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.

Tags:

647 Responses to “The Bain marks”

  1. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    Links to the Bain threads and to 3rd degree coverage: http://yournz.org/2013/06/26/david-bain-threads-on-kiwiblog/

    The biggest thread was at 4919 comments (as at last night). I didn’t even last 100 comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (10,022 comments) says:

    3,504

    The number of comments there will be.

    My pick.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    This is relevant:
    Brendan Malone wrote on Fb…

    “I looked at the photo of the fingers, plus the comparison photos on the Herald (here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893239 ) and the marks on Robin’s thumb don’t even look like the photos of actual residue marks on the comparison photos.

    In fact, the marks on Robin’s fingers aren’t even parallel if you look properly – one of them is clearly at an angle to the other.

    The marks on his fingers look like scratches (one even has clearly visible blood in it), and if so, this is totally consistent with the first trial (?) where it was stated that Robin had been working on the house over the weekend.

    Bain case: Two dark lines on thumb point to father as killer – National – NZ Herald News
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    David Giles is an extremely bright man but also a down to earth kiwi bloke with common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    And this is my view, which looks beyond this myopic nonsense…

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/trashing-robin-bain/

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. lilman (967 comments) says:

    lol,so he wouldn’t forget to leave his dads fingerprints on the murder weapon.After all it was quite a deception his father caused and to think of all the real evidence that pointed to David was actually not real evidence,it was all a plot by dad,
    Bain is a arse.
    To think those people were murdered and then desecrated by all and sundry.
    I hope he gets what he deserves,truly.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    Reasonable doubt established for David. First time you could categorically say that. A shoe in for the compensation now.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    In fact, the marks on Robin’s fingers aren’t even parallel if you look properly

    If the marks are made with the flesh compressed they can appear to be not parallel when back to normal. I’ve seen this on my own thumb.

    If you draw two parallel lines on a balloon and then blow it up you will see the same effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    And theres the possibility David was smart enough to have faked those marks by pressing the mag onto his Dads thumb…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    I tried (briefly) to read some comments about the story on the Trade Me message boards last night… Oh god. It’s worse than here.

    The Pro-Robin response seems to be either:
    a) They were cuts, not powder residue; or
    b) The marks were made by David deliberately to add evidence against Robin

    I think (a) is wrong – they just don’t look like cuts, and as the 3rd Degree report pointed out they were not photographed by the pathologist. And (b) seems to fail immediately – if David made the marks and was aware of them, then why would he not have draw attention to them in his own defence (or had his counsel do so, obviously).

    There is of course a lot of other evidence pointing to David but this is more reasonable doubt about the Police’s case. And pretty strong doubt at that really.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (10,022 comments) says:

    I tried (briefly) to read some comments about the story on the Trade Me message boards last night… Oh god. It’s worse than here.

    Yeah… don’t do that.

    We’re almost SANE compared to those people :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    It’s simple really. If this is ‘conclusive evidence’ convicting Robin…

    then David stands convicted 100x over with much more substantial and multiple evidence. Can’t have it one way.

    One swallow does not a Summer make.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Paulus (2,665 comments) says:

    Difficult to many to concede that it might have been Robin Bain after all.
    Difficult to concede that the perception by many could actually be accepted as wrong.
    Sometimes we have to accept some doubt after all when some compelling evidence is revealed.
    To the Robin Bain’s camp it will never be Robin whatsoever, particularly Robin’s family who helped them selves to David’ possible inheritance, as they are/will be required to refund that which they took after David was first convicted.
    Will be an interesting legal battle for the return of this money.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. jims_whare (404 comments) says:

    Well if the marks were caused by Robin loading hte mag it doesn’t follow that he had to have done the shooting.

    It’s not unlikely that perhaps Robin had loaded the magazine in preparation for some farm or target shooting.

    Then David in a fit of anger seizes the opportunity (and rifle) to shoot his family.

    There is more than one story that fits this picture than that David Bain is innocent.

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

    iMP (1,418) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:06 am
    ———————————-

    Reprints of photos are never as reliable, just as reproduction on various computer monitors will provide different colours.

    The original photos were examined by experts and the marks were found to be the colour of residue, and the skin was shown not to be broken and therefore they were not scratches.

    You have to accept that the people who conducted the tests, in the presence of both police and crown forensic experts had a damn sight better material to use than what is available to you on the media and TV.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    That looks like defamation iMP. And a nonsense about Robin Bain being a frail elderly man. A man of 50 has a enough strength to kill a wife and daughters. Plenty of evidence to suggest the Dad was an incestuous monster.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    jims_whare (336) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:19 am
    ————————————

    Oh dear –

    Would you care to provide your evidence to fit that scenario, or at least address the scenario in the context of the available evidence?

    Because I know the evidence pretty well, and there is nothing that supports your claims, so I am really interested to know how you can make it fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    It’s not unlikely that perhaps Robin had loaded the magazine in preparation for some farm or target shooting.

    Then David in a fit of anger seizes the opportunity (and rifle) to shoot his family.

    It’s possible, but pretty unlikely. It certainly doesn’t fit with the timeline that the Police prosecution established for the murders. It would basically require that Robin had loaded the weapon the night before, then awoken still with the marks which is pretty unlikely given how light and easily disturbed residue marks like that are.

    The marks are fresh and undisturbed, which would mean they’d not likely been on his hand long. Even the action of firing the rifle would likely have disturbed them as the thumb would be in contact with the gun body.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The Scorned (608) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:10 am
    ————————————-

    If that were the case, then why would David have spent all those years in prison, and suffered all the indignities that he has, and not pointed out the one piece of evidence that when combined with other circumstantial evidence, proves that Robin was involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    3 News now have extended video of forensic testing carried out on the gun used in the Bain murders

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    TBH, as far as I can see, the best scenario for those marks being on Robin’s hand if David was the shooter is that David attempted to place the magazine in Robin’s hand but had been unsuccessful in getting him to grasp it and had then placed it next to the hand as the prosecution suggested initially. That could explain the marks and yet make David unaware of them (thus not raising them in his defence)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Coupla scratches. Big deal.

    Robin had been fixing the roof and clearing the garden immediately prior to his death. Hardly surprising his hands got a little scratched. (as opposed to David who has no reasonable explanation for his injuries)

    Amazing how Bain’s supporters can be so confident that a photo of a couple of scratches can so certainly be gunpowder residue.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Longknives (4,884 comments) says:

    “It’s simple really. If this is ‘conclusive evidence’ convicting Robin…
    then David stands convicted 100x over with much more substantial and multiple evidence. Can’t have it one way.”

    That’s the point everyone who had a swig of Karam/TV3’s Kool Aid last night is seemingly forgetting…..All the other fucking overwhelming evidence pointing to the guilt of David!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Paulus (1,771) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:19 am
    Difficult to many to concede that it might have been Robin Bain after all.
    Difficult to concede that the perception by many could actually be accepted as wrong.
    Sometimes we have to accept some doubt after all when some compelling evidence is revealed.
    ————————————-

    Excellent statement, and yes it is difficult, and even more difficult for some who have invested their time, money and reputations on pursuing David Bain and Joe Karam.

    Most simply have an opinion and discuss it, but do not act on that opinion, however there is a group that has actively sought to destroy the reputation of anyone that dare to publicly support David Bain. That group of people need exposing for the ‘witch sniffers’ they are. I sincerely hope they have enough fortitude left to apologise, buts somehow I doubt it.

    Karam vs Parker et al, will be an interesting case to watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. James Stephenson (2,227 comments) says:

    That looks like defamation

    Looks like honest opinion to me.

    So, what’s the explanation for the "marks" on David’s face, other than being the other contestent the life-and-death fight his brother lost?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    iMP (1,419) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:07 am
    ————————————-

    That article is so factually wrong, that if it is your view, then you are seriously misguided.

    Simple statements like ‘Robin had not bruises etc ”

    There are photos showing bruises and injuries to Robin’s hands, apart from the residue marks.

    You are backing the wrong horse mate – familiarise yourself with the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dave53 (91 comments) says:

    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 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    James Stephenson (1,536) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:34 am
    ————————————

    David Bain lost consciousness and fell down between the bed and the window, and was dragged out by the police.

    In the Court case the police passed off diagrams of the room showing how the room was at the time and that there was nothing David could have hit his head on. However, further photos were discovered that showed there was a set of drawers that the police had ‘forgotten’ to include in their diagram.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    TBH, as far as I can see, the best scenario for those marks being on Robin’s hand if David was the shooter is that David attempted to place the magazine in Robin’s hand but had been unsuccessful in getting him to grasp it and had then placed it next to the hand as the prosecution suggested initially. That could explain the marks and yet make David unaware of them (thus not raising them in his defence)

    The marks are in exactly the place and direction that tests (including my own) show they can be made with the normal handling/loading of a magazine.

    To get this same effect from a totally different action – placing the magazine in someone’s hand, is quite unlikely. As is rying to put the magazine in someones hand. As is balancing the magazine unusually. For no practical purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    I grant, it’s virtually impossible to ascertain who killed Robin Bain. But after Robin killed the first four members of his family, as the evidence would suggest that he did, the question of who killed Robin doesn’t need to be addressed as David can no longer said to be the killer or even ‘a’ killer as the condition of reasonable doubt has been satisfied.

    I stopped reading after the first 100 comments too. Mostly because I was reasonably satisfied in my own mind as to the level of culpability of the respective Messrs Bain:

    Anyone who can’t shower or hold down a job both stinks and is probably guilty of something; whether addiction, perversion or violent crime.

    Anyone who sucks back a jail sentence and by all reports works to further his educational prospects in the abnormal surroundings of prison confinement has some level of moral fiber and will be an ongoing asset to society.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Oh and amazing presence of mind by the forensic team to immediately conspire to frame David by placing the magical magazine on its edge…

    Either that, or David placed the magazine there after shooting his Dad.

    Which explanation makes more sense?

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

    dave53 (30) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:36 am
    After the murders, the murderer wiped down the blood-soaked rifle to remove the fingerprints.
    ——————————————-

    Wrong.
    Where is your evidence that supports that?

    There is nothing to show the gun was wiped down at all. That story has been fabricated to try and explain the lack of identifiable fingerprints – however, it is well known that in the majority of such cases, fingerprints are not found. The fact that several fingerprints were found, but the ridging was not detailed sufficiently to identify who they belonged to, shows the gun was not wiped down.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    The Davidites here are all ,deliberately, in my humble opinion, ignoring the third scratch ,the one that is clearly visible on Robins’ forefinger.

    Ignoring it, because they are not interested in the truth,which really is what matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. rouppe (982 comments) says:

    Scott Chris.

    If they were scratches they would have been in the coroners report as he meticulously photographed every scratch and injury on Robins body. There were no photo’s of those marks suggesting they were no longer there at the time of the autopsy which provides more likelihood they were gun residue marks from the magazine as was suggested.

    The only thing that is curious to me is how the magazine ended up on the carpet on its edge. You could drop one a hundred times and I doubt it would ever end up on its edge. If he was holding it when he was shot it is again unlikely it would have rolled out to sit like that.

    Having said that, the program last night did tip me over into the David is innocent camp

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. freethinker (694 comments) says:

    Really surprising that Police Forensics didn’t either consider or comment on the marks confirming that their expertise is somewhat lacking

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

    Scott Chris (4,960) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:40 am
    —————————————

    Or, it was placed in that position by the member of the investigating team that picked it up and put it down again. There is evidence that this happened.

    As the photographs were not identified by the order they were taken in, there has never been any proof that defines exactly when the photo of the magazine sitting on its edge was taken.

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

    freethinker (596) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:42 am
    Really surprising that Police Forensics didn’t either consider or comment on the marks confirming that their expertise is somewhat lacking
    ————————————–

    I think the absence of their comments ‘speaks volumes’.

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

    kowtow (4,635) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:41 am
    ———————————–

    If you check the photos taken of those who tested the theory by loading the magazine, you will see that some also have a mark on their forefingers. It depends entirely on the technique used, the amount of pressure applied, the drag etc. Each marksman has their own particular technique.

    The mark on Robin’s forefinger was mentioned in the program and is entirely consistent with loading the magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893186
    The marks on Robin’s thumb don’t look anything like the smudges produced in the experiment. Quite different. I picked out A008 from the other photographs immediately. 1. Marks look like trauma. One mark has a small very dark spot that looks like blood in/under the skin. 2. The lines are far from parallel; the others are for the most part. I await the opinion of an independent forensic scientist.

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/the-rifle-magazine-appeared-to-be-planted-next-to-robin-bains-body
    Look above the ring finger on the palm. Two similar marks, lines about the same distance apart. There are marks all over the hands. Hope there are lots of photos too.

    I am expected to believe that the pathologist, who walked into a scene that was thought by the police at the time to be suicide, saw the clip next to the hand but didn’t notice the gunshot residue (GSR). Really?

    There is only one “smoking gun”. Robin almost certainly would have held the rifle by the muzzle to guide it to his temple. (He wouldn’t have wanted to mess up.) Robin’s prints are not there, but Stephen’s are. Two pristine sets. Even if for some strange reason the rifle accepted Stephen’s but not Robin’s, why are Stephen’s pristine prints not smudged?

    The scene looks like the clip was placed to make it look as if it fell from Robin’s hand. Why and how would he hold the clip? If he placed it himself, why under a low table? Why not on the table or just drop it? Never mind that it was found on its edge.

    After the first trial: “The judge was very kind to me.”
    Did you do it?: “My core belief is I was not there.”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. cindyM (1 comment) says:

    OK so looking at the “new evidence” in the whole scenario a) if Robin was the killer and reloaded the magazine twice as mentioned in the 3 degrees programme, why weren’t there more marks on his fingers or even smudges; b) why weren’t his fingerprints on either the magazine or the cartridge which points to someone imprinting the marks on his finger then wiping the gun; c) why did the so called experts who shot the actual murder weapon then had their volunteers reload the magazine cartridge and photograph their fingers only have one set when again the programme mentioned that the magazine would have been loaded twice d) again how come no-one looked at the whole picture like Robin Bain didn’t have any blood on his clothing. To me the new “evidence” doesnt fit in with the overall evidence and it looks like trial by media once again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Judith, if he loaded six bullets into the magazine, why was there only one set of marks?

    Surly there would be six sets all smudged on top of one another, not a pristine couple of lines looking suspiciously like scratches.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Judith (2,911) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:43 am

    Scott Chris (4,960) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:40 am
    —————————————

    Or, it was placed in that position by the member of the investigating team that picked it up and put it down again. There is evidence that this happened.

    As the photographs were not identified by the order they were taken in, there has never been any proof that defines exactly when the photo of the magazine sitting on its edge was taken.

    If I remember correctly, Dempster was blamed for knocking it over, it was then placed for the photographs.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. SW (246 comments) says:

    Hi Rouppe -what I don’t understand is why the magazine could not have been placed on its edge by Robin before he shot himself? What rules that possibility out?

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

    Dennis Horne (1,413) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:50 am
    ——————————–

    So you are claiming that the opinion of someone viewing media reproduced photos is better than a forensic photographer who has viewed the original photographs?

    WOW.

    You have had the explanation given to you heaps of times regarding the fingerprints, one that is perfectly valid and supported by professional research, and yet, you, a dentist, knows better, or is just to bloody stubborn to admit he is wrong.

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

    Scott Chris (4,961) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:51 am
    ——————————-

    Scott, did you not listen to the evidence of the forensic photographer?

    The photo was expanded and that showed the skin was not broken. They were NOT scratches. What is more, Dr Dempster took photos of all the individual marks and scratches on Robin’s hands when he conducted his forensic examination later that day. The marks were NOT there by then, which proves they were some kind of substance (recorded as being the same colour as residue) that was easily removed.

    The variation in colour of the marks is due to the amount of residue remaining at that point. As it is a power like substance, it would gradually deteriorate unless wiped off in one swipe.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    The Davidites here are all ,deliberately, in my humble opinion, ignoring the third scratch ,the one that is clearly visible on Robins’ forefinger.

    Ignoring it, because they are not interested in the truth,which really is what matters.

    Also very possibly from loading or handing the magazine (or clearing it after a misfire or misfeed). Anyone who has loaded a magazine could tell you that there is no standard way to hold it, many ways to do it, and it’s not uncommon to adjust grip and feeding method while loading it. Especially as it gets closer to full because the spring tension increases and it can require more force or a different grip to load final rounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    if he loaded six bullets into the magazine, why was there only one set of marks?

    You can load a bullet without touching the magazine with your loading thumb.

    What I did was load several bullets barely or not touching the magazine. Then I pressed down on the top bullet to make sure they were straight and sprung freely in the magazine. That’s when I marked my thumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. david (2,563 comments) says:

    How many shell casings were found at the scene?
    what is the capacity of the magazine?
    Was it necessary to reload the mag?
    Is it feasible that the mag was reloaded after shooting the family?
    how many unfired rounds were in the mag when police turned up?

    All relevant questions to establishing whether this is evidence that carries weight.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Alan Wilkinson (1,890 comments) says:

    This provides pretty strong evidence that Robin did the killings but overwhelming evidence that most of the Robin Bain supporters are nutters.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wikiriwhis business (4,126 comments) says:

    If it were not for TV3 we probably would never have been shown this evidence

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. wikiriwhis business (4,126 comments) says:

    “This provides pretty strong evidence that Robin did the killings but overwhelming evidence that most of the Robin Bain supporters are nutters.”

    The middle class will always support itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Keeping Stock (10,434 comments) says:

    Wall-to-wall Judith for another 5000-commenter methinks.

    For me, this is just all too convenient. TV3 has been plainly pro-Bain and pro-Karam, so it makes sense that Karam took this so-called “new evidence” to them to dress up as favourably as they could.

    I doubt that this will change anything. It is opinion, dressed up as evidence. Whether it counterbalances all the evidence against David Bain as the killer is a moot point. He was found not guilty at the re-trial, even though there was plenty of evidence against him.

    This his very little to do with guilt and innocence IMHO, but very much to do with compensation, and getting public opinion on his side. And has Joe Karam yet made an unequivocal statement as to whether or not he will benefit financially from any compensation paid to David Bain? Or has anyone actually asked that question?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    david, all that was covered lastnight. From memory there were 19 bullets used (some ejected after misfiring). One 5 shot magazine, one 10 shot magazine.

    I usually only load 9 bullets in my ten shot magazine, it gets a bit tight with 10.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    david (2,332) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 10:00 am

    How many shell casings were found at the scene?
    what is the capacity of the magazine?
    Was it necessary to reload the mag?
    Is it feasible that the mag was reloaded after shooting the family?
    how many unfired rounds were in the mag when police turned up?

    All relevant questions to establishing whether this is evidence that carries weight.

    ALL of those questions were answered in the program last night.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    How many shell casings were found at the scene?
    what is the capacity of the magazine?
    Was it necessary to reload the mag?
    Is it feasible that the mag was reloaded after shooting the family?
    how many unfired rounds were in the mag when police turned up?

    All relevant questions to establishing whether this is evidence that carries weight.

    All answered in the TV3 story.

    19 rounds accounted for. Two magazines, one ten-round capacity and one five-round capacity. At least one reload necessary. The recent testing also revealed that the larger capacity magazine didn’t appear to actually hold a full ten rounds reliably.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    And theres the possibility David was smart enough to have faked those marks by pressing the mag onto his Dads thumb…

    Absolutely. Or David could have ordered Robin to load the magazine…or David could have transferred marks to Robin. So many possibilities. But the idea that this “proves” Robin is the killer is off the wall stuff.

    Melanie Read only needs to go back to her interview with David after his re-trial to see some compelling evidence of his guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    KS – it appears that this was initiated by David Giles as a result of debating on Kiwiblog and following a link to the photo, where he noticed the thumb marks. There is no indication he had any prior connection with Bain or Karam, he passed what he found on because presumably they were the ones who would be most interested.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. wikiriwhis business (4,126 comments) says:

    “Plenty of evidence to suggest the Dad was an incestuous monster.”

    Funny how the middle class ignores this about their man Robin and always accept the official Court and police theories

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

    This provides pretty strong evidence that Robin did the killings…

    It provides nothing of the sort…

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

    Keeping Stock (8,912) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 10:02 am
    ————————————-

    So you would happily be locked up for 13 years of your life for something you didn’t do, and not expect the slightest bit of remuneration for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Absolutely. Or David could have ordered Robin to load the magazine…or David could have transferred marks to Robin. So many possibilities. But the idea that this “proves” Robin is the killer is off the wall stuff.

    Melanie Read only needs to go back to her interview with David after his re-trial to see some compelling evidence of his guilt.

    Do I understand you correctly?
    You appear to think David was smart enough to press these marks onto his father’s thumb, when they could have been so easily overlooked, yet too dumb to press Robin’s fingerprints onto the gun knowing they would have surely been found early on.
    Wow!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Really surprising that Police Forensics didn’t either consider or comment on the marks confirming that their expertise is somewhat lacking

    I was waiting for police to be interviewed by TV3. Alas, they weren’t given the opportunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    where’s that dotcom bloke when we need him?

    he’s not still banned is he?

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

    ross69 (2,470) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 10:06 am
    ————————————–

    So if David knew those marks existed, then why did he not make sure they were recognised, and used at the first trial and save himself years of incarceration and heartache?

    Why did he sit for all this time waiting for someone else to discover them? He had plenty of opportunity when shown the photos on countless occasions to say ‘hey what are those marks” but he never did.

    Sorry, but your theory does not stack up.

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

    ross69 (2,471) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 10:11 am
    —————————————-

    The police and the crown forensic expert who were present at the testing have had plenty of opportunity to make comments (the tests were not conducted yesterday you know).

    The fact they have nothing to say – is interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    You appear to think David was smart enough to press these marks onto his father’s thumb, when they could have been so easily overlooked, yet too dumb to press Robin’s fingerprints onto the gun knowing they would have surely been found early on.

    You’re assuming that David didn’t press Robin’s hand(s) to the rifle…and, no, handling a rifle doesn’t mean fingerprints will be left behind.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. SW (246 comments) says:

    Haha Ross69 – You say “Or David could have ordered Robin to load the magazine…or David could have transferred marks to Robin. So many possibilities.” All off the wall stuff, then say “But the idea that this “proves” Robin is the killer is off the wall stuff”.

    If David waited all those years to reveal this evidence he is obviously a very sick man. Do you not see a problem with David ordering Robin to load the gun? Ie, that David wouldn’t have a loaded gun to threaten him with. But yes no, it the obvious conclusion to draw!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Reed denied the evidence was timed to coincide with Bain’s bid for government compensation, saying the team had no idea it was coming or knowledge of Waikato businessman David Giles, who uncovered the evidence.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8848312/Pardon-Bain-now-lawyer-says

    Interesting. Didn’t the Third Degree piece claim that Karam was approached about the evidence and that he consulted with the gun shop manager?

    Perhaps Karam doesn’t talk to to reed and the legal team anymore?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Manolo (14,067 comments) says:

    All the way to the loony house, go Judith, go.

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

    The fact they have nothing to say – is interesting.

    To you maybe…why didn’t TV3 give police the opportunity to respond? Broadcasters are required to provide balance. I didn’t see any last night.

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

    ross69 (2,471) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 10:09 am
    ————————————-

    Then perhaps you can provide an explanation for Robin having loaded that magazine that morning, immediately before standing on one leg and shooting himself?

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

    Do you not see a problem with David ordering Robin to load the gun? Ie, that David wouldn’t have a loaded gun to threaten him with

    A magazine isn’t a gun!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. SW (246 comments) says:

    Interesting Ross69- is that an admission that Robin could have easily used the gun to kill his family and not left any identifiable prints on the gun? Hasn’t that always been one of the strongest arguments used by people who think he did it?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    The photo was expanded and that showed the skin was not broken. They were NOT scratches.

    Ahh the vagueries of forensic description. Check this out:

    Under cross examination Thomson refused to budge, saying if it had been a contact wound the skin around it would have been seared.

    He was adamant that tiny marks on Robin Bain’s face were powder abrasions consistent with the rifle being away.

    The defence claims the marks were skin blemishes and others on Robin Bain’s hands were teeth marks which may have been caused in a struggle.

    But the pathologist did not like that theory either, saying they don’t look like teeth marks he has seen.

    And since when has a photographer been an expert on skin abrasions?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. SW (246 comments) says:

    Yes but without a loaded magazine you do not have a loaded gun. Are you suggesting that David had a loaded magazine in the gun, while ordering Robin to load a second magazine for him (for no apparent reason)?

    If loading the magazine was necessary, then obviously David does not have a loaded gun at that point.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    What I did was load several bullets barely or not touching the magazine. Then I pressed down on the top bullet to make sure they were straight and sprung freely in the magazine. That’s when I marked my thumb.

    You are reaching Pete. Apply Occam’s Razor.

    Couple of stratches.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    This doesn’t prove that Robin Bain was the killer.

    But in a case where there was little or no compelling evidence one way or another, if the thumb marks can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that they come from loading a magazine then that directly links Robin with handling the bullets.

    And it would be the most compelling piece of evidence linking one person to having used the rifle that morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    And on that triumphant note, I ungracefully withdraw from this debate!

    Have a nice day. :mrgreen:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. Why are Stephen’s pristine prints on the muzzle, the only normal and natural place to grasp a rifle to guide it to your temple, not smudged?

    My ophthalmologist describes my depth perception as “exceptional”. I spent a couple of years studying anatomy and pathology, looking down microscopes, and >40 years doing intricate work, including mucosal (“skin”) grafts, and to me the marks do not look the same as the experimental marks. One looks like a contusion, it appears to have a dark redish spot. But as I said, I await the opinion of a forensic scientist. Not a photographer in the Karam Kamp.

    You have alluded to working in a scientific field. What field would that be? You don’t seem to have any critical powers of observation or reasoning.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    To you maybe…why didn’t TV3 give police the opportunity to respond? Broadcasters are required to provide balance. I didn’t see any last night.

    Who says that TV3 didn’t give them a chance? The police and prosecution were clearly aware that the story was being made, I assume they chose not to contribute rather than were actively denied.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Why are Stephen’s pristine prints on the muzzle, the only normal and natural place to grasp a rifle to guide it to your temple, not smudged?

    I don’t have a rifle handy, nor do I have any intention of putting one anywhere near my temple, but I imagine if I were to do that I wouldn’t be holding it by the muzzle, instead I would be holding it by the forward part of the rifle’s forend – basically around where the wooden body joins the barrel.

    I may, however, pick up a rifle from a rack or leaning on a wall by the muzzle.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    No Scott Chris, I have carried out similar tests to those that were done for the 3rd Degree and got very similar results. The husband of a colleague did the same thing – grabbed his magazine, loaded a bullet, looked at his thumb and said “far out!”.

    Probably hundreds of people with similar .22 rifles will have done the same. If any people with hands on firearms experience dispute this evidence with credible arguments then I’ll take note. Conjecture based on no experience is not compelling.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. SW (246 comments) says:

    Hi Dennis – if the mark is a contusion, why was it not noticed by the pathologist? And don’t all the photos of the experimental marks look slightly different? Also, obviously a photo that is 17 years old from a different camera will look different to the others. What doesn’t look all that different is the mark on the thumb.

    It could have been David Bain himself taken the photos. Unless they are photo shopped, how does it make an ounce of difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    Where are the photos that show no marks on the thumb and forefinger?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    Yea… I’m not buying it. Too much other evidence to suggest that David did it, even if this does stack up.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    It reminds me of all the people who “heard” him saying “I shot the bastard”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    If these marks are so obvious why didn’t any of you gun nuts spot them before now?

    I noticed them on the counterspin site, but .. as I don’t skulk about in the undergrowth wearing army surplus camouflage pants and shooting unsuspecting animals innocently going about their daily routines, I just assumed they were cuts to the hands of a man who does plenty of yard work …

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

    the marks do appear to be a darker colour on the low resolution photo at counterspin,

    the higher resolution photos,

    http://www.3news.co.nz/National/tabid/1230/articleID/302829/Default.aspx

    do appear to show some non-uniformity, to me the lower ‘mark’ in the photo(higher on the thumb) appears to have a higher colour density in the middle, which to my untrained mind I would assume to be the presence of blood,

    the other longer mark on the thumb, when magnified, appears to have a ‘cut’ line going through it, but that could be my eyes/brain playing tricks?

    but I await the opinions of those with a medical background.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Lance (2,715 comments) says:

    If the police had conducted a rock solid professional forensic examination there would no question one way or other.
    Alas it was not and we now have years of speculation, entrenched positions, name calling and insults by blog commentators………… and politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Yea… I’m not buying it. Too much other evidence to suggest that David did it, even if this does stack up.

    My understanding is that very little of the evidence is explicitly conclusive. That basically the options are narrowed down to Robin did it, or David did. There has, essentially, historically been less evidence pointing to Robin (or that which did could be better discounted than that which pointed to David).

    It certainly never has been an open and shut case (as evidenced by the Privy council ordering a retrial, the outcome of that retrial and the report by Justice Binnie). Effectively this is another piece of evidence that points to Robin as the killer and is perhaps less easily dismissable than some previous evidence for him.

    But of course, it still doesn’t make it an open and shut case. It is not a smoking gun as TV3 suggested. It just casts further doubt on the case against David, and adds more support to the case against Robin. In the end it’s all a matter of speculation and probabilities in the absence of any truly and unequivocally strong evidence pointing at either man.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @SW. Have we seen all the photos? Do we know what the pathologist noted? And, no, the experimental marks all look pretty much all the same. Smudges and mostly near parallel. The marks on Robin’s thumb look completely different to me. Especially the top mark in the photo, it looks almost like a shallow cut. As I say, I await an expert opinion.

    But this is not designed to win over experts. This is a propaganda campaign to win public support.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    I rection he’ll be back. SC. I mean. Kid can’t help himself.

    It’s grasping at straws to say Robin Bain was working on his house so he must have sustained an injury.
    I don’t scratch or hurt myself when working on my house or garden unless I’m high on something or boozed. Fell off a step ladder yesterday after a painkiller. Other than that I’ve never come a cropper.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Difficult to many to concede that it might have been Robin Bain after all.

    He’s the only person with a motive. Attempts to paint David as the killer rely on him “just going nuts”, which is the explanation people resort to when they haven’t got a decent one.

    It is absolutely fucking obvious what happened. This was a crime of family annihilation, and those crimes are almost always committed by the father – and in this case the motive was obvious: Robin Bain was being excluded from the family and was to be confronted about his sexual abuse. His life was a shambles at the time.

    The reason David was not killed is also obvious: he was the only one who could have physically prevented Robin from killing the family. We already know that the killer had a hard time killing Stephen Bain, a child. David would have absolutely kicked Robin’s arse.

    The prosecution would have us believe that David killed everyone but Robin, and then went and did a paper round leaving a house full of bodies, knowing that his father would enter that house. David Bain might be many things, but he’s not an idiot.

    David should have been found not guilty and the police messed up. Get over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    the higher resolution photos, do appear to show some non-uniformity, to me the lower ‘mark’ in the photo(higher on the thumb) appears to have a higher colour density in the middle, which to my untrained mind I would assume to be the presence of blood,

    It’s so hard to tell really. Given that the evidential photos were shot on film it’s very possible that the emulsion could introduce a colour cast. Indeed many of the ‘shadow’ areas in the photos appear to have a slight colour tint.

    I don’t think I’d be confident to say in looking at those photos myself that they definitively are not a scratch, but we’re not working with the highest quality negative scans either, so I’m also not going to discount the opinions of those who have had access to much higher quality versions.

    That said, it seems very highly coincidental that he would have partly healed scratched on his hand that could so easily appear to be residue from handling the magazine, and that those scratches were not observed or photographed by the otherwise very astute pathologist.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    My understanding is that very little of the evidence is explicitly conclusive.

    That’s been the problem all the way along, and it’s why it has remained such a contentious case.

    If this thumb mark evidence stacks up it is a game changer, except for those who are so entrenched in their view they won’t accept important new evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. publicwatchdog (2,822 comments) says:

    Good moaning Kiwibloggers :)

    (Just posted this comment on the Radio Live facebook page).

    “Seen this Sean Plunket?

    I would have put this on your facebook page directly – but you seem to have ‘blocked’ me?

    (Don’t you believe in ‘freedom of expression’ Sean? :)

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

    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    I have not studied this David Bain case – but the thing that has always been the BIG question to me – is MOTIVE?

    What MOTIVE did David Bain have to murder all these members of his family?

    A bad day on the paper run?

    DUH?

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. 2boyz (264 comments) says:

    At the end of the day the police only had one living suspect so went after David, there are two camps on this in NZ. David did it or his Dad did, seemed a well thought out Scenario on TV all the same.

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

    DylanReeve (112) Says: June 27th, 2013 at 10:34 am.
    … I imagine if I were to do that I wouldn’t be holding it by the muzzle, instead I would be holding it by the forward part of the rifle’s forend – basically around where the wooden body joins the barrel.

    Really? Do you write holding a pencil at the other end? Pick up a broom or stick and try waving it around when you’re trying to get a clean shot through the temple. Remember, it’s not just any shot. It has to go in fairly horizontal to be sure of killing you. The defence needed a funny hat to demonstrate it how easy it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Keeping Stock (10,434 comments) says:

    DylanReeve said

    Who says that TV3 didn’t give them a chance? The police and prosecution were clearly aware that the story was being made, I assume they chose not to contribute rather than were actively denied.

    If that was the case, and if the Police chose not to engage, don’t you think that Ms Reid, Garner or Espiner might have mentioned it? After all, it would have portrayed the police in a less-tan-flattering light, would it not?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    It is absolutely *** obvious what happened.

    He said, and proceeded to make up a story.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    At the end of the day the police only had one living suspect so went after David

    Actually, police initially thought it was murder-suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. flipper (4,216 comments) says:

    I did not see the programme, and therefore have no opinion, one way o the other. But I note that the usual demented few, including those that look to the silly tax lawyer for guidance, continue to ignore the fact that this is yet another strand (take NOTE Mr Serial Female Chasing barrister ) in the Crown’s case that has been eliminated (by omission, dear fools).

    While The Herald reports TV3, of more note, and making a timely point, Reed’s message to John Key, as now reported by Stuff:

    ” …. David Bain’s lawyer is calling for Prime Minister John Key to give his client an immediate pardon after evidence he says is a ”slam dunk”.

    Last night, TV3’s 3rd Degree screened new evidence suggesting Bain’s father, Robin, loaded the gun used to kill his family.

    Firearms experts told the show that parallel smudges shown on police photographs of Robin Bain’s hands were consistent with marks left when reloading a rifle magazine.

    The ”sooty” marks on his hand appeared to be the same width as the .22 rifle magazine that, based on the number of shots fired, the experts said would have been reloaded during the murders.

    David Bain was convicted of the 1994 murders of his parents, two sisters and brother in Dunedin, but found not guilty at a retrial in 2009 after spending 13 years in prison.

    His lawyer, Michael Reed, told Radio New Zealand today that there was overwhelming evidence his client was innocent before, and this was ”the final clincher”.

    As well as the Government approving Bain’s compensation claim, Key should acknowledge Bain’s innocence formally, Reed said.

    ”John Key should front up and give David a pardon. This case would never have started if this evidence had been available originally.”

    Reed denied the evidence was timed to coincide with Bain’s bid for Government compensation, saying the team had no idea it was coming or knowledge of Waikato businessman David Giles, who uncovered the evidence.

    It was time for Justice Minister Judith Collins to accept the evidence and approve his compensation bid, Reed said.

    ”I would hope that now as minister of justice … she’ll be fair and straightforward and say, ‘well, now this evidence is overwhelming, let’s get on and do the compensation, let’s put all this to rest, let’s stop all these court cases, let’s stop the waste of taxpayers’ money’. It’s crazy what’s being spent,” he said.

    A spokeswoman for Key said: “It is inappropriate for the Prime Minister to comment while Mr Bain’s compensation claim is subject to a review.”

    Collins has yet to comment on the new evidence. ”

    Slam dunk? Yep, and staying with basketball, a technical foul by the Crown. :)

    Time to emulate Robert David, John. Pay up, and let’s be done with it.
    .

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

    Interesting Ross69- is that an admission that Robin could have easily used the gun to kill his family and not left any identifiable prints on the gun? Hasn’t that always been one of the strongest arguments used by people who think he did it?

    Well, it seems the killer wore gloves, which were covered in blood and thrown under Stephen’s bed. One wonders why Robin would feel the need to wear gloves and then discard them.

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

    ” …. David Bain’s lawyer is calling for Prime Minister John Key to give his client an immediate pardon after evidence he says is a ”slam dunk”.

    Michael Reed should have a cup of a tea and a lie down.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Fletch (6,495 comments) says:

    I don’t have a rifle handy, nor do I have any intention of putting one anywhere near my temple, but I imagine if I were to do that I wouldn’t be holding it by the muzzle, instead I would be holding it by the forward part of the rifle’s forend – basically around where the wooden body joins the barrel.

    Dylan, you wouldn’t be able to reach the trigger unless you held the muzzle, like THIS

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson (1,597) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 10:00 am
    “This provides pretty strong evidence that Robin did the killings but overwhelming evidence that most of the Robin Bain supporters are nutters.”

    Good call Alan. Talk about desperate, trying to pass the marks off as ‘scratches’ or David putting them there.
    Robins final death scene is so obvious, there is no explanation consistent with murder which is why the crown steered well clear of it at the retrial and the witch-sniffers avoid at all costs.
    It appears that being right is far more important to many than the truth. Sad really.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    If the police had conducted a rock solid professional forensic examination there would no question one way or other.

    A thousand times yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893186

    The marks on Robin’s thumb don’t look anything like the smudges from the experiment.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Lets look at the probabilities for Robin to be innocent
    probability marks are not from the magazine
    prob red ‘blood like’ staining under his fingernails is not blood
    prob untested blood smears on his hands not coming from the killing spree
    prob David shot an unaware Robin with an upward trajectory contact shot to the left temple
    prob Robin waited while David switched over the magazines and had two go’s at shooting him
    prob Robin turned on the computer (on the crowns admission) then walked around the house containing 5 dead bodies not noticing anything was wrong
    Could go on but am around 99% convinced that Robin was the killer

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    He said, and proceeded to make up a story.

    A story backed up with actual evidence.

    What you folks do is look at small pieces of evidence up close, notwithstanding the fact that we know that the evidence collection was poor. What you don’t do is take a step back and look at the big picture. When you do that, the David theory makes much less sense.

    FACT: crimes of family annihilation are almost always committed by the father, often when the father is under stress or his position in the family is under threat.

    FACT: Robin Bain was under stress and his position in the family was under threat.

    FACT: “He just went temporarily nuts” is a defence invented by defence lawyers, often to get people off of murder charges. In real life mental illness doesn’t work that way.

    FACT: David Bain has never been shown to suffer from a mental illness.

    FACT: David Bain has no obvious motive to kill his family.

    FACT: the Crown’s theory of the crime requires David Bain to have been a complete idiot, by leaving a house full of corpses for his father to discover.

    And it’s a fact that people generally aren’t idiots, don’t commit murder without a motive, and don’t suddenly “go nuts” for no reason at all.

    You can gerrymander the forensic evidence any way you like, but it is not certain, and without a credible big picture theory of the crime, you can’t make it stick. The problem for the prosecution is that they have never had a credible big picture theory of the crime. They hoped, by focusing on the minutiae of evidence to cover up the fact that their picture of events is and continues to be flaky.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Snarkle (118 comments) says:

    It certainly put’s David’s guilt BRD to rest. I have only two questions:
    1. Did the investigators, BAC, test the magazine to see if there were prints left behind by their test subjects? I appreciate fingerprints are not always found at crime scenes; but this is a very specific action here and it would be good to know that in (say) 50% cases no fingerprints were left.
    2. What tools was RB using the day before he was killed?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Thanks, Dennis, for the link.

    From the same link:

    “A spokesman for police said it had not been approached by TV3 about the content of the show so had no idea what it was about. He said no comment would be made until tomorrow – if at all.”

    Hmmmm so TV3 didn’t even attempt balance.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Fletch (6,495 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893186

    The marks on Robin’s thumb don’t look anything like the smudges from the experiment.

    I agree. It would be interesting to know exactly what work Robin was doing the day before on the roof or whatever. Did it involve pushing corrugated iron into place or something similar? Holding rusty nails between his forefinger and thumb while nailing them in? Unwinding fence wire from a reel and letting it run in between his fingers? In truth, it could be anything.

    His fingers look yellow as well which means he was a smoker. Ever used a BIC lighter where you have to roll the flint wheel using your thumb? Wouldn’t that be the same thickness as the marks?

    As I said, could be anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    What tools was RB using the day before he was killed?

    Robin had replaced some spouting in the days prior to the murders. Not sure if he handled any tools.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    dave53 (30) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:36 am
    “After the murders, the murderer wiped down the blood-soaked rifle to remove the fingerprints.

    Dave I suggest you check the facts (hint you won’t find any on counterspin)
    Your statement is nonsense!
    Well genius how come there were fingerprints on it? Davids on the forestock, Stephens on the silencer and 9 others not containing sufficient ridge detail for identification.

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

    Dennis Horne (1,418) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 11:27 am
    ——————————

    That is because the photos of the experiments were taken immediately after the action of loading the magazine.

    As it is a powdery substance, it diminishes with time and activity.

    The photo of Robin’s hand was taken after he loaded the mag, and shot himself, and fell to the floor, therefore some of the residue would have been removed.

    The application of commonsense is required!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I think this a great photo. If you enlarge it, that indentation on the right side of David’s nose becomes even clearer. I wonder what would make that indentation. Glasses, perhaps? But David denied wearing glasses the weekend of the murders, notwithstanding that he told others (including his own lawyer) that he had worn his mother’s glasses that weekend. Why would David lie?

    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bain_david/david-bain-000.jpg&imgrefurl=http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bain-david.htm&h=286&w=238&sz=15&tbnid=O_jnflkfG7qfIM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=78&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Bbain%2Bphotographs%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=david+bain+photographs&usg=__osH2KAmRoxkmkMOQuUTGInjB5pM=&docid=TnxZBG2SXPgnEM&sa=X&ei=RHzLUZizK4qyiQepk4HQAg&ved=0CEsQ9QEwCg&dur=1660

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    It was extremely unlikely that the magazine was dropped during any “suicide” to land on it’s thin edge and remain upright. Tests apparently show chances of this happening “to be nil”.

    But also extremely unlikely that if in reloading it was placed awkwardly on its thin side, under the coffee table [rather than much more conveniently left just on top of the table] that with Robin’s body falling full force in that direction, for the thumb to end a fraction of an inch from it, that the magazine would have stayed upright.

    And, as mentioned in other comments, the magazine may have been placed upright, by someone who knocked it over, it still suggests it was initially found upright.

    The position of the magazine presents as many questions as the “new” idea that while Robin left no prints on the rifle, the magazine had marked him.

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

    ross69 (2,479) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 11:39 am
    ———————————

    As Robin died early in the morning, it is unlikely he was using any tools sufficiently close enough to the time of death to leave residue on his thumb.

    Don’t forget these were not ‘indentations in the skin’ or ‘scratches/cuts’ to the skin. The skin was not broken. The material is ON the skin and is the same colour as gun residue.

    To coin a well used counterspinner phrase – if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck – it is not an elephant.

    Why must the people on here insist that the reproduced photos they see in the media give them a better understanding of the situation than the original photos viewed by forensic experts from both the Crown and the Defense team?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    As Robin died early in the morning, it is unlikely he was using any tools sufficiently close enough to the time of death to leave residue on his thumb.

    Well, you’re assuming it was residue. It might not be. But back to that rather noticeable indentation near the top of David’s nose…I don’t get any indentation and I regularly wear glasses.

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

    Jacob Cohen (31) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 11:45 am
    ———————————–

    Whilst that may all be true – it does not discount Robin from being the murderer. Fact is that the investigation was such a mess that it is impossible to know when or how the magazine got put in that position or by whom – so instead we look at the other evidence.

    The fact there were no identifiable finger prints left by Robin means zilch. The 9 fingerprints that were identified as fingerprints, but failed to produce sufficient ridge detailing to associate them to any particular person, means that some prints were there.
    The police in their stupidity failed to photograph those prints, whilst they could not legally identify who they belonged to, they would have been able to identify who they didn’t belong to.

    Regardless of all that – there is sufficient evidence that makes Robin Bain the probable killer of his family.!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    The position of the magazine is a counterspin distraction from the evidence. It is not evidence either way. The magazine was placed by the killer, it did not ‘land on its edge’ Nothing eliminates Robin from placing it there and the scene was not original and the magazine had fallen over and been replaced so it can’t even be said that that is the original position of the magazine. The PC rightfully binned this argument and little significance was attached to it by anyone other than CS.

    Ross you should become a court of appeal judge, read there case, you can then misunderstand the evidence then proceed to play judge and jury with it as they did. Lets hope you never get called to sit on a jury!

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

    ross69 (2,481) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 11:50 am
    ——————————

    Prove it was an indentation!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Dylan, you wouldn’t be able to reach the trigger unless you held the muzzle, like THIS

    If I were in the same position I would have my non-trigger hand about 10-15 cm further down the body of the gun, holding the body around where it joins the barrel. I don’t believe it would be any more difficult and it would be the natural way I’d try to hold it.

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

    ross69 (2,481) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 11:50 am
    ———————————

    OK. If it is not residue, what is it and why do the marks measure exactly the same as the magazine, and why do they resemble other examples of marks left by loading/reloading magazines?

    I’m happy to accept a viable alternative, but so far no one has provided one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    Rowan – The position of the magazine is a counterspin distraction from the evidence. It is not evidence either way.
    … so it can’t even be said that that is the original position of the magazine.

    So the impact of Robin’s body hitting the carpeted floor that close to the magazine may or may not have toppled it.
    Really your approach to the evidence doesn’t does allow anything much to be treated as reality.

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

    ross69 (2,481) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 11:38 am
    —————————————-

    And yet the program clearly showed both a member of the police and a Crown forensic expert present at the examination. In fact, the gun was delivered by a police officer who had to remain with it at all times and was responsible for the item (being evidence) being safely handled and return to the courts.

    Neither that officer or the forensic expert have made statements, despite having had plenty of time to do so. They were not contracted by TV3 in any manner. The item was requested by the only people that can do so (other than the prosecution) – the defense team, not TV3. TV3 was just present and filming the testing.

    I think you are demonstrating a definite air of desperation.

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

    The murderer definitely wrote the message on the computer.

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Sofia (867 comments) says:

    Because this whole thing is a bit of a blast from the past –

    “..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..”

    ..i saw this piece on 3rd degree kast night.

    ..and how can you not wonder at the serial eye-watering incompetence shown in this case from day one..

    ..by bumble-footed fucken incompetent police..

    ..and by way beyond useless forensic scientists..

    ..and maybe judith collins can now stop playing her head-fuck games..

    ..and pay bain his compensation..

    ..and let him get on with the rest of his life..

    ..eh..?..)

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

    I’m happy to accept a viable alternative, but so far no one has provided one.

    There may well be many possible alternatives. I’ve already explained that even if Robin did load a bullet into the magazine, and that’s a very big if, that does not mean he is the killer.

    Didn’t Robin have mean bullet casings in his caravan? How did they get there?

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

    Jacob Cohen (32) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    ——————————-

    There is nothing wrong with Rowan’s approach.

    There is evidence that the cartridge was picked up and put down again by at least one of the investigation team.

    As there is no ordering of photos it is impossible to know if the cartridge was originally standing or not. It may merely have been placed on its side when it was put down.

    It may also have been put on its side by Robin, who may have done so in order to see how many rounds were still in it.

    It is impossible to know because there is not any conclusive evidence.

    One would expect the impact to have toppled it, but that would require evidence that it was sitting on its side at that point. There is none, just as there is no absolute certainty that the impact would have toppled it, if it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Dexter (308 comments) says:

    All this does is highlight the impossibility of that magazine landing on it’s thin edge unless someone placed it their after his death, in which scenario it’s also likely they had also initially tried to press it into his hand to make it look like he was holding it.

    Until they can come up for a plausible explanation for the position of that magazine, this is just reinforcing the probability of David being the killer.

    Tabloid cringeworthy journalism at it’s worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Jacob
    Reread the PC judgement, It explicitly deals with the position of the magazine

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

    The murderer definitely had a long and intense bloody fight with Stephen.

    ;)

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

    Sofia (554) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
    ——————————-

    The discovery that Hutton planted a shell case in the Crewe garden wasn’t made until sometime later either – does that then make the discovery invalid?

    If you watched the program you would have seen the explanation for why it was overlooked.

    The fact was that the police and defense concentrated on the position of the magazine in the photo and didn’t look at the hand closely.

    As they had better photos taken by forensics of Robin’s hands, the defense did not need to use the other photo for their analysis, therefore the photo was overlooked.

    The photos used for Robin’s hands were taken by Dr Dempster later that day and by time he took them, the residue was gone. If the police had bagged the hands according to protocol, we would not be having this conversation.

    It was not until Muggins put a nice big blow up of the hand on Kiwiblog that the marks became obvious. Thanks for that Muggins – the next round is on me!! :-)

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

    Dexter (240) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    ———————————-

    God lord, how many times does it have to be said.

    As the only other suspect was David, don’t you think that in the last 20 years, and probably right back at the first trial, when David was shown the photos he would have pointed out the marks, that implicate his father?

    Those photos have been shown in various hearings time and time again – David has had plenty of time so save himself by exposing the marks, he hasn’t/didn’t. Therefore it is pretty bloody obvious he didn’t know they existed. There is no justification for him keeping them a secret – your explanation makes no sense and smacks of desperation.

    The person that picked up the magazine was part of the forensics team, why would they try to frame Robin?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    enlarging the photo on tv3 website

    http://www.3news.co.nz/National/tabid/1230/articleID/302829/Default.aspx

    the one with the red circles, I reckon I can make out a second mark on Robin’s index finger, it apears closer to the first mark, but that could be because his finger is pointing more towards the camera?

    or am I seeing things?

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

    Who was the only person that would think he deserved to stay ?

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

    Pele (5) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
    —————————————

    No body wrote on the computer. Someone typed a message on it, and that person was probably the murderer. However, there is no forensic evidence that dictates who that person was.

    Timing indications are that David was not home at the time the computer was turned on. Therefore as the others were all dead by that time, it is logical to presume Robin turned it on.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    The very fact the photo exists suggests pretty strongly that someone considered there might be a correlation between the two. Which suggests the correlation was rejected.

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

    Pele (6) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    ————————————-
    Oh god, a desperate Counterspinner retyping Kenty’s lists.

    Don’t you have mind of your own?

    According to the notebook of the police officer in attendance at the time, the word was deserves, not deserved. Somehow by time he gave evidence on the stand, it became deserved. However others also recorded it as ‘deserves’. Might pay to sort that out before you extend kents list.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. flipper (4,216 comments) says:

    The demented few are ever more desperate in their efforts to deny the obvious: A fucked up investigation resulted in Mr Bain spending 13+ years in prison. Crown’s mistakes; the Crown is responsible; the Crown follow the usual dictum- ignorance is no excuse.

    While the demented dentist (et al) continues to libel Binnie J., the International Commission of Jurists has let it be known, through appropriate legal and diplomatic channels, that respected western international jurists hold that Collins actions were disgraceful, and brought discredit on NZ – whether the demented, silly tax lawyer(and her advisors and her spin doctors, paid and unpaid) likes it or not.

    Say, would it not be good to put in a OIA request and get an answer from Collins on the Police analysis (albeit to late to absolve themselves from criminal, yes criminal, negligence allegations) of the thumb mark tests. That Judicial review will not consider the latest revelations, but it is not now a smoking gun. It is a nuke. :)

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

    scrubone (2,424) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    ————————————

    The photo was a much larger photo taken showing the position of Robin’s body. It was not taken specifically to show the hand and the magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    Have a re read of Van Beynen’s take.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict

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

    kowtow (4,637) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 12:47 pm
    Have a re read of Van Beynen’s take.
    ———————————–

    Isn’t Van Beynen’s brother a leading member of the police in the south island?

    Isn’t this the same Van Beynen that has been gunning for David and Joe for years and has yet to write a rational piece about the events?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Who is Kent ?

    The murderer definitely TYPED the message on the computer. (a bit pedantic ain’t ya)

    and

    Who would possibly think that David was the only one who deserved to live ?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Honeybadger (227 comments) says:

    tilting at windmills….

    Keeping stock, Joe Karam has a 50/50 contract with David Bain for any monies he (Bain) receives, as he said in his first book

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    There may well be many possible alternatives. I’ve already explained that even if Robin did load a bullet into the magazine, and that’s a very big if, that does not mean he is the killer.

    Didn’t Robin have mean bullet casings in his caravan? How did they get there?’

    You’re desperation is a joy to watch ross, matched by that of longknives and others, even Scott Chris knew when to stop clutching at straws. Back to fixing the spouting so soon. But if the marks showed up as scratches why were they not noted by Dempster and why didn’t they show up in the pathologist’s photos which revealed those pesky smears on Robin’s hands, an ‘innocent’ man with blood smears on his hands, his blood on a laundry towel, evidence of a nose bleed, his bloody foot prints about the scene and now gsr showing on his hands to perfectly match the size of the magazine.

    David Giles has done the country a service, but as I’ve reported before there is more to come, but little to surpass the brilliant work of the Waikato businessman.

    All eyes now to Judith Collins and the High Court, or maybe a Muldoon style call from a Prime Minister with courage and a commitment to fairness.

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

    Honeybadger (115) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    ———————————-
    RUBBISH !

    Joe Karam’s contract was to give David 50% of any money he made in writing books etc about the case. It was generosity on behalf of Karam, who didn’t have to share the profits and it was not a two way contract. David Bain does not have to give Joe Karam anything – and there is no contract that says he does.

    I hope you are happy with your defamation – you have been put straight on this before but continue to lie about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘Keeping stock, Joe Karam has a 50/50 contract with David Bain for any monies he (Bain) receives, as he said in his first book..’

    So that’s how the gsr got on daddy’s thumb, a book contract.

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

    Was there a mirror in the alcove ?

    Narcissism:
    An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
    Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
    A lack of psychological awareness
    Difficulty with empathy

    Egotism:
    Egotism is the drive to maintain and enhance favourable views of oneself, and generally features an inflated opinion of one’s personal features and importance — intellectual, physical, social and other.
    especially his operatic performances, second only to Pavarotti in his opinion. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    All eyes now to Judith Collins and the High Court, or maybe a Muldoon style call from a Prime Minister with courage and a commitment to fairness.

    You must be an eternal optimist. David won’t get any compo.

    He’s got to overcome the hurdle of explaining why he admitted, then lied, about not wearing his mother’s glasses.

    On 10 December 2009, David signed an affidavit in support of his claim for compensation. The affidavit included the following comments:

    The wrongful conviction of me in 1995 took away my inheritance. My Dad had a beautiful collection of string instruments and Mum had her pottery. These items are only a tiny amount of the items they collected during their lives and all have been lost to me. Further examples are Stephen’s trumpet and Arawa’s flute, a collection of opals from Australia, a collection of Royal Doulton pieces, artwork, books, music, the land and the house itself. … I have been told that I had the potential to have a career as successful as the New Zealand opera singer Jonathan Lemalu. Mr Lemalu is now engaged two years in advance and is singing all over the world. In 1992, my singing teacher told me when I started lessons that I had a wonderful voice and that I could one day create a valuable career for myself. … The wrongful conviction of me and the time I spent in prison meant that the life I was planning has gone out the window. I feel as though I lost the major earning years of my life.

    David, in comparing himself to one of New Zealand’s greatest opera singers, appears to possess an over-inflated sense of self-importance. Singers of Jonathan Lemalu’s quality are very rare. Few aspiring or promising singers (in any genre) go on to become international stars. That David believes he could have become an international star on the basis of a comment allegedly made when he started lessons, suggests a disconnect with reality.

    Significantly, David’s affidavit does not refer to the loss of his parents or siblings. Indeed, his affidavit makes no mention of how their loss has affected him, his feelings for them, or how much (or little) he misses them. David talks about the family’s possessions, which, he claims, belong to him. These possessions have been “lost” to him. He refers to “my inheritance”, which he says was taken away. He says he “lost the major earning years of my life” while ignoring all that five members of his family lost. The affidavit does not dispel the possibility that his motive for murder was financial; in fact, he stood to benefit significantly from the death of his family. He will benefit significantly if his claim for compensation is successful.

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

    I could have been a STAR !

    Instead of a 22 year old paperboy …

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

    So that’s how the gsr got on daddy’s thumb

    You can tell that by looking at a photo? You must be upset by the photo showing an indentation above David’s nose. If it wasn’t caused by wearing glasses, what else might have caused it?

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

    ross69 (2,483) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    —————————–

    You stupid prat. Firstly you are copying stuff straight from other sites, and then you are demonstrating your ignorance of the type of material that is expected in such a document which deals with the financial costs/loss.

    You cannot put a financial figure on the loss of family members, but you can on a possible career, aspirations, and solid items like musical instruments.

    You continue to demonstrate not just your desperation but your complete ignorance to the facts of this case, and the legal process, not to mention the basics of filing such a document.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Pele,

    But David is a star, feted by Joe Karam and his cultist friends. I suspect Karam will be more upset than David when they learn the gravy train won’t be delivering their much anticipated Lotto windfall.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    It’s not only David vindicated but also Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Steven. Margaret and her daughters for being ridiculed by those ‘protecting their names,’ by calling them weird and offering that they were liars for saying that Robin wasn’t a good daddy, Laniet in particular for finding the strength to speak out. Vindication also for the car salesman who went and told the police what Laniet had told him only to find himself being hounded for years afterwards, and the shopkeeper and the Doctor – all people who spoke the truth. We saw footage of Doyle in the stand last night looking uncomfortable, also watching the show would have been the ex police officer who felt he was hounded out of the police, who resented other police joking about him ‘finding’ evidence and who wrote ‘Hang Bain’ on his house.

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

    ross69 (2,485) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    ——————————

    Prove its an indentation! You’ve been asked to before to back up this claim, but you don’t seem to be able to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    You cannot put a financial figure on the loss of family members

    According to David, about $2 million should suffice. That’s about $400k for each member of his family.

    In 2009, after the retrial, David was interviewed by Melanie Reid from TV3. During that interview, David made a number of curious statements. For instance, Reid asked him how he felt about people thinking he was guilty. He replied:

    “You would think that whether you believe that I’m innocent or whether you believe I‘m guilty, you’d say ‘well, if he’s guilty, he’s served his time, let him get on with life…'”

    David served nearly 13 years in prison. He seems to believe that 13 years imprisonment is sufficient punishment for five murders. He seems to believe he should be allowed to “get on with life”, guilty or not. His comment suggests that he did not hold his family in high regard. David told Ian Binnie that his family was “extremely close. We all loved each other dearly.” This comment has been contradicted by several witnesses. It is also inconsistent with his comment to Reid that even if he committed the murders, he should be able to get on with his life.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ross69 has found a recycled friend from the hate-sites called pele, perhaps they can join forces and help Kent Parker prepare for his downfall.

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

    Pele (9) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:20 pm
    ———————————–

    Jeez, it pretty bloody obvious who you are – your style and immense hatred is legendary.

    Must be a terrible position to be in, everything you’ve said and done for the past decade being based on a lie/s. No wonder you are so desperate. Never mind, will all be over soon – just three more blows that I know of for you – but I’m sure you’ll survive – maybe financially ruined, but you’ll live!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Prove its an indentation! You’ve been asked to before to back up this claim, but you don’t seem to be able to.

    Judith,

    I’m merely commenting on a photo, just like you are doing with Robin Bain. Maybe it isn’t an indentation; maybe it’s bruising. Either way, what would be most likely to cause that, in your opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    GSR on Robin Bain’s hands does not solve the crime “beyond reasonable doubt”. There is always the possibility it was transferred from David if he moved his father’s hands to make it look like suicide.
    As for those marks on Robin Bain’s right hand, there is no proof they were caused by a magazine.
    We go back to that magazine standing upright right next to Robin Bain’s hand. Who placed it there? If Robin Bain changed those magazines over why didn’t he just drop that magazine on the floor or put it on the coffee table?
    Why go to the trouble of placing it upright.
    And if it was upright when he fell surely the draught from his hand would have caused it to fall over.

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

    What did Robin have to gain from saving David ?

    What did David have to gain by killing them all ?

    Who called the family meeting and who made sure everyone was in the house that night ?

    Where this murders planned or a random attack ?

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

    ross69 (2,486) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    —————————

    Firstly David’s compensation claim is for the years he spent in prison when he was not guilty.
    Secondly, please tell me, what is the going rate for a life? You seem to think loved ones have a commercial, financial value (your poor family)
    Lastly, the comment about ‘he’s served his time let him get on with it’ has been made by many people. It is not surprising that David has seen that and picked up on it.

    How do you know what David Bain thinks of his family? You think he should not require compensation for his wrongful imprisonment because his family were murdered/committed suicide? The two are separate matters, entirely. You cannot replace a life or the loss of loved ones with money. I am disgusted that you think you can. His bid for compensation was about what was done wrong by the system. Clearly you can’t see the difference or are just trying to make some thing nasty out of something perfectly acceptable.

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

    Here’s another little gem from Melanie Reid’s interview with David in 2009.

    Reid asked David about how he coped being in prison for a crime he did not commit. David said: “I kept coming back to my core belief – I wasn’t there”.

    A core belief is a strongly held belief that may or may not be true. Why is his innocence merely a “core belief”? Despite the passage of time, David seems to be unsure if he murdered his family.

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

    muggins (2,373) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    GSR on Robin Bain’s hands does not solve the crime “beyond reasonable doubt”. There is always the possibility it was transferred from David if he moved his father’s hands to make it look like suicide.
    —————————————

    OH PLEASE – could you get any more desperate. Firstly it would be impossible to mistakenly transfer powdered substance in exact lines.

    So, it the marks weren’t caused by the magazine, what were they caused by ?

    You have no proof the magazine was upright, other than in a photo which has no time of it being taken.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    How do you know what David Bain thinks of his family?

    I can only go on what David has said. He’s said that 13 years is sufficient prison time for 5 murders. In other words, less than 3 years for each murder is adequate. Maybe you think that’s adequate.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/06/not-one-cent-new-evidence-proves-nothing/
    Whale Oil is on to it.

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

    ross69 (2,488) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    ——————————–

    and if he had answered straight “I wasn’t there”, you would then have turned around and criticised him because he suffered memory loss.

    It is because of that loss that he answers as he does. You are so damn desperate that you can’t see the obvious Ross. You’re raving on about stuff that has absolutely no factual or consequential value.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Pele (57 comments) says:

    His core belief was reinforced by Joe telling him that he wasn’t there,

    because David doesn’t know the evidence, only Joe does. ;)

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

    muggins (2,374) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
    —————————

    Whale oil is like you. A raving idiot that wouldn’t know the truth if it up and hit him in the teeth.

    The only good thing about Whale Oil, is he doesn’t tell deliberate lies like you do. Proof – the information contained in the MOJ’s responses to an OIA application which show you to be a damn out right liar.

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

    Pele (11) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
    ————————————

    David was in prison for years and was not able to view the evidence like Joe has been able to. So what is your point? Very few defendants know the evidence as well as their representation. Don’t get round much do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (2,937) Says:

    June 27th, 2013 at 1:43 pm
    muggins (2,373) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    GSR on Robin Bain’s hands does not solve the crime “beyond reasonable doubt”. There is always the possibility it was transferred from David if he moved his father’s hands to make it look like suicide.
    —————————————

    OH PLEASE – could you get any more desperate. Firstly it would be impossible to mistakenly transfer powdered substance in exact lines.

    So, it the marks weren’t caused by the magazine, what were they caused by ?

    You have no proof the magazine was upright, other than in a photo which has no time of it being taken.

    Judith, how do you know what is possible and what is not possible?
    Those marks could have been caused by the guttering Robin Bain was working on that weekend.
    And ,as I have already explained to you more than once ,that photo shows the magazine exactly as it was when the police arrived at the scene.
    Another point. How did Robin Bain manage to handle that magazine repeatedly without leaving his fingerprints on it?

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

    ross69 (2,489) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:43 pm
    ———————————-

    David did not say that. David has never said he committed murder. Talk about twist and squirm. You’re becoming a real expert.

    Just love the way you and your twisted sister are trying to stick to the old method of flooding the boards with the same old worn and unproven comments to try and win and change opinion.

    Have you not noticed that most people don’t even bother reading this garbage. They are sick of the constant posts. They prefer to watch TV docos and make up their minds from that. So nothing you say will matter at this point. Because I’m not stupid enough to believe what you do, and most intelligent people reading this wouldn’t either.

    Fact is – there is evidence that makes a big difference – a game changer and there is not one god damn thing you can say to stop it doing that !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. SarahA (2 comments) says:

    If you look closely at the picture (link below), you’ll see the line on his thumb closest to the tip is slightly curved (how does this compare to the recent samples taken from the testers?). Looking at the natural creases on my own right thumb when bent I have exactly the same markings, the same goes for my forefinger. Given that Robin’s hands were quite dirty (as seen in the photos) is it possible these marking are just the natural crease of his hands with dirt trapped in them? If so then it is unlikely it would have been picked up in photos taken later by the pathologist. It would be interesting to compare those photos if available…

    BTW – For me the jury is not out on committed the murders, I’m just looking for another possible explanation to the evidence presented…Interested to hear peoples thoughts on this theory

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893186

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (2,940) Says:

    June 27th, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    muggins (2,374) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
    —————————

    Whale oil is like you. A raving idiot that wouldn’t know the truth if it up and hit him in the teeth.

    The only good thing about Whale Oil, is he doesn’t tell deliberate lies like you do. Proof – the information contained in the MOJ’s responses to an OIA application which show you to be a damn out right liar.

    Judith, you are lying again. What OIA application are you raving on about and what MOJ response are you raving about?

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

    muggins (2,375) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:52 pm
    Those marks could have been caused by the guttering Robin Bain was working on that weekend.
    And ,as I have already explained to you more than once ,that photo shows the magazine exactly as it was when the police arrived at the scene.
    Another point. How did Robin Bain manage to handle that magazine repeatedly without leaving his fingerprints on it?
    —————————————

    1. If the marks were caused by guttering, then how come they had stayed on Robin’s fingers so long, and yet disappeared within a short space after the photo was taken?
    2. What part of working with guttering leaves a powdery substance that looks just like gun residue?
    3. What part of working with guttering leaves marks the exact spacing as a magazine?
    4. How do you know that is exactly how the magazine was when police arrived at the scene when there are two different versions of it?
    5. The fact there is no fingerprints on the magazine is typical. It is rare for fingerprints to be left, especially on uneven surfaces.
    6. :You seem to think fingerprints had to have been left, if that is the case, then whose fingerprints were found on the cartridge? – exactly there were none recorded, so do we now say that no one ever touched it, and it was found where it was created ?

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

    muggins (2,376) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    ————————–

    When you came on here raving about information you had received from the Police and forensic experts I smelled a very big rat. So I applied for information from the police and others, including the MOJ regarding your communications with them.

    The results demonstrated that you had repeatedly lied about what you have been told by those people, and persistently misrepresented the information that you had been given.

    That makes you a verified liar.

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

    SarahA(1) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    BTW – For me the jury is not out on committed the murders, I’m just looking for another possible explanation to the evidence presented…Interested to hear peoples thoughts on this theory

    —————————————–

    So, wanting to make up your mind you just somehow made your way to a Kiwiblog thread discussing the matter, to seek an ‘expert’ opinion despite not belonging to that blog previously.

    OH PLEASE !

    You will not get an expert opinion here. You will get the opinions of novices, who like you, are viewing a photo out of its original perspective and of whom are not experts in the field of photography or have access to the original photo, in order to provide you with a competent and informed opinion.

    I suggest you form your opinion from what was stated by the experts that have examined the originals.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. SarahA (2 comments) says:

    Also…how come the direction of the parallel lines from the experimenters are all going in the opposite direction from those on Robin’s hand…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Wow, that kind of makes you, Judith, look like a weirdo !

    Are you sure, you are not abusing a privilege ?

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

    SarahA (2) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:12 pm
    —————————–
    Oh dear. Sigh.

    It is impossible to tell what direction they are going in. I think you are getting confused because obviously the photo was taken not to show the marks, but for different reasons, and therefore the thumb was not ‘posed’ to be at exactly the same angle as those of the other people who took part in the experiment.

    Also, those people had the photos taken as soon as they had loaded the magazine. Clearly Robin’s photo was taken quite some time afterwards, and after he had undertaken other activities – like shooting himself and falling to the fall.

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

    Pele (12) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    —————————–

    Not unless you regard yourself as a privilege Pele.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Fact is – there is evidence that makes a big difference – a game changer

    Not fact, opinion. And based on nothing more than a photo.

    Based on the photo of David taken shortly after his arrest, what caused that indentation or bruise above David’s nose? Could it be that his wearing of glasses caused that?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Clearly Robin’s photo was taken quite some time afterwards, and after he had undertaken other activities – like shooting himself and falling to the fall.

    Not to mention writing the computer note, getting changed into fresh clothes, putting his old clothes in the wash, and placing the magazine on its edge. It’s incredible that any “powder” stuck to his hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (2,944) Says:

    June 27th, 2013 at 2:03 pm
    muggins (2,376) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    ————————–

    When you came on here raving about information you had received from the Police and forensic experts I smelled a very big rat. So I applied for information from the police and others, including the MOJ regarding your communications with them.

    The results demonstrated that you had repeatedly lied about what you have been told by those people, and persistently misrepresented the information that you had been given.

    Judith, I have no idea what you are talking about. What communications have I had with the MOJ?
    And what informnation from the police have I misrepresented?
    And who are the “others”?
    The other day you were saying that I spoke to Judith Collins. That is a lie and you know it.

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

    ross69 (2,490) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
    ———————————-

    As I haven’t said what that evidence is Ross, so how can you decide its an opinion or not?

    Keep an eye-open Ross, as they say – “but wait, there is more”. ;-)

    Prove its an indentation, or bruise, and not just skin discoloration? Long term spectacle wearers frequently have discoloration that does not disappear for months, – regardless of when they last wore their glasses.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    I’ve read the same information Judith, what a laugh particularly the churlishness because of not being asked to ‘review’ the report before it was released. Meanwhile ross desperately tries to shift the point back to the good old mantras – problem is the sickos have been sprung, just like they were always going to be whether they lied about strip searches or placed sinister emphasis on comments taken out of context. The test of character now is on the persecutors who invested so much in lies and hate rather than being interested in the truth as David Giles was and is.

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

    muggins (2,377) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    ———————————

    I did not say you spoke to Ms Collins, I said you emailed her.

    I am not going to post those emails on here.
    You have already been given enough information to know that I have them.
    You can play the dumbo and continue to try and appease your spinner friends by making out you don’t know what I’m talking about, but the fact is, those emails prove you a liar and the right people that needed to know that, have been informed.

    It doesn’t worry me in the slightest what your JFRB and counterspin friends think of you. They deserve to have such a loose cannon among them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (2,946) Says:

    June 27th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
    muggins (2,375) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:52 pm
    Those marks could have been caused by the guttering Robin Bain was working on that weekend.
    And ,as I have already explained to you more than once ,that photo shows the magazine exactly as it was when the police arrived at the scene.
    Another point. How did Robin Bain manage to handle that magazine repeatedly without leaving his fingerprints on it?
    —————————————

    1. If the marks were caused by guttering, then how come they had stayed on Robin’s fingers so long, and yet disappeared within a short space after the photo was taken?
    2. What part of working with guttering leaves a powdery substance that looks just like gun residue?
    3. What part of working with guttering leaves marks the exact spacing as a magazine?
    4. How do you know that is exactly how the magazine was when police arrived at the scene when there are two different versions of it?
    5. The fact there is no fingerprints on the magazine is typical. It is rare for fingerprints to be left, especially on uneven surfaces.
    6. :You seem to think fingerprints had to have been left, if that is the case, then whose fingerprints were found on the cartridge? – exactly there were none recorded, so do we now say that no one ever touched it, and it was found where it was created

    Judith
    1. How do you know how long those marks were on Robin Bain’s hands for?
    2. David could have transferred that gunshot residue to his fathers hands.
    3. I daresay there would be some guttering that could leave those exact same marks.
    4. Please explain those different versions.
    5. How do you know that it is “typical” that fingerprints are not left on magazines?
    6. David Bain could have wiped the fingerprints off the magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. rouppe (982 comments) says:

    SW.

    Regardless of how Robin was shot, it would be mighty lucky for him to land with his hand 1cm from that magazine I’d have thought. But possible I suppose

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,644) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    ——————————-

    What amazes me is the fact that they see the need to employ such dirty, dishonest and blatantly disgusting methods.

    If the truth cannot reveal itself through the evidence, then what sort of ‘truth’ are they hoping to get by misrepresenting people, and falsifying statements, in order to try and affect public opinion.

    I think people need to know what is at stake for the Justice for Robin Bain and Counterspin groups, and just how much they have invested in ensuring that David Bain (and by association, Joe Karam) is continued to be regarded as a ‘killer’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/files/thumbs.jpg

    How come those marks are all different?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    From the Herald today:

    “Police have been criticised for how the crime scene was managed – and one recurring criticism was the failure to protectively bag Robin Bain’s hands. It deprived police of the opportunity to later rely on tests for gunpowder residue on his hands. It also removed any chance the twin lines could have been preserved. Richard Munt at Serious Shooters said: ‘They would have come off almost instantaneously.'”

    Hmmm so how come they didn’t come off when Robin allegedly shot himself? He managed to shoot himself standing on one leg and without using his right hand? Fuck, his suicide is getting more complicated by the minute. :)

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

    muggins (2,378) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Judith
    1. How do you know how long those marks were on Robin Bain’s hands for?
    2. David could have transferred that gunshot residue to his fathers hands.
    3. I daresay there would be some guttering that could leave those exact same marks.
    4. Please explain those different versions.
    5. How do you know that it is “typical” that fingerprints are not left on magazines?
    6. David Bain could have wiped the fingerprints off the magazine.

    ————————————-

    1. Because it was known all trace of them had disappeared before Dr Dempster examined the body later that day. Therefore it is possible to work out that they were not ‘durable’ and would not have been there long.
    2. David could have transferred the marks only by holding the magazine against his father’s thumb. But for what reason? If it was to implicate his father, then why didn’t David at some stage within the last 20 years, make sure those marks were pointed out, in order to escape conviction.
    3. Daresay isn’t sufficient. The claim has been made, I suggest if you want to refute it, then you go and find something to do with guttering that proves your claims. Or you concede. Your choice.
    4. One, the cartridge was in the position it was photographed in. Two it was not in the position it was photographed in.
    5. Because forensic statistics recorded at all such crime scenes demonstrates that fingerprints are not found in the vast majority of such cases, therefore, they are not ‘typically’ found.
    6. Really? There are a number of things both David and Robin Bain could have done – but ‘could have’ and ‘did do’ are two very different concepts. We don’t determine a persons guilt based on what they ‘could have’ done, unless there is some supporting evidence. Do you have anything that suggests he did do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘SarahA (2) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:12 pm
    Also…how come the direction of the parallel lines from the experimenters are all going in the opposite direction from those on Robin’s hand…
    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    Pele (12) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    Wow, that kind of makes you, Judith, look like a weirdo !

    Are you sure, you are not abusing a privilege ?’

    The zero heroes arrive, pretending to be ‘new’ rather than recycled sisters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I note that on last night’s TV programme, none of the gun testers tried to kill themselves with the rifle that was used by the killer. Seems a rather basic flaw with their testing…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    . David could have transferred the marks only by holding the magazine against his father’s thumb. But for what reason? If it was to implicate his father, then why didn’t David at some stage within the last 20 years, make sure those marks were pointed out, in order to escape conviction’

    Classic Judith, the desperation of the dimwits is fascinating, now they have David blaming the father by creating irrefutable evidence that he chose to not reveal so that he could spend 13 years in prison!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. RRM (10,022 comments) says:

    :mad: IT WAS COLONEL MUSTARD YOU IDIOTS!!!

    In the ballroom.

    With the lead pipe.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    I note that on last night’s TV programme, none of the gun testers tried to kill themselves with the rifle that was used by the killer. Seems a rather basic flaw with their testing…’

    Yes ross, very inconsiderate that they didn’t shoot themselves but instead just showed you up for failing a brain activity test.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,493) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    ——————————

    Grow up Ross. Bitterness is such an ugly emotion.

    They were testing the marks left by the magazine, not the viability of suicide in the suggested position. That has already been proven as possible.

    @ Muggins.

    They are all different because they were from different people, each of whom used their own particular method of loading the magazine. Some ‘swiped’ some used more force than others, some had never done it before and so were less exact about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    They were testing the marks left by the magazine, not the viability of suicide in the suggested position. That has already been proven as possible.

    Judith,

    You can’t have your cake and eat it. One expert has said that the twin lines would have come off “almost instantaneously” when Robin’s body was moved. But apparently they didn’t come off when he handled the gun. So, the lines are not so easily removed and may have been on his hands the previous day?

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,647) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    ——————————-

    I have to say, I am really really surprised at how little these people know about the actual evidence. It appears they have formed their opinion based only on the raving and unsubstantiated claims made on the JFRB and Counterspin sites.

    The questions they ask are basic 101, and yet we know they’ve been on their campaign for years. You have to wonder about the quality and expertise of their leaders and advisers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Jack5 (5,160 comments) says:

    Bring back capital punishment! How else can we save the country from death by boredom from regurgitating and regurgitating murder trials.
    Hanging one person in error for every 100 murders would be a small price to stop the loss of energy, time, emotional equilibrium, and good sense that comes from this neurotic obsession with historic jury verdicts. Under our adversary system, how can relitigation work decades later as evidence becomes ancient?
    There are bad side effects, too. The obsession keeps lawyers rich, taxpayers poor, and Leftist TV3 (with its threatening tax bill) in the ratings.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    Who’s up next for dissection?
    A few threads re that fat bastard Lundy?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    You can’t have your cake and eat it. One expert has said that the twin lines would have come off “almost instantaneously” when Robin’s body was moved. But apparently they didn’t come off when he handled the gun. So, the lines are not so easily removed and may have been on his hands the previous day?’

    No actually ross, they can come off easily as is shown by the fact they were gone by the time the body reached the morgue. I like the way you earlier blamed the guttering, now you’ve changed tact – getting dizzy? Why do you think Robin wiped blood off his hands?

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

    ross69 (2,494) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    ————————————-

    One expert said almost ‘instantaneously’, another said within minutes and someone else said a little longer.

    The marks on Robin’s hands were not as distinct as those whose photos were taken immediately, indicating that some deterioration had already occurred. By time the body reached the forensic lab, they were completely gone.

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

    Monique Angel (62) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    —————————–

    That ones got me stumped. I really don’t know – haven’t seen enough evidence to really form a solid opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    No actually ross, they can come off easily as is shown by the fact they were gone by the time the body reached the morgue.

    A breakthrough in biodegradability! Someone should bottle that breakdown.

    Ross69 has a valid point. Unless you are claiming that nature breaks down the marks so quickly when undisturbed, Ross69’s question as to why the marks were not disturbed when Robin (apparently) used the rifle after reloading the magazine is a very valid one.

    And one that no one has attempted to answer it seems.

    Edit: Perhaps the right-handed Robin fired the rifle one handed (using his left hand only) so as not to disturb the marks on his right hand?

    That is about as sensible as suggesting that David kept the marks a secret for 13 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Ross69 has a valid point. Unless you are claiming that nature breaks down the marks so quickly when undisturbed, Ross69′s question as to why the marks were not disturbed when Robin (apparently) used the rifle after reloading the magazine is a very valid one.

    Hence my statement about the testers not trying to shoot themselves. To make the testing valid, they needed to do what Robin is alleged to have done…typed messaged on computer, got a chair, stood on it with one leg (or not), etc, before trying to shoot themselves. Then the testers should have inspected their hands.

    Their “scientific” experiment was nothing of the sort. Oh and they never allowed police the opportunity to respond.

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

    bhudson (3,770) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    ——————————–

    The matter concerned was a powder, which depending on the amount of skin moisture will slowly fall away over time. Simply moving the hand will cause a deterioration but not necessarily remove it all, depending on the pressure in which it was first transferred. It is pretty obvious that the marks were degraded when compared to those that were taken immediately after loading a magazine.

    The other point is, the top of the thumb seldom comes into contact with a rigid object being grasped, unless that grasp is with the tips of the fingers and not the palm of the hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    No actually ross, they can come off easily as is shown by the fact they were gone by the time the body reached the morgue.

    I didn’t realise you were at the morgue that morning.

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

    ross69 (2,495) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Hence my statement about the testers not trying to shoot themselves. To make the testing valid, they needed to do what Robin is alleged to have done…typed messaged on computer, got a chair, stood on it with one leg (or not), etc, before trying to shoot themselves. Then the testers should have inspected their hands.

    Their “scientific” experiment was nothing of the sort. Oh and they never allowed police the opportunity to respond.
    ———————————–
    Please explain how typing a message on a computer involves the top of the inner thumb, same with standing on one leg? Neither of those activities would put the top of the thumb into contact with the items being used.

    The police were present, and perfectly able to make their own press release. Believe or not TV3 does not control the police force, nor is able to tell them or the Crown Law Office (whose forensic specialist was present) what they can and can’t say. Nice try though. I’m sure some sucker will believe you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Its clear from reading most of the comments from the demented nutcases that they are clutching at straws and have a very simplistic naïve understanding of the evidence in the Bain case, clearly many have read to much CS, lets see how the far ‘honest opinion’ and ‘qualified privilege’ defences get KP in the upcoming Karam vs Parker trial.
    If you actually scrutinize the crown case against David all you are left with from Bill Wrights 1995 3 planks are
    1. It was Davids gun
    and 2. David said he was the only one who knew where the key to the trigger lock was.
    All the rest of the ‘evidence’ is about as strong as the foundations of the CTV building once a bit of a shake is applied.
    It appears being ‘right’ is much more important to some than establishing the truth!

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

    ross69 (2,496) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 3:36 pm
    —————————–

    The photos taken by Dr Dempster of Robin’s hands show the marks were no longer there.

    Desperate to try and make anything fit aren’t you!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Honeybadger (227 comments) says:

    Judith, etc…
    On page 20 of Joe Karam’s book ‘David and Goliath’ and the guts of it is

    ‘Guest wanted to offer me on behalf of David all rights to any books, magazine articles and the like. The final agreement, at my insistance, was that if I should have these rights, THEN DAVID AND I SHOULD SHARE EQUALLY IN ANY PROCEEDS THAT MIGHT ARISE’

    any further questions? or is Joe defaming himself?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The police were present, and perfectly able to make their own press release

    You’re wrong. Police said they were not consulted about the programme. A great opportunity existed for police to be interviewed on the show. It didn’t happen. I guess TV3 were scared that their great scoop might turn out to be the damp squib that it is.

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

    Honeybadger (116) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
    —————————————-

    Yes, David and Joe share equally from the profits that arise from Joe’s writing. Now tell me how you translate that to that David shares any money he receives from compensation with Joe?

    Proceeds – from ‘books, magazine articles and the like – Compensation is not earned by writing or construction or is ‘like’ any of those other activities.

    Joe has the ‘right’ to write about David and instead of making the 100% profit on them, has agreed to give David 50% of that profit, despite David not doing the hard work.

    Just how is this exploitation?

    Please note – I’ll tell you again there is no contract that gives Joe Karam the right to 50% of any money David Bain earns, or receives in compensation or the likes. You have been told this before, but you are insisting on twisting and misrepresenting facts. I hope Joe sues the arse off you. I for one perceive your statements to be falsified with the intention of making anyone reading them think lessor of Joe Karam. In short, that makes them defamation.

    I just wish I knew Mr Karam’s phone number so I could bring your persistent bullshitting to his attention. It’s not like you haven’t been told the truth before.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,497) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    The police were present, and perfectly able to make their own press release

    You’re wrong. Police said they were not consulted about the programme.
    ———————————————-

    The police were bloody well present and filmed in the programme carrying the gun and taking part and observing the testing.
    Are you suggesting that those people were impersonating police – which is a crime?

    Get real Ross, you are acting awfully irrationally. Go watch the program again.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    You know Ross. It might be a damp squip for you. It does however further the belief that if you cast reasonable doubt over any one over the Bain deaths then you can’t convict Bain over all or any of the murders.

    @Judith. Only three main pieces of evidence as I can see re Lundy. Interestingly, all three were used to convict and all three have been used by the sister to take the case to the Privy Council.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. goldnkiwi (1,538 comments) says:

    Great point Ross69. How did those marks remain on the thumb and forefinger? Would it be the forefinger that would have been used on the trigger? I wondered how many photos were taken to get those 8, the numbers on the photos suggest a lot, photos of lots of other things taken as well I am sure.

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

    It does however further the belief that if you cast reasonable doubt over any one over the Bain deaths then you can’t convict Bain over all or any of the murders.

    Monique,

    We’re talking about compo and unless you’re naive, David won’t be getting any.

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

    goldnkiwi (386) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 4:01 pm
    ———————————

    Think about it. Which part of the forefinger is used for pulling a trigger and where were the marks?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Honeybadger (227 comments) says:

    ‘David and I should share equally in ANY proceeds that might arise’ Joe’s own words, any proceeds….

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

    Monique Angel (63) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
    ——————————

    I guess they only need to cast doubt on one of those main pieces of evidence in order for a retrial to be ordered.

    I do admit to struggling with the time frame to drive to and from Palmerston North in rush hour traffic, but then I seem to remember someone saying the deaths may have occurred later. However, opportunity alone does not make a killer – there has to be something else that ties him to the scene.

    Its an interesting case, I really should read more about it.

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

    Honeybadger (117) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    ———————————-

    You cannot take part of a statement out of its context and expect it to apply. You are committing defamation. You are doing it willingly and despite being warned of what you are doing, you are continuing.

    The context of the comment was that money Joe Karam earned by writing books, article etc would result in him sharing the profits with David. It does not mention compensation or any other circumstance, and it certainly does not imply that David would also share his earnings or compensation with Joe.

    You are drawing a very long straw – one that you know is wrong, but keep continuing to do anyway. You are a complete fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Honeybadger (227 comments) says:

    Joe’s own words Judith, available for anyone to read, so I am not taking anything out of context

    ‘any proceeds that might arise’

    so you can argue with that until you are blue in the face

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. goldnkiwi (1,538 comments) says:

    I have thought about, if there are marks on the thumb, there are marks on the forefinger, so since there are still ‘marks’ on the forefinger and assuming, as there is varied opinion, that Robin could reach to pull the trigger, in whatever position, I assume that the forefinger would be the logical choice. How extraordinary that the marks should survive that action.

    Seems to suggest that they weren’t there at the time, but regardless, I do not believe that Robin committed suicide, so of course it couldn’t have wiped off.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    @Ross69

    JK has just come out to say he won’t be getting any compo. Says reasonable doubt is a completely different threshold to meet than conferring innocence based on conclusive proof that someone else. ie that Robin Bain did it.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893367

    However, there is the matter of the numerous police cock-ups and coverups which happened in another well known historical pardon.
    And based on that, yes I do believe David Bain is in line for a pardon and compo.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    I am not a Labour fan but it sounds like Andrew Little has a good idea re compo.
    It would not be just left up to judge but a panel including people with expertise like scientist of forensic accounts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Dazzaman (1,145 comments) says:

    Is this all the Bainiacs have? How many years did it take these people to cook up this “evidence”? More cooked up bullshit from uncle Joe & co….

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

    Honeybadger (118) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 4:25 pm
    ——————————————
    From David and Goliath, page 20 – written by Joe Karam.

    “The following morning I agreed to foot the bill of $12,500 for the appeal;, my only request in so doing were that I could have the file documents to study and read, and that I was to remain anonymous until I agreed otherwise. Guest, in response to this altruistic gesture (motivated only by compassion for David’s plight and a natural intrigue to study this mysterious case(, said that I should at least have a chance of recouping the money at some later date. This was entirely his suggestion and finished up in a short agreement between Michael, myself and David. Guest wanted to offer me on David’s behalf all rights to any books, magazine articles and the like. The final agreement, at my insistence, was that if I should have these rights then David and I should share equally in any proceeds that might arise. The agreement including a clause that from then on I was to be part of David’s defence team (included to allow me full access to David and the file documents), was duly signed that morning. .. ”

    As you can see from the full context of that paragraph, the contract concerned was regarding Joe Karam’s writing of any books, magazine articles and THE LIKE! Compensation is nothing LIKE the profits made in writing a book. The item also does not mention any proceeds earned by David.

    You and your JFRB friends have been officially informed prior to this that the contract is only one way, and does not include David sharing any of his earnings with Joe.

    You are simply shit stirring, and in doing so being defamatory, with the intention of drawing attention away from the current topic, and to ensure that people think lesser of Joe Karam.

    You are a nasty person – if justice can’t be achieved by the truth, then it is not justice. If you have to twist and lie to try and achieve your aim, then the result is neither justice nor the truth. You are despicable, made worse by the fact you know the truth of this matter and are deliberately lying.

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

    Judith, how can it be twisting. lying and defamatory, if I am quoting Joe Karam’s own words? please advise…. and by the way, I have never been informed the contract is only one way, but I would dearly like to see, in Joe’s own words, that it is only one way, and Joe is not being given an equal share of any compensation

    ‘The final agreement, at my insistence, was that if I should have these rights then David and I should share equally in any proceeds that might arise.’

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (2,962) Says:

    June 27th, 2013 at 2:45 pm
    muggins (2,378) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Judith
    1. How do you know how long those marks were on Robin Bain’s hands for?
    2. David could have transferred that gunshot residue to his fathers hands.
    3. I daresay there would be some guttering that could leave those exact same marks.
    4. Please explain those different versions.
    5. How do you know that it is “typical” that fingerprints are not left on magazines?
    6. David Bain could have wiped the fingerprints off the magazine.

    ————————————-

    1. Because it was known all trace of them had disappeared before Dr Dempster examined the body later that day. Therefore it is possible to work out that they were not ‘durable’ and would not have been there long.
    2. David could have transferred the marks only by holding the magazine against his father’s thumb. But for what reason? If it was to implicate his father, then why didn’t David at some stage within the last 20 years, make sure those marks were pointed out, in order to escape conviction.
    3. Daresay isn’t sufficient. The claim has been made, I suggest if you want to refute it, then you go and find something to do with guttering that proves your claims. Or you concede. Your choice.
    4. One, the cartridge was in the position it was photographed in. Two it was not in the position it was photographed in.
    5. Because forensic statistics recorded at all such crime scenes demonstrates that fingerprints are not found in the vast majority of such cases, therefore, they are not ‘typically’ found.
    6. Really? There are a number of things both David and Robin Bain could have done – but ‘could have’ and ‘did do’ are two very different concepts. We don’t determine a persons guilt based on what they ‘could have’ done, unless there is some supporting evidence. Do you have anything that suggests he did do that?

    Judith
    1. How do we know those marks weren’t there later in the day?
    2. I didn’t say David transferred the marks ,just the gunshot residue. But what if he wanted to try and get his father’s fingerprints on the magazine by pressing his hand on it?
    3. If daresay isn’t good enough then how about you explain how David Bain got those marks on his torso?
    4. Your reply makes no sense. The magazine[not cartridge] was in the same position when the police arrived as it was when that photo was taken.
    5. How many crimes scenes have you read about where a magazine was removed from a weapon and placed upright on the floor.?
    6. There is no proof that is gunshot residue on Robin Bain’s hands, nor is there anything proof that those marks were made by that magazine.
    There is no proof Robin Bain placed that magazine upright on the floor.
    There is no proof that Robin Bain shot four members of his family and then committed suicide.
    There is no proof that the blood on Robin Bain’s hands was from anyone else but himself.
    There is no proof that Robin Bain typed that message on the computer.
    There is no proof that Robin Bain wore David’s gloves.
    There is no proof that Robin Bain wore any gloves that morning.
    There is no proof that Robin Bain knew where the trigger lock key was.
    There is no proof Robin Bain put those bloody clothes in the wash.
    There is no proof Laniet went home to ” spill the beans”. In fact evidence was heard that she did not want to go home that Sunday evening.
    There is no proof Robin Bain washed his hands,or even rinsed them.
    Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    It’s hilarious to watch the David haters’ world collapse around them.

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

    Honeybadger (119) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
    tilting at windmills….

    Keeping stock, Joe Karam has a 50/50 contract with David Bain for any monies he (Bain) receives, as he said in his first book

    __________________________________________

    Honeybadger (119) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 4:48 pm
    Judith, how can it be twisting. lying and defamatory, if I am quoting Joe Karam’s own words?

    ——————————————————–

    The first quote above is NOT quoting Karam’s words, and clearly states according to you that Karam gets 50% of any monies (BAIN) receives.

    You then went on to quote only particular PARTS of the paragraph to misrepresent those statements and inferred they imply something that is not true. That is also considered to be defamatory, because you have omitted the clarifying comments, in order to make what you have posted mean something entirely different.

    Whats more, you were warned and told what you were doing was wrong, but you have continued.

    Paint it anyway you like, but it is defamation, and you know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (2,380) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    1. How do we know those marks weren’t there later in the day?

    Dare I suggest that would require you to ring Dempster again and ask him. That way you can misrepresent his answer as you did last time you spoke to him. In fact you can say he answered any way you like, as before.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It’s hilarious to watch the David haters’ world collapse around them

    Is that your core belief, Tom, or is it real? :)

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

    There is no proof Robin Bain placed that magazine upright on the floor.

    There isn’t any proof that David did it either

    There is no proof that Robin Bain shot four members of his family and then committed suicide.

    Yes there is

    There is no proof that the blood on Robin Bain’s hands was from anyone else but himself.

    There is not proof it wasn’t from someone else

    There is no proof that Robin Bain typed that message on the computer.

    There no proof that David typed it either

    There is no proof that Robin Bain wore David’s gloves.

    There is no proof that David wore those gloves that morning either.

    There is no proof that Robin Bain wore any gloves that morning.

    There is no proof that David wore any gloves that morning.

    There is no proof that Robin Bain knew where the trigger lock key was.

    There is proof that Robin had used David’s gun and even possibly Stephen had used it too, without David’s permission, therefore showing that David was not the only person to know where the keylock was.

    There is no proof Robin Bain put those bloody clothes in the wash.

    There is no proof David did either. There is only proof that David put the clothes in the wash basket into the machine and turned it on.

    There is no proof Laniet went home to ” spill the beans”. In fact evidence was heard that she did not want to go home that Sunday evening.

    And yet she willingly got into the car with her sister driving without any fuss, and there is evidence from people that she intended to ‘spill the beans’ that weekend.

    There is no proof Robin Bain washed his hands,or even rinsed them.

    There is however blood on a towel which indicates Robin was in the bathroom area and used the towel and that he was bleeding at the time – possibly from the hand wound he had or something else.

    Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

    I have plenty to suggest otherwise, but we have already discussed it and there is no need to repeat myself for your benefit. :-)

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

    And based on that, yes I do believe David Bain is in line for a pardon and compo.

    Well, you’re entitled to your opinion. But I cannot see David getting any compo based on twin thumb lines in an historical photograph.

    David cannot explain away the lies he told Ian Binnie. Why would a supposedly innocent person be so economical with the truth? Why would David say he loved his family when that was bullshit?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/robin-bain-gunshot-residue-not-compelling-evidence-expert-5478416

    Evidence not compelling ,says expert.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    I guess Justice Binnie can be vindicated in his conclusions
    27. It is my recommendation that David Bain receive compensation for the wrongful 1995
    conviction and the consequential 13 years in jail. Although his factual innocence has not been
    established beyond a reasonable doubt, I conclude that it is more likely than not that David
    Bain is factually innocent according to the lower civil standard of “balance of probabilities”.
    Further, having regard to the terms of the Cabinet’s “extraordinary circumstances discretion”
    set out in the Minister’s letter to me of November 10, 2011, it is my opinion that the egregious
    errors of the Dunedin Police that led directly to the wrongful conviction make it “in the interest
    of justice that compensation be paid”.
    and
    30. I am very conscious that Robin – unlike David – is not here to speak for himself. Yet I
    believe the physical evidence compels the conclusion that it is more probable than not that
    Margaret and three of the Bain children were killed by Robin Bain before he turned the gun on
    himself and committed suicide.

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

    “I don’t see that evidence as being particularly significant, there’s a large number of possible explanations for those marks which hasn’t been properly traversed by expert commentators,” said Mr Newbold.

    “All we’ve got is two marks on his fingers, anything could have caused that – he could have been working on his car, or screwing in a bolt by hand. There’s hundreds of reasons I could think of for how people could get those two cuts on their hand.

    Not according to the Bain cultists. :)

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

    Prove its an indentation, or bruise, and not just skin discoloration?

    Heh – a perfect example of Judith’s subjective approach to the analysis of evidence.

    So willing to believe that a couple of semi-healed scratches are gun powder residue, and yet wants conclusive proof that the indentations that Ross69 noted on David’s nose are not what they appear to be – the result of him having worn his glasses that weekend or even having had them forcefully jammed into his nose by Stephen as he fought for his life.

    The major difference is Judith, is that all manner of items pass through a man’s hands, but only one thing sits on the bridge of his nose.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. nzmum (3 comments) says:

    It was quite obvious to anyone with half a brain who watch 3rd Degree’s excellent investigation last night, that Robin Bain fired the gun, that resulted in the tragic murders of his family.

    For some people, this evidence is not enough, and the case will continue to be debated ad infinitum.

    But our politicians are a different matter. As representatives of the people, they should have open minds, and reserve judgement (and comment) until such time as they have watched the investigation.

    Barely had the show finished when Justice Minister Judith Collins was quoted as saying she would not be watching it and the Prime Minister, has made similar comments to media today.

    It was the same flawed and closed thinking which led to her shutting down the report into Bain’s compensation.

    Ater last night’s documentary, the price for compensation has just gone up.

    “If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: ‘Thou shalt not ration justice.'”
    Sophocles

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Is that your core belief, Tom, or is it real?

    I don’t care whether David Bain did it or not. The effect of his guilt or innocence on my life is zero. I just find it funny that the NZ establishment is tying itself in knots to avoid admitting that the conviction stank. All of this could have been avoided had the police done their job properly, like they do in most cases. David Bain did not get a fair trial where evidence was presented to an acceptable standard.

    It was obvious very early on that the Bain investigation was half-arsed. As soon as foreign professionals who have nothing at stake are asked, their judgement is scathing (Privy Council & Binnie). As a response our “authorities” tie themselves in knots trying to defend themselves, but just end up looking like the colonial rubes that they are.

    Now the establishment want David Bain to prove his innocence using the same poorly gathered evidence that was used to convict him. What this says to New Zealanders is this: if the police screw up evidence collection so badly that you get convicted of a crime, then you have to prove that you are innocent to receive compensation even though police incompetence means that potentially exculpatory evidence was not collected properly. That’s absurd. Anyone who is convicted because of police incompetence ought to receive compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You are the weakest link and the biggest bullshitter on any of the kiwiblog threads. You have no proof of any of your ridiculous claims and contribute nothing to the debate. I suggest you start planning that move to North Korea, in the mean time how about you f… of and stop adding to DPFs blog count for the sake of it!

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

    I suspect on next week’s 3rd Degree we’ll see Senior Constable Henry Glaser interviewed (Tui time). Glaser, formerly an armourer at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, was commissioned by Joe Karam to provide an expert opinion on the likelihood of Robin committing suicide. Karam doesn’t talk about Glaser, which can mean only one thing – Glaser thinks Robin was murdered.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    yet wants conclusive proof that the indentations that Ross69 noted on David’s nose are not what they appear to be – the result of him having worn his glasses that weekend

    Dude, as a registered four-eyed git, I can tell you that the marks from glasses persist for a very long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    I always new Bain was innocent.

    What 17 year-old boys goes around killing his family. Of course it was the crazy old man.

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

    Anyone who is convicted because of police incompetence ought to receive compensation.

    Oh I couldn’t agree more, Tom. I’d be happy to chip in $20 for poor David so he can have a feed at KFC. I’m guessing he could murder a family pack.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (2,965) Says:

    June 27th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    There is no proof Robin Bain placed that magazine upright on the floor.

    There isn’t any proof that David did it either

    There is no proof that Robin Bain shot four members of his family and then committed suicide.

    Yes there is

    There is no proof that the blood on Robin Bain’s hands was from anyone else but himself.

    There is not proof it wasn’t from someone else

    There is no proof that Robin Bain typed that message on the computer.

    There no proof that David typed it either

    There is no proof that Robin Bain wore David’s gloves.

    There is no proof that David wore those gloves that morning either.

    There is no proof that Robin Bain wore any gloves that morning.

    There is no proof that David wore any gloves that morning.

    There is no proof that Robin Bain knew where the trigger lock key was.

    There is proof that Robin had used David’s gun and even possibly Stephen had used it too, without David’s permission, therefore showing that David was not the only person to know where the keylock was.

    There is no proof Robin Bain put those bloody clothes in the wash.

    There is no proof David did either. There is only proof that David put the clothes in the wash basket into the machine and turned it on.

    There is no proof Laniet went home to ” spill the beans”. In fact evidence was heard that she did not want to go home that Sunday evening.

    And yet she willingly got into the car with her sister driving without any fuss, and there is evidence from people that she intended to ‘spill the beans’ that weekend.

    There is no proof Robin Bain washed his hands,or even rinsed them.

    There is however blood on a towel which indicates Robin was in the bathroom area and used the towel and that he was bleeding at the time – possibly from the hand wound he had or something else.

    Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?

    I have plenty to suggest otherwise, but we have already discussed it and there is no need to repeat myself for your benefit.

    Judith, there is no proof that Robin Bain shot four members of his family and then committed suicide.
    But there is quite a bit of evidence pointing to David Bain as being the perpetrator.
    IE those glasses , Stephen’s blood on his clothes, those unexplained bruises on his head and torso, etc., etc.
    There is no proof that Robin Bain knew where the trigger lock key was.
    Are you saying there were no bloody clothes in the wash?
    How do you know Laniet willingly got in the car,are you psychic? And how do you know Arawa was driving the car?
    Yes ,Robin’s blood was on a towel. But that does not mean he used that towel. And what hand wound would have produced that amount of blood?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    The ‘no evidence myth’ from the twisted sister
    A summary with thanks to N-NZ

    A brief summary:

    >fresh blood on two pairs of trousers in Robin’s caravan
    >a bloodied hair on the sweatshirt in the commer van
    >the footprints: first trial said that they must be David’s because they matched the (unstretched) length of his socks (280mm). Second trial showed David’s feet to be considerably longer (300mm)
    >blood inside the barrel of the rifle showing the shot to Robin being a close contact shot
    >Laniet was shot through something and this intervening something introduced yaw in the bullet creating a larger entrance wound: not a contact would as previously thought.
    >Laniet had told several people that her father molested her (possible motive, not brought out at first trial)
    >The fingerprints on the rifle from David could not have been blood
    >there were numerous other prints on the rifle (partial/unidentifiable)
    >the proposition of Robin shooting himself being impossible or extremely difficult was shown to be false and that it was relatively easy
    >the blood spatter evidence was new
    >the blood spatter evidence that showed the blood and brain spatter on Robin’s shoe showing the impossibility of ‘kneeling in prayer’
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed their was no screen (a gunman) between Robin and the spread of the spatter
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that had a gunman been involved in Robin’s death the shot would have been impossible without a required distorted pose from Robin (perhaps standing on a chair)
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that the gunman would have needed Robin’s co-operation in own death and anyway would have been impossible not to have left a ‘shielded’ area in the spatter
    >DNA evidence was new
    >the information about the doubt about the lens placement was new
    >the details of the computer turn-on timing was new
    >the details or the washing machine cycle duration was new
    >some of the details of the blood-staining was new (eg in the first trial the stain on the back of David’s shirt was an ‘old’ stain pre-dating the murders)
    >The flap of skin found in Stephens room and ‘said’ to be Davids was proven to be Stephens.

    plus the new magazine evidence
    Overall the forensic proof proves Robin the killer.

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

    What 17 year-old boys goes around killing his family.

    You’re only 5 years out. David was 22 at the time.

    How about this lovely boy? Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    All we’ve got is two marks on his fingers, anything could have caused that

    It seems very unlikely that the marks would be the exact same width as the magazine of the rifle he allegedly never loaded.

    In the end, you are asking us to believe that David Bain is guilty of a type of crime (family annihilation) that statistically he is very unlikely to commit compared to the other suspect in the case (in almost all these cases it’s the Dad), that he had no obvious motive for (as opposed to his father, whose circumstances make him the poster child for being likely to commit such a crime), and for which he risked discovery by his father by leaving a corpse strewn house for an hour to do his paper round.

    If David Bain’s “plot” was for things to turn out as the Crown claims, then David Bain must have been a barely functional retard.

    When you look at the big picture, the Crown’s case is absurd. Hence, the focus on poorly collected minutiae of evidence which could be interpreted any number of ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    I don’t think it is compelling but as David said in the post – it is significant possibly more significant than anything else.

    Sure he could have got those marks elsewhere but he would almost certainly have them if he loaded the gun and he did have them. That they might have gone by the time they took the photos is consistent with them being residue and alternate explanations for marks on the hand seem hard to explain – for example did he work on his car that morning? maybe – but unlikely.

    David could have been involved in the murders somehow, as some have hinted – but that case was never made in the case against David so it is a bit of a non starter.

    I think David is on his way to compensation and that the Government will see the tide turning and will use this to just hand over the money (after it has been properly confirmed by appropriate people).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Oh I couldn’t agree more, Tom. I’d be happy to chip in $20 for poor David so he can have a feed at KFC. I’m guessing he could murder a family pack.

    I loled. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. goldnkiwi (1,538 comments) says:

    It is that paper boy status that does it. Incredible the number of people that think that David was even younger than seventeen.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/files/THUMB.jpg

    That top mark definitely looks like a cut to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    Police response to latest Bain theory

    June 27, 2013, 5:30 pm

    The latest story advanced through the media by representatives of David Bain is an interesting theory but is not new evidence says Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess.

    “It is an interesting idea when taken in isolation, but is no more than a theory when taken out of context of all the other evidence which has been presented to several courts.

    “Marks on a photograph can always be open to several interpretations by experts, and the significance or relevance of these marks have not been tested in court.

    “Examination of the original photograph does not give any definitive indication of what the marks could be. There are other possibilities, including that they are minor cuts.

    “We know for example that Robin Bain was doing work to the roof and spouting of his Every Street home in the days leading up to the killings – any Kiwi handyman knows the sort of damage this can do to the hands. Post mortem examination of Robin Bain’s hands shows a number of minor abrasions and marks you would expect to find with someone familiar with manual work.

    “Indeed, police have today conducted a preliminary examination of fingerprints taken from Robin Bain after his death. These prints show an absence of fingerprint markings in the same place on his right thumb as the dark marks appearing 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.

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

    “I also reiterate the evidence put forward in court that the only identifiable fingerprints found on the firearm belonged to David and Stephen Bain.

    “Police will continue to look at this issue to gain a better understanding of what this photograph may show.

    “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.”

    http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/35430.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It seems very unlikely that the marks would be the exact same width as the magazine of the rifle he allegedly never loaded.

    Robin may well have loaded the magazine…shall we ask him?

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

    You and only you,

    with your flowing locks, beautiful face, brilliant voice, yes YOU and ONLY you alone deserve to live.

    Your intelligence and upright manner, the guiding light of this family, yes David, you and only YOU deserve to bring this family in to the future.

    Make all the paperboys proud … love dad.

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    NZmum,

    “Barely had the show finished when Justice Minister Judith Collins was quoted as saying she would not be watching it and the Prime Minister, has made similar comments to media today.”

    Actually I think this is the appropriate response – they should get their experts to look at the evidence and take their advice. Then they can watch the case against.

    One doesn’t want politicians (especially when acting as components of our legal system) who leap to whatever conclusions the latest TV programme is pushing even if in this case they appear to have a good point.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “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.”

    Which proves that 3rd Degree lacks any semblance of balance or fairness. Duly noted for any future stories about the Bain case.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Ross
    Maybe Daddy came into the lounge to say his prayers that morning found the gun and the spare magazine, then loaded them in to the rifle for David while waiting in prayers for him to come back and shoot him.
    You are ridiculous, but good for entertainment

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Tom , David Bain did have motive.
    He was worried that the new house would never get built and his mother might go and flat taking Stephen with her.
    He thought “bugger it, I am the only one who deserves to stay so he shot everyone else expecting to get the inheritance.
    He seemed unaware that his parents had just reconciled. At the trial he sid his mother had told the children his father wasn’t going to be part of the new house, but he told Binnie his father was going to have a room. It would appear he only found that out after the murders.
    He knew his mother had obtained a demolition order for part of the house but then he thought she had revoked it.
    Bang,bang,bang,bang,bang.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    I can tell you that the marks from glasses persist for a very long time.

    Well maybe you don’t have the cutaneous elasticity of a young man any more, but that’s not my point. I’m saying that claiming that the marks are powder residue is jumping to an unfounded conclusion in the same way that claiming the indentations must prove that David must have worn his glasses that weekend.

    Who knows what the marks really are? One commenter on this thread has suggested they may be dirt inscribed creases. Quite possible imo. Or a trick of the light like the lense photo? Or smudged specks of his own blood that came off when the body was moved.

    Game changer? Nah.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    PG @ 5:44pm,

    So the Police look to the existing fingerprint evidence and find an absence of markings consistent with small cuts.

    Can we now expect those who have been defending the new ‘evidence’ to now claim that powder residue on the fingers which is susceptible to disturbance and only lasts a short time is somehow robust enough to yield prints with the absence of markings?

    Quite something if an oversight for the investigative journalists to have missed that. Did it not occur to them to check the existing evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    You’re quick Pete.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1306/S00359/police-response-to-latest-bain-theory.htm

    Fingerprints show marks on fingers.

    Keystone cops say he was hammered himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘I suspect on next week’s 3rd Degree we’ll see Senior Constable Henry Glaser interviewed (Tui time). Glaser, formerly an armourer at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, was commissioned by Joe Karam to provide an expert opinion on the likelihood of Robin committing suicide. Karam doesn’t talk about Glaser, which can mean only one thing – Glaser thinks Robin was murdered’

    Why wouldn’t you lie ross, 2nd nature to you. Have you even read the report, or just a hate-site version.

    Sorry to be pedantic about your absolute bs, but if what you were saying were true it would have been admitted as evidence and rebutted by Manlove. Try a little harder, raise your game, accept that the first thing that comes into your desperate mind and sticks gets filtered out by those possessing an iq – even a modest one.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    I suppose Burgess was quoting the ‘expert’ Jones who told the Jury that fingerprint definition sharpens under pressure and also held a view, shared with no other in the world, as to what colour blood fluoresces under poli-light.

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

    And now One News are repeating the Third Degree ‘evidence’

    Including Reed’s “slam dunk” comment – he could regret that yet. His ability to discriminate quality evidence is now seriously under question. (that’s more of a polite way of saying its torn to shreds really.)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    What was that you said about panic last night N-NZ?

    Poor chap.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    I own a number of firearms including 22s. To test the defences new evidence I have loaded a similar rifle magazine and found it impossible not to leave finger prints on the side whilst holding it to load the bullets into it by my other hand. Strange !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘Can we now expect those who have been defending the new ‘evidence’ to now claim that powder residue on the fingers which is susceptible to disturbance and only lasts a short time is somehow robust enough to yield prints with the absence of markings?’

    So in one day the police are ‘experts’ on evidence they failed to find for 19 years. I challenge Burgess to provide photos of the cuts taken in the mortuary, or evidence of the ‘cut’s described by the pathologist until then he is speculating on the basis of ‘cuts’ which there is no proof ever existed, and which ‘happen’ to perfectly conform with gsr of the size of the magazine of murder weapon. Speculation on things which don’t exist are the hallmark of the failed police case, a case which failed to convince a jury even without the jury knowing that Robin Bain’s hands show that brd he handled the magazine fitted to the murder weapon.

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

    bhudson (3,773) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    The police comments do not change anything. As they say they are open to interpretation by experts, and believe me, that process has already begun both here and overseas, and the indications are that they support what TV3 said last night. The most pertinent part being, there was no break in the skin texture, which supports they were not ‘cuts’. Remember the police are giving there opinion which has not been tested either. Comments from ordinary police mean very little, regardless of whether they are commissioner or not. It is the forensic analysis that matters.

    The following two comments actually say nothing more than we already knew. They were not photographed by Dr Dempster, which means they either didn’t exist, or he was remiss in the manner in which he conducted his investigation, either way its a win for the Bain team and adds to the chances of getting compensation by providing yet another example of how there are extra-ordinary circumstances. Sorry, but you can go back to panicking again!

    “Marks on a photograph can always be open to several interpretations by experts, and the significance or relevance of these marks have not been tested in court.

    “Examination of the original photograph does not give any definitive indication of what the marks could be. There are other possibilities, including that they are minor cuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    bhudson (3,774) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    What was that you said about panic last night N-NZ?

    Poor chap.
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0′

    I said I enjoyed watching you panic bhudson, that you continue for a second day is no surprise, just as you pretended recently not to know the status of the JR even though a judgement has been released.

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

    So in one day the police are ‘experts’ on evidence they failed to find for 19 years

    No, they’re saying the evidence had already shown what those markings were most likely. And certainly what they weren’t – they weren’t powder residue.

    Keep spinning N-NZ. Your new ‘evidence’ torn down in less than a day. But not before Reed made an absolute fool of himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Judith,

    You overlooked the:

    Indeed, police have today conducted a preliminary examination of fingerprints taken from Robin Bain after his death. These prints show an absence of fingerprint markings in the same place on his right thumb as the dark marks appearing 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.

    Perhaps Third Degree should have checked the fingerprint evidence instead of relying solely on inspection of a photograph.

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

    RF (798) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
    ——————————–
    Sure you have. We all have fingerprint testing kits in the house, and we all live in houses that were the same temperature and conditions of the Bain house, and we all have the same physiological make up as Robin Bain, so when we touch things, we all have the same amount of skin moisture which effects whether fingerprints are left or not!

    dingbat – the ability for fingerprints varies from each particular circumstance and between individuals. What happens for you, does not mean it will happen for someone else, unless you can reproduce the exact same environment and physicality.

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

    just as you pretended recently not to know the status of the JR even though a judgement has been released.

    Actually N-NZ, what I said was it wasn’t clear to me whether the July hearing is the substantive JR, or a hearing to determine whether or not a JR can be permitted. At the time you also indicated that you were not completely sure. Do you have new information on that?

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

    bhudson (3,777) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
    —————————-

    As I said, one opinion.

    Do you seriously think the Bain defence team didn’t check the fingerprints and get an expert opinion? Of course the first thing that would be done was to check for existing damage.

    The boys in blue have given an expected opinion. Look at the fingerprints yourself, and even a novice can tell they haven’t quite got it right.

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

    bhudson (3,778) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    ——————————-

    worried are we? I thought so! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @Judith,

    Not at all. Pleased that police have been able to rebut the evidence so quickly.

    Pretty sloppy of Third Degree

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

    bhudson (3,778) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    ——————————-

    The one thing you should have caught on to by now, and if you haven’t its time you did.

    The Bain has never revealed all their cards at once. They are fully aware of what the game is, and as there is not a Court hearing involved in this matter, there is no requirement for them to make a full disclosure.

    I said this morning that this was only the beginning, the main course has yet to be served :-)

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

    bhudson (3,779) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:44 pm
    ———————————–

    But they haven’t rebutted it at all. They have offered an alternative. The matter is yet to be tested in Court.

    You clearly don’t understand the game. The police do not hold the trump card. They can say anything they like, but until the right people support their claims, they are only on an equal footing with everyone else.

    Your really need to get over your hero worship of boys that wear blue – it doesn’t make them experts on all matters – sorry.

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

    Really Judith? What ever are they going to make up next?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Winston (43 comments) says:

    “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.”

    Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

    It is perfectly clear, after Collin’s treatment of Binnie, that her only concern is to find a patsy who will carefully consider his or her verdict of guilty.

    The NZ judicial system makes me want to weep. Nobody with a single brain cell left believes that Peter Ellis was guilty, and yet he is constantly fobbed off, and has yet even to receive a pardon for crimes he clearly did not commit.

    Keith Hunter has shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Scott Watson could not possibly have committed the Sounds murders. And yet, the Crown appears to have commissioned Crown Prosecutor McDonald QC to carefully consider her verdict of guilty.
    Oddly, her report has yet to made public. Nor has anyone yet controverted a single point made by Mr Hunter.

    And yet, innocent people languish in jail, and not a single person in parliament cares. Rodney used to, but God knows what his agenda is now.

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

    bhudson (3,780) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
    ___________________________

    The is not need to make anything up, the truth will prevail.

    How do you know it isn’t the police making something up – they are actually known for doing exactly that in murder cases?

    This, along with other stuff will be tested in court. David is in no hurry for his compensation. The longer the police play their stupid games, the bigger that payment will be.

    John Key does not want this matter to come up for a decision before the next election. He is perfectly aware of what that decision has to be, and knows it will lose him votes from people like you. No one is in a hurry, but you and sadly, your opinion doesn’t matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘At the time you also indicated that you were not completely sure. Do you have new information on that?’

    I was sure, – a Judgement was released from the High Court.

    As for the mystery cuts that there is no sign of ever being recorded either in photographs or the pathologist’s notes or sketches – good luck with that. That would be an interesting proposition for a jury, cuts that healed after death that couldn’t be seen by the pathologist on either of his examinations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘bhudson (3,780) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
    Really Judith? What ever are they going to make up next?’

    Disappearing cuts bhudson, scrapping the barrel I know, but the police might think of something even more ridiculous knowing that there are some desperados that will believe anything.

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,653) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:54 pm
    ——————————

    Did you see the chief witch sniffer on TV. Not looking the least bit stressed, old, bedraggled and totally stuffed much at all!

    I think he is trying to mimic Robin, in his last days.

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

    Because there was no application for the JR to be struck out because of lack of form or validity, which would have required a hearing in itself, it has to be taken that the Crown accept that JR is available to the applicant… I could be wrong of course

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/06/armstrong_on_labour-4.html#comment-1158931

    Supposition N-NZ, but clearly not sure, it would seem.

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

    And now the police display the fingerprint evidence on Campbell Live.

    John Campbell appears to accept that the images do show the absence of markings in relevant areas as police stated.

    Campbell not letting it go, but is on the back foot.

    Not as much as Judith and N-NZ though

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    Bainies get excited over the most “breakthrough evidence” of the last 19 years…… police shoot it down in less than a day…….. :-)

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

    So, according to the Police, they actually don’t know, and perhaps it could be something else, and not residue, but they don’t actually know and they haven’t actually examined it properly.

    Basically nothing has changed since yesterday – dear oh dear …

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. Keeping Stock (10,434 comments) says:

    So why would 3rd Degree be so reluctant to let the police have a say last night?

    “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.”

    So much for balanced reporting, and a significant dent to 3rd Degree’s credibility and that of Team Karam.

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

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (723) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:09 pm
    ——————————

    No they didn’t shoot it down at all. They said they needed to look at it further, and PERHAPS it could be something else and that the prints aren’t conclusive.

    Nothing like stretching the truth aye Shorty!! ;-)

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

    Keeping Stock (8,915) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
    ——————————
    The police were involved with the testing etc, they were NOT excluded and anyone that watched the program could clearly see their involvement. They obviously didn’t request to be included.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    Jesus Christ Judith just doesn’t have any reasoning ability at all does she?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    The police supplied thumbprint shows parallel marks.

    So that has to be a curiously coincidental prior injury or injuries, or they are indentations from the magazine (I have tested and that can happen) that have remained due to Bain dying. I have no idea about the feasibility of the that, it would need an expert (pathologist) opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    So, according to the Police, they actually don’t know, and perhaps it could be something else, and not residue, but they don’t actually know and they haven’t actually examined it properly.

    No, they were clear that the prints are not consistent with it being the likes of powder residue. Makes sense that they would do further checking given the intense interest in the case.

    Keep spinning Judith. But I suggest you sit down before you fall down.

    No further comment from Reed yet – still in surgery having his foot removed from his mouth?

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

    bhudson (3,782) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
    ———————————-

    You obviously only heard what you wanted to bhudson. They made it very clear that they hadn’t tested their theory and that they would need to do that before they could offer any information. They think ‘perhaps’ it could be old scarring and so on, but they don’t know anything at this stage. They also don’t know if the marks on the fingerprint is related or not.

    In other words, they are just offering the fact ‘that it may not be as significant made out’ or it maybe. They gave no particular support to it, nor against it. And they were rather short of an answer when Dr Dempster was mentioned.

    They were totally non-committed and made that clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Keeping Stock (10,434 comments) says:

    @SSSL – blindly loyal to David. I actually wonder sometimes if Judith is actually Joe Karam :D

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

    bhudson (3,783) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
    —————————–

    I just checked, he said the prints don’t appear to be consistent – not that they weren’t consistent. They could be cuts, but until further testing is done, they do not know. He made it very clear that it needed more analysis before the truth could be determined – why would he say that if it was a dead cert ????? hmmmm????

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    Judith 6.35pm. Dear god little girl….. You are loving all this attention.. I guess it gives your boring life a real buzz being a female Walter Mitty. Are we reading books again on crime scenes. . Unfortunately for you I have lifted more crime scene finger prints than you have had hot meals and have given evidence in court for a large number of defended hearings. I know all about fingerprints and how various conditions can affect them. We are not talking about days here or exposed to the elements so the prints in a dry environment would not deteriorate. There are those who have worked at the coal face and others who read books and dream about what the real world is like. Suggest you take a deep breath and stop making a complete fool of yourself.

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

    Poor Judith.

    The ‘game changing’ evidence is shown to be ephemeral and it dissipates before her eyes.

    They were clear that the prints were not consistent with the likes of powder residue. If they had left it at that you would have been the first to criticize them for not doing further investigations.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    Pete – surely when you press against the thumb to get a print any indentations would be forced into enough to get the print of that area

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

    Keeping Stock (8,916) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:20 pm
    ——————————

    Amazing isn’t it. You know bugger all about the evidence so anyone that does, must be Joe Karam. Goes to show the intelligence and rationality of pedophile supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. big bruv (14,156 comments) says:

    If Bain wants one cent of my money then the very least he can do is agree to be interviewed about the day of the murders without Karem being there to vet the questions.

    If Bain is so sure if his innocence then I fail to see why he will not agree to speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    Judith losing the battle so turns to slander…..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    bhudson (3,784) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:23 pm
    ——————–

    He was not clear, used the word perhaps, and stated more testing was needed to determine whether there was any consistencies. He said he didn’t think they were like residue would be, but they needed to be properly analysed.

    He is not qualified, nor are any member of the CIB to make a definitive call. As he said, an expert analysis is required. He did not say anything that stated it definitely one way or another – in fact he was very clear on that – stating at the end that he wanted to find out so he could determine the truth either way

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

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (726) Says:

    and where have I committed slander?

    I didn’t name names did I? I made a general statement. Got to get up early to catch me sunshine!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Judith (2,980) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ (3,653) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 6:54 pm
    ——————————

    Did you see the chief witch sniffer on TV. Not looking the least bit stressed, old, bedraggled and totally stuffed much at all!

    I think he is trying to mimic Robin, in his last days.’

    What channel?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Longknives (4,884 comments) says:

    RF- I’m guessing your brilliant summation of Judith’s rather amateur ‘sleuthing’ is what one might call a ‘Slam Dunk’!
    (By the way- Are she and Rowan the same person? They are both using the same emotive language and unusual terminology ‘Witch Sniffing’ etc..)

    I thought the Police Commissioner was very calm and professional and treated this laughable ‘development’ with the contempt it deserved. If Bain supporters weren’t so drunk on the Kool Aid they would have seen that he just completely destroyed their ‘new evidence’ with one old fingerprint slide…

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

    big bruv (11,262) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    —————————-

    David Bain has been interviewed and appeared without Joe Karam being present on TV3 in an extensive interview last year.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    Judith – doesn’t make you any less of a despicable piece of shit though does it?

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

    Longknives (2,606) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    he just completely destroyed their ‘new evidence’ with one old fingerprint slide…
    ———————————

    And if you weren’t so blind, you would know that the Police Commissioner is not qualified to read fingerprint slides, and when he used the word ‘perhaps’ it was because they don’t really know and when he said they needed to look at it further, that was also because they don’t really know.

    He didn’t destroy anything and doesn’t have the qualifications or ability to do so. If you think he does, you’re delusional.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Supposition N-NZ, but clearly not sure, it would seem.’

    Very sure. Read the judgement on the application you said couldn’t happen, then get back to the cuts which don’t exist.

    I wonder why Burgess didn’t speak to his own witness, that’s normal in these situations – unless the Deputy Commissioner already knows the answer and it’s not supporting his unsubstantiated theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    A post showing the Robin Bain thumb marks and thumb print.

    This suggests that either…
    – the thumb was injured earlier on one or two occasions leaving with parallel lines that curiously but coincidentally a similar distance apart as the sides of the rifle magazine.
    or…
    – the thumb was indented due to pressure on the magazine – I can replicate this – and the indentations remained after Robin Bain died. They would gradually disappear on a live thumb.

    I think the second of those options would need an expert opinion from a pathologist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 5.52
    Now we both know that there is no truth in any of that but we wouldn’t expect any better from you now would we

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Keeping Stock (10,434 comments) says:

    Nice ad-hom Judith…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    I thought the Police Commissioner was very calm and professional and treated this laughable ‘development’ with the contempt it deserved. If Bain supporters weren’t so drunk on the Kool Aid they would have seen that he just completely destroyed their ‘new evidence’ with one old fingerprint slide…’

    I guess he forgot Dempster’s phone number and chose to rely on his imagination instead, calmly of course. Jones must have been busy testing his polilight.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Pete George. The lines don’t look anywhere near parallel. I made that point first thing this morning. Also, I said one looked like a shallow cut. This is visible on the fingerprint.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Big Bruv @ 7.25
    And what does David need to prove to you big blouse, why would he waste his time?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left – that would depend on the degree and nature of the indentations, and how much they hold their shape on a dead thumb.

    The photo doesn’t seem to show any broken skin, so the pressure when thumb printing applies no matter what caused the indentations.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. big bruv (14,156 comments) says:

    Judith.

    I am talking about a proper interview, not a soft piece hosted by one of the many media darlings who have been conned into believing Bain’s version of events.

    And, that interview you talk about, the questions were all vetted prior to the interview by David’s friend Joe. Not once was Bain asked a hard question, not once we he put on the spot, indeed from memory there were a few questions he declined to answer.

    Tell me Judith, why is it that you are your ilk are so scared of the truth emerging?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Longknives (4,884 comments) says:

    Burgess- ” Our fingerprint experts advise that this is consistent with someone sustaining cuts or damage..”
    You are quite right that Burgess isn’t qualified to examine fingerprints etc Judith- That’s why the Police/Crown use ESR and Forensics etc
    Try again…

    By the way- Speaking of qualifications…What qualification does Karam possess which make his word ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Final Say’ on anything do do with this case? Seems to me this character gets a bit of a free ride from the NZ media..

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

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,656) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    ——————————–

    They are in a very tricky position. Dr Dempster is highly regarded both here and internationally and is confident he took photos of every irregularity on Robin Bain’s body, including his hands. He is too professional not to photograph everything.

    He didn’t photograph the marks, which supports what the defence team has stated.

    So where does that leave the police. If discredit their own forensic expert, but stating there was injury to the thumb that he didn’t record, therefore has not been truthful – then they just add to the claims that there are extra-ordinary circumstances that provide a means for compensation to be paid.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    Long knives.. 7.33pm. Reminds me of a tired and worn out old animal stuck in a swamp, lashing out at anything that comes near it before it slowly sinks out of sight. Yee gods I though Penny B. was a complete idiot.. She has lost her crown to this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    funny thing – I was working on spouting in the weekend and I probably ended up with a dozen or so cuts and nicks……. on the back of my right hand on the right side I have two that were deep, are still healing and are still visible …… they are almost parallel

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

    @RF,

    Don’t underestimate the influence of her ‘handler’ – Nostalgia-NZ

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

    big bruv (11,263) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:45 pm
    ——————————-

    I am totally in favour of the truth emerging. The one thing I do know is that a blue uniform and the truth do not necessarily go hand in hand.

    When the police can support their claim with expert opinion, which has not yet been done, even though longknives likes to believe it has been, then I’m prepared to listen. Until such time as that is done, then from what I know of Dr Dempster, and his professionalism, I tend to support the fact that those marks were not there – because if they were, he would have photographed/recorded them.

    You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that the police made it very clear more analysis is required before they can be sure.

    You also seem to think that just because it is the police stance, it is right. That is not and never should be acceptable.
    Both sides need to present their evidence in the normal legal manner and then the truth will be determined. As yet that has not happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Longknives (4,884 comments) says:

    “And what does David need to prove to you big blouse, why would he waste his time?”

    Funniest comment I’ve heard all night!
    Pay attention dear- David is desperately trying to prove that he DIDN’T slaughter five members of his family, he is doing this so that he can walk away with a great wad of taxpayer cash and never have to work the paper round again…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Judith @ 7.37
    Very good point about Dr Dempster, I thought the stupidist thing the crown could have done at the retrial was to bring in ‘experts’ to try and discredit Dr Dempster, it failed big time on them and they would have had Dr Hentschells notes about the blood in the barrel, so it wasn’t very smart. Thompson and Ferris were an embarrassment to the crown case, yet they still tried to make Dempster change his mind about the final shot to Robin insisting that it was ‘not’ a contact wound and agreed that trying to determine firing distance from photographs is not a reliable method.
    Shows there desperation

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

    RF (800) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
    —————————-

    I never had a crown, you’re being a bit dramatic aren’t you?

    Face it boy – the police have not offered anything substantiated at this stage. All they have done is cast some room for doubt.

    If you can’t see that, then I suggest it is you that needs to find some balance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘By the way- Speaking of qualifications…What qualification does Karam possess which make his word ‘Gospel’ and the ‘Final Say’ on anything do do with this case? Seems to me this character gets a bit of a free ride from the NZ media..’

    He made no comment last night, but don’t let that get in the way of your green envy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. Longknives (4,884 comments) says:

    “Both sides need to present their evidence in the normal legal manner and then the truth will be determined. As yet that has not happened.”

    What an odd comment from a member of the team that ‘presented’ their evidence by way of a hysterical, totally one-sided tabloid TV3 ‘documentary’ and then tried to claim a victory! “Pay Him Compensation immediately” etc etc

    Judith your story chops and changes almost as much as David’s does! I strongly suggest you exercise your right to silence before you incriminate yourself further..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Already done that Longknives
    so far the PC have quashed the conviction, 5* not guilty verdicts and an innocent BOP finding from a retired high court judge
    Try to keep up
    All you fools have done is helped convince Binnie of Davids probable innocence, He read all the CS/JFRB arguments.
    Thanks to Kent for that and to Muggins for linking the blown up photo which David Giles spotted the magazine indentations on his thumb and forefinger.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. numcrun (9 comments) says:

    Forensic testing on sockprints done with a 270mm size foot – the same size as his father Robin Bain’s – after being soaked in animal blood and walking on carpet, was 282mm when tested with luminol, which indicates the presence of blood.

    When doing tests with a 298mm foot – David Bain’s was 300mm – the average size was 297mm, forensic scientist Kevan Walsh told the trial.

    The bloody footprints found in the Bain house in Every Street, Dunedin, were measured at 280mm.

    That evidence alone is good enough for me.

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

    Rowan (839) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
    ———————————

    Yes, I agree. But most of these people don’t actually know the first thing about the details of the case. They appear to be blinded by authority and not able to think for themselves or extend themselves enough to actually learn about the process and the politics involved.

    Quite funny to see them frantically trying to shut up anyone with an opposing opinion. All very childish, but not unexpected.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Longknives (2,608) Says:

    June 27th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    “And what does David need to prove to you big blouse, why would he waste his time?”

    Funniest comment I’ve heard all night!
    Pay attention dear- David is desperately trying to prove that he DIDN’T slaughter five members of his family, he is doing this so that he can walk away with a great wad of taxpayer cash and never have to work the paper round again…

    Exactly. And he can’t get married until he gets that money, that’s why the wedding has been delayed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Fletch (6,495 comments) says:

    “Theatricality and deception, powerful agents to the uninitiated, but we are initiated aren’t we?” ~ Bain Bane

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    funny thing – I was working on spouting in the weekend and I probably ended up with a dozen or so cuts and nicks……. on the back of my right hand on the right side I have two that were deep, are still healing and are still visible …… they are almost parallel’

    Apparently there is one born every minute. But pray tell how the cuts arrived on the back of your right hand. I seem to have heard that one before.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Don’t underestimate the influence of her ‘handler’ – Nostalgia-NZ’

    Given up on the ‘maybe’ ‘perhaps’ disappearing cuts already, don’t blame you with a JR on your plate that couldn’t happen.

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

    Longknives (2,609) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    —————————

    Excuse me, Mr Ignorant, but what you saw on TV3 was their presentation, it was not a legal presentation of evidence from the defence. It was geared to television audiences and had none of the characteristics of a legal proceeding or what is required by due legal process. It was not open to cross-examination nor had any of the legal requirements regarding the presentation of evidence.

    If you think it was, then I suggest you are the one that seriously needs to exercise the right to silence.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Jack5 (5,160 comments) says:

    I’ve loaded several thousand .22 rounds into magazines over the years, and have never had resultant marks on my thumbs or fingers which the pro-David Bain camp suggests is typical.

    Here’s how you do it if you are right handed and are loading a semiautomatic or a bolt action:

    You hold the empty magazine in your left hand.

    You insert a round at a time with your right hand.

    You depress each round after you insert it with your right thumb nail near the nose of the round, which of course is pointing towards you.

    Your thumbnail takes the pressure as you ensure each round is placed correctly as you depress it into the magazine.

    You insert the magazine in the firearm, and when you are ready to fire you ensure you have a round in the chamber by working the bolt or equivalent.

    There has NEVER been any mark on the ball of my thumb or elsewhere on my fingers after loading a .22 firearm.

    DAMN IT! I’ve been drawn into this stupid argument, which is being fanned by TV3’s escapee from Planet of the Apes. If only he realised, he can stay on Earth permanently as long as TV3 pays its taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Longknives (4,884 comments) says:

    “They appear to be blinded by authority and not able to think for themselves”

    Not this kid- I am no great fan of NZ Police at all.
    It’s just that you don’t have to be Miss Marple to see that Robin Bain didn’t fucking kill himself…standing on one leg, with the gun in his wrong hand, miraculously leaving no prints etc etc

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

    muggins (2,385) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    xactly. And he can’t get married until he gets that money, that’s why the wedding has been delayed.
    ———————————————-

    Oh dear, more lies – you are seriously out of the loop, aren’t you! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘It’s just that you don’t have to be Miss Marple to see that Robin Bain didn’t fucking kill himself…standing on one leg, with the gun in his wrong hand, miraculously leaving no prints etc etc’

    Have to love these famous declarations that mean nothing, as I’ve said before – more to come so keep investing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Longknives (4,884 comments) says:

    Surely Woman’s Day or New Idea will pay for the Wedding?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    Jack5. 8.06pm. If only our miss Marple could under stand this we could get on with more important issues such as watching paint dry. Damn she has not read that book yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Given up on the ‘maybe’ ‘perhaps’ disappearing cuts already, don’t blame you with a JR on your plate that couldn’t happen.

    The police have more than adequately dealt to the ‘game changing’ (so-called) evidence presented last night, N-NZ.

    Perhaps you could could point to the part of the judgement that clearly states that the substantive hearing in July is the actual JR and not a hearing to determine if the JR will progress? I did link to the article that present some uncertainty on that in that old thread – you didn’t respond to it then other than to say that you could be wrong.

    If further information has come to you I would be pleased to see it. But one way or another we will know in less than 3 weeks.

    In the meantime the ‘coincidentally’ timed evidence has been put to rest (except for you and your fellow travelers of course, but, quite frankly, even an admission by David would not be enough to convince you otherwise.)

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

    Longknives (2,610) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:07 pm
    ————————————

    So instead you would have me believe that he stood there with one leg bent (thus standing on one leg) with the killer crouched on the floor below him and waited for the killer to shoot, then clear the misfire, and aim again, and never tried to defend himself in any manner or escape.

    please explain the blood spatter on his body, including his hands etc in a manner that fits with your interpretation of what happened. If you can then you will be a legend, because the prosecution couldn’t and hasn’t been able to.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. CharlieBrown (1,027 comments) says:

    Our media are a bunch of manipulating truth distorting motherfathers. I’ve fired thousands and thousands of 22 bullets from various rifles (bolt action and semi-automatic) and never ever have had that mark. To think that “expert” didn’t have an opinion before searching for photos is bloody stupid – I’m almost certain he was looking to find reasons to make David look innocent.

    And lets not forget that other bit of evidence the jury didn’t get to see regarding witness testimony of David telling his friend how he would get away with murdering his family. Robyn Bain is innocent, murdered by a lieing bastard that is supported by a fanatical former rugby playing monkey.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    DAMN IT! I’ve been drawn into this stupid argument, which is being fanned by TV3′s escapee from Planet of the Apes. If only he realised, he can stay on Earth permanently as long as TV3 pays its taxes.’

    I can see why you’d be attracted to the planet of the apes, perhaps you should have watched those filmed doing the experiment on 3 Degrees, or read comments of how loading a magazine can vary from person to person – no variations on those tests last night though, consistent.

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

    bhudson (3,786) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    ————————————–

    If the police have dealt with it, why did they say they need to investigate it further to know what the prints determined?

    “Police will continue to look at this issue to gain a better understanding of what this photograph may show.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    And lets not forget that other bit of evidence the jury didn’t get to see regarding witness testimony of David telling his friend how he would get away with murdering his family. Robyn Bain is innocent, murdered by a lieing bastard that is supported by a fanatical former rugby playing monkey.’

    Bloody monkeys again, ever spoken to anyone about that? Seeing monkeys everywhere?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Monique
    Lundy is NZ’s best bet for an oscar..think of when you were really grief stricken..Could you have carried on like that for the cameras?? When you are grief stricken ..you are not thinking about anyone..You are in agony. You are so caught up inside yourself you hardly notice anyone or anything around you…What a ham.
    Some on here seem to be very naive re the NZ coppers..Their response to this is just standard NZ cops..deny , dismiss , delay , deny , dismiss , delay.. etc….etc..What is their long held , internal motto? Oh that is right..
    ”WAIT AND THIS TOO SHALL PASS.”
    Almost to a bloke , they can’t be wrong. Sad really.

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

    CharlieBrown (695) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    ———————————–

    They also didn’t get to hear from the witness that Arawa told as a young girl that her father showed her how to put her fingers inside her vagina, and from other people who said Laniet told them about her incestuous relationship with her father.

    It works both ways sweetie!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    bhudson are you not capable of reading a simple Judgement? I guess you can’t face being wrong. The only thing put to rest is your ability to put perhaps and maybes as some sort of definitive statement.

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

    @Judith,

    Because they are thorough and they know that people like you will cling to whatever semantics they can find. They were very clear that the prints show absence of markings that are not consistent with the marks on Robin’s thumb and finger being powder residue.

    They will close out your avenues of complaint. It will never be enough for you, but they will do so nonetheless

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    BHudson @ 8.13
    ‘but, quite frankly, even an admission by David would not be enough to convince you otherwise.’

    Yes and likewise a visit from Robins spirit with a full confession wouldn’t convince you either. Maybe some of Robins supporters can ask him all these questions if/when you meet him again in hell

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    Longknives. 8.07pm. All we are doing is feeding the troll. She is sucking our life blood to fulfil her desire to have external life so she can walk hand in hand with Bain into the sunset. She is like a Jack Russell with a ball. You will never wear her out. It’s not brain damage its just something thats happened after she was locked in a library last year when she was a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    Nostalgia – you think I have some sort of super-human skin on the back of my hands? The back of my hands came into contact with sharp metal on more than one occasion…….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    What did interest me about the show was that it showed that despite some deserved criticism the police photographs proved more important than bagging the hands. It seems the gsr in question wouldn’t have survived the ‘bagging,’ so anyone interested in fairness must appreciate the photos being taken even if the order of the photos wasn’t accurately recorded.

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

    RF (802) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
    ——————————-

    So you can’t discuss the evidence, you can only offer personal abuse.
    Fair enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Because they are thorough and they know that people like you will cling to whatever semantics they can find. They were very clear that the prints show absence of markings that are not consistent with the marks on Robin’s thumb and finger being powder residue.

    They will close out your avenues of complaint. It will never be enough for you, but they will do so nonetheless’

    Hail the all seeing bhudson, not only is he an expert of JR but he also knows the outcome of tests yet to be taken on the evidence of cuts which don’t exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Interesting how all the ‘Daddy didn’t do it’ nitwits all ‘know’ that Robin ‘didn’t’ suicide evidentially there is nothing excluding it and there are no explanations consistent with murder from either them or the crown at the retrial. I guess admitting your wrong is a bit hard but who are you really trying to convince?
    Lets see what the Auckland tax lawyer and her hired gun the ‘porno’ judge make of this!

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

    bhudson (3,787) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    ————————————–

    Many people say the same thing, however, as I said, you haven’t had the main course yet. I bet last week you didn’t think you’d hear what you did yesterday.

    Fact is, you don’t know what else there is and the fact you don’t acknowledge the statement I quoted that was direct from the police, only demonstrates you don’t want to know.

    This comment is the police commissioners statement, not mine. It indicates they are not decided – regardless of what you want to believe.

    “Police will continue to look at this issue to gain a better understanding of what this photograph may show.”

    But you should wait, because there is much more to come – this is only the beginning of the end that will see David Bain get compensation :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (729) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
    Nostalgia – you think I have some sort of super-human skin on the back of my hands? The back of my hands came into contact with sharp metal on more than one occasion…….’

    What I think is that f a houses still have metal guttering, that methods of repairing guttering is usually to lie a piece inside the damaged section sealing the ends, or when cutting it, using snips held in the right hand, and even more basic wearing gloves.

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

    So 70% say yes David should get compo and only 30% say No.

    Let the discrediting of the poll begin with every excuse you can muster !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    Wait till Reid gets here.

    He’ll know what to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Keeping Stock (10,434 comments) says:

    Do you get a kick out of defaming a dead man Judith? Your 8.20pm effort is truly barrel-scraping stuff.

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

    @N-NZ,

    It is not so much that as I can actually read what the police have made clear – the prints show the absence of markings that is not consistent with the marks on Robin’s thumb and finger being powder.

    Your new ‘game changing’ evidence is already consigned to the dustbin of history. Something for you to feel more nostalgia for.

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

    Keeping Stock (8,918) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    ——————————-

    Really? But it was the truth. Those witnesses who had sworn statements that it was true, were not allowed to give evidence. How is that defaming a dead man? I’d be really interested to hear your answer, especially considering I didn’t offer an opinion as to whether I supported their claims or not.

    Getting pretty desperate aren’t you? Obviously you don’t like the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    bhudson. 7.51pm. I agree … both N – NZ and Wonder Woman are joined at the hip. Sort of Dumb & Dumber. Obsessive compulsive behaviour .. Just like a bloody Jack Russell.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Doctor Who (52 comments) says:

    Some polls are easily explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

    The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

    The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile:
    His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,918) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    Do you get a kick out of defaming a dead man Judith? Your 8.20pm effort is truly barrel-scraping stuff.’

    You’ve invested heavily in being wrong KS.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    RF (803) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    bhudson. 7.51pm. I agree … both N – NZ and Wonder Woman are joined at the hip. Sort of Dumb & Dumber. Obsessive compulsive behaviour .. Just like a bloody Jack Russell.’

    So says the poodle.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    It is not so much that as I can actually read what the police have made clear – the prints show the absence of markings that is not consistent with the marks on Robin’s thumb and finger being powder.’

    English wasn’t working for you bhudson, neither is gibberish.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Oh N-NZ. No constructive arguments left, so you’re forced into (3 comments in rapid succession) yapping like a Jack Russell.

    Fetch.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Keeping Stock (10,434 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ – I’ve invested nothing. I just have a problem with the continued character assassination of a bloke who can’t fight back.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘Show them a thumb print, explain it with a few if, buts, maybes and perhaps – keep the pathologist out of it. That will go down a treat with the desperate.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. goldnkiwi (1,538 comments) says:

    What a well reasoned police response on Campbell, nothing to see hear move along.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    “What I think is that f a houses still have metal guttering, that methods of repairing guttering is usually to lie a piece inside the damaged section sealing the ends, or when cutting it, using snips held in the right hand, and even more basic wearing gloves.”
    * didn’t wear gloves as I needed decent fingertip control
    * what does metal guttering have to do with it? have you heard of iron roofing?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,919) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 9:15 pm
    @ Nostalgia-NZ – I’ve invested nothing. I just have a problem with the continued character assassination of a bloke who can’t fight back.’

    You’ve invested emotion and it has got the better of you, you only look for that which satisfies your position. Not including you in this necessarily, but there have been people who have criticised David for defending himself that’s the distortion here and you seem to be continuing that line. Someone said earlier that David should have ‘revealed’ the 2 lines on Robin’s thumb, but nobody in the world new about them, or the significance of them until Giles happened along. Judith was correct with the claim attributed to Laniet, it’s not a matter of approving or disapproving of evidence, evidence speaks for itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    * what does metal guttering have to do with it? have you heard of iron roofing?’

    Yes I have, but the allegation is that Robin was repairing guttering and cut his hands, this to explain why he cuts and bruises that have been argued to have been consistent with being in a fight. A consistency that would match the fact that he had blood smears on his palms and that he’d suffered a nose bleed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Oh N-NZ. No constructive arguments left, so you’re forced into (3 comments in rapid succession) yapping like a Jack Russell’

    Good work bhudson would you like the Judgement fetched that showed your ignorance of Judicial Review, it might help you get over yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @N-NZ,

    Go for it boy. Bring back the bit that shows the hearing in July is the JR itself and not a hearing as to whether the application will progress.

    Like the little Jack Russel, there is boundless energy, even for the most futile of exercises – like trying to defend ‘game changing’ evidence that has been shot down by police.

    Not to mention the delicious irony of saying to KS: “you only look for that which satisfies your position.”

    Fetch.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Don’t worry bhudson, you won’t be the only person who has engaged in a fight, swinging a wild roundhouse, missing, falling over knocking yourself out – then getting up and announcing a victory. It’s kind of cute, like a lapdog.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ,
    I think he is saying the finger print has two gaps in it – they look like they don’t exactly match up with where those marks were but its sort of close (maybe someone here can do the exact alignment to get a more accurate assessment).

    If those represent some sort of injury to the finger that causes the finger to be lifted from the paper at that point a little and therefore no longer show the pattern then that might imply the marks where scars or something a little more durable than powder marks. It is a surprisingly good counter, so well done to the people who found it quickly.

    Of interest now is if there were other finger prints from the thumb and if so did they have the same gaps in the finger prints. Then what is the effect of finger printing a person with gun powder residue marks on their finger (gaps?).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @N-NZ,

    And he’s back. Empty handed (or is it mouthed?) vacant of mind and vacuous in expression. But nonetheless back with that boundless Jack Russell energy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. jcorr (1 comment) says:

    Has everyone in the country gone stark raving mad? These marks are just so much emperor’s new clothes.

    (a) The smudge marks on the volunteers’ thumbs looked NOTHING like the marks on Robin’s hand. Robin’s marks are redder, thinner, not parallel, and do not look like marks on top of the skin. The smudges on the volunteers’ thumbs were wide, grey, and clearly on top of the skin.

    Even if smudges from the magazine had rubbed away a bit on Robin, why would they then become very narrow reddish defined lines?

    It drove me mad how all the folks on the telly were standing around saying “how remarkable” when their marks looked nothing like Robin’s on that montage. Were they all blind or something?

    (b) It is only a very short part of the left mark, that is more deeply red coloured, that looks any different from the wrinkle further up Robin’s thumb. Without that short, dark red bit, these marks look absolutely no different from the other wrinkles on Robin’s thumb.

    If you blow up a good quality version of the photo, the mark on the left even seems to divide slightly at the top, just like a wrinkle.

    (c) If only a short part of this wrinkle was cracked and nearly healed, and his hands were covered with a hundred similar red wrinkles, the pathologist may have only noted down the obvious fresh abrasions of which there were also plenty.

    How is the pathologist meant to know that 18 years later the whole country will suffer a collective delusion that red wrinkles somehow exactly resemble wide grey smudges? How is the pathologist meant to know that a TV doco crew standing round saying ‘this is proof’ will be reported as that in the national newspapers and be passed to the prime minister for comment, before a single other medical expert has been asked?

    Somebody may have noticed these marks at the time, but because he had hundreds of other red wrinkles including perhaps others nearly healed from cracking, they were not photographed in particular. More likely they were not noticed in particular, because they WERE red wrinkles, and were all over his hands.

    (c) I make out the distance to be slightly less on the magazine than the marks on the thumb, though it is difficult to measure, both on the magazine and the thumb.

    (d) I have marks on my left thumb in the same place, and horizontal marks on all of my fingers and thumbs all up the fingers including on the pads. Do any of you? – especially if you are older and have had cracked skin in the past from working in the cold?

    About 4 people I’ve talked to today also have wrinkles there. If you do DIY outside when it’s wet and very cold, as Robin did, you can get cracks in your hands where your wrinkles are, especially horizontally across down the sides of your fingers and thumbs from where it the skin wrinkles when you clench your hands.

    Seriously, dudes, though not cracked and discoloured at the moment, there are tons of these horizontal wrinkles all over my hands! Find some craggy, older outdoor types with buggered skin and look at their thumbs.

    (e) Why did they only seek one medical opinion on whether they were scratches or wrinkles? My GP friend thinks they look just like scratches. 8 out of 10 people that I talked to today thought they looked just like discolored wrinkles or scratches. Also I have seen 4 thumbs today that have similar wrinkles.

    Please won’t people post photos of their cracked wrinkly hands on the internet to blow this one out of the water? Might find some ancient guttering to repair in the weekend and see what photos I can get on Monday :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    Wonder Woman has retreated to her crypt to to suck on a virgins blood. She will be back tomorrow fully charged and in full flight. Let the battle commence. Round 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    BHudson
    Full of it aren’t you, you cling to your ‘no evidence’ and ‘fatally floored’ mantra like a baby clings to his/her teddybear. Is it just to hard to admit you might be wrong, and the PC, Jury Judge et al just might have been right.
    And yes pre-empting your next stupid response ‘the PC/jury didn’t say innocent’ we are well beyond that the PC rejected every single one of the crowns arguments for guilt and recognised that they as an appeal court shouldn’t decide what a jury would make of the evidence. Something our court of appeal should learn.
    maybe you should become a court of appeal judge then you can play judge and jury with the evidence you clearly do not understand like they did in 2003. Lets hope you never get called to sit on a jury

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘Nostalgia-NZ,
    I think he is saying the finger print has two gaps in it – they look like they don’t exactly match up with where those marks were but its sort of close (maybe someone here can do the exact alignment to get a more accurate assessment).

    If those represent some sort of injury to the finger that causes the finger to be lifted from the paper at that point a little and therefore no longer show the pattern then that might imply the marks where scars or something a little more durable than powder marks. It is a surprisingly good counter, so well done to the people who found it quickly.

    Of interest now is if there were other finger prints from the thumb and if so did they have the same gaps in the finger prints. Then what is the effect of finger printing a person with gun powder residue marks on their finger (gaps?).’

    Gaps are created by movement, what may align in one position of a thumb or finger will distort with movement, pressure and so on. If the marks were scars or something more durable they would be noted by Dempster and photographed. Another issue is the effect of gsr on skin, while ‘sooting’ might be removed by movement or something brushing against it that doesn’t mean a ‘pristine’ surface is returned conducive to producing a print from a dead body – in fact it would be most likely be entirely the opposite. There will be a studied answer to such assertions that don’t match the evasive suggestions of Burgess. Of course we shall see.

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

    Well, turns out I was right.

    Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said police today examined Mr Bain’s fingerprints that were taken after his death, which showed damage to his thumb they say were caused by cuts to his fingers in the same place as the marks in the photo.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Well, turns out I was right.

    Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said police today examined Mr Bain’s fingerprints that were taken after his death, which showed damage to his thumb they say were caused by cuts to his fingers in the same place as the marks in the photo.’

    Actually you aren’t right. It ‘may’ have shown damage to his thumb, of course the dead man had all sorts of damage to his blood covered hands commensurate with killing his family. Keep working on that. You might also like to report on the suitability of a surface with gsr residue presenting accurate fingerprints. After that, you could explain how ‘direct’ lines are expected on a flexible moving surface rolled to produce a print. It might be exciting for you. Thanks for your help.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  400. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Oh get over it Nostalgia.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    N – NZ. 10.44pm. I am interested to know of your experience in taking fingerprints from both live offenders and bodies. You know fingernail edge to fingernail edge neatly rolled. Bodies are easy as there is no resistance and you can bend fingers in any position. The live ones tend to get pissed off when you twist their fingers. I hope you do not belong to Wonder Woman’s Miss Marples book club and have actual experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Well some interesting reading on other posts about Judith and Nostalgia !

    Who would have thought !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    a very scary link was posted once that someone said was Nostalgia……… you talking about that one?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    what is the interesting reading on Judith though?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

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

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. RF (1,453 comments) says:

    SSASTTL. 11.17pm. Good god those ranting and ravings and blind obedience sound so familiar. I shall sleep with one eye open tonight.

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

    Nah, it was implied,

    but that is truly shocking !

    and the other was that he has some connection to Judith, which now makes sense.

    A couple of weirdo’s for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. violentrage (37 comments) says:

    So, someone has an “epiphany”….then “gun experts” are asked for an opinion. Guess what? Gun experts see what gun experts know about. Karam should have asked an expert plumber. Someone who was used to fixing or cleaning spouting. One piece of evidence, unless it us utterly irrefutable, is never going to unravel this or any other case. TV3 have done the public a disservice by framing their “evidence” as conclusive. It is far from conclusive. It is highly speculative. I’m sorry Mr Quiet Ordinary Kiwi, but you have not cracked the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Monique Angel (295 comments) says:

    If that statement is indicative of policing at the top level, we’re in the schtook.
    the police have said: “Well, would you look at that. The marks on the fingerprints, correlate with the powder/indentation marks on the photograph”.

    My faith in the New Zealand police has just plumbed to new lows. As has my faith in the Prime Minister and Judith Collins.

    All the above agencies should have STFU, refrained from commenting and got on with addressing the “powder/indentation”, theory, professionally.

    That they jumped off the blocks to condemn this quite compelling theory shows that Bainadrama has become a political plaything.

    The interrupted fingerprints are very temporary or have been there for a while. And for a while, I mean a long while. Decades. His fingerprints may have been ruined by trauma, which explains why the coroner didn’t note recent trauma.

    One of my hands can’t be fingerprinted without a great deal of effort. Fingerprints aren’t necessarily the gold standard.

    The cops can do better than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Monique Angel. I picked out the Bain thumb from the other photos in less than 30 seconds. Why? Because the marks don’t look anything like the others – with GSR smudges from the experiment. One mark looks fairly clearly like a cut and the marks are not parallel. So of course the distance matches somewhere.

    It’s not the fingerprints as such that are important, it’s that the interruptions are likely the cuts seen in the photos. This will be checked out.

    The correct thing with new evidence is to contact the authorities. But this wasn’t new evidence. Just the propaganda machine misleading the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ,
    Just that if they did happen to line up exactly (and they just look a bit off to me for those pressure sort of reasons) then that would be a big coincidence just like the existence of the marks is a big coincidence.

    As to whether Dempster would have noticed them – I can easily imagine Dempster missing them because people miss stuff and this particular item is very tiny and potentially (if we are going with the robin innocent line) could be a very old and tiny/minor injury.

    Keep in mind everyone missed it for many years. It isn’t exactly a huge scar or powder residue mark.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. Pete George (23,685 comments) says:

    Martin van Beynen (not surprisingly) dismisses the thumb marks but his view has been contested be an arms expert who says that sharped edged magazines can and often don indent the thumb and can even cut.

    And van Beynen is unconvincing on other arguments.

    It’s odd to see a journalist so strongly one sided on a still very contentious case.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    at least he doesn’t pretend he is unbiased like some people Pete…………

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    sharped edged magazines can and often don indent the thumb and can even cut

    ROFL

    Mind you, I was wrong in my speculative prediction that Peter Dunne would be David Bain’s new champion.

    Dunne is many things….. but he ain’t stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    I have seen similar dirt on my hand become thin lines as they get a little older (or are cleaned), so…

    Maybe we need a test to see how durable those marks on the thumb are. the defense (of David) can argue that they are either: 1) Easily wiped down to thin marks as seen by a bit of wiping as one might do if one was trying to make sure one shot oneself exactly the right way. So some playing around with a gun and a bit of wiping gets it done.
    2) That maybe these marks are from the loading of the magazine before he cleaned up, for some reason maybe he did not get any new ones after that. So maybe washing hands will reduce the lines to thin ones like that.

    he prosecution of course would be interested to see if the lines tend to smudge or disappear competently or anything else that doesn’t look like the photos.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    It’s odd to see a journalist so strongly one sided on a still very contentious case.

    @PG,

    Really? Did you not watch Third Degree?

    (Or Wendy Petrie after the jury verdict was announced, for that matter.)

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

    Pete George (18,042) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 7:35 am
    ——————————-
    Martin Van Beynan ? The big cop’s little bro?

    Of course he’s not the least bit biased ! :P

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Something for bhudson to digest;

    ‘This business the Police are claiming doesn’t stack up. If you get a photo of the thumb and the picture of the fingerprint and rotate and scale them so they are the same size, and reverse the fingerprint (because as a print it’s a reverse image), then superimpose the print on the thumb, the lines on the print are no-where near the marks on the thumb, let alone aligned with them.’

    More to come for windmill tilters.

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

    I see there have been several comments made over night – most of which err caution at what the police have said.

    Apparently the police failed dismally with there performance last night to convince those ‘in the know’.

    A brief summary:

    1. Where were the markers that the police consistently use on prints to accentuate points of similarity etc?

    2. Why when a transparency is overlaid over the print, do the marks not line up, or even come close to any of the so-called scars on the thumb print.

    3. Where is the print of the forefinger, which should also support their case?

    4. Where is the evidence of the type of print it was?

    5. Why did the police not make affirmative statements, but rather open-ended ones?

    6. Where is Dr Dempster – obvious by his absence?

    and this link raises some other concerns: http://sciblogs.co.nz/forensic-scientist/2013/06/27/robin-bain-finger-marks/

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

    @N-NZ,

    So you have found someone to give an opinion that a statement they don’t like is incorrect.

    Oh the surprise.

    Keep spinning. The Third Degree evidence has gone down the gurgler.

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

    bhudson (3,793) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 8:33 am

    Keep spinning. The Third Degree evidence has gone down the gurgler.
    ———————————-

    Actually it hasn’t, and even the police don’t say that.

    Did you forget the police commissioner’s statement
    “Police will continue to look at this issue to gain a better understanding of what this photograph may show.”

    A number of qualified people have made statements, none of which say the police have got it right, and instead say caution is needed – that the police failed to present vital information that is pertinent before anyone can make an accurate summation, either way.

    So unless you are more qualified?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  422. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    The marks don’t look like smudges, they look like cuts. In one photo, it looked to me like a tag of skin raised at one end slightly, like a tear. In other words, more like a scratch.

    Pete George, why do you think the Karam Kamp presented a gun dealer and a photographer, but no one familiar with skin? They don’t want the truth, they want parrots.

    David Giles saw some marks that don’t look parallel or GSR smudges and went off half-cock. The propaganda machine went into full swing and the silly pro-David media saw a story. Trying to get money for a man who clearly cannot prove himself factually innocent.

    Only a complete fool would believe the preposterous narrative Robin killed his family and himself. The imaginary GSR … where is the obvious blood?

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

    @Judith,

    Repeating the same line won’t make it true. The Police made it very clear that the fingerprint evidence shows absence of markings that are inconsistent with the marks on Robin Bain’s thumb and finger being powder residue.

    If they have left it at that you would have been the first to crucify them. Now you spin them crossing i’s and dotting t’s as undermining the valididty of their examination. Not so.

    But the Third Degree evidence has been rebutted in the media. That has completely undermined the effect Karam and co intended. (As well as make Reed look a bit of a fool too.)

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

    bhudson (3,795) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 8:48 am

    ——————————

    It hasn’t been completely rebutted, or disproved and even the police have not made such a statement.

    They and others have made it very clear that the evidence needs to be examined by professionals.
    The police did not offer an adequate explanation for why the marks did not appear in Dempster’s photos. Old scars would not have been taken – fine, but the photos of those marks makes it clear they are not ‘old scars’ – just how new they are is open to contention but they are certainly not faded or ‘fine’ scars.

    The police have made statements, they now have to support those statement by offering the proof.

    For example – where is the proof of what type of print it was? You say they have rebutted – to do that they need to prove their case and the type of print is pertinent to them doing that for obvious reasons.

    I am not surprised you think David did it, if you are willing to accept unverified information in such a blind manner. The defense team consulted with experts and presented some of their views via TV3 – lets see the police do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    Can someone please explain if Robin left the bloody sock prints as the defence claim where did he hide the socks if he did have a reason to hide them?

    David had plenty of opportunity to get rid of his bloody socks on his paper run.

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

    The defense team consulted with experts and presented some of their views via TV3 – lets see the police do the same.

    But they didn’t check the existing fingerprint evidence. That was sloppy at best. Worse if it was deliberate.

    It certainly destroys any claim of any real investigation on their part.

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

    Dennis Horne (1,425) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 8:46 am
    The marks don’t look like smudges, they look like cuts. In one photo, it looked to me like a tag of skin raised at one end slightly, like a tear. In other words, more like a scratch.
    ——————————————-

    Dennis, neither you, nor anyone else on here is working from the originals of the photos.

    What you are working from is reproductions and therefore it is impossible for you or anyone else to draw accurate conclusions from them.

    A photographic expert has said the ridge pattern was not effected therefore the skin was not broken in the area where the marks are. Another forensic expert has made statements over night questioning the same thing.

    I am waiting to hear what the police forensic experts have to offer – I believe they have not yet examined the photo and print.

    The statement by the commissioner means nothing without verification from those qualified to do that. The police commissioners statement was missing the vital legal requirements for evidence – until both parties provide the evidence in a manner that is legally acceptable – what they have said means diddly squat.

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

    bhudson (3,797) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:05 am
    ———————————-

    Have you some proof that they didn’t check with the existing fingerprint evidence?
    You need to be careful when making assumptions.
    The fact is, the fingerprint has been examined by other forensic experts, not representing either the police or the defence, and they find it lacking evidence of the police assertions – so if I was you, I’d be very reluctant to start saying who has done what – when you actually don’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. Nookin (3,467 comments) says:

    “I am not surprised you think David did it, if you are willing to accept unverified information in such a blind manner. The defense team consulted with experts and presented some of their views via TV3 – lets see the police do the same.”

    You mean the same TV3 that refused to allow the police to participate in the programme and refused to discuss it with them afterwards?

    The biggest problem that the government has in this case is the fact that this whole debacle is a public relations/media circus driven by people with vested interests. Van Beynen at least has the integrity to admit his bias. Others do not. We are constantly presented with single issues which are said to be conclusive. That approach was evident in the Binnie report where he used one item to test the validity of others. That approach and that test is wrong and is killing the integrity of any debate.

    I am disappointed that TV3 was so one sided. If the Bain team had any involvement in it then they might ask themselves how they reconcile their present strategy with their condemnation of the crown in seeking a second opinion without engaging the other party.

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

    bhudson (3,797) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:05 am
    The defense team consulted with experts and presented some of their views via TV3 – lets see the police do the same.

    But they didn’t check the existing fingerprint evidence. That was sloppy at best. Worse if it was deliberate.

    It certainly destroys any claim of any real investigation on their part.
    ———————————————

    Also note, what you saw on TV3, was their interpretation of the events, and geared for popular tv. Your were not shown a great deal of what went on behind the scenes. The Bain team would have been stupid to have revealed their entire argument on that program – you saw what TV 3 wanted you to see, and no more.

    Only an idiot would think the police were not going to come back with something, they were of course present at the testing. Unfortunately what they have come back with is forensically inferior, and now they need to come back with evidence that matches or discounts that which is held by the defence (and note ‘the defence’ not TV3)

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

    Nookin (2,523) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:13 am
    —————————————

    Excuse me?

    The police were involved and present at the testing of the weapon etc. Also their forensic expert was present and shown in the program.

    They have known about this for quite some time and have had plenty of opportunity to make their own statements.
    Believe it or not TV3 cannot stop the police from making a press release. Walsh could have made any statement he liked to the media – but he didn’t, and hasn’t???

    The police were obviously waiting to see what was presented in the program before they decided how they would address it. That in itself makes a certain statement.

    Surely you are not stupid enough to think TV3 control the police?

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

    70% for compensation
    30% against

    And that was after the commissioners interview – it seems there aren’t as many idiots in the community as there are in here.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. In order to maintain our generally civil relationship I am going to bow out of the Bain farce altogether now.

    I must admit the TV programme had me on tender hooks for a while, until I saw more photos. I would pit my powers of observation against anyone’s, and I am telling you those marks don’t look like smudges. They look far more like trauma.

    If they were not photographed by Dempster, clearly he thought nothing of them. They could even be natural creases in the skin. I have several similar parallel marks about the same distance apart on at least two of my fingers.

    I am somewhat reluctant to admit that, because you are more likely to believe I did it than David did it. Oh, well, love is blind… :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. Peter615 (2 comments) says:

    Forensic evidence aside, can anyone tell me: has a non-psychotic son ever killed his mother in cold blood in NZ? Has a man ever killed his wife and children? (yes) On motive alone Robin is the killer. Common sense would tell me that David (a reasonably normal NZ young man at University) could not possibly kill his entire family with no motive. If he was guilty, why would he do that? Even hardened criminals don’t kill their mother in cold blood.

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

    Dennis Horne (1,427) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:22 am
    —————————–

    fair enough Dennis – I did type more, but decided it didn’t matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    The bloody footprints found in the Bain house in Every Street, Dunedin, were measured at 280mm.
    That evidence alone is good enough for me.

    @ numcrun

    If you think the sock prints were Robin’s where did the socks go? If David was wearing the socks he had plenty of opportunity to get rid of the socks on his paper run.

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

    Monique Angel (66) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 5:33 am
    If that statement is indicative of policing at the top level, we’re in the schtook.
    the police have said: “Well, would you look at that. The marks on the fingerprints, correlate with the powder/indentation marks on the photograph”.

    My faith in the New Zealand police has just plumbed to new lows. As has my faith in the Prime Minister and Judith Collins.

    All the above agencies should have STFU, refrained from commenting and got on with addressing the “powder/indentation”, theory, professionally.

    That they jumped off the blocks to condemn this quite compelling theory shows that Bainadrama has become a political plaything.

    The interrupted fingerprints are very temporary or have been there for a while. And for a while, I mean a long while. Decades. His fingerprints may have been ruined by trauma, which explains why the coroner didn’t note recent trauma.

    One of my hands can’t be fingerprinted without a great deal of effort. Fingerprints aren’t necessarily the gold standard.

    The cops can do better than that.
    ———————————————

    Totally agree Monique.
    This case has stopped having anything to do with innocence or guilt – it is now dominated by politics and an incompetent CIB attempting to yet again, cover their butts. Had they stuck to their manual and protected the hands of the deceased, none of these conversations would have been needed. No wonder they jump so quickly to try and clean up – it is disturbing to see how easily so many still refuse to apply any analytical skills to the issue and blindly accept what they are told, just because it is someone in uniform telling them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. Nookin (3,467 comments) says:

    Judith

    I relied on the police statement. If you want to call me stupid, go for it. It just means that I will ignore you and your argument. You show that you are focussing on the person not the problem. You repeat the focus in your 9.22 am post. I did not in anyway suggest that TV3 control the police. I am saying that we are bombarded with flawed arguments based on undisclosed personal agendas and that this whole case has lost any semblance of objective analysis. You have just added to that conviction. You have entrenched it even more by argument that the issue is resolved by popular vote arising out of a texting poll followed by a one sided programme.
    The sad thing is that the theory may well be correct in which case there are many who are doing the theory a grave disservice.

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

    Chuck Bird (3,564) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:39 am
    ———————————

    As you well know there were socks found in the washing. Not all were matching pairs, but given Robin’s dress sense, he may not have been wearing matching socks.

    But you already knew that – which makes me wonder why you are asking the question? Obviously to try and extend the conversation further. I suppose you’re next statement will be, but who did the washing. Of which it will be answered David, and then there will be a discussion as to why he did the washing, which will be replied with – he frequently did the washing as witnesses said. Then you will say, why didn’t he notice the blood, at which point it will be pointed out that even the police noted how poor the lighting was in the house and how they have to bring in extra lights just to see properly. Then you will raise the point of the palm print on the dial of the washing machine, which we will then argue about whether it was in blood or another substances….. so please – to proceed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    Something for bhudson to digest;

    ‘This business the Police are claiming doesn’t stack up. If you get a photo of the thumb and the picture of the fingerprint and rotate and scale them so they are the same size, and reverse the fingerprint (because as a print it’s a reverse image), then superimpose the print on the thumb, the lines on the print are no-where near the marks on the thumb, let alone aligned with them.’

    No wonder bhudson has reverted to broad sweeping statements. It’s must be hard being a groper swallowing anything to be saved from looking like a fool who frantically grabs at the next hopeful life buoy while drowning in a sea of ignorance.

    More to come of course.

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

    Nookin (2,524) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:43 am
    ——————————-

    Firstly, nothing was pointed at you specifically about the poll.

    The poll was not concerning the new evidence but whether David should get compensation. The results are overwhelming, and yet many in here continually state that the majority do not support David getting compensation. Their statements are disproved by by the poll evidence – therefore they are idiots in my opinion to keep claiming something that isn’t even closely similar.

    You may have been convinced by the polices arguments, and that is far enough. Obviously you can then tell me whether the image they presented is the mirror-image or has been turned around? You see, in order to make an analysis, that information is required. I presume you must have it, because it wasn’t stated on TV.

    If you haven’t got that information, then obviously you are basing your decision on the words of the police – and don’t require evidence that they are correct. I find that worrying.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,428) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 9:22 am”If they were not photographed by Dempster, clearly he thought nothing of them. They could even be natural creases in the skin. I have several similar parallel marks about the same distance apart on at least two of my fingers.

    Finally! Thank you Dennis, I was hoping I surely wasn’t the only one to think the exact same thing. There is no way, in that close up view of Robin’s thumb, can you say those two marks even closely resemble all the other “slam-dunk” samples. Apart from the fact they are facing the opposite directions to every other photo they are a 1/4 to 1/6th of the length and aren’t even width or sooty grey.

    I’m not sure they are tiny cuts, my first impression is they are just natural creases with some dirt in them. As you can see in the other lines and around his fingernails, his hands were dirty. I too have a set of parallel creases across my right hand thumb and i have never loaded a magazine.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. flipper (4,216 comments) says:

    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.
    But as folks like Judith, Kanz, Nostalgia-NZ and Rowan keep reminding, there is more, much more to come. And none of it will be good for the Crown and taxpayers.

    So to conclude, let me quote Nostalgia-NZ’s summary of the evidence in the case. If the demented few and the serials liars (max of 30 %?) cannot read, go get a reader:

    “A brief summary:
    >fresh blood on two pairs of trousers in Robin’s caravan
    >a bloodied hair on the sweatshirt in the Commer van
    >the footprints: first trial said that they must be David’s because they matched the (unstretched) length of his socks (280mm). Second trial showed David’s feet to be considerably longer (300mm)
    >blood inside the barrel of the rifle showing the shot to Robin being a close contact shot
    >Laniet was shot through something and this intervening something introduced yaw in the bullet creating a larger entrance wound: not a contact would as previously thought.
    >Laniet had told several people that her father molested her (possible motive, not brought out at first trial)
    >The fingerprints on the rifle from David could not have been blood
    >there were numerous other prints on the rifle (partial/unidentifiable)
    >the proposition of Robin shooting himself being impossible or extremely difficult was shown to be false and that it was relatively easy
    >the blood spatter evidence was new
    >the blood spatter evidence that showed the blood and brain spatter on Robin’s shoe showing the impossibility of ‘kneeling in prayer’
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed their was no screen (a gunman) between Robin and the spread of the spatter
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that had a gunman been involved in Robin’s death the shot would have been impossible without a required distorted pose from Robin (perhaps standing on a chair)
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that the gunman would have needed Robin’s co-operation in own death and anyway would have been impossible not to have left a ‘shielded’ area in the spatter
    >DNA evidence was new
    >the information about the doubt about the lens placement was new
    >the details of the computer turn-on timing was new
    >the details or the washing machine cycle duration was new
    >some of the details of the blood-staining was new (eg in the first trial the stain on the back of David’s shirt was an ‘old’ stain pre-dating the murders)
    >The flap of skin found in Stephens room and ‘said’ to be Davids was proven to be Stephens.
    plus the new magazine evidence
    Overall the forensic proof proves Robin the killer. “

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. OpenMind (54 comments) says:

    Actually, on closer inspection and rather unusually, I have three sets of parallel lines on the top section of my right thumb alone. Here’s hoping I’m never framed in a murder scene…

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

    Further to why I find it worrying that people would accept a comment made by the police without requiring evidential information to confirm the viability of their argument.

    On the stand, in court, and after having sworn to tell the truth, a senior member of the NZ police (Weir) made a statement that was false. He made that statement because rather than say what the evidence really was, he wanted to align his statement with what he believed it should be.

    Given that example, I think we all have the right to be told how the police arrived at their conclusion – which requires more than a photo of a print, and certainly requires a concise methodology. TV3 presented their methodology, albeit in a sensationalist manner. Given examples like that above, and planted shell cases in the Thomas case etc, I find it incomprehensible that anyone would take such a serious matter, simply on the word of the police and not request verification of the process etc. Even the legal system requires evidence to be verified.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    scot1
    Appreciate your comments, thoughtful.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. Nookin (3,467 comments) says:

    I agree that nothing in the poll was focussed on me. I did not participate in the poll. My point was your assertion that the 30% are idiots.

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

    flipper (1,786) 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.
    But as folks like Judith, Kanz, Nostalgia-NZ and Rowan keep reminding, there is more, much more to come. And none of it will be good for the Crown and taxpayers.

    So to conclude, let me quote Nostalgia-NZ’s summary of the evidence in the case. If the demented few and the serials liars (max of 30 %?) cannot read, go get a reader:

    “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. “

    ———————————————

    Bravo Flipper – I bow to your excellence – I wish I had your ability as a scribe, and you cool demeanor.
    Well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    @Judith

    Thanks for your reply. I am a bachelor and not an expert at laundry. However, I have sometimes had small blood stains on clothing, sheets and pillow cases from small cuts. These do not always come out in the wash.

    In case of the socks there were meet to be soaked in blood. I would have thought an ordinary wash would not have got rid of most let alone all of the blood.

    I must listen to MARTIN VAN BEYNEN who is now on RadioLive.

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

    Chuck Bird (3,565) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:12 am
    ————————-
    Whilst old blood – that which has dried is difficult to remove in a wash – especially a hot wash, fresh blood is not.

    Fresh blood with come out easily in a cold wash. I use it for all my victims clothing! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (3,011) Says:

    June 27th, 2013 at 8:08 pm
    muggins (2,385) Says:
    June 27th, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    xactly. And he can’t get married until he gets that money, that’s why the wedding has been delayed.
    ———————————————-

    Oh dear, more lies – you are seriously out of the loop, aren’t you!

    Ok,Judith.
    When David Bain got engaged last September the media reported he would be getting married early in the new year.
    We are now halfway through 2013 and he still isn’t married. Now I know he fell of his horse and had to have an operation but I wouldn’t have thought that would have delayed the marriage.
    So what has caused the delay?

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

    muggins (2,386) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:22 am
    ———————————-
    Still stalking David Bain then?
    You really need to improve your skills – you’re missing vital information.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Judith

    I had a thought, no doubt many others have had the same one.

    Can the cops test the fingerprint ink for molecular traces of gunpowder residue? In theory the chemical composition of the ink would be slightly different if/where the magazine had left tracks on Robin’s thumb.

    Might be worth investigating.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (3,014) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 10:27 am
    muggins (2,386) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:22 am
    ———————————-
    Still stalking David Bain then?

    Judith,please. Everything I said has been reported by the media.
    Obviously you don’t know why the wedding has been delayed. Or maybe it’s off altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (3,014) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 10:19 am
    Chuck Bird (3,565) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:12 am
    ————————-
    Whilst old blood – that which has dried is difficult to remove in a wash – especially a hot wash, fresh blood is not.

    Fresh blood with come out easily in a cold wash. I use it for all my victims clothing!

    Why would David Bain not wash his T-shirt shortly after he got his brother’s blood on it? Did he like having his brothers blood on his T-shirt?
    More to the point,how did his brother’s blood get on to his t-shirt if it didn’t get there on that Monday morning?
    Had he beaten Stephen up previously? He couldn’t explain why his brothers blood was on his T-shirt.

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

    muggins (2,387) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:37 am
    ————————–
    Everything you have said has not been reported in the media.

    You frequently make assertions about David Bain that have not been published.

    You clearly think you have some right to know information about his private life.

    I think that is disgusting and demonstrates the type of person you are. It is none of your bloody business what is happening or has happened in David Bain’s private life. You have every right to comment truthfully on issues pertaining the ongoing inquiry etc – but nothing you say justifies your persistent stalking, and interference in his privacy. Your actions are those of a creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Judith (3,019) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:06 am
    “Further to why I find it worrying that people would accept a comment made by the police without requiring evidential information to confirm the viability of their argument.

    On the stand, in court, and after having sworn to tell the truth, a senior member of the NZ police (Weir) made a statement that was false. He made that statement because rather than say what the evidence really was, he wanted to align his statement with what he believed it should be.”

    Absolutely correct Judith, Milton Weir however was not the only one to lie under oath to the 1995 jury
    We also have crown fingerprint expert Kim Jones telling the jury a deliberate lie in order for the jury to “understand”, his 1995 evidence was wrong by his own admission at the 2009 retrial. This is a blatant act of perjury. IMO he told the jury what he wanted them to hear (that the prints were ‘bloody’) because it strengthened the crown case when he had no evidential basis for doing so. Subsequent forensic testing have shown that there was no blood under the fingerprints making the counterspinners no1 argument worthless. My conclusion on Kim Jones’s evidence is that everything he told the 1995 jury relating to blood on the rifle was not (as blood does not fluoresce) and any blood was in the background which showed dark.

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

    David Bain has been interviewed and appeared without Joe Karam being present on TV3 in an extensive interview last year.

    What interview would that be? The one with Binnie where lawyers for Crown Law weren’t allowed to ask David any questions but Michael Reed was? That is the same interview where David had difficulty telling the truth.

    I recall David being interviewed by Melanie Reid in 2009. That’s where he made his rather curious comments that “You would think that whether you believe that I’m innocent or whether you believe I‘m guilty, you’d say “well, if he’s guilty, he’s served his time, let him get on with life…'” and “I kept coming back to my core belief – I wasn’t there”. During the interview, he wasn’t asked any searching questions, yet still managed to come up with these doozies.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith (3,021) Says:

    June 28th, 2013 at 10:47 am
    muggins (2,387) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 10:37 am
    ————————–
    Everything you have said has not been reported in the media.

    You frequently make assertions about David Bain that have not been published.

    You clearly think you have some right to know information about his private life.

    Judith,please.
    Everything I have said on this thread has been reported by the media.
    And if Bain were to just either
    [1] Admit to the murders or
    [2] Withdraw his compensation claim

    Then interest in him will fade away and he won’t remain a person of interest to people like myself.
    So the solution is in his hands.

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

    Forensic evidence aside, can anyone tell me: has a non-psychotic son ever killed his mother in cold blood in NZ? Has a man ever killed his wife and children? (yes) On motive alone Robin is the killer. Common sense would tell me that David (a reasonably normal NZ young man at University) could not possibly kill his entire family with no motive. If he was guilty, why would he do that? Even hardened criminals don’t kill their mother in cold blood.

    You really haven’t searched very hard, have you.

    But read about Jeremy Bamber. He was a lovely young man, just like David Bain. Or maybe the Menendez brothers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez

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

    Even hardened criminals don’t kill their mother in cold blood.

    You haven’t heard of the Parker-Hulme murder in Christchurch? It was a very (in)famous case. Peter Jackson even made a movie out of it. Am surprised you haven’t heard of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You are full of self delusion and denial, must suck being you huh. Looking forward to seeing your head witchsniffers upcoming court action. Then it really will be slam-dunk!
    Better tell him to save enough money for those tickets to North Korea.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,509) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 11:38 am

    What interview would that be? The one with Binnie where lawyers for Crown Law weren’t allowed to ask David any questions but Michael Reed was?

    That is not true, the Crown had no questions for him.
    Now, either you know this and lie for the sake of it, or you need to check out the facts before posting.

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

    Nehemiah Griego was apparently a nice young lad. But he shot and killed his mother while she slept, murdered his brother and two sisters, before waiting for and killing his father. Griego was 15 at the time.

    http://www.dreamindemon.com/2013/01/22/nehemiah-griego-pastors-son-confessed-shooting-family-death/

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

    That is not true

    I suggest you read Binnie’s report. You seem confused.

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

    “To say the marks end the argument is laughable. 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.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/8851938/Media-drawn-into-Bain-blame-game

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

    From the above link:

    “The programme, and the media coverage of the Bain case in general, also raises a wider issue.

    Everyone would have noticed the new information was released first to Bain-friendly media. TV3 had the exclusive and The Herald had the first newspaper story. (TV3 also got the first patsy television interview with David Bain.)

    Fairfax, which owns The Press, did not get a look in and neither did TVNZ. Both have published and broadcast material unfavourable to the Bain camp.

    You also have to ask, if the information was so crucial, why wasn’t it shown to the Minister of Justice first so she could get Crown experts to investigate.

    It would be naive to suggest the media doesn’t play games and doesn’t get played itself. But the Bain case seems to be driving the media into throwing independence to the wind so it curries favour with one camp. The TV3 programme was in my view, a sad and painful night for New Zealand journalism.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. Rowan (2,535 comments) says:

    Ross
    Thanks for the MVB link
    Isn’t he the younger brother of a serving cop and wasn’t he warned by the justice department to stay away from the Bain jury.
    It does help to give some balance, his reporting of the case is laughable much like your ‘evidence’

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

    BTW, anyone wanting to contact 3rd Degree about their “game changer” can do so here:

    Email: 3rdDegree@tv3.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. goldnkiwi (1,538 comments) says:

    I too have creases on my bent right thumb, it was peculiar how 7 of the chosen 8 photos showed the lines in a different direction to Robins. I assume they were the best ones, but not the only.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. Peter615 (2 comments) says:

    Griego, bamber, mendez all good examples of international boys with motive. Still have not heard of a kiwi lad in this category. Parker-Hume murder the closest (but female) so far but there was a motive: Mum was trying to break up a lesbian relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    [Robin Bain finger marks Anna Sandiford Jun 27

    3 Comments
    This post is syndicated from The Forensic Group – Original Post

    Many people may have seen 3rd Degree on Wednesday night about the marks on Robin Bain’s thumb and forefinger as recorded in two crime scene photographs. Earlier this year I spent a morning with Police and ESR staff and some of the defence team during the testing of the murder weapon by Robbie Tiffen and Richard Munt; my thumb is shown in three of the images that appeared in the NZHerald yesterday.

    As this matter is still in progress there is not too much that I am able to say about it. However, I note from the Herald Online this evening the following photographs. The one on the left is Robin Bain’s hand at the scene; the one on the right is apparently his digit print taken during the autopsy:

    Many people will use the above two images to draw conclusions. I would advise caution in this regard:

    1. The orientation of the print taken at autopsy (at right) is not the same orientation as the hand at the scene (at left).

    2. There is an absence of information in the Herald article regarding the print so the assumption will generally be made that the print from autopsy is presented the correct way round but this has not been confirmed: N.B. when prints are taken, they are a mirror image of how they appear on the digit’s actual surface.

    3. Prints collected at autopsy are not always as good in terms of detail as they would have been when the subject was alive.]

    So much for police being excluded, so much for Burgess’s ‘analysis’ of the print. I note that it has been recorded elsewhere that the photographer who said the gsr marks weren’t scratches or cuts to the skin has been criticised along the lines of ‘what would he know.’ In fact he’d know a lot because he is a former police expert.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    NNZ – “David Giles is an extremely bright man but also a down to earth kiwi bloke with common sense.” Isn’t he the one who goes by the name parapenter on TM?? And isn’t he one of your ardent disciples??

    “It’s odd to see a journalist so strongly one sided on a still very contentious case.” Yes it is odd, he seems to be the only one who hasn’t been scared off with a defamation threat.

    Monique Angel – One of my hands can’t be fingerprinted without a great deal of effort. Oops, fancy admitting that on the internet!!

    Since when did “speculation” and “theory” become “evidence”???? Oh yes, since (no I am not going to mention names)

    Personally I think TV3 have been left with egg all over their face.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. Scott1 (576 comments) says:

    That finger print – if it is the one from the same hand is very likely to be in mirror image format (i.e. a real print due to the swirl direction) which puts the marks in the vicinity of the scars. If it is from the other hand then that was a particularly dodgy move by the police – one might as well assume the planted the magazine and most of the other evidence. I pick the gaps in the finger prints for being slightly too low on the thumb but I haven’t done anything scientific to show that.

    I think we can take it as given that a print could have a gap in to for no good reason at all (i.e. that it just reflects bad finger printing rather than a scar or whatever) but it is indeed odd for it to be in the same location more or less (assuming that they are actually matching the correct finger). I’d like to see if there are any other finger prints taken what they look like (even if from other fingers) and all the other minute details.

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

    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 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. Honeybadger (227 comments) says:

    Funnily enough, I too have the same sort of marks that Robin had, in fact, most of my family do also, and you can guarantee, a lot of Kiwi’s have been looking at their hands and finding the same marks. I havent loaded a magazine for many many years now, so I fail to see, how TV3 can claim evidence of those marks as a ‘slam dunk’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Honeybadger (120) Says:
    June 29th, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    Do you have grey lines on your thumb? I would wash it if I were you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    Just get Deb Webber into the action to find out who did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (406) Says:
    June 28th, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    I too have creases on my bent right thumb, it was peculiar how 7 of the chosen 8 photos showed the lines in a different direction to Robins. I assume they were the best ones, but not the only.

    Sorry to be late, everyone.

    Not only what you say Goldnkiwi, but all of the TV3 thumbs have the lines directly opposite the thumbnail (180 degrees from the nail), whereas the Robyn Bain thumb is the only one which has the lines on the left side of the thumb (90 degrees from the nail).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. Silly Will Bunions (143 comments) says:

    I have just tried. And I can’t push bullets into a bullet magazine using the left side of my right thumb (and I can’t use a BIC lighter with the left side either.

    I can however do both things using the flat of my thumb – the bit 180 degrees from the nail – just like all the TV3 people did.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    “A Question of Justice” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iG4wzSUsI

    My thoughts as he was out of breath on the phone wasnt from the murders it was from his running finishing his paper run.

    Police moved a lot of evidence and finger prints wiped off the gun, they moved it. In a state of Confusion of course david would check his family causing to get blood on his hands, ive always though Robin did it but David needs to tell how it went in detail but painful memories.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    In a state of Confusion of course david would check his family causing to get blood on his hands

    Except David said he washed his hands…

    After he heard Laniet gurgle, why didn’t he call an ambulance? Instead he went from room to room checking for bodies, apparently unconcerned the killer could still be in the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Personally I think TV3 have been left with egg all over their face.

    They sure have. And to think, all they had to do was talk to police and they could have been given access to photos of Robin’s fingerprints. But then that ugly fact would have sunk their beautiful theory.

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

    Ross69, please do not waste people’s time by asking what on earth David was doing by waiting to call the police. As I have already explained, he was agonising over what lingerie he would get his sisters to wear for their funerals.
    Yes, it is a pity he didn’t call the ambulance when he heard Laniet gurgling. For all he knew, she might have been saved, and then she could have testified as to the identity of the killer… oh, I get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Griego, bamber, mendez all good examples of international boys with motive. Still have not heard of a kiwi lad in this category. Parker-Hume murder the closest (but female) so far but there was a motive: Mum was trying to break up a lesbian relationship.

    It doesn’t seem as though you’ve thought about motive in the Bain case. There could be any number of motives. In the Griego case, the killer said he was pissed off with his mother! Meanwhile, David has admitted, albeit reluctantly, that he hated his father. He also stood to benefit financially from the murders. According to media reports, the Bain estate is worth “well over” $600,000. Financial gain (or loss) is the primary motive in many serious crimes, including murder.

    David’s paper run presumably did not generate a lot of income. He had been involved in a motorcycle accident in the weeks prior to the murders. I understand that as a result of the accident, he owed Dunedin businessman Jules Radich $2000, a debt that he was unable to pay.

    In the weeks prior to the murders, David had broken up with a woman with whom he had dated. He allegedly had been asked by his parents to move out of the family home. He allegedly said he was not ready to move out. He had apparently crashed a motorbike and owed money as a consequence. There was tension within the family, and David had had an argument with his father the day before the killings. As a result of these incidents, and given the dysfunctional family environment, he may have been feeling depressed. He informed Justice Binnie that after the death of his dog, he had felt depressed and made a spur of the moment decision to get a tattoo.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    This is what David told Binnie:

    “The only thing I can reiterate is that these five members of my family were my life. They were part of who I was. We were extremely close. We all loved each other dearly.”

    The above comment contradicts evidence that Laniet was scared of David, that David was allegedly intimidating the family with a gun, that Arawa’s relationship with both parents was allegedly strained, that Laniet had allegedly told a friend that David “broke all her relationships up.” A witness also said that David was jealous of Laniet’s relationships with men. The same witness thought that Laniet and David were a couple, not brother and sister. One witness said that on the Tuesday before the murders, David had visited her and told her of not having any real friends. He also told his acquaintance: “Anyone I have ever loved I’ve ended up hurting.” Unfortunately, you did not ask him what he meant by that statement (assuming it was true). During David’s interview with Binnie, Binnie reminded him how he had told Val Boyd that he had hated his father:

    “Now on Wednesday there is this session at the Clark home in the early hours of the morning and it is said at that time that you said you hated your father and this is Val Boyd giving evidence this time. ‘He talked about the family situation so while he talked about his father, he talked about that he hated his father. He said he was sneaky, he used to listen in to conversations that had nothing to do with him.’ Did you have that conversation with Val Boyd?”

    David responded:

    Here’s a private conversation that has been taken, you know, from what I considered to be a private, you know, situation and a confidence type of situation and now related it against me. I – that – telling my aunty what my father, father’s behaviour was like, there’s nothing wrong with that in my view. … I was a 22 year old kid trying to get on with my own life, doing my best out there in the world and just, and having a ball and having a lot of fun. …here I was showing up this picture of a wonderful, up – you know, upstanding man as my father. Well, isn’t that exactly what you would try and portray to the world? That you come from a perfect environment? And then in a private situation where I’ve ridden by grief and, you know, anger and all these other emotions and something comes out that is negative, the two aren’t mutually – aren’t exclusive.

    David’s main complaint seems to be that something he said during a private conversation was used against him. Why should that concern him? (I would have thought the fact that he found his siblings and parents dead, apparently murdered, would have been most distressing to him. Revealing details about a private conversation, a conversation he has no doubt shared with others subsequent to the murders, would presumably be inconsequential in comparison.) If he is innocent, as he claims, why would he not be prepared to tell the full story, warts and all? He undoubtedly disclosed private information to Dr Paul Mullen during their many sessions. The bigger issue is that in an unguarded moment he acknowledged to Ms Boyd that he hated his father, a fact which he seemed unwilling to disclose to Binnie.

    At the retrial, Michael Bain, David’s uncle, recounted a conversation he had had with David after David’s arrest. David told Michael that “there was tension in the family and it was worse when Robin was home” and that his father was a “domineering person and the family felt dominated by him.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    In 1997, David’s former psychiatrist, Dr Paul Mullen, described David’s account of his family:

    “David gives an account of his family which is idealized to the point of sickening sweetness. What he actually presents is an ideal family in which everyone loved everyone else, everyone did things together, and that they were a totally loving, supportive special unit. And you actually have to put to him things like ‘well, wasn’t your father excluded from the family and living outside in a caravan?’, and he’ll acknowledge that, and ‘wasn’t your mother spending most of the day in bed and the house was in total and filthy chaos?’, and he’ll acknowledge that, and ‘wasn’t there some problems over the way your sister was earning part of a living?’, and he would acknowledge that, and you’d say ‘well, that sounds like a family in deep trouble rather than a family which is competing with the Waltons for family of the decade’. And he would acknowledge all that but then would simply go back to a bland assurance that in fact all was well.”

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

    Speaking of the marks, has anyone photoshopped an image to superimpose the marks on approximately the place on the thumbprint where they were located?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    So when Robin’s prints have been expertly tested and the ‘marks’ found to be old cuts, cracks or creases, it will be fun listening to David Bain’s supporters tie themselves up in knots explaining why the presence of powder residue tracks would have so conclusively proved Robin’s guilt, and yet the absence of them will have in no way exonerated him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Hardly a slam dunk.

    More of an own goal really.

    :mrgreen:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    1. “It is absolutely basic police work in a firearms case, as laid out in the Detectives Manual, to preserve and test samples from a suspect’s hands and clothing for firearms discharge residue (FDR).” The police failed to do so for David. And for Robin Bain. That one test could well have proved decisive.

    2. “Det Sgt Lodge in charge of Robin’s body not only failed to preserve possible evidence of FDR but neither he nor the pathologist saw fit to preserve the skin sample surrounding Robin’s gunshot wound, thus unleashing the debate among the experts about whether the fatal shot was close, intermediate or distant.”

    3. Police watches weren’t synchronised defeating the precision timing necessary to test David Bain’s “out-of-house” alibi.

    4. Police denied the pathologist entry to the crime scene for three hours, making it impossible for him to measure body core temperatures to establish more precisely the time and sequence of death of the various members of the Bain family.

    5. Police failed to investigate information that Laniet had accused her father of incest and planned to expose him to the rest of the family on the weekend before the murders, despite the Detectives Manual specifically instructing police to pursue the issue of motive in their attempt to “reconstruct” the crime scene.

    6. Police failed to follow up on evidence of Robin Bain’s mental instability.

    7. Carpet samples subjected to the critical luminol footprint examination were not kept.

    8. The DNA sample for the “blood fingerprint” analysis was found to be an “unspeakable mess”.

    9. Police lost a crucial second statement by a key witness as well as an all-important timesheet.

    10. Photographs taken of the crime scene were a “shambles”. The date and time function on the camera was not switched on.

    11. Police destroyed crucial evidence ahead of the Bain appeal.

    12. Police misled the first jury on where the lens of the spectacles was found, knowingly gave the jury the wrong time for the switching on of the computer, and did not tell the jury that they had checked a key witness’s clock and had taken a crucial second statement from her. This was critical testimony.

    These are damning findings. The police response to Judge Binnie?

    Police Commissioner Peter Marshall put out a press release saying he “doesn’t accept” that police made “egregious errors”. He agreed there were “some errors” but that “this is one of the most scrutinised police investigations and cases in New Zealand”.

    The police denial and spin reveal the depth of the problem.

    Following Justice Binnie, and the commissioner’s response, a political system determined to uphold policing standards would have seen the Prime Minister, with cabinet agreement, asking the Governor-General to sack the commissioner and establishing an international search for a police commissioner who understands the importance of proper procedure and the need to establish a professional culture within the New Zealand Police for homicide investigation.

    Instead, Justice Minister Judith Collins led the counter-charge, giving both Justice Binnie and his report a good kicking even before she released his report.

    The police are in safe hands. It’s just the rest of us who have to worry.

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

    The Police may fall short some times, but the murderer definitely typed the message on the computer and it wasn’t Robin !

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. Ryan (22 comments) says:

    Robin planned it days, weeks before even with the full bladder. Yes how can he kill himself and the gun landing such a way well the police moved it like other objects or David moved it in panic as was his gun andhandles it after the killing and thought wtf.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Instead, Justice Minister Judith Collins led the counter-charge, giving both Justice Binnie and his report a good kicking even before she released his report.

    Binnie’s report is pitiful. But I see you’re happy to give it the all clear. Have you actually read it?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. Pele (57 comments) says:

    Roflol …..

    Maybe you should read a bit more, BEFORE you speak in public … ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Justice Binnie seems completely taken with David Bain and after interviewing him for a day says he was a credible witness. He describes the young Bain as respectable and respected, and places weight on medical evidence that can find nothing mentally wrong with him.

    This is a failure of the imagination. The judge seems unable to imagine an outwardly normal 22-year-old killing his family. In my view there was plenty of evidence to suggest the young Bain was disturbed, had a strange and unhealthy relationship with his mother and he loathed his father. Many murderers are outwardly respectable.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/8078285/Opinion-Binnie-appears-to-be-captured-by-defence

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. Ryan (22 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. You could not of planned just a complex killing after a physical paper run and on the phone with bated breathe.

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

    computer was turned on at 6.44am before the fateful message was typed “SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY”

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

    Are you sure of the words you have written ?

    or are simply towing some one elses line ?

    So you are saying Robin turned on the computer at 6.44, then waited for it boot up, then typed the message, THEN tried to commit suicide ?

    ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    ‘Scott Chris (4,993) Says:
    June 30th, 2013 at 10:37 am
    So when Robin’s prints have been expertly tested and the ‘marks’ found to be old cuts, cracks or creases, it will be fun listening to David Bain’s supporters tie themselves up in knots explaining why the presence of powder residue tracks would have so conclusively proved Robin’s guilt, and yet the absence of them will have in no way exonerated him.’

    ‘When’ is the operative word. But hold onto hope, having failed to ‘see’ the gsr for nearly 2 decades is hardly reason for confidence, but you do look good holding onto ‘hope’ that you might not be a groper after all. Expect your delusions to be crushed further, only a naïve desperado would think as superficially as you appear to do and that forensic experts make ‘hopeful’ guesses. Good luck on that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. 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
  502. goldnkiwi (1,538 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
  503. ross69 (3,652 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
  504. ross69 (3,652 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
  505. 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
  506. 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
  507. 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
  508. ross69 (3,652 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
  509. ross69 (3,652 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
  510. 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
  511. 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
  512. 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
  513. 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
  514. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 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
  515. 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
  516. ross69 (3,652 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
  517. 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
  518. ross69 (3,652 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
  519. 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
  520. 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
  521. goldnkiwi (1,538 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
  522. 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
  523. 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
  524. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 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
  525. 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
  526. goldnkiwi (1,538 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
  527. Rowan (2,535 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
  528. Rowan (2,535 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
  529. 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
  530. 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
  531. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 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
  532. 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
  533. Rowan (2,535 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

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  534. ross69 (3,652 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
  535. Rowan (2,535 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
  536. 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
  537. 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
  538. 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
  539. goldnkiwi (1,538 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
  540. Rowan (2,535 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
  541. 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
  542. Rowan (2,535 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
  543. ross69 (3,652 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

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  544. 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
  545. expat (4,050 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
  546. Rowan (2,535 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
  547. goldnkiwi (1,538 comments) says:

    Retarded!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  548. 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
  549. 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. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  550. 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
  551. ross69 (3,652 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
  552. 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
  553. 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
  554. 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
  555. Rowan (2,535 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
  556. 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
  557. Rowan (2,535 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
  558. Rowan (2,535 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
  559. 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
  560. Honeybadger (227 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
  561. 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
  562. 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
  563. goldnkiwi (1,538 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
  564. ross69 (3,652 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
  565. 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
  566. 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
  567. 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
  568. Kanz (1,419 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
  569. goldnkiwi (1,538 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
  570. goldnkiwi (1,538 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
  571. 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
  572. 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
  573. ross69 (3,652 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
  574. ross69 (3,652 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
  575. 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
  576. 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
  577. ross69 (3,652 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
  578. 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
  579. ross69 (3,652 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
  580. 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
  581. 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
  582. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  583. 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
  584. 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
  585. ross69 (3,652 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
  586. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    The nutters are out of the asylum.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  587. 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