Bain fingerprint tests

October 7th, 2013 at 2:15 pm by David Farrar

The Police have announced:

Scientific analysis by fingerprint and firearms experts do not support claims that gun powder residue caused the marks on Robin Bain’s fingers. 

Police have released an analysis of the original fingerprints taken from Robin Bain plus a report on testing of the firearm used in the Bain homicides.

This follows claims by the 3rd Degree programme in June that marks on pictures of Robin Bain’s thumb were caused by gun powder residue from the firearm’s magazine.

Police fingerprint experts examined the original post mortem fingerprint forms taken at the mortuary and compared those to the marks seen in the photographs of Robin Bain’s thumb and forefinger.

That examination confirmed that features were observed in the fingerprints which corresponded accurately with the marks shown in the photographs.

The experts concluded that this was strongly indicative that the marks shown in the photographs were the result of minor superficial damage to the skin surface.

Tests were also carried out by an ESR firearms expert on the weapon used in the Bain homicides. These tests aimed to replicate residue marks that were similar in appearance and position to the marks shown in the photographs of Robin Bain’s fingers.

The scientist formed the opinion that although there appeared to be a pair of lines on Mr Bain’s thumb that could have resulted from loading a cartridge into a magazine, there was considerable doubt that the shape, dimensions and colour of the marks on Mr Bain’s thumb were consistent with marks made as a result of loading a cartridge into a magazine.

“These tests have been carried out using accredited experts in controlled conditions with access to the original exhibits and in the presence of Mr Bain’s advocates” says Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess.

“The most likely explanation for the marks on the photographs would seem to be pre-existing damage or injury to the skin on Robin Bain’s thumb.

I predict those with strong views on either side of the David vs Robin camp will not change their views!

The fingerprint report is very interesting and is here. The firearms report is less conclusive and is here.

 

Tags:

169 Responses to “Bain fingerprint tests”

  1. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Hahahahahaha….Good one TV3.

    Will we see a Wendy Petrie fist pump on tonight’s news?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dime (10,108 comments) says:

    lmao enjoy the thread nutjobs! ill check back in at 1000 comments.

    nick – she will never be forgiven for that

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,770 comments) says:

    It was obvious that the parallel lines on Robins’ fingers ,pushed by TV3 as “evidence” had nothing to do with a reload.

    More of a case of wishful thinking than anything truly scientific or independant….. a bit like the AGW scam.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Dime – more like 5,000 comments. Wasn’t that the last one?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Elaycee (4,409 comments) says:

    Heh:

    “These tests have been carried out using accredited experts in controlled conditions with access to the original exhibits and in the presence of Mr Bain’s advocates” said Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess.
    “The most likely explanation for the marks on the photographs would seem to be pre-existing damage or injury to the skin on Robin Bain’s thumb.”

    So much for the ‘experts’ here who proclaimed they knew better…

    Cue the cries from the Muppet brigade claiming the Police have somehow got it wrong…..

    Pffttt….

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Given I actually have meaningful employment I haven’t scrutinised the Bain case in as much depth as many but IMO only a retard could forcefully believe Robin Bain was the killer.

    Wasn’t David Bain’s delay in calling 111 due to him washing bloodied clothes? Lmao

    Only one with access to rifle and kept key around his neck? Lmao

    Fibres of Stephen’s jersey found under his fingernails? Lmao

    Father killed himself in the most awkward way possible and on a full bladder? Lmao

    Father said he was the only one who deserved to stay, yet went out of his way to frame him for murder? Lmao

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RF (1,452 comments) says:

    Joe… suck on that !!!!!!! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Dazzaman (1,145 comments) says:

    Nice one nickb, you’ve just rolled the ball….

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Sorry dazza, what have I done…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ciaron (1,441 comments) says:

    c’mon MFDB*! spin us a yarn about how Dave is a really nice guy and completely 100% guilt free.

    *Money For Dave Bain (Judith et al.)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    God stuff is the most biased news outlet in NZ’s history.

    “Policy deny”, “police rubbish”

    not:

    “tests conclusively show makes on Robin Bain’s fingers NOT from a gun”

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    nickb

    you have just gone to the head of several nut jobs shit list.

    St David’s acolytes will not take those comments of yours layng down mate.

    If you haven’t read the definitive account of events as published and don’t know by heart the full transcripts from all the trails and memorized all the TV interviews , well you are just shit and don’t deserve oxygen.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Someone had to take one for the team PEB.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Poor old Wendy Petrie.
    She was only fist pumping because she got the link, nothing to do with the verdict.
    But talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
    The pro Davids couldn’t find any evidence that pointed to Robin Bain as being the perpetrator so they thought maybe a couple of lines on his thumb might be a slam dunk. They weren’t even worth a point.
    Of course the pro Robins had already made half a dozen slam dunks.
    Those glasses that David wore when his were unavalable. He told his lawyer and his aunt he had been wearing them. Even Binnie believes he wore them that weekend.
    So I reckon the fact that the frame of those glasses was damaged, both lenses had fallen out of that frame, and one lens was shown in a photograph taken in Stephen’s room while his body was still there, that’s a slam dunk.
    And then we have those bruises on Bain’s head and torso. Dr Pryde reckoned those bruises on his head were around 7-13 hours old when he examined Bain at around 11.30 am on that Monday morning. Do the maths. Another slam dunk.
    And of course David had Stephen’s blood on his clothes . Another slam dunk.
    And what about that prime set of David Bain’s fingerprints in blood on the rifle that the killer used? Bain told Binnie that blood was probably animal blood from the summer. Does any rational person believe that? Another slam dunk.
    And then there was that gurgling noise that David heard Laniet making. She wasn’t dead when she made that noise.
    She had to be properly dispatched with another two shots to the head. Another slam dunk.
    And whose bloody gloves were found in Stephen’s room? Another slam dunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    Elaycee (3,667) Says:
    October 7th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    The so-called experts were gun-shop operators who, admittedly have loaded a few more rifles than you or I, but they weren’t forensic experts.

    Actually, the most damning evidence against David Bain was the evidence that Joe Karam discovered when he asked for an opinion from the Victoria State Police Department.

    “-The police lost an important witness when a detective went to the Victorian police forensic science department in 2007 and uplifted notes made by scientists in tests done for Bain supporter Joe Karam in 1997. The witness, a police armourer, had concluded Robin Bain had not committed suicide. The police only found out about the opinion after looking through the documents and were denied the ability to use it because it was “fruit from the poisoned tree”.

    So, even Joe knows that David did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    I have nothing to say. But I didn’t want to miss out on being part of the longest comment thread in blog history.

    Please give me a thumbs down for wasting your time.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. thedavincimode (6,876 comments) says:

    only a retard could forcefully believe Robin Bain was the killer

    So much in common with Winston First voters. They should form a club.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. thedavincimode (6,876 comments) says:

    Go get ‘em muggins. You takeover from here.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    So I’ve got this new line of jerseys for sale. They’re garish and loud, but if you wear them you can get away with murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    So, if the marks on Robin’s fingers are not from loading the rifle, it means only one other person could have loaded the rifle that fateful morning…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. nickb (3,696 comments) says:

    Well done ross. I think you may have cracked the missing piece of the Bain puzzle.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    davidp (2,955) Says:

    October 7th, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    I have nothing to say

    You have just made more sense that many who come on later ever will, well done.

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

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9252970/Robin-Bain-print-theory-dismissed

    TV show rubbished. Don’tcha just love it!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    TV show rubbished.

    No doubt TV3 will invite David Bain into the studio for an explanation and he will tell the truth about what really happened that fateful morning. I expect he’ll come clean a la Lance Armstrong. You know it’s true.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    davidp>Please give me a thumbs down for wasting your time.
    davidp>Vote: 4 0

    I ask to be given a thumbs down and all I get are thumbs up. Are you all a bunch of retards?

    Please give me a thumbs down for insulting you all, for being insensitive to the intellectually disabled, and for complaining.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Longknives (4,873 comments) says:

    To be honest I am surprised the ‘Bain-loving’ NZ media even ran this story!
    In the past they have shown a tendency to treat every lying word of Joe Karam’s as gospel…

    I eagerly await the ranting deluded response from Judith/Nostalgia/Emirates Team Bain..

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Elaycee (4,409 comments) says:

    @GJKiwi (3.06pm): Apologies, I should have added “So much for the ‘experts’ here [on KB] who proclaimed they knew better… ”

    Because sure as the sun comes up in the morning, the Muppet Brigade will arrive on this thread, bleating and flapping that the Police have got this terribly wrong and somehow it’s all the fault of Justice Minister Judith Collins!!!

    Because that’s their recurring theme to date! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. kaykaybee (153 comments) says:

    Very pleased to hear this for the sake of the family and those who support the memory of the tragically murdered Robin, Margaret, Aroha, Laniet and Stephen

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. BeaB (2,148 comments) says:

    She did the fist pump because she got the link? You believe that you believe anything!

    And what about St John wetting his knickers in excitement as he gushed to Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Ross Miller (1,706 comments) says:

    It doesn’t really matter what the ‘experts’ think. Joe K knows David Bain is innocent … end of story. Nothing past, present or in the future will change the mind of the true believer. Bit like those who honestly have it that mans landing on the moon never happened, faked on a set somewhere in Hollywood (or Roswell or wherever).

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Lance (2,714 comments) says:

    Perhaps we could lump in AGW and Kea’s typical atheistic rants to create the thread from hell?
    Do I hear 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 bid 15,000 – thank you sir, 16,000 anyone, I will take 100 comment increments from here.

    Bru hu hu hu ha ha ha ha ha

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Longknives (4,873 comments) says:

    BeaB- Good point. A drooling John Campbell virtually attempting to fellate a smirking David Bain on live television at the infamous ‘After Party’ was one of the most nauseating moments in New Zealand television history.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Fletch (6,492 comments) says:

    So, no compo for you, boyo…

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. GPT1 (2,123 comments) says:

    It does, however, highlight how one sided the TV3 programme was in not even giving police a right of reply.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kaykaybee (153 comments) says:

    Longknives @3.45pm

    Please spare us that particular mental picture. Fair gagged on my gingernut I did ;)

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

    Did any of you seriously expect any different answer from the Police who still have not answered other questions regarding other marks on Robin’s hand?

    They were not prepared to use the first fingerprints taken from Robin, which clearly show there was no damage. Their analysis would not hold up if it was presented in court, for that particular reason.

    I’m not the least bit shocked at all. The police know it is too late to test their comments in a court of law so were always going to take the easy road. One just has to consider the amount of inaccuracy in the police investigation, the lies and dishonesty by the police and the poor quality of the initial police investigation to know that this is not as simple as Burgess makes out.

    There is more, much more yet to come about the hands of Robin Bain. Burgess has a lot more explaining to do yet.

    Just the same old from a police force that refuses to address the ineptitude within its high ranks.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    davidp>Please give me a thumbs down for wasting your time.
    davidp>Vote: 10 0

    davidp>Please give me a thumbs down for insulting you all, for being insensitive to the intellectually disabled, and for complaining.
    davidp>Vote: 5 0

    This is just hopeless. Some commenters get oodles of down-votes for just showing up in a thread, but I can’t manage any.

    Please give me a properly-considered thumbs down because:

    1. I am the bastard grandson of Winston Peters.

    2. I once killed a baby panda with a high powered sniper rifle.

    3. I once ran over a hobbit with a lawn mower. And laughed.

    4. I am a Green Party supporter.

    5. I have no shame for 1-4.

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

    @ GPTI

    The police did have the right of reply. Burgess appeared on TV3 the following day with the second set of fingerprints taken from Robin Bain, the ones they have used for this testing because they refuse to acknowledge the first set they took.

    They had the right of reply, they were there at the testing and were involved from the beginning on this issue. They bought the rifle to the first set of tests conducted by the defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    kaykaybee

    If Robin Bain was murdered then perhaps you can explain the position he died in, and why he stood on one foot and waited to be shot, stood still whilst the gun was reloaded when the first shot failed? Also why Baynesian Theory states clearly that Robin Bain was more than 95% likely to have shot himself based on the physical forensics of his death?

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

    @ Elaycee

    When you can discuss the facts of the case and actually come up with factual information regarding it, then your comment means nothing.

    I’ve never seen you post anymore than simple minded comments about the people that defend David Bain. When it comes to the facts of the case, that knowledge and your brain seem to have been separated.

    You base you argument on the person attributes of others – lovely!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. alex Masterley (1,523 comments) says:

    Here we go……

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “Their analysis would not hold up if it was presented in court, for that particular reason. ”

    Maybe we could have another trial where the Judge makes it clear how jurors are to conduct themselves.

    If it was known how they behaved it is likely there would have been another trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Longknives

    Take the comment to Elaycee and apply it to yourself. You’re another one that is so convinced, based on personal attributes but has never demonstrated any knowledge regarding the factual evidence in the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    There is nothing new from the police here, the report contained no definite conclusions as to what the marks are. Unsuprisingly the police also have no explanation as to what they are. Burgess’s own goal on the ‘cuts’ theory has already been put to bed by Dr Dempster and Joe Karam. In the fingerprint report they try to claim there is ‘no value’ in the second set of prints but there is also no dispute that they belong to Robin Bain!
    The lynch mob are celebrating their ‘victory’ but like the cops have no answers to the marks or how to explain Robins ‘murder’
    It goes to show anything can be explained away if the belief is strong enough. There is still no convincing evidence against David that distinguishes him from being the killer as opposed to the ‘finder’ and the crown case is still theories and conjecture with no proven ‘evidence’

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

    Also why Baynesian Theory states clearly that Robin Bain was more than 95% likely to have shot himself based on the physical forensics of his death?

    Baynesian Theory? Is that similar to Keynesian Theory that claims you can take a dollar that you would have consumed elsewhere as spending or savings and multiply it 5 times simply by giving to the government to spend?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    1. I am the bastard grandson of Winston Peters.

    2. I once killed a baby panda with a high powered sniper rifle.

    3. I once ran over a hobbit with a lawn mower. And laughed.

    4. I am a Green Party supporter.

    5. I have no shame for 1-4.

    Its OK dave

    1. Nice to see the old fella getting a jump.
    2. Pandas are fucking vicious thanks for doing that.
    3. Little shit been stealing my daughters underwear, a smile is deserved after a good deed like that.
    4. You’ve been under some work stress you’ll come right.
    5. Don’t mistake lack of shame for genuine humility. I just wish I could give you more up ticks

    and then here comes Judith and there goes the thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Chuck\

    But it is known how they behaved, and there was no other trial. The jurors did nothing outside of the rules.
    The one juror that had a criminal conviction which your group likes to rave about, was known by the Crown to have had that conviction. It was a minor conviction that did not effect her ability to be a jury member.

    Blaming some members of the jury has to be the most pathetic argument I’ve ever heard from your group.

    14th of October coming soon, hows Kent’s cheque book?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Did any of you seriously expect any different answer from the Police

    If you didn’t expect any different answer from the Police then why demand that they respond to the supposed new evidence in the first place?

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

    @ PEB

    You have problems with people that don’t agree with you, or just those that discuss the topic?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @bhudson

    Because it is protocol to involve them. As I said they were involved from the beginning and were present at the initial testing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RD (2 comments) says:

    ‘If Robin Bain was murdered then perhaps you can explain the position he died in, and why he stood on one foot and waited to be shot, stood still whilst the gun was reloaded when the first shot failed? Also why Baynesian Theory states clearly that Robin Bain was more than 95% likely to have shot himself based on the physical forensics of his death?’

    Easy. He didn’t die standing on one foot, and he was killed with one shot.
    What is Baynesian Theory? I’ve heard of Bayesian theory, but not Baynesian theory. Is your last name Baynes?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Kim Jones’s evidence about ‘bloody fingerprints’ is about as reliable as Bruce Huttons in the Thomas case. He was shown up in the retrial by the defence expert Carl Lloyd to be a crock of shit! In the 1995 trial he lied to the jury in order for them to in his words ‘to understand it better’ but in reality he told them exactly what he wanted them to hear despite it being untrue!

    Aunt Fanny @ 3.05
    ‘own goal’ rather than ‘slam dunk’ better describes any of the spin you like to call evidence!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mikenmild (11,719 comments) says:

    bhudson
    I think Judith meant Bayesian, but wrote Baynesian because it is all about the Baynes (sic). But here we go down the rabbit hole…

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

    @ Bhudson

    No, it’s not similar.

    But I doubt you would understand it anyway, so I won’t bother with the explanation. You can always look it up on the internet and give it a try. Best of luck.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild

    I made a typo. If that’s the best argument/criticism you can come up with – you’re a lost cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mikenmild (11,719 comments) says:

    Sorry Judith, just thought it was funny that’s all. Re the details of the case, I’m as ignorant of the facts as the last jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Rowan

    Aunt Fanny can always pretend s/he has another email from the police and lie about what it says and how he got it.

    If that doesn’t fit the bill s/he can pay some pathetic artist bucks to do a drawing about how he would like it to be.

    And if that fails, s/he can always dial a friend, except most of the forensic team won’t take her calls any more.

    Of course none of this explains how or why Dr Alec Dempster is adamant that those marks were not on Robin’s thumb when his body arrived at the morgue.

    Dr Dempster photographed every mark on Robin’s hands, including a much smaller blood splat, and yet JFRB would have us believe he ‘missed’ those marks which were five times the size and there were two of them???????

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    I wonder how the bank balance is of those who put money on ipredict that DB would get compo by 1 Jan. Sorry to tell you Judith that he will not get a cent.

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

    Sorry Mikenmild.

    I’m as busy as a bee with a bum full of honey today and multi tasking. A bit too snippy, humble apologies.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. RRM (10,018 comments) says:

    2,167.

    My guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Judith

    feel free to disagree with me on anything I just think ,actually know, you are totally obsessed with this matter and you seriously need the acquisition of a life.

    Crusade away and I’ll maintain my right to maintain my view that a mass murderer is walking free and have the opinion that Bain supporters are fuck wits.

    Chuck you are on fire today, well done

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Chuck

    That is where you are wrong, and any one that put money on David getting compensation or not by 1 of Jan is a total fool. The Judicial Review will not even be heard by then.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    nickb (2,771) Says:
    October 7th, 2013 at 2:26 pm
    “Given I actually have meaningful employment I haven’t scrutinised the Bain case in as much depth as many but IMO only a retard could forcefully believe Robin Bain was the killer.

    Wasn’t David Bain’s delay in calling 111 due to him washing bloodied clothes? Lmao

    Only one with access to rifle and kept key around his neck? Lmao

    Fibres of Stephen’s jersey found under his fingernails? Lmao

    Father killed himself in the most awkward way possible and on a full bladder? Lmao

    Father said he was the only one who deserved to stay, yet went out of his way to frame him for murder? Lmao”

    Nick what a load of crap
    one by one

    1. See link for what the operator said about the actual timing of 111 call
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562170

    2. David said that he didn’t tell his father where he kept the key, and? the proof that Robin didn’t know where it was is? it was available for anyone who wanted to use it.

    3. The fibres from Robins green jersey were found in Stephens fingernails not Davids. The jersey was far to small for David.

    4. ‘most awkward way possible’ load of shit, Dr Dempster agreed there were no required contortions and that the temple was one of the most common places for suicide, close contact wounds to the tenple are around 95% + more likely to be suicide.
    Who claimed that Robins bladder was ‘full’.

    5. The incompetent police decided that Daddy was ‘innocent’ rather than David being framed by Robin.

    Maybe you could give the explanation the police can’t for the marks or for daddys ‘murder’ nope didn’t think so!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ PEB

    I have a perfectly good life thank you.
    My professional experience bought me into contact with this case and allows me to believe what I do.

    I’m not obsessed with this, I’m obsessed with justice and the poor application of it in this case and others like it.
    But then you wouldn’t know that, you see me comment on here from time to time and consider that gives you a total insight into my life. No wonder you lack the ability to assess people in an efficient manner if you believe that contact gives you sufficient data.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Elaycee (4,409 comments) says:

    Longknives:

    I eagerly await the ranting deluded response from Judith/Nostalgia/Emirates Team Bain..

    Haha – and it didn’t take long!

    On RadioNZ News at 4pm, Karam actually said the Police asked the wrong questions! True! But you can guarantee that if the Police somehow supported the AESOP version of events, Karam would suddenly proclaim the Police had done a meticulous job and that they had reached the correct conclusion! :D

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

    @ Nickb

    You lost your argument with Robin Bain had a full bladder. Robin Bain’s bladder was never measured to see if it was full. It contained 400 mls of urine. Bladders for men of Robin’s age vary in capacity and can hold over a litre before the need to urinate is felt.

    That comment from you set the same theme for the rest of your il-informed comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Zapper (1,027 comments) says:

    I really think it’s obvious that Judith fed the baby. No other conclusion can be drawn.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Chucky
    You should be putting aside a fund for Kent, how long do you think his defence will last? the judge could stretch it out for entertainment value. You, Muggins et al could be his witnesses! or are you distancing yourself from the fruitcake! Not to far away from 14 Oct now.
    It will be good to see him get what he well and truely deserves!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Elaycee

    Still waiting for you to answer a question about the case.

    How do you suppose the forensic pathologist that conducted the examination on Robin’s body for the Crown, and photographed every mark and discrepancy on his hands, and swears today that those marks were not there, missed seeing them, when he saw other marks that were much smaller?

    Where do you think they went to, when Robin Bain’s first prints were taken, but magically reappeared for the three day old prints the police did their study from?

    Answer those and then you have an argument. Without it, you’re just the same old troll.

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

    Judith (3,993) Says:
    October 7th, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Sorry, the comment at this time was meant for Pauleastbay.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “I’m not obsessed with this”

    David Bain is less obsessed with this.

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

    @ Rightnow

    Oh that’s a good argument. So full of knowledge and information.

    Good one. Had a maturity test recently?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Judith

    Please at least tell me you are a scientist at the ESR or something professional, if you are a telephonist there I’ll send the ambulance around now

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    As I thought, all personal criticism and not one person with enough knowledge to adequately discuss the facts of the case.

    Great how people can make such negative comments but know fu*K all about the actual details.

    As soon as the facts are mentioned, as soon as you are asked for actual input at a knowledgeable level, you all scarper.
    Amazing how many ignorant people make up their minds about a another person’s life/innocence or guilt, without bothering to access and learn from the original documentation. Instead they rely on gossip. Pathetic, truly pathetic.

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

    @ PEB

    Who I am and what I do is none of your business. But I’ll happily argue the facts of this case with you anytime and I bet the factual knowledge I have on the case would exceed yours on every aspect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    @Judith, sorry if you thought I cared to argue about the David Bain case, I just came here to ridicule.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Zapper (1,027 comments) says:

    Judith, you want to go through the same old arguments that have been done 1000 times before? Why bother.

    nickb’s post at 2:26pm sums up the case. For whatever reason, you disagree. Don’t assume anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or that they haven’t assessed the original documentation, as you call it.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Zapper
    But Nickb has most of his summary wrong.
    He has vital facts wrong. Facts that were presented in Court and demonstrated to be wrong.

    Nickb’s assessment comes from the popular view that first screened in a Bryan Bruce doco, years before the second trial. The second trial proved that police had done many things wrong, lied, and that tests carried out had been wrong. Robin Bain’s bladder was just one of those.

    Why shouldn’t I believe he has no knowledge when he posts things as facts that have be proved incorrect?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    As I thought, all personal criticism and not one person with enough knowledge to adequately discuss the facts of the case.

    Redbaiter is that you in drag?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith
    Here is the glasses evidence again.
    After the police arrived at the crime scene a police officer was given the job of keeping an eye on David Bain. After half an hour or so David said he couldn’t see and asked for his glasses.
    The police officer saw a pair of glasses on a chair and went to pick them up to pass them to David but realised that he should not be tampering with what could be evidence so he left them where they were. The frame was damaged and no lenses were in the frame. One lens was with the frame and one lens was missing.
    Later that day photographs were taken of Stephen Bain’s room while his body was still in the room and in one of those photos a lens can be seen next to the toe of an ice skating boot. A test of that lens was carried out later and that lens was proved to be the lens that was missing from the glasses in David’s room.
    On the Tuesday morning David was staying with an aunt and uncle and after breakfast he came into the lounge rubbing his eyes. When asked if his eyes were bothering him he said that they were and that he really needed his glasses.
    He went on to say they were in being repaired but that he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s in the meantime. They weren’t perfect, he said ,but they got him by.
    Before the trial he told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing those glasses that were found in his room. He said they were a pair of his mother’s glasses but that he had been wearing them on the Sunday prior.
    At trial, while giving his evidence and chief he said he hadn’t worn those glasses for over a year.
    Under cross-examination he said that he had worn those glasses before when his were unavailable but that he had forgotten all about them, he hadn’t thought about using them.
    After the cross-examination was over his lawyer approached the Crown prosecutor and told him David had lied about those glasses.
    It obvious that David Bain had been wearing the glasses that were found in his room. Even Justice Binnie appears to accept that. But Binnie does not believe that just because David Bain was wearing those glasses it follows that they link him to Stephen’s murder. Well I reckon it does.
    How can anyone explain how a lens from those glasses that David had been wearing on the Sunday came to be on the floor in Stephen’s room on the next day if David wasn’t wearing those glasses on the Monday?

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

    @ Rightnow

    They you are doing a good job. Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “Redbaiter is that you in drag?”

    What makes you think it’s drag?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    “Amazing how many ignorant people make up their minds about a another person’s life/innocence or guilt, without bothering to access and learn from the original documentation. Instead they rely on gossip. Pathetic, truly pathetic.”

    A very good point Judith. I have just finished reading Mike Whites latest book ‘Who killed Scott Guy’, I started off thinking it was probably Ewen McD at the time of the trial, but hadn’t looked at the evidence in any amount of detail. Now I think that it is pretty unlikely that EM was the killer. If you actually look at what EM would have had to have done in roughly 15 minutes if he was the killer that morning to get away and getting away with it undetected then the case just becomes laughable.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    And heres Aunt Fanny with her/it’s C & P toilet paper argument about the glasses, Yawn!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Lindsay Addie (1,593 comments) says:

    I want to see that Wendy Petrie fist pump in ultra-slow motion…..

    Re David Bain, I still think he’s guilty. The worst part of all this that it means another dose of Joe Karam in the media!!

    EWWW

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Judith (3,993) Says:
    October 7th, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    kaykaybee

    If Robin Bain was murdered then perhaps you can explain the position he died in, and why he stood on one foot

    How do you know he stood on one foot?? The only evidence of that so far has been a comedy act put on in the court room with a near impossible scenario, which also took another person to help hold the rifle in position to achieve the correct angle. Or has David finally …………?????????

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

    @ Muggins

    What a load of bullshit.
    The lens did not appear in that photograph, was found under objects according to Weirs eventual statement and the rest of it is a pack of lies and exaggerations.

    Where did the third lens found in David’s room come from?

    How did anyone manage to see though lenses that both the officer that found the right one, and the optometrist that saw the second one said they were dusty, too dusty to have been used recently.

    And where was the forensic matter that would have been on the glasses if handled by the murderer, and if they were in the open in Stephen’s room during his murder.

    You’re talking crap as usual, you have nothing to substantiate your claims. Go and get another cartoon drawn or phone someone that listens to your crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith
    When Dr Pryde saw those three bruises on David Bain’s head he estimated that they were between 7 and 13 hours old.
    He examined Bain at around 11.30am on the Monday morning.
    Can you explain how David managed to get those bruises on his head during that time .

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/9229763/Mark-Lundy-appeal-judgment-to-be-delivered

    In other news will/should Mark Lundy get a retrial?
    I personally am not convinced either way of his guilt or innocence. There are big question marks in the case though so it probably be put to a new jury to see if the case is ‘BRD’. We shall find out in 12 hours or so

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ corrigenda

    Gidday. I bet you’re looking forward to the 14th.

    As you well know the blood splatter on Robin’s trousers that was ignored at the initial trial and the blood splatter on Robin’s shoe show that he was upright, standing with one leg bent at right angles and that foot was closer to his head than the other one.

    He was standing on one foot alright. Sorry sunshine but the evidence proves that. Considering the length of time he would have had to stand like that, and the blood splatter on the curtains and surround area, it is presumed he was standing with his foot on the chair. But you know that, you just like to forget it for the sake of an argument.

    Further to that. The only reason help was required in court was because the person couldn’t see where the Crowns equipment was. But you know that too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Muggins

    Go play with someone else Muggins. I don’t correspond with proven liars.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You are telling porkies again.
    The lens is in a photograph that shows part of Stephen’s arm.
    When that optometrist saw that lens fron Stephen’s room it had no dust on it.
    And why does there have to be any forensic evidence on that frame or those lenses?
    They were Margaret Bain’s glasses, why wasn’t her DNA on them?
    If it’s forensic evidence you want, where is the forensic evidence on Robin Bain’s watch ? According to you he was wearing those bloody gloves but somehow he got no blood on his watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Corrigenda
    What bullshit!

    Do you really think that Judge Pankhurst would have allowed Karam to ‘assist’ Boyce in his suicide demonstration? and that the jury would buy it. Maybe the judge ‘instructed’ the jury that they ‘must’ buy it. Is this really some sort of conspiracy to you?

    The skull cap used in the demonstration was a CROWN EXHIBIT, to show the angle and trajectory not a defence one. It was never suggested that Robin required to wear headgear when he shot himself.
    Boyces demonstration was consistent with the evidence. Raftery & Bates et al had no answer to it. The only ‘explanation’ I have seen is the comedy clip from counterspin which is totally laughable. If you were to compare the two you could see what was more likely? and that hardly a question that needs answering!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “I bet the factual knowledge I have on the case would exceed yours on every aspect”

    Mine is better than yours. It is a fact that Robin Bain did not murder his family.

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

    Muggins

    You know perfectly well that when the optometrist saw the lens it had dust on it and Weir told him to ‘forget about the dust’. That person gave evidence at the second trial because he was so concerned about Weir’s behaviour.

    The crown argued the glasses were pushed from David’s face by the profusely bleeding Stephen Bain. Both Stephen’s hands were covered in blood. The gloves the murderer wore were covered in blood. There was blood on every piece of furniture and all over the room.

    If David Bain had retrieved those glasses and wiped them down to get rid of any forensic evidence, there would not have been any dust left on them. The fact the dust was noted on both lenses proves they were not in Stephen’s room at the time he was murdered. You’d be better served taking up masturbation for a hobby. It would be more satisfying and realistic than your current one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    I have to say that I perceive that Judith’s remarks are more strident today than is the norm for her. One possible deduction is that the news today of the analysis by the Police has genuinely set back the Bain cause somewhat.

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

    @ Chuck

    Prove it! You have knowledge, but from what I’ve seen it’s based on outdated evidence that was refuted by subsequent analysis and relies on the ramblings of a demented old man and his theories based on lies. Like the existence of a photo that shows the lens out in the open.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    The Judicial Review will not even be heard by then.

    Actually as I recall a comment from Nookin in August, it has not actually been determined as yet whether or not a Judicial Review will be heard at all…

    Collins is not denying Bain’s right to apply for judicial review, nor has the court indicated that it will review the decision — or even that it is reviewable. We have not yet arrived at the stage where the merits are argued.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/08/pora_goes_to_the_privy_council.html#comment-1191669

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

    @ bhudson

    Still personal attacks and no up to date factual evidence?

    I’ll consider that a win. Thank you.

    Amazing how and where people get their information. You are wrong.

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

    Oh well looks like Muggins has gone off to complain to DPF yet again.

    I’m off home.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Elaycee (4,409 comments) says:

    Answer those and then you have an argument…

    This ‘game changer’ is but one example where the David campaigners clutched at a straw only to find out now that the straw can’t stand up to scrutiny. And all the screeching, wailing and flapping by the usual members of the David cheer squad, won’t change it.

    A game changer? Bwahahahaaaaaaa…. That claim worked out well, didn’t it? 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “I’m off home.”

    Thumbs up for that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Judith

    It must be frsutrating for you to have all this knowledge more than the Crown it appears and no one knows who you are.- You can’t shout it from the roof tops as it were. I assume you would be able to get Dave his cheque no problems if you took your knowledge public.

    In fact I think you are being bloody selfess. The mans out there badly needing a dollar so Karam can take most of it and you wont’ help. Bitch.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Chuck

    Prove it!
    What unsubstantiated bs, you really show the true arrogance of a deluded counterspin witch-sniffer with comments like that.
    I have seen no evendential arguments from you on any of the bain threads on kiwiblog (with the exception of ‘the goat’ which somehow decides the whole case!!)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    And the crown ‘evidence’ that stands up to scrutiny is ?? No of ‘proven’ arguments at the 2009 retrial 0, the subtotal of the witchsniffers arguments 0.000000% All long since shown to be bullshit, the foundation of the case was about the strength of that of the CTV building here when given a shake!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (563 comments) says:

    Oh this just made my day. Game changer, indeed it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Oh dear,
    Judith doesn’t want to play with me because I have proved that she is a liar.
    I don’t know that I would want to play with Judith, I mean I don’t know where she has been.
    But never mind. I guess I can just go on posting the evidence, the only difference is she won’t reply.
    You see I still don’t believe David Bain got his brother’s blood on his clothes by way of innocent transfer.
    Justice Binnie believes that. He reckons there is no way David would have been delivering papers with Stephen’s blood on his clothes.
    But hang on, Justice B. First of all it was pretty dark at the time of the morning. And ,as Justice B himself said, Bain was wearing a sweatshirt. And it would be pretty hard to see blood on a pair of black shorts, specially in the dark.
    No,I don’t believe that blood on his clothes got there by innocent transfer or by David rubbing against door jambs.
    I mean why was David so evasive when Binnie asked him about those blue track pants that were in the wash?
    Why couldn’t he just say they were his? They were obviously too long to belong to anyone else in the family.
    The reason he wouldn’t admit to them being his is because that could mean he washed them because they had Stephen’s blood on them which would back up the Crown’s theory that the blood on his shorts soaked through from outer clothing.
    Which is exactly what I believe happened.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Still personal attacks

    Personal attacks? By all means, point to a single one I have made against you.

    As for your good self of course. From this thread alone:

    Great how people can make such negative comments but know fu*K all about the actual details.

    And,

    Amazing how many ignorant people make up their minds about a another person’s life/innocence or guilt, without bothering to access and learn from the original documentation. Instead they rely on gossip. Pathetic, truly pathetic.

    Then this:

    Go and get another cartoon drawn

    And this wee gem:

    You’d be better served taking up masturbation for a hobby. It would be more satisfying and realistic than your current one.

    Such ad homs in that lot. And thoroughly deserving of an observation of (perceived) stridency.

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

    Sorry Judith, just thought it was funny that’s all. Re the details of the case, I’m as ignorant of the facts as the last jury.

    @mikey, what sublime subtlety. Top marks. And, from Judith’s later apology to you, we can see that it worked an absolute treat.

    Without shame, I bow to such brilliance.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. flipper (4,205 comments) says:

    Well Judith and Rowan,

    It is no surprise that the creeps, some worse and demonstrably more stupid than others, keep regurgitating the same story.

    It goes without saying, that someone like PEB knows better than a jury, knows better than an internationally respected jurist, knows better than five (5) respected, and totally in dependent PC Law Lords, because he says he was once a copper wrongly “done” by the PCA, and that no one knows better (probably the world’s best verbaliser :) ) than him, how to “interview” persons of interest. PEB, and his like are examples to us all – an illuminated reason for a NZCCRC

    As always, PEB and his disciples lose focus, when it comes to Police incompetence or worse. They are the sort of folks, but I make no personal accusation against PEB, who protected the bastards who did Louise Nicholas.

    But put that aside as being a deserved slap in their faces, they can test their commitment to their views by lining up at the High ourt to support poor KP/CS/JFRB et al from Monday next. Their support of that sad but vindictive nutcase, would be more impressive if they started a bank trust account, with independent trustees, to collect monies for those silly, silly folk.

    There we go. October 14. Trot along to a bank PEB, et al….and put your money where…….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    “Which is exactly what I believe happened”

    Which makes it about 0.0000% convincing, where we are not sure then just fill in the gaps with what you ‘want’ to believe, the guesswork and extravagent theories being a substitute for evidence. ‘obviously to long’ and the measurements of the trousers + David and Robins legs is Mr Sleuth? again more unsubstainted bs, surprise surprise!

    Amazing the 2 reports made no definitive conclusions, therefore the police dismissed what the defence claimed, (while still not being able to explain the marks) and the howling at the moon mob are celebrating their ‘victory’

    I suppose when Kent gets what he deserves in his upcoming trial and faces a big damages bill. Longknives will still claim that this is him ‘winning the argument’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Gee whiz, Judith can’t make up her mind. I guess the reason she is corresponding with me again is because she knows in her heart that I am not a proven liar.
    This is an extract from one of the Court of Appeal hearings re the “supposed” dust on the lens in Stephen’s room.
    “D/S Weir has been interviewed and cannot recall making any comment to Mr Sanderson [re the dust on that lens].
    He is certain there was no significant dust on that lens when he found it.
    It is also pointed out that Mr Sanderson said that it was a possibility that dust may have been deposited on that lens during a struggle with the killer of Stephen Bain. His understanding was that the room was quite dusty and it is possible that any disturbance would have kicked up a significant amount of dust.”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Whenever the cops pontificate on matters evidential I ask myself, how did the “Charles cartridge” get into the Crewe’s garden.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. flipper (4,205 comments) says:

    bhudson (4,357) Says:
    October 7th, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    The Judicial Review will not even be heard by then.

    Actually as I recall a comment from Nookin in August, it has not actually been determined as yet whether or not a Judicial Review will be heard at all…

    Collins is not denying Bain’s right to apply for judicial review, nor has the court indicated that it will review the decision — or even that it is reviewable. We have not yet arrived at the stage where the merits are argued.
    *****

    You would help your case if your read the actual judgment delivered in the High Court.

    Collins has, by not contesting it ab inito, flagged her opportunity to contest whether the matter will be subject to JR. And the HC Justice, has noted that there is enough evidence already[provided to Reed/Joseph/Karam, acting for Bain, to proceed.

    Check out:

    https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Hey Flip I’ve got under your skin big time haven’t I? You have to keep your cool.

    Whose going to Court on the 14th? Silly question, lots of people are but whats with the school boy stuff and initials?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Longknives (4,873 comments) says:

    “It must be frsutrating for you to have all this knowledge more than the Crown it appears..”

    Brilliant! But I see Judith has scurried off quicker than Sonny Bill Williams avoiding a title fight….

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Collins has, by not contesting it ab inito, flagged her opportunity to contest whether the matter will be subject to JR.

    I disagree with your interpretation. The initial matters to be discussed since these proceedings were brought to Court this year are:

    – which location the matters should be heard
    – whether or not certain documents should be made available to the Bain team

    Neither of which bear any substance as to whether or not a JD is permissible, or will be heard. Nookin covered that very well in the thread I linked to.

    (BTW, your link is broken or incomplete. Unless you are claiming that it is the sum of all of the judgements available at the site that determine that permissibility of a JR is no longer contestable – which is, quite frankly, equivalent to the Daniel Denuto “it’s the vibe of the thing” argument.)

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

    Judith (4,005) Says:
    October 7th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
    @ corrigenda
    Gidday. I bet you’re looking forward to the 14th.

    Oh yes, I am really looking forward to that. It is good to see someone finally grow some balls and stand up to the bullyboy tactics that have been used for years now to shut down any opposition. Another spin-off from these bullyboy tactics is that they must have also been a welcome source of income.

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

    Welcome to Groundhog day ;) lol. If that was Judith I counted at least three ‘typos’ so either very ‘stressed’ or a ring in. Not that it matters as same song sheet, just off key. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. lilman (967 comments) says:

    what a laugh,same old Bain wankers here.

    Judith ,If only you were male so I could take you seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    When I first saw those photos I could see they were simple splits in dry skin. I have had that myself when I used to do manual work. Clearly not many Bain supporters are used to getting their hands dirty.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Clearly we have a number of fingerprint ‘experts’ whose speciality is being able to determine what a fingerprint isn’t. Its still a big ‘unexplained’. They look very much like powder residue but clearly we ‘know’ it couldn’t various fingerprints ‘are not’ it would be much more useful to be able to determine what the fingerprints actually ‘were’ which is clearly beyond the police expert in these reports and possibly be that
    Crown pathologist Dr Dempster has already rejected the fantasy theory of Burgess that they are ‘cuts’ or ‘abrasions’ as they were not present at the time of the post mortem and fingerprint expert Peter Burridge says that it is more likely the smudges in the prints released by Burgess were caused by condensation supporting Joe Karams argument

    http://www.3news.co.nz/No-cuts-on-Robin-Bains-thumb—pathologist/tabid/423/articleID/311264/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    it would be much more useful to be able to determine what the fingerprints actually ‘were’

    Why? It would be far more useful if David simply told the truth.

    I’ll remind you that David – when pleading poverty – said he was NZ’s answer to Pavarotti.

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

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

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

    It’s all me, me, me. No mention of his parents and siblings who were brutally murdered. I wonder why…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    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 brutal 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. Indeed, he hated his father, though David continues to lie about close the family were.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Then there’s the blood evidence.

    On page 36 of Justice Binnie’s interview with David is the following exchange:

    A. Yes. And so I washed my hands before I did the laundry.
    Q. Okay.
    A. As I said, printer’s ink is very, you know, it comes off and it, it smudges and it’s difficult to get, like, it just dirties everything. It’s horrible stuff. So, you touch clothing, it goes straight onto the clothing. It’ll actually stain white for instance.
    Q. Did you wash your se – your hands a second time after putting on the laundry?
    A. No, there was no need.

    David’s claim that he did not wash his hands a second time is not consistent with the evidence and with prior statements made by David. His palm print was found on the washing machine, allegedly in blood. Moreover, when interviewed by police soon after the murders he said “I didn’t have blood on my hands as I’d washed them.” At the time he allegedly washed the printer’s ink off his hands, he could not have had blood on his hands because, according to him, he had not handled any washing or discovered any bodies. The implication is that David did wash his hands a second time, after he found blood on them. This is consistent with blood being found in the porcelain basin near the washing machine. The Police Complaints Authority noted:

    “The presence of blood spots in the porcelain basin in the laundry were not consistent with David’s account of having washed his hands there to remove printers ink on his return from the paper run. If the blood had been put there by Robin after killing his family the later use of the basin by David would have either removed or diluted the blood [especially the spot at the lowest level].”

    It’s safe to conclude that David told Binnie various porkies. David the liar won’t be getting any compo.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Just maybe Ross, David actually is telling the truth, have you ever thought just once that you might be wrong? Maybe all the unanswered questions are actually for Robin and David doesn’t just have the answers you want.
    I find it very easy to look at both sides of the argument here. This is a circumstantial case with not a lot of strong evidence. If you actually scrutinize the case against David there is not a lot left, whereas there are a lot of ‘missing’ aspects of the crown case such as explaining how Robin died, or his hands and a lot of the blood on him if he was an ‘innocent victim’

    Thanks for your tactic of twisting what David actually said and giving us your ‘spin’ on it, it gets rather tiresome

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Ross 69

    You clearly don’t know the evidence very well, nor do you understand the statement you quoted from.
    David was required to state everything he had lost due to his wrongful conviction, including chances in life, career, family and possessions.

    It was an application from him, and about him. Of course it was all him – that was what it was all about.

    I notice you have only quoted part of the large document. Only the bits that look like it fits your story. How about you post the first part where he talks about his family – no that wouldn’t do would it. It was be honest and the truth, and that doesn’t fit your agenda.

    David’s singing teacher gave evidence at both trials saying his voice was strong and that he could have been the next famous singer. David was repeating what she had said. Again you fail to post the full story, and only the bit that suits your agenda.

    Familiarise yourself with the full evidence, you’re just making a fool of yourself.

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

    Kea, have you read the report?

    The report actually admits that they could be GSR from the magazine.
    Burgess’s spin on the report is that they couldn’t be, however it is not as cut and dried as Burgess has said.
    The report is not conclusive and when compared with the Rifle analysis the information is no more definitive than it was two weeks ago.

    But there is more that the police have ignored about the hand. Watch this space!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (563 comments) says:

    Two words Judith, Game Changer….Ha ha ! Watching old Joe on the box tonight was pure joy. I thought the old boy was going to burst a foo foo valve or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Judith
    How many times have we seen this from Ross? it seems to sum up the CS way of thinking, pick and choose what you want to believe, spin it around so it tells you what you already ‘know’ happened and anything that doesn’t fit the fantasy story ‘doesn’t exist’. Also repeating the same lie hundreds of times over ‘will’ eventually convince others that they are you actually are ‘right’ and they are ‘wrong’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    An interesting piece, but I suppose to the lynch mob its all ‘doctored’ maybe they might meet Robin again some day then they might find out the truth.

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

    Say Goodbye to Hollywood

    Have read the report?
    If you had you would know that the report is not conclusive, that Burgess had lied and a bit of information you probably don’t know, that the primary Crown Forensic expert is willing to do whatever it takes to show that Burgess not only lied, and had never talked to him, but that those marks were not on the thumb when the body of Robin Bain arrived at the morgue.

    This has been a game changer, the police are playing games and they are being matched all the way.

    I suggest you read the report and inform yourself. Burgess had provided his explanation of it, however, there is that clarifying statement that says very clearly that they can not rule out that those marks were GSR from the Mag. Burgess overlooked that part.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Say Goodbye to Hollywood (563 comments) says:

    I’ve read both report Judith, thanks.

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

    @ Rowan.

    They are all the same. Mindless plebs that lack the analytical skills to actually read and decipher the information themselves. They see a news report and believe everything they are told by the media.

    None of them have read the report. KP will be doing that tonight, going over it and seeing how he can find something to misinterpret. But he might not, the 14th is close. He’s probably spending time changing his underwear ten times a day.

    Good to know Dempster is prepared to speak out against the Police. That’s going to make Burgess look even more stupid.

    These people could have a signed confession from Robin and still blame someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Judith
    Its been the same with all our hard cases in NZ, it will be interesting to see what the PC decides to do with Lundy, I am undecided on it but think there should be a retrial.
    I’ve just finished the ‘Who killed Scott Guy’ by Mike White and it was a fascinating read, As you say its easy to be misinformed, I was at the time of the trial thinking that EM was probably guilty. Now I think its pretty unlikely when you look back at what he had to do in about 15 min that morning if he did it. Is possible but highly implausible and you have to ask yourself do the prosecution really believe it, although look at the likes of the Bain, Thomas and Pora scenarios they argued for puts it into perspective.

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

    The report actually admits that they could be GSR from the magazine.

    The report says it is unlikely to be GSR…and I love how the Bain cultists impugn anyone that has the temerity to say something they disagree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. duggledog (1,588 comments) says:

    David’s innocent. Just like Lundy is apparently

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    Have to be clear about this. Walsh says that the marks may have been GSR, in fact produced examples were GSR was replicated on the thumb of those handling the firearm and loading the magazine. He makes no mention of the distortion in the almost parallel of the magazine, he acknowledges that over several loadings of the firearm there would not necessarily be multiple lines showing on the thumb as occurring in some order. Walsh’s position is not definitive even though some here are making that claim, – apparently before they’d even read the report. This report wasn’t a trial but it left a clear message that Walsh’s findings didn’t preclude the marks being GSR, that is a critical issue. The ‘findings’ on the fingerprints are open to other conclusions, fore mostly, from the pathologist Dr Dempster, who unfortunately for the trumpet blowers, has already made public comment as to what his observations and recordings of the thumb were. Clearly Dempster does not support the conclusions regarding the fingerprints.

    Nice try. There is more to come on this, other ‘marks’ and ‘impressions’ consistent with Robin loading and firing a rifle which I note are not mentioned in this report for some reason. Regardless of that, and of this ‘report’ – a report by the police inquiring into themselves, the blood and cuts to Robin’s hands are not removed, nor his dna from inside the rifle, his fresh blood on his trousers in his van, his nose bleed, red material under his nails and so on, all presented in David being found not guilty. No one should expect that this ‘report,’ with its particular comments from Walsh, advances a single inch any claims that Robin didn’t first kill his family then himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9253570/Mark-Lundy-murder-convictions-quashed

    Interesting stuff, IMO the right decision as a lot wrong with the conviction and not BRD. Not convinced of his innocence yet, we shall see what happens but my prediction is a repeat of the Bain trainwreck.
    I would have quashed the convictions of Teina Pora and Watson (and not ordered a retrials) before this one hopefully justice will prevail and the truth will win at the end of the day.

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

    my prediction is a repeat of the Bain trainwreck.

    You mean Lundy will be acquitted and then claim compo? I very much doubt that Lundy would be so stupid as to claim compo. I can still see him in my mind’s eye being questioned by police. Upon being told that he murdered his wife and child, he stares blankly into space – no protest, no rebuttal, just a blank stare which says “I can’t argue with you”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Ross
    I don’t disagree that Lundy is a strong person of interest in the case, but there is not a BRD case against him and no strong evidence. Its very hard to say that the killer was Lundy and that noone else could have done it. On this basis its hard to see him getting reconvicted. Did he do it? possibly, certainly not on the crowns 7pm round trip to PN theory, although it seems very convienent that he was banging a prostitute in Wellington at the approximate time. Maybe he did it around midnight or had help, or it could have been someone with a grudge against him sent around to teach him a lesson. I doubt it was a random axe wielding burglar but possible.

    As to compo who knows, but he doesn’t neccessarily have the answers you are looking for, If the case against him is this weak then he should never have been convicted meaning he has been wrongfully imprisoned for 12.5 years and should be compensated. Though am probably getting ahead of myself. We shall see how it unfolds.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    Just had a quick look at the PC decision Rowan, it rips the guts out of Kristy McDonald’s position on her recommendation regarding Watson. A very logical and thoughtful observation regarding ‘fresh’ evidence, one which to this point, has flown right over the heads of the Ministry Of Justice and the Minister – deliberately I’d say. The pressure increases. I hope we see in the near future the rights of New Zealanders to benefit from the PC restored. We had a NZ Judge sitting on the Bundy appeal to the PC. What a pity Collins hasn’t exercised the RPOM in the proper way instead forcing Pora to go the PC and the damning indictment against our Justice system that will surely follow. I expect Watson will be next.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Nos
    I have just read over it to Nos, its good to see the PC can recognise their roles and that they are not the judge, jury and executioner like the NZ Court of Appeal, Kristy McDonald and Judith Collins. You are absolutely correct Kristy McDonalds report on Watson was laughable, and written to perscription in the same way as Robert Fishers academic essay on Binnie. It is a damning indictment on our Justice system. Lets hope Pora and Watson soon follow, and that the convictions are quashed without the order of a retrial which I believe is the decision being sought by Jonathon Krebs on behalf of Pora.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    I haven’t read it in full yet Rowan. I’m surprised that a retrial has been ordered rather than the convictions simply quashed. The Judgement is a significant blow against they way the RPOM has been used as the ‘whim’ of the King. The Justice system and executive powers are in deep dodos. All of this before considering that Walsh was unable to exclude the possibility of GSR being shown on the thumb of Robin Bain, let alone any wider consideration and linking of the additional forensic proof from the Crown’s own files of David’s innocence and the guilt of Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Nos
    The Lundy defence team was only seeking a retrial not an acquittal, same as for Bain back in 07. It would be interesting retrospectively to see what the results of these would be if a full acquittal was originally sought.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Kelly (29 comments) says:

    To be perfectly honest these people that carry on about the Police just not doing their job is just a farce. The Police went in with the initial intention of looking at a Murder\Suicide. If they did not do their job properly they would have just left it at that however evidence was too overwhelming for them to carry on down this track. They carried out an investigation that lead them to DB. No conspiracy theories just evidence that led them to disprove the murder\suicide and focus on a “mass” murder and anyone that thinks this isn’t a “mass” murder is truly deluded

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Unfortunately if lies are told often enough, some people believe them and they become established as “facts”. The stories that the police stuffed up is proof of this. Sure, there were mistakes made, but nothing major that would affect the outcome reached on the evidence available.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Kelvin Kubala (9 comments) says:

    Thank you Judith for taking the time to respond to the comments made regarding the case. It seems clear to me that most of the arguments used by the ‘prosecution’ have been nullified. Personally I think that the NZ Judicial system should show the defence the results of all ‘tests’ (expert opinions etc) performed regardless of the result. The number of trials where evidence that does not fit the prosecution’s story is not known by the defence and only comes out during a retrial concerns me.

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

    Personally I think that the NZ Judicial system should show the defence the results of all ‘tests’ (expert opinions etc) performed regardless of the result

    That’s an interesting idea, Kelvin, but surely it should apply to both sides? Joe Karam hired an Australian armourer to give his expert opinion on whether the killings were murder or murder-suicide. Apparently the armourer reckoned that Robin didn’t kill himself. Is there any reason Karam hasn’t provided the prosecution, or even the media, with this report?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Kelvin Kubala (9 comments) says:

    Ross
    Yes it should apply to both sides. Regarding the armourer report I suppose Karam is playing the same game as the prosecution regarding inconvenient results. It just that usually the defence does not have much additional evidence it has procured, especially on legal aid, thus the prosecution normally has an advantage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Ross

    Who the f… gives a toss about an overseas ‘expert’ opinion that Daddy didn’t suicide? What difference does it make? There were two idiots who were way out of their depth at the last trial who gave opinions that he ‘couldn’t’ have based on their misrepresentations of the firing distance trying to make Robins temple wound ‘distant’ or ‘intermediate’ when it was actually shown to be close contact by the crowns own expert and the disclosure of blood in the rifle barrel proved this. This was actually known already by the crown but they still produced the other two idiots to provide the total sum of the ‘daddy couldn’t have shot himself’ theory. Both Ferris and Thomson also agreed that using photos to determine the firing distance was fraught with danger but they still tried to convince Dr Dempster that their photo analysis determination was more reliable than him who had examined the body in person and he should change his mind.

    Funny that Dr Dempsters intial view and post mortem notes (that were not disclosed to the 1995 defence team) had one obvious conclusion, lets see if you have enough braincells to work it out!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    It is most unusual for a right-handed man to commit suicide by shooting himself in the left temple.
    It is would be even more unusual for a right-handed man to shoot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached. In fact it probably has never been done.
    And I reckon I would be on pretty safe ground in saying that no right -handed man has ever shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.
    And I would be on even safer ground in saying that np right-handed man has ever shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and then fallen down well away from that chair with his outstretched right hand almost touching an upright magazine without dislodging said magazine.

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

    Rowan,
    Take a look at this.
    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Fo1lh4PbedU/UlKrfLAgbcI/AAAAAAAABvA/4zzy7YazuT8/s0/boyce%2520suicide.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. muggins (3,810 comments) says:

    And then this.
    http://www.marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Interesting links there muggins. Dr Anna Sandiford who is Bain’s team forensic expert is actually a geologist (PhD in Geology). She’s no expert or have deep knowledge of kinematics at all, therefore her opinion about moving objects (bullet, rifle, position of Robin’s head on the floor, etc,…) is very unreliable.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Longknives (4,873 comments) says:

    It must irk the hell out of the handful of David Bain supporters left that Joe Karam has made such a fool out of himself and is the laughing stock of New Zealand today….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Why thank you for Marzukas links Muggins the guy is a fruitloop, and yes I have seen his comedy clip showing daddy’s ‘murder’ reconstruction, the entertainment value was very high but evidentially its value was negative.
    If you actually look at the research, then you may find the percentage of suicidal wounds where the shot is a close contact wound to the temple. Try doing a basic google search and see if you can come up with the answer.
    In addition to this you could also try to come up with another case in the entire world where another individual has been murdered in such a way, you also need to account for the upward trajectory of the shot and Robin in a standing position when he died. Robin had also removed his beanie in preperation for the end.
    Now wasn’t that considerate of him!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Rowan (2,525 comments) says:

    Interesting we have two reports released by the crown, neither had any definite conclusions about what the marks on Robins hands were or on his fingerprints. Its ‘more likely to be superficial cuts’ conclusion already rejected by the crowns own pathologist before the report was even released. Yet Malcolm Burgess is celebrating that ‘science is now on our side’, Micheal Bain is ‘vindicated’ and the Mason Clinic escapees like Muggins and Longknives et al are celebrating the ‘victory’
    Sorry but the report proved nothing and the marks are still unexplained, unless of course well they might just be umm… gunshot residue!

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

    The Roaring Silence is Deafening or is that the sound of common sense. Must be time for a duck analogy or the time honoured K.I.S.S.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    Hi Rowan,

    Mr fruitloop here.

    Thanks for pointing out the errors in my java sim which shows the physical impossibility of a .22 bullet relocating robin’s head to his final resting position :o)

    http://www.marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/javascript/bain%20sim%201.06/bain%20sim.htm

    Note: default setting is 50 times .22 bullet momentum and still no sausage in achieving defense’s desired displacement.
    Try some of the other settings or dial in your own.

    Of course nothing I say, display or code will likely sway you, but I’m sure you like me would love to see Melanie Reid do another Third degree piece with a similar superior physics simulation of the defense’s suicide scenarios, no?

    Would be most convincing for some of the doubters of David’s innocence, to see defense’s suicide scenarios validated by the unbiased laws of physics and unlike my cheesy html5 rendered wire frame and sprites – https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Fo1lh4PbedU/UlKrfLAgbcI/AAAAAAAABvA/4zzy7YazuT8/s0/boyce%2520suicide.jpg
    – some fancy graphics could really sell the story.

    Heck, we could both join sides for a mo, and petition Duncan Garner and the Third Degree team!

    Unfortunately though, I personally doubt Joe or David would desire such an unbiased treatment from the relatively indisputable laws of motion, given that from what i’ve alreay simulated, the defense’s suicide scenarios are profoundly wanting in terms of physical consistency with Robin’s final resting state…

    Of course you probably have the defense’s kinematic equations showing completely and utterly otherwise, which I can’t wait to see.

    So until then cheers in advance and Cheerio.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. wreck1080 (3,962 comments) says:

    Despite all the self proclaimed experts around here, there is simply not enough evidence to convict Bain as judged by 12 jurors who sat through weeks of evidence.

    The only person on this planet who 100% knows what happened is David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @wreck1080. No. Some jurors were biased and paid no attention to the proceedings. Some had unlawful material in the jury room. At least one went on TV saying he was not innocent. She tried to tell Binnie Dunce but he brushed her off. He had already made his mind up; he read Karam’s books.

    There is a mass of evidence, many many pieces in this jigsaw, and when fitted together we see a picture that looks far more like David then Robin.

    And no, again, I don’t think David Bain does know what happened. He says, “My core belief is I was not there.” He’s been programmed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    And no, again, I don’t think David Bain does know what happened. He says, “My core belief is I was not there.” He’s been programmed.

    Dennis, I agree with much of what you say but not the above. I think he knows exactly what happened but cannot bring himself to admit the awful truth. He gives the game away when he suggests he could have been NZ’s answer to Pavarotti, and when he says that 13 years is more than enough punishment for 5 murders. He’s a narcissist and a liar.

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

    Despite all the self proclaimed experts around here, there is simply not enough evidence to convict Bain…

    That is debatable. Another jury trial might well see him convicted (if one were possible). But that is beside the point because the issue is about David receiving compo. To do that he has to prove he’s innocent.

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

    And I reckon I would be on pretty safe ground in saying that no right -handed man has ever shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.

    You’re probably right, but then there’s the “fact” that Robin apparently placed the magazine on its side before killing himself. Why would Robin do that when he had no use for the magazine? Surely with David running faster than ever to get home from his paper run, Robin wouldn’t be so silly as to waste time placing a useless magazine on its edge, knowing full well he could knock it over when he fell, not to mention having David come home and see his father shoot himself. Yeah nah Robin would have thrown it away…David made a schoolboy error placing that magazine. Then again, he made lots of errors…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @ross69. It makes little difference whether Bain has blocked out the memory or not, his answers have been programmed. I watched him on TV when asked a simple question. His face went blank, his eyes kind of rolled up and there was a noticeable delay as he searched his memory for the “correct” answer. Other people noted this too.

    It seems obvious Robin’s death scene was posed. Most unlikely he would have placed the magazine under the low table. Even if he had, it’s almost impossible for his hand to have fallen next to it. And then, if the magazine was found on its edge … well … absolutely impossible. That’s assuming he could have somehow fallen where he did in the first place, which seems extraordinarily unlikely to me — he would have died instantly I believe. Nah, he was moved and the scene set to look like suicide. In a very amateurish way. Reminiscent of the suicide message on the computer: childish nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. ANTeater (3 comments) says:

    last few days it’s been, from team Bain, Dr Dempster this Dr Dempster that. Dr Dempster is probably well and truly over it by now…but there’s only one question anyone need ever ask Dr Dempster again, then maybe he could get his non-Bane life back, but I’m surprised nobody has asked it yet. It is :”Dr Dempster, who do you reckon killed the Bains. ?”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. ANTeater (3 comments) says:

    and as for the 14th, yes as a matter of fact I for one am looking forward to that, very much. hell yeh!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. marzuka (10 comments) says:

    Made a couple of animations from my bain physics simulator, comparing a defense suicide scenario, with a simple murder scenario(see youtube link 4 more detail), to assess which best fits the laws of physics:

    http://marzuka.x10.mx/trademe/David%20Bain%20versus%20the%20laws%20of%20physics/David%20Bain%20versus%20the%20laws%20of%20physics.htm

    Hmm, can’t say that defense’s suicide notions seem to like newtonian physics much….

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