Who killed the Crewes?

August 1st, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

An elite police criminal profiler built a psychological model of the murderer who killed the Crewes – and ruled out the motive detectives say drove to commit the crime.

The profiler also diminished the role of Jeannette Crewe in any motive, saying a dispute between her husband Harvey and the killer likely festered for four years until the murder was committed through a “distorted desire to punish”. …

The profiler identified up to six criminal acts against the Crewes in the four years before their murders. They included a burglary in 1967, a fire in the Crewes’ nursery in 1968 and the destruction by fire of a hay barn in 1969 – the year before the double murder.

The pattern showed “escalating criminal progression”.

“Someone did not like them and their hatred was evolving over time. The burglary and fires were precursor offences by the perpetrator of the murders.”

The criminal profile said the killer knew the Crewes well and “wanted to intimidate” and “possibly drive them out of the district”.

If Ewen Macdonald was alive in 1970, I’d suggest they go interview him 🙂

I used to think it was Len Demler, but who knows.

1,144 Responses to “Who killed the Crewes?”

  1. goldnkiwi (2,498 comments) says:

    Judith (8,365 comments) says:

    August 29th, 2014 at 11:00 am

    Such personal relevancies lol, clearly there is no end to them, a story for every ‘season and reason’.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    stephieboy (2,503 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 11:41 am

    If I came across as unfair to Guest, then that was not intended.I think he did the best he could given his resources & the apparent overwhelming case against David at the time.Nevertheless I think it is possible that Guests actions (or lack of ) could have inadvertently led David to provide the testimony that he did.That is assuming of course that he lied about the glasses & nobody knows that for sure – maybe not even David

    I used to think David was guilty myself therefore I cannot criticize Guest if he thought the same.

    I feel that it was only through someone with “Abraham-like” faith in Davids innocence in spite of the original evidence, that the truth of this case could ever possibly be brought out. Individuals like that I think, are a rare breed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (2,178 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Nostalgia mentioned above that you were involved in a plane crash? Was that the incident where 2 elderly gentlemen had to land on a beach & then pitched the aircraft into the sand on take-off ?

    You mentioned that you sued the engineer for a faulty fuel line that caused you to land on the beach in the first place ?

    Firstly let me commend you on a safe landing under what must have been difficult conditions.

    However I thought the decision to take off again was very poor. Normally aircraft that use beaches for runways would need to be fitted with tundra ( or similarly large ) tyres.
    Also all steps should be taken to lighten the aircraft including unnecessary passengers in order to reduce take-off speed.
    Thirdly the pilot perhaps should have waited for the tide to go out more to avoid uneven drag on the aircraft wheels.

    The pilot should have known this, thus i am wondering if you have considered suing the pilot as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    xylophilus. Oh, so you would accept a paedophile may have genuine and sincere beliefs and thus can’t be wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    You mentioned that you sued the engineer for a faulty fuel line that caused you to land on the beach in the first place ?

    No I didn’t say I sued the engineer, but then I know how poor your attention to detail is…

    Yes, I admit the decision to take off was a poor one. Plan continuation bias. Nevertheless, nearly got off.

    Are you a pilot, teaching your grandmother to suck eggs?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    xylo
    There was only one wash basket in the laundry and all the dirty clothes were tossed into that basket. Margaret obviously believed that David was capable of making sure he didn’t put any hand knitted garments in the washing machine.
    Yes, the lighting in the laundry was poor, but no worse than the lighting in David’s bedroom and he said he read a book that he had borrowed when he went to bed.
    So if he was able to read a book in the poor light in the bedroom then surely he would have been able to see there was blood on some of the clothing he placed in the washing machine.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Dennis
    You may be interested to know that it was Michael Guest who thought up that “changed his clothes to meet his
    maker ” scenario.
    He didn’t think the jury would have a bar of it but decided it was worth a shot.
    It works like this.
    Robin gets Stephen’s blood on his clothes so he goes down those rickety stairs and puts those clothes in the wash. Then he goes out to the caravan in the nuddy and puts on the old tatty clothes that he was wearing the night before so he can go to meet his maker without the blood of his family on his clothes.

    Oh, yes,. I almost forgot. He washes some of Stephen’s blood off his hands but for some inexplicable reason doesn’t wash it all off.
    So he doesn’t want to meet his maker with the blood of his family on his clothes but he doesn’t mind meeting him with the blood of Stephen on his hands.

    You know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (2,182 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    Plan continuation bias ?

    Call it what you will but the fact is your knowledge of take-offs on an uneven,soft surface was limited. The problem is that you did not know your knowledge was limited – as Rumsfield would say you had unknown unknowns on your plate. You felt that your education & general knowledge would see you through, blissfully unaware that your knowledge was limited.

    I see a similar situation when you talk about Robin would have ” dropped like a stone ” or the magazine “must have been planted ”

    You are effectively drawing conclusions from within a fog of ignorance. Your trouble is that you do not know that you are in the fog.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    xylophilus ,

    the facts are Guest offered to take on David’s defence which the later duly accepted. Guest obviously did his best for his client and only hindsight shows us that Bain could of e.g invoked his right of silence in 1995.

    Bain’s advocate Joe Karam made a decision to dispense with Guest’s services and I know for a fact that Guest felt that the question of Bain’s alleged ” Abraham like ‘ innocence was not as straightforward as Mr Karam and others might liked to have thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz.
    Kent isn’t “going ” bankrupt , he has declared bankruptcy.
    Vic is thought to be in England but even his ex-wife and sons don’t know where he is.
    I believe that court case cost a certain person $150000 in lawyers fees of which he will be lucky if he gets 10% back.
    A Pyrrhic victory, would you not agree?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    muggins. It all makes perfect sense to me, but it took me an awful long time to shift through the facts as opposed to the “he’s such a nice man” and “others trust their children with him” and “he loves dogs” but Robin was a pervert etc etc. Kept goats, too. 😉

    Hitler’s personal servant died earlier this year; he had nothing but praise for his wonderful employer. You see in people what they show you and very often what you want to see.

    The thing that strikes most people about so many murderers is how ordinary and normal they seem.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    stephie
    When Michael Guest arrived at the police station a detective asked David if he would agree to a medical examination because he wanted to see if any latent bruising was showing up. Guest told that detective that he would not allow David to have that examination. Of course had that detective been allowed to examine David he would have asked him how he got those bruises/scratches that the prison officer saw later that day.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    xylo
    The defence have suggested that the blood spatter on the alcove curtain about 1 metre from the floor came from Robin Bain’s head.
    Could you please explain to me how Robin Bain’s body ended up where it did when his head was only one metre from the floor while it was virtually next to the alcove curtain?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Justice Binnie writes

    “There was no reason for the police to be on the look-out for the washing machine noise as they moved through the house.”

    There was every reason for the police to be listening for any noise. They were searching the house for a murderer with a weapon. From the retrial.
    Q. Just on the issue of noises , when you came into the house what was it like for you, how were your senses?
    A. OK, good question. In a situation like that the police officers , and on this occasion I was no different , our senses, my senses were heightened , I had absolutely no idea what I was dealing with . I had no idea whether there was anyone there who was a threat to me or a threat to the accused as he is now. So your sense of hearing is acutely heightened., your sense of smell is heightened,and vision, in situations like this and there’s many other situations, your vision often tunnels somewhat , but that’s also heightened as well, and it’s not because of the real danger ,but not knowing what the danger is if any so all of your senses are just working overtime.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    xylo
    Re that barrister. Not all that expensive. Just a $3 phone call.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    xylophilus. Wrong. I have always avoided beaches because the aircraft requires too high a speed to make a take off easy. How many hours have you PIC?

    The error was an emotional one, that’s why it has a name: PCB. It’s also why, in Germany for example, if you have such a landing you are prohibited from taking off that day. I have already discussed this with the investigating officer.

    I think you’re off topic, but if you suppose you can deflect attention from Bain’s flaws to mine you are very much mistaken. I admit to my sins, don’t hide behind my dead father’s, whatever they might have been before he was murdered by a cold and calculating nice man.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    xylophilus (17 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 11:28 am
    muggins (3,238 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 10:55 am

    Hey great, you put a theory that you do not agree with to a barrister who then asked you for your opinion ? To which you then answered no i don’t agree with it. That’s a really cool,albeit expensive trick. No need to discuss this anymore.End of story.That’s such a devastating counter I cannot rebut it !

    xylo
    You say you cannot rebut such a devastating counter.
    You got that right.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    muggins (3,244 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    From memory every pathologist at the retrial said that Robins head must have been higher than the topmost droplet as the droplets all had a downward direction when they hit the curtain.

    There were also a range of estimates given for the distance that Robins head must have been from the curtain.

    However I can see that you are fully convinced that Robins body could not have ended up where it did if he had been shot close to the chair area. Dennis Horne seems to hold this opinion also.

    I have researched this question myself & come to the conclusion that the position of Robins body is consistent with being shot in the head,from a standing position near the chair. However to completely convince you I would have to post some videos of people who been murdered by gunshot to the head while standing stationary.

    Since I am new here I am not sure if Mr Farrar would allow me to put a link like this on his website.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    xylo
    Peter Hentschel, who has some expertise in analysing blood spatter, has stated that he believes Robin Bain was in an upright position when he was shot[ or committed suicide]. I have no problem with that. Peter Cropp , who also has some expertise in analysing blood spatter agreed with the defence that Robin Bain’s head could have been falling to the ground when that spatter spayed on to the alcove curtains. That spatter was at a height of 1 metre from the floor. I think he estimated his head would have been no more than 120mm from the curtain but I would need to check that. Your conclusion is that Robin was shot in the head from a standing position near the chair. I basically agree. Robin Bain was shot when he was in a standing position.
    But Peter Cropp has told me that Robin Bain’s body must have been moved for it to end up where it did, if that blood spatter on the curtain got there when his head was falling to the ground.
    I don’t need to see videos of people who have been murdered by gunshot to the head while standing stationary. That is the position I believe Robin Bain was in when he was murdered.

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

    @ xylophilus (18 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    These people who argue that Robin Bain could not have ended up in the position he was in, base their argument on what photos they have been able to source. As we know, photos from various angles can give differing positions.

    None of these people actually know the measurements involved, i.e. how far his head was from the chair leg and so on. Without those measurements they have absolutely no facts to give credence to their argument. The body was found in a position that was consistent with the defences scenario.

    The blood splatter on the curtains is in a droplet pattern, indicating it fell from a height greater than it landed, according to some of the forensic experts. A close up picture of that splatter indicates the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Was Robin Bain murdered or did he commit suicide?
    Blood spots from the wound in Robin Bain’s head were found on the computer alcove curtains at between 51 and 82 cm from the base of the curtain which was 25cm above the carpet which meant that his head was around one metre from the ground when that blood sprayed from his head. Peter Cropp, the ESR scientist who carried out the measurements agreed ,when cross-examined by the defence, that Robin Bain’s body could have been falling at the time. But that would have meant his body would have ended up near the alcove curtains and not in the position where it was found which lends weight to the police theory that Robin Bain’s body was moved subsequent to it falling on the carpet.
    In his book David and Goliath Mr Karam says that the direction the blood has run from Robin Bain’s wound clearly indicates his head has been moved.
    The police at the scene are adamant that neither Robin Bain’s body or head was moved by them, though one police officer did lift a flap of Robin Bain’s shirt to check what he was wearing underneath it.
    The only person that could have moved Robin Bain’s body subsequent to his death was David Bain.
    There was blood found in the barrel, just inside the silencer. This would almost certainly have been Robin’s blood because every time that rifle was fired it would have removed any blood that was in the barrel previous to that firing. However Robin’s blood in the barrel does not prove he committed suicide any more than it proves David Bain didn’t shoot him.
    When asked at the retrial if he had formed any views about the angle of the wound or the trajectory Dr Dempster replied
    “ I formed the view that this was a very unusual wound for a self-inflicted wound. I have never seen a self-inflicted wound which is even close to this trajectory. The majority of self-inflicted wounds in the temple more of less pass across the brain from one side to the other at right angles to the front and back ,pretty much right angles, but of course with variation, pretty much right angles to the front and back axis. The other common self-inflicted wounds are in the forehead ,which tend to go more or less from front to back or through the mouth ,or even sometimes through the base of the skin underneath the chin,and those injuries tend to go more or less upwards and backwards. The location is not out of court for a self-inflicted wound,it’s at the front end of where you would expect to find self-inflicted wounds in the temple. The majority are somewhat further back, perhaps two and a half centimetres further back, but if you plot gunshot entry wounds in the temples you find they cover probably six to eight centimetres in diameter and this was in the front end of that group.”
    When he was asked if he decided to use a rifle or replica in order to determine how difficult or easy it may have been to cause a self-inflicted wound he replied
    “ Yes, I did, and it seemed to me that using this particular rifle with the silencer attached made it pretty awkward to cause that particular trajectory if it was self-inflicted. It’s not impossible but very difficult and there are much easier ways of triggering that firearm than holding it to your head at an angle of 45 degrees front to back. “

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    In 2001 Kohlmeier et al analysed 1704 suicide deaths by gunshot,of which 30% were by rifle. Their findings relating to suicide by rifle were as follows.
    Right temple 22.9%
    Left Temple 3.3%
    Mouth 24.3%
    Forehead 15.7%
    Under chin 9.1%
    Back of head 3.8%
    Chest 15.7%
    Abdomen 1.9%
    Other 3.3%

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dime (12,803 comments) says:

    lmao you guys solved this yet? BAHAHAHA

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Unity (1,359 comments) says:

    Goodness me. Is this still going? Surely it’s done its dash well and truly over and over and over, round and round in circles. On top of that it seems to have hijacked the Crewe thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (2,186 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    So sorry to hear of your Father’s murder, and that he had sins to be hidden behind before he was murdered.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    muggins, have you figured out yet why Bain answered no when asked if he had worn HIS glasses that weekend, as you posted? and why that is not a lie?
    You could always spend another $3 and ask a disgraced lawyer…….he may know.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Thanks for pointing that out to me . My mistake.
    That question should have read
    Q. Did you use the glasses for that purpose?
    A. No I didn’t.

    A lie is a lie is a lie.

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

    I see the serial bullcrapper is still filling this thread with her never ending lies.
    “A lie is a lie is a lie”
    Which sums up Aunt Fannys contribution to this thread in one sentence.

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

    muggins (3,250 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Just another ‘lie’ from you then?

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

    Muggy at 3.55
    So in summary the temple at 26% is the most common site for a self inflicted wound, where was daddy’s wound again?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    muggins (3,250 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    In 2001 Kohlmeier et al analysed 1704 suicide deaths by gunshot,of which 30% were by rifle. Their findings relating to suicide by rifle were as follows.
    Right temple 22.9%
    Left Temple 3.3%

    muggins, your citing of this paper to justify your arguments tells me that you have no training whatsoever in the correct mathematical technique to provide a quantified degree of confidence that the wound to Robins temple was caused by suicide or homicide.

    You need to use Bayesian theory & you need a large database that contains the relevant stats for both suicide & homicide.

    The relevant factors are:

    Close contact shot
    Left temple
    Single shot kill

    After applying Bayes to the relevant dataset you will arrive at a likelihood ratio.

    Thus if 100 bodies came into a morgue, each dead from a longarm gunshot wound,each killed with a close contact,single shot bullet to the left temple, you will be able to determine how many of them would have died from suicide & how many would have died from homicide.

    Do you not think it is incumbent upon you to carry out a proper robust analysis given the serious nature of your accusations against David ?

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

    Xylophilus
    In other words Muggy has no idea what he is talking about, get used to it!!
    Another factor is upwards trajectory, the gun would have needed to be pointed upwards at his temple, seems very strange if David shot him given that he was significantly taller!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. SGA (3,767 comments) says:

    Their findings relating to suicide by rifle were as follows.
    Back of head 3.8%

    I can’t figure out how you do that. Fix the rifle somehow and use a piece of string? Anyone know?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. SGA (3,767 comments) says:

    Maybe you’d hold the rifle against your back and tip your head back until you felt the muzzle against the back of your skull.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    SGA (949 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    People committing suicide have been known to adopt all sorts of positions & create rube-goldberg like contraptions to aim & fire the weapon at themselves .

    Robins suicide compared to these was conventional.He simply adopted a propped rifle stance , bent at the waist,head turned to expose the temple.This technique is not uncommon,it is cited in the literature,& there are even videos on-line ( if you care to look for them) which show this method.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. SGA (3,767 comments) says:

    xylophilus at 6:26 pm

    there are even videos on-line ( if you care to look for them) which show this method.

    Perhaps not, but thanks for the thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    SGA (949 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 6:07 pm
    Their findings relating to suicide by rifle were as follows.
    Back of head 3.8%

    I can’t figure out how you do that. Fix the rifle somehow and use a piece of string? Anyone know?

    Dead easy (no pun intended) you simply stand on your head, hold the rifle with your feet, and pull the trigger with your toe.
    I suspect probably a suicide position common to previous devotees of kama sutra. 😛

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

    SGA, fairly simple. Put a nail in a stick at 77cm, that from memory was the distance between the trigger and the tip of the silencer in the Bain case. Easy reach, as was the model demonstrated to the 2nd Bain Jury. You’ll find either works readily, that is left temple or rear of the skull. There are other ‘peculiarities’ with suicide by gunshot, clothing is often opened or lifted. In Robin’s case his beanie was raised. The stupid chatter by those that rely on the answers to questions that were never asked to claim Robin didn’t suicide – about dressing to meet ‘one’s maker,’ is actually a statistic that is recorded, although the ‘dressing up’ would be for a variety of reasons not just the popularised version of to meet ones ‘maker.’ Issues such as not wanting to ‘face’ death, destroy the face, along with apologies, favourite clothing, can all be consistent with a death by suicide. Robin was not wearing underpants so the change of clothing may have been under time pressure, he might have been ‘down’ by then and unable or unwilling to face his eldest son. The most consistent statistic in the high 90 per cent is an upward trajectory shot, compared to downward trajectory for murder. All those found dead in the Bain house, with the exception of Robin, had downward trajectory shots. This is the stuff that sorts the chaff from the wheat, whereas bragging about talking to a lawyer about an imagined conversation is pollution from a polluted mind.

    The trail of blood linking Robin to the murders is not a popular pursuit for those that chose to ignore the truth, if you read above no one has bothered to answer what I posted about that last night. Instead, relying on what ‘would have happened,’ or what ‘would have been said.’ Nutters really. Around a week ago I asked for their contribution as to what ‘intimate tests’ had cleared 1 man and not the other – no answer of course. It’s all mantras and no substance.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    xylophilus. Bayesian theory? It is accepted it was either David or Robin. We can just decide who each piece of evidence points at. muggins didn’t claim the statistics proved Bain was the killer, but they certainly don’t point more at Robin-suicide than David-murder.

    I’ll say this, the trajectory was only very slightly upward, about 5-10 degrees from memory, which is hardly an unqualified “upward”, as is claimed by the Bain team. In fact it’s near horizontal.

    The trajectory suggests the bullet was fired by someone who knew exactly how to kill a man with a .22, and wouldn’t have been an easy shot to get right and not leave yourself maimed. In addition, Robin would have had to use his left hand to reach the trigger, yet it had blood spatter on it. He would have naturally held the silencer with his right hand to guide the rifle to his head and yet it had Stephen’s pristine prints here, not his.

    I’m not trying to persuade you to change your mind. You’re not genuine. But please post the videos of standup-murders. Is it a bit like standup comedy?

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

    This from Dr Dempster at the retrial, wasn’t he supposed to be a crown witness?
    Plank A The ‘mass’ of evidence against David
    Plank B That Daddy didn’t shoot himself
    Plank C That Daddy didn’t shoot anyone else

    Dr Dempster – These facts from his own evidence at retrial – The Crowns primary expert destroyed any suggestion that Robin’s death was not suicide (list below taken from pages 271-273 Trial By Ambush – Joe Karam.

    Plank A

    • That Laniet Bain could have been making gurgling noises when David arrived home from his paper round if Robin had shot her three times in the head 15 or more minutes before David got ome, and that the Crown had overstated matters in the first trial as far as his evidence was concerned on this issue.
    • In a further matter that will be discussed in relation to the death of Laniet and the gurgling evidence, Dempster agreed that he did not examine the bullet fragments from Laniet’s head or the bullet fragments found external to her body. He accepted that if these bullet fragments contained white fibres, it meant that the bullet must have been fired through an intermediate target of white fabric and that when that happens this can cause unusual entry wounds like the one in the top of her head.
    • That if Stephen Bain, lying almost naked on the floor in the freezing house, had been killed by David about 4 a.m. as the Crown postulated, his body would have got cold much quicker than Margaret, Arawa and Laniet.

    Plank B

    • Dempster was aware of reports that showed that right-handed people sometimes shot themselves in the left temple when committing suicide. One report indicated that this occurred one in every eight times and that it was perfectly feasible that Robin Bain was one of those eight.
    • That the wound to Robin Bain was a contact wound.
    • That contact wounds to the head are in 90 percent of cases the result of suicide. Putting it another way, fewer than 10 percent of contact wounds are the result of homicide.
    • That suicide by robin Bain in any or all of the positions demonstrated by the defence was perfectly feasible and did not require any contortions of the body.
    • That when he first entered room A where Robin Bain’s body was found, he could hear the whirr of the computer fan, making untenable the proposition that Robin came in and knelt down to pray unaware that someone was behind the curtains where the computer was located.
    • Based upon the new evidence that he had put to him from defence pathologists Prof Cordner and Dr Chapman, he accepted that the site of entry and the angle and trajectory of the shot were the fact quite normal and did not exclude suicide at all.
    • He agreed that the test firing results done with the rifle matched his original measurements of the wound to Robin Bain.
    • That when he examined Robin Bain’s gunshot wound he noticed a number of skin defects including blackheads and that those sorts of things are hard to distinguish when just looking at photos.

    • That if the live bullet found on the floor beside the rifle had got there as a result of a misfeed, that was hardly compatible with homicide because a person, Robin Bain, would be very unlikely to just stand there while a killer cleared the bullet and reloaded.
    • There was nothing in the way Robin’s body was lying when he was discovered that contradicts the photographs showing the various positions in which he may have shot himself.

    Plank C

    • That the blood splash on the index fingernail of Robin Bain could have got there as a result of Robin Bain shooting someone else.
    • That none of the blood on Robin Bain’s hands had been tested and that if any of that was the blood of anyone other than Robin, it would have dramatically changed his view of what happened.
    • He was very concerned that two samples collected from Robin Bain’s hands had been destroyed.
    • The bruise/abrasion on the back of Robin Bain’s hand had happened sometime in the 12 hours between nightfall the previous day and his death.
    • He accepted that the red staining running around the top of the left thumb of Robin Bain was likely to be blood and similarly with the red smear on the base of the thumb, and that neither of these was collected as a sample.
    • He said that the Crown thesis relating to 400 ml of urine in Robin’s bladder missed the point. He accepted that he was not a urologist and it was a complex area of medicine. He accepted that the important point as put to him was the way the bladder functioned rather than the amount or quality of liquid retained and also that the urge to urinate can be overridden by external events.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    Plank D? Rowan.

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

    Xylo
    Based on close contact shot 95 out of the 100 would be self inflicted.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (2,187 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    Fair enough if you wish to ignore the slight upward trajectory.I think you have a point as we do not know what error is in that measurement.However even without that, a full bayesian analysis that encompasses a left temple ,close contact, single shot kill is overwhelmingly in favor of suicide.

    Your contention that Robin had his right hand on the silencer is ungrounded speculation.Perhaps you have that impression from one of the demonstrations from the retrial. When i have conducted my own simulations, my right hand is naturally down closer to the stock.Also I do not need to grasp the firearm.My right hand only provides fine tuning of my aim & I have the weapon between my thumb & forefinger with a very light touch.The weight of the rifle is taken up by the floor.The left hand can easily reach the trigger.

    The position allows very precise control of aim which was what was required to achieve a single shot kill .

    The videos would put to rest muggins theory that Robins body had to have been moved.I don’t think it is a good idea to post links to these. The conclusion I draw from looking at these videos is that Robins body position is very similar to people who have taken a head shot while standing.His feet approx 1 m from where he was standing & his Head 2m or so away from where he was standing- all shown in the sample videos.

    Obviously however this does not help either cause -a bullet to the head while standing could be suicide or homicide, however the video would dispel the notion that Robins body must have been moved.

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

    Rowan (2,016 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    Xylo
    Based on close contact shot 95 out of the 100 would be self inflicted.

    Yes that’s right.In fact when you also include the left temple & single shot kill statistics, the number goes up some more.

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

    Regarding the left temple shot let’s look at Robins specific case.

    When you cock a rifle what hand do you use ? Clue- it’s not your left.
    When your right hand is cocking a rifle, control of the rifle is ceded to what hand ? Clue- it’s not your right

    When your left hand controls a rifle because you have just cocked it with your right hand & you decide to shoot yourself in the temple, what would be the best temple to choose from an “economy of motion” point of view ? Clue- it starts with L

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

    Xylo
    Not sure about the single shot kill as there was evidence that the rifle had misfired on more than one occasion and a life bullet in the lounge together with the magazine having been replaced so I’d say that Robin failed with the first go and then replaced the dud magazine before shooting himself on the second attempt.

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

    The trajectory was close to 80 degrees. There was no evidence contesting that Robin had not leant his head sideways when shooting himself in the defence’s re-enactments. It’s basic, that if Robin had leant his head left when shooting himself, as the demonstrations showed, the degree from level was increased. Dempster’s skull cap trajectory model was based on the head of Robin having been in the normal position of a person sitting or standing, but not leaning to the left. That rifle was around 80 degrees because it ‘rested’ upward from where the stock was placed on the chair when the guy, with blood smears on his palms, died from an upward trajectory shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    Rowan,

    Analysis of the striations on the live bullet on the floor confirms it came from the 5 shot magazine.It also had a dent in its casing which explains why it didn’t load.

    The rifle did not rechamber a new round after the last shot was fired (presumably into Laniets head).This was because the 10 shot magazine was faulty as you point out

    Thus the correct sequence of events is:

    Rifle does not re-chamber fresh round from 10 -shot magazine after 3rd bullet fired into Laniets head.
    Robin ,about to shoot himself notices there is no round in rifle.
    Robin removes 10- shot magazine from rifle,transferring marks to his thumb in the process
    Robin inserts 5 shot magazine
    Robin manually cocks bullet from 5-shot magazine but encounters problem due to dent in the bullet casing.
    Robin removes faulty bullet,dropping it on the floor & manually recocks rifle with next bullet
    Robin shoots himself

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    Guide a rifle to your temple holding it near the stock, a rifle with a silencer and a scope? Bullshit.

    The measurement of the angle of the trajectory subject to error? Bullshit.

    Bayesian analysis of the gunshot wound. Oh yeah, if it was very close contact. One shot. How many shots to kill the others?

    Marks from magazine on Robin’s hand? Bullshit.

    Bayesian analysis of magazine on its side near Robin’s outstretched hand? Scene setting. Murder. 100%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    Guide a rifle to your temple for an accurate shot by holding it near the stock, a rifle with a silencer and a scope? Bullshit.

    The measurement of the angle of the trajectory subject to error? Bullshit.

    Bayesian analysis of the gunshot wound? Oh yeah, if it was very close contact. One shot? How many shots to kill the others?

    Marks from magazine on Robin’s hand? Bullshit.

    Analysis of magazine on its side near Robin’s outstretched hand? Scene setting. Murder. 100%.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    No, one does not guide the rifle to ones temple, it’s the other way round, you guide your temple to the rifle.The rifle is propped, your right hand merely steadies it,the suicidee bends over & brings their temple to the end of the barrel.

    Yes, having ones hand close to the top of the stock is more comfortable & allows very precise control of aim.

    Margaret 1 shot
    Stephen 2 fired
    Arawa 2 fired,1 missed
    Laniet 3

    A single shot fatality is pointer towards suicide, as is a close contact shot.

    The magazine, that’s easily explained

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    Marks from the magazine on Robins hand ?

    Yes, beyond all reasonable doubt

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

    Xylo
    Nothing about that final scene in the lounge suggests “murder” to me at all. Try getting any of these idiots to actually explain “murder”, they just don’t try, neither could Kieran Raftery so they just didn’t go there.
    If you look on the counterspin site, you will see a hilarious comedy clip put together by a fruitloop called Marzuka who basically has a murder scenario with Robin sitting on the beanbag at the same level as the killer who is hiding behind the curtains, he then gets up and peers down through the curtains and is ‘shot’. The whole clip is totally ridiculous but it deserves an A for entertainment value as it is sheer comedy!! I suggest you relieve yourself beforehand should you wish to check it out!

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

    The magazine was replaced by the killer and this is when Robin most likely got the marks on his thumb, If it was David then he wouldn’t know that it wasn’t going to fire until the first attempt to shot Robin. As if Robin would sit there and wait patiently to be shot while David switched over the magazines. This is ridiculous as is Stupidboys suggestion that he turned on the computer, what did he do after this? go for a walk in the house containing the bodies of 4 dead people and not notice anything amiss and try and get help. Common sense is all that’s required here, which is something that none of Daddys cult following possess any of at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    yes Rowan i have seen that website & also read with frustration some of the comments here which is why i decided to start posting here.

    Their scenarios do read like a b-grade movie. The only thing that is missing is a Mickey Spillane voice over.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    one does not guide the rifle to ones temple, it’s the other way round, you guide your temple to the rifle.
    Does Auckland stop at this train?

    The magazine, that’s easily explained
    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Marks from the magazine on Robins hand? Yes, beyond all reasonable doubt.
    Nothing quite so silly as a silly woman. The marks doesn’t look anything like the test smudges. Absurd.

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

    xylophilus (27 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 9:43 pm

    What is truly worrying is that they seem serious about what they say, and yet they get to vote for the future of this country on 20th September. Lord help us all.

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

    Xylo
    The left temple shot is a non issue, It is not really any more difficult than the right temple. Retards like Muggins and Stupidboy will parrot well worn out phrases like “what are the odds that a right handed person committing suicide will choose the left temple” but this is largely irrelevant.
    http://donmathias.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/a-bit-about-david-bain%e2%80%99s-retrial/
    The above by Don Mathias exposes the myth under transposition of the conditional, (This will go straight over the heads of the idiots) but the probability of a random person committing suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple is not the same as the probability of a wound to the left temple given suicide. The same also applies to the rifle having a silencer fitted, given the circumstances the odds that Robin would have removed before shooting himself are low mainly due to the high chance of being found by David before he was dead and having to explain himself. There was also no need for him to remove it as it was still quite a simple task even with the silencer attached.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    Yes propioception & touch enables one to easily bring ones temple close to the end of a rifle.A person could easily do this blind folded.

    The magazine on its edge is easily explained – yes.I will give you a clue ,none of the explanations offered by either the defence or the prosecution have thus far got it right.

    The thumbs marks are definitely from the magazine.Not from loading bullets though -on that point you are correct.

    I can see why you crashed your plane- you are not prepared to step back & assess the obvious. Your PEB is not an emotional issue, it’s a character flaw.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,311 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at

    Kanz, there will always be people who believe David did it just as there are still people who believe Lindy Chamberlain murdered her baby. The problem is that these people have allowed their paradigm to be intagliated into their neural substrate. They are not capable of thinking outside of their particular paradigm.

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

    The position of the spare magazine is the least convincing piece of “evidence” in the entire case, for a start it had fallen over prior to being photographed so its original position is unverified. It was never a major part of the crown case and there is no reason why it “must” have been planted by David rather than being placed there by Robin. The suggestion that it fell from Robins hand is ridiculous, this has never been suggested by the defence. I would have thought that in order to be a court of appeal judge one would need very high intelligence but this certainly didn’t seem to apply to Justice Tipping in the 2003 Court of Appeal Decision where factors such as the unverified position of the spare magazine and the “hidden” location of the trigger lock key made the case “BRD”.

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

    @ xylophilus (29 comments) says:
    August 29th, 2014 at 10:21 pm

    It is not just the thumb marks that are clearly from the magazine, but there are also two very telling circular indentations in the palm of the hand that are highly consistent with handling the magazine (ie inserting it into the weapon). Staining consistent with gunshot residue can also be seen, although as the investigation officers failed to follow the procedure as per their manual at the time, and didn’t bag Robin’s hands, will cannot be certain the staining is GSR.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. xylophilus (92 comments) says:

    Judith,

    Thats right, Robins palm contains marks that exactly match the width of the bottom of the magazine.These are from Robin exerting pressure from his palm onto one of the bottom corners of the magazine.

    The thumb marks exactly match a section of the magazine loading lips.Those lips are not parallel & the non-parallelity exactly matches the non-parallelity of the magazine.

    The large dark smudge on the thenar region of Robins thumb is consistent with GSR.

    Thus Robin has markings that match both the top & the bottom of the magazine.

    What this tells me is that Robin had the magazine in his grasp in the moments before he shot himself. The scenario is fully consistent with the theory that Robin changed the 10-shot magazine .

    Interestingly there is also staining in his palm that is consistent with staining from dilute blood.

    It’s all very obvious & muggins is a fool for drawing opposite conclusions from his little 153k picture that he has posted links to.Why he hasn’t made an effort to fully research these markings himself is beyond me.

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

    @ xylophilus (30 comments) says:
    August 30th, 2014 at 8:13 am

    Why he hasn’t made an effort to fully research these markings himself is beyond me.

    When a person has invested a great deal of time, effort, money, and even their reputation on being ‘right’, it is in their best interests not to research something that might prove all that investment was a waste of time.

    You are right about the blood staining, when coupled with other evidence of blood on Robin’s hands etc, it provides a very conclusive answer and one that is far more substantial than most of the other evidence. The cumulation of the evidence against Robin is enormous in comparison to the speculative assumptions against David. Whilst there are some ‘questions’ regarding conversations etc, and some blood evidence against David, these can all be explained, however, there is no explanation that provides reason for the cartridge and blood evidence against Robin.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    xylophone. (I’ve promoted you from being a lowly bacterium; not sure why.) We are all deeply flawed. Now tell me, how many hours PIC have you? And what is PEB? Do you mean PCB? Or something?

    Incidentally, I’m an old pilot. Pilots with character flaws don’t get to be old.

    But do carry on regurgitating your own shit, you silly woman.

    I can understand some people might believe the old scratches and skin folds on Robin’s hand looked exactly like the smudges in the experiment. If your cranium was filled with karamel custard.

    Be sure to get back to me with your hours PIC. 🙂

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

    “It’s all very obvious & muggins is a fool for drawing opposite conclusions from his little 153k picture that he has posted links to.”

    Xylo
    To right! any “conclusions” provided by Muggy are speculative scenarios unsupported by the weight of evidence. Time and time again he shows us that he has no idea what he is talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    JUdith, it will be interesting to see how your obfuscation will stack up when it will be Bain who will have the onus of proving his innocence “beyond reasonable doubt” or “on the balance probabilities ” when the new tribunal applies the correct burden of proof test . Also vitally important giving the opportunity to those Binnie criticized a right to respond.I

    The alleged blood on Robin’s hand is a real red hearing . The quantities were minuscule so much so that some samples could not be taken or could be other things e.g paint. The smear under the heal of his left thumb was again minuscule . No blood on his right hand.
    All this when you consider that in fact there would be copious quantities on both hands after discarding the bloody gloves . And of course the biggest chest nut no fingerprints on the gun which he would definitely have left some given his soiled and bloody hands .

    Are we to believe that Robin washed his hands then wiped the gun down to conceal any of his prints etc.?

    The ludicrously implausible scenarios may of worked their magic on the 2009 jury and on Binnie but not when applying the correct onus of proof test etc which as explained will be on David Bain this time around.!

    P S I wonder if Bain will be enlisting you as an expert witness on Optometry .???

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

    Stupidboy
    What “tribunal” are you talking about? The JR is a review of the tax lawyers actions and handling of the case. It is not about re litigating the case as you seem to think!

    PS it has already been shown to you how ridiculous the idea that the rifle was wiped down actually is, so no need to keep repeating this crap!

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

    stephie, those smears could also be lipstick, but they are not. Where do you think the old man got red paint on his hands from, or are you just blowing in the wind?
    Who do you think may have deposited the fingerprints that remained ‘unidentifiable’? Not Bain because they would have further been used against him as was other spurious ‘evidence’ such as glasses that showed they had played no part in the murders.

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

    Dennis Horne (2,190 comments) says:
    August 30th, 2014 at 9:17 am

    Robin sustained a traumatic blow to the back of his right hand resulting in a 20 mm bruise with a lesion which a pathologist at the retrial said was approx 6 hours old as it was still moist

    and

    Robin had a red blood colored substance under his fingernails

    and

    Robin has a mark on his thumb that exactly matches the lips of the magazine

    and

    Robin has marks in his palm that exactly match the bottom of the magazine

    and

    Robin has a large smudge on the thenar region of his thumb consistent with GSR

    and

    Robin has staining in his right palm consistent with dilute blood wash

    Join the dots you fool

    And by the way i am male

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    Wowan its not looking very promising judging by this comment by Mr Justice Patrick Keane Main points ,

    • The Minister has complied with her duty of candour by consenting to the tailored discovery order and by authorising affidavits on her behalf
    • The Minister is entitled to claim on behalf of the Crown as a whole legal-advice privilege for advice given by Ministry legal officers and the Solicitor General
    • The Minister did not waive privilege in the advice
    • The Minister sufficiently justified her claim to privilege
    • The Cabinet and the Minister are entitled to have legal advice as to the merit of any claim for compensation and the confidentiality of that advice is protected by legal-advice privilege

    • Compensation for wrongful imprisonment either as a result of a pardon or a retrial is a discretionary act that is not guided by any stringent regulations or laws.

    Not looking very promising.

    A Tribunal to rehear the claim has been proposed but I believe Bain should waive it and get on raising his family and perhaps write his memoirs

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    xylophilus , you are wrong there . Note especially the third point .
    .
    The blood evidence from Robin’s hands gathered by Detective Mark Lodge and forensic scientist Mr. Henstchel is as follows.

    smear of blood on heal of thumb inside left hand
    smear of blood on left little finger
    no blood on right hand
    splash of blood on nail of second right finger
    spot of blood on outside of left thunb
    scrapings from under Robins fingernails containung possible blood, were also noted by Mr. Hentschel.
    Robin’s hands were also inspected by a detective in charge of the victims, who found dirt around the fingernails and in the creases of his hands. They did not appear to have been washed..

    Dolt. ????

    Hmmmm. !

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

    Stupidboy
    That was a pre hearing relating solely to the release of some documents (which is itself under review)
    It was not as some of the CS loons wish to promote the “JR” which is reviewing Collins actions which covers a whole lot more than just these documents. Let’s see how she fares after this!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Stephieboy who has the JR appeal before the hearing is now ‘hoping’ to debate the procedures of a ‘new tribunal’ – one that hasn’t been yet formed, and for which there is no reason to suspect they will. But I guess when Robin’s suicide is detailed here as much as it has been in the last 24 hours – there is cause for panic and diversion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    What I would like to know is why Anna Sandiford didn’t measure any standing prints when she was testing the length of David Bain’s walking prints. She said she carried out the same tests as Kevan Walsh, but he measured walking prints and standing prints, using his 298mm foot, and guess what? His average standing print measured 279mm.

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

    What I want to know is what is so frightening about the facts surrounding Robin’s death that makes the sisters run away to diversions about glasses, the answers to questions that were never asked and other such idiocy. It’s because they know the old man suicided.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Apart from xylo, who has given her/his explanation as to why that lens from the glasses that David Bain was wearing to watch to TV on the Sunday evening could have been in Stephen’s room [an idea that the barrister I put it to rejected on the grounds that no-one would have believed it] does anyone else have any idea[s] as to why that lens was in Stephen’s room on the Monday ?

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

    muggins (3,251 comments) says:
    August 30th, 2014 at 9:54 am

    Is that your way of conceding on the glasses, the marks on the old man’s hands and the other things that have been discussed so far on this thread? Introduce a completely different subject, one that has had no mention?
    All the other ‘evidence’ that you argue has just melted away before your eyes, so you will try to ignore and hope no body notices. Good tactic old boy, but it has never worked in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    What I want to know is what is so frightening about the facts surrounding Robin Bain’s death that it makes the prodavidbainers attempt to divert attention away from the glasses ?
    Well of course the answer is because they know David Bain was wearing those glasses when he was in Stephen’s room on the Monday morning and that the reason he was in Stephen’s room was because he went there to kill him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Were those glasses of assistance to you.
    Yes, for watching TV and for going to lectures, but I couldn’t use them for extended periods.
    Did you have lectures on Friday 17 June.
    As far as I can remember, yes I did.
    Did you wear glasses at that lecture.
    No,no. I had forgotten about those glasses here, the ones exhibited , because I only used them rarely and hadn’t thought of getting them for classes.
    You have referred in your evidence to watching a video on TV over the weekend.
    That is correct ,yes.
    Did you use the glasses for that purpose.
    No, I hadn’t thought of using them.
    Where were these glasses kept to your knowledge.
    In Mum’s room. In one of her drawers, I suppose. I don’t know exactly where.
    Were you aware the spectacle frames were in your room on the morning of 20 June.
    No I wasn’t.
    Were you aware that the spectacle frames have apparently been damaged.
    I am aware now of that, yes.
    Would the glasses have been any use to you, the frames, without the lenses in them.
    I wouldn’t have seen a reason for wearing them.
    Were the glasses in your room, the frame and the lens, in your room on the Sunday night.
    No.
    Can you account for their presence as found in your room by the police on the Monday morning.
    No, I cannot account for that.

    Spot the lies.

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

    Curse damn dementia, how many times now has that question about the glasses been asked now? Also how many times has it been shown to the stupid old goat that the lens was most likely already there and had no role in the murder-suicides.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    How many times has a certain poster replied to that question re the lens without answering the question?

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

    Not only that Rowan, but if you can be bothered reading any of his long winded posts, you will see that he claims some of them are taken verbatim from the court transcripts. You will also find that the wording changes within them. How can that be?
    Because he is a liar, damn liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    How many of David Bain’s lies did you spot?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz
    What wording changes?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    What words are not correct? I would really like to know. It is possible I have typed the wrong word somewhere, and I like to be accurate.

    Were those glasses of assistance to you.
    Yes, for watching TV and for going to lectures, but I couldn’t use them for extended periods.
    Did you have lectures on Friday 17 June.
    As far as I can remember, yes I did.
    Did you wear glasses at that lecture.
    No,no. I had forgotten about those glasses here, the ones exhibited , because I only used them rarely and hadn’t thought of getting them for classes.
    You have referred in your evidence to watching a video on TV over the weekend.
    That is correct ,yes.
    Did you use the glasses for that purpose.
    No, I hadn’t thought of using them.
    Where were these glasses kept to your knowledge.
    In Mum’s room. In one of her drawers, I suppose. I don’t know exactly where.
    Were you aware the spectacle frames were in your room on the morning of 20 June.
    No I wasn’t.
    Were you aware that the spectacle frames have apparently been damaged.
    I am aware now of that, yes.
    Would the glasses have been any use to you, the frames, without the lenses in them.
    I wouldn’t have seen a reason for wearing them.
    Were the glasses in your room, the frame and the lens, in your room on the Sunday night.
    No.
    Can you account for their presence as found in your room by the police on the Monday morning.
    No, I cannot account for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Does anyone really believe that story about the goat? Not forgetting that David Bain had also told Gareth Taylor about that jogger.
    Taylor was so worried about Bain that when he found out his wife was going to be at a music seminar that Bain was going to be at as well, he told her to keep well clear of him.

    Justice Binnie questions David Bain about Mark Buckley’s suppressed evidence.

    Q. The Crown Law office refers to Mr Mark Buckley.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And they say that he says that you confided in him in around 1990 that you were sexually interested in a female jogger and that you could commit the sexual offence against her , use your paper round to get away with it and as we know that evidence was eventually excluded by the Court of Appeal but- how did you know Mark Buckley?
    A. Ah, very innocuous question after all that.
    Q. There are others to follow.
    A. I am sure there are, yes. Mark Buckley became a fairly good, well, a close friend of mine after I started at Bayfield High School in sixth form, 1989.
    Q. And were you close enough friends to exchange confidences?
    A. Yes, I guess so, later-after an obviously settling in period.
    Q. Did this discussion he related to the police ever take place?
    A. No.
    Q. What reason would he have for coming up with an untruthful anecdote?
    A. Because our friendship had ended. Or faded out and then ended towards the end of our seventh form year and we essentially ,you know, just, it all ended on bad terms.
    Q. So it was more than drifting apart?
    A. No, it ended on bad terms.
    Q. And why was that?
    A. I had witnessed him-because we had goats on our property and I had witnessed him performing a deviant act in that situation. I wasn’t completely fooled but it was certainly, you know, looked stupid and was obviously embarrassing for him. And as we know you have to do to take,get the blame away from yourself is point it at somebody else. “It was him, it was him”. So what happened as you can see in this yearbook for my last year at high school -he made comment-
    Q. Why don’t you just read the comment into the record?
    A. Well under my photo he says, well there’s several different things there ,all totally innocuous but “ Known by friend as Dirty Dave” which was the first time I’d ever heard that phrase used and then later on “Most embarrassing moment-ask Mark Buckley “ and finally “Most wanted thing on a desert island” is “Goat”, so he was quite obviously trying to shift the blame of that situation onto me when it was him that performed this silly act.
    Q. And when silly act you’re talking of- act of a sexual nature with a goat?
    A. Yes. So that’s what ended our friendship and anything that he has to say is totally untrue.

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

    Desperation has set in again for muggins. He turns to sexual perversion as he always does.

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

    Muggy
    Reread the spectacular spectacles article, I have already posted it on this thread twice. I don’t spot anything in the exchange that is a lie (provable) however the amount of lies and regurgitated crap that occurs ad finitum in your posts is unbelievable!

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

    I see Muggins is probably envious of Mark Buckley!!

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

    Kanz
    I see that small things amuse small minds!!

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

    Rowan (2,028 comments) says:
    August 30th, 2014 at 11:10 am

    He’s no more than a perverted old prick looking to feel important.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    This is the important point of Mr Justice Keane’s decision,

    ” Compensation for wrongful imprisonment either as a result of a pardon or a retrial is a discretionary act that is not guided by any stringent regulations or laws.”

    And that is the big hurdle the defence will have to scramble over with their judicial review The courts cannot overturn statues or actions of cabinet only interpret them as Parliament is the the supreme law of the land subject to e.g the three year election cycle and certain other constitutional conventions.
    Bain’s claim is subject to the cabinet guidelines which the courts cannot over turn.
    The possibility of a three person tribunal ; to rehear the claim has been proposed .

    Muggins envious of Buckley.??

    Not at ;all but it’s all about whether Bain is making things up.

    Kanz, your last comment sums up countersin thesick truth to a tee.!

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

    Great
    Now that the tax lawyer has resigned there can be justice for David Bain and hopefully a sensible approach from whoever the next justice minister is hopefully there will be a common sense approach taken with an advanced settlement and this whole sad case put to bed once and for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Unity (1,359 comments) says:

    If they get a decent person in the Justice portfolio this could be good news for David Bain. Fingers crossed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. flipper (5,169 comments) says:

    WELL NOW……

    What price the JR proceeding?

    What price that the Crown will not settle?

    Game, set, and match point!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    There can never be justice for Bain or anyone based on a hopelessly flawed and inept report by Binnie. Am confident the new Minister of justice will be fully aware of that salient fact .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    stephie
    I am sure Judith Collins will make certain that her successor is made well aware of Binnie’s flawed report. Not that it really matters because that report has already been binned. If Bain wants compensation he is going to have to front up again for another interview and I can’t see anyone else finding him innocent on the balance of probabilities.

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

    Not a good day for the sisters. But I like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    kanz has called me a liar for writing one incorrect word when I quoted from David Bain’s testimony about the glasses where he tols a number of lies.
    I would ask kanz to have a look at this quote by Karam in his latest book referring to that target that was found in David’s room and maybe make a comment.

    Justice Binnie asked David Bain about the target that was found in his room.
    Q. Where did that target come from?
    A. Dad drew it up.

    This was the first time David Bain had ever said his father drew that target up. In his book Trial by Ambush Joe Karam writes about David Bain giving his evidence-in-chief. He writes “He talked about the piece of cardboard target that the police had found in his bedroom which they suggested had some sinister connotation because of the five circles on it. David said that his father actually drew up that target and put the rabbits ears on it when they went to the Taieri Beach farm to sight the rifle.”
    David Bain did not say that in his evidence-in-chief. What he actually said was “ We tested the sight on the rifle, we went down to friends at Taieri Mouth where dad was teaching and used the target that had been produced, he even drew rabbit’s ears on it”.
    No mention of his father drawing the target up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. flipper (5,169 comments) says:

    Quite agree Nos…

    The word via on the NP tom toms is that “the boil had been lanced”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    What’s happened to xylo?
    I was going to give her [I believe xylo is a woman] some advice about the washing. I was going to suggest she just have everyone put their dirty clothes in one basket and hope that the person sorting it has more comprehensive skills than a constipated donkey.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    I see no-one has been able to explain why Anna Sandiford did not measure David Bain’s standing footprint.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. flipper (5,169 comments) says:

    muggins (3,262 comments) says:

    August 30th, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    What’s happened to xylo?
    I was going to give her [I believe xylo is a woman] some
    ******

    The resident clown in action.
    There you go again … goat shagging, or donkey shagging, or worse like prostituting the truth. Absolutely disgusting. But that is an ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF YOU, Miss/Ms/Mr/TG muggins.
    Bugger off nutcase.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    flipped out, just try and answer the relevant issues and questions. But I suppose that’s quite beyond Tin foil hatters like your self.
    Meanwhile from an earlier post of mine,

    “Ms Collins was asked what, in layman’s terms, was, in her view, wrong with Justice Binnie’s report. She responded that it was “so fundamentally flawed” and its whole basis “so outside the terms of reference” that it is “simply not credible”. She said that the report did not place the onus on the defendant to prove their innocence “beyond reasonable doubt” or “on the balance of credibility”, but rather placed the onus on the Crown…. ”

    That can be considered Collins crowning achievement during her tenure and the deluded counterspin the sick truth etc will never be able to change that,new Minister of Justice or not .!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    I see flipper is getting his knickers in a twist again because he can’t get me to bugger off.
    Poor old flipper. All these years he has believed David Bain is innocent and now he is being made aware of that facts of the matter.
    At least he didn’t use bold type this time, but is still resorting to using capitals to prove try to prove a point.
    flipper, you really shouldn’t be commenting on something you know nothing about. It really does make you look
    LIKE A COMPLETE IDIOT.

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

    So…. the tax lawyer has finally seen that she will be shown up more and more as corrupt if she doesn’t quit.
    Binnie will be pissing himself laughing (yes he and others are watching all this from overseas). Poor judith it just shows, as I read on another thread, lay down with whales and you get up smelling fishy.
    flipper, do you think they will throw in the towel and no longer fight the JR? The government that is as I know Bain’s team won’t. If they do give up, then they will have to pay out. Sweet……

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    kanz, your seriously deluded. Binnie maybe laughing but the facts are no government in their right minds could ever accept the Commercial lawyer’s ” fatally flawed ” and inept report.

    We can recall also it was MOJ officials like Jeff Orr who first alerted the Minister of Justice to it’s serious shortcomings and deficiencies. The real irony here is that the commercial lawyer by not following his mandate and showing bias in favour of Bain has s unwittingly contributed to seriously undermining the very same claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    xylophilus, hello out there . !

    Just a reminder about the alleged blood on Robin’s right hand,

    The blood evidence from Robin’s hands gathered by Detective Mark Lodge and forensic scientist Mr. Henstchel is as follows.

    smear of blood on heal of thumb inside left hand
    smear of blood on left little finger

    “no blood on right hand ”

    splash of blood on nail of second right finger
    spot of blood on outside of left thunb
    scrapings from under Robins fingernails containung possible blood, were also noted by Mr. Hentschel.

    Robin’s hands were also inspected by a detective in charge of the victims, who found dirt around the fingernails and in the creases of his hands. They did not appear to have been washed..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    I see Finlayson has been appointed temporary MOJ. If National get in I hope that job becomes permanent. He will certainly be aware that David Bain is not innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Where is xylo?
    Did I post something that upset her?
    Did me asking those questions about the footprints upset her?

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

    stephieboy (2,518 comments) says:

    August 30th, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    The spelling of heel always bugged me in that, just as well spelling isn’t a crime, unlike wanting Justice for Robin Bain.

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

    muggins (3,266 comments) says:
    August 30th, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    Hahaha, you just wish you had that much power…….. LMFAO

    He probably has an exciting life as someone so obviously as well educated, as he is, deserves.
    Better luck with the next one muggins, although it does seem as though your mate kal has done a runner.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Unity (1,359 comments) says:

    Perish the thought if Finlayson ever gets the MOJ job. At the moment he is Minister of Treaty Settlements and giving away our country like there is no tomorrow all based on a re-written Treaty put into legislation in the mid 1980’s. He is Attorney General so can approved whatever he does and he’s doing all his ‘gifting’ from his office and not the Courts. This makes him corrupt and if only treason was still a crime he could be punished for that. Now, you think it would be great if he was MOJ, Muggins. Well all I can say is that your nom de plume is very apt. He’s a disaster for our country and on top of that is only a List MP, having been rejected by his electorate no less than three times!!

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

    Unity
    I know very little about him but surely he can’t be any worse than the tax lawyer was!

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

    Kanz
    Love the analogy about laying with whales!!
    Classic

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

    Rowan, I can’t take the credit for that, I saw someone else posted it on the JC resigns thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Unity (1,359 comments) says:

    Surely, you are aware of what he is doing, Rowan!! He is costing our country dearly both in money and creating an enormous injustice to non-Maori. We now have an apartheid State (special funding and privilege based on race) and I advise that you sit up and take notice because one day you will wonder ‘how it all happened’, when it starts to affect you. He would be the worst thing for New Zealand.

    However, this was originally the Crewe thread, then was overtaken by the Bain people so I won’t muddy the waters any more with Finlayson (Fiddleston) but can I strongly advise that you come up to speed with what is going on. It’s horrendous, to put it mildly. Key is weak and appeasing and letting it all happen under his watch. Perhaps you should go into the treatygate site at http://treatygate.wordpress.com/.

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

    Unity
    Might check it out, as I said I know very little about him.
    Changing the subject did you manage to get a hold of Mike Whites book on the Scott Guy case?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Unity (1,359 comments) says:

    I’m not sure I remember what that is about Rowan. What exactly is Mike White supposed to have said? I must have buried it all in the myriad of information I’m currently dealing with at the moment. The Scott Guy case is one that interests me and somehow I seem to think Mike White is supposed to have cleared any thought that McDonald was the murderer. Is this right? I must try and get hold of the book.

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

    Unity
    Pretty much on the money, Mike White is a North and South journalist who attended the trial and has written extensively on the case, he dissects the crowns case against EM and shows that there is pretty much no case against Ewan other than he was an arsehole who had previously committed crimes against Scott and Kylee. He also shows how utterly implausible it is that Ewan was the killer.

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

    @ Muggins

    It really does make you look LIKE A COMPLETE IDIOT.

    Says the person that says he can’t understand why Anna Sandiford did not measure David Bain’s standing footprint.

    I guess for someone like you, who hasn’t taken many steps in their life, it would be difficult to understand. But you see Mr Muggins, when a person is standing their foot leaves a different ‘print’ (for want of a better word), from when they are walking – in motion.

    I’m sure you have been told and are aware that a person is actually taller in the morning than they are in the evening. Now think about that, and then think about standing still and see if you can work out why that would be – and its relationship to why Anna didn’t take a standing footprint.

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

    @ muggins

    Have you lived your life in a bubble? Surely even you can work out why a standing footprint was not necessary and would have been a waste of time – I don’t blame no one else for answering – it’s something even my grandchildren know the answer to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Interesting day. On the strength of the letter written by WO which Key released it’s doubtful she should have gone. Though there are other reasons why she should be gone, I don’t think that letter in itself was sufficient. Frankly, she was not accorded due process. Ironically, she stands accused of not affording DB due process and that is still scheduled to be heard early in the new year, when the weather is still hot and the snapper will have yet to run. It’s not clear that the JR won’t go ahead if the Nats are not in Government. It’s also not clear that it will go ahead if the Nats form the next Government, which remains the likely case though the political environment is volatile to say the least.

    If Finlayson assumes the role of MOJ permanently there is no doubt he will acquaint himself with the JR file fully. If his recent history is any guideline he will be open to dialogue, something that Collins could never be accused of. Like any Lawyer he will want to be briefed and arrive at his own point of view, no doubt he will take advice where necessary and, going by his recent history, look to embrace the views of both The Crown and the defence. It will be naïve to the extreme to think that he will, foremost, look to ‘back’ Collins. By then she will no doubt be embroiled in more controversy or ongoing court cases or inquiries. Finlayson will have to treat her role as the previous MOJ at arm’s length, not only because of that controversy but also because he will be looking for clarity devoid of emotion and a binding outcome.

    At the point he considers the bizarre attack on Binnie and Collins use of WO to undermine that application for compensation he will be mindful not only of the Fisher report but it’s rather compromising (for Collins) observation that using his (Fisher’s) reasoning process it was Fisher’s opinion that Binnie might well have still reached the same conclusion. Not only is Finlayson an MP but also a Lawyer who upholds the integrity of the Law, and the way of going about achieving Justice fairly and equitably. He will not, I think, have liked, as many lawyers did not like, the roasting of Binnie in such an underhand way by those that had commissioned him. Collin’s treated Binnie’s international reputation with contempt and in the process captured subtle contempt for the Legal system in NZ.

    If Finlayson is the person for that job, or another Lawyer, it’s highly unlikely that the ‘processes’ Collins used will be repeated. Much more is achieved by a pragmatic and thoughtful analysis of this Application and Binnie’s response. I think it is likely any new Minister would certainly look in detail at the newer material now available on the Bain case, whereas Collins mind was made up and already closed before the application arrived on her desk. While it’s not on the table and may never be in this case, if it is settled, the pity is that the barren wasteland that an applicant such as DB has had to enter will not be addressed as a formidable flaw in our legal system. A ‘place’ made more hostile by Doug Graham and more recently a living hell by one of his successors.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Johnboy (19,952 comments) says:

    Calm down Nosti. No one is even suggesting the Crewes were shot by a dirty little coward hiding in an adjacent doorway! 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    “flipper, you really shouldn’t be commenting on something you know nothing about”
    LMAO
    Muggy you stupid old bean, take a good long look in the mirror!! You are just bitter that every prediction to date you have made about the Bain case has shown to be incorrect and that you have been shown up as a lying piece of crap yet again.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Rowan it may be fun to make a list, seeing as muggins is so fond of them.

    The list of muggin’s predictions to date:

    1. Bain will be found guilty. Wrong
    2. He will take the ‘lucky’ not guilty verdict and run, he won’t apply for compensation. Wrong.
    3. Karam wouldn’t dare sue us for defamation. Wrong.
    4. We will use that defamation case to show Bain is guilty. Wrong.
    5.The case will take 3 weeks and I will be an expert witness. Wrong.
    6. Bain will never be found innocent by the Canadian Justice. Wrong.
    7. Kent will win his case and we will make money from it. Wrong.
    8. Bain will never be paid compensation. Bugger, Wrong again.

    LMAO

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Unity (1,359 comments) says:

    I’ve googled him Rowan and I remember now. His book is ridiculed by Kylee Guy’s sister and others who know the Guys so I decided not to read it. I well remember also North and South writing an article which exonerated Robin Bain and I disagreed with much that had been written. Not sure if that article was by Michael White though. However, I might still get the book and read it for myself.

    Don’t be fooled by Finlayson, Nostalgia. He definitely has an agenda. He acted for Ngai Tahu before coming into Parliament and then later gave away Treaty settlements without any formal proof – just the say-so of the Waitangi Tribunal who approves whatever the tribes want. On top of that he was Attorney General and could approve of whatever he did. Nothing goes through the Courts and the rest of us cannot appeal. Corruption on a grand scale. He’s still acting for those of Maori descent. He would be a total disaster as far as our country is concerned. Just looking at his arrogant face makes my hackles rise.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. flipper (5,169 comments) says:

    Nos-NZ

    Congratulations, a pithy and, well, bloody excellent analysis. My only regret is that the sisters will never accept the inevitability so eloquently presented for their edification.

    When Reed/Karam/the law Prof from Canty/J Karam and Bain eventually meet with Finlayson and Mike Heron, Finlayson will, of course, want a raft of note-takers present to cover his backside. ( 🙂 ). But in fairness he has a very sharp mind, and a good legal rep, albeit that it has been built largely on ToW issues (as both a practitioner, and as a Minister). The real upside to that is that Chrissie has had lots of practice writing apologies.

    Now if only, when he writes and delivers on behalf of the Crown an apology to DB, he could get Bush to make one to A A Thomas. 🙂

    That said, can we not leave this thread there?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Nostalgia-NZ (6,376 comments) says:

    Cheers flipper. Yep, that it’s for me. Not much to add after the welcome visit from xylo over the last couple of days. Thanks.

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

    Hopefully Finlayson or whoever the next justice minister is will learn from Collins screw-ups in Bain before repeating them with Lundy next year. I see the Lundy case following a similar path to Bains. I hold no opinion however as to his guilt or innocence but I don’t see how the crown would have a hope in hell of reconvicting him based on the flimsy evidence that was declared a miscarriage of justice by the law lords at the PC. Another reason to set up a CCRC in NZ, where instead of wasting the time and money on retrying Lundy his case could be reviewed by the commission who could determine whether the crown “evidence” justified another trial (which I strongly doubt would occur) or if he was unlikely to have been the perpetrator in which case it could determine what should happen next.
    In reality I suspect he will be found “not guilty” at his retrial next year, and his case will follow a similar path to Bains.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Kanz
    We could add to the start of the list followed by your 8 excellent points. (1) The PC will never hear the appeal and (2) would never overturn his conviction.
    Wrong and wrong!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Nostradamus (4,809 comments) says:

    Thread title: Who killed the Crewes?
    Number of comments: 1,126
    Number of references to “Bain”: 885

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    Nostalgia N Z, all Chris Finlayson needs to do ( thats if he is appointed MOJ) is to have a chat to his advisors like Jeff Orr then read the Binnie report ( if not done so already ) . let the judicial review process continue and finally await David Bain with beggar bowl in hand for a rehearing.

    But this time around Bain having to prove his innocence on the balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt .
    Not the other way around . An impossible task judging by the Binnie report and the circus performance from counterspin the sick truth and here,

    PS “Pragmatic and thoughtful analysis .? ”

    Get off the grass.!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz
    You don’t seem to have replied to this question. Do you have a problem with it?

    muggins (3,266 comments) says:
    August 30th, 2014 at 1:19 pm
    kanz has called me a liar for writing one incorrect word when I quoted from David Bain’s testimony about the glasses where he tols a number of lies.
    I would ask kanz to have a look at this quote by Karam in his latest book referring to that target that was found in David’s room and maybe make a comment.

    Justice Binnie asked David Bain about the target that was found in his room.
    Q. Where did that target come from?
    A. Dad drew it up.

    This was the first time David Bain had ever said his father drew that target up. In his book Trial by Ambush Joe Karam writes about David Bain giving his evidence-in-chief. He writes “He talked about the piece of cardboard target that the police had found in his bedroom which they suggested had some sinister connotation because of the five circles on it. David said that his father actually drew up that target and put the rabbits ears on it when they went to the Taieri Beach farm to sight the rifle.”
    David Bain did not say that in his evidence-in-chief. What he actually said was “ We tested the sight on the rifle, we went down to friends at Taieri Mouth where dad was teaching and used the target that had been produced, he even drew rabbit’s ears on it”.
    No mention of his father drawing the target up.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Lying again I see.

    Kanz (1,320 comments) says:
    August 30th, 2014 at 7:20 pm
    Rowan it may be fun to make a list, seeing as muggins is so fond of them.

    The list of muggin’s predictions to date:

    1. Bain will be found guilty. Wrong
    2. He will take the ‘lucky’ not guilty verdict and run, he won’t apply for compensation. Wrong.
    3. Karam wouldn’t dare sue us for defamation. Wrong.
    4. We will use that defamation case to show Bain is guilty. Wrong.
    5.The case will take 3 weeks and I will be an expert witness. Wrong.
    6. Bain will never be found innocent by the Canadian Justice. Wrong.
    7. Kent will win his case and we will make money from it. Wrong.
    8. Bain will never be paid compensation. Bugger, Wrong again.

    1. Bain will be found guilty. Seeing as I never posted until after the trial was over I obviously did not make that prediction.
    Lie # 1
    3. Karam would not dare sue us for compensation. I do not recall ever saying that. Unless you have proof to the contrary that is
    Lie #2
    5. The case will take 3 weeks and I will be an expert witness. I do not recall ever having said that . Unless you have proof to the contrary that is
    Lie #3.
    8. Bain will never be paid compensation.
    After 5 years I am still right on that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Muggy
    Enjoy no 8 while it lasts, it hasn’t happened yet but it will happen, hopefully you will still be around when it does old bean, it will make it that much more satisfying!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Rowie
    No , it hasn’t happened yet and it won’t happen, better believe it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Keep telling yourself that old bean but as Kan correctly pointed out you are yet to make a correct prediction on the Bain case, I clearly recall you saying that what Kanz has alluded to in his point no 5, so I guess it must be your dementia when you say you “don’t recall” saying that

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    I’d have to say that muggins was correct about the Binnie report. When Binnie proclaimed Bain ” factually innocent ” Muggins was cool, calm and and collected said there must be some mistakes.
    Well the rest is history as they say and the report had buckets full of them both errors of assumption and fact. Now thats not Judith Collins fault and the hand out still goes begging.

    Ha,ha ha….!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Rowie,
    Kanz has it wrong. It was Kent Parker who said the case would take three weeks and I said that I was going to go to the local courthouse to give my evidence re Karam’s legal fees via Skype, but the judge wanted to shorten the trial so she decided she didn’t need to hear from me. I was quite happy about that. I mentioned that to kanz and he went apeshit because he had been hoping to get a look at me, maybe even give me a bunch of fives.
    So not me with the dementia problem , Rowie, has to be you.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    stephie,
    I have written 21 pages relating to errors and incorrect assumptions in Binnie’s amended report and all of those are to do with the evidence, none of them relate to his comments re the police, etc.
    Whoever is appointed the next MOJ, those 21 pages will be sent to him/her just to make sure that that report does not get resurrected from the bin.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. muggins (5,093 comments) says:

    Looks like the word has gone out for the probainers to stop posting, only Rowie left.
    Not much use still posting so I will sign off, a clear winner on points as per usual.
    Don’t bother replying Rowie, because I won’t be looking in. Not nice talking to you.

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

    OK muggins I give up, you have convinced me, Bain shot his old man. Can you just clear up a couple of things for me?, you seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    LMAO
    Muggy, one only has to read 2-3 lines of your tripe to realise that you are a deluded nutcase who has no idea what you are talking about! Go right ahead I’m sure that whoever it is in charge of deciding what happens from here knows significantly more than a used car bumboy, they probably will have a nutcase template to respond to the likes of you!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Kanz (1,739 comments) says:

    Bugger….he’s gone, now I will never get my facts right.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. stephieboy (11,576 comments) says:

    A blast from the past. Muggins you champ..!,

    “The Privy Council did not say the first trial was no good.They said there was some evidence that should have been heard by a jury.
    In defending his much criticised report,which found David Bain innocent of the murders of the Bain family,Canadian Justice Binnie says that all the “external” judges who had looked at the case record had rejected arguments of Mr Bain’s guilt. He said “By far the most prominent,of course,were the five judges of the Judical Committee of the Privy Council”.
    In their famous decision of 2007 the Privy Council ordered a retrial and emphasised: “In closing,the Board wishes to emphasise,as it hopes is clear,that it’s decision imports no view as whatever on the proper outcome of a retrial. Determination of guilt is not the task of the appelant courts. At any retrial it will be decided whether the applicant is guilty or not,and nothing in this judgement should influence the verdict in any way.”
    The Privy Council also ordered “The appelant must remain in custody meanwhile”.
    If,in Justice Binnie’s view,these statements by the Privy Council emphasising they offered no view as to Mr Bain’s guilt of innocence,somehow point to his innocence,then it is not surprising Justice Minister Judith Collins has questioned the judge’s grasp of the facts.”

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

    muggins (3,272 comments) says:
    August 31st, 2014 at 4:06 pm
    Whoever is appointed the next MOJ, those 21 pages will be sent to him/her just to make sure that that report does not get resurrected from the bin.

    LOL, don’t forget to tell them about the lifestyle block, your health concerns etc, just like last time!! I’m sure they’ll be really interested, although I’m not sure they’ve taken your name off the ‘ignore’ list yet, after you questioned the minister on how hard would it be to jump to your demands immediately. 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Rowan (3,416 comments) says:

    Poor old Stupidboy
    Are you just sad and bitter that Binnie knows the case a lot better than you and found the crown case wanting! What legal expertise do you possess Stupidboy? If you are going to proclaim yourself an “expert” and that you “know” more than Binnie then prove it, we know that Muggys claim to fame is being a used car bumboy, so what’s yours?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    xylophilus. I think xylophone sounds better.

    Still waiting for your hours PIC pilot in command, xylo. You are a pilot, aren’t you? I mean, what kind of stupid woman would give advice on piloting unless she was a pilot? Or are you regurgitating what you’ve been fed? Like the other crap…

    Like the marks on Robin’s hands matching the magazine… You couldn’t find anyone with an independent mind thinking that. Xylo, good name for you. Thick as xyloid.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Dennis Horne (4,082 comments) says:

    By the by, muggins. I asked the salsa scientist if she had any independent evidence or did she simply rely on Hentschel’s opinion and measurements of those faint sock prints. She admitted she didn’t.

    I say salsa (dancing) because she couldn’t keep still for 30 seconds on the stage. Quite entertaining for the old folk. Sure the men found her attractive … 😉

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote