Lundy gets a retrial

October 7th, 2013 at 10:31 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

’s murder convictions have been quashed and he has been granted leave for a retrial by the Privy Council in London.

Lundy was convicted of murdering his wife Christine and daughter Amber in August 2000, and was sentenced to a jail term of at least 20 years.

His case was taken to the Privy Council and a three-day appeal hearing was held in June.

In its decision – released tonight – the Privy Council unanimously decided that Lundy’s appeal should be allowed; that the convictions should be quashed; that Lundy should stand trial again on the charges of murder as soon as possible; and until then, and subject to any High Court decision on bail, Mr Lundy should remain in custody.

READ THE FULL PRIVY COUNCIL JUDGMENT HERE

I’ve decided that everyone ever charged with murder is innocent.

There’s obviously one very successful serial killer running around that has managed to kill the Swedish backpackers, the Lundys, the Bains, Ben & Olivia and oh year probably Mona Blades also.

They may also have popped over to the US and killed Nicole Simpson.  One can not rule out their involvement in the assassinations of JFK and MLK.

I just hope they never come after me, as if so they will obviously frame someone else for my murder.

669 Responses to “Lundy gets a retrial”

  1. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    jackinabox (59) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    Golly gosh you need to contact the Guinness book of records about your apparently successful experiment. Was it 10 shot plastic magazine landing up right on a carpet as you claim.?
    Now repeat by collapsing and ensuring your hand ends up only a centimeter or two from where you placed your upright magazine ,under a coffee table as per plate 22 David and Goliath.
    Report back with your findings please.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    jack
    As a matter of interest what has the fact that someone from Turkey tried to sign into your Google a/c got to do with anything?
    Or did you just post that so we could have a laugh at your expense?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    I reckon jack should let the police know that he managed to drop a magazine on the floor and it remained upright.
    I understand they spent hours trying to do that with no success.
    But then David Bain’s defence team said all that experimenting with that magazine was to no avail because Robin Bain could have placed it there. But what I can’t figure out is if was there before his body fell to the floor then how the heck did the downdraft from his hand not cause it to fall over. I mean it was only a milimetre or two from his outstretched hand.
    I reckon that Robin Bain’s body fell to the floor as per that reconstruction by mazurka and then David moved his body slightly and placed that magazine upright next to his hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Judith (4,102) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    First of all what forensic evidence is there that Robin in fact had his knee or foot on the chair in the lounge.? Recall Boyce was merely demonstrating some scenarios which mazurka has merely tried to replicate to expose their fallacy.Boyce also demonstrated one without the chair . All a postulated sequence of events.
    Death would be pretty instantaneous as the bullet entered the brain.
    The direction of splatter evidence of right foot on chair.?? Again the actual evidence that he actually put his right foot (knee. ?) on the chair.?
    No suggestion he fell forward. Just collapsed in a heap. Try it your self.
    Again it was not proven in Court at al. It was again a scenario – a theory using a number of possible positions and not exclusively with a bleeding foot on the chair .!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Back to Lundy.
    Once I heard the Privy Council verdict I thought there would be a retrial.
    And as I have already said I will be surprised if the retrial jury finds him guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    stephie,
    I understand the right foot on a chair theory is the one favoured by Karam because of those three pinhead spots of blood on Robin Bain’s right shoe which he believes is blood spatter from his head wound.
    But of course there is no proof that is blood spatter and no-one knows how long that blood had been on Robin Bain’s shoe.
    But if Robin Bain had committed suicide with one foot on that chair he would have collapsed as per mazurka’s reconstruction.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Especially if he like David doesn’t testify .!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    stephieboy who sounds a lot like a poster from Dunedin. Boyce was asked about Robin’s collapse, that was after some idiots, Ralph Taylor being one claimed that he would have fallen forward. As for the crap from marzuka what was his explanation for Robin squatting – practicing for taking a dump? Recycled heroes these days,

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    According to the retrial transcript one expert,might have been Boyce, said Robin Bain would have more or less collapsed from that head shot.
    I reckon mazurka has got that reconstruction pretty much spot on.
    One thing for sure Robin Bain’s body would not have fallen where it was found if he shot himself in the left temple while standing with one foot on that chair.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    I can remember one David Bain supporter swearing black and blue that the blood on Robin Bain’s shoe came from a member of his family. Then someone had a word in his ear and he admitted that he had got that wrong.
    That was the same supporter who said the blood in the barrel had been DNA tested. It wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    muggins (2,720) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    My understanding is that Dr Manlove could not be certain that the three alleged blood spots on Robin’s boat shoe was in fact blood at all . This especially given the fact that examined them some 12 years later .Hentscell shortly after the murders examined both Robin’s socks and shoes and found no blood on them.
    Interestingly they don’t rate a mention in Trial by Ambush if my memory is correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4,043) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Is it part of your practice to disclose posters identities on this blog.??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    stephie
    There was a pattern of pinprick size spots that looked like blood spatter on the upper side of the instep of Robin Bain’s right shoe, but tests of those spots could not prove they were blood spots. However the three spots almost in the centre of the same shoe were proved to have come from Robin Bain.
    The socks Robin Bain was wearing had no blood on them but of course the defence say he changed his socks to meet his maker.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    Judith et al..

    I recorded, and watched twice, Collins bullshit exercise this morning. It was the same old, same old.
    If the Sunday herald is seeing things correctly, then the taxpayer is in for a huge bill…all for nothing.
    But I don’t think Collins wanted to indicate (although the former tax lawyer may yet prove to be that stupid) that she is making the decision – or that a decision has been made, or ordered by her, The permutations are too horrific to be acceptable to even the ex porno judge.
    The reality is that the Crown has no sellable case, even for committal.

    FES or someone similarly qualified would be best able to assess, but in m y view, and in the view of others with whom I have been in conversation over the past few days, the Crown has ZIP….., Apart from charges ti be brought against Grantham and others…
    ****
    As for Collins crap on a NZCCRC….just half truths, lies, distortions and bullshit.
    Dann did his best against a serial liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    flip,
    Presuming I am one of the et al.
    I reckon it was a no-brainer that there would be a retrial.
    And you never know, the jury might just decide that Lundy is guilty, though I am not expecting they will, even though he most probably is.

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

    @ muggins 2.17 p.m.

    So exactly where did the body land. What were the measurements from the Coffee Table, the Chair etc? I’ve asked you for them before and you’ve always changed the subject.

    Surely you wouldn’t make an assessment that differed from the forensic experts without knowing those, it would be impossible to go from photos taken at different aspects. Even Dempster agreed that the position the body was found in was consistent with the Defence’s scenario. Yet you, disagree, so let’s hear those measurements!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ stephieboy 2.03 pm

    But David did testify and then his entire evidence was also read at the second trial, including the cross examination. There was no reason for him to take the stand, he’d already given his position. His answers to police questions during the investigation were also read to the jury at the second trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    flipper (2,568) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 2:56 pm
    Judith et al..

    Whose the serial liar exactly.???

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Mazurka’s reconstructions show you where Robin Bain’s body would have landed. He is the expert. He has all the measurements.
    What the Crown should have done is had soneone like mazurka as an expert .
    As for Dempster ,well he agreed with whoever was asking him a question. How would he know how Robin Bain’s body would have landed? He wouldn’t have had anything to go by.
    And talking about changing the subject, you still havn’t told me when you spoke to Barbara Short.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Judith (4,104) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    Sorry Judith but the spoken word beats the written word any day.
    The Defence fully appreciated that as they were aware that the Jury in the 1995 did not believe his testimony .
    He wasn’t credible.
    There were a great many things as demonstrated n the Binnie interviews that he failed to explain and contradicted to himself on that the Jury in the retrial needed to here to get a more complete picture.
    And at least one Jury member in the retrial did not believe he was innocent. So there.!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,104) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    But David did testify and then his entire evidence was also read at the second trial, including the cross examination. There was no reason for him to take the stand, he’d already given his position. His answers to police questions during the investigation were also read to the jury at the second trial.

    Judith, that is correct. Those lies that he told about the glasses were all repeated at the retrial.

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

    @ stephieboy (27) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    “I understand …blah blah blah” – Stephieboy

    Without the original measurements it is impossible for Marzuka to replicate anything, let alone prove it as a fallacy.

    The blood splatter pattern on Robin’s trousers show his knee was bent at right angles, thus putting his foot further forward than the rest of his leg. That cannot be disputed, unless you want to say he was doing some ballet exercises and pointing his toe in a very unnatural position for a man.

    I suppose you are going to maintain he was doing Tai Chi or something and that is why he was stood on one leg, and held that position whilst someone aimed a rifle at him?

    The other evidence that supports the leg on the chair theory is the splatter on the curtain. For Robin to have been standing on one leg that close to the curtain, would have been impossible with the chair where it was. Then there was evidence from the chair itself and the floor.

    Marzuka is a fake and a fraud. He should acknowledge his ‘scribbles’ are a guess and that he doesn’t have the skill or the original information necessary to make such a conclusion – but then honesty never stopped a JFRB supporter.

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

    @ stephieboy

    The first jury was lied to by Weir, presented with information such as blood on David quilt being Stephen’s, when it wasn’t plus a whole heap of other stuff.

    I accept that it is difficult for JFRB members to be able to identify the truth, when they are surrounded with lies and liars, but anyone that promotes that first trial as a competent and efficient trial, stating the jury was told the truth and received the correct information, has to be stark raving mad.

    Even Muggin’s beloved glasses were problematic – the Jury was told they were David’s. Dr Dempster told the Court that Laniet’s body couldn’t have been gurgling, then later after further investigation found out it could have been. He also objected to the way it was indicated at the first trial that Robin’s bladder was full, when in fact he had never measured the capacity, and so on.

    Poor you – none of your arguments are weighing up with the facts, are they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    stephieboy (29) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 3:27 pm
    Judith (4,104) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    Sorry Judith but the spoken word beats the written word any day.
    The Defence fully appreciated that as they were aware that the Jury in the 1995 did not believe his testimony .
    He wasn’t credible.
    There were a great many things as demonstrated n the Binnie interviews that he failed to explain and contradicted to himself on that the Jury in the retrial needed to here to get a more complete picture.

    Yes, stephie, having his testimony at the retrial read out by someone is a lot different from him having to stand up and be cross-examined.
    Imagine if he had been asked to comment on his aunt’s testimony re those glasses. Would the jury have believed him if he said, as he did to Binnie, I can’t remember saying that or I don’t think I would have said that.
    He would have been asked how he got those bruises on his chest. Would the jury have believed him if he said he didn’t know?
    And so on and so on.

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

    muggins (2,725) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Marzuka does NOT have the measurements. I have asked him and he admitted he did not. None of you have ever been able to produce them, plus there were a number of posts on JFRB asking if anyone had them, and no one had ever seen them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Muggins

    First you would have had to proved those ‘bruises’ were on his chest, and so far you’ve never been able to do that. There was no one that saw them until the Wednesday afternoon, and the prison guard that says the saw them on the Friday night, said he had seem marks like that before and they were 2-3 days old. Again making them the Wednesday.

    As usual, grabbing at straws, but I guess it beats grabbing yourself for a change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Re glasses.
    When the judge at the first trial was asked a question by the jury re the ownership of those glasses he referred them to David’s evidence where he made it quite clear those glasses were his mother’s glasses that he had worn before when his were unavailable.

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

    @ stephieboy (29) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 3:27 pm

    Bullshit.

    This is the jurors letter. Where does it say they do not believe he is innocent? What they said was that they were asked to find him guilty or not guilty BRD. They were not asked to find Robin Bain guilty either.

    Get your facts straight – so there !!!

    ______________________________

    As a member of David Bain’s retrial jury, I am angered by the misnterpretation of our not-guilty verdict by the public, and particularly by the media.

    In the article in The New Zealand Herald, shortly after the retrial verdict last June, Paul Holmes wrote: “David Bain is innocent. Robin Brain came in from the caravan that cold Monday morning and killed four sleeping members of his family, then himself.”

    The type of conclusion has been repeated many times in the year since the trial finished.

    Even in Friday’s Press article about an upcoming play about the murder case, Katie Chapman states that Bain’s “defence successfully argued that Robin was the killer”.

    I take except to this flawed characterisation of the David Bain’s not guilty verdict.

    As a jury, we did not necessarily find David innocent or Robin guilty. Our task was to determine if David Bain’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt- a very high threshold.

    Anyone who reads from our verdict that Robin Bain is guilty is just plain wrong. Robin Bain was not on trial – David was.

    NAME WITHHELD.

    Sunday Star Times

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,108) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
    muggins (2,725) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Marzuka does NOT have the measurements. I have asked him and he admitted he did not. None of you have ever been able to produce them, plus there were a number of posts on JFRB asking if anyone had them, and no one had ever seen them.

    But have you asked him, Judith? You still havn’t told me when you spoke to Barbara Short.

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

    @ muggins (2,727) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Yes, but prior to that the Crown had insisted they were David’s. David saying they were his mothers, may not have been believed when the Crown was so adamant they were not. The jury was left to believe either David (with all the other wrong evidence that the Crown had presented) or the Crown. With that sort of confusion, of course they were going to believe the Crown.

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

    @ Muggins

    You show me where I said I had spoken to Barbara Short – I never said anything of the sort – more lies from you.

    I quoted her. Doesn’t mean I spoke to her.

    And yes I have asked him and so have others, plus the issue was raised on JFRB and it was admitted not even he had them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,109) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    @ Muggins

    First you would have had to proved those ‘bruises’ were on his chest, and so far you’ve never been able to do that. There was no one that saw them until the Wednesday afternoon, and the prison guard that says the saw them on the Friday night, said he had seem marks like that before and they were 2-3 days old. Again making them the Wednesday.

    Judith , when David Bain showed those marks to that young woman he did not say they weren’t there on the Wednesday morning. He inferred he may have got them during that “missing” twenty minutes on the Monday morning.
    That prison guard was only making an estimation as to how old they were. However, I will agree to accept his estimation just so long as you agree to accept Dr Pryde’s estimation that those bruises on David Bain’s head were between 7-13 hours old when he examined him at around 11.30am on the Monday morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,111) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    @ Muggins

    You show me where I said I had spoken to Barbara Short – I never said anything of the sort – more lies from you.

    I quoted her. Doesn’t mean I spoke to her.

    And yes I have asked him and so have others, plus the issue was raised on JFRB and it was admitted not even he had them.

    Judith
    Where did Barbara Short say what you said she said?
    Also ,no-one on JFRB has ever said they have spoken to mazurka.
    But I do know someone who knows how to get hold of him. When was it you spoke to him?

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

    @ Muggins

    He said he didn’t know how he got them, and that it could have been anytime, even during that morning, he just didn’t know, but he never said when he first noted them.

    They were not seen by any other person. There is no evidence to support your lies and plenty to refute them. As you well know when you aren’t misrepresenting police statements. Statements I might add have been clarified and go strongly against you.

    And that is rubbish. Marzuka’s work was discussed on JFRB and on DBFF and on Guilty and as you know copies of those conversations were recorded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    the Crown has ZIP

    Really? You’re talking about evidence which produced a guilty verdict at the first trial – jurors didn’t think it was zip. If the prosecution can replicate the brain tissue evidence, I’d say Lundy won’t be doing cartwheels anytime soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,111) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    @ muggins (2,727) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    Yes, but prior to that the Crown had insisted they were David’s. David saying they were his mothers, may not have been believed when the Crown was so adamant they were not. The jury was left to believe either David (with all the other wrong evidence that the Crown had presented) or the Crown. With that sort of confusion, of course they were going to believe the Crown.

    Judith,
    The Crown were not adamant those glasses were David’s.
    Anyway, it doesn’t matter, because he lied about not wearing them.
    The jury at the first trial might not have been sure if he was lying or not but the jury at the retrial would have known he was lying about them, had he been cross-examined about them.

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

    @ Muggins

    I don’t need to make any agreements with you? Who do you think you are? What you think doesn’t matter in the slightest. You can believe whatever you want – it’s my job to make sure those who you contact get to see just how dishonest and deranged your statements are and what you dishonestly do with the information you are given. What you personally think doesn’t worry me in the slightest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. jackinabox (781 comments) says:

    “I can’t really comment on individual cases, particularly a matter which is now before the courts again, so it’s difficult to do that,” she told TVNZ political editor Corin Dann.”

    She’d just finished commenting on an individual case and currently the Lundy matter is not before the courts.

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

    @ Muggins

    And the jury would have been made perfectly clear, as they were, that those glasses could not be tied to the murder of Stephen and could not be placed on David’s face that morning, and that they were of no use to him for the type of viewing he would have needed, and that if he had needed them then how would he have completed the rest without them, and that no one had seen him wearing them, and that both lenses were too dusty to be of any use anyway, and that margaret had more than two pairs of the glasses in that house and there was no blood or other material on any part of the glasses and so on.

    Who wore them and when means nothing unless it was proven they were worn that morning, and that they needed to be used, which they weren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,112) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 4:02 pm
    @ Muggins

    He said he didn’t know how he got them, and that it could have been anytime, even during that morning, he just didn’t know, but he never said when he first noted them.

    They were not seen by any other person. There is no evidence to support your lies and plenty to refute them. As you well know when you aren’t misrepresenting police statements. Statements I might add have been clarified and go strongly against you.

    And that is rubbish. Marzuka’s work was discussed on JFRB and on DBFF and on Guilty and as you know copies of those conversations were recorded.

    Judith,
    David Bain inferred he may have got those bruises during that missing twenty minutes on the Monday morning.
    Surely if he got them on the Wednesday he would have remembered how he got them when he showed them to that young woman.
    Please advise where I have misrepresented police statements.
    I am well aware that mazurka’s work has been discussed but no-one has actually spoken to him .
    Please let me know when you spoke to him.

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

    @ muggins

    I spoke to him when he posted on TM, as did members of JFRB at the same time. Again, what you think doesn’t worry me in the slightest, I’ve already shown you many times and so have other people, where you lied about what you had been told by the police. I am not going to discuss that with you further, because it doesn’t matter. Ms Collins knows you lied, the Police know you lied and misrepresented what you were told – that is all I am concerned with. So keep raving until you’re blue in the face, your bullying and demanding tactics don’t worry me – I’ve dealt with many similar two year olds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    Lundy’s choice of words, like David Bain’s, betray him.

    http://www.verify.co.nz/case-marklundy.php

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

    @ jackinthebox

    Exactly. She’s more than happy to breach the rules of decency when it suits her, she only uses the excuse she can’t discuss when she knows she’s in a pooh or likely to be in the pooh over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Manolo (20,002 comments) says:

    Judith, are you a Lundyite as much as you are a Bainite?
    Have you thought of redirecting your energies somewhere else?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,114) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 4:11 pm
    @ Muggins

    And the jury would have been made perfectly clear, as they were, that those glasses could not be tied to the murder of Stephen and could not be placed on David’s face that morning, and that they were of no use to him for the type of viewing he would have needed, and that if he had needed them then how would he have completed the rest without them, and that no one had seen him wearing them, and that both lenses were too dusty to be of any use anyway, and that margaret had more than two pairs of the glasses in that house and there was no blood or other material on any part of the glasses and so on.

    Who wore them and when means nothing unless it was proven they were worn that morning, and that they needed to be used, which they weren’t.

    Judith, at the first trial an optometrist testified that David Bain would have had difficulty in seeing clearly in poor light and that is why he needed those glasses that morning.
    As I have told you at least twice in the past day or so Dr Sanderson said that the lenses of those glasses could have got dusty if Stephen struggled with his killer and dust rose from the floor during that struggle. He said he understood the room was very dusty, which it was.
    From what his aunt and his lawyer at the first trial have said at least five people would have seen him wearing those glasses that weekend but they couldn’t testify to that because they were all shot dead before they could.
    Even Justice Binnie believes David Bain may well have been wearing those glasses that weekend.

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

    @ Manolo

    No, I don’t know a lot about the Lundy case. I’m keeping an open mind on that one. My only comment is that it shouldn’t have taken a privy council decision to over turn that shonky evidence. NZ needs a Criminal Cases Review Committee..

    I have plenty of other interests Manolo. Many in fact. The cases of which I have taken a lot of interest in are the Crewe murders, Bain, Peter Ellis and the death of Kirsty Bentley. There are a couple of other cases in which I believe the guilty person went free, but because they did so, I cannot mention their name on here.

    My major concern is the process of justice that must be correct for all – not just 90% or even 99%.

    So what are your interests Manolo? Don’t have you have anything you are passionate about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,116) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 4:16 pm
    @ muggins

    I spoke to him when he posted on TM, as did members of JFRB at the same time. Again, what you think doesn’t worry me in the slightest, I’ve already shown you many times and so have other people, where you lied about what you had been told by the police. I am not going to discuss that with you further, because it doesn’t matter. Ms Collins knows you lied, the Police know you lied and misrepresented what you were told – that is all I am concerned with. So keep raving until you’re blue in the face, your bullying and demanding tactics don’t worry me – I’ve dealt with many similar two year olds.

    Judith. I know when you are lying because that is when you refuse to answer my questions.
    You have never spoken to mazurka. Barbara Short never said what you said she said.
    Ms Collins is well aware I have not lied to her. Anyway, what am I supposed to have lied to her about, may I ask?
    You still havn’t told me where I misrepresented what the police said.

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

    @ Muggins

    Pathetic.

    As you well know Sanderson never saw the right lens nor the dust on it, and never commented on it. In fact, until recently you didn’t know dust had been found on that lens either.

    Now if you don’t mind, I intend to ignore you, because I am sick to death of having to refute your lies. You simply repeat the same statements over and over to get attention. IT’s not our fault your family doesn’t pay you any attention and won’t listen to you – I don’t see why I should have to entertain you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    Well it’s official the biggest bull shitter on the internet’s evidence was declared ‘irrelevant’ in the Auckland High Court and won’t be needed. Probably the same person who was going to finance the case, big mouth and no brains.

    Flipper I saw some of Collins comments, taking credit for the Lundy decision by saying it proved the system was working. No comment apparently on the failure of COA or that it was only the result of a benefactor and lawyers willing to provide their time free that Lundy got to the PC. It was similarly the situation with Bain and no doubt with Pora, all only achieved by New Zealanders disturbed about what they perceive to be MOJs and which on the recent events is shown that they were right.

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

    @ Muggins

    I didn’t say you had lied to Ms Collins, I said she was aware you had lied.

    I spoke to marzuka many times on trademe. Again you lie by stating I didn’t – when you have no way of knowing what conversations I had on there because you don’t know who I was. Goes to show how you organise your arguments – dishonestly with information you don’t know.

    You also don’t know who Barbara Short has spoken to about the Bain’s since the trial. Did it not occur to you that as a friend of the family she might have made contact? Really annoys you when you’re not in on the loop and don’t know what has gone on or is going on, doesn’t it? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    Don’t worry about her Judith, her evidence was rejected by a High Court Judge as irrelevant as was a volume of other material parroted by the idiot here which no one takes any notice of. So your position coincides with a ruling by the Court – and more to come on that. Been a bad week for them, but they can take solace out of a cartoon by majerker.

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

    @ Nostalgia NZ

    Exactly – I don’t think Collins realises that the Lundy decision actually proves her assertion that the COA works fine, is incorrect. The fact that anyone convicted /wrongfully convicted in the last few years will not have the option, is extremely worrying.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Re bruises.
    You might like to read this link.

    http://www.ask.com/question/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-bruise-to-show-up

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,120) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    @ Muggins

    I didn’t say you had lied to Ms Collins, I said she was aware you had lied.

    I spoke to marzuka many times on trademe. Again you lie by stating I didn’t – when you have no way of knowing what conversations I had on there because you don’t know who I was. Goes to show how you organise your arguments – dishonestly with information you don’t know.

    You also don’t know who Barbara Short has spoken to about the Bain’s since the trial. Did it not occur to you that as a friend of the family she might have made contact? Really annoys you when you’re not in on the loop and don’t know what has gone on or is going on, doesn’t it?

    Judith,
    You can’t speak to a person on Trade Me. Also mazurka did not come up with those particular reconstructions until fairly recently.
    Judith Collins is well aware you are a liar. What is it I lied about that she is aware of?
    You seem to have forgotten that I have spoken to Barbara Short. She told me she is sure that David Bain committed the murders but that he was “under possession ” at the time and may not even be aware of what he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    Yes Judith. Of course Collins also overlooks the searching rebuke of the COA’s view of ‘fresh’ evidence by making it plain that any evidence which shows that a conviction may be unsafe should be acted upon – rather than the bizarre view by Tipping of what a defendant must do at trial in order to ensure the ‘safety’ of a conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. jackinabox (781 comments) says:

    I just watched Q&I, imagine applying for mercy with that smug but clearly worried shite talker JC in “the executive.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith (4,120) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    @ Muggins

    Pathetic.

    As you well know Sanderson never saw the right lens nor the dust on it, and never commented on it. In fact, until recently you didn’t know dust had been found on that lens either.

    Judith, please try to stop lying.
    I am well aware that Sanderson and Weir have had a dispute as to whether the lens in Stephen’s room had dust on it.
    I have know that since 2010 .
    But on 18 February 1999 an official met with Dr Sanderson and during that interview he said that there was a possibility that dust may have been deposited on that lens during a struggle between the killer and Stephen Bain. He said his understanding was that the room was quite dusty and that it was possible that any disturbance could have kicked up a significant amount of dust.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4,046) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    Don’t worry about her Judith, her evidence was rejected by a High Court Judge as irrelevant as was a volume of other material parroted by the idiot here which no one takes any notice of. So your position coincides with a ruling by the Court – and more to come on that. Been a bad week for them, but they can take solace out of a cartoon by majerker.

    So, the High Court doesn’t want to hear how someone lying about glasses is the reason that Karam was defamed?
    That’s it then, the defence case will be sunk without muggins and his expert knowledge on the case.

    In truth, KP and VP are breathing sighs of relief that muggins is not able to show them up any more than he already has.
    Not enough to get them out of the shit, but it won’t be quite so deep without him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Thankyou for those kind words Kanz, and btw, I am still waiting for your message.

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

    muggins (2,738) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    Thankyou for those kind words Kanz, and btw, I am still waiting for your message.

    You will be waiting an awful long time then, you don’t tell me what to do.

    I guess it is up to me when and where then.
    See ya.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Kanz
    I knew you would be too frightened to send me your details.
    You sound just like that Tom Thumb bloke.
    I believe I might just know who you are, aye.
    Keep an eye out for my car.

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

    LMFAO
    You couldn’t come up here for the trial of the century, but will drive all the way up to see me?
    I look forward to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    Face it Kanz, The Minister rejected ‘advice’ from the nutter, a High Court Judge threw his burbling into a rubbish bin so why even engage with the fool. Just today Trade Me rejected the other nut majerkers ‘mock up’ as defamatory so he may soon be getting sued as well. I note none of the motor mouths are picking Kent to win as they were earlier, they’re all deserting like rats from a sinking ship. Come to think of it what have they won? A lost Mayoral race yesterday, think that is 3 or 4 in a row, and Gavin James kicked off NZ’s Got Talent as soon as he opened his yap.

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

    Now, as far as the Mayoral race went, she almost got 3 times as many as that invalid person.
    When was James on NZGT? I must have missed it, what didn’t he do?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. goldnkiwi (2,345 comments) says:

    lol 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    In the last week or two. Going along pretty well on guitar playing Johnny Be Good from memory then a shower of red lights as soon as he started to sing, I think he had a wild cat tethered to his jock strap to fill the gap and things went down hill from there. But credit to him for giving it a go and he admitted in the pre-amble that his singing wasn’t too good. Aunt Fanny’s entry was rejected along the lines that while farting is a natural function, there are no prizes for being the biggest bull crap artist and farter on the internet. Of course public safety and health issues needed to be considered as well as the budget blowout for needing to supply the audience with gas masks.

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

    Aunt Fanny’s entry was rejected along the lines that while farting is a natural function,

    I thought he was gonna do a little recitation of ‘the bitter Aunt and disgraced lawyer and lost glasses’ , with the strip search of the goat thrown in for good measure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    Well he/she did volunteer to be strip searched but no one the stomach for such obscenities.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    muggins (2,739) Says:

    [Link removed by DPF as the linked site uses the term murder]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    muggins…
    Humour me.
    Tell me, and everyone else:

    1. What you think you have achieved,
    and
    2. what you think you will achieve,
    and
    3. exactly, well even approximately, how you will achieve that,
    and
    4. explain why you will not be in Auckland supporting all the other KP/CC/JFRB nutters.

    Can you do that?????

    If you cannot do that – SHUT THE FUCK UP AMD STOP WASTING THE LITTLE GREY MATTER THAT PASSES FOR YOUR BRAIN.

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

    @ Flipper

    Morning Flipper,

    I see the idiot Muggins is still raving on about his perceived Marzuka’s expertise. Marzuka, the fraud, did his re-constructions without knowing any of the dimensions, measurements, or the a full set of the original photos. In short all he had was his imagination and a computer. He is a try hard like the rest of the JFRB group, which is why Muggins loves him so much, they have a lot in common. His current round of representations are the Counterspin answer to Giles. They seem to have forgotten that Giles was provided with all the information and original photos. You just got to laugh at how pathetic they are.

    SO today’s the day. What’s the bet KP does a press release when he realises he cannot re-run the Bain trial in the defamation case, saying his freedom of speech has been taken from him! Can’t wait to see Muggins excuses for it – of course it will be because he didn’t get to tell the judge about the glasses and the goat. (Perhaps they didn’t want him in court because of how ‘excited’ he gets when talking about the goat ewwww).

    I’ve give a go at answering your questions on Muggins behalf.

    1. What you think you have achieved? – He’s managed to effect the profile of JFRB – since he’s been spouting off membership has significantly decreased. He’s managed to insult key Crown experts and witnesses and piss the Police off by lying about what they have stated.

    2. What do you think you will achieve? IF he was allowed in Court, he would be able to tell the judge about his lifestyle block, and how he sold it and had nothing to do so picked up on the Bain case, then he could tell the judge how David Bain supposedly lied about the glasses, and that means he is a murderer, and that made it okay to make up lies about Joe Karam and spread them around in hopes to make people think less of him.

    3. How will he achieve it? – Superglue – the only way of stopping the judge falling off his seat with laughter.

    4. Why he won’t be in Auckland? – BECAUSE most JFRB members didn’t want him there and the judge didn’t want to hear from him. He tried really hard to bully them into including him, but it didn’t work. In short, apart from the voices in his own head, no one else but the extremely stupid, believe a thing he says. Even many of the JFRB members are ‘over him’.

    He can’t ‘STFU’. JFRB is his life.

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

    goldnkiwi (509) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 9:47 pm
    lol 😉

    Yeah, that’s exactly what I did when I saw your results in the local body elections. What’s the matter, did you run out of toothpaste squeezers to bribe people with? 145 votes to 2265 – what a hoot, goes to show there just ain’t that many stupid people in your town after all. LOL LOL LOL .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Flipp, me old mate.
    The reason I bought a second-hand computer and joined JFRB was because I knew once the jury had found David Bain not guilty he would be asking for compensation. That was a no brainer.
    So from that day I have been doing my best to make sure that he did not receive any compensation.
    I thought it would be all over when Binnie was given the job of looking at his claim but unfortuanately Binnie was not up to it.
    I daresay Judith Collins doesn’t require my input, she has proved that she was well aware that Binnie’s report was flawed but I take the view that it is better to say something, rather than remain silent.
    Once the compensation claim is finally turned down, and who knows when that will be, then I will take my leave of the Bain murders.
    I had thought about going to Auckland but I don’t really care to travel now at my age. Were I a few years younger I definitely would have gone to the trial.
    As for posting on here re Bain, well ,the way I see it someone has to counter Judith’s lies. If it wasn’t for her I would not be anywhere near so prolific .
    Now, if Judith does not mention Bain again on this blog, and if other posters stop replying to me ,then I won’t post again on this blog.
    The only reason I have posted today is because
    [1] A certain person lied about mazuka’s post on Trade Me being removed and
    [2] You asked me some questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    Yawn…

    ‘note my post #154 – the one with the physics sim animations link, thanks for all the clicks! – was removed because apparently some percieve “potentially defamatory or offensive” content according to trademe email.’

    The arsewipe trying to get Farrar sued now.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    Judith and NOS…
    I see, according to Newstalk ZB the two idiots are preparing for their retreat by saying they are going to have difficulty against a crack legal team.

    Oh dear….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    flipper (2,575) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Nah, no retreat, they have been spouting for years now about the walkover they are engaging in, how much smarter they are than Karam.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    Kanz..
    Yep…you are right.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    @flipper

    Will we see their sites taken down, and replaced by a full page apology?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    I don’t know if you’ve read any of the earlier applications for ‘strike outs’ and so on flipper. The Court has been very patient even when there has been a fine line between due process and farce – to now see ‘experts’ lamenting their position against ‘crack’ Legal teams belies the fact they’ve rejected sound advice to attempt to settle. They didn’t like or want to heed the advice they sought, no doubt thinking they knew better and now they wait their turn to roost in the Auckland High Court abandoned by those that bragged out financing them before ‘changing’ their minds or simply disappearing. Who knows, a life-style block might have settled it – but common sense and a fulsome apology would have done it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RRM (11,778 comments) says:

    I’m confused… all this talk about Robin Bain, David Bain, Joe Karam et al…

    And yet the title of the thread is LUNDY gets a retrial…??!? 😐

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

    @ Flipper at 11.06 am

    Then they should have got legal representation themselves. They have had plenty of time to organise it, however, right from the beginning declared they didn’t need it. Of course that will be their excuse, that they cannot complete with Karam’s wealth and that ‘this is a loss for freedom of speech’. Mr Parker has never understood the difference between freedom of speech and defamatory statements.

    @ Kanz

    Yeah right – KP will never admit he is wrong or change his site. He’ll just get worse because he doesn’t like people knowing he’s a loser.

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

    @ Nostalgia NZ

    I don’t believe that either Parker or Purkiss think they will win. They just want the chance to grandstand (because lets face it their other attempts have been mostly ignored by the media and everyone but a very small handful of people).

    They will use their loss to promote their cause, make further defamatory statements about both DB and JK, just has they have always done, except now they will go for the victim sympathy vote. I hope the judge extradites them to North Korea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    RRM (8,062) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Quite right RRM. Our resident talking heads have hijacked the thread yet again and now its about one of their pet hates, Kent Parker.!
    Mark Lundy and his supporters must feel rather peeved that it has degenerated thus.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    Well, RRM….
    There is no hijacking on the part of Judith, Kanz, Rowan, NOS-NZ.
    This thread has since day one been a mixture of both since the cases are inextricably bound by the PC judgments.
    The starting point for anyone coming lately should be to read the full PC on Lundy. It links to Bain. Then read Binnie, and if you can stomach the porno ex judge, read Fisher’s fiction.

    Game set and match….but…. the idiots a keep pulling out dusty spectacles, goats, and more, and more fiction. And there are the fools KP and VP.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    There was an old porpoise called flipper
    Whose purpose in life was to seem “hipper”
    He jumped up with delight
    Gave us all a fright
    ‘Cos his wee cock was caught in his zipper.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    flipper (2,577) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    Read Bnnie.? Re the goat evidence below and his report is totally free of any errors of assumption and fact.?
    Fisher and porno movies. ? You can quite categorically say you’ve never, never watched a porn movie. ever before ?
    dusty spectacles.??
    goats. ?. David never told Binnie that he claimed Mark Buckley had a deviant act with a goat on the 65 Every St property.?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. goldnkiwi (2,345 comments) says:

    Judith (4,124) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:35 am

    All about the issues ‘honey’, and hopefully after highlighting them we will still have small town NZ, which is definitely under threat, council elections are great for that. 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    Every time that fuckwits like the novocaine freak …
    and now newcomer (what was your non de plume previously, fuckwit) , stephieboy (32),
    tap their keyboards, they dig deeper.
    Simply more perverted sex…and worse.
    They are clearly seized by it.

    Sadly for them the walls have already started to cave. Good bye …and….good riddance.

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

    @flipper

    Bain was mentioned in DPF’s initial post, and then the first reference to David Bain in particularly was made by a poster called Blair, followed by the inclusion of the Bain case in general reference to the subject matter by many, until Muggins, on October 8th, at 9.33 p.m. decided to post a lengthy comment on the only thing he can converse on at any length (albeit all fantasy), Bain evidence.

    @ goldnkiwi

    We know you have ‘issues’ – good you see you acknowledging them – you may still have small town NZ, but by the looks of the results, they certainly don’t want to ‘have’ you. :-)

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

    @ flipper

    Stephieboy is a well known ‘dead daddy’ supporter whose style is very obvious. Their specialty is their lack of real knowledge on the details of the case, and reliance on first trial evidence. Very good at misquoting things too, like the jurors letter yesterday.

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

    Anyone heard whether Teina Pora has been granted Parole today?

    I don’t think Collins would dare not allow it to happen, but strange things seem to follow her around, so its anyone’s guess what will happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. goldnkiwi (2,345 comments) says:

    Judith (4,126) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    Since you ‘know’ everything ‘Judith’ we will let you keep your delusions.
    I guess I will just have to go with ‘colourful’ as an epithet, as opposed to thinking of myself as on the conservative side.
    Thought the mankinis looked good on tv too. 😉

    Love and kisses xxxooo

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Judith (4,127) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    Their specialty is their lack of real knowledge on the details of the case

    No it is not.
    They know the evidence very well.
    Their specialty is lying about the evidence in the hope that listeners/readers don’t know it and believe their lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Seeing as you are lying again I have decided to post on this thread again.
    The reason I replied to Tom Jackson’s post was because he said David Bain’s hadn’t been tested for gunshot residue.
    Up until then all the posts I had made related to Lundy.
    I see a post by mazurka on TM was removed, although a link to that post is still there. The probable reason for that post being removed is because the head of the person holding the rifle looks a bit like David Bain.
    I can’t see Bain suing Trade Me about that, but I bet mazurka would have a field day if Bain sued him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    flipper (2,578) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    Tsk,tsk,,tsk.!
    Your obviously very unwell.!
    Poor thing.

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

    Shall we run a sweepstake on how much legal Mr Karam received being involved with David’s defence team?

    We each pay $5 and the proceeds go to David Bain who clearly needs a hand up since compo is out of the question. The winner gets a chocolate fish.

    I’m guessing about half a million.

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

    Shall we run a sweepstake on how much legal aid Mr Karam received being involved with David’s defence team?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    I ‘bet’ if Bain sued Marzuka he’d win handsomely but in the interim a whole lot of deadbeats would pledge their support, financially and otherwise, only to do the same as what they’ve done to Kent and Vic – turn their backs on them. Interesting trait, encouraging somebody on, then disappearing – I guess it’s a trend in some quarters.

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

    LOL What a great day – but not good news for KP is it. I bet he’s gone through even more undies now.

    Poor man, clearly the judge thinks KP is a superfool, as opposed to an ordinary one.

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

    @ Ross69

    Are you suggesting that he shouldn’t have been paid for his time and the services?

    Are you so biased that you cannot see that the money paid to Karam was not just for his time, but for people that worked for him, researched, prepared documentation etc? Obviously you live in a very sheltered world if you think for one minute that the money received by Karam was solely profit for him.

    Besides, don’t you think it is a bit dishonest of you attempting to running a sweepstake, when the information is available on Court documents as per Auckland?

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

    Well, bugger me.
    What was once touted as being a three week trial in front of a jury has today become a two day trial in front of a Judge only.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11139913

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

    Oh dear. That’s not going to give Kent and Vic much time on the stage is it?

    I believe the Judge isn’t interested in their chosen performance. They’re a bit livid on facebook aren’t they. Poor wee delusioned souls. I am proud to say they were warned, many times by many people, we did try to help them. Guess they aren’t the legal guru’s they thought they were.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    It’s gonna be very expensive for them, and that’s not taking into account all the fangirls trips to Auckland, along with the teeshirts. All for 2 days and very expensive egg on faces.
    LMFAO

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

    @ Kanz

    You wanna hang out in the Newmarket Bars tonight. I bet there are a couple of people drowning their sorrows and another couple hurriedly trying to stitch together a defence – at this stage, if I was KP and VP calling their psychologist might be the best option! Is insanity a relevant plea for defamation?

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

    @Judith

    Nah, I will be in a bar that has happy faces. I hate seeing a grown person crying into good beer.

    You wanna see all the dummies being spat on jfrb.
    Now where has muggins run off to?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    trying to stitch together a defence

    They have been given advice by many people going as far back as 2009.

    The only defence they have left, and I can see KP using it, and that is to say through tears, “well he started it”

    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    dear oh dear oh dear, muggins is around voting posts, just doesn’t have the guts to say anything.
    Shandy and tears don’t mix too well, muggins you poor old bugger.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    There was an old slapper called Kanz
    Who blew brass in Karam’s bands
    It sounded like farts
    But at least it marks
    The running out of wind by the also-rans.

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

    That’s not going to give Kent and Vic much time on the stage is it?

    It doesn’t give David Bain’s surrogate father much time either. And here I thought that he had a list of infractions a mile long.

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

    “The plaintiff [Joe Karam] personally drew over $410,000 of taxpayer money from legal aid in the form of fees and disbursements.”

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/files/Second%20Amended%20Statement%20of%20Defence%20Parker%20%20Purkiss.pdf

    Nice work if you can get it.

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

    @ross69

    Joe Karam was not the plaintiff. Seeing where you got that from it is no surprise that KP is going down hard and fast this week.

    How much did the boys in blue and how many of them got paid getting ready for the retrial?

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

    Kanz,

    Can you not read?

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CIV 2010-404-3038
    AUCKLAND REGISTRY
    BETWEEN JOSEPH FRANCIS KARAM, of Auckland, Company Director
    Plaintiff

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    He is the plaintiff in the defamation case, he hasn’t drawn those monies for this case. Legal aid will not be paying him anything for this case, it is a civil one.

    Why are you even putting these figures up on here, are you attempting to get DPF sued for ‘lowering people’s estimation of Karam’, in other words defamation?

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

    ross69 (2,989) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    ROSS you comment at this time is defamatory. Joe Karam has never drawn legal aide for his own purposes. Legal Aid was applied for and awarded to him for work he did on behalf of David Bain. But you know that, and are deliberately shit stirring and trying to make people think less of Joe Karam. As you already know, that was for the total costs – from which he had to pay wages for office staff etc.

    You know all this but are deliberately defaming him. YOU PEOPLE DON’T LEARN DO YOU. Copy of your post been forwarded.

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

    He is the plaintiff in the defamation case, he hasn’t drawn those monies for this case. Legal aid will not be paying him anything for this case, it is a civil one.

    Why are you even putting these figures up on here, are you attempting to get DPF sued for ‘lowering people’s estimation of Karam’, in other words defamation?

    Judith tried threatening me, and now you are at it. Are you embarrassed that Karam has been paid so much taxpayers’ money defending someone who many people think – quite understandably – slaughtered 5 members of his family?

    And I never said Karam has drawn any monies for the defamation case.

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

    Ohhhh, its so sad, the poster boy got a hiding in Court today and they’re baying for blood. Don’t worry guys, there’s going to be a whole lot more tomorrow, and by Friday your poster boy will be needing a transfusion – hope your cheque books are up to it!!!

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

    ROSS you comment at this time is defamatory.

    Your comprehension skills are abysmal.

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

    @Judith

    Poor wittle woss has been left out of the game so is twying to get his own one started

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

    Ohhhh, its so sad, the poster boy got a hiding in Court today and they’re baying for blood. Don’t worry guys, there’s going to be a whole lot more tomorrow, and by Friday you poster boy will be needing a transfusion – hope your cheque books are up to it!!!

    Have you been on the turps?

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

    ross69 (2,990) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    Are you stupid or something? Karam was paid money for what he had already paid out money for – i.e. costs incurred in the defence of David Bain. I know you don’t get out much, but have you no idea of what that sort of expense is?

    You are implying that money went into Karam’s pocket and that he made $410,000 out of it. THAT is defamatory – you are a fool.

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

    ross69 (2,992) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    No I’ve been on the phone! What a giggle. Poor old KP!!! :-)

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

    @ Kanz

    Don’t worry about Ross, he’s just a little touchy like the rest of them at the moment. I had a peak at FB – they do get so ‘excited’ don’t they? Freedom of speech indeed. Hate speech has never been free – as KP is about to find out.

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

    You are implying that money went into Karam’s pocket and that he made $410,000 out of it. THAT is defamatory – you are a fool.

    I suggest you have a cup of a tea and a lie down – you’re obviously emotionally involved in this case and can’t think clearly. Are you embarrassed at taxpayers’ funding of Karam’s obsession?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Judith (4,136) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    Kanz, flipper, Rowan etc too.1

    Hysteria : a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior.

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

    ross69 (2,993) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    I’m emotionally involved???? I’m not the one poking the tiger with a stick by deliberately misleading people and trying to make them think less of Joe Karam by insinuating that he was personally paid $410,000 for working on the Bain defence team and that he benefitted from that money. As you well know, he had already paid substantial costs out of his own money.

    IT is exactly this sort of shit that has Kent Parker in court this week, and yet you, a no body from no where, thinks its okay to do a Kenty, and repeat his stupidity. You’re a total fool. Your group can’t win the fight honestly because you have nothing to support your claims so you have to do it underhandedly and dishonestly. Well done – you’re a prize fuckwit.

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

    stephieboy (34) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:45 pm
    Judith (4,136) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    Kanz, flipper, Rowan etc too.1

    Hysteria : a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior.

    Thank you for that description but we already know exactly what Kent is like. I must say, you have his personality well summed up. His attention seeking behaviour is legendary – did you see his sad guitar solo outside the Court a few months back – what a loser eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Judith (4,138) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:51 pm

    Your usually very deep response.

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

    ross69 (2,993) Says:
    October 14th, 2013 at 9:28 pm

    Your comprehension skills are abysmal.

    You don’t get it do you? It’s not whether you deem your comments to be defamatory or not, it is how other people regard your comments. If other people perceive that you are attempting to make them think less of Joe Karam by the untruthful manner in which you are commenting, then it maybe considered defamation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. goldnkiwi (2,345 comments) says:

    Erehwon is a place you know, and Mr Nobody is very well known to everyone, especially when blame is to be attached. What are you trying to say?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Seeing as a few posters are asking about me I thought I had better say something.
    The trial has been delayed a day, but Kent Parker had nothing to do with that, he was all set to go.
    So it starts on Wednesday and will last for a few days.
    I have no idea why that newspaper report has said the trial is only going to be two days.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. ross69 (3,651 comments) says:

    I’m not the one poking the tiger with a stick by deliberately misleading people and trying to make them think less of Joe Karam by insinuating that he was personally paid $410,000 for working on the Bain defence team and that he benefitted from that money

    First, I suspect many people don’t think highly of Karam.

    Second, he was paid $410,000 – according to the claim from the defendants – for working on the Bain case.

    Third, you’ve provided no evidence that he didn’t benefit from the money. Of course he benefitted.

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

    It’s not whether you deem your comments to be defamatory or not, it is how other people regard your comments. If other people perceive that you are attempting to make them think less of Joe Karam by the untruthful manner in which you are commenting, then it maybe considered defamation.

    I suspect you know nothing about defamation. Cults are possibly more to your liking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    The 3 week trial of the Century in which the sisters were going to re-litigate the Bain case is reduced to a mere 2 days with no doubt some fairly sharp orders about the irrelevance of the defence talking about glasses, strip searches and dog crap. So much for that. It is to be expected there were also some stern warnings about the consequences of running a futile defence and not making an effort to settle, no place for chickens wearing t shirts after all – all of which the sisters were told in 2009 and 10, I guess it’s a horror they tried to reflect on others returning with interest. Of most interest is what is in those files discovered to the plaintiff, no doubt what was expected is now on public record.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    There was an old lag called McDonald
    Whose middle name was Ronald
    His excuses for Bain
    Were made in vain
    When it came to credibility he had no toehold.

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

    @ Dennis

    And what about my credibility Dennis? What are you going to aim at me? I can assure you my credibility has been ‘recognised’ officially, has yours?

    You’re an old woman Dennis, you ought to stop listening to gossip.

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

    David Bain’s legal team has challenged the Prime Minister to say where it can have its evidence heard.

    Recent claims that gunpowder residue pointed to David Bain’s father, Robin Bain, as the murderer of five family members were rejected by police last week.

    John Key told TV ONE’s Breakfast show he does not think New Zealand needs an independent body to rule on complicated cases.

    He said an independent commission would just be an “extension of the system and we already have a system that works”.

    Mr Key backed up similar comments by Justice Minister Judith Collins who said she was confident New Zealand’s system was efficient.

    But David Bain’s lawyer, Michael Reed QC, says his client’s case shows the current system does not work.

    “If you’re going to suggest that someone’s son or father is going to be in prison for say 20 years, surely that’s worth and independent commission to resolve those things,” Mr Reed told ONE News.

    “The police are not independent. They’re defending their patch.”

    He says an independent review panel must be established with representatives from outside New Zealand.

    “The Prime Minister has said that there’s an adequate system for dealing with new evidence such as in the Bain case. I challenge him or Judith Collins to come and tell us what that adequate system is, because there is no court that David Bain can go to for the new evidence,” Mr Reed said.

    “This is nothing to do with the judicial review, this is the new evidence. There’s no independent body he can go to. Will either Collins or John Key please tell us where we go to now. Where is this adequate system because there is no system.”

    Mr Reed said: “With this new evidence, our experts say it means one thing. The police are trying to fudge it by a rather waffly report. And now we’re left with where do we go from now, who’s going to resolve that now? Where is this court that we can go to? There isn’t.”

    David Bain served thirteen-and-a-half years of a life sentence for the murder of his parents and siblings before successfully appealing his convictions to the Privy Council in 2007.

    Finding there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice, the Privy Council quashed his convictions and ordered a retrial. The second trial ended with his acquittal on all charges in June 2009.

    Key ‘not convinced’

    Today John Key said New Zealand does not need an independent legal commission, following the Privy Council’s decision to overturn Mark Lundy’s convictions.

    The London law lords last week quashed Lundy’s convictions for the murder of his wife Christine and daughter Amber in 2000, saying they could not be considered safe, and said he should be re-tried as soon as possible.

    Mr Lundy’s lawyer Malcolm Birdling is calling for a commission which is independent of the Crown, and can make its own inquiries, to be introduced.

    Mr Key said it was easy to look at the cases of David Bain and Mark Lundy, who have both had their convictions quashed by the Privy Council, and question whether the judicial system was failing.

    “Overall there are a huge number of particular cases that go through, from burglary right through to murder, and I think the justice system largely gets that right and would adding another layer make that much of a difference? I’m not convinced it would.”

    He told Breakfast he believes most New Zealanders still have confidence in the justice system.

    Justice Minister Judith Collins also said she was confident New Zealand’s system was efficient.

    “We now have the Independent Police Conduct Authority, which was set up in 2007, and that is a far more robust process and body than its predecessor.

    “The fact is, sometimes police will get things wrong, but a vast majority of the time, they don’t.”

    Ms Collins said there were 85,000 criminal convictions a year in New Zealand, and of those 1% were appealed.

    Of that number, only 10% were successful.

    “That’s about 99.9% of all criminal convictions every year, are upheld.”

    Lundy, who was reunited with his family after being granted bail on Friday, has spent the last 12 years behind bars.

    He has maintained his innocence since being jailed for a minimum non-parole period of 20 years in 2002.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/david-bain-s-lawyer-issues-challenge-john-key-5647016

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

    I agree with Michael Reed that there ought to be a Criminal Cases Review Commission. But this isn’t new. Retired judge Sir Thomas Thorp researched the issue of miscarriages of justice in NZ and recommended – a decade ago – that such a body be set up. He recently repeated that he wants to see an independent body established into possible miscarriages of justice. (Thorp also reviewed the Bain case and had no doubt David was guilty. On the other hand, Thorp expressed concerns about the safety of Peter Ellis’s convictions.)

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11131183

    But Reed has made a complete dick of himself over the “new evidence”. Indeed to call it evidence is straining the English language. It was always unlikely that the marks on Robin’s thumb were going to be anything but a waste of time. The marks could’ve been made by many things. But that didn’t preclude Reed from demanding that, on the basis of these marks, the Government had to pay David compo. No, Michael, the Government doesn’t have to do any such thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith ,
    Seeing as you have quoted a report that mentions Bain let me just say this.
    First of all an accused persons right to silence must go. If Bain had to have taken the stand at the retrial he would most probably have been found guilty.
    Unfortunately Ms Collins does not agree with me on that one. She says there will always be conmen who are able to fool people. But wouldn’t that sort of person want to take the stand anyway?
    Secondly, the government should never again ask a foreign judge to review a compensation claim after Binnie’s abysmal effort.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Nookin (4,351 comments) says:

    I think it is important to put Mr Reed’s comments on the proper perspective.

    He would like a forum to which he can take the “new evidence”. If this was new evidence which justified an acquittal or at least a retrial of a convicted person (à la Lundy) then there is an appropriate forum as we have clearly seen in the last 10 days.

    The same forum is available for Pora as it was for Ellis. As I recall, Ellis’s counsel made a number of comments about going to the Privy Council but did not to do so. I gather that Pora’s counsel initially applied for a pardon but has subsequently gone to the Privy Council.

    The systems are in place. The issue is whether they need to be made more user-friendly. I do have some concern that where there are legitimate cases, they are denied justice because of the costs associated with Privy Council appeals (and I doubt whether there are many left who could possibly be in this category) or other courts within the New Zealand hierarchy.

    Bain is in a different position altogether. He does not need to to produce any new evidence to secure his acquittal because he has already been acquitted. He would like to produce evidence in order to firm up a claim for compensation. In my view, in the ordinary course of events it is entirely open to him to do that.

    There is no common law right to to compensation. Accordingly, he does not have access to the court system in order to establish a claim for compensation. Before Reed gets his forum, he needs a remedy. This can only be a statutory right to compensation. If we are to create a statutory right for compensation, it does not seem to me to be essential that there be a specialist tribunal. There are not that many cases around to justify a dedicated tribunal solely for compensation claims.

    The so-called “new evidence” could well have been assessed by the Cabinet appointee (normally a QC but in this case Binnie J). There is indeed no reason at all why it cannot be reassessed. If, for example, Binnie had determined that Bain was, on balance, guilty then I have not the slightest doubt that Reed would have been able to approach the government for reassessment based on the new evidence.

    The complicating factor is the whole issue of the peer review, criticisms of the Binnie report and the actions of Judith Collins. The court’s determination of these issues will be helpful.

    If, ultimately, the government says are no,Reed can still advance the new evidence. All he needs to do is put the information before the Minister. It is no answer for him to say that that is a pointless exercise given the history of the claim.

    The matter can be revisited if, for example, the court determines that the Minister of Justice is acting in an administrative role when presenting information to Cabinet for determination and is not obliged to consult on the extent of information advanced or if, for any other reason (other than complete justification for the actions taken) the decision is not reviewable. In these circumstances, a situation where an ex gratia should payment is wholly discretionary and payable on the whim of Cabinet would probably not sit well with most of New Zealanders.

    I think Mr Reed is getting ahead of himself. He is not necessarily wrong. I just think he is jumping the gun. I expect that the judicial review proceedings will at least provide a clear indication of the rights and expectations (if any) of an applicant such as David Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Nookin (4,351 comments) says:

    Edit closed on me. Forgive the typos.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    There was a poor dog_fish called flipper
    Whose scales were made from glitter
    He swallowed the Bain line
    With a glass of fine wine
    And fell asleep at the feet of a fibber.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    More Crown Law spin from Nookin

    Do you not yet understand why Rob Muldoon insisted that Jim McLay instruct Crown Law to stay out of the Thomas Inquiry, and Morris had to appoint his own legal representative?

    I’ll make it simple: The system was corrupt, is corrupt, and will be corrupt in favour of the Crown’s bureaucracy, unless a NZCCRC is appointed TO COMPEL malfeasant (or criminally perverting the course of justice) Police and others, to deliver all that they have to the NZCCRC….that then take their findings, if justified, it to the COA….which will need substantially amended rules.
    Sooner or later they will take on board the stringing condemnation by the PC (twice) and by Binnie. But given attitudes like that presented probably on flawed advice) by Collins, there is not much hope. When the PC has to done it for the third time, with Pora, may be, just may be, it will penetrate your thick skull, Nookin.

    Until that happens Nookin, you and your Crown buddies ,will continue to manipulate a system that is screwed in their favour.

    En passant, if you are associated with Crown Law, as you appear to be, and if you were a Bain, Lundy or Pora, how many years would you want to rot in prison, while over-paid idiots getting tungsten-protected, platinum-coated pensions, covered the backs of their brothers?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    @flipper. Ah, Binnie Dunce. Sucked up the nonsense about the partial set of slightly-bloodied incomplete sockprints and dismissed the obvious implications of the broken glasses Bain admitted wearing but now denies.

    You really are a sucker, flipper.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    Nookin I agree with this.

    ‘The systems are in place. The issue is whether they need to be made more user-friendly. I do have some concern that where there are legitimate cases, they are denied justice because of the costs associated with Privy Council appeals (and I doubt whether there are many left who could possibly be in this category) or other courts within the New Zealand hierarchy.

    Bain is in a different position altogether. He does not need to to produce any new evidence to secure his acquittal because he has already been acquitted. He would like to produce evidence in order to firm up a claim for compensation. In my view, in the ordinary course of events it is entirely open to him to do that.’

    But I don’t see that you have provided an answer in respect of the costs of getting to the PC you’ve mentioned, they’re prohibitive. Looking at 3 recent notable cases Pora, Bain and Lundy they wouldn’t have been able to petition the PC for leave to appeal hadn’t it been for some individuals who helped with funding, along with Lawyers and experts who provided help free. By any definition it means that an innocent person can rot in prison having been turned down in the Appeal Courts and not eligible or able to go to the PC. That position can be stated with some authority as is evidenced by the Current Minister and Government ‘take’ on the right to Petition for an exercise of the POM.

    Time is on the ‘essence’ in most Jurisdictions. However, time stops for the unlawfully imprisoned fighting against an insulated Appeals system that has twice recently been shown to be short of the mark and will no doubt again in the Pora case. Although I think there are plainly many other avenues open to Bain included the one he is pursuing now but it is an extended process by which it is hoped the Executive may it spelt out by The High Court or one of the Appellant Courts what the RPOM actually is and how it should be exercised. By no stretch of the imagination would a NZRRC extend the process but would rather expedite it. Someone recently put a link on KB of a study of how the RPOM works in NZ, it’s actually a dog’s body. You could compare the recommendations of Kristy McDonald in the Watson case to what the PC said in Lundy on the issue of evidence for a start to see how poorly the current process is operating. Also contained in that report is the racial breakdown of ‘users’ of the RPOM and it is revealed that the most highly represented group of our citizens in prison are infrequent users of the RPOM from which it easily follows that there is no clear confidence within that group of having injustices ‘righted’ in the current system. A situation that might impact on Thorpe’s calculations of how many innocent people are in prison at any one time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Nookin (4,351 comments) says:

    NOS
    I prepared a lengthy response to Flipper. Unfortunately I lost it because of computer issues (which may be just as well). If I get time I will re-create the response.

    I do not disagree with your concerns about the cost of the PC (to the extent that it is relevant any longer) or any other court in the NZ hierarchy and I have posted on this previously.

    The focus of my earlier post was Reed’s complaint about the lack of a forum for his new evidence. You need a “right” before there is a forum to consider that right. Bain does not have a right to compensation. His position is different to Pora et al. They have a right to justice. It is a matter of concern that they may be denied that right.

    The extent to which Bain’s predicament may of concern may be resolved in the JR proceedings. Reed is jumping the gun. As I said, he may be correct with his arguments and the review proceeding may resolve critical issues. Equally, the proceedings may establish the need for statutory reform.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    Must be careful not to confuse the issue of the new evidence with that of the Compensation application I think Nookin. Reed is specifically stating that there is no Court available to Bain where the new evidence can be taken, and that a CCRA would provide that opportunity. He has challenged JK to say which Court is available to Bain in our ‘system’ that JK and Collins are adamant is working. What do you say about that, putting aside the JR now underway because it is literally dealing with a separate issue I think you’d agree. What course is available to a person who has been acquitted, and who may or may not have an application in place for compensation, to have ‘fresh’ evidence heard by a Court which he or she believes proves ‘innocence’ BRD? Relevant word there being ‘Court.’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Nookin (4,351 comments) says:

    NOS
    Options:
    1. Status quo
    2. Status quo with the benefit of court directions on the effect of the cabinet guidelines (such as may come from the JR)
    3. Specialist tribunal with discretionary powers to award compensation.
    4. Statutory right to compensation subject to specified criteria enforceable by court action.

    Take your pick and why? I am of the view that if (2) is not practical then we go to (4). I am not yet convinced that we need a specialist, dedicated tribunal on compensation matters.

    IPCA may need a revamp to deal with wrongful convictions. That is just one option.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Just let everyone know about some really good news. Michael Reed attempted to have Kent Parker’s statement of claim struck out.It was rejected and the trial will go ahead as per usual.!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nookin (4,351 comments) says:

    I think you mean statement of defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    A useful contribution by Nookin.

    Maybe I was a little harsh on him earlier.

    It think John Key was (Collins, I do not forgive. She knows better.) genuinely does believe what he said. That is the way he was briefed. It would, in any event, be untenable for him to criticise the whole judicial system because some bad Police apples, silly prosecutors, and one or two self important Jurists cause problems in some cases.

    My preference would be for:

    1. A NZCCRC to look at cases that the NZCCRc accepts. (The NZCCR then takes the matter to the COA).

    2. A Statutory right to compensation, with limitations on time*, on the lines recommended by the LC.
    * There would need to be some limitations/exclusions. Remand followed by acquittal is the real problem in some cases, since by then there has been significant economic hardship. The cost of defence is another. Acquittal in a case being overturned by a NZCCRC/COA process is not a problem. Should be legally enforceable..

    On the IPCA – it is clearly not working and that is why Carruthers wants change, with more powers and scope.

    In haste, to meet other deadlines…
    F

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nookin (4,351 comments) says:

    “Maybe I was a little harsh on him earlier”

    I think you need to address what I say and not what you think I am.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    stephieboy (36) Says:
    October 15th, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    Ooops. ! That should read statement of Defence.!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Dennis Horne (4,017 comments) says:

    I’m about to get the sack from KiwiGob; I wanted to say “goodbye” to Rowan. Goodbye, Rowan.

    There was a school boy called Rowan
    Whose reports were less than glowin’
    His vocab was sparse
    His arguments a farce
    So after some abuse DPF said: Get goin’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    Well, Nookin, sometimes what you say is sensible.

    But often you are away with the Crown Law smart alecs…and do not understand the political / public dimension.

    Now remind me again.
    Who was it that sat Wild CJ. on his backside over the Order of Precedence? Who was it that …….., I could go on in detail.
    But your defence of the indefensible, and deference to incompetence, raises questions that you might internally review. :)

    A lot of this can be traced back to, moist often personal, judicial arrogance. When that is eliminated, New Zealand, notwithstanding bumps here and there, will move forward.

    That said……. have a nice evening.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    I’ll go along with 4 everyday of the week Nookin, cuts out the ‘how long is a piece of string’ discretionary input. 2 is the way it is going now which is an improvement, but less desirable because of the Executive use of powers and where that can lead. 1 has effectively gone already because of 2. Specialist tribunal is what Reed and others are talking about.

    Revamp of the IPCA, new name and wider powers possibly.

    I don’t think this answers the current question …’What course is available to a person who has been acquitted, and who may or may not have an application in place for compensation, to have ‘fresh’ evidence heard by a Court which he or she believes proves ‘innocence’ BRD? Relevant word there being ‘Court.’ All of which is raised by Reed’s straight forward question. What happens now, today that is for a person in such a position – acquitted and with evidence they believe proves their innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    ‘Just let everyone know about some really good news. Michael Reed attempted to have Kent Parker’s statement of claim struck out.It was rejected and the trial will go ahead as per usual.!’

    I guess it must be hard for you to work out the anticipated length of the trial having been reduced so dramatically is because vast irrelevancies have been struck out from Kent’s statement of defence. That in fact began over a year ago, with more clearly being deleted yesterday. But I guess you need something to celebrate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nookin (4,351 comments) says:

    I may have misunderstood you, Nostalgia but it seems to me, from your comments, that Mr Reed is wanting some sort of forum where somebody who is acquitted but is tarnished (where there is smoke there is fire) can go to produce further evidence to establish untarnished acquittal. Given that a jury can only say guilty or not guilty, there is a lacuna in the continuum between not guilty and guilty. How that lacuna is filled is very much a matter of public opinion. If David Bain wishes to reinforce his acquittal then it is really only in the court of public opinion that he can do that. I do not think that he can get judicial recognition.

    If he wants to have the evidence assessed for the purposes of this compensation, then he should really only be able to do that if his compensation claim is denied (i.e. the QC or other advisor appointed determines that he was guilty on balance). He can ask for a reassessment in the light of the new evidence.

    Flipper: I am not associated with Crown law. I do not know anybody in Crown law. I cannot remember when I may have last spoken with a Crown solicitor. I have no vested interest. I am not interested in the politics of it all. I am more interested in the most efficacious environment for achieving a judicious and fair outcome. I am not convinced that a specialist tribunal is appropriate. I am not convinced that a statutory right of compensation will do anything other than foster litigation. There are no doubt deserving cases. The present process – supplemented by guiding principles arising out of (2) above – may be more effective and may indeed provide a remedy (albeit discretionary) to which there is readier access.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4,061) Says:
    October 15th, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    Let me just repeat ,the attempt by Reed to have the statement of Defence struck out failed.
    What “irrelevancies” have been struck out from Kent’s statement of Defence precisely.?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    I have to agree Nookin about the steps David Bain may be able to take to reinforce his acquittal or if his application for compensation fails. Yet who does he ask for the reassessment to be made in the light of new evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Nostalgia-NZ (6,219 comments) says:

    stephieboy.

    Dreamer. Ask some of your mates who will no longer be giving evidence, maybe then you’ll work it out.

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

    @ stephieboy (38) Says:
    October 15th, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    And you think that is GOOD news? LOL
    Boy are you in for a shock! You clearly haven’t spent many days in a Court room, if you think that is in Kent’s favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Johnboy (19,797 comments) says:

    Evening Nosty, didn’t realise you were here. Thought you were skulking in some dark doorway somewhere! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Johnboy (19,797 comments) says:

    Oh. You have your familiar in tow I see. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. stephieboy (9,882 comments) says:

    Judith (4,145) Says:
    October 15th, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    Court rooms.? Are you in a habit of appearing in them.?

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

    @ Stephieboy

    Yes I am in the habit of appearing in them. Used to be almost on a daily basis, and then there are the more than 5,000 odd hours I’ve spent behind prison bars as well. And no, I don’t have any criminal convictions. 😉

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

    “It’s easy to look at David Bain or Mark Lundy and say well, ‘is the system going wrong?’ because there are these alternative views being taken by the Privy Council,” he said on Breakfast.
    “But that’s a very small number of a very large number of people that are convicted and rightfully convicted.”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9279820/PM-rules-out-criminal-case-review-body

    The Prime Minister’s statement above demonstrates how out of touch he is with the reality of wrongful conviction. If Mr Key believes that there are only a small number of people, apparently barely worth worrying about, that are affected by wrongful convictions he needs to think again.

    Whilst the official number of wrongful convictions is small, the number that are unable to afford to seek assistance, is much larger. But even larger still are those who suffer because a loved one, family member or friend, has been convicted of a crime they did not commit.

    Entire families are torn apart over the many years it takes for justice to prevail, if it ever does.

    Take for example the conviction of Arthur Allan Thomas. The Thomas family, an ordinary ‘no frills’ hardworking, and law abiding farming family. Mrs Thomas, a loving mother, who worked very hard in the home and on the farm, caring for her family. When Arthur was convicted, his case dominated her life – she picked up the chore of having to fight for his rightful freedom, along with all the other tasks she had to do each day. She fought for her son with everything she had, and she encouraged us all to fight along with her, an entire community – selling raffle tickets, cooking chickens to sell in the pub, anything to keep the fight for Arthur’s freedom going. Her kitchen table was always surrounded by people being organised to work for the cause – Arthur’s freedom. When illness ravaged her, she had no fight left in her. She went to an early grave because of a wrongful conviction.

    Her two youngest sons, Des and Lloyd, barely knew of life before they, like every member of their family, had to fight the system to see their brother receive a pardon. Barely a conversation occurred, and is still occurring in that innocent family, that isn’t dominated by the effects of a wrongful conviction.

    This week, we see Mark Lundy’s sister and her family; yet another family member who has given up enjoying life to fight for someone close that they believe is innocent of the crimes he was charged with.

    Entire communities, entire families, and the innocent lives of individuals are affected by wrongful convictions. These people spend their life savings, mortgage their properties, and have their enjoyment in life removed as they fight a cause that should never be if it wasn’t for a legal system that fails to allow any but the wealthy receive justice.
    John Key states ‘occasionally the police get it wrong’. Planting a shell is not getting it wrong. Dumping evidence before all avenues of appeal are sought is not getting it wrong. Lying about where a lens was found is not getting wrong. Telling a jury fingerprints were in blood because they fluoresce, when they didn’t, is not getting it wrong. It is dishonest, it deceitful, and it destroys lives well beyond the person that was wrongfully convicted.

    The establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Committee or similar in New Zealand is the Governments only choice. It is the only way that people, ordinary Kiwis and their loved ones can have faith in a system that is letting down so many more than what the statistics dictate.

    John Key needs to remember he was elected by ordinary New Zealanders. His role is to care for all of them, regardless of their race, gender or creed, and especially regardless of their financial situation. Leaving the quashing of a wrongful conviction up to those who can somehow raise the money is wrong. The Justice system in this country is broken. It needs fixing – it is failing ordinary people and their families and friends. The numbers are not small, they are not insignificant and they cannot be written off with a simple ‘sometimes they get it wrong’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,720) Says:
    October 15th, 2013 at 6:20 pm
    *****

    The other day, in respect of the prospective LWOP case, you made reference to Mike Heron. I do not know him, other than having said “Hello” when at dinner party in Dick (the late ) and Fiona’s home.

    But I did know Dick (and know Fiona, but less) well, and they both came to my home many times.
    It is from those meetings, and from earlier dealings when he was with Kensington Swan, that I know something of Dick Heron’s thought processes, and his sense of fairness.

    I do not believe that he would have been at all happy with the manner in which CL/MoJ/Fisher/Collins handled the Bain situation, and he would have made his views known That is why I believe he would have chastised Mike Heron over any responsibility he may have for what has developed. The reputation if New Zealand has been severely damaged by Collins ( her actions on Binnie and Basin), aided and abetted by the likes of Fisher and McDonald. The sooner that this nonsense is corrected by the adoption of the LC’s recommendations on compensation, and the formation of a specialist NZCCRC the better. Surgery, not antibiotics is necessary!

    That made clear, on the LWOP would-be case, Mike Heron would still have been better than Stanaway, who will carry with him the guilt for Peter Ellis like that Morris carried for Arthur Thomas.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. muggins (4,897 comments) says:

    Judith,
    The fact that Weir found that lens under that boot but pointed to it in that photo does not make any difference in the long run.
    That lens is showing quite clearly in Stephen’s room exactly where Weir pointed to it.
    What is wrong is that some people are still trying to say that lens is a specular reflection when they know full well it is actually that lens.
    What is wrong is that some people are still trying to say that because that lens on dust on it it must have been in the room when quite some time when they know Mr Sanderson said that lens could have got dust on during a struggle between the killer and Stephen Bain.
    What is wrong is that some people still persist in saying David Bain was not wearing the glasses that were found in his room when he had told both his lawyer and his aunt that he had been wearing them.
    What is wrong is that some people imply that his lawyer is lying about what David Bain told him.
    What is wrong is that some people are saying that his aunt may not have remembered that conversation correctly.
    What is wrong is that some people have implied that his aunt is lying to protect her share of the inheritance.
    What is wrong is that some people say that because no-one saw David Bain wearing those glasses that weekend then he wasn’t wearing them knowing full well that the five people who would have seen him wearing them could not testify to him wearing them because they were murdered .
    What is wrong is that some people imply that David Bain may have been wearing a different pair of his mother’s glasses than the pair that were found in his room when they know full well that he told his lawyer he was going to admit to wearing the glasses in evidence which were the glasses that were found in his room.
    What is wrong is that some people say that witnesses have said that David was not wearing glasses all day Sunday when there was no witness that was with David Bain “all day Sunday”.
    I will post on the “fingerprints in blood” later.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. flipper (4,924 comments) says:

    From GD this morning….

    flipper (2,587) Says:
    October 16th, 2013 at 10:54 am
    Mark Lundy….

    Oops…

    And before the MSM screams from the roof tops….

    Are Police hunting him again this morning?
    [EDIT:
    Will Police ticket him, or warn him, when he reports today?
    Will the media do a stake out ?]

    According to the NZ Herald this morning, he drove himself shopping yesterday.
    Did not name a town…
    He has been in prison 13 years. Driving licences are not possible for any inmate, unless on approved release-to-work parole (and then with great difficulty), and unless he took and passed the test on Monday, he has no licence, since his probably expired years ago.

    That might be the extent of his “criminal” record. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote