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.

Tags:

695 Responses to “Hypocrisy”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    David Bain can’t be pardoned.

    He was acquitted!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nookin (3,343 comments) says:

    Agree with Edge. Could not understand what Reed was on about.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (8,882 comments) says:

    “As I have said many times, David Bain, if he wants to show he is innocent, needs to explain about 20 to 25 pieces of evidence which point to his guilt.”

    No compensation unless Bain agrees to be cross examined.

    He’s never been willing to allow his story to be challenged.

    Ergo he has something to hide and it can only be his guilt.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    … let’s just replace the Supreme Court with Judge Judy!

    Gold and exactly what I was thinking when I read Andrew Little’s comments this morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tvb (4,422 comments) says:

    Yes Bain is acquitted a pardon is redundant. Mr Reid QC needs to get his reasoning straight.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dave53 (91 comments) says:

    The claims being made for this “evidence” are fatally flawed.

    After the murders, the murderer wiped down the blood-soaked rifle to remove the fingerprints.

    Robin could not have done that, because he was dead.

    The only fingerprints on the gun were David’s, where he had been holding the gun when he wiped it. He’d already lost the gloves he’d been wearing earlier in the huge fight he had with his brother Stephen when Stephen fought for his life, ultimately losing.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    dave53 (31) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:30 am
    ——————————

    The murder weapon was not wiped down.

    There were more than 10 fingerprints found on that gun, in a variety of positions.

    You need to get your facts straight.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    The guy from “the press”, goes through all the evidence he thinks makes David guilty, but conveniently does not mention the blood up the barrel. He is bias, so his opinions are useless. As for Malcolm Burgess and his story, well it is just ridiculous. The marks are on the side or edge of his thumb, a thumb finger print is taken on the under surface of the thumb when it is pressed on the ink pad. The scar marks on the thumb print are obviously old, as they are scars, not the fresh hours old marks.
    Anybody who has loaded a magazine with bullets knows you have to push the bullets down hard to depress the spring in the magazine. The more bullets you put in , the harder it is to depress the spring. You can actually nick your thumb in the process. Also the guy from “the press” says Robin was supposed to be wearing gloves, well to try and load a magazine with any sort of glove, let alone a loose fitting glove is just futile.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The Law society presented at paper more than a decade ago advocating a special commission that dealt with issues regarding wrongful conviction etc. I firmly believe that paper should be reviewed and the recommendations adopted here in NZ.

    Not just the case currently being discussed, but many others, some that don’t even gain media attention, indicate that there is a need for an independent body to investigate such claims.

    Such a commission would be independent to, but administered by the government, and therefore supposedly free from political tampering.

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

    Jimbob (627) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:38 am
    ————————–

    If Robin was wearing gloves the entire time, why did he put them back in Stephen’s room? Stephen is presumed to be the second victim.

    Obviously Robin wasn’t wearing gloves – or he would not have got blood under his fingernails, or had blood spatter on his hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    Wow, lawyer for accused mass murderer says it was the other geezer wot done it. It must be true because he’s a lawyer and getting paid for this kind of thing.

    Next week the pm explains how rising unemployment is proof of an economic miracle and later, David shearer explains how polling lower is strengthening his leadership. Welcome to today’s edition of “news for idiots”

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    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 …….,
    …………………………………………………
    DPF…
    Don’t swallow the Collins BS line on hypocrisy and more.
    And don’t judge Reed by what Stuff says, he said.

    Reed may be many things to many people, but he is no fool and he does know, as GE said, that having been found to be not guilty, he cannot be pardoned. But the Crown could front with an apology and proper compensation.

    The Judicial Review argument by you and J.Key ? That duck will not fly.
    It (the JR) would go away in an instant if John Key told Collins to get off her arse and recant …or he did an RDM/Thomas on the matter.

    As for the three man panel suggestion, YES it is a good suggestion (there is a Law Commission Report on this, but the Crown on Douggie Graham’s advice turned it down), BUT, only for future cases.

    It will NOT fly for Mr Bain because the Crown has already chosen its path/bed – Binnie. And lost!

    The TV3 poll was not scientific David, BUT 70 – 30 in favour of compensation, from 13,000 + votes.

    And that when the deputy leader of the Molesworth Street Cowboys was doing his fudging and misleading best… but clearly failed.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Keeping Stock (10,340 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter – something that we agree on. This one piece of POSSIBLE evidence implicating Robin Bain does very little if anything to exonerate David Bain, especially when the higher burden of proof for compensation claims is factored in.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    DPF

    “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”

    David, this was effectively all done by Simon Power with his appointment of Justice Binnie to bring ‘finality’ to the case and the conclusion was innocent BOP, however because the arrogant Auckland tax lawyer and her hired gun the porno judge, didn’t like the conclusions the report was “fatally floored”. It is pretty clear from reading the two reports the ‘flaw’ was that it didn’t contain the conclusion cabinet was seeking and also which report was written by the academic incompetent who hadn’t even read any of the evidence and whose whole review was a fault finding/nit picking exercise.
    The disgraceful actions of Collins brought about this mess, she is only digging her own grave and sabotaging her career by continuing to fight it.

    [DPF: The problem was not Binnie's conclusion. It was his reasoning. Numerous law professors have said that he got the basic law of evidence wrong with the way he weighed the evidence up. His report was crap. he didn't even read his own terms of reference.

    I think it is more likely David did it than Robin. If a review that isn't crap, concludes it was more likely to be Robin, then I'm happy for David to get compensation.

    You should be angry at Justice Binnie for doing a crap job. If he hadn't then David might have compensation by now]

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    @ Judith (3,017) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:43 am
    ——————————————–
    I do agree with you on the Law Society or was it the Law Commission’s recommendation.

    I am sure such a panel could have more uses than just compensation cases so the public could have confidence in the findings. Such a panel could replace the Judaical Complaints Commissioner. It would be better to have a panel than a judge judging other judges. They could possibly have other rolls like complaints against senior police.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. peterwn (3,272 comments) says:

    This can be taken for what is really is – a crude attempt to put public opinion pressure on John Key while Crusher Collins is out of the country. John is not biting. It has merely provided Crusher with PR ammumition for when she makes a final recommendation to Cabinet on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (8,882 comments) says:

    How about these “investigative” reporters get Bain to front a TV interview and they ask him a few searching questions on his story?

    Probably because Bain won’t do it.

    Probably because the “investigative” reporters aren’t really interested in investigating at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Good to see you finally getting on board with this one and sharing the load Russell.

    Reed’s reaction to all of this has been so over the top that one can’t help but get the sense that this is one last final act of desperation. He knows Binnie’s report is crap. He knows that the judicial review hasn’t got a prayer. This is nothing more than a last gasp attempt to exert political pressure.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    So Russ, we know you’ve seen plenty of action in the world’s trouble spots. Do you feed your mags thumb along the top or thumb across the top?

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

    thedavincimode (4,857) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:15 am
    ———————————–

    Do you have some evidence of these things that you say Reed ‘knows’?

    Because I think you will find his opinion is very different from the one you are claiming.

    Its all very well to make claims, but perhaps you need to back them up, after all, that is the standard you require when other people make statement opposing you.

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

    Redbaiter (3,618) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:13 am
    How about these “investigative” reporters get Bain to front a TV interview and they ask him a few searching questions on his story?

    Probably because Bain won’t do it.
    ———————————-

    And if Bain gave a full and open interview – would you believe everything or anything he said?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler

    A minor detail that shouldn’t interfere with the big picture headline.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Longknives (4,746 comments) says:

    “The TV3 poll was not scientific David, BUT 70 – 30 in favour of compensation, from 13,000 + votes.”

    I don’t want to rain on your parade Flipper but John Campbell is well known for ‘fudging’ his Stats and twisting things- This is the guy who was sprung using paid actors on his news items remember?? (and the desperate and broke TV3 have clearly invested heavily in this ‘Bain is Innocent’ thing..)
    You’d be better hedging your bets on the fearless, intrepid reporters of the 3rd Degree Team..Is Anna Guy still their ‘star reporter’? (Heh..couldn’t resist!)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Rowan says ….
    “David, this was effectively all done by Simon Power with his appointment of Justice Binnie to bring ‘finality’ to the case and the conclusion was innocent BOP, however because the arrogant Auckland tax lawyer and her hired gun the porno judge, didn’t like the conclusions the report was “fatally floored”. It is pretty clear from reading the two reports the ‘flaw’ was that it didn’t contain the conclusion cabinet was seeking and also which report was written by the academic incompetent who hadn’t even read any of the evidence and whose whole review was a fault finding/nit picking exercise.
    The disgraceful actions of Collins brought about this mess, she is only digging her own grave and sabotaging her career by continuing to fight it.”

    Totally agree, Rowan.

    The JR was only filed when Collins told Reed et al to get lost
    Collins WILL LOSE, but at our cost. And unless this is settled quickly, it will be a gangrenous sore come the 2014 election.

    Offer to settle and the JR will disappear.

    A loss be not be good for Natonal, and especially bad for Collins future leadership (Lusk/Whale driven) expectations.

    Does your polling tell you the 70-30 in favour is markedly wrong, David?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Judith

    You go on believing that Binnie is G**’s gift to jurisprudence. The rest of the world will continue to think he is a plonker – the inescapable conclusion that must be drawn by anyone who read his report.

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

    Chuck Bird (3,566) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:10 am
    ———————————-

    Totally agree Chuck.

    Everyone in such positions should be accountable. This idea has been mooted for many years, and a large number of people have supported the idea. Sadly most politicians do not want it, I guess because it removes their ability to ‘interfere’. Politics should NEVER be involved in matters of justice, in my opinion. Such an organisation has to have the ability to act outside parliament for obvious reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (8,882 comments) says:

    “And if Bain gave a full and open interview – would you believe everything or anything he said?”

    Bain’s story is a web of fabrications that has never been fully tested. It would collapse under the slightest pressure.

    The issue of the interview is not whether I (or anyone else) believe Bain or not.

    A pressing interview of Bain would expose his story for the web of lies it is, and everyone, Bain, Karam and his defence team KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.

    That’s why he has never agreed to it.

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

    thedavincimode (4,860) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:23 am

    You go on believing that Binnie is G**’s gift to jurisprudence
    ——————————–

    Sorry – where did I mention Binnie to warrant that comment?
    I think you will find I am not the only person in the world that has reviewed the evidence and thinks David Bain is not the killer.

    You wouldn’t like to withdraw your vast exaggeration, would you?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Breaking news!

    The Bain camp are to announce new and startling information that will provide irrefutable proof that it must have been Robin. This evidence has existed all along, but was somehow overlooked by the prosecution. This is the ‘game changer’. The clincher that will end all speculation once and for all.



    Apparently Robin and Margaret weren’t getting along so well and he was living in a caravan on the Every St property!!!!!!

    [Gasp]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Does your polling tell you the 70-30 in favour is markedly wrong, David?

    @flipper,

    So you’re saying that justice in this country should be driven by public polling?

    Interesting position.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Long knives, no matter Campbell’s reputation, the 70-30 is in line with previous NZ Herald and Fairfax findings.

    I would not take it (Campbell, smarmy weasel, no less, and even more obnoxious than jack rabbit Gower) to the bank, but those in favour are well in excess of 50%, with don’t knows also taking a large chunk.

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

    Redbaiter (3,619) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:23 am
    “And if Bain gave a full and open interview – would you believe everything or anything he said?”

    Bain’s story is a web of fabrications that has never been fully tested. It would collapse under the slightest pressure.

    The issue of the interview is not whether I (or anyone else) believe Bain or not.

    A pressing interview of Bain would expose his story for the web of lies it is, and everyone, Bain, Karam and his defence team KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.

    That’s why he has never agreed to it.

    ——————————————————–

    That is some big assumptions on your part Red.

    1. Bain has done open interviews, both here and in Australia, without Joe Karam being present.
    2. There have been many instances where Bain’s ‘story’ has been tested, including a hearing by the worlds top Law Lords.
    3. If they are fabrications, can you please provide evidence to support your claim.
    4. The evidence has been put under immense pressure, and has not collapsed, which is why we are where we are today.
    5. The Bain team fully believe in David’s innocence, that I know for sure.

    Please supply evidence of your claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Boglio (78 comments) says:

    I would find it far more convincing if the magazine had been in the gun. So someone shoots Robin, presses his thumb against the magazine and stands the magazine on edge close to Robins hand where it would surely have fallen over when he fell to the floor. I note that there is line on his fore finger too…just as though the magazine was pressed against his fingers once he was dead…. I’m confused..

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

    Boglio (61) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:36 am
    ————————————-
    There are only two suspects for these deaths. Robin and David.

    If David pressed the magazine to Robin’s fingers, to implicate him as the murderer, then why did he not make sure the photos showing the marks were bought to the attention of the courts before now?

    Those photos have been used countless times and he has had numerous opportunities to save himself using them, but never has.

    There is no evidence that proves the magazine was on its side. The photo that we have all seen was taken sometime after the police arrived. At least one person noted the magazine had been picked up and put back down again. No one has been able to produce evidence that verifies the magazine was in the position it was eventually photographed in.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Judith

    Yet again you appear incapable of drawing a distinction between expressing an opinion and following some simple instructions. Binnie was incapable of complying with the latter which rather undermines his credibility in doing the former, before even having regard to the actual content of his report. My comment isn’t a vast exaggeration; it is quite consistent with Fisher’s peer review in which the kindest thing he could say about Binnie’s report was that it was well organised.

    Try and understand this simple point that has thus far has remained beyond your grasp notwithstanding the last 10,000 plus post extravaganza: Bain’s guilt or innocence on balance of probabilities is an issue that is quite independent of the crap quality of Binnie’s report. A competent report and credible interview process might well have come up with a positive recommendation and report to the Justice Minister in the terms originally sought. Binnie, demonstrably, was quite incapable of doing that. He could not even follow some simple instructions.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Redbaiter @ 11.23
    You don’t matter, David doesn’t need to prove anything to you, he has been interviewed and spoken to many times speaking at the justice conference in Australia, was interviewed at length by Binnie who had the suppressed so called ‘rape fantasy’ story
    The only evidence that has collapsed many times is the crown case.
    You ‘know this as a fact’ this just shows your delusion
    Give it up you silly fool

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    DVM
    The kindest think I can say about the Fisher review is that it is academic legalistic rubbish. Its clear from reading both reports who is the academic incompetent.
    Oops that wasn’t very kind

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

    thedavincimode (4,861) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:43 am

    ——————————–

    Again I ask, why are you discussing Binnie with me in particular?. Where have I voiced my opinion regarding him or his report in this thread that warrants you targeting your long and convoluted comments towards me?

    It appears to me you are trying to have an argument with yourself and want to draw me into it. I’m not going to.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,023) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 10:33 am
    dave53 (31) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:30 am
    ——————————

    The murder weapon was not wiped down.

    There were more than 10 fingerprints found on that gun, in a variety of positions.

    You need to get your facts straight.

    Judith,
    An ESR scientist said that the blood on the rifle appeared to have been smeared over it which suggests the rifle had been wiped down.
    Also, you are being misleading when you say there were more than 10 fingerprints found on that rifle. Those were partial prints. The only fingerprints found on that rifle belonged to David Bain.

    You need to get your facts straight.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Rowan (847) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 11:48 am
    DVM
    The kindest think I can say about the Fisher review is that it is academic legalistic rubbish. Its clear from reading both reports who is the academic incompetent.
    Oops that wasn’t very kind

    Rowan ,
    The kindest thing I can say about the Binnie report is that compared to Fisher’s report Binnie’s was a complete waste of the taxpayers money.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “5. The Bain team fully believe in David’s innocence, that I know for sure. ”

    I think that is probably true. The think I find disturbing is people who say I do not care if he is guilty or not he should receive compensation because the police botched the investigation.

    Leaving David aside if it was someone else and the police made a lot of mistakes do you think someone should be compensated if there is a better than even chance the person is guilty?

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

    muggins (2,391) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:49 am
    —————————–

    They were not partial prints. The were fingerprints in which the ridge detail was not defined sufficiently to identify who they belonged to by law. Please read the evidence in the trial transcripts.

    The media has often referred to them as ‘partial’ but that is a wrong and misleading description.

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

    muggins (2,391) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:54 am
    ———————————-

    Given your ability to falsify what is written in plan english, I hardly think your opinion of Binnie’s report is valid.

    After all, according to you, you received an email from the police that in fact, had very little resemblance to the one you were actually sent.

    Anyone who believed a god damn word you said, needs their head read.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Rowan (848) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 11:45 am
    Redbaiter @ 11.23
    You don’t matter, David doesn’t need to prove anything to you, he has been interviewed and spoken to many times speaking at the justice conference in Australia, was interviewed at length by Binnie who had the suppressed so called ‘rape fantasy’ story
    The only evidence that has collapsed many times is the crown case.
    You ‘know this as a fact’ this just shows your delusion

    Rowan,
    When Binnie asked David Bain about that “rape” story Bain said that Buckley only said that because he [Bain] saw him having some sort of sexual encounter with a goat.
    And it would appear Binnie beleived him. Jesus wept.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    that 3rd degree programme was garbage. Hope someone complains to the broadcasting standards authority about it. Espiner and Garner should be embarrassed to have fronted such nonsense. Apparently this new evidence has been known for months. I dare say tv3 probably already knew it was rubbish. That’s why they got in kooks and cranks to pretend to be “experts”. It was nothing but deceit and dishonesty from tv3. A shamesless charade.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Yes Muggins
    You live in crown cuckoo land,

    “An ESR scientist said that the blood on the rifle appeared to have been smeared over it which suggests the rifle had been wiped down.”
    HOW genius was the rifle wiped down leaving fingerprints? would that ESR scientist be Jones or Hentschell who both misled the 1995 jury?
    I think you should get your facts straight (hint you won’t find any on that website you like to use)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,026) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 11:59 am
    muggins (2,391) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:54 am
    ———————————-

    Given your ability to falsify what is written in plan english, I hardly think your opinion of Binnie’s report is valid.

    After all, according to you, you received an email from the police that in fact, had very little resemblance to the one you were actually sent.

    Anyone who believed a god damn word you said, needs their head read.

    Judith,
    Talk about falsifying things ,you are an expert at it. Anyone who believes anything you say needs to be certified.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    I’m not saying the Police are necessarily correct in saying the marks re cuts.

    But you’d be on pretty safe ground if you did so. Both the fingerprint images the cops showed and the photos themselves suggest these were scratches, or cuts that didn’t break the skin. At the least, it’s a more credible interpretation than TV3’s one.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Longknives (4,746 comments) says:

    “that 3rd degree programme was garbage. Hope someone complains to the broadcasting standards authority about it. Espiner and Garner should be embarrassed to have fronted such nonsense. Apparently this new evidence has been known for months. I dare say tv3 probably already knew it was rubbish. That’s why they got in kooks and cranks to pretend to be “experts”. It was nothing but deceit and dishonesty from tv3. A shamesless charade.”

    Was Anna Guy reporting? Surely that would give the whole thing some credibility….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Judith @ 11.59
    “Anyone who believed a god damn word you said, needs their head read.”
    Amen to that KP is welcome to him, why is it Muggins that you can never substantiate anything you say? Is it because you only have lies, you are the biggest liar on any of the kiwiblog threads and that includes the departed nutcase Dotcom

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Rowan (849) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    Yes Muggins
    You live in crown cuckoo land,

    “An ESR scientist said that the blood on the rifle appeared to have been smeared over it which suggests the rifle had been wiped down.”
    HOW genius was the rifle wiped down leaving fingerprints? would that ESR scientist be Jones or Hentschell who both misled the 1995 jury?
    I think you should get your facts straight (hint you won’t find any on that website you like to use)

    Rowan,
    Of course that rifle could have been wiped down to remove the blood that was on it. There could well have been some partial prints left on it, after all that blood wouldn’t have been all over the rifle.
    Do I have to explain everything to you? Please try to work things out for yourself in future.

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

    Chuck Bird (3,567) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:55 am
    ————————————–

    Yes.
    Unless there is absolute proof that a person is guilty, in this case there isn’t.

    I’m sorry, but when an organisation like the police not just botch the investigation, but take deliberate steps to destroy evidence, falsify statements, and ignore relevant information, all of which makes it difficult for the accused to prove their case, then the benefit has to go to that person.

    In this case it is not just a matter of there not being enough evidence to convict. The fact is that their actions and police incompetency has resulted in that person being unable to prove their innocence to the satisfaction of all parties.

    As an example. If protocol had been followed, and the hands of the victims been bagged and tested in a timely manner, then the offender would have been identified.
    Another example, if the police had cut out the bloody footprints on the carpet, and kept those samples, again, the perpetrator would have been determined.

    The fact they did not do as the manual requires and their actions mean this matter will never be solved 100% does not mean that a possibly innocent person should have been negatively effected.

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Monique Angel (291 comments) says:

    Rodney Hide said it well”

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

    Given the fudging of the evidence to suit the police’s case, I beleive Bain is due compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Welcome back Psycho
    If they were scratches they would have still been there in Dempsters mortuary examination and would not have rubbed of. Understand what Melanie Reed was saying. Put it into context Robin was found right next to a loaded gun and magazine, there were 4 dead bodies in the house. I know you like to speculate on what else they could have been but you are clutching at straws with scratches from the guttering and/or sunday gardening, just like the red ‘blood like’ substance under his fingernails wasn’t blood, and the blood smears and bruising on his hands didn’t come from a fight with Stephen and his bloody footprints in the murder scene.

    The combined probability of innocent explanations for all these is very low. Now why don’t you step back and look at the ‘big picture’

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

    muggins (2,394) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
    ———————————-

    Have you bothered to read the description of those prints?

    They were NOT partial prints. They even showed some ‘unsmudged’ ridging detail, just not sufficiently defined to cover the legal requirements for evidential fingerprints. Had the police kept photographs of those prints, they would have possibly been able to identify who they ‘didn’t belong to, but they didn’t.

    You seriously don’t need to explain anything – nothing you say can be believed. You have been revealed by the archives on this site and official correspondence – as a fabricator – determined to lie in order to effect people’s opinions on this case.

    Really your posts should come with a warning.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Monique Angel (291 comments) says:

    I hear what has been said re the pardon. You can’t pardon if you’ve been found not guilty. Would expunging Bain’s criminal record be possible? Obviously not desirable to the pro-Robin brigade, but possible?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Muggins
    “Do I have to explain everything to you? Please try to work things out for yourself in future.”
    PLEASE DO NOT BOTHER
    Your posts add nothing to DPFs blog. Your explanations are simplistic and naïve and nothing short of a joke. You are way out of your depth on this one!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. lilman (959 comments) says:

    Ok Judith one problem about absolute proof.
    Take the man shot at New Plymouth Golf course by police.
    If he hadn’t died and he said he wasnt firing at police but at an alien space monster so he can’t be guilty of using a weapon for illegal purposes but was firing in self defense, what would you say?
    Can you say with absolute certainty that there are no space aliens ? Or for that matter that any space aliens were at the course because you can’t.It simply is impossible to say ,because even if highly improbable you can’t say 100 percent he wasnt telling the truth so the argument of absolute proof is unachievable.
    In fact I would say give me almost any murder charged without eye witnesses and I could put up a possible other scenario.

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

    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 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Monique Angel (291 comments) says:

    Is this chap: QMJ (Ray) Van Beynen related to Martin Van Beynan? Unusual name that so I thought I’d ask.
    And it would be unusual for a detective superintendent not to pass on his feelings about a high profile case to his brother, “the journalist”. Residing in the same area would give the pair lots of chances to talk about many things.
    I am not saying that the cop has been too free with any info in any investigation but I am saying it’s not unusual for brothers and sisters to share similar beliefs.

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

    lilman (431) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:20 pm
    —————————————–

    Of course absolute proof is virtually unattainable. But why should someone be made to loose their freedom as well as all sort of other negative aspects, just because the police didn’t do their job correctly. We will never know 100% in this case who did it. However, the balance of probability indicates David didn’t do it. He cannot prove that, because the Police destroyed the evidence that would possibly have shown it. Is that David’s fault, or is it the polices fault?

    Sorry, but like it or not, this is one that people are just going to have to ‘suck up’. Compensation will be paid.

    As far as your story about aliens, god knows what you are trying to say.

    The evidence that supports David is not some fantasy out of space stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. lilman (959 comments) says:

    Also Judith please don’t argue the Molesting of laniet in legal terms because it was hearsay and should have been thrown out just as the testimony of the friend who actually heard from David Bain say he thought he could pull off a murder using his paper round as a ruse to the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pele (57 comments) says:

    This guy is your source Judith ?

    http://truth.co.nz/critics-want-killer-back-in-jail/

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

    Monique Angel (69) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:29 pm
    ——————————-

    Yes, Ray is MVB’s older and much adored brother.

    You will find the majority of the Justice for Robin Bain and the Counterspin group are related in some way to the police or ambulance or others that are proven wrong if David is innocent. Quite amazing the ties the bind the prejudices.

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

    lilman (432) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    ———————————-

    Excuse me? I’ll use whatever god damn evidence I like.

    You do realise that a there is hearsay evidence used against David as well, but I suppose that is alright in your books is it?

    Typical biased clap trap – get a life!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Longknives (4,746 comments) says:

    I take issue with being labelled the “Pro Robin Brigade”, a “Robin Bain supporter” etc etc
    I never knew the man and have no loyalty or feeling towards this person.
    And I am certainly no great fan of New Zealand Police.

    But only a fucking halfwit would think Robin Bain shot himself balancing on one leg.. in a contorted position…holding a rifle in his wrong hand… in the most bizarre and unlikely position imaginable.
    Then (and this is the best part) Robin Bain managed to wipe the rifle clean of his fingerprints as he fell to the floor.

    For fuck’s sake people- You don’t have to be Miss Marple to work this one out.
    *Monique I am very disappointed in you- succumbing to the Karam ‘Kool Aid’..

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. lilman (959 comments) says:

    Judith don’t argue for absolute proof and then 2 posts later say it’s not fair to ask for absolute proof.
    LOL make up your mind.

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

    lilman (432) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    ————————————-

    Much of the evidence regarding Robin’s molesting of both his daughters wasn’t permitted.

    Including the evidence from a person who was told by Arawa how her father had shown her as a little girl how to put fingers inside her vagina. That was not permitted, despite the judge saying he believed what the witness was saying. :-)

    You want to keep playing this game – I have much more!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. lilman (959 comments) says:

    lol, Judith cool down ,argue what you want ,just get the washing done and cook tea before hubby comes home ok!
    P.s. a good argument isnt full proof,its a stance.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    lilman (433) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    ———————————–

    Read it again. I said unless there is absolute proof of guilt.
    Then I acknowledge that is it virtually impossible to attain – doesn’t mean it can’t be.

    I make it perfectly clear to all but the stupid, that whether there is proof or not, if a person can’t prove it because of the actions of the police then compo must be paid.

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

    lilman (434) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    ————————————

    I am perfectly cool. I actually have taken the time to get to know this case well. I rather like discussing it, and the banter with members of JFRB and Counterspin groups – its really obvious who they are! Witch sniffers stand out a mile.

    A good argument supported by evidence is an argument won! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    In this case it is not just a matter of there not being enough evidence to convict. The fact is that their actions and police incompetency has resulted in that person being unable to prove their innocence to the satisfaction of all parties.

    As an example. If protocol had been followed, and the hands of the victims been bagged and tested in a timely manner, then the offender would have been identified.
    Another example, if the police had cut out the bloody footprints on the carpet, and kept those samples, again, the perpetrator would have been determined.

    The fact they did not do as the manual requires and their actions mean this matter will never be solved 100% does not mean that a possibly innocent person should have been negatively effected.

    .
    Judith,
    Bagging Robin and David Bain’s hands would not necessarily have identified the perpetrator.
    As has already been explained to you David could have transferred GSR to his fathers hands if he moved them to make it look like his father committed suicide.
    And of course we know David Bain washed his hands at least once,in fact he told the police his hands didn’t have blood on them because he had washed them, so he probably wouldn’t have had any GSR left on them.
    As for the carpet. Again there is no proof removing the carpet would have proved anything. However,with the advances in forensic science if that carpet was available today scientists may have been able to prove the exact length of that footprint if they could still bring it up.

    Logged in as muggins. Logout »

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Vote: 2 2 Judith (3,035) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 12:16 pm
    muggins (2,394) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
    ———————————-

    Have you bothered to read the description of those prints?

    They were NOT partial prints. They even showed some ‘unsmudged’ ridging detail, just not sufficiently defined to cover the legal requirements for evidential fingerprints. Had the police kept photographs of those prints, they would have possibly been able to identify who they ‘didn’t belong to, but they didn’t.

    You seriously don’t need to explain anything – nothing you say can be believed. You have been revealed by the archives on this site and official correspondence – as a fabricator – determined to lie in order to effect people’s opinions on this case.

    Really your posts should come with a warning.

    Judith,
    Those prints were partial prints. Please try to stop telling porkies.

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

    Longknives (2,615) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:37 pm
    ——————————————-

    Even Crown forensic experts said the position that Robin Bain shot himself in, was not only possible, but a viable one.

    There is a great deal of research that indicates the placement of the shot, the position etc overwhelmingly points to one conclusion and that is suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    Judith says there are only 2 suspects in the murders………yep

    and only one of those 2 washed his clothes and cleaned up leaving only one suspect.

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

    muggins (2,396) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:47 pm
    ——————————–

    That is not what is said in the Court Transcripts when they were described.
    That interpretation was presented by the media – easy to see where you get your sources.

    They were not able to identify who they belonged to because the ridging detail was not defined sufficiently.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (4,979) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:49 pm
    ——————————————-

    Blood was not found all over the weapon. There were areas identified by the ESR in the company of police, crown and defence team members, that did not have any blood on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Scott Chris (6,137 comments) says:

    The miraculous pristine fingerprints
    that survived for months on a frequently handled part of the gun despite the gun having been used to kill several people, grappled with by Stephen, handled for a prolonged period with blood soaked gloves and smeared from end to end in blood.

    So obvious from this piece of evidence alone that David is the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I’ve previously respected Melanie Reid as a journalist. She certainly is an advocacy journalist. (She has advocated for Peter Ellis in the past. But the Ellis case is nothing like the Bain case. In the latter, we know that 5 members of one family were shot and killed. Crimes were committed. In the Ellis case, it is not clear that any crimes were committed.)

    Reid has gone down in my estimation. She seems to be wearing her heart on her sleeve. The trouble is, when TV3 reports on the Bain case in future, I’ll be treating what it says with a healthy dose of scepticism.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Keeping Stock (10,340 comments) says:

    @ Judith (12.39pm) – does slandering a dead man using evidence ruled inadmissible by the Court make you feel all powerful and honourable?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The miraculous pristine fingerprints that survived for months on a frequently handled part of the gun despite the gun having been used to kill several people, grappled with by Stephen, handled for a prolonged period with blood soaked gloves and smeared from end to end in blood.

    Didn’t David tell Binnie that he hadn’t touched the gun since January or February? And, of course, Binnie believed him. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Scott Chris (6,137 comments) says:

    Blood was not found all over the weapon.

    Judith, yes it was. Kim Jones testified in the 1995 trial that the gun, under a poli-light was smeared from end to end in blood, including the strap.

    Are you saying he made that up?

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

    Keeping Stock (8,922) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
    —————————————

    Does slandering a not guilty person make you feel any better?

    It is not slander. I simply repeated information held within Court documents. I didn’t pass a judgement on whether the information was true or not.

    But having said that, being dead does not absolve a person from their crimes. I don’t believe the dead deserve respect just because they are dead. They only deserve it if their deeds whilst alive indicate it is warranted.

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

    Scott Chris (4,980) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    —————————-

    And yet, Jones and Hentschel also both said there was no blood on certain parts of the gun, including the forearm.

    Both gave quite a lot of contradictory statements during their time on the stand.

    So you want to just use the pieces of evidence that suit your story do you and ignore the other bits?

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

    ross69 (2,516) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    ———————————

    Can you produce evidence that proves he is wrong?

    Unless you can, then it is a moot point isn’t it, because those fingerprints that were found, were not put there by fingers covered in blood. You do know the difference between positive/negative prints and the issues, including the fact that the jury was misled in the first trial, when it was told there was blood where it wasn’t and the lighting evidence etc?

    I would hate to have to go over the very basics of the crown’s lies – you should already know them off by heart.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    David Farrar reckons that the following steps could be taken to conclude David Bain’s compensation claim.
    1, Bain drops his judical review. [and it now appears that might have been postponed,last I heard it was supposed to be taking place late in July, but according to Reed in this mornings paper maybe not].
    2. Cabinet appoints a three person panel to review Bain’s guilt or innocence on the balance of probabilities.
    3. If Bain is found innocent on the balance of probabilities then cabinet grant him compensation.

    That makes sense to me.
    I believe that judical review [if it takes place] will be just a waste of time. I don’t believe Judith Collins has done anything wrong. Binnie was told his report was going to be peer reviewed last September. Why did Judith Collins have to tell anyone else?
    A three person panel. Ok, no problem with that. Personally I reckon Fisher could review Bain’s claim on his own,he has the experience to do so, but no doubt Bain’s defence team would not be too happy about that, although why the government should have to kowtow to them I do not know.
    3. Obviously if Bain is found innocent on the balance of probabilities by a panel of judges I don’t believe cabinet will have any option than to pay him compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    @Judith since you seem to have sufficient time to respond to every post made in support of Robin Bain could you possibly take the time to learn and use the blockquote functionality so as it’s possible to differentiate what you’re referencing and what you’re writing.

    <blockquote> quote here </blockquote>

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Even Crown forensic experts said the position that Robin Bain shot himself in, was not only possible, but a viable one.

    If you like standing or kneeling on a chair. :)

    Interesting that the twin marks are on Robin’s right hand yet according to the defence he shot himself with his left hand.

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

    labrator (1,374) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    —————————–

    I do know how to use it, and sometimes when I can be bothered, I do.

    I just prefer the other way. Are there some rules regarding it’s use? Also, are you going to tell everyone else the same, or is this attention just for me, because I like to answer when people make misleading statements?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Binnie was told his report was going to be peer reviewed last September. Why did Judith Collins have to tell anyone else?

    I understand that Secretary of Justice Andrew Bridgman was also present at the meeting of Collins and Binnie and has confirmed that peer review of Binnie’s report was mentioned.

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

    ross69 (2,517) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    ————————–

    Really?

    I thought he shot himself with the gun, which he held with both hands?

    Perhaps you are meaning the trigger?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Scott Chris (6,137 comments) says:

    Making a visual examination of the rifle on June 21, 1994, fingerprint expert Kim Jones had put the rifle under an intense light called a polilight that enhanced fingerprint images and found that the rifle was covered in its entirety – itself, the stock, the strap, the scope and the silencer, with blood.

    David Bain’s pristine fingerprints were located on the right hand side of the fore-end of the stock as though someone had put a hand over the top of the rifle’s stock from above. The prints were described as sharp and very definitive. The fingerprints had been placed with such pressure and were so clear, Jones was left in no doubt they were of recent origin. He went on to say that over time fingerprints degraded but these were very clear.

    Jones stated that if prints were put on the rifle during a hunting trip before the murders, they would have been destroyed with subsequent handling. He said he believed the prints were recent because the haemoglobin in the blood had not yet oxidized and the blood had therefore not turned dark brown in colour. He said that such prints would have been dramatically destroyed or smudged during the activity on the morning of the murders.

    Another scientist, Dr Cropp, said he was given five plastic tubes with blood samples scraped from the rifle. His testing confirmed the five samples were human blood and four of them were of one particular type. The blood could have come from David, Stephen or Laniet, but not from the rest of the family.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Keeping Stock (10,340 comments) says:

    I’m not aware that I’ve slandered David Bain Judith. He was found not guilty, but that does not automatically mean that he was innocent. There is still significant evidence against him.

    Did you sit in Court for 58 days hearing every word of evidence, and watching the demeanour of every witness as Martin van Beynen did? Given that he saw exactly what the jury did, I was interested in his opinion that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of evidence.

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

    Scott Chris (4,981) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    ————————–

    Thanks for the media report.

    You do know that Jones was later proven to have lied to the jury don’t you regarding that evidence? And that the samples he took were in fact from a different area to where he said he had taken them? And that there was no blood in the area the fingerprints were?

    All that was PROVEN and admitted in Court – you can keep posting old stuff, but when it has been successfully proven to be wrong, and dishonest, I really think you are pushing your luck. Still there are plenty of fools in here who seem to like to live with lies, rather than truth – your particular evidence is one of the most famous of many dishonest attempts from the Crown, that were later refuted.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Also, are you going to tell everyone else the same, or is this attention just for me, because I like to answer when people make misleading statements?

    I told you how, I told you why but instead you decide that I’m singling you out? Your statements are impossible to delineate what you’re saying and what you’re quoting. That makes the forum considerably harder to use and you are posting in more significant quantities than anyone else and quoting in more significant quantities than anyone else.

    I just prefer the other way.

    You are as lazy as you are insistent then. If you know how to do something and you don’t do it at other people’s cost then you’re selfish too.

    I’ll just not read you instead.

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

    Keeping Stock (8,923) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    ——————————–

    MVB was watching through biased eyes, under the guidance of his big brother.

    He has also conducted himself poorly in several incidences, including having to be warned to stay away from hassling jurors.

    He is hardly a positive role model, nor an unbiased example.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    labrator (1,375) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    ——————————-

    It’s quite easy, when I quote I put a line under the quoted comment or the person to whom I am answering. Anything below the line is my opinion.

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

    labrator (1,375) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    ————————————-

    Actually its not just laziness, I’m a touch typist, but due to a childhood accident, the fingers that are required to use those particular keys are numb. Whilst I can aim at the commonly used keys and do relatively o.k. the others are a bit harder, and require me to watch the keyboard – which when you are a touch typist, is really annoying.

    I will try and make an effort for you – but I do wish you would teach others too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. lilman (959 comments) says:

    Judith am I wrong in believing David Bain killed his family?
    I assume you know 100 percent he didn’t do it do you?
    Absolute guilt or lack of it is like beauty ,it depends on what spins your wheels.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Scott Chris (6,137 comments) says:

    You do know that Jones was later proven to have lied to the jury

    He didn’t lie to the Jury. It is you who is lying.

    He made the mistake of assuming that a sample taken from within millimetres of David’s fingerprints so as not to damage the evidence, which (the sample) was composed of human blood was the same substance as the composition of the fingerprints themselves.

    But that is irrelevant. Even though the fingerprints were, in all probability composed of human blood based on the proximity of the sample and Jones’ visual identification as such, whether the prints are in human blood is not crucial in strongly implicating David Bain as the killer given the circumstantial context of the case and Bain’s own testimony.

    Like so many you have allowed yourself to be misled by a clever lawyer’s obfuscation.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Scott Chris @ 1.15

    This being the same Kim Jones who lied about the colour of the fingerprints under the rifle and thought the first jury would understand it better if they were told the opposite of the truth.
    At the retrial he was also in dispute with crown experts Hentschel, Cropp and the police photographer over the taking of the prints as well as defence expert Carl Lloyd. Given that he admitted his 1995 evidence was wrong and blood does not ‘fluoresce under a polilight’ then all his evidence is worthless. This is an obvious case of perjury!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. lilman (959 comments) says:

    Witch sniffer- sorry need more proof!!!!
    Atleast 100 percent.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    tough to comprehend, now who’s lying. You see what you want to see to get the conclusion you want, no human blood, DNA was found from the fingerprint sample whatsoever!

    293. At the retrial the prosecution expressly invited the jury to disregard Mr Hentschel on
    this point and accept the testimony of Mr Jones, but the credibility of Mr Jones presented a
    number of other difficulties for the prosecution including:
    a) At the 1995 trial Mr Jones had explained to the jury that when blood was
    illuminated under a polilight it “luminesced”. In 2009 he admitted that this was
    wrong. Blood does not “luminesce” under a polilight; blood absorbs light and
    shows up as dark. It is the background that luminesces. When this was pointed
    out by defence expert Mr Carl Lloyd, Mr Jones said his misstatement to the 1995
    jury had been deliberate. He said he intended to convey the picture “in layman
    terms to the jury so that they would understand”. He could not explain why
    he thought “luminesced” was an easier concept for the jury to grasp than “dark”.
    An alternative explanation is that at the time Mr Jones was not very expert with
    polilight technology.
    b) His testimony conflicted not only with Mr Hentschel but with Dr Cropp, Crown’s
    forensic biology expert as well:
    Q. But do you understand generally that you do disagree with the
    Crown’s own evidence. One example being Hentschel, another
    being Cropp, just to start two of them, do you understand that?
    A. They are mistaken.
    Q. They’re mistaken?
    A. They are.
    Q. Well this meant to be the Crown case Mr Jones, not the
    defence. So the Crown case is mistaken, is that what you’re
    saying?
    A. Those particular gentlemen are mistaken.
    c) In his 1995 testimony Mr Jones testified that he had “chemically enhanced” the
    print of David Bain’s left forefinger as part of his analysis. However, in 2009,
    once a defence expert had seized on the potential problems created by chemical
    enhancement, Mr Jones changed his testimony to say that the print had only
    been “visually” enhanced

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Who could possibly believe that David was the only one that deserved to live ?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Scott Chris (6,137 comments) says:

    You see what you want to see to get the conclusion you want, no human blood, DNA was found from the fingerprint sample whatsoever!

    FFS read my post. It doesn’t matter whether it was human blood or not or whether he used the wrong word to describe the polilight’s luminance.

    THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IS THE FINGERPRINTS THEMSELVES, THEIR CONDITION AND WHO THEY BELONG TO, NOT WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF :!:

    CAPICHE?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    Judith: just to correct your misapprehension about the Justice for Robin Bain group. Almost no-one that I know of in the group is related to the police or the members of the prosecution. We are all independently minded people who believe that, on the basis of all the evidence presented, and discounting all hearsay, that David Cullen Bain, did on 20th June 1994. Just to point something out. Laniet made claims about her father. She also claimed to have had 2 babies, in her early teens. The coroner examined her pelvic cavity and noted that there was no sign of her having had a baby. So, she was also known for telling other lies. Relying on stories told to other people about what she may or may not have done is hardly credible. Interestingly, Laniet was, up to the time of the murders, staying with her boyfriend at Taieri, with her father, of her own volition.
    As for the latest revelation from the Bain defence team, already, in less than two days, it has been neatly refuted, firstly by the Justice for Robin Bain group who looked slightly more closely at the image and noted that the lower of the two marks was a lesion, as it was clearly reddish in colour (the experts in the documentary claimed that it would always be light grey) and the marks are quite clearly not parallel. So, Judith, you can see, once again, grasping at straws.

    Interesting that one of points from NostalgiaNZ was that there was blood on Robin’s trousers in the caravan. Let me ask you: was the blood from Robin, Stephen or someone else? Obviously, Robin had cuts on his hands from removing the guttering over the weekend, so there is a perfectly innocent explanation for that one. However, it is harder to explain away the hand print on the washing machine, and all the finger prints on the gun were either David’s or Stephens, but they weren’t up to evidential standard. They were apparently not Robin’s at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Welcome back Psycho Milt.
    I still reckon that post of yours relating to the bad luck that David had is one of the best I have read so I am going to post it again, with a few changes.
    Hope you don’t mind[ and my apologies if you do].

    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 intending to commit suicide shortly afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,518) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    Binnie was told his report was going to be peer reviewed last September. Why did Judith Collins have to tell anyone else?

    I understand that Secretary of Justice Andrew Bridgman was also present at the meeting of Collins and Binnie and has confirmed that peer review of Binnie’s report was mentioned.

    Correct, though Binnie says he can’t remember being told that, although he accepts he must have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/new-evidence-implicates-robin-bain-in-murder-of-scott-guy/

    You gotta laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    Scott Chris: Just another point. I enquired with a neighbour, a retired police officer. He had no particular leanings on the case, if you were wondering. I asked, so if the fingerprints on the weapon were in rabbit’s blood (one theory), what state would they have been in? He said, given that it was several months between the supposed last time David had used the weapon and the murders, the blood would have been flaking, and the finger prints would have been unclear. I then asked, what if the finger prints were in gun oil (the other option). He stated that the fingerprints would have been unclear as the oil would have run. It doesn’t hold finger prints very well. A third option, and therefore most likely, was that it was Stephen’s blood. Therefore, if that was the case, then David’s finger prints had been freshly made. Oooops!

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

    GJKiwi (144) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    The coroner examined her pelvic cavity and noted that there was no sign of her having had a baby

    The coroners report has not been released, nor have the details you state above ever been proven. The coroner made no such statement.

    Regarding members of your group. I can’t name names, but for example, do you deny that the wife of the ambulance officer who gave evidence is not part of your group – just for starters?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    GJKiwi (144) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    The coroner examined her pelvic cavity and noted that there was no sign of her having had a baby

    I could get into a long convoluted discussion with you regarding the symptoms of sexual abuse in adolescent girls. Laniet displayed 9 out of the 10 most common behaviours associated with incest.

    I have no doubt she was not truthful. Victims usually fail to accept the reality and often fantasise about other things that have happened as a means of justifying the pain they feel. However, just about all victims get to a point when they feel the need to disclose and confront the issue. Laniet’s discussion with several people indicates she was about to do that. Her behaviour also supports that.

    The fact she was living with her father means very little. It is obvious from witness accounts he was rather controlling concerning her.

    I have no idea if the allegations Laniet was about to make were true or not, and neither do you. The evidence suggests they might have been, who knows.

    But what is confirmed, and verified by witnesses is that Laniet was about to disclose that there had been. If that wasn’t true, then such allegations could have been enough to tip a man, who was already demonstrating signs of dysfunction, over a very steep edge and have pre-empted the acts of murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    GJKiwi (145) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    ——————————
    Since when do police officers have extensive and formal training in complicated forensic issues like blood analysis?

    Do you really expect normal people to believe that crap?

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

    GJKiwi (145) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    The fingerprints were not in blood. That was proven in the second trial.

    The idea that they were in blood was given by a man that lied and stated that he had taken the sample from the area the prints were in.

    When the gun was examined by the ESR with the Crown present after the second trial, it was found there was no blood in the area of David’s fingerprints at all. There was no DNA found, and it was not established it was Stephen’s blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    http://courtnews.co.nz/story.php?id=1957

    Jones evidence is so far compromised it is worthless.
    1. He agreed that blood does not fluoresce under the polilight
    2. He agreed that his 1995 misstatement to the jury that it did was deliberate so they would ‘understand’
    3. He agreed when shown a photograph that if the prints were bloody the ridges in the photograph would show up black where the actually showed up white
    He then tried to say that the photo was ‘a negative’ which is why the ridges of the prints showed white however the police photographer said that the photo was not a negative
    4. In further contradiction to his previous testimony he said he was alerted to the blood because he could see ‘red pigment’ where he previously said that he could only see the blood under the polilight examination
    Extensive DNA testing showed no presence of blood at all
    He changed his story so many times to cover up the contradictions in his evidence that it is a joke that anybody would find his evidence credible
    understandably you witch-sniffers do but I guess you have nothing else!

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

    muggins (2,400) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    ——————————

    Keeping stock will be along soon to tell you off for slandering a dead man – unless of course he is biased and only criticises people who support David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    You have to laugh at the counterspin nutters, poor misguided souls. I watched there reconstruction of Robins murder clip and it is a complete joke!! who would really believe this to be a plausible explanation of his death. The only thing funnier is the joker Marzuka who made it. The crown have no idea how the final scene played out and stayed away from it at all costs. Perhaps Kieran Raftery should have been briefed by Marzuka! We could have done with the laugh!
    It was easily shown at the retrial by Boyce the ease that Robin could have suicided and Dempster agreed there were no difficult contortions.
    Of course the witch-sniffers would have us believe that Robin was wearing headgear aka the funny hat but this was actually a crown exhibit to show the trajectory which they thought they could use to disprove suicide. I’ve also seen one of the fools try to claim that it ‘needed’ 2 people to reach the trigger but this is ridiculous, as if the judge would of allowed it or the jury would have brought it.
    No proof that Robin was murdered at all! plenty that he inflicted the final bullet.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    it is harder to explain away the hand print on the washing machine, and all the finger prints on the gun were either David’s or Stephens, but they weren’t up to evidential standard. They were apparently not Robin’s at all.

    The hand print on the washing machine was a palm print, and was disputed because the tests didn’t specify whether it was blood. It could have been washing powder which also gave the same result for the test used.

    However, even if it was blood, the fact that David picked up washing from the basket and put it in the machine, which we know would have blood on them, it is easy for that transference of blood to have occurred.

    Before you start on why didn’t he notice. The washing basket contained items from the previous day including the winter swim which would have been wet, so feeling dampness on his hands would not have been usual. Plus the police had to get extra lights for the area because they were unable to see due to the area being poorly lit. The print on the machine was not visible to the naked eye.

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

    Rowan (857) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    The witch sniffers have been telling lies for so long now, they do not recognise the truth when it is presented to them.

    Despite having their stories proved wrong on countless occasions they continue to tell them. I guess it gives them a sense of belonging or something, goodness knows the reason. But a simple reading of their various sites, indicates they are some seriously disturbed people.

    Mazuka is an incompetent prat – the fact that anyone could believe his comedy show is evidence that we are descended from monkeys.

    Did you ever manage to get hold of the disc with all their comments on it? Nasty nasty stuff, and so defamatory. Plans of how they are going to lie etc etc. Shocking.

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

    @ muggins

    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 intending to commit suicide shortly afterwards.

    Prove Robin bought the paper in.

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

    Scott Chris (4,983) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    He didn’t lie to the Jury. It is you who is lying.

    He made the mistake of assuming…

    He did lie, and admitted it on the stand.
    He was a professional forensic expert employed by the crown, there is legislation that dictates the rules he must abide by.
    One of those rules is to be honest, and not alter the way evidence is presented – he altered his story because he thought the jury wouldn’t understand the truth! FFS can it get any worse than that? That is not a mistake, that is a deliberate lie. He also took samples from an area different to where he stated he had taken them and so on….

    He has no credibility. You don’t want the truth, you want a fairy story that makes you feel good.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Prove Robin bought the paper in

    David has to prove his innocence to get compo. We’ve been down this path before and it’s one you seem unable to comprehend. The onus of proof is on David.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    you want a fairy story that makes you feel good.

    No, that would be your position, that the next Pavarotti couldn’t possibly have murdered his family. Alas, there are plenty of examples of young men slaughtering their families. David isn’t unique.

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

    ross69 (2,519) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    and you don’t seem to understand the words ‘extra-ordinary circumstances’.

    David does not have to prove he is innocent at all. If he is able to prove there are extra-ordinary circumstances that prevent him from proving his innocence and the balance of probabilities is in his favour – then compensation can be awarded.

    We have had this conversation before. Do I need to search for the relevant official documents and repost them for you AGAIN – or will you finally admit you need help with your obvious memory loss?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    3. Obviously if Bain is found innocent on the balance of probabilities by a panel of judges I don’t believe cabinet will have any option than to pay him compensation.

    @muggins

    I think a panel would help put the whole thing to bed better than one judge. However, there is no reason why the panel need have three judges and/or lawyers. I think one judge plus a couple of lay people with a background in science or statics would be good. I would not mind seeing Greg Newbold as one of the panel.

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

    ross69 (2,520) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 3:15 pm
    you want a fairy story that makes you feel good.

    No, that would be your position, that the next Pavarotti couldn’t possibly have murdered his family. Alas, there are plenty of examples of young men slaughtering their families. David isn’t unique.

    Getting a bit childish aren’t you?

    Yes, there are examples of young men slaughtering their families, and their are examples of fathers slaughtering their families. There are also examples of where people have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, and examples of where guilty people have gone free.

    What do you want Ross – to lock everyone up that fits the age criteria of previous murderers?

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

    Chuck Bird (3,568) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    —————————
    Greg would be an excellent choice, unfortunately his history would never allow him to be acceptable, for accountability reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    GJ Kiwi
    “discounting all hearsay”

    Don’t lie, CS/JFRB are happy to accept unsubstantiated hearsay against David, like the Mark Buckley fantasy story which suddenly came out after the verdicts similarly Kirsten Koch and the ‘threatening the family with a gun’.
    If this was factual evidence why did they keep it to themselves for 15 years, nothing like a bit of hearsay to bolster up the crowns case.
    What about the evidence of Joanna Dunn who was the wife of a Presbyterian minister who married Robin and Margaret. She made a statement to the police at the time about what Margaret had confined in her about her concerns about what her husband might do to the family with a loaded gun.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    will you finally admit you need help with your obvious memory loss?

    My memory is fine…David has to prove his innocence. Even John Key – who’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer – stated that fact the other day.

    Documentary maker Bryan Bruce tried to implicate Robin Bain in the killings, but he came up empty handed. He did, however, find that a defence witness may have perjured himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    GJ Kiwi @ 2.25
    “A third option, and therefore most likely, was that it was Stephen’s blood. Therefore, if that was the case, then David’s finger prints had been freshly made.”

    Own goal here, in order for the prints to be ‘bloody’ then you need to explain how the ridges were white in the photograph whereas if they were blood they would be black as Jones admitted. Provide some proof they were blood before making stupid unsubstantiated statements, only conclusion we can take from Kim Jones is that everything which he said in 1995 ‘flouresced’ wasn’t blood at all and any thing that showed up dark in the background was being the exact opposite of what he told the 1995 jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I’ve always found it interesting that David Bain walked from room to room, noticing all his siblings dead. Did he quickly run to a neighbour’s, getting help for Laniet – whom he heard gurgle – and fearful the killer might still be in the house? Nah, he put the washing machine on.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    ross69

    For heaven’s sake. Of course he put the washing on. The rest of the family was dead – who else was going to do it?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Ross @ 3.30
    “Documentary maker Bryan Bruce tried to implicate Robin Bain in the killings, but he came up empty handed. He did, however, find that a defence witness may have perjured himself.”

    Ross stick to Bryan Bruce that the best evidence you have, Bryan didn’t look very hard and didn’t cover anything of substance.
    Did you watch his “who killed the Crewe episode” last year it was of a similar quality absolute crap. Comparing this to the excellent book written by Keith Hunter then which in your opinion is more ‘likely’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    An excellent post from Flipper on the other thread

    flipper (1,789) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:03 am
    A message for all the serial liars, obfuscators, the demented, the just plain dumb, and those clearly unable to tell the difference between shit and clay.

    In 1995 the Molesworth Street Cowboys sold the Crown (Law Office, and long suffering taxpayers footing the bill) a dead rat which it swallowed, thinking it was, perhaps, a tasty rabbit.

    The first Jury, believing they heard all of the evidence, that it had all been presented in objective way, and that none was false or misleading, also, but unwittingly, swallowed that rat.

    Then, after some legal twists and turns, along came the Court of Appeal, which tried to emulate a kangaroo court (well, sort of), by taking to itself the “right” to act as a Jury.

    Then, there was the Privy Council Judicial Panel which rejected all five Crown Law claims of Mr Bain’s guilt, quashed all five (expunged, declared them to have no proper basis, to be null and void …. I could go on!), handed the Court of Appeal a timely reminder of the limitation of its role, and invited the Crown to decide what to do next.

    Rather than let matter rest, the silly Crown Law, again at the urging of the now desperate Molesworth Street Cowboys, decided upon a retrial.

    But in rather short order, the Jury declined to accept the Crown’s bullshit line. NOT Guilty.

    Fast forward to Justice Binnie – suggested by the Ministry of Justice, and appointed by then Minister Power, and Cabinet.

    But Binnie didn’t buy any of the Crown’s arguments and recommended compensation (short version).

    Enter from the dungeon one silly Auckland tax lawyer, and, also a serial adulterer posing as an independent peer reviewer, but in fact a less than credible hired gun. Fisher’s commentary was a joke and an insult to the NZ legal profession.

    The International Commission of Jurists backed Binnie’s revulsion at Collins’ antics, but she dug in her high heels, necessitating a request by Mr Bain’s eminently skilled team to seek a Judicial Review of her actions. But Collins, demonstrating once again her bias, and stupidity, ferried from Wellington to Auckland. another Police regular, Wairarapa Barrister McDonald, in an endeavour to get the application for review transferred to Wellington (There seems little doubt that this was to facilitate a repeat of the infamous Thomas trial caravan in the Courtyard episode), but the High Court rejected that vindictive scheme.

    Now we have the TV3 television expose of more Police incompetence, the fudging comments by one of the Cowboy gang’s leaders, and the continued regurgitation of fantasy by the JFRB idiots and their followers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Nookin (3,343 comments) says:

    Judith

    I am little curious about the comment that Bain does not have to prove innocence and that all he has to do is prove extra-ordinary circumstances.
    If innocence is irrelevant (in the sense that David did not have to prove it as alleged by you) and Binnie was specifically asked not to address extraordinary circumstances, what was he writing a report about. They are the only 2 thresholds before the discretion will be exercised.

    I any event, Binnie J appears to disagree with you
    “5. The threshold question is whether the prosecution was simply unable to prove David
    Bain’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (equivalent to the Scottish verdict of “not proven”) or
    whether, based on the evidence, David Bain can now establish that he is in fact an innocent
    man. The Minister in his letter states that “innocence on the balance of probabilities is a
    minimum requirement, consistent with the [requirements in the] Guidelines, for eligible
    claimants”.4
    6. If I am satisfied of factual innocence, I am to consider whether, taking the whole case on
    its individual merits, it would be “in the interests of justice” for compensation to be paid5.
    Neither “extraordinary circumstances” nor “the interests of justice” are defined expressions,
    but the Minister notes that “the test of extraordinary circumstances is inherently openended”

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

    @ Nookin

    Below is taken directly from the MOJ website Re: Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment . Page 2 .

    “Claimants outside guidelines must show, at a minimum, that they are
    innocent on the balance of probabilities. They must also show that
    there are extraordinary circumstances that justify compensation ”

    As I said, he does not have to prove he is innocent, he only has to show the balance of probability – and that there are extraordinary circumstances.

    Your statement was he has to prove he is innocent, that is entirely different to proving innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    The criteria for extraordinary circumstances includes incompetence by the authorities – which no one can deny in this case.

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

    Obviously he cannot prove his innocence. But he can prove his innocence on the BOP and he can prove extra-ordinary circumstances. Which means he meets the standards – as Binnie said, but Collins refuses to accept.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    “The criteria for extraordinary circumstances includes incompetence by the authorities – which no one can deny in this case.”

    How can that be considered extraordinary circumstances when incompetence by the authorities is not all that unusual?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Nookin (3,343 comments) says:

    “Your statement was he has to prove he is innocent, that is entirely different to proving innocence on the balance of probabilities.”

    No it isn’t. He has to prove innocence. The onus is on him, not the Crown. The onus of proof is not the same as the standard of proof. The standard of proof is BoP– not absolutely, not beyond reasonable doubt – just on balance. There is nothing wrong with what I said at all. There is still a two-fold test — proof of innocence and extra-ordinary circumstances. The extra-ordinary circumstances do not have any bearing on proof of innocence. They are the additional circumstance that must be established before the Crown says it will consider whether to compensate.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,061) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 3:03 pm
    @ muggins

    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 intending to commit suicide shortly afterwards.

    Prove Robin bought the paper in.

    Judith,
    David Bain was asked if he brought the paper in and he said he didn’t. So if he didn’t bring it in who else would have?
    Or are you saying David was lying to that police officer?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,061) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 4:34 pm
    Obviously he cannot prove his innocence. But he can prove his innocence on the BOP and he can prove extra-ordinary circumstances. Which means he meets the standards – as Binnie said, but Collins refuses to accept.

    Judith ,please.
    Binnie believed everything David Bain told him. He even believed him when he said he saw Mark Buckley having a sexual encounter with a goat. Binnie could see those blue trackpants were too long to belong to anyone else in the family but he still accepted they didn’t belong to David. There were lies that Binnie missed in that interview that a five year old would have picked up on. No-one in their right mind would accept that Binnie got it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    http://blogs.artinfo.com/artintheair/2013/03/13/statue-of-god-on-goat-action-earns-british-museums-pompeii-show-a-parental-warning/

    Judith
    Is this what David reckons he saw?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    There was an old blowhard called flipper
    Hot air frazzled his brain to a fritter
    All the bluster that he could muster
    Missed Collins the Bull Buster
    She dropped his bunk slam-dunk in the chipper.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    [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.]

    Nonsense the claim is stalled because David Bain has been denied natural justice and due process for which he has sought relief from the Court as is his right.

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

    Wrong again, it’s the actions of the Minister which have led to the Judicial Review.

    [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!]

    Very funny, who needs Judge Judy when we’ve got Aunt Fanny. It’s the cumulative effect of a MOJ, a not guilty verdict, a finding of innocence on the BOP by Justice Binnie, along with the gsr found on Robin’s hands and other matters not yet reveal publicly why a pardon is appropriate – particularly emphasised by the actions of the Minister.

    [The evidence around the marks on Robin Bain’s finger thumb is helpful to David Bain’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.]

    20 or so ‘dreaming bits’ of evidence that have already been rejected by a Jury and by Binnie. MVB has written a column well whoopee, and he’s making accusations saying that the story was given exclusively to Bain friendly media. Boo hoo. Has he forgotten already his ‘scoop’ and that of The Dearly Departed ‘Truth’ regarding the ‘leaked’ Binnie report – that’s hypocrisy.

    [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]

    I bet DPF would love to see the Judicial Review stopped, but David Bain has no obligation to adhere to the wishes of those that have hammered him, particularly not The Minister. There is no point in a 3 person panel review because the point of the JR is to see the Binnie report honoured. Point 3 is therefore irrelevant. A pardon quite probably would see the review dropped. As for comments about the reasoning of Binnie, it will be exposed as correct as it is agreed to be by a majority of informed people now.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    ‘Chuck Bird (3,569) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    “The criteria for extraordinary circumstances includes incompetence by the authorities – which no one can deny in this case.”

    How can that be considered extraordinary circumstances when incompetence by the authorities is not all that unusual?’

    Hard to disagree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Oh N-NZ, and some claim you are a qualified lawyer. Well that certainly proves that National’s aspirations for New Zealanders’ education are, in fact, attainable.

    Let’s see now…

    …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.]

    Nonsense the claim is stalled because David Bain has been denied natural justice and due process for which he has sought relief from the Court as is his right.

    No, the only reason the compensation claim is stalled is because of the request of Bain’s team, so they could file the application for a JR.

    You and they may think there are valid reasons for a JR due to ‘natural justice’, among others, but, without question, the only reason the compensation claim has stalled is due to a request from Bain’s team to do so.

    Remember, N-NZ, that you and Judith constantly remind people to be completely accurate in these matters…

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

    Wrong again, it’s the actions of the Minister which have led to the Judicial Review.

    Unquestionably incorrect. The application for JR was initiated by Bain’s team – the Minister cannot terminate it, only they can.

    They might feel that the Minister’s actions led to them filing the application, but that is contested. It will be over to the court, should it agree that it can proceed with a JR, to determine fact in that matter.

    You state a position, not a fact.

    It’s the cumulative effect of a MOJ, a not guilty verdict, a finding of innocence on the BOP by Justice Binnie, along with the gsr found on Robin’s hands and other matters not yet reveal publicly why a pardon is appropriate – particularly emphasised by the actions of the Minister.

    He can’t have a pardon – Graeme Edgeler has already pointed out that you can’t pardon a person given the verdict of innocence.

    It is beyond mind boggling that you can think that a decision can be made on such evidence “not yet made public” (one can only imagine this relates to the evidence both you and Judith have claimed (over the past day or so) will be disclosed shortly) – while there is evidence that is suppressed and therefore cannot be used in judgement, I don’t recall an order for admissible evidence to be kept secret. Perhaps you could document that for everyone’s benefit?

    As for your claims of the actions of the Minister – well only the court can determine if it has the legal grounds to test that, if it will, and what it will find.

    More yapping wee fella?

    Fetch.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    ‘Let’s see now…

    …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.]

    Nonsense the claim is stalled because David Bain has been denied natural justice and due process for which he has sought relief from the Court as is his right.

    No, the only reason the compensation claim is stalled is because of the request of Bain’s team, so they could file the application for a JR.’

    Oh dear bhudson even when you think you are on safe ground you flounder. The request was the result of the Ministers action which made it necessary for a review to be sought. A review you argued vehemently could not happen. Try getting over that point, and yourself, and then maybe I can set you straight on your other misconceptions, it won’t be easy but you deserve some help in your bewilderment. I bet you enjoyed finding that the cuts on daddy’s thumb you were relying on, were, much like the rest of your arguments – hopeful and desperate imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    ‘He can’t have a pardon – Graeme Edgeler has already pointed out that you can’t pardon a person given the verdict of innocence’

    Interesting slip.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @N-NZ,

    No action of the Minister or anyone else for that matter, made it “necessary” for the application for a JR. That was the choice Bain’s team made.

    Without question, the only reason the compensation claim has stalled is because Bain’s team chose to file an application for JR. If they had chosen to allow the matter to proceed as per the Minster’s intended actions the claim would be proceeding now.mit may even have concluded. But it wouldn’t be stalled as it currently is.

    It is sad that you cannot grasp that.

    I notice you still haven’t fetched the evidence that the hearing in July is the JR and not a determination as to whether or not the application can proceed. You know the point that even you said “I could be wrong” on?

    The decision on or around 16 April was solely on where the substantive hearing is to be held, not on what that hearing is to cover. That would be determined by precisely what “application” meant in that decision (it was not defined, so I am not sure.)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Poor N-NZ. He can’t even grasp the semantic difference between “given a verdict of innocent” and “found innocent”, or “is innocent”

    Mind you that does help to explain so many of his statements over time…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    ‘Who can apply for exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy?

    If you have been convicted in a New Zealand court and believe you have suffered a miscarriage of justice you can apply to the Governor-General to have your case reviewed.’

    You’re thick as bhudson, I’ll give you that. If the Minister hadn’t disregarded the rights of David Bain the application wouldn’t be stalled. It seems from the above that Reed QC is right, certainly David has been convicted in a New Zealand Court, and it has already been determined that he has suffered a MOJ, and not withstanding the discretionary use of the ‘Royal Prerogative’ he certainly can be pardoned. Nothing personal bhudson, but you seem to handle being wrong in a very immature way, consider getting some help with that, and perhaps also with coming to terms with your physical ‘short’ comings.

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

    bhudson (3,805) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 8:20 pm
    ———————————
    You are wrong. The JR and the compensation application would not be stalled if Ms Collins did not act in the manner she did. Her actions lead to the JR – not the JR lead to her actions – horse before the cart stuff.

    As far as sharing information with you? LOL oh dear, now that is funny – extremely funny. Hilarious even.

    The compensation claim has nothing to do with normal legal process, there is no such thing as suppressed information being withheld from the investigation, there is also no requirement for anything to do with the information collected for the assessment to be made public. That is totally at the ministers discretion and/or depending on whether it is legally privileged or not. I doubt after her last stuff ups, Ms Collins will be releasing any of the information she has been supplied with since her last public release.

    Regarding your comment to do with the semantic difference – if you are found innocent, or given a verdict of innocence, (which is the same as being found innocent) then you ‘is innocent’. If you are found not guilty brd – then your status by law in New Zealand reverts to that of innocent. The law is very specific, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are not found guilty, then you revert to being innocent. In NZ you cannot be found innocent. You can only be found NG, brd.

    David Bain’s legal status is innocent, however, the requirements of the compensation claim are a different matter

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Oh poor, poor N-NZ.

    The last jury verdict voided the man’s convition. He has no grounds for a Royal prerogative of mercy – you have to be convicted of something for that.

    The lengths you will go to simply try to show that Reed didn’t somehow ‘misspeak’ are incredible.

    You lack of comprehension is quite something else. If, in fact, you do hold a practicing certificate.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    David Bain’s legal status is innocent, however, the requirements of the compensation claim are a different matter

    That, at least, is something we can agree on.

    As for the stalled compo claim – you, like N-NZ are confusing the reasons why Bain’s team chose to lodge an application for JR with the action of requesting the compo process be halted.

    The only reason the claim has been altered is that it was requested. The reasons why someone made the request are irrelevant to the act of the request.

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

    WRONG bhudson.

    A royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity and does not have to apply just to a conviction. IF Ms Collins turned the compensation application down, then Bain can apply for a RP if there are grounds for it. That is, if Ms Collins continues to play games and not follow a fair and just process.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Oh Judith, do try harder.

    http://gg.govt.nz/role/royalprerogative.ht

    Checklist: Should I make an application?
    If you are thinking of applying for the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy, consider the following questions:
    Have you been convicted of a criminal offence in New Zealand?
    Have you appealed against your conviction and/or sentence?
    Do you believe that you have suffered a miscarriage of justice in relation to your conviction and/or sentence?
    Do you have new information about your conviction and/or sentence that has not previously been examined by a court?

    If you answered NO to any of these questions, you should not go ahead with an application.

    Fetch

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    bhudson (3,812) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:27 pm
    —————————-

    That is regarding convictions. Any citizen of NZ can apply directly for a RP concerning other matters in which they require and can obviously prove there is a need for the overturning of a legal decision other than that described by you, which is a separate matter -

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Judith,

    No. That defines what a Royal prerogative of mercy is; the scope of what it applies to and the conditions for application.

    Anyone can write a letter to the Queen of course. I understand she receive thousands.

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

    bhudson (3,814) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:37 pm

    There was a NZer during WWII that applied for a RP regarding being made to do compulsory service. They had failed in the courts and then applied for a RP – which also was turned down.

    Just because that is the only information available on line, does not mean it cannot be done. It is also different to a ‘letter to the Queen’.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    The characteristics of the way you post bhudson are relatively interesting, but hardly novel in the ‘sister’s club.’

    However, we all at least know that Reed QC is part of a team with vast an incisive perception of constitutional rights and the exercise of prerogative Powers. Any body not embittered by life would welcome the scrutiny of the Royal Pardon and how it should apply in a way binding to TBORA and other Acts of Parliament. As a country we have the opportunity to hear from Arthur Thomas on how the Royal Pardon effected him. There’s been an odd question left hanging since Arthur’s pardon in 1979 as to how one might be pardoned for something they didn’t do.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    ‘The only reason the claim has been altered is that it was requested. The reasons why someone made the request are irrelevant to the act of the request’

    They are totally relevant bhudson, they are the substance of the claim on which it will be decided. You’re logic is getting worse by the minute.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Why does anyone listen to Nostalgia ?

    a murdering scumbag and stalker !

    http://truth.co.nz/critics-want-killer-back-in-jail/

    and his only follower is a relative !

    My guess is he hates the system so much that he doesn’t even care that David is guilty !

    sad really

    [DPF: 50 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    They had failed in the courts and then applied for a RP – which also was turned down.

    The obvious part you missed there Judith is amusing

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    A zero hero arrives in a new ‘disguise.’
    How about a thumbs down sweetie, it will be about the best you can do.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    They are totally relevant bhudson, they are the substance of the claim on which it will be decided. You’re logic is getting worse by the minute.

    N-NZ,

    You poor chap. The reasons why Bain’s team chose to file an application for JR are indeed the substance of that application, but they are not the reason the compo claim has stalled. It has stalled because a request was made to stall it.

    Your blind belief is confusing your understanding and judgement. Poor chap.

    I don’t know what you mean by this ‘sisters club’ thing. I certainly am not involved in any way, shape or form with pro-Robin or anti-David group, if that is what you mean? Or is a ‘sisters club’ something to do with being in jail? – I have read ‘Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.’

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

    Pele (18) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:50 pm
    ————————-

    Well that makes you easy to recognise – still the same evil twisted bitch you’ve always been.

    So how do you account for me then? I can assure you I am not related

    You seriously need some help – look up mental health services in the local paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Pele (57 comments) says:

    your problem Judith, is you are a known liar.

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Don’t worry bhudson the sisters are right with you, black cats, capes and all.

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

    The request to stall the claim was made because of Ms Collins actions.
    The RP was made because of Ms Collins actions.
    IF ms collins had not acted like she did, neither would have been applied for.

    The horses name is COLLINS, she came first ….

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    I guess pele is one of those ‘old’ time girls, how sweet.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    She might have come ‘first’ at one time Judith, but she’s so far back in the running now race #2 has been held up for an hour.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Pele (19) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    —————————–

    REALLY – got any evidence of that. I’ve got plenty of your lies though. A complete disc of you defaming lots of people, and constructing your plans to stalk people, and stories to spread about things you wanted people to believe about the case that were made up. So much proof – so please start showing yours and i’ll show mine -

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @N-NZ,

    It does sound like, maybe, you’re referring to the ‘Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption’ story with this ‘sisters’ thing you mention.

    Are you saying that part of the story is true to life?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    3am at a bar in Apia among aroused men, pele would still be so lonely. The big O put her on the map with ‘Only the lonely.’ He was cool like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Pele (57 comments) says:

    So you call me evil and twisted, without knowing me at all,

    but your leader and companion is a double murderer and STALKER

    and he is a loving wonderful guy ?

    I believe the call is …………. Tui !

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 5.14
    ‘No-one in their right mind would accept that Binnie got it right.’

    No one in there right mind would accept anything ‘you’ say as fact, you cannot substantiate anything you say, you try to dispute evidence not in dispute between the crown and defence. Your ‘evidence’ is laughable and you hero worship a murdering paedophile!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    What’s your opinion of donkeys pele? Better than black cats and loneliness?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    IF ms collins had not acted like she did, neither would have been applied for.

    Poor Judith, it seems your obsession prevents you from grasping that that statement is 100% the same as someone claiming that “the reason we are in this position right now is that David killed his family.”

    The fact you can’t grasp that is both incredibly sad and also testament as to why this pointless debate has gone on and on for years on multiple forums. [As I understand it. I certainly have not been a party to those years of obsession.]

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

    Lady, I know exactly who you are. You gave yourself away yesterday. If you want to disguise yourslef, then you need to change the way you post Because I have a complete disc of your comments lies etc it is easy to sort out who you are.

    You arent telling me anything I don’t already know – not that i’ve ever met him but I’d trust my kids more with him, than I would with you. Some of the stuff you’ve said in the past makes you one very sick and mentally disturbed lady. Who I should add is as ugly as sin .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    The following sums up whale oil pretty well
    http://laudafinem.com/2013/06/26/x-fairfax-porn-pedling-paper-canned-closed-shut-down-fucked-off-and-thats-the-truth-of-the-matter/
    Also this one which deals with his previous cheap shot on Bain
    http://laudafinem.com/2013/01/01/john-keys-rent-boy-cam-slater-wants-to-fuck-bain-badly-using-a-corrupt-district-court-judge/
    It also deals pretty well with the witchsniffers argument about the glasses
    I particulary liked the following passage from it

    ‘Fuck, what an embarrassment that Slater would purport to be “the truth” when not reporting the full truth about the scumbag source making the allegations. Michael Guest’s as bent as a dingo’s hind leg and not a single word can be trusted, but Slater did report something to give his cowardly assassination of Bain some “balance”;

    “Guest- who was struck off in 2001 for professional misconduct for lying to a client – has now weighed in with criticism of Binnies findings”

    It is now on the cards that the thick as pig shit and ruthlessly cunning tax lawyer Judith Collins will likely reward Mr Guest with an appointment to the Supreme Court for his dutiful help and ongoing servitude to injustice in all its prolific forms in the New Zealand Judiciary and its related ministry. As for the fucktard National Party lackey Cameron Slater, well he wont last very long if he continues to write this sort of drivel, then dishonestly attempting to pass it of as “the truth”. And as for Fairfax; well they hired Slater as their last chance; nuff said.’

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    There, there, bhudson one of the idiot sisters chimed into relieve you of the embarrassment of your ridiculous arguments. You must feel so grateful, you may have found a companion lying in on the floor spitting and scoffing near Otto’s Reef.

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

    bhudson (3,818) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:20 pm
    ——————————-

    Do you always act in such a wankerous way when people don’t agree with your opinion

    Tell me, if JC had not acted as she did, would the JR have been called for?
    if she had not acted in the way she did, would a request be made for the process to be stalled?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    you may have found a companion lying in on the floor spitting and scoffing near Otto’s Reef.

    I’ve no idea what that means. Does it have something to with past experiences you’ve had with ‘sisters’ in boiler rooms, N-NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Pele @ 10.13
    Like you idol Robin Bain you hero worship
    You lot are one to talk about stalkers
    Pot/kettle black

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    I’ve no idea.’

    No need to state the obvious bhudson.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    if she had not acted in the way she did, would a request be made for the process to be stalled?

    And still you can’t see it Judith. That statement is 100% the same as someone claiming things would not be in the position they are right now “if David had not killed his family.”

    I am truly empathetic at your inability to comprehend that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    No need to state the obvious bhudson.

    Well I have read the book, N-NZ, so I guess I have some grasp on your aversion to the ‘sisters.’ Tell me, were you smart enough to know what a knife in the temple would have meant?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Melting down because the straws are running out bhudson, you’ll get over it.

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

    bHUDSON

    The sisters, of which PELE is one, have conducted conversations of various pro robin bain sites over the years. two of the freeforumw sites they had, they thought were private, but they had ticked the allow google, so everything they said, could be seen when you did a google search. ON that site they dicussed how they were going to come on public blogs and tell certain fabricated stories to make people think less of Bain and Karam. They also talked about and stalked the families of anyone that opposed them on blogs and messages board, and made intensive plans to distrupt those peoples lives, even including the children of people that supported David Bain. There comments were copied and a disc is available which shows the nasty people they are.

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

    BUT David did not kill his family, so your statement does not make sense. MS Collins did however act badly.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    ^^ No, Judith, that is an opinion held by those that requested a halt to the compo process and made an application for a JR

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    I read an article in the press comments today saying that the doco only proved that Robin had handled the magazine and it was ‘more likely’ that he’d found it in the lounge before he was ‘murdered’ geez the lengths people will bullshit to make him ‘innocent’

    BHudson
    You are full of self delusion and crap, maybe you could actually give the explanation of Daddys ‘murder’ scene that the crown were unable to and that there is absolutely no evidence of

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Judith,

    As to the previous comments about the ‘sisters.’ To the extent that is true, they deserve all the derision they receive (IMHO)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Rowan,

    You are full of self delusion and crap

    That would suggest that there is little point in explaining anything to you – although you do seem to expect that other people not have preconceived views as to what you and your fellow travelers have to say.

    As for the scene of Robin’s death. Is that the scene where you think someone who murdered all their family members who were at home didn’t remove the silencer from the rifle to enable them to reach the trigger more easily so as to shoot themself?

    Or was that a different crime scene?

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

    Their acts are disgusting bhudson. The stalking and frightening of children and other family members just because they don’t agree with an opinion is seriously sick behaviour. These people even made plans to attend work places and cause scenes etc to get people the sack – the also discussed the making of a story about BAIN which one of them would then swear an avidavit to say it had happened. and much more. I feel nothing but contempt for people like that. I’m happy to accept we all have different opinions, but taking it off here and into private lives is unbalanced behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Pele (57 comments) says:

    sad Rowan, Brian and Judi, how far they have flung their evil dung, while the evil one awaits …

    A cd full of the sisters, esp this ones ! garnered corners, ;) , so sad it will never see the light, as the tide will wash away the darkness that is bainly obvious and the killers will burn all night … mourning their past mistakes, but suffocating in their shite.

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. lilman (959 comments) says:

    So Judith how was tea, a few wines to relax then off to research the Bain Farce I suppose?

    I rang a lawyer of 40 odd years practice to read your posts today,he rents our family batch,a good man,very learned.
    He rang back and said he thought you know more than you are letting on he feels.
    So who are you really?
    Truth now?
    Absolute truth?

    P.s He also felt you interpretation of hearsay was wrong and should have been ruled out,based on factual inference is no basis for actual fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. lilman (959 comments) says:

    Muggins has the feel for a reasoned argument based on bad luck.
    Its very hard to argue against. 2.14 pm

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

    please read my above posts. Due to the actions of this very sick group of people, I would never be stupid enough to put my details or say who I am on here. Sorry, but I am just not as stupid as you might think I am.

    My example of hearsay was struck out and not heard in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Pele (57 comments) says:

    What twisted shadows they do follow, unaware they sink, closer to the fire …

    ;)

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

    lilman (438) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    You should know that muggins is a very unreliable historian. He spent a great deal of time telling everyone here how he had got infomation from the police and forensic experts about the case. Eventually he said something that made me ‘smell a rat’ so I followed through and received information under the OIA that proved he had lied about what he was told. I would be very careful of any information you take from him. He’s a provn liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    BHudson @ 10.51
    The silencer is a moot point, if Robin was in a hurray and wanting to be gone before David found him then hence a possible reason why it was not removed.
    Far more relevant to the exercise
    1. The final shot was a contact wound
    2. Professional literature shows that contact wounds to the front of the head are suicide in 95%+ of occasions
    3. The shot was upward trajectory from left to right
    4. The blood splatter evidence on his shoe and the curtains showed that he must have been standing at the time of his death not ‘kneeling in prayer’ as the crowns ridiculous scenarios
    5. There was a live bullet at the scene showing the rifle had jammed and the killer had likely replaced the magazine and a second attempt
    6. Manloves evidence showed Robin had his right leg bent at the knee, you can confirm this in one of the photos in Trial by Ambush. Its likely this was placed on the chair infront of the curtains

    Now construct a ‘murder’ scene. As was shown in the retrial by Boyce suicide was very easy

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Boyce !!!!!

    lol

    roflol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    and so they slide further in to the mire … ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Speaking about the mire I’m going to request your details old girl, you appear to be a re-invented stalker and as there are only a handful of you left it seems that the message your 3 erstwhile friends needed to learn has been lost on you. Cheerio and all that.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,698) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 8:28 am
    —————————————-

    I totally agree, another official complaint regarding the behaviour of this group is warranted. I’m sure many reading this will not be familiar with this groups behaviour, which includes stalking the children of adults who support David Bain, plans to invade workspace and cause disruption with the intention of getting those people the sack, phone calls to employers, malicious phone calls to the people, and their other family members, putting in objections to councils regarding business plans of those people, and much much more.

    We all have differing opinions, but this group’s behaviour has got beyond any decent limit. Another official complaint regarding their persistent harassment (most of which is not seen on here) is the only way to handle it. Whilst I’m sure as adults we can take it, our family’s should not have to, nor should we have to be silenced from giving our opinions by these constant threats and intimidation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Scott Chris (6,137 comments) says:

    The last observation I will make on this thread is that it appears to me that when a human believes a certain narrative the seem to lose their ability to see what is in front of them.

    Case in point:

    David’s prints on the gun.

    Clear, unsmudged, pristine.

    How did they survive in that condition knowing the treatment the gun had been subjected to subsequently? To some of us, the answer is obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    His own prints on his own rifle in a carrying position. You’ve lost the plot Scott Chris, mantras are so last century learn your material about fingerprints before pointing sticks.

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

    Scott Chris (4,986) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 9:19 am
    ————————–

    It appears to me Scott that you are just as guilty of what you accuse the rest of us being. You can only see one side of the argument.

    There was plenty of evidence presented in court that explained how and why prints could remain as they were found, for quite a long period of time.

    There are plenty of questions that can be asked – such as why, if David held the gun to kill the family there weren’t more pristine fingerprints – there were certainly areas on the gun that were found not to have blood on them, where such prints could have remained. Just as the argument there are none of Robin’s prints identified.

    The answer rests with the fact that for fingerprints to be left, and for them to be left in a manner that allows them to meet the criteria for legal identification purposes, is very rare as the conditions for transferance has to be perfect. Whilst prints can be left, and may even ‘look like’ a certain persons, unless they meet the strict criteria, they cannot be applied to that person legally.

    The nine fingerprints that were on that gun would have been able to tell us who they did not belong to, thus leaving one family member. Unfortunately the police decided to destroy evidence of those prints (which were complete, but did not provide sufficient ridging detail to meet the legal criteria). Due to those actions that destroyed information which may have cleared David, or confirmed, we are now unable to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    N-NZ, no they weren’t. What has been posted is the fingerprints taken when Bain was arrested. The interesting question would be how did the group get this, who within Crown Law or the police provided them with these? I do know they have been posted on one of the JFRB group’s websites.

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

    Kanz (1,097) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 10:01 am

    ————————————

    That is a really good question? How did they get them? Whoever supplied them had to have access to them perhaps through an older brother, or even a now retired police employee – all rather disgusting, especially to pass off the prints as being taken from the gun, when they were not.

    It appears that if they can’t solve the mystery by honest means, they will construct it by dishonesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Judith (3,089) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 10:17 am

    If you look at what has been posted it is clear that they are fingerprints as taken from a suspect/witness. The shape gives it away to start with.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    Just interested –
    Bain is right handed right?
    Would that not mean that the fingerprints on the rifle involve him holding it the wrong way? I mean a way consistent with him picking it up (or carrying it around) but not so much with him using it (I mean at the time that he put the finger prints on it). If he is left handed maybe that doesn’t count as much – still they look maybe a little on the wrong spot on the rifle anyway?

    I imagine this is all well discussed before so I expect I’m just missing something obvious or maybe people do often use their dominant hand at the front and bring their fingers right around the gun and then grip hard.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Scott1 (250) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 10:27 am

    The prints found were of the left hand over the gun. That is, the little finger was closest to the barrel and they were pointing towards the ground if the rifle was being pointed at someone.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    What is of more concern to me is the fact that a lobby group has the original prints as taken from Bain, and that they are using them dishonestly.

    This just might be worth another 3rd degree program, another from photos being put on kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    muggins (2,403) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 2:14 pm
    Welcome back Psycho Milt.
    I still reckon that post of yours relating to the bad luck that David had is one of the best I have read so I am going to post it again, with a few changes.
    Hope you don’t mind[ and my apologies if you do].

    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 intending to commit suicide shortly afterwards.

    Worth repeating I thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Here comes the little boy who wants the game stopped. He can’t play it at all so wishes it to be spoilt so nobody else can play. We all know that type, they have no friends for obvious reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Re David Bain’s pristine prints on the rifle.
    They could have been made when he held the rifle in his left hand and wiped the blood off it with his right hand.
    Those of you who own a rifle try holding the rifle upright in your left hand with a reverse grip and wiping it with a cloth in your left hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,101) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 11:19 am
    Here comes the little boy who wants the game stopped. He can’t play it at all so wishes it to be spoilt so nobody else can play. We all know that type, they have no friends for obvious reasons.

    Kanz ,you know what they say about people who talk to themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    What is of more concern to me is the fact that a lobby group has the original prints as taken from Bain, and that they are using them dishonestly.

    This just might be worth another 3rd degree program, another from photos being put on kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    This blog is supposed to be about the outrageous hypocrisy of Bain’s lawyer Michael Reed who now wants the compensation claim dealt with before the Collins judical review.
    You have to wonder what is going on. That judical review was supposed to be taking place in late July, less than a month away. Has something happened in the meantime? Has David Bain got cold feet? Is he worried that he might be asked some curly questions?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Oh look, Aunt Fanny playing her favourite game of spamming DPFs blog with her used toilet paper

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,102) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 11:23 am
    What is of more concern to me is the fact that a lobby group has the original prints as taken from Bain, and that they are using them dishonestly.

    This just might be worth another 3rd degree program, another from photos being put on kiwiblog.

    3rd degree say they got that photo from a blogsite,but they won’t say which one. Or are you talking about another photo?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Rowan (867) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 11:34 am
    Oh look, Aunt Fanny playing her favourite game of spamming DPFs blog with her used toilet paper

    Rowan , does your Aunt Fanny use your toilet paper after you have used it? Dear oh dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    muggins (2,408) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Can’t help yourself with the lying, can you.
    It was clearly stated on the program that the pic was found from a link posted on here. I guess you can take a bow for that, it was you who kept posting that link. Well done you.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Why does Muggins lie with thanks to Beyond
    from http://counterspinthetruth.blogspot.co.nz/
    Supersleuth = muggins
    I guess its sad when all you have is lies

    Why would do they lie, distort?

    If we take the example of Supersleuth, an elderly gent, in the final trimester of his life, it’s easy to see why he is in such denial. This is his life. For several years now he has invested his time, money and his reputation on discrediting David Bain’s defence, and subsequently Joe Karam. Everyone he’s spoken to in the last few years would have heard his story.

    Not only is his credibility on the line with his friends and relations, but he has contacted officials, members of Parliament, witnesses etc. He has banked everything he has, including his own relationships, on being right about David Bain. If he is proved wrong, then his life will no longer have meaning. People will regard him as nothing but a raving loon that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Instead of ending his life on a high, and being remembered for his positive input to the Counterspin campaign, he will be remembered as a vindictive fool. If he’s remembered at all. His own mind will never allow him to accept this no matter what evidence he is given, he cannot change.

    The same could be said for the other elderly gents in the Counterspin campaign, who have done similar to Sleuth. Once they had stated their opinion, backing down was just to hard, so instead they feed off each other, approving what each has to say, which gives them permission to continue along the same path.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Rowan (868) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 11:48 am

    It is even worse than that for the poor old bugger.
    He can’t have had a life with meaning in the first place to have become so involved in such a deceptive and corrupt persecution campaign.
    One does not suddenly become a raving loon who doesn’t know what he is talking about, that is a lifelong trait.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Pele (57 comments) says:

    A group ?

    nah, tiz solo this traveller’s road,

    sisters three and kent, I know not, but I wish them well.

    thou squeaks of persecution, when you are the queen and king of such torture, your victims many.

    Fear not group if you do exist, the evil doers will be burnt by the light, as slimy moths indeed.

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

    muggins (2,409) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 11:21 am
    Re David Bain’s pristine prints on the rifle.
    They could have been made when he held the rifle in his left hand and wiped the blood off it with his right hand.
    Those of you who own a rifle try holding the rifle upright in your left hand with a reverse grip and wiping it with a cloth in your left hand.

    There are countless ways in which they could have been made muggins and most of those do not point to the scenario you suggest.

    In order to match your scenario, you have to prove it is the only way those prints could have got there, and that there is no other explanation for them. You can’t do that, so like most of the evidence in this case – it is a moot point, and cannot give a score on the value of ‘balance of probability’.

    You constantly post on such issues – each time stating them as fact, as if they are the only explanation for a certain phenomena – you need to understand the process a little more – in order it to make any difference it has to be proved as the ONLY way it could have happened, unless there is other supporting data. Their isn’t regarding the fingerprints.

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

    Oh dear – here we go again.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Pele=pw .
    Indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    Ahh I see so the photo of Kim Jones holding it with his right hand at the front is wrong, that makes more sense – maybe Kim is left handed.

    I guess that probably goes nowhere then.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    In all honesty Kanz – she/he doesn’t worry me in the slightest. Their continued carry-on and attempts to intimidate and silence people only proves the claims that have been made about them. I’m sure they all giggle around the cauldron, but despite their intense and vast efforts they have been unable to produce one piece of verifiable and authentic evidence that supports their claims, they are really nothing but a very bad joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Scott1 (251) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Ahh I see so the photo of Kim Jones holding it with his right hand at the front is wrong, that makes more sense – maybe Kim is left handed.

    I guess that probably goes nowhere then.

    It does go nowhere. Which is why the campaigners need to put up pictures of Bain’s actual fingerprints claiming them to be from the gun, to try taking it somewhere it doesn’t fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    I for one would like to thank tv3 and 3rd degree for bringing these matters to the fore again. Lest we forget. The anniversary of the deaths having just passed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,699) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 8:28 am
    Speaking about the mire I’m going to request your details old girl, you appear to be a re-invented stalker and as there are only a handful of you left it seems that the message your 3 erstwhile friends needed to learn has been lost on you. Cheerio and all that.

    Judith (3,092) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 8:45 am

    We all have differing opinions, but this group’s behaviour has got beyond any decent limit. Another official complaint regarding their persistent harassment (most of which is not seen on here) is the only way to handle it. Whilst I’m sure as adults we can take it, our family’s should not have to, nor should we have to be silenced from giving our opinions by these constant threats and intimidation.

    Quite apt, in a thread on hypocrisy

    http://truth.co.nz/critics-want-killer-back-in-jail/

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Yep definitely pw. *nods*

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

    goldnkiwi (391) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    pfffffft – a bit late aren’t you? Did you only just remember? That’s more of an insult than anything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Fair is foul and foul is fair.

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Kanz @ 11.39
    I guess we should be thankful to the old fool, he did link to that picture of the old mans thumbs. Now CS have a second achievement along with convincing Ian Binnie of Bains innocence. Well done to him for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Pele (26) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    Fair is foul and foul is fair.

    What a screwed up world you must live in.
    It was obvious from that start.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,106) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 11:39 am
    muggins (2,408) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Can’t help yourself with the lying, can you.
    It was clearly stated on the program that the pic was found from a link posted on here. I guess you can take a bow for that, it was you who kept posting that link. Well done you.

    Kanz, baby.
    I havn’t actually had a good look at that program yet,only watched bits of it, so I wasn’t aware they got that photo from kiwiblog. They could have just as easy got it from counterspin. In the Dompost this morning it says they did not say where they got it from. That is what I was going by.
    As a matter of fact I asked the question on counterspin this morning. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I must admit it did look like it was the same photo that is on counterspin.
    However, at the end of the day those marks don’t prove anything.
    I mean I can’t prove those marks on David Bain’s torso prove that he got them in a struggle with his brother.
    I can’t prove that his brother whacked him on the head and caused those bruises.
    I can’t prove how those glasses were damaged,
    although we all know David Bain was wearing them that weekend.
    I can’t prove how he got Stephen’s blood on his clothes.
    I can’t prove that was blood on his Gondoliers T shirt .
    I can’t prove he heard his sister Laniet gurgling when she was still alive and had to finish her off with two more shots to the head.
    I can’t prove he placed that magazine upright next to his father’s hand.
    I can’t prove he didn’t faint when he arrived home and therefore that wouldn’t have been the reason for the twenty minute delay in phoning the emergency services.
    I can’t prove he typed that message on the computer.
    I can’t prove he was home just after 6.42am.
    I can’t prove he was wearing his own gloves.
    I can’t prove how a pristine set of his fingerprints came to be on the rifle.
    I can’t prove he did the washing before he went on his paper round.
    I can’t prove whether or not he was wearing his anorak on his paper round.
    I can’t prove he saw his mother’s eyes open just before he shot her.
    I can’t prove those were his bloody sockprints on the carpet.
    I can’t prove that he washed that sock,together with other bloody clothing ,without noticing the blood on it ,or the other bloody clothing,even though he left a bloody palm print on the washing machine.
    I can’t prove those blue trackpants in the wash were his,even though they were too long to have belonged to anyone else in the family.
    I can’t prove that he turned his bedroom light on when he returned home.
    I cant prove his mother’s light wasn’t on when he arrived home.
    I can’t prove he didn’t sense his father was in the lounge ,even though the lounge door was shut and the light wasn’t on.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    I guess we should be thankful to the old fool, he did link to that picture of the old mans thumbs. Now CS have a second achievement along with convincing Ian Binnie of Bains innocence. Well done to him for that.

    True dat.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    I see he is trying to stop the game again. Sad that he can’t play.
    Oh well, never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    muggins (2,409) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 11:21 am
    “Re David Bain’s pristine prints on the rifle.
    They could have been made when he held the rifle in his left hand and wiped the blood off it with his right hand.
    Those of you who own a rifle try holding the rifle upright in your left hand with a reverse grip and wiping it with a cloth in your left hand.”

    Apply common sense numbskull

    With more thanks from beyond showing the fallacy of his ridiculous argument
    For some reason M**** seems to feel that because he says something, we should all believe it, no matter how implausible, no matter that the evidence dictates otherwise, in his world, his word is fact. He continually repeats the same message over and over, despite having been disproved on numerous occasions by reasoned argument and physical evidence.

    Above we have an example of him repeating his well worn tale that the rifle used to kill the Bain’s had been wiped down. As anyone researching the killings can tell you, fingerprints belonging to David were found, one of Stephen’s was found on the silencer, and several other partial fingerprints were found on the body of the rifle. The reason why these fingerprints could not be identified belonging to a specific person, was due to the fact they were incomplete. They had some ridging detail, but not enough detail to attribute them.

    If the rifle had been wiped down, as Mr S**** repeatedly argues, there would be smudged blood, and nothing detectable indicating the existence of fingerprints. There would be no ridging detail at all.

    In order to fit S**** scenario, the killer would have had to find each of the prints on the gun and delicately wipe a portion away leaving enough remaining ridging detail to identify them as fingerprints, and not blood smudges. How stupid does he think we are? How silly is he? Again his argument is fanciful, and lacks the application of commonsense.

    I presume Mr S**** has been instructed to continue the Counterspin Trademe campaign, because he is the best they have to offer. A sad reflection on the rest of the group.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Judith (3,093) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Actually ‘Judith’ I posted on a Kiwi Blog thread concerning it on the day. I guess you weren’t paying attention yet again.;) I am sure with your superior skills you will be able to check, do copy and paste it won’t you. It was later in the afternoon if I recall on the 20th.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 1.57
    So in summary you have nothing and are just a lying piece of c***!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Not only that, but he says this,

    Those of you who own a rifle try holding the rifle upright in your left hand with a reverse grip and wiping it with a cloth in your left hand.

    I don’t know how many left hands he has, or thinks Bain has, but most of us only have 1.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,093) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    In all honesty Kanz – she/he doesn’t worry me in the slightest. Their continued carry-on and attempts to intimidate and silence people……

    Judith,what a hypocrite you are.
    You and a few other pro David Bainers have been attempting to intimidate and silence me for years, and still are , as anyone can see by just looking at this blog.
    One of your group even tried to take me to court in an attempt to silence me. Didn’t work, and cost him quite a bit of money into the bargain.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Rowan (871) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
    Muggins @ 1.57
    So in summary you have nothing and are just a lying piece of c***!

    A classic example of what I was just saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (392) Says:
    June 20th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
    Anniversary of Bain Murders
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    There you go ‘Judith’ in General Debate :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (393) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Should we provide you a medal for that?
    Today is the anniversary of many people’s deaths. Are you gonna announce all of them too?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    muggins (2,413) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 11:21 am
    Re David Bain’s pristine prints on the rifle.
    They could have been made when he held the rifle in his left hand and wiped the blood off it with his right hand.
    Those of you who own a rifle try holding the rifle upright in your left hand with a reverse grip and wiping it with a cloth in your left hand.

    And they try to discredit me any way they can.
    Kanz has just posted that I said wiping it with a cloth in your left hand. Of course he didn’t quote the full message.
    I said David Bain could have wiped the blood off with his right hand. The fact that I then said left hand is an obvious typo.
    But I expect that sort of thing from Kanz, who has threatened me in the past, both on here and on Trade Me .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    muggins (2,413) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    No need for anyone to discredit you. You do it all for yourself every time your fingers hit those keys.
    As for your last statement, you do have a vivid imagination.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,093) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
    muggins (2,409) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 11:21 am
    Re David Bain’s pristine prints on the rifle.
    They could have been made when he held the rifle in his left hand and wiped the blood off it with his right hand.
    Those of you who own a rifle try holding the rifle upright in your left hand with a reverse grip and wiping it with a cloth in your right hand.

    There are countless ways in which they could have been made muggins and most of those do not point to the scenario you suggest.

    .Judith, could you give me some examples of those countless ways David Bain could have held that rifle to leave those pristine prints on them. Half a dozen will do.

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

    goldnkiwi (393) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    wow, such a memorial to them. A post on a message board – took you what, 30 seconds !

    Wonderful – what sort of recognition are you looking for goldn?

    Or more to the point, why are you looking for it?

    Do you think remembering them on a particular day makes what happened to them any easier to handle?

    They were a family – a totally dysfunctional family that was exhibiting every aspect of a family in crisis – and they were ignored.

    Remembering on them on the anniversary of their deaths means very little – its a pity people didn’t contribute that 30 secs it took you to remember – when they were alive, to provide the family with the support they so clearly needed.

    Remembering them on the 19th would have been more appropriate – the last day people that knew them had the chance to help the family – and didn’t!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,113) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 2:26 pm
    muggins (2,413) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    No need for anyone to discredit you.

    So why do you keep trying to ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Rowan (871) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    muggins (2,409) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 11:21 am
    “Re David Bain’s pristine prints on the rifle.
    They could have been made when he held the rifle in his left hand and wiped the blood off it with his right hand.
    Those of you who own a rifle try holding the rifle upright in your left hand with a reverse grip and wiping it with a cloth in your left hand.”

    Apply common sense numbskull

    Ok, Rowan, so how about you telling us how you believe David Bain’s pristine fingerprints came to be on that rifle.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    muggins (2,415) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    Not trying to discredit you, just find you a source of great amusement. At least you are good for something.

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

    muggins (2,414) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    —————————-

    You have no credibility Muggins.

    I warned you time and time again to be very careful of what you were saying because the data was verifiable. You ignored those warnings, you had to be the ‘big noter’ – you had to lie.

    IF you can’t convince people by discussing the facts and without lying and exaggerating, then you don’t have an argument and you really aren’t worth bothering about.

    The people that need to know what you are, are now aware of that – that is all that matters to me. That people like PW and Goldnkiwi are stupid enough to hang off your every word, is not surprising. It speaks volumes about them, their ethics, their intelligence and their integrity.

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

    Kanz (1,114) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    ————————————-

    No one else needs to discredit him Kane, he has done that all by himself, officially and in writing! It couldn’t have been done in a better way.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    david bain in great pain

    his family assunder

    he grabbed a gun and shot them all

    and is it any wonder

    karam came quickly to fame

    a killer he would pardon

    the jury heard his empty words

    and enjoyed the party after.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,114) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    ……………….
    I thought it was a discrete little remembrance, no fan fare no hoopla just a simple statement. No gongs necessary though, but thank you for the offer. Probably why ‘Judith’ missed it. Guess it wasn’t her thumbs down then. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Get a grip ‘Judith’ lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (394) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    Do you do this for all families you don’t know? It seems a little maudlin to me considering you were not there for them before the tragedy. I am assuming you weren’t, were you?

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

    Kea (5,558) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    ——————————-

    Tis that you Dennis? :P

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Judith (3,096) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    goldnkiwi (391) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    pfffffft – a bit late aren’t you? Did you only just remember? That’s more of an insult than anything else.
    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    ……………………………………
    Judith (3,096) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    goldnkiwi (393) Says:

    goldnkiwi (395) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    goldnkiwi (392) Says:
    June 20th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
    Anniversary of Bain Murders
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    There you go ‘Judith’ in General Debate :)
    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    June 29th, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    wow, such a memorial to them. A post on a message board – took you what, 30 seconds !

    Wonderful – what sort of recognition are you looking for goldn?

    Or more to the point, why are you looking for it?

    Do you think remembering them on a particular day makes what happened to them any easier to handle?

    They were a family – a totally dysfunctional family that was exhibiting every aspect of a family in crisis – and they were ignored.

    Remembering on them on the anniversary of their deaths means very little – its a pity people didn’t contribute that 30 secs it took you to remember – when they were alive, to provide the family with the support they so clearly needed.

    Remembering them on the 19th would have been more appropriate – the last day people that knew them had the chance to help the family – and didn’t!
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    Did you forget or something?

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

    Kanz (1,115) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    ——————————

    It is the only thing she can do. The only time she has discussed the evidence she has been wrong – even from the JFRB point of view. She knows nothing but the very basics about the case, so instead prattles on about any inane thing she can think of. Quite a pathetic creature – one to be pitied.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,096) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    muggins (2,414) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    —————————-

    Muggins

    I warned you time and time again to be very careful of what you were saying because the data was verifiable. You ignored those warnings, you had to be the ‘big noter’ – you had to lie.

    IF you can’t convince people by discussing the facts and without lying and exaggerating, then you don’t have an argument and you really aren’t worth bothering about.

    The people that need to know what you are, are now aware of that – that is all that matters to me. That people like PW and Goldnkiwi are stupid enough to hang off your every word, is not surprising. It speaks volumes about them, their ethics, their intelligence and their integrity.

    Judith,
    Everyone knows you are a liar, at least regarding to matters Bain. You have no integrity when it comes to matters Bain.
    You keep making threats but you can’t back them up. You said I had spoken to Judith Collins,that was a lie.
    And you didn’t warn me ,you tried to intimidate me and it hasn’t worked.
    Now I am going to call your bluff. Give me an example of where I have deliberately lied, [ and I don't mean a wind-up,we both know the difference].

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    They are on the ropes
    There go their hopes
    Ad hominem
    Are all left to them ;) lol

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

    @ muggins

    I did not say you had spoken to Ms Collins. That was your interpretation.

    You said to Ms Collins in an email on 23 March 2013 at 9.23 a.m.

    You also stated on several occasions on this board that a police officer was standing in the doorway of the room in which David Bain was having a medical examination. You said that same police officer said David Bain was never naked.

    Fact is, the police told you in an email very clearly “No Police Officer was in the room during the medical examination of Bain”.

    You said you were told by Det. S that he had managed to put the photos from the case into the order they were taken in. He did not tell you that at all and he has not done that.

    You said there was a video which showed certain things and was taken at a certain time, that was still existing. The police have confirmed there is not.

    and so on………….

    You have deliberately misrepresented what you were told by Crown forensic experts (in particular Dr Dempster) and by the NZ police. All of these people have confirmed that what you posted on this board was NOT what you were told.

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

    ” You may wonder what an old bloke like me [age 77] has bothered to spend so much time researching this case. The fact is I was at a bit of a loose end after selling my lifestyle block, and, as I had no hobbies, decided I would …..” “.. I like to think I have been able to take an impartial approach”.

    Sound familiar to you Muggins? Liar and a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    I think it would be very helpful if all those people confirmed that in writing to this board ‘Judith’ that you are in the ‘know’. You expect ‘everybody’ to take what you say as gospel. Where is the proof, of all you assert?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    I think it would be very helpful if all those people confirmed that in writing to this board ‘Judith’ that you are in the ‘know’. You expect ‘everybody’ to take what you say as gospel. Where is the proof, of all you assert?

    Looks like she did just that in the post above yours. All that remains is for muggins to confirm or deny it. My guess is he will lie and deny it.

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

    goldnkiwi (398) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    —————————–

    You expect Dr Dempster, members of the Police Force and Judith Collins to come on this board to satisfy your curiosity?

    I’ll tell you what, the information is available to you too – all you have to do is apply for an OIA like other people have.

    I don’t care if you believe me or not – I know he is lying. The people he has misrepresented know he has lied, and have seen his posts – and he knows he has lied.

    You seem to think I am responsible for asking questions – that’s a strange angle to take, – according to you, its my fault for checking up on him. He posted stuff that was clearly faulty – I wanted to know the truth, that is what the OIA is for – in this case my instincts were right.

    If you want to blame someone, – blame Muggins – he is the one that has been lying to you all and made a mockery of your campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Just see ‘Judith’ confirming what ‘Judith’ says. For a minute there I thought ‘they’ were saying that they were a 77 year old man lol

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Seems like hearsay to me, you do know what that is don’t you?

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

    Kanz (1,116) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    It’s ok Kane, I am more than happy to provide a link to prove myself. Can’t post it here because it has muggins real name on it, however, I can make a comment on you-know-who’s blog, and provide the link to a scan of the email I’ve quoted from above.

    Don’t worry about goldnkiwi, she wouldn’t know the truth if is was flapping around in front of her.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Can’t you even get Kanza’s name right or do you have another alter ego called Kane, I am surprised you can keep them all straight, but then it is obvious that you can’t. ;)

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

    goldnkiwi (401) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
    Can’t you even get Kanza’s name right…

    Doesn’t appear you can either.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Oh but mine was apt

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Oh but mine was apt

    How is making me sound like a bloody poof apt?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    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. “

    Remaining evidence against David: from Bill Wrights 1995 3 planks
    1. It was Davids gun
    2. David said he was the only one who knew where the trigger was

    The witchsniffers evidence both singly and collectively 0.000000% convincing

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Thanks again tv3 ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    The entire crown case is a series of maybes, what-ifs and speculative guesswork. There is a lot of grey and not much black and white. The witch-sniffers will only ever see ‘one’ explanation and continue to throw more unconvincing arguments to try and make something stick. Individually none of them do but they somehow seem to think that throwing together 10 or so ‘maybes’ will combine to create something strong i.e. will gain strength from each other but this is a very simplistic naïve view IMO which is why I find it 0.0000% convincing.
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that Robin killed himself, nothing excludes him from doing so, hence he is the Every St killer. The stupid ‘why’ ‘why’ ‘why’ arguments are unnecessary and will never be able to be adequately answered, although perhaps Daddy might oblige if/when some of his supporters meet him again!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    But what about the thumb marks, I thought they were a slam dunk? Really now, as they were so conclusive that is all that needs to be written surely?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,103) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    @ muggins

    I did not say you had spoken to Ms Collins. That was your interpretation.

    You also stated on several occasions on this board that a police officer was standing in the doorway of the room in which David Bain was having a medical examination. You said that same police officer said David Bain was never naked.

    Fact is, the police told you in an email very clearly “No Police Officer was in the room during the medical examination of Bain”.

    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.
    Also in that email ,and I quote.
    “Det R has no recollection of Bain naked ,he has no recollection of a naked torso,nor indeed a tattoo. Bain was also in possession of a blanket.
    Strip-searching is unhelpful as a descriptor as it means many things to many people. The police position is that he was not strip-searched by them as he was a witness at this juncture”.

    Of course all this came about because some of David Bain’s supporters insisted he had been strip-searched. And Karam is also saying that . Reed [and Karam] should have known there was no police officer in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain. All they had to do was ask David Bain[hoping,of course ,he would tell them the truth].
    So we are no further ahead on that strip-search or whether Bain was ever naked. I will accept that the could have been a period of time during Pryde’s examination that Det R was not standing in that doorway with those clothes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    muggins (2,418) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Yet more lies from muggins. When will he learn to keep his fingers off the keyboard? This took less than a couple of minutes to find.

    muggins (2,418) Says:
    January 31st, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    But ,just so we are quite clear on this.
    I phoned four police officers in Dunedin.
    Two said they did not see Bain naked, but they both said they was out of the room for a few minutes.
    The third said I would have to go through his boss, which I did.
    I had to email a request for official information which I did.
    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,103) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    @ muggins

    I did not say you had spoken to Ms Collins. That was your interpretation.

    You said to Ms Collins in an email on 23 March 2013 at 9.23 a.m.

    Judith,
    I have no record of sending an email to Judith Collins on that date.
    However,even if I did send a message I would not have asked for an immediate reply ,as you are saying.
    So unless you can confirm that then you are lying again.
    Remember how you kept saying you didn’t use the words oral sex sometime back and I had to find your post pointing out that you did indeed use those words. Another lie.
    Also when you said Casey was spelt Kaycee in the retrail transcript and then tried to get out of it by saying you changed the spelling yourself. What a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,119) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    muggins (2,418) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Yet more lies from muggins. When will he learn to keep his fingers off the keyboard? This took less than a couple of minutes to find.

    muggins (2,418) Says:
    January 31st, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    But ,just so we are quite clear on this.
    I phoned four police officers in Dunedin.
    Two said they did not see Bain naked, but they both said they was out of the room for a few minutes.
    The third said I would have to go through his boss, which I did.
    I had to email a request for official information which I did.
    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.

    Kanz,
    As I have already explained I now accept that the third police officer was not in the doorway all that time.
    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.
    And ,as I have already told Judith, this all came about because you and other David Bain supporters kept lying about David Bain being strip-searched when you don’t know whether he was or not[and going by that email I received he most probably wasn't].

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    You said you were told by Det. S that he had managed to put the photos from the case into the order they were taken in. He did not tell you that at all and he has not done that.

    You said there was a video which showed certain things and was taken at a certain time, that was still existing. The police have confirmed there is not.

    Judith, I said that Det S had told me he had put all the photos/videos in the order in which they were taken. That is what I understood him to say and he said very much the same thing when he gave evidence at the retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Why then did you say that you were informed by email that he was in the doorway ALL OF THE TIME?
    You said that on 31st of January, AFTER you had received the email, as I posted above.
    You did not say it once, but repeated the lie a number of times.
    When judith calls you a liar she is telling the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    muggins (2,421) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    muggins, face it, you have misrepresented what you were told many times, which amounts to lying about it.
    If you were so sure that the information you had proved Bain’s guilt why would you lie about it?

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

    Judith,
    Where did I say there was a police officer standing in the room during that medical examination.?

    Between January and February this year on three different threads on this blog you stated you had been told by the police there were three officers that accompanied David Bain. Two of which were there part of the time of the medical examination, and one that was stood in the doorway watching the medical examination but he couldn’t see the body because of a blanket. Those posts are still on this blog and available for anyone who wishes to find them.

    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.

    Yes that is what you were told, but that is not what you said on here. One point though, it does NOT say the ‘clothes he was wearing’.

    Also in that email ,and I quote.
    “Det R has no recollection of Bain naked ,he has no recollection of a naked torso,nor indeed a tattoo. Bain was also in possession of a blanket.

    That is correct except you left off the last part of that sentence which states …”blanket which was placed over him during his removal from Every Street”

    1. You told people in here that David Bain had that blanket wrapped around him which was why R. did not see him naked.

    2. You fail to point out that those points were made in answer to questions you had asked regarding the memory of Bain being naked, the torso and tattoo.

    3. You fail to point out that those statements were made in response to specific questions you had asked. Instead you used those answers to misrepresent what they meant.

    Of course all this came about because some of David Bain’s supporters insisted he had been strip-searched. And Karam is also saying that . Reed [and Karam] should have known there was no police officer in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain.

    So because Reed and Karam should have known, that meant that you had the right to lie about it and say there was a Police Officer in the door way during the medical examination – and not state the fact that it was for a few seconds whilst Dr Pryde handed him David Bain’s old clothes and he passed over a new set of clothes?

    You forget Doyle also confirmed under oath that the examination had been conducted. The only reason why the police are saying it wasn’t a strip search is because it is illegal for them to conduct a strip search unless the person is in custody. Calling it a medical examination and getting Dr Pryde to do it, means they could not be held responsible. Please refer to P.R.’s correspondence July 2012 regarding this matter which clarifies it.

    All they had to do was ask David Bain[hoping,of course ,he would tell them the truth].

    You seem quite prepared to accept David Bain’s honesty when it suits you, e.g. him saying only he knew where the keylock was, and yet, you imply elsewhere he is not honest.

    So we are no further ahead on that strip-search or whether Bain was ever naked. I will accept that the could have been a period of time during Pryde’s examination that Det R was not standing in that doorway with those clothes.

    ‘there could have been a period of time’ – he was in that doorway simply to hand over a new set of clothes and receive the bundle of clothes David had was in when removed from Every Street. It was a matter of seconds – something you should have clarified before lying about it.

    We are much further ahead, you have had plenty of time to put the record straight, but it was not until you saw proof that your correspondence had been sourced, that you decided to post the above and change your story. Sadly you cannot delete what is held on this site.

    Thanks to your correspondence enabling further questions many points have been clarified – enough to know that nothing you say regarding the strip search is correct, and that all your lies regarding hiding behind blankets and police officers coming and going from the room and standing in doorways watching the medical examination, were nothing but lies. What they have done is clarify and provided evidence that strongly supports that David Bain was indeed naked, and DID NOT LIE TO J. BINNIE AS YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.

    And I still haven’t touched on the statements you made regarding Dr Dempster yet!

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

    muggins (2,421) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    ——————————-

    What Schollum said on the stand was disproved then and there, when the photographers concerned gave evidence that he was wrong. That photos he had said a certain photographer had taken, were not infact taken by that photographer, and so on.

    He did not tell you he had put them in order. That is a blatant lie. You didn’t speak to him in 2009 Muggins which was when he believed he might have got it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Lets not forget ‘innocent openness’.

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

    muggins (2,421) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    ————————————-

    Sorry, you are right, it was the 22nd of March, not the 23 that you sent that email to the Minister of Justice’s office. This is from the email concerned ….

    “I am still waiting for an answer to my question…..” and finishes “I would like someone to confirm that. Shouldn’t take a minute”.

    In the line of emails sent about that time you are whinging because they won’t address your correspondence when you think they should have.

    Your carry on over the oral sex issue is pathetic. I said that sex did not have to be intercourse, it could be oral etc etc.
    You decided to post after that I had said the incident with the goat was oral sex. That was what I took except too. I NEVER said it WAS anything but only gave examples of what else it could mean.

    You again deliberately misrepresented what I had said – a big habit of yours.

    You can prove I didn’t change the spelling of the name Kaycee in my documents myself? WOW you do have delusions of grandeur if you think you can possibly know that.

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

    muggins (2,418) Says:
    January 31st, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    But ,just so we are quite clear on this.
    I phoned four police officers in Dunedin.
    Two said they did not see Bain naked, but they both said they was out of the room for a few minutes.
    The third said I would have to go through his boss, which I did.
    I had to email a request for official information which I did.
    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.

    Except that is not what they say Muggins – your word or theirs?

    “Two said……. out of the room for a few minutes.” They were never in the room during the medical examination. MISREPRESENTATION.

    Your request was not an official OIA request ( I have the emails here) There are specific things you have to do for an OIA, you didn’t. You fired a who lot of shit at the man, which he replied he could not comment on.

    The email NEVER said that he was NEVER Naked. MISREPRESENTATION .

    The post quoted above was after you had been challenged, prior to that you told a whole heap of crap about the event, which I mentioned before.

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

    Kanz (1,121) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
    Why then did you say that you were informed by email that he was in the doorway ALL OF THE TIME?
    You said that on 31st of January, AFTER you had received the email, as I posted above.
    You did not say it once, but repeated the lie a number of times.
    When judith calls you a liar she is telling the truth.

    That is exactly what annoys me so much.
    It is one thing to have an opinion when you haven’t been given the information, but when you are given the information and reword it, and misrepresent it to try and make it have different meaning, then that is just plan nasty.

    I’ll say it again, if justice in this matter cannot be achieved by telling the truth – then any other result will not be justice.

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

    muggins (2,274) Says:
    February 8th, 2013 at 9:12 pm

    … But I really only wanted to know if that police officer who was standing in the doorway saw David Bain naked and he said he was never naked.

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

    These posts were all made after muggins got the email from the police – in every single on of these posts he has lied. There are more but I am not wasting my time finding them. I think these more than adequately reveal the sort of dishonest person he is. In case anyone doubted it.

    muggins (2,086) Says:
    January 25th, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    …Nor was anything that I posted about that police officer who was standing in the doorway when Dr Pryde examined David Bain off the record.

    ————————————

    muggins (1,825) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    Schollum had been working flat-out to put those photos/ videos in chronological order.
    But Schollum was able to find a photo and/or video that showed the lens in Stephen’s room while his body was still there.

    —————————————-
    muggins (1,825) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    …According to the police officer who was standing in the doorway at the time he was never naked. He always had a blanket to cover himself with…
    ——————————————–

    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…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    It is easy to see why muggins constantly says Bain lies. Because telling the truth is beyond muggins himself he thinks everyone else has the same affliction.

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

    Kanz (1,122) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    ———————————-

    well I just hope that anyone reading this is aware of the nature of the Justice for Robin Bain and the Counterspin group, and how they dishonestly represent their information in order to influence people.

    Considering the relationship between them and MVB, it is easy to see why many have such a warped sense of the reality in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    A thumb, a thumb , my thumbs name is Mark lol. A marked thumb and a partridge in a pear tree. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Moving back to the subject of the thread, the title of which now unfortunately reflects on Judith Collins, because it was she that wrote that Binnie ‘may’ have ‘descended into the arena.’ A situation, which as it prevails is from where she wrote, sending out 30 copies of the Binnie report with her ‘own’ concerns listed. As everyone knows she didn’t send a copy of the report to the applicant David Bain as she plainly worked against him from within the ‘arena.’ Last night I mentioned van beynan, the man who vilified Peter Ellis for years, claimed that the 3 Degree programme on the gsr found on the dead daddy’s hands, in a photograph, was distributed in a way that left him out. Who would bet that van beynan didn’t have access to one of those 30 copies to break his ‘news breaking’ story in which he attacked the Binnie report using one of his mythical ‘famous’ lists on the same day the report was ‘released.’ Good on the NZ Herald for continuing to dig and mine the obvious trail left by The Minister, and no wonder why people become frantic that David Bain should drop his review – clearly the truth will out and it will be no less comfortable for the Minister than when she descended into the arena, and we, the public, will find out why.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Judith
    Don’t get old biddy excited, or onto anything sexual she is probably fantasizing over naked images of Bain or dreams about the goat, lets keep it away from kiwiblog eh

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Little Jack Horner
    Sat in the corner
    Eating his curds and whey
    Where’s the Xmas pudding he said
    He put in his thumb and pulled out a plum
    and said ye gods there is a mark on it
    It must have been the spider that done it. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    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 intending to commit suicide shortly afterwards.

    Also interesting that Robin had the presence of mind to wear a watch that fateful morning. God knows why he would need to wear a watch when he was, apparently, intending to kill himself. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,112) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 7:35 pm
    muggins (2,421) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    ————————————-

    Sorry, you are right, it was the 22nd of March, not the 23 that you sent that email to the Minister of Justice’s office. This is from the email concerned ….

    “I am still waiting for an answer to my question…..” and finishes “I would like someone to confirm that. Shouldn’t take a minute”.

    In the line of emails sent about that time you are whinging because they won’t address your correspondence when you think they should have.

    Your carry on over the oral sex issue is pathetic. I said that sex did not have to be intercourse, it could be oral etc etc.
    You decided to post after that I had said the incident with the goat was oral sex. That was what I took except too. I NEVER said it WAS anything but only gave examples of what else it could mean.

    You again deliberately misrepresented what I had said – a big habit of yours.

    You can prove I didn’t change the spelling of the name Kaycee in my documents myself? WOW you do have delusions of grandeur if you think you can possibly know that.

    Judith, I believe that email was to one of Judith Collins secretary’s who I had already emailed some weeks before. It was a query that she should have been able to answer reasonably promptly and I could not understand why it was taking her so long.
    Re the oral sex. Well you were the one who said it could have been oral sex, you were the one who first mentioned it, so don’t blame me for winding you up about it.
    Re Kaycee. You said the dogs name was spelt correctly at times in the retrial transcript. You lied. It was not. I don’t care whether you changed the spelling or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,526) Says:

    June 30th, 2013 at 9:13 am
    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 intending to commit suicide shortly afterwards.

    Also interesting that Robin had the presence of mind to wear a watch that fateful morning. God knows why he would need to wear a watch when he was, apparently, intending to kill himself.

    Yeah, and funny how there was no blood on that watch.
    But ,tell you what. One thing those blow up photos of Robin Bain’s hand shows us is that there was virtually no blood on it.
    Another myth perpetrated by the myth perpetrators.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Vote: 1 2 Judith (3,112) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    These posts were all made after muggins got the email from the police – in every single on of these posts he has lied. There are more but I am not wasting my time finding them. I think these more than adequately reveal the sort of dishonest person he is. In case anyone doubted it.
    muggins (1,825) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    Schollum had been working flat-out to put those photos/ videos in chronological order.
    But Schollum was able to find a photo and/or video that showed the lens in Stephen’s room while his body was still there.

    —————————————-
    muggins (1,825) Says:
    January 29th, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    …According to the police officer who was standing in the doorway at the time he was never naked. He always had a blanket to cover himself with…
    ——————————————–

    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.

    Judith
    Schollum told me he had worked flat out to put those photos in chronological order. He also said there was a photo/ video of that lens in Stephen’s room when Stephen’s body was still there. I am pretty sure all that is in the transcript.
    So no lie there.
    Re the police officer standing in the doorway. Ok ,I accept he probably only arrived there when the examination was virtually over. However I was told that police officer never saw Bain naked and that Bain was in possession of a blanket.
    I was also told the police position was that Bain wasn’t strip-searched.
    I would remind you that a number of Bain’s supporters were saying he was strip-searched. I can’t remember if you were one of them. They were lying.
    Also, I would ask this question. If I was able to find out there were no police officers in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain how come Karam couldn’t? All he had to do was ask David Bain. Why didn’t he ask him?
    I liken my saying that the police officer was in the doorway all the time is a bit like Karam saying David Bain was seen walking the last 300m to his home when he was actually only seen walking for about 5-10 metres.

    I believe that when Dr Pryde examined David Bain he did not strip-search him, and that is the police position.
    I believe that after Dr Pryde had completed his examination David Bain was given that clothing that Det Ross had brought in and he changed out of his clothes and put those clothes on. Dr Pryde probably did not watch him change his clothes. Then his clothes were given to Det R . At some point a police photograher came in and took some photos.

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

    muggins (2,423) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:55 am

    Another myth perpetrated by the myth perpetrators.

    ———————————————————-

    muggins (2,418) Says:
    January 31st, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    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.

    This was a complete and absolute LIE. Not only did you falsely misrepresent what the email said to you – you continued to do so both here and in other places for quite some time after you knew that statement was not true.

    You are the biggest myth perpetrator there is. You have absolutely NO credibility whatsoever.

    muggins (2,088) Says:
    January 30th, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    . ..What I am saying is that David Bain was never naked. He lied to Binnie J.

    You lied, deliberately. You owe David Bain an apology.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    You lied, deliberately. You owe David Bain an apology.

    David owes his family more than an apology…

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

    muggins (2,424) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:55 am

    Schollum told me he had worked flat out to put those photos in chronological order. He also said there was a photo/ video of that lens in Stephen’s room when Stephen’s body was still there. I am pretty sure all that is in the transcript.
    So no lie there.

    There is a total misrepresentation there – Schollum has never put all the photographs in order – you stated he had. On the stand he said he had tried to, that does not mean he had. It was proven in the second trial that his attempts were wrong, that photos he had thought were taken by particular photographers at particular times, were not taken by them.
    Therefore what you were trying to pass off as ‘current’ evidence was actually wrong. You knew that, but in your desire to be the big noter, you continued to pass it off as true.

    Re the police officer standing in the doorway. Ok ,I accept he probably only arrived there when the examination was virtually over. However I was told that police officer never saw Bain naked and that Bain was in possession of a blanket.

    You have not been told, nor do you know at what time during the medical examination that the PO arrived. You were told he was only there to present the new clothes and take the clothes Bain had been in that morning.
    Because the police officer was only at the door he was unable to see whether Bain was naked, the tattoo etc. That information was given to you in response to your questions of whether he had seen Bain naked, and the tattoo etc.

    I was also told the police position was that Bain wasn’t strip-searched.

    What you were told was “Strip searching is an unhelpful descriptor as it means many things to many people. The police position is that he was not strip searched by them, he was a witness at this juncture”.

    The police are not allowed to strip search people unless they are held in custody. No member of the New Zealand Police strip-searched David Bain, Dr Pryde was not a member of the NZ Police. As was pointed out to you, what constitutes a strip search varies between people. Dr Pryde’s examination required David Bain to remove all his clothing. David Bain was stripped naked.

    I would remind you that a number of Bain’s supporters were saying he was strip-searched. I can’t remember if you were one of them. They were lying.

    That is pure semantics – and as you were told in the email, the term strip-search means different things to different people. The police terminology does not mean only their version is acceptable. The fact is, under the instructions of the NZ Police, David Bain underwent an examination that required him to remove all of his clothing and be physically examined – naked. You are not in a position to be calling anyone liars.

    Also, I would ask this question. If I was able to find out there were no police officers in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain how come Karam couldn’t? All he had to do was ask David Bain. Why didn’t he ask him?

    If you found out there was no police officer in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain, why did you make statements saying that there were two police officers that were in the room but came and went at various times during the medical examination.
    How do you know what conversations Joe Karam has had with DB, I am damn sure he doesn’t confide those with you.

    I liken my saying that the police officer was in the doorway all the time is a bit like Karam saying David Bain was seen walking the last 300m to his home when he was actually only seen walking for about 5-10 metres.

    You ability to try and justify your lying is incredible. But thanks for the admission that you do it.

    I believe that when Dr Pryde examined David Bain he did not strip-search him, and that is the police position.

    Where have the police made a statement that Dr Pryde did not strip search David Bain? They said that their stance is that they didn’t strip search. Dr Pryde was not a member of the NZ Police.

    I believe that after Dr Pryde had completed his examination David Bain was given that clothing that Det Ross had brought in and he changed out of his clothes and put those clothes on.

    That is not what R. says happened.

    Dr Pryde probably did not watch him change his clothes. Then his clothes were given to Det R . At some point a police photograher came in and took some photos.

    Unbelieveable! Probably this, believe that ….. none of it good enough excuses for why you deliberately lied on this board and presented falsified information fraudulently claiming that you had been given information you were not given.

    muggins (2,418) Says:
    January 31st, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,114) Says:

    June 30th, 2013 at 11:09 am
    muggins (2,424) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:55 am

    Schollum told me he had worked flat out to put those photos in chronological order. He also said there was a photo/ video of that lens in Stephen’s room when Stephen’s body was still there. I am pretty sure all that is in the transcript.
    So no lie there.

    There is a total misrepresentation there – Schollum has never put all the photographs in order – you stated he had. On the stand he said he had tried to, that does not mean he had. It was proven in the second trial that his attempts were wrong, that photos he had thought were taken by particular photographers at particular times, were not taken by them.
    Therefore what you were trying to pass off as ‘current’ evidence was actually wrong. You knew that, but in your desire to be the big noter, you continued to pass it off as true.

    Judith,
    Where was it proven at the retrial that Schollum got it wrong? He never admitted getting it wrong.
    But the fact remains he told me he was the only person to put those photos/videos in chronological order.
    I bet if you asked any police officer who was early at the crime scene and saw that magazine standing on it’s edge that they would say that is exactly how it was in that photo.
    You won’t accept that and we all know why. You don’t believe Robin Bain could have placed that magazine in that position and then shot himself and fallen down without causing that magazine to fall over.

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

    muggins (2,425) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 11:21 am

    …But the fact remains he told me he was the only person to put those photos/videos in chronological order…

    The NZ Police deny that those photos have ever been put in chronological order and in fact the photographic collection is incomplete.
    Schollum does not claim he has put all the photos in chronological order – so why would he tell you that. Given your lies, as shown above, why should anyone believe your word over his? “he told me”… Yeah Right! More misrepresentations. I know what he says he told you – very different things to what you say.

    The police officers concerned with the incident are not allowed to make statements regarding it. All information must go through official channels. It is only you that thinks they have had these conversations – sadly the people concerned don’t seem to agree with you. Voices in your head perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    If you found out there was no police officer in the room when Dr Pryde examined David Bain, why did you make statements saying that there were two police officers that were in the room but came and went at various times during the medical examination.
    How do you know what conversations Joe Karam has had with DB, I am damn sure he doesn’t confide those with you.

    Judith,
    You are lying again. Show me where I said that two police officers came and went at various times during that medical examination?
    And are you now saying that Karam might have known there was no police officer in the room when Dr Pryde carried out his examination?
    You don’t know what Dr Pryde did or did not do. Only two people know that and one of them is dead and the other is a known liar. And any David Bain supporter who categorically states that David Bain was strip-searched is a liar.
    And as for me having to apologise to David Bain, well I still do not believe he was ever naked. However if he aplogies for all the lies he has told then I will apologise to him for saying he was never naked when he just might have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    And Judith,
    You implied I contacted Judith Collins and asked her to get a wriggle on. You lied. I was following up on an earlier enquiry I had made to the Ministry of Justice.

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

    Muggins, you are a sad pathetic liar – proven by official documentation.
    I warned you that what you were saying was wrong – but you continued.

    You are a sad pathetic old man, and are now scrambling trying to cover your butt – making excuses – putting the blame on everyone else. I have not even mentioned half of the information received regarding correspondence, so I’ll give you another warning – unless you wish to be further publicly disgraced , I suggest you stick to the facts, and stop trying to implicate everyone else in your sordid little fairytales.

    I have no desire to drag you down at your age, you are an elderly gentleman, who through his own admission doesn’t have any interests (email to Collins) – I am more than happy to continue discussing facts of this case with you, and your opinions on it – but if you are going to carrying on along this same path of telling lies and misrepresenting other people, then be it at your own peril.

    When you are stupid enough to lie about things that have been recorded on electronic communications – you deserve to be taken to task over it. Think about it.

    Now I’m off to have some fun in the sunshine. Have a nice day.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    And Judith
    You deliberately lied on this board when you said Kaycee was spelt correctly in the retrial transcript.
    You deliberately lied on this board when you said you didn’t use the word “oral” as in oral sex.
    You deliberately lied on this board when you said you had seen a photo that showed part of David Bain’s torso.
    Now I don’t intend going back and finding all the other lies you have told, that could take me hours if not days.
    You are the last person who should call anyone a liar.

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

    muggins (2,427) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 11:34 am
    Judith,
    You are lying again. Show me where I said that two police officers came and went at various times during that medical examination?

    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.

    That is just the one example I could find quickly, you actually mentioned them a number of times.

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

    muggins (2,428) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 11:45 am
    And Judith
    You deliberately lied on this board when you said Kaycee was spelt correctly in the retrial transcript.
    You deliberately lied on this board when you said you didn’t use the word “oral” as in oral sex.
    You deliberately lied on this board when you said you had seen a photo that showed part of David Bain’s torso.
    Now I don’t intend going back and finding all the other lies you have told, that could take me hours if not days.
    You are the last person who should call anyone a liar

    Aren’t you getting just a wee bit desperate.

    Feel free, but remember to post exactly what I said, not your interpretation Muggins.

    I never said I had SEEN a photo, I said the photo of the tattoo would also show the chest where you said the scratches were – very big difference there.

    I have changed the spelling of Kaycee’s name on the transcripts on my computer. Best of luck proving I haven’t. You can’t blame me because you didn’t clarify where the transcripts were that I was talking about.

    I also only said that I did not say the behaviour with the goat was oral sex. That was your assertion at the time. I have mentioned oral sex as an example of how ‘sex’ does not just have to be intercourse. Again you misrepresent what people say to suit yourself.

    However, go find the posts, and make sure you repost them in their context and not in your words – and I’m sure you will find yourself being asked to make even more apologies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,116) Says:

    June 30th, 2013 at 11:44 am
    Muggins, you are a sad pathetic liar – proven by official documentation.
    I warned you that what you were saying was wrong – but you continued.

    You are a sad pathetic old man, and are now scrambling trying to cover your butt – making excuses – putting the blame on everyone else. I have not even mentioned half of the information received regarding correspondence, so I’ll give you another warning – unless you wish to be further publicly disgraced , I suggest you stick to the facts, and stop trying to implicate everyone else in your sordid little fairytales.

    I have no desire to drag you down at your age, you are an elderly gentleman, who through his own admission doesn’t have any interests (email to Collins) – I am more than happy to continue discussing facts of this case with you, and your opinions on it – but if you are going to carrying on along this same path of telling lies and misrepresenting other people, then be it at your own peril.

    When you are stupid enough to lie about things that have been recorded on electronic communications – you deserve to be taken to task over it. Think about it.

    Now I’m off to have some fun in the sunshine. Have a nice day.

    Judith,
    Don’t try to threaten me, I don’t give in to bullies, as you are well aware.
    However, as you are off for the rest of the day [I presume] I am quite prepared to call a truce as all we are doing at the moment is calling each other a liar .
    Lets wait untill the next discussion re Bain comes up which I guess will be after that judical review. And if you don’t call me a liar again then I won’t call you one.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith,
    I won’t reply to your last post because I don’t want to hold you up any longer.
    I have said all I want to say in my previous post.

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

    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

    There Muggins, I’ll save you some time. This is the post where I mentioned Oral.
    Please show where it says Buckley was having oral sex with the goat, as you claimed I said?

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

    I have official documentation that proves you a liar Muggins.

    And I will continue to use that to show exactly what you are if you continue to misrepresent that information. I have backed up my claims with that information. If you wish to call me a liar, I suggest you back up your claims as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Judith…
    Let Muggins stew in his serial lies.
    Being a serial liar is one step up from being delusional (aka mad, and an escapee from the Mason Clinic ), or on PCP, which his comments often suggest.

    Muggins chose its sobriquet well. It is Apt.

    Moreover, he and Collins would make a good pair.
    Telling the serial adulterer and ex porno Judge what she wanted found iu his Grade 3 essay, is just so bloody dumb it defies understanding. That any Minister of the Crown in NZ, sworn to uphold the truth, the law and justice, would do what she has done is unbelievable, but true..

    Collins has presented NZ to the world as a nation ruled by Ministerial fiat, rather than law and fairness.

    After yesterday NZ Herald piece it is little wonder that J. Key and his spinners, are suggesting withdrawal of the JR so that they can “settle”. But after all that has taken place, I cannot blame Reed and the Bain team, for telling them to get stuffed.

    The Crown Law liars and obfuscators, now that the slippery slope is gathering more ice every day. Their finger nails are breaking off. The death run will soon (well, in the context of this risible judicial system, soon) convey them to the pit. I regret that, because I would not wish that on any person, because they will find the pit full of vipers and pungi sticks.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Judith
    We all know that muggins is a serial liar and cannot substantiate anything he says, I challenge you to find anything verifiable in any of his posts here. I see we are back to his favourite argument of ‘how to spell the dogs name’, this is a most unimportant issue, whether it is spelt Kaycee, Casey or Kasey is neither here nor there.
    Really important factor from Ross that Robin was wearing a watch! whoop de do! maybe he didn’t take it of overnight but I suppose this is all he has, what exactly is your point Ross? the presence of a watch shows what?

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

    flipper (1,794) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
    ——————————–

    Thank you flipper. I had decided to stay in and the find the posts to confirm my statements, but I will leave it and go enjoy the sunshine. Ignoring him takes patience. Something I am very short of. People that deliberately mislead when they have the correct official information in front of them annoy me. I’m sure I’ve made many mistakes, but I would not be so stupid or dishonest to lie about official information in the manner he has.

    As long as others are now aware – that will do.

    As for the rest of your post – I totally agree with every word. The situation is disgusting and very sad for all New Zealanders if this is to be the future of justice in New Zealand.

    As usual, your words of wisdom are appreciated. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Judith..
    You are too kind.
    Off to enjoy the sun (sans wind, )and a sauvignon blanc with lunch. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. Nookin (3,343 comments) says:

    “Telling the serial adulterer and ex porno Judge what she wanted found iu his Grade 3 essay, is just so bloody dumb it defies understanding. ”

    As a matter of interest, can you link to the brief in which Collins gave Fisher express instructions to come up with a specific outcome? Can you link to your authority that Fisher is wrong in his approach to circumstantial evidence? I can link to various authorities that show that he was correct (and have done so previously). Can you also point to the bit in Fisher’s opinion where he says that Binnie reached the wrong conclusion as, supposedly, directed by Collins? I thought he left the ultimate question open and said that Binnie may well have come to the right result. He just got there by applying the wrong tests and that the conclusion was unsafe.

    Given we are talking about one of NZs worst mass murders and a highly complex factual and legal matrix, and given that there is considerable public interest in coming as close to rational resolution as the circumstances permit, why do so many people consider that different opinions are best addressed by descending to personal abuse, ridicule and hyperbole?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,121) Says:

    June 30th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
    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

    There Muggins, I’ll save you some time. This is the post where I mentioned Oral.
    Please show where it says Buckley was having oral sex with the goat, as you claimed I said?

    Judith, you said you didn’t mention the word oral . You did. I never said you said Buckley was having oral sex with that goat,I said you suggested it could have been oral sex. As you have. Stop trying to wriggle out of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Vote: 1 2 muggins (2,431) Says:

    June 29th, 2013 at 11:11 am
    muggins (2,403) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Flipper, pick the bones out of this.

    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 intending to commit suicide shortly afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    http://blogs.artinfo.com/artintheair/2013/03/13/statue-of-god-on-goat-action-earns-british-museums-pompeii-show-a-parental-warning/

    Judith,
    Do you think this is the sort of sexual act that David Bain was referring to?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. flipper (4,065 comments) says:

    Nookin….

    Try yesterday’s NZ Herald…and that is only part of the bad, bad news for the Crown that has yet to come with JR.
    I do not engage in link bullshit.
    If you cannot find that, tough.

    Muggins…
    You have been eating shit with clay yet again.

    Minds immeasurably superior to yours (with apologies to H G Wells)have considered and rejected your garbage (poor fiction) .
    Go regurgitate and F/off, you dmb arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Nookin: …can you link to the brief in which Collins gave Fisher express instructions to come up with a specific outcome? Can you link to your authority that Fisher is wrong in his approach to circumstantial evidence? …. Can you also point to the bit in Fisher’s opinion where he says that Binnie reached the wrong conclusion as, supposedly, directed by Collins?

    Flipper: Try yesterday’s NZ Herald…

    In other words, no. No, he can’t. The reason why is obvious enough.

    Collins has presented NZ to the world as a nation ruled by Ministerial fiat, rather than law and fairness.

    That would be a remarkable achievement on her part. Thing is, the matter of whether to make an ex gratia payment or not genuinely is a matter of Ministerial (well, Cabinet at least) fiat, so isn’t generally applicable to how things work here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Psycho you claim not to be a partesian (although your posts suggest otherwise)
    Maybe you could suggest probabilities for the following circumstantial items implicating Robin
    1. The marks not being powder residue
    2. The red ‘blood like’ staining under the fingernails not being blood
    3. The untested staining and smearing and injuries to his hands not being from the fight with Stephen
    4. The footprints not being his
    5. Robins death being anything other than self inflicted
    combined with an upward trajectory contact wound to his temple where he is almost certainly standing.
    hmm wonder who the killer is, was it the goat or the dingo?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Partisan?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    I’ll ask again, since it doesn’t seem to have been answered on the other thread. Has anyone photoshopped the marks onto the thumbprint? Approximate location?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Snarkle (77) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    I’ll ask again, since it doesn’t seem to have been answered on the other thread. Has anyone photoshopped the marks onto the thumbprint? Approximate location?

    Several people have tried, however, the marks do not line up with the print, but apparently nothing can be drawn from that because the print and the photo are different perspectives/aspects. This link is just one of several I’ve seen explaining why it isn’t possible to draw conclusions from any unskilled attempt. Hope that helps.

    http://www.theforensicgroup.co.nz/forensic-news/robin-bain-finger-marks/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Maybe you could suggest probabilities for the following circumstantial items implicating Robin

    With the usual disclaimer, not qualified to assess probabilities of these etc…

    1. The marks not being powder residue

    Close to 100%, given that the marks show on the fingerprints.

    2. The red ‘blood like’ staining under the fingernails not being blood

    I don’t see a way of putting a probability on that. Nobody knows what was under his fingernails.

    3. The untested staining and smearing and injuries to his hands not being from the fight with Stephen

    High, given that the injuries to his hands look to be cuts and scrapes for the most part.

    4. The footprints not being his

    More likely than not. The footprints could be from either one of them, but given that David is known to have walked around the house and got blood on his socks, while Robin isn’t known to have walked round the house and had no blood on his socks, the probability is higher that they’re David’s.

    5. Robins death being anything other than self inflicted

    Don’t see any way to put a probability on that. None of the scenarios presented either for murder or suicide completely fit the scene, so there’s nothing useful I can say about it. Personally, I find the lack of Robin’s prints on the barrel or silencer suspicious, and that “suicide note” way the fuck beyond suspicious, but what I personally do or don’t find suspicious counts for shit.

    combined with an upward trajectory contact wound to his temple where he is almost certainly standing.

    Oh, I’m not going there again, it was painful enough the first time. Suffice to say I don’t accept your claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Milt
    To hard to admit you might be wrong and you have no explanation consistent with murder. You make me laugh how you can be close to 100% certain that the marks are not powder residue, your qualifications in this? clutching at straws.
    I see you have to resort to the most compromised evidence in the trial being the fingerprints, there is actually a 95% chance that identifiable prints would have been found, they were shown not to be in blood and that every argument put forward by Kim Jones at the retrial that they were was totally wrong.
    Given your suicide argument, I don’t read to much into the language of it, but given the crown conceded Robin probably turned it on I really struggle to see David writing the note. If Robin turned it on then he must have wandered through the house containing 4 bodies while David got into the lounge with the gun without noticing anything.

    I’ve seen you make the claim that you are not totally pro Robin but nothing in any of your posts to suggest this.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    ‘1. The marks not being powder residue

    Close to 100%, given that the marks show on the fingerprints.’

    When did you see the fingerprints? Do you mean the example shown in the herald that was reversed. Please also explain if gsr, gun oil from a magazine for example allows a pristine print in the specific area where contact was made?

    ‘2. The red ‘blood like’ staining under the fingernails not being blood

    I don’t see a way of putting a probability on that. Nobody knows what was under his fingernails.’

    Having blood on his hands and palms means the probability that it was blood is high, that is not discounting his copious blood left on the towel which he obviously handled. The case doesn’t get a ‘discount’ because the police destroyed the sample that falls in David’s favour. He can’t be responsible for inept or deliberately malicious mal practice by police.

    ‘3. The untested staining and smearing and injuries to his hands not being from the fight with Stephen

    High, given that the injuries to his hands look to be cuts and scrapes for the most part.;

    A dental specialist that Robin appeared to have tooth marks on his hand, consistent with coming into contact with the teeth of a young man, others were bruises. The person with blood and cuts and abrasions to his hands, killed with a upward trajectory shot is more probably the killer than the person who the Crown conceded was not in the house when the computer was turned on and whose hands showed no signs of injuries, who also hand no signs of injuries to his face before his fall beside the bed, and who when strip searched had a minor nick on one leg, injuries to his face consistent with the specific fall. Your judgement on the footprints is about as relevant as all your other myopic views.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    ‘I’ve seen you make the claim that you are not totally pro Robin but nothing in any of your posts to suggest this.’

    Frankly anybody that looks at a red substance under the fingernails of a likely killer with blood on him in isolation is a nutter. More so if they haven’t got the common sense to not make a comment on a reversed finger print on a daily newspaper, only to presume they know more about a test they didn’t conduct that a scientist whose work stands intact. He pretends neutrality so he can duck out.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,703) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    The unbiased Milt is obviously more ‘expert’ than the experts, and has been able to view the almost 3000 evidential photos, plus conduct an examination of the exhibits and forensic evidence which has enabled him to rate the percentage of probabilities. He needs to be respected for the copious quantity of research, study and reading he must have done.

    If he had been unable to do all of that, he would have qualified his statement with “as an uninformed, inexperienced and unqualified person, who has not examined the evidence in person or been privvy to all the information pertaining this case, I make a guess at the probabilities of being…..”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    I’ve seen you make the claim that you are not totally pro Robin but nothing in any of your posts to suggest this.

    I’m not “pro-Robin” – it’s entirely possible he was a child abuser and multiple murderer. I just find that less likely than the alternative. There is no “knowing” what happened in this case – if David was the killer, he isn’t going to tell us what happened, and if he isn’t the killer, he can’t tell us what happened. Those who pretend to certainty about which of them was the killer are doing just that – pretending.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,375) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    …pretending.

    Isn’t that what you are doing when you put an empirical figure on something you don’t have the skills and ability to do?

    We all argue the points backwards and forwards, but you and a couple of egotistical fools from Counterspin have been the only ones I’ve seen actually put a figure on the BoP, based on ?? what? A hunch? A hunch does not produce an empirical figure of this kind – or at least it shouldn’t do.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Pele (57 comments) says:

    One thing is for sure,

    David typed the message on the computer.

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Mirror in the alcove
    please talk free

    The door is locked
    just you and me.

    Can I take you to a living room
    that’s got glass tables,

    You can watch yourself
    while you are shooting …..

    Mirror in the alcove
    I just can’t stop it,
    Find no interest in the
    racks and shelves

    Just a thousand reflections
    of my own sweet self …

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Isn’t that what you are doing when you put an empirical figure on something you don’t have the skills and ability to do?

    Hence the disclaimer pointing out it’s an unqualified opinion. If someone asks me for my opinion on something, I’m usually happy to provide it. Tell you what, though – if I start arguing from authority based on all this info that’s in my possession but isn’t in the public domain, feel free to call me a bullshitter.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,376) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    ————————–

    Are you trying to have a dig at me for using the O.I.A that is available to anyone? That smacks of Muggin’s “it’s your fault for looking” whinge Milt.

    It doesn’t matter if its in the public domain or not – if it can be accessed legally, albeit by a bit of bother, then you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist. If you are going to limit acceptability to only what is accessible on the internet, then you are not going to get anywhere near the truth, are you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Judith you are a known liar, simply relating that others lie, does not deflect from your known failings.

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Frankly anybody that looks at a red substance under the fingernails of a likely killer with blood on him in isolation is a nutter.

    Meh. “Nobody knows what was under Robin Bain’s fingernails” is a statement of fact, not lunacy. And when it comes down to who has more to worry about in the Mental Health Issues dept, my money’s on the half dozen or so people who can turn up to any Kiwiblog thread about David Bain and deliver 1000+ comments all rehashing the same stuff from the last 1000+ comments thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    The unbiased Milt is obviously more ‘expert’ than the experts, and has been able to view the almost 3000 evidential photos, plus conduct an examination of the exhibits and forensic evidence…

    See, this is one of the interesting psychological things that draws me back to these threads: the idea that this is so awesomely complicated that only someone who’s devoted themselves to examining the 3000 photos, the various holy documents and the sacred evidence relics could possibly come to a conclusion about what happened. And sure – if we were planning the prosecution or defence cases for/against David Bain, we’d have to arrange some people to sort through all that shit. The thing is, we’re not doing that, we’re blathering about the case on a blog comments thread, and for our purposes it’s really fairly simple – there are some items of circumstantial evidence and a sizeable collection of witness gossip: discuss.

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

    Some seem to be having trouble finding this article

    A 34-point list of issues attacking the case for David Bain’s innocence was compiled by Justice Minister Judith Collins and sent to the former High Court judge she appointed to “peer review” the case.

    The list was sent with her letter of instruction to Robert Fisher QC, who prepared a report which dismissed the finding of former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie that Mr Bain was probably innocent.

    It has prompted Opposition parties to accuse Mrs Collins of bias and attempting to rort Mr Bain’s claim for compensation, filed after he was found not guilty in 2009 of murdering his family. It was the second murder trial stemming from the 1994 murders – Mr Bain was convicted of murder at the first and spent 13 years in prison before the original verdict was quashed.

    In November 2011, the retired Justice Binnie was appointed by former Justice Minister Simon Power to investigate the case. By the time Justice Binnie reported the following August 30, Mrs Collins was Justice Minister. She had the report reviewed and then dismissed Justice Binnie’s findings.

    Her rejection led to Mr Bain putting the compensation bid on hold and filing court proceedings to get a judicial review of the case.

    The Weekend Herald has learned almost 30 copies of the report were made in the week after Mrs Collins received it, and they were distributed widely – but not to Mr Bain’s lawyers or supporters.

    Police received a copy and prepared two rebuttals to Justice Binnie’s findings. It is understood the Crown Law Office also received copies.

    After having the report for 27 days, Mrs Collins, documents show, asked Mr Fisher to review the findings and “provide advice to me on whether or not you agree with his conclusion” of probable innocence.

    She attached to the report a bundle of documents including the police critique, and a separately marked “Appendix B” – a list of 34 points marked “confidentially and legally privileged” criticising Justice Binnie. The document is not headed or signed, but is referred to in Mrs Collins’ letter: “A synopsis of other concerns that have been conveyed to me is set out in Appendix B to this letter.”

    The top points directly criticise Justice Binnie, saying the language and analysis he used “may give rise to concerns that the judge has ‘descended into the arena’.” The term describes a judicial officer who has been captured by one side of a case.

    The remaining 33 points highlight detailed points of argument from the case, likely to be known only by those with an indepth knowledge. Among the points are references to Crown submissions from the case – and claims made by the prosecution dismissed by defence witnesses.

    Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said Mrs Collins must explain where the unsourced briefing paper came from and the source of the information it contained. She questioned whether it was secret knowledge learned through Cabinet roles.

    “If she has provided Mr Fisher with detailed information only she is privy to as Minister of Justice or Minister of Police there is a very serious conflict issue here … . she has let personal bias get in the way.”

    Labour justice spokesman Andrew Little said the process for compensation and pardon needed to be lifted out of political office. “It’s open to political abuse and I think that’s what has happened in the Bain case.”

    A spokeswoman for Mrs Collins would only comment that “this matter is currently before the court”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893699

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

    This is a very interesting comment; I don’t know who wrote it, it was an unnamed comment on another blog. I hope they don’t mind me reposting it here. I think it raises some very good points regarding this issue:

    “A disturbing thing about the reaction to the 3rd Degree program by Government, Van Beynen and Police is the harmony of their response.

    The Police come out and disparage the pathologist (Dempster) by implying he didn’t do his job properly, and the program makers by plaintively complaining that they had been left out. They then throw around words like ‘expert’ to support a claim that the marks on the thumb were cuts. But they didn’t *show* whether those marks lined up with the marks on the thumbprint, they just stated that they were cuts. They left themselves an out by saying that they were going to look into it; but, like the Fisher report, the result of the investigation is decided before the investigation takes place.

    Then Van Beynen toes the blue line with his attack on 3rd Degree and implicitly on Karam, by claiming that Melanie Reid was taken in. He parrots the police line on the marks being cuts (disregarding the forensic photographer’s examination), and concludes by parroting the other police line about the preponderance of evidence being against David. Predictable.

    And this morning in the Herald, ‘Senior government sources’ are saying that “I find it hard to believe the prosecution didn’t see that” and “…if you read Binnie’s report there is actually nothing in it that points to David not doing it”. Well, if that’s a senior government source, heaven help us all because the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Meanwhile Collins doesn’t comment because she’s overseas, and Keys does his usual gauche evasion.

    This smacks of deliberate strategy. The strategy appears to be: redefine the marks on the thumb, rubbish the experts, protect the boys, focus on the (fictional) ‘mountain of evidence’ against David, swing the media back to the ‘guilty’ view and delay, delay, delay so that we have time to work out what we do and hopefully make sure this doesn’t impact on the election.

    NONE of this is about truth or justice. David Fisher’s revelations in the Herald makes that much very obvious.

    The Police rejected the findings of the Royal Commission on Thomas. So did the then Solicitor-General. Presumably, therefore, as far as the Police and Crown Law go, Thomas is still considered the murderer of the Crewes. Bush’s statement (as police representative) at Hutton’s funeral show a sick and disturbing inability to acknowledge imperfection in the Force.

    When will they learn that perfection is not required nor possible, and that it’s the putting right that counts? Until they do, we have a Police and justice system deeply caught in noble cause corruption – and however noble the cause, it’s corruption just the same.

    This is no longer about Bain. This is about all of us and the system we allow. The Police must not be allowed to be an unquestioned authority supported unquestioningly by the government. ” end of comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    flipper (1,802) Says:

    June 30th, 2013 at 2:39

    Muggins…
    You have been eating shit with clay yet again.

    Minds immeasurably superior to yours (with apologies to H G Wells)have considered and rejected your garbage (poor fiction) .
    Go regurgitate and F/off, you dmb arse.

    How’s this for a reply from a typical David Bain supporter.
    Flipper, anyone who believes David Bain was not the perpetrator, does not even have half a mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,158) Says:

    June 30th, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    Psycho Milt (1,376) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
    ————————–

    Are you trying to have a dig at me for using the O.I.A that is available to anyone?

    Judith, I must admit I wasn’t aware that one can use the O.I.A to check on emails between me and the office of the Minister of Justice.

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

    Snarkle (91) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    Judith, if DB is entitled to use alternative explanations to dismiss what looks like evidence against him, then RB is as well. You cannot have it both ways. Many people (I am one) am prepared to accept DB’s innocence if the killer evidence is there. For example, if an independent and knowledgable review of the thumbprint concluded it was almost certainly from handling the magazine then that would be just about game over.

    That would be very wise. You can be assured that will be done. You can also be assured that the police experiment to date has not provided them with any conclusive answers.

    But despite RB being dead, we surely are entitled to a reasonable standard of examination of the “evidence” against him before we accept he is a psychopathic killer who fiddled with his daughters and hated everyone in his family bar his star son.

    I have never heard anyone with the ability to do so, call Robin Bain a psychopath. There is nothing about those murders that indicates whoever killed David or Robin, was a psychopath. I don’t believe Robin Bain hated his family at all. I think it was in fact his love for his family that drove him over the edge. His estrangement from them. His lack of control over his employment, his relationship with his wife etc, saw him lose his position within the family. It is my opinion that he loved his family so much, the pain of being rejected by them, added to his mental confusion – lets not forget Robin was a very religous man – his beliefs meant he didn’t see physical death as the end of life.

    You’d want the same if it were you who were accused of serious crimes whether or not you were alive to contest it.

    Robin’s case has been contested by the Crown, and has had investigation – to the best of the ability under circumstances in which the police destroyed most of the evidence.

    A lot of people look at the evidence, Judith, and can’t get past a number of inconvenient facts like the killer wore gloves.

    There has been a lot written about parents who kill their loved ones and wear protection, because the thought of having their blood on them is very disturbing. Gloves are just as consistent with that, as being worn to stop fingerprints. What you are suggesting is that David wore gloves to hide fingerprints, but he used his own gun, thus implicating himself?

    No one knows what was going through Robin’s mind that morning, but that doesn’t mean because you can’t find an explanation that suits you, it didn’t happen.

    You need to have a better explanation than “that guy sure was crazy” to quell our doubts that an innocent man is being wrongly accused of just about the worst crimes imaginable in order that someone else can pretend there’s absolutely no case to answer, thank you very much, I’ll have it in $US if you don’t mind.

    I’ve never said Robin was ‘crazy’. I think that Robin was suffering from the effects of his life situation that placed him under tremendous stress. I believe that something occurred in that house, that night, that made him become momentarily unhinged. Possibly an argument that he sat and thought about, when coupled with the other dysfunction in his life, made it impossible for him to balance – I think his temporary lapse made him believe that by killing his family they would all be removed to a better place, however, the fight with Stephen would have come as a shock, and from that moment on his plan for a peaceful and quick departure became untenable, and he acted on instinct alone. I think after he killed the first four, he sat and thought about the situation for a while, which is when reality began to set in – perhaps even the blood on him from his loved ones shocked him and he realised the only thing to do, rather than have to live with the pain of what he’d done, was to kill himself. He typed the message (something not unrealistic for a computer fanatic) “you are the only one that deserves to stay” – (the word was recorded at the scene by two people as deserves and not deserved as was later quoted at trial). By that message I think he meant between the only two left alive – him and David. He then made sure he shot himself before David could stop him, and he would have to then live with the deaths on his conscience.

    It is not just a matter of accepting that because you don’t like the thought that a father could do that to his family, it is a matter of accepting it does frequently happen, and that this family was dysfunctional to the max. That Robin Bain was treated by his wife, and to a certain extent his family, as a person of little consequence. For a proud person like Robin Bain, his fall in professional, personal, and intimate standards must have been very hard to cope with. Robin Bain was not a raving lunatic, or a psychopath. He was a loving father who needed help, and who society and all the people that saw he was struggling, ignored. You want to point the finger at who is responsible for these deaths – take a look in the mirror and ask yourself, when you see someone struggling and depressed, do you turn your back or do you lend them a hand, an ear to help them ?

    David Bain didn’t kill his family. There is no evidence that proves he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,378) Says:

    June 30th, 2013 at 9:39 pm
    Frankly anybody that looks at a red substance under the fingernails of a likely killer with blood on him in isolation is a nutter.

    Meh. “Nobody knows what was under Robin Bain’s fingernails” is a statement of fact, not lunacy. And when it comes down to who has more to worry about in the Mental Health Issues dept, my money’s on the half dozen or so people who can turn up to any Kiwiblog thread about David Bain and deliver 1000+ comments all rehashing the same stuff from the last 1000+ comments thread.

    Psycho Milt.
    Yes, “Nobody knows what was under Robin Bain’s fingernails” is a statement of fact and looking at those blow up photos it appears to be mainly dirt, with maybe a bit of rust from that old spouting.
    And I also agree with your second comment. I am expecting men wearing white coats to be knocking on my door any minute as soon as they have picked up Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith, please.
    David’s gloves were found in Stephen’s room, covered in blood.
    The only identifiable prints on the rifle belonged to David,and they were in pristine condition.
    David had Stephen’s blood on his clothes.
    The glasses that were found damaged in David’s room were a pair that David said he had worn before when his were unavailable as was the case that weekend. David had also told his lawyer and his aunt he had been wearing those glasses that weekend.
    A lens from those glasses was found in Stephen’s room.
    David had bruises on his head and torso consistent with him having been in a fight and/or struggle.
    The doctor who examined him at 11.20am said those bruises on his head were over 5 hours old.
    David told the 111 operator that all his family were dead, then later said he had only seen his mother and father.
    David changed his story when he took the stand as to who owned the green jersey, by which time he knew the police had been able to link it to the killer.
    David heard his sister Laniet gurgling in a way that pathologists said he would have heard if she had been shot through the cheek and was still alive.
    David saw his mother’s eyes open when experts said her eyes would have closed shortly after she was shot through the eyelid.
    David, for some unknown reason waited 20 minutes before phoning the emergency services .
    David said he put the washing on when he arrived home yet the washing machine, when tested, took an hour to complete it’s cycle, so it should have still been running when the police arrived.
    Robin Bain’s head appeared to have been moved subsequent to his death and before the police arrived.
    The shell from the bullet that killed his father was found in the computer alcove.
    Laniet told acqaintances that she did not want to go to that family meeting David had called because he was freaky and she was frightened of him.
    David washed that green jersey in the washing machine when his mother had given strict instructions that all hand knitted garments were to be washed by hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It is not just a matter of accepting that because you don’t like the thought that a father could do that to his family, it is a matter of accepting it does frequently happen, and that this family was dysfunctional to the max.

    You don’t like the idea that a son could murder his family. That’s despite the fact that we have examples like Jeremy Bamber, Nehemiah Griego and the Menendez brothers who did just that. So, explain to me why David couldn’t have killed his family?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    BTW where is the rifle now?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The unbiased Milt is obviously more ‘expert’ than the experts, and has been able to view the almost 3000 evidential photos, plus conduct an examination of the exhibits and forensic evidence…

    That’s interesting because Joe Karam must’ve seen that photo of Robin lying outstretched a million times. Yet he failed to notice the “smoking gun” of those twin lines on Robin’s fingers. It makes you think…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    BTW where is the rifle now?

    In David’s possession?

    I thought 3rd Degree might have asked why David wanted his gun back and whether he’s used it lately. That’s the real story.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    A disturbing thing about the reaction to the 3rd Degree program by Government, Van Beynen and Police is the harmony of their response.

    That isn’t an interesting comment, it’s a silly one. The harmony of their responses is best put down to the issues with Karam and Reed’s TV3-assisted latest gambit being ones that were obvious to a range of interested parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    The tv3 programme stated that it had been released from the High Court for their purposes. I would assume that it has been returned there. The Crown wouldn’t want to be accused of misplacing any further evidence now would they? Just as well it hadn’t been returned to David as he requested, it couldn’t be claimed that it was in the same condition if it had.

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

    More absolute lies from the Counterspinners.

    It clearly stated on the TV3 program that the rifle was held by the courts and that it was accompanied to the testing by a Police Officer and Crown Forensic Expert Walsh. It was requested by the only party other than the Crown that can request it – the defence. TV3 did not request it. Goldnkiwi is full of shit. Anyone that did watch the program will remember that fact – so yet again you’ve proved what a pack of idiots you are.

    David Bain made a request for his person items confiscated by the police at the time of his arrest to be returned. I think it was MVB that decided to turn that into David asking for his rifle back.

    Such is the integrity of the Counterspinners/JFRB and their associates. You can’t believe a word they say because they spin everything to their advantage.

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

    My reply to muggins (2,437) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    ——————————

    Why should anyone believe the word of someone that lies about official information he has received Muggins.
    You have no credibility and neither does your list of fantasies and misrepresented and dishonest points.

    As a member of Justice for Robin Bain, and Counterspin – you have demonstrated exactly how that group operates to disseminate false information with the intention of influencing public opinion. You are a liar.

    muggins (2,427) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 11:34 am
    Judith,
    You are lying again. Show me where I said that two police officers came and went at various times during that medical examination?

    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.

    The email you received from the Police stated in the first line No police officer was in the room….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

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

    Note Micheal Reed at about 1.50
    Q. Fingernail scrapings in a homicide enquiry where the fingernail scrapings showed a red substance might alert a detective mightn’t it tto the fact that they ought to be tested for blood
    A. Yes it could
    Q. Well why wasn’t that done
    a. I don’t know

    Which is why we don’t know for sure what it is thanks to the ‘textbook’ investigation, but very likely to be blood and no other explanations as to what it is except retarted suggestions from the CS witchsniffers such as ‘rust marks from the guttering’

    I wonder how Daddy got blood under his fingernails? hmm maybe this is residue from the hand which wore those bloody gloves

    “is a statement of fact”
    Nothing posted in any KB thread from Aunt Fanny is a statement of fact, the opposite of what it says will be almost certainly true

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    To a point I agree that I could have worded that slightly better. I agree that they could not request it. The point was that the programme stated that it was held in the High Court,

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Some more of the ‘non existant’ blood on Daddy, from another blog site originally from Det Mark Lodges 1995 statement reproduced in D & G, most of this was neither collected or tested.

    (1) There is a red ‘blood like’ substance round the periphery and under Robins finger nails
    How did it get there from his head wound?

    (2) There are blood spots on his track pants behind the right knee.
    How did they get there from his head wound?

    (3) There is blood behind his right shoulder.
    How did it get there from his head wound?

    (4) There is blood behind his right elbow.
    How did it get there from his head wound?

    (5) There is blood on the ball of his left thumb and on the little finger of that hand.
    How did that get there from his head wound?

    (6) There are heavy bloodstains on the front of the hood of his jacket, on the back of the hood of his jacket and on the beanie that is trapped in the hood of his jacket.
    How did they get there and how or when did they get knocked off if David was the killer?

    None of which the witch sniffers will have any sort of explanation for as it doesn’t follow the ‘spin’ they like to cling to

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Pele (57 comments) says:

    And so they gather,

    Judith the liar, Nostalgia the murdering scumbag, Rowan the ass and soon, Kanz the ass’s arse ….

    Desperate to stop the avalanche of material pointing to the golden child,

    deflect, dodge, misinterpret and outright lies, and FILL the pages with it, hoping vainly that DF will close the page, before they are shown to be, the liars and hypocrites that they are.

    Everyone knows, david typed the message on the computer, what narcissism indeed, was there really a mirror in the alcove !

    [DPF: 30 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Are you in or out of a room if you are standing in a doorway? It would seem to me that the doorway is no man’s land.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,161) Says:

    July 1st, 2013 at 4:57 pm
    My reply to muggins (2,437) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    ——————————

    Why should anyone believe the word of someone that lies about official information he has received Muggins.
    You have no credibility and neither does your list of fantasies and misrepresented and dishonest points.

    As a member of Justice for Robin Bain, and Counterspin – you have demonstrated exactly how that group operates to disseminate false information with the intention of influencing public opinion. You are a liar.

    muggins (2,427) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 11:34 am
    Judith,
    You are lying again. Show me where I said that two police officers came and went at various times during that medical examination?

    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.

    The email you received from the Police stated in the first line No police officer was in the room….

    A classic example of how Judith twists things.
    I did not say there was any police officer in the room at the time of Dr Pryde’s examination. I said there was one police officer in the doorway. I now realise that he probably wasn’t in the doorway when Dr Pryde examined David Bain.
    However ,what I have said palls in comparison to Judith’s lying about David Bain being strip-searched.
    She does not know that and she is lying every time she makes that statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Quickly, quickly, children, spread your filth, because the just and true are here and we will VANQUISH the liars and vandals to the hell they deserve …

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith, I must admit I wasn’t aware that one can use the O.I.A to check on emails between me and the office of the Minister of Justice.

    Judith,care to comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Pele @ 5.36
    Oh look the vindictive bitch is back,
    “was there really a mirror in the alcove !”
    I suggest you look in it you evil piece of shit

    Muggins
    Lies lies lies and more misrepresentation we all know whose twisting

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    muggins (2,438) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Judith, I must admit I wasn’t aware that one can use the O.I.A to check on emails between me and the office of the Minister of Justice.

    That was patently obvious when you thought you could lie and misrepresent what you were told without being called out on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Squeal little pigs, squeal, before I shove the rod up your arse and out your throat and roast you over the flame …

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    I like the following explanation for the glasses from
    http://laudafinem.com/2013/01/01/john-keys-rent-boy-cam-slater-wants-to-fuck-bain-badly-using-a-corrupt-district-court-judge/

    “Apparently according to Slater Guest raised the admission with the Crown counsel during the trial, but it was agreed with counsel Bill Wright that this “startling admission” should not be raised with the Judge nor the Jury as there only remained 3 days in the trial.
    Slater then goes on endlessly to explain what is obvious. If Bain lied about one thing he might have lied about others. Whoa Tiger slow down- let us catch up with your genius….
    What thickfuck Slater doesn’t understand is that no matter where the various bits of those glasses were found, it remains as possible that the Police “planted” the evidence as they did in the Thomas case, or there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation not inculpatory to Bain.
    Further the admission does not of itself hurt Bain as claimed as his admission only relates to a time a day prior about wearing his mothers glasses, we presume for reading. This is all resting on the premise that Guest can be trusted to be telling the truth, which we doubt due to matters raised later in this article.
    Slater then goes on to claim that David was unlikely to be able to kill his family without the glasses. Geez Cam you should get a set of fucking glasses and redo the third form for the sixth fucking time. Bain allegedly killed his father after dispensing with Steven, so Bain did not have the glasses at that time as the crown case is that the glasses were destroyed during the fight when Steven unsuccessfully tried to defend himself against his killer.
    Therefore as the glasses were unnecessary for Bain to have committed the murders, so why would Bain have worn them. In fact the glasses would have been a hindrance, rather than a help as all victims were shot at relatively close range.

    Therefore they are not the “piece of evidence” that proves anything other than it is possible that Robin Bain may have worn them, or someone might have planted them there. We just have to remember the evidence of the axles and stubs that were found around the body of the Crewe’s and the matching automotive parts found on the Thomas’s farm. Again a Police “invention” of “reliability and importance” as to how that evidence “came about”.”

    I wonder if the thick as pigs*** counterspinners can grasp this concept “In fact the glasses would have been a hindrance, rather than a help as all victims were shot at relatively close range.” but in their minds there is no other explanation than “they must have got there in the fight with Stephen”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Rowan (889) Says:

    July 1st, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    Note Micheal Reed at about 1.50
    Q. Fingernail scrapings in a homicide enquiry where the fingernail scrapings showed a red substance might alert a detective mightn’t it tto the fact that they ought to be tested for blood
    A. Yes it could
    Q. Well why wasn’t that done
    a. I don’t know

    Which is why we don’t know for sure what it is thanks to the ‘textbook’ investigation, but very likely to be blood and no other explanations as to what it is except retarted suggestions from the CS witchsniffers such as ‘rust marks from the guttering’

    I wonder how Daddy got blood under his fingernails? hmm maybe this is residue from the hand which wore those bloody gloves

    “is a statement of fact”
    Nothing posted in any KB thread from Aunt Fanny is a statement of fact, the opposite of what it says will be almost certainly true

    Rowan,
    First of all you have spelt Michael incorrectly.
    Secondly you don’t know what that substance was under Robin Bain’s fingernails, but as I have quite often cleaned out guttering it looks to me like the rust I used to get under my fingernails when I carried out that chore [and I also got plenty of nicks on my hands at the same time].
    Thirdly ‘ From the hand who wore those bloody gloves”.
    For your information a hand does not wear bloody gloves. Also ,I would have thought whoever wore those gloves wore one on each hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Whoop de do
    You can spell retard, wow you have now got one thing right yes the wearer of the gloves did wear one on each hand, this does not materially change the substance of what was posted

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Do many people reload a spare mag when they are going to shoot themselves in the head thinking “shit I may need 10 or so shots to do the job properly!”

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,125) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    muggins (2,438) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Judith, I must admit I wasn’t aware that one can use the O.I.A to check on emails between me and the office of the Minister of Justice.

    That was patently obvious when you thought you could lie and misrepresent what you were told without being called out on it.’

    Precisely.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Muggins, perhaps you should do an OIA on the alleged OIA. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Colville (906) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    Do many people reload a spare mag when they are going to shoot themselves in the head thinking “shit I may need 10 or so shots to do the job properly!”’

    Very funny, it’s great when the ‘b’ team reveal how little they know about Robin’s mission.

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

    Colville (906) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    Do many people reload a spare mag when they are going to shoot themselves in the head thinking “shit I may need 10 or so shots to do the job properly!”
    ———————————

    The Bain gun was extremely unreliable, and frequently misfed therefore using more bullets than usual. That is why it was necessary to reload the magazine. It wasn’t however reloaded to capacity.

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

    @ goldnkiwi (426) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    You can do, but first you have to have the name of the person you are requesting the information about.

    If you do not have that, then all personal details will be blanked out on the information you receive. So basically all you would get is a letter showing what information was requested. If you want that information, just ask, although I think its pretty obvious what was asked for.

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

    Rowan (892) Says: July 1st, 2013 at 5:58 pm
    I wonder if the thick as pigs*** counterspinners can grasp this concept “In fact the glasses would have been a hindrance, rather than a help as all victims were shot at relatively close range.” but in their minds there is no other explanation than “they must have got there in the fight with Stephen”

    But the executioner only got closer to the victims AFTER the fight with Stephen.

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,125) Says:

    July 1st, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    muggins (2,438) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Judith, I must admit I wasn’t aware that one can use the O.I.A to check on emails between me and the office of the Minister of Justice.

    That was patently obvious when you thought you could lie and misrepresent what you were told without being called out on it.

    Kanz,
    Are you Judith?
    That email was not one I received from the MOJ, it was one I sent to the MOJ.
    So I say again, I was not aware that one could use the OIA to find out what was in an email that I sent to the MOJ.
    I am starting to smell a rat ,here. Why are other people answering on Judith’s behalf? The plot thickens.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Pick the school teacher, children stalker.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Pele (57) Says:

    July 1st, 2013 at 6:26 pm
    Rowan (892) Says: July 1st, 2013 at 5:58 pm
    I wonder if the thick as pigs*** counterspinners can grasp this concept “In fact the glasses would have been a hindrance, rather than a help as all victims were shot at relatively close range.” but in their minds there is no other explanation than “they must have got there in the fight with Stephen”

    But the executioner only got closer to the victims AFTER the fight with Stephen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    @ goldnkiwi (426) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    You can do, but first you have to have the name of the person you are requesting the information about.

    If you do not have that, then all personal details will be blanked out on the information you receive. So basically all you would get is a letter showing what information was requested. If you want that information, just ask, although I think its pretty obvious what was asked for.’

    I wouldn’t tell them anything, after all they’re all experts. Much more fun to laugh at them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    It is true, Muggins does change his name lol ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Judith.
    Unreliable?
    How many rounds were recovered from the house that had firing pin impact but no ignition?
    Even one?

    What utter bollocks.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith (3,164) Says:

    July 1st, 2013 at 6:20 pm
    Colville (906) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    Do many people reload a spare mag when they are going to shoot themselves in the head thinking “shit I may need 10 or so shots to do the job properly!”
    ———————————

    The Bain gun was extremely unreliable, and frequently misfed therefore using more bullets than usual. That is why it was necessary to reload the magazine. It wasn’t however reloaded to capacity.

    Judith, why change the magazines when there was still three bullets in the 10 shot magazine?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,716) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    Pick the school teacher, children stalker.

    *nods vigorously*

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith,
    There was nothing in that email that you would have needed to know about, so why did you use the OIA to see what was in it? Or did you find out that information some other way. I do intend to find out,whether you tell me or not.

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

    muggins (2,441) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:27 pm
    ———————————–

    LOL why so suspicious Muggins? Just because you use dishonest means to disseminate your information, doesn’t mean everyone else does.

    Kanz was passing an opinion, and as far as I know there are no rules about answering comments addressed to other people. I do it all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Someone is rattled Judith, must be a bugger being sprung as the biggest b..ser on the internet.

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

    muggins (2,444) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    —————————–

    I told you I was applying under OIA to confirm exactly what the truth was. I warned you time and time again that what you were doing would have consequences for your group and that the truth could be accessed by the OIA and you scoffed at me.

    You were giving information that you could not verify. It was information that wasn’t in the public domain and you told us where you got it from. I did not believe you, so I exercised my right to request copies on any correspondence between you (and some other people) and the Minister of Justice. Because you have revealed your real name on public sites, your name was in the public domain, just like Cameron Slaters, and therefore it was permissible for that information to be released. However, they blanked out your contact details etc and only sent the body of the emails.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    So according to the Robin Did It crowd, Robin reloaded a spare mag to save himself the hardship of doing that while trying to shoot himself in the temple with an unreliable rifle.

    What crap.

    Here is a hint. Its a semi auto, so if it ‘misfed’ that only happens after firing another round, so assuming that Robin looked at the weapon prior to putting it to his temple its a non issue. Liive round in the chamber all good to go, pop and dead duck.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,718) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:40 pm
    Someone is rattled Judith, must be a bugger being sprung as the biggest b..ser on the internet.
    ————————————

    Well hopefully he has learned a very big lesson and will in future ensure he does not tell lies to promote his own interests and make himself appear as a big noter – in the future.

    He can’t say he wasn’t warned. He has discredited his entire organisation. I told him that at the time but he was more concerned about a goat, than his own reputation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Can anyone tell me how many rounds were expended and how many were fired during the event?

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

    muggins (2,444) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    Judith,
    There was nothing in that email that you would have needed to know about,

    So you don’t think I am entitled to know the truth about the strip-search, but you are?

    So you aren’t just dishonest, but have delusions of grandeur too. I am just as entitled to know if the information you were posting was true, as you were to ask for that information in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,718) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Someone is rattled Judith, must be a bugger being sprung as the biggest b..ser on the internet.

    That’ll teach him for being such a big-noter, and lying with it. It would have impressed his mates in JFRB, I am told idiots are easily impressed.

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

    Colville (909) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:52 pm

    The 3 degree program is available on line at TV3 and in it there is all the information you require about the magazine, how many shots were fired, misfed, found live etc etc. I believe off hand a total of 19 rounds were accounted for.

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

    Kanz (1,127) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:56 pm
    ——————————-

    LOL I love it!

    An even bigger idiot when he was told what the consequences would be, and continued to lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    And didn’t place his ‘thumb’ on the stock as shown on third degree. ‘Judith’? I recall asking you questions directly before which you took umbrage at, so kind of you to speak for Muggins, as it is well known that you speak as one. lol
    They might as well have counted the shells on David’s floor instead of stopping at 19. Where would this alleged reloading have taken place? Back in David’s room?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Longknives (4,746 comments) says:

    “I warned you time and time again that what you were doing would have consequences ”

    For fuck’s sake- This is an Internet Blog.
    We are ALL entitled to our opinions- I believe that David Bain is guilty as sin and you Judith somehow believe that he is innocent (and somehow fell asleep after finding his sister seriously injured etc etc)..
    I would still never try to deny you the right to Freedom of Speech!

    It seems that as soon as someone takes you on.. You, Nostalgia and co threaten them with ‘Defamation’ and all sorts of ‘scary’ repercussions (Note- This is eerily familiar with the tactics used by Joe Karam to scare off journalists!)

    Grow up! You are entitled to your opinion (and to offer evidence etc) as is Muggins.
    Rant over. Enjoy the rest of the debate..

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

    Colville Re: at 6:52 pm

    11 rounds were fired
    4 rounds were found unfired with evidence of jamming/misfeed
    0 were misfires
    2 were still in the 5 shot magazine in the rifle
    2 or 3 were still in the 10 shot magazine beside Robins hand
    that makes it 19 or 20 in total that were loaded into the magazines.

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

    Longknives (2,639) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 6:59 pm
    —————————–

    But he wasn’t passing an opinion Longknives. He was posting what he said was official information stating it was true fact. He was quoting other people (police officers) as having given him that information.

    he had been sent the official information and knew the truth, but lied about what that was.

    Yes we are all entitled to our opinions, but to falsely represent something in that manner is not acceptable.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    gamefisher (409) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 7:02 pm

    One of those unfired misfeeds was found beside the rifle. Strange that Robin waited for someone else to clear that jam before shooting him, what a patient and understanding man he must have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Judith.

    Like I would believe anything put on air by TV3 , I mean is there a more discredited “news’ organisation in NZ?

    The fact that you would put TV3 forward and a source shows me how seriously fucked in the head and desperate you are.

    Campbell Live ? honesty in reporting? ha ha fucking ha.

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

    Colville (910) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 7:16 pm
    ——————————

    Oh for goodness sake, you asked for the information. I am not aware of what resources you have, or what access you have to various databases. I was trying to provide you with a quick solution – one that I see Gamefisher was able to confirm the same number.

    It appears to me that you don’t really want the information, you just want the argument . Sorry I tried to help, I certainly won’t bother again.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    oh and while we are here….

    coz you freaks thrive on this shite.

    How did Robin hold the gun like shown in the court photos with a spare mag in his hand? or did he just happen to fall right beside (2 mm away?) a mag that he had placed on the floor (almost underneath the coffee table) on its edge without knocking it?

    Bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Judith, you could have directed me to the Gweens website for info on AGW and it would be more credible.

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

    Colville (911) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    ———————————–

    Please provide evidence (from a suitably professional site and not some media source to keep to your required standards) where it proves that is the original position of the magazine.

    You see, one of the investigation team is noted as having picking up the magazine and putting it down again. The photos of the magazine were not timed and there is no evidence to state when that happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Did Robin have any spare rounds in his pockets?

    No one goes to war without spare ammo.

    No I didnt think so.

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

    Colville (912) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 7:26 pm
    ————————-

    Good, so you will be able to keep to your standards and provide evidence that the position you state the magazine was in, is the original position. :-)

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

    Colville (913) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 7:30 pm
    ——————————–

    His victims were sleeping and unarmed. He was hardly going to war – what an exaggeration!

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

    Kanz 7:08 pm If it was either Robin or another killer both by that stage would of known to make sure there was a bullet properly feed into the breech so there was no need to reload once the trigger was pulled. I can come up with 3 theories why that bullet was there which can implicate either Robin or another killer.

    You keep rehashing this why are you desperate or like showing you lack of firearm knowledge.

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

    gamefisher (410) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    If it was either Robin or another killer both by that stage would of known to make sure there was a bullet properly feed into the breech so there was no need to reload once the trigger was pulled. I can come up with 3 theories why that bullet was there which can implicate either Robin or another killer.

    You are doing the same thing, you are taking your rational experience and knowledge, and applying it to a situation where the person was extremely aggravated, stressed and irrational. Regardless of their previous experience, it is unlikely they were calm enough to do the things you suggest.

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

    Judith 7:44 pm that where you are constantly wrong I put more than one idea on how an event or evidence could be interpreted please don’t judge others by you own standard of bias. I looked at this new so called evidence with an open mind but it quickly didn’t stand up to scrutiny. Please don’t give me this I am not an expert crap these so called experts are crap in their judgement. Those marks are clearly not parallel they need to past that first test to go further but in investigating further more faults are found. If these experts were any good they should of found them.

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

    gamefisher (411) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 7:59 pm
    —————————–

    So you are able to tell whether the print presented by the police is the mirror image or has been adjusted?

    No you can’t, and for that reason you cannot do a qualified and competent assessment, regardless of your skill base. Even the police at this stage have not resolved that issue.

    Please don’t pretend that if I presented information you could challenge, that you wouldn’t do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    gamefisher (411) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 7:59 pm

    So you can match all of this?

    Robbie is a Gunsmith who has extensive experience in firearm repair and maintenance.

    Robbie is also a Staff Sergeant, Armourer in the New Zealand Territorial Army and has been part of the NZ Army Rifle Team 1990, 1995 – 99. After growing up on a farm in South Canterbury, Robbie was fortunate to gain employment with a manufacturing gunsmith in Timaru in the early ‘80s. After training and employment in all facets of the gunsmiths trade with a specialization in action and barrel fitting, he moved on to work for some of the leading South Island gunshops.

    At the same time, he joined the Territorial Army as an armourer. A stint at Canterbury University resulted in a Law degree and admittance to the Bar, a couple of years in practice resulted in the conclusion that it wasn’t nearly as enjoyable as Gunsmithing, so developed ‘Gunworks Canterbury’.

    He remains a Territorial armourer with the rank of Staff Sergeant at Canterbury Regiment, has been in the New Zealand Army Rifle Team for the last 5 years and shot in Britain, Brunei and Australia for NZ Army. He is a regular competitor at the NZ Army Champion Shot Competition and the annual NRA meeting at Trentham each January where he shoots a suppressed AR15 with moderate success.

    And are you a gunshop owner and top marksman as Richard Munt is? Or are you simply someone who has used a gun and now knows everything about everything?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Gamefisher

    From the other thread
    “gamefisher (409) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    What did Mr Giles do lol, this is so basic even 1st year secondary school children could find this is so wrong. What forensic expert? show me their quals.”

    You are however quite happy to accept the expert qualifications of Martin Van Beyan gun expertise, seeing as you claim to be the firearm expert what do you make of this one from him?
    ‘It’s also possible the marks were deposited just before Robin shot himself as he loaded the magazine again before the final exit. But given the gun’s tendency to misfire why didn’t he just put a bullet in the breech?’

    there was a good response to this in today’s press highlighting the stupidity of such a suggestion.
    Are you questioning Russell Tiffens and Richard Munts qualifications here? all Giles did was sent the photo to Karam saying what he thought it looked like, the rest is from the gun experts, I’d be more inclined to favour their views rather than that of a biased journalist especially as he was not aware of what the photo was prior to examining it.

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

    Those marks are not parallel dispite all your bluster if there are better photogragh available where are they. Those one presented by TV3 are all we have to go on.

    I never take the word of any person I always want to evaluate anything on an equal basis if your crowd can’t give us the material that they base their judgement on I then ask what are they hiding.

    Those prints of Gile where they done with loading 1 bullet or 5 because how the hell do you manage in the to load 5 bullets exactly the same way each time and not smudge them and not even smudge them when holding the rifle to supposidly kill yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    sorry Robbie Tiffen

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Rowan 8:12 pm

    Where have I ever said I accept Martin Van Beyan gun expertise? please don’t start an urbain myth type of lie that you people are so very capable of.

    I do my own judgement all all I see with this so called “clincher evidence” is too many faults for it to be considered as strong evidence in fact far from it.

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

    gamefisher (412) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Those marks are residue, not a solid line. It is entirely possible that they were larger, and as Robin moved etc most of the residue was removed, apart from that which was more solid, in that it had received the most pressure. Who knows, but whatever the correct answer is, it will be provided by experts. People who have the original photo to work from and the correct diagnostic equipment to adjust the images to ensure they are a precise match.

    I do believe this has been done, but it will of course need to be done to the satisfaction of the legal requirements involve with expert evidence.

    The fact is gamefisher, it doesn’t matter how wonderful you might be, you are not a forensic photographer, a forensic scientist and you do not have all the information (the type of print) in order to make that analysis. By all means pass an opinion, but to make it a definitive one is impossible

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Its not Giles qualifications Gamefisher, as I said it Robbie Tiffen’s and Richard Munts that are far more relevant, and you lot love MVB’s spin stories, they would probably read better if he started them with Once upon a time.
    As a so called gun ‘expert’ whats your view on MVB’s ‘why didn’t he just put a bullet in the breech?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    ‘Those prints of Gile where they done with loading 1 bullet or 5 because how the hell do you manage in the to load 5 bullets exactly the same way each time and not smudge them and not even smudge them when holding the rifle to supposidly kill yourself’

    Not everybody has the shakes, most people for example are able to type in continuity without missing the keyboard, that is why old style typewriters were worn on the keys in a particular pattern. Apart from you might be able to make a relevant point in the not too distant future.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Judith 8:28 pm No I am not but these so called ‘expert” leaves a tremendous amount to be desired in their quality of assessment. I am not the only one that sees major faults in their so call “expert” assessment. Hell they don’t even know that these marks need to be parallel to have any value. Many other have picked out there is some red in the left mark. To leave such defined marks after loading 5+ bullets possibly in the dark is quite remarkable. Not to smudge them in any later handling of the rifle is also unusual. It is noted that Giles marks are not the same orientation as Robins and bullets were being loaded in that program totally differently to how Robin would have needed to get those mark.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    As Judith correctly says more will need to be done to reach the satisfaction of the legal requirements involved with expert evidence but given the overall poor quality of a lot of the evidence in this case, it can’t just be fobbed the way the witch-sniffers do. Compared to some of the shit that some of the CS idiots swallow its quite a bit stronger.
    Robin Bates incidently thought the crown had 6 main points of evidence implicating David. The crown failed abysmally in all 6 just as they had previously failed to convince the PC previously or Binnie subsequently.
    Maybe they forgot to get their brief of evidence from counterspin first, much of their shit didn’t rate a mention.
    Now I wonder why that was!

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

    gamefisher (414) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    Fair enough, I don’t have a problem with that, its your opinion based on your experience, providing you accept that it could change when a complete analysis is undertaken.

    I guess I am really peeved off with being fed 4 months of bullshit from Muggins, in which he passed off lies, as being official information from Senior Police Officers. I makes me wonder what else is lies.

    No doubt like you, I want some definitive answers in this from people qualified to give them, and not bullshit from antagonists whose lies only complicate things further. Justice is only achieved by the truth. Which is why I now pick up anyone that tries to pass something off as ‘expert’ or ‘authentic’ when it is not, or has been superseded by more relevant information.

    Sorry if you took offence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Q: What did Owen Glenn say when David Bain accused him of beating a young woman?
    A: At least I haven’t killed anyone like some people I know.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Judith 8:53 pm No offence taken in everything I do I like people to qualify & quantify there assessment with facts and not just say I am an expert when I am dubious about their answers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Q: What does David Bain have in common with a box of fireworks?
    A: They both can kill people, but we let them off anyway!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Just comparing homicide vs suicide characteristics, this is all verifiable from a basic google search
    Common characteristics of suicide
    Contact wound, shots to the front of the head, removal of clothing, traces of gunpowder, direction of the bullet path was upward and front-to-back.
    Remind me how many of these did Robin have again?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    …no matter where the various bits of those glasses were found, it remains as possible that the Police “planted” the evidence as they did in the Thomas case…

    That is pure gold. What I enjoy about these threads is the illustration they provide of how intense belief can lead people to the most unlikely rationalisations, as they work to maintain belief in the face of evidence. Thanks for posting this Rowan, it’s made my day.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    His victims were sleeping and unarmed. He was hardly going to war – what an exaggeration!

    and yet he used 10 rounds to kill 3 sleeping people? and had to eject 4 missfeeds? leaving only 4 spares.

    and he had to have carried some ammo to reload the mag/s yet he didnt carry 10 20 or 50 rounds despite there being literally hundreds of rounds availible. Why didnt he drop a box in his pocket? no he only carried 4 spare rounds and loaded all 4 into one or both of the mags and logic suggests he changed mags at least twice.

    What bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    One thing no one seems to have noticed is the tip of the bullet in the magazine appears to have been flattened compared to the original. I have read at least 1 of the bullets that were misfed had a flattened tip. What most people may not realised it is difficult to reload a semi auto silently. With some 22’s the ejector needs to slide over the rim in order for the firing pin to hit the rim and eject. If an inexperienced person tries to load a semi auto silently and if they don’t drive the bolt home securely they will end up with a misfire with no indentation on the rim. When that person reloads because the ejector hasn’t slid over the rim that bullet doesn’t eject then the next bullet will hit the bullet still in the breech flattening the tip. I often wonder if that may of happened that morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Its not my argument Milt, that is quoted directly from the site it was of. I agree with a lot of it.
    No I am not going to push this argument, we’ve been there, i.e. Weir, I just view all his evidence with suspicion based on him misleading the 1995 jury and no he did not need to plant the lens to do this.
    The main point was the glasses could well have been a hindrance given that all the victims were shot at point blank range.
    But cling to it remember the ‘mountain’ of evidence you have.
    Comparing the two items the thumb marks vs the glasses one looks quite a bit stronger than the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Yes GF
    However you would somehow have us believe that Robin did not notice David reloading in the dark, and waited while he had two gos

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    That is pure gold. What I enjoy about these threads is the illustration they provide of how intense belief can lead people to the most unlikely rationalisations, as they work to maintain belief in the face of evidence. Thanks for posting this Rowan, it’s made my day’

    Pure gold is how thick you are psycho. I bet you walk to walls a lot and wonder how they got there.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Rowan.
    Any evidence to prove that the misfed round wasnt cleared from the gun after David shot Robin?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Rowan.
    Any evidence to prove that the misfed round wasnt cleared from the gun after David shot Robin?’

    If you need a headache figure that one out.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,381) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 9:26 pm

    1. Why weren’t they able to find any blood or matter on the glasses if they had been worn by the murderer?There was nothing that tied them too the murders?

    2. Why did weir tell the optomistrist to ignore the fact the lens was covered in dust indicating it had been in the room prior to the 20th

    3. IF he wore the glasses thqt weekend why didn’t anyone see him in them as he was out and about.

    and the best point, if the discredited mr guest who was Bains lawyer for a few years and got to talk to him about all aspects of the case, believes he has the right to talk about anything he likes, and found the glasses the most devastating thing he could use against him …. then clearly as Binnie says, his finding of factual innocence is the right one.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    if the discredited mr guest who was Bains lawyer for a few years and got to talk to him about all aspects of the case, believes he has the right to talk about anything he likes, and found the glasses the most devastating thing he could use against him …. then clearly as Binnie says, his finding of factual innocence is the right one.

    If that’s your best argument, then David has no hope in hell of getting compo.

    The question remains, why would David tell porkies to Binnie? David couldn’t even say that he drove that weekend without trying to pull a fast one over the old fella.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    IF he wore the glasses thqt weekend why didn’t anyone see him in them as he was out and about.

    I imagine that Laniet, Arawa, Robin, Margaret and Stephen all saw him wear glasses. Shall we ask them for their opinions? Oh that’s right…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    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.”

    Oh, so it’s possible that David did tell Janice that he had been wearing his mother’s glasses? What a bizarre thing for David to say…”I don’t think….”. David is a lousy liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Binnie made a schoolboy blunder re the glasses.

    He told the Justice Ministry’s Melanie Webb: “Importantly, I think, the Court of Appeal dismisses the whole issue of Margaret’s glasses”.

    In fact, the Court of Appeal was troubled by David’s lack of explanation for the presence of Margaret’s glasses in his bedroom. At 55 and 56 the Court opined:

    On the whole, balancing the evidence on this topic, we are left with the unexplained presence of the frame and right lens in David’s room, whereas the left lens was found separately in Stephen’s room. It must be a reasonable inference that the items found in David’s room were there because David considered the glasses to be of some use to him. The presence of the left lens in Stephen’s room, in conjunction with the remainder of the glasses being in David’s room, is consistent with the Crown’s contention and provides some support for it, particularly as David’s regular pair of glasses were away for repair. He might therefore be expected to have used the glasses in question and was unable to explain how the left lens had become separated from the frame and how the right lens had also become detached from the frame and how both came to be in his bedroom.
    We conclude this discussion by noting that the glasses were of no use to Robin. He would not therefore have been wearing them. If they did have something to do with Stephen’s murder they were either planted there by Robin (and that is inconsistent with his sparing David) or they were worn by David. The new evidence raises the level of possibility that the glasses had nothing to do with the murder, on the basis that the lens had been in Stephen’s room for some time; but that tends to increase the difficulty for David of his inability to explain the presence of the frame and other lens in his room.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    One further point re the glasses which demonstrates why Binnie’s report is so badly flawed.

    In an email to Ms Webb of 11 September 2012, Binnie said that David Bain had not waived his client privilege with Michael Guest. Whether that is correct or not is unclear. However, it is a matter between the parties and should have been of no concern to Binnie. Moreover, the issue of David’s admission to Guest has been in the public domain for many years. Retired judge Sir Thomas Thorp traversed this issue in his report into the case. Former Justice Minister Phil Goff publicly released Thorp’s report in 2003. The information was also disclosed by former prosecutor Bill Wright in a 2005 television documentary produced by Bryan Bruce (which I have linked to previously). The information was also disclosed in a magazine article by journalist Rosemary McLeod in 2002. According to McLeod, Michael Guest:

    …would have heard any crucial confidences from his client which could have determined how he’d manage his defence. Such confidences have something like the seal of the confessional on them, and can explain tactics and arguments that may not be readily understood by outsiders. And as it happens, Guest has been sitting on a detail for years that is arguably the most damning evidence against his former client. It relates to the wearing of a pair of glasses by Bain which is at the heart of a nexus of evidence. … Bain [at his trial] suddenly denied he’d worn his mother’s old glasses as a substitute for his own broken ones in the days leading up to the killings. He couldn’t see more than half a metre in front of him without glasses at that time, though Karam downplays his bad eyesight. Guest and the prosecutor both expected him to admit he’d been wearing the glasses, which were an important piece of evidence against him; one lens was found in his murdered brother’s room. I now know he had certainly admitted to Guest that he had been wearing the glasses the day before the murders, contrary to what Karam continues to assert. In court, Bain claimed not to have worn them for a year, and Guest knew that this was untrue. (Bain has never explained what the damaged glasses frame was doing in his room when police arrived.)

    Binnie banging on about client privilege is talking shite. Yet another schoolboy error.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Its not my argument Milt, that is quoted directly from the site it was of. I agree with a lot of it.

    Yes, you do. The question of what brings people to such an intense belief that they find that kind of sophistry compelling is what interests me.

    Judith @ 10.00pm. Your questions are irrelevant. .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    This is what Sir Thomas Thorp said about client-solicitor privilege re Michael Guest and David Bain:

    “[The information re David's admission] is now available because [David] chose to assert incompetence of counsel, and in particular that his counsel had failed to lead evidence that [David] had not been wearing the glasses. Claims of incompetence of counsel can only be considered if the person making such claims releases counsel from privilege, so that counsel can answer the complaints if he or she wishes to do so. The necessary waiver of privilege was sought and given in this case. The result is that Mr Guest’s advice now forms part of the total pool to be considered in assessing the likelihood of miscarriage of justice.

    In my view his advice not only answers the complaints made in the petition, but goes beyond that and provides a stronger case against [David] than was available at trial”.

    So, it appears that Binnie was nit-picking when he said that Guest’s disclosure was a breach of client-solicitor privilege. Such privilege had previously been waived. More importantly, the information disclosed by Guest was publicly available from 3 different sources.

    One can only hope that if there is another review of Bain’s compo claim, the reviewer will acknowledge that David told his lawyer (and others) one thing and said the complete opposite when testifying.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,382) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 6:48 am

    Judith @ 10.00pm. Your questions are irrelevant. .
    —————————————

    It maybe irrelevant to you Milt, but it is not irrelevant to the bigger picture.

    Michael Guest was in a position as confidant and went through the entire questioning process with David Bain, before and during the first trial, and for sometime afterwards. He was called in on the day of the arrest, and spent copious hours with David going through the evidence and preparing the defence. As such he was there at first hand to hear what David said, and the most devastating thing he can come up with and say is that David told him he would attest to wearing the glasses.

    We all know that what Guest has said has been challenged – and found that he has been dishonest about certain aspects.

    The fact is, there was no blood or human matter found on those glasses, and yet the prosecution claims they were worn by the murderer and knocked from his face during the struggle with Stephen.

    One lens landed in a room that had copious amounts of blood through-out it, and yet no one tiny piece of blood was found on that lens.

    Not only was there no blood found on that lens, but the lens was covered in dust that indicated it had been unable to be used to see through for some time.

    Then a senior Police Officer tells the Optomistrist to ‘ignore the fact it was covered in dust and shut him up from reporting that fact in the first trial – it did come out at the second trial.

    There is also the fact that those glasses would not have been any use to David Bain, as they were needed for long distance viewing, and everything he had to do if he had been the killer, was up close viewing. They would have in fact hindered him.

    If he had needed the glasses to use the gun, then how did he manage to complete the killings without them? Not just that, but how did he manage to do all that he did that prior weekend without them?

    There was not one witness that saw him wearing those glasses that weekend.

    The only witness that was able to say he did was his Aunt, who didn’t remember until some years later, and in the meantime had inherited from the Bain estate, finally she remembered David told her he had worn his mothers glasses when he didn’t have any. David has openly admitted that he often wore his mothers old pair of glasses when his were unavailable to him in the past, but that he had not seen those glasses for sometime. It is entirely possible that the old woman misunderstood what he was saying, between the time she forgot all about it (because she did not remember despite the glasses being talked about during the first trial, and when she had reason to remember)

    There is no evidence whatsoever that connects those glasses to the murders. That an upset David who had been crying asked for his glasses having forgotten his were being repaired, is not the least bit unusual. Just try to imagine the shock he was in.

    Binnie was perfectly justified in giving those glasses a non-value even if David had worn them, and given the displayed integrity of Mr Guest, his word is not worth anything either. I’m sure given that integrity if Guest could have produced something damaging about the case he would have. Fact is he didn’t because there was nothing.

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

    ross69 (2,568) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 7:31 am
    ———————————-

    You are aware that those three different sources you refer too have not ‘lined up’ and have added to Mr Guest’s fanciful habit of misrepresenting the truth, aren’t you?

    It appears Mr Guest, when he gave his statement regarding the incident got his time line wrong, and what he has said cannot be confirmed by the others he named.

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

    ross69 (2,568) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 11:05 pm
    ————————————–

    It is not a schoolboy error.
    If you have all the information then you will know that Justice Binnie requested clarification on the matter regarding New Zealand legislation and was provided with that advice between April and July 2012 which was confirmed in correspondence on 26 July 2012 by Paul Rishworth.

    Binnie was given a team of New Zealand legal advisers to provide him with information regarding our laws. If that group was incompetent, you cannot hold Justice Binnie responsible for that.

    In the bigger picture it matters not. The information Guest gave does not prove anything and has itself been proven to be inaccurate.

    Clearly you are scrambling in desperation

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

    ross69 (2,568) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 10:43 pm
    ———————————-

    But David did say that he drove that weekend. He said he did not drive home from the middle of the city because he didn’t have his glasses, but he did say that he drove to the local shop to get fish and chips. A shop that was just down the road from where he lived, a trip that was familiar to him, with much less traffic than driving home from the middle of the city.

    So where did David lie Ross?

    If he had said to Binnie he didn’t drive to the fish and chip shop, then he would have been lying.

    David can see to drive, however, things in the distance are blurred. Doesn’t mean he can’t drive without his glasses, just that he is meant to wear them for clarity.

    Your over-exaggeration is legendary.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    It maybe irrelevant to you Milt, but it is not irrelevant to the bigger picture.

    Followed by the usual heroic output of belief-sustaining rationalisations. An inventive person can always find ways to explain incriminating evidence away, but at some point the amount of explaining away needed just starts to look ridiculous.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,383) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 9:09 am
    —————————–

    Didn’t however look ridiculous to the second trial jury, who heard the truth regarding the lens and not Weirs lies, and it didn’t look ridiculous to Binnie.

    It appears there are only a minority of people that do believe it is all ridiculous – you being one of them. 70% think compo should be paid.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    An inventive person can always find ways to explain incriminating evidence away, but at some point the amount of explaining away needed just starts to look ridiculous.

    As seems to be happening with how the Assistant Police Commissioner is trying to explain away the marks now found on Robin’s thumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    Didn’t however look ridiculous to the second trial jury, who heard the truth regarding the lens and not Weirs lies, and it didn’t look ridiculous to Binnie.

    A non sequitur. The fact the second jury didn’t find the crown case proven beyond reasonable doubt does not mean the members of the second jury accept your rationalisations.

    It appears there are only a minority of people that do believe it is all ridiculous – you being one of them. 70% think compo should be paid.

    Another non-sequitur. 70% of people think compensation should be paid does not mean 70% of people accept your rationalisations. The inability to draw legitimate inferences is a characteristic of participants in Bain threads.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    As seems to be happening with how the Assistant Police Commissioner is trying to explain away the marks now found on Robin’s thumb.

    Rationalisations are things like “David could have pressed Robin’s thumb on the magazine.” The APC’s just pointed out that the fingerprints say those are scratches. Countering evidence with other evidence isn’t a rationalisation.

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

    Psycho Milt (1,385) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 10:34 am
    ——————————

    Your problem is that the NZ Police are not able to confirm whether the print is a mirror image or has been ‘turned round’. It appears their records are not clear.

    Given that, then how can anyone confirm the marks the police say are scratches, are even in the right place. Fact is, even if you flip the photo the marks do not line up, and/or aren’t in the same position. That is just a novice view, and one that can’t be seen as evidence, because it is impossible to get both photos into the same perspective on photoshop.

    However, it can and does raise some valid points. The police when presenting finger print information and detailing particular aspects always use markers to show where these similarities and differences are – except in this case. They flick a print they say is Robin’s, and then say it doesn’t match, and fail to say the type of print it is. WHY?

    My guess is because they don’t really know, and 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.

    ANSWERS – is what is required. Evidence presented according to the rules in legislation regarding such evidence, from both sides, and then let us make up our mind. But that pathetic half arsed attempt from the police will only fool the foolish. At least TV3 had used a expert forensic photographer.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    To Judith
    I have no problem with you using the OIA relating to emails I said I had received.
    But what I want to know is how you managed to get those details relating to that email I sent to Judith Collins’ office.
    Seeing as you won’t tell me you leave me with no alternative but to contact that office and ask why that info was released.
    I would be very surprised if someone at that office would have released that info to you by way of an OIA enquiry.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    One minute David Bain tells Binnie he can’t drive without his glasses and next minute he tells him he can drive without his glasses. He gives Binnie convoluted explanation and Binnie believes him. Jesus wept!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    70% think compo should be paid.

    That’s rubbish and you know it.

    Ask how many people are prepared to put their hands in their pockets and give him money, the answer is probably less than 1%. However, if anyone seriously thinks David is innocent, I have no problem with them giving him money.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    David can see to drive, however, things in the distance are blurred

    You means things half a metre away. You’re priceless. :)

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

    ross69 (2,570) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 11:01 am
    —————————

    Ross you can keep unrealistically claiming that people who are short-sighted cannot see past 1/2 a metre, however, those of us that are short-sighted, know differently.

    Yes, objects start to get out of focus/blur at various distances, however, it is still possible to see them.

    For example, a short-sighted person may not be able to determine the colour of the eyes at 2 metres, but they can still tell they are eyes.

    The same as they can see cars coming towards them, power poles and a variety of other things (depending on the severity of their eyesight) David’s was not severe enough to be unable to distinguish items on the roads. He may not have been able to make out the drivers faces, but he could still make out the cars.

    The reason he didn’t drive from town was because of the chance of being caught without his glasses, as his drivers licence states he must have corrective lens when driving. So he broke the law and drove to the local shop without glasses.

    13 years in prison for that? Get a life Ross – your story is pathetic.

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

    ross69 (2,570) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 10:57 am
    70% think compo should be paid.

    That’s rubbish and you know it.

    Ask how many people are prepared to put their hands in their pockets and give him money, the answer is probably less than 1%. However, if anyone seriously thinks David is innocent, I have no problem with them giving him money.
    ———————————–

    A private person giving David money, has nothing to do with compensation being paid or not paid.

    Everyone knows that compensation money comes out of the government coffers, our tax payer money, and yet they still voted 70% to 30% in favour of him getting compo. It appears to me you are having trouble adjusting to the fact that the counterspin lies are not being accepted much any more.

    Talking about counterspin lies – how is it that they are using a photo of David’s fingerprints taken at arrest, and stating they are the pristine fingerprints that were in blood, on the weapon? Surely thats fraudulent – to pass something off as something it isn’t?

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

    muggins (2,446) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 10:53 am

    David Bain can’t drive without his glasses according to law, his licence says he has to wear them. Which is why he couldn’t drive in town, it would have been unsafe for him to do that. However, he can still operate a vehicle safely in low traffic areas in places he knows well. Which he did. Which makes him guilty of not wearing his glasses to drive – he should have got a fine at most – not 13 years in prison.

    Hell, it wasn’t like he fraudulently presented information from an official document as something else – like you did.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    A bit earlier, I wrote Rationalisations are things like “David could have pressed Robin’s thumb on the magazine.”

    Judith at 10.45 has helpfully provided a couple of other examples, which can be summed up as “The cops may have used someone else’s print” and “maybe they faked the picture.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Judith,
    One minuite David Bain told Binnie he couldn’t drive without his glasses and the next minute he said he could.
    He gave Binnie a convoluted 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].

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    13 years in prison for that? Get a life Ross – your story is pathetic.

    No, 13 years for 5 murders…which David thinks is an appropriate sentence. It just goes to show how little he thought of his family, that he’s satisfied that each life was worth less than 3 years imprisonment.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Hamlet (1 comment) says:

    Why were the damaged glasses in his bedroom ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Any luck pushing the brown stuff uphill ross. Ever wonder why people move away from you at the bus stop and in the supermarket?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Interesting to note that Melanie White considers that the TV3 show 3 Degrees last week didn’t show balance. I wonder if they’re required to ask The Crown to comment on what has been discovered and analysed, I wouldn’t necessarily say so. In effect they witnessed a series of experiments undertaken by the defence and reported it to the public. It’s hardly likely that recording experiments requires comment by another party anyway. Clearly The Crown knew about the experiments because they were represented at them, it seems they didn’t object to the fact the results were to be made public so it’s odd to the extreme that a person from Dunedin tied up in bogus ‘Justice’ sites has objected, when in fact those sites have been putting up false information for years for the public to read and be influenced by. As examples shows above of fingerprints taken in one situation but said to have been lifted from the murder weapon.

    Of course we don’t know the ‘depth’ of Ms White’s objections and it’s jolly bad reporting if she had produced sound evidence to show bias or lack of balance in the programme, or it could simply be that she doesn’t have any alternative credible explanation and is ‘sore’ because of the breakthrough evidence undermining the failed campaign she has been waging. A campaign, as we note here, of claims of information being passed on by the authorities to ‘prove’ certain things when in fact they disprove them. Looking forward to the 3 Degrees response. It could be interesting if Ms White is interviewed and asked what she knows about a false ‘confession’ held in the ‘inner sanctums’ of JFRB. I’ve got a copy of that somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    That 3 Degrees show last week most definitely did not show balance. I say hats off to Melanie White.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. muggins (3,745 comments) says:

    Hamlet(1) Says:

    July 2nd, 2013 at 12:13 pm
    Why were the damaged glasses in his bedroom

    David Bain said he wore those glasses when his were unavailable.
    His glasses were in being repaired that weekend, meaning they were unavailable.
    He said he wore those glasses for watching TV.
    He said he watched a video on the Sunday evening.
    He told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing those glasses on the Sunday.
    He told his aunt he had been wearing his mother’s glasses that weekend, they weren’t perfect he told her, but they got him by.
    As we all know the frame of those glasses was found ,damaged, on a chair in his room.
    One lens was with it.
    The other lens was found in Stephen’s room.
    How did it get there?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Interesting to note that Melanie White considers that the TV3 show 3 Degrees last week didn’t show balance

    According to you, balance is a one fingered salute eh. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Why were the damaged glasses in his bedroom

    Robin wanted to frame David
    Which is why Robin put his bloodied clothes in the wash
    And wore David’s gloves
    And placed the damaged glasses in David’s bedroom
    And used a silencer so as not to wake the neighbours
    Notwithstanding that Robin wrote a suicide note saying that David – who hated his old man – was the only one who deserved to stay (stay where? In a hotel?)
    Wasn’t the old fella allowed to change his mind?

    You know it’s true.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    A very heavy burden to bear, being the only deserving one.

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

    Oh more first time posters. Counterspin and JFRB are getting desperate aren’t they.

    I guess the 70% to 30% is starting to provide a bit of reality for them. Especially with the defamation case growing close and the certainty that KP is going to lose.

    So what do they do:

    Well they lie about information they’ve received from Police Officers and the MOJ.

    They put pictures on their site stating they of things, they are not.

    They get Melanie White to organise another media event – as if her last one wasn’t a big enough embarrassment.

    They send Ross in here to repeat himself over and over.

    And when one of them gets banned, they invent a new identity and make out they are asking innocent questions, when all they are doing is setting up the conversation for one of the dimsim bunch to answer.

    And still they can’t account for the position Robin was in when he died. All they can go on about is a pair of glasses that cannot be linked to the act/s of murder in anyway, as they had no evidence/blood/matter on them.

    Poor sad counterspinners! :-(

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

    ross69 (2,573) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    ——————————-

    Oh dear Ross, more inaccuracies in your reporting.

    Not very good at getting it right are you.

    Still trying to apply rational thinking patterns to a murderer – people that murder, aren’t rational Ross – if they were rational, they wouldn’t murder.

    What you might have done has no bearing, unless you are also irrational (and we have our suspicions), you have no idea of the thoughts or intentions that were in Robin Bains mind at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Why all the focus on the unexplained glasses? The thumb marks are a slam dunk. N’est pas?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  488. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 comments) says:

    Who is Hamlet today, dog breeder or school teacher?
    I sort of miss the weird and nasty poems from the demented person that always gives themselves up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (433) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    A small lesson here, as you can only take small doses.
    When attempting to show how smart one is, it pays to get it right, or you will end up showing just how stupid you are.

    You should have said N’est-ce pas

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    ;) Did you google it, you clever thing. Google retard lol or was that poof?

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

    muggins (2,450) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    Judith,
    One minuite David Bain told Binnie he couldn’t drive without his glasses and the next minute he said he could.
    He gave Binnie a convoluted explanation that Binnie apparently believed.

    There you go Muggins, misrepresenting the evidence, yet again.

    Q. Now the fact is, I think, that you did go and collect her on the Sunday?
    A. No. I was there but you gotta remember, I didn’t have my glasses. I couldn’t drive a – the way that it worked out was I was at rehearsals on the Sunday –

    Q. Well you drove on the Sunday night to go and collect the fish and chips?
    A. That’s correct, yes. With Laniet in the car with me.

    Q. Yes.
    A. But I was at rehearsals at the university. After rehearsals I walked up to the museum cafe where Laniet and Arawa were working. Um, I had a cup of coffee with them whilst they finished their shift then Arawa drove us all to the Countdown. We did a little bit of shopping, I think we then stopped in, ah, at Laniet’s flat. I think she might have gone to, I dunno, she went in briefly anyway and then came back and then we were – them Arawa drove us home – ‘Cos I didn’t –

    So Muggins, where is the convoluted explanation about driving without the glasses Muggins? The rest of that line of questioning was about Laniet going home.

    David doesn’t say why he couldn’t drive, he doesn’t give a convoluted explanation at all. He states he didn’t drive when he was asked about the events of that Sunday afternoon. Then when he is asked about the fish and chips he says he did drive.

    He states he couldn’t drive because he ‘couldn’t drive a – ” he was interupted at that point.
    David has clarified that he didn’t drive in the city because he legally wasn’t allowed to drive without his glasses and because Arawa was there to drive, there was no pressure for him to.

    Again you are trying to make something out of nothing, and use it in a manner to fit your own beliefs. Again you are resorting to misrepresenting the information that is available.

    Incidently, when the police questioned the witnesses at all those places none of them said David Bain was wearing his glasses. You still have no eye witness account to prove he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=n'est%20pas%20translation&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CEoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffrench.about.com%2Fod%2Fvocabulary%2Fa%2Fce-n-est-pas-grave.htm&ei=4FTSUcu8LumpiAfW8oG4Dw&usg=AFQjCNGgiIIMdaI9AJDfaQwZzQBoB50IuQ

    N’est pas.

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

    goldnkiwi (435) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 4:21 pm
    —————————
    Are you ever going to grow up and actually discuss the evidence or are you going to continue to carry on like an immature fool who not only doesn’t understand the first thing about the case, but gives the impression that you are just attention seeking. Is your life so pathetically lonely, that you need to resort to this, just to be noticed?

    Or is it just that you think you are doing Justice for Robin Bain and Counterspin a favour by upping their IQ count by 20 points?

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

    Psycho Milt (1,386) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 11:31 am
    A bit earlier, I wrote Rationalisations are things like “David could have pressed Robin’s thumb on the magazine.”

    Judith at 10.45 has helpfully provided a couple of other examples, which can be summed up as “The cops may have used someone else’s print” and “maybe they faked the picture.”
    ———————————–

    My god, you are as bad as Muggins. What is it with you Counterspinner supporters, I never said anything of the sort.

    I asked why the police did not use the usual markers they do when presenting fingerprints. God knows I’ve seen them do it hundreds of times. It was the first thing I thought when I saw their explanation – where are the markers, where are the points showing the similarity

    My suggestion was that the police did not put the time or effort into it. They didn’t bother to find out whether the image was a mirror image or not. They fired ahead with something to refute the previous nights program and failed to present an conclusive and expert analysis, to those of us that are used seeing their fingerprint evidence presented in court cases. There presentation was no more than the same popular media presentation the previous nights program was accused of being.

    It was not good enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Quite grownup thanks but thanks for your ‘motherly’ concern, it is really sweet of you. The problem is of course that Rowan doesn’t know his place lol so had to be told where it was, just like a bad puppy.
    Similarly I have seen many people tell you where to go and yet here you still are ;)
    That is okay though as you are entitled to your one opinion just as everyone else is.
    Hey, the only evidence you need was on tv3, a slam dunk, in fact or as I believe fiction.

    Now if team Karam had invited members of Counterspin along to view the testing, that would have been great television.

    Perhaps tv 3 would like to pick up on that idea. I am sure they would make themselves available.:)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Yvette (2,820 comments) says:

    Judith – I asked yesterday in GD, given one of the two magazines was on the floor, standing end on beside Robin’s hand, was the other magazine actually in the rifle, as found by the police. Do you know, please?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. Kanz (1,411 comments) says:

    Yvette (2,436) Says:
    July 2nd, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Judith – I asked yesterday in GD, given one of the two magazines was on the floor, standing end on beside Robin’s hand, was the other magazine actually in the rifle, as found by the police. Do you know, please?

    Yes, of course it was. That was stated very clearly in the program being discussed. Apart from the fact that even the stupidest person would not suggest Robin killed himself if it wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi
    How on earth did you manage to get a law degree, did they give it to you to get rid of you?
    If I want fiction its easily found on CS or by reading any of your or Aunt Fannys arguments.
    I see Kent and co are representing themselves, you not smart enough for them. Oh dear rejection from your own leaders!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Thanks for the promo ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Rowan (2,373 comments) says:

    Lets hope idiots such as the counterspin brigade NEVER get called to sit on a jury. Maybe Rachel you should become a Court of Appeal judge, then you can misunderstand the evidence in a serious criminal case and then proceed to play judge and jury with it. The COA is somewhat of a concern this will be particularly evident if the PC decide to quash the Lundy conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. Yvette (2,820 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
  502. Psycho Milt (2,412 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
  503. goldnkiwi (1,304 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
  504. Kanz (1,411 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
  505. Rowan (2,373 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
  506. ross69 (3,652 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
  507. goldnkiwi (1,304 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
  508. ross69 (3,652 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
  509. Kanz (1,411 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
  510. Kanz (1,411 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
  511. Kanz (1,411 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
  512. 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
  513. 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
  514. 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
  515. 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
  516. ross69 (3,652 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
  517. ross69 (3,652 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
  518. 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
  519. 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
  520. Kanz (1,411 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
  521. goldnkiwi (1,304 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
  522. ross69 (3,652 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
  523. Kanz (1,411 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
  524. 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
  525. 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
  526. Kanz (1,411 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
  527. Rowan (2,373 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
  528. Rowan (2,373 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
  529. goldnkiwi (1,304 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
  530. 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
  531. goldnkiwi (1,304 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
  532. Dexter (303 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
  533. Rowan (2,373 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
  534. ross69 (3,652 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
  535. ross69 (3,652 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
  536. Kanz (1,411 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
  537. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 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
  538. goldnkiwi (1,304 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
  539. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 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
  540. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Um um um substantive, um um substantive ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  541. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Is that you ‘Judith’?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  542. goldnkiwi (1,304 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
  543. ross69 (3,652 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
  544. Psycho Milt (2,412 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
  545. 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
  546. 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
  547. ross69 (3,652 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
  548. ross69 (3,652 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
  549. ross69 (3,652 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
  550. Kanz (1,411 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
  551. 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
  552. Nostalgia-NZ (5,206 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
  553. Kanz (1,411 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
  554. muggins (3,745 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
  555. muggins (3,745 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
  556. 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 s