Hypocrisy

June 28th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Bain’s lawyer Michael Reed is calling on Key to issue his client an immediate pardon after new information came to light, and to deal with his compensation claim ahead of other legal matters.

That’s outrageous hypocrisy.

The claim is stalled, because Mr Reed has filed a judicial review. He actually asked the Government to stop consideration, at threat of injunction if they did not.

If Mr Reed wants the claim dealt with quickly, then he should drop the judicial review.  Don’t blame others for your own actions.

As for the ridiculous demand that the Government should issue an immediate pardon because of a TV show, well let’s just replace the Supreme Court with Judge Judy!

The evidence around the marks on Robin Bain’s finger thumb is helpful to ’s case. But it is far from conclusive, and it is just one of 20 or so pieces of strong evidence.

Martin van Beynen, a journalist who sat through every day of the second trial, has written a must read column on this latest evidence, and especially on how the story was given exclusively to Bain friendly media.

I’ve love to see this concluded quickly. Here’s how it can be:

  1. Bain drops his judicial review
  2. Cabinet appoints a three person panel to review his guilt or innocence on balance of probabilities
  3. If they find he is innocent on balance of probabilities, then Cabinet grants compensation

Also worth reading this story, which quotes the Police:

Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said police yesterday did a preliminary examination of fingerprints taken from Robin Bain after his death.

The marks cited as crucial new evidence were likely to be cuts to the thumb as there were no prints in the same place as the dark marks in the photograph.

”Our fingerprint experts advise that this is consistent with someone sustaining cuts or damage to the fingers prior to prints being taken, which would then affect the print image,” Burgess said.

”Had these been powder marks or smudges as claimed, we would expect to see a complete fingerprint image.”

Police would take another look at the show’s theory, and re-examine the photograph.

”However, I am mindful that this theory has been put forward through a programme whose makers chose not to seek comment from police prior to broadcast, and who also refused to provide details about their story when approached by police on Tuesday.

”Had they done so then we would have pointed out that fingerprints had been presented in evidence and have always been available through the court to help them decide if their story stacked up.”

I’m not saying the Police are necessarily correct in saying the marks re cuts. But what is wrong is that 3rd degree didn’t seek any opinions that didn’t fit with their story. Their show was advocacy, was objective journalism.

695 Responses to “Hypocrisy”

  1. Yvette (3,012 comments) says:

    Kanz – I was just wondering –

    I asked my Senior Writer, Phil While, a retired police officer and a gun expert what he thought of the photo. I only told him the most basic information about the case and asked him for him opinion on the magazine without Googling for additional case information.

    Phil noted the lines on his thumb appeared to be about the same distance apart from the magazine, but that there was not enough information to go on from just that photo. Phil also said “… in all the suicides I’ve worked, I have never seen a magazine removed before the person shot themselves. That makes no sense nor does the upright mag[azine].”
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/06/exclusive-firearms-experts-dismisses-bain-claims/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Psycho Milt (3,210 comments) says:

    “The cops may have used someone else’s print” = They flick a print they say is Robin’s, and then say it doesn’t match…

    “Maybe they faked the picture” = …they quickly flicked together a flash up picture that they hoped might fool enough people, who would then accept the explanation just because someone wearing blue gave it.

    I suppose “We might think that, but you couldn’t possibly comment?”

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

    Thank-you, what a compliment, I would be in great company ;). Some of our most noted legal minds have set theirs to this matter. You are a pet, I take it all back.;)

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

    Yvette (2,437) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    Anybody who goes to whaleoil for their information is very badly informed.

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

    From the GD thread

    flipper (1,808) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 8:32 am
    Heh Chuck…
    You are right.

    “The JFRB and CS groups are planning a “complaint” to the BSA – well, so they say.
    May be that “complaint” will once again amount to a self-inflicted petard.

    STRIKE FOUR !

    Good luck to them!

    But did you also note, but fail to report, that Mark Jennings says TV3 will deliver anther episode this week.

    Poor, JFRB, little MVB and his sorry brother, they will be ever so pissed!
    But wait on Chucky….TV3 might take the other side this week. Yeah, right.”

    Poor JFRB, TV3 didn’t ask for their input, they have about as much chance as their cult leader in his upcoming court action.
    When they lose these 2 it will then be 4 achievements

    Maybe they should get their members to chip in for those airfares to North Korea while they still have money in the bank!

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

    Anybody who goes to whaleoil for their information is very badly informed.

    Says the person who relies on TV3 for the “game changer” LOL

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

    Cue ‘faux outrage’ 😉

    If the object was indeed to garner ‘truth’ indeed getting all the opinions from both sides should be considered. That does not necessarily mean the Crown.

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

    Mark Jennings says TV3 will deliver anther episode this week

    Awesome, so one own goal wasn’t enough, we’re going to get two?

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

    goldnkiwi (439) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    If the object was indeed to garner ‘truth’ indeed getting all the opinions from both sides should be considered. That does not necessarily mean the Crown.

    If it was simply about opinion, then fair enough.
    They weren’t looking for opinion, but for scientific measurements etc to either verify or refute it.
    Now, why are the police or Crown looking to do the same? Answer, because they have stated they want to refute it, and measurements etc won’t do that.

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

    Says the person who relies on TV3 for the “game changer” LOL

    Oh, I was convinced of David’s innocence long before this was ever a question. The evidence clearly shows Robin guilty, just not if you put on the ‘police are always right’ blinkers.

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

    It sure is fun watching and reading the panic on the JFRB facebook page.
    Poor buggers.

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

    ross69 (2,575) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    Anybody who goes to whaleoil for their information is very badly informed.

    Says the person who relies on TV3 for the “game changer” LOL
    ———————————————–

    Please explain firstly how the TV3 was a game changer?

    Is David Bain still not guilty?
    Has the compensation bid been turned down, is it still in progress?

    You are terribly uninformed if you think anything has changed. All that TV3 did was advertise something I’m sure the Bain camp have known about for quite a while.

    You do get terribly carried away with your exaggerations, the ‘game hasn’t changed’ the content has just got more interesting.

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

    Kanz (1,136) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 6:35 pm
    It sure is fun watching and reading the panic on the JFRB facebook page.
    Poor buggers.
    ————————–

    Isn’t it just! 🙂 and then you get people like poor Ross who are delusional. Its all very funny to watch!

    Another lovely bundle of mail today! 😉 The names change but its all the same ol’ same ol’. They just don’t learn.

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

    goldnkiwi (439) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    Cue ‘faux outrage’

    If the object was indeed to garner ‘truth’ indeed getting all the opinions from both sides should be considered. That does not necessarily mean the Crown.
    —————————————

    Oh dear – you poor thing. There are only two sides left in this case. The Government and David Bain (including his representation).

    For some reason you seem to think anyone else matters – it doesn’t. Even if the police could prove that those marks were scratches, nothing about David’s compensation bid changes – it doesn’t make him guilty – it isn’t grounds to reject the claim.

    The only game that has changed this week is counterspin, who are in deep doo doo. The just haven’t realised the depth yet! 😉

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

    Yvette (2,437) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    I asked my Senior Writer, Phil While, a retired police officer and a gun expert what he thought of the photo. I only told him the most basic information about the case and asked him for him opinion …

    _______________________________________

    You lost your argument at this point. If he is a police officer, or retired police officer living in New Zealand and didn’t already know about the Bain case, then he is either deaf, dumb and blind – or dead.

    Fancy you having to source your information from Whaleblubba – you would have more chance forming an argument if you’d canvassed your local kindergarten.

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

    Is David Bain still not guilty?

    Yep, just like OJ. 🙂

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

    Oh, I was convinced of David’s innocence long before this was ever a question

    Oh I have no doubt you were…probably – like Joe Karam – before you considered any of the evidence. 😉

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

    ross69 (2,576) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 6:48 pm
    ——————————–

    Oh poor little spiteful boy.

    Actually, nothing like OJ.

    David Bain’s sentence was quashed by the Privy counsel and retried and found not-guilty.
    If you don’t understand the difference between the two cases, then you shouldn’t even be discussing them.

    But I understand you are desperate and need to form all sorts of inferences. You don’t actually have any evidence to support your fairytale – it must be hard being you right now huh?

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

    ross69 (2,577) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    Oh, I was convinced of David’s innocence long before this was ever a question

    Oh I have no doubt you were…probably – like Joe Karam – before you considered any of the evidence.
    ————————————-

    Oh how uninformed you are – and such a persistent liar.

    If you knew anything about the case, you would know that Joe Karam looked at the available evidence before he decided to commit to supporting David.

    Just keep making those massive stuff ups, don’t you Ross.

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

    Oh I have no doubt you were…probably – like Joe Karam –

    Thanks for the compliment. I am very happy to be compared to Karam. I believe it was the evidence that convinced him as it did me. The evidence of the old man’s footprints coming from his young son’s room. The evidence of the suicide scene in the lounge. The evidence of him having lifted his beanie before aiming the rifle at his own head. And so so much more.

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

    Privy Counsel, are you constipated or something and need advice? Sorry rhetorical question.

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

    If you knew anything about the case, you would know that Joe Karam looked at the available evidence before he decided to commit to supporting David.

    Wrong again. Here’s what Paul Holmes said about Karam:

    “Joe was appalled at the way the family, the Police and the Fire Service colluded to burn the Bain house down in a way that reminded us darkly of the witch trials of Salem, and called up our ancient belief in fire as a cleanser, a banisher of evil. … He often said he could not wait for the day when Bain was released and all the world could see it.”

    Hmm so much for Joe looking at the evidence. He looked at the evidence AFTER he’d decided that David had been hard done by and was probably innocent.

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

    ross69 (2,578) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    Did Holmes say that was before or after Karam had reviewed the evidence?
    I feel sure you are doing your usual and taking a portion of what was said, and spinning it to say what you want it to.
    You are good at that, but don’t realise that others know better.

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

    ross69 (2,578) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 7:31 pm
    ——————————-

    What is the point of going to the bother to post a comment to Paul Holmes that says nothing about Joe Karam seeing the evidence before he decided to support Bain.

    You really are pathetically desperate – so much so that you have to try and match Paul Holmes comment.

    Joe Karam discussed the evidence long before he had committed himself to helping David.

    Twisting the truth in the normal Counterspin and JFRB way, doesn’t make it anymore true Ross. All you are doing is providing the evidence about your groups dishonest and constant misrepresentation of existing information that has been claimed to exist.

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

    Kanz (1,138) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 7:44 pm
    —————————-

    Exactly Kane, Ross knows it was after, however, like muggins he just likes to grab what little stuff he has and misrepresent it.
    He obviously has a very low opinion of people, if he thinks they are going to continue to be fooled by counterspin dishonesty.

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

    Judith (3,220) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 7:50 pm

    I have been pondering this and am starting to think they are just stupid enough to believe what they are saying is true. The fact that they seem to believe what they read on counterspin confirms just how stupid they are so it makes sense.

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

    Ross
    In terms of your glasses argument, it appears the investigating cops didn’t share your view of the ‘strength’ of the evidence. Why was it that a senior member of the investigation had to misrepresent the facts of the lens location to the 1995 jury? clearly the truth wasn’t enough to satisfy him in terms of its probative value so he thought he might like to add a bit more.

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

    I listened to the MVB piece on radiolive. For such an ‘expert’ he couldn’t answer a caller who asked about the taking of gunpowder swabs from Robin. He didn’t even know if this was done or not!! What an idiot, his newspaper columns in this case are nothing short of a joke! Seems very strange to me that he would go all the way to Perth to listen to David and Joe at the justice conference. His key pieces of evidence not surprisingly much the same as that of CS fools and have already been rejected 3 times by the PC, courts and the Judge. This latest another nail in the crowns ‘mountain of evidence’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Can you put up the link please, I haven’t listened to it yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (441) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 8:51 pm
    Can you put up the link please, I haven’t listened to it yet.

    ————————————

    Not much point in Rowan posting the link. You wouldn’t understand it anyway. You clearly don’t know anything about the evidence, so the program would just fly over your head.

    Perhaps you could try reading the counterspin site to grasp a feel of what the evidence isn’t.

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

    Thanks anyway, I found it with Sean Plunket, I appreciated the reminder Rowan, it was on my list. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dexter (565 comments) says:

    Hi Judith, I just watched the ‘smoking gun’ show, can you just explain to me how the gunshot residue on his thumb, which they state would rub off on contact with anyone or anything, would still remain distinct and not at all smudged when one would then have to use both hands to re-chamber a round and somewhat awkwardly tightly grip the rifle in order to shoot oneself?

    I’m sure given that they have been planning this for 6 months that they must have a full version around, where they replicated the entire scenario, not just the first stanza?

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

    “Oh I have no doubt you were…probably – like Joe Karam – before you considered any of the evidence. ”

    No Ross that would be the counterspin way start with the verdict then look at the evidence and then apply the spin

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

    Joe Karam discussed the evidence long before he had committed himself to helping David.

    Hmmm how many days after the murders was the Bain house burnt down? Karam was “appalled at the way the family, the Police and the Fire Service colluded to burn the Bain house down”. So, even before Karam had seen any evidence, he was appalled by the treatment of David. Yeah he was very open minded.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    In David and Goliath, Karam writes: “… I have developed a confidence in my intuitive judgement of a person. If there is one word I would use to summarize my assessment of David Bain, it would be ‘guileless’. And yet, from the facts I had by then discovered from [Michael] Guest, the case against David was that he meticulously planned the murders, in an attempt to escape detection. He is an intelligent guy, with a natural youthful sense of humour. He has an innnate sense of responsibility and, borne out by his behaviour since being in prison, clearly is a caring, selfless bloke. I could not under any circumstances reconcile the case against him with the person I had met. My overriding motivation then, was that he had been served an enormous injustice. ”

    Hmmm so the first time Karam meets David, Joe thinks David is innocent due to Joe’s powers of intuition. Yep, he’s definitely open minded.

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

    ross69 (2,580) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    In David and Goliath, Karam writes: “… I have developed a confidence in my intuitive judgement of a person. If there is one word I would use to summarize my assessment of David Bain, it would be ‘guileless’. And yet, from the facts I had by then discovered from [Michael] Guest, the case against David was that he meticulously planned the murders, in an attempt to escape detection. He is an intelligent guy, with a natural youthful sense of humour. He has an innnate sense of responsibility and, borne out by his behaviour since being in prison, clearly is a caring, selfless bloke. I could not under any circumstances reconcile the case against him with the person I had met. My overriding motivation then, was that he had been served an enormous injustice. ”

    Hmmm so the first time Karam meets David, Joe thinks David is innocent due to Joe’s powers of intuition. Yep, he’s definitely open minded.

    Can you point out where, in that quote he said it was his first meeting?
    You are sounding more and more like one of the two being sued for talking tripe about Karam.
    Is this being used for your defence, that someone has done it on kiwiblog too?

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

    Feel like you’ve lost ground today ross, hoping to lose less ground tomorrow? Are you a secret admirer of Joe’s, you always quote what you believe he said. It might not be healthy to be that interested in another man, talk to your mother about it. You also might like to speak to her about your moving out, 63 years is pushing things a bit.

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

    Fascinating listening to the Duncan Garner one there as well. Just google Radio Live no need for a link.

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

    Just fascinating I bet you can hardly catch a breath, try letting your girdle out a couple of metres.

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

    Um um um substantive, um um substantive 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Is that you ‘Judith’?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Perfect opportunity for someone to post under the pseudonym David Giles lol.

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

    http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/197337/sins-father

    Joe Karam: “I interrogated him [Bain] mercilessly, far more ruthlessly than the police could, due to Bill of Rights restrictions.

    “I needed to make a decision whether to pursue the case any further, and I would not do so if I could not rely on David’s word.”

    Haha so intuitive Joe asked David whether he murdered his family, and David said no. Thus, before looking at any evidence Joe was convinced of David’s innocence. Dumb bastard.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Psycho Milt (3,210 comments) says:

    In David and Goliath, Karam writes: “… I have developed a confidence in my intuitive judgement of a person.

    His books are littered with similar examples of uncritical and unwarranted self-regard. It would be funny if it hadn’t turned out so expensive for the rest of us.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,388) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 6:27 am
    ——————————-

    That was the type of book he was writing. When other authors write about their own thoughts and feelings in such a way, do you critique them in the same way. Or is this special attention just to have a go at Joe Karam, because he made an informed decision to stand up for something he believed in, and has done so at a great personal cost to not just his finances, but other areas in his life.

    It doesn’t matter what the cause is. As a crusader he has told the truth as he knows it, and never deliberately lied. Yes his ideas have changed as he has learned even more about the case and time has bought new developments – but he has stood firm, and never had to resort to the illegal means we have seen used by his ‘opposition’.

    It appears to me (and I’ve never met Joe or know him personally) that this is nothing but jealously, promoted by a man (KP) who is obsessed with Joe Karam (a look at his blogs makes that obvious).

    This world needs people to strongly stand up for what they believe in – that you don’t support their cause means little, but to pick pathetic little holes in what he says – when it is typical of every other person have written such books, is frankly pathetic and desperate.

    That statement has nothing to do with David Bain’s guilt or innocence, it is nothing more than picking on Joe Karam.

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

    ross69 (2,581) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    You pathetic jealous little boy. You sound just like Kent Parker, the head of counterspin who is being sued for defamation by Joe Karam.

    You quote that Karam says he interrogated Bain regarding the case, and then you make a total prat of yourself by saying “Haha so intuitive Joe asked David whether he murdered his family, and David said no. Thus, before looking at any evidence Joe was convinced of David’s innocence. Dumb bastard.”

    You failed to put your quote into context and deliberately, because you do know what preceded that, have raised it as an attempt to make others think lessor of Joe Karam.

    As you well know – Joe Karam spent a great deal of time going over the evidence with Mr Guest, before he made any decisions on whether to assist.

    Sad sick and terribly jealous – not a very good look for a group like Counterspin, is it?

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

    It would be funny if it hadn’t turned out so expensive for the rest of us.

    To be fair, Karam has put his money where his mouth is. His crusade – some would say obsession – has cost him friendships and possible relationships. Yes, it’s been expensive but at the end of the day David isn’t going to see a brass razoo. And the longer this process is dragged out, the badder the look for Karam and Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Sad sick and terribly jealous

    Sick and jealous of someone who thought David was innocent the first time he laid eyes on him? Comedy gold.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    This world needs people to strongly stand up for what they believe in

    Oh absolutely, but you’re confusing passion with misguided loyalty.

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

    ross69 (2,584) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 8:38 am

    Sick and jealous of someone who thought David was innocent the first time he laid eyes on him? Comedy gold.

    Still can’t say it as it is, huh?
    If you had any faith in the validity of what you say, you would have no need to twist the truth.
    Did I say twist? Nah, it is knotted now.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,584) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 8:38 am
    Sad sick and terribly jealous

    Sick and jealous of someone who thought David was innocent the first time he laid eyes on him? Comedy gold.
    ——————————————-

    But that is where you are either lying, or uninformed.

    Joe Karam had looked at the evidence and met David Bain more than once before he decided to commit himself to David’s struggle.

    The quote you gave never said that he walked into the prison, saw David and thought he was innocent, and what happened was nothing like that.

    You are simply repeating incorrect information that has been written by the very jealous Kent Parker. The facts do not support what you are saying – but you know that – you are simply trying to get support for your campaign by telling lies.

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

    The real beast emerges, ross and psycho are jealous. Get married chaps it’s legal now.

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

    You are simply repeating incorrect information that has been written by the very jealous Kent Parker.

    And where it is taking KP is showing on his face. He is looking old and ill, from all the worry of knowing he is going down when he gets to court.
    The legend in his own lunch box knows he is going in the trash with the sandwich crusts.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    muggins (2,450) Says:

    July 2nd, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    Judith,
    One minute David Bain told Binnie he couldn’t drive without his glasses and the next minute he said he could.
    He gave Binnie an explanation that Binnie apparently believed.
    I bet if Laniet was still alive she would have been able to tell us he was wearing glasses when he drove to the fish and chip shop and she would also be able to tell us he wore glasses to watch that video [providing he did go down for those fish and chips and providing he watched a video, because you can’t really believe anything he says, though I do believe him when he told his lawyer and his aunt that he had been wearing those glasses

    Judith,
    David Bain told Binnie he couldn’t drive without his glasses and then ,in virtually the next breath ,says he could drive without his glasses. So he is contradicting himself.
    David Bain said at trial he had worn his mother’s glasses because his were unavailable.
    His glasses were unavailable that weekend.
    He said at trial he wore his mother’s glasses to watch TV.
    He watched a video on the Sunday night, or so he said.
    He tells Binnie that if he sat in a big chair closer to the TV [which would have blocked out everyone else’s view] .
    Binnie didn’t pick up on that.
    He told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing those glasses on the Sunday.
    He told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend.
    He tells Binnie he didn’t think he would have said that.
    Well, it was obvious there was some conversation about those glasses because Bob Clark picked them up from the optician and he wouldn’t have known they were there if David had not mentioned that to his aunt.
    There is no doubt David Bain wore those glasses to watch that video and he probably wore them when he drove the car to get those fish and chips.
    So those glasses were in good condition on the Sunday night.
    But the next morning they were found in a damaged condition on a chair in David’s room and one lens was missing.
    That lens was later found in his brother’s room.
    How did it get there?
    So far as no one seeing him wearing those glasses, well he said himself he only wore them to go to lectures and watch TV.
    We don’t know if he went to lectures on the Friday because it would appear that no-one saw him at lectures.
    We know there were other family members in the lounge when he watched that video .They would have seen him wearing those glasses but unfortunately they can’t testify to that because they are all deceased and have been ever since June 20th 1994.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,388) Says:

    July 3rd, 2013 at 6:27 am
    In David and Goliath, Karam writes: “… I have developed a confidence in my intuitive judgement of a person.

    His books are littered with similar examples of uncritical and unwarranted self-regard. It would be funny if it hadn’t turned out so expensive for the rest of us.

    Never a truer word spoken.

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

    David Bain told Binnie he couldn’t drive without his glasses and then ,in virtually the next breath ,says he could drive without his glasses. So he is contradicting himself.

    David Bain said he was there but “I didn’t have my glasses. I couldn’t drive as (which point a – is inserted showing he was interrupted) and then he went on to say how he was at rehearsals on the Sunday (at which point the – shows he was interupted again).

    David Bain never said ” I couldn’t drive because I didn’t have my glasses”

    You don’t seem to be familiar with transcribed texts Muggins. The conversation does not flow as they are typed. Voice are often over top of each other indicated by ‘-‘ etc.

    David Bain said at trial he had worn his mother’s glasses because his were unavailable.

    David Bain did not say that. He answered a question regarding the glasses, where he said that when his weren’t available in the past he had worn an old pair of his mothers.

    His glasses were unavailable that weekend.

    Yes, they were being fixed after they broke in a fall he had on the Thursday.

    He said at trial he wore his mother’s glasses to watch TV.

    That is not what he said. He said that he had worn an old pair of his mother’s glasses in the past.

    He watched a video on the Sunday night, or so he said.

    Yes, he said he the family watched a video (30/25) David says he watched only the first part of that video.

    He tells Binnie that if he sat in a big chair closer to the TV [which would have blocked out everyone else’s view] .

    at point 25/25 David says regarding wearing his mothers glasses and how her astigmatism didn’t match his eyes, so the glasses weren’t ideal. To make them work he needed to cover his one eye which gave partial improvement only – he says “enough to see a black board at the lecture or if I wasnted to watch, you, TV from you know – at the back of the lounge. But in general, I didn’t really need them”

    When asked about needing his mothers glasses to see the video he says
    (p5/26) … I believe I sat in a big, you know, if I wanted a chair, just by the table which is closer to the TV. I can see well enough to do a lot of things without, without these glasses… I was quite capable of driving without the glasses even though it was a legal requirement” He goes on to answer questions about his orienteering etc, and how he can read maps and books, see pointers in the distance, use a compass etc all without his glasses. .

    He then talks about road signs etc, and how he can only see the names of streets when he is close enough, but things like stop signs/giveway signs etc are easy to see.

    SO MUGGINS – yet again you have misrepresented information to try and pervert peoples knowledge on what exactly was said.

    Binnie didn’t pick up on that.

    Binnie didn’t need to ‘pick up’ on that, he had the layout of furniture in the room and would have known that it was possible to sit where David said he sat, without blocking the tv from everyone else.

    He told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing those glasses on the Sunday.

    His lawyer says he said that, however, his lawyer has also given conflicting stories about that statement to various people and has also been cited for his dishonesty.

    He told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend.

    I believe that is what she remembered sometime years later, after she had inherited from the Bain estate.

    He tells Binnie he didn’t think he would have said that.

    He cannot remember saying it, and he can see no reason why he would have. It is of course possible the old girl misinterpreted what David said. He could have meant he had worn his mothers glasses in the past. Given the timeframe of her memory, it is hardly a good indication.

    Well, it was obvious there was some conversation about those glasses because Bob Clark picked them up from the optician and he wouldn’t have known they were there if David had not mentioned that to his aunt.

    Picking up the glasses could have come in any sort of conversation. But Clark was not part of the conversation he had with his Aunt. Clark is only recalling what his wife later told him. He did not hear anything about David wearing his mother’s glasses.

    There is no doubt David Bain wore those glasses to watch that video and he probably wore them when he drove the car to get those fish and chips.

    There is plenty of doubt – again you pass off your opinion as absolute proof. It is not.

    People that saw David Bain that day did not remember him wearing his glasses.

    So those glasses were in good condition on the Sunday night.

    You have no way of knowing that, and making such definitive statements makes you look extremely stupid, not to mention dishonest.

    But the next morning they were found in a damaged condition on a chair in David’s room and one lens was missing.

    Those glasses could have been there for quite a while, especially given the amount of junk lying both on the chair and around the house, it is reasonable to suggest that they could have sat there unnoticed, or even been put there by someone else.

    That lens was later found in his brother’s room.

    Yes it was, and it was so covered in dust the optician stated it would have been there for some time before the 20th and was too dusty to have been used for vision (thus discounting your theory that David used the glasses on the Sunday night).

    How did it get there?

    That is anyone’s guess. There were items belonging to various members of the family found in an assortment of rooms, clearly they were in the habit of not keeping their possession solely in their own rooms.

    So far as no one seeing him wearing those glasses, well he said himself he only wore them to go to lectures and watch TV.

    But you said he wore them to get the fish and chips – make up your mind.

    We don’t know if he went to lectures on the Friday because it would appear that no-one saw him at lectures.

    No one saw him wearing any glasses at all at anytime between Thursday (when he had his fall) and when his glasses were picked up from being repaired.

    We know there were other family members in the lounge when he watched that video .They would have seen him wearing those glasses but unfortunately they can’t testify to that because they are all deceased and have been ever since June 20th 1994.

    Usually when people are deceased they stay that way – there is nothing unusual about that.

    So after your big statement, you have absolutely nothing but your opinion and the twisting and misrepresentation of evidence to present.

    More dishonest attempts by the Counterspin group, who have to present only half-truths and misrepresentations to make up their theories, which they then state as fact.

    One really has to question why they feel the need to get Justice for Robin Bain, by lying and dishonesty.

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

    Muggins is there a link to the news article Kent was on that you can post please? I do not even know what channel it was on.

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

    goldnkiwi (447) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    —————————–

    LOL it won’t take much time, he was on tv for about 5 seconds, and sounded like a blithering idiot. Apparently he insisted on being heard. You would have thought under those conditions, he would had said something worth listening to. But sadly no, he basically said nothing of any consequence – as usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    “Judith” are you a muggins? You could at least have posted the link. 😉

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

    goldnkiwi (448) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    ——————————-

    If you don’t know how to access that information for yourself after all the years experience you have on the net, then it is pointless anyone providing you with the link – you wouldn’t understand it.

    You seem to still not be able to grasp the fact that when you post on a public blog, anyone is able to answer. There are no rules pertaining to who may address which comment. Another good example why giving you the link would be a waste of time. Even the simplest concepts seem beyond you.

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

    So you are a muggins. 😉 Just checking, it was rhetorical though, I did already know you were.

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

    Judith ,
    David Bain said to Binnie
    ” You gotta remember, I didn’t have my glasses. I couldn’t drive.”
    Then Binnie says
    ” Well ,you drove on the Sunday night to go and collect the fish and chips? ”
    Bain says
    ” That’s correct”.
    So Binnie accepts that Bain couldn’t drive without his glasses but also that he could drive without his glasses.
    Then we have that coversation that he and his aunt had on the Tuesday morning after the murders.
    Binnie reads out most of that conversation .
    He asks Bain ” Did you have such a conversation with Janis Clark?”
    Bain said he couldn’t remember that conversation.
    Binnie asks him ” Is it true you said you had been wearing an old pair of Margaret’s glasses?”.
    Bain says he didn’t think he would have said that to her.

    So in effect if Binnie believes David Bain then he doesn’t believe his aunt.
    But there must have been a conversation about those glasses because at the end of it David Bain says that his glasses would be ready on the Thursday and asked if someone could pick them up. And Janis Clark called in her husband from the next room and asks if he would pick up those glasses [which he did,on the Thursday].
    Unfortunately Binnie didn’t refer to that part of the conversation.

    As for the glasses not having any blood on them, that means nothing. An expert said the lenses probably fell out when those glasses were forced against a carpet. The carpet in Stephen’s room had plenty of blood free spaces on it.
    If blood was so important how come Robin Bain’s watch didn’t have any blood on it?. I mean he was supposed to have worn those bloody gloves, according to Karam.
    So far as the dust on the lens goes, well there was dust on both lenses. Anyway Milton Weir did not say there was excessive dust on either lens. Also, we know that Stephen’s room was so dusty the police officers carrying out the examination had to wear dust masks.

    Stop making excuses for David Bain’s lies, Judith. Any person with a reasonable amount of commonsense would know that David Bain is lying when he said he wasn’t wearing those glasses.
    Yes, I do believe that David Bain wore those glasses when he went down to get those fish and chips. It was he that said he only wore them for going to lectures and watching TV. He omitted to say that he wore them for driving, for obvious reasons.
    Judith, you just cannot believe every word David Bain utters is the gospel truth.

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

    goldnkiwi (449) Says:

    July 3rd, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    Muggins is there a link to the news article Kent was on that you can post please? I do not even know what channel it was on.

    Golden, not sure which news article you are referring to.

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

    Was on tv? The ‘others’ were referring to it lol. Was it on the news?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,454) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    —————————————

    It doesn’t matter what you believe.

    You cannot prove David Bain’s statement are lies.

    You cannot prove that he did wear those glasses.

    You cannot prove anything you say. It is nothing more than your opinion.

    You talk about commonsense – well commonsense says that if the murderer was wearing them, and they were knocked off in a fight where Stephen is bleeding profusely, and covered in blood, then the glasses would have forensic evidence on them.

    They didn’t. Not one tiny piece.

    Commonsense says, that if a lens is too dusty to be seen through, then it would not have been used for vision.

    The lens was so dusty an expert said it would have been where it was for sometime before the 20th.
    Therefore, the glasses were not worn that weekend.

    Commonsense says that if David Bain required the glasses in the manner you say he did, then someone during that four day period would have seen him wearing them, including the neighbour that observed him working on the guttering with his father and brother.

    The neighbour said he wasn’t wearing them.

    Commonsense says that when a person is short-sighted, glasses that are to assist for long distance viewing are not needed for up close circumstances. You, have said yourself that David needed them for distance, and then try to say it makes commonsense for him to be using them for up close. You contradict your own argument.

    Using those glasses would have been more of a hindrance that help.

    The fact is Muggins, when you apply commonsense and removed the emotive stuff that you like to pass off as fact, you do not have one solitary piece of evidence that ties those glasses to the murder/suicides in any way.

    Any attempt to do so is sheer desperation, and even the Crown admitted they were of no use to their case.

    IF you cannot talk about the glasses using authentic wording, and instead keep filling your explanations full of misrepresentation and dishonest quotes that don’t exist – clearly you have nothing and are just shit stirring for the sake of it.

    Go and buy another lifestyle block, because this new hobby of yours is making you come across as nothing but a lying deceitful fool.

    Apply a bit of commonsense yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Another piece of commonsense for you muggins.

    The aunts word means nothing, even if it was true – it is something she believes she was told, but didn’t remember till some time later, it still does not place that particular pair of glasses on David Bain.

    Unless you can place those glasses on David Bain and support that with forensic evidence that proves he was wearing them when stephen was murdered, they mean nothing.

    Even if David Bain lied about them, they still have negative value, because of that fact.

    The glasses do not account for Robin’s position when he died.
    They do not account for the blood spatter on Robin.
    They do not account for the fact the sock print was most likely Robin’s,
    They do not account for the blood under Robin’s fingernails,
    They do not account for the marks of Robin’s thumb, which is yet to be made conclusive,
    They do not account for Robin’s motive,
    They do not account for the fact that Robin was ‘a dead ringer for the profile of a despairing-type perpetrator of familicide.
    They do not account for the fact that Robin Bain’s own wife had told a friend that she ‘feared Robin might one day grab a gun and kill them all’,
    They do not account for anything….

    IF they are all you and Mr Guest have then as Binnie says, it easy to see his factual innocence claim is the correct one.

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

    ‘Judith’ Perhaps if you came up with something apparently insightful you could have your 15 seconds of fame on tv3 too. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (451) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    ——————————

    Been there done that, more than once and for much longer than 15 seconds – 🙂 How about yourself?

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

    Even if David Bain lied about them

    Hmmm but if David is as pure as the driven snow, he’d have no reason to lie…

    Janice Clark testified that David had told her days after the murders that he had worn his mother’s glasses after his own had been broken the previous Thursday. (Janice’s husband, Bob, proffered similar testimony. ) However, David informed Binnie that: “I don’t think I would have said that to her”.

    In other words, David may have told her that he had worn his mother’s glasses. How bizarre. Judith says David definitely didn’t wear his mother’s glasses, yet he may have told his aunt he did! Judith knows more about what David was doing than he does. LOL

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

    You cannot prove David Bain’s statement are lies.

    Just like Binnie the ninny, Judith thinks the onus of proof isn’t on David. Oh dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,587) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    —————————————
    Well Ross, tell me who is the ‘onus’ on to make you form your opinion?

    As far as I am aware the onus is not on David to make you or me or even Muggins believe anything. In fact, I am pretty sure there is no requirement for any of us to even have an opinion on this subject.

    I think you are getting a bit muddled up with your position in all of this. It doesn’t matter what we think.

    The onus is not on David to prove anything to you at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,587) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    Even if David Bain lied about them

    Hmmm but if David is as pure as the driven snow, he’d have no reason to lie…

    Janice Clark testified that David had told her days after the murders that he had worn his mother’s glasses after his own had been broken the previous Thursday. (Janice’s husband, Bob, proffered similar testimony. ) However, David informed Binnie that: “I don’t think I would have said that to her”.

    In other words, David may have told her that he had worn his mother’s glasses. How bizarre. Judith says David definitely didn’t wear his mother’s glasses, yet he may have told his aunt he did! Judith knows more about what David was doing than he does. LOL

    —————————————

    Oh dear, more dishonesty from you Ross – so desperate to make your story fit, aren’t you.

    Mr Clark did not proffer any such information. He had not heard the conversation at all. His statement was about being told to get the glasses so David could wear them.

    According to Mrs Clark, she remembered some time after the first trial – not before it, that David had been rubbing his eyes, and she asked him where his were – he told her they were broken. According to her he told her he wore his mother’s glasses when his were broken.

    The interesting fact here is that she didn’t ask and he didn’t qualify it, but David (proved by the optomistrists evidence) had broken his glasses before and had them repaired.

    Now, Mrs Clark took it to mean (all those years later when the threat of losing some money jogged her memory) that David was referring to the most recent break in his glasses – but again, you can’t prove that he was or wasn’t. According to him he does not recall telling his aunt that he wore those glasses that weekend – and she can’t remember the exact words he did say.

    Like I said before – its all a moot point anyway, because those glasses cannot be not tied to the murders/suicide and your constant dribbling on about them just demonstrates how little you have to infer David is the murderer.

    Desperation Ross – that’s all you have.

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

    The glasses can be tied to David’s veracity, in my opinion.

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

    Judith (3,235) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    goldnkiwi (451) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    ——————————

    Been there done that, more than once and for much longer than 15 seconds – 🙂 How about yourself?
    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
    …………
    Well obviously not on the Bain matter otherwise I am sure that you would have met Joe and/or David and you claim you haven’t. Something to continue to strive for I guess, if that is the case. When you have a smidgeon of a good idea, don’t forget to let them know. Very courageous of people to become the public face of a cause.

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

    Judith
    David’s aunt was sitting in the court when David took the stand. When she heard him say that he had forgotten about those glasses and that he hadn’t seen them for some time she said to herself “That’s not what he told us” .
    So don’t give me that some time later rubbish. It was only a year later.
    When she and David had that conversation David asked if someone could pick up his glasses on the Thursday.
    Now he must have said that otherwise they wouldn’t have been picked up.
    So are you saying his aunt is lying about part of that conversation and telling the truth about the rest of it?
    And are you saying Michael Guest is lying as well.
    Everyone is lying except David Bain.
    Why would his aunt lie?
    Why would his lawyer lie?
    In fact it must have come as quite a shock to his lawyer to hear David Bain say he would admit to wearing those glasses on the Sunday and the days prior. He probably wished he hadn’t been told that. But he was told that .

    All David can say is that he doesn’t remember saying that. Well he doesn’t remember a lot of things. He only remembers what suits him.
    He said he wore his mother’s glasses to watch TV when his were unavailable.
    He said he warched a video on the Sunday night.
    He wore those glasses to watch that video. So they were in good condition on the Sunday night.
    The question is how did the frame come to be damaged the next morning?
    The question is how did that lens come to be in Stephen’s room the next morning?
    And we know it was there on the Monday morning because there is a photo and/or video that shows it on the floor while Stephen’s body is still there.
    I await your explanation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,455) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    ——————————————–

    There you go again, making statement that you don’t have the proof for.

    E.G. He wore those glasses to watch that video. So they were in good condition on the Sunday night.

    You don’t know that. You have no proof of that. You have no evidence to even suggest that is right.

    Even if David did say what Mrs Clark said – she did not remember the conversation until well after 20/6/94.
    There is a ton of evidence that indicates memory is not sufficient to recall exactly what is said – especially the older the person is.

    David was also in shock (confirmed by many people – including his aunt and uncle).

    I have no idea whether he said that or not or how he said it, and whether Mrs Clark remembered it correctly or not.

    But neither do you.

    You are simply guessing, based on the experience you have gained doing what? Being an office boy at a car sales yard and running a lifestyle block (WOW !!!)

    What we do know – facts that you constantly refuse to acknowledge – is:

    1. There is no forensic evidence that links those glasses to the murderer or murders/suicide, other than they were in the same house,

    2. That there was nothing, even in the small gaps in frames etc, in the form of human matter, that indicates they were in the blood splattered room, or handled by the murderer, who would have had blood on his hands, due to losing the gloves.

    3. In order for there to be no ‘matter’ on the glasses, would require the murderer to have located them, picked them up, wiped them and washed them, and then —

    Put them on the chair next to the door in his bedroom to implicate himself!

    4. The lens was dusty and unable to be used for vision. Which means they would have been of no use to David.

    5. The police lied about the lens, and instructed an expert witness to also ‘ignore the dust’. – suspicious.

    6. The glasses were of no use to David even if he was the murderer, as all the murders were close up. Long distance glasses would have impeded his viewing.

    7. Not one witness was produced to say they had seen David wearing those glasses, despite many people having seen him during that weekend, including people at the local,

    So,

    it doesn’t matter who said what or not, the glasses are a distraction that you like to talk about, because you don’t have the ability or skill to discuss the rest of the evidence.

    You concentrate on them because lies and dishonesty is all you understand.

    When it comes to the real evidence, you don’t know enough to discuss it, so you prattle on about glasses because it doesn’t need intelligence,

    When you can prove those glasses were in the room and the murderer was wearing them – then you have an argument.

    Until then, you are just demonstrating time and time again, your incompetence. 🙂

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

    I see we are to see more of the same as last week on 3 degrees .;)

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

    Was that an attempt at balance by Third Degree? lol

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

    It was great attempt for VB to make a proper jerk of himself, good marks for his effort. He has the ashes of two cases of persecution within his mouth and no answer.

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

    N-NZ
    Yes I thought it was an own goal from MVB, his explanations are ludicrous. His best attempt at a ‘smoking gun’ the long since discredited argument about the gurgling. He seems to think he somehow knows exactly what David ‘did’ after finding her and ‘when’ he called the cops. What a joke.
    I think Binnies response to the Guest email could equally apply to the MVB spin, If this is the best that Guest (read MVB) can come up with then we can be greatly reinforced in the conclusion of factual innocence

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SGA (3,768 comments) says:

    I happened to be watching this TV3 show with three of my kids (14 to 22) – they have no deep interest in the Bain case (too young). I asked them what they thought – apparently “the guy for Robin Bain” wasn’t very convincing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Was that an attempt at balance by Third Degree? lol

    Better late than never I suppose. It’s a shame there wasn’t a proper debate last week. Nevertheless, as MVB says, there is no smoking gun and never will be – unless David tells the truth, which is unlikely to ever happen.

    I note that Guyon Espiner tried to suggest that if Robin’s hands had been tested for GSR, then we’d know who the killer was. Well, I understand they were tested and no GSR was found. Nor was GSR found on David’s hands, though of course he had washed his hands before being tested…

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/49915/forensic-scientist-couldn039t-find-gunshot-residue

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

    His best attempt at a ‘smoking gun’ the long since discredited argument about the gurgling.

    So, if you knew someone had been shot and heard them gurgling, would you:

    A) Go from room to room looking for other bodies
    B) Put some blood stained washing in a washing machine
    C) Wait up to 20 minutes before calling emergency services
    D) Seek urgent medical attention

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    MVB had the opportunity to present a balanced argument, and convince people of the validity of his argument.

    He was convincing alright – that he sat through the entire second trial and didn’t learn a damn thing – most of the stuff he called important was invalidated during that trial.

    MVB had his chance, 10 minutes of tv – and made himself look like an insecure and ill-informed amateur who thought the ‘police would probably come up with something’.

    He needs to shift himself from the 90’s – that was shocking – even I felt sorry for him.

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

    Ross, that was definitely a case of never would have been better than late.

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

    MVB had his chance

    You’ve had chances for years but you’re still spouting the same garbage.

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

    And you seeing as you were there that morning Ross are along with MVB you can tell us the exact order/sequence of events that happened after David arrived home?
    The evidence that DB waited 20 minutes before calling 111 after hearing Laniet gurgling is where exactly Ross? You don’t know that he didn’t go for D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Well done Ross
    Yes Hentschel did a belated FDR test on Robin some 5 hours to late for it to be of any use at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    A counterspin Boast – Martin Van Beynen Tonight

    “Will be worth watching as Martin is certain David is guilty. He is articulate, intelligent and has an excellent grasp of the facts.

    He sat through the entirety of the Christchurch trial and wrote a masterful article in the ChCh Press following the trial.

    He will perform well ”

    LOL – no wonder they can’t understand the evidence – they can’t even judge the character of one of their own team.

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

    Didn’t time it, 10 minutes? Good that those five points resonate with a lot of people. Did with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Rowan (908) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 10:33 pm
    —————–

    to be fair, when Ross’ hero MVB who ‘sat through’ the second trial, can’t get it right, what chance does poor Ross have.

    Perhaps he should have ‘stood through the trial’ instead of sitting on what he thinks with.

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

    Judith @ 6.56
    Since when has aunt Fanny ever had any proof or been able to substantiate anything she has posted on KB ever!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (456) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 10:35 pm

    ———————————-

    It appears your fellow counterspinners/jfrb don’t agree with you. Posted by Charles

    “Just watched the van Beynen

    Just watched the van Beynen interview. Disappointing performance. We really need a good spokesman to present the JFRB perspective.

    This stilted inarticulate performance was unconvincing.”

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

    seeing as you were there that morning Ross are along with MVB you can tell us the exact order/sequence of events that happened after David arrived home?

    Let’s see, what did David tell Binnie about the sequence?

    Q: And I’ll read you what you say. “I saw her face. She was on the floor. I can’t recall how close I got to her. I didn’t touch her, not that I can remember anyway. Arawa appeared dead . She was white, she was just white, pasty. I don’t remember. I don’t remember leaving the room but I remember going into the lounge and I saw my father there.” So the sequence, if I’ve understood it correctly, is that you come in the house, you go into your room, take off the shoes and the bag, you go downstairs, go into the laundry, come back upstairs, go into your mother’s room –
    A. No, my room.
    Q . Yes, I’m sorry. First, your room, then your mother’s room, then Stephen’s room, then across the hall to Laniet where Laniet was sleeping, then downstairs to Arawa’s room –
    A. Yes.
    Q. – and then back upstairs to the lounge where you found your father?
    A. Yes.

    Q. So what, what you’re telling me is that you remember the sequence?
    A: I remember the sequence, absolutely.

    David admits leaving Laniet’s room – where he heard her gurgle – and going into Arawa’s room and upstairs to the lounge. (However, he tells Binnie a completely different story to begin with. He tells Binnie that he went into his mother’s room and then into the lounge where he sees his father, and has no memory after that. After 18 years he still can’t get his story straight.) Which begs the question: why didn’t David try to help Laniet?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,591) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 7:27 am
    ———————————–

    As you well know, but don’t like to admit, Laniet had received shots to her head. One that was fired through something made of cotton material that made the hole in which the bullet entered, very large.

    There was bone and brain matter scattered quite a distance, and her damaged brain was showing through the large hole.
    Even a person in shock would have known she was dead.

    The noise that David said he heard, that he described as gurgling was made due the type of position her body was in. It was entirely consistent with her being dead for quite some time. That evidence was presented at the second trial.

    You also know that David’s initial recall was that he only remembered going into his Mother’s room and then to his father, and one or two minor pieces in between. You also know that he received extensive therapy in prison to assist him in recovering memory and was able to recall a lot more about the morning – but not for quite sometime after the event.

    Ross, you know this stuff, but you deliberately leave it out of your analysis. One can only presume you do that because you don’t want people to have all the information, only one side of it.

    One would have to wonder why you keep lying by omission?

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

    A State That Cannot Sin
    By Chris Trotter / June 27, 2013

    The questions I come back to over and over again are: “Why are these people so reluctant to believe in the possibility of David Bain’s innocence?” And, “Why is it so
    important to them that the original verdict should be allowed to stand?”

    Why so many people refuse to accept David Bain’s innocence

    NOW, I’M NO FORENSIC SCIENTIST, but the “new” evidence of David Bain’s innocence strikes me as pretty persuasive. I’ve written “new” in inverted commas because it isn’t really new at all. The tell-tale imprint of gunshot residue on Robin Bain’s thumb was there all along in the photographic evidence, but somehow, like so many other items of evidence in the Bain trial/s, it was “overlooked” by the Police.

    Had the Every Street crime scene been properly processed there’s every chance that the evidence of Robin Bain
    loading and reloading the magazine of the .22 rifle used to killed his family and himself would have been identified
    during the autopsy, and the Police investigation team’s initial impression – that the father was responsible – would
    have been confirmed. But, as we all know, the crime scene was a mess: procedures weren’t followed; evidence was
    lost; and, in the crowning folly of the Bain investigation, the whole house was allowed to be torched – destroying the
    crime scene forever.

    But perhaps we should cut the Police a little slack. What they walked into that day was a waking nightmare of blood and horror. Few Police officers will ever encounter so much unlawful death (five bodies) in a single dwelling. It was enough to reduce the sole surviving family member, David Bain, to a gibbering wreck. The multiple errors
    which took place in relation to the protection of the crime scene and the gathering of evidence indicates that many of the attending Police officers weren’t in much better shape.

    Even so, it is extraordinary that in the 19 years that have elapsed since that dreadful morning in June, 1994, only a Waikato businessman recognised the marks on Robin Bain’s thumb and realised that since he had evidently been touching the murder weapon’s ammunition magazine, he was more likely than anybody else to have been the perpetrator.

    More extraordinary, however, has been the reaction of those who remain absolutely convinced that it was David – not Robin – who killed the Bain family. The latest revelations haven’t made even the slightest dent in their iron-clad certainty of David’s guilt. Indeed, one really struggles to think of anything, any piece of evidence, no matter how strong, that could alter their conclusion that David is the one who done it.

    The questions I come back to over and over again are: “Why are these people so reluctant to believe in the possibility of David Bain’s innocence?” And, “Why is it so important to them that the original verdict should be allowed to stand?”

    Part of the answer is, I believe, buried deep in the collective psyche of any community forced to confront the shock and horror of a mass killing. The same primeval urge which demands that the scene of the crime be cleansed by fire, also drives the community to find a viable culprit upon which to vent its fury.

    From the most ancient regions of humanity’s psychic geography comes the jagged cry of a death for a death. Think back to Stan Graham, the multiple murderer from the West Coast. He was hunted down and shot like a wild pig. Or, David Gray, the Aramoana berserker, cornered and killed by the Anti-Terrorist Unit. To satisfy the need for communal vengeance a living body is required. With Robin dead, David was the only Bain left alive to punish.

    There’s also a political aspect to the Bain Case. It’s always been there, just beneath the surface, that visceral authoritarian need to believe in an all-powerful and infallible state. It’s been driven by the sort of people whose own unbearable feelings of inadequacy and failure are quelled by forming deep emotional associations with symbols of
    authority, certainty and power. The very suggestion that the Police, the Prosecutor, the Judge, and the Court of Appeal were all guilty of not only getting it wrong, but also of wilfully refusing to put it right, is enough to fill them with an all-consuming rage.

    Campaigners like Joe Karam are perceived not a courageous seekers after justice, but as egotistical wreckers; cancer-cells in the body politic; evil-doers hell-bent on undermining people’s faith in the system.

    Such people are psychically incapable of accepting the idea of official malfeasance or institutional failure – and anyone who attempts to convince them otherwise must be struck down and punished. Just think of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Mike Bush, at Inspector Bruce Hutton’s funeral. The deceased was a blameless hero. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Arthur Allan Thomas case had defamed an innocent man. No one planted anything but flowers in the Crewe’s garden. The defendant was guilty as charged.

    Most of all, think of the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins.

    Ian Binnie, an internationally distinguished Supreme Court Justice from Canada, is commissioned by her own Government to determine whether David Bain should be compensated for the 13 years he spent in prison. Binnie tells the Minister that he believes Bain is innocent and castigates the Police investigation of the crime for which he was wrongly convicted.

    Collins’ reaction? To launch an extraordinary and unprecedented public attack on Justice Binnie, and demand that his report be “peer reviewed”.

    We shall never know what demons drove Robin Bain to slaughter his wife and children because, when he had completed the task, they took him with them. More frightening to me, however, are the demons that drive so many New Zealanders to discipline and persecute anyone who suggests that institutions, like individuals, are frail and prone to error.

    That such people persist in defending the institutions of law and justice, even when the evidence of their failure is overwhelming, I find deeply disturbing. But that so many
    have such need of the emotional reinforcement supplied by the symbols of authority and power that they simply cannot accept that the system is capable of imprisoning an innocent man, fills me with more dread than a hundred homicidal fathers.

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

    Judith
    Mrs Clark didn’t remember that conversation on 20/6/94 because she hadn’t heard it then.
    She remembered it when she heard David lying about those glasses when he took the stand.
    Fact is David mentioned those glasses on the Tuesday following the murders.
    His aunt and one her daughters heard that conversation and his uncle was asked to collect those glasses because in that same conversation David asked if someone could pick them up.
    David also told his lawyer in the presence of his co-counsel that he had been wearing those glasses on the Sunday.
    So in effect four people heard him say he was wearing those glasses.
    He also said he wore his mother’s glasses to watch TV.
    He watched a video on the Sunday night.
    Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that one of the times on the Sunday that he wore those glasses would be to watch that video. Maybe the only time he wore them on the Sunday,although I believe he would have worn them when he was driving the car.
    So what I want you to tell me is how those glasses, that were obviously ok when he watched that video came to be found damaged the next morning on a chair in his room and how a lens from them was found in Stephen’s room.

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

    Judith
    The only way we will ever find out the real reason why David Bain murdered his family is if he tells us and,realistically, I don’t think he will do that.
    But you never know.

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

    muggins (2,457) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 9:23 am
    ————————————

    David Bain didn’t murder his family and there is no proof that he did.

    Your glasses cannot be tied to the murders. There is no physical evidence that indicates they were worn by the murderer.

    There is evidence that indicates they weren’t worn by him – the dust that an expert said means they could not have been used to see through.

    The best you can lay claim to over the glasses is that David Bain’s aunt said he told her he wore those glasses that weekend. Something she did not remember until after the first trial.

    As experts will tell you – it is virtually impossible for someone (especially having been through periods of stress) to recall the exact wording after that time. Therefore, her evidence may have a small value, but it still doesn’t tie those glasses physically to the murders.

    The glasses do not prove murder – they have no physical association with it. Even if David lied about them, it still does not implicate him.

    Just ask yourself – if he had worn those glasses, which were no benefit to him and he didn’t need them to use his gun – why would he have searched for them in the blood splattered room, found all but the remaining lens, washed them and wiped them down to remove all evidence of blood from them and manage not to leave any sign of having done that –

    and then return them to his room and leave them in a place they would be found – why would he go to all that bother to remove evidence, only to then implicate himself?

    And, if he did do that, how did he manage to complete the rest of the murders, clean up and do his paper run, if, as you say, he needed his glasses to kill his mother and stephen.

    Even commonsense does not make your story fit Muggins. Nothing about the glasses indicates or proves David’s guilt.

    However, it is a great indication of how you cling to them because you have nothing else, and because you can’t understand the rest of the evidence, so keep bringing the conversation back to the only lie you can remember to sustain.

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

    Tell me again what proves Robin’s guilt? I seem to have missed it. No hearsay evidence now. You could argue that all the witnesses are dead otherwise some of the hearsay would, according to you, be corroborated.

    The fail in that argument, would of course be, ‘why was one allowed to live/stay’. How long before David got home do you think Robin killed himself He could have just read the paper and waited for him to come home and then shot him too, or didn’t David know ‘all’ the family business.

    It would seem to me that he thought he was pivotal to the household, more important than the bread winner..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith
    You are being disingenuous when you say David’s aunt didn’t remember that conversation until after the first trial.
    As I have already explained to you Mrs Clark was at the first trial when David was giving his testimony and when she heard him say he hadn’t seen those glasses for a year , and that he had forgotten all about them, she said to herself,” That is not what he told us”. She actually wondered if she should mention that to the police at the time but as she had already testified she decided not to.
    There was no reason for her to mention that conversation in her testimony. She probably didn’t even know that those glasses would be brought up as evidence. The police had no reason to mention those glasses to her before the trial or ask her if David had said anything to her about those glasses.

    So here we have it.
    David said he had been wearing those glasses that weekend and four people heard him say that.
    He also said that he had worn those glasses before when his were unavailable for watching TV.
    He said he watched a video on the Sunday night.
    His glasses were unavailable so he would have worn those glasses to watch that video.
    What I would like you to explain to me is how those glasses came to be damaged on the Monday morning and how a lens from them was found in Stephen’s bedroom.

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

    The only way we will ever find out the real reason why David Bain murdered his family is if he tells us and, realistically, I don’t think he will do that.

    I agree. Then again, I never thought that lying prick Lance Armstrong would confess either.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    The same primeval urge which demands that the scene of the crime be cleansed by fire, also drives the community to find a viable culprit upon which to vent its fury.

    Christ, Chris Trotter seems to be channelling Joe Karam. 🙂

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

    A good comment from the Chris Trotter blog site which sums up the JFRB fruitloops like Muggins and Ross69 very well

    It is interesting to see so many familiar names from the Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain group, commenting and trying as best they can to sway the public opinion. They are the sort of people this article mentions. They represent a group that has gone to great lengths, much of it dishonestly, to not just attack David Bain, but also Joe Karam, and I might add, anyone that supports either of those people. When they discuss the evidence, they are never open and straight with it, always only presenting 1st trial evidence, and never mentioning subsequent evidence that disproved many of the assertions made in the first hearing. We saw this from Martin Van Beynen last night, it was like he had stopped absorbing information after the first trial. When this group and others like them, have to go to dishonest means to try and make the ‘truth’ (as they call it) known – then we all should know nothing about them represents the truth. should all be very concerned. Their actions are that of ‘witch sniffers’ – the sort of people who met at the barn with ropes in their hands. They do not want the truth, they want to be right. As this very good article says, there are many reasons why they cannot accept Robin was guilty. I suggest another one – personal guilt. Many people saw the dysfunction in the Bain family, and did nothing. Even extended family, Robin’s brother, noted he was struggling, but never bothered to visit after that, offer to help, offer him a place to sleep with dignity. I suggest many of the people that can’t accept Robin Bain’s guilt are too afraid to, because of what it says about them.

    Muggins, Daddy will be able to answer all these questions for you when you meet him again in hell. You still probably wouldn’t believe him!

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

    Judith
    Last night you quoted a post that “Charles ” had made on counterspin.
    This morning I mentioned to him that you had done that .
    This was his reply.

    ” I was not aware of the existence of kiwiblog. I have spent the last 20 minutes perusing it.
    Judith appears to be a crazed fanatic .She constantly contradicts herself and is intolerant of any views that counter her own. “

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

    Rowan
    Do you think there is any chance David will take a leaf out of Lance Armstrong’s book and confess?
    I very much doubt he will follow Lance Armstrong’s example, but I just wondered if you think he might just do that.

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

    ‘Christ, Chris Trotter seems to be channelling Joe Karam. :)’

    ross is channelling Martin, if, but maybe Van Beynan.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Aunt Fanny is defaming David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    It is interesting to see so many familiar names from the Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain group

    It’s also interesting to see all the Bain cultists repeating their bullshit in the hope some of it will stick. They rely on emotion rather than evidence.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. 🙂

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

    Muggins

    For you to ask yourself
    Seeing as the case is so ‘obvious’ and you ‘know’ with such a degree of certainty ‘that David is guilty’
    Why have all the crown arguments for guilt been rejected so many times including by some of their own experts?
    The PC, jury and judge have all heard and rejected all the ‘mountain of evidence’ and shown all the crown theories to be lacking in any evidential basis.
    David has nothing to confess, and nothing he needs to prove to a desperate stupid old fool like you. Suck it up!

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

    muggins (2,460) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
    ————————

    He was polite wasn’t he.

    Tell him from me, when he starts being tolerant of Joe’s and David’s position, and stops his fellow members from telling lies, half-truths and misrepresenting things like official information, then maybe his words will have some meaning.

    In the meantime, its all a bit ‘pot kettle’ stuff isn’t it.

    He posted that Martin Van Beynen was articulate, intelligent and has an excellent grasp of the facts… He will perform well ” and within a short period posted that he was ‘inarticulate’. If that’s not contradictory, then what is it?

    So best you tell ‘Charles’ that before he points the finger at others, perhaps he should first look in the mirror.

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

    Rowan,
    David Bain has much to confess but I would be surprised if he did.
    I reckon if I could get him one on one in a TV interview I might just be able to get him to confess to wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend. Do you reckon you could arrange something bum buddy?

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

    Judith,
    I havn’t heard that interview but I thought van Beynen was pretty good in that interview with Sean Plunket.

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

    Judith

    Charles won’t be interested in anything else you have to say. He summed you up pdq.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,594) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    ———————————-

    Your problem is that it has already ‘stuck’.

    People are not as stupid as the counterspin crowd and MVB. When a forensic expert states on the stand he got it wrong initially, they tend to believe him.

    When two experts from the Crown start fighting on the stand, and can’t decide who did what and where – most people know that their is bullshit in the air.

    Most people might believe a fairy tale for a little while, but the more they start to look at it, the more they see big holes in it – like why would David put glasses in his bedroom to implicate himself, when he would have had to go to immense trouble to clean blood etc off them first. And other questions like how come the counterspin group keep raving on about a missing 20 minutes, when its plain to see that most of that time is accounted for.

    You see Ross, most people aren’t as stupid as you, and although some were initially fooled, the more lies they see that your group has told. The more exposure to things like Muggins changing the words of official documents etc, they are made aware of, the more they look at you lot and see the raving bunch of loonies the rest of us have always seen.

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

    Although I would very much like David Bain to confess at the end of the day all that really matters to me is that he doesn’t get paid for killing his family. It has been over four years since the retrial finished and so far he hasn’t received a penny.
    I very much doubt that he ever will.
    Mind you that is not to say than his supporters won’t put something in the pot.

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

    muggins (2,463) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    —————————-

    Oh dear, then why did you bother mentioning it?

    Actually, I don’t care what Charles thinks, you see nothing you lot say makes the slightest bit of difference.

    Your lies over the strip-search have made sure you have discredited your organisation sufficiently, that anyone who matters in this argument is distancing themselves very quickly from your group and any contact they have had with it.

    Not to mention the investigation into why you have David Bain’s police fingerprints on your site, named as the prints from the gun – raising no end of questions, which none of the answers will do your group one piece of good.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,464) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
    ————————————

    So you are still going to go to North Korea when he gets compensation, aren’t you? Or was that another one of your lies?

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

    David Bain had a great deal of bad luck.
    Bad luck that his father found where the trigger lock key was.
    Bad luck that his father decided to wear David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that his father decided to wear gloves at all, seeing as he was going to commit suicide and it wouldn’t have mattered if his fingerprints were found on the rifle.
    Bad luck that those gloves were found in Stephen’s room,covered in blood.
    Bad luck that the only indentifiable prints on the rifle were David’s .
    Bad luck that those prints were in pristine condition and hadn’t been smeared with all the handling of the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that David had Stephen’s blood on his clothes.
    Bad luck that the glasses belonging to his mother that he said he wore when his were unavailable[as his were that weekend] were found in a damaged condition in his room with one lens missing.
    Bad luck that the missing lens was found in Stephen’s room.
    Bad luck that he had told his lawyer with his co-counsel present that he would be admitting to wearing those glasses that weekend.
    Bad luck that his aunt testified that David had told her [with one of her daughters present ] that he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend.
    Bad luck he had bruises on his head and torso consistent with him having been in a fight and/or struggle.
    Bad luck that his father changed into some tatty old clothes before he supposedly committed suicide.
    Bad luck that David didn’t realise those clothes his father changed out of were in the wash basket and that he put them in the washing machine without seeing any blood on them, even though he got blood on his hands when doing so.
    Bad luck that his father did not have enough blood on his hands to enable that blood to be tested.
    Bad luck that his father typed a message on the computer instead of hand-writing one.
    Bad luck that the message on the computer amounted to David’s superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck that the spent shell from the bullet that killed his father ended up in the computer alcove after his father supposedly shot himself in the lounge.
    Bad luck that his father’s head appeared to have been moved subsequent to his death[ and before the police arrived].
    Bad luck that his father had a full bladder.
    Bad luck that that David apparently fainted after after finding his family dead and didn’t “come round” until after twenty minutes had passed. Had he not fainted he would have phoned the emergency services straight away and the police would have found the washing machine still operating.
    Bad luck that David told the phone operator that all his family were dead but then later told a police officer he had only seen his mother and father.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he returned home. Had he done so he would have seen the trigger lock on the floor,found his rifle was missing and wouldn’t have done the washing.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that his sister Laniet had told acquaintances she met when going to work on the Sunday prior that she didn’t want to go to a family meeting that David had called for that evening because he was acting freaky and that she was frightened of him.
    Bad luck that his Gondoliers T-shirt had a stain on it that looked like blood that he said wasn’t there when he put it in the wash the night before.
    Bad luck he told a female companion prior to the killings that something terrible was going to happen.
    Bad luck he told his friend Mark Buckley of his plan to “molest” a female jogger using his paper round as an alibi.
    Bad luck his right-handed father shot himself in the left temple and did so without removing the silencer from the rifle.
    Bad luck his father changed magazines when there was no need to and placed the magazine he removed from the rifle in an upright position on the floor.
    Bad luck that he heard his sister Laniet gurgling and described that gurgling exactly how she would have gurgled if she had been shot once through the cheek and was still alive.
    Bad luck that he saw his mother’s eyes open when the experts said they would have shut shortly after she was shot through the eyelid.
    Bad luck that when the photo of the bloody sockprint was taken the footprint did not show up so it could have been proved to be a full heel and toe print,if in fact it was.
    Bad luck that David twice told police officers that the green jersey that it was later proved to have been worn by the killer belonged to Arawa and then later when he took the stand said it belonged to his father.
    Bad luck that the blue trackpants in the wash that he never admitted were his were too long to have been worn by any other family member.
    Bad luck that he said he didn’t bring the paper in which meant that his father must have brought it in even though he was apparently going to commit suicide shortly thereafter.

    Repeated due to popular request.

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

    muggins (2,464) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    ——————————–

    Then man, you are in for a shock. He came across as a bumbling idiot – it was shocking. Just ask Charles, he said as much on your site. Charles is looking for a new spokesman – perhaps you could do the job – you certainly have the time and experience, but I doubt they would want you – in fact I’ll put a ten on it, that you don’t get the job.

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

    Muggins
    You are so full of shit, Its so very easy to see how David is innocent, simply read MOS, In the grip of Evil or counterspin, also listening to arguments from idiots like you and Ross just reinforces the conclusion.
    Remember Ian Binnie read all the CS/Justice for Daddy arguments. Its just that easy to see them for what they are!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith

    I said that David Bain was never naked. I now accept that no-one except himself and Dr Pryde know whether he was ever naked and I can’t ask Dr Pryde because he is dead.
    And I still say that he always had a blanket in his possession.
    You say that David Bain was strip-searched when there is no proof that he was .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (1,825) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    …I had to email a request for official information which I did.
    I received an email back saying that the third police officer had been in the doorway all the time that Pryde was examining Bain and that he was never naked…

    muggins (2,465) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    Judith,
    Where did I say there was a police officer standing in the room during that medical examination.?
    I was told there was a police officer standing in the doorway when his clothes were exchanged and the clothes he was wearing were seized as exhibits.

    But wait there is much more Muggins – has Charles seen all the lies you told repeatedly on here about your conversations and emails with Police Officers and Collins office?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith
    You mentioned one post that Charles had mentioned on counterspin, I mentioned another.

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

    Just like Aunt Fanny cannot substantiate ANYTHING she has posted on any of the kiwiblog threads and has been sprung regularly for the lying piece of c** that she is!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,421) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    .
    ..However, Judith said I was told no police officer was in the room at that time and as you can see I never said a police officer was in the room.

    ——————————

    NEK MINUTE
    ——————————

    muggins (2,088) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    Judith. Two of those police officers said they never saw Bain naked, but they qualified that by saying they both left the room for a few minutes. The other police officer stood in the doorway,so he could always see David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You said that David Bain was strip-searched. You lied .
    You said that the dog’s name had been spelt correctly in the transcript. You lied.
    You said that you could see part of David Bain’s torso in a photo . You lied.
    You said you didn’t use the word oral [as in oral sex] . You lied.

    So here we are back to calling each other liars again.
    Very salubrious.

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

    Judith
    You are lying again.
    I said there was no police officer in the room when Dr Pryde carried out his examination.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,467) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    —————————–

    You don’t seem to understand, your credibility is completely destroyed.

    It doesn’t matter anymore what you now say you believe.

    You came on here and over a period of about four months repeatedly told everyone on here that you have received official information from the Police and stated what that information was.

    It wasn’t a matter what you believed, it was a matter that you lied about what was in that information, and continued to do so even when challenged about it.

    You deliberately lead everyone reading this blog to believe that you had information that there was a police officer in the doorway of that room ALL THE TIME David Bain was having his medical information, and as that police officer had not seen him naked, – he never was. THAT WAS A LIE.

    That lie was made worse by the fact you knew the truth.
    I could tell your were lying so under the OIA got copies of those emails, which revealed other lies you had told.

    Your words mean nothing Muggins – your lies were deliberate and nasty. Nothing you say can be believed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,469) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 2:57 pm
    Judith
    You are lying again.
    I said there was no police officer in the room when Dr Pryde carried out his examination.
    ————————————

    You said there were two police officers in the room but they left for a few minutes

    Muggins, its all here on Kiwiblog, you cannot lie about it. I have more than 25 comments made by you about the strip search and everyone of them has lies in it. Statements that you knew were incorrect because you had got the official information from the police.

    You thought you were being smart – adjusting the words a bit- and so on. All you have done is prove how you go about assessing anything to do with the Bain case = dishonestly.

    If your organisation had any sense they would expel you from it. I warned you back then you would bring it into disrepute with what you were doing and you scoffed. Now you are bringing them into more disrepute by continuing to try and lie your way out of it. Pathetic

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,469) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 2:55 pm
    Judith,
    You said that David Bain was strip-searched. You lied .
    You said that the dog’s name had been spelt correctly in the transcript. You lied.
    You said that you could see part of David Bain’s torso in a photo . You lied.
    You said you didn’t use the word oral [as in oral sex] . You lied.
    ——————————————

    Muggins, you lied about official information. If you can’t see the seriousness of that, you are stupid.

    Regarding the rest.

    David Bain was strip-searched. The police did not do it, as they said in the email. Dr Pryde did it. That was not a lie.

    The dogs name is changed on the transcript on my computer, which is what you were told. Prove otherwise!

    I said – that the photo of David’s tattoo would show his chest and any scratches – I never said I had a photo or even seen a photo – that was your interpretation of what I said. The posts are there to prove it.

    You made a statement to another poster that ‘Judith says …. it was oral sex”.
    I said I did not say that.
    This is the post of what I did say.

    Judith (1,207) Says:
    December 16th, 2012 at 9:37 am

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

    Muggins you consistently lie, you are still doing it, you try to twist and cheat your way out of it. You try to justify your behaviour by putting it back on to me, but as I have demonstrated, your accusations are wrong.

    We have been through this time and time again, and each time you raise it, you just get proven wrong. You cannot deny what is recorded on here. You need to face facts, you’ve been caught lying about official information. Your reputation is shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith (3,255) Says:

    January 10th, 2013 at 11:36 am
    Muggins,

    I never ever mentioned the word oral.

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

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

    Oops.

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

    You see Ross, most people aren’t as stupid as you, and although some were initially fooled, the more lies they see that your group has told.

    Except I don’t belong to any group. You should stop listening to Karam and try thinking for yourself. You might find it liberating.

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

    muggins (2,470) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    ————————————-

    As usual, you take something out of context and use it dishonesty. The conversation was about you saying I had said the act with the goat was oral sex.

    I had never said what that act was – oral, intercourse or otherwise. That was the conversation that comment was made in, but in your usual manner, you take something out of context and dishonestly try to pass it off as something else.

    You just dont’ get it Muggins.

    You got an email from the police as official information and for FOUR months on this blog, you stated that the information you had got in that email, was entirely different to what it was.

    You didn’t just mention it once, or as some sort of muddled comment in different context. YOU DELIBERATELY and BLATANTLY LIED.

    You were told you were lying, and you continued.
    You lied about what Dr Dempster told you
    You lied about what the police told you.
    You lied about what you were told in other official information as well.
    And what is more – you lied to someone official – but you will be hearing more about that, not on here.

    Now you can continue to carry on trying to make out anything you like about me cutting bits out of conversations and making them into something they weren’t, but all you are doing is proving my claims that you are so dishonest, nothing you post can be trusted.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,595) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    ———————————

    You should stop thinking I know Joe Karam – I’ve never met the man. He wouldn’t know me if he fell over me.

    Your problem is, everything in your life that is wrong, appears to be Joe Karams fault. Did you read that article I posted this morning – I’m sure it was written about you Ross

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Judith3,255) Says:

    January 10th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    Regarding permission to burn down the house, the defendants do not run the investigation, the police do. No decent police officer allows evidence to be destroyed, regardless of the cost to maintain and protect the scene, and they sure as hell don’t rely on the word of the person charged with the crime to do so. Pity there were some decent police officers involved, instead of a perverted detective!

    Judith,there was no perverted detective. Another lie.

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

    Judith ,
    I phoned Dr Dempster and told him someone was saying that there was a photo of Robin Bain showing blood coming from his nose. I asked him if there would be any reason for that and he said if the bullet fractured some small bones in Robin Bain’s head that could have caused blood from his nose.
    He also said that he had been looking at a photo recently and thought those abrasions on Robin Bain’s hands could be up to 48 hours old.
    That is what he said.

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

    muggins (2,471) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 3:43 pm
    Judith,there was no perverted detective. Another lie.
    ———————————————————-

    Maybe you don’t think the actions outlined in this article are perverted, however, I think there are many women that would disagree with you. This is only part of the article, prior to this section it mentions Laniet Bain’s involvement with Detective Weir. Detective Weir never took any legal action against the writer of this article. It is in the public arena.

    http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/08/to_serve_and_pr.html

    The officer in charge of the scene examination at the Bain murders was Milton Weir.

    Susan Sutton and Joyce Blondell were both working in the sex industry in the mid 1990s.

    “I first met Milton Weir in 1995,” Sutton told Colin Withnall QC in her statement, “when Joyce Blondell asked me to perform a foursome with her and [Detective Sergeant Jim] Doyle and Weir and myself at the Golden Fleece Hotel, Waikouaiti.

    “The main thing I want to talk about is his unstable nature…he had a very short fuse and would fly off the handle over virtually nothing at all, would rant and rave. He would have to take pills to get himself back under control.

    “Some particular occasions that I recall was one night he took me to a barbecue at a house in Waverley, the address of which I have not yet been able [to] locate but I remember it because there [are] two ornamental lions at the entrance to the drive.

    “There were about 20 people present at this barbecue and in the bathroom in the house was a supply of cocaine there for people to use. During the night we were out by the barbecue and there was a cat which started rubbing up against Milton Weir’s leg – Weir reacting by grabbing a barbecue tool and chopping the cat to death in an absolute frenzy. I was just horrified but other people there just laughed.”

    Significantly, a Dunedin lawyer has independently confirmed he was told the Milton Weir Cat-killing story by another police officer who attended the same barbecue. That lawyer has never seen the statements of Susan Sutton or Joyce Blondell and is unaware they even exist. Needless to say, no police officer has ever seen the statements either until now.

    Elsewhere in Sutton’s statement there are equally chilling nuggets:

    “Weir has told me about an incident at the Police Club one night when a police officer put a bag over the head of a girl (I think another police officer) and then raped her in the Police Station. Weir told me this because he thought it was very funny. I wasn’t told the names of the people involved.

    “Joyce also told me that she had some video tapes of Dunedin Police involved in various sexual acts. I told her that I didn’t believe her and challenged her to show me the tapes. She did show me some of the tapes although some of them I wouldn’t look at because they were just too disgusting. However, the ones I did see included a film of Detective Sergeant Doyle having sex with a dog. In another one, a ginger haired girl was tied down while four people had sex with her. She was crying and definitely not looking as if this was willing. I recognised Milton Weir as one of them and also [name withheld].”

    According to Sue Sutton, this was standard M/O for Milton Weir when it came to aggressive sexual advances.

    “On one occasion he rang me at work and wanted me to go out with him. When I told him that I couldn’t, he got very angry, came up to where I worked and again insisted I go with him…grabbed me by the throat and dragged me out to the car and took me to Allanton.

    “On another occasion…he came around [to her work] and brought some blue cord and grabbed my wrists and tied them up, and said I was going with him and I could either get in the front of the car or he would put me in the boot.

    “I have been asked by Mr Withnall why I didn’t go to the Police about Weir’s behaviour. My answer is that Milton Weir was the Police, and I was scared of him – I am still scared of him – and I didn’t think that going to the Police would help. My father is a retired policeman and believes that the Police can do no wrong, and I didn’t think anyone would believe me.”

    Sutton wrote that Weir knew she’d been talking to the David Bain defence team for several months, “and over that period I have been receiving dead budgies in my letterbox wrapped up in newspaper. I believe Weir is sending me these.”

    When she confronted Weir, he claimed to know the bird-breeding habits of the Bain defence team and claimed one in particular had an aviary. He didn’t.

    But the police were prepared to fight even dirtier. A file note by Colin Withnall QC reveals:

    “On Thursday June 1 I was told by a person who is closely associated with and influential in the Black Power movement in Dunedin that police have been spreading the word to gangs and to ‘lifers’ in prison that [a Bain defence associate] ‘was kicked out of the police for sodomising his son’.”

    The clear intent of the police, records Withnall, was to make the associate a marked man in the criminal world where “kiddy-fiddlers” are not tolerated. The man, of course, had done no such thing and the official records show he resigned from Dunedin Police in 1992 honourably. But in the context of dead budgies in the letterbox, rape threats, violence and intimidation, this criminal slander by members of the Dunedin Police was par for the course.

    Joyce Blondell’s statement records similar intimidation and slander:

    “Milton Weir and other police have gone out of their way to try and stop me from talking to [the Bain defence team] and others…more importantly the threats and violence we have suffered at the hands of certain police to stuff us up and stop us from talking to [them].

    “Last year, 1999, Milton Weir visited me at my Mum’s after he had finished in the police and threatened me not to talk to [the Bain team]…or there would be serious repercussions.”

    Are you starting to see the pattern? These are police officers, sworn to uphold the law, knowingly lying in order to intimidate witnesses who could testify about police rape, drug use and corruption.

    In another report obtained by Investigate, it is alleged that the corruption extends far higher than Milton Weir, and much further than Dunedin:

    “It has come to our attention that Weir has been afforded a level of protection from a very high rank within the Police,” says the report, before naming the individual and his position in another major city police force.

    The report tracks Weir’s activities at other locations where he has been stationed, including this from Christchurch:

    “Whilst in Christchurch we managed to ascertain that Milton Weir was a regular visitor to certain parlours as a client. Information gleaned was that he looked after at least three of the parlours, meaning they were left alone and allowed to break the law openly in the following areas:

    1. Running an unlicensed bar
    2. Live sex shows which included audience participation
    3. Drug dealing
    4. Underage sex

    “Weir left these places alone on a professional basis on the condition that he and his mates could visit them at any time free of charge and obtain free sexual pleasures for turning a blind eye to any breaches of the law. The establishments where Weir was indulging are the following:

    1. Atami Bath House
    2. Felicity’s 140
    3. Penthouse
    4. The Boutique Lounge

    “Weir regularly arranged private shows for him and his friends away from the Atami in places such as the Ferrymead Tavern and the Christchurch Police Club. At the Ferrymead Tavern it became public that a uniformed police officer actively took part in indecencies on stage. This was covered up by Weir who conducted the inquiry.

    “There was an incident on one occasion at the Police Club which involved hookers and Weir bundled one of them into the boot of an unmarked police car after striking her.

    “From all the information gleaned whilst in Christchurch the picture which was painted for us was one of police corruption on a large scale. A lot of other information [about] offending by police was obtained but not relevant to your matter or the person you are interested in. For example, we have the names of several police officers who are dealing in illicit substances (drugs) and using.”

    The report also reveals that TVNZ’s Holmes show conducted an on-camera interview with a prostitute detailing “very compelling complaints about Milton Weir criminally offending”, but didn’t run the story because other sex workers were too scared to go on tape.
    While investigators were talking to the woman concerned, a CIB car pulled up and, as the report notes, “she was visited by members of the local CIB who intimidated her. Colin Withnall QC was contacted immediately – he proceeded to the property where he ordered them to leave. This is documented on a television news broadcast.

    “As a result of this ‘lady’ not only talking to [TV reporter] Mike Valintine, but also to Colin Withnall QC and Stephen O’Driscoll, solicitor [now a judge], [it] led to Withnall having a private meeting with the Commissioner of Police and tabling a formal complaint of police corruption. The Commissioner of Police then appointed a police member from outside the district to conduct an inquiry…unfortunately, when this officer interviewed the said lady she then started to recant…the matter then fell over. It could be said the Police obtained the statement they desired.”

    It was, of course, simply a matter of police protecting their own by intimidating the witnesses. And the sheer scale of that intimidation is incredible. According to Joyce Blondell, she confessed to two crimes she did not commit – one of them murder – because of Milton Weir’s threats if she didn’t take the rap.

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

    Judith (3,255) Says:

    January 10th, 2013 at 11:36 am
    Muggins,

    I never ever mentioned the word oral.

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

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

    Judith, please.
    Tou said you never ever mentioned the word oral. You said I added oral in my mind. .
    In fact you did use the word oral .
    In fact I never added it in my mind.
    So you lied.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The preceding few paragraphs to the article above:

    Which brings us to yet another twist in this increasingly serious story: in late 1993, perhaps early 1994, Bayfield High School dropout Laniet Bain began working part time at the Reflections massage parlour. She would have been aged just 17. It is extremely likely that part of her “initiation” involved being forced to have sex with Dunedin police officers. And one of those officers was quite likely Detective Sergeant Milton Weir – the man who later controversially spearheaded the Bain family murder investigation and allegedly planted evidence to implicate David Bain.

    In a statement dictated to Colin Withnall QC in his presence but left unsigned amid fears for her life, Dunedin woman Susan Sutton recounts a conversation where one of her friends told her about Milton Weir’s behaviour.

    “Joyce has also told me about what Milton used to do when he was in the squad that was in charge of the Dunedin massage parlours. She said he would insist on having sex with the new young girls at the parlours as a perk of the job, and that Jack and Winnie Ingersoll would arrange it for him.

    “Also, some of the girls who were under age or had a drug conviction and accordingly weren’t allowed to work in the parlour would be allowed to work in parlours provided that they gave Weir free sex, not only for him but for his mates.”

    Let that sink in for a moment. Susan Sutton’s statement confirms what Investigate had already heard from Megan. But there’s even more corroboration – Megan doesn’t know either Sutton or her friend Joyce Conwell (aka Joyce Blondell); she’d already quit the parlours to work as a private escort before their time there.

    Were senior Dunedin police officers sexual clients of underage prostitute Laniet Bain? Did that have a bearing on how the police conducted their investigation into the Bain homicides of June 20, 1994?

    One man who knows something is Dean Cottle, who told police he’d met Laniet in a bar in Dunedin in August 1993.

    Cottle’s statement was taken by Detective Malcolm Inglis, who later worked on the David Benson-Pope tennis balls investigation. The statement is intriguing for both its explosive content, and the apparent lack of interest of police in what Cottle was telling them.
    For example, he reveals:

    “About the family, she told me that her father Robin had been having sex with her and this had been happening for year [sic]. That he was still doing this as I believed it…she didn’t want it coming out what had happened to her, I wasn’t to tell anyone.”

    The Bain family had lived in Papua New Guinea for years, in a region where incest and group sex were cultural traditions. One book on the Bain murders alleges the family fell victim to sexual misconduct there and that the practice took hold. Cottle’s statement seems to back that up to an extent:

    “The night she told me about what her father had done to her, she also told me before this that something had happened to her in Papua New Guinea. She didn’t say what, but I presumed she meant something sexual. After that she started crying and told me about what her father did to her…She also told me that her sister Arawa had been involved in some prostitution.”

    It is well documented that Laniet’s mother, Margaret Bain, was becoming increasingly deranged and obsessed with New Age rituals. It has also been alleged that Margaret Bain had a sexual relationship with her sons. It is no exaggeration to say that the Bain family was seriously dysfunctional.

    While author Joe Karam has speculated that Laniet sparked the murders by threatening to reveal how her father had been having sex with her, it seems likely that such a revelation would not be news inside a family with wide incest issues resulting from their Papuan lifestyle. Indeed, Karam asserts that Laniet may have given birth at age 11 to a child resulting from her father’s incest, which was adopted out in Papua New Guinea. Hello! If Laniet was truly pregnant at 11 to her father, how was a revelation of further incest going to add anything to the debate within the house?

    A more likely explanation is that Laniet was planning to reveal her involvement in prostitution at the brothel used by Dunedin’s police force, and Cottle’s statement again appears to back this up. He says he saw Laniet just before she was murdered:

    “I stopped and spoke to her on the footpath for about 5-10 minutes. She told me that she was going to make a new start of everything, that her parents had been questioning her about what she was doing. She said she was going to tell them everything and make a clean start of things…She had always been very scared of her parents finding out what she was doing. I thought by saying this she was going to tell her parents about prostitution.”

    You’d think with dynamite like this in Dean Cottle’s statement that police would be all over him with questions. Apparently not. There appears to have been no major effort to follow up Cottle’s leads, and Laniet’s diary containing her list of clients’ names and phone numbers mysteriously disappeared.

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

    muggins (2,473) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 4:02 pm
    —————————-

    Post your own comments about it muggins – tell the whole story – you were saying I said the goat incident was oral sex. I answered I never mentioned the word oral – meaning in that context.

    I will admit I was wrong – I should have realised by then what a lying dishonest piece of shit you are, and that everything had to be made perfectly clear in triplicate because you being such a liar would twist it to suit your story. Like you have with all the evidence you’ve presented on here.

    My bad for thinking you might have an honest bone in your body – you clearly don’t.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

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

    c**? That escapes me lol

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

    Judith @ 4.01
    While i’m sure this behaviour is perverted to most, given that Muggins thinks its a normal thing for a father to show his daughter how to stick her finger up her vagina then am not surprised that he doesn’t find it perverted

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggins

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155668/bono-is-crap

    Looks like you could give Bono a run for his money here, obviously the producers here hadn’t heard of you

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Wow, people use the f word non-stop on here, and I provide proof of a David Bain supporters lies and use the S word, and receive 20 demerit points.

    Easy to post the Robin supporters around here.

    Was it the S word, or the fact I dared to use the OIA to prove that a member of Justice for Robin Bain is a liar?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    I gave you a thumbs up, well done keep it up 🙂

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

    goldnkiwi (459) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Don’t panic Goldy I’m still here.

    Its strange isn’t it, whenever someone gets the better of Muggins, he makes complaints and tries to get the banned.

    You tell me, do these posts look like he lied?

    muggins (2,421) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    .
    ..However, Judith said I was told no police officer was in the room at that time and as you can see I never said a police officer was in the room.

    ——————————

    NEK MINUTE
    ——————————

    muggins (2,088) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    Judith. Two of those police officers said they never saw Bain naked, but they qualified that by saying they both left the room for a few minutes. The other police officer stood in the doorway,so he could always see David Bain.

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

    OR what about these ones:

    Do they look like Muggins lied in these?

    muggins (1,825) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 5:43 pm
    …I had to email a request for official information which I did.
    I received an email back saying that the third police officer had been in the doorway all the time that Pryde was examining Bain and that he was never naked…

    muggins (2,465) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    Judith,
    Where did I say there was a police officer standing in the room during that medical examination.?
    I was told there was a police officer standing in the doorway when his clothes were exchanged and the clothes he was wearing were seized as exhibits.

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

    You answering for Muggins again ‘Judith’ 🙂

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

    Still don’t understand the concept of a public blog ay’ Goldnkiwi?

    The concept is, anyone can answer. I know that might be a little difficult for you to understand, but that’s the way it is. Being a bit of a slow learner I guess it didn’t sink it the first time you were told. Don’t suppose it will this time either. You need something to post and as you don’t understand the evidence, you don’t have much else to contribute. I’m sure muggins appreciates it. I hear some of his ‘friends’ are a bit septic with him at the moment, or perhaps they haven’t discussed their plans with him yet.

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

    You seemed to think I was concerned by your presence or not judging by your comment, why did you think my comment concerned you? I appreciate that you seem to find it necessary to comment for everybody but by the same taken don’t bother on my account. Yes this is a public blog, not your blog. Perhaps you should remember that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (461) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    Yes this is a public blog, not your blog. Perhaps you should remember that.
    ———————————-

    LOL well then perhaps you should stop biting and pointing out who you were talking to, and then you wouldn’t sound like such a hypocrite.

    Now can you actually discuss any of the evidence, or are you just here to make inane comments? Because really, unless you are going to start discussing the case, it is rather boring talking to you?

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

    Robin did not commit suicide.
    Muggins does a sterling job
    ‘Judith’ is a narcissist and needs to get over herself
    Perhaps ‘Judith’ would be more forgiving of Muggins if he had committed murder
    There done 😉

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

    “Robin did not commit suicide.”

    You got any prove of that Goldnkiwi or is that just your core belief?
    A shame for you that there is no evidence supporting or explanations consistent with Daddys ‘murder’
    Or maybe you could give the explanation that Kieran Raftery was unable to give the jury? nope didn’t think so

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    You got any prove of that Goldnkiwi or is that just your core belief?

    You’re confusing GK with David. It’s his “core belief” that he’s innocent. Why is David unsure if he massacred his family?

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

    goldnkiwi (462) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Muggins does a sterling job
    ——————————

    So you are one of those people that celebrates dishonesty and those that falsify information and state that senior police officers have said something they didn’t?

    You enjoy being lied to, do you?

    It doesn’t matter what you do on this one Goldnkiwi, you cannot ‘challenge’ it. It is what it is, it was not constructed by me.

    The OIA produced emails from Senior Police that were written to Muggins. The information in those emails is in black and white.

    Muggins got those emails on 22 January 2013 and since that date has continually blogged about what they were meant to contain. But what he posted was different to the real contents.

    As someone that has a law degree, the fact you like such dishonesty is rather worrying, but not surprising.

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

    Given that this situation was created by the ‘textbook’ cops inactions in not taking swabs for gunshot residue from Robin Bain within the required timeframe, or protecting his hands and feet before removal to the morgue, I don’t see why they should be in any position to speculate on what these marks are ‘not’
    Given that the marks were not noted when Dempster examined the body at the morgue then it follows logically that they were of a nature that they would easily rub of, which if they were either ‘cuts’ or ‘guttering injuries’ they would not.
    Sad really that for so many its more about being right than establishing the truth.

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

    If you say so ‘Judith’ you know that when you say it, it makes it so, not.
    Semantics, those same semantics have served the defence well in cross examination of officers and expert witnesses etc, that does not make the facts alter, but is in my opinion why an accused wouldn’t take the stand in their own defence for example, the constant harping on about absolutes, no absolute? Then doubt. Enough doubt? Beyond reasonable.
    The essence and intent of statements made by Muggins on these matters I am happy to accept.
    Your constant harping and trying to trip people up not so.

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

    Rowan (917) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 8:52 pm
    ——————————

    Yes, its a bad situation for the Crown, no matter what happens.

    The entire matter has just highlighted the fact that the police did not do their job properly, or according to the manual.

    No matter what the final conclusion is, the police have even more explaining to do. (Not that they ever will)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (463) Says:
    July 4th, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    The essence and intent of statements made by Muggins on these matters I am happy to accept.
    ——————————–

    Ah, so you accept lies and dishonest statements. You accept the ‘intent’ which was to make people believe something that wasn’t true.

    O.K. thanks for putting that in writing. It confirms what I thought about you.

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

    Maybe JFRB could get in behind, a very big behind, and support a gumby mayoral candidate. That might work.

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

    But you believe in freedom of expression and freedom of speech, or so you would have us believe or is that only your own? Again rhetorical.;) You seem to like the sound of your own keyboard ‘Judith’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Oh dear, the failed hate campaign is being likened to freedom of speech. Who would have ever thought it.

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

    A good piece with thanks to beyond
    from http://counterspinthetruth.blogspot.co.nz/

    The Loon has Risen

    In a long dribbling explanation the administrator of the Counterspin site, Kent Parker, has presented his verdict that David Bain is guilty, based on the fact he has not written an autobiography. Using the example of Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, Parker argues that as Bain hasn’t publicly documented his feelings and experience of losing his family, the man is obviously guilty. Parker ‘the self-claimed expert in such things’ and in all matters ‘Bain’ (according to the man himself) is the same man who insisted Judith Collins met him on the steps of Parliament to receive his petition. An offer she refused.

    Lindy Chamberlain was wrongfully convicted in 1982 for the murder of her infant daughter. She spent three years (not 13 years) in prison. After release she returned to her husband and remaining children. Her conviction was overturned in 1988. For 6 years she had lived with being officially accused of her daughter’s death, and when released had the support of her immediate family to live in their family home.

    TWENTY SIX YEARS after her sentence was over turned, she wrote her book, ‘Through my eyes’ which was published in 2004.

    Kent Parker, who claims to be offering a ‘psychological analysis’, stated as David Bain was studying classics and drama, he should have the skills to write such a book, and because he has not, he is guilty.

    In his usual writing manner reminiscent of a psycho set free with a ballpoint, Kent Parker fails to point out it has been FOUR years since Bain was acquitted. Bain did not return to the support of immediate family, he was released with only a few possessions having spent 13 years imprisoned for a crime he did not commit; he had no career or money. He then had to prepare for the retrial, and learn to live life as a mature adult – not to mention sort out his application and case for compensation.

    The matter is still not over for David Bain. That David Bain has gone to such lengths to do his grieving in private is not unusual, to anyone but Kent Parker, who seems to be increasingly out of touch with reality.

    How anyone (in their right mind) can compare David Bain’s lack of autobiography to someone who took 26 years before they could write their story of losing a child and spending three years in prison; very different circumstances, is beyond belief.

    Although the two have similar aspects, the timing and circumstances are very different. Any well-adjusted person could see that. Parker’s writing has become his signature – self professed expertise used to enlist contempt for David Bain. Parker’s hatred appears to have consumed him to the point where he is incapable of the rational thought processes required to assess time frames and difference. As he continues to drag the Counterspin campaign down to new depths, his date with the Courts in the Karam Vs Parker defamation case draws closer. No doubt we can expect many more similar ravings from Kent Parker.

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

    he had no career or money

    Of course he has a career. He’s going to be the next Pavarotti. Opera singers are usually not in their prime til their 40s and 50s. Time is on his side. Besides, he’s had 13 years to hone his craft.

    This is what David told Justice Binnie:

    The wrongful conviction of me in 1995 took away my inheritance. My Dad had a beautiful collection of string instruments and Mum had her pottery. These items are only a tiny amount of the items they collected during their lives and all have been lost to me. Further examples are Stephen’s trumpet and Arawa’s flute, a collection of opals from Australia, a collection of Royal Doulton pieces, artwork, books, music, the land and the house itself.

    On top of all this, Mum and Dad had amassed an impressive library of photos and videos documenting the many years they had been together and our family growing up together. All of these items, while not having great monetary value, all have a far higher sentimental value to me as they were my family’s possessions and would have been the things I could have remembered them by. Now all I have are the few photos released by my relatives to the Court for Use during the 2009 retrial.

    I have been told that I had the potential to have a career as successful as the New Zealand opera singer Jonathan Lemalu. Mr Lemalu is now engaged two years in advance and is singing all over the world. In 1992, my singing teacher told me when I started lessons that I had a wonderful voice and that I could one day create a valuable career for myself. … The wrongful conviction of me and the time I spent in prison meant that the life I was planning has gone out the window. I feel as though I lost the major earning years of my life.

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

    ross69 (2,599) Says:
    July 5th, 2013 at 9:27 am

    That is all very interesting, and I am sure to you at least, it is damning of David.The problem you have is, it was nowhere in the officially released interview between him and Binnie.
    Questions:
    Are you in possession of another Binnie report, one that was not released publicly?
    Did you get this from a group that you claim not to belong to?
    Did you simply dream it up?

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

    Kanz (1,143) Says:
    July 5th, 2013 at 4:40 pm
    ——————————–

    Good questions Kanz.
    It is certainly NOT on the Binnie/Bain interview that was released by Judith Collins.

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

    Judith (3,285) Says:
    July 5th, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    It appears Ross is almost as good at fiction as muggins is, or do they both get their twisted information from the same place?

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

    Kanz
    It does come from Davids affidavit which is in the appendices to the Binnie report. It is completely separate to the Binnie/Bain interview though.

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

    Rowan (919) Says:
    July 5th, 2013 at 5:32 pm
    ——————————

    David’s affidavit was not ‘told’ to Judge Binnie though? It was signed in December 2009, long before Judge Binnie was involved, and it certainly was not told to Binnie, or had anything to do with Binnie, other than being part of the documents involved in the application.

    Ross clearly says David Told It To Binnie – so there must have been a different conversation with Binnie, that only Ross knows about.

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

    Judith
    You are correct. As usual Ross is misrepresenting what David said to try and make himself sound convincing. Very easy to see through.

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

    Rowan (920) Says:
    July 5th, 2013 at 6:02 pm
    ———————————

    Yes it is Rowan. Those people from the group of which Ross doesn’t belong to, have continued to spin their misrepresentations for year, will many not bothering to check up on what they say.

    I really question the sort of campaign they run – if it is not based on honesty, and they can’t win by being truthful, then what sort of respect does that show to the man, they say they are honouring?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. flipper (5,177 comments) says:

    Rowan…
    at 10.34 last evening you said:

    ” …. Lindy Chamberlain was wrongfully convicted in 1982 for the murder of her infant daughter. She spent three years (not 13 years) in prison. After release she returned to her husband and remaining children. Her conviction was overturned in 1988. For 6 years she had lived with being officially accused of her daughter’s death, and when released had the support of her immediate family to live in their family home.

    TWENTY SIX YEARS after her sentence was over turned, she wrote her book, ‘Through my eyes’ which was published in 2004. ”

    It must have been the time of day, and you probably referred (2004) to the date of a reprint.
    I have the original hard back copy which was FIRST published in 1990, not 2004. ISBN 0 85561 331 9

    I suspect you also mean that the Coroner’s finding was overturned 26 years later, but I have not checked out that pointy.

    My friendly correction is made to ensure you are not vilified by the demented serial liars. 🙂

    F

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    flipper (1,828) Says:
    July 5th, 2013 at 6:52 pm

    ————————————-

    Rowan’s post said it was re-posted that from a blog on the internet that often talks about the Bain case. I just checked that blog and I see it has been changed from what Rowan posted. A good comparison between the two very different cases. The rest of the blog is quite interesting reading too. They seem to have the same poor opinion of a certain organisation as myself and others do.

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

    Judith
    OK…Will follow up, thanks. No reflection whatsoever on Rowan
    F

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    An interesting comment from another blog, regarding the Van Beynen interview – it made me giggle. They are so right, if that GSR testing was done, this sad crime would have been solved in 1994.

    http://nostalgia-nz.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/martin-probably-van-beynan.html

    “Anonymous July 5, 2013 at 10:31 AM
    I haven’t wasted a moment of my time reading anything van Beynen has had to say about the Bain murders/suicide since I read this…………After sitting through almost every minute of the David Bain retrial………….I have however just watched the 3rd Degree program only because you have done an item on it Nos.

    Three points………..I couldn’t help noticing van Beynen said at the outset “because we know” then very quickly changed that to “I know”. I would be interested to know who “we” are, my guess it is his brother.

    He goes on to say “If police could have got GSR testing equipment in time” (or words to take effect) they could have tested for GSR. Forensics were prohibited from entering onto the property for three hours after police had secured the scene. What was wroung with usuing those three hours to get a simple swab to test with.

    It is about time these idiots acknowledged that testing for GSR was absolutely vital and had they done so we would today know who used that gun..

    Apart from that I got tired of listening to his bloody cough cough splutter splutter.

    Imagine the conversation van Beynen had with van Beynen prior to the progrm.

    Ray……..They have got us by the balls help us out again will you.

    Martin………….. Sure will bro no matter how stupid it makes me look. “

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

    @ anonymous who posted that, there are many who don’t want to know who used that gun. It was good for them that the cops didn’t bag the old man’s hands.

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

    What I find really annoying in this case is idiotic columnists such as Martin Van Beynan and Michael Laws whose columns are utter crap. They seem to think that they are in a qualified position to speculate on what the marks on Robins thumb are not.
    Given the overall poor quality of the evidence in this case, much of the crown ‘evidence’ that ‘proves’ that it was David actually proves nothing, It does not prove that David did it or exclude Robin at all. The above fools along with the loons from JFRB simply repeat the ‘mountain of evidence’, ‘no evidence against Daddy’ and ‘fundamentally flawed’ mantra that crown law portrays.
    They also take a very simplistic/naïve view of the case i.e. the crown ‘must’ be right, and you ‘must’ look at the collective weight of arguments that do not support each other and have been rejected regularly by any legal body external to NZ law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Nookin (4,514 comments) says:

    Rowan

    Don’t you mean look at the collective weight of all the facts?

    I am not sure if you are correct when you say that NZ’s approach to circumstantial evidence differs from most other jurusdictions but even if you are right, isn’t it a problem for your argument that we have to apply NZ law not the law of those other jurisdictions? And why is it simplistic or naïve to apply a test that has been upheld time and again in NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Nookin
    The quality of the evidence is very poor in this case, not a lot of black and white and a lot of grey. There is not only one possible answer to most of the crown arguments despite what they try and tell you.
    It is not simplistic and naïve to apply a test that has been upheld time and time again but in this case the crown conclusions to most of the evidence are not supported by the evidence and are also significantly compromised e.g. the fingerprints.
    The rope analogy is fine in theory but the strands are pretty weak in this case, Robert Fishers ‘review’ cites Bayes theorem but he demonstrates he has no understanding of it, IMO his report was very legalistic and academic and the argument that Binnie ‘misunderstood NZ law’ ridiculous, especially seeing the clarification he had had from the 2 legal experts on the differences between NZ and Canadian law.

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

    ‘The rope analogy is fine in theory but the strands are pretty weak in this case, Robert Fishers ‘review’ cites Bayes theorem but he demonstrates he has no understanding of it, IMO his report was very legalistic and academic and the argument that Binnie ‘misunderstood NZ law’ ridiculous, especially seeing the clarification he had had from the 2 legal experts on the differences between NZ and Canadian law.’

    Well put Rowan. Fisher ‘analysed’ the process by which the evidence was resolved by Binnie, Fisher did cite Bayes theorem in a manner that showed he doesn’t understand it. That was clever of course because rather than be exposed in an evaluation of the evidence, and therefore the core matter of the compensation application, he ‘observed’ the process. Fisher has done nothing toward the point of the application – the innocence or guilt of David Bain, he has picked at the process and given Van Beynan, Laws, Plunket and other also rans, in not understanding the evidence of the Bain case, the chance to say Binnie was wrong on the evidence – something that was never declared by Fisher in his report to the ‘dear Minister.’

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

    Great tribute to the chief ‘witch sniffer’.

    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/kents-theme-song-soon-to-be-his-swan.html

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

    Great tribute to the chief ‘witch sniffer’.

    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/kents-theme-song-soon-to-be-his-swan.html

    That is an awesome blog. Whoever writes it is very clever and also has the JFRB mob down pat. What a bunch of fools they are.

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

    Another excellent piece from Beyond summing up the fruitloops rant about the glasses
    http://counterspinthetruth.blogspot.co.nz/

    For far too long, Muggins has clung to the one piece of evidence he claims proves the entire case. A piece of evidence he claims cannot be refuted. According to him, and many others, the broken glasses found in David’s room on the morning of the murders is enough to prove guilt.

    He supports his argument with a statement by Jan Clark, David Bain’s aunt, who David is meant to have told he wore that pair of glasses during the weekend prior to the murders. David made this statement apparently during a discussion with his aunt a day or so after the deaths.

    David said he cannot recall making that statement, and can see no reason why he would have said it as he did not wear the glasses.

    So, did David wear those glasses or not?

    The Glasses

    I think we all know the circumstances involving the glasses. Plenty was said about them in Court.

    The glasses, without any lenses were found on a chair, near the doorway of David’s room. There were no lenses in the frames. One was missing, the other was with the frames, but no longer in them.

    Extensive forensic investigation failed to find any physical evidence on the frames or the single lens that indicated they had been worn by the murderer of the Bain family, or had been in the close vicinity of Stephen’s blood spattered room.

    In the days following the murders, the missing lens was found in Stephen’s bedroom.
    (this is where it gets confusing)

    Detective Weir, responsible for the scene, stated he found that lens in a certain position. (A statement that he backed up with a photo). However, when evidence was produced that indicated the lens was not found in that position, Weir was forced to admit he had changed his evidence to fit the photo, (in essence he had lied).

    Weir was also found to have encouraged an expert to ‘ignore the dust on the lens’. According to that witness, the amount of dust on the lens indicated it had been laying where it was found for a period of time before the murders. That is, it could not have been worn in glasses by the murderer on the morning of 20 June 1994, or in fact during the weekend prior to the murders.

    Did David wear those glasses or not?

    I think the answer lies in the difference between Margaret Bain’s eyesight and David’s. Whilst both were short-sighted, their prescriptions were not exactly the same.

    Margaret had an astigmatism, and David did not. When David wore his mothers glasses on previous occasions, in order to obtain a positive improvement it was necessary for him to place his hand over the lens that was adjusted for Margaret’s astigmatism. (That astigmatism was confirmed by her optometrist).

    David stated the glasses were only of use to him in lectures, or watching TV from the back of the room. He had watched TV on the Sunday before the murders, but had been sat near the table, close to the TV and could see the screen without assistance.

    In order to drive wearing these glasses, he would need to cover one eye, as lenses made for astigmatism will cause distorted vision in someone without the problem. With an astigmatism the corneal surface has a high degree of variation on its curvature causing a distortion in light refraction. Lenses adjusted for astigmatism are curved to compensate for this aspect, and when used by someone without an astigmatism, cause their eyesight to be skewed by the alterations in light refraction. Hence David needing to cover his eye, and rely on 90% distance vision provided by the other lens.

    What does this mean?

    What it means is that if David Bain was to wear those glasses to go on a shooting rampage, he would have needed to cover the lens that was adjusted for the astigmatism. If he did not do this his vision would have been so distorted, that he would be unable to aim the rifle.

    It would also have left him with only one arm to hold the rifle and pull the trigger.

    The remaining lens, which was adjusted for Margaret Bain’s short-sightedness, improved David’s distance viewing by approximately 90%. But, the murderer did not need distance viewing, and the glasses instead of being of assistance, would have further inhibited David Bain’s near vision.

    Muggins Spectacular Spectacles are a distraction

    Had the idiot bothered to do his homework, or even conducted a minor search on the internet he would have found the information regarding astigmatism indicates what is said above.

    I suspect Muggins already knows this information, but as it is not supportive of his argument, he has ignored it. His argument is that the marks on David’s face were obtained when the bleeding Stephen knocked the glasses off David in the struggle. He argues Stephen used such force that the left lens was dislodged and landed where Detective Weir found it.

    Had David Bain been wearing those glasses his vision would have been so distorted he wouldn’t have been able to distinguish his target lying in a bed, let alone hit them in the head. Unless Mr Muggins is able to provide evidence that David Bain was able to aim, hold and pull the trigger with one available hand, then it would be better for all if the idiot stopped making a fool of himself, and accepted he is wrong.

    The evidence – the dust, the lack of human matter on the frames and remaining lens, the dishonesty surrounding the evidence presented in Court by Detective Weir, and Margaret’s astigmatism, all point to only one conclusion, that David Bain did not wear those glasses on 20th June 1994.

    The only thing spectacular about Muggins spectacles is the disgusting spectacle he keeps making of himself.

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

    It is a sorry spectacle she makes of her self. It makes me think her real name, ‘Aunt Fanny,’ isn’t actually a accurate statement about her nether regions, because she often appears to a ‘Uncle Dick’ as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. flipper (5,177 comments) says:

    Just to wrap up this matter (for now, anyway), the following extract from OTB’s January 2013 commentary on the Bain case was contributed to OTB by a North American lawyer (not Ian Binnie).
    It seems to be still appropriate because I suspect that Collins et al have yet to notice what is about to happen to them in the forthcoming JR. The extract is:

    **** “Collins debacle:

    “Judith Collins sought to “play in the bigs”. But she and her advisors have been shown to be “babes in the wood”, to use a NZ expression.

    “They probably, almost certainly, thought they could brow-beat Justice Binnie, as they might a New Zealand Q.C., or judicial figure.

    “But they did NOT see the 5000 ton freight train roaring down the tracks at 85 mph. The tame Dunedin academics, and Wellington bureaucrats, supporting [manipulating or capturing] her, along with poor Robert Fisher, were all taken-aback when Ian Binnie counter-attacked, as North American judges and attorneys are want to do – especially when they know that they have been unjustly “dissed” by an overly clever lawmaker.

    “They did not realise that the Hon Justice Ian Binnie, a former Minister in a nation of 30+ million, and a former Justice on that nation’s Supreme Court, with more than 40 years’ experience as a litigator, and quite accustomed to “playing in the bigs”, would never be intimidated by “an Auckland tax lawyer”, and her naive advisors. Only a fool would not have anticipated a counter-battery.
    “If Justice Binnie had played by Collins’ rules he would have buried her under a “pile-up”, as he did Fisher. Politely, of course. But he was kind, well sort of. Mrs Collins, unfortunately for her, was simply echoing her bureaucrats. Not a good idea when “playing in the bigs” with 2500 lb. Rhinos [with apologies to Ian Binnie]!
    – a North American perspective from JD, Attorney at Law, King City,, OR., (OTB 3) USofA. ” ****

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Excellent Comment Flipper, and a good indication of what the international feeling is regarding Ms Collins actions.

    I see Ms Collins has been busy though – adjusting what was written about her ‘public spat’ with Binnie on Wikipedia. One would suggest if she wants people to think better of her, she might do so by becoming familiar with the meaning of ‘justice’.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10896128

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Bain case: Answer lies in motives

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/8914766/Bain-case-Answer-lies-in-motives

    7/14/13 Baincase: Answer lies inmotives

    OPINION: Motive is an important part of any crime investigation. Finding the motivation of an offender is as vital as physical evidence in forming the
    pillars that will become the foundation of a successful criminal prosecution.
    But it is the motivation of the police and their employers, the Government, that has come under scrutiny in the past few weeks. And evidence suggests both have been found wanting.

    New evidence has been put forward that suggests Robin Bain, and not his son David, was responsible for the murders of four members of his family
    before turning his weapon on himself. Importantly, given the notion of motive, the evidence presented on TV3’s Third Degree programme was not really new but more the discovery of something missed by hundreds of people, including police, immediately after the murders and during the subsequent trials.

    The programme, with its respected experts from a number of fields, made a compelling case that marks on Robin Bain’s thumb were the sooty residue
    left behind after he reloaded the murder weapon, which, if true and known at the time, would have no doubt been a key point in David Bain’s defence.

    The experts presented reached their own conclusions based on their extensive knowledge of what they were talking about, a common sense
    approach to what would most likely have caused the marks on Robin Bain’s thumb and, importantly, they appeared to have no improper motivation for
    offering their opinions.

    Sadly, it appears the same cannot be said of the police and the Government.
    The day after the programme’s airing, the police were largely dismissive of the evidence.

    Interestingly, Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said: “Our fingerprint experts advise that this is consistent with someone sustaining cuts or
    damage to the fingers.” One wonders what prints his experts were looking at, given that David Bain supporter Joe Karam has presented prints police
    have access to, and they show no cuts.

    Mr Karam and the public are right to question police motives around this case and their attitude to the new evidence.

    It should not be portrayed as a “slam dunk”, but if justice is best done when it, and the processes that reinforce it, are seen to be done, especially in
    such an important, high-profile case, then our law enforcers are letting us all down.

    Mr Burgess is right to complain that TV3 should have involved the police in making the programme, but that should not diminish his responsibility to find the truth.
    Could it be that the reticence of the police is more about protecting the integrity of the thin blue line and an investigation that was loudly discredited
    by many?

    And could the Government be similarly motivated because it has backed itself into a corner over compensation and previous stances on
    the issue?

    That would be powerful motivation indeed. Enough, possibly, to commit a far more damaging crime – the undermining of important structures of
    society.
    – © Fairfax NZ News

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Psycho Milt (3,210 comments) says:

    Finding the motivation of an offender is as vital as physical evidence in forming the pillars that will become the foundation of a successful criminal prosecution.

    Bollocks. Motive is important at the point where you’re trying to figure out who your suspects are. When it comes to proving which of your suspects is guilty, motive is worth shit compared to physical evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,394) Says:
    July 14th, 2013 at 11:07 am
    ——————————–

    But when there is little or no physical evidence and nothing but circumstantial then what? Surely under those conditions motive becomes a factor?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Ok Psycho

    Add together the motive and the physical evidence What do you have against David a few what ifs and maybes that don’t support each other and various arguments the crown have lost on more than one occasion. Most of the crown so called ‘evidence’ is completely useless in distinguishing between David and Robin as the perpetrator. The spin doctors will of course will manipulate what was said to create ‘evidence’ but the reality is they have nothing but conjecture.

    here’s the ‘non existent’ evidence against Daddy

    From Nostalgia-NZ on why Robin is guilty –

    “A brief summary:
    >fresh blood on two pairs of trousers in Robin’s caravan
    >a bloodied hair on the sweatshirt in the Commer van
    >the footprints: first trial said that they must be David’s because they matched the (unstretched) length of his socks (280mm). Second trial showed David’s feet to be considerably longer (300mm)
    >blood inside the barrel of the rifle showing the shot to Robin being a close contact shot
    >Laniet was shot through something and this intervening something introduced yaw in the bullet creating a larger entrance wound: not a contact would as previously thought.
    >Laniet had told several people that her father molested her (possible motive, not brought out at first trial)
    >The fingerprints on the rifle from David could not have been blood
    >there were numerous other prints on the rifle (partial/unidentifiable)
    >the proposition of Robin shooting himself being impossible or extremely difficult was shown to be false and that it was relatively easy
    >the blood spatter evidence was new
    >the blood spatter evidence that showed the blood and brain spatter on Robin’s shoe showing the impossibility of ‘kneeling in prayer’
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed their was no screen (a gunman) between Robin and the spread of the spatter
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that had a gunman been involved in Robin’s death the shot would have been impossible without a required distorted pose from Robin (perhaps standing on a chair)
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that the gunman would have needed Robin’s co-operation in own death and anyway would have been impossible not to have left a ‘shielded’ area in the spatter
    >DNA evidence was new
    >the information about the doubt about the lens placement was new
    >the details of the computer turn-on timing was new
    >the details or the washing machine cycle duration was new
    >some of the details of the blood-staining was new (eg in the first trial the stain on the back of David’s shirt was an ‘old’ stain pre-dating the murders)
    >The flap of skin found in Stephens room and ‘said’ to be Davids was proven to be Stephens.
    plus the new magazine evidence
    Overall the forensic proof proves Robin the killer. “

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/07/was-david-bain-the-unluckiest-man-ever-that-fateful-day-at-every-street/#more-102636

    Overall the forensics show that David was the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,394) Says:

    July 14th, 2013 at 11:07 am
    Finding the motivation of an offender is as vital as physical evidence in forming the pillars that will become the foundation of a successful criminal prosecution.

    Bollocks. Motive is important at the point where you’re trying to figure out who your suspects are. When it comes to proving which of your suspects is guilty, motive is worth shit compared to physical evidence.

    I agree, Psycho,
    But David had $320000 worth of motive. That a lot when you havn’t got a penny to your name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    Motive is definitely a factor, but in law, only means and opportunity need to be established.

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

    I am not saying money was the main motivator.
    I believe David was upset about the delays in building the new house. He probably thought it was never going to happen so he decided to kill all his family and thereby get the inheritance,so he could do his own thing.
    And the Prosecutor at his trial said much the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote