The Bain marks

June 27th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

David Fisher at NZ Herald reports:

Discovery that seems to have escaped detectives and forensic scientists during the 19 years since the Bain family were murdered in Dunedin indicates Robin Bain was the person who loaded the .22 rifle

David Giles peered closely at the photograph on the screen of his computer.

On the thumb of Robin Bain, dead 19 years, were parallel marks of a kind he recognised instantly.

As a boy in the Waikato he would shoot rabbits and possums with a .22 rifle, the same calibre of rifle used to murder the Bain family.

After firing a magazine full of bullets, he would disengage the clip which fed more rounds into the rifle. Taking a bullet, he would push it into the top of the magazine using his thumb and then use the digit to fix the bullet in place. Doing so dragged the thumb across the top of the magazine – parallel metal sides which carried a light coating of burned gunpowder residue from the back-blast of the shots just fired. As the thumb came away, it carried twin lines from the gunpowder and grime on the top of the magazine.

Mr Giles told TV3’s 3rdDegree show he knew instantly what he was seeing on his computer. Robin Bain carried the same marks on his thumb any shooter would have after reloading the magazine on a recently fired rifle.

3rd degree ran this story last night, and there is a link to Kiwiblog. It seems it was comments in a couple of the threads we have had on the case, that led to this evidence being seen by the person involved. I’m pleased that some people actually have waded through the thousands of comments on the Bain threads. I normally give up after the first hundred.

It appears to be significant evidence in David’s favour. I presume it will be considered by whomever is appointed to review Bain’s likely guilt or innocence for his compensation claim, once the judicial review proceedings are done with.

647 Responses to “The Bain marks”

  1. Pele (57 comments) says:

    But more logically,

    is that there is no GSR smears, blood splatter on the hands or blood under the fingernails of Robin. 😉

    but you KNOW this already, eh Nostalgia

    and you definitely know ONLY david could have typed the message on the computer.

    🙂

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

    Actually, I think tv3 knew that the police could/would discredit their theory, but a) wanted the ratings and b) knew full well that the ‘sensational’ headlines would impress and possibly convince some of the populace so nothing to lose, something possibly to gain.

    Interesting if a previous assertion is correct regarding any prior interest that the ‘discoverer’ of the ‘evidence’ has had with this on going debate. If I recall correctly it was emphasised that he was just an innocent passer by with no particular interest in the case. I am familiar with the above named pseudonym on the TM message boards regarding this matter and if that is fact, then the programme is guilty of an outright untruth not just fudging.

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

    ross69: explain the witness that saw David on his paper run driving past her car clock by default 5 minutes fast not 6.50am but 6.45am while Robin is doing his thing.

    The witness’s testimony doesn’t preclude David from having turned on the computer. Oh and you might like to read this:

    Karam says evidence from witness Denise Laney is tantamount to an exoneration of Bain. But Laney has told The Press that she explained to Karam, at the time he was gathering evidence for Bain’s defence, what exactly she could say and claims he hung up on her.

    On the day of the murders, Laney was on her way to work at a resthome up the road from the Bain’s Every Street address when she saw David Bain at the gate of their house.

    Her car’s digital clock read 6.50am but was fast at the time, which was confirmed by a police test seven days later, finding it five minutes fast.

    The timing adds weight to Karam’s contention that Bain could not have been in the house when a computer was turned on and used by the killer to write a message.

    However, Laney said Karam had read too much into her evidence. He had wanted her to be a defence witness but she told him she did not know how fast the digital clock was, and she believed she was not late for her start time of 6.45am.

    When she saw Bain he was further up the street than normal and it caused her to worry that she was late.

    “I thought: ‘Oh God I’m running late’, but it was misinterpreted. I tried to get it across in the courtroom I was not late; every day was pretty much the same.

    “As I said to Joe Karam . . . I said: ‘Look, the best time frame I can give you is somewhere between 20 to and quarter to seven and he just hung up in my ear’.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440698/Bain-witness-says-evidence-misinterpreted

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

    The fact is that several witnesses, including Laney, said David delivered papers earlier than normal on the fateful day. In other words, he finished his paper run earlier than normal. I’ll leave it to you decide why he would’ve have been faster than normal…

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

    ross69 (2,535) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 7:50 pm

    Got anything that isn’t written by the Big Cop’s little brother, the juror stalker?

    Actually, you are wrong about the others saying the papers were delivered earlier than normal. Initially that was their assertion, but when they were asked exactly what time their paper was normally delivered they couldn’t say. The only way they determined the paper was delivered earlier that day, was because they had got up earlier than normal. They had not seen their paper delivered but just assumed the time.

    Laney’s evidence that it was earlier was taken from a subsequent statement and then there was doubt regarding her timing due to the fact the clock in her car was not running correctly. There was also a difference between her statements, one of which the police failed to produce – however Ms Laney insists she gave it too them.

    It doesn’t actually matter if he did his run quicker or not. It doesn’t make any difference to the timing that he actually arrived home, as witnessed by Ms Laney.

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

    Pele (34) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
    ——————————–

    Please explain how only David could have typed that message?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    The movie “Primal Fear” Richard Gear and the criminal “Edward Norton” do we have a Edward Norton here? keeping a straight face for so many years and still denying the murders? Case of the century.

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

    It doesn’t make any difference to the timing that he actually arrived home, as witnessed by Ms Laney.

    Well, Laney says she could have seen David between 6.40 and 6.45. That doesn’t preclude David having turned the pc on.

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

    This is what the Privy Council had to say about the computer turn-on time:

    “It is now clear that the jury should not have been told as a fact that the computer was switched on at 6.44 am. It may have been switched on nearly 5 minutes earlier; it may perchance have been switched on at 6.44; it may theoretically have been switched on later. A prosecutor alert to the fresh evidence now before the court would have had to approach the switch-on time with a degree of tentativeness. The third Court of Appeal observed that this evidence, viewed in isolation, could not be regarded as excluding David in the sense of showing that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the murders. That is so.”

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

    ross69 (2,536) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 8:06 pm
    ———————————–

    Ross, you’ve been through this argument time and time again, and the information was given in court, on various other documents and on various blogs. You know the information. You know that statement has been proven to be incorrect.

    You can repeat it as many times as you like, but it won’t make it right.
    I realise your campaign is to try and stir as many people as possible by telling them only partial information in a biased manner, but the fact is instead of people believing you, like they used to, they have now changed their minds. Even after the police gave their story, 70% to 30% on 13,000 votes. You can diss that all you like regarding authenticity, but even with room for error etc, it is still a significant vote that indicates NZ wants David Bain paid compo.

    No one believes your crapped out version anymore, and after the story I just read on another blog about Kent Parker’s latest stupid attempts, I doubt there is another kiwi that would change their mind in your favour – no matter how many fairy tales you tell.

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

    ross69 (2,537) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    ————————————–

    See what I mean. More evidence concerning the computer issue and the arrival time was given in the second trial, but you don’t use that, because it doesn’t favour your fairy tale, so instead you put together a story taking bits and pieces from here and there.

    Propaganda Ross – Counterspin Mantra – that is all you can come up with.

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

    Only david could have typed that computer message and YOU know it too, Judith.

    🙂

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

    Pele (35) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    The absurdity of turning on the computer, waiting for the boot, looking for the word processer, typing the message, wiping the keyboard down, then standing on one leg while holding a rifle at least a few inches away from your head and then committing suicide, when your son is nearly at or already thru the door, is exactly that, absurd.
    —————————————————

    Turning on the computer, thinking you had plenty of time, using a word processor that you used everyday because you were a computer fanatic, typing a message, and NOT wiping down the keyboard (there was not evidence that it had been wiped down ) looking out the window and seeing your son coming, so grabbing the gun, rising one leg on the chair in front of you so you can support the butt of the gun on the chair, in not impossible. The fact that the forensic evidence supports that scenario makes it even more acceptable.

    If you think it is so absurd, then unlike the crown who were unable to provide an alternative scenario to match the evidence, maybe you can?

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

    Now we have some idiot telling people what they ‘know.’

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

    Pele (35) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
    Only david could have typed that computer message and YOU know it too, Judith.
    ———————————

    No I don’t know it. In fact I don’t think he did type that message.

    You’re like a little two year, do you really think if you say it enough times you can make people believe it?

    There is nothing about that message that indicates only David could have written it. You need to stop smoking whatever it is your are – you’re delusional.

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

    Propaganda Ross

    So, you think the Privy Council’s arguments are nonsense?

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

    ross69 (2,538) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
    ——————————–

    No, I think the way you construct your argument, which is straight from the Counterspin text book, is propaganda.

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

    I quoted at length from the Privy Council judgment. You sound like Joe Karam. I can just imagine him hanging up on Mrs Laney.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pele (57 comments) says:

    fairest david, leader of this poor wretched family, don’t despair, rise above us and drag us into the new century, do it for all the 40 year old paper boys …. love dad.

    😉

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

    ross69 (2,539) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    ——————————–

    If you are hearing voices Ross, I think you should seek help.

    You can quote all you like, but the evidence was presented at a later legal proceeding in which statements that the police had previously hidden were exposed and so on. You can continue to try and argue from partial evidence, but it won’t get you anywhere.

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

    Do I think ‘Judith’ keeps a straight face when ‘they’ make their pot, kettle, black comments? Probably lol incredible as it may seem.

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

    Pele (36) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 8:40 pm
    —————————–

    You nasty cruel evil piece of trash. What a disgusting thing to say, regardless of who you think did it. Grow up.

    Another great example of a Counterspin/JFRB group member in action.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Dear david,
    I’m sorry you missed the rectification of the family, as I know how much their dysfunction shamed you and dragged you down, but all has now been cleansed and you can lead the family name in to blazing lights and make all the paperboys proud.

    love dad.

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

    Watch for children stalking next, before a meltdown.

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

    Or more likely,

    dear Mike and family, I’m sorry that it has come to this unfortunate tragedy, but I couldn’t handle the strain of living with Margaret and David any longer and thought this was the only way to end it all.

    Sorry I didn’t get david as well.

    Robin

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Not to mention the next murder. Damn out of sync lol

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

    Pele (37) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
    “But more logically,

    is that there is no GSR smears, blood splatter on the hands or blood under the fingernails of Robin. ;)”

    This is just downright lies but I guess that’s all to expect from you!

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

    “and you definitely know ONLY david could have typed the message on the computer. :)”

    More lies, the crown conceded that Robin most likely turned the PC on, as it was shown it happened before David was home, it is ridiculous to think that he went walking around in the house containing 4 bodies without noticing anything. In 1995 it was agreed between crown and defence that the PC was turned on by the killer.
    You don’t want facts though do you Pele, you prefer spin and fantasy storys

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

    Rowan (878) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:04 pm
    This is just downright lies but I guess that’s all to expect from you!

    You are only a follower, I expect you don’t know the truth,

    but there is NO BLOOD on Robins hands.

    as opposed to davids ..

    “Nor will Neptune’s great ocean wash davids blood clean from his hands,

    No, his hands will rather turn the green to red.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Bullshit, Robin could not have turned the computer on, because he was already dead.

    If you don’t know this, then its your faculties amissing not mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Teachers and crummy lawyers these days.

    A bit of bible stuff as the witches are ‘disturbed.’

    Go nutty why don’t ya.

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

    Pele (39) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:15 pm
    —————————-

    There was no blood found on David’s hands, but there was on Robin’s. It can even be seen in the same photo the ‘marks’ are on. Dr Dempster and other pathologists acknowledged its existence.

    More Counterspin/JFRB group propaganda from you Pele, keep it up. Whatever you do don’t stop. This blog is read by the very people that need to see just what your group is capable of, you are displaying it nicely.

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

    Pele @ 9.15
    You got any proof of that you lying piece of sh**, simply looking at the photos proves you wrong
    Actually there was no blood on Davids hands but extensive untested blood staining on daddys hands

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEPwh9tb8PU

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    There was no blood found on David’s hands

    Well, of course, because he washed them to get rid of that damn printer’s ink. 🙂

    Oh but there was blood on his clothes, including his shorts, t-shirt and socks.

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

    I think you should check your facts Pele
    Hint you won’t find any on Kents fantasy sight he prefers ‘spin’
    You have any proof of the exact time Daddy died, again no more unsubstantiated bs from a witchsniffer!

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

    Idiots observe,

    The blood on davids hands is non washable, guilt I say GUILT …

    but from the horses mouth ..

    “I didn’t have any blood on my hands, because I washed them” !!!!!

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

    ross69 (2,540) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    ———————————-

    There were very very small smudges of blood found on David’s clothing that was consistent with him having brushed against the blood that was on door jams and other places through the house. This was testified to at the second trial. But you know that, you are just following the Justice for Robin Bain mantra, and repeating the same list of out-dated and proved incorrect list, that they rely on.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Yes poor Judith and rowan, how could I expect your feeble brains to comprehend the bloody hands of guilt …

    alas poor fools, your cause is weak and hope expires daily.

    🙂

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

    Or brushed past and caused there to be blood on the door jambs. What door jambs was there blood on again?

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

    Maybe this latest piece of JFRB trash can give the explanation for Daddy’s ‘murder’ that Kieran Raftery couldn’t.
    But I suppose she finds that comedy CS ‘reconstruction’ of Marzukas convincing!
    I was convinced that the author was mentally retarted and way way out of his depth!

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

    Rowan were you posting on here when Dotcom was about?

    He was also tied up with the JFRB/Counterspin group. Poor man had a major breakdown and abused DPF and embarrassed himself no end. Was pitiful to watch a grown man acting like that. Mental illness is rife in our society, it is sad to see evidence of it in a place where you can do nothing to help them.

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

    Looks like Pele only has lies, but what more can we expect from CS

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

    Or brushed past and caused there to be blood on the door jambs. What door jambs was there blood on again?

    See from 6.51

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iG4wzSUsI

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

    goldnkiwi (413) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    Or brushed past and caused there to be blood on the door jambs. What door jambs was there blood on again?
    —————————–

    Oh you poor thing. You’ve made up your mind about the case and don’t even know the most basic of evidence.
    The amount of blood found on the door jams was far greater than that found on the clothing. If you have any awareness of forensic testing you would know that it if it had brushed off the clothes, it would be detectable as having come from them by the trace remaining.

    For a supporter of JFRB and Counterspin, you are terribly ill-informed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. expat (4,070 comments) says:

    The Standard called they want their conspiracy theorists back.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Yes Judith
    I think he had major psychiatric issues, but was good for a laugh

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

    Retarded!!!!

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

    ross69 (2,541) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    ————————–

    Really desperate aren’t you. Unfortunately the very claims your group as made about TV3’s program last week can be applied to that program. Sensationalist, made for TV by the media and excluded vital and important evidence.

    If this is the sort of standards Justice for Robin Bain and the Counterspin group take their information from then they can hardly be considered as an authentic, informed and realistic organisation with anything viable to add to the any discussion on the case.

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

    expat (4,008) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    —————————-

    Tell them to wait their turn – we are expecting a UFO to land on the roof of the Beehive sometime in the next four hours having been instructed to go there by Obama, or was it Osama? .
    We also have reason to believe that Pharlap smuggled the recipe for pavolva across the Tasman in a jar of Marmite. Until we investigate those issues we cannot return. 😛

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

    Alas poor Rowan,

    I have NEVER professed to know of Robins exact execution, only that it was a planned and bloody one, like his wife’s and children.

    Nah wicked and wild campaign instituted by false confessions, simply a planned and executed culling to satisfy ones best advances.

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

    Unfortunately the very claims your group as made about TV3′s program last week can be applied to that program.

    I don’t belong to any group, but what you seem to be saying is that TV3’s program last week was shite. I think that’s the smartest thing you’ve said for a while.

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

    ross69 (2,542) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 9:54 pm
    ————————-

    Don’t try to be smart Ross, you don’t have the IQ for it. I made reference to the post I was referring to by quoting the time. It was your video of the BB Doco. But you knew that. Counterspinning suits you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Pele never lies, lest volcanic eruptions,

    she knows the simple truth and will burn the evil that surrounds her …

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

    The ghost of .Dom reveals an eerie presence. Welcome back dotcom, I knew you couldn’t keep it up long and that you’d eventually use the same wording of previous ‘insults’. I hope DPF hasn’t had an early night. Are you going to lose it now, and abuse him or are you going to wait for a fantastic showdown, like last time? Its just I really want to go to bed, but I don’t want to miss the inevitable meltdown either.

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

    Pele
    You talk a load of shit, your proof that ‘only David could have typed the message’ – none
    ‘Daddy had no blood on him’ – again none and demonstrably untrue
    ‘David had blood on his hands’ – ditto

    You are unable to substantiate anything you say because all you have are lies and spin, that is the counterspin way

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Your ignorance knows no boundaries, Rowan,

    but rest easy with Judi and Brian, and stew in the completeness of absurdity.

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

    CS/ Justice for Daddy now has two achievements
    1. They convinced Ian Binnie of DBs innocence, remember he read all their arguments
    2. Muggins linked the photo of the thumb marks for David Giles to find
    Achievement 3 will be Kent getting done at the upcoming Karam vs Parker court action and having to pay rather a lot

    Well done to them on this

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

    Pele
    You are stupid and naïve and way out of your depth on this case!

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

    LOL,

    One mocks your total ignorance and compares thee to the ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Honeybadger (522 comments) says:

    I see both Judith, Rowan, and Nostalgia, are as objective as always……. Insults always fly when they are disagreed with, isnt it all too easy to bait some people?

    LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Aye, baiting and tempting is fair sport, but better to reel them and cast them to the pan … :devil:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Aye, baiting and tempting is fair sport, but better to reel them in and toss them into the pan … 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Thanks ross69, that is the first time I have watched that. 2004 was before this case really came to my attention. Recommended watching I reckon. Interesting that the defence asserted that both cartridges were loaded at the same time before the shootings. Another point was that David was depicted as wearing glasses during the walk he took with Rebecca and Sarah at the Polar plunge, I wonder if they were asked about that?
    Extraordinary not to have been wearing glasses if it was correct that extensive blurring occurred at a foot.

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

    Extraordinary not to have been wearing glasses if it was correct that extensive blurring occurred at a foot.

    Well, David told various people that he wore glasses the weekend of the murders. But he changed his story once he realised the significance of that admission.

    Justice Binnie put it to David that he picked up Laniet on the Sunday. David replied: “I didn’t have my glasses, I couldn’t drive”. Binnie then told him that he drove that weekend. He admitted that he did so. The implication was that he was wearing glasses. David lied to Binnie and it went straight over the old fella’s head.

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

    goldnkiwi (415) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 12:04 am
    ————————————

    As usual Goldnkiwi, when you give up on your inane remarks and attempt to venture into the realm of real evidence, you invariably get it wrong.

    There is nothing interesting about the cartridges being both loaded at the same time, the man was going to be doing a lot of shooting using a weapon that clearly had problems. He had obviously used the weapon before, because he had spent bullets in his caravan, so would have been aware that he may need to have an extra loaded magazine. What is interesting that one of the needed to be reloaded due to the number of shots fired and/or misfired/misfed. But that information seems to have missed your attention.

    Regarding those glasses. No witness could be found or came forward, despite intensive efforts to find one, that could vouch to David Bain wearing glasses during that weekend, even at the Polar Swim. David’s vision started to blur at a foot, however as any shortsighted person can tell you, it is possible to do many activities, including swimming and walking, without glasses. The vision is just not as defined as it could be. Lovely use of Propaganda though Goldnkiwi, did you get that directly from Kent, or did you just read in one of the ‘secret’ forums?

    It appears your imagination has got the better of you, or is are these just more lies from the Justice for Robin Bain and Counterspin Cauldron?

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

    ross69 (2,543) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 8:11 am
    Extraordinary not to have been wearing glasses if it was correct that extensive blurring occurred at a foot.

    Well, David told various people that he wore glasses the weekend of the murders. But he changed his story once he realised the significance of that admission.

    Justice Binnie put it to David that he picked up Laniet on the Sunday. David replied: “I didn’t have my glasses, I couldn’t drive”. Binnie then told him that he drove that weekend. He admitted that he did so. The implication was that he was wearing glasses. David lied to Binnie and it went straight over the old fella’s head.

    The trip on the Sunday was from the city not just down the road to the local shop.

    The comment did not go over Binnie’s head. He referred back to the incident where David had said he had driven.
    He had driven down to the local fish n chip shop to pick up takeaways. Close by and a short and familiar drive. David was not blind, he could see without his glasses, and he could make out objects on the road, however, his vision is improved by wearing them. Although it is a requirement of his drivers license to wear corrective lens, it doesn’t mean he cannot physically drive without them.

    The other thing that Binnie, and others picked up on was the fact that as no part of the glasses found had any forensic evidence on them, despite the police claiming they were worn and lost during the prolonged battle with Stephen, and one lens was found in the room (covered in dust indicating it had not been used for vision) then there is nothing that connects those glasses to the murders, other than they were in the house.

    Regarding the people that say David told them. There is only one person, the Aunty, who remembered the conversation years after it had taken place. A person who in the meantime had financially benefited from the estate. Even the manner in which she says she spoke to David is suggestive that there was a misunderstanding. However the previous point still applies – there is nothing that links those glasses to the murders and if they were being worn and knocked from David’s face as claimed, then there would have been forensic evidence on them, as Stephen was bleeding profusely, or they would have shown signs of being wiped down – they did neither.

    The other person who has said David told him, is not a credible witness and there is evidence that he is not being truthful.

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

    Another interesting point about the glasses.

    Why did Detective Weir tell another witness not to mentioning the fact there was so much dust on the lens found in Stephen’s room that it couldn’t have been used recently for vision?

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

    Well, David told various people that he wore glasses the weekend of the murders. But he changed his story once he realised the significance of that admission.

    Now you have him telling ‘various people’?
    Care to name ALL of these?
    *sits back and watches the list grow*

    BB is well known to add visuals to his programs that bears no relation to the evidence.

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

    Yes ‘Judith” 😉 Clearly there are lots of witnesses that could/should come forward.
    Of course then you would say but why didn’t you come forward sooner?

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

    I am sure that there were a lot of people that didn’t come forward originally because they thought that the case was absolutely solid without their testimony.

    It certainly isn’t too late for them to do so, if any of them read these blogs, I could imagine that they were put off by the vitriol evident here, issued primarily by the resident harridan puppet.

    ‘They’ are probably on life time parole too. 😉

    I think there should be a campaign for those people to still come forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Anyone else notice how the shooters eyesight got worse after the fight in Stephens room.

    😉

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    If you knew the rifle well enough to handle the magazine(s), wouldn’t you remove the silencer before shooting yourself?

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

    there is nothing that links those glasses to the murders and if they were being worn and knocked from David’s face as claimed, then there would have been forensic evidence on them

    Why assume that? I’ve worn glasses that have fallen off and nobody has touched them. If David was struggling with Stephen, the force of the struggle could have caused them to come off. There need not be any “forensic evidence” on the glasses.

    The issue is, how did the glasses come apart, and why did David lie to Binnie that he hadn’t driven that weekend?

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

    If you knew the rifle well enough to handle the magazine(s), wouldn’t you remove the silencer before shooting yourself?

    Oh come on Snarkle, Robin was clearly a very considerate man. Guns tend to make noise when they go off. He obviously didn’t want to wake the neighbours.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Or maybe, as Sandra Bullock says to Keanu Reeves during “Speed”- “what- wasn’t it challenging enough for you already?”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    BTW my theory about why DB waited so long to call the police (he was agonising over what his sisters would wear for their funeral) also explains the broken glasses as well. Clearly, DB threw them to the ground in a fit of frustration induced by not knowing what bra to choose for either. Obviously a very difficult moment for him, what with having had no inkling whatsoever he was going to have to plan their funerals up to that moment.
    No-one has challenged my theory BTW, so I assume it meets with widespread approval.

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

    “Bob Clark said while David was with his family, David had said he had worn his mother’s glasses in the week before the murders because he had broken his own. … He had said they did not give him perfect vision but they were good enough.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2382488/David-Bain-Celebrate-death

    Hmmm yet David told Binnie he hadn’t seen those glasses in a year. Weren’t his mother’s damaged glasses found in his bedroom? Obviously Robin put them there to frame David…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    My theory explains all, ross69. He was totally embarrassed about why he threw them to the ground. Hence the lie. Much more plausible than lying to cover up murder, surely?

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

    Obviously a very difficult moment for him, what with having had no inkling whatsoever he was going to have to plan their funerals up to that moment.

    Well, that’s true. Plus he had to decide on the music. He apparently wanted the Queen song “Who wants to live Forever” played. That couldn’t have been an easy choice. I mean he could have chosen any number of songs celebrating death. I’m surprised he didn’t opt for Leonard Cohen or The Smiths.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    “Hit me with your best shot”? His father’s suicide fits the bill- it was so good, it was almost impossible

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Incidentally, I wonder if he briefly considered Bohemian Rhapsody? Read the lyrics…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    David could’ve played this song at his family’s funeral. Seems to fit him well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olN4tsBmTHU

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pele (57 comments) says:

    The killer awoke before dawn

    He put his socks on

    He took a mask from the gallery

    and he walked on down the hallway ……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    “Is this the real life?
    Is this just fantasy?
    Caught in a landslide,
    No escape from reality.

    Open your eyes,
    Look up to the skies and see,
    I’m just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
    Because I’m easy come, easy go,
    Little high, little low,
    Any way the wind blows doesn’t really matter to me, to me.

    Mama, just killed a man,
    Put a gun against his head,
    Pulled my trigger, now he’s dead.
    Mama, life had just begun,
    But now I’ve gone and thrown it all away.”

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

    Oh …
    I know I’m unloveable
    You don’t have to tell me
    I don’t have much in my life
    But take it – it’s yours
    I don’t have much in my life
    But take it – it’s yours
    Oh …

    I know I’m unloveable
    You don’t have to tell me
    Oh, message received
    Loud and clear
    Loud and clear
    I don’t have much in my life
    But take it – it’s yours

    I know I’m unloveable
    You don’t have to tell me
    For message received
    Loud and clear
    Loud and clear
    Message received
    I don’t have much in my life
    But take it – it’s yours

    I wear Black on the outside
    ‘Cause Black is how I feel on the inside
    I wear Black on the outside
    ‘Cause Black is how I feel on the inside

    And if I seem a little strange
    Well, that’s because I am
    If I seem a little strange
    That’s because I am

    But I know that you would like me
    If only you could see me
    If only you could meet me

    I don’t have much in my life
    But take it – it’s yours
    I don’t have much in my life
    But take it – it’s yours

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    The nutters are out of the asylum.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    So NNZ- if he knew enough about the rifle to bugger around with the magazine, why didn’t he remove the silencer? If he planned it well enough to well gloves, why take a chance on the one shot that matters the most? Why not make it as easy as possible? Dig a little deeper into the mine of forensic knowledge you possess, NNZ, and tell us the real answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Honeybadger (522 comments) says:

    I would much rather have ‘nutters out of the asylum’, than have murderers out of prison…

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,711) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 11:41 am

    The nutters are out of the asylum.

    Comforting to know they only let a couple out at a time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Any chance of answer to my question? Apply the enema of logic to the blocked colon of confusion, NNZ and Kanz, and produce some movement on this vexed question. Why didn’t he remove the silencer if he knew enough about the rifle to bugger around with the magazine?

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

    I am reviewing the 3 degree programme, I haven’t seen anyone fire any gun without their thumb holding it too, is that even possible? However would gunshot residue survive the contact. Not to mention on the trigger finger.

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

    Snarkle (85) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 11:44 am
    ————————————-

    It is entirely possible that he ran out of time. Given the timing of the computer message, it is highly probable that Robin saw David arriving from his paper round, as the alcove window looked directly up to the road/gate area.

    It is more than probable he didn’t have time to do anything other than shoot himself. Do not forget this was not a rational thinking man, which I presume you are. He would have been in a state of advanced shock, irrationality and distress. It may not have occurred to him to do the obvious or most rational thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Honeybadger (522 comments) says:

    how many seconds to boot up the computer in your theory? time enough to get a screwdriver and undo the silencer….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    But not too distressed to wear gloves, change his clothes etc. You can’t have it both ways Judith. The killings required some thought and planning. I’ve pointed out before (and you didn’t reply) that it is odd that RB took so much trouble to commit actions that look bad for DB (eg. the gloves) , and so little trouble over at least two things that also look bad for DB (the note, not removing the silencer). He appears to have gone out of his way to implicate his son in two separate stages- careful execution one minute, sloppy, inconvenient, and extremely difficult the next. Not only that, but he changed his method at exactly the wrong moment for DB. Imagine, if you will, RB panicking and shooting himself JUST BEFORE changing clothes. We wouldn’t be here today.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Nookin (4,514 comments) says:

    “Do not forget this was not a rational thinking man, which I presume you are. He would have been in a state of advanced shock, irrationality and distress. It may not have occurred to him to do the obvious or most rational thing.”

    I am not going to get into the debate of guilt or otherwise. I restrict my comments to the processes by which a conclusion may be reached. The counter to this proposition is that however misguided his intentions may have been, assuming you are correct, he was sufficiently rational to kill 4 people and himself and, at the same time, avoid leaving any trace of his actions leaving the experts to draw inferences from equivocal facts. Or do you disagree?

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

    It is more than probable he didn’t have time to do anything other than shoot himself.

    Really? He couldn’t go out to his caravan? He just HAD to do it in the lounge where David might interrupt him?

    Do not forget this was not a rational thinking man…

    He was rational enough to set his alarm, get dressed, put on a beanie, attach a wrist watch, and bring in the newspaper. For an allegedly irrational person intend on committing mass murder, he was remarkably predictable.

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

    Let’s not forget that Robin could simply have picked up the telephone and dialled 111, and explained to police that he had killed his family (minus David). He could’ve done that in the time it took the computer to boot up.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    And worked on the roof in the previous days…

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

    It is more than probable he [Robin] didn’t have time to do anything other than shoot himself.

    Actually he had plenty of time…David said his paper run took him an hour to complete. How much time did Robin need?

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

    And worked on the roof in the previous days…

    There’s considerate Robin again. Used a silencer so as not to wake up the neighbours. Fixed the roof so David wouldn’t have to. I bet he was gutted when – getting to the pearly gates – he learnt that David had had the house burnt down.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    It would be good to stage a reconstruction of his suicide, in which the person involved was given a very strict time limit.
    DPF, time to put this thread to bed. Is it possible, please, to call on your internet resources and ask an overseas naive fingerprint expert to compare the thumbprint and photo? We need to know if:
    1. The marks are almost certainly not present on the print
    2. The marks could be ditto
    3. The marks are almost certainly ditto.
    If the overseas expert says 1) then I’m afraid a large serving of a certain pie dish is in order for most of us!

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

    You are all doing the same thing. You are looking at the situation through the eyes of presumably rational people.

    I am sure Robin never expected Stephen to put up the fight he did. I am sure he never thought he’d have to apply more than one shot to Laniet (he actually didn’t need to, she was already dead, but the position caused her to make noises, so no doubt he presumed she needed the extra).

    I don’t believe for one minute that Robin applied a great deal of thought to it. The gloves were there, in the same unit the keylock was on top of. Perhaps when he started he thought he could just pop them all off and escape. Who knows, but clearly things didn’t go to plan.

    Why would Robin just pick up the phone? You would have to be capable of rational thought to do that. Are you suggesting Robin killed his family in a cold rational manner and knew exactly what he was doing? That would make him a psychopath, and there is absolutely no evidence of either Robin or David for that matter, being psychopathic.

    Whether you like it or not, or lack the ability to perceive that Robin Bain was not thinking rationally – the evidence provided by Robin’s forensics indicate he committed suicide. The Crown was unable to offer an explanation for that. Just because you can’t work out why he didn’t do it, how you would have, doesn’t mean he didn’t.

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

    Snarkle (89) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 12:33 pm
    ————————————–

    Is already being done – that you can be assured of. There has even been internet posts regarding that.

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

    Nookin (2,534) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 12:15 pm
    —————————————

    Someone in our mostly peaceful society that kills four people and then themselves is not thinking rationally, no matter how you paint it.

    Whilst his actions may have been able to be carried out, that does not mean for one minute the mind was not in a state of extreme stress and confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    Judith, you are missing the point. RB may have been acting irrationally, IF SO HE DID SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE FOR DAVID. I mean, if he was setting out to frame DB he could hardly have done a better job. Wearing DB’s gloves was an absolute masterstroke!
    As the Bard said “though this be madness, yet there is method in it”.
    Then he changed his approach from clinical execution to panicked suicide in an extremely difficult fashion at EXACTLY the wrong moment for David- and he took the trouble to write an ambiguous suicide note, when a simple scrawl on a piece of paper would have exonerated David. If he hadn’t done ANY of these things DB would be enjoying the fruits of the family estate at this very moment.
    And I’m sorry, but shooting several members of your family with a silenced rifle while wearing gloves looks, smells, and sounds like a rational (and psychopathic) act to me. If you weren’t so desperate to maintain that there is absolutely nothing in the scenario that points to DB, you’d see that.

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

    Why would Robin just pick up the phone? You would have to be capable of rational thought to do that.

    He certainly was capable of rational thought, which is why he set the alarm, got dressed, put on his beanie, attached a wristwatch and brought in the morning newspaper.

    Oh and he was apparently rational enough to turn on the computer and pen an ambiguous note, before or after he changed clothes!

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

    Someone in our mostly peaceful society that kills four people and then themselves is not thinking rationally

    Jeremy Bamber was apparently rational and has been seen by many experts who apparently can’t find a thing wrong with him. You’ll recall that he slaughtered his family and tried to frame his sister for the murders. he stood to gain financially from the killings. Some would regard that as rational behaviour.

    http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/

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

    ross69 (2,554) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    ——————————–

    You have proof Robin Bain slept in his bed that night do you?

    The alarm was set to automatically turn on at that time every morning and was still going when the police found it.

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

    David hater his father. A rational response to hating something would be to eliminate the problem…I think David behaved rationally in that he presumably saw only one way to resolve the problem.

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

    @ Snarkle

    If he was setting out to frame David in such a precise way, then how come David was eventually acquitted?

    To frame David, or even think of the implication of his actions on David required a rational mind.

    David’s gloves where in the room where the gun was kept – a quick easy find.

    A rational person would have found a pen and written a note – as you point out, putting a note on the computer hardly seems rational.

    Maybe it does look like a psychopathic act to you – but now you are faced with another explanation. David Bain has undergone extensive and prolonged psychiatric and psychological investigation that has included months and years of assessment by this countries leading experts in the field of forensic psychopathy. None of them, even using brain scans found any evidence of psychopathy (which is not something that comes and goes – if its there, its always there).

    So, if it took a psychopath to kills the Bain,s – then where are they?

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

    ross69 (2,556) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    ———————————-

    But he loved his mother – so your rationale doesn’t stack up.

    I’m not answering on this thread, its too long and too slow. If you want a comment from me. Take it to the hypocrisy thread. Better suited to JFRB members with that name.

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

    It is a shame that tv3 didn’t go further and test how many thumb/finger gun residue marks remained after shot/s were fired, assuming that their assertions are correct. As it would seem according to them that Robin’s last act was loading a cartridge, not actually firing the gun.

    I have spoken to one person that was persuaded by the programme, so I guess that purpose was achieved. I would like to add that I do not think that they are still of that opinion. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Oh you are so full of lies, Judith.

    Robin was never in Stephens room, let alone in a fight, the EVIDENCE clearly shows this.

    however the golden child, was definitely in the room and showed signs of being in a fight.

    eat it. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    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.
    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. You’d want the same if it were you who were accused of serious crimes whether or not you were alive to contest it. A lot of people look at the evidence, Judith, and can’t get past a number of inconvenient facts like the killer wore gloves. 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.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    “David and Goliath” P216 ‘He waits and waits, ten minutes, fifteen minutes, twenty minutes.’ This implies that Robin Bain had plenty of time to spare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    The alarm clock in Robin Bain’s caravan was set for 6.32a.m. It wasn”t “going” when the Police entered the caravan. Whether David Bain’s gloves were “handier” or not is irrelevant – why were gloves worn at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Robin belonged to an organisation which some members of wear white gloves.
    Someone asked above why didn’t Robin remove the silencer, simple – he didn’t have to in order to kill himself.
    These are the type of questions that divert the not so bright, such as the question of the glasses – David didn’t need to wear them, they only became important to support the planted lens.
    Something else to reflect upon David had no requirement to undergo a strip search – he did so voluntarily.

    Anyway jolly good to see the little party where the old girls adopt new names and think they’re fooling somebody. Quite ironic for ‘right thinking’ folk. Not much happening here, the emphasis has switched to the JR and the ‘game changer.’ Hold onto your broomsticks.

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

    ‘Innocent openness’?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Is that you ‘Judith’? The wilderness is calling lol

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. gamefisher (416 comments) says:

    Back to the subject there are a couple of the most important criteria’s these marks had to achieve they had to be parallel and they had to be the precisely same width within a certain tollerance. They are not parallel and are po2sibly 0.2mm difference in width that is too high a tolerance or variation. There are of course many other areas of doubt as th it being valid evidence but one thing for certain it is not a clincher to any stretch of ones imagination what drugs were TV3 on?

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

    gamefisher (407) Says:
    July 1st, 2013 at 5:12 pm
    —————————–

    You have the original dimensions of the photographs/hand etc and the experience as a qualified forensic photographer to make that call? OR are you just looking at the reproduced photos are making it up as you go along? Please explain how you came at your width, without knowing the actual measurements of Robin’s hand/thumb?

    I ask because other Forensic experts have spoken out saying it is impossible for novices without the information and correct equipment to determine the aspects you have.

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

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    In theory it would be great if there was such a break through.
    For that reason I will not say that he shouldn’t have brought it to the attention of whomever.
    If Mr Giles is poked fun at, it might discourage someone coming forward with real evidence.
    It is my personal opinion that in this instance it was straw clutching and it was given legs,
    that the thought didn’t merit. That is not Mr Giles’s fault.

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

    But he loved his mother – so your rationale doesn’t stack up.

    In fact it does stack up and you know it. There was evidence that his mother and father had asked him to move out, and his mother had told him off for dictating to his siblings. He was being bossy and intimidating them with a gun. I could imagine that both events wouldn’t have gone down well with David.

    “Robin had separated from his wife Margaret, and David said they did not want him in the family home, but he would not leave.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10569563

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Maxine (46 comments) says:

    Right, Robin Bain belonged to an organisation of which some members wore gloves. Why didn’t I think of that?

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

    Clearly because you are not in the ‘know’ 😉 You know secret squirrel.

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

    It was stated on the programme that if the marks were GSR that it would disappear all by itself, quickly, correct? Does anyone have a time frame? That puts that photo of the cartridge on its edge very early on in the piece then, if their assertion is correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Dexter (564 comments) says:

    I just watched the program and they stated the marks would rub off upon contact with anything, which is why according to them, the marks wouldn’t be visible by the time the PM was conducted.

    Which of course begs the rather obvious question, wouldn’t this residue then rub off or at least be smudged when Robin had to then extensively the rifle with both hands in order to shoot himself?

    And why on earth didn’t they replicate the second step, given they have been planning this for close to half a year?

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

    He loaded the magazine with his right hand and held the rifle with the same hand when he suicided, can’t see any reason why that would remove the marks. Do a simulation yourself, there doesn’t appear to be any reason why his thumb area would contact any surface and the photograph is consistent with the fact that it didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Honeybadger (522 comments) says:

    Nostalgia….’cough’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Dexter (564 comments) says:

    Thanks, Nostalgia but looking at this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr13rG7YmNY – of the defense reinactment, all of those situations involve the thumb having contact with the rifle, he would also have had to first rechamber a road by actioning the rifle, this also involves the thumb and forefinger of the dominant hand.

    It just seems inconceivable to me, that unless he was making a deliberate attempt to avoid smudging the marks, that he could go through all those actions without at least smudging power residue.

    Either way the onus is on the defense now to prove that this is possible. The fact that they failed to perform the test fully, negates any validity it might have and renders it void.

    They have to do the full scenario to see if it is physically possible. Including loading the magazine, placing it on it’s thin edge, shooting oneself and then the body falling to land without disturbing the upright magazine, and after that show that the lines are still clear and distinct.

    That does seem pretty obvious, especially if they are trying to present this as conclusive evidence. If they can prove that, then it is a useful piece of evidence that should be included in any compensation decision as it offers a viable alternative, but as it is in it’s current state, it’s simply irrelevant and nothing more than an exercise in propaganda.

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

    And why on earth didn’t they replicate the second step, given they have been planning this for close to half a year?

    I asked that question previously. The TV show was a stunt, presumably trying to improve on its poor rating. But with gimmicks like this, the show’s ratings are going to be in the toilet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    [thanks, Nostalgia but looking at this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr13rG7YmNY – of the defense reinactment, all of those situations involve the thumb having contact with the rifle, he would also have had to first rechamber a road by actioning the rifle, this also involves the thumb and forefinger of the dominant hand.]

    Not right, hopeful but not right. Thumb isn’t utilised in loading the magazine – it fits across the fingers. You’ll have to do far better than that, those involved were experts. The thumb was used to load the magazine, nothing else, you seem to be deliberately confusing the use of the hand or fingers by implying that the thumb is therefore involved, not true. Your argument defeats itself, your acknowledging the marks but are unable to explain why they were present during the autopsy.

    [It just seems inconceivable to me, that unless he was making a deliberate attempt to avoid smudging the marks, that he could go through all those actions without at least smudging power residue.]

    Answered above, better to experiment than make hopeful guesses.

    [Either way the onus is on the defense now to prove that this is possible. The fact that they failed to perform the test fully, negates any validity it might have and renders it void.]

    Not so, the numerous photos are proof. The gsr not being noted in the autopsy is further proof. It is for you to explain the ‘missing’ scratches – good luck with that one.

    [They have to do the full scenario to see if it is physically possible. Including loading the magazine, placing it on it’s thin edge, shooting oneself and then the body falling to land without disturbing the upright magazine, and after that show that the lines are still clear and distinct.]

    Need to do more work on this as well. The magazine was moved at the scene, the police blamed Dempster despite him not being allowed in the house while they squirted tomato sauce about the place. The most experienced investigator was kept out while a horde of amateurs carted stuff out and moved things destroying evidence in the process.

    [That does seem pretty obvious, especially if they are trying to present this as conclusive evidence. If they can prove that, then it is a useful piece of evidence that should be included in any compensation decision as it offers a viable alternative, but as it is in it’s current state, it’s simply irrelevant and nothing more than an exercise in propaganda.]

    Something that is captured in a photo and then disappears is not propaganda, especially when it ‘accidentally’ aligns perfectly with 2 surfaces covered in gsr. Months have passed since the police became aware of this and they haven’t provided a credible answer and all we have heard from those invested in being ‘right’ is unsubstantiated nonsense that doesn’t make sense. By listening to some of it one could imagine that it forgotten that David has been found not guilty already. The situation is that David Bain is not guilty, and has been judged innocent my an jurist of international standing and apart from a few perverts going on about goats and strip searches the situation will remain for years that facets of the investigation will be increasingly pulled apart and show Robin as the killer – just as the gsr announces from the photo.

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

    A late night stalker has a cough.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Dexter (564 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, try using this to quote in wordpress obviously without the full stops.

    The thumb was used to load the magazine, nothing else,

    Exactly, and can’t you see this is the problem with the test? Their proposition is that Robin Bain then went on to shoot himself, which means they have to prove how this piece of evidence then fits in with that entire chain, i.e proving that the ‘marks’ would still exist at the conclusion. All they have done is isolate one single element of the chain, and are claiming it is conclusive proof of the rest of it, this lacks scientific and evidential foundation, and in it’s present format is virtually worthless.

    Your argument defeats itself, your acknowledging the marks but are unable to explain why they were present during the autopsy.

    Obviously I’m talking hypothetically in relation to the marks, and I’m confused was the alleged GSR on his thumb noted during the autopsy or not?

    Need to do more work on this as well. The magazine was moved at the scene,

    If this is the defense proposition (could you please link to what they state about it) then they need to prove it. You have stated that the police investigation was careless and sloppy (perhaps it was), however someone entering a scene, and picking up a key piece of evidence and then taking the time to then position it and balance it on it’s thin edge, is not careless or sloppy, is a deliberate and contrived attempt to pervert the course of justice. Is this what you are claiming?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Honeybadger (522 comments) says:

    A very logical and thought out response there Dexter, but please, dont hold your breath for the same sort of response. ‘Our’ Nostalgia, (and a few others) resort to snide comments when they come against someone with a logical thought process

    I did ask way way back about the 50 50 contract Joe Karam has with David Bain, over ‘any proceeds’ (Joe’s own words), but I was told my comment was ‘defamation’, and despite asking if Joe has ever said it is not a contract, there has been no response, only the abuse…..

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

    ‘Exactly, and can’t you see this is the problem with the test? Their proposition is that Robin Bain then went on to shoot himself, which means they have to prove how this piece of evidence then fits in with that entire chain, i.e proving that the ‘marks’ would still exist at the conclusion. All they have done is isolate one single element of the chain, and are claiming it is conclusive proof of the rest of it, this lacks scientific and evidential foundation, and in it’s present format is virtually worthless.’

    There is no problem with the test, the results were consistent over a number of people doing the same test, and also consistent with the fact the gsr wasn’t able to be seen by the naked eye in the autopsy. The test has complete scientific and evidential foundation as the results show. You have no explanation at all, but your concessions that the marks existed at one point but not later undermines your criticism.

    ‘Obviously I’m talking hypothetically in relation to the marks, and I’m confused was the alleged GSR on his thumb noted during the autopsy or not?’

    No, and that is clear from the evidence. I expect that further examination tests have or will be able to confirm the pre-existence of the gsr. That is a major hurdle in trying to dismiss the validity of the photo and the tests linked to the murder weapon.

    Photos showed the magazine in various places and there was other evidence of it having been moved round. If you did watch the 3 Degrees show it revealed that the photo until this point had been used to argue the position of the magazine and the two gsr marks had been missed. The emphasis had been wrongly placed on the position of the magazine when the lounge was entered, however it didn’t withstand scrutiny, the marks however have.

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

    Meanwhile a ‘pal’ thinks the answer is connected to the validity or otherwise of a ‘contract.’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Dexter (564 comments) says:

    Nos, you put blockquote with a and either side and then /blockquote with the same at the end of the quote you want.

    There is no problem with the test, the results were consistent over a number of people doing the same test,

    I don’t want to sound condescending, but it’s a very basic concept that you are not grasping and it is getting a bit frustrating having to explain it yet again.

    All that test proves, is that in isolation if you load a magazine in a particular manner it can leave gun power residue in parallel lines on whatever thumb you used to rounds in the bullets in. Lets call this ‘X’.

    Now the next part the defense has to prove, given their acknowledgment that the lines would rub off upon contact with any surface. Is that it was at the exact point in time, immediately prior to killing himself, that Robin decided to reload the magazine. Obviously had he done it at any other point, prior the lines would have rubbed off or at least been distorted. We can call this component ‘Y’.

    The final part of the equation they have to show is demonstrate a plausible scenario in which Robin Bain then placed down the magazine, without touching it with his thumb, picked up a rifle, again without making contact with his thumb, grabbed it with both hands, again not making contact with his thumb, moved his body, gripped the rifle with both hands, again not using his thumb, and then shot himself, again not using his thumb. And we can call this part Z.

    Once they have proved that X,Y and Z can happen, then we have to assign the probability of each happening in isolation, and then the probability of all those then happening together, then once that is completed it can be assessed against with the prosecution account, i.e the lines were cuts.

    You have no explanation at all, but your concessions that the marks existed at one point but not later undermines your criticism.

    Do I really have to preface everything with ‘hypothetically’? At present I don’t believe they are cuts, and the Police alternative, that they were cuts, is supported with tested evidence, in it’s current state the defense alternative is worthless in comparison.

    Photos showed the magazine in various places and there was other evidence of it having been moved round.

    Again in order to substantiate this, you need to provide evidence, if you can link to the photos and evidence of it being moved around, that would be a start.

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

    Honeybadger (125) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    I did ask way way back about the 50 50 contract Joe Karam has with David Bain, over ‘any proceeds’ (Joe’s own words), but I was told my comment was ‘defamation’, and despite asking if Joe has ever said it is not a contract, there has been no response, only the abuse…..

    ——————————————

    Oh Honeybadger, you forgetful old thing. You were told very clearly that the only contract that exists between David Bain and Joe Karam, is one where Joe agrees to give David 50 % of any money Joe makes from the profits of books, articles etc.

    There is no contract in which David agrees to give Joe any money that he receives.

    You have been told all this before, but you seem to prefer to forget that part and continually to promote it the other way.

    It’s almost as if you have some sort of negative agenda that you want people to believe a lie. Why would you need to be so dishonest?

    Hopefully you will remember being told this time. Because you do know the truth, but continue to falsely misrepresent it, with the intention of making people think less of Joe Karam, it does come under the definition of defamation. That is why you receive abuse – no one likes liars, especially forgetful ones, who like to forget the truth, for the purpose of causing harm.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Honeybadger (522 comments) says:

    Judith..please post the relevant passage where Joe agrees to 50/50 and nostlgia I could never be your ‘pal’

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

    Honeybadger (126) Says:
    July 3rd, 2013 at 5:19 pm
    ——————————-

    I have already done that for you on kiwiblog honeybadger. I suggest you go and find it.

    There is nothing in any of Joe’s books that suggests a reciprocal agreement. That is your groups invention. You have been informed of the truth, but decided it is in your groups interest to promote lies.

    The idea to promote it that way was started on the JFRB facebook page, before Kent decided he better wipe most of the content because it was so defamatory – unfortunately for him, members of the group had already copied it.

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

    Children stalkers ain’t no friends of mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    [I don’t want to sound condescending, but it’s a very basic concept that you are not grasping and it is getting a bit frustrating having to explain it yet again.

    All that test proves, is that in isolation if you load a magazine in a particular manner it can leave gun power residue in parallel lines on whatever thumb you used to rounds in the bullets in. Lets call this ‘X’.

    Now the next part the defense has to prove, given their acknowledgment that the lines would rub off upon contact with any surface. Is that it was at the exact point in time, immediately prior to killing himself, that Robin decided to reload the magazine. Obviously had he done it at any other point, prior the lines would have rubbed off or at least been distorted. We can call this component ‘Y’.]

    You don’t sound condescending dexter, rather slumberous of thought fits though.
    So you agree we have ‘X’. a magazine loaded in a particular manner leaves gunpowder residue in parallel.

    You go onto say what you claim the defence has to prove more than the fact that they were there (seen in the photo,) present on the body in the lounge but not there at the time of the autopsy. How the might have been removed isn’t the job of the defence, even with somebody such as yourself with a pedantic view that isn’t supported with practical experience, of the type we saw last Wednesday night – the telling evidence doesn’t move, gsr (highly probable) shown in the photos and not recorded in the autopsy. In isolation and in context this is a formidable strike against a case that has already failed 3 times. So ‘Y’ doesn’t matter, though I’m confident it will be revealed more fully or has already been.

    As for ‘Z’ I have no intention of linking that, somebody else might decide to but it is significant that you would offer opinions without being fully informed. But this is a ‘little’ astounding…’then once that is completed it can be assessed against with the prosecution account, i.e the lines were cuts.’ You obviously consider that Deputy Commissioner Burgess saying that ‘perhaps’ and ‘maybe’ they were cuts which he was unable to confirm, needs to be answered when the confirmation that there was no recording of the ‘cuts’ or the gsr at the time of the autopsy exists – very odd logic. But I’ll spell it out the defence have already proved that, from the Crown’s own records, and I look forward to the Crown producing a record of ‘cuts’ which doesn’t exist.

    [At present I don’t believe they are cuts, and the Police alternative, that they were cuts, is supported with tested evidence, in it’s current state the defense alternative is worthless in comparison.]

    That sentence could do with a little work. Do you mean the police have tested ‘evidence’ that they were cuts?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Honeybadger (522 comments) says:

    Judith…’your groups’? I doubt very much you are referring to Automobile Association, so perhaps you could explain that comment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Dexter (564 comments) says:

    You go onto say what you claim the defence has to prove more than the fact that they were there (seen in the photo,) present on the body in the lounge but not there at the time of the autopsy. How the might have been removed isn’t the job of the defence

    I’m not sure how you can still be confused as to where the burden of proof now lies, but clearly you are. There are a number of articles online in relation to this particular case that will explain it in more detail. I suggest you have a read of them and get back to me once you develop at least a basic understanding.

    But to explain it simply for you, the onus is now on David aka the ‘defence’ to prove on the balance of probabilities that the killer was more likely Robin. So yes unfortunately for you, for their mark proposition to have any value, they do have to prove why directly handling a gun would not smudge or remove them, but indirect body contact whilst being transported does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    Well framed by Robin Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote