
    been – I’d never had the role of officer in charge of the scene in a homicide.
    Contd….
    BINNIE J:
    And did you have any discretion with whoever it was that made the
    assignment as to how you were to carry out your duties or were you left just to
    deal with it as you saw fit?
    MR WEIR:
    I was left to deal with it myself, basically. I remember the only discussion I
    had in relation to that was from Detective Chief Inspector Robinson, who had
    been to the scene, who told me that, in his words, he described it as a ‘hovel’,
    so, meaning –
    BINNIE J: House.
    MR WEIR: – the house was a mess.
    BINNIE J: Yes. But in terms of what inquiries to be made, what evidence was to be
    collected, what things ought to be looked for in the house, this was left up to you?
    MR WEIR: That’s correct.

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

    Isn’t there a cockroach such as yourself that you can go and squash?

    A bit hard to blindside yourself I guess.;)

    Go get a job at murder burger.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    You have no reasoned argument, saying somebody is resistant to something which doesn’t exist is a simple cop out.

    This and the subsequent blather would be more convincing if you didn’t have a consistent track record of responding to reasoned argument with abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Keep ducking milt. I can see it’s hard work fronting up with anything other than excuses, but it suits you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Copy book, never done the job before but just left to it, no mention of the manual:

    BINNIE J: Yes. But in terms of what inquiries to be made, what evidence was to be
    collected, what things ought to be looked for in the house, this was left up to you?
    MR WEIR: That’s correct.

    Absolutely perfect, in 19 years a copy book investigation has been exposed as a bunch of bloody amateurs in charge expecting staff without the appropriate experience to know what to do. An example of how a simple murder/suicide was turned into a 30 million dollar hole in the ground for witches, donkeys and goats to dance about and crow for blood.

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

    Muggins STFU
    I am not your bumbuddy! your pathetic conspiracy theory that David wasn’t strip searched wasn’t convincing the first time you posted it months ago, reposting the same garbage that ‘someone told you’ repetitively does not make your pathetic lies any more convincing, still 0.000000% convincing, you really are a troll!

    Note to Muggins, insanity is doing something exactly the same way and expecting a different result!

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

    Further to above:

    BINNIE J:
    All right. In terms of the investigation is the officer in charge of the scene
    particularly critical role?

    MR DOYLE:
    It’s a very important role, yeah. I consider it a most critical role.

    ———————————

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

    So in the Bain case, we have a detective, with absolutely no experience in dealing with homocide investigations, put in the most critical role.

    How can that be regarded as anything but a monumental stuff up.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Maybe that’s why he started doing his own searches after hours.

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

    He was certainly under a lot of pressure.

    That sort of pressure would have been enormous for a very experienced detective, but for one who had never been involved with a homocide, it was sheer stupidity.

    Is Robinson still alive?

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

    So in the Bain case, we have a detective, with absolutely no experience in dealing with homocide investigations, put in the most critical role.

    I know that ‘reason’ is bit of vexed subject at the moment, but reason tells me that every single detective with experience of being in charge of a murder scene was at some point in charge of a murder scene for the very first time. I’m not sure on what basis you could possibly envisage it being otherwise.

    Maybe that’s why he started doing his own searches after hours.

    Not that you would ever suggest he planted evidence. Why, someone who could infer such a thing from your comments would have to be nuts, apparently.

    Keep ducking milt.

    Whenever you’re ready. I’ve presented reasoned arguments about the glasses, the gloves and the footprints – your response thus far has been to come up with pet names as ingenious as “miltie” and declare those arguments “stupid.” Any time your’re ready to try and lift your game a little higher than that, I’ll be happy to defend those arguments. Until then, as far as I’m concerned your beliefs render you incapable of either recognising or presenting arguments.

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

    Judith
    Robinson did testify at the last trial, I believe he is still alive.

    I see none of the ‘Witch-sniffers’ can prove any of their ridiculous allegations against David (beyond 0.0000%) so they have to resort to running a default killer argument on the bases of exonerating Daddy because ‘why would Robin do this’ and ‘its not the actions of a rational person!’ together with their intimate knowledge of what Robin ‘would’ and ‘wouldn’t’ have done, ie, Robin would have left a hand written suicide note if he had committed suicide
    Shows they are extremely naive and simplistic and this case is far to complex for them!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Robinson, with perhaps the greatest culpability in the failed Bain investigation, has lived in the shadows for a long time, protected some would think. I’d like to know the truth as to whether he employed the services of prostitutes, and if Laniet was one of them. Or, for example, if he had some kind of stake in the outcome of the Bain investigation. He might want to be a mystery man, but he was in charge of the investigation; and not others who have become sacrificial lambs for his failure to do his job properly. He was the one that turned a blind eye to matters that would concern competent and credible officers involved in investigations of similar type to the Bain case. He never formalised an investigation according to the manual, nor applied appropriate management skills. On the face of it, he is responsible for the MOJ in the Bain case. If he weren’t, we would have heard from him and not simply seen puzzled looks on his face when cross examined at the retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Milt’s extending his insanity plea. It’s my fault that he does’t know what he’s talking about. I knew that milt, it couldn’t be your own fault, just like daddy never did it.

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

    A summary of Binnies conclusions, notice how the spinners pretend they don’t exist and try and marginalise things. Note especially in 462 ‘the Crown Law Office properly concedes that many of the issues advanced in the 1995 prosecution are no longer tenable’ yet the huge reliance placed on them by the many ‘experts’ here

    CHAPTER XI: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AS TO FACTUAL INNOCENCE

    458. In response to the Minister’s Mandate letter I conclude that it is more likely than not
    that David Bain is factually innocent.

    459. While the “rope” of circumstantial evidence woven by the prosecution in 1995 and
    2009, and still endorsed by the Crown Law Office, was made up of many strands, close
    examination of each of the strands – one by one – reveals on the whole evidence more
    consistent with David Bain’s innocence than guilt. The better view of the physical evidence, and
    the supporting testimony of experts called in large part by the prosecution, establishes David
    Bain’s factual innocence on a balance of probabilities, in my opinion.

    460. To recapitulate briefly: The foundation of my conclusion of factual innocence lies in the
    evidence of Robin’s footprints in areas of 65 Every Street where, if David was the killer, Robin
    would not have visited on the morning of 20 June.

    461. Secondly, this physical evidence is reinforced by the “timing evidence” related to David
    Bain’s claim that he was out of the house on his paper route when the killings occurred. The
    timing evidence is flawed by the failure of the Police to set their watches correctly, but taking
    the prosecution evidence at face value it establishes the sequence of events if not the precise
    minute when things happened, that puts Robin in the house before David’s return and
    effectively undermine the prosecution’s “ambush” theory.

    462. Third, the Crown Law Office properly concedes that many of the issues advanced in the
    1995 prosecution are no longer tenable, including the impossibility of Robin’s suicide by reason
    of the length of the rifle compared to the length of his arm, the position of Robin’s body on the
    floor of the lounge, the bouncing empty shell casing, and the placement of the 10 shot
    magazine. Others of the remaining Crown Law Office arguments (e.g. Laniet’s “gurgling”) are
    rebutted by the evidence currently available. Still other prosecution issues (especially the
    fingerprint blood on the rifle, and the blood smears on David’s clothing) while raising
    suspicions, are capable of innocent explanation and do not, in my view, undermine David Bain’s
    claim to factual innocence established on the other evidence. Still other issues such as
    Margaret’s glasses, the opera gloves and the green V‐necked jersey, simply do not connect
    David Bain to the crime scene in any reliable way.

    463. None of the foregoing points are free of difficulty. Nothing has been established beyond
    a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence,
    considered item by item both individually and collectively, and considered in light of my
    interview with David Bain on 23 July 2012, persuade me that David Bain is factually innocent of
    the murder of his parents and sisters and brother as alleged by the prosecution. I recommend
    that this conclusion of factual innocence be adopted by the Cabinet.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Pre-empting Milts first stupid reply, another paragraph from the report sums the footprint arguments really well, As Binnie concludes Milt your a bit late

    “As stated earlier, the prosecutor’s own notes made in preparation for his closing address to the
    jury included the annotation, “there are the [Luminol] footprints – stocking feet – [too] big to be
    the father’s” (emphasis added). Mr Hentschel’s opinion formed part of the evidentiary basis on
    which the conviction was obtained that put David Bain in jail for 13 years. It is too late in the day
    for the Crown Law Office to characterize Mr Hentschel’s methodology as too imprecise to be fit for
    the purpose of excluding David Bain as the killer. If the methodology was probative enough to help
    convict him, it is probative enough to help exclude him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Pre-empting Milts first stupid reply, another paragraph from the report sums the footprint arguments really well

    Leaving aside the fact that “stupid” is not a synonym for something that doesn’t reflect your personal beliefs, yes that paragraph certainly does sum up Binnie’s completely irrational approach to the footprints evidence. It says, effectively, that if it was OK for the prosecution to misrepresent the evidence to convict David Bain, it’s OK for Binnie to misrepresent the evidence to clear him. In reality, neither is OK. Binnie’s paragraph 460 is not merely wrong, it’s an egregious failure of reasoning, and the fact he’s used this elementary failure of logic as the foundation for his report would alone justify binning it without further attention. As a commenter pointed out further up the thread, if you don’t understand basic logic you don’t understand evidence.

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

    The allegation that Robin Bain was suffering from Depression and that the diagnosis is made by educational psychologists who train in pedagogy not clinical depression gives me a reason to dispute the allegation and my knowledge of the behaviour of persons who suffer from clinical Depression and the reactions to serious allegations made against them. Unless there is secondary illnesses such as psychosis or similar disorder often brought on by the use of illegal drugs taken in the belief it will help depression. Homicide has no connection to clinical depression but suicide does.

    Tell me why a person who believes the best thing he can do for his family so they can cope with the allegations of incest made is to kill himself, then kill them as well? Why would he get changed twice if he was going to kill himself. In fact if he was going to commit suicide, why would he wait until the eldest child whom he had frequent disagreements with over the use of tools, was out of the house doing his paper run? Why Would he kill the eldest daughter whom he was very proud of as she was half through her second year in training college and making good progress. and the second daughter who was a disappointment but was still his child and seemed to be getting back on track? Why would he kill his youngest child who was doing well at high school and was a big strong lad? Why would he kill his wife even though she was dabbling into the occult and new age believe he had promised to love, honour, and protect ETC? Finally why would he wait all night till morning when he had the perfect method of suicide by his caravan, yes the Commer van would the perfect way to end it? Carbon monoxide poisoning, it is quick, painless and very effective and is in fact odourless in that unconsciousness comes before fumes become noticeable.
    Why would Robin go to those lengths if the allegations had a factual basis when, if in a severe depressive episode, the most import thing would be get away from the house and head in a quiet place to end it all, he would know the quiet spots between home and Taieri Mouth? To label the events 20/06/1994 murder/suicide reveals a person lacking in the ability to think logically and look outside the square.
    Those who have depressive episodes when something does not go well for instance a bad ERO report spend a time looking inside before the Brain sorts out the chemical imbalance without treatment but may have some counseling if they are even aware of the temporary aberration which may last from a week to a couple of months or more.
    I know the BLACK HOLE very well and it is severe and requires medication so I can function. It is something a few love to use as a weapon to be even more abusive than normal but it is because they lack the balls to admit to not being perfect.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,208) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    The only thing that changed in this evidence between the two trials was that Hentscell, as opposed all other experts, believes now that feet leave smaller footprints than the size of the foot itself. I believe that he knew in the first trial they were too small to have been Bain’s, which is why he used sock sizes rather than foot measurements against which to compare them.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (36) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    I take it then, you have never heard of Mothers killing their children while suffering postpartum depression?
    I guess you have some research to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Apparently if one has actually committed murder, one is assumed to be an expert on all other murders.

    So, do the crime, do the time and all of that but seriously as a Society, should it be a case of once you have done the time all is forgiven?

    This question has a far wider implication than the Bain matter.

    Criminals are supposed to be reintegrated into Society after they have paid their ‘debt’ to Society, what a load of crap. Are all murderers capable of reintegration? Life should mean life.

    Next minute we will have murderers who have done their time pleading that their police enquiry was done wrong and the evidence destroyed after x number of years.

    I know, we can save a heap of money by never finding anyone guilty. No money for prisons, it is a big industry you know, no need for police or lawyers, no need for appeals or defences or anything.

    Anarchy is so much cheaper, Society has a need for those prepared to kill, people with no moral compass,, let them police.

    Do people with no moral compass get one as they age? Do the apologise for their crimes against their victims and wider society.
    I doubt it, full of self serving excuses, and pseudonyms. Though one shouldn’t generalise. 😉

    I confess, clearly I must be a mass murderer.

    I must have done such, in such a heinous fashion,, as opposed to having my own opinion because of the reaction that I seem to provoke in this blog.

    Now that I have confessed, I will be embraced into the comforting bosom of ‘mother’, she just did not know me for one of her ‘children’.

    If she had of, surely she would not have been so vile. 😉

    Anybody else want to confess and not be ‘anonymous? Someone with no balls for example?

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

    Milt
    I suppose it only exists in the ‘Karam manual’ to actually keep the carpet samples or similarly to take gun powder swabs from two potential suspects as a matter of urgency! The ‘ egregious failure of reasoning’ is those ‘copybook’ cops who failed to do either!

    Lindsay Kennard (36) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    Lindsay, whats with all the ‘why’ questions? Why must Robin have been acting ‘rationally’ and why does this have to be a ‘planned’ event!, who says he planned to spare David or to commit suicide!
    Get some of your facts right ‘Why would he get changed twice if he was going to kill himself’ he didn’t
    Why would David kill anyone? over a chainsaw!! best reason the crown could come up with, I know you like to speculate about financial gain, but this is just speculation like much of your post.
    To label Robins death as murder just shows that you have no understanding of the evidence and just accept the speculation and conjecture that is the crown case hook line and sinker, much like your ‘twisted sisters’ “trust me, I know, can’t explain have no evidence to support but I know” argument. About 0.0000% convincing
    Maybe you could give the explanation for Robins ‘murder’ that Kieran Raftery couldn’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    The only thing that changed in this evidence between the two trials was that Hentscell, as opposed all other experts, believes now that feet leave smaller footprints than the size of the foot itself.

    All other experts are surprisingly stupid if they fail to share that belief, seeing as there were several prints significantly smaller than either man’s foot at the scene. If you add the missing word “complete” in front of “footprints,” you restore the intelligence of the other experts but misrepresent Hentschel – either way, it’s crap.

    I believe that he knew in the first trial they were too small to have been Bain’s, which is why he used sock sizes rather than foot measurements against which to compare them.

    Well, either that participation in a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as you describe, or as an ESR scientist he had no access to the men’s feet but did have their socks lying about close to hand. One or the other.

    I suppose it only exists in the ‘Karam manual’ to actually keep the carpet samples or similarly to take gun powder swabs from two potential suspects as a matter of urgency! The ‘ egregious failure of reasoning’ is those ‘copybook’ cops who failed to do either

    I’m going to assume your return to shouting comforting slogans means you’re well aware of Binnie’s logic fail regarding these prints, and that it renders his report useless, but have no answer to it.

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

    goldnkiwi (314) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
    ——————————
    What a load of absolute pointed garbage you talk.

    I would suggest that you are such a weirdo that most people wouldn’t confide anything in you, let alone provide you with enough information to draw the conclusions you make about life and people’s ability to ‘live it’ in a law abiding and constructive manner.

    Have you redeemed yourself? No, nothing you do would endear you to me, and I’m pretty sure those like me, that are sick to death of your mindless crap, would feel the same. They may not, that’s up to them.

    What you are claiming is that people do not mature, do not learn from their experiences, are not capable of changing, and that the system never ever gets it wrong.

    You are an idiot. Just because you have probably been the same nasty person you are your entire life, does not mean that the rest of world is stuck in the same pathetic rut with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

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

    Of course I guess it would be fair to say that David Bain wasn’t thinking straight. I mean if he had been thinking straight he wouldn’t have killed all five members of his family with a .22 rifle, would he?

    The fact that David Bain was wearing those glasses should have been enough to convict him .
    What I can’t understand is that Binnie seems to accept Bain was wearing those glasses on the weekend, but he can’t work out how they came to be in his room on the Monday morning. I would have thought that was bleedin’ obvious.
    And another thing. If Binnie accepts Bain was wearing those glasses then he must also accept he lied on oath at the first trial when he said he hadn’t seen them for months.
    So Binnie knows that Bain is a liar, but he still seems to accept that he is at least telling him the gospel truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    A night for the nutters for sure. A moving testament to madness from dickleberry itself.

    You must feel depressed as well psycho, or maybe it’s just anger…

    Take a few breaths and read this slowly…from Binnie and posted above by Rowan:

    “As stated earlier, the prosecutor’s own notes made in preparation for his closing address to the
    jury included the annotation, “there are the [Luminol] footprints – stocking feet – [too] big to be
    the father’s” (emphasis added). Mr Hentschel’s opinion formed part of the evidentiary basis on
    which the conviction was obtained that put David Bain in jail for 13 years. It is too late in the day
    for the Crown Law Office to characterize Mr Hentschel’s methodology as too imprecise to be fit for
    the purpose of excluding David Bain as the killer. If the methodology was probative enough to help
    convict him, it is probative enough to help exclude him.”

    It’s called having cake and not being able to eat it as well. ‘If the methodology was probative enough to help convict him, it is probative enough to help exclude him.’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    I see someone has mentioned that “argument” over the chainsaw. But we don’t know there was any argument .David Bain said there was an argument but he is a liar. It is quite possible he made that argument up.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The biggest bull crapper on the internet is back calling people liars, soon it will be sex and filth again in the name of dear daddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Rowan (683) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 7:41 pm
    Muggins STFU
    I am not your bumbuddy!

    So whose bumbuddy are you?

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

    All other experts are surprisingly stupid if they fail to share that belief, seeing as there were several prints significantly smaller than either man’s foot at the scene. If you add the missing word “complete” in front of “footprints,” you restore the intelligence of the other experts but misrepresent Hentschel – either way, it’s crap.

    If you add the word ‘complete’ you are not misrepresenting Hentschell at all, that is how he described them, until he found for sure whose prints they must have been. The smaller ones had the toes missing, the right size for the old man.

    Well, either that participation in a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as you describe, or as an ESR scientist he had no access to the men’s feet but did have their socks lying about close to hand. One or the other.

    He had the measurements of the old man’s feet available to him, and the inside of the shoes of both men at the time, why did he not use those? One or the other what??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,015) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    The only thing that changed in this evidence between the two trials was that Hentscell, as opposed all other experts, believes now that feet leave smaller footprints than the size of the foot itself. I believe that he knew in the first trial they were too small to have been Bain’s, which is why he used sock sizes rather than foot measurements against which to compare them.

    My old mate Peter told me that those footprints were too large to be Robin Bain’s.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,015) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 8:31 am
    The biggest bull crapper on the internet is back calling people liars, soon it will be sex and filth again in the name of dear daddy.

    Didn’t take long for your prediction to come true Nostalgia

    muggins (2,142) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 8:33 am
    So whose bumbuddy are you?

    The dirty old man just can’t help himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,016) Says:

    February 19th, 2013 at 8:39 am
    All other experts are surprisingly stupid if they fail to share that belief, seeing as there were several prints significantly smaller than either man’s foot at the scene. If you add the missing word “complete” in front of “footprints,” you restore the intelligence of the other experts but misrepresent Hentschel – either way, it’s crap.

    If you add the word ‘complete’ you are not misrepresenting Hentschell at all, that is how he described them, until he found for sure whose prints they must have been. The smaller ones had the toes missing, the right size for the old man.

    Well, either that participation in a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as you describe, or as an ESR scientist he had no access to the men’s feet but did have their socks lying about close to hand. One or the other.

    He had the measurements of the old man’s feet available to him, and the inside of the shoes of both men at the time, why did he not use those? One or the other what??

    My old mate Peter told me those footprints were too large to have been Robin Bain’s.

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

    muggins (2,143) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 8:42 am

    —————————
    Another one of your ‘phone calls’ I suppose.

    That’s good, another expert witness willing to breach the Judicature Act.
    The extra-ordinary circumstances are getting better by the minute or should I say each time Muggins posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,505) Says:

    muggins (2,142) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 8:33 am
    So whose bumbuddy are you?

    Judith,
    Rowan is always referring to bum buddy’s so I was just asking him whose bum buddy he was. I had never heard the word until he started using it [or was it Kanz? ] . One of the two of them, but I know Rowan refers to bum buddy’s quite frequently. Do you happen to know what a bum buddy is ,by the way?
    And I am still waiting for your reply as to what type of sex you reckon Mark Buckley was having with that goat.
    I understand you no longer believe it was oral.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,505) Says:

    February 19th, 2013 at 8:50 am
    muggins (2,143) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 8:42 am

    —————————
    Another one of your ‘phone calls’ I suppose.

    That’s good, another expert witness willing to breach the Judicature Act.

    Judith, make up your mind. One minute you say I am making up all those phone calls and the next minute you seem to believe I am actually making them.

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

    My old mate Peter told me those footprints were too large to have been Robin Bain’s.

    Seems he is as senile as you are. He disagreed with others on almost everything he did and saw.
    The size of the ‘prints’
    When he took samples from the rifle.
    Where he took those samples from.
    He ‘forgot’ to say that his notes showed he had found blood inside the barrel.
    It was he who said in the first trial that the piece of skin found in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain.

    Want me to go on?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    muggins (2,146) Says:

    February 14th, 2013 at 9:13 am
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    Where has all that blood gone?

    Perhaps the prodavid poster with the bulls**t degree would care to explain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    @ Judith

    Others like you, heaven forbid.

    I do not need to seek redemption, and if I did it would not be from the ‘likes’ of you and your ilk.

    Is that what you have done for your psychophants (sic) offerred redemption?

    what a good egg you are, the giver of the milk of human kindness.

    Thank-you for noticing my humble offerrings and gracing them with your comments.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,017) Says:

    February 19th, 2013 at 9:09 am
    My old mate Peter told me those footprints were too large to have been Robin Bain’s.
    He disagreed with others on almost everything he did and saw.
    The size of the ‘prints’
    When he took samples from the rifle.
    Where he took those samples from.
    He ‘forgot’ to say that his notes showed he had found blood inside the barrel.
    It was he who said in the first trial that the piece of skin found in Stephen’s room belonged to Bain.

    Want me to go on?

    Kanz, how many people actually saw those sockprints ?
    Are you now saying that Jones was right in saying that one sample from the rifle was taken from under those fingerprints?
    Another ESR scientist confirmed there was blood in the barrel of the silencer, so no problem there.
    And that piece of skin did belong to Bain.

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

    I have to say, I came across this old post of Goldnkiwi’s last night and was impressed.

    It is about the only thing she has ever said that actually makes ‘some’ sense (a little sense), and has a bit of foresight. She is right though, political futures will be impacted by this, especially Ms Collins!

    13829.
    In your opinion, like I said last night, I am glad of it, I have learnt much that would have taken me much longer to have referenced and concluded by those defending either stance, where I would once have said that the matter was of no great import, I have come to the conclusion that it is hugely important and could be a defining moment in our justice system, the matter of the compensation and how the decision is arrived at could impact on political futures, it is of such galvanising import that all NZer’s should shake off their apathy and have an opinion, and get involved. by goldnkiwi
    on 02:21 pm, 27 Jul 2010

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Kanz, how many people actually saw those sockprints ?
    Are you now saying that Jones was right in saying that one sample from the rifle was taken from under those fingerprints?
    Another ESR scientist confirmed there was blood in the barrel of the silencer, so no problem there.
    And that piece of skin did belong to Bain.

    Excuses for senility?
    Yes, the skin belonged to Stephen Bain, not David Bain as Hentschel said, and was believed might I add, simply because he seemed to know how to do his job and it suited the prosecution to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The daddy ‘team’ reduced to its lowest common denominator, spamming, bs, filth, inanities, insanity and senility. What a team, what losers!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    @ Judith

    It is lovely that you care. 😉

    If you have an employer I do hope they are not unknowingly providing resources for your ‘activities’. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (316) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 9:38 am

    au contraire madam,
    My employer encourages my contribution to the debate.

    Oh and I care a great deal. I am hoping people like you will receive everything they so very much deserve for their campaigning efforts. 😉

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,016) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 9:34 am
    ————————-

    I notice the reduction to the two weakest links.
    One not quite the full piece and the other filthy and polluted. Not a very strong chain at all.

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

    I notice the reduction to the two weakest links.
    One not quite the full piece and the other filthy and polluted. Not a very strong chain at all.

    Maybe they are counting on theirs and Fisher’s misunderstanding of the bayes theorem, that each will get thicker because of the other?

    LMFAO

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

    Kanz (1,019) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 10:01 am
    I notice the reduction to the two weakest links.
    One not quite the full piece and the other filthy and polluted. Not a very strong chain at all.

    Maybe they are counting on theirs and Fisher’s misunderstanding of the bayes theorem, that each will get thicker because of the other?

    LMFAO
    ————————

    LMFAO – I think they have almost reached maximum levels of ‘thickness’ independently. But can you imagine the content of any joint conversation? spew!

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

    LMFAO – I think they have almost reached maximum levels of ‘thickness’ independently. But can you imagine the content of any joint conversation? spew!

    What, a lush and a filthy old man? Not anywhere near me or mine, thanks.
    The rest of the world can be thankful they are wasting their time on here though, imagine if they were out in public.

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

    I guess we will just have to wait for the Judicial Review then shan’t we.

    I do hope that you have conveyed your angst to David Farrar for daring to suggest at the beginning of this thread that he could not see how it would be successful.

    I hope you have never been paid by legal aid @ Judith. 😉 Directly or indirectly. That would not be a judicious use of taxes in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    If you add the word ‘complete’ you are not misrepresenting Hentschell at all, that is how he described them, until he found for sure whose prints they must have been.

    Adding the word complete: “…believes now that feet leave smaller [complete] footprints than the size of the foot itself.” Fairly obvious misrepresentation, as you well know.

    The smaller ones had the toes missing, the right size for the old man. [citation needed]

    He had the measurements of the old man’s feet available to him, and the inside of the shoes of both men at the time, why did he not use those?

    Who knows? What difference would it have made if he had?

    The only genuine difference between the evidence at the 1995 trial and the 2009 trial is that testing carried out by the defence demonstrated it was wrong of the 1995 prosecution to assume a 28-cm footprint was too big to have been made by Robin Bain. It turns out it is possible for 27-cm foot to leave a 28-cm print, if the print is complete. However, there is nothing in the evidence, whether in 1995 or 2009, to support Binnie’s illogical jump to the conclusion that the footprints therefore must have been made by Robin Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    lunchtime already. i could murder a murder burger. but, would it turn me into mr stabby?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,210) Says:

    The only genuine difference between the evidence at the 1995 trial and the 2009 trial is that testing carried out by the defence demonstrated it was wrong of the 1995 prosecution to assume a 28-cm footprint was too big to have been made by Robin Bain. It turns out it is possible for 27-cm foot to leave a 28-cm print, if the print is complete. However, there is nothing in the evidence, whether in 1995 or 2009, to support Binnie’s illogical jump to the conclusion that the footprints therefore must have been made by Robin Bain.

    Binnie should never have hung his hat on the footprint evidence. He should have taken note of what the judge told the jury,that the footprint evidence was inconclusive. We will never know just how complete that footprint was but it is most unlikely that blood covered the whole sole of the sock. Part of the heel would almost certainly be missing from that sockprint and probably part of the toes as well. Another mistake by my old mate Peter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Having just done some research I believe I now know what you mean when you refer to a bum buddy.
    A bum is known as a begger or a loafer and a buddy is a mate. So if you are a beggar or a loafer and you have a mate who is also a beggar or a loafer then that mate is your bum buddy.
    Seeing as you mention the term bum buddy from time to time I take it you are referring to one or more of your beggar or loafer mates.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    bort_simpson (10) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    lunchtime already. i could murder a murder burger. but, would it turn me into mr stabby?

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    get your usual: the upsized crap-a-lot combo and large dickleberry shake. Watch out for the seepin gas folks!

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

    Amazing that two ‘distinct’ posters should refer to dickleberries. Bum buddies indeed.;) Unless they myopically stare at their own of course as opposed to compare. lol a ‘distinct’ possibility. 😉

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

    goldnkiwi (317) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 12:23 pm
    I guess we will just have to wait for the Judicial Review then shan’t we.

    I do hope that you have conveyed your angst to David Farrar for daring to suggest at the beginning of this thread that he could not see how it would be successful.

    I hope you have never been paid by legal aid @ Judith. Directly or indirectly. That would not be a judicious use of taxes in my opinion.

    ————————

    No, you don’t have to wait, if you feel the need to depart this world, please don’t let the judicial review stop you.

    I have a lot of respect for David Farrer, we may not agree on this issue, but he is someone that has worked hard, and done something positive with his life – which he strives to keep improving. I can excuse him for being wrong on this topic, of which he frequently takes the popular media stance. Somehow I doubt he could sustain a one on one discussion on the case with someone like Sandiford for example. But then, he is clever enough not to try. I am sure David knows my opinion on this case, which if he desired, he could challenge on here anytime he wanted to. However, I suspect he has other far more important things in his life, to which he gives his attention.

    Your statement is rather a broad one concerning legal aide. Especially considering you apply it to everything across the board, without clarification. Such a statement would lead me to believe you think anyone who is investigated by the police must be guilty, and therefore does not deserve the right to fight their case and employ representation via legal aide.

    Your statement is rather a strange one to make, for someone who themselves has come to the attention of the police, don’t you think?

    I have never required legal aide personally, however I am not stupid enough to make that a definitive statement, as I fully realise life can throw a curve ball, when least expected. Anyone that makes claim to knowing they would never commit a crime, is either a fool, or knows they are about to die.

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

    goldnkiwi (318) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    Amazing that two ‘distinct’ posters should refer to dickleberries. Bum buddies indeed.;) Unless they myopically stare at their own of course as opposed to compare. lol a ‘distinct’ possibility

    —————————————

    Or they read the same blog site, in which the name is frequently used.

    Have you been paranoid your whole life, or is it something new?

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

    Have you been paranoid your whole life, or is it something new?

    Her whole life? That would be a bloody long time to be paranoid, she is no spring chicken.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (318) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    Amazing that two ‘distinct’ posters should refer to dickleberries. Bum buddies indeed.;) Unless they myopically stare at their own of course as opposed to compare. lol a ‘distinct’ possibility.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………

    dumb ass with LLB needs a buddy for assistance with seepin gas (freakin’ hilarious!)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. knockoutking (21 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,021) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 3:49 pm
    … That would be a bloody long time to be paranoid, she is no spring chicken.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    donkey’s years actually!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Legal aid, Farrar.

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

    Case in point to my 8.48 last night
    Lindsay Kennard (36) Says:
    February 18th, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    Why, Why, Why……
    Classic argument of a spinner, Why would Daddy do this? its not what a rational person would do therefore he ‘can’t’ have done it therefore David ‘must’ have done it. Looks like Lindsay in his mind has constructed a ‘How to commit suicide manual’ “Carbon monoxide poisoning, it is quick, painless and very effective and is in fact odourless” much easier and quicker to put a bullet through your head Lindsay, sorry but you forgot to tell Daddy the ‘right’ way to kill himself! he obviously wasn’t referring to your manual!

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

    goldnkiwi (319) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 4:39 pm
    Legal aid, Farrar.

    ——————————

    If that is meant to be some sort of threat that you have complained to David or intend too, because I mentioned your police attention, do not forget it was you who published the incident, on a public forum, for all to see. If you are going to make such information public, don’t cry when someone repeats it. I’m sure most of us remember the ‘pussy abduction saga’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Hi Rowan,
    How’s my bum buddy today?
    Have you managed to work out why David did it yet? What was the catalyst? Read my blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,514) Says:

    February 19th, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    ——————————

    If that is meant to be some sort of threat that you have complained to David or intend too, because I mentioned your police attention, do not forget it was you who published the incident, on a public forum, for all to see. If you are going to make such information public, don’t cry when someone repeats it. I’m sure most of us remember the ‘pussy abduction saga’.

    Did someone abduct your pussy, Judith?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Can’t be bothered reading your reposted toilet paper muggins, heard enough of your conspiracy theories already, seeing as you are trying to prove a negative this is very difficult but you are currently sitting on 0.000000% so quite a way to go, seeing as you ‘know’ that David is guilty BRD then it shouldn’t be to difficult for you to show BRD how Daddy ‘couldnot’ and ‘didnot’ commit suicide, Take your time none of your colleagues have been able to answer this, CS doesn’t put up anything to show this and not even Kieran Raftery could give an explanation of how “Daddy was murdered” just steered well clear of the lounge, It is impossible to prove a negative so the sooner you work this out you will be on the way to working out what happened!

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

    Rowan (685) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Why, Why, Why……
    Classic argument of a spinner, Why would Daddy do this? its not what a rational person would do therefore he ‘can’t’ have done it therefore David ‘must’ have done it. Looks like Lindsay in his mind has constructed a ‘How to commit suicide manual’ “Carbon monoxide poisoning, it is quick, painless and very effective and is in fact odourless” much easier and quicker to put a bullet through your head Lindsay, sorry but you forgot to tell Daddy the ‘right’ way to kill himself! he obviously wasn’t referring to your manual!

    Rowan, you need first to understand that Lindsay ALWAYS takes talk of someone else’s depression personally.
    He is the only one who has truly suffered it, and therefore is the expert on how anybody else would think or act if they were to come under it’s spell.
    The other thing for him is what he sees as the injustice of Bain’s supporters being able to get him this far, when they can get no traction whatsoever in the Watson case. It’s a jealousy thing for him, he is upset that he is nowhere near as clever or dogmatic as Karam and thinks him posting on blogs about Bain will get Watson free.

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

    Kanz
    Yes feel a bit sorry for him if this is the case but he is very narrow minded if he thinks this means someone else ‘will’ therefore act this way. Also the Watson case is a joke hopefully at the end of the day the truth will win as it has in this case, SW needs a Karam type crusader.

    Another classic case in point to my 7.41 last night ‘insanity is doing something exactly the same way and expecting a different result!’
    muggins (2,154) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    ‘Have you managed to work out why David did it yet? What was the catalyst? Read my blog.’

    Somehow he is convincing himself that reposting the same pathetic argument time and time again will somehow make it more convincing!! Time for some more meds Muggins, you are certainly certifiable!

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

    Rowan (686) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 5:53 pm
    Somehow he is convincing himself that reposting the same pathetic argument time and time again will somehow make it more convincing!! Time for some more meds Muggins, you are certainly certifiable!

    Now, here is another that we should feel sorry for. I have been reliably informed (I can make phone calls too) that in his 50s he found out that his whole life had been a lie. He didn’t know until then that his parents were not his parents and has NEVER been able to find out who his father was.
    Now, if one finds out at that age that one had been lied to all his life, what is left for him but to carry on the family tradition and tell lies?

    Having said this, do I feel sorry for him? Nope, not at all.

    [DPF: 20 demerits. Enough of the nasty personal details.]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Why, Why, Why……
    Classic argument of a spinner, Why would Daddy do this? its not what a rational person would do therefore he ‘can’t’ have done it therefore David ‘must’ have done it.

    Asking questions isn’t an argument. In this instance, the questions have a purely rhetorical function. I’m interested, though, in whether you’d find Lindsay’s questions so ridiculous and worthy of instant rejection if he’d phrased them as statements prefaced with “It strikes me as inherently implausible that…” Would you? After all, it’s the very form a “respected international jurist” asked to assess the case uses to express his rhetorical questions, eg:

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that David Bain, however incompetent, would kill
    four people, then take time out to do a paper route in clothes smeared in blood (albeit covered
    in part by a red sweat shirt), anxious to be seen by customers along the way, leaving the scene
    of the massacre open to discovery by Robin before his return.

    Perhaps if Lindsay were to rephrase his rhetorical questions along those lines, you’d switch to regarding them as well-written and convincing arguments for Robin Bain’s innocence?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    I bet you like wandering in circles milt.

    It doesn’t matter if robin was a fiddler, depressed or anything of the like. It just moves the argument off into googa land, I guess you like that because it gives you an opportunity to re-acquaint with old friends. It doesn’t matter how it’s argued, nicely, rhetorically or otherwise – it has no bearing on the critical evidence. You’ll get it one day miltie.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Further to this from Kanz:

    If you add the word ‘complete’ you are not misrepresenting Hentschell at all, that is how he described them, until he found for sure whose prints they must have been.

    Here’s what Hentschel told the PCA in 1997:

    Mr Hentschel has been interviewed as part of this Review. He expressed the opinion the best footprint he saw would almost be a total length print but you might not see the extremities of the toes and heel. He agrees in hindsight he should have perhaps qualified his evidence by saying he may not have been able to see the extremities of the heel and toes.

    Hentschel also did his best to describe to the 2009 trial what physical reality allows us to conclude about the footprint, as quoted by Binnie in his para 238:

    I’m saying that the 280 is a minimum measurement, it could well be a little larger. How much larger I don’t know.

    The point is lost on Binnie, who seems unable to grasp the basics of reasoning.

    You’re not alone in misrepresenting poor Hentschel, though. Obviously your fellow believers all do it, but you’d think Binnie could rise above such partisanship. Apparently not – here he is at para 239:

    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”.

    Weaselly lawyers’ games, again. Hentschel had pointed out this rather obvious fact as far back as the PCA report in 1997, but presumably hadn’t done so in courtroom testimony or a sworn affidavit. Binnie turns that into “never.” If he was Bain’s defence lawyer it would be forgivable, but he’s supposed to be an independent adviser to the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    You’ll get it one day miltie.

    Still waiting. Whenever you’re ready.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    “It strikes me as inherently implausible that David Bain, however incompetent, would kill four people, then take time out to do a paper route in clothes smeared in blood (albeit covered in part by a red sweat shirt), anxious to be seen by customers along the way, leaving the scene of the massacre open to discovery by Robin before his return.”

    David Bain put the bloodied clothes (including the handwash-only pullover) in the washing machine before he left on the paper round.

    No doubt David knew his father’s habits and plans, which that morning included not arising early for school that day (but going to a meeting), and – being a considerate man – Robin would not disturb the others in any case. It is possible Robin was shot before the paper round, I don’t know how reliably the time of death was estimated. Since Robin was not examined for some hours I would suggest an error of one hour is not highly improbable.

    The urine load suggests to me that Robin was called “urgently” to the house, and didn’t stop to pee.

    The lack of underpants would suggest Robin died in the clothes he slept in.

    What strikes me as extremely implausible indeed totally inexplicable is Robin would kill the others and leave the freak who locked him out of his lounge/computer alcove. But then Binnie is a dunce.

    Nostalgia is clinging to the dimming hope that Labour will promise to shell out but Shearer ain’t taking Labour anywhere near the seat of power ever and if they want a homosexual in the hot seat it’ll take even longer.

    Aphorism for Today: Time is the great benefactor of Truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Good work milt, keep the word length down when you’ve got your foot in your mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Dennis, that’s a slightly different hue to the same old proof that you don’t know what you are talking about.
    How does 0.00000000 appeal to you zero failure to this point, any encouragement in being demonstrably wrong for so long?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Nosty old son, zero is zero. “Your” 0.00000000 is meaningless, you should know that. Rowan copies you, but he is a moron.

    Nosty’s Maxim for a lost cause: If you’ve got naught, add a nought.

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

    Muggins
    Seeing as you have nothing else in your life to do other than post bull on DPFs blogs and your various ‘phone a friend calls’ I’ve thought of a couple more you could add to the list.
    How about phoning Bruce Hutton and asking him if he planted the bullet in the Crewe garden from Thomas’s gun and if AA Thomas is guilty of the Crewe murders, I’m sure I know what his answers would be but just because they come straight from the horses mouth does that make them true? You could similarly ask him who the NZ governor general was in 1979 who told Bruce that he only signed the petition due to Muldoons insistence. Shame Bruce didn’t even get the correct g-g at the time, it would have made the story more convincing!
    Relating this back to the Bain case you could phone Kim Jones and ask him about those ‘bloody’ fingerprints and how the fingerprints on the gun had white ridges, as opposed to dark and how that this can actually occur in ‘bloody’ prints, or about the blood ‘fluorescing’ under his polilight examination. It would be interesting to know what he said but the odds of it being true are about as likely as Bruce admitting anything in the first scenario!
    You could also ask Milton or Kim Jones about perjury but I’m sure you would get a similar answer, good luck!

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

    Its now ‘obvious’ what happened the dipshit dentist is back to explain everything!, I’m sure Daddy can explain everything to him when they meet, in hell!! I wonder if he would believe it even then?

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

    Rowan (687) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 8:19 pm
    ===================

    Please, don’t put him onto making phone calls about the Crewe murders. You do realise he’ll probably decide the baby did it for the inheritance. I’m sure he will be able to find someone’s phone number that could confirm that for him.

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

    Looks like someone @ 8pm has just escaped from the Mason clinic!!

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

    Sorry Judith, it was to tempting should have realised, just have to laugh at him sometimes!

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

    Rowan (690) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 8:39 pm
    Sorry Judith, it was to tempting should have realised, just have to laugh at him sometimes!

    ————————–

    Not much more you can do but laugh at him. He certainly isn’t a threat to anyone but himself and perhaps his cause. I’m sure there a number of stupid people who believe his ‘phone call ‘ garbage, but they tend to be the type that would believe in anything that legitimised their bad behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    ‘Nosty old son, zero is zero. “Your” 0.00000000 is meaningless, you should know that. Rowan copies you, but he is a moron.’

    Yes Dennis, I know my 0.00000000 is meaningless because I don’t have one. It’s yours, and you can stand it in the wardrobe or even lay it across your feet as you sleep, or toss and turn discovering your pre-dicklement bent has sold your short on being 6 pence in the pound.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    “MY CORE BELIEF IS I WAS NOT THERE.” Cor Blimey, what an admission.

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

    All any reviewer has to consider is, would Robin Bain been convicted of murder beyond resonable doubt by a prudent jury and if the answer is ‘no’ then David cannot prove his innocence.

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

    BTW has anyone commented before that the title “David and Goliath” is based upon a biblical story in which David kills a father figure with a high speed projectile to the head?

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

    Gamefisher @ 9.10
    This is not about hypothetical Daddy trials GF, we can never know what a hypothetical jury would or wouldn’t prove against Daddy, it helps you doesn’t it that the ‘textbook’ investigation didn’t test significant items of evidence that could have shown things one way or the other, this helped establish a ‘no evidence against daddy’ myth used to good effect in the first trial. Actually in order to find evidence you actually have to search for it. Despite the best efforts of the boys in blue there is still enough evidence to show exactly what happened, start with the blood trail in the lounge and on Daddy, the crown law and you nitwits have absolutely no explanation for any of this! remember you have to show that Robin ‘could not’ and ‘didnot’ commit suicide BRD in order to convict David. Keep going your 0.000000% of the way so far!

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

    BTW has anyone commented before that the title “David and Goliath” is based upon a biblical story in which David kills a father figure with a high speed projectile to the head?

    LMAO

    Just how deep do you need to dig to come up with such fantasy?
    David, in the bible, was an Israelite, while Goliath was a Philistine. Further from a “father figure” you couldn’t get, the same as your theories on the Bain case, you couldn’t get further from the actual evidence no matter how hard you tried.

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

    Would be good to have a link to beyonds song on here, especially for Muggins and the dentist was excellent but would probably slow down the blog even more.
    DPF looks like we need a new thread!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    The judge called David a cunning killer and sent him down for a good long stretch; David said, “The judge was very kind to me”.

    Perhaps David thought he had killed all his family and deserved to be locked up for longer. Why else would David have thought the judge was “very kind” to him?

    Maybe if David were allowed to answer questions he would tell us why he says, “It is my core belief I was not there”.

    I mean, I know I was not there, I don’t need a core belief, I KNOW.

    What about you, Nosty, were you there?

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

    The allegation that Robin Bain was suffering from Depression and that the diagnosis was made by educational psychologists who train in pedagogy [the study of how children learn] not clinical depression [the study of mood resulting from chemical imbalance in the brain and how to recognise and counter the effects without medication] gives me a reason to dispute the allegation and my knowledge of the behaviour of persons who suffer from clinical Depression and the reactions to serious allegations made against them. Unless there is a secondary illness such as psychosis or similar mental disorder, often brought on by the use of illegal drugs taken in the belief it will help depression.

    Depression and clinical depression has no proven connection to homicide but does have a well documented connection to suicide.

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would believes the best thing he can do for his family is kill them all, except the one who had styled himself as head of the house, so they don’t have to cope with the allegations of incest made against him, then kill himself as well?

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would, if he was going to kill himself, get changed twice “just to meet his Maker’.

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would wait until the eldest child whom he had had disagreements with over the use of tools, was out of the house doing his paper run?

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would kill the eldest daughter whom he was very proud of as she was half through her second year in training college and making good progress.

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would kill his second daughter who although she had been his accuser and had been a disappointment in her time since leaving school was still his child and seemed to be getting back on track with a new job

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would kill his youngest child who despite some scrapes at school was doing well at high school and was a big strong lad who was willing to help at home.

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would kill his wife even though she was dabbling into the occult and new age beliefs he had promised before his God to love, honour, protect, for better or worse, etc and who had his companion of 23years, 18 in PNG.

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would sleep seemingly well all night when he had the perfect method of suicide by his caravan, the Commer van would the perfect way to end it. Carbon monoxide poisoning, is quick, painless and very effective and is odourless so unconsciousness comes before fumes become unpleasant.

    It strikes me as inherently implausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would
    go to those lengths if the allegations had a factual basis, when it is more plausible he would want to get away from the house and find a quiet place to end it all.

    It strikes me as inherently plausible that depressive episodes affect most people at some stage in their lives when something does not go well, like a bad ERO report and spend time inward looking and sad before the chemical imbalance self corrects when the situation improves. It strikes me as inherently plausible that Robin Bain, however depressed, would return to normal following a favourable report and a holiday

    With thanks to Milt

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

    Kanz (1,024) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    “Rowan, you need first to understand that Lindsay ALWAYS takes talk of someone else’s depression personally.
    He is the only one who has truly suffered it, and therefore is the expert on how anybody else would think or act if they were to come under it’s spell.”

    Well I guess it is just to hard Lindsay to imagine that Robin ‘could’ do such an irrational act, therefore he ‘didn’t’ therefore David ‘did’. Logical argument? nope didn’t think so.

    Lindsay, maybe you could use your psychological experiences to explain why Brian Schlaafper shot his family and committed suicide and why Raymond Ratima placed a bible on top of his boys heads before shooting them, this is clearly irrational behaviour but do they somehow fit your ‘profile’ of a familicide perpetrator? Brian Schlaafper was well respected in the district and in no ways an outward psychopath.
    Your post is full of factual inaccuracies and out and out speculation, there are plenty of reasons for Robin to want to end it one wonders where to start. I guess in your mind he was perfectly ‘normal’!
    Maybe you should consider becoming a shrink!

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

    Going of on a tangent Lindsay, this is not a hypothetical Daddy trial, maybe you could stick to the relevant evidence although your psychological myths avoid the bigger questions, I guess David “must” have done it over the chainsaw

    “39. The prosecution contended that even if the incest theory were true it would not provide
    a motive for Robin to kill Arawa or Stephen, and why leave David as the sole survivor? Yet
    these questions, legitimate in themselves, avoid the larger question: whatever was the motive
    for David Bain to kill any member of his family at all? Despite Police efforts to come up with a
    plausible motive from 1994 until the eve of David Bain’s eventual acquittal in 2009, no plausible
    motive ever emerged. In the end the prosecution was obliged to argue that motive was simply
    irrelevant.”

    Judith @ 8.49
    The only thing he can convince me of is that he’s certifiably insane, You wonder though, how many of the twisted sisters actually believe him? His arguments were like reading that ‘Grip of evil’ book, no evidential facts at all, huge speculation and trying to disprove matters not in dispute by crown or defence. That book probably convinced me of Davids innocence about 10 years ago, Muggins reinforces this.

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

    Kanz (1,024) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    Rowan (685) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Why, Why, Why……
    Classic argument of a spinner, Why would Daddy do this? its not what a rational person would do therefore he ‘can’t’ have done it therefore David ‘must’ have done it. Looks like Lindsay in his mind has constructed a ‘How to commit suicide manual’ “Carbon monoxide poisoning, it is quick, painless and very effective and is in fact odourless” much easier and quicker to put a bullet through your head Lindsay, sorry but you forgot to tell Daddy the ‘right’ way to kill himself! he obviously wasn’t referring to your manual!

    Rowan, you need first to understand that Lindsay ALWAYS takes talk of someone else’s depression personally.
    He is the only one who has truly suffered it, and therefore is the expert on how anybody else would think or act if they were to come under it’s spell.
    The other thing for him is what he sees as the injustice of Bain’s supporters being able to get him this far, when they can get no traction whatsoever in the Watson case. It’s a jealousy thing for him, he is upset that he is nowhere near as clever or dogmatic as Karam and thinks him posting on blogs about Bain will get Watson free.

    Yes I have clinical depression I am not ashamed of that and I share the condition with some very clever people, Einstein, Churchill are just the beginning of a large list. I don’t share their abilities but I do share their illness.

    I am indeed fortunate to be different to Mr Karam He is not some one I consider a role model.

    Scott Watson is factually innocent as attested by the failure by Guy Wallace to identify him on Jan 13 1998. This was never disclosed to the defence.
    I am not motivated by any thought of personal gain but simply the knowledge that I can help a little someone who deserves help. The Watson family are not interested in compensation just getting a son and brother back. The cost has been high for the Watson Family with the death of Bev Watson Scott’s mother just before Christmas from cancer, very sad for them Mr Karam has spoken to Chris and to Keith Hunter but neither agreed to his proposal.
    I dislike intensely the besmirching of a man who cannot defend himself based on misinformation and conjecture included in a book full of errors and on nothing more than a prolonged advertising campaign.
    I prefer to use logical thought and reasoned comment rather than name calling and demeaning comments along with bullying and abuse. I may make an error but at least I have the Guts to use my real name to what I write unlike cyber bullies who lack the courage of their convictions but prefer hide behind nomdo plumes

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

    There was much more than depression in the history of those you name and the history was known and treated but like any severe illness if the person stops taking the prescribed medication then just like any illness it will lead to serious problems. Just as a insulin dependent diabetic may lapse into a coma and possibly die if they stop their injections. Compare apples with apples not avocados

    Robin Bain had no history of any mental illnesses and that is glaringly obvious as Mr Reed QC would have been shouting it from the roof tops if it was so.

    Oh by the way the ‘invasive’ procedure performed on David was a blood sample from the vein on the inside of the elbow to which he consented which was then and still is a common police process for a number of purposes including alcohol and drugs and DNA. It is obvious that nothing but DNA was found or the police would have been on the roof tops letting all know

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Depression and clinical depression has no proven connection to homicide but does have a well documented connection to suicide.

    The belief that if Robin Bain was suffering depression it constitutes evidence he was likely to murder his family was the most contemptible thing about the defence case in the 2009 trial – it was a straightforward appeal to ugly prejudice. I see that prejudice is enthusiastically endorsed by poor-David enthusiasts on these threads.

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

    Obviously it is in the best interests of JFRB members to continually promote the fact that whilst depression is often associated with suicide, it is not with murder.

    That is of course correct, however, what they are ignoring is the fact that whoever murdered Margaret, Stephen, Laniet and Arawa, was either experiencing a psychotic or maniac episode. Most probably the later. This is where the role of depression is relevant. The depressed state prevents the sufferer from instigating normal coping strategies, so when confronted with allegations, be they true or false, Robin was unable to process that in a normal manner, and was completely unable to cope with it. The inability to cope with such a massive amount of detrimental and challenging stimulus forced him into a manic episode in which he sought to eradicate the problem, by getting rid of those who knew about it.

    Such manic episodes seldom last long, but often much damage is done during them. Eventually when the last source of his angst was gone, he no doubt returned to his ‘normal’ depressed state, in which suicide would have provided relief from the awareness of what he had done.

    When Robin typed ‘sorry, you are the only one that deserves to stay’, it was a message for David. There were at that stage only two of them left, and Robin, having killed the rest in a rage, no longer deserved to live.

    The problem with all the so called explanations for why ‘Robin wouldn’t have…….’, is that you insist at looking at the murders through your own eyes. Either through depression or supposed normality. The person that killed the Bain’s was not experiencing a depressed mood, but rather a heightened state that surpassed any ‘normal’ level of rational thinking.

    Of course Robin would not have done the things he did that morning had he not been suffering from depression, and therefore had the ability to cope with the things that were ‘thrown’ at him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Do you work in PR, by any chance? As a press secretary maybe, or a politician? You have very strong skills in dressing up appalling bullshit to give it a vague impression of plausibility.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (39) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 12:04 am
    …Oh by the way the ‘invasive’ procedure performed on David was a blood sample from the vein on the inside of the elbow to which he consented which was then and still is a common police process for a number of purposes including alcohol and drugs and DNA. It is obvious that nothing but DNA was found or the police would have been on the roof tops letting all know.

    Wrong Lindsay!

    Dr Tom Pryde’s own words:

    “I obtained from David Bain various samples which included blood from his veins, hair and body samples. I also obtained swabs relating to the urethral, that glans penis and penile shaft. In a separate kit I obtained swabs from David Bain’s hands to ascertain whether there was any evidence of gunshot power residue. I inspected his nose…… (etc etc)”

    The test result list is extensive and demonstrates the areas and the amount of examination/tests undertaken by Dr Pryde and from which parts of David’s body.

    So perhaps Lindsay, you might like to start your story again, this time with at least an element of truth in it!

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

    Psycho Milt (1,215) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 7:55 am
    ————————————

    No, but in the past I have had a professional association with the Mason Clinic, and believe me, there are very few ‘bullshit’ lessons to be learned there.

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

    Wrong Lindsay!

    Dr Tom Pryde’s own words:

    “I obtained from David Bain various samples which included blood from his veins, hair and body samples. I also obtained swabs relating to the urethral, that glans penis and penile shaft. In a separate kit I obtained swabs from David Bain’s hands to ascertain whether there was any evidence of gunshot power residue. I inspected his nose…… (etc etc)”

    The test result list is extensive and demonstrates the areas and the amount of examination/tests undertaken by Dr Pryde and from which parts of David’s body.

    So perhaps Lindsay, you might like to start your story again, this time with at least an element of truth in it!

    Question. Why would someone in their right mind, albeit aided by drugs, misrepresent the tests taken, such as in this post?

    Oh by the way the ‘invasive’ procedure performed on David was a blood sample from the vein on the inside of the elbow to which he consented which was then and still is a common police process for a number of purposes including alcohol and drugs and DNA. It is obvious that nothing but DNA was found or the police would have been on the roof tops letting all know

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

    Kanz (1,025) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 8:13 am
    Question. Why would someone in their right mind, albeit aided by drugs, misrepresent the tests taken, such as in this post?
    ————————————-

    My guess is because they are hoping people will blindly believe their b/s and add to the numbers of those not wanting David to get compensation.

    This is not a matter of what is right or wrong, it is just a game they started because they thought instead of being the pack of losers they are, for once they might be the winners. Lindsay’s comment is typical of the integrity of the group.

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

    My guess is because they are hoping people will blindly believe their b/s and add to the numbers of those not wanting David to get compensation.

    This is not a matter of what is right or wrong, it is just a game they started because they thought instead of being the pack of losers they are, for once they might be the winners. Lindsay’s comment is typical of the integrity of the group.

    Well, I find it implausible that people in their right mind, aided by drugs or not, would stoop to such levels.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    muggins (2,154) Says:

    February 19th, 2013 at 5:23 pm
    Hi Rowan,
    Have you managed to work out why David did it yet? What was the catalyst? Read my blog

    Well, what do you reckon ,Rowan, Judith thinks I am probably on the right track.

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

    Kanz (1,026) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 8:25 am
    Well, I find it implausible that people in their right mind, aided by drugs or not, would stoop to such levels.

    Stooping to such levels has become a dominant feature of the Justice for Robin Bain campaign. As you have seen on here, how many times as they misquoted, or misrepresented information? Couple this with the stalking and harassment of David’s supporters, the on-going defamation of Joe Karam, and attempts to negatively effect his personal and business life, the intrusion into David’s personal life and so on. Not to mention encouraging police employees to breach protocol, interfering with witnesses, jury members and so on.

    It shouldn’t come as any surprise that they would lie about evidence in order to gain support for their cause which itself is based on a lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,520) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 8:04 am

    Dr Tom Pryde’s own words:

    “I obtained from David Bain various samples which included blood from his veins, hair and body samples. I also obtained swabs relating to the urethral, that glans penis and penile shaft. In a separate kit I obtained swabs from David Bain’s hands to ascertain whether there was any evidence of gunshot power residue. I inspected his nose…… (etc etc)”

    Judith, you will note Dr Pryde does not say that he strip-searched David Bain and nor does he say he probed his rectum.
    I believe David Bain lied to that audience in Perth when he said every orifice was probed and he also lied when he said he was strip-searched. He certainly lied to Justice Binnie when he said he was completely naked.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Nookin (4,483 comments) says:

    Anyone know the dimensions of the magazine?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Judith: “When Robin typed ‘sorry, you are the only one that deserves to stay’, it was a message for David.”

    But it wasn’t “deserves”, it was “deserved”, and it’s interesting you should write “deserves” as it vindicates what I have been saying: “deserves” is natural and “deserved” is the wrong time frame for Robin.

    No prints on the keyboard, why would Robin wipe them off? All that typing with what Nostalgia insists is “bloodwash” on his hands and no prints? (No bloodwash either, of course.)

    None of the talk about mental state alters the fact Robin had a job and a house (at the school). He had argued with David about the chainsaw he needed to fell/trim trees at the school. The chainsaw was found in his van. That does not suggest clinical depression to me, clinical depression implies incapacitation.

    None of the talk about mental state alters the fact that there was one survivor, David. He could have equally well typed the message. Indeed it is an immature, self-absorbed message with no other purpose apparently than to exonerate David. Who would benefit most from such a message?

    Having decided, for some reason nobody can explain satisfactorily, to kill all those he loved and spare one, the self-appointed head of the household who locked him out of his lounge/computer alcove, wouldn’t Robin have written some explanation? That is the nature of teachers, religious men and missionaries, to explain. Robin was all three and wrote nothing and explained nothing.

    The likelihood Robin typed the message is very low. Ask David if his father typed the message and see if you get a straight answer.

    @Judith. You contradicted Lindsay Kennard about “invasive” procedures then proceeded to list procedures that are not invasive. Do you know what “invasive” means in a medical sense?

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

    Dennis Horne (629) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 8:46 am
    ———————————-

    Dennis, the original statement made and signed by Cox at the time he inspected the computer, has that message as “sorry, you are the only one that deserves to stay”.

    Dr Dempster also recorded it as being deserves, however, by time it came to the trial a year later, certain police employees stated it was ‘deserved’. Dempster however insisted, even in court it was deserves. Excuse me if I take my information from the original statements, they tend to be the most reliable.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    I see there has been a bit of an argument as to whether Robin Bain was depressed or not.
    Three weeks before the murders Robin called a meeting of the geneology society and he mentioned that Margaret was talking about building a new house which she said he wasn’t going to be part of but he said he wasn’t worried because they couldn’t afford a new house anyway.
    However it appears that between that meeting and the murders there had been a change of plan. Margaret and Robin had come to some sort of reconciliation and the new house was going to be built. A demolition order had been or was about to be applied for and the idea was that the back of the house would be demolished and the family would live in the front of the old house. A new spouting had to be put up in the front to tide them over and Margaret wasn’t too happy about the cost for such a temporary measure. Robin had asked for the meter at the schoolhouse to be read as he was going to move back into town, no doubt to use his spare time supervising the demolition,etc.,to save costs. He had been trimming trees at the section the weekend before he was killed so that the demolition of the back of the house could go ahead smoothly. Some timber for the new house was being purchased to be stored elsewhere until the demolition had been carried out.

    And we should also note what that Education Board officil had to say.
    Robin rang her on the Friday to make an appointment to see her on the Monday morning. He was going to put in a “special needs” application. She said they had a friendly chat, shared a few laughs.

    So taking all these factors into account I would say all this talk about Robin Bain being depressed is a myth perpetrated by the myth perpetrators. I don’t doubt he had had some disappointments over the past year or two, but to say he was depressed is a load of rubbish.

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

    But it wasn’t “deserves”, it was “deserved”,

    I see you prefer to use the amended statement of Cox (amended for the trial) over his first statement made to the police. You must also prefer to use Weir’s evidence in the first trial (the detective who couldn’t remember where he found a glass lens) over that of Dempster, the first person to read it.
    Why does that not surprise me?
    Being the ‘copy book investigation’ that it apparently was, they will surely be able to produce the print out that they kept, or the photograph that they took of the screen showing it?

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

    Dennis Horne (629) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 8:46 am@Judith. You contradicted Lindsay Kennard about “invasive” procedures then proceeded to list procedures that are not invasive. Do you know what “invasive” means in a medical sense?
    ————————————–

    Yes I do, and the taking of a sample from the ‘glans penis and the penile shaft’ can be considered invasive. I have seen these tests conducted, and they require an instrument being inserted inside the penis.
    I did not type the entire statement, quite simply because I didn’t want Muggins to get any sexual gratification from seeing the list, which no doubt would have had him reaching for the tissues. The fact is, apart from the inner ear canals, every ‘orifice’ of David Bain’s was examined and/or had test samples taken from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    I know you’ve managed to get one foot out or your mouth, and that you are now eyeing up the other: But to this point, and it doesn’t really matter the tense, I prefer the evidence of Dempster, and Cox before he was ‘reminded’ on what the computer screen showed as the message:

    Cox, initial statement to the police: The message on the computer read “Sorry you are the only one who deserves to stay”.
    Cox, evidence in chief first trial: It showed a message on the screen of the computer. That read: SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.
    Kevin Wayne Anderson, Evidence in chief, first trial: I then entered the alcove itself, I looked through the gap in the curtains and I could see a message that was recorded on the computer and it was displayed on the screen. The message read: SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.
    Milton Weir, evidence in chief, first trial: During the examination of Robin Bain, as to the alcove shown in room A on the southern side, the pathologist Mr Dempster actually looked into the alcove first; as a result of what he said I looked in there and noticed a message on the computer. I have recorded in my notebook SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.
    Dempster, evidence in chief, first trial: I recollect the message on the screen. That ws the message “sorry you are the only who deserves to stay”

    I see you struggling with the typewriter again Dennis. We don’t know when the message was typed other than that it was before David returned from the paper round, so the blood wash may not have been on Robin’s hands at that time, or it may have and not transferred. I like your desperation.

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

    (Dictionary definition)

    procedure, invasive,
    n a series of steps that causes bleeding or the possibility of bleeding.

    invasive procedure (in-VAY-siv proh-SEE-jer)

    A medical procedure that invades (enters) the body, usually by cutting or puncturing the skin or by inserting instruments into the body.

    Having an instrument shoved up one’s penis is invasive – because it can, and often does, cause bleeding. The same can be said for the nose, and that other part that we don’t mention because it arouses muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,524) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 9:11 am
    (Dictionary definition)

    procedure, invasive,
    n a series of steps that causes bleeding or the possibility of bleeding.

    invasive procedure (in-VAY-siv proh-SEE-jer)

    A medical procedure that invades (enters) the body, usually by cutting or puncturing the skin or by inserting instruments into the body.

    Having an instrument shoved up one’s penis is invasive – because it can, and often does, cause bleeding. The same can be said for the nose, and that other part that we don’t mention because it arouses muggins.

    Judith, the point I was making is that Dr Pryde does not mention that he probed David Bain’s rectum.
    Bain’s penis is not his rectum. And ,as I have already said, I do not believe Pryde probed Bain’s rectum. I believe Bain lied to that audience in Perth when he said every orifice was probed. And I also believe he lied when he said he was strip-searched. He certainly lied when he told Binnie he was completely naked.
    Btw, how do you know that having an instrument inserted [not shoved up, it is done very slowly and carefully] in one’s penis causes bleeding?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    I see the ‘expert’ aunt fanny entered evidence onto the board a couple of days ago which she claimed showed there was no dna found inside the rifle barrel or silencer, but the evidence said precisely that it was. It makes me wonder why the nutters are attracted in such numbers to protect the dead daddy, and how consistently a number of them lie.

    If Kanz’s information about the habitual liar is correct it goes to show that when a coward is dealt a blow they don’t react with strength but look to hurt others in order to make themselves feel better. Thus the lies and hate against David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Now the pervert is off, frothing at the mouth no doubt over the talk of penises.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Judith (1,524) Says: February 20th, 2013 at 8:59 am Dennis Horne (629) Says: February 20th, 2013 at 8:46 am
    ———————————-

    Dennis, the original statement made and signed by Cox at the time he inspected the computer, has that message as “sorry, you are the only one that deserves to stay”.

    Dr Dempster also recorded it as being deserves, however, by time it came to the trial a year later, certain police employees stated it was ‘deserved’. Dempster however insisted, even in court it was deserves. Excuse me if I take my information from the original statements, they tend to be the most reliable.

    “The only one that … ”

    I don’t think Robin would write “that” when “who” is correct.

    I note your fellow travellers have insisted the correct message was something else. Why would Dempster write it down? Unless one wrote it down at the time one is likely to “remember” either “deserves” or “deserved”.

    Anyway, it’s an immature, self-absorbed message with one purpose only, to exonerate the sole survivor. It has no explanatory value whatever. Its authorship cannot be verified. Taken all in all, bearing in mind Robin had all night to write a proper letter, I don’t give much credence to the claim Robin wrote it. Ask David if his father wrote it.

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

    muggins (2,158) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 9:38 am
    —————————

    As I have already said, I know because I have been present during similar examinations.

    The statement I typed above was not complete, nor did I include the list of test results. I am not transcribing the entire document just for your sexual gratification.

    If you had the slightest bit of knowledge or even experience in forensic examination where there is a possibility of sexual activity, you would know that for both male and female victims, the rectal area is examined, as well as the penis and vagina for either signs of activity/seminal fluid or other DNA material.

    In this case it was not known whether David was a victim or a perpetrator, and so tests were conducted to eradicate either possibility.

    I have to say your obsession with this subject and lack of application of commonsense is worrying. I have stated these things to you before very plainly, and I won’t do it again. You are clearly getting some sort of sexual gratification by this kind of talk, and that is disgusting. Grow up.

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

    Tab l
    Martin James COX Statement dated 22 June 1994

    ….The message on the computer read “Sorry you are the only one who deserves to stay”.

    I did type the wrong word, it wasn’t ‘that’, but have just checked the document and what is typed here is exactly what COX wrote, and signed.

    You can check for yourself, it was signed off by Robinson, and as you can see from the date, was taken close to the murders, not a year later.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Judith (1,524) Says: February 20th, 2013 at 9:11 am (Dictionary definition)

    procedure, invasive, n a series of steps that causes bleeding or the possibility of bleeding.

    invasive procedure (in-VAY-siv proh-SEE-jer) A medical procedure that invades (enters) the body, usually by cutting or puncturing the skin or by inserting instruments into the body.

    Having an instrument shoved up one’s penis is invasive – because it can, and often does, cause bleeding. The same can be said for the nose, and that other part that we don’t mention because it arouses muggins.

    A cervical smear is invasive, a swab of the urethral meatus is no more invasive than cleaning your ear gently with a cotton bud. The “instrument shoved up one’s penis” is entirely in your imagination, that is, you made it up.

    As Psycho Milt has already suggested, you make stuff up with great aplomb.

    As David what he means by: “My core belief is I was not there.” Or are you too frightened?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Dennis already in retreat. Tilted at a couple of windmills, spammedalot and now he’s off.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Robinson must have also signed off the strip search and sketch chart Judith. The poor sisters, done at every turn no matter how much they twist. What a predicklement for them.

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

    Dennis Horne (631) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 10:04 am

    ——————————-

    I have given you two definitions of the term invasive procedure. The medical term is clear ‘a medical procedure that invades (enters) the body, usually by cutting or puncturing the skin or by inserting instruments into the body.

    How much clearer do you need? Inserting an instrument for the collection of samples is exactly that. The uretha has an instrument inserted into it, as well as a ‘swipe of the glans penis. The terminology of ‘shoved up’ doesn’t lessen the meaning at all. The fact is that according to the popular definition the procedure was invasive in that it required the insertion of an instrument which entered the body and that is exactly what happens.

    Now you are arguing with common definitions to try and excuse the truth. You are barking bloody mad!

    I have already given you the answer regarding the statement made by David, you were to psychotic to read it obviously.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Judith (1,526) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 9:57 am
    Tab l
    Martin James COX Statement dated 22 June 1994

    ….The message on the computer read “Sorry you are the only one who deserves to stay”.

    I did type the wrong word, it wasn’t ‘that’, but have just checked the document and what is typed here is exactly what COX wrote, and signed. You can check for yourself, it was signed off by Robinson, and as you can see from the date, was taken close to the murders, not a year later.

    No reason for me not to believe you, Judith. I think you are badly mistaken, misguided, with a strong but misplaced maternal instinct; not a liar or thug.

    Deserves or deserved: It’s arguing about the number of angels on a pinhead, it presumes the angels.

    There is absolutely nothing about the message that persuades me Robin wrote it: not the content, not the style. Robin had all night to write a proper letter explaining himself.

    Indeed, it all points to David: Immature and self-serving message, and, most importantly, anonymous.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,030) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 10:27 am
    Robinson must have also signed off the strip search and sketch chart Judith. The poor sisters, done at every turn no matter how much they twist. What a predicklement for them.
    ———————————————-

    Not just that, they paid him for doing it.

    Now they have the ‘predicklement’ of saying it wasn’t done, which means both Pryde and Robinson must have been complacent in fraudulent activity, if they are right. More ‘extra-ordinary’ circumstances.

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

    Dennis Horne (632) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 10:32 am
    and
    Dennis Horne (630) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 9:51 am
    Anyway, it’s an immature, self-absorbed message with one purpose only, to exonerate the sole survivor. It has no explanatory value whatever. Its authorship cannot be verified. Taken all in all, bearing in mind Robin had all night to write a proper letter, I don’t give much credence to the claim Robin wrote it. Ask David if his father wrote it.

    —————————————-

    The note was explanatory and succinct.

    First, he was sorry.
    Secondly, the survivor was the only one (between him and them) that deserves to stay.
    Robin obviously felt he didn’t deserve to live because of his actions. Sums it up, and considering the time limit, it was all he could say.

    You state he had all night. Again you are acting on the premise that he had been planning the actions for a long time. I don’t believe that is the case. His acts were irrational, extreme and maniac. He wouldn’t have planned and allotted times to complete each ‘job’. He grabbed what was available to him at the time, driven by basic instinct, not rational analysis. The computer was there, in his sight, he used it. He wouldn’t have been in any mental state to think out the consequences of that. He simply wanted to tell David he was sorry, and state that David deserves to live, (when he didn’t). Life for the others was not a choice at that time. I doubt it even crossed Robin’s mind that David could be blamed for the deaths. Such a thought would have required rationality.

    If you keep applying rationality to this equation, you will never get the answers.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Judith. I don’t need a dictionary to know what invasive means in a medical sense, Judith. I spent my whole working life carrying out invasive medical procedures.

    Taking a swab is not a medically invasive procedure.

    It suits your purpose to send us off on a tangent, Judith, because only someone desperate to find something, anything, to make believe David is factually innocent could think there is ANY forensic evidence that points more at Robin than David. So blind to the obvious…

    The likelihood Robin changed into old clothes to meet God, forgetting his underpants, is about the same as my taking my clothes off to do a streak at a rugby game.

    The likelihood David put his bloodied clothes in the washing machine to get rid of the evidence is about the same as my taking my clothes off to have a shower.

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

    Dennis Horne (633) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 10:51 am
    @Judith. I don’t need a dictionary to know what invasive means in a medical sense, Judith. I spent my whole working life carrying out invasive medical procedures.

    Taking a swab is not a medically invasive procedure.

    ————————-

    Exactly, and it is not a swab that is used to take the sample from the urethra. You’re a dentist, how many urethral samples have you collected?

    You of course see ‘commies’ in all the windows and shadows. How much of the gas did you sniff on Dennis?

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

    Dennis say:
    The likelihood Robin changed into old clothes to meet God, forgetting his underpants, is about the same as my taking my clothes off to do a streak at a rugby game.

    Again you are applying rationality to the equation. How many rational men kill their family’s?

    Robin was a christian, he had just killed his wife and children, he knew he wasn’t going to be meeting god any time soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    …I prefer the evidence of Dempster, and Cox before he was ‘reminded’ on what the computer screen showed as the message:

    You “prefer” the evidence of people recalling from memory what they had seen on the screen to the evidence of people who were tasked with noting down what was on the screen and did so? I guess you would.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    RB took a lot of trouble to do things that made life difficult for DB (gloves, changing clothes). If he’d taken a fraction LESS trouble, we’d know for sure he was the killer. RB took no trouble at all doing the one thing that would have exonerated DB by writing the world’s worst suicide note. He then took the trouble to wipe the keyboard.
    It’s the inconsistency that seems implausible.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Judith. No, Judith, this was carefully planned. The executions were expertly done.

    Silly old Robin didn’t even know whether to buy a rifle of a shotgun to shoot possums at school. And talking about shotguns: Excellent for suicide, noisy but foolproof. Robin would have been taking a chance with a suppressed .22 to the temple. How long did it take for the demonstration in court of how it MIGHT be done? To get a good shot? Ages.

    Rationality? You don’t want the Truth, you want David to be innocent.

    David says: “My core belief is I was not there.” Ask David what he means. Was he there or not? Yes/No/Maybe?

    @Judith. Invasive procedure? So, Judith, a doctor would not know if extracting or excising a tooth was an invasive procedure? How many teeth has a typical doctor removed, surgically or otherwise? Taking a swab from the urethral meatus is no more invasive than brushing your teeth.

    I know you believe David Bain didn’t kill his entire family. I know people who believe in life-after-death. That’s the thing about religions and cults. The more absurd the claim the deeper the faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    ‘You “prefer” the evidence of people recalling from memory what they had seen on the screen to the evidence of people who were tasked with noting down what was on the screen and did so? I guess you would..

    Only an idiot wouldn’t after Weir admitted misleading a jury, and all the convolutions about jthe lens, and telling Sanderson he would correct his statement then not doing so, and later watching David’s credibility be damaged over an issue that Weir knew David was telling the truth about. Can’t you think for yourself you idiot?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    I don’t ask that the explanation re RB explain his state of mind. I just ask that it be consistent. Why, for example, change your clothes if you’re about to die by your own hand? Ok, we don’t know, but if you’ve gone to that much effort (being careful not to leave a single print behind anywhere) why not pee as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    ‘I know you believe David Bain didn’t kill his entire family. I know people who believe in life-after-death. That’s the thing about religions and cults. The more absurd the claim the deeper the faith.’

    You’re the cultist Dennis, protecting the dead holy man bro.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    If you want to escape the terrible consequences of what you’ve just done, why bugger around? Unless of course, you do want to escape the consequences, in which case washing clothes, wiping keyboards, leaving anonymous notes makes perfect sense.
    Having it both ways just seems farfetched. In every respect that makes life difficult for DB, he takes care. In every respect that would help DB, he doesn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Snarkle why not reveal your previous identities?

    Have you sorted out the David and Goliath story yet. It’s only a few thousand years old, you’ll get it sometime. Why further insult your own lack of intelligence with bloody stupid questions, go read and learn – which is what you should have done before embarking on a hate campaign, you might have disabused yourself of some of your comprehension difficulties.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Enlighten me. Tell me the simple motivation behind RBs actions. It really does look as if he had every intention of leaving no incriminating traces behind when killing his family, and no incriminating traces behind when writing the suicide note. For the love of God, why?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    The first judge called him a cunning killer and more; sent him to jail.

    David said: “The judge was very kind to me.”

    Sounds more like a man relieved not to be executed than a man protesting his innocence.

    Of course I am looking at this rationally, and Judith says rationality is not in the equation if you want to get the answer you want.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    “on the fire that burns with heat intense
    I turn the hose of common sense
    and out it goes- at small expense”
    Turn the hose of common sense on, J and NNZ, and tell me why RB took so much trouble over the things that look bad for DB, and so little trouble over the one thing which he intended to exonerate DB.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Only an idiot wouldn’t after Weir admitted misleading a jury… Can’t you think for yourself you idiot?

    I guess the pile of evidence against David really is easily explained away if you start from the position that various detectives must have engaged in a conspiracy to frame him for reasons known only to themselves. I’m not sure I’d call that “thinking” though.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Yes of course milt, keep barking at the page edges. The only conspirators are those trying to hide the truth about the man who died with blood on his palms, rinsed but not scrubbed – leaving blood ‘wash’ with a definite, visible edge. Conspirators are those against the status quo, what is it again? Yes that’s right, a MOJ determined by the PC, five not guilty verdicts, an innocent on the BOP. A vast conspiracy extending throughout nz to half a world away v some obsessed with strip searches and having others ‘believing’ on a ‘trust me I know’ basis while the choir sing ‘why why why Delilah?’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Robin left every clue in the world, bruised and bloodied hands and a rifle beside him which on examination showed his dna deep in the barrel. None of that looks bad for David, it’s simply the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,027) Says:

    Now, here is another that we should feel sorry for. I have been reliably informed (I can make phone calls too)

    [DPF: 20 demerits. Enough of the nasty personal details.]

    In case anyone missed this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    muggins (2,159) Says:

    February 19th, 2013 at 9:13 am
    muggins (2,146) Says:

    February 14th, 2013 at 9:13 am
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    Where has all that blood gone? Where have all those bruises gone?

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

    Judith (1,531) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 5:19 pm
    goldnkiwi (319) Says:
    February 19th, 2013 at 4:39 pm
    Legal aid, Farrar.
    ………..
    I am not a tittle tattle, unlike others, I was merely pointing out that legal aid is not spelt with an e, and Farrar has no e’s in it.

    Yep, lost and found kittens is a police job in my balliwick lol.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,035) Says:Feb 20th, 2013 at 1:09 pm. Robin left every clue in the world, bruised and bloodied hands and a rifle beside him which on examination showed his dna deep in the barrel. None of that looks bad for David, it’s simply the truth.

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    Look at the photos. Where is the blood? There is a spot on the left index fingernail. If Robin held his left hand to the trigger, as you explained to me, how did he get spatter on that hand?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,531) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 10:35 am

    February 20th, 2013 at 10:Robinson must have also signed off the strip search and sketch chart Judith.

    Now they have the ‘predicklement’ of saying it wasn’t done, which means both Pryde and Robinson must have been complacent in fraudulent activity, if they are right. More ‘extra-ordinary’ circumstances.

    Judith,the only person who was committing fraudulent activity was David Bain when he did the dance of the one blanket.
    You can’t blame Dr Pryde or anyone else because David was too cunning for him.
    Where David Bain made his big mistake was when he told Binnie he was completely naked. I reckon we could hear more about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,531) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 9:53 am
    muggins (2,158) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 9:38 am
    —————————

    As I have already said, I know because I have been present during similar examinations.

    The statement I typed above was not complete, nor did I include the list of test results. I am not transcribing the entire document just for your sexual gratification.

    If you had the slightest bit of knowledge or even experience in forensic examination where there is a possibility of sexual activity, you would know that for both male and female victims, the rectal area is examined, as well as the penis and vagina for either signs of activity/seminal fluid or other DNA material.

    In this case it was not known whether David was a victim or a perpetrator, and so tests were conducted to eradicate either possibility.

    Judith, you are telling porkies again. There is nothing in those test results that confirm Dr Pryde probed David Bain’s rectum.
    And another thing. While having a probe inserted in one’s penis is a little discomforting it is not painful and nor is it likely to cause any bleeding. If you have been present when a probe has been inserted in a penis, which I very much doubt, then you would know that.
    So let me repeat what I have already said twice today. I do not believe Dr Pryde probed David Bain’s rectum as David Bain told that audience in Perth that he did.
    I do not believe Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain . Dr Pryde never said he strip-searched David Bain.
    My reason for thinking that Bain was never strip-searched was because he must have had those scratches on his torso at the time Pryde examined him. Bain himself has implied he may have gotten them in that “missing ” 20 minutes earlier that morning. He can’t think when else he could have got them and neither can any of his supporters.
    I know David Bain was never completely naked as he told Justice Binnie he was.

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

    muggins (2,161) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    ———————————-

    But in order to prove that muggins, you would first have to provide evidence that dictionaries and common perception, in which people without clothes consider themselves to be naked. Eg. I know many people who will tell you they sleep naked, even in winter, and yet, they are under sheets and blankets when asleep.

    There are a number of books I have seen whilst researching this, in which the authors states such things as ‘not realising she was naked, wrapped only in a towel’ – “she was naked, a sheet hiding her breasts”, and so on.

    David Bain, along with many people would consider themselves to be naked without clothes, even if wrapped in a blanket. You have an uphill battle to prove that he shared your opinion, in that the blanket meant he wasn’t naked. Fortunately most people, even Judith Collins have some commonsense, something that seems to have escaped you.

    Whilst I’m at it, your police friends did not observe Dr Pryde’s examination and were on hand to offer assistance if needed. Apparently you were told none of them saw David Bain naked, because none of them observed the examination. It appears you have put your own spin on what they said.

    I expect you will be hearing more about that.

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

    muggins (2,162) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    ———————————

    And how many demerit points to you have old man?
    And why do you feel the need to post old comments? Does it advance your theory in any way, or is it simply to draw attention to yourself, give you something to comment on and conduct your ‘look at me’ behaviour?

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

    Dennis Horne (636) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    ———————————–

    Think about it Dennis, how did he get splatter on his little finger that was coming towards him, not away from him?
    There is a simple explanation and you are simple enough to find it. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,531) Says:

    February 18th, 2013 at 9:27 am
    Muggins

    This is the last time I will comment to you regarding anything ‘sexual’ to do with the Bain case.

    Since the above was stated I would, at a guess, say that Judith has commented to me around about ten times regarding anything sexual to do with the Bain case.
    Judith, I implore you. Please desist from replying to me re sexual matters to do with the Bain case.

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

    muggins (2,162) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    I know David Bain was never completely naked as he told Justice Binnie he was.
    ———————————————-

    You do not ‘know’ you just think you do.

    Sadly for you, what you have said on here has been proven to be a lie. You lied about what you were told by the police. That is a fact.

    Regarding the examination of David Bain. If you have seen the list of the tests conducted on David Bain, you’ll know exactly what tests he had and that you are lying.

    To prove you aren’t lying, post the third one down on the list, then the 11th one.

    I know at least three people here can confirm if you are right.

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

    muggins (2,163) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    ———————————

    So now you think the examination and take on samples from David Bain was sexual? You disgusting man!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,534) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 2:11 pm
    muggins (2,161) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    ———————————-

    But in order to prove that muggins, you would first have to provide evidence that dictionaries and common perception, in which people without clothes consider themselves to be naked. Eg. I know many people who will tell you they sleep naked, even in winter, and yet, they are under sheets and blankets when asleep.

    There are a number of books I have seen whilst researching this, in which the authors states such things as ‘not realising she was naked, wrapped only in a towel’ – “she was naked, a sheet hiding her breasts”, and so on.

    David Bain, along with many people would consider themselves to be naked without clothes, even if wrapped in a blanket. You have an uphill battle to prove that he shared your opinion, in that the blanket meant he wasn’t naked. Fortunately most people, even Judith Collins have some commonsense, something that seems to have escaped you.

    Whilst I’m at it, your police friends did not observe Dr Pryde’s examination and were on hand to offer assistance if needed. Apparently you were told none of them saw David Bain naked, because none of them observed the examination. It appears you have put your own spin on what they said.

    Judith, when a person says they sleep naked it does not matter whether or not there are sheets on the bed. They are still naked.
    If I knocked on a door and a woman answered it with only a towel draped around her I don’t think she would be best pleased if I was to tell everyone that I saw her completely naked.
    You can argue the semantics all you like but I reckon most people would agree that if David Bain said he was completely naked then that means anyone looking on could see his nude body.
    But you have done the research, so I guess you may have a point. We will have to wait and see.

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

    •”Increasingly, NAATs are being used in the diagnosis. These can be taken from a range of genital samples – invasive, eg urethral, endocervical and non-invasive, eg first pass urine – so are frequently more acceptable”

    It appears even the medical profession is working against what Dennis and Muggins have to say about the urethral test. A dentist and an office boy – against the Medical Profession. Who would you believe?

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

    But you have done the research, so I guess you may have a point. We will have to wait and see.

    But that is where I am lucky, because I already know how your garbage has been dealt with. 😉
    Why don’t you try phoning your policeman friend again!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    And Judith, first of all I have no police friends.
    Secondly , there was only one police officer who was there when Pryde actually carried out his examination so far as I am aware and he said that David Bain was never completely naked. I am sure he would have noticed if he was.
    So we are back to arguing the meaning of completely naked and ,as I have said ,if I told people I had seen such and such a woman naked when it actual fact she had a towel round her I doubt she would be best pleased.
    Also, why did you mention Judith Collins?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,538) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 2:40 pm
    But you have done the research, so I guess you may have a point. We will have to wait and see.

    But that is where I am lucky, because I already know how your garbage has been dealt with.
    Why don’t you try phoning your policeman friend again!

    I have no need to phone him again. I have the email.
    And,as I have said ,he is not my friend,and I doubt very much if you even know his name.

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

    The nark being paranoid about being narked on lol, how ironic.;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,538) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
    •”Increasingly, NAATs are being used in the diagnosis. These can be taken from a range of genital samples – invasive, eg urethral, endocervical and non-invasive, eg first pass urine – so are frequently more acceptable”

    It appears even the medical profession is working against what Dennis and Muggins have to say about the urethral test. A dentist and an office boy – against the Medical Profession. Who would you believe?

    Judith, I think you can believe someone who has had a penile examination.
    And once again, we are talking about a rectal examination, not a penile examination. David Bain said every orifice was probed. Dr Pryde never said or wrote down that he probed David Bain’s rectum.
    And I see you are still discussing sexual matters with me even though you said you wouldn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (321) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
    The nark being paranoid about being narked on lol, how ironic.;)

    Yeah, you gotta laugh. When I got some demerits there was a lot a cheering and shouting from the David Bain supporters club, but when the boot is on the other foot it is a different story.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    one side is definitely much nastier than the other. keep up the good work muggins, goldnkiwi, Dennis, Psycho Milt, Snarkle. I enjoy reading your contributions. not so the others.

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

    muggins (2,170) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 3:10 pm
    ————————–

    No, it is you who is talking about the rectal exam, I was talking about invasive tests.
    Please don’t dictate what people must talk about, we know you want this to be all about you, but its not.

    If you think medical examinations are sexual, you are an extremely sick man.

    You may have had a penile examination, if you have you have had a procedure that is defined by the medical profession as being ‘invasive’. That is what the topic was, not whether it hurt or bled or anything similar, but that it was classified as an invasive procedure. However, as usual you put your own slant on it, and have to make it yet another ‘look at me’ moment for yourself.

    You are a dishonest attention seeker.

    Dr Pryde did write down what tests he did on David Bain, and copies of the test results were in his notes.

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

    bort_simpson (11) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    —————————

    Then don’t read them. Really is it that difficult for you to work out?

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

    muggins (2,170) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    ———————————–

    Strange thing about your email though is that the person you stated that sent one to you, never did.

    Another one of your ‘fantasies’.

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

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

    ————————————–

    Again, the problem you have is that he and the others you stated you talked to, don’t accept your version.

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

    muggins (2,170) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 2:41 pm
    And Judith, first of all I have no friends.

    ——————————————

    I’m not the least bit surprised!

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

    Yeah, you gotta laugh. When I got some demerits there was a lot a cheering and shouting from the David Bain supporters club, but when the boot is on the other foot it is a different story.

    At least your running crying to the teacher has proved it was true, much better than I could have ever done. Thanks for that.

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

    Kanz (1,028) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 4:19 pm
    …. proved it was true
    ————————————–

    I’m not the least bit surprised about that either. 😉

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

    Dennis Horne (637) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    —————————

    I don’t need to draw you pictures, although perhaps they are something you would understand better as you seem to have trouble with words.

    There are plenty of photos taken in court and available publicly that give adequate demonstrations.
    For some reason you seem to be of the opinion that Stephen was a giant and his fingerprints would have covered the total surface area. Strange!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    ‘Judith (1,544) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
    Secondly , there was only one police officer who was there when Pryde actually carried out his examination so far as I am aware and he said that David Bain was never completely naked. I am sure he would have noticed if he was.

    ————————————–

    Again, the problem you have is that he and the others you stated you talked to, don’t accept your version.’

    One person in the world backed up by a police officer who doesn’t exist, or by another version a police conspiracy to hide evidence critical to the Crown, a fully certified space cadet.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Judith (1,538) Says: February 20th, 2013 at 2:18 pm Dennis Horne (636) Says: February 20th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    Think about it Dennis, how did he get splatter on his little finger that was coming towards him, not away from him?
    There is a simple explanation and you are simple enough to find it.

    The blood splat on the left index fingernail is one reason Dempster gave for not believing it was suicide. The other reasons were the urine load and the position of the body. Dempster did not think then Robin shot himself and Dempster does not think now that Robin shot himself.

    It is not I arguing with the medical profession. It is Cultus Bain.

    The reason the blood spot could not have reached the fingernail with the force it did if Robin had used his left hand at the trigger is quite simple. Robin died instantly and his body crumpled to the floor immediately. His left hand would have needed to fall palm down in front of him where he was shot, to “collect” the blood spatter. It did not. Did it?

    Therefore it is impossible Robin used his left hand to pull the trigger. It is also almost certain anyone guiding a rifle to one’s head, in this case accurately to the left temple, would grasp it at the end – the muzzle. The muzzle was a suppressor that bore two prints of Stephen, pristine, not smudged.

    Please demonstrate how Robin placed his right knee on the chair, guided the rifle to his temple with his left hand, without smudging Stephen’s prints (or leaving any of his own), and pulled the trigger with his right hand.

    A cartoon will do.


    For some reason you seem to be of the opinion that Stephen was a giant and his fingerprints would have covered the total surface area. Strange!

    It is not Stephen’s prints that cover the suppressor, it is the “grasping”. The way to hold a rifle with telescopic sights which, being offset, naturally tends to rotate in your hand, is to grasp it firmly with the whole hand, the fingers wrapped around it.

    I know. Robin deliberately fiddled about so as to leave Stephen’s prints, to make David look like a killer.

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

    Dennis Horne (637) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    I know. Robin deliberately fiddled about

    Oh, the old man ‘fiddled about’ alright. Then he killed all who he thought could tell others about it. Too late though, it seems half of Dunedin already knew.

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

    Judith (1,545) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    You do not ‘know’ you just think you do.

    Sadly for you, what you have said on here has been proven to be a lie. You lied about what you were told by the police. That is a fact.

    Regarding the examination of David Bain. If you have seen the list of the tests conducted on David Bain, you’ll know exactly what tests he had and that you are lying.

    To prove you aren’t lying, post the third one down on the list, then the 11th one.

    I know at least three people here can confirm if you are right.

    The only thing that you can know from muggins is that he is a lying piece of crap, they are all so obvious, it was about as good as Huttons that David Beattie was forced into signing the Thomas commission by Muldoon.
    The amount of people here who think they have a better qualified opinion than Binnie and the PC et al is incredible, their complete arrogance astonishing

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

    Or maybe the blood spot came from Stephen

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

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

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

    ————————————–

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

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

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

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

    Lindsay Kennard (40) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    Initially there was three officers with Dr Pride two of whom left the room and the third left for a short period before returning to observe the victim examination.

    If you and muggins wish to lie about the same thing, you would do much better to get your stories to match.
    Better still, you tell lies about one thing, and leave the other for muggins, then you won’t get confused and give the game away.

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

    Rowan (696) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    Or maybe the blood spot came from Stephen

    Makes sense, it was coming towards the body rather than away from.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    Judith (1,545) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 4:12 pm Then don’t read them.

    I don’t bother reading it. Your distorted view and venom is crap. I have plenty of time for those who see the truth that Robin Bain is not guilty because they are telling the truth.

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

    bort_simpson (12) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    Judith (1,545) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 4:12 pm Then don’t read them.

    I don’t bother reading it. Your distorted view and venom is crap. I have plenty of time for those who see the truth that Robin Bain is not guilty because they are telling the truth.

    ———————————-

    And yet here you are, responding because you have read it. 😉

    They see the truth because they are telling the truth? Really? Wow!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-robins-hands

    So the blood spot came from Stephen. Is this after or before Robin washed up and changed out of his clothes bloodied in the struggle with Stephen?

    Who arose from the dead? Stephen or Robin?

    Morons and imbeciles unite
    The battle lost but still you fight
    The forensics clear for all to see
    Robin shot before he’d had a pee.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (40) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Initially there was three officers with Dr Pride two of whom left the room and the third left for a short period before returning to observe the victim examination.

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

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

    Slurp!
    I can feel the dribble from here.

    Firstly it’s Dr Pryde, not Pride.

    I don’t suppose it occurred to you that if those officers had anything to add, i.e. that they saw any injuries, or that they observed David Bain trying to hide his chest or other strange behaviour, or even that they observed the procedures Dr Pryde had performed that varied from what the defense said, that they would have been put on the stand by the Crown?

    Those officers did not observe the procedures – and therefore are unable to confirm anything other than David Bain’s clothes were removed from the room and taken for testing. Muggins has lied to you all, which is why he cannot produce the email he was supposedly ‘sent’, as he knows it would not pass scrutiny. He does not have an email that states David Bain was definitely never naked and that Dr Pryde did not examine his torso etc.

    No email stating anything like that was sent from any of the three officers or their supervisors.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    For sad old Dennis and the splash of blood on the left index finger;

    Q: Has it occurred to you, Doctor, that the direction that it’s coming from indicates that it might have come from someone else (not Robin?)
    Dempster: It certainly could have.

    Added to the further evidence of a red substance under Robin’s nails, blood wash on his palms, the blood on the towel, the injury to his hands (both,) his blood found on the towel and the above blood (in Dempster’s cross) that certainly could have come from some one else makes daddy the killer. One of these could possibly be dismissed, though I wouldn’t include in that the blood wash, but in total they are strong forensic evidence against Robin, insurmountable. Despite Dennis giving us half a page of diatribe he totally omits that the Crown pathologist agreed that the blood splash could certainly have come from one of the victims and even he were able to progress the case ‘for’ Robin he cannot omit any of the above in the narrative. The narrative must deal with the actual forensic evidence against Robin, and no such narrative exists, the only complete narrative is that which shows David’s innocence on the BOP.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Or maybe the blood spot came from Stephen

    Why not? Maybe the old guy decided not to finish Stephen off after strangling him with his t-shirt, but then changed his mind in-between cleaning himself up and changing his clothes, and popped back to put one through the top of Stephen’s head, copping a tiny spot of blood on his fingernail in the process. And maybe Stephen hadn’t recovered sufficiently in the interim to have put up another struggle. I have to admit it’s at least as plausible as the idea that Robin shot himself with one foot on the chair but didn’t get significant blood spatter on the chair.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    I can see you’re excited by your own stupidity milt. Why would there be significant spatter on the chair? If you can’t answer that tell us how it happens that robin was found dead on the floor with one leg bent, the same leg which had spatter going in two directions on the trouser leg, just another big coincidence? Take your time, you know you’re full of it and it’s just brimming to come out.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    So Robin decided to kill them all but spare David, because David was the only one who deserved to live. Please ask David why he thinks his father spared him. Circular arguments welcome.

    While I’m waiting I’ll read some tea leaves, or something else that might make some sense.

    The cult consists of fools and liars
    With an array of tools and pliers
    Twisting the truth out of shape
    Will their clatter never abate?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    either the defence or prosecution witnesses must have been able to estimate the amount of blood on RBs hands to produce the residue. How much?

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

    I don’t need to lie I have heard the evidence twice.

    A problem some have is that their information by way of books and A dottery old Judge who transferred Canadian Law to New Zealand. Canadian Law and Law enforcement is very prescriptive following a series of royal commissions of inquiry into miscarriages of justice where police, prosecutors, expert witnesses, and defense counsel misconduct were major factors. The other area of concern is witness identification where 8 out of 10 people identified the wrong people and the Use of Jail house informers. Canadian police must follow the manual and major cases also use what they call a ‘Contrarian’, an officer of equal or senior rank to the investigation leader whose function is to challenge very decision.
    A less common cause but still happening are false confessions resulting in convictions.
    Binnie was a junior defense counsel in the Paul Moran case and in his 2003 paper on expert witnesses says that was his only experience in criminal work. I believe that was why he treated the police manual as the Manual that must be obeyed no matter what. It is probably a pity that Binnie did not check that instead of making an erroneous assumption. He did seek clarification of some law but the proceeding to ignore some of it or misapply it just as he did his terms of reference.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    Judith (1,547) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    For those with comprehension difficulties:

    I don’t bother reading [pro david bainers rubbish]. Your distorted view and venom is crap.
    I have plenty of time for those who see the truth that Robin Bain is Not Guilty – because they are telling the truth (hence what they say is worth something).

    Threads like this give new meaning to the title “the never ending story”. But, there is only one truth and if pro-david bainers haven’t got it through their noggins they are wrong by now, there is little hope for them. Remedial Comprehension courses may be available in their regions, but whether they really want to understand the truth, or just express their anger against police and father figures is debatable.

    There is a very nasty, criminal feel from the style of pro david bainer comments. always that menacing, threatening style. very unpleasant.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Try pulling legs off frogs and boiling them with bat wings Dennis. The sisters have a long history of brewing up curses and talking with the dead, all in the name of the dead daddy leader. Why would David know what the nutcase said or did? Ask the nutcases in team robin, they could help you out.

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

    Please demonstrate how Robin placed his right knee on the chair, guided the rifle to his temple with his left hand, without smudging Stephen’s prints (or leaving any of his own), and pulled the trigger with his right hand.

    A cartoon will do.

    There is a very accurate demonstration by Philip Boyce showing how Robin could commit suicide easily, he could have reached the trigger with all of the fingers on left hand and thumb. Dempster conceded that it was perfectly feasible and required no awkward contortions whatsoever.
    The imbecile continues to post crap about the fingerprints, heard it all before, smudged prints could have easily been Daddys, considering that positive fingerprint recovery from perpetrators occurs in around 5% of cases then why surprising? only for the twits!
    The clip posted on CS was pure comedy, good entertainment value but totally at odds with any of the evidence, but hey why bother letting the facts get in the way of a good story. Surprise surprise there is no plausible explanation by any of the bullcrappers or crown law on how Daddy was ‘murdered’. Guess proving a negative is impossible, you still provide good daily entertainment though!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,039) Says: February 20th, 2013 at 8:03 pm. Try pulling legs off frogs and boiling them with bat wings Dennis. The sisters have a long history of brewing up curses and talking with the dead, all in the name of the dead daddy leader. Why would David know what the nutcase said or did? Ask the nutcases in team robin, they could help you out.

    Ah, Nosty, you miss the point, again. That seems to be your forte, eh?

    It’s not the answer in itself that’s important, it’s also the way it’s answered. Let me tell you what I think, and I can tell you read every word I write Thank you. It’s SO encouraging.

    I think that anyone who thinks Robin spared David because he thought he was the only one who deserved to live, but killed the remainder of his family to avoid shame and humiliation, is deranged.

    I don’t think there’s anything that can help you, so leave the poor frogs and old bats alone. 🙂 🙂 🙂

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

    bort_simpson (13) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    “Your distorted view and venom is crap.”

    Maybe look in the mirror dipshit, why not use actual evidence as opposed to your ‘factual’ opinions
    You are truly pathetic!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Rowan. If Robin’s left hand was at the trigger how did the fingernail get a blood spat in it?

    Please take your time. Explanations may in include arising from the dead. Nothing is impossible in the Bain cult belief system.

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

    “I believe that was why he treated the police manual as the Manual that must be obeyed no matter what. It is probably a pity that Binnie did not check that instead of making an erroneous assumption. He did seek clarification of some law but the proceeding to ignore some of it or misapply it just as he did his terms of reference.”

    I guess another JFRBer is hiding behind the ‘copybook’ enquiry as found by the Police Covering Arse authority. Clearly there was no requirement for the police to take GSR tests, protect the bodies of the deceased, collect and test blood samples or keep the relevant carpet samples containing the bloody footprints, the piece of carpet with blood from Robins head wound was obviously important enough to keep though! This investigation was nothing short of pathetic and this is why its such a controversial case today.
    The one who clearly shows no understanding of NZ Law is Robert Fisher, his report was legalistic academic bullcrap. Mind you he hadn’t read the evidence and the report was just to provide some rationale in order to justify the decision that Judy had already clearly made. He clearly avoids coming to any conclusions. He sites bayes theorem and cites Robertson and Vignaux but then promptly shows he has no understanding of it and implies that the ‘rope’ strands can draw strength from each other. Seems similar quality to his report into the Rex Haig case.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Of course Dennis you would know what the dead holy man would think and wouldn’t think. Thanks for that, but the crux of the matter is all that blood over the dead daddy, his hands damaged from killing his family, his bent leg and the rifle beside his body, his nose still leaching blood from the fight with his youngest son. Little stuff I know for members of the ‘i love daddy club’ but never the less important.

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

    Dennis
    Try comprehending Dempsters evidence in Nos’s 7.12
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/hope_legal_aid_isnt_funding_this.html/comment-page-5#comment-1100140
    Maybe you could show BRD how the blood could not have been Stephens, clearly you think there is sufficient evidence for a BRD conviction, surprising how the crown were very short on explanations for any of the blood evidence!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (41) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 7:55 pm

    I don’t need to lie I have heard the evidence twice.

    A problem some have is that their information by way of books and A dottery old Judge who transferred Canadian Law to New Zealand. Canadian Law and Law enforcement is very prescriptive following a series of royal commissions of inquiry into miscarriages of justice where police, prosecutors, expert witnesses, and defense counsel misconduct were major factors. The other area of concern is witness identification where 8 out of 10 people identified the wrong people and the Use of Jail house informers. Canadian police must follow the manual and major cases also use what they call a ‘Contrarian’, an officer of equal or senior rank to the investigation leader whose function is to challenge very decision.
    A less common cause but still happening are false confessions resulting in convictions.
    Binnie was a junior defense counsel in the Paul Moran case and in his 2003 paper on expert witnesses says that was his only experience in criminal work. I believe that was why he treated the police manual as the Manual that must be obeyed no matter what. It is probably a pity that Binnie did not check that instead of making an erroneous assumption. He did seek clarification of some law but the proceeding to ignore some of it or misapply it just as he did his terms of reference.

    So, because NZ hasn’t yet had as many miscarriages of justice as Canada has, then our police have no need to follow their own manual? When should they start doing that, then? After 100 MOJs? 200?
    What is the manual for, just so they can say they have one?
    I can see now how Binnie got it so wrong, he expected the police and prosecutors to follow the rules, but that is apparently not how it is meant to be done here. They should have made that clear to him from the start.

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

    Lindsay Kennard (41) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 7:55 pm
    I don’t need to lie I have heard the evidence twice …. blah blah blah.
    ——————————————

    All this from a man that insists Dr Pryde only completed a single test (blood) on David Bain, despite Dr Pryde stating at the first trial that he took a number of tests/samples, many of which he named.

    You might have heard it twice, but you sure as hell aren’t remembering what you heard.

    If you don’t need to lie, why did you at 12.04 a.m. this morning?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Old trauma to Robin’s hands from fixing the spouting and no blood except a recent spat that arrived with force after he cleaned up and changed his clothes, supposedly, because there was no blood on them. Some bleeding from the nose caused by the bullet whizzing around inside his skull. The rifle not where it would have dropped beside him next to the curtains. The corpse moved to the beanbag. The suicide scene set…

    David says: “My core belief is I was not there.” Yes/No/Maybe?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    obort’s knickers are getting tighter by the minute and the old cow has taken to ‘general summings up’ on the nature of the debate. What style, and why not. If you haven’t a clue of why you’re supporting a dead daddy then blame the opposition, Binnie, the Jury, the Privy Council. But obort and her friends know why they’re supporting the dead daddy by lying about the Bain case – because daddy done it with the rifle he took from David rooms, spilling shells all over the floor then walking about the house killing everyone he could find. That’s what he done and he wrote it in blood on his hands.

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

    Dennis Horne (641) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
    ———————————

    You’ve been provided with answers. Just because they aren’t what you want to hear, doesn’t mean you get to carry on like the energiser bunny until someone tells you what you want to hear.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,041) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    —————————-

    Don’t forget the Energiser Bunny – he seems to be stuck on the same movement. Perhaps some castor oil would help remove his blockage.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Try comprehending Dempsters evidence…

    Yet more proof there’s no such thing as a fatal dose of irony.

    Maybe you could show BRD how the blood could not have been Stephens…

    Er… What? Seriously? Perhaps while he’s at it he could demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt how the blood couldn’t have been Lord Lucan’s…

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

    Rowan (700) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 9:11 pm
    Dennis
    Try comprehending Dempsters evidence in Nos’s 7.12

    —————————————–

    You are joking aren’t you? You want Dennis to comprehend something?

    He’s had every one of his questions answered, but because no one will give him an answer that agrees with his own very limited knowledge, he can’t comprehend the answer. My suggestion is ignore him. Leave him to his poetry and be thankful he’s probably too old to actually have patients. Can you imagine having to lie there in a chair, with instruments in your mouth listening to his dribble?

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

    Psycho Milt (1,219) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    ——————————

    It would have saved energy if you’d just typed ‘no I can’t demonstrate how the blood could not have been Stephen’s’. And it would have been a lot more believable than your attempt to bypass. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The evasive crap is not only brimming at the top milt, but it’s also bursting at your seams. Have you ever thought of a lonely hearts club, or getting another comfort blanket for when you go to work on yourself?

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

    Miltie
    In order to convict BRD you need to prove BRD that he ‘could not’ and ‘did not’ commit suicide. You so far haven’t got past 0.00000%, The crown tried to disprove suicide by bringing in additional pathologists to try and discredit their own expert witness. Their evidence did not stand up to scrutiny and they were an embarrassment to the crown case and did more damage to it by making themselves look stupid ie Ferris trying to explain the bullet wounds in Laniets bedroom. They also try to say that suicide is ‘unlikely’ but failed to show any way that Robin could have been murdered. As you say ‘consistent with’ doesn’t mean ‘actually’ but as there is no other explanation than the defence one which should we believe?
    I’m sure you’ll say the crown one “suicide is ‘unlikely’ but ‘possible’ but we can’t explain ‘murder’ so will instead stay well clear of the lounge.
    Sums up their argument pretty well.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    Why would there be significant spatter on the chair?

    Well, indeed. There wouldn’t be anything much on the chair if R. Bain was murdered. If he was using the chair as a foot- and gun-rest, on the other hand… well, pause this video at 1.10 and see for yourself why there would be significant spatter on the chair. It would be one nasty, fucked-up chair after having that done to it, you bet.

    While you’re at it, picture where the body’s going to end up.

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

    Judith @ 9.11
    Yes I know far to much to expect, who should we believe in this case the ex dentist who gets his facts from the CS witchhunt and the media or the judge with access to all of the information and relevant witnesses. I mean who is more qualified to express an opinion on the position of the spare magazine the ex dentist or the law lords of the privvy council!

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

    The evasive crap is not only brimming at the top milt, but it’s also bursting at your seams.

    Still waiting. Whenever you’re ready.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Dear Miltie

    I don’t look at links, I look at the evidence, like the blood covered daddy.
    I hope you don’t consider this a personal question, but do you reckon he blinked, had his eyes closed or flinched when he done it to himself?

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

    Milt
    The chair isn’t even neccesary, check out this one, only one of the options put forward note, Boyce found it just as easy on the chair as the floor. Also note how many times he says in both clips “its very easy”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxukweo638E

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    ‘I can see you’re excited by your own stupidity milt. Why would there be significant spatter on the chair? If you can’t answer that tell us how it happens that robin was found dead on the floor with one leg bent, the same leg which had spatter going in two directions on the trouser leg, just another big coincidence? Take your time, you know you’re full of it and it’s just brimming to come out.’

    You’re becoming very needy milt, just because you’re a moron you don’t get discount coupons for being a dimwit.

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

    Miltie
    In order to convict BRD you need to prove BRD that he ‘could not’ and ‘did not’ commit suicide

    Well, no. No you don’t. In order to convict in a circumstantial evidence case, you need to convince a jury that the accused would have to be the victim of an implausible series of coincidences if he was innocent. I know you and Judith fail to grasp this concept, but the rules don’t depend on your understanding for their existence.

    As regards the blood spot on Robin’s fingernail, it could indeed have come from Stephen, just as it could have come from Lord Lucan. The question is how likely it is to have done so, and in this case the likelihood falls into the technical category known as “You must be fucking joking, matey.’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Nos
    The following extract on your website from one of the twisted sisters arguments on TM message-boards was hilarious, I would actually whole heartedly agree with them on the statement, Really sums up their level of intelligence

    cybernana wrote:
    He probably just guessed that Laniet was alive before she was shot, good guess I would say. Same goes for Robin. In fact, I suspect all 5 of them were alive before they were shot.
    I agree,cyber,all five of them,including Robin,were alive before they were shot.
    Quote

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    For implausible miltie try the explaining the blood all over your dead hero.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    I hope you don’t consider this a personal question, but do you reckon he blinked, had his eyes closed or flinched when he done it to himself

    Good job you aren’t filled with hate like those evil JFRB types, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Maybe miltless is on to something after all, he’s also fascinated with Lord Lucan.
    Well heck, that could mean something about daddy’s bent leg and bleeding nose.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Psycho Milt (3,108 comments) says:

    The chair isn’t even neccesary,

    Perhaps he adopted Boyce’s bent over, rifle-braced-on-the-floor position, then decided he’d cock his right leg to make it more of a trick shot? Forgive my skepticism.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,045) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    ‘I can see you’re excited by your own stupidity milt. Why would there be significant spatter on the chair? If you can’t answer that tell us how it happens that robin was found dead on the floor with one leg bent, the same leg which had spatter going in two directions on the trouser leg, just another big coincidence? Take your time, you know you’re full of it and it’s just brimming to come out.’

    You’re becoming very needy milt, just because you’re a moron you don’t get discount coupons for being a dimwit.

    The bent leg is a good one. Isn’t it Rowan who has Bain lifting the old man under the arms and dragging him over there? Did he then bend just the one leg to make it look like suicide? Was Bain a smart cookie or what? Thought of everything.

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

    Kanz
    I believe this was from Dennis, he seemed to think so he also believes Ferris’s evidence about shaking the dead body to account for the splatter on the curtains. Do you think this is plausible Milt? If you look at the photos of Daddy does the blood from his head wound indicate that the body has been ‘shaken’?

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

    Kanz
    I believe this was from Dennis, he seemed to think so he also believes Ferris’s evidence about shaking the dead body to account for the splatter on the curtains. Do you think this is plausible Milt? If you look at the photos of Daddy does the blood from his head wound indicate that the body has been ‘shaken’?

    Apologies Rowan, of course it was old Denny. How could I have possibly have given you the credit for such a stupid idea?

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

    Psycho Milt (1,224) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    Well, no. No you don’t. In order to convict in a circumstantial evidence case, you need to convince a jury that the accused would have to be the victim of an implausible series of coincidences if he was innocent. I know you and Judith fail to grasp this concept, but the rules don’t depend on your understanding for their existence.

    As regards the blood spot on Robin’s fingernail, it could indeed have come from Stephen, just as it could have come from Lord Lucan. The question is how likely it is to have done so, and in this case the likelihood falls into the technical category known as “You must be fucking joking, matey.’

    Milt
    You are normally one of the few Robin partisans that is actually worth answering as you do have some vague sense of logical reasoning in some of your posts. This one however demonstrates stupidity and a complete ignorance of your understanding of NZ law.
    Simple laws 101 for you
    At the retrial the burden of proof lay on the prosecution to prove Davids guilt BRD, to make Daddy ‘innocent’ then they needed to prove that he couldn’t have committed suicide BRD, hard for you to get your simplistic mind around I know!
    As for Lucan don’t go there, you are better of acknowledging you have no explanation for the blood spot, minimum probability it wasn’t Stephens being very generous to the idiots 50%, It somehow defies the law of physics that it came from his head wound!

    Kanz
    Any need for the sarcasm? or the ridiculous accusations?

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

    Kanz
    Any need for the sarcasm? or the ridiculous accusations?

    Rowan, it was not sarcasm, but a genuine apology. I had earlier simply used your name by mistake, I had indeed meant Dennis.

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

    Sorry Kanz
    misunderstanding I saw your post and thought WTF!, How anyone can believe such a ridiculous scenario is beyond me! The lengths that Robin would have had to cooperate with his ‘murderer’ to be innocent is totally ridiculous. I guess they can ask him all about it before to long, I wonder would they even believe it then?

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

    The repeated mantra ‘read the evidence’ is something of a joke surely as there appears to be three entirely records of evidence. There is the evidence from the investigation and first trial then there is the evidence as interpreted in three books which at times appears to be from a different investigation all together finally the evidence from the third trial not forget of course the post trial rewrite of the evidence given at both trials mixed with a few herbs and spices. purported to be the definitive and complete record of evidence as written by the only one who knows all the evidence.

    I wonder what happened to the definitive evidence of the three prostitutes who knew and spoke to Laniet and ere the trump card to prove conclusively the allegations of Incest then there was the attempted entrapment of the Young man Greet. The sales man who could see people walk through wooden shelving to exit through the rear doors of a van and spoke to the office administrator of a two room school that had no office Then there was the VPFL ballistic tests that returned a contrary finding so was left unpaid for for a number of years. It was a pity the police officer returned it it would have made for interesting testimony as defence forensic evidence must be disclosed to the crown in a timely fashion to allow the crown to seek rebuttal
    Lots of evidence that should have be part of the Binnie Report but wasn’t. but it leaves those trying to understand, when told to look at the evidence spoiled for choice. and certain in the knowledge that not matter which evidence is read it will be the wrong one.

    One thing about Scott Watson the is an abundance of books by different authors to compare what is known Even the first Book written by Jayson Rhodes as Scott’s trial was still in progress and published before his sentencing concluded the verdict was unsafe. The official police version written by opposition leader Jenny Shipley’s Chief Press Secretary John Goulter is not convincing and Goulter an experienced spin doctor could not convincingly spin the evidence to Guilty. Then of course Mike Kalaugher could not find among existing evidence any thing that even point in the general direction of Scott Keith Hunter who has all the investigation paper work and both transcripts of the Trial as well as all the video footage [the trail was the first to be video recorded in its entirety in NZ] Keith even with all the information he has still consults with Chris Watson on the evidence to ensure accuracy. Jayson Rhodes, Mike Kalaugher, Keith Hunter and Chris have never shied away from constructive criticism, but where the accuracy of information has been questioned they have been able to produce from police and prosecution material the source document to back their statement.

    Two things set R v Bain and R v Watson apart and that is legal aid one post appeal defence team has received $millions in aid and the other team none in spite of repeated applications and appeals to the Ombudsman, the answer has been no inmates who have finished the appeal process that is the Court of Appeal are not entitled to legal aid. [The Ombudsman agreed that is legally correct but asked the department to show some discretion]

    There would be less opposition to compensation if more people had written about the Bain Case, one author who sets out to alienate two whole families is not going to be unbiased in his writing as a large part of the story is missing. New Zealanders in general are fair minded and willing to listen to a well constructed and cogent argument but when legal action is threatened for being critical of a book claiming to be factual then sympathy goes cold quickly.

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

    I believe the problem people have with Binnie is that he is inconsistent and has it would only considered the evidence the Privy Council referred to in its ruling. He incorrectly put the burden of proof in a number of crown submissions on the Crown that is not law the burden of proof never ever shilts from the Claimant. The Crown is in a similar position as the accused in a Trial, they have to prove nothing, Binnie dismissed Crown Submissions but gave no reason for dismissing it, he could not do that he could only give it less weight, but he still had to ‘put it on the scales’. He accepted Bain submissions for reasons that don’t exist in NZ law. The error about the number of times Steven was shot was serious and rightfully calls into question his judgement just as the Privy Council called in question the Court of Appeal ruling on the new evidence, and rightfully so, the court acted outside its powers which I find more than a little ironic as the Act creating the Court did allow the Justices to make findings of fact but they choose to not use that ability and it was removed. The Justices did not want to have to look at transcripts as searching law was more ‘fun’. The Court was hoist on its own petard.

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

    This one however demonstrates stupidity and a complete ignorance of your understanding of NZ law.
    Simple laws 101 for you
    At the retrial the burden of proof lay on the prosecution to prove Davids guilt BRD, to make Daddy ‘innocent’ then they needed to prove that he couldn’t have committed suicide BRD, hard for you to get your simplistic mind around I know.

    Thanks anyway, but I think this guy has more credibility on the issue. Judge’s summing up at the 1995 trial:

    “the law is that the
    Crown does not have to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt
    before you can take that circumstance into account and add it to the whole.
    As I’ve said the law requires you to make an holistic assessment of the
    evidence as a whole.”

    And this:

    “the logic that underpins a circumstantial case is that
    the accused is either guilty or is the victim of an implausible sequence of
    coincidences.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    A guy in England was convicted of murder when the only evidence against him was (according to the defence attorney) was a terribly unfortunate series of events in which 3 women drowned in the bath shortly after marrying him, taking out life insurance, and naming him as the sole beneficiary. He claimed it was all bad luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,552) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 4:19 pm
    I have no friends.

    ——————————————

    I’m not the least bit surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,552) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 4:15 pm
    muggins (2,170) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    ———————————–

    Strange thing about your email though is that the person you stated that sent one to you, never did.

    Another one of your ‘fantasies’.

    Judith, I have caught you out again. I never said who that email was from ,so how could you possibly know that person never sent one,if you don’t even know who it was that sent it?
    A copy has been sent to you know who.

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

    muggins (2,172) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 7:50 am Judith, I have caught you out again. I never said who that email was from ,so how could you possibly know that person never sent one,if you don’t even know who it was that sent it?

    Really? What was this then?

    muggins (2,172) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    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.

    You see, your big mouth is in the process of getting a few people in trouble. Either that or those people will all call you a liar.

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

    Muggins, you have stated several times (different versions) e.g. bosses of people who had been on holiday, and so on like Kanz says.

    I believe the Commissioners Office has investigated all possibilities and have found that none of the possible three officers that were responsible for the supervision of David Bain that morning, have ‘bosses’, (which was defined as supervisors) that have sent you an email. We already know that no application was made under the OIA, like you once claimed.

    You seem to forget that what you have encouraged those men to do is considered to be an act of serious misconduct regarding the Police Code of Conduct, and the Police Commissioners office is taking the complaint very seriously apparently.

    That you are stupid enough to send an email to Ms Collins ( I presume that is who you mean by your ‘you know who’) is further demonstration of how foolish you are. You do realise that if she has accepted that information from you, her position is also compromised.

    And all of that to prove nothing, because the officers concerned did not observe Dr Pryde’s examination and are unable to offer anything regarding David Bain’s injuries or nakedness.

    You would have to be the most stupid man I’ve ever had the misfortune to come across on the internet. Your desire to be a big noter, and ‘somebody’ is out of control. Regardless of what was said by the people you’ve contacted, even if they change their minds and support you, it only adds weight to ineptitude in the police investigation and the Crown’s presentation of it. Not to mention the acceptance and apparent condoning of corrupt practices, by a government minister.

    You were warned but too arrogant and desperate to listen.

    P.S. You don’t have to use the ‘you know who’, you’ve stupidly published the name of that person.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,036) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 8:11 am
    muggins (2,172) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 7:50 am Judith, I have caught you out again. I never said who that email was from ,so how could you possibly know that person never sent one,if you don’t even know who it was that sent it?

    Really? What was this then?

    muggins (2,172) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    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.

    You see, your big mouth is in the process of getting a few people in trouble. Either that or those people will all call you a liar.

    Kanz,
    So who is the head sherang? Who is that person who sent me that email? How do you know it wasn’t a person who was relieving head sherang while the head sherang was on holiday?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Refer my reply to Kanz.

    And when I said “you know who” I thought you would know who I meant, but obviously you don’t know.

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

    Muggins, you think you are being clever, but you’re not. You seem to forget that this isn’t the only place you type out your fantasies.

    You change your story every time you are caught out. The Police do not even have to speak to the person that sent the email, they simply do a search of their system to find sent emails on the dates concerned. You underestimate technology. You also underestimate the Police who having copped enough flack over this, are not about to be drawn into further controversy by allowing the behaviour you’ve instigated to go unchecked. It is vitally important for them to keep their ‘nose clean’ at this point and time, so you can rest assured, the copies of your on line comments are not being ignored. They are not about to have their officers appearing to be providing new evidence on the Bain case willy nilly to any drop kick that cares to phone.

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

    muggins (2,174) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 8:25 am

    Had this been the only place you ‘shared your pearls of knowledge’ you may have had a point, if we were as stupid as you.
    But as it isn’t, you have left information in many places. Collating all of that has been very easy, because we are dealing with an idiot, and a big mouthed one at that.
    Imagine the uproar if it was found that Karam had constantly harangued the Minister of Justice with his views on a matter before him/her.
    Well, now put the shoe on the other foot and look at what you have been doing from the same point of view. Big trouble on the horizon…. enjoy the ride….

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

    Kanz,
    So who is the head sherang? Who is that person who sent me that email? How do you know it wasn’t a person who was relieving head sherang while the head sherang was on holiday?

    ————————————————
    There is always the possibility that the relieving head sherang, being aware of the code of conduct and how wrong it was for them to provide such information, and knowing how very important muggins is, went to an internet cafe to send him an email, which is why there isn’t any record of it, or perhaps he got his wife to send it from home, or maybe his pussycat has an internet connection.

    But really????

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Lindsay Kennard (43) Says:

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

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

    ————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

    muggins (2,175) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 8:50 am

    Oh, and changing the subject will not make it go away.

    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The bewildering mind of a hangbainer, the ‘head sherang of the detectives,’ then goes onto say you don’t know who it was he mght have been on holiday. Translation from stupidity: if isn’t the appointed OIC then it can only have been the acting OIC whilst he was away.

    Good if this gets rid of the lying pervert.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    In the lastest opinion poll, a mere 40% believe David was wrongly convicted. A smaller figure (36%) believe he was wrongly convicted and should receive compo. I imagine these figures will continue to fall as the public realise what a lying, deceitful person David is.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8331111/After-18-years-David-Bain-case-still-divides

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,037) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 8:42 am
    muggins (2,174) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 8:25 am

    Imagine the uproar if it was found that Karam had constantly harangued the Minister of Justice with his views on a matter before him/her.
    Well, now put the shoe on the other foot and look at what you have been doing from the same point of view. Big trouble on the horizon…. enjoy the ride….

    Kanz, so are you saying that Karam hasn’t harangued the Minister of Justice?
    And I am sure I will enjoy any ride that comes along.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,038) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 8:56 am
    muggins (2,175) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 8:50 am

    Oh, and changing the subject will not make it go away.

    LMFAO

    Changing what subject?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    “the logic that underpins a circumstantial case is that
    the accused is either guilty or is the victim of an implausible sequence of
    coincidences.”

    Odd that you would quote from a mistrial as if it could hold any importance over later findings. But that’s all you have milt.

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

    muggins (2,175) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 8:50 am

    —————————-
    LOL
    Trying so hard to piece it together to rescue your reputation.

    You are forgetting it was not up to the defense to establish innocence, it was up to the Crown to establish guilt.

    The Crown were aware that they defense where giving evidence regarding Dr Pryde’s examination, so if they were able to provide evidence (via those three officers) to disprove it, they would have.

    Fact is, they didn’t because those officers could not provide any information.

    They were of no use to the defense either, for the same reason. They could neither confirm or deny because they had not observed the examination and therefore did not see any injuries (other than the head one), or the procedure.

    No one puts witnesses on the stand to have them confirm they know nothing.

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

    ross69 (2,056) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:00 am

    There are a few deceitful people around, alright.
    31% of those polled think he was correctly convicted. 60% of those 1000 polled believe he should be paid compensation.

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

    Actually 60% of kiwis believe he should get compensation.

    The Latest Poll states 60% of Kiwis believe the Government should compensate David Bain for wrongful conviction.

    Of the Pollster Ipsos voters less than 22% say he was not wrongfully imprisoned and deserves nothing.

    4% that made direct reference to Ms Collins were strongly critical – believing interference with judicial process. Only four respondents agreed with her stance.

    Comments included: Its an indictment to the judge and an insult on the system…
    Another comment – The independent judge was brought in to basically decide the merits of the case …. Somebody took (the government’s) ball so they wanted to stop playing.

    Yet another “Still too many doubts”.

    Another – “Over the years… that young man has been dealt a very terrible hand by the Crown, and the Government so he deserves everything he’s going to go for”.

    53% of National Voters didn’t agree with the payout ! (Only surprise there is I would have put that figure more at 75%)

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

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

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

    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    There could be an exception Judith, they could aunt put fanny on the stand to confirm she knows nothing and give the country a chance to see what a hate-siter looks like.

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

    muggins (2,177) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:01 am

    ——————————————

    You won’t get any ‘ride’ at all Muggins.

    Sadly it is other people who will have to pay for your stupidity. It is they who will be reprimanded and who may have their careers suffer from you attention seeking

    You are not important enough to take action against. It has already been noted that you appear to be a ‘pathetic old man’ with ‘nothing to do’, and that was from one of your ‘phone buddies’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,555) Says:

    February 20th, 2013 at 4:10 pm
    muggins (2,170) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 3:10 pm
    ————————–

    No, it is you who is talking about the rectal exam, I was talking about invasive tests.
    Please don’t dictate what people must talk about, we know you want this to be all about you, but its not.

    If you think medical examinations are sexual, you are an extremely sick man.

    You may have had a penile examination, if you have you have had a procedure that is defined by the medical profession as being ‘invasive’. That is what the topic was, not whether it hurt or bled or anything similar, but that it was classified as an invasive procedure. However, as usual you put your own slant on it, and have to make it yet another ‘look at me’ moment for yourself.

    Dr Pryde did write down what tests he did on David Bain, and copies of the test results were in his notes.

    Judith, yes, the tests I had were invasive, but I don’t believe he probed David Bain’s rectum as David Bain told that audience in Perth that he did. If it was in his notes you would have quoted them. In fact I am surprised that you didn’t pretend that a rectal examination was in his notes anyway.
    And where did I say that a medical examination was sexual. Gee , you’ve got sex on the brain. I was referring to you still rabbitting on about Mark Buckley having or not having oral sex with that goat.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,049) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:11 am
    There could be an exception Judith, they could put aunt fanny on the stand to confirm she knows nothing and give the country a chance to see what a hate-sister looks like.
    ————————————

    What, and do some circus out of profit?

    The problem with putting aunt fanny on the stand is when she swore to tell the truth, the judge would probably die laughing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    I’ve got a record where he claimed to ringing Weir, overall it just proves he’s an out and out liar and nothing that he says can be taken as truthful. Kent Parker is welcome to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,040) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 9:11 am
    And I am sure I will enjoy any ride that comes along.

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

    LMAO

    Kanz,
    You have a vivid imagination. I was never invited to go on a ride anywhere.
    Hid at home. I suppose me walking round the streets for an hour every day means I am “hiding at home”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    I believe I phoned Milton Weir at least three times but the last time was over two years ago.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,050) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:21 am
    Kent Parker is welcome to him.

    Even Kent is smart enough to have distanced himself from the old feller.

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

    Opps, I got those stats wrong.

    I see it is only 53% of National voters agreed with compensation being paid.

    Wonder how Ms Collins feels about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Actually 60% of kiwis believe he should get compensation.

    Which is lower than what you’ve told us previously. Moreover, only 40% believe he was wrongly convicted. Why isn’t that figure higher? Despite all the spin by Karam and his cultists, a minority believe he was wrongly convicted.

    I note that David’s support is greatest among younger people, who possibly dont know much about the history or the facts of the case.

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

    ross69 (2,057) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:30 am

    Actually 60% of kiwis believe he should get compensation.

    Which is lower than what you’ve told us previously. Moreover, only 40% believe he was wrongly convicted. Why isn’t that figure higher? Despite all the spin by Karam and his cultists, a minority believe he was wrongly convicted.

    Actually, from that poll, of those who have an opinion (ie ignoring the ‘don’t knows’)
    65.2% think he should get compensation = majority
    58% think he was wrongfully imprisoned = majority
    53.9% think both (while 14.1% are ‘mixed’) = majority

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

    Muggins says:”I suppose me walking round the streets for an hour every day means I am “hiding at home”.

    Given some of your statements on here, that comment worries me more than your phone calls.

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

    36.2 per cent say he was wrongfully jailed and deserves compensation

    That’s a minority…again, why is that figure so small when you consider all the free publicity David has received pre-retrial and post-retrial? Maybe it’s got something to do with the fact that David thinks so poorly of his family that he believes 13 years in prison is sufficient punishment for the murder of his family? Or maybe it’s because he isn’t really sure if he killed them all?

    “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…’”

    “I kept coming back to my core belief – I wasn’t there”

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

    just under 22 per cent say he was not wrongfully imprisoned and deserves nothing

    Well you are part of an even smaller percentage than the ‘don’t knows’.

    32.8 per cent are simply not sure

    LMAO

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

    ross69 (2,058) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:42 am
    ——————————-

    Yes, but less than 22 % say he was not wrongfully convicted and doesn’t deserve compensation. Doesn’t say much for the JFRB campaign does it!

    Further to your quoted figure there are 10% with mixed opinions and a further 32.8% who are not sure.

    When you take those you aren’t sure or mixed, and add it to the 36.2% who are positive on everything, that makes a total of approximately 79% are NOT convinced David Bain is guilty/doesn’t deserve compo. That’s pretty big numbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. David Farrar (1,701 comments) says:

    If people quote comments by other commenters, please make sure your quotes are accurate. Leaving words out (unless you indicate this by a …) so that it changes the meaning of what they said is disorderly.

    Ta

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Assuming the sample is representative and the subjects answered truthfully, what the data show is half the people David meets in public will be suspicious of him, for the rest of his life.

    We might have guessed that, some parents at the school his fiancee, Liz Davies, teaches, don’t want him in the grounds:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7649232/David-Bain-engaged-to-Christchurch-teacher

    It would be interesting to know any male female difference. I suspect more women than men are fooled, some women love a sob story. Whatever the spin, the trend is obvious: fewer and fewer people like the taste of tripe.

    BOOHOO: Chauvel has gone, taking Bain’s best hope of compensation with him.

    TIME IS THE GREAT BENEFACTOR OF TRUTH.

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

    Judith (1,564) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:53 am

    Yes, but less than 22 % say he was not wrongfully convicted and doesn’t deserve compensation. Doesn’t say much for the JFRB campaign does it!

    Judith you have to laugh, Ross is trying to manipulate the statistics, the one that really makes me laugh is the one where the nitwits from the ‘Daddy didn’t do it witchhunt’ have multi signed the anti compensation petition and they still have votes from less than 1% of the population of NZ, less than 1% of the population care deeply enough about the matter to sign Kentys petition! that is hilarious!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Those figures are probably about as good as it gets for the nay sayers, despite ross and Dennis trying to play them down (or indeed up) they come after a time of the most intense attacks against David Bain. Attacks which were planned around September 2012 and reached an intensity in November – December 2012 perpetuated by ross and others here, but more dramatically so against the Binnie report and David himself out of the Minister’s office. What is clear in the samples is the public distaste with which Collins has handled this situation, whilst also it sinks in that a ‘dirty tactics’ campaign was waged but the public by in large have rejected it.

    Why I say that these minority figures are about as good as it gets is because if the Crown case and handling of the compensation claim is tested in court I expect all those dirty tactics will be revealed and left at some one’s door as focus moves to ‘fairness’ and ‘natural justice’ – both of which will feature highly in the JR if it goes ahead. The Minister says she has been fair and honest and there will be a strong effort to test that. One of already open wounds is the release of material under the OIA in record time and after hours which for all intents looks to have been made to maintain a publishing deadline to maximise the Minister’s position taken on the compensation application. On that issue I look forward as to who advised the Minister and how a lawyer of lesser standing can review the work of a superior firstly, and without having undertaken all the research undertaken by the ‘peer’ being reviewed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    David Farrar (1,666) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 10:07 am
    If people quote comments by other commenters, please make sure your quotes are accurate. Leaving words out (unless you indicate this by a …) so that it changes the meaning of what they said is disorderly.

    Ta

    Judith, please note.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Head of the Dunedin CIB please note.

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

    Can’t fight your own battles eh old man?

    ok, hows this then…

    muggins (2,170) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 2:41 pm
    And Judith, first of all I have no … friends…

    Happy now?
    You’re still in the minority Muggins, 60% of the population don’t appear to agree with you, and only 22% do agree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (643) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 11:25 am
    Assuming the sample is representative and the subjects answered truthfully, what the data show is half the people David meets in public will be suspicious of him, for the rest of his life.

    We might have guessed that, some parents at the school his fiancee, Liz Davies, teaches, don’t want him in the grounds:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7649232/David-Bain-engaged-to-Christchurch-teacher

    It would be interesting to know any male female difference. I suspect more women than men are fooled, some women love a sob story. Whatever the spin, the trend is obvious: fewer and fewer people like the taste of tripe.

    BOOHOO: Chauvel has gone, taking Bain’s best hope of compensation with him.

    TIME IS THE GREAT BENEFACTOR OF TRUTH.

    Dennis,
    It just goes to show there are still many uninformed members of the public out there. If I was taking a poll I would first ask
    “How informed are you about the case? ” and if the reply was that they knew very little about the murders then I wouldn’t ask their opinion. But the figure is moving in the right direction.
    Anyway, and this is one of the rare times that I agree with Judith, whether or not Bain receives compensation will not be decided by a poll. It will be decided by the the next report. Of course the prodavids don’t want another report and we all know why.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,052) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    Head of the Dunedin CIB please note.
    ——————————
    Oh its way past the head of the Dunedin CIB, this time the REAL head sherang is in charge. (That’s real, as opposed to the head sherang that isn’t one)

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

    I’ll tell you this for free Muggins.

    Yesterday you admitted you have no police friends. Well I can guarantee that due to what you’ve published on various places on the internet recently, you are most unlikely to ever have any police friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,567) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    .. fight your own battles eh .. man..

    muggins (2,170) Says:
    February 20th, 2013 at 2:41 pm
    And Judith, first of all I have no police friends…

    Happy now?
    You’re still in the .. Muggins, .. of the population .. appear to agree with you, and only .. .. agree with you.

    Yeah, I’m ok with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    The data are: 40% believe Bain is not innocent (not wrongfully imprisoned), 31% don’t know. Assuming the 31% has a normal distribution, that means that most likely a further 15% don’t think he is innocent but are not sure enough to say.

    Assuming the survey reflects reality, adding 40 and 15 we get 55% of the general population don’t believe Bain is innocent.

    So much for innocence on the balance of probabilities. All those years of propaganda, appeals, a dodgy court case, a Banal Report, and POOF – it’s all coming to NOTHING.

    There’s a good reason for that, of course. Robin Bain didn’t shoot himself. Obvious, innit?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,569) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 1:24 pm
    I’ll tell you this for free Muggins.

    Yesterday you admitted you have no police friends. Well I can guarantee that due to what you’ve published on various places on the ..recently, you are .. unlikely to .. have any police friends.

    I have no need to have any police friends, Judith. I would be very surprised if you have any either. Nor any of your mates for that matter.

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

    I do not think we need another report, however, I welcome one providing it is done in an equitable and fair manner, and that it is not given to anyone who has already publicly demonstrated a bias towards the Crown.

    My preference would be a tribunal. I believe that is the only fair and just way to continue now that Ms Collins preemptive actions have been revealed. Any decision regarding the compensation that is handled by Ms Collins, from this point, is unsafe, until such times as it can be demonstrated that a completely impartial decision has been obtained.

    If Robert Fisher is given the task of writing a report, we will still be discussing this matter for years, until enough people have the balls to put Judith Collins out to pasture.

    I also would like to see the government instigate a Commission of Enquiry into the Police, namely the CIB’s investigation of serious crime, with particular reference to the Crewe Murders, Bain Murders/suicide, and other cases that have resulted in a wrongful conviction and/or imprisonment. It is time these ‘mistakes’ stopped occurring, and regardless of which side of the argument you are on regarding David Bain, no one can legitimately argue the police did their job efficiently.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    Muggins clearly you are perceived as a major threat, there is no other reason for the Baners to try and shut you down all the time with threatening behaviour/language. So much for their seeming confidence. Time for people to talk to their MP’s regarding their views on the compensation matter.

    Who needs ‘big brother’ in NZ when we have ‘big’ Mumma’, who is probably related to someones ‘bubba’ and we are not talking Forrest Gump here. lol Be afraid, people very afraid, if you dare post something, anywhere on the internet, you are not safe because our ‘Judith’ is watching you!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    We might have guessed that, some parents at the school his fiancee, Liz Davies, teaches, don’t want him in the grounds

    Who can blame them. It’s bad enough having to put up with obnoxious kids without having to wear a bullet proof vest to school.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    muggins (2,183) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    “It just goes to show there are still many uninformed members of the public out there. If I was taking a poll I would first ask
    “How informed are you about the case? ” and if the reply was that they knew very little about the murders then I wouldn’t ask their opinion. But the figure is moving in the right direction.”

    Lets just apply this statement to Muggins based on his posts shall we.
    He has clearly read a lot of the material on the case but shows an inability to comprehend any of it so it is all substance and in one ear and out the other. He seems to possess very few braincells so is Muggins very well informed about the case?
    I’d have to say definitely not.

    Interesting idiots like Muggins Ross, and also Chuck Bird somehow think that the figures are ‘moving’, really!, are they dumb enough to think that Collins actions are going to win her friends and get people to change their minds, talk about desperate! The Rodney Hide piece before xmas was excellent, Judys actions are only going to do more of this.

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

    muggins (2,184) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 1:36 pm
    ——————————

    One of my best long time friends is a member of the CIB. We do not discuss this case, in case that is your next question, quite simply because it would completely unprofessional for either of us to do that. That’s the thing about friends, they respect each other and take care not to compromise each others integrity. I guess that’s something you won’t have experienced.

    I’m surprised by your last comment though, considering the constant referral to Kanz, Rowan, Nostaligia and others, as ‘my friends’. I would of course be honoured to have them as friends, I think the are intelligent and interesting people, who believe in the same things I do. However, friends do not always share the same beliefs, and yet, manage to both benefit from the relationship. I do not believe in God, however, my matron-of-honour is a devout Catholic. Such is life. Mine is full of interesting people and things. You, incidently are one of those interesting things.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne says.
    February 21st, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    The data are: 40% believe Bain is not innocent (not wrongfully imprisoned), 31% don’t know. Assuming the 31% has a normal distribution, that means that most likely a further 15% don’t think he is innocent but are not sure enough to say.

    Assuming the survey reflects reality, adding 40 and 15 we get 55% of the general population don’t believe Bain is innocent.

    So much for innocence on the balance of probabilities. All those years of propaganda, appeals, a dodgy court case, a Banal Report, and POOF – it’s all coming to NOTHING.

    There’s a good reason for that, of course. Robin Bain didn’t shoot himself. Obvious, innit

    Dennis
    Of course it is obvious Robin Bain did not commit suicide.
    I see some prodavids are now saying that blood on his fingernail isn’t his. So he washes his hands but still leaves a splash of blood on his fingernail. What ever else will those prodavids think up.
    They still can’t figure out how he got those scratches on his torso even though I’ve given them a clue.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    If Robert Fisher is given the task of writing a report, we will still be discussing this matter for years…

    Well, you might be discussing it for years but I won’t be. And hopefully David will have moved on and will no longer have his hands out begging for money.

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

    “Muggins clearly you are perceived as a major threat”

    Ha bloody Ha, this idiot is more of a threat to himself and his supporters. No sane person here takes him seriously enough to feel ‘threatened’ by him, he is just a joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. Chuck Bird (6,272 comments) says:

    It appears the police and the prosecution made a few mistakes in the case of Oscar Pistorius in SA. Do you think maybe he heard a few noises, did not check his girl friend was in bed to see if she had made the noise, got a gun and fired 4 shots through the bathroom door thinking there was a burglar in there?

    If is of course possible but about as likely as Robin Bain committing suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (322) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 1:38 pm
    Muggins clearly you are perceived as a major threat, there is no other reason for the Baners to try and shut you down all the time with threatening behaviour/language. So much for their seeming confidence. Time for people to talk to their MP’s regarding their views on the compensation matter.

    Who needs ‘big brother’ in NZ when we have ‘big’ Mumma’, who is probably related to someones ‘bubba’ and we are not talking Forrest Gump here. lol Be afraid, people very afraid, if you dare post something, anywhere on the internet, you are not safe because our ‘Judith’ is watching you.

    goldnkiwi
    Of course they see me as a major threat, I know too much. You may be aware that a certain probainer tried to stop me from posting on Trade Me by claiming I was harassing him. It worked in that I was suspended for some months, but I came back again, which is more than can be said for him. Others were involved and I hate to think how much it cost him in the end.

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

    “How informed are you about the case? ” and if the reply was that they knew very little about the murders then I wouldn’t ask their opinion. But the figure is moving in the right direction.”

    However if they were very well informed and believed strongly in Muggins spin story then how many times would they be asked to vote!

    You are clearly full of it based on your 1.56!

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

    muggins (2,184) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    You’re still in the .. Muggins, .. of the population .. appear to agree with you, and only .. .. agree with you.

    It is three dots Muggins, known as an ellipsis. Not two, not four, and so on. It actually has meaning and isn’t just some over use of the . on the keyboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,043) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 9:27 am
    Nostalgia-NZ (3,050) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 9:21 am
    Kent Parker is welcome to him.

    Even Kent is smart enough to have distanced himself from the old feller.

    Gosh. I could have sworn that was …on the phone the other day asking for me to appear as a witness. Must have been some other bloke masquerading as him. That’s ok, then, save me a trip.

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

    muggins (2,186) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    Of course they see me as a major threat, I know too much…

    Oh please!!!
    Lets get this straight. The only thing you are a danger to is yourself, and the professional integrity of a few crown witnesses.

    The reason you get so much attention is because you post more than the other spinners, and because you are so frustratingly ignorant and arrogant. You might think you know more, but that is all in your head, and that very large majority of it is lies.

    You hang on to it, like the spelling of the dogs name, because it makes you feel in important. Most people don’t need to be so fickle or pathetic. They are confident in their own beliefs and ability. However, it appears you are just the opposite. You need to boost, invent and exaggerate. You see any attention as a good, because you have some kind of innate need for it.

    That is why I find you interesting. I do not know what has happened in your life to make you that way. I am guessing it is a story that would be very ‘interesting’. You stand out by quantity and because of your ‘difference’. Don’t think that is a good thing. It isn’t.

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

    So old … is chasing around trying to put together a case, he has no chance of winning.
    I can just imagine the costs he’s going to have to pay if he puts someone that lies about the police on the stand.

    I might drive down for the hearing. I could do with a good laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,572) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    muggins (2,184) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    You’re still in the .. Muggins, .. of the population .. appear to agree with you, and only .. .. agree with you.

    It is three dots Muggins, known as an ellipsis. Not two, not four, and so on. It actually has meaning and isn’t just some over use of the . on the keyboard.

    Thanks for that, Judith. And I see it’s three dots and not two. I can’t see the point of using them, but if you want to use them when you are misquoting me then I will use them when I quote you.
    Up to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    It appears the police and the prosecution made a few mistakes in the case of Oscar Pistorius in SA. Do you think maybe he heard a few noises, did not check his girl friend was in bed to see if she had made the noise, got a gun and fired 4 shots through the bathroom door thinking there was a burglar in there?

    Yeah I’m sure it happens all the time. 🙂

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

    Muggins @ 2.03
    A ‘witness’, am guessing Kent wants an a good example of a delusional brainwashed old fool, who has joined his ‘witchhunt cult’ following. Are you going to stand by your mate when his case gets to trial muggins or are you just a gutless wonder?
    Kent is welcome to you!
    Do you have ADHD Muggins? looks very likely from a distance!

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

    Muggins, I have told you how I think David got those scratches, and I’ve backed that up with supportive evidence.
    You have either forgotten, on purpose, or choose not to acknowledge it now. However please stop saying you have not been answered because you have been and not just by me. The threads saved from votemenot give many instances of people offering explanations.

    And no, I’m not going to repeat it. From what you’ve said above, people doing that sort of thing makes you feel important, and such attention is not constructive for allowing you to get over whatever it is that has effected you so negatively.

    Clearly it is important that we do not legitimise your need for attention by giving in to your demands. To do so would assist in prolonging your recovery and from finding self-fulfilment

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (712) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 2:12 pm
    —————————-

    It will be interesting to see the rear view, as it runs from Court when the penalty and costs are awarded to the plantiff.
    I suspect that … will be trying to get as many of the administrators to the Court as possible, in an attempt to ensure that the responsibility is shared, and no single person is left to pay it all.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,575) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    Muggins, I have told you how I think David got those scratches, and I’ve backed that up with supportive evidence.
    You have either forgotten, on purpose, or choose not to acknowledge

    Judith,
    Prove to me you are not lying again by linking to where you have ever given any explanation as to how David Bain got those scratches.
    You are back to your old tricks again. You don’t give an explanation,instead you say you have given an explanation but you won’t repeat it. I wish I had a dollar for every time you have said that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Judith
    Aunt Fanny clearly thinks that reposting the same post that was 0.0000% convincing the first time will somehow be convincing by reposting it several times. Talk about shopping around for evidence to fit your story, she previously stated that she preferred to use the original witness statements ie Dempster, Jones, Weir etc. I guess they are not convincing enough! Nothing like what the prison officer suddenly remembered 15 years later and whose collegues couldn’t even back him up!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,189) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    —————————–
    Nice try Muggins, but as you well know, DavidBain.freeforums and Votemenot no longer exist. The archives are not accessible. So there is no link. Without going into it in great detail, because I’m not giving in to your attention seeking, it involved the concept of self inflicted and was supported by other incidents where the same had been noted.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  460. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    An example from the analysis of a survey here in Christchurch of the old saying lies, damn lies and statistics. Very easy to misrepresent (much like old Rosso is trying to do on this thread)

    The key to this survey is in the methodology. It was undertaken between August 29 and October 15 last year. 2381 people responded to the survey. 1156 of them were from Christchurch City, 618 from Selwyn District and 607 from Waimakariri District. So that means that of the people who did respond, more than half (1225) AREN’T ACTUALLY FROM CHRISTCHURCH. I mean no disrespect to the people of Rolleston, Lincoln, Rangiora, Kaiapoi etc. I am sure they have had a hard time. But they don’t have the same issues that people who actually live in the city do. They haven’t had to deal with a lack of services, portaloos, red zoning, TC3 land, roadworks to the same extent that people who live in the city do. …

    Yet the survey then merges these three population groups, and continues to extrapolate from the combined population for another 100 pages. If you get to the end of the report, you’ll find the populations of Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri. They are 289,000, 30,000 and 36,000 respectively. More than 80% of the adult population lives in Christchurch, and yet more than 50% of respondents come from less than 20% of the population, a section of the population that the survey shows have a more positive response in this survey.

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Have to love it when one nutter congratulates another, who then goes onto say it’s going to be a witness. A witness for the plaintiff more like, asked to explain on oath where it’s information came from and on what basis it could be considered opinion based on fact. Only if the pleads of ‘I’m too old and sick to travel’ go unanswered. Kent is truly sunk, even if he tried to use a defence that he considered aunt fanny reliable at the time but has since found out that he’s in fact a horse manure specialist with fan base of gumby dickledorfs.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Rowan (712) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    “How informed are you about the case? ” and if the reply was that they knew very little about the murders then I wouldn’t ask their opinion. But the figure is moving in the right direction.”

    However if they were very well informed and believed strongly in Muggins spin story then how many times would they be asked to vote!

    Rowan, if a person was well informed I would ask them to vote only once. They would obviously be voting no compensation as any intelligent well informed person would. One informed voter is worth a hundred uninformed voters.
    But what happened to that ” Compensation for David Bain petition” that started up in opposition to ours?
    I believe the organisers got five votes, but two of them were duplicates and the other was from a monkey who had temporarily escaped from a zoo.

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

    Rowan (713) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    Judith
    Aunt Fanny clearly thinks that reposting the same post that was 0.0000% convincing the first time will somehow be convincing by reposting it several times. Talk about shopping around for evidence to fit your story, she previously stated that she preferred to use the original witness statements ie Dempster, Jones, Weir etc. I guess they are not convincing enough! Nothing like what the prison officer suddenly remembered 15 years later and whose collegues couldn’t even back him up!
    ——————————–

    It is all part of his attention seeking behaviour. If he threatens it makes people give in to him, and then they provide him with what he wants. Then, having received the theory/information it gives him the chance to post more and gain attention for himself.

    If you don’t give him the information, then he is left with nothing to comment on, and has to invent other ways of getting attention. Just think about any two year old you know, and treat him in the same manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Judith (1,577) Says:

    February 21st, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    muggins (2,189) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    —————————–
    Nice try Muggins, but as you well know, DavidBain.freeforums and Votemenot no longer exist. The archives are not accessible. So there is no link. Without going into it in great detail, because I’m not giving in to your attention seeking, it involved the concept of self inflicted and was supported by other incidents where the same had been noted.

    Judith
    So that means you are lying again. Thanks for confirming that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. goldnkiwi (2,490 comments) says:

    @ 2.21 Judith Plaintiff. Not plantiff.

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

    They would obviously be voting no compensation as any intelligent well informed person would.

    Obviously a ‘intelligent well informed person’ then! like you, Don’t make me laugh! does this mean that only the less than 1% of NZs population who signed your petition are intelligent and well informed!!
    LMFAO

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,053) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    ————————————-

    You are right, but I think what you have overlooked is the attention seeking content of the original post.

    It was ‘look at me’ I am so important I get phone calls from … Now you are going to have to talk to me about that, and it will give me a chance to post more, and get more attention. Of course the ‘I’m so important because look who needs me’ component was the main point.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. bort_simpson (17 comments) says:

    muggins (2,191) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    must have been a particularly DUMB monkey. more likely shown the door than an escapee.

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

    The Banes work like a gang of vandals.

    Seems to me that there is a recurrent call to arms everytime you post Muggins, I do not even have this thread on email ‘alert’ let alone ‘high’ alert.
    Some must have it on Muggins alert lol.

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

    Dennis Horne (644) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    The data are: 40% believe Bain is not innocent (not wrongfully imprisoned), 31% don’t know. Assuming the 31% has a normal distribution, that means that most likely a further 15% don’t think he is innocent but are not sure enough to say.

    Assuming the survey reflects reality, adding 40 and 15 we get 55% of the general population don’t believe Bain is innocent.

    It must be frustrating as hell for you. That you need to tell untruths about even a poll.
    Here are the real, truthful figures. Where you say 40% the actual figure is only 22%, hard pill for you to swallow, I guess.

    Pollster Ipsos says voters fall into four main camps: 36.2 per cent say he was wrongfully jailed and deserves compensation; just under 22 per cent say he was not wrongfully imprisoned and deserves nothing; 10 per cent have mixed views about imprisonment and compensation, and 32.8 per cent are simply not sure.

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

    I found this interesting today. It was CK Stead being interviewed. So he hadn’t found fault with the report, just didn’t like the old man Bain being credited with what he had in fact done. When I read his column I thought he was simply repeating the Collins/Police line, and I was right.

    7. What compelled you recently to speak out about Justice Binnie’s review of the David Bain case?

    It seemed to me such an injustice was being done to the father, Robin, who was being used as a posthumous lever to get the son off the hook. And I thought Joe Karam had not done David any favours.

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

    I think it would be more accurate to say that less than 1% of the NZ population to use muggins words are “monkeys who have just escaped from the zoo” like him and the JFRBers. Most of the rest of us are pretty well informed.

    The Christchurch Star ran a poll after the conclusion to Justice Binnies report had been leaked, about 7 out of 8 thought that David should be paid up, they are generally pretty representative.

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

    Rowan (716) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    I think it would be more accurate to say that less than 1% of the NZ population to use muggins words are “monkeys who have just escaped from the zoo” like him and the JFRBers. Most of the rest of us are pretty well informed.

    The Christchurch Star ran a poll after the conclusion to Justice Binnies report had been leaked, about 7 out of 8 thought that David should be paid up, they are generally pretty representative.

    It must be a sad day for them when they have to straight out lie about poll results, as old Denny did above, don’t you think? Particularly when the actual results are so easy to find.

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

    Kanz
    Definitely, they are truly pathetic, if you read one of the comments further up, apparently now we feel ‘threatened’ by Muggins according to the trolls! How stupid can they get?
    Do you have a link to the Stead interview? would be interesting to read the full thing. I think Stead should stick to writing fiction, his piece was pathetic!

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

    Lindsay Kennard (43) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 12:22 am

    “The official police version written by opposition leader Jenny Shipley’s Chief Press Secretary John Goulter is not convincing and Goulter an experienced spin doctor could not convincingly spin the evidence to Guilty.”

    I guess John Goulter would be in good company with the JFRB nitwits then!!

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

    Kanz (1,046) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    —————————

    So they are fudging the poll results to make themselves feel better?

    I guess whatever it takes.

    I think most NZ is over this whole sorry saga. The 1990’s seem so far away to many. What more are concerned about is the regularity in which police tactics in investigations of serious crime are proving to be inadequate and dishonest. There is certainly a degree of mistrust among the population, that is not decreasing. Even the most conservative are asking questions.

    Many say they don’t know whether David Bain is guilty, but ask them whether the police acted improperly and you’ll get an affirmative answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857352

    Rowan, how dumb are you? You posted on the C K Stead on Binnie thread many times and you don’t know how to link to it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,225) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 6:41 am

    Thanks anyway, but I think this guy has more credibility on the issue. Judge’s summing up at the 1995 trial:

    “the law is that the
    Crown does not have to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt
    before you can take that circumstance into account and add it to the whole.
    As I’ve said the law requires you to make an holistic assessment of the
    evidence as a whole.”

    And this:

    “the logic that underpins a circumstantial case is that
    the accused is either guilty or is the victim of an implausible sequence of
    coincidences.”

    Milt
    As Nos says strange that you would quote from a mistrial but you are falling into the same trap as Bill Wright in 1995 with the ‘big picture’ myth, You are partially right in that you don’t have to prove every individual item of evidence BRD but there are certain things in this case that do need to be proven such as for Daddy to be innocent then he cannot have committed suicide BRD.
    You are so far 0.000000% convincing to date. You seem to be saying that despite being able to prove nothing at the retrial if you look at the ‘big picture’ you can still convict.
    Remember Miltie 0.0000% + 0.00000% + 0.0000% + ……. still equals 0% no matter how many zeros you put into the equation!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Sorry Kanz
    I thought you were referring to some seperate interview with him maybe I wasn’t reading the fine print in the herald piece will look at it again.

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

    Rowan (719) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Kanz
    Definitely, they are truly pathetic, if you read one of the comments further up, apparently now we feel ‘threatened’ by Muggins according to the trolls! How stupid can they get?
    Do you have a link to the Stead interview? would be interesting to read the full thing. I think Stead should stick to writing fiction, his piece was pathetic!

    @Rowan, it is just a puffery piece to make the poor old man feel good, and that was the only mention of Bain or Binnie, here is the link.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10866681

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

    Sorry Kanz
    I thought you were referring to some seperate interview with him maybe I wasn’t reading the fine print in the herald piece will look at it again.

    It was another piece, it was in today’s paper. Ignore that fool above, he knows nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Tell me something I don’t know, he thinks Judy might be the next PM, I think she would have about as much chance as him!
    Look at his 1.56 full of himself or what!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:
    January 11th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
    @ Rowan

    “Maybe …he didn’t want to go around the house wasting time…removing the silencer. If you are intend on dying is he really going to be bothered about removing the silencer because its to ‘difficult’ to commit suicide without. All in all a moot point.”.

    At the risk of provoking another of your intemperate outbursts, Rowan, there is a BIG problem with that scenario.

    If you are going to commit suicide with a rifle, the ONE thing you seek to ensure is that you don’t botch it, because if you do, it can be very messy, very painful, and you could be lying there paralysed in agony before you eventually die – or end up living in intense discomfort having to face the consequences og the actions your suicide attempt sought to escape.

    …and the continued presence of the silencer, which could have been detached and serves no purpose now that there is no one else to be murdered in silence, just makes that risk all the more greater.

    Unusual actions and coincidences in an unlikely accumulation of them.

    But then, “maybe” he did. But what is the likelihood?

    Rowan, do you not remember this?

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

    Rowan (721) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    Kanz
    Tell me something I don’t know, he thinks Judy might be the next PM, I think she would have about as much chance as him!
    Look at his 1.56 full of himself or what!

    And then when he is shown up for the idiot he is, he reverts once again using to someone else’s post.

    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:
    January 12th, 2013 at 12:37 am
    @ Rowan

    “As it is not tested it could have been Stephens blood we will never know for sure thanks to yet another stuff up”…

    Ho hum. Yet again, the argument from silence, which, of its very nature is always weak.

    It isn’t the absence of evidence (e.g., the cops didn’t exhaustively serach and test ever inch of Robin and his clothing and test every piece of blood theer, or the absence of David’s finger prints on the rifle) that is as significant as what we do know.

    Keep repeating the same things Rowan, it doesn’t change the facts we know what Joe Karam’s puppet strings loook like!

    Rowan, don’t you remember this?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. muggins (5,051 comments) says:

    Kimbo (214) Says:
    January 12th, 2013 at 10:57 am

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

    “So where is the compelling facts and explanation in Binnie’s report that “establish on the balance of probabilities as a minimum” that Robin did it? That, on the basis of the facts of the case are a requirement if David is to establish his innocence?”

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

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

    “How “much” is “too much”?

    Exact/approximate AGREED amount, thank you very much”

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

    All of the following facts are undisputed by Team Karam Bain. It is just the conclusions that one draws from them that is disputed. And I note NO ONE in support of David Bain has yet answered the question about whether the following ACCUMULATION of coincidences is even likely on the balance of probabilities.

    Robin Bain

    …committed murder/suicide using gloves

    …that belonged to David,

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

    …with a rifle with the silencer still attached,

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

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

    …but there was on David,

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

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

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

    …but there was on David,

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

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

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

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

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

    …yet he didn’t attend the family meeting which was the pretext her being in the house,

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

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

    Rowan, surely you remember this?

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

    Rowan (721) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    Kanz
    Tell me something I don’t know, he thinks Judy might be the next PM, I think she would have about as much chance as him!

    ——————————–
    He was meaning me. He luffs me !!

    Eww puke spew!!!

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

    Oh look Aunt Fanny has resorted to toilet papering DPFs blog with other nitwits posts, really original.
    Kanz @ 5.44 case in point

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

    Some of the pieces on Beyonds website sum up Aunt Fanny very nicely, I feel sorry for Mrs Muggins, as one of them said you can always tell when he’s lying his lips move!
    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/

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

    Rowan (723) Says:
    February 21st, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    Some of the pieces on Beyonds website sum up Aunt Fanny very nicely, I feel sorry for Mrs Muggins, as one of them said you can always tell when he’s lying his lips move!
    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/

    That Beyond is a very clever dude. He/she cuts through the bullshit with the greatest of ease.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,049) Says: February 21st, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    Dennis Horne (644) Says: February 21st, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    The data are: 40% believe Bain is not innocent (not wrongfully imprisoned), 31% don’t know. Assuming the 31% has a normal distribution, that means that most likely a further 15% don’t think he is innocent but are not sure enough to say.
    Assuming the survey reflects reality, adding 40 and 15 we get 55% of the general population don’t believe Bain is innocent.

    It must be frustrating as hell for you. That you need to tell untruths about even a poll.
    Here are the real, truthful figures. Where you say 40% the actual figure is only 22%, hard pill for you to swallow, I guess.

    Pollster Ipsos says voters fall into four main camps: 36.2 per cent say he was wrongfully jailed and deserves compensation; just under 22 per cent say he was not wrongfully imprisoned and deserves nothing; 10 per cent have mixed views about imprisonment and compensation, and 32.8 per cent are simply not sure.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8331111/After-18-years-David-Bain-case-still-divides
    Here is the raw data to the question, “Do you believe he was wrongfully imprisoned”: No, 40%, Yes, 29%, Don’t know, 31%.

    The percent thinking Bain not innocent is likely to be 45%, not 55% as I wrote earlier; I mis-transcribed the data, OOPS!

    Nevertheless, 55% believing Bain to be innocent is, while over the 50% mark (minimum BOP criterion), hardly a landslide victory, given the relentless propaganda and NZ Herald campaign.

    Humbling as it is to make an error, the trend (numbers believing Bain innocent) appears to be downwards. (cf Herald DigiPoll.) So, no, it’s not frustrating for me. Time is on our side, even the silly Herald will one day realise there is a principle at stake.

    Maxim for today: BAIN IS ON THE WANE.

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

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8331111/After-18-years-David-Bain-case-still-divides
    Here is the raw data to the question, “Do you believe he was wrongfully imprisoned”: No, 40%, Yes, 29%, Don’t know, 31%.

    Is it your reading that needs work or simply your comprehension?
    The data is actually,
    “Do you believe he was wrongfully imprisoned?”
    YES 40%
    NO 29%
    DON”T KNOW 31%

    Try once more.

    By the way, it wasn’t a Herald poll either.

    LMFAO

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    @ Dennis

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

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

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Kanz. Quite right. I had the wrong raw data still, probably 55% of the general population think Bain is innocent. I compared this (cf) with the DigiPoll, which from memory had 75% in favour of compensation. It appears your comprehension is nothing to write home about either, but please go ahead with your “LMFAO”, it suits you. 😉

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

    I compared this (cf) with the DigiPoll, which from memory had 75% in favour of compensation.

    Compare them properly then.
    In the Herald one 20% were against him getting compensation. In this latest one, it has dropped to 8%.

    What is on the wane?

    LMFAO, and yes it does suit me, I am a happy chap, not a misery guts like some.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    The sisters are so used to failures they think floundering on the rocks, once again, is some kind of victory.
    Way to go sisters!
    Put a little music on and start ‘twisting by the pool.’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    Denny’s brain is on the wane.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @Kanz. Please give the reference for a Herald-DigiPoll that gives only 9% against compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. Nostalgia-NZ (6,339 comments) says:

    How’s your math these days Denny?

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

    @Kanz. Please give the reference for a Herald-DigiPoll that gives only 9% against compensation.

    No, unfortunately that was me misreading. It was 8% Don’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote