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.

Tags:

669 Responses to “Lundy gets a retrial”

  1. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    Excellent news.

    It doesn’t take a genius to know you can’t drive from Petone to Palmerston North in one hour and ten minutes.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RightNow (6,988 comments) says:

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

    Nice attempt at diversion, but we all know it’s you.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. smttc (742 comments) says:

    Sam, if you think he did not do it then I look forward to you explaining his alibi for what he told us he was actually doing while the crime was taking place.

    Good luck. You will need to produce a prostitute with a real identity to succeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Mobile Michael (446 comments) says:

    But you can drive Petone to Palmerston North in the hours from 11.30pm to 10am when the murder actually occured. The original stomach content evidence made the Crowns job difficult, the new evidence makes it easier by widening the gap and explaining the computer shut down time, the reason why they were in bed, and why it was possible to get to PN and back with time to spare.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. metcalph (1,428 comments) says:

    FREE JASON SOMERVILLE NOW!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wreck1080 (3,885 comments) says:

    There are tons of murder convictions and only a few are debatable. You mention most of the obvious ones.

    They are usually where evidence is circumstantial.

    I note, you didn’t mention graham burton, or clayton whatever in your list.

    It is only natural for 50/50 convictions to be reviewed especially in light of past botch ups by the police.

    In the Ben & Olivia case DNA was found. That seems fairly conclusive unless the police planted it. Unlikely but not impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    oh dear Lord…..I’m not a Criminal layer/Barrister…but I guess my continued education is going to be never ending

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Ha ha ha the dirty cops get another kick in the guts. Covering up exculpatory evidence, planting DNA evidence, failing to properly test for time of death, paying so-called experts to give wrong evidence, it’s all there again. I’m chuffed the convictions were quashed, and by the head of the Supreme Court too.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Shazzadude (526 comments) says:

    It was the right decision. He is probably guilty, but the timeline offered was ridiculous, and the crown took advantage of a lack of mathematical nous on the jury’s part-one of the crown’s arguments was that Lundy would “only” have to average 120 km/h, which sounds easy but is actually impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dad4justice (8,148 comments) says:

    “FREE JASON SOMERVILLE NOW!”

    Please don’t I got enough drama in my life thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Mobile Michael @ 10.41

    If this was the obvious time then why did the entire police case hinge on a 7pm time of death. Surely if there was evidence of this then it would have been run back at the original trial. Am not convinced either way on his guilt or innocence but think it is the right decision to be retried to see if it stands up to BRD.

    “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”

    A poor argument DPF, on this basis anyone charged by police is automatically guilty and they can’t possibly get it wrong. There are plenty of BRD cases out there, I doubt you will see many people campaigning for the likes of Graeme Burton, Clayton Weatherston or Jules Mikus however this is one of the more high profile ones that is an indictment against our justice system and another reason for the need of a Criminal Cases Review Commission or the like.

    Wreck 1080
    No convincing evidence in the Watson case at all, the so called DNA is very dodgy and only found after a second look, read Trial by Trickery by Keith Hunter for a better assassination of the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. smttc (742 comments) says:

    The man alleged that he had an alibi. But refused to substantiate the allegation. That to me is damning evidence against him.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. peterwn (3,246 comments) says:

    One active speed camera en route would have clinched it either way. AFAIK only relevant fixed speed camera is on Pioneer Highway, and the camera unit was probably not in it at the time. Nowadays general traffic cameras eg between Pukerua Bay and Paekak may have helped.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Hmmm. Two separate posts today about two murderers, one who served time and got his conviction quashed, and the other who is about to.

    I am not sure whether I am worried about police being too useless to properly convict guilty people, or whether I am worried about police making up evidence. I think the former rather than the latter.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. smttc (742 comments) says:

    Lundy knew the route and knew what was possible. Sam, still waiting for you to tell us how Lundy was able to work that alibi.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. you reap what you sow (35 comments) says:

    Hey Samuel Smith – From one who use to live in P.Nth and work in Petone its easy to see how this travel time is not a problem. One could do the 135 = 143km trip at average speeds well above 100 km per hour. there was less traffic and patrols 15 years ago than today, one could easily wind up to +150km per hour on the back roads between Levin and P.Nth. As a sales rep Lundy could easily have done this trip inside the time and with luck not got caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. slijmbal (1,230 comments) says:

    Sad sack that I am I read the entire judgement and, assuming the Privy Council are accurate, it points to a damn sight more than reasonable doubt to him being the murderer. Three crucial pieces of evidence that all the various courts involved agree are crucial look pretty damn debatable:

    – the evidence of brain matter on his shirt
    – using the smell of the contents of the stomach to estimate time of death
    – the likelihood of the messed up registry on the computer being a symptom of Lundy playing with the times on the computer as practice to represent a different time

    First time I ever bothered to pay attention to the case btw.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    No, M’ Lords, ’twasn’t me, yours truly had a paper-round/prostitute/pantomime part to play in a pathetic adversarial legal system that dwells on the law rather than pursuing the truth.

    Oh well, we’ll be spared all this with Macdonald. No nonsense here. Plan the court cases so there’s no conviction in the first place.

    If in doubt let them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. smttc (742 comments) says:

    slijmbal, you can concede all that those points to Lundy. But he still cannot and never will explain why he had an alibi and who she was.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    I think that the ruling is correct. There is serious and reasonable doubt that the scenario the Crown presented, ie. Lundy made a mad dash from Petone to Palmy and back, ever occurred.

    That doesn’t mean he didn’t do it of course. But the Crown will have to make its case, properly this time. It will be very interesting to see the result.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    What have the cops got now? Bugger all, some paint flakes and a blood smear on the outside of a forced window. Early evening drive to Palmy gone, “brain” tissue on shirt gone, computer manipulation gone, time of death gone, poor cops, they’re well and truly up the creek. What fanciful scenario will they come up with now? An early morning drive, a hit man? gaol house snitches? I can’t wait for the retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. BlairM (2,321 comments) says:

    Noting the rather cynical tone of the post, it should also be said that every case is different. We are never going to have a perfect justice system, and of course there will inevitably be innocent people convicted from time to time. Each case has to be looked at differently. While I am sure there are a bunch of conspiracy theorists out there who would love to believe that Scott Watson, Mark Lundy, David Tamihere, Arthur Thomas and David Bain were all hard done by and strung up by the cops, none of those cases have any relation to each other. All must be considered on their individual merits.

    I am absolutely convinced, for example, that David Bain murdered his family, and find it bizarre that so many can ignore the obvious evidence that points to his guilt, and incredulous that a jury could fail to convict. But Lundy is a completely different matter. I don’t know as much about the case – it seems the Lundy is a fellow of low morality and had the time and the motive to do it. He could well have done it. But it seems to me that the hard evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, is not there to nearly the same extent that it is in the Bain case. I think the police are going to have their hands full trying to prove he did it, and it will be very interesting to see what happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Chuck Bird (4,848 comments) says:

    If he manages to get off he will not get compo either. Maybe he and DB could start an acting school.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nigel Kearney (986 comments) says:

    If some evidence is found to be questionable, the previous approach was that the court would then decide whether a jury might reasonably acquit based on all the remaining evidence. The new approach seems to be that there has to be a retrial and another jury decide that for themselves.

    The effect of this new approach is that almost everyone convicted of murder should at least get a retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “If some evidence is found to be questionable,” You missed out a crucial word there Nigel!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    I hear ’24’ is coming back to TV. Could we get Jack Bauer to interrogate Lundy and get the truth out of him?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    I’m looking forward to the defence offering samples of semi digested food to the Crown expert and him pin pointing how long in terms of ‘to the hour’ the digestion process had taken place. Also for the defence to have the opportunity, now that they know of the existence of the evidence, to question the scientist whose opinion, withheld from the defence, was that Lundy should never be convicted on the so called dna evidence. We might even get to hear evidence from the now discredited American dna expert and from the OIC in charge who chose to ignore pragmatic advice on the dna and instead sought out ‘help’ from a man with a novel, and now proven unscientific, analysis of DNA.

    As someone rightfully points out above the controversial cases are not linked, that is apart from some common factors that invariably represent Miscarriages of Justice – evidence ‘found’ after previous searches were fruitless, Thomas, Bain, Watson and Lundy. The less subtle but of no less significance use of pr, shown in the Watson case pre-arrest, in the Bain case post arrest and continuing today, as it does also in the Thomas case, bad science common in all – not conspiracy by observers but by the ‘manufacturers’ of stories and evidence – the best of those (read the worse) being the paper round alibi, the mountain of evidence, the strip search that wasn’t, the unopened gift, the prostitute alibi and now to add perhaps the most scientific fantasy of all the smell of food indicating how long it was digested. None of these things are truths, they’re actual presentations put to Juries to bridge gaps in a narrative, to create a prejudice or doubt, but are in reality non-factual webs of deceit which always run the risk of imprisoning the innocent. Perhaps we could be seeing a shift in stricter control of the release of information to the defence, as it’s unlikely Lundy would have been convicted had the particular letter been made known to the defence – but at this point it seems that the bar is not producing the logical reasoning epitomised by the late Peter Mahon enabling being able to see an ‘orchestrated litany of lies’ for what they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ross Miller (1,700 comments) says:

    I don’t want to appear a smart arse but I have to wonder how many of the posters on this thread actually bothered to read the judgement in its entirety (pretty heavy going). The judgement did not focus on the Petone-Palmerston North-Petone timeline as the substantive issue leading to their decision but rather the question of new evidence and the desirability that this should be tested at trial.

    For what it is worth I still think there is a high probability that Lundy is guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. s.russell (1,621 comments) says:

    Is it not obvious? None of these murders really occurred. All the alleged victims were kidnapped by aliens and the murder charges part of the Govt coverup. Either that or Elvis did it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    One thing I would be interested in knowing – what was the motive? I haven’t followed this too closely but have never seen it mentioned.

    Any why was the prostitute alibi not checked?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Ross Miller

    @8.45

    Correct, its about the science but what I like is the bob each way by the defence.

    From The Herald article.

    At the original trial, the defence conceded the matter was brain tissue and the only issue was how it ended up on the shirt, possibly by accidental contamination during the police investigation.

    But at the Privy Council hearing, Lundy’s lawyer Dave Hislop, QC, submitted that the expert evidence given by Dr Miller, and others who relied on his opinion, was “fundamentally flawed” to the point that the trial was unfair.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. laworder (290 comments) says:

    I believe Lundy to be guilty, but the time of death in the original Crown case was wrong. If there is new evidence this also needs to be tested at trial. Overall, a retrial is in order to put this matter to rest.

    Regards
    Peter Jenkins
    http://www.sst.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    Its a stinging indictment on the skills and professionalism of our police force and criminal justice system. All these high profile cases being overturned in the absence of eye-witness testimony and overwhelming proof seem to point the finger at an inept and lackadaisical police force. Given our criminal justice system is tasked with convicting beyond reasonable doubt it appears that “we” appear (at least historically) to be willing to take short cuts to coming to a pre-determined outcome – pick the most likely or preferred suspect (or in the case of Bain, last man standing), cherry-pick evidence, misdirect for a win in the courts.

    The cause of this is up for debate, a few possiblities:
    1. Under-resourcing – with limited resources in science and manpower, along with government and public pressure to achieve swift justice, we fight crime with the army we have, not the army we want.
    2. Ethical flexibility – police are tasked with ‘solving’ crimes, getting runs on the board and winning the stats game. Choose the low hanging fruit, and be prepared to cast either a lazy eye or completely ignore evidence that may point to the innocence of the suspect under investigation
    3. Incompetence – a fundamental lack of skill in being able to collect, assess and interpret evidence in a way that will stand the rigors of the court over time. How do you miss key forensic evidence for days, and magically discover it at a much later time? Ignoring the possibility of deliberate dishonesty of course.
    4. Changing goal posts – what constituted reasonable doubt in years gone by may be different now. Perhaps 10 pieces of evidence combined together paints a picture of a guilty party, but two additional pieces point to innocence, do we give equal weight to those?
    5. Lack of judicial fortitude- the culture seems to be “give them another try” at the Supreme Court / Privvy Council level.
    6. Improved science – how recent is DNA evidence, advancements in forensic pathology etc and our ability to collect and use it correctly to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Of course the next question is what new technologies will be discovered in the next 20 years which can be used to bring into doubt (or prove guilt!) crimes that are being perpetrated now.

    I’m sure there are others.

    The end result though is less comfort in the system, rather than more. What does it take to convict ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ where there is not a confession (of course these have been retracted or coerced in the past too) or unimpeachable eye-witness testimony.

    Of course the ardent supporters of Lundy and Bain will no-doubt point out that this is the system correctly exonerating innocent people… in which case the other uneasy question is how many others have been wrongfully convicted on shabby evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    As always PEB and his mates, in defence of the incompetents in Molesworth Street, blames the defence.

    The Herald made a good attempt, under obvious time constraints, but the FULL (50 pages of detail) Privy Council judgment makes very different reading Mr Plod. It ascribes blame where it clearly rests – with a Police force that is clearly unwilling to play by the rules that a civilised society has imposed for the conduct of criminal trials, and makes clear in no uncertain terms, its view that had he known the full facts, and had the defence seen matters that the Police kept hidden, Berhens would have adopted a very different stance.

    The PC issued this judgment:
    ***
    Disposal
    164.
    The Board gave anxious consideration to whether the appeal should be remitted to the Court of Appeal. That court could have heard evidence from the various experts and sought to reach conclusions on the matters in dispute. The Board has decided, however, that this would not be appropriate. The divisions between the experts are so profound, they range over so many areas and they relate to matters which are so central to the guilt or innocence of the appellant, that the Board has concluded that they may only properly be resolved by the triers of fact in a trial where a suitable and searching inquiry into all these areas of dispute may take place.
    165.
    The Board will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, that the convictions should be quashed and that the appellant should stand trial again on the charges of murder as soon as that can be conveniently arranged. The appellant should remain in custody pending retrial, subject, of course, to any decision that the High Court of New Zealand might make on an application for bail.
    ***

    Whatever the final outcome of this case, and having regard to Michael Reed’s condemnation of Burgess, and his challenge to Burgess and the Police ( TV3) this morning, Lundy is clearly further justification of the urgent need for a NZCCRC.

    Moreover, as John Key clearly implied this morning, the fault does NOT rest with the judicial system. Guess where, Mr Plod.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    Let’s reintroduce capital punishment but postpone it. Keep the buggers banged up and if they cause trouble execute them immediately. The best we can do now is “plea bargain”: offer no retrial in exchange for no compensation.

    I was never happy about the tiny spot of DNA on Lundy’s shirt, or the notion he sped up and down to PN. But of course using the stomach contents to determine time of death was nonsense. The time frame the prosecution indicated was wrong.

    No question in my mind Watson was set up and someone else did it. No question in my mind Macdonald got away lightly, mainly because the prosecution was more concerned about a subsequent verdict of a mistrial than getting a conviction. The look on the widow Guy’s face told it all.

    No question the second Bain jury was biased and dopey, they had unlawful material in the jury room. The luck was getting Binnie Dunce to review the case, which is about as clear-cut as any circumstantial case could ever be. One juror tried to tell him that in her opinion Bain is not innocent but he had already made his mind up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Flip are you David Cunnliffe?

    Any one disagrees with you and you get very bitchy -I now know I can get right under your skin anytime I want . You gotta learn self control.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10891769

    Lundy’s lawyer David Hislop QC, a New Zealander living in London …

    “I think this is a very strange case. When you’ve been doing these cases for as long as I have, you don’t get yourself bogged down with guilt or innocence.

    And there’s nothing wrong with our system? Where does The Truth come into it?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    WineOh

    Good points, particularly number 1. Along with that the personal investment, when things are ‘found’ that were not previously, and the ‘finding’ is unquestioned by a superior, there has been an ‘investment.’ These situations from that point on are iron clad, because police ‘know’ they have got the right person and some members of the public ‘know’ that the police are right most often because of some perceived issue that is confirmed by the ‘found’ item for example – even as we see here because of the way the accused looks, ‘what he or she got away with’ and so on – none of it logical but all corrosive to the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Can’t you read, Nosty? I said the widow Guy’s face, not the accused, “told it all”. I thought the accused looked pretty “clean”. We only found out afterwards what an arsehole he is. Why wasn’t he tried on these other charges while the police continued to investigate the murder? Didn’t want to be accused of prejudicing the jury?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (4,350) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 9:32 am
    Flip are you David Cunnliffe?
    *****
    Five points Mr (has been) Plod….

    1. I am not “Goitre Chin” Cunliffe.
    If I were I would be taking the “liarbors” in a very different, and more realistic, direction.

    2. No Plod, you do NOT get “under my skin”. I have no respect for people who defend the indefensible, particularly when they argue from institutional prejudice.

    3. Your comments PEB, are so boringly predictable and inaccurate, that, as I said some weeks ago and today reiterated, you are the perfect example of why we need an NZCCRC.

    4. Now let me see…. Bain, Lundy, Pora, Thomas, and more….and still more to come. I am sure you always had your oath in mind when working at your extraordinary interviewing technique. All those” bricks” are being stripped away…….

    5. Read Nostalgia-NZ (9.38am) above….. He explains it in a way that even Plods can understand. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Gotcha Flip

    explaining is loosing.

    I fear for the National party if you are doing work for us though, an open mind is a necessry thing

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    All these comments above regarding the time of death and the drivetime are made by the uninformed.

    The first (young) pathologist got it wrong. He calculated the time of death based upon the condition of the
    stomach contents. He did not factor in the fact that 2 litres of softdrink was also consumed.

    Drinking liquid whilst eating slows the rate of digestion considerably.

    The time of death was much later than the time the first pathologist came up with.

    The second, expert pathologist from the UK who reviewed his work concluded that his
    calculation of the time of death was worthless.

    Lundy had plenty of time for the drive there, the murders and the drive back.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Berealll.
    You misread…
    The Crown based its case on the inexperienced fellow.
    That was rubbished….crown case crumbled.
    Simple, no?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,679) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 9:35 am

    And there’s nothing wrong with our system? Where does The Truth come into it?

    How does one determine truth? Look into a crystal ball? Converse with the almighty? Flip a coin?

    Since there is no absolute method for determining truth, the legal system has set up a process (which has evolved over a long period of time). This process is designed with the intention that it finds the truth and employs certain standards to that end. We derive our confidence in the findings of this system by believing that the legal profession is dedicated to upholding these standards and this process. Without this process we cannot have confidence in their findings. Therefore to concern oneself with the law and the legal process is to concern oneself with the truth.

    There is no guarantee that the conclusions reached in court are absolutely true, but then what better alternative do you propose? A truth-ometer?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Dr Pang, an expert witness for the prosecution, complained to the BSA about a doco about the murders. The doco maker said the murder might have occurred at 2am.

    http://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/show/4220

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

    Since there is no absolute method for determining truth, the legal system has set up a process (which has evolved over a long period of time). This process is designed with the intention that it finds the truth

    That’s incorrect. The adversarial system we have is about producing a winner, not finding the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,679) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 9:27 am

    Let’s reintroduce capital punishment but postpone it.

    How does postponement alter the objections to capital punishment? Indeed many capital punishments in the United States occur after quite a long period of time to enable a lengthy appeals process. If the argument against capital punishement is the possibility of error then this can never be overcome through postponement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    bereal (2,953) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 10:17 am
    All these comments above regarding the time of death and the drivetime are made by the uninformed.

    *****
    From the PC judgment:

    (a) the time of death issue
    129. The essential elements of the defence case on time of death were available to trial counsel. As already observed, they were deployed to some effect in cross examination. But there is now a welter of evidence available from a number of highly reputable consultants which, if accepted, would nullify the claimed scientific support for the time of death which was so central to the Crown case. In these circumstances, the Board is in no doubt that the interests of justice demand the admission of the new evidence on this subject….. ”

    & On the computer timing issue….

    ” …142.
    It was essential to the Crown case that an explanation for the time of closing the computer be given. Absent such an explanation, the possibility of Mrs Lundy being alive at 10.52pm could not be eliminated. And if that possibility remained, it was completely at odds with the central prosecution case against Mr Lundy. The new evidence, if accepted, directly challenges the plausibility of that case. It has an obvious and significant potential impact on the safety of the conviction and the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. It is in the interests of justice that it be admitted.”

    and more.. (one could go further….)

    ” … 151.
    Applying this test to the present case, the Board has concluded, subject to consideration of the proviso (which will be dealt with below), that the verdict is unsafe.. The evidence of the identification of the specimen taken from Mr Lundy’s shirt as his wife’s CNS tissue was, as the Court of Appeal described it, the most cogent piece of evidence in support of the Crown’s case. Substantial questions about the validity of that evidence have been raised by the fresh material. The Crown’s positive case was that the murders had been committed between 7 and 7.15pm on 29 August 2000. The new evidence on this subject, if it is accepted, eradicates scientific support for the claim that this was the time of the death of the victims. Finally, the computer evidence raises the possibility of Mrs Lundy being alive at 10.52pm. Clearly it is evidence on which a jury might reasonably decline to convict. ”

    And that is without the non disclosure issues….

    Give it up.

    * Bail, hard headed examination of credible evidence.
    * Weighing up costs of the Crown and defence (massive legal aid, dear plods…)
    * Decision on whether to again prosecute at trial
    * Likely acquittal
    * Compensation (massive
    * Poor us (taxpayers)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Weihana. Ha ha ha. Truth-ometer. Is that what you use? Scientists and statisticians conducting an investigation would get closer to the truth than our adversarial system; arty-farty lawyers who imply or even claim they’re not interested in the truth seeing who can tell the best story to a jury of nobodies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. marcw (243 comments) says:

    It’s time to reconsider our prosecution model – should the Police be the crime enforcer, detector, and the prosecution? Can we debate a separate Public Prosecution service as used in the UK and I believe Australia, as our current system is failing us too often. What are the pros and cons of an alternative?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,923) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 10:47 am

    That’s incorrect. The adversarial system we have is about producing a winner, not finding the truth.

    It is not incorrect. The premise being that the winning argument is more likely to be true. You are free to believe that an alternative method is better, but that does not make the adversarial process arbitrary and unconcerned with the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Weihana. Reintroducing capital punishment to keep the prisoner quiet and stop the legal nonsense – I was being facetious.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,680) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Scientists and statisticians conducting an investigation would get closer to the truth than our adversarial system

    Plausible. But then how do we determine who these people are? The purpose of the legal system is to be a check on the arbitrary exercise of state power. It is questionable if it can act as such if the arbiters of truth are a part of the state.

    arty-farty lawyers who imply they’re not interested in the truth seeing who can tell the best story to a jury of nobodies.

    A lawyer is an officer of the court. They cannot lie to the court and risk their careers if they were to do so. But their function is not to arbitrate on what the truth is. But to provide the best possible case for either the prosecution or the defense. To say that this is unconcerned with the truth is to imply that there is some objective way of knowing that the case they are putting forth is not the truth. But the adversarial system is premised on the notion that the best way to determine truth is to get a panel of one’s peers to hear both sides of the argument and reach a judgment. If one side of the argument is not presented because the lawyer has his own opinion, then the conclusion of the jury is undermined.

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

    @ marcw

    as our current system is failing us too often. What are the pros and cons of an alternative?

    Marc

    How many homicides a year in New Zealand 50ish per annum?.

    At any given time there are three or four that are contentious.And that is over decades not annually

    Since Lundys was jailed approx 500 unfortunates have had the chop so statistically three or four are not even a blip.

    You have to ask yourself whether changing an entire system is worth while for numbers that low.

    Things can always be better but look at other jurisdictions, Scotland was put up here the other day. They have 4 overturned a year I think it was so again the number is small, Glasgow alone has 70 murders a year which is more than NZ annually

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/sep/26/ukcrime.scotland

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,681) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Scientists and statisticians conducting an investigation would get closer to the truth…

    Although not entirely familiar with the Lundy case, there does appear to be some question over the scientific evidence originally employed in the case. Is it questionable therefore to suggest that scientists will get it right, when evidently they got it wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Bring back the death penalty! And unlike Dennis Horne, I’m not being facetious. A chance of one mistake in two hundred can be accepted, and locking people up for decades like laboratory rats is usually crueller than a quick execution, IMHO.

    Otherwise these fuckers are going to wreck the economy. Presumably the appeal to the Privy Council is financed ultimately by NZ taxpayers, and these appeals will be expensive, with lawyers flitting to the other side of the world and staying in London hotels.

    As for Lundy: can he get an unbiased jury trial now after the whole country saw him at the funeral.

    You can understand lawyers leeching on to those convicted of murder for the appeals gravy train. But what motivates the sad sacks who form and lead the publicity campaigns, now so common they severely annoy most people.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Weihana. If finding a way forward had been down to lawyers and juries we’d be eating a meagre meal by candlelight in a shanty after a 12-hour day behind a horse and plough. The Maoris would still be living under bracken eating each other.

    Step back. The present system is a farce. There is a massive amount of evidence against Bain yet the jury accepted an implausible story because the defence could pick at one part and concoct a pantomine. Even then at least one juror was not persuaded of his innocence. Yet we’re still wasting money on this freak.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,427) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 11:09 am

    Bring back the death penalty! And unlike Dennis Horne, I’m not being facetious. A chance of one mistake in two hundred can be accepted…

    If you can justify and accept the death of an innocent then on what moral basis do you condemn a murderer who has done likewise?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Has the mad dentist has been using lignocaine – again?
    Or is that his normal, unbalanced state?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. wf (429 comments) says:

    I think that we should get Jo Nesbo to send Harry Hole down here. He’d get all this nonsense sorted out in no time. What’s more all the guilty would come to nasty ends, the bad (and dim) cops disgraced and often dead as well. And we (the public) would only know about it after a press conference telling us that everything was sorted.

    If only.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Weihana (11.14 post) is talking about punishment for the guilty, not any mistakes in proof of their guilt.

    Weihana, if you accept there can be a moral argument for death penalty at all, then there must be a possible moral argument for death penalty for murder.

    So you would not hang Hitler, or sanction the shooting of the founder and leader of murderous Al Qaeda?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,427) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 11:09 am
    Bring back the death penalty! And unlike Dennis Horne, I’m not being facetious. A chance of one mistake in two hundred can be accepted, and locking people up for decades like laboratory rats is usually crueller than a quick execution, IMHO.
    *****
    And said as he fell through the trap door. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,682) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 11:13 am

    Step back. The present system is a farce. There is a massive amount of evidence against Bain yet the jury accepted an implausible story because the defence could pick at one part and concoct a pantomine. Even then at least one juror was not persuaded of his innocence. Yet we’re still wasting money on this freak.

    I have stepped back. I am looking at the system in general. You are focusing on an individual case.

    You present an argument that one jury got it wrong. If this is true it only proves that juries are fallible, which I already accept. But this is no argument that, in general, it is not a good method of arbitrating on truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Chuck Bird (4,848 comments) says:

    I have heard two stories about Lundy’s life insurance. One was that it was not increased from $200k to $500k. The other is that the insurance was increased 4 days prior to the murders. Does anyone do for sure which is the case?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Flipper at 11.20 re mypost:

    said as he fell through the trap door..

    Who “he”?

    If you mean me, I would know that was just fate in that case, Flipper. And probably better than 15 years of week-day boredom and weekend visits from weird loony ladies who love locked-up losers, and cold calls from lawyers on the make and from nutters looking for a cause to publicise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Weihana. When the system was devised, it was not anticipated that lawyers would see it as a gold mine. Furthermore, the scientific method has evolved. A team of scientists would get closer to the truth than a gaggle of lawyers telling each other stories. In science, we get closer to the truth, in law, we go around in circles.

    As you said, in the Lundy case, one scientist might have been wrong. One.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,428) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 11:19 am

    Weihana (11.14 post) is talking about punishment for the guilty, not any mistakes in proof of their guilt.

    But you know, or at least accept, that an innocent person will die. The premise of your argument would appear to be that the ends justify the means. My point is that the murderer also believes that.

    Weihana, if you accept there can be a moral argument for death penalty at all, then there must be a possible moral argument for death penalty for murder.

    I don’t accept there is a moral argument for the death penalty. Not simply because of the possibility of error, but because I don’t think it is a legitimate punishment. It is not primarily concerned with establishing order or ensuring safety, but is an act of vengeance which in my view does not equate with the notion of justice (although it is a perfectly natural human emotion).

    So you would not hang Hitler, or sanction the shooting of the founder and leader of murderous Al Qaeda?

    If they can be imprisoned? No. But I accept that in the context of war that is often impractical.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Scott Chris (6,068 comments) says:

    The man alleged that he had an alibi. But refused to substantiate the allegation.

    Yes, brings to mind Peter Dunne for some reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Weihana. If courts arbitrated the truth we’d probably reject evolution.

    Newton was an alchemist, as was fitting for his time. The adversarial system as it stands is an anachronism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. chris (644 comments) says:

    You have to remember that to be found guilty, the prosecution has to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the accused did it. So all the defense has to do is to create enough doubt and they get off.

    Looking at the Bain case, I suspect either he did it or at they very least killed his father. But I also think the jury in the retrial got the verdict right. The defense created enough doubt that he could not be convicted “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    I suspect this will also happen in the Lundy retrial. Create enough doubt, and he gets off.

    I served on a couple of juries not long after the Bain retrial. In the second one, 4 inmates spooned over another inmate at Paremoremo. There were 5 charges in total (2 for one of them, 1 each for the rest). We all thought that they all did it, but we had to let one off scot free and the one with two charges was only convicted on one charge. All because of the reasonable doubt requirement.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What are the pros and cons of an alternative?

    The main advantage of the alternative is an end to the systemic corruption which exists within the current system.

    IMO the main disadvantage is that the existing system is too heavily invested in the current secular process to be able to change, which means establishing local courts which implement due process and the rule of law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Weihana at 11.30 seems to accept there is a moral argument for the death penalty, in this case for war criminals:

    … I accept that in the context of war that is often impractical…

    What if it becomes impractical and economically onerous to keep murderers locked up for decades, both from the cost of running the prisons, and from the heavy cost to taxpayers of lawyers, evidence experts, and retrials? Surely in that case imprisonment becomes impractical and there is a moral argument for the death penalty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Scott Chris (6,068 comments) says:

    But this is no argument that, in general, it is not a good method of arbitrating on truth.

    Not sure that arbitrating the truth is an accurate description of the judicial process in this country. Perhaps contesting the truth is closer to the mark.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne at 11.36:

    ..The adversarial system as it stands is an anachronism…

    Dennis, given cultural change and cultural diversity, you are probably right. Also, the present system is becoming expensive and cumbersome, as the plethora of retrials and appeals shows.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I have heard two stories about Lundy’s life insurance. One was that it was not increased from $200k to $500k. The other is that the insurance was increased 4 days prior to the murders. Does anyone do for sure which is the case?

    From FACTUAL:

    The insurance policy increase was not at Mark’s request, and nor was he the person that instigated any claim on the policy.
    http://www.lundytruth.com/about-the-case.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Surely in that case imprisonment becomes impractical and there is a moral argument for the death penalty.

    The origin of the death penalty in common law is hidden by the current system. If it is to be reintroduced then the corresponding safeguards should also be reintroduced. This issue unavoidable leads to consideration of the nature of the corruption of the current judicial system.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Chuck Bird (4,848 comments) says:

    @uglytruth

    Thanks for that. I had seen that by a Lundy supporter. I am skeptical.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. chris (644 comments) says:

    From the Lundy Truth website:

    “Mark’s phone records from Telecom show the cellular phone tower that his mobile phone was connected to when calls were made or received. The coverage of the towers in the Petone area is such that each tower only covers about 100 metres approx. These records were used to place Mark in Petone on the night of the murders.”

    One thing I’ve always found interesting about this case, is that no one seems to point out the evidence puts HIS CELLPHONE in Petone during the alleged time of the murders, not him. If I were going to drive from Petone to Palmy to murder my family, I sure as shit wouldn’t take my cellphone with me to act as a tracking beacon.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Chuck, the only explanation that makes any sense to me is that Lundy managed to seriously aggravate someone through his business dealings, and as a consequence they arranged to have his family murdered in order to inflict payback.

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

    Why does it comes as no suprise to anyone that that is the only explanation that makes any sense to Ugly
    Truth @ 12.05 ?

    Happens everyday, right Ugly ?
    A clear cut case of Utu.
    Oh dear.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

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

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

    Yes DPF, the best way to think about an individual suspects’ guilt or innocence is through gross generalisations.

    We should adopt a 1-man judge & jury model, all decisions final, no correspondence will be entered into. Just like the inquisition. That would be a good fair system, eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,684) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 11:30 am

    @Weihana. When the system was devised, it was not anticipated that lawyers would see it as a gold mine.

    My understanding is that there is far less money involved in criminal justice as opposed to other areas of law. Most criminals seem to depend on public defenders and the state invariably has access to more resources than an average individual can muster. In any case, if there was more gold I don’t see how that would be a problem given that the purpose of lawyers is to advocate. I’m not sure how money is a corrupting influence in that context rather than as an incentive for more competent representation.

    Also, the system was less “devised” than it is “evolved”. Originally lawyers could not speak on behalf of an accused. Modern standards have evolved over time through various precedents being set. The standards employed today have withstood the test of time. They shouldn’t be discarded lightly for radical and untested new ideas based on an individual case.

    Furthermore, the scientific method has evolved. A team of scientists would get closer to the truth than a gaggle of lawyers telling each other stories. In science, we get closer to the truth, in law, we go around in circles.

    I don’t really see any argument here, you just assert one is better. I’m not sure how this can be objectively measured given that criminal cases depend on evidence pertaining to one specific case. There is no scientific law (that I’m aware of) that says when evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a specific circumstance. It would seem that the scientist offers what is just another opinion.

    As you said, in the Lundy case, one scientist might have been wrong. One.

    And you offer me one case where the jury is, in your opinion, wrong. One.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    What if Lundy is found guilty at the retrial, and then there is another trial, on and on, until he gets off. It will be playing double or quits until he wins, and taxpayers will pick up the bill.

    The present adversial system is an anachronism, as Denis Horne pointed out at 11.36, and an increasingly expensive one at that.

    No matter what the evidence , how can the system find retrial jurors who didn’t see the TV of Lundy at the funeral?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,684) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 11:36 am

    @Weihana. If courts arbitrated the truth we’d probably reject evolution.

    Unlikely. This isn’t the United States and the theory seems overwhelmingly accepted by New Zealanders. But, moreover, the conclusion of a jury isn’t just public opinion, it is a conclusion reached under a controlled setting employing specifics processes and standards designed to make the system robust.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Happens everyday, right Ugly ?

    How often to you get a double homicide against females involving a tomahawk or small axe?

    A clear cut case of Utu.

    It makes much more sense the an explanation involving a man drawing attention to himself by driving ludicrously if not impossibly fast during peak traffic times.

    But please don’t let me stop you from genuflecting at the altar of state corruption, bereal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The present adversial system is an anachronism, as Denis Horne pointed out at 11.36, and an increasingly expensive one at that.

    An inquisitorial system doesn’t suffer from the problem of incompetence of a contesting party.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    The defense believed the timeline of 7pm for the murders was a nonsense, so the question is why did the Crown persist with a timeline that required jumping through a few hoops to make the evidence fit, when the latter time fitted in with the evidence so much more nicely? Stubbornness? ego? tunnel vision? or am I missing something?

    105. In his letter to the Registrar Mr Behrens suggested that he was reluctant to press home the case that the scientific evidence did not support the Crown’s case on time of death lest this should prompt a shift on the part of the prosecution to an alternative timing for the murders which might create new vulnerabilities for the defence. Under the heading “general comment” Judge Behrens said this in his letter:

    “I believed the Crown theory of the case, ie the around 7pm murders, was nonsense. I believed that a far more realistic theory was that the deaths had occurred after 11pm, perhaps in the early hours of the next day. This theory was consistent with the phone call evidence, the lights on evidence, the computer evidence, the petrol consumption evidence, the prostitute evidence, the glasses beside the bed evidence. It was also consistent with the drive not having been having been made in rush hour traffic from Wellington to Palmerston North. I was aware that the Crown could be pushed into changing its theory.”

    On the opinion evidence about stomach contents that I had, I made the decision not to call evidence but rather to challenge the Crown experts with that evidence … It is true that the trial judge put the issue bluntly to the jury but pre-trial I was not to know that the Crown would not change to the after midnight theory …”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,434) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Weihana at 11.30 seems to accept there is a moral argument for the death penalty, in this case for war criminals:

    No, I said the opposite. For instance, sending a cruise missile might be considered analagous to shooting an out of control driver ramming the White House gate.

    What if it becomes impractical and economically onerous to keep murderers locked up for decades, both from the cost of running the prisons, and from the heavy cost to taxpayers of lawyers, evidence experts, and retrials? Surely in that case imprisonment becomes impractical and there is a moral argument for the death penalty.

    My understanding is that death penalty cases (in the US) generally cost more. But I also object to the argument that you should kill people because you don’t want to pay for their imprisonment. It cheapens human life and undermines the distinction between the civlized world and those individuals we lock up because they aren’t civilized.

    Moreover if we are concerned about the cost of imprisoning people we should in the first instance reconsider the war on drugs which not only results in non-violent people being locked up, but exacerbates crime by financing organized crime through the black market.

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

    Just another example of why New Zealand needs a CCRC similar to the scottish one that will enable such cases to be examined independently from the Judiciary and the Police.

    The expense and time involved in a re-trial will be tremendous, although Lundy is perfectly right, as are the Crown in wanting a definitive decision.

    Unfortunately in this case I doubt it will happen. I believe ‘time is of the essence’ for Lundy.

    In all probability it is likely that this case will sit among the others that the police cannot or is it, they will not solve.

    The Crewes
    Kirsty Bentley
    Bain family
    and so on…

    to name but a few that should still be active inquiries as no one has been held accountable for them by law. It is not up to the police to decide that even though the courts thought differently, they have the right to decide whether they will continue to investigate. It is their appointed role to do so.

    Then there are people like Peter Ellis … and possibly Scott Watson, etc, disgusting examples of a police investigation gone wrong.

    Every case requires a definitive answer that is not open to interpretation. Until such time as our police can rid themselves of the ‘old guard’ mentality and accept that they have got it wrong, innocent people (mostly men) and we the public will continue to pay the price for their incompetence.

    (Of course some public opinion and as flipper so nicely puts it, lovers of the Molesworth Gang, have everyone guilty – one can only hope that they get screwed over by an inadequate investigation some day)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne 9.58 Thanks for making my point for me. When you found out that MacDonald was a convicted arsonist you convinced yourself that he was guilty of murder because of that. A jury trial is not a popularity trial, it is weighing fairly presented evidence to see whether it reaches a threshold, nothing to with how somebody looks, or how somebody feels sorry for some one else, dispassionate evaluation of the facts as directed by the Judge and using life experience.

    I note somebody saying that 1 scientist got in wrong in the Lundy case, in fact many scientists got it right but were ignored because police wanted to fit the degenerated dna to Lundy – that is nothing to do with the Judge or Jury, that’s withholding material evidence. I note also the idea that appeals are the ‘gravy train’ for Lawyers, absolute crap. Many appear at their own expense, legal aid rates are inadequate for appeals. The idea that Lawyers have unlimited budgets is nonsense, it is the Crown that unlimited budgets that is why there was a fail for the Crown retrial of Bain, no conviction against MacDonald and highly likely there will be no conviction against Lundy – the dna evidence was pivotal it was also false. With MacDonald the dive boot didn’t fit, he was seen on his property at the time of the shooting and also turned off an alarm. Of course all the evidence was going to be in the ponds, but that didn’t work out either when they were drained last year.

    Of course we now have a scientist saying that the marks on Robin Bain’s hands may have been gsr, in a report not but under a cross examination where other facts could be put to him. Meanwhile police rely on the fingerprints they prefer which also happen to have been taken by the witness who admitted lying to a jury to make it easier for them to understand. In all a split decision at best, and untested with more to come.

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

    @Jack5

    No matter what the evidence , how can the system find retrial jurors who didn’t see the TV of Lundy at the funeral?

    simple you get rid of Jurys, they are a joke. The scientific stuff put before them these days is way to complex for us lay people.

    I’d be happy with a Judge alone but to stop too much bleating three Judges then its just the facts no emotion.

    This idea just sends defence counsel in a fits though.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,434) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    What if Lundy is found guilty at the retrial, and then there is another trial, on and on, until he gets off. It will be playing double or quits until he wins, and taxpayers will pick up the bill.

    Obviously there is an expectation that a correct process will be followed. You seem to be suggesting that the Privy Council quashed the conviction for no good reason but provide no compelling argument for this view.

    The present adversial system is an anachronism, as Denis Horne pointed out at 11.36, and an increasingly expensive one at that.

    Law and Order is 3.6 billion out of 72.4 billion in core crown expenses, or 5% of such expenditure.

    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2013/taxpayers/b13-taxpayers.pdf

    Why do you rate law and order of such low priority that it does not justify 5% of the budget?

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

    Jack5 (3,434) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 11:09 am
    Bring back the death penalty! And unlike Dennis Horne, I’m not being facetious. A chance of one mistake in two hundred can be accepted, and locking people up for decades like laboratory rats is usually crueller than a quick execution, IMHO…

    and when the rope is round your neck and it got there because some scientist read the results wrong, and some of the evidence that clears you was not presented at trial, would you still argue the same?

    People seem to forget that police incompetence works two ways, whilst it also means innocent people are sometimes convicted for crimes they didn’t do, there are also guilty people who evade detection and wander free.

    There has to be a better system that allows all cases where there is major dispute to be re-investigated by an independent body.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I’d be happy with a Judge alone but to stop too much bleating three Judges then its just the facts no emotion.

    Three judges appointed by the representatives of a corrupt system. On this blog the response of the legal profession (F E Smith) to such allegations is to cry “conspiracy theorist”, laugh, and run away.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    There has to be a better system that allows all cases where there is major dispute to be re-investigated by an independent body.

    Legal systems don’t allow events to happen, they enable them. The word “allowed” is often used to imply the existence of a universal heirarchical system of control (see Baal worship).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (4,353) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    simple you get rid of Jurys, they are a joke. The scientific stuff put before them these days is way to complex for us lay people.

    But do we need to understand all of it? If, for instance, a GPS tracker puts a person in a particular location do I need to understand the mechanics of general relativity that makes the system function? Can I not just accept that the system works and that if the tracker puts him in that location then he was in that location lest there be a credible explanation to the contrary?

    I’m not sure how scientific evidence is treated in criminal trials, but for me if two experts of sufficient reputation put up competing scientific conclusions then I’m inclined to believe there is doubt about those conclusions.

    Perhaps this discussion could be expanded to democracy itself. The public in general is not well equipped to understand complex scientific issues. Therefore should we replace democracy with a system where only scientists in particular fields get to decide laws that concern their respective areas of expertise? Should climate scientists determine environmental regulations?

    I think there is something to be said for having the average person at the heart of these critical institutions. If we are to change the system we should focus on changing the processes or methods by which the average person is informed, not take the average person out of the system entirely, and leaving governance to an elite that possess the right qualifications.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If we are to change the system we should focus on changing the processes or methods by which the average person is informed

    While truth is essential to the process of change, personhood is not. Humans seem to be unable to comprehend how they are enslaved by the system, meaningful change can only be initiated by people who are not dependent upon the state for their sense of security.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. No thanks required, I didn’t make any point for you. What we found out after the trial was that Macdonald’s behaviour and character was such that the probability of his shooting a person was not highly unlikely. No suggestion of proof.

    The point about science is that eventually it gets to the truth. The law is more concerned with the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    you reap what you sow (7) Says:
    October 7th, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    Hey Samuel Smith – From one who use to live in P.Nth and work in Petone its easy to see how this travel time is not a problem. One could do the 135 = 143km trip at average speeds well above 100 km per hour. there was less traffic and patrols 15 years ago than today, one could easily wind up to +150km per hour on the back roads between Levin and P.Nth. As a sales rep Lundy could easily have done this trip inside the time and with luck not got caught.

    Seconded…

    If you were in Lundy’s shoes, knew where you were going and knew the roads well, were driving a car like a Falcon with a bit of power, driving late in the evening, and had big things on your mind that would make mere speeding tickets seem laughably trivial, then there aren’t many places on the Petone – Haywards – Levin – P.North route where you would need to reduce your speed to 100km/h or less…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kea (12,465 comments) says:

    meaningful change can only be initiated by people who are not dependent upon the state for their sense of security.

    Or dependent upon the mutterings of 8th century English Kings and bronze age superstitions imported from the Middle East ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Weihana. The second Bain trial took six weeks and here we are some $8M later arguing the obvious: No one in his right mind could think Robin Bain killed himself. It’s preposterous.

    And now here we go again with Lundy. I accept the crown case was not well presented. Lawyers.

    Meanwhile Scott Watson languishes in jail because Pope didn’t look for the yacht the kids climbed aboard and Peter Ellis’s mother will go to her grave knowing the law is an ass.

    Well, you may be happy, but I’m not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    the response of the legal profession (F E Smith) to such allegations is to cry “conspiracy theorist”, laugh, and run away.

    No, you have that wrong.  I called you a conspiracy theorist, laughed, and then completely ignored you.  

    You are so immersed in your own little dream world that engaging with you other than to have fun is completely pointless.

    And the Anglo-Saxons actually had limited use of the death penalty, the custom of Bloodgeld being an important one with them, which meant that you could effectively buy your way out of a death sentence, even for murder.  It was the Normans who brought with them the concept of the death penalty for everything.  How do you work that one into your common law dreamland?

    WRT the Lundy matter, as noted above this is not about guilt or innocence, but about whether there is sufficient evidence that the original verdicts must be considered unsafe.  The Privy Council obviously thought that there was.

    I have to say that the non-disclosure of the report re the brain tissue was a pretty damning revelation, in my opinion.  That alone could have led to a complete change in Defence tactics.

    The Court of Appeal, contrary to one comment above, has plenty of fortitude when it comes to turning down appeals.  That is why it should be embarrassed that AA Thomas, Bain, and now Lundy, have been decided the way they were. 

    And, of course, contrary to DPF’s cynical comments above, most murder convictions are very safe, accepted by the defendant, and there is no argument about them.  To mention the main controversial cases and then pretend that they represent all murders in NZ is just plain wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    The second Bain trial took six weeks and here we are some $8M later arguing the obvious: No one in his right mind could think Robin Bain killed himself. It’s preposterous.

    Shows how much you know.  The second trial took 3 months, not six weeks.  And if it is possible (not probable, just possible) that Robin Bain killed his family then the best we can be sure of is that it was either David Bain or Robin Bain.  Hence my position that I just don’t know and I don’t pretend to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No, you have that wrong. I called you a conspiracy theorist, laughed, and then completely ignored you.

    Easy for you to say when your own conduct suggests that you are part of the conspiracy to pervert justice in NZ.

    You are so immersed in your own little dream world that engaging with you other than to have fun is completely pointless.

    So you’re a psychoanalyst now, asshole?

    Facts are facts, the NZ state description of common law is a perversion of the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    suggests that you are part of the conspiracy to pervert justice in NZ.

    I wish I was!! I might be much better off financially than I am at present.  Can you please tell me how to join this conspiracy and how I can benefit from that membership?  Do they have holiday houses in exotic places?  That would be fun. 

    So you’re a psychoanalyst now, asshole?

    Oohhh, touchy, are we?

    Facts are facts, the NZ state description of common law is a perversion of the truth.

    Blah, blah, whatever, blah.  Get the picture?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Get the picture?

    Yep. You’re a contemptible piece of shit who defends a corrupt legal system, F E Smith.

    Why won’t you contest the fact that the NZ state description of common law is a perversion of the truth?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    Oh jeez. You really are a sucker for punishment FE.

    Could UglyTruth be Vince Siemer?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    If you were in Lundy’s shoes, knew where you were going and knew the roads well, were driving a car like a Falcon with a bit of power, driving late in the evening, and had big things on your mind that would make mere speeding tickets seem laughably trivial, then there aren’t many places on the Petone – Haywards – Levin – P.North route where you would need to reduce your speed to 100km/h or less…

    Nah, that’s just bollocks. I’ve driven between PN and Wellington fairly often since the mid-80s, and the traffic has always been a prick no matter what day, what time. 5.30pm would be one of the worst possible start times and would mean no chance of averaging even 100kph, let alone the 110 or 120kph needed, unless you did a lot of completely insane overtaking – which would have been noticed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (12,465 comments) says:

    Ugly, just out of curiosity, where would we look to find the “real” law you refer to ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Here comes the troll Kea to kill the thread.

    Haven’t she got a physics thesis or something she should be working on?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UglyTruth @ 11.47am.
    Still a bit of a coincidence that Christine Lundy was murdered a couple of days after she made the first payment on that increased insurance policy, don’tcha think?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=939404

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,687) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Meanwhile Scott Watson languishes in jail because Pope didn’t look for the yacht the kids climbed aboard and Peter Ellis’s mother will go to her grave knowing the law is an ass.

    Well, you may be happy, but I’m not.

    My preference for the adversarial system does not imply any particular emotion about any particular case.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    muggins, if it wasn’t a coincidence then why would the family’s insurance adviser initiate talk of increased cover?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=200762

    Was this fat man Lundy?
    Or was Ms Dance only imagining things?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,877) Says:

    October 8th, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    muggins, if it wasn’t a coincidence then why would the family’s insurance adviser initiate talk of increased cover?

    UT,
    Isn’t it possible that Lundy decided that $500000 would be worth killing for?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    muggins (2,640) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Was this fat man Lundy?
    Or was Ms Dance only imagining things?

    Why would someone presumably not wanting to draw attention to themselves put on a blond corkscrew wig? Especially given that they are a big fat man?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Jack5 (5,055 comments) says:

    Weihana posted at 2.09:

    ..Why would someone presumably not wanting to draw attention to themselves put on a blond corkscrew wig…

    Perhaps his goal was disguise rather than invisibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Oh jeez. You really are a sucker for punishment FE.

    :D  I just find it entertaining, nick.  UT is there when I want a bit of fun, and never disappoints.

    Could UglyTruth be Vince Siemer?

    I must confess that I hadn’t thought of that!!  Vince, is that you??

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    muggins (2,641) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Isn’t it possible that Lundy decided that $500000 would be worth killing for?

    Possible, but if 1 million is available and money is your motive, why would you opt for 500k? It’s like a woman doing a porno for 10K but declining 20K. Your threshold may be lower, but if extra is available why not take it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,437) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Weihana posted at 2.09:

    ..Why would someone presumably not wanting to draw attention to themselves put on a blond corkscrew wig…

    Perhaps his goal was disguise rather than invisibility.

    Not much of a disguise, especially when you’re a big fat man. It just seems comical the idea of a big fat man disguising himself in a blond corkscrew wig.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I just find it entertaining, nick.

    Laugh it up, bozo. You were happy to argue until the evidence of conspiracy came to the fore. You have the same modus operandi as mikenmild, attempting rational debate and then reverting to ridicule when your argument falls apart.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It just seems comical the idea of a big fat man disguising himself in a blond corkscrew wig.

    No more comical than the idea that a businessman would attempt to contrive a false alibi which involved a substantial risk of failure from attention drawn to an insanely fast road trip.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    http://www.lundytruth.com/files/NS-lundy.pdf

    Interesting article.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Weihana (3,849) Says:

    October 8th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    muggins (2,641) Says:
    October 8th, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Isn’t it possible that Lundy decided that $500000 would be worth killing for?

    Possible, but if 1 million is available and money is your motive, why would you opt for 500k? It’s like a woman doing a porno for 10K but declining 20K. Your threshold may be lower, but if extra is available why not take it?

    Hang on, Weihana, it was Christine Lundy who increased the amount, not Mark Lundy.
    And that increased amount could have been the catalyst,don’tcha think?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Kea (12,465 comments) says:

    Here comes the troll Kea to kill the thread.

    Haven’t she got a physics thesis or something she should be working on?

    Jack5, do you think crying “troll” hides the fact you have nothing to contribute and are just a nasty little prick ? If you don’t like your poorly thought out ideas being torn to bits, then stay off forums such as this, or get some better ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I guess my problem is that why would anyone murder Christine and Amber Lundy?
    The Lundy’s lived in a quiet street in Palmerston North. There was no reason for anyone to rob or murder Christine Lundy.
    The only person with any sort of motive was Mark Lundy. So obviously he was always going to be the most likely suspect.
    Ok, he had an alibi, of sorts.
    It would appear that if the murders were committed around 7.15pm Mark Lundy isn’t guilty. He could not have driven the distance he had to drive in under three hours. So if he was the perpetrator he must have committed the murders in the early hours of the next day. Which he could have done.
    My thinking is that the patholgist got the time of death wrong.
    If Ms Dance did see a big fat man that big fat man wasn’t Mark Lundy.
    Mark Lundy committed the crime, but not when the police said he did.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I guess my problem is that why would anyone murder Christine and Amber Lundy?

    Possibly to get to Mark at an emotional level.

    The only person with any sort of motive was Mark Lundy.

    That is only your assumption.

    Mark Lundy committed the crime

    That is one hell of an accusation with only your assumption to support it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,880) Says:

    October 8th, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    I guess my problem is that why would anyone murder Christine and Amber Lundy?

    Possibly to get to Mark at an emotional level.

    The only person with any sort of motive was Mark Lundy.

    That is only your assumption.

    Mark Lundy committed the crime

    That is one hell of an accusation with only your assumption to support it.

    UT.
    Do you really think that someone would murder Christine and Amber Lundy to get at Mark Lundy?
    Sounds like you have been reading too many crime fiction books.
    Yes, it is my assumption that Mark Lundy was the only person with any sort of motive.
    As I said, who else would have a motive?
    And it is not just me who believes Mark Lundy committed the crime, so don’t get on your high horse with me for making that accusation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Ugly,

    I have little doubt that Lundy murdered his wife and daughter. His behaviour at their funeral when he feigned distress, and during his interview with police when he had no response to accusations that he committed murder, were telling. Then there’s the fact that the murder weapon was apparently a tomahawk taken from his garage. Murders usually kill with their own weapon. And why would any killer kill a young child? I could understand Lundy killing Amber because she could identify him…

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

    Beyond the Darklands: Mark Lundy

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    And why would any killer kill a young child? I could understand Lundy killing Amber because she could identify him…

    Remember that “Raurangi Marino” thing that bashed and nearly killed an un-related tiny little girl in a senseless burglary/assault? To quote just one example that has been discussed here on Kiwiblog in recent years.

    Bashing your own little girl’s brains out with an axe would be pretty hard to do no matter what kind of screwup you are. TBH I would find it easier to accept some random scum bag killed Amber, than her own father.

    But there’s obviously much more to the overall case than who I might imagine to be more likely to do it…

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

    Remember that “Raurangi Marino” thing that bashed and nearly killed an un-related tiny little girl in a senseless burglary/assault

    Marino raped his victim. There are certainly plenty of cases of strangers raping and murdering children. But I’m not aware that there’s any evidence Amber was raped.

    Bashing your own little girl’s brains out with an axe would be pretty hard to do no matter what kind of screwup you are.

    I don’t agree. Many child murders are committed by parents or someone related to the victim.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328784/Why-fathers-killing-children-Top-criminologist-reveals-research-sickening-trend.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I have little doubt that Lundy murdered his wife and daughter. His behaviour at their funeral when he feigned distress, and during his interview with police when he had no response to accusations that he committed murder, were telling.

    How do you know that Lundy was feigning distress at the funeral? Lots of shit has been flung at him by the system, why should this be any different?

    No response to an accusation from the police is quite rational regardless of being guilty or not.

    Then there’s the fact that the murder weapon was apparently a tomahawk taken from his garage.

    What is apparent isn’t necessarily real. A small axe could also be consistent with the injuries.

    I could understand Lundy killing Amber because she could identify him…

    The same could be said for any murderer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Do you really think that someone would murder Christine and Amber Lundy to get at Mark Lundy?

    Absolutely. There are some serious psychopaths on the planet.

    As I said, who else would have a motive?

    Like I said, someone who was burned by him in business.

    And it is not just me who believes Mark Lundy committed the crime

    But it is you who is basing that argument on a single assumption.

    The point is that the standard of proof accepted by people who believe that he is guilty is abysmal.
    IMO it is just another aspect of NZ’s corrupt judicial system.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, you do your arguments no favours by claiming that the Mark Lundy miscarriage of justice was caused by corruption in the Government, the Ministry of Justice hiding the common law, and public sightings of bigfoot on Lambton Quay.

    Which is a shame because many of the Lundy innocence points are actually valid and at the least throw up what most people would consider reasonable doubt (bearing in mind that most people that serve on juries are braindead and thus can’t usually be labelled “most people” – sorry FE – still smarting about Bain retrial!)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    This is new, nickb. Tell me more about the public sightings of bigfoot on Lambton Quay.

    And when you’ve done that go f**k yourself. Judicial corruption is a real and serious issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Ugly some of your previous arguments actually made a lot of sense, much more than a lot of the Mason clinic escapees that have only their ‘core beliefs’ and the prosecution case as ‘facts’ but somehow claim to ‘know’ that ML is guilty. Well Done

    There is a whole lot of holes in the crown case and IMO right that it should be retried. The murder scenario put forward by the prosecution is ludicrus. Thats not to say I believe he is innocent as this is not ‘proven’ either. Mind you the murder scenarios put up against Thomas, Bain, Pora and Ewen McDonald were just as laughable so this puts Lundys into perspective. I sometimes wonder do they really believe what they are saying or are just trying to fill in the gaps to justify the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UT,
    I am part way through a crime fiction novel .
    This from the end of chapter 26.
    “Is there anyone you can think of that who hates you so much they would kill Carrie? [his wife].
    Is there anyone who lost out to you on a business deal ,or someone in your company who wants you out? ”
    Blair[the husband ] grew quiet. “I’ve made some dicey moves in the last two years. There were some very pissed off Russians who lost out on a bid to build an oil pipeline,and I engineered a leveraged buyout of a high-tech company in California. But that was business. I can’t believe any of those people would try to get back at me by killing my wife.”
    It sounds to me like you have read that book, UT. Sleight of Hand ,by Phillip Margolin. Ring any bells?

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

    IMHO Lundy may well have committed the murders. There seems no other likely suspect. Nevertheless, the Crown’s case, as presented, was clearly ludicrous, and he should get a retrial. I think he would still be convicted if the prosecution can establish that the crime took place later that night.

    I have no idea whether or not David Bain killed his family. Based on the type of crime and the prosecution’s theory of it, I consider it very unlikely, but that doesn’t matter: the problem in the Bain case was, once more, police incompetence. If they’d done their job properly and tested David for gunpowder residue, we would know who the murderer was.

    The Watson case, for me, stinks, and has done ever since they started magically shrinking the boat those kids got on. My guess is that the killer(s) in that case slipped in to NZ by yacht, and left NZ by yacht before anyone noticed. Those kids are somewhere at the bottom of the Tasman. If that girl’s father hadn’t been a local nob, my guess is that Watson would never have seen a day inside.

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

    Can anyone seriously think that that fat fuck managed to drive that fast without either flipping his car or stopping at a drive thru for five whoppers?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    …and in addition to driving like Ayrton Senna all the way to Palmy, committing a violent murder and doing a lot of running to and from his house, he hooned back to Wellington and humped some rent-a-bitch for good measure.

    Sounds like Superman.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    Tom- I think it is generally accepted that the Prosecution (in particular the Pathologist) ballsed up the timings of their case. Hence the retrial…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @nickb. Based on what I gleaned at the time of the trial, had I been a juror, I don’t think I would have found Lundy guilty. The facts were sparse and the case was poorly presented. I wouldn’t have convicted Scott Watson, I was not persuaded. The more I find out the more convinced I am Watson was wrongly convicted. I most certainly would have voted Bain guilty, I’ve never seen such a strong circumstantial case – a mass of evidence. I note that Prof Palmer who found the Binnie Dunce “model report” persuasive was a crown prosecutor for many years. No wonder we can’t get convictions in complex cases.

    I saw immediately the Peter Ellis trial was a farce, the police knew that if they prosecuted the three women everybody would see that, so they dropped those charges at the last minute. Nothing I have found out since has changed my mind. The tragedy is the system cannot correct itself.

    Getting back to Lundy, we now know more. We can see a likely time frame. Incidentally, I don’t think he was acting at the funeral, I think he realised the enormity of what he had done.

    Anyone rational can change his mind with new evidence, whatever the courts decide. Macdonald is an example.

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

    Tom- I think it is generally accepted that the Prosecution (in particular the Pathologist) ballsed up the timings of their case. Hence the retrial…

    Why are people complaining then? The system is working as intended.

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

    Hey Tom,

    read some of the posts above, bring yourself up to speed mate,
    the fat fuck didn’t have to drive that fast.
    The pathologist fucked up with the time of death.

    i hope that in the retrial the fat fuck gets a decent sentence when he is convicted again.

    At least an additional 30 years on top of the 10 he has served would not be enough.

    This prick beat his wife and daughter to death. Not a crime of passion in the heat of the moment
    but the wifes murder at least was a cold calculated premeditated act.
    The daughter had her head caved in by her Dad just to cover his sorry fat cowardly arse.

    A more disgusting crime would be hard to imagine.

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

    Anyone made their GTA 5 Online character look like Mark Lundy?

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

    read some of the posts above, bring yourself up to speed mate,
    the fat fuck didn’t have to drive that fast.
    The pathologist fucked up with the time of death.

    Yes, in such a way that a retrial is necessary. Can’t we all admit that the prosecution screwed up without at the same time assuming that Lundy is innocent?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    Yeah that was my point also Tom

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    This prick beat his wife and daughter to death.

    And you know this how, exactly, bereal?

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

    Tom Jackson @ 7.11 Yes, good point, well made.
    and,
    Longknives @ 7.14

    Agree with both of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Can’t we all admit that the prosecution screwed up without at the same time assuming that Lundy is innocent?

    No, we can’t. If the prosecution screwed up then the trial proves nothing and we are back to the presumption of innocence.

    I don’t understand why the prosecution would even attempt the case with that impossible timeline. Lundy doesn’t have any history of issues that would drive him to murder his family so brutally. The only reason I have is like the Scott Watson case, they couldn’t afford to let a high profile crime go unsolved and so they pinned it on the most likely suspect.

    And the legal buzzards call me a conspiracy theorist and try to say how amusing it all is. Heh.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    If the prosecution screwed up then the trial proves nothing and we are back to the presumption of innocence.

    It’s the justice system that has to presume innocence. The rest of us are free to try and convict him in the court of our own personal opinion to any extent we see fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    So glad I read the above case summary by Beryl QC. My understanding of the case is just so much better for the experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Its sad that there is no other suspect in the Lundy case at all and if ML is innocent then it is a total ‘whodunnit’ I am not convinced of his innocence but certainly there is more than reasonable doubt in every aspect of the crown case, which is why I believe that the decision for a retrial is correct. Tom you make very good points.
    The cases which I can’t see how can be BRD or even close to are Teina Pora and Scott Watson as there is just no evidence at all and in the case of Pora, the DNA of a serial rapist on the victim. The Watson case like the Lundy one has noone else but also next to no evidence against Watson. It was a total sham and the Kristy McDonald report recently released just shows that she has put herself as judge, jury and executioner with the evidence put forward. This and the recent Lundy decision highlight the need for a Criminal Cases Review Commission, or the like (plus some of the comments of the deluded witch-sniffers who clearly ‘know’ what happened)
    The Scott GUy verdict is totally correct, its a sad ‘whodunnit’ but I think its pretty unlikely to have been Ewen MacDonald. Yes his actions were dodgy but it is a pretty implausible case and no real evidence put forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Glad i could help you young nickb (you sure do need help from someone)

    as a self declared lawyer, you seem to have such a limited grasp.

    Of anything!

    Posting all day everyday here on KB If you really are a lawyer can you advise….

    When do you ever get time to bill some hours to your ‘clients ?’

    Do you have any clients or do you just sit on your arse in a practice your Dad owns ?

    Or, are you just another flea lawyer ?

    i’d go for the latter myself.
    Thats if you are a lawyer and not just a bullshit artist.
    Second thoughts, i’d go for just a blowhard bullshit artist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Kea (12,465 comments) says:

    bereal, I have noticed a change of tone in your contributions. What is causing that do you think ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    What are you saying Kea? :)

    Apologies for derailing this thread. Lawyers are red flags to an old heifer for Beryl. I can’t resist.

    I actually bill the taxpayer for legal aid Beryl. Currently I am defending Barry Hart and Davina Murray, which is a good wicket. Have charged $25m+ this year so far. On track for a new Gulfstream by year’s end. Life is good :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    I’m just trying to compare some of the proposed ‘murder’ scenarios put forward by the cops in some of our most high profile cases
    Interested to see anyones opinion on which one of these tops their list.
    The police would have us believe that
    (1) Arthur Thomas shot Harvey and Jeanette Crewe through their kitchen window whilst balancing on the sill in the wind, pouring rain and the dark.

    (2) Mark Lundy drove between Wellington and Palmerston North at break neck speed in rush hour, committed the double murder of his wife and daughter and returned to Wellington within 2 hours 58 minutes.

    (3) David Bain ‘hid’ behind the curtains and shot Robin whilst ‘kneeling in prayer’ with a close contact upward trajectory wound that fitted with the characteristics of over 95% of suicides.

    (4) Ewen MacDonald between 4.43a.m. and 5.02am rode his bicycle 1.5km up and down Aorangi Road, hid outside his brother-in-law Scott Guys gate, stole 3 puppies, shot Scott, rode home, cleaned up after himself and disposed of the puppies, the dive boots and the murder weapon, avoided being seen by the farmhands arriving, being detected by anyone all in less than 20 minutes.

    (5) Not advanced in Court but widely speculated by police that John Bentley bashed his sister Kirsty to death somewhere in the vicinity of the Ashburton riverbank, his father drove home just as he’d finished, saw what John had done just spontaneusly decided that they would go and hide the body out in the Rakaia gorge, and clean up any forensic trace while completely avoiding detection on New Years Eve 1999.

    (6) Scott Watson was the ‘mystery man’ and his boat the final destination of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope despite none of the witnesses positively identifying either Scott or his boat and their descriptions were at total variance with Blade, that it was indeed the scene of a double murder and Scott meticulously cleaned up all evidence that they had ever been there except for two hairs on a blanket that were not originally found in the initial forensic examination.

    (7) Teina Pora was Malcolm Rewas accomplice in the 1992 rape and murder of Susan Burdett despite him being a rival gang member, and Malcolm Rewa being identified as a ‘lone wolf serial rapist’ he took him along so that he could watch Rewa have to ‘jack off’ in order to be able to rape Susan Burdett to overcome his erectile dysfunction problems.

    Which of these tops anyone’s list. Can anyone beat these?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    nickb @ 9.07

    Now you have proved that you really are full of it mate.

    Self destructing online in front of all.

    By the way,
    who do you blame for your pure nasty streak ?

    Your Mum, your Dad ?

    Also, who do you blame for your delusions of grandeur ?

    nickb, you poor soul, i maybe able to help you.

    Help you make an even bigger prick of yourself for all to see.

    Where did that nasty streak come from ?

    Any idea ?

    By the way nickb, if you really are a lawyer, i’ll suck a red one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    Peter Ellis tops all, on the topic of general miscarriages of justice.

    That case sickens me to this day in terms of the utter failure of everyone involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson @ 6.49pm.
    David Bain’s hands were tested for GSR at around 11.30am on the Monday of the murders. None was detected. However Bain said he had washed his hands to remove printers ink from them and he had almost certainly washed them again to remove blood from them.
    In answer to a question from a detective he said he didn’t have any blood on his hands because he had washed them.
    He handled bloody clothes, he left a bloody palm print on the washing machine. He did not have any blood on his hands when the police arrived so he must have washed them to remove the blood.
    Robin Bain’s hands should have been bagged but even if they had tested positive for GSR that would not necessarily have proved anything. The police believe that Robin Bain’s body may have been moved before they arrived to give the appearance of him having committed suicide. If David Bain did move his father’s body he could have transferred GSR from his hands to his father’s hands.
    Tom, you obviously have not studied the Bain murder case in any great detail.
    If you had you would be aware that virtually all the evidence points to David Bain as being the perpetrator.
    Those damaged glasses that it is obvious he was wearing that weekend.
    The lens from those glasses that was found in Stephen’s room[ there is a photo taken in Stephen's room on the day of the murders which shows that lens on the floor next to the toe of an ice skating boot.]
    Stephen’s blood on David’s clothes.
    Those bruises on David Bain’s head which the doctor said were between 7 and 13 hours old when he examined him at around 11.30am.
    David’s gloves in Stephen’s room. Why on earth would Robin Bain be wearing David’s gloves when he had his own gloves?
    Why would Robin Bain be wearing gloves at all if he was going to commit suicide?
    A prime set of David Bain’s fingerprints were found in blood on the rifle. Bain told Binnie his best notion was that they were in animal blood from the summer. A likely story.
    He heard Laniet gurgling. He saw his mother’s eyes open when experts said they would have closed shortly after she was shot through the eyelid.
    Those bruises on David Bain’s torso that he can’t explian.
    And so the list goes on.
    Against this you have Robin Bain, a right-handed man, having supposedly shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and managing to fall to the floor with his outstretched hand not disturbing an upright magazine that was about 2mm from it .
    Pigs don’t fly , Tom.

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

    Muggins
    Lies spin and bullshit
    It was the first time you posted it, it was the second time you posted it, and every subsequent time. Reposting it will not make it more believable.
    None of your post is ‘evidence’ Muggins it is police theories juiced up with your ‘spin’, you hear a theory via the media and then all of a sudden it ‘must’ be true, why? ‘because the police said so’
    Why? Why? Why?
    All these why questions are just emotional bullshit, based on your ‘right’ way to commit suicide and not on any factual evidence of any kind. Maybe you can ask Robin again one day.
    You go on and on, were you there that morning and did you observe it? that would make you a suspect in the murder! or do you think you are Robin reincarnated trying to convince people you are not the killer. You are doing a pretty s…. job.

    I think you are an arrogant POS and are way out of your depth here, you try to pass yourself of as an expert but are a joke, do everyone here (and Robin Bain) a favour and drop dead. I think even he would distance himself from you if he were alive.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    nickb have you read either the Lundy PC Judgement, or the ‘press released’ findings regarding the assertion that there was gsr on
    Robin Bain’s hands. For the later, I don’t think so judging by the timing of your comments about the police ‘findings’ on themselves yesterday. As for the PC decision on Lundy you don’t appear to have read that either.

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

    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Mark-Lundy-Privy-Council-decision-queried/tabid/506/articleID/38266/Default.aspx

    Bryan Bruce thoughts on the decision, he makes one good point about the paint flecks at the murder scene being the same colour as what Lundy had on his tools.
    Bryans recent cases such as his last years ‘who killed the Crewes’ or his ‘Bain’ episode were laughable but he had some good thoughts on Kirsty Bentleys case and a couple of others. I though Nigel Latta’s ‘Beyond the Darklands’ episode was rather more convincing on ML though. Bryans points are possible but not a ‘BRD’ case for me though

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    “(1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested:
    Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry.
    (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication:
    [S]ubmission to the scrutiny of the scientific community is a component of “good science,” in part because it increases the likelihood that substantive flaws in methodology will be detected.
    (3) the known or potential rate of error or the existence of standards; and,
    (4) whether the theory or technique used has been generally accepted”

    You would have read the above reference to Binnie J in the PC’s decision Rowan. Surprisingly, ross wasn’t called to explain how Lundy or Bain looked at a particular time and what that meant. Either was Fanny’s farting problem mentioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Nos
    Maybe instead of having a CRCC system here in NZ we should just have a committee with Aunt Fanny, Ross, Longknives, the Demented Dentist and the various other Mason clinic escapees here. They clearly ‘know’ what happened.
    Maybe they should have been called as crown witnesses at the Bain retrial, or maybe thats waiting for the Lundy round 2.
    I think it would be good to have them assist KP and VP in their upcoming defence, the judge could do with the entertainment value! else it might be a short and rather boring job for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    Tipping J, the former NZ Court of Appeal Judge, looks to have the reasoning of Goofy after reading both the Lundy and Bain hearings Rowan. In both he is proved to be wrong. The comments he has put into judgements about defendants fully arguing their cases at trail show that he is from Mars. Tipping J was a bull crap artist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Johnboy (16,092 comments) says:

    He was a good shot at fleeting ducks on darkening nights though Nosty.

    Always hit what he was meant to. :)

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

    Nos
    Which of my 7 murder scenarios in my 9.16 cases wins?
    Are any in any way believable or would ‘conspiracy theory’ rather than ‘plausible explanation’ for the police case be a more appropriate title?

    Many here would find Tippings reasoning convincing somehow, you remember ‘Daddy couldn’t have shot himself because of the location of the ‘exit wound’ in his head’, JK has a list of 60 or so errors and false assumptions out the 03 Bain decision reprinted in TBA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Whipty (1 comment) says:

    Ben Vanderkolk the prosecutor
    Common in this and the Scott Guy trial maybe he should get his evidence all together before he takes it to court

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    I would have to say the Police assertion that Pora and lone serial rapist Rewa committed the crime together as the most absurd. I have yet to meet anyone for that matter who believes Pora is guilty, hell according to the latest documentaries on the case at least 6 Police officers who worked on it have expressed serious doubts about his conviction. It will be interesting to see the case when it arrives at the Privy Council, I believe Teina’s legal team are seeking a quashing of his conviction with no retrial at all. By the sounds of it they have a very strong case.

    If this does go the way his legal team are hoping, and then with no one officially convicted of the murder of Burdett it will be interesting to see if the Crown proceed with a third murder trial for Rewa. From a sentencing perspective, it is a waste of time as he is already serving PD with a minimum of 22 years so it is quite likely that he may never be released as it is, but of course from a justice perspective and for the family of Burdett, Rewa should be put on trial again.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    Dave Henwood who was the highly respected criminal profiler who helped capture serial rapists Malcolm Rewa and Joseph Thompson, has gone on record and provided sworn statements to Police and Teina’s defence team of his view that Pora is innocent. He was never called for the Rewa retrial in 1998 or the Teina Pora retrial in 2000 by Teina’s defence. He wasn’t called in the Rewa retrial as his evidence and knowledge of Rewa being a lone wolf rapist (with an erectile problem) did not fit the Crown case that Rewa must have taken along Pora on just one occasion to watch him rape (Or attempt to rape if he couldn’t get it up).

    The mistake was in the Pora retrial he was not called upon by the defence. Can’t help but ponder that if the jury at Teina’s second trial actually heard all the evidence or even the Rewa Modus Operandi evidence from Henwood himself, the jury may have acquitted Teina. Looking back on all this though, even before the semen was identified as belonging to Rewa in 1996, the Police really shouldn’t even have pursued a conviction in the first place given that in those interviews with Pora he knew essentially nothing about the crime scene (aside from the stuff that was already in the papers at the time) and couldn’t even point the house out when Police took him there and stood him right outside the property.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Bryan Bruce thoughts on the decision, he makes one good point about the paint flecks at the murder scene being the same colour as what Lundy had on his tools.”

    And intruders never use the victim’s own tools, kitchen knives, baseball bats etc. Susan Burdet was killed by an intruder wielding her own self-defence baseball bat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Pigs don’t fly , Tom.

    Yes, which is exactly why the case against David Bain was poor. No reasonable motive has ever been supplied, other than the old “he went nuts”, which is the standard explanation when you haven’t got one. That particular sort of crime (family annihilation) is almost always committed by the father. Robin Bain was the poster boy for this sort of murder.

    To top it all, we have the supposedly crazy David Bain remembering to do his paper round in the middle of the killing spree, chancing that his father would not notice that he was walking through a house of corpses and call the police.

    Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Tom Jackson. There was a motive, his mother was repairing the relationship with his father and he was being sidelined.

    If you want to shoot yourself in the left temple (nearly horizontally) you almost certainly grasp the muzzle. A rifle, especially with telescopic sights (being offset tend to rotate) and silencer (added length) is far too unwieldy to guide otherwise. But on the silencer the prints were not Robin’s but Stephen’s; he had grasped the rifle to try to save his life. Stephen’s prints were pristine. If Robin had grasped the rifle in the only natural place to shoot himself, even if so some strange reason his prints did not “take”, Stephen’s prints would have been smudged. They were not. There are dozens of pieces of jigsaw like this, and they all fit together to show a picture of David, not Robin.

    Then we have Bain saying, “The judge was very kind to me” and when asked if he did it, “My core belief is I was not there.”

    I never thought I would say this to you, Tom, but you haven’t got any idea what you are talking about.

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

    No response to an accusation from the police is quite rational regardless of being guilty or not.

    Really, so if you were facing 20 years in prison for a crime you didn’t commit, you would have no response? Goodness, you must be fond of prison food. :)

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

    Susan Burdet was killed by an intruder wielding her own self-defence baseball bat.

    So, Christine Lundy kept a tomahawk under the bed for self-defense? I don’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “So, Christine Lundy kept a tomahawk under the bed for self-defense? I don’t think so.”

    Under the bed? probably not, but in the wood shed? quite possibly.

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

    Under the bed? probably not, but in the wood shed? quite possibly.</blockquote.

    That's a strange place to keep a weapon if you want one for self defense. :)

    Oh and the "intruder" happened to break into the garage without damaging the garage. Maybe they had a key. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Really, so if you were facing 20 years in prison for a crime you didn’t commit, you would have no response?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    I haven’t got a lock on my woodshed ross, I doubt that the Lundy’s locked up their pine off-cuts either.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson (1,395) Says:

    October 9th, 2013 at 7:36 am
    Pigs don’t fly , Tom.

    Yes, which is exactly why the case against David Bain was poor. No reasonable motive has ever been supplied, other than the old “he went nuts”, which is the standard explanation when you haven’t got one. That particular sort of crime (family annihilation) is almost always committed by the father. Robin Bain was the poster boy for this sort of murder.

    To top it all, we have the supposedly crazy David Bain remembering to do his paper round in the middle of the killing spree, chancing that his father would not notice that he was walking through a house of corpses and call the police.

    Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

    Tom, as I said, you know very little about the Bain murders.
    David Bain’s supporters say that it was Robin Bain who “went nuts”.
    I for one have never said that David Bain “went nuts”.
    However his parents were so disturbed by his behaviour as a child they sought leave from the Church to take him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment and counselling.
    So far as motive is concerned, well the proceeds or the estate came to over $300000 and I would suggest
    $ 300000 back in 1994 would have been motive enough for a penniless paper boy.
    So far as his father chancing on the murders, one again your ignorance is showing.
    If Robin Bain came in the back door and went up the stairs and into the lounge the only bedroom he would have been able to see into without going out of his way would be David Bain’s ,whose door was opposite the lounge door.
    If he came in the front door then once again the only bedroom he would have been able to see into would be David Bain’s.
    Of course we don’t know which door he came in by. He may have even come in the back door, said his prayers, gone down for the paper[ David said he didn't bring it in] and come back in the front door. You have fallen into the same trap as Justice Binnie did re Robin Bain chancing in the murders.
    I am quite happy to discuss the Bain murders with you, Tom, but you really do need to make yourself better informed about the facts of the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson:

    ‘To top it all, we have the supposedly crazy David Bain remembering to do his paper round in the middle of the killing spree, chancing that his father would not notice that he was walking through a house of corpses and call the police.

    Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.’

    Don’t believe in fairy tales Tom?

    Rowan 10.11

    4 wins. Fortunately the Jury didn’t buy it.

    The Lundy decision is top shelf. Particularly where it observed how far Tipping J was off the mark in his observations of fresh evidence, or in fact evidence that might later show a conviction to be unsafe.. Interestingly, in the most recent COA decisions overturned by the PC, Tipping J featured. In the Lundy decision Binnie J features, befitting his status as a leading international Jurist. Besides Tipping there is another ‘double’ Klentjies (sp?) whose evidence was proved wanting in the Bain case. His ‘mistakes’ went even further in Lundy, referring to the possible use of a floppy disc to alter settings on the Lundy computer, when in fact the use of a floppy disc would be discoverable – an expert?

    Having read the Judgement, although there is no doubt the Lundy conviction was unsafe, it’s hard to know where The Crown will go with the prosecution – unlike the Bain case where it transpires they had no where to go and should have relented their ‘stance’ on a retrial.

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

    “I am quite happy to discuss the Bain murders with you, Tom, but you really do need to make yourself better informed about the facts of the case.”

    So says Aunt Fanny the biggest fruitloop on KB who is way out of her/its depth, misrepresents the case in her every post and comes up with various lies and conspiracy theories to explain her fantasy scenarios. ASome are not even a matter of contention between the persecution and defence. She/it expects to believe that she/it is well informed and an ‘expert’ on the case
    Pull the other one

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    If you want to shoot yourself in the left temple (nearly horizontally) you almost certainly grasp the muzzle. A rifle, especially with telescopic sights (being offset tend to rotate) and silencer (added length) is far too unwieldy to guide otherwise. But on the silencer the prints were not Robin’s but Stephen’s; he had grasped the rifle to try to save his life. Stephen’s prints were pristine. If Robin had grasped the rifle in the only natural place to shoot himself, even if so some strange reason his prints did not “take”, Stephen’s prints would have been smudged.

    That’s just speculation. The prosecution relied on a circumstantial case, where they weren’t very professional about collecting the evidence.

    The problem with the Bain case is that almost everybody focuses on the minutiae as if they are going to unambiguously tell us who did it. But there’s just not enough evidence.

    But the story makes no sense at the macro level. There is no medical evidence that David is or was mentally ill at the time of the shootings. The claim against him is essentially that he suffered from a mental illness from which no professional could diagnose. How could someone in such a state decide that he had to complete his paper round?

    The Bain case is a classic case of family annihilation. In those cases the culprit is invariably the father (which is one reason Lundy looks so guilty, whether or not he is). The type of offender in these cases is the father under stress (e.g. Mark Lundy).

    If David Bain wanted his family’s money, then he went about trying to frame his father in a completely weird way. What cold and calculating person would leave a house full of dead people knowing that someone was likely to enter the dwelling? It’s just too big a chance to take. If it were me and I wanted to kill the Bains, I would have arranged for a fire. Shooting is too personal for someone who wants to do it solely for monetary gain.

    It’s absolutely obvious what happened. Robin planned to kill the family, but knew that David’s physical superiority over him meant that David had to be out of the way (look at the trouble the killer had with resistance from Stephen Bain – a child). Robin waited until David left, killed the family and then killed himself.

    The motive is obvious; the timeline is obvious; and the sequence of events entirely rational. You need a whole bunch of evidence the other way to overturn that commonsense theory of the crime, and it’s just not there.

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

    I’m quite willing to concede it is possible that David Bain killed his family. It’s just not likely enough in my view to be true beyond all reasonable doubt.

    I don’t give a shit about David Bain or any of the other Bains. From the evidence they seemed to be a highly dysfunctional gang of weirdos.

    It was a difficult case, and the cops didn’t do their job properly. Hence, they lost. End of story. I think Mark Lundy is far more likely to have murdered his wife, but again the cops didn’t do their job properly and he may well walk. But that’s how the system is supposed to work.

    On the other hand, Menzies Hallett is now in prison for a murder that everybody knew he’d committed, because the cops wouldn’t let it go (and rightly so).

    Win some. Lose some.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Amazing the forensic skills of a retired dentist, who has previously stated that he is an expert urologist see,
    http://unspinningmoments.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/dentists-who-do.html

    He now tries to pass himself of as a ‘fingerprint expert’ who has further examined all the unidentified prints found on the gun and determined that it is BRD that they ‘weren’t’ Robins, how this was achieved would be interesting to know, as they were not kept to see if it could be determined whose they weren’t and instead destroyed.
    Denny the urology/fingerprint expert now relies on the crown fingerprint expert Kim Jones evidence about ‘bloody fingerprints’ being a ‘strong’ piece of ‘evidence’ against David but Jones evidence and credibility at the retrial is shown to be on par with that of Bruce Hutton in the Crewe case, as he was shown to have lied and mislead the jury over the fingerprints, apparently he was just trying to help them ‘understand it better’ by lying to them.
    Own goal Dennis!

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

    Pretty much on the money Tom
    To me at the Bain retrial it was shown that Robin was standing when he died and not ‘kneeling in prayer’ as the crown had tried to previously argue, the shot was also close contact, upward trajectory and had a number of characteristics consistent with suicide. When I try to create a narrative incorporating all this where he is ‘shot’ (by David who is taller) it just becomes farcical, and a total laugh to think that he was shot by anyone other than himself. The contact wound by itself is around 95% more likely to be self inflicted.
    Either Robin was (A) a very willing and cooperative ‘victim’, (B) was off his head on drugs or (C) the killer which I find about 99% more convincing.
    The crown can’t explain any of Robins final scene but try to argue ‘murder’ by working it out from Stephens room where there is no strong evidence either way.
    the remaining 1% can be split between David and the goat.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    There was a motive, his mother was repairing the relationship with his father and he was being sidelined.

    Killing your mother is not the time honoured means of indulging Oedipal urges.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Agreed Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I haven’t got a lock on my woodshed ross, I doubt that the Lundy’s locked up their pine off-cuts either.

    It’s a garage, not a woodshed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I’m quite willing to concede it is possible that David Bain killed his family

    Is that because the guy is a narcissist or a persistent liar, or both?

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

    Is that because the guy is a narcissist or a persistent liar, or both?

    You mean he’s human?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Does anyone think that Menzies Hallett should have been convicted on insufficient evidence 30 odd years ago because everyone knew he did it?

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

    But the story makes no sense at the macro level. There is no medical evidence that David is or was mentally ill at the time of the shootings.

    Tom, you’re suffering from what economists call “paralysis by analysis”.

    Tell me what mental health problems were suffered by the Menendez brothers or Jeremy Bamber…I’m not aware they were diagnosed with any. Bamber murdered 5 members of his family at the ripe old age of 21. He tried to blame his adopted sister for the carnage….just like David Bain tried to blame his father. Unlike David, Bamber will spend the rest of his life in prison.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber

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

    Bamber murdered 5 members of his family at the ripe old age of 24…

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

    Even though he murdered his family, Bamber wanted a million pounds from the surviving members. David Bain wants a fortune from his family…that sort of narcissim is hard to comprehend.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/essex/3159397.stm
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2733266/Bain-to-seek-compensation-and-inheritance

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

    Tell me what mental health problems were suffered by the Menendez brothers or Jeremy Bamber…I’m not aware they were diagnosed with any. Bamber murdered 5 members of his family at the ripe old age of 21. He tried to blame his adopted sister for the carnage….just like David Bain tried to blame his father. Unlike David, Bamber will spend the rest of his life in prison.

    The Bamber case was obviously for money and Bamber was obviously a classic psychopath.

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

    Worth a look. How many of the cases are like the Bain case?

    http://phys.org/news/2013-08-characteristics-family-killers-revealed-taxonomy.html

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

    David Bain has no history of psychopathic behaviour.

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

    The Bamber case was obviously for money and Bamber was obviously a classic psychopath.

    I’m not aware that Bamber was ever diagnosed as a psychopath, and there’s big money at stake in the Bain case – up to $2 million in compo and a $600,000+ inheritance. Why is one mass murder “obviously for money” but not the other?

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

    “Popular belief has always been that Jeremy Bamber has psychopathy. In truth Jeremy Bamber has been examined by over 27 different psychologists, none of them have found him to have a personality disorder of any variety, nor any mental illness, nor any indication of psychopathy.”

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

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Tom Jackson. The only way it makes any sense concluding Robin killed them is if he was setting David up to take the rap.

    What possible reason would Robin have had to kill the family and spare David? He was too strong? This is a rifle we’re talking about, not a broomstick.

    From the very start, from the childish self-centred message on the computer to the shell case through the curtains in the alcove to the position of the body with no others’ blood on it etc etc it is perfectly clear to anyone capable of assigning a probability to each piece of evidence that it was more more likely to have been David. You say my argument about grasping the rifle is speculation, well at least I have some basis or evidence and you are just dreaming happy thoughts. You try to guide a rifle to your temple and see where you need to hold it.

    As for David’s mental health, when asked, the doctors are very quiet.

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

    @ Ross69

    What a load of absolute crap!
    Has David Bain attempted to sue the family for any of his rightful inheritance that they very quickly spent to ensure he would never get his hands on. You know the money I mean, the amount they got very quickly by burning down the house and selling the section as quick as possible. They were told the section without the house would give them a better return. Who cares if they burned vital evidence with it aye?

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

    @ Dennis Horne

    Another bullshit artist.

    David Bain signed a release for his medical records to available at the second trial, which the various medical professionals presented.

    Doctors very quiet indeed!!! The full reports were revealed as evidence.

    Perhaps you could stop pussyfooting around and explain the position that Robin died in any manner that excludes suicide – good luck with doing that – the police have been unable to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Are any in any way believable or would ‘conspiracy theory’ rather than ‘plausible explanation’ for the police case be a more appropriate title?

    Hutton & Johnston certainly look like conspirators in the Arthur Alan Thomas case.

    The only motive that I know of for conspiracy to frame a suspect is pressure from the system not to leave murders unsolved. When the state disconnects the judicial system from the source of its values as it does then it’s hardly unexpected that the administration of justice suffers from this form of corruption.

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

    @ ross69 (2,943) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    —————————

    IF you want to start quoting cases you think are similar, you want to take a look at the familicide statistics where fathers killed their wives and children, often leaving one or two alive, in situations where they were estranged from the wife, and there was suggestions of incest. Those statistics are massively in favour of Robin Bain having committed the murders and killed himself.

    So I’d be really careful if I was you – because trying to tie Bain to Bamber is a pathetic and numerically unbalanced comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Yvette (2,786 comments) says:

    Why has David Bain not made comments other than those that are carefully scripted?
    Why does Joe Karam always front news responses?
    Karam has said David is not familiar with evidence detail.
    Does David Bain in fact not have a clear recollection any longer of what happened – which is not a matter of medical records released at the time, but a situation that may exist now?

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

    Yvette.

    David Bain has made many comments – including comments to the media from prison when he had never even met Joe Karam.
    He has also given interviews to magazines and on TV without Joe being present and without scripted questions.

    Don’t know where you get your information from, but its not the real world.

    David isn’t as familiar with the evidence, that is standard. When someone is in prison they are difficult to share info with. Much of the forensic tests etc are done by their representatives on the outside, and therefore those people know more about those results than David could do.
    I would have thought that was commonsense –

    David Bain underwent profession memory recall treatment whilst in prison which enabled him to regain much of the memory that was lost due to shock. However as the years progress like most people, he loses bits and pieces of that memory again. Its a well documented and known fact that none of us retain our full memories forever. – maybe you have special talents most dont?

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

    ross69 (2,943) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    Is that because the guy is a narcissist or a persistent liar, or both?

    In what manner does David Bain act like a narcissist? Surely you are not suggesting that because he would like compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment that he is exhibiting signs of narcissism?
    Why is it that you are constantly complaining about Joe Karam speaking for, and appearing on David’s behalf? Hardly the behaviour of a narcissist. A narcissist would insist on being present and the centre of attention.

    You really need to check your arguments – too much contradiction does nothing for your credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Judith. Records? I’m not talking about records, Judith. Nobody writes what they think about a patient on records.

    Anyone with half a brain who has studied the evidence knows Bain is not factually innocent. He won’t get compensation while Judith Collins is around.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Judith. Robin’s body was found a way from where he died, assuming death was instantaneous; explain that. Then explain all the other bits that make no sense: shell case through curtains in the alcove, the lies about not wearing the glasses … which were broken … Crikey if you believe this chain of improbabilities you can believe anything.

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

    @ Dennis

    Those medical professionals gave evidence on the stand and were subjected to cross examination.

    Would you like to discuss the evidence one to one – I can assure you my knowledge of the evidence is far superior to yours.

    He may not get any compensation whilst Judith Collins is around – no one gets anything, whether it is right or wrong when she is around unless they are wearing a police uniform. However, Judith Collins will not be the MOJ for much longer. However, David Bain will eventually get compensated for his wrongful conviction.

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

    @ Dennis

    Ok Dennis, so what was the measurement that Robin’s body was found away from the chair the defence says he was stood in front of which one foot on the chair?

    I think you are basing your argument on photos which are taken for various aspects that are highly misleading.

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

    @ Dennis

    There was a large gap in which the police conceded the shell could have landed in the alcove.
    It is not known what exact position the curtains were in when the police arrived because one of the officers entered the alcove and exiting from it, altered how the curtains were resting.

    There is no physical evidence that David Bain wore those glasses. Both lenses were found with dust on them. Had they been worn by the murderer they would have had forensic matter on them. Despite extensive investigation no evidence was found on them, so either they had been wiped down to remove it (which they can’t have been because they were dusty) or they were not worn in Stephen’s bedroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Judith. Yes, Judith, each bit of the jigsaw can be explained away, improbable as the explanation may be, but when you fit all the pieces together the picture looks far more like David then Robin.

    So, we will just have to agree to disagree on this because frankly I am sick of it. Bain is a very lucky man to have been interviewed by Binnie Dunce. You’d be hard pushed to find another judge so easily misled.

    Lundy won’t be so lucky and he doesn’t have Karam to devote a lifetime to a lost cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    :twisted: Talking (yet again) about David Bain on a thread about Mark Lundy?

    1,000,000,000,000 demerits, begone, have a nice life.

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

    A very good article on from the Daily Blog on the case, Chris Trotter is brilliant!
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/09/no-possibility-of-error-why-cant-our-judicial-system-correct-its-own-mistakes/

    Why is it, in those rare instances where a convicted person is lucky enough to have a family, or a benefactor, willing to spend many years (and many thousands of dollars) deconstructing the Crown’s case and the Police’s evidence, that so many eminent, learned and independent overseas jurists are so often convinced that New Zealand’s courts have wrongly convicted persons who, while they may not be innocent beyond reasonable doubt, are certainly – by that same crucial test – not guilty?

    ON 17 SEPTEMBER 1956 Marion Watt, Vivienne Watt and Marion’s sister, Margaret Brown, were found shot to death in the Watt family home in the Glasgow suburb of Burnside. At the time of his family’s murder, Marion’s husband, William Watt, had been on a fishing holiday in Ardrishaig, some 90 miles west by road of Scotland’s largest city.

    The Scottish police did not, however, accept William Watt’s alibi. By their reckoning, he’d had time enough to drive from Ardrishaig, stage a break-in to his own home, murder his wife, his daughter and his sister-in-law, and then drive all the way back to Ardrishaig. They were even able to produce witnesses: the operator of the Renfrew ferry and a passing motorist both picked Watt out of an identity parade.

    Scotland, in 1956, still imposed capital punishment for the crime of murder. Had Watt been found guilty, he would have hanged.

    That he was not found guilty is due to the fact that the investigation team was sent information which made it absolutely clear that the man they had arrested and charged with the Burnside killings could not possibly have committed the crime. Amazingly, the source of that information was the man who had killed Marion, Vivienne and Margaret: Scotland’s most notorious serial killer, Peter Manuel.

    Displaying the narcissism so often associated with psychopathic killers, Manuel was outraged that “his” murders had been attributed to someone else, and so he carefully fed just enough information to the detectives investigating the crime to make sure that the “credit” for the Burnside killings was not given to the wrong man.

    Had Manuel not intervened, it is highly likely that William Watt would have gone to the gallows for a crime he did not commit.

    UPON HEARING THE DETAILS of the 1956 Burnside killings case, I felt a shiver run down my spine. Though separated by 44 years and 19,000 kilometres, the murder of Christine and Amber Lundy was distinguished (if that is the right word) by police work almost identical to that carried out in the Scottish case.

    Once again, the father, though out of town at the time of the killings, was assumed to be the killer. Once again, the case was held to hinge on the accused’s ability to make a 300 kilometre journey, pausing only to murder his wife and child, within the three hour period stipulated by the police “evidence”. And, once again, this Herculean feat was rendered plausible by dubious testimony supplied by dubious witnesses.

    In the Lundy case, however, there was no narcissistic psychopath desperate to preserve the purity of his “work”. This time the accused father was put on trial and found guilty of his family’s murder. Mark Lundy was sentenced in April 2002. Not (thank God!) to death by hanging, but to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. The poor wretch has spent the past 11 years behind bars.

    I SAY “poor wretch” because the patient accumulation of new evidence by Lundy’s family and supporters was enough to persuade the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that Lundy’s 2002 conviction was unsafe. Their judgement? That his conviction be quashed, and that he be tried again in the High Court of New Zealand.

    What is wrong with the legal system in this country? Why is it, in those rare instances where a convicted person is lucky enough to have a family, or a benefactor, willing to spend many years (and many thousands of dollars) deconstructing the Crown’s case and the Police’s evidence, that so many eminent, learned and independent overseas jurists are so often convinced that New Zealand’s courts have wrongly convicted persons who, while they may not be innocent beyond reasonable doubt, are certainly – by that same crucial test – not guilty?

    And why is it that our Court of Appeal has, over so many decades, demonstrated an almost wilful reluctance to allow the facts and the evidence speak with a decisive voice against what is manifestly (at least to the layperson’s eyes) a miscarriage of justice?

    How was it possible that the evidence produced by Pat Booth and Jim Sprott failed to secure Arthur Allan Thomas’s immediate release? How could intelligent and experienced jurists have permitted the fairy-tale evidence of children to convict Peter Ellis? (Especially following the damning revelations of coached child witnesses, bizarre evidence and moral panic swaying juries in remarkably similar cases in the USA and the UK?) What was it that prevented the Court of Appeal from calling the NZ Police to account for their botched handling of evidence in the David Bain case? How is it that foreigners see immediately what New Zealand judges and juries have, over and over again, simply refused to recognise?

    THE ANSWER, I believe, lies in the character of the New Zealand ruling-class. The narrow social strata from which New Zealand’s lawyers and judges are drawn is distinguished from the rest of the New Zealand population by two particularly obnoxious characteristics. The first is its unwavering belief in its own moral and intellectual superiority; and the second is its acute sense of vulnerability to what it regards as the democratic distempers of the vulgar masses.

    In a society where the egalitarian impulse has always been strong, the objectionable core beliefs of New Zealand’s ruling class leave it dangerously exposed, not only to populist reprimand, but also, in the worst possible scenario, to social and constitutional eclipse. Over the course of our history these fears have produced a ruling class in which the conviction is strong (to the point of being unchallengeable) that to concede error is to admit weakness. Better that a score of innocent individuals rot in jail, than the Powers-That-Be admit to making a serious mistake.

    Nowhere is this unwillingness to admit fault more tellingly on display than in the conduct of our present Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. Her treatment of the distinguished Canadian jurist, Justice Ian Binnie, revealed just how energetically she is willing to assert the impossibility of systemic error.

    Predictably, in the wake of the Privy Council’s quashing of the Lundy conviction there have been calls for New Zealand to follow the UK’s lead and establish a Criminal Cases Review Commission to which highly questionable and/or contentious convictions could be referred for investigation. Since the UK body was established in 1997 it has quashed more than 350 unsafe verdicts.

    The response of New Zealand’s Minister of Justice? “New Zealand has a robust appeal process and setting up any new independent body would not extinguish public debate.”

    A “robust appeal process”! Tell that to Arthur Allan Thomas, Peter Ellis, David Bain and Mark Lundy! Tell it to the unknown number of other New Zealanders who languish in prison because they do not have a Pat Booth or a Joe Karam willing to spend years fighting for their freedom.

    When I consider the adamant refusal of Judith Collins to concede the slightest error, I am seized by how very, very lucky we are in New Zealand to have had, roughly 50 years ago, a Parliament wise and liberal enough to abolish the death penalty. Because I am not at all convinced that our ruling class would rather admit to error than put an innocent man to death.

    I consider Judith Collins’ trashing of Justice Binnie’s report – and I am not convinced at all.

    Certainly, if New Zealand had still practiced capital punishment in 2002, then Mark Lundy would now be far beyond the Privy Council’s power to render him either justice or mercy.

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

    No Judith
    We ‘know’ David ‘must’ have worn the glasses, Why? because the cops said so and it suits the case against him!

    This despite no one claiming he had worn them over the weekend, indicating that he had no need for them but he clearly ‘needed’ them to shoot 5 of his family members at point blank range. Then we have Margaret’s astigmatism to consider and that one of the lens’s would have significantly distorted David’s vision to the point that it would likely have been a hindrance rather than of assistance to him.
    But clearly he ‘must BRD’ have been wearing the glasses else what would the spinners have?

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

    “Popular belief has always been that Jeremy Bamber has psychopathy. In truth Jeremy Bamber has been examined by over 27 different psychologists, none of them have found him to have a personality disorder of any variety, nor any mental illness, nor any indication of psychopathy.”

    Some psychopaths are able to fool even professionals. His behaviour fits that of the classic psychopath, even before the murders. Crime; promiscuity; superficial charm; etc.

    And, a better source is needed, I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    Good article by Trotter Rowan. I don’t however agree with him on his conclusions about a ‘ruling class.’ Many in the apparent ‘ruling class’ don’t have privileged backgrounds but rather have worked hard for their advances in life, nor are they ambivalent to injustice. I think that claim was political mischief undermined by at least two distinct events – Muldoon using the POM in the case of Thomas and more recently O Connor of the police association speaking out on the Pora case. The similarity between the Scottish case and that of Lundy is quite striking. Unlike the Bain case there are issues for Lundy to explain as pointed out toward the end of the Judgement, however because they were not central to the Appeal there may simply be answers that we are unaware of, or in fact be questions not based on fact – I guess time will tell on that.

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

    What possible reason would Robin have had to kill the family and spare David? He was too strong? This is a rifle we’re talking about, not a broomstick.

    Yet Stephen Bain put up a fight against the killer. If Robin was the killer, then given he would have been given a hard time by a mere boy, he would likely have been thumped by the larger David.

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

    Robin’s body was found a way from where he died, assuming death was instantaneous; explain that. Then explain all the other bits that make no sense: shell case through curtains in the alcove, the lies about not wearing the glasses … which were broken … Crikey if you believe this chain of improbabilities you can believe anything.

    You’re looking too closely. Step back. The big picture makes no sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson I don’t know the Bamber case at all despite the ‘sisters’ frequently references. To me it goes hand in hand with the ‘why woulds’, ‘the why didn’t,’ and the ‘I would haves.’ It’s an obscure journey into madness to debate with the sisters things that don’t matter or which don’t bare comparison. It’s like volunteering to listen to a broken record about glasses or sweeping statements from the waiting room of a bewildered dentist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Good call Nos
    Maybe these nutjobs will get to meet Robin again one day if life exists after death, its just emotional bs using all these ‘why’ questions as somehow ‘evidence’ that ‘Daddy didn’t do it’. It requires rational thinking and explanations when this was hardly a rational act.
    I agree with them on one thing in that I don’t believe that Robin was a pyschopath. This to me fits the actions of a sad desperate old man who had lost the respect of those close to him and just lost it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Nostradamus (3,253 comments) says:

    Oh goodness – 224 comments and counting (many of which seem to relate to David Bain).

    The title of this thread is Lundy gets a retrial.

    The Bain fingerprint tests thread is <<< that way <<<

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

    I see a lot of similarities between the Bain and Lundy cases and am predicting that the Lundy case will follow the same train wreck that is the police case against David. There is no strong evidence against Mark (and yes this doesn’t make him ‘innocent’ as still certainly a person of interest IMO)
    I think the Court of Appeal should lose the right to hear criminal cases and that NZ desperately needs a Criminal Cases Review Commission. Justice Tipping has now delivered two flawed decisions in each of the above cases which have both now been overruled by the PC, In these cases it was ruled that the Court had exceeded their juristiction and effectively played judge and jury with the evidence they clearly didn’t understand. The reports seemed to be the delivery of a required result and the court seemed to closely attached to the NZ legal system.
    Also in both trials the jury were misled, it appears that in Lundy the defence thought the crown were going to argue for a midnight killing and not a 3 hour round trip from Wellington to PN, much as in 1995 they had a bob each way over the time of death. This could go against Lundy in the event of a retrial, if a midnight killing is proposed. We shall see. There are other issues like the science around the DNA which need further investigation.
    Hopefully the truth will win out at the end of the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Nostradamus (3,253 comments) says:

    Rowan:

    I appreciate that you see similarities between the two cases.

    In these cases it was ruled that the Court had exceeded their juristiction and effectively played judge and jury with the evidence they clearly didn’t understand

    Could you be more specific?

    The one thing I wonder about in relation to the Lundy case (not that I profess to have followed the evidence in any great detail) is that the case against him turned, in part, on locating him in Petone due to a phone call from his deceased wife. I’m not sure he had any control over the timing of her phone call to him, particularly if the intention was to produce an alibi. On balance, I still have some doubts about his claimed innocence, but this factual point seems a bit hard to reconcile with the case against him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    I think that the Lundy judgement has settled the bewildering logic of Tipping J Rowan. Tipping held to the idea that an accused must give it his or her best shot at trial, supposing in some way that the accused had either the financial or intellectual ability to do so. After that reasoning, Tipping J disclosed that fresh evidence was considered on appeal as individual points rather than the collective picture. That is revealed in the Lundy decision where the PC say that time of death, computer usage analysis, and the dna evidence were not able to be thoroughly tested at the trial, either individually or as a whole which therefore goes to the safety of the conviction. The Lundy decision should place significant pressure on the recommendation of Kristy McDonald in the Watson case. At no point in her ‘Judgement’ did she consider the question of the controversial evidence which she relied to support her position – the hairs on the blanket, or if that debated evidence was set aside to look at the whole case against Watson, would the conviction stand. The answer is no.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ and Rowan…
    Thanks for your contributions which seem to settle the matter – apart from whether the Crown will proceed to waste millions more trying to re-align their case.

    Notwithstanding matters that arte un resolved, the Crown now has no credible stance to present to any jury.

    Changing their story to something different will be somewhat on a par with KP et al in the High Court next week.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    That’s going to be interesting flipper. Thanks to the unmasking once again of the Bain/Lundy computer expert there is evidence of Christine being alive hours after she was allegedly killed, around the time of the prostitutes visit if I have the times correct. The PC pointed out there were questions to be answered about Jewellery found in Lundy’s care belonging to Amber, of course 6 and 7 year olds often have a habit of moving things about leaving them in places different from where they were picked up. Another question is fuel usage, unreliable at best. I don’t think the Crown get the start again on the same time of death, nor the dna evidence. All of this re-opens a basic question that the Supreme Court may have to ultimately consider, if, when a case as was demonstrated in Bain and now Lundy, core evidence has been with held, that is proper that the prosecuting authorities should be enabled to ‘have another go.’ I don’t think so. I think there should at least be a complaint to the IPCA over the conduct of the officer who with held information from the Jury about an opinion on the degeneration of the dna – an opinion which has been proven to be correct in spades. That sort of thing would bring charges in the commercial world of the stock market or finance markets and an appropriate charge here would be conspiring to defeat the course of Justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Tom Jackson. No, Tom, you have a very poor grasp of the case. You have decided it was Robin because he was a strange fellow, maybe did “like” children, and build a simple story around the notion David would not have left a house full of bodies for Robin to find. Well, he locked his father out of the living room/computer alcove, maybe he locked him out of the house. In any case, the time of Robin’s death is not certain. An opinion was given: a guess. Not fact. (There are plenty of facts.)

    You are asking me to believe a literate school teacher gets up one morning, having put the chainsaw in his van the night before to take to school to do some work, after David objected (they argued), goes to the house, finds the key to the rifle lock (in a location David said only he knew), shoots his wife, strangles Stephen and shoots his daughters, has a wash and changes his clothes into the kind of old stuff he slept in (no underpants), loads the rifle putting the spare magazine (on its edge) under a low table and some distance from his beanbag, just where his dead hand would happen to fall, shoots himself in a funny way, having just written an explanatory message on the computer about the time David was approaching the house, the explanation being that David was the only one who “deserved to stay”. And was found with 400ml of urine in his bladder, a normal overnight load, despite having been to the bathroom. Probably needed a shower, because no other’s blood was found on him. Had a shower and didn’t pee. Yeah, right.

    The simple fact is there is no forensic evidence linking Robin to the rifle. I have already explained to you that not only were his finger prints not on it (David’s were), but he didn’t even smudge Stephen’s prints grasping the rifle in the only place you could to guide it to your temple. I would put money on that. To shoot yourself that way is very difficult, that’s why people don’t. There’s not much margin for error, easier to stick it in your mouth, which is what most people do.

    Nor is there any forensic evidence linking Robin to the killings, no blood, no scratches, no bruising. Unlike David.

    Well, Tom, you are a bitter disappointment to me. I can only assume that, because you don’t give a stuff about this “dysfunctional family”, you haven’t studied it as I have. Arawa was doing very well at training college and there is no suggestion Stephen was unhappy.

    What was David Bain? An old paper boy who wondered about raping a woman using is paper round as an alibi. A man who lied to Binnie Dunce about the broken glasses. Suggested he had seen an antagonistic witness “shagging” a goat. Said after the first trial, “The judge was very kind to me.” Now says, “My core belief is I was not there”.

    Well, I am all there, and the narrative Robin Bain did it is preposterous. I challenge David Bain to go on TV and say straight to the camera: “I firmly believe my father strangled Stephen and shot my mother and sisters, because I know for certain that I didn’t.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Judith.!
    David Bain made many interviews on TV without scripted questions.???.There is a prime and principal one with Melanie Reid on TV3 last year where the questions were all soft and cosy. Now why would that be .? Well if you got to p8 in David and Goliath you’ll get an answer. There the author gives his grateful acknowledgement, ” To Mike Turner who has the intelligence to match his heart and Melanie Reid for ” taking no shit.”
    Enough said.!

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

    Has David Bain attempted to sue the family for any of his rightful inheritance that they very quickly spent to ensure he would never get his hands on

    Judith, not yet but his surrogate father, Joe Karam, has indicated that David wants his inheritance. He hasn’t sought it just yet because he’s been busy trying to screw $2 million out of the government. When that inevitably fails, what will he do?

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

    Some psychopaths are able to fool even professionals.

    I couldn’t have put it better, Tom. So you’re inferring that David may well have fooled professionals, though he doesn’t seemed to have fooled Dr Paul Mullen.

    In 1997, David’s former psychiatrist, Dr Paul Mullen, described David’s account of his family:

    “David gives an account of his family which is idealized to the point of sickening sweetness. What he actually presents is an ideal family in which everyone loved everyone else, everyone did things together, and that they were a totally loving, supportive special unit. And you actually have to put to him things like ‘well, wasn’t your father excluded from the family and living outside in a caravan?’, and he’ll acknowledge that, and ‘wasn’t your mother spending most of the day in bed and the house was in total and filthy chaos?’, and he’ll acknowledge that, and ‘wasn’t there some problems over the way your sister was earning part of a living?’, and he would acknowledge that, and you’d say ‘well, that sounds like a family in deep trouble rather than a family which is competing with the Waltons for family of the decade’. And he would acknowledge all that but then would simply go back to a bland assurance that in fact all was well.”

    Did David tell Binnie about all these issues, including that he hated his father? This is what David told Binnie:

    “The only thing I can reiterate is that these five members of my family were my life. They were part of who I was. We were extremely close. We all loved each other dearly.”

    Mullen could see through the liar, but Binnie couldn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,951) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 11:08 am
    Some psychopaths are able to fool even professionals.

    ross you raise a highly pertinent point re Dr Paul Mullen which no one on TV including supporter Melanie Reid has repeatedly failed to ask. Namely David trying to reconcile serious contradictions and discrepancies like Michael Reed’s description of Robin as” filthy, dirty and “smelly”and in Trial by Ambush as ” mentally deranged ” , “Depressed ” etc.Instead we get dished up this false ,pasteurized honey sweet “Waltons Image” of family life.
    Something is not right there.!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Nostradamus @ 10.38

    In terms of the COA playing judge and jury with the facts, in the 2003 Bain decision the court decided that there were 3 points that “decided the case BRD” and “any reasonable jury would convict on”
    They were
    (1) According to David Robin didn’t know the location of the key to the trigger lock
    (2) The fingerprints on the gun
    and (3) The position of the spare magazine
    The court bolstered this up with a lot of there own incorrect assumptions, factual errors and wild speculation, see the Appendix to Karams book where he lists 60 odd factual errors and incorrect assumptions relied on by the court and submitted at the PC appeal.

    The subsequent appeal to the PC ruled that the COA didn’t have the jurisdiction to decide what a well informed jury would decide and subsequently quashed the conviction. They also showed the 3 points that “made the case BRD” as ridiculous (1) is a total assumption, (2) has subsequently shown to be bad science and the crown explanation totally wrong and (3) was never a major part of the crown case and a red herring which the various Mason clinic escapees here use as a distraction to the evidence.

    Comparing this to the Lundy case, it appears there is a lot of questionable science in relation to the DNA evidence and the time of death as well as the computer timing which the COA seemed to accept the crowns case and decide it was ‘BRD’

    I don’t have a strong view about Lundy’s innocence and still think he is a definite person of interest but think the case is a long way from BRD and see it following in the same footsteps of the Bain one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Good arguments Tom
    Especially compared to those of Ross who instead of evidence can ‘solve’ the crime based on what David ‘said’ or Lundys performance at the funeral and that of the nutjob ex Dentist who has his ‘core belief’
    Their ‘evidence’ seems to consist of implausible crown theories bolstered up with a lot of their ‘spin’, rational explanations and the ‘right’ way of doing things. This to them constitutes ‘evidence’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4,031) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 9:47 am
    *****

    The points you raise about the comparison in accountability between Police and company directors (as just one example) will not be lost on more sensible legal folk. Douglas Graham might now be pondering that…..

    I doubt that David Carruthers could have asked for a better example (than Grantham’s reprehensible behaviour) of the need for changes he is seeking to IPCA rules/authorities.

    And if the Crown does go again, where will they hide Grantham? Not familiar with his actual Court role at the trial.

    It would be fun to hear him explain why he withheld some important matters from the defence until just a week before the PC hearing. The good thing about that is the smart ass Mander got spanked by the PC.

    And if/when the PC hears Pora….wow!

    I have started a slow and careful re-read of the full PC decision. The similarities with Bain (Tipping’s brain explosion) are striking to the point where silly Collins might need to get Fisher to do a cover up “peer review”. That would be fun. :)

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

    I don’t have a strong view about Lundy’s innocence and still think he is a definite person of interest but think the case is a long way from BRD and see it following in the same footsteps of the Bain one.

    I don’t see Lundy applying for compensation or any inheritance if he’s acquitted, unless of course he’s a self-absorbed dreamer like Bain is.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,951) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 11:08 am
    Some psychopaths are able to fool even professionals.
    *****

    The only psychopaths appearing in this thread are Rossie69 and the mad dentist, who will “almost certainly” line up on October 14 in High Court.

    Headless roosters…or goats…… or muggins donkeys.

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

    Don’t worry Ross
    If Lundy is acquitted and then applies for compensation and a retired QC finds in a report that he is innocent on the BOP, aren’t we lucky that we still have Judith Collins the self appointed judge, jury and executioner who can then go and shop around for a more favourable opinion having already given the reviewer a detailed prescription of what she wants the review to contain.

    I may be getting ahead of myself and it might not come to that but its not beyond the realms of possibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Flipper

    I believe Kents cult following will have almost certainly distanced themselves from the narcissist, as they won’t want to have to contribute to his high damages bill. What a bunch of gutless wonders!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Rowan….

    Perhaps, even at this late hour, Kent might persuade the porno ex judge to act for him.
    Bugger,
    that would be fun to watch.

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

    @ Rowan ,
    There will be some that have distanced themselves, but I can think of at least two that will be standing outside the Court waving their frilly knickers in the air to gain KP’s attention.

    I hope his mummy remembers to tell him to take spare undies, I’ve got a feeling he’s going to need them.

    @ Flipper

    I think the whole thing could be the best free entertainment available this year.

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

    ross69 (2,952) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 11:02 am

    Then your statement was a lie wasn’t it, you do not know if David Bain wants a fortune from his family or not. Anyway, why would they pay him a fortune, when the money, even in today’s terms would barely freehold a house, let alone be a fortune.

    Joe Karam has made statements saying that the inheritance should have been David’s due to the wrongful conviction, however, there has never been any official action, NOR any statement from David Bain, or on his behalf that states he wants the money back. The closest you have is a statement in his compensation where he states what he has lost.

    Nothing like twisting the truth and can I suggest you watch your defamatory statements regarding Joe Karam. I’m more than happy to bring them to his attention and I’m sure the Courts could fit you in on the 14th. As a right thinking member of the public I am sure your statements are made to lower my opinion of Mr Karam :-)

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

    @ ross69 (2,952) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    You seem to be getting quite wound up lately – perhaps the ticking clock is getting to you.

    Your last comment indicates that you would happily spend 13 plus years in prison for something you didn’t do and never request compensation – such a sniveling hero.

    Damned if I would!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith (4,026) Says:

    October 9th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
    @ Dennis

    There was a large gap in which the police conceded the shell could have landed in the alcove.
    It is not known what exact position the curtains were in when the police arrived because one of the officers entered the alcove and exiting from it, altered how the curtains were resting.

    There is no physical evidence that David Bain wore those glasses. Both lenses were found with dust on them. Had they been worn by the murderer they would have had forensic matter on them. Despite extensive investigation no evidence was found on them, so either they had been wiped down to remove it (which they can’t have been because they were dusty) or they were not worn in Stephen’s bedroom.

    Judith,
    Re the curtains.
    If David Bain shot his father from behind the alcove curtains then he would have had to come back into the lounge so we are never going to know how far those curtains were apart originally.
    Re those glasses.
    You have mentioned that dust again. Milton Weir said he was no significant dust on the lens in Stephen’s room when he found it. The police officer who saw that other lens said it appeared to have dust on it as it would have if it had been on the floor of Stephen’s room, as Mr Sanderson said .[Court of Appeal para 338.]

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

    stephieboy (3) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 11:23 am

    Your comments indicate you don’t get out much.

    David Bain and his family spent years in Papua New Guinea where they had to rely a lot of each other and become very close.
    David was not exposed to the Kiwi lifestyle except on a few short holidays during that time.

    Barbara Short (nee Neasmith) a close family friend gave evidence in court stating how close the family were (she had known them well for many years and not just seen them a handful of times like their Uncle Michael).

    The family was different to the ordinary Kiwi family. Their house was full of dog shit, and rotting food, but they happily lived around it, not seeming to notice it. At 21 with a new Uni course, girlfriend and lots of extra community activities, David wouldn’t have noticed the deterioration in his father. Often the surviving family members of suicide victims state very clearly that had not noticed any of the build up symptoms until after their loved one was dead.

    If David wishes to remember his family as a happy loving family, then I see that as an attribute, not a negative.
    David Bain has every reason and plenty of evidence to have come out and made some very derogatory statements about his Dad. He never has. The most he has said at the time, and when he learned his siblings were awake when they died, was that if he father had done this, he would hate him. A perfectly normal reaction under the circumstances, however, despite 13 years in prison for something he didn’t do, despite all the crap and garbarge, lies and harassment he has receive people like the Counterspinners and JFRB witch sniffers, never once has he lowered himself to hit out at the cause of his years of suffering – his father.

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

    @ Muggins

    The rest of your shit is not worth answering.

    Milton Weir told the Optometrist “lets just forget about the dust shall we?”

    Now who to believe, you, a proven liar or Milton Weir, also a proven liar, or a professional optometrist with no reason to lie.

    It’s a no brainer isn’t it, but even without a brain you still don’t get it.

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

    Judith
    See my 9.16pm on Oct 8
    Which of these 7 murder scenarios put forward by the cops in the various case do you think should top the list? Would ‘conspiracy theory’ rather than ‘plausible explanation’ be a better title.
    N-NZ votes for no 4 being the Ewen MacDonald scenario proposed by the cops.
    Interested in your opinion

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Judith (4,030) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Oh dear you are losing it .! Its utterly fatuous to say that David was to busy doing wonderful things with his life that he would of not noticed that his father stank ,was shabby, withdrawn , depressed and other derogatory claims made by the likes of you, his Defence team and his supporters.A pity that long time supporter Melanie Reid didn’t give him a chance to answer these type of questions.I would also include also the incest allegations as given on the retrial and events leading up to the 20th of June.
    “Often the surviving family members of suicide victims … etc .” Your evidence for that .? Trial by Ambush.?
    You fail to grasp that a totally idyllic Walton family like existence that David chooses to believe simply did not exist as both McNesih and even Karam have amply have shown.
    “never once has he lowered himself to hit out at the cause of his years of suffering – his father.” ? Are you speaking for him.?. You need to take a closer look at the Binnie report where he does reveal his love of his father but lets himself down when he at the same breath says he detest him.
    There needs to come a time when David can genuinely speak for himself with out closeting,promptings and propping by his. supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith,
    It does not matter if there was dust on that lens,or lenses.
    As Mr Sanderson said in his interview,the dust on the lens in Stephen’s room, [if there was any dust on that lens], may have been deposited on that lens during a struggle between the killer and Stephen Bain. His understanding was that the room in the house was quite dusty[which it was] and that it was possible that any disturbance could have kicked up a considerable amount of dust.
    So you can forget all about whether or not there was dust on that lens in Stephen’s room, or if any dust may have been on that lens in David’s room. Makes no difference.
    The fact is that those glasses had been worn before by David Bain when his were unavaialable.
    His glasses were unavailable that weekend.
    He said he used his mother’s glasses to watch TV when his were unavaialble.
    He said he used his mother’s glasses to go to lectures when his were unavailable.
    He said he watched a video on TV on the Sunday night.
    He said he believed he went to lectures on the Friday prior, but it would appear no-one has been able to confirm that.
    On the Tuesday following the murders he told his aunt he had been wearing his mother’s glasses while his were in being repaired. He said they weren’t perfect but they got him by.
    He told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing the glasses that were found in his room on the Sunday and the days prior.
    Even Justice Binnie seems to think David Bain had been wearing those glasses that weekend. But he couldn’t figure out how the frame of those glasses came to be damaged on the Monday morning. He couldn’t figure out how a lens from those glasses came to be in Stephen’s room.
    If Binnie believes that David Bain had been lying about those glasses one would have thought it might have occurred to him that Bain could have been lying to him about something else, but apparently not.
    Can you explain how the frame of those glasses that David Bain had been wearing that weekend came to be damaged on the Monday morning?
    Can you explain how a lens from those glasses that David Bain had been wearing that weekend came to be in Stephen’s room on the Monday?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzh.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8070186/Collins-points-to-alleged-Bain-report-errors

    Of course Binnie’s report was full of errors. For example he kept referring to an empty 10 shot magazine.
    That 10 shot magazine actually still had three rounds in it.
    He reported that David Bain looked at his watch at the bottom of Every Street. Wrong again. Although David Bain may have been checking his watch every few minutes, worried as to whether he would be home before his father came into the house and chanced upon those dead bodies.
    Binnie thought there was no way David Bain would have wanted his father to be in the house before he came home because he would have spotted the carnage, But Binnie had a copy of the house plans. He should have realised that whatever door Robin Bain came in he would not have seen those dead bodies unless he specifically decided to go into one of the bedrooms , and why on earth would he do that?
    And what about that bloody sockprint?
    Binnie reckoned it had to have been made by Robin Bain. How did he come to that decision? That footprint was not a complete heel and toe print so no-one is ever going to know how long the foot that made it was.
    Another incorrect assumption by the Canadian judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Yawn
    Aunt Fanny you are the biggest piece of c…. here, your entire post is more unsubstantiated bullshit.

    “that David Bain had been wearing that weekend ”

    any evidence of this or is this just your core belief?
    If you were to look at the facts actually no one at the 1995 trial claimed David was wearing the glasses or not and the retrial several witnesses specifically SPECIFIED THAT THEY HAD SPENT TIME WITH HIM THAT WEEKEND AND HE HAD NOT been wearing any glasses.
    Your entire claim is based upon Davids aunts recollection of what was ‘apparently said’ 5 YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL TRIAL.
    You cannot explain either how the damaged glasses came to be in Davids room and can only offer speculation and bullshit like you always do here.
    Which is the greater probability?
    (a) That I will see a pig flying past my window
    (b) That the POS above will post anything on KB that it can substantiate and is not utter bullshit and/or a complete misrepresentation of the truth

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Wrong because Aunt Fanny was there with David and ‘knows’ exactly what he ‘did’ and ‘didn’t’ do.
    You sound like a broken record
    This thread is about Lundy you F…tard, now how about you STFU and piss off!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Now I know the importance in law of two or three witnesses: arguments about circumstantial evidence would bore the judges stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    How many times do you have to be told something before the penny drops?
    I am well aware that two witnesses said that David Bain wasn’t wearing glasses when they saw him that weekend.
    But he himself said he only wore his mother’s glasses for watching TV or going to lectures.
    When those witnesses saw him he wasn’t at lectures, nor was he watching TV. Comprende?
    And once again David’s aunt came forward five years later. That is not when she recollected that conversation.
    She recollected that conversation when she heard what David said at the trial. She was there listening to him telling a different story about those glasses from what he told her.
    If you want to talk about witnesses recollecting something years later, how many years later did those witnesses come forward to say they saw David Bain not wearing glasses?
    Seeing as you appear to be answering for Judith could I ask you how the frame from the glasses that David Bain had been wearing that weekend came to be damaged on the Monday morning and how did a lens from those glasses that he was wearing that weekend come to be in Stephen’s room on the Monday?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UT,
    You should be aware that the more I present the facts to Rowan [and Judith] the more offensive their language becomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    New definition of bullshit is: Anything posted on kiwiblog posted by Muggins. it wouldn’t know the meaning of ‘facts’
    Incorrect facts and assumptions; anything posted online by Muggins, KP, VP, Counterspin and there cult following.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    muggins, you said that Mark Lundy was guilty without having anything to back up your allegation. Facts are one thing, relevant facts are another.

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

    Ugly
    You will be waiting for a long time to see any substantiation provided for any of the ridiculous spin that this Mason clinic escapee tries to pass of as ‘facts’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Kea (12,465 comments) says:

    Judith, this thread is not about how David Bain murdered his family in cold blood and played a jury informed by media sympathies in order to get away with it.

    This thread is about how Lundy murdered his family in cold blood.

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

    Nothing like twisting the truth and can I suggest you watch your defamatory statements regarding Joe Karam.

    Judith, when you have to make threats, you have well and truly lost the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Rowan, I think all this detail about the Bain case is just a distraction from the central issue, i.e. are the recent cases (Bain, Pora, Lundy) telling us that there is a fundamental problem with NZ’s judicial process? IMO in NZ the state assumes the role of “God”, and so people who are dependant upon the state and have sworn allegiance to the head of state are unable to admit to the existence of fundamental problems within the core processes.

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

    This thread is about Lundy you F…tard, now how about you STFU and piss off!

    Is that how you talk to your wife, in the unfortunate event you have one? Yeah I wouldn’t be surprised.

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

    On 11 September 2012, Justice Binnie emailed Melanie Webb at the Justice Ministry. He told her: “Importantly, I think, the Court of Appeal dismisses the whole issue of Margaret’s glasses”. He misrepresented the Court’s position. The Court of Appeal was troubled by David’s lack of explanation for the presence of Margaret Bain’s glasses in his bedroom. At 55 and 56 the Court opined:

    “On the whole, balancing the evidence on this topic, we are left with the unexplained presence of the frame and right lens in David’s room, whereas the left lens was found separately in Stephen’s room. It must be a reasonable inference that the items found in David’s room were there because David considered the glasses to be of some use to him. The presence of the left lens in Stephen’s room, in conjunction with the remainder of the glasses being in David’s room, is consistent with the Crown’s contention and provides some support for it, particularly as David’s regular pair of glasses were away for repair. He might therefore be expected to have used the glasses in question and was unable to explain how the left lens had become separated from the frame and how the right lens had also become detached from the frame and how both came to be in his bedroom.

    We conclude this discussion by noting that the glasses were of no use to Robin. He would not therefore have been wearing them. If they did have something to do with Stephen’s murder they were either planted there by Robin (and that is inconsistent with his sparing David) or they were worn by David. The new evidence raises the level of possibility that the glasses had nothing to do with the murder, on the basis that the lens had been in Stephen’s room for some time; but that tends to increase the difficulty for David of his inability to explain the presence of the frame and other lens in his room.”

    I guess Robin must have left the frame of Margaret’s glasses in David’s room to set him up. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    “could I ask you how the frame from the glasses that David Bain had been wearing that weekend came to be damaged on the Monday morning and how did a lens from those glasses that he was wearing that weekend come to be in Stephen’s room on the Monday?”

    Sure as soon as I have substantiated evidence of “the glasses that David Bain had been wearing that weekend ” and not just the unsubstantiated spin you like to spread also if you could substantiate the evidence that suggests that the lens that ‘came to be in Stephens room on the monday’ i.e. evidence that it wasn’t there before the Monday as well.

    Ugly, totally agree

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    No Ross that is how I talk to nutjobs like the mason clinic escapee who it was specifically referring to

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,891) Says:

    October 10th, 2013 at 4:02 pm
    muggins, you said that Mark Lundy was guilty without having anything to back up your allegation. Facts are one thing, relevant facts are another.

    UT,
    The reason I believe Lundy to be guilty is because I don’t believe anyone else would have murdered his wife [and child].
    Now you have suggested that perhaps someone else murdered them to get back at him for some unknown reason but I find that highly unlikely.
    However I would have to say virtually all of the evidence against him is circumstantial. And if a jury can find David Bain not guilty with all the evidence that points to him as being the perpetrator, then Mark Lundy would have a very good chance of being found not guilty at a retrial.
    And I would not be able to put up much of an argument if Lundy was to be found not guilty.
    But David Bain is a different kettle of fish.
    There is a great deal of evidence that points to him as being the murderer and virtually nothing that points to his father as being the perpetrator.
    In fact there is more evidence that points to Lundy as having murdered his wife and daughter than there is to Robin Bain having murdered four members of his family and then committed suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    So are you saying that David Bain was lying when he told his aunt he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend?
    Are you saying he lied to his lawyer when he told him he would be admitting to wearing the glasses in evidence on the Sunday and the days prior?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    muggins,
    Does your evidence against David Bain leave room for reasonable doubt that he did in fact murder his family?

    If reasonable doubt exists, then doesn’t the fact that he was legally convicted on that evidence say that the process is flawed?

    One of the things about the “State as God” meme is that it implies that the state is omniscient, so cases of murder should not remain unsolved. In reality there sometimes is simply not enough evidence to convict anyone of the crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,955) Says:

    October 10th, 2013 at 4:24 pm
    This thread is about Lundy you F…tard, now how about you STFU and piss off!

    Is that how you talk to your wife, in the unfortunate event you have one? Yeah I wouldn’t be surprised.

    Ross,
    I do believe that that is how that poster would talk to his wife, if indeed he had a wife.
    However I somehow doubt that he has a wife because he seems enamoured by goats.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,892) Says:

    October 10th, 2013 at 5:32 pm
    muggins,
    Does your evidence against David Bain leave room for reasonable doubt that he did in fact murder his family?

    If reasonable doubt exists, then doesn’t the fact that he was legally convicted on that evidence say that the process is flawed?

    One of the things about the “State as God” meme is that it implies that the state is omniscient, so cases of murder should not remain unsolved. In reality there sometimes is simply not enough evidence to convict anyone of the crime.

    UT,
    I believe the evidence against David Bain is so overwhelming that there just cannot be any “reasonable doubt”.
    We know that either David Bain murdered his family or that Robin Bain murdered his wife and children and then committed suicide. Has to be one or the other. No third party.
    Now if Robin Bain had been on trial I would have said there was reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.
    Of course one can’t be 100% sure. I would have had to have been there before I could say I was 100% sure.
    But room for reasonable doubt? The answer is no.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    But room for reasonable doubt? The answer is no.

    So how do you explain the upward trajectory of the bullet that killed Robin Bain? If you are going to commit suicide with a long gun then resting the stock on something lower than your target would be practical.

    P.S. Please be selective in what you quote, it’s easy enough to scroll back & read the original.

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

    Ugly
    The poster is so naïve and stupid its easy to see she/it is way out of its depth. She/it picks and chooses what to believe and anything that doesn’t fit with the fantasyland she/it has created in her mind ‘doesn’t exist’
    We have pointed out the Robin death scenario many times and how it is easily compatible with suicide and around 99% more likely to be so. This is ignored because it cannot be explained therefore ‘doesn’t exist’
    The prosecution can’t explain it either because it tells a story that they would rather not know, so don’t expect any of the witch-sniffers here to!
    Either Robin was a willing and cooperative victim or the killer, I know which I find around 99% more convincing!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    “so overwhelming that there just cannot be any “reasonable doubt”.”

    Lets just have a look at it the ‘evidence’ again, just the most common argument used

    “bloody fingerprints on the gun”
    From ‘expert’ Kim Jones, this fool was shown to have lied under oath and misled the 1995 jury about the true facts relating to the fingerprints. It was actually shown that there was no blood present in the location of the fingerprints, Jones had tried ‘to help the jury understand’ by lying to them about the colour of blood under scientific examination. Everything he said in both 1995 and 2009 was pretty much shown to be false, he even tried to say that ‘fingerprint definition rises rather than flattens and is improved (rather than smudged) under pressure!
    Fact: 4 left hand fingerprints on the forestock of the rifle (a rather difficult position to fire it, worthy of a cartoon in itself)
    Fact: 9 smudged unidentified fingerprints also on the gun, with not enough ridge detail to identify them
    Fact: identifiable positive/prints of perpetrators are found in less than 5% of occasions, Des Winnie committed double murder with a 22 rifle leaving no prints, not much dispute about that
    Fact: No blood or human DNA anywhere in the vicinity of the fingerprints meaning its very unlikely to have been made in ‘blood’
    Theory (unsupported by the facts) that the prints can ‘only have been made on 20/6/94 in the course of the Bain murders

    This is about the quality of evidence that muggins and the witch-sniffers rely on to form the ‘guilty BRD’ and ‘mountain of evidence’ conclusions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. No trajectory was not essentially “upward”. It was about 5 – 10 degrees above horizontal reference the base of the skull, that is, nearly horizontal. The “upward” is just a lie these morons keep repeating.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (2,955) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    This thread is about Lundy you F…tard, now how about you STFU and piss off!

    Is that how you talk to your wife, in the unfortunate event you have one? Yeah I wouldn’t be surprised’

    Oh dear ross thinks he/she is Rowan’s wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    That’s a breakthrough, 5 to 10 degrees above horizontal is not actually upward.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No trajectory was not essentially “upward”. It was about 5 – 10 degrees above horizontal

    I didn’t say the trajectory was essentially upward.
    The problem remains, i.e. that David was too tall to make that shot from a standing position.

    5-10 degrees is still significant when you compare the height of David’s shoulder to the height of Robin’s temple over the length of the gun.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2321287/Bullet-wound-unusual

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,894) Says:

    October 10th, 2013 at 8:51 pm
    No trajectory was not essentially “upward”. It was about 5 – 10 degrees above horizontal

    I didn’t say the trajectory was essentially upward.
    The problem remains, i.e. that David was too tall to make that shot from a standing position.

    5-10 degrees is still significant when you compare the height of David’s shoulder to the height of Robin’s temple over the length of the gun.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2321287/Bullet-wound-unusual

    UT.
    The problem is no-one knows for sure what position Robin Bain was in when he was shot.
    An ESR scientist said he was most likely standing upright when shot. But have a think about this.
    [1] It would be very unusual for a right-handed man to shoot himself in the left temple.
    [2] It would be even more unusual for a right-handed man to commit suicide by shooting himself in the left temple using a firearm with a silencer attached.
    [3] And I very much doubt if any right-handed [or left-handed man for that matter] has ever committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Re David Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle. Were they in blood or were they not?
    Well ,David Bain appears to accept those fingerprints of his were in blood because he told Binnie his best notion was that it was animal blood from the summer.
    Let me put this question to you.
    A sample of blood was taken from adjacent to those fingerprints and that blood tested positive as being of human origin.
    Do you really believe that the blood under David Bain’s fingerprints was animal blood when the blood right next to them was human blood?
    And could I remind you that you still havn’t given me an expalation as to how the frame of those glasses that David Bain was wearing on the Sunday came to be damaged on the Monday morning and you still havn’t given me an explanation as to how a lens from those glasses came to be in Stephen’s room on the Monday.
    And could you please remind me how many years later it was when those friends of David’s remembered he wasn’t wearing glasses when they saw him?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzh

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

    No Aunt Fanny
    The fingerprints were NOT in blood animal or human and Kim Jones ‘evidence’ on the matter is about as reliable as that of Bruce Hutton’s.
    Here’s an experiment for you make a fingerprint on whatever hard surface you have in your house, then make a second right next to it, this time while keeping your finger on that surface move your finger from side to side applying firm pressure to that surface, the resultant ridge detail on each of the prints will be better in the first or second print? Kim Jones would have you believe that applying pressure to the print makes the ridge detail sharper and more well defined.

    It makes no difference whether the shot was to the left or right temple it is just as easy. Try a basic google search and see if you can find the most common site for suicide wounds.
    And yes we actually can be 100% sure based on the evidence of Manlove (which the crown surprisingly can’t answer) that Robin was standing upright rather than ‘kneeling’ or ‘sitting’ when he died. Perhaps he was standing on his head that would account for the trajectory!
    And lastly I said I would give you the explanation about the glasses when you provide substantiated evidence of your theories (I won’t be holding my breath though!)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The problem is no-one knows for sure what position Robin Bain was in when he was shot.

    No, muggins, your problem is that reasonable doubt exists that David Bain killed him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. The Bainies keep saying the trajectory was upward because they think it makes suicide sound more plausible. I repeat, the trajectory was more horizontal than upward. I know that is a difficult for Nostalgia to grasp, but there are three axes in space, and 5-10 degrees is not upward, it is very slightly upward but essentially horizontal.

    If you are shooting someone close up you don’t need to take aim using the sights, probably wouldn’t shoulder the rifle, just thrust the rifle towards the head, shoot from the hip as it were. That explains the angle, slightly upwards.

    Of course Nostalgia speaks from experience, he has had some experience shooting people. He probably took careful aim as he was a distance away, but is a poor shot. He missed the target and killed a bystander.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    So upward is not downward after all, wonders will never cease with the crowd that wear white gloves. I suppose it is the difference between insane compared to being ‘slightly’ insane. Good work. At least we know now that upward is actually ‘more horizontal’ than upward.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    No, idiot, slightly upward is more horizontal than upward. Upward without qualification means more vertical than horizontal, in this context.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    Oh okay, so if an angle starts off ‘slightly’ upward it becomes horizontal. Who would have thought. So taking off in airplane at 5 to 10 degrees means you won’t get off the ground, perfectly understandable. No question about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Well, you wouldn’t get an aeroplane off the ground, Nosty, because to get a CAA licence you have to be a “fit and proper person”. Furthermore, you need to pass exams, some of which are technical. If you say “upward” to people they assume you mean approaching the vertical, not approaching the horizontal — which 5-10 degrees is. That’s why you Bainies try to bamboozle people by saying the trajectory was upward, not slightly upward.

    Bollocks. Like your story about finding Robin’s DNA up the barrel. But you’re right, repeat the lies often enough and silly people get taken in. Like trout sucking up feathers on a hook.

    I could keep trying to explain the obvious to you, but sleep on it and maybe it will be clearer in the morning. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    It gets difficult bull shitting doesn’t it old chap? Look on the bright side, there might be other people in the world that also think up is down – perhaps you just need to bond with them. What exam did you pass btw, the ‘upside down doesn’t matter degree with honours.’ I bet you got to wear white gloves when they sent you off to the Mason clinic with your fully endorsed pass mark.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Dennis Horne (2,388 comments) says:

    Are you talking to me, Nosty, old man? I thought after I called you an idiot you might have gone for a lie down.

    Anyway. Up, down, horizontal, vertical, I still run rings around you. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (1,895) Says:

    October 10th, 2013 at 10:14 pm
    The problem is no-one knows for sure what position Robin Bain was in when he was shot.

    No, muggins, your problem is that reasonable doubt exists that David Bain killed him.

    UT,
    Your problem is that you won’t accept that with all the evidence that points to David Bain as having killed his family there is no room for reasonable doubt.
    But even if there was that certainly would not make David Bain innocent beyond reasonable doubt which is what Justice Binnie says he is.
    And he has to be innocent beyond reasonable doubt before he can be paid any compensation.
    I am not arguing the jury’s decision at the retrial. I am arguing Binnie’s decision.
    Binnie’s report had a number of errors and incorrect assumptions in it. That is the reason it was rejected. The prodavid’s don’t like it but that is their problem. If Bain wants to carry on claiming compensation then he will have to go through the process again. Simple as that. As I understand it his claim is in limbo at the present time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Are you saying that David Bain was lying to Justice Binnie when he said his best notion was that the blood on the rifle under his fingerprints was animal blood?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    This quote is a helpful way to approach the Lundy and the Bain Murders IMO,

    “The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.”

    ― Stephen King

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,721) Says:
    October 10th, 2013 at 11:55 pm

    Good one Dennis . You’ve got the measure of Nostalgia on that trajectory. The guy is spinning in circles Just shows how your scientific training and background ( and good common sense ) has put you in excellent stead.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    “The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.”

    Laniet trusted Robin – for awhile.

    Kent Parker trusted his ‘allies’ who promised him money – for awhile.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (4,039) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Nostalgia, Binne must have got it wrong when he discounted the incest allegations where he found a lot of “smoke but no fire “.?
    And your incredulous when you might suggest David had no knowledge of the allegations.?
    You comments about Kent are totally nonsensical.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Great logic from the idiot

    The case against David is ‘BRD’ because ‘if’ Robin had survived and been charged then the case ‘might not’ have been BRD so he ‘might’ not have been convicted, so based on the ‘maybe’ result of a hypothetical Daddy trial David is ‘guilty BRD’
    In the case of Lundy as the delusional individidual doesn’t personally know anyone else who possibly had a motive, therefore ‘noone else did have a motive’ so Lundy is ‘guilty BRD’
    It appears the 5 law lords at the PC disagreed strongly with it especially in regards to ‘reasonable doubt’ they weren’t convinced by any of the crowns arguments in either case!
    But of course the delusional individual is that arrogant that he knows ‘better’!

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

    This will probably go straight over the idiot who keeps rabbiting on about the shot to Robin being in the left temple, as it is way to advanced for its pea brain however those with something inside theres may understand a bit better

    http://donmathias.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/a-bit-about-david-bain%e2%80%99s-retrial/

    Transposition of the conditional

    Any sensible person will leave the decision on guilt or innocence to the jury. The only aspect of Mr Bain’s recent trial that I mention here is an amusing example of a fallacy. A defence expert had given evidence about the death of David Bain’s father, Robin Bain, who had died from a rifle shot to the left temple. Robin Bain was right-handed. The witness had said that this was not inconsistent with suicide. In cross-examination (according to the news media) the prosecutor had asserted that, as only about 3% of right-handed people who commit suicide by gunshot shoot themselves in the left temple, it was most unlikely that Robin Bain had committed suicide.

    This error of logic is sometimes called the prosecutor’s fallacy. But anyone can make it. It is a transposition of the conditional. The probability of suicide, given a wound to the left temple, is not the same as the probability of a wound to the left temple, given suicide. The former is about wounds to the left temple, and the latter is about suicides.

    This is obvious from a simpler example (being a NZer, I take sheep …): the probability of an animal having four legs, given that it is a sheep, is not the same as the probability of it being a sheep, given that it has four legs. The former is about sheep, the latter is about quadrupeds.

    The prosecutor was using a statement about suicides as if it were a statement about left temple wounds. It was the latter that was relevant, not the former.

    This is not to say that the evidence (3% of suicides by gunshot are to left temple) was not probative. Its value would be assessed in Bayesian terms by its likelihood ratio: the ratio of the probability of a left temple gunshot, given that this was murder, to the probability of a left temple gunshot, given that this was suicide. The missing information is the occurrence of murders by left temple gunshots.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    If Robin Bain had supposedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the left temple using a rifle with no silencer attached and without standing with one foot on a chair I would have said that ok, he could possibly have done that.
    But he didn’t do that.
    The silencer was on the rifle. Show me the statistics that tell me how many people have committed suicide by using a firearm with a silencer attached.
    His foot was supposed to have been on a chair. Show me the statistics that tell me how many people have committed suicide by shooting themselves while they had one foot on a chair.
    And when you have done that show me the statistics that tell me how many have committed suicide by shooting themselves with a firearm with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.

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

    And when you have done that show me the statistics that tell me how many have committed suicide by shooting themselves with a firearm with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.

    You’re forgetting that Robin also supposedly placed a magazine on its edge (luckily not knocking it over when he fell), took off his bloodied clothes and put them in the washing basket, kindly brought in the newspaper for David, supposedly left bloodied footprints on the carpet despite not having blood on his socks or on the inside of his shoes, and wrote a note on a computer when he simply had to hand-write the note to remove any doubt. Now what are the odds of all of that? I’d have better chance of winning Lotto :)

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

    And when you have done that show me the statistics that tell me how many have committed suicide by shooting themselves with a firearm with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.

    You’re forgetting that Robin also supposedly placed a magazine on its edge (luckily not knocking it over when he fell), took off his bloodied clothes and put them in the washing basket, kindly brought in the newspaper for David, supposedly left bloodied footprints on the carpet despite not having blood on his socks or on the inside of his shoes, and wrote a note on a computer when he simply had to hand-write the note to remove any doubt. Now what are the odds of all of that? I’d have better chance of winning Lotto :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Re Lundy.
    It would appear that no-one knows anyone else apart from Mark Lundy would have had a motive for murdering Christine Lundy.

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

    Any sensible person will leave the decision on guilt or innocence to the jury.

    A jury found David Bain and Mark Lundy guilty LOL. Just as well we didn’t leave the decision on guilt or innocence to a jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    A jury found David Bain and Mark Lundy guilty LOL. Just as well we didn’t leave the decision on guilt or innocence to a jury.

    I agree. There are not enough safeguards against miscarriages of justice within the existing system. Also the adversarial system doesn’t work well when one of the parties is incompetent.

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

    As I predicted Mathias article about transposing the conditional has gone way over the head of the used car bumboy who is resorting to the ‘right’ way to commit suicide.
    FFS Look at the photos of Robin Bain dead in the lounge, they are reprinted in the various books or on various sites. Look at the one of Robin Bain that shows his body from a distance, note his right leg is bent at the knee! or have these been photoshopped! The chair is only one of the various ways demonstrated but it fits the evidence in terms of blood splatter on his trackpants and the curtains.
    Surprise surprise that the crown have no scenario that can explain his murder!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    If the glasses that David Bain had been wearing were in the same condition on the Monday morning as they were on the Sunday that would go partly towards there being reasonable doubt.
    If the clothes he was wearing did not have his brother’s blood on them that would go partly towards there being reasonable doubt.
    If he hadn’t had bruises on his head that the Doctor who saw them said were between 7 and 13 hours old when he saw thenm around 11.30am on the Monday morning that would go partly towards there being reasonable doubt.
    If he didn’t have any bruises on his torso that would go partly towards there being reasonable doubt.
    If his fingerprints weren’t in blood on the rifle that would go partly towards there being reasonable doubt.
    If he had not heard Laniet gurgling that would go partly towards there being reasonable doubt.
    If his bloody gloves had not been found in his brother’s room that would go partly towards there being reasonable doubt.
    If he had phoned the emergency services within about five minutes or so after he arrived home that would go partly towards there being reasonable doubt.
    But none of those “ifs’ happened so David Bain is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
    And he most certainly is not innocent beyond reasonable doubt as per that Canadian judge’s conclusion.

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

    FFS Look at the photos of Robin Bain dead in the lounge, they are reprinted in the various books or on various sites.

    I’d rather look at the photos of David’s fingerprints on the murder weapon which were found in “pristine” condition. It makes you think, eh.

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

    Muggins

    Prove David Bain was wearing those glasses on the Sunday.

    David Bain, when asked how he coped when his glasses were broke, is quoted as stating ‘he wore a pair of his mothers’.

    Can you please provide evidence that he was wearing the pair that were broken?

    Can you please provide evidence for why David Bain would wear glasses for an up close task, like using a rifle, when his sight problems were distance viewing.

    Can you please explain how both lenses from those glasses had dust on them that indicated the were not used recently for viewing, and had not been wiped down to remove evidence/blood.

    Can you please explain how the glasses managed to not get any blood on them despite the police insisting that they were pushed from the face of Stephen Bain. Stephen was bleeding profusely and BOTH of his hands were covered in blood.

    Can you please explain why David Bain would wear glasses with lenses that were adjusted for a stigmatisim that would have skewed his eyesight, especially at a close distance.

    Can you please explain why David Bain told four people that weekend that his glasses were broken and he did not have any to wear, and why he tried a friends glasses on because he had none to wear?

    Can you please explain why the neighbour that saw the family working on the house that weekend did not note David wearing glasses.

    Can you please explain why Weir decided to mislead the jury regarding the lens?

    Can you please explain why Weir told the optometrist ‘lets not worry about the dust’, referring to the dust on the lens.

    Can you please explain why in the past you have accounted for the dust on the lens found in Stephen’s room by saying it got there from lying on the floor after the murders, and yet the expert said it would have been there longer than a few days, and why the other lens found in David’s room, the same day of the murders also had dust on it. More dust than what could have been collected during a couple of hours.

    Can you please explain which pair of Margaret’s three pairs of glasses David Bain might have been talking about, and if you can do that, then please explain how you know.

    Can you please explain why you consistently lie about the evidence in the Bain case?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  312. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    What Rowan, Judith , UT etc need to explain is that if Robin had’ lost it’ as claimed in David and Goliath and went on his shooting rampage then why put on his son’s opera gloves in the first place.?
    What evidence that he actually put his foot or knee on the chair .?
    If so how did his body end up by the beanie bag given the fact a .22 has little or no recoil or throwback.
    Why the hand that held the barrel or the silencer and the sleeve of his blue pullover was not covered in the ejection of arterial spray from his head wound.
    That will do for starters.!

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

    Prove David Bain was wearing those glasses on the Sunday.

    The murders didn’t happen til the Monday. That’s when he would’ve been wearing the glasses. Of course, if he wishes to prove his innocence, he’d need to explain why the twisted frame was found in his bedroom. The Court of Appeal said “the glasses were of no use to Robin. He would not therefore have been wearing them. If they did have something to do with Stephen’s murder they were either planted there by Robin (and that is inconsistent with his sparing David) or they were worn by David. The new evidence raises the level of possibility that the glasses had nothing to do with the murder, on the basis that the lens had been in Stephen’s room for some time; but that tends to increase the difficulty for David of his inability to explain the presence of the frame and other lens in his room.”

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

    @ Ross69

    It does make you think, especially when you find out that the Crown lied about them and the tests they had conducted on them. Especially the fact that they had taken their samples from another area and not from where the fingerprints were, as they had stated in court. Also especially as the court was told those fingerprints were in blood, when they weren’t in blood and are in some substance other than blood.

    It also makes you think that as the prints were in a position that is not an area used for firing or loading the weapon, it was no wonder they remained on the rifle since it was last used by David Bain.

    It also makes you think as to why members of JFRB would lie and say the rifle had been wiped down, when that was not stated in court, and the fact that there were other fingerprints identifiable on the gun proves it can’t of been wiped down as they would not be detectable as prints, but would have disappeared. The prints even had some ridging but not sufficient for legal identification purposes.

    It certain makes one think…. you on the other hand don’t seem to know how to, at least not in a rational manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Kiwiblog corporates expect people to simply walk into court innocent or guilty and take prosecution as an adult and do the time.

    Lundy is innocent. As can be ascertained by my post in General debate today

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

    Oh and can you please explain why David told Michael Guest (and others) that he’d been wearing his mother’s glasses and then changed his story when testifying at his first trial?

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

    “I’d rather look at the photos of David’s fingerprints on the murder weapon which were found in “pristine” condition. It makes you think, eh.”

    You mean the links that Scott Chris put up on the previous threads to the photo of the fingerprints taken from David after his arrest and tried to pass them off as being ‘Davids pristine prints on the gun’ There were no photos taken of the prints on the gun
    Own goal Ross!

    Oh and can you please tell us why Milton Weir decided to lie on the stand and mislead the jury as to the location the lens was actually found?
    He obviously didn’t think his ‘evidence’ was strong enough without twisting the truth!

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

    @ ross69

    He does not need to explain how they got in his room. How can he, if he doesn’t know.
    Can you prove that someone else didn’t put them on the chair?

    Can you prove that David Bain did wear his mothers current pair of glasses, as she spent most of her time in bed reading, something as a short sighted person she could have done without her glasses. Your problem is, at the time of the first trial, no one bothered to clarify which particular pair of Margaret’s glasses they were talking about.

    There is nothing on any part of those glasses that ties them to the murder scene.

    Why would he have been wearing glasses that made his close up eyesight worse?

    If he needed those glasses so badly, how did he managed to complete the murders, clean up, and complete everything else, without them?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What Rowan, Judith , UT etc need to explain is that if Robin had’ lost it’ as claimed in David and Goliath and went on his shooting rampage then why put on his son’s opera gloves in the first place.?

    Why do you think that I need to explain that? (Hint: I don’t)

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

    @ Ross 69

    Yes I can explain it.

    He wasn’t wearing that pair of Margaret’s glasses. The glasses were originally put to him as being his own in Court. They weren’t.

    The fact is, and you seem to keep ignoring this part, the glasses cannot be tied to the murders because they have no evidence on them which they would have, had they been involved.

    You are simply concentrating on a red herring because you have nothing else.

    answer my questions above, then you have a point to make, until you can, you’re talking rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Own goal Muggins

    No “bloody fingerprints”
    Maybe you “missing twenty minutes” theory actually is literally police bullshit, read what the telecom operator actually said about the 111 call
    The rest of your ‘BRD evidence’ is bullshit as usual.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562170

    Two Telecom staff members also gave evidence on the 111 call.

    A supervisor of emergency calls for Telecom, later given name suppression, said at first staff didn’t know if the caller was a “nutter” or not.

    She said that Telecom staff decided that it was a genuine call and connected the caller with the ambulance service.

    Under cross-examination by Mr Reed, she told the court that she had given a short statement and a longer statement to police but police wanted her to sign a shorter statement.

    Asked if she was “happy about that”, she replied: “no”.

    The supervisor confirmed to the court that she contacted Bain supporter and book author Joe Karam.

    She said she believed the 111 call was made before 7am.

    The timing of the call is important to the Crown and defence case.

    She said she was normally joined by another staff member at 6.55am when a Telecom service was switched to her office in Christchurch from another part of the country.

    But she said that on June 20, 1994, the staff member who handled the switch-over was not present when Bain’s call came through.

    “The comment was made that she missed all the excitement,” she said.

    The Telecom operator who spoke to Bain told the court that she stayed on the phone up until police got inside the Bain home.

    Frances Edwards said Bain “was groaning a lot and hard to hear lots of times”.

    She said when she first picked up the phone; she asked the caller whether they wanted to speak to fire, ambulance or police.

    “The male at the other end was groaning and didn’t know what he wanted. He said his father was dead,” Ms Edwards said.

    She said he did not know what he wanted so she put him through to the ambulance service.

    Ms Edwards said a short time later, the ambulance officer came back on the line and asked her to keep Bain talking so the call could be traced.

    “So I just carried on talking to David Bain.

    “He was groaning a lot. He sounded like he had respiratory trouble, it sounded like he had asthma,” Ms Edwards said.

    She said at one point Bain swore at her as she tried to calm him down.

    Various media organisations applied to broadcast the recording of the 111 emergency call but the application was turned down by Justice Panckhurst.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Judith
    I’m waiting for a cartoon of how David carried out these executions. As Margarets glasses had one lens adjusted for her astigmatism, this would horribly distort Davids close up vision, therefore one eye would be needed to be covered up, that would leave one hand to hold and use the rifle, presumably the left one as the fingerprints were from the left hand, and he needed to be holding the rifle from the forestock in order to replicate these prints.
    See Beyonds blog, he has a good piece on it.

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

    stephieboy (9) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    What Rowan, Judith , UT etc need to explain is that if Robin had’ lost it’ as claimed in David and Goliath and went on his shooting rampage then why put on his son’s opera gloves in the first place.?
    What evidence that he actually put his foot or knee on the chair .?
    If so how did his body end up by the beanie bag given the fact a .22 has little or no recoil or throwback.
    Why the hand that held the barrel or the silencer and the sleeve of his blue pullover was not covered in the ejection of arterial spray from his head wound.
    That will do for starters.!

    FFS, another bloody amateur

    1. It is well documented that in cases of familicide, and in the killing of family members, perpetrators try to protect themselves from getting their loved ones blood on their hands. Robin Bain was not the first person to do so.

    2. Robin Bain’s right shoe had blood splatter on it. The blood splatter pattern on is pants went in two different directions showing his right leg was bent at the knee. The blood splatter on the curtain indicated the distance from the chair. As the blood on the shoe indicated it was approx. 1 metre away from his head wound, all these forensics indicate Robin Bain was stood with his right foot on the chair. The position his body landed in also indicates that he was in this position.

    3. Evidence was given in court that demonstrates when killed instantly the knees buckle. The fact Robin was standing with one leg straight and the other bent forward in front of him also meant his body would have landed backwards in the position it was. (If you wish to argue this point then perhaps you could provide the measurement of the distance from the chair, because I can assure you, it is far less than several photos taken from various aspects indicates)

    4. The position of the arm shown in the defence demonstration would not have necessarily allowed blood splatter to land on the sleeve. From that side of his head the majority of the splatter landed on the curtain beside him.

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

    @ Rowan,

    I agree. The thing is, that even aside from the astigmatism, David did not need glasses from up close vision, and as I repeatedly ask, if he did need them, then how did he complete the job, once he had lost them?

    They don’t seem to be able to answer that – but as you say, maybe they are waiting for the cartoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Judith…
    As always the trolls try to shift from Lundy to Bain….in the forlorn hope, rather than sense, that they will be to save KP/CS/JFRB and the other (frequently renamed) nutcases, from death next week.

    But Judith, it is now LESS than 72 hours until they fall through the judicial trap door. Oh dear.

    All their fiction about glasses and dust, and who said what and when, and what the goat or the donkey did, or did not do, and whether the one time dentist was using self-prescribed lignocaine, is irrelevant bullshit.

    The Lundy PC decision can be applied to many, many aspects of the Bain case. The PC turns Fisher’s, written to prescription academic essay into irrelevant nonsense, that appeals only to fools like Collins, muggins or nookin et al.

    The PC decision on Lundy is not another nail in the Crown’s coffin-like case on Lundy/Bain/Watson/Pora et al. It is a bloody great stainless steel bridge spike.

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

    @ wikiriwhis business
    Excellent post, I’ve just read your GD piece, See Chris Trotter on The Daily Blog website where he has put up another good one, I reposted it here on wednesday at 8.02 but heres the link anyway
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/09/no-possibility-of-error-why-cant-our-judicial-system-correct-its-own-mistakes/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    @ Judith
    Maybe Marzuka could do another one it would probably be on par with his ‘murder reconstruction’ then I’m sure these various trolls here would wet themselves with excitment!

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

    stephieboy (9) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 10:46 am
    This quote is a helpful way to approach the Lundy and the Bain Murders IMO,

    “The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.”

    ― Stephen King

    You want to be a bit more careful with your quotes Stephieboy. That one could easily be turned on JFRB who insist Robin Bain is innocent. I would say it suits them perfectly, their trust of the innocence of Robin Bain is the pack of liars (JFRB members) tool. LOL. Didn’t think that one out before you posted it, did you? :-)

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

    @ Rowan

    Oh no. Not more of Marzuka’s terrible artwork. That stuff was so far off, it was hilarious. How people like that are allowed computers beats me!

    The only thing more ridiculous was some idiot on the JFRB facebook page who paid an artist to do some drawings depicting the scene in Stephen’s room. It was NOTHING like it. A fool and their money are easily parted.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-LR2OP8nN61I/UlbZuBd1nCI/AAAAAAAABvg/viw_YjjNoh8/s0/bain-suicide-sim.gif

    This shows where Robin Bain’s body would have ended up he had shot himself when standing with one foot on that chair.

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

    flipper (2,554) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    No wonder they are getting a bit nervous and posting garbage. They will be trying hard to stitch their argument together where they prove that David did it, and therefore that justifies their defamation of Joe Karam.

    I am really interested in what excuse KP gives for not stopping when he was requested to, before any Court action occurred. What’s the bet he gets in Court and tries to use the excuse that he didn’t realise anyone else would be reading it!

    I notice the JFRB facebook page has reduced significantly of late. No doubt an effort to get the numbers down so they can plead that not many people have been effected by the defamation so what they have to pay won’t be too much.

    It would be good to feel some sympathy for the poor ignorant sods, but given their shocking displays for the past 4 years, I don’t have any for them, I hope they get what they deserve.

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

    @ Muggins

    OH PLEASE !!

    Have you got that measurement yet Muggins. What was the distance of Robin’s body away from the chair?

    Until you have that, you cannot expect any of your cartoon hysterics to mean a god damn thing. I’ve been asking you for this measurement for years, and still you can’t produce it.

    Expert forensic pathologists gave evidence that people buckle at the knees when shot like Robin. But your cartoonist knows better. Get a friggin life – there is no sane person that would take an ounce of notice of your rambling incompetent amateur crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. Elaycee (4,378 comments) says:

    …there is no sane person that would take an ounce of notice of your rambling incompetent amateur crap.

    Er, you have….. so your point may be right. :D

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

    @ Judith
    Marzukas cartoons deserve an A for entertainment value!

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

    Elaycee

    Still nothing to add, only personal insults?

    You know exactly what I mean, but then I guess when you actually don’t know enough about the case, it’s all you’re left with. Strange that you should have made your mind up about guilt or innocence without any real knowledge on the subject. But then the vast majority seem to rely on media to do their thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. Nookin (3,284 comments) says:

    “The Lundy PC decision can be applied to many, many aspects of the Bain case. The PC turns Fisher’s, written to prescription academic essay into irrelevant nonsense, that appeals only to fools like Collins, muggins or nookin et al.”

    Flipper, given that my only comments on the Fisher report focussed on the appropriate approach to the assessment of circumstantial evidence in contrast to the approach perceived to have been taken by Justice Binnie, would you mind please referring me to the specific passages in the Privy Council Advice where Fisher’s approach is debunked. I cannot recall any reference or consideration to assessment of circumstantial evidence. The entire judgement appeared to focus on new evidence and whether the proviso should apply.

    You are very quick with your ad hominem arguments. If you are going to call people fools then I think you need to substantiate that. How about a principled reasoned and objective analysis of the different philosophical approaches to circumstantial evidence evidenced by the Privy Council decision on the one hand and Robert Fisher on the other?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith
    Re glasses
    [1] He told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing the glasses that were in evidence, ie the glasses that were found in his room.
    [2] At the first trial an optometrist testified that without glasses David Bain’s eyesight would be very poor if there wasn’t much light to see by.
    [3] I have already pointed out that Mr Sanderson said the lens in Stephen’s room could have had dust deposited on it during a struggle between the killer and Stephen Bain. He said any disturbance in that room which he understood was dusty could have kicked up a significant amount of dust. And of course that would also be the reason why that other lens had some dust on it, having been on the floor in that room.
    [4] The police don’t know how that frame came to be damaged. Only David Bain can tell us that.
    However an optometrist said it could have been damaged if it was somehow pushed into a carpet or suchlike. He said the frame could have bent/twisted and both lenses would have popped out.
    [5] David Bain said he had worn those glasses when his were unavalable.
    [6] Four people?
    [7] Please explain why that neighbour did not say that David Bain wasn’t wearing glasses.
    [8] Weir had no reason to mislead the jury re that lens and as it turns out what he pointed to was actually that lens, though that was not where he found it.
    [9] We don’t know what Weir told that optometrist and it appears that optometrist is not to sure about that either. But it doesn’t matter ,refer [3] above.
    [10] Refer to {3] above.
    [11] David Bain told his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing the glasses in evidence, ie the glasses that were found in his room.
    [12] Can you please explain why you continue to lie about the evidence and misrepresent the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith/Rowan
    Re blood under fingerprints.
    So you both now agree that David Bain lied to Justice Binnie when he said his best notion was that it was animal blood under those fingerprints?

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

    A good piece showing Cam Slater up as the f…wit he is and also the soft pornographic rag ‘truth’ that he used to run
    http://laudafinem.com/2013/01/01/john-keys-rent-boy-cam-slater-wants-to-fuck-bain-badly-using-a-corrupt-district-court-judge/

    Backed by an electronic receptionist, a sports editor, John ‘boy’ Matheson and a competitors organizer Fiona “moaner” Wilson, journeyman journo (unqualified and a complete absence of talent) Cam Slater wrote a masterful expose about the Bain case without knowing how good it was.

    Today one of our supporters arrived in Sydney with a copy of Fairfax’s success story “The Truth” which had the headline “Liar Liar” with the subheading advertising that the story was exclusive, Slater having purportedly made an official information request from his national party mate, Judith Collins. Our supporter bought the paper for the prostitute ads section, of which three quarters of this particular shite sheets pages are dedicated to.

    Slater admits that he could not write the entire story confirming that “additional reporting” was done by Stephen Cook (whoever that fucktard is). We suspect that Stephen Cook may actually be a pseudonym used by Cam to infer that there are more than two staff still employed at the Truth.

    Slater’s exclusive revelation is that disgraced thieving lawyer and “retired” District Court Judge, Michael “what money” Guest had made allegations against David Bain relating to Bain arguing at his first trial that he had not worn his mothers prescription glasses, but had later admitted to Guest and co counsel Jonelle Williams that he had in fact worn the glasses the Sunday evening before the killings occurred the following day.

    Apparently according to Slater Guest raised the admission with the Crown counsel during the trial, but it was agreed with counsel Bill Wright that this “startling admission” should not be raised with the Judge nor the Jury as there only remained 3 days in the trial.

    Slater then goes on endlessly to explain what is obvious. If Bain lied about one thing he might have lied about others. Whoa Tiger slow down- let us catch up with your genius….

    What thickfuck Slater doesn’t understand is that no matter where the various bits of those glasses were found, it remains as possible that the Police “planted” the evidence as they did in the Thomas case, or there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation not inculpatory to Bain.

    Further the admission does not of itself hurt Bain as claimed as his admission only relates to a time a day prior about wearing his mothers glasses, we presume for reading. This is all resting on the premise that Guest can be trusted to be telling the truth, which we doubt due to matters raised later in this article.

    Slater then goes on to claim that David was unlikely to be able to kill his family without the glasses. Geez Cam you should get a set of fucking glasses and redo the third form for the sixth fucking time. Bain allegedly killed his father after dispensing with Steven, so Bain did not have the glasses at that time as the crown case is that the glasses were destroyed during the fight when Steven unsuccessfully tried to defend himself against his killer.

    Therefore as the glasses were unnecessary for Bain to have committed the murders, so why would Bain have worn them. In fact the glasses would have been a hindrance, rather than a help as all victims were shot at relatively close range.

    Therefore they are not the “piece of evidence” that proves anything other than it is possible that Robin Bain may have worn them, or someone might have planted them there. We just have to remember the evidence of the axles and stubs that were found around the body of the Crewe’s and the matching automotive parts found on the Thomas’s farm. Again a Police “invention” of “reliability and importance” as to how that evidence “came about”.

    Now we come to Mr Guest, previously District Court Judge Guest (Family court division). Guest’s appallingly inadequate representation of Bain’s case is probably three quarters of the reason that Bain was found guilty in the first trial.

    As for Guest going to the Crown to report the admission by Bain during the trial we believe that Guest is lying for the following reasons. Firstly the admission is not as damning as claimed for the reasons explained above.

    Secondly Bain admitting such a fact to counsel would seem to infer Bain is really stupid or was attempting to be helpful and as truthful as he could.

    Thirdly as the admission is not as damning as stated why then would Guest try and make it so by going to Crown. Obviously Crown counsel in not taking it to the Judge agreed that the evidence was not helpful.

    Fourthly, there is another angle that Slater is not bright enough to have picked up on. The evidence is inadmissible in law due to client counsel confidentiality. If any admission is made to counsel such as a confession to commission, or involvement in the commission, of a criminal act, counsel can attempt to have the person change their plea, but otherwise must resign, so counsel does not act to mislead the Court.

    In his letter Mr Guest does not deal with this blatant issue relating to his credibility, but then again dear old Mr Guest is a fucking scumbag, a lying cheating thief, like most New Zealand lawyers who become Judges. The following Southland Times (another Fairfax paper that the retarded Slater did not bother to read) reported these facts which we believe destroy Guests credibility altogether;

    “Former Invercargill District Court judge Michael Guest is allowed to practise law again, but money remains his Achilles heel.

    The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal yesterday released its decision, allowing Dunedin-based Mr Guest – a “clever, capable, but flawed lawyer” – to practise as a barrister only.

    The 59-year-old must follow some strict conditions, particularly related to money. The tribunal was also scathing in some of its observations of Mr Guest, who is also a Dunedin City councillor.

    He had a tendency toward overstatements that sometimes departed from reality and truth, the tribunal decision said.

    The tribunal’s decision follows a Dunedin hearing in July after Mr Guest applied to return to law. It was opposed by the New Zealand Law Society, represented by Dunedin lawyer Len Andersen, who declined to comment yesterday.

    Mr Guest was struck off in 2001 by the Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, after it found him guilty of taking $25,000 more from a client than he was entitled to and lying to a client about legal aid. Guest was ordered to pay back $30,335, $5000 compensation to the client and $62,899 costs.

    He unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the High Court in 2002.

    The tribunal’s decision also details Mr Guest’s resignation as an Invercargill District Court judge in 1989. This was because he was about to become bankrupt, the decision says. It took Mr Guest about seven years to pay back his creditors. After leaving Invercargill, he worked for a time in Tauranga.

    The tribunal, chaired by Judge Dale Clarkson, said it was satisfied that Mr Guest understood, accepted and did not argue with his past serious wrongdoing.

    Mr Guest was unable to be contacted yesterday.

    Before Mr Guest is restored to the bar, he must first give a written undertaking that he will adhere to a strict list of conditions.

    The conditions include:

    Reimbursing by December 20, 2013 the New Zealand Law Society $30,000 paid from its Fidelity Fund “because of Mr Guest’s dishonesty”.

    Not receiving any money directly from clients.

    All money must be paid into his solicitor’s trust account until the work had been performed, and a bill of costs given to the solicitor”

    Source: Guest allowed to practise law again (Southland Times)

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

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

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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    For UT , Judith, Rowan, TJ etc,
    An interesting take on the murder scene at 65 Every St ,

    “Robin was obviously a very clever and devious man.  He would have decided to wear Margaret’s glasses as he knew David’s were away being repaired. This would have been a masterstroke in his plan to frame David.
    Wearing his wife’s glasses, his vision would have been blurred when he shot Laniet.  That explains the two poor headshots. Margaret would not have been too difficult as it was a contact shot but his first shot at Stephen was off target.  What a stroke of luck when Stephen fought back and broke the glasses. Could not have been more perfect. He then had to dispatch Arawa (not too difficult as he could now see clearly as he was no longer wearing Margaret’s glasses) and tidy up Laniet with a headshot.
    All that remained was to put the broken frame and lens in David’d bedroom and voila!
    Of course he then had a fit of remorse and decided that David – his perfect boy – was the only one who deserved to stay and did the decent thing and shot himself. ”

    Its backed up by David and Goliath,.

    ” ….He [Robin] has to wait for David to return. He goes to check that the dead are truly dead. Perhaps he comes across the spectacles and decides to leave them broken in David’s room. Another piece of the false trial . Of course he makes sure not to leave any tell-tale prints or marks. He just bends them a bit , removes the lens, and puts them on the chair…..”. p 215

    The key here is to think like our resident super duper sleuths U T , Judith, Rowan etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Judith @ 1.22
    The answer is no there is no convincing explanation but the used car bumboy will pass of more irrelevant spin (again with no substantiation) while sticking to this irrelevant distraction (the glasses) that it tries to pass of as ‘evidence’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    @ Stephieboy
    You really are an amateur aren’t you? it has never been suggested that Robin wore the glasses. Your speculation is just unnecessary and unhelpful. You have no proof that the glasses were worn by the killer so therefore it is just a distraction that you and mugsie like to use as a substitute for ‘evidence’.
    Go back to sleep!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan ,
    Re time of 111 call.
    It was confirmed that the 111 call from David Bain was recorded at the Malicious Call Centre, Hamilton , at 0709 hours and was referred to the Christchurch emergency calls operator at precisely 0710 hours. There is no doubt these times are accurate. The computer print-outs show it clearly. The operator, Ms Edwards ,unequivocally accepts 0710 hours was the first time she had contact with David Bain.
    So stop trying to make excuses as to why it took David Bain so long to phone the emergency operator. He said he heard Laniet gurgling so why didn’t he phone 111 straightaway?
    I will tell you why. He didn’t phone 111 because he heard Laniet gurgling before he went on his paper round and that is why he had to shoot her twice more so as to stop her gurgling.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Stephieboy,
    I have to say that you and I plus Dennis and a few others are running rings around Judith and Rowan .

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. Elaycee (4,378 comments) says:

    Still nothing to add, only personal insults?

    If my intention was to insult you, ‘Judith’, I wouldn’t resort to subtleties… Anyway, I merely agreed with the obvious.

    Like it or not, people have opinions that may differ from yours. And they may be equally vociferous in maintaining / explaining their views. It doesn’t make their views any more valid than yours (or vice versa), but they have a right to hold to their views in the same manner you have a right to maintain yours.

    But what pisses me off, is the manner in which thread after thread is hijacked by the same old group spinning the same old crap, because the ‘debate’ inevitably turns into a series of smart arse, boorish comments directed at anyone who has the temerity to hold a differing view to yours. Anyone reading this thread will see it on display – and its pathetic.

    I actually feel sorry for you / your group. Perhaps you need a group hug or some counselling? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  346. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,108) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    So you don’t believe the stuff the author has written in David and Goliath p 215 etc

    I take it therefore like David you have no explanation for the broken glasses found in his room.?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Aunt Fanny
    You are so full of shit, again no substantiation for any of the bs and wild speculation that you continue to post here. Time to pre book those flights to North Korea Muggins while you still have enough cash to afford them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,109) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Whats the payoff do you get by resorting to abuse most of the time.?
    Is it the frustration and exasperation with the paucity of your arguments.?
    Learn to participate on KB in a reasonable and civilized manner please.!

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

    Whats the payoff do you get by resorting to abuse most of the time.?
    Is it the frustration and exasperation with the paucity of your arguments.?

    That and the fact Joe Karam’s surrogate son won’t be getting a brass razoo. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    stephieboy (12) Says:

    October 11th, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    Rowan (1,109) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Whats the payoff do you get by resorting to abuse most of the time.?
    Is it the frustration and exasperation with the paucity of your arguments.?
    Learn to participate on KB in a reasonable and civilized manner please.!

    stephieboy , just leave Rowan to rant and rave. The more abusive he becomes the more he knows he is losing the argument. Judith is the same, although she is not quite as bad.
    I reckon it’s to do with the way they were brought up.

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

    He said he heard Laniet gurgling so why didn’t he phone 111 straightaway?

    Furthermore, why did he go from room to room looking for bodies? Wasn’t he scared that the killer could still be in the house and could kill him? Apparently not. At no stage did David leave the house. That’s right, he had to hang the washing out. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    The forensic evidence that ‘doesn’t exist’ against Daddy

    A brief summary:

    >fresh blood on two pairs of trousers in Robin’s caravan
    >a bloodied hair on the sweatshirt in the commer van
    >the footprints: first trial said that they must be David’s because they matched the (unstretched) length of his socks (280mm). Second trial showed David’s feet to be considerably longer (300mm)
    >blood inside the barrel of the rifle showing the shot to Robin being a close contact shot
    >Laniet was shot through something and this intervening something introduced yaw in the bullet creating a larger entrance wound: not a contact would as previously thought.
    >Laniet had told several people that her father molested her (possible motive, not brought out at first trial)
    >The fingerprints on the rifle from David could not have been blood
    >there were numerous other prints on the rifle (partial/unidentifiable)
    >the proposition of Robin shooting himself being impossible or extremely difficult was shown to be false and that it was relatively easy
    >the blood spatter evidence was new
    >the blood spatter evidence that showed the blood and brain spatter on Robin’s shoe wasn’t possible via him ‘kneeling in prayer’ as alleged by the crown
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed their was no screen (a gunman) between Robin and the spread of the spatter
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that had a gunman been involved in Robin’s death the shot would have been impossible without a required distorted pose from Robin (perhaps standing on a chair)
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that the gunman would have needed Robin’s co-operation in own death and anyway would have been impossible not to have left a ‘shielded’ area in the spatter
    >DNA evidence was new
    >the information about the doubt about the lens placement was new
    >the details of the computer turn-on timing was new
    >the details or the washing machine cycle duration was new
    >some of the details of the blood-staining was new (e.g. in the first trial the stain on the back of David’s shirt was an ‘old’ stain pre-dating the murders)
    >The flap of skin found in Stephens room and ‘said’ to be Davids was proven to be Stephens.

    Overall the forensic proof proves Robin the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Stephieboy

    Why don’t you rephrase that slightly to your new bumbuddy?
    Whats the payoff that she gets from spreading lies and innuendo in order to try and make arguments stick? You seem fairly new here but Muggins cannot make a post that does not include downright lies or total misrepresentations of the truth. She/it is utterly incapable of it. You may also find it surprising that she/it is also incapable of substantiating anything she says.
    The facts of the case does not support any of the spin posted by this deluded nutcase, and I find it surprising that even anyone campaigning for Robin Bain would take her seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Well, Tom, you are a bitter disappointment to me. I can only assume that, because you don’t give a stuff about this “dysfunctional family”, you haven’t studied it as I have. Arawa was doing very well at training college and there is no suggestion Stephen was unhappy.

    Why you care so much is beyond me.

    The evidence in this case is circumstantial, and what evidence there is was selected by the police. The defence doesn’t get to go into the crime scene and do its own investigation. For that very reason, the evidence in a case like this is biased towards the prosecution, because it’s that side that selected it. To make things worse, the Bain domicile was a midden. It’s not the case of picking a piece of evidence up from a clean room where it is obviously out of place, but of looking for the smoking gun in a rubbish dump.

    You also need to remember that you have no direct access to the evidence. What you have is mediated evidence. For example, why are we supposed to care that the magazine was found on its end? For all we know, a cop could have absent-mindedly kicked it and then put it like that. Just because it is in the evidence file does not make it gospel truth.

    However, we do know some facts about crimes like this. It is not a sui generis crime. It is a crime of family annihilation. Such crimes tend to follow a pattern, and that pattern almost inevitably has the father as the killer.

    Robin Bain was the poster boy for this kind of crime in age, in marital status, in life circumstances. Knowing nothing else about the crime, 99% of the time it’s him.

    Any theory that David Bain was mentally ill or a psychopath founders on the fact that there is zero evidence of mental illness or psychopathy. If David Bain had been the sort of psychopath that people suggest he is, it would have shown in earlier behaviour. But nothing about his earlier behaviour is suggestive of psychopathy.

    Worse still, the prosecution have no real theory of the crime. There’s no real evidence of motive on David Bain’s part. Their case is “David Bain killed his family, but we have no real idea why”.

    Their theory of the crime has David Bain leaving a house full of dead bodies, taking the risk that his father might find them. Ockham’s razor supports the opposing theory – Robin Bain waited for David to leave the house, shot the family, prepared himself for suicide and killed himself.

    My point is that, even before you get to considering circumstantial evidence, the probabilities are stacked heavily against the prosecution. We then get a load of circumstantial evidence that requires a great deal of interpretation, evidence that was selected and presented by the police, and not by the defence.

    At this point, the case is people squabbling over the interpretation of individual pieces of evidence. There’s a name for that: reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Overall the forensic proof proves Robin the killer.

    Only if you’re in a straitjacket within 4 padded walls.

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

    The main reason David Bain was convicted is that faggy jumper he was wearing – people reasoned that anyone who could wear such a jumper must be a sick weirdo…

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

    “Only if you’re in a straitjacket within 4 padded walls.”

    As Ross has no explanation of any of it and his sole ‘evidence’ that David ‘did it’ is by misrepresenting what he said at various stages then this is just his tactic of avoiding the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    BACK TO LUNDY….

    It is almost old news, but bail has been granted.
    Arguments for and against are not yet available, but Ron Young is no pussy. The Crown cannot have argued strongly (well, after the PC finished with Mander and Grantham et al they really have nothing more than their beliefs), ergo no surprise on bail.

    Suppression of his bail address is excellent..

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

    What we need is another Lundy thread. That way, people can start arguing about the Bain murders without having to scroll down so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Suppression of his bail address is excellent..

    He’ll be easy to find. Just stake out McDonalds and Burger King.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It is a crime of family annihilation. Such crimes tend to follow a pattern, and that pattern almost inevitably has the father as the killer.

    I suggest you look at the Jeremy Bamber, Sef Gonzales and Menendez brothers’ cases among others. The fact you give these cases and others no credence is curious.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sef_Gonzales
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bamber
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_Menendez

    Any theory that David Bain was mentally ill or a psychopath founders on the fact that there is zero evidence of mental illness or psychopathy

    Where is the evidence that the Menendez brothers or Bamber were psychopaths? You seem to be hung up on this aspect of the case while ignoring key pieces of evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Age of spots of blood on clothing in caravan not known.
    Whose sweatshirt was that?
    Best footprint not a complete heel and toe print so length of foot that made it not known.
    Close contact wound just means David Bain virtually touched his father’s head with his rifle when he shot him.
    One wound to Laniet’s head was hard contact.
    Laniet also told people David was molesting her.
    David told Binnie his fingerprints were most likely in animal blood.
    Unidentifiable prints on rifle probably David’s.
    Most unlikely that Robin Bain who was right-handed, would have shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.
    If it was blood spatter.
    Date of those three pinhead size spots of blood on Robin Bain’s shoe not known.
    David Bain could have shot his father from behind the alcove curtain.
    Age of those three pinhead size spots of blood on Robin Bain’s shoe not known. Also those spots “had the appearance ” of being blood spatter.
    Age of those pinhead spots of blood not known.
    What DNA evidence?
    What doubt about the lens placement?
    Yes , updated technology proved the computer could have been turned on between 6.39am and 6.49am.
    David Bain said the washing cycle took between three quarters of an hour and one hour. The police tested the washing cycle and it took an hour. No proof it would have taken less than an hour.
    Appeared to be old blood but date unknown and why would David Bain have old blood from Stephen on his T-shirt? Was he in the habit of beating his brother up?
    It was only ever suggested that flap of skin could have been from David.
    Overall the forensics prove that David Bain murdered his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson (1,460) Says:

    October 11th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    The main reason David Bain was convicted is that faggy jumper he was wearing – people reasoned that anyone who could wear such a jumper must be a sick weirdo…

    I thought that jersey looked ok, actually.
    I understand it was quite difficult for his mother to knit.
    David designed it, not bad in my opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Where is the evidence that the Menendez brothers or Bamber were psychopaths?

    Bamber’s preoffence behaviour is a dead giveaway, including the crimes and grandiosity. Don’t know much about the other two.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    This is a lol

    Ever thought David Bain’s stylish and fashion-forward jumpers were one of a kind?

    Think again.

    You too can look as snazzie as David did during his harrowing 14 year journey to innocence!

    A costume for the Sevens? A Dress-up Party? Or even just a hip statement?

    Buy a piece of NZ history today. Who knows, it could be the real deal …

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/clothing/menswear/jerseys-hoodies/large/auction-440588316.htm

    Someone was selling T shirts too.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,please.
    I am not your bumbuddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    oss69…..
    You are a fuck wit….

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

    And Tom,

    You might want to explain why David says it’s his “core Belief” that he’s innocent. Is it you’re core belief you didn’t commit the murders? No, me neither.

    At the beginning of Binnie’s interview with David, Binnie asked him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He swore to do so. However, it appears he was economical with the truth. Leaving aside instances when David denied making statements that witnesses attributed to him – which might have caused Binnie to have concerns about his reliability and truthfulness – he commented at times about how much he loved his family. For example,

    “The only thing I can reiterate is that these five members of my family were my life. They were part of who I was. We were extremely close. We all loved each other dearly.”

    The above comment contradicts evidence that Laniet was scared of David, that David was allegedly intimidating the family with a gun, that Arawa’s relationship with both parents was allegedly strained, that Laniet had allegedly told a friend that David “broke all her relationships up.” A witness also said that David was jealous of Laniet’s relationships with men. The same witness thought that Laniet and David were a couple, not brother and sister. One witness said that on the Tuesday before the murders, David had visited her and told her of not having any real friends. He also told his acquaintance: “Anyone I have ever loved I’ve ended up hurting.” Unfortunately, Binnie did not ask him what he meant by that statement. During Binnie’s interview, Binnie reminded him how he had told Val Boyd that he had hated his father:

    Now on Wednesday there is this session at the Clark home in the early hours of the morning and it is said at that time that you said you hated your father and this is Val Boyd giving evidence this time. ‘He talked about the family situation so while he talked about his father, he talked about that he hated his father. He said he was sneaky, he used to listen in to conversations that had nothing to do with him.’ Did you have that conversation with Val Boyd?

    David responded:

    Here’s a private conversation that has been taken, you know, from what I considered to be a private, you know, situation and a confidence type of situation and now related it against me. I – that – telling my aunty what my father, father’s behaviour was like, there’s nothing wrong with that in my view. … I was a 22 year old kid trying to get on with my own life, doing my best out there in the world and just, and having a ball and having a lot of fun. …here I was showing up this picture of a wonderful, up – you know, upstanding man as my father. Well, isn’t that exactly what you would try and portray to the world? That you come from a perfect environment? And then in a private situation where I’ve ridden by grief and, you know, anger and all these other emotions and something comes out that is negative, the two aren’t mutually – aren’t exclusive.

    David’s main complaint seems to be that something he said during a private conversation was used against him. Why should that concern him? (I would have thought the fact that he found his siblings and parents dead, apparently murdered, would have been most distressing to him. Revealing details about a private conversation, a conversation he has no doubt shared with others subsequent to the murders, would presumably be inconsequential in comparison.) If he is innocent, as he claims, why would he not be prepared to tell the full story, warts and all? He undoubtedly disclosed private information to Dr Paul Mullen during their many sessions. The bigger issue is that in an unguarded moment he acknowledged to Ms Boyd that he hated his father, a fact which he seemed unwilling to disclose to Binnie. But he was required to tell Binnie the whole truth. At the retrial, Michael Bain, David’s uncle, recounted a conversation he had had with David after David’s arrest. David told Michael that “there was tension in the family and it was worse when Robin was home” and that his father was a “domineering person and the family felt dominated by him.”

    Isn’t is curious that an allegedly innocent person would continue to deny the truth?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Tom,
    I have posted this before but you appear to have missed it.
    Disturbed by David’s behaviour as a child his parents sought leave from the Church to take him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment and counselling.

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

    What a bullshit artist.

    The washing machine technician said that sometimes it started on the full wash which took 45 to 60 mins, but often even though on the top position it would complete the short wash which took 30 mins.

    Laniet did not tell anyone David was molesting her, but a member of JFRB has had a few ‘fantasies’ about that, and decided to make them into a good story. Pity her and her sister posted about it on guilty.freeforums so everyone else saw the conversation.

    The foot print was complete heel to toe, as per the evidence given, the other three foot prints were NOT complete because as the evidence given stated, they did not include the toes. Foot prints can’t have been David’s. The measurements from the first trial were taken from a sock, which as everyone knows, they are not an indication of the size of the foot.

    Unidentifiable prints on the rifle were probably David’s – what a bloody joke, you using tea leaves now to make your assessments? You’re a very bad joke.

    There are documented cases of people committing suicide using a rifle with a silencer, who are right handed and shoot themselves on the left side. Even Dr Dempster has admitted this is correct. Unlikely does not mean it can’t have happened. Other forensics support this position.

    If the date of Robin’s blood on the shoe wasn’t dated, then who is to blame for that? Certainly not David Bain. However, as the blood was consistent in pattern it can be safely assumed, and was conceded by the Crown at trial to have come from Robin’s head wound.

    You don’t know the DNA evidence? Gosh, why don’t you just make something up, like you have on everything else. Go on, you’re used to making up stories, give it a go, I’m sure you can come up with something!!!

    Pathetic – I hope they have you giving evidence at KP’s trial.

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

    Bamber’s preoffence behaviour is a dead giveaway, including the crimes and grandiosity

    According to witnesses, David intimidated the family with a gun and had planned to rape a jogger. Then there is his belief that he was going to be NZ’s answer to Pavarotti. No grandiosity there. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Lundy is supposed to be going to live with his sister and some of the neighbours have been interviewed .
    Some of them aren’t to happy to have him living next door to them but more because of his notoriety than for any other reason.

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

    muggins (2,677) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    This post by muggins is total crap. Despite being asked countless times to produce evidence to prove this, no one has yet been able to produce anything but gossip of so and so said so. Even McNeish was unable to confirm anything like it when challenged.

    Keep it up muggins. True to form as usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Not total crap at all. Just ask Barbara Short [Neasmith].

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

    There are documented cases of people committing suicide using a rifle with a silencer, who are right handed and shoot themselves on the left side.

    I presume you can provide details. Out of all those that are right handed and kill themselves with a rifle, how many shoot themselves on the left side using a silencer? And how many of them killed their families minutes earlier while wearing their son’s opera gloves following which they changed their blood stained clothes and then wrote an ambiguous note on a computer?

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

    More bullshit from Aunt Fanny, you are a very bad joke!

    “not a complete heel and toe print” another downright lie, just one of many examples in your pathetic attempt to discredit the truth.
    But you are not interested in the truth are you ‘Muggins’ this is just about being ‘right’ and who can spin the most convincing bullshit.
    Well f…tard you will never be right with the ‘facts’ but you well in truly win first prize for being the biggest bullshitter here.

    and again I never claimed you were my ‘bumbuddy’ so stop twisting!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    allegedly

    And there you have it.

    There are so many allegations flying around, we need to find out who the alligators are.

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

    @ Ross69

    Typical, give only partial information.

    The conversation in which David said ‘he hated his father’ was just after he had learned that his siblings were awake when they had died. He had believed until then they that were asleep and knew nothing. The police had told him at interviews that if it wasn’t him it was his father. It was a perfectly reasonable statement to make in the circumstances, especially so close to their murders and still being in shock.

    Barbara Short gave evidence at both trials on how close the family was. All members. She had stayed with the family and knew them well from Paupa New Guinea. Val Boyd, like Uncle Michael had seen the family far less than her.

    As for the bullying. That is a damn good story made up by a certain family members of Justice For Robin Bain, who unfortunately made plans to tell such stories on a forum where it was copied. They are lying. David Bain acted like most big brothers and was bossy with his sisters, but Margaret was happy with this, and witnesses gave evidence in Court to say that she was happy David was taking a lead role in the family. She did complain that she had to tell him to go easy on his siblings but never reported any violence or anything close to it. She kept a thorough diary and recorded many bad things about Robin, but not one about David.

    So like most of what you say, you have no evidence, no verification, nothing but a couple of twisted sisters, and an aunt and uncle who wouldn’t even visit the family in their home.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    “oss69…..
    You are a fuck wit….”

    So typical of the handful of remaining David Bain supporters.
    When losing (which they clearly are) they resort to threats (“Defamation! Defamation!”) and abuse like this.
    Strongly supports my theory that most of them are Crims themselves…

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

    muggins (2,679) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
    Judith,
    Not total crap at all. Just ask Barbara Short [Neasmith].

    I happen to know what Ms Short was talking about, obviously you don’t, as you have got it very wrong. But then you probably know that, and just change it to suit the rest of your dishonest statements.

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

    Longknives (3,059) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Then your theory is wrong. Very wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith
    David Bain said the washing usually took three quarters of an hour to an hour and who would no better than him.
    [or are you saying he lied about how long it took him?] .
    Not only did Laniet say that David was molesting her but she also left home for a couple of weeks while she was still at school to get away from him.
    The best footprint was not a complete heel and toe print so no-one is ever going to know how long the foot that made it was.
    It was David’s rifle, his were the only identifiable prints found on it , so it is most likely those unidentifiable prints were his as well.
    Please link to those documented cases of people who have committed suicide by using a rifle with a silencer attached.
    It cannot be assumed those three pinhead spots of blood on Robin’s Bain’s shoe came from his head wound.
    What DNA evidence are you talking about?. Please be specific.

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

    The conversation in which David said ‘he hated his father’ was just after he had learned that his siblings were awake when they had died. He had believed until then they that were asleep and knew nothing. The police had told him at interviews that if it wasn’t him it was his father. It was a perfectly reasonable statement to make in the circumstances, especially so close to their murders and still being in shock.

    Whether the victims were asleep or not is irrelevant in the context of David’s comments. He hated his father because he was sneaky, etc, not because he was a mass murderer. And, like Tom, you’re missing the point. David told Binnie a bald-faced lie when he said “these five members of my family were my life…We were extremely close. We all loved each other dearly.” That’s utter bullshit. Why would an innocent David tell such a whopper, along with other whoppers?

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

    The washing machine again!

    Here’s a good piece with thanks to Beyond about supersleuth/muggins idiotic beliefs on the subject.

    http://counterspinthetruth.blogspot.co.nz/

    Office Boy Mentality, part two – the deaf office boy

    Supersleuth appears to have got himself on a bit of roll regarding the washing machine timing and the police arrival at the house.

    In order for his theory to work, he has to make us believe that the house was ‘deathly silent’ when the police searched through it that fateful morning.

    It’s a task he can’t fulfil unfortunately.

    We know that 18 people entered the house during the couple of hours after the 111 call made by David.
    We also know from reports that there were vehicles including police, ambulance, forensic teams, and news media lined up along the street.

    The house was old, there were holes in the exterior, and police reported the walls were paper thin.

    The police reported the house was quiet when they arrived, but then a dog (Kaycee started barking at them) As you would expect, any dog to do with several strangers prowling around the outside of the house.

    They also said Kaycee continued to bark at them, at one stage David calling her to come to him from another room, before she was eventually tied up.

    The neighbours reported the street was very noisy. There were sirens, and vehicles, racing up the road from the time of the arrival of the first ambulance and squad car. From then on the shouting and loud voices continued to be heard for sometime as not just the Bain property but the surrounding area was checked. The comings and goings continued all that day and for some days after.

    BUT, Supersleuth wants to deny all that noise. He expects us to believe at 65 Every Street on that cold winter’s morning, none of the noise from the outside of the house could be heard, and that the house was so quiet, those searching upstairs would have heard any noises from the floor below.

    He wants us to believe that the police that entered the house didn’t drive their vehicles there, but must have glided them up a hill without the motors going. They didn’t call out to each other, or talk , and must have removed their footwear and tiptoed through the house like ballerinas, without disturbing the dog.

    It is true, they didn’t know if the offender was still in the house, and so those on the property took care to make sure the property was secure, but to describe the scene as ‘quiet’ for more than the first minute the first team arrived, is ………… well it’s just another one of Supersleuth’s misrepresentations of the facts, and something the prosecution failed to prove.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You obviously don’t know what Barbara Short was talking about.
    Anyway I daresay there are other members of the Church you could ask if you want to confirm what I posted.

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

    ross69 (2,971) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    Grow up.
    Of course there isn’t an exact copycat familicide in that the perpetrator ‘wore their son’s opera gloves’ etc.

    However there are number where they grabbed the most accessible items in which to protect themselves from getting their families blood on their hands. which is what Robin did in this case as his gloves were in the caravan, and David’s were right there in the same room as the gun.

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

    And part one, beyond is seriously good!

    Office Boy Mentality

    Supersleuth has told us several times during his messageboard posting career how his occupation was that of ‘office boy’ or in today’s terms, administration assistant. At least part of his career, he states was spent as an office worker for car salesmen. Apparently he is retired, so we can presume he is over 65 years of age. He freely talks about himself in his posts. (No stalking required, it’s all there for anyone to see)

    So, given his vast experience with typewriters, photocopiers and letter writing, Supersleuth would like us all to believe him when he states ” I have read para 38,but I have found that experts on both sides have made what appear to be incorrect assumptions”. See blog post http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7638297537918777886&postID=8633299483499096778

    The ‘experts’ he refers to are forensic scientists, each specialised in their own particular field. Each with years of experience in working with forensics, however, Supersleuth, having worked in some small town office, knows better and is able to tell them, by looking at an online photograph of a photo of a footprint, used only as a demonstration, and not related to the case at all – THAT THEY ARE WRONG. Well done sleuth.

    This again, is the integrity or rather lack of it, that is the basis for the JFRB and Counterspin campaign.

    On the balance of probabilities…….

    On the balance of probabilities, the QC reviewing the evidence regarding David Bain’s compensation claim, will not be as dishonest or as stupid as the members of JFRB and Counterspin. Further more, the QC, despite his best efforts, will not be fooled by Supersleuth’s deliberate misrepresentations.

    An example of one of Supersleuth’s misrepresentations below:

    http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/gAV9nofEXGS/David+Bain+Retrial+Continues+Christchurch/TuoPMITDCCx/Peter+Hentschel Ok,here is a photo of one of those luminol sockprints.It appears the whole of the bottom of the sock was covered in blood.This means that David Bain must have stepped in a pool of blood in Stephen’s room,and that is why no bloody footprint was found there.The first footprint was found at the bottom of Margaret’s bed.
    So he must have put the pair of socks he was wearing then in the wash.
    I have read para 38,but I have found that experts on both sides have made what appear to be incorrect assumptions.
    But I would like to know if anybody measured the gap between those two sockprints found in Margaret’s room.While they are not in a straight line,it might have given us some idea how long the stride was.David Bain’s stride would have been quite a bit longer than his father’s.
    Edited by supersleuth at 1:09 pm, Tue 11 Jan

    supersleuth (0 ) 1:07 pm, Tue 11 Jan #15239

    The first and most important point is, the photo to which Stockdale (supersleuth) is referring to, is NOT a photo of one of ‘those’ footprints. The implication by Supersleuth is it was a footprint from the Bain house. The photo in the link given is in fact an example presented to the Court at the retrial, demonstrating what a luminol footprint looks like.

    He then goes further with his misrepresentations to tell us David ‘must have’ stepped in a pool of blood in Stephen Bain’s room, in order to get the sock so covered in blood, and then managed to step from that pool of blood, directly to the end of Margaret’s bed, hence the need to know the length of David’s stride.

    Supersleuth knows what he has stated is not correct. He knows the origin of that photo and the implausibility in what he is suggesting, but he also knows the average reader of the TM messageboard has no knowledge of the evidence, and may therefore, believe what he is saying.
    Supersleuth is more than happy to be blatantly dishonest in his attempt to coerce readers to believing David Bain is guilty. Such is the integrity of not only this man, but the entire Justice For Robin Bain campaign, from which the truth is sadly lacking.

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

    In the days after the murders, David stayed with Bob and Janice Clark. According to Janice, David said that his family saw death “as a celebration”. He apparently did not want any of the family wearing black at the victims’ funerals. He apparently wanted to attend the funerals wearing a brightly coloured jersey. According to Val Boyd, he “knew exactly what flowers he wanted for each of the coffins and what each of the family should wear, including jewellery. He wanted Arawa to wear a gown and her super-bra.” He had decided what music should be played, including specific songs for each of the deceased. Did he think it was appropriate to celebrate the murders of his family, given the circumstances of their deaths? Did he think it was appropriate to be telling the wider family what they should and should not wear and how the victims should be dressed? Did he think it was appropriate to dictate to his family re the funeral arrangements? Does he like to micro-manage, and did he like to micro-manage prior to the murders? Alas, the amazingly erudite Canadian jurist (Binnie) failed to ask David these questions.

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

    muggins (2,681) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    But I do know exactly what she was talking about and why. Like I said you are bullshitting. You don’t know what happened or why and just presuming from a simple comment what it was about. You are very wrong, it was not anything more than many thousands of parents have done for their own children who were having similar problems (and certainly not the problems you are suggesting they were), perfectly innocent childhood issues that a large number of children have and parents seek assistance for.

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

    However there are number where they grabbed the most accessible items in which to protect themselves from getting their families blood on their hands. which is what Robin did in this case as his gloves were in the caravan, and David’s were right there in the same room as the gun.

    But why would Robin worry about getting his victims’ blood on his hands? After all, according to the Bain cultists, he topped himself. David, on the other hand, seems to have washed his hands twice after his paper run, once to remove printer’s ink and once to remove blood. Clearly he didn’t want police to see that he had blood on his hands. But seeing as he is innocent, why would he worry about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith,
    The fact is that David’s parents were disturbed by his behaviour as a child and they sought leave from the Church to take him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment and counselling.
    You can put whatever slant you like on that but those are the facts.

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

    @ ross69

    You don’t get out much either do you?

    Have you read the funeral notices in the paper?

    Many people, particularly religious people regard funerals as a celebration of life, rather than death. Many people focus on the lives their loved ones have lived, rather than their deaths. I have been to funerals where the word went round that no one was to wear black.

    None of the funerals I have been to in recent years have people dressed in black, except for Maori Tangi.

    When my parent’s died I was meticulous about what I chose for them to wear. Making sure I chose the favourites for all their garments. I also choose the song they loved the most to be played etc. Of course it was appropriate he dictate to the family what he wanted. He was closer to them than any of their Aunties and Uncles, some of whom had never visited the family in the house, and some of whom had stop visiting them there, and only saw them ocassionally.

    David was making sure they had the funeral he knew they would want. It was the last thing he could do for them, and it was no more than many ordinary people do every day for their deceased loved ones.

    I find it disgusting that you would think otherwise, but them maybe you’ve never had to say goodbye to someone you love.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. Longknives (4,691 comments) says:

    Yeah because picking what underwear your murdered sister wears to her grave isn’t at all creepy Judith…

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

    muggins (2,682) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Firstly, it was not a psychiatrist, and secondly ‘behaviour’ can cover a number of things. Children receive help from child psychologists for a number of behaviourial things from shyness, bed wetting, nose picking and even bad dreams. You have no idea of what it was about and are just trying to make it into something really horrible.

    I know what it was and it was something that many children need help for. Back in the 80’s it was very common to refer to child psychologists to receive help. You really need to pull your head in and stop making things up when you don’t know the full story.

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

    “The fact is that David’s parents were disturbed by his behaviour as a child and they sought leave from the Church to take him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment and counselling”.

    Substantiation of this, but no your not capable of doing this are you its pure lies as usual!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    That photo you linked to re that sockprint is not the original because the luminol did not show up on the original photo.
    As Hentschel said, the footprint was not a complete heel and toe print.
    Re washing machine cycle. Don’t quite know what you are raving on about but the fact is that David Bain said that the wash usually took bertween three quarters of an hour and an hour and he would know. [Unless ,of course, you are saying he was lying].

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

    Longknives (3,063) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    NO it’s not. Arawa had bought herself her first push up bra and skited to the family about it. David was trying to make sure each family member had their favourite clothing to be buried in.

    I think that is thoughtful and a wonderful compliment to his memories of his family. It shows he cared what they were buried in. Would you have preferred him to have recommended a sack, or not taken their personal likings into account?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,116) Says:

    October 11th, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    “The fact is that David’s parents were disturbed by his behaviour as a child and they sought leave from the Church to take him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment and counselling”.

    Substantiation of this, but no your not capable of doing this are you its pure lies as usual!

    Rowan, are you saying Judith is lying?

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

    @ Muggins

    David Bain is not a washing machine specialist. The specialist that examined the machine said the dial was faulty and even if the top position (the long wash was selected) sometimes the short wash would be performed. Unless David stood over the washing machine, which was downstairs, he would not know what it did that morning.

    And most importantly, you have no proof what cycle it did either. Nor do the police, so again, you are bullshitting, making out you know something you have no way of knowing.

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

    muggins (2,684) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    No he is not saying I was lying. I never said he went for psychiatric assessment and counselling, that was you. I know he didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    And we know what the facts are, that weren’t heard by the jury from Arawa’s childhood friend who mentioned an occasion when they were nine where Arawa had told her that her father had shown her how to stick her finger up her vagina, and the evidence of Joanna Dunn who had told the police what Margaret had confined in her about what she was afraid of her husband doing to the entire family with a loaded gun!
    It appears Margaret was right to be worried about this.

    And I know that Muggins has stated that it thinks that this is perfectly normal behaviour for a father to do to his daughter!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    David wanted to have a birthday party for Arawa on the Sunday after the murders. He wanted to ask some of her friends over. He said they could use a room or else they could take the cassette player out to the grave,play some music and dance there.

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

    No I believe that Aunt Fanny is lying, again, surprise, surprise!
    The article about the washing machine shows that again you are way out of your depth with your bullshit assumptions. Give it a read.
    And stop lying about what Hentschel said he explicitly said it was a complete footprint, until he realised that it couldn’t have been made by David.

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

    @ muggins

    Yes, he wanted to remember his sister’s birthday and honour her. Exactly the same way many people do. Try visiting a graveyard and the graves of young people. You will find all sorts of things on the graves left by people wanting to remember those they loved. I’ve seen everything from bottles of beer, joints and condoms.

    Nothing at all strange about that for normal people. Every year on a girlfriend’s birthday, who died several years ago her husband arranges a get together at her grave where he turns on the drinks and we have a good sing song and remember her.

    It’s what people do, its how some people show their love for the lost ones. Everyone grieves in different ways, but sadly your group seems so removed from humanity you wouldn’t understand any of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    You are lying again.
    The Bain children used to run round in the nude. I would not be surprised if Robin Bain did show Arawa where her vagina was. He probably pointed to David’s penis at some stage and told him that was his penis.
    I did not say it was normal behaviour.But the Bain’s were different in that regard.
    I mean we know Margaret and Robin used to have sex in the open and that David used to watch them.

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

    muggins (2,686) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    There is a very big difference between a father showing his daughter where her vagina is, and showing her how fingers can be inserted into her vagina, as the witness reported.

    If you can’t see anything wrong with that, then I hope to god you’ve got no daughters or grandaughters.

    David wasn’t the only person that watched them, they used to perform for groups of the natives and their other children. Again you selectively chose David to enrich your dishonest stories.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith, please.
    If you had a sister who had just been murdered would you go out to her grave with a few friends and dance around her grave the day after she was buried?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith, as I said the Bain’s were different so far as sex was concerned. I mean Margaret was still letting Stephen suckle when he was teenager and I don’t doubt she was letting David do the same thing before Stephen.
    And what about that massage table in David’s room. Who was he massaging on that?

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

    @ muggins

    I am not in my early 20’s. However I would go to her grave if it was her birthday and have a few drinks and play her favourite music and if I felt like it, yes I would dance if I felt like it, probably more so immediately after the funeral when the wounds are so painful. Anything to gain some relief of the endless grief.

    You have to remember that the Bain family were very spiritual. They had strong beliefs in the afterlife. David probably believed his dead sister had some way of knowing they had remembered the birthday she was looking forward to. It’s a pity the rest of the family didn’t wish to honour her, and were in a big hurry to get the mourning over so they could move on the to cash.

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

    muggins (2,688) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    Judith, as I said the Bain’s were different so far as sex was concerned. I mean Margaret was still letting Stephen suckle when he was teenager and I don’t doubt she was letting David do the same thing before Stephen.
    And what about that massage table in David’s room. Who was he massaging on that?

    They sure as hell were different. How many fathers do you know having sex with their daughters!
    So what? So she believed in nurturing her children that way – at least its better than having sex with them!

    As you know the Bain family had their possessions spread throughout the house and did not keep them exclusively in their own rooms. That massage table could have been Robin’s for all you know, after all he kept his clothes and other possession in David’s room.

    Again, you don’t know, but you just love putting your own spin on it and being creepy about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith (4,068) Says:

    October 11th, 2013 at 4:59 pm
    muggins (2,682) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Firstly, it was not a psychiatrist, and secondly ‘behaviour’ can cover a number of things. Children receive help from child psychologists for a number of behaviourial things from shyness, bed wetting, nose picking and even bad dreams. You have no idea of what it was about and are just trying to make it into something really horrible.

    I know what it was and it was something that many children need help for. Back in the 80′s it was very common to refer to child psychologists to receive help. You really need to pull your head in and stop making things up when you don’t know the full story.

    Judith,
    Here you are it was common for children to be referred to child psychologists. I did not say David was referred to a psychiatrist. Now you are saying you didn’t say what you posted above.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith
    David told a visitor that he and his mother were into massaging and there was a book of people massaging each other in his room. I am just wondering who he was massaging. Was it just his mother?
    And when Laniet told people that David was molesting her what do you think she meant by that?

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

    muggins (2,689) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    Judith,
    The fact is that David’s parents were disturbed by his behaviour as a child and they sought leave from the Church to take him to Darwin for psychiatric assessment and counselling.
    You can put whatever slant you like on that but those are the facts.

    Liar. Who do you think does psychiatric assessments, the monkeys? Psychiatric assessment and counselling is what you said – very clearly. You might not have used the word referred, but anyone with half a brain knows you have to be referred in order to attend for assessment etc.

    More friggin lies. Jeez you’re a mess.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith (4,070) Says:

    October 11th, 2013 at 5:25 pm
    @ muggins

    I am not in my early 20′s. However I would go to her grave if it was her birthday and have a few drinks and play her favourite music and if I felt like it, yes I would dance if I felt like it, probably more so immediately after the funeral when the wounds are so painful. Anything to gain some relief of the endless grief.

    You have to remember that the Bain family were very spiritual. They had strong beliefs in the afterlife. David probably believed his dead sister had some way of knowing they had remembered the birthday she was looking forward to. It’s a pity the rest of the family didn’t wish to honour her, and were in a big hurry to get the mourning over so they could move on the to cash.

    Judith ,I am well aware you are not in your early 20’s.
    So you are saying you would play some music and dance at your sisters grave just after she had been murdered.
    That seems pretty strange behaviour to me. Would you also invite her friends over as well?

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

    @ Muggins

    Laniet never told anyone David was molesting her. That is a lie conducted by a certain set of twisted sisters that are members of JFRB. One of the sisters coerced the other to come up with that story. Sadly the big mouth one discussed her plans to do so on a freeforum. It was a made up story by a couple of people who just have to be the centre of attention.

    No one, not even JC believes a word of it. Oh, except the JFRB group, but has you are demonstrating nicely, none of them are capable of rational thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Judith (4,071) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    More friggin lies. Jeez you’re a mess.

    Are you surprised? His comeuppance is fast approaching, only 3 more sleeps.

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

    muggins (2,691) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    I sure as hell would. Grief is best dealt with head on, by going with whatever helps you to feel better and gives you the power you need to cope with it. If being at the grave and showing them that you remembered their birthday and were celebrating it as if she was still there, feels right, then yes, anyone should do it, and in fact people do.

    I’ve heard of people having to be evicted from graveyards having stayed days there after the funeral partying and singing etc, talking to the recently departed.

    As I said, people handle grief in lots of ways. Not all hide from it and cry when no one is looking.

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

    Kanz (1,176) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    Not at all surprised. Yes THREE more Sleeps then the circus rolls into Auckland to give the performance of their narrow minded pathetic lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith (4,072) Says:

    October 11th, 2013 at 5:41 pm
    @ Muggins

    Laniet never told anyone David was molesting her. That is a lie conducted by a certain set of twisted sisters that are members of JFRB. One of the sisters coerced the other to come up with that story. Sadly the big mouth one discussed her plans to do so on a freeforum. It was a made up story by a couple of people who just have to be the centre of attention.

    No one, not even JC believes a word of it. Oh, except the JFRB group, but has you are demonstrating nicely, none of them are capable of rational thought.

    Judith,
    You are lying again.
    Laniet most definitely told friends that David was molesting her and you can check with those friends if you like.
    Also an affidavit has been signed that backs up that statement.
    And you are lying again when you say JC doesn’t believe a word of it. How do you know what JC believes or doesn’t believe.?
    You are becoming a habitual liar,Judith, just like David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    I see Kanz has been called on to help Judith out.
    Kanz, would you like to have a word in Judith’s ear , tell her to stop telling porkies.

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

    @ Muggins

    Yes, I know an affidavit has been signed. Just because it’s an affidavit doesn’t mean its the truth.

    What was the date of that document Muggins?
    How many years did it take those twisted sisters to come up with their story?
    Why didn’t they speak about it to someone before, and don’t give the crap that they didn’t think they needed to?

    If they are such wonderful law abiding people, why didn’t they go to the police then and there, all those years ago and tell them that Laniet was being molested?

    They are talking shyte. They have absolutely no credibility which is why no one has listened to them.

    You would be better off asking them why they thought it was necessary to bully the Bain children – that is something they maybe able to tell you about. They are a couple of sick sad twisted attention seekers – something everyone but the members of JFRB has worked out.

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

    muggins (2,693) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    Although it is good to see Kanz, believe me, I don’t need any help from him when it comes to picking out your lies.
    At least the police don’t think of me as a liar, but I can’t say the same for you! They don’t like being misquoted.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You are lying again.
    How do you know the police don’t think you are a liar?
    Oh, and by the way ,Barbara Short does not remember speaking to you. How long ago was it that you contacted her?
    And, as you well know, the person who signed that affidavit had been overseas for years,and that is why she didn’t come forward earlier.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I actually came to this thread to see if there was any comment on the bail decision. Hadn’t realised it had become a Bain thread.

    But, just a comment on a point Tom Jackson made at 3.41pm re defence not getting a chane to investigate a scene; that is incorrect. I have had the opportunity to work with a defence forensic scientist and examine a crime scene. The hardest part is actually getting the funding to instruct a scuentist.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Oh the biggest bullshitter has been sprung yet again and is accusing other people of lying, Judith is perfectly capable of substantiating what she posts and none of it is untrue, you have to twist and misrepresent and lie about what has been said (again) in order to try and give what you say credibility (and it still fails!)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Judith,
    You say I misquoted the police.
    Would you like to tell me how I misquoted them?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Judith (4,076) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    That person was by her own admission fat and ugly, still is. She resented David telling her she could get in shape. With her sisters help she will try all she can to get him back for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I would note that this was after the police had completed their initial investigation. We don’t get in on the ground floor.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,119) Says:

    October 11th, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    Oh the biggest bullshitter has been sprung yet again and is accusing other people of lying, Judith is perfectly capable of substantiating what she posts .

    Rowan, how about letting Judith speak for herself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    F E Smith (2,879) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 6:20 pm

    I actually came to this thread to see if there was any comment on the bail decision. Hadn’t realised it had become a Bain thread.

    I did the same, only to find the same person as always telling lies to prove something that is no longer before the courts.

    About the bail decision, I don’t see any grounds on which it should have been denied.
    The retrial will be interesting, it seems to me the prosecution will need to run a whole different case. Different time of death, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    I sure hope that Muggins didn’t have any daughters or granddaughters, as he seems to find Robin’s behaviour ‘normal’ if there are God help them that this sicko keeps his hands of them. But maybe he just reserves these acts for his goat and not a young female! (at least I hope so!)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. Nookin (3,284 comments) says:

    FES

    “I actually came to this thread to see if there was any comment on the bail decision. Hadn’t realised it had become a Bain thread”

    Every thread is a Bain thread, FES — you should know that by now. Test it out over the weekend. Just post any of the following words: Judith Collins, Court, judge, crime, Lundy, Pora Cain & Abel and watch the shit hit the fan. It’s a bit like the final scene in Blazing Saddles where the fight breaks out in one studio and ends up across half the countryside. Duck while you are posting.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,120) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    I sure hope that Muggins didn’t have any daughters or granddaughters, as he seems to find Robin’s behaviour ‘normal’ if there are God help them that this sicko keeps his hands of them. But maybe he just reserves these acts for his goat and not a young female! (at least I hope so!)

    Bad news I’m afraid Rowan. [deleted by DPF]

    [DPF: Leave family members out of this]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    One thing I know for sure…. David Bain didn’t kill the Lundys.

    Have a great Friday evening, you freaks. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Anyway back to Lundy which is what this thread is about. The crown will get laughed out of court if they propose a 7pm killing again, so they will probably have to go for an after midnight scenario. It looks like that at his original trial they were trying to have a bob each way over when the deaths occurred like in the original Bain trial. This is so wrong as they should of had to clarify the time of death in both situations so the defence lawyer knew what they were actually defending against.
    I find it convenient that Lundy is supposedly banging a prostitute in Wellington when these deaths occurred, but I still don’t see how he is going to get reconvicted as far to much doubt on every individual piece of evidence let alone the ‘BRD’ standard required, (again much like the Bain case)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    I see you have been spying on me again.
    Rowan thinks it’s normal to have sex with goats.
    Judith thinks it would be normal to have friends over and dance at her sisters grave if she has just been murdered.
    And you, Kanz ,think it is normal to take a note of all of my posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    muggins (2,697) Says:

    October 11th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
    Rowan,
    You are lying again.
    The Bain children used to run round in the nude. I would not be surprised if Robin Bain did show Arawa where her vagina was. He probably pointed to David’s penis at some stage and told him that was his penis.
    I did not say it was normal behaviour.But the Bain’s were different in that regard.
    I mean we know Margaret and Robin used to have sex in the open and that David used to watch them.

    Repeated for Kanz’s benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. Johnboy (16,092 comments) says:

    “One thing I know for sure…. David Bain didn’t kill the Lundys. ”

    But where was Lundy when the Bain’s were murdered? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    ‘I find it convenient that Lundy is supposedly banging a prostitute in Wellington when these deaths occurred, but I still don’t see how he is going to get reconvicted as far to much doubt on every individual piece of evidence let alone the ‘BRD’ standard required, (again much like the Bain case’

    That’s the problem Rowan. How the Crown now argue against a time that Lundy has an alibi for while trying to forward an alternative time for which he also has an alibi. The cross examination of the OIC is going to be a highlight that’s he’s not looking forward to I bet. A bit like one of the sisters trying to give an benign explanation for Robin’s behaviour toward his daughter. Yuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. Johnboy (16,092 comments) says:

    Pity you weren’t banging a hooker instead of a shotgun at the time of your second big mistake Nosty. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    Pity you weren’t a gutless wonder that got lost.

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

    Yes and I wouldn’t be surprised if Muggins [deleted by DPF]

    [DPF: 30 demerits. Now at 100]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    BACK TO LUNDY….
    This from the GD…
    *** Flipper says:

    This will be lengthy, deliberately so, to avoid hours of useless speculation.
    A careful reading of what is set out below as notes extracted from the PC judgment, will compel the conclusion that any move by the crown to proceed to a NEW trial for Mr Lundy is doomed to failure, and failure at great, unnecessary expense to taxpayers.
    When the notes below are studied (or for those who want the full version use DPF’s link to access the full PC decision), it is obvious that the crown is now forced to write a new fiction to prosecute Mr Lundy, or be laughed from the Court.
    Any reasonable person, properly informed, will now conclude that there is now NO CASE for Mr Lundy to answer.

    So….
    Let us now liken this to a boxing match, and examine the real chances of Crown success in the contest between The Unwilling Taxpayer v Mr M Lundy.
    Match 1. The Crown cheats, pulls dirty tricks, hits below the belt, but is awarded the bout, wins, albeit with the jury having been conned.

    Match 2.
    Part 1. The return contest: Mr M. Lundy, and his legal team/supporters, win at the Privy Council
    Part 2. The Privy Council, including Elias, (ergo, no specious “it is just foreign Judges unfamiliar with NZ law”, argument) KO’d the Crown in the following key rounds:
    Part 2a. The Time of death
    Subsets
    i. The Pang, stomach content time line – KO, with hospitalisation for critical care
    ii. Computer time line – TKO
    Part2b. The DNA link
    Subsets
    iii. Grantham told by pathologist Dr Heng Teoh that tissue was past its use by/value date and that Mr Lundy should not be charged.
    iv. Grantham then sought a Texan “hired gun”, Miller, who was TKO’d, as were other “witnesses for hire” used by the Crown
    v. Grantham, defended by Crown Law smart alec Mander, withheld vital evidence that would have destroyed the Crown’s case for 13 years, and until (June 13th, 2013) just one week before the PC hearing started.

    Match 3. Mr M. Lundy wins by a KO in Round 1.

    Match 4. Mr M.Lundy
    • Is offered and receives substantial compenssation for 13 years spent in prison, or
    • Sues the Crown under the NZBORA for improper imprisonment, and malfeasance by Crown employees, and wins costs plus compensation.

    Match 5. The Crown prosecutes Grantham for perverting the course of justice

    Match 6. The Crown finally concedes that a NZCCRC is essential, and acts accordingly
    *****
    NOTES FROM THE PRIVY COUNCIL JUDGMENT:
    Privy Council conclusion on time lines —
    i. “ …. 103. The following conclusions on the time of death issue can be made, based on the evidence offered by the various consultants:
    i) Examination of stomach contents alone cannot provide guidance as to the precise time of death;
    ii) There is nothing in reputable medical literature to support the claim that the absence of smell from stomach contents is an indication of the time of death;
    iii) The preponderance of the evidence established that gastric emptying can take place several hours after food has been ingested and that a wide variation in duration is possible;
    iv) The lag and the emptying phases may be prolonged by specific external variables such as stress, or by intrinsic factors such as the size and nature of the meal;
    v) Authoritative evidence is now available to the appellant that gastric emptying can be used to give, at best, a very rough estimate of time of death, with a margin of at least six hours.

    ii. The PC on “Failure to disclose”:
    “ …
    It was accepted by Mr Mander, who appeared for the respondent, that the document in which these passages appeared should have been disclosed to the appellant’s legal team before trial. In fact it was not disclosed until 13 June 2013. Mr Mander submitted, however, that, if it had been known about, there is no reason to suppose that Mr Behrens would not have made the concession that he did. The Board is unable to accept that submission.”

    iii. On the computer time line the PC says:

    “ 142. It was essential to the Crown case that an explanation for the time of closing the computer be given. Absent such an explanation, the possibility of Mrs Lundy being alive at 10.52pm could not be eliminated. And if that possibility remained, it was completely at odds with the central prosecution case against Mr Lundy. The new evidence, if accepted, directly challenges the plausibility of that case. It has an obvious and significant potential impact on the safety of the conviction and the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. It is in the interests of justice that it be admitted.”

    iv. Conclusion, the PC says:
    “…
    151. Applying this test to the present case, the Board has concluded, subject to consideration of the proviso (which will be dealt with below), that the verdict is unsafe.. The evidence of the identification of the specimen taken from Mr Lundy’s shirt as his wife’s CNS tissue was, as the Court of Appeal described it, the most cogent piece of evidence in support of the Crown’s case. Substantial questions about the validity of that evidence have been raised by the fresh material. The Crown’s positive case was that the murders had been committed between 7 and 7.15pm on 29 August 2000. The new evidence on this subject, if it is accepted, eradicates scientific support for the claim that this was the time of the death of the victims. Finally, the computer evidence raises the possibility of Mrs Lundy being alive at 10.52pm. Clearly it is evidence on which a jury might reasonably decline to convict.”

    v. The PC proviso:
    The “proviso” – matters unresolved that are dealt with by the PC thus:

    “154. ….. the respondent [Mander for the Crown Law Office] drew attention to a number of features of the case against the appellant, other than those which were involved in the application to receive fresh evidence. These, it was suggested, were capable of establishing his guilt. Tape lifts from Mr Lundy’s polo shirt established the probable presence of blood. Three particles were cut from the tape lifts and subsequent testing showed that DNA within the particles came from Amber. But Professor Whitwell’s opinion that the presence of blood flakes on clothing of members of the same family, if the parties live together, is not at all unusual was not challenged by the respondent and the Board does not consider that any significance can be attached to this evidence.
    155. There was evidence that the break-in had been staged. Three areas of smeared blood that almost certainly came from Christine Lundy were found on the outside of the window which had been forced and on the underside of the leading edge of the window frame. This indicates that the window was forced after the murders took place. This certainly throws suspicion on the appellant but alone could not begin to constitute proof of his guilt. Likewise, the finding that paint flakes associated with the deceased’s wounds forensically matched unique paint markings on the appellant’s tools.
    156. Evidence was given that, on the appellant’s account of having filled his car with petrol and his driving to various sales calls on 29/30 August 2000, he should have had thirty litres more in his petrol tank than was actually found. It was claimed that the appellant’s suggestion that he might have been the victim of petrol theft was implausible for a number of reasons, not least because the car was fitted with an anti-siphoning device. Again, while this is a cause for suspicion it falls very far short of proof of guilt, even when taken in combination with other factors such as the staged break-in and the paint flakes.
    157. A bracelet was found on the front passenger seat of the appellant’s car. When asked about this at interview, the appellant said that it was an old piece belonging to his wife. It is unlikely that this item did belong to Christine Lundy as it was probably too small for her to wear in comfort. It was suggested that it had been taken by the appellant when he removed the jewellery box. (There was evidence that Amber kept some items of jewellery in her mother’s jewellery box). The appellant’s attempt to explain its presence in the car that Christine had dropped it when they were at a social function was not believable, the Crown suggested. Again, this evidence is cause for suspicion but no more, even when considered with the other features to which the respondent has drawn attention.
    158. A witness, Margaret Dance, who lived in the appellant’s neighbourhood, saw a person whose general appearance might be said to be similar to the appellant’s running from the direction of Karamea Crescent at about 7.15pm on 29 August. The details she provided as to time and place where the observation took place, the demeanour, clothing and footwear of the individual, and the appearance of a nearby car all pointed clearly to the appellant, the Crown claimed. It was accepted that there were some eccentricities in Mrs Dance’s evidence and the description that she gave, while graphic, was general in nature. The Board does not consider that it contributes to any significant extent to the case against the appellant. “

    ***

    THE WINNER, BY A KNOCK-OUT, MR MARK LUNDY,
    and
    JUSTICE..

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

    “155. There was evidence that the break-in had been staged. Three areas of smeared blood that almost certainly came from Christine Lundy were found on the outside of the window which had been forced and on the underside of the leading edge of the window frame. This indicates that the window was forced after the murders took place. This certainly throws suspicion on the appellant but alone could not begin to constitute proof of his guilt. Likewise, the finding that paint flakes associated with the deceased’s wounds forensically matched unique paint markings on the appellant’s tools. ”

    that reads like pretty bloody compelling evidence to me. Lundy is as guilty as sin. He’s a disgusting selfish narcissistic sociopath. This needs to go to trial. Forget about the expense to the taxpayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  445. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Dean Papa…

    You do yourself a disservice, and your description of Mr Lundy as . “… a disgusting selfish narcissistic sociopath. … ” destroys any pretence of your objectivity.

    Five experienced, independent, Judges looking at the case totally objectively, unanimously concluded…. “… This certainly throws suspicion on the appellant but alone could not begin to constitute proof of his guilt “…..

    But you say that you know that …. “… [Mr]Lundy is as guilty as sin.”

    You need help Dean.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “155. There was evidence that the break-in had been staged. Three areas of smeared blood that almost certainly came from Christine Lundy were found on the outside of the window which had been forced and on the underside of the leading edge of the window frame. This indicates that the window was forced after the murders took place. This certainly throws suspicion on the appellant but alone could not begin to constitute proof of his guilt. Likewise, the finding that paint flakes associated with the deceased’s wounds forensically matched unique paint markings on the appellant’s tools. ”

    that reads like pretty bloody compelling evidence to me. Lundy is as guilty as sin. He’s a disgusting selfish narcissistic sociopath. This needs to go to trial. Forget about the expense to the taxpayer.”

    All that the above “proves” is that someone might have used one of Lundy’s tools to bludgeon the victims and left some blood exiting the house via a window. If that’s all it takes to find someone guilty of murder we may as well do away with trials altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  447. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    jackinabox

    But that is not the only item of evidence am sure Dean Papa was referring to . Another is the unexplained petrol consumption which Lundy originally told the police that it had been siphoned.But in court he changed his testimony on this . Familiar.?
    BTW I just hope when he visits Christine and Amber’s grave side that its a very private affair with the public and media excluded.

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

    I wonder if the witch-sniffer from the press will now turn his hatred from the Bain case towards Lundy and entertain the narrow minded proportion of us (thankfully a fairly small one) with his uniformed columns. I can’t see how anyone takes this fool seriously, his performance when 3rd Degree gave him 10 minutes was a joke, ‘er er um um the police might be able to come up with a theory to explain the marks’
    Own goal Martin!

    Only two more sleeps until the Salem witch burning trial starts, I can’t wait to see the nutjob go down for what he’s worth!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Rowan (2,119 comments) says:

    Stephieboy

    Finally you talk some sense, yes there is rather a lot of ‘unexplained’ in the case on both sides of the case, In my mind this constitutes more than enough ‘reasonable doubt’ but I am not saying that Lundy is innocent.
    I am sure the crown will go ahead with a retrial and lose and we will most probably end up in the same position as the Bain case. Save the taxpayer the expense!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 comments) says:

    Very good flipper. The smears on the window may in fact be exculpatory for Lundy because there were no instances of such transference in his car or on his clothes. The petrol question is a vague as the collective intellect of the sisters. And as the PC says the various notes of suspicion don’t compensate for the failure in the Prosecution evidence revealed before the PC. Unfortunately, I don’t think either the COA or the Supreme Court appear capable of making such reasoned findings.

    Looking at the PC’s ruling on ‘fresh’ evidence and indeed evidence if not ‘fresh’ but which however goes to the safety of a conviction consider first of all the criticism of Tipping J in both the Lundy and Bain PC judgements and compare that with woeful and even more restrictive view of Kristy McDonald on the Watson petition. Clearly neither she or the Minister have even a basic understanding on the exercise of the RPOM – instead they conduct ‘tests’ which bear no perspective of ‘Mercy.’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,123) Says:
    October 11th, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    Highly inappropriate comment about Muggins. He was merely attempting to describe family life for the Bain’s especially in PNG.Both Margaret and Robin were promiscuous in their upbringing of their children including allowing them to run around naked, not getting them to toilet appropriately and both openly having sex together in front of them .All documented by Mc Neish and to say David came out of all of this totally emotionally unscathed would be utterly fatuous.
    BTW what is you payoff for been both vindictive and abusive when someone disagrees with your fundamental assumptions.??

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Is the allegation that 30 litres of petrol was unaccounted for another fit up lie? How easy it is to undo the tank drain plug and then claim that a mad dash to Palmy and back was the reason the tide was out. About as easy as seeding the Crewe’s garden with a cartridge case or dabbing a bit of stale “brain” tissue on a polo shirt.

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

    Stephieboy

    Muggins is a fruitcake who has no interest in the truth. This is a joke to him and the thread appears to be about who can spin the biggest bullshit. It is a disgusting action for a father to do to ones daughter.
    He is well beyond any of our help. I don’t care what he believes (or what anyone else does on Bain, or Lundy etc) but the way he has to lie, manipulate what was said and spread lies and defamation in order to make his points stick is a joke.
    I just show him up for what he is!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  454. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Rowan
    I;m not going to bother with you hysterics and unreason. No interest in the Truth and you have a monopoly on it.?
    Disgusting action to do with one’s daughter. Robin your referring to then why did Binnie dismiss the incest allegations as * all smoke and no fire” and why did not Karam follow it up in Trial by Ambush.? It barely rates a mention.
    But for those interested about Jeremy Bamber who has failed multiple appeals might look at this ,
    Multiple reason why Sheila Caffell is innocent, (Bamber’s stepsister that he tried to frame,)

    http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.0

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Rowan…
    On that other matter…
    I have asked DIF to email you a copy of the OTB paper.
    F

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

    Stephieboy

    Whatever, if you find him convincing then your problem, I would have no problem if he could use to substantiated facts to refute any arguments but he can never substantiate anything, If you look through the previous Bain threads throughout KB then you will see that he has an unhealthy interest in naked men and also beastiality, he previously posted extensively on whether or not David was ‘naked’ or not when examained by Dr Pryde to the point he was contacting members of the original investigation to ‘confirm that he wasn’t’ The idea of beastiality with goats also seemed gained a lot of interest especially the Mark Buckley story and the response to it, but if you want to be friends with this delusional individual then thats up to you!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,127) Says:
    October 12th, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    The idea of beastiality with goats also seemed gained a lot of interest especially the Mark Buckley story and the response to it, but if you want to be friends with this delusional individual then thats up to you!

    Each to their own Rowan, each to their own. ;)

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

    @ Kanz

    I think Rowan might have been departed by Muggins, who likes to whinge to DPF every time someone tells the truth about him. Of course, knowing who the members of JFRB are, it’s not hard to see why. Perhaps it’s time we started whinging, but then, I suspect our complaints would be ignored – wrong side of the argument, and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    @Judith, has Rowan departed?

    That would make sense, muggins reminds me of the gutless kid who throws things at others while hiding amongst the teacher’s skirts. Doesn’t even have the guts to be the bully that he would so much like to be.
    I wonder if I will be seeing him this week, or if he is too gutless to even be in court to back up his earlier bragging?

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

    @ Kanz

    No, I doubt he will be in Auckland. I’m pretty sure KP knows what a BS artist he is, and the last thing they need is someone mentally unstable making an even bigger fool of the group. I’m sure KP and VP can manage that all on their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    @Judith, if they don’t want someone mentally unstable, then KP won’t be there either?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Ok,
    Rowan has been given the order of the boot for a while and Kanz has had a post deleted.
    And Kanz and Judith are having a whinge about it,dear oh dear. What a couple of sooks.
    And Judith hasn’t answered a number of my questions, I see.
    Never does when I catch her lying.
    Re court case. I was never going to Auckland. I was going to give evidence by way of skype but apparently the judge reduced the number of days the trial was going to take so that was me gone.
    I was quite disappointed, but there you go.
    No doubt the trial will be reported and who knows, David Farrar might start a blog about it, so it will be all on for young and old again.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    muggins (2,702) Says:
    October 12th, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    Re court case. I was never going to Auckland. I was going to give evidence by way of skype

    As I said, gutless wonder. You have a lot to say from behind a keyboard, but too scared to face those that you will happily tell lies about online.
    Gutless Bastard.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Kanz.
    If anyone is a gutless bastard it is you.
    Why don’t you front up and tell everyone who you are?
    Don’t talk to me about hiding behind a keyboard. You are a classic example.

    As I said I was going to testify but the judge cut the days down.

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

    @ Kanz

    I’m pleased to see the judge cut the days down. He must have got my letter!! ;-)

    @ Muggins

    What is the point in answering your same questions over and over. If you’ve got alzheimer’s and can’t remember what you’ve been told several times before, it’s hardly my fault. Get some help with it.

    The only person that is lying is you. You have lied over and over, and the OIA caught you lying even more. The police were not impressed when they knew how you had twisted and misrepresented what they said. But never mind, they did have a good laugh about you – I think the expression was something like – ‘what a sad f*ck.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  466. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    muggins (2,703) Says:
    October 12th, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    As I said I was going to testify but the judge cut the days down.

    From behind a keyboard.
    I can’t even call you a prick, because that is missing too.

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

    @ Kanz

    He is a pathetic snivelling little man who when he can’t sustain an argument runs off the to admin and lays a complaint. He did it all the time on Trademe. In fact, he’s probably away complaining how. You can always tell when he’s run off to get someone else to fight his battles, he takes a break from posting, but he always comes back and gloats about whoever he has got warned or banned.

    The good thing is that he has made such a nuisance of himself with witnesses etc that he has become a standard joke among many. It appears that even people on ‘his’ side think he’s a joke. I wish I knew your email address, I could send you some of the comments they’ve made about him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    You are a pathetic obsessive old woman who checks up on my private correspondence using the OIA.
    Many posters on kiwiblog believe you are mad and they are probably right.
    I am still able to contact anyone I like.
    And as it happens the email that police officer sent me was not 100% correct.
    There was a police officer in the room at the start of Dr Pryde’s examination.
    Also Barbara Short does not remember you contacting her.
    And Robin Bain neither owned nor used a firearm when he lived in Papua New Guinea.
    If anyone is a joke it is you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Still not game to let me have your name, I see.
    But hey, you have obviously looked at my facebook page a number of times, so how about sending me a message so I will know who you are.
    Re the trial. Karam isn’t suing me so why should I spend money going to Auckland when I don’t have to?
    If I lived in Auckland I would certainly go along together with other members from Auckland that will be having a look in from time to time.
    I will be getting a daily update . That is all I need.
    Is Arthur Allan Thomas going to be there?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    muggins (2,705) Says:
    October 12th, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    Kanz,
    Still not game to let me have your name, I see.

    Happier with a face to face meeting.
    You name when and where.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Stop trying to wriggle out of telling me who you are ,you gutless bastard.
    I could be prepared to meet you once I know who you are and where you live.
    Then you won’t have an advantage over me, which of course is what you want to have.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. Kanz (1,322 comments) says:

    muggins (2,706) Says:
    October 12th, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    Kanz,
    Stop trying to wriggle out of telling me who you are ,you gutless bastard.
    I could be prepared to meet you once I know who you are and where you live.
    Then you won’t have an advantage over me, which of course is what you want to have.

    As predicted.
    You were the one given the advantage, by naming when and where.
    As always, fudge, hedge, but don’t ever do the manly thing, will you? Well a bit late to start doing that now, aye? You never have before.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    Judith (4,098) Says:
    October 12th, 2013 at 7:03 pm
    @ Kanz

    “He is a pathetic snivelling little man who when he can’t sustain an argument runs off the to admin and lays a complaint…..”

    You should talk. Kanz, Rowan and yourself need to deal with your abuse,pique and tantrums.Its becoming unmanageable . Seriously.!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11139373

    As usual plod will never admit they may have got it wrong and an alternative suspect will never be pursued. If Lundy or his supporters come up with compelling evidence pointing to someone else having done the dastardly deed the cops will do everything they can to protect the “new” suspect from justice. Happens all the time, A Thomas, Rex Haig, Richard Bluett. Hell, in the latter case, the OIC of that debacle got a police medal and a promotion for allegedly doing an excellent job of work even though he lost it big time and rather than admit they tried the wrong person the cops let the real culprit go unpunished.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Why the thumbs down?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    jackinabox (52) Says:
    October 12th, 2013 at 3:27 pm

    The petrol consumption a barefaced lie.?
    This is what the CA said about the consumption,

    Petrol consumption

    [9] “There was evidence that Mr Lundy had filled his car with petrol during the afternoon of the day on which the murders were committed. The police drove the distance Mr Lundy was said to have travelled in order to establish precise distances and petrol consumption. By dint of evidence obtained from filling Mr Lundy’s car with petrol after it was seized the following day, the police were able to establish that if Mr Lundy had not made the return trip from Petone to Palmerston North, and had done only the mileage he had claimed to have done, he would have used fuel at 27 litres per 100 kilometres, approximately twice the normal rate that might have been expected. Mr Lundy explained this by the speed at which he had returned to Palmerston North the following morning. About five months later he raised the suggestion of theft from his petrol tank but he resiled from this suggestion when giving evidence at his trial. The jury was entitled to regard the petrol consumption evidence as significant in that Mr Lundy’s actual fuel consumption was broadly consistent (if some petrol had been bought en route) with the distance the Crown contended he had travelled, ie. three trips between Petone and Palmerston North. The evidence was not consistent with Mr Lundy having undertaken just the one trip the following morning, as he claimed.”

    I trust the PC covered these points but I may of missed them.?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    One bold prediction I do make is that when the Lundy retrial goes ahead then his Defence counsel will ,like David Bain, wont take the stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    All you have to do is message me . Then I will know who you are and where you live.
    I have already picked a meeting place. It will be outside the local police station.
    We can decide the date and time later.
    The last time I arranged to meet someone they never turned up. That person was using the pseudonym Tom Thumb.
    But he had a blank profile.
    I am not going to make the same mistake again.
    Once I know who you are we can arrange a date and time.
    You know we shouldn’t be having this discussion on kiwiblog. Either you message me or forget about it.
    In other words put up or shut up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “About five months later he raised the suggestion of theft from his petrol tank but he resiled from this suggestion when giving evidence at his trial. The jury was entitled to regard the petrol consumption evidence as significant in that Mr Lundy’s actual fuel consumption was broadly consistent (if some petrol had been bought en route) with the distance the Crown contended he had travelled, ie. three trips between Petone and Palmerston North. The evidence was not consistent with Mr Lundy having undertaken just the one trip the following morning, as he claimed.”

    And that is why you should never talk to the cops if you are unsure of your facts. The cops will turn any honest mistake into a deliberate lie if it suits their case. “DON’T TALK TO THE POLICE”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    jackinabox (53) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 9:44 am

    Unsure of the facts ?
    “DON’T TALK TO THE POLICE.?
    These will , of course, will be entered as evidence in the retrial.?
    Correct.?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    jackinabox.
    It is most unlikely that anyone else rather than Mark Lundy murdered his wife and child.
    Do you really believe that anyone else would enter the Lundy home, grab an axe that was available and use it to murder Christine and Amber?
    So far as Rex Haig is concerned, well he might not have committed the murder but he would have certainly known who did.
    He should have fronted up and told the police .
    As for Thomas, yes , Hutton let everyone down when he planted that shell casing.
    The first suspect , Len Demler, was probably the perpetrator, but because he wouldn’t admit to the murders they decided to go for the next person on their list.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    jackinabox (53) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 9:44 am

    And that is why you should never talk to the cops if you are unsure of your facts. The cops will turn any honest mistake into a deliberate lie if it suits their case. “DON’T TALK TO THE POLICE”

    Don’t talk to the police? If Rex Haig had told the police what he knew he might never have gone to jail.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    stephieboy (18) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 12:31 am
    Judith (4,098) Says:
    October 12th, 2013 at 7:03 pm
    @ Kanz

    “He is a pathetic snivelling little man who when he can’t sustain an argument runs off the to admin and lays a complaint…..”

    You should talk. Kanz, Rowan and yourself need to deal with your abuse,pique and tantrums.Its becoming unmanageable . Seriously.!

    Both Kanz and Rowan were discussing another members personal details. Kanz had been warned about that before.
    Rowan was being abusive as well. He only had himself to blame for those demerit points.
    And as I have already said, Judith is so obsessed with trying to prove that Robin Bain committed suicide she has allowed any commonsense she may have to fly right out the window.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “As for Thomas, yes , Hutton let everyone down when he planted that shell casing.
    The first suspect , Len Demler, was probably the perpetrator, but because he wouldn’t admit to the murders they decided to go for the next person on their list.”

    And that is why you can’t trust the police not to be evil and disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  485. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    jackinabox (54) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 10:24 am
    “As for Thomas, yes , Hutton let everyone down when he planted that shell casing.
    The first suspect , Len Demler, was probably the perpetrator, but because he wouldn’t admit to the murders they decided to go for the next person on their list.”

    And that is why you can’t trust the police not to be evil and disgusting.

    jackinabox
    So you are saying that because there is one or two rotten apples in a barrel then you would throw away the rest of apples because of those two rotten ones?
    You seem to be taking a very jaundiced view of the police. Have you a personal reason for taking that stance?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Don’t you mean one or two good apples in a barrel muggins?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    jackinabox
    Re Lundy.
    The fact is that Mark Lundy is the only person who is likely to have murdered his wife and daughter.
    He did have motive [$500000] but even without that money he may have seen his wife as holding him back from achieving his dreams.
    However, having said that, there is very little evidence that points to him as being the perpetrator.
    And if a jury managed to find David Bain not guilty with all the evidence that pointed to him as being the killer then one would have to say that Lundy could well be found not guilty as well at his retrial.
    In fact the way I see it I will be surprised if he is found guilty at his retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  488. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    jackinabox (55) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 10:41 am
    Don’t you mean one or two good apples in a barrel muggins?

    No, jack, I meant what I said.
    And you didn’t anwer my question, any reason for that?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    The force of evil doesn’t like being criticised.

    Someone recently used your password to try to sign in to your Google Account This person was using an application such as an email, client or mobile device.

    We prevented the sign-in attempt in case this was a hijacker trying to access your account. Please review the details of the sign-in attempt:

    Saturday, 12 October 2013 21:34:49 o’clock UTC
    IP Address: 78.160.35.227
    Location: Ankara/Ankara Province, Turkey

    If you do not recognise this sign-in attempt, someone else might be trying to access your account. You should sign in to your account and reset your password immediately.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Have you a personal reason for taking that stance?”

    Let’s just say that I’m not one to repeat hearsay.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    This murder suicide sim is quite brilliant.
    I have always wondered why Boyce was not asked to explain where his body would of fallen in the demo .? A safety mat could of been laid out for him to collapse on .

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

    Boyce and others have some explaining to do IMO

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Hey stephieboy, how many times have you dropped something and it landed in a way that you couldn’t repeat no matter how many times you tried?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. stephieboy (2,801 comments) says:

    jackinabox
    The best proof experience .Now get a chair and say a broom handle to simulate David’s .22. Place your foot or knee on the chair. Fire and collapse in in a heap in the area you fell ( not throw yourself back as there is little or no recoil with a .22 rifle.)
    Then say to yourself, well hmmmm…!
    Recall also Boyce changing his theory placed the nozzle of the silencer 12cm from his head.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    I dropped a 22 magazine on the carpet the other day and it finished up on edge, flukes do happen, and just dead bodies are real floppy.

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

    @ Stephieboy @12.20

    What a pathetic attempt to recreate the scene. The fact you are conscious means your brain will prevent you from relaxing completely. Forensic experts gave evidence in Court that the body buckles at the knee when shot in the position that Robin was. Robin had his right foot on the chair (as evidenced by the splatter which was approx. 1 metre from the head). The broomstick or gun has nothing to do with how he fell. As soon as the brain was impacted the hand relaxes, as does the rest of the body.

    You are suggesting he fell forward, however, with his right leg raised that is impossible and would have prevented his body from moving forward as the weight of his head and body would have been pushing down on it. The body finds its natural position according to gravity. The only way the body could fall in this position was backwards and slightly to the right, due to the prolonged (millisecond) delay due to the right leg being on the chair.

    This was all proven in Court. I’m sorry but your amateurish ‘tests’ using conscious people are nothing more than a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  496. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    stephieboy (22) Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Marzuka’s qualifications in forensic pathology are?

    If you look at his scribbling, you will see his measurements are way out, his positioning is way out, and as he doesn’t know and can’t produce the required and vital measurements, he has nothing but photos taken at different aspects to go from.

    A completely unprofessional and childish wishful attempt that isn’t worth the band space it takes up. Anyone that accepts such an amateurish job as the real thing, has serious intelligence issues.

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

    Retrial for Lundy looks a certainty as Collins gives her biggest hint.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11139470

    “He’s been granted a retrial, and that will no doubt go ahead,” she said.

    However, she refused to be drawn into more detail about the case, specifically in relation to the reliability of evidence used at Lundy’s first trial in 2002.

    “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.

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

    Further to Collins above :-

    “The public shouldn’t have any loss of confidence,” she said.

    However, she conceded that “sometimes police will get things wrong”, but added: “The vast majority of the time, they don’t.

    “We have 85,000 criminal convictions a year in this country. Of those, only 1 per cent are appealed, and of that 1 per cent that are appealed, only 10 per cent are successfully appealed. So that’s about 99.9 per cent of all criminal convictions every year are upheld.”

    Ms Collins continued: “[H]alf of all people convicted of murder in this country will appeal. And I don’t believe for a moment that half of all the people convicted of murder are not guilty, but half of them will appeal.”

    She denied prisoners face difficulty appealing their convictions, and said there was no need for a change in the current system to one more like the UK.

    “[T]he fact is that when you have such a tiny minority of people appealing under the current system, that tells me that a lot of people accept their convictions,” Ms Collins said.

    As we have learned from a number of cases, including Lundy, Appeals do not always work as they should, in fact, that so many fail is not particularly something to be proud of. Collins clearly does not want to let go of the ability to interfere – which may be fine for those who like her – but what happens when there is another government and it’s a MOJ that you don’t like or trust?

    Politics should NEVER be allowed to interfere in Justice. Time for a CCRC – an independent body. Every argument Collins comes up with to keep the status quo only proves the need for it.

    One person, some people, a small percentage – it doesn’t matter, no one should be required to spend years in prison because subsequent evidence is produced that indicates a wrongful conviction, but thanks to the decision of a ‘one-eyed’ politician, they are unable to have their cases examined.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

    jackinabox (59) Says:

    October 13th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    I dropped a 22 magazine on the carpet the other day and it finished up on edge, flukes do happen, and just dead bodies are real floppy.

    Jack
    What size magazine?
    Anyway, the defence say Robin Bain placed that magazine there.
    So for some unknown reason he removes a 10 shot magazine from the rifle when it still has three live rounds in it and places it upright on the floor when he dould have just dropped it on the floor or put it on the coffee table.
    Then he supposedly shoots himself in the left temple even though he is right-handed using a rifle with the silencer still attached to it while standing with one foot on a chair.
    I bet no-one had ever done that before.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. muggins (3,348 comments) says:

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

    Brilliant reconstruction.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. stephieboy (2,801 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
  502. muggins (3,348 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
  503. muggins (3,348 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
  504. stephieboy (2,801 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
  505. muggins (3,348 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
  506. muggins (3,348 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
  507. stephieboy (2,801 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
  508. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 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
  509. muggins (3,348 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
  510. muggins (3,348 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
  511. stephieboy (2,801 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
  512. stephieboy (2,801 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
  513. muggins (3,348 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
  514. flipper (3,991 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
  515. muggins (3,348 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
  516. 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
  517. 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
  518. stephieboy (2,801 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
  519. muggins (3,348 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
  520. stephieboy (2,801 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
  521. muggins (3,348 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
  522. 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
  523. 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
  524. muggins (3,348 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
  525. 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
  526. 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
  527. muggins (3,348 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
  528. 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
  529. muggins (3,348 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
  530. 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
  531. 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
  532. muggins (3,348 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
  533. muggins (3,348 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
  534. 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
  535. ross69 (3,652 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
  536. muggins (3,348 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
  537. 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
  538. jackinabox (776 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
  539. 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
  540. muggins (3,348 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
  541. 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
  542. ross69 (3,652 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
  543. 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
  544. Manolo (13,590 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
  545. muggins (3,348 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
  546. 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
  547. muggins (3,348 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
  548. 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
  549. Nostalgia-NZ (5,121 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
  550. 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