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.

Tags:

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

  1. Don the Kiwi (1,794 comments) says:

    Yes, I remember the case well. I never thought it was A A Thomas, and had a suspicion about Demler. But its all over now.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. iMP (2,420 comments) says:

    A 4 year investigation to basically re-tell us what we still don’t know.

    I go with Len Demler: he had the only motive, benefitted directly from the murders, fits the profile, and his wife was the one who fed the baby. He was bitter over wills and land inheritance issues, same as Ewen McDonald.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. trout (944 comments) says:

    With due respect the review still does not rule out Mr. Thomas as the killer. So the prosecutor’s motive scenario seemed fanciful but we know little about the relationship between Thomas and Harvey Crewe. The Detectives fitted Thomas up because they thought they had their man but not enough evidence to convict. Happens all the time it seems. And Thomas was convicted twice in a court of law. There was a lot of public agitation over the bungling of the investigation and Thomas was pardoned because he did not get a fair shake of the stick – it was, in the end, a political decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Physical evidence.

    1) The wire used to tie down the Crewe’s body came from the Thomas’s farm.

    2) The axle used to weigh down Harvey Crewe came from the Thomas’s farm.

    3) Thomas’s gun was almost certainly used to kill the Crewe’s. It has the same ballistic pattern as the bullets which killed them which none of the other firearms in and around the Crewes had.

    The police case (apart from the dubious bullet) was flawed in that:

    1) They had the wrong motive for the crime.

    2) They failed to impeach the credibility of Arthur Allan Thomas’s alibi.

    3) They failed to see who else might have had access to the gun and other stuff on Thomas’s farm and investigate them.

    The first two flaws are not fatal to any conviction, the third is.

    As things stand, Arthur Allan Thomas remains the most likely of the known suspects to have committed the murders but the involvement of anybody else cannot be ruled out even on the balance of probabilities.

    As for the Royal Commission, the review turns up some gems.

    1) In determining whether the garden had been sieve-searched before the search turned up the bullet, the committee had to ignore the testimony of four policemen and one civilian and give credence to another civilian witness.

    2) The Royal Commission had the fanciful notion that in order to fit Thomas up, the murder weapon had to be fired at the scene of the crime instead of the more plausible notion that the gun was fired off-site and the expended cartridge dropped on the garden shortly before the search.

    3) The Royal Commission had a mislabelled piece of evidence in that a shell said to have been fired from the Eyre Gun was in fact fired by the Thomas’s Gun.

    4) The presiding Commissioner picked up the samples and sent them to Oz unofficially in order to get a second ballistics opinion. He was turned down.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    I go with Len Demler: he had the only motive, benefitted directly from the murders, fits the profile, and his wife was the one who fed the baby. He was bitter over wills and land inheritance issues, same as Ewen McDonald.

    Demler doesn’t fit the profile. The profiler reasoned that the primary target was Harvey Crewe and Jeanette Crewe was an afterthought (or else killed to cover up the tracks). Demler’s grievance was with Jeanette.

    As for Demler’s wife feeding Rochelle, the Review casts serious doubt that the baby was ever fed, she was in a severe state of neglect when finally found and that hanging around outside the Crewe’s house after the murders is a bit daft crime-wise.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wreck1080 (3,956 comments) says:

    It is like the Bain family. No one will ever know whodunnit for sure unless someone makes a deathbed type confession.

    And for those who staunchly believe one way or another — it is only an opinion and you could be wrong no matter how staunchly aggressive you may be.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    “It is like the Bain family.”

    What, an actual examination of the evidence paints a clear picture?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. iMP (2,420 comments) says:

    It was David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    And David Bain gets tangentially mentioned in the Review – a paragraph from Judge Fisher’s review on the level of proof is quoted by the Review.

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

    Physical evidence.

    1) The wire used to tie down the Crewe’s body came from the Thomas’s farm.

    2) The axle used to weigh down Harvey Crewe came from the Thomas’s farm.

    3) Thomas’s gun was almost certainly used to kill the Crewe’s. It has the same ballistic pattern as the bullets which killed them which none of the other firearms in and around the Crewes had.

    1. The wire was not proven to have come from the Thomas’s farm. They took 8 samples from properties in the district. The Thomas wire was the same as that used, however, given that there was more than the coil of wire that the Thomas’s had produced by the same manufacturer, and that the police did not test every farm in the district, you cannot rule out that the wire was not sourced from somewhere else. There was no evidence that proved that wire had come from the same roll, but only that it was the same type of wire.

    2. The axle that was BELIEVED to have weighed down the body. There is no precise evidence that it was used for that purpose, although most probably was – was proven to have been on the Thomas’s farm at some stage. However, there was no proof that it was there immediately before the killings.

    The Thomas farm dump was used by many local people who would discard their unwanted bits and pieces there. People were always visiting the property to sort though the copious quantity of vehicle parts, machinery parts, and so on. The Thomas ran a farm that was nothing like diary farms we imagine today. Not a particularly wealthy family, like today’s farmers, everything was kept in case it came of use or someone else might want it in the future.

    They frequently would kept bits and pieces, half rolls of wire etc that other people would be throwing away, because such things saved money, and always came in use to someone or rather.

    3. NO, again, that is not correct. Thomas’s gun could have been used for this killings, but then so could at least one other gun that they tested. Given the number of the same type of guns registered in NZ at the time, there was something (sorry I have the figure somewhere but can’t find it at present) it could be expected to be something like another 50 odd guns in NZ that would have matched the same criteria.

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

    @ metcalph (1,365 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Demler fits the profile if you take into consideration that when an argument arose between Jeanette and himself over money, and Harvey like most men, stepped in to support or protect his wife, then he would have become a target.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Trout

    “With due respect the review still does”

    That fucking review does not deserve any respect at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    Thanks Judith, I was starting to reply to metcalph when I noticed your response.

    Very well said.

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

    @ Metcalph

    The review’s evidence regarding Rochelle is hogwash. They description of nappy rash is idealistic and not consistent with practical examples. Any Mother can tell you they can put a child down for a nap with not a sign of nappy rash, and by time that child wakes 2 hours later, their bottom is red raw. It is obvious that Rochelle was not feed during the 24 hours period leading up to the discovery, but there is no reason at all to believe she had not been fed and attended to at least on two occasions before hand.

    What about the dirty nappies placed in the kitchen? IT is highly unlikely that an experienced mother would place a shitty nappy where food is prepared. Then there is the witness accounts of seeing the child outside, and the sighting of a woman. According to the police both these people are wrong, because who would allow a child outside drawing attention to the murders.

    But the fact was that there had been several activities that had taken place on that property to make it look like ‘business as usual’. A child running round would be consistent with that.

    It was also none that Jeanette and Harvey kept pretty much to themselves, and didn’t have a lot of social visitors. People didn’t just ‘drop in’ to see them as a rule. Some thing the police also failed to mention.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    “And for those who staunchly believe one way or another”

    You mean there are people in NZ who still think Thomas is guilty?

    Who would be so stupid?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    I actually agree with Judith, those nappy rashes can appear in an instant. I believe also, that Rochelle was fed by maybe ‘that woman’ connected with Demler.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    “As for Demler’s wife feeding Rochelle”

    Demler’s wife had already passed away. Demler lived alone on his farm.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Demler had a lady friend

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    “It is like the Bain family. No one will ever know whodunnit for sure unless someone makes a deathbed type confession.”

    I know for sure. I know who did it.

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

    I am not 100% on who did do it, but I know that Arthur A. Thomas didn’t, nor did any member of his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. s.russell (1,646 comments) says:

    WOW! This is amazing! Whoever would have guessed that the murderer of the Crewes was someone who didn’t like them? That profiler guy should get a medal, and a big fat pay check!

    Personally, I used to believe they were murdered by Dr Crippen, or possibly Walt Disney, but this has completely changed my mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    The article refers to a psychological profile rather than forensic evidence. Aside from thrill killers and other nut cases the motive for most premeditated murders would be sex and/or money.

    The idea that their is any merit to the motive the police concocted it totally without merit. The silly motive that he had an obsession 10 to 15 years prior to the murders is a sick joke like Bush is. If he does not know how to apologize properly he should get lessons from Cunliffe. After his stupid eulogy he should apologize as sincerely as he can and say that he is sure that Thomas is innocent.

    Has there ever been a case of someone killing or in anyway harming someone they fancied 10 years prior. That excludes stalkers as there is no evidence that Thomas was stalker.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    1. The wire was not proven to have come from the Thomas’s farm. They took 8 samples from properties in the district. The Thomas wire was the same as that used, however, given that there was more than the coil of wire that the Thomas’s had produced by the same manufacturer, and that the police did not test every farm in the district, you cannot rule out that the wire was not sourced from somewhere else. There was no evidence that proved that wire had come from the same roll, but only that it was the same type of wire.

    Tell it to the Review. None of the other farms had wire of the kind. Three wires were found on Harvey Crewe’s Body. Each of these wires matched wires found on Thomas’s farm and no other. You have two different pieces of wire from the same heat as the wire from the Thomas’s farm. That’s fairly strong circumstantial evidence that the wires came from the Thomas’s farm whether you like it or not.

    2. The axle that was BELIEVED to have weighed down the body. There is no precise evidence that it was used for that purpose, although most probably was – was proven to have been on the Thomas’s farm at some stage. However, there was no proof that it was there immediately before the killings.

    What moonbattery is this? The axle (1928 Nash Standard Six 420 series front) was found on Harvey’s Crewe’s body and used to weigh him down. There is no doubt about that. It came from a Trailer that was sold to Allan Thomas (Arthur’s father in 1959) and there is no evidence that it was not there shortly before the killings. The stubs from the axle were located in a tip on the Thomas’s farm.

    The Thomas farm dump was used by many local people who would discard their unwanted bits and pieces there. People were always visiting the property to sort though the copious quantity of vehicle parts, machinery parts, and so on. The Thomas ran a farm that was nothing like diary farms we imagine today. Not a particularly wealthy family, like today’s farmers, everything was kept in case it came of use or someone else might want it in the future.

    Roderick Rasmussen, who was paid by Allan Thomas to dismantle the Axle gave repeated testimony that he returned the axle and other removed bits (ie the wheels and the hardwood bar) to Allan Thomas. His testimony was supported by the discovery of the aforementioned parts being found on Thomas’s farm.

    3. NO, again, that is not correct. Thomas’s gun could have been used for this killings, but then so could at least one other gun that they tested.

    Wrong. The one other gun is the Eyre Gun and the Ballistics expert (Doctor Nelson) fucked up on that. It has the barrel characteristics of five lands and grooves with a right-handed twist. The murder weapon and the Thomas Gun has six lands and grooves.

    Given the number of the same type of guns registered in NZ at the time, there was something (sorry I have the figure somewhere but can’t find it at present) it could be expected to be something like another 50 odd guns in NZ that would have matched the same criteria.

    Which means fuckall within the location. The only relevant criteria is the number of guns within the local region (since the killer of the Crewes had to have been a local). A gun with the requisite ballistic characteristics in, say, Southland is not relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Demler fits the profile if you take into consideration that when an argument arose between Jeanette and himself over money, and Harvey like most men, stepped in to support or protect his wife, then he would have become a target.

    You are really hand-waving here. Jeanette and Harvey were sitting down when Harvey was shot. There was no immediate prior argument between the Killer and the Crewes. If the killer hated Jeanette, he would have shot her first then Harvey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Longknives (4,858 comments) says:

    Professor Plum..in the study, with the Candlestick…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    I’m sorry but that profile read like a particularly poor first year creative writing effort. It’s the kind of thing those gullible people who go to psychics hear – so general as to be almost believable, but so general as to be almost useless.

    i wonder what their non post rationalised strike rate is? I could probably get a 50% strike rate on crimes by describing a male Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. hj (7,062 comments) says:

    After AAT case the police went the other way in the Jennifer Mary Beard case?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. polemic (460 comments) says:

    No with the rope, not the Candlestick

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    metcalph

    If you keep referring to the already discredited review then I can only deduce that you are a cop. Nobody who has any knowledge of the case thinks the review is useful for anything other than keeping a door open on a hot summers day.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    metcalph….

    Your analysis is absurd….but so was the Police case.

    I knew one of the Royal Commissioners very, very, well, and the RC was far from fanciful.

    The Commissioner I knew told me that they (the RC) were certain of only two things:

    1. AAT did not kill the Crewes, and
    2. Hutton manufactured “evidence” to satisfy Walton, and convict Thomas.

    Metcalph,

    That RC had more intelligence, forensic analytical skills, and worldly experience, than all of your flatfoot colleagues combined – then and now. By including idiots like “porn Judge” Fisher, who at the RC was doing the bidding of the Police, and was “nailed” by the RC because of his actions, you destroy your arguments. But like Hutton/Walton, you have manufactured “facts” to suit your line of argument.

    The Commissioner that I personally knew, and whose judgement I trust, told me that it was their (the RC) view that with the destruction of so much evidence (by your ever loving 1970-80 circa Police), the guilty party would never be established.
    That Commissioner said he doubted that even a death bed confession would be reliable. He was of the view that Walton was as guilty as Hutton, but the other Commissioners could not be persuaded.

    It will remain one of the great New Zealand “who dunnits” of our criminal history.

    Sorry, PC flatfoot.
    Selective reading will lead you down Hutton’s path.
    Man up.

    Face the fact that AAT was done wrong by Hutton and his superiors (ALSO THE COURTS, BUT THEY SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE POLICE BULLSHIT), and that the wrong is perpetuated every day that Bush fails to personally apologise, to Thomas, and to the people of New Zealand.

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

    metcalph (1,367 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    1. Dr Sprott tested wire taken illegally from the Eyre farm (copper wire) which was found to be the same as that used to secure Jeanette’s body. Dr Sprott is of course unable to confirm that now, however, the police come to their conclusion (and many of their conclusions) based simply on the fact that ‘it cannot be confirmed, or proven’. That is not reason to say it is a certain way, just because the evidence can no longer be supported.

    2. I am fully aware of the information regarding the axle. I have been hearing the arguments directly from many involved since I was 14 years of age.

    THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE proof that the axle was attached to Harvey’s body. A police officer stated that the body was ‘caught’ by something and the finding of the axle in the same place allowed them to draw that conclusion. The same police officer later stated it WAS attached, however, couldn’t ever explain how he knew it was the item that the body was ‘caught’ on, especially as he was unable to view it. Most presume it was the item, but there no absolute proof it was.

    3. Not every gun in the area was tested. The one owned and recorded as being part of the estate, and therefore in the possession of Demler was never tested, for a start.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Komata (1,196 comments) says:

    Sadly, this whole sad affair rests upon the need to provide proof, and it is unfortunate that it has once again surfaced and is being re-aired. Sadly, too, that the Police are still largely denying any complicity. FWIW, although I have no knowledge of the ‘unusual circumstances’ which led to Arthur Alan Thomas’ conviction, from knowledge imparted to me at the time, it can be said with some certainty that in fact the Police officers who were directly involved and tasked-with investigating the matter at the time did come to a conclusion, but couldn’t provide sufficient evidence to bring the person-concerned to court and a conviction. As to whether or not this inability to obtain a conviction combined with public pressure to ‘do something’, led to subsequent events, is something about-which I am unable to comment.

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

    metcalph (1,367 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    You are really hand-waving here. Jeanette and Harvey were sitting down when Harvey was shot. There was no immediate prior argument between the Killer and the Crewes. If the killer hated Jeanette, he would have shot her first then Harvey.

    Really? So who was the biggest and strongest threat to the killer? Use your commonsense and stick your profiler garbage where it belongs.
    If the killer had killed Jeanette first, which he would have had to have done in front of Harvey – he risked Harvey trying to stop him, or at least attacking the killer. A killer, especially one that was smaller than Harvey, would dispose of the biggest threat, then deal with the weakest one.

    Please explain what evidence you have that support AAT ‘hating’ Jeanette?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    The review’s evidence regarding Rochelle is hogwash.

    Since you’ve never read it, how would you know?

    They description of nappy rash is idealistic and not consistent with practical examples. Any Mother can tell you they can put a child down for a nap with not a sign of nappy rash, and by time that child wakes 2 hours later, their bottom is red raw. It is obvious that Rochelle was not feed during the 24 hours period leading up to the discovery, but there is no reason at all to believe she had not been fed and attended to at least on two occasions before hand.

    The rash had blistered and the scalding was very bad The nappies were so soiled that Barbara Willis thought it obvious they had not been changed for days. They were very wet and contained a large amount of dry bowel motion. When examined after the murders (23rd June) , Rochelle was some three pounds lighter than her last recorded weight on 11th June. Doctor Fox concluded from her skin and muscle tone that she had recently lost one to two pounds of weight. You don’t lose that mauch weight missing a day’s worth of feed.

    What about the dirty nappies placed in the kitchen? IT is highly unlikely that an experienced mother would place a shitty nappy where food is prepared.

    Jeanette Crewe wasn’t an experienced mother, was she? Rochelle was her only child.

    Then there is the witness accounts of seeing the child outside, and the sighting of a woman. According to the police both these people are wrong, because who would allow a child outside drawing attention to the murders.

    The child outside being seen in different clothing to that which Rochelle was found in? Running from gate to the house on Saturday the 20th whereas Rochelle two days later was so weak that she could not stand up?

    It was also none that Jeanette and Harvey kept pretty much to themselves, and didn’t have a lot of social visitors. People didn’t just ‘drop in’ to see them as a rule. Some thing the police also failed to mention.

    So what?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    If you keep referring to the already discredited review then I can only deduce that you are a cop. Nobody who has any knowledge of the case thinks the review is useful for anything other than keeping a door open on a hot summers day.

    Since you haven’t read it, how do you know it’s discredited?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (14,132 comments) says:

    metcalph

    Where did I say that I had not read it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    The Commissioner I knew told me that they (the RC) were certain of only two things:
    1. AAT did not kill the Crewes, and

    There’s no way they could be certain of that. All they could be certain of was that an unknown person could have killed the Crewes.

    2. Hutton manufactured “evidence” to satisfy Walton, and convict Thomas.

    The only evidence is the bullet which the Commission had a rather strained theory to pin the blame on Hutton. And also in blaming Hutton, the Commission itself breached natural justice.

    That RC had more intelligence, forensic analytical skills, and worldly experience, than all of your flatfoot colleagues combined – then and now. By including idiots like “porn Judge” Fisher, who at the RC was doing the bidding of the Police, and was “nailed” by the RC because of his actions, you destroy your arguments. But like Hutton/Walton, you have manufactured “facts” to suit your line of argument.

    What facts have I manufactured? Put up or shut up.

    The Commissioner that I personally knew, and whose judgement I trust, told me that it was their (the RC) view that with the destruction of so much evidence (by your ever loving 1970-80 circa Police), the guilty party would never be established.

    And I have said otherwise? No, I don’t think so. All I’ve said is that AAT is still a suspect but the possibility of the killer being somebody else cannot be ruled out.

    Face the fact that AAT was done wrong by Hutton and his superiors (ALSO THE COURTS, BUT THEY SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE POLICE BULLSHIT), and that the wrong is perpetuated every day that Bush fails to personally apologise, to Thomas, and to the people of New Zealand.

    My, my. You’ve learned how to use ALL CAPS in your argument. Hardly a sign of rational thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. MH (810 comments) says:

    This maori bloke where was he at the time? Were there any Maori butlers in the area. A verdict of not proven or at worse axledental.

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

    @ metcalph (1,369 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    Oh FFS – I have read the review, and have a copy of it sitting right next to me.

    Rochelle Crewe was 18 mths old. She was not a new born baby. No one that knew the family ever complained about dirty shitty nappies sitting where food was prepared, and that would have come out in court when the dirty nappies were mentioned.

    An 18 month old child’s nappy, when dirty is a significant item. One, even the most slackest of mothers, would not leave such a nappy where food is prepared.

    Shit can dry in a nappy over night, as a child on solids produces reasonable dry stools compared to newborns, and, if as you and your colleagues argue, the nappy was significantly wet, then you can be assured that sometime in the 48 hours before hand, that child had been given fluids. A nappy will not stay soaking wet, body heat etc will eventually make it evaporate, unless the child is continually urinating. Something it will not do, unless it is having fluids. Sorry but your argument is an epic fail – because it needs what it says didn’t happen, in order to sustain it.

    A child, left alone for the majority of the time, crying, and only receiving an ocassional bottle can easily drop 3 lbs. My own children would drop that much simply having a 24 hour tummy bug. In fact, I am surprised that she did not lose much more than that – if she was alone all that time, without any fluids, I’m surprised she was not seriously ill.

    The nappy rash as I said, can get blistery etc with just a few hours. The fact that she was for some reason not fed for 24 hours is consistent with the rash she had. Especially if her care was intermittent, and the rash developed between nappy changes over time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    1. Dr Sprott tested wire taken illegally from the Eyre farm (copper wire) which was found to be the same as that used to secure Jeanette’s body. Dr Sprott is of course unable to confirm that now, however, the police come to their conclusion (and many of their conclusions) based simply on the fact that ‘it cannot be confirmed, or proven’. That is not reason to say it is a certain way, just because the evidence can no longer be supported.

    It wasn’t Sprott who allegedly tested the wires from the Eyre Farm but Ian Devereux. And the review notes that

    1104. Although these allegations were made publicly it does not appear that anything further came from these assertions. Had Dr SPROTT been able to prove that the two wires were ‘identical’ it is unlikely that he would have kept the origin of this wire to himself and another appeal would likely have been filed based on this information.

    THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE proof that the axle was attached to Harvey’s body. A police officer stated that the body was ‘caught’ by something and the finding of the axle in the same place allowed them to draw that conclusion.

    This is sheer moonbattery. Even the Royal Commission was satisfied that the recovered axle was used to weigh down Harvey’s body.

    3. Not every gun in the area was tested. The one owned and recorded as being part of the estate, and therefore in the possession of Demler was never tested, for a start.

    Seven guns were not tested. Two of those were recorded as not being usable. The other five were seen but not taken. The reasons for doing so are not recorded. However on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely they would have the required ballistics characteristics as the murder weapon.

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

    @ metcalph (1,371 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    It was under Sprott’s watch that they were tested. He was working for the defence and would organise various testings, sometimes he did the actual work himself, sometimes he got specialists to do them. As I said, the police insist on what they don’t know, as being evidence that it ‘didn’t happen’.

    The Royal Commission may have felt that, but there is still no evidence that proves that axle was attached to Harvey’s body. If you have some factual evidence to prove that – please do so.

    Seven guns were not tested. Two of those were recorded as not being usable.

    how were they deemed not to be usable if they were not tested in some manner?

    Unlikely isn’t good enough – have you read any of Dr Sprott’s reports?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Really? So who was the biggest and strongest threat to the killer? Use your commonsense and stick your profiler garbage where it belongs.

    The killer was firing the gun from outside. Harvey’s size and mass is irrelevant so long as a clear shot against Jeanette could be taken.

    If the killer had killed Jeanette first, which he would have had to have done in front of Harvey – he risked Harvey trying to stop him, or at least attacking the killer.

    How could have Harvey stopped the killer? Harvey was in the house and the killer outside.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Where did I say that I had not read it?

    Because you know fuck-all about what the report actually does say.

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

    @ metcalph (1,372 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    You and your colleagues are presuming, without any evidence that the killer was able to see Jeanette and therefore could have made such a shot. You have nothing that supports that theory other than hot air.

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

    @ metcalph (1,373 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    and you do?

    You clearly have a copy, but your argument is very much determined by standard police rhetoric on the case. The same rhetoric that has existed for several decades and has not altered. The same rhetoric that allowed Bush to speak about Hutton at his funeral.

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

    @ metcalph

    I’m waiting on that evidence that proves Thomas hated Jeanette and therefore profiles as the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Longknives (4,858 comments) says:

    Judith- No doubt you also have the full report on the Lindbergh Kidnapping sitting next to you as we write. Any chance on clarifying for us if Hauptmann did it??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    From the Stuff report of the inquiry:

    The report is damning of Hutton, who died in 2013. At his funeral Mike Bush, now the police commissioner, hailed him…

    “[Hutton’s] decision to call on Lenard Demler to visually identify the bodies of both his daughter and son-in-law after prolonged emersion in water lacked sensitivity and represents an unacceptable practice,” the report said.

    Demler was “prime suspect” when the bodies were recovered and Hutton’s actions “may have been calculated to evoke some sort of admission”.

    What a charming sort Hutton was. “Here’s the rotting, bloated corpse of your child. Got anything you want to tell me?” Police work a its finest.

    To his credit, Commissioner Bush also commented that “”The review findings add to my deep sense of regret at having agreed to speak at the funeral”.

    But what he needs to realise is that when he accepted that invitation, and when he spoke as he did, he was acting just any any other serving officer would have acted: Protect the thick blue line at any cost. Never admit you charged an innocent man. Never learn from that and think twice before charging the next innocent.

    It’s great that he’s had this epiphany since becoming Commissioner and finally seeing above the parapets of the psychological ‘gang fortifications’ that characterise the police mentality. I respect him immensely for that.

    But what he needs to do now is burrow back down, and take a look, with those freshly opened eyes, at what his subordinates get up to on a fairly regular basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Metcalph….

    Think of those Royal Commissioners, dummy PC plod.

    1. A NSW Supreme Court Judge, hardly biased, but one who was accustomed to cutting through Police bullshit,

    2. The former Anglican Primate of NZ, and the Commissioner who actually wrote the words condemning Hutton.

    3. A Privy Councillor, and former Cabinet Minister, also accustomed to cutting though bullshit.

    And by the way Metcalph… Where were Crown Law at the RC ??????

    So stop it. You simply reinforce the view that you and many of your colleagues have taken/take “the Queen’s shilling” under false pretences.

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

    @ Longknives (4,471 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Actually, funny you should say that – I remember reading about the Lindbergh baby years ago, and wondering if I could arrange to have my brother suitably abducted.

    As I have said before and maybe you’ve missed it, our family had a bach very close to the Thomas’s farm at Pt Wells. Many of my weekends and school hols were spent hanging out with the younger Thomas boys, and especially eating Ivy Thomas’s cooking, whilst sitting around their kitchen table. I’ve helped sell raffle tickets to raise money for Arthur’s defence, and so on. I’ve seen first hand what this did to that family. I know the kind of family they are, I’ve been on Arthur’s farm, and I know Peter Thomas really well. My best friend married one of the boys, and one of the boys introduced me to my husband. I’ve heard the discussions and I’ve seen the torment. I saw Mrs Thomas wither and die because of this case. It was what got me interested in Criminal Justice in the first place. So excuse me if I argue for a family I deeply respect.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Oh FFS – I have read the review, and have a copy of it sitting right next to me.

    You have printed out the review? I don’t beleieve you.

    Rochelle Crewe was 18 mths old. She was not a new born baby. No one that knew the family ever complained about dirty shitty nappies sitting where food was prepared, and that would have come out in court when the dirty nappies were mentioned.

    You earlier claimed they din’t have very many visitors and kept to themselves. Now it’s people knew them quite well and new they would not have done such a thing. A model of consistency, aren’t you. Either quote a witness statement that the behaviour is atypical for Jeanette Crewe or quit trying to handwave assertions into facts.

    An 18 month old child’s nappy, when dirty is a significant item. One, even the most slackest of mothers, would not leave such a nappy where food is prepared.

    Which also argues against the woman feeding and cleaning Rochelle after the murders. Where else would she prepare food? The Kitchen. Now she’s looking after the child but leaves nappies there?

    Shit can dry in a nappy over night, as a child on solids produces reasonable dry stools compared to newborns,

    I’ve already mentioned the dry bowel motion in the nappies.

    and, if as you and your colleagues argue, the nappy was significantly wet,

    Colleagues? I’m not with the police. And that the nappies were signifcantly wet isn’t an ‘argument’ but the testimony of Barbara Willis.

    then you can be assured that sometime in the 48 hours before hand, that child had been given fluids. A nappy will not stay soaking wet, body heat etc will eventually make it evaporate, unless the child is continually urinating.

    You have experience in not giving your children fluids for up to 48 hours? That sounds rather cruel to them.

    A child, left alone for the majority of the time, crying, and only receiving an ocassional bottle can easily drop 3 lbs.

    Bullshit.

    My own children would drop that much simply having a 24 hour tummy bug. In fact, I am surprised that she did not lose much more than that – if she was alone all that time, without any fluids, I’m surprised she was not seriously ill.

    An 18 month child losing three pounds is quite a significant weight loss. This was over 10% of her body weight!

    The nappy rash as I said, can get blistery etc with just a few hours.

    No, you didn’t. You said “Red Raw” and not blisters. Quite lying about what you actually said in order to sustain your arguments.

    The fact that she was for some reason not fed for 24 hours is consistent with the rash she had.

    It is also consistent with her not being fed for five days.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Griff (8,159 comments) says:

    I am with IMP David Bain did it.
    The psycho loony stalker jerseys shows the man is clearly guilty of the Crewes murder guaranteed.
    The only thing more damming would be if he was named after a famous clown.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Unity (609 comments) says:

    Ian Wishart makes a compelling case against one of the Police officers in his book ‘The Inside Story’. Again nothing is proven but it is a very interesting read.

    It’s absolutely disgraceful that Hutton and Johnson weren’t brought to justice for their part in the placing of evidence. Poor Thomas was convicted, not once, but twice and had endless appeals before he was finally freed. The Police have a lot to answer for and I see them also apologising in years to come over Scott Watson and others. This won’t be the only case where they have been very tricky to get a conviction. They seem to get a mindset right at the beginning and then ignore what could be crucial evidence pointing elsewherer. Quite ironic that they have finally admitted their crime after Hutton and Johnson are no longer here. They all need to hang their heads in shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    It was under Sprott’s watch that [the wires – PHM] were tested. He was working for the defence and would organise various testings, sometimes he did the actual work himself, sometimes he got specialists to do them.

    For Sprott not to have any records or reports of the alleged testing is the hallmark of sublime incompetence.

    The Royal Commission may have felt that, but there is still no evidence that proves that axle was attached to Harvey’s body. If you have some factual evidence to prove that – please do so.

    I really have to wonder how anybody can be convicted under your definition of evidence. What was holding Harvey’s body down when it was discovered? What was found underneath Harvey’s body? For the suggestion that the axle was not holding Harvey’s body down, the onus is on you to demonstrate the alternative.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    You and your colleagues are presuming, without any evidence that the killer was able to see Jeanette and therefore could have made such a shot. You have nothing that supports that theory other than hot air.

    There’s a site plan in the report. The onus is on you to demonstrate that Jeanette could not have been shot in such a matter. And once again, the police aren’t my colleagues.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    You clearly have a copy, but your argument is very much determined by standard police rhetoric on the case. The same rhetoric that has existed for several decades and has not altered. The same rhetoric that allowed Bush to speak about Hutton at his funeral.

    This standard police rhetoric happens to be based on sound logical reasoning. I for one am pleased they do not use your loopy attitude to cause and effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    I’m waiting on that evidence that proves Thomas hated Jeanette and therefore profiles as the killer.

    Because the profile (the most recent one) does not argue that Thomas hated Jeanette. The Profiler argued that the killer hated Harvey. If you had read the report as you claimed to have done, you would have known this. Read Appendix 13 if you don’t believe me.

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

    metcalph (1,374 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    “You have printed out the review? I don’t beleieve you.”

    You of course, talk nothing but shyte Metcalph. Excuse the blurry photo.

    https://www.dropbox.com/sc/7cndf6m8vydipbk/AADOyrfJ2d9oPlJJI_PCnBbCa

    Please also note the original of the Report of the Royal Commission, in case you want to argue I don’t have that either

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    Judith- No doubt you also have the full report on the Lindbergh Kidnapping sitting next to you as we write. Any chance on clarifying for us if Hauptmann did it??

    Because Hauptmann did do it. He was caught spending the ransom money was tied to the kidnapping forensically through the ladder. His excuse that a friend was the kidnapper who left the money behind when he returned to Germany is such obvious bollocks.

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

    @ metcalph (1,378 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    I wasn’t questioning from the report, I was arguing the statement that you made, that the killer hated Jeanette. You clearly believe Thomas is the killer, so therefore, where it the evidence that he hated Jeanette?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    1. A NSW Supreme Court Judge, hardly biased, but one who was accustomed to cutting through Police bullshit,

    Who broke procedure and the chain of custody by taking ballistics evidence with him to Oz to have it tested there. The police there turned him down.

    2. The former Anglican Primate of NZ, and the Commissioner who actually wrote the words condemning Hutton.

    I want a Judge at my trial, not a cleric. At least they would understand the import of making statements that can be supported through evidence.

    3. A Privy Councillor, and former Cabinet Minister, also accustomed to cutting though bullshit.

    So you would be happy with Parekura Horomia say as a Royal Commissioner?

    And by the way Metcalph… Where were Crown Law at the RC ??????

    I don’t know. You tell me.

    So stop it. You simply reinforce the view that you and many of your colleagues have taken/take “the Queen’s shilling” under false pretences.

    I’m not with the police. And I would have appreciated a better argument that your vain appeal to authority.

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

    Oh, and I forgot to mention, the yellow box contains copies of a number of documents pertaining to the Crewe murders, including some of Dr Sprott’s findings prepared on behalf of the Thomas family.

    So now that we’ve established that – I’d like to stay and argue further, but I have something more pressing to do. But will no doubt return. Please feel free to waffle on Metcalph – :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    You of course, talk nothing but shyte Metcalph. Excuse the blurry photo.

    I didn’t believe you because printing out the review when it could be read as a PDF (and searched) is rather extravagant. But now that you have posted photographic evidence, I am happy to say that I do believe you. You see, Judith, that’s how real logic works – evidence therefore conclusion. For me to adopt your standards I would have had to argue that your photo was photoshopped and thus not evidence of anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Jack5 (5,145 comments) says:

    Flipper at 3.36, after making some hearsay points, said:

    Bush fails to personally apologise, to Thomas, and to the people of New Zealand.

    No more apologies! We’re sick to death of apologies from politicians and civil servants. Gibbering, weak, neurotic, fawning, gutless are the descriptions that come to mind.

    If people want to say they are wrong, this will be sufficient: “We were wrong” or “we now admit we were wrong”.

    But no more fucking apologies!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    I wasn’t questioning from the report, I was arguing the statement that you made, that the killer hated Jeanette. You clearly believe Thomas is the killer, so therefore, where it the evidence that he hated Jeanette?

    I didn’t argue that the killer hated Jeanette. I said “_if_ (my emphasis – PHM) the killer hated Jeanette […]”. In other words, I made a conditional statement as part of an argument to show that the killer was not motivated by hatred for her. In other words, I made a form of logical argument that you are unfamiliar with.

    As for my belief that Thomas is the killer, that’s not my belief. I believe there is evidence to show that he could have been the killer but in the absence of any serious challenge to his alibi (ie the testimony of his wife and cousin) and the lack of evidence to show that anybody else associated with his farm could not have been the killer, any conviction (let alone civil suit) would be unsafe.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Poor little pussiewussie meticalphie……. Gentle soul ….. Diddums …….

    Stay away from matters on which you are

    1. Unable to apply basic analytical skills, and sound judgement, and

    2. Unable to accept that some folks, including and especially, a properly assisted Royal Commission, really do know more about this matter than U.

    Time for “Friday fives”. Take a load off your brain Meticalphie :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    I would be wounded by your comments, Flipper, if you actually

    1) demonstrated that you actually had basic analytical skills and sound judgement.

    2) realized that an appeal to authority is no substitute for a reasoned argument.

    But as it is, your arguments are so feeble as to invite pity rather than scorn.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. lolitasbrother (746 comments) says:

    I thought Jeanette Crewe had a broken jaw, pre mortem. The violent argument theory, and the killing suicide

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. metcalph (1,433 comments) says:

    One final note about the estate gun in Demler’s possession that Judith brought up.

    It is a .360 calibre rifle and unable to fire .22 ammo.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. cricko (359 comments) says:

    Who are the profiler/s and what is their experience ? (They quote a host of books they claim to have read. Is that it ?)

    Is one a 26 year old female constable sporting a psycology BA and the other a Dutchman ?

    Couple of questions for the ‘profilers.’

    1 Why do you assume that that 29/7/67 burglary and the 7/12/68 fire and the 28/5/69 fire
    were all committed by the killer ? given that the insurance company paid out on the house fire because it was an electrical fault. The haybarn fire was attributed to spontaneous conbustion.

    2 If the description of the female seen in the Crewe garden after the murder “seemed to describe Mrs Crewe.”
    as in your para 80.6 Why did you not even consider the possibility of a murder/suicide ?

    Fukin “profilers.” You gotta be joking.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Dexter (306 comments) says:

    Metcalph is rightly ripping Judiths light on facts, but high on emotion defense apart. With such an emotional attachment and investment it is no wonder that you lash out without reason or logic at what you perceive as an attack on that investment. When you have that many coincidences, while you can try and explain them away individually, when you look at them in their totality, and they all line up in a row pointing in a particular direction, that remains the most truthful and accurate conclusion to draw.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. cricko (359 comments) says:

    And there we have a “contribution” from Dexter.

    Read it again. What a fucking idiot.

    Can sumwum interpret what on earth this idiot is trying to say ?

    I bet he must be a professor at Waikato University he is so patently stupid.
    He could be taking the piss, but thats the same as being a professor from Waikato.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Indolentbystander (2 comments) says:

    Go Metcalph ….good work.

    I was in Otahuhu at the time of the murder.The D’s were typical of the era, a hard working hard drinking bunch, who had no
    compunction about calling a spade a spade.I remember going to the Police Station at Otahuhu and seeing Charts on the wall
    showing family trees and possible inheritance scenarios. The tenor of the conversation by all was that Demler was soon to be arrested.
    Several days after that it, all changed, they had found a body and further evidence particularly the axle.I must confess I have always had difficulty in accepting that Thomas was innocent there seemed to be a pretty good case irrespective of the cartridge case. I also thought That Mrs Thomas reactions throughout the whole course of these proceedings was less than frank.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Why would a Royal Commission ever hide an HONEST activity?

    I believe the answer lies in what the Royal Commission omitted!!!!

    What was the women DOING at the Crews house and who was she there with?

    The Commission knew who she was, but then said “it would cause herself and family too much grief if it is KNOWN who she is.”

    So ——— that has nothing to do with WHAT she was doing there —- and she could ONLY EVER BE THERE WITH TWO INTENTIONS —– honest or dishonest!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It’s the DISHONEST intentions that would hurt her family – not honest intentions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    A simple EXPLAINATION of her honest reason for being at the Crewe farm would satisfy any person —– so why does the Royal Commission think that an HONEST explaination will NOT satisfy HER family?

    So why hide WHAT she was DOING there? Why did the Commission HIDE her activity/reason for being on the Crewe property?

    The Commission by hiding the FACT of WHAT she was doing there has done nothing more than highlight the fact she must have been doing something dishonest!!!! Why would you hide honesty where truth is concerned?

    For some reason investigators stay right off that matter of honesty/dishonesty with regards to her and her family.

    I find it unbelievable.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. cricko (359 comments) says:

    Now there is an example of how fucked up a person can be.

    Harriet @ 7.14

    “I believe.” then, “I find.” thats Harriet in the first person.
    Lots of exclamation marks, lots of capital letters.
    Thats the way to prove your point. FFS

    Dear oh dear.
    And, it seems some fuckwits buy it,

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    I’m just getting a serious point across Cricko.

    The Commission is omitting a dishonest act – or something that needs secrecy – that happened on the Crew property.

    And they believe that the public, and most police, and the wider legal fraternity, does not need to see it.

    Their explaination as to why it should not be made public appears very dodgy. Most lawyers would question what they said.

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

    metcalph (1,384 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 6:25 pm
    One final note about the estate gun in Demler’s possession that Judith brought up.

    It is a .360 calibre rifle and unable to fire .22 ammo.

    Wrong. In the first trial Demler was asked about the Chennells Estate rifle

    Temm: You told us that you did, at one point, own a .22 rifle.

    Demler: That is right.

    Then followed over the various trials a great deal of discussion during which Johnston claimed it was .360 caliber, then a double barreled shotgun and then whatever it was, it was so old it couldn’t be used.

    Then when asked about the firearm from the Chennells estate Demler said he had never seen one. He later said there was a firearm, a broken down one, no good for firing. Then later at the second trial he had only ever owned a shotgun, but then when asked that he had told them he had owned a .22, he said, yes that’s right.
    Johnston gave evidence that Newman Chennells firearm was a .360 and that Demler had given him a rifle of that description for inspection!! The DSIR’s Rory Shanahan was then questioned about the firearm, and described that despite it being old, it was still able to be cocked and fired (right hammer). He found the bore at the muzzle end was approximately .35 inches, which is not quite the size of a .22. The fact was that this weapon could fire .22 bullets, was on the Demler property at the time leading up to the murders, BUT was never checked to see if it could have been the weapon that killed the Crewes.

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

    More to the gun issue.

    If the weapon was a double shot weapon, then why didn’t the killer simply shoot Jeanette immediately after Harvey? Instead she sustained some terrible injuries before being shot, presumably hit in the face with the butt of the firearm. Clearly the weapon involved was not a repeater type, but something from which only one shot could be fired, before being reloaded. Something like the Chennells estate weapon.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    “…..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”……” …

    LOL… they call this guy a ‘profiler’….

    So why doesn’t this “elite police criminal profiler” get to the fucken point:

    Why did Jeanette Crewe NOT report that her husband had been shot fucken dead?

    Jeanette Crewe DOES hold some serious guilt in this matter – SOME VERY TELLING GUILT !!!!!

    Why do the police keep fucking around with this matter?

    The whole thing is a national disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    “Ian Wishart makes a compelling case against one of the Police officers in his book ‘The Inside Story’. Again nothing is proven but it is a very interesting read”

    Wisharts book is a complete conspiracy theory high on emotion low on fact, there is no evidence against Johnston and Wishart even admits that there are very few underlying facts supporting the scenario

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Metcalphs analysis is rubbish, it was shown that neither of the bullets recovered could have been contained in the cartridge case ‘found’ in the garden therefore the Thomas rifle to have been used as the murder weapon he must have taken two different types of ammunition, ejected a bullet in the garden before shooting them, reloaded the rifle with the figure 8 ammunition and then shot them, this is ridiculous!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    The conclusion in the report that Demler and his girlfriend were ‘in no way involved’ is baseless, the man lived alone had no alibi and had strong motive and opportunity, Without supporting evidence that he didn’t do it (Which there is a grand total of nothing)! then even if you don’t think the evidence against him would have been strong enough to convict him, this does not make him innocent which is the approach the reports take.
    They are both academic written to prescription bullshit much like Fisher on Binnie essay or Kristy McDonald on the RPOM application for Scott Watson.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    I’m sure that Sprott found that there were a different number of ‘lands’ in the rifling of Thomas rifle to that from the spent ‘bullet’ recovered from the bodies? I haven’t read the report, and probably won’t. But did it deal with the late witness who gave evidence that the woman he saw on the farm after the murders was Demler’s new wife. Or indeed if Demler’s wife was able to clear up her varying reports as to when she moved into the district, and if she attended Trust meetings regarding the property after the couples death.

    Proving that steel wire came from a particular farm is nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Fer fuks sake! Every leftie in NZ knows it was a very young John Key that did it to earn his reptilian status so he could get a job at Merrill Lynch! :)

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

    @ Nostalgia-NZ (4,916 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    The report decides that the witness was mistaken and that there was no woman. That Rochelle didn’t go outside the house, because she wouldn’t have been able to walk with her nappy rash and being weak from not being fed, and that the killer wouldn’t have risked standing outside and being seen at the house, and/or letting the child out, in case some one thought the Crewes were home and came to visit.

    Clearly the police do not understand the type of community the Crewes lived in. People are more likely to be suspicious if things are not normal, e.g. there is no one seen at the property for days, than if these things are happening.

    The police seem to base their entire argument on the fact that if they didn’t find something, it didn’t exist, but when other people saw something, they they didn’t really see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Judith the Royal Commission says there was a women there. They also say her identity/actions would harm her family.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘because she wouldn’t have been able to walk with her nappy rash and being weak from not being fed’

    That’s a bit of a classic. The proof that Bruce Roddick didn’t see the baby was because she wouldn’t have been able to walk, he also didn’t see Norma Demler because he was ‘mistaken.’ He was certainly not seeing a lot of people at the time. Who was the medical practitioner that was able to confirm that a child in such a situation would have been unable to walk? I thought that there was evidence later of her walking when ‘discovered?’ Else where people weren’t seeing cartridge cases in gardens, until 1 was found that had even been manufactured at the time of the shootings. I wonder if the report searched into that, the transmission of those cartridge cases from the time of their manufacture to their sale. That wouldn’t have bothered Walton because he was busy making sure that no one investigated Norma Demler. A lot of stuff being remanufactured here. Looking forward to comments by Chris Birt or Muerant.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    The really good news that came out of the inquiry is that you were probably too young to have done it Nosta! :)

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

    The entire report is a series of excuses to explain why the police did nothing despite knowing evidence had been faked. Actually they doubt it was planted and state that there isn’t even evidence to support that. Roddericks sightings are written off. The woman that Harriet states above was acknowledged by the royal commission doesn’t exist according to the police and therefore there is no evidence against demlers second wife. There is also apparently no evidence against demler, nor anyone else but Thomas. Very much a preschool ‘if I close my eyes and can’t see you, you don’t exist’ type of reasoning. The Thomas’s have been targeted yet again – but this time because of evidence that the police now can’t find.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    If you’d been around in 1745 Judith I bet you’d have been on Bonnie Prince Charlies side! :)

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

    @ nostalgia
    Muerant is fuming. His opinion of the report is worse than mine.

    @ johnboy
    Play nice or you can go to your room and I’ll deal with you later -

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Saying that the woman the Roddick identified was definitely not Norma Demler is a blatant lie, Roddick was convinced it was right up to the time of his death, I think there may have been one contradictory statement but he had positively identified her on more than one occasion and she was not interviewed by police until 2006 when she denied all knowledge, however it was also shown that her statement that she had never been to Pukekawa until about 1972 was contradicted by her own family members and that she had been there previously on multiple occasions.
    Keith Hunter and Peter Williams are right the Thomas family should be actioning this report in law!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Wear the same crotchless catsuit that you did last time when you come to chastise me Judith! :)

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

    That is a distinct possibility that is being explored rowan. This has gone on too long.

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

    I don’t have a catsuit johnboy ? And I flatly refuse to wear a sheepskin because wool makes me scratchy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    That’s fine Judith. Just come naked so we won’t have to waste time getting our gear off! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ben (2,384 comments) says:

    Regarding the wire, can we rule out that the police visited more than 8 farms in the district but left unmentioned any visits that did find the same wire as on AA Thomas farm?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. ben (2,384 comments) says:

    I thought the evidence pointed to the killer primarily targeting Jeanette rather than Harvey. Her face was smashed by the killer.

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

    @ ben (2,401 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 5:33 am

    Ben, the police state that the killer targeted Jeanette most, because she sustained serious facial injuries prior to having been shot (which killed her). However it was Harvey that was shot first.

    As stated above, if the killer had a weapon that was able to shoot again immediately, they would have simply shot her, after shooting Harvey instead, the fact that Jeanette clearly lunged at the killer, receiving the butt of the gun in her face breaking her nose, teeth etc, supports the theory that rather than a repeater weapon, the killer had a single shot rifle. The facial injuries were never able to be assimilated with the butt of Thomas’s rifle.

    The police believe Harvey was shot first, and Jeanette only moments later. Her injuries indicate that she probably flung herself at the killer, and was hit with the rifle butt (Dr Frank Cairns evidence).

    This totally supports the use of a single shot weapon rather than a double shot. The killer, on seeing Jeanette coming for him, would have simply shot her, had his rifle still held a second bullet. Dr Cairns, who examined Jeanette’s body on the day her body was found stated that she was shot whilst lying on the floor – which was also supported by the burning of the hearth mat (which would have been were she fell after being hit according to blood still in the house). The blackening around the edge of the shot wound (just above her right ear) and in the entrance to the wound suggest a close range shot from a .22.

    So, all that evidence suggests that the killer, well known to the couple, therefore knowing that he had to take Harvey out first, because with only a single shot weapon, would be unable to subdue him, after shooting Jeanette and reload the weapon to kill Harvey second. Had the killer had a double shot weapon, the order wouldn’t have mattered because killing them would have simply involved two quick shots. This is the only scenario that fits with all the evidence regarding the killings and the weapon used.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Judith I was under the belief that Jeanette’s time of death wasn’t confirmed in relation to that of Harvey, and could have been even an hour or so later. [That’s on the medical and physical scene evidence taken by itself I presume. And not the lack of evidence of what should have then happened in the house if she were alive for an hour or so.]

    Anyway, who did Rochelle end up living with. The Demler side or the Crew side?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Hmm well having just read the report and disregarding the supposedly planted evidence I’d say that the remaining scant evidence points to Thomas being the culprit. Maybe not enough to convict him but I can see why the cops thought it was him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. SGA (1,123 comments) says:

    Judith at 6:56 am

    Had the killer had a double shot weapon, the order wouldn’t have mattered because killing them would have simply involved two quick shots.

    Not sure I buy that particular idea. If I was planning a double murder, I’d try to remove the greater “threat” first if I could, single shot or double shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    the fact that Jeanette clearly lunged at the killer, receiving the butt of the gun in her face breaking her nose, teeth etc

    Judith, it amazes me how many assumptions you make about certain evidence which fits your idea of what may have happened whilst subjecting other evidence to the minutest scrutiny when it doesn’t.

    But then, you have a history of doing that don’t you? ;)

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

    @ SGA (817 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 8:15 am

    Yes exactly, which is why Harvey was shot first. He was the greater threat.

    @ Scott Chris (5,886 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 8:42 am

    Even the police agree with the theory that Jeanette came towards the killer and was hit with the butt of the rifle. There is of course a great deal more material concerning this – but I don’t feel obligated to retype it all here for you. Nice put down though – you have a history of doing that when you can’t actually come up with any facts to dispute anything. :-)

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

    @ Scott Chris (5,886 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 8:15 am

    That is what happens when you take all your evidence from just one side – a side that has conveniently left many of the opposing arguments out, and failed to address others. It amazes me how ignorant you can be to believe that a report from the police would be balanced and representative of all the information.

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

    @ Harriet (4,533 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 8:01 am

    I also believe that it couldn’t be completely proven, however the police have always believed, going from the blood staining evidence in the house, that she died just a short time after Harvey.

    Rochelle was eventually raised by her aunt – Jeanette’s sister. Suspicion fell on Heather as a possible person who fed Rochelle, however that theory was proven incorrect many years ago, when it was found, that as an airline hostess, she was not in the Country at the time

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

    Even the police agree with the theory that Jeanette came towards the killer and was hit with the butt of the rifle.

    1/ How do they/you know that a rifle butt caused the damage as opposed to, say, a fist or some other hard object?
    2/ How do they/you know when the injury occurred in relation to her death?

    I’d be inclined to speculate that because she wasn’t executed in the same manner as was her husband that there is a likelihood that she was sexually assaulted as well, evidence of which would have been washed away by the river.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    It amazes me how ignorant you can be to believe that a report from the police would be balanced and representative of all the information.

    Judith, like most people I have the ability (and like fewer people I have the willingness) to read between the lines. I know when something is opinion and I know when something is a description of circumstance. From that point on, it’s a question of factoring in witness fallibility and dishonesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Due to the nature of Jeanettes injuries and the pathologists report, the injuries are consistent with being struck by a rifle butt and certainly were significantly greater than would be expected if it was simply a fist, its not definitive proof that they were from a rifle butt but the pathologist stated that that she would not have survived very long without urgent medical attention so they had to have happened within a short time of her death, I have never bought Pat Booths theory that she killed herself after having shot Harvey, for a start the shot was above her left ear, it would be very difficult to do this with a long rifle, there is just to much that points towards a 3rd party who was well known to them, well enough known to be a guest in their home and was holding a grudge against them, now who could that be!!
    The police report is just pathetic and just parrots phrases like “there no evidence….” where they disagree with evidence produced and also relies on suspects evidence to justify there position i.e. “there is no evidence that Norma Demler ever went to Pukekawa prior to 1972″, where the reality is that this is only her statement and there were several others conveniently discarded that showed that she had been there well before that and also prior to the murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Apropos of nothing, heard an interesting comment from Sean Plunket on the radio the other day. He’s firmly of the opinion that Thomas is innocent (something I’m less sure of) but in relation to Scott Watson he said this:

    [paraphrased from memory] My father covered the Scott Watson case from go to woe and concluded that police had got the right man but for all the wrong reasons.

    Now there’s a man who’s opinion I respect even if I disagree with him on occasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    “there is a likelihood that she was sexually assaulted as well”

    I’d tend to go with the evidence i.e. her clothing was intact and there was no evidence of sexual assault, so do you actually have anything to base this ‘likelyhood’ on?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. ross001 (218 comments) says:

    I’m surprised no one has mentioned Keith Hunter’s analysis of the case. He is in no doubt that Demmler was the killer. He would know more than commenters here as he’s apparently seen every document relating to the case.

    Interestingly Hunter wrote to Hutton two years ago and told him he was publishing a book about the case. Hunter advised Hutton that he had defamed him but said Hutton had no reputation to damage. Nevertheless he encouraged Hutton to sue…he never did. It is remarkable that Hutton was never charged with perverting justice.

    http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. ross001 (218 comments) says:

    From Hunter’s website:

    “The truth is that our justice system will never address the Crewe murders honestly. It has, in the view of those who administer it, too much to lose. Nor would the little aimed against Hutton have been included in the report if he had not died last year. The single jot of truth in the report, that evidence was perhaps planted and perhaps by a police officer, owes its presence in the report to Hutton’s death.

    All evidence pointing to Len Demler is omitted or misinterpreted in both the police and the Jones report, allowing the view that Jones was handpicked and acting under instruction, like Kristy McDonald in the Watson case. An example from the Jones report is his analysis of the sighting of the baby Rochelle outside the Crewe house three days after the murders. For Jones the sighting must have been on a different day or of a different baby because it ‘defies logic’. The logic is laid out in simple words in ‘The Case of the Missing Bloodstain’ a copy of which was sent to him last December in case the police had forgotten to tell him about it. Regrettably, or perhaps, considering his report, inevitably, Mr Jones did not acknowledge receiving the book.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    so do you actually have anything to base this ‘likelyhood’ on?

    Yes, because when men murder women (spouses/partners excluded) sexual assault is very common.

    Re Demler – what was the conclusive evidence that implicated him as the murderer?

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

    Rowan

    The murder/suicide scenario was first suggested by the late Paul Temm QC

    And the, ‘hard to do it with a rifle’, the same reason was suggested at Bains trial as why Robin didn’t commit suicide.
    But.
    Try this… Place rifle butt on chair, lean over, hold barrel with one hand, place muzzle against head, pull trigger
    with other hand. Q.E.D.

    (for entry wound in left hand side of head, hold barrel with right hand, pull trigger with left. Simple.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Just to clarify my position – I’m not certain of Thomas’ innocence or guilt despite of the physical evidence apparently linking him to the crimes because I can’t see a clear motive. By the same token I’m not sure that the shell casing was planted, even though I suspect it was despite testimony that the condition it was found in was pristine not weathered. Could it have been missed in spite of an apparently thorough previous search? Had it been cleaned? Did it have gun oil on it which would act as a preservative?

    If Hutton and co. had been brought to trial, trust me, expert testimony would have been sought by the defence and would have cast doubt on whether or not the case was planted. Presumably that’s why Hutton was never charged.

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

    Scott Chris (5,895 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 9:50 am

    And there we have it again – ‘there was a likelihood that she was sexually assaulted and the evidence washed away in the river’.

    THERE was absolutely nothing to indicate she had been sexually assaulted. Not one tiny piece of evidence,but if she was it would provide a motive to a man they had little else to pin to. Such an impression is similar to the emphasis of the police report – not what they can prove, but making assumptions on what they can’t prove, have no evidence for – based solely on the idea that ‘if’ it happened this way – the police are absolved of any wrong doing.

    Reading between the lines?? You’d have to be on some sort of substance to be able to find anything ‘between the lines’ to even come close to that sort of assumption Scotty!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Just a general question to anyone who might know.

    Were the arson and burglary crimes prior to the murders ever linked to anyone?

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

    @ Scott Chris (5,895 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Evidence demonstrates from many murders of females that sexual assault has occurred, although not in every case, and not in the majority of cases.

    Evidence also supports that when fathers kill their daughters, sometimes sexual activity has occurred, in the form of incest, although again, not in every case.

    Just like with Thomas, there was no conclusive evidence found by the police against Demler.
    With Thomas they went all out to do a thorough investigation, even fabricating evidence when there was none on offer. With Demler, they gave up and took the ‘easy’ option.

    However, the circumstantial evidence against Demler is overwhelming.
    He had motive.
    He had no alibi.
    He had available access.
    He kept changing his stories.
    He was dishonest.
    He, as grandfather would have been interested in keeping the child alive,
    He had the means (the weapon which he lied about)
    His behaviour was far removed from anything typical of fathers in similar situation.
    He had an available accomplice that lied about when she had been in the area.

    Until Hutton stuffed up the evidence over the firearm, he was totally convinced it was Demler. However, on believing he was unable to tie him to the firearm, he went after Thomas and tried to find the evidence to fit.

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

    Scott Chris
    Fire in the house.
    The insurance co accepted that it was caused by an electrical fault.
    The fire in the haystack was attributed to spontaneous combustion as a result of stacking damp hay.

    No one charged with either event, same for the ‘burglary.’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Cricko
    The suggestion that Robin Bains suicide is “impossible” or “highly unlikely” is bollocks, close contact wounds are around 95% more likely to be suicide than homicide and the temple is the most common site of a self inflicted wound, if you add in the upwards trajectory of the bullet then it makes it very unlikely that it was committed by a third party without extreme co-operation from Robin, Dr Dempster was asked by the prosecution to show a self inflicted shot in the most difficult and unlikely way in order to support its fantasy that David shot him, but Philip Boyce was able to show several ways it could have been done easily. Dempster when questioned by Reed said he was not asked to show it “in any other way”

    Re Jeanette, you would still have to have the rifle practically at right angles to your head, (much like Dr Dempsters demonstration), possible but highly unlikely, If it had been a murder-suicide then there would have been no need to move the bodies or weapon at all, and if Demler did it and wanted to make it appear like murder-suicide why not put her fingerprints on the trigger with the gun beside her? I think that due to the position of the shot Demler saw that no-one would buy murder suicide so removed the bodies to make it look like a third unrelated and then eliminated all traces of him at the scene, i.e. the gun, ammo, fingerprints etc

    Scott Chris
    Re Demler, read Case of the Missing Bloodstain by Keith Hunter, he shows the true motive and means and opportunity for Demler to have done it, and why it is highly unlikely to have been anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Add to Judiths list
    Demler was well known to them and shared a meal with them at least once a week, unless you buy the crazy Len Johnston theory (which the police report still thinks is a possible explanation) that the killer was balancing on the window sill and shooting through the open louvre windows in the rain and wind, then the killer was a guest in their home, they were hermits who kept to themselves and didn’t entertain guests at all, so if they had an evening invited guest the chances of it being someone else than Demler are slim to none.

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

    Scott Chris.

    Read the ‘profilers’ report. Appendix 13

    http://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/crewe-review-appendix-13-criminal-profiling-unit-report-crewe-murders-2013

    It’s almost laughable. (Point 80.6 raises all sorts of questions not addressed.)

    Who are these ‘profilers’ ?
    What are their qualifications ?

    I note that the minimum experience to be accepted for training by the FBI is 8 years as a homicide detective plus a
    psycology degree.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. cricko (359 comments) says:

    Rowan
    I think you could be wrong regarding Jeanettes gunshot wound, see my effort @ 10.47
    It very easily could have been as the result of suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Cricko
    Read Chris Birts first book, he completely destroys the possibility of suicide

    Re the profilers report, except for the prior events on the farm Len Demler would fit most of these descriptions.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Cricko

    Heres a response from Chris Birts website http://www.crewemurders.com in response to a question of murder-suicide

    Response:
    This was not a murder-suicide. See our previous commentary. Yes, Demler’s behaviour was strange. We have questioned many parents over the years as to what they would do if their daughter and son-in-law were missing in such disturbing circumstances. To the man and woman, all have said that they would be franticly searching, until all hope was extinguished. Demler’s behaviour was not strange, it was bizarre, as recounted by many of those in the ground search teams and the CIB chiefs in the plain-clothes squad – which numbered 20 detectives at its peak – in their conferences. The Crewe house was indeed stark and bare, but there was real love and dedication between Jeanette and Harvey, according to their family and closest friends. It may be rare for parents to kill children, but it is not unheard of. In recent weeks the 20th anniversary of the Paerata mass murders has been observed. On 20 May 1992, just north of Pukekawa, 64 year old farmer Brian Schlaepfer stabbed his wife and then shot dead his three sons and his daughter-in-law, before fatally stabbing his 11 year old grandson to death. He then committed suicide. The suggestion that a father cannot kill his children is unrealistic, as it has been throughout history. The murder-suicide scenario was ruled out in the opening days of the Crewe investigation but later became the favoured theory of Thomas campaigner Pat Booth. However there is direct medical evidence revealing this to be an impossibility. Birt destroyed the murder-suicide concept in his 2001 book The Final Chapter (pages 176 to 181). In the Crewe case it was totally debunked on the medical evidence, as determined by the police pathologist on the Crewe case, Dr Frank Cairns, after his post mortem the day Jeanette was recovered from the Waikato River, 16 August 1970. The concept of one of the Crewes killing the other and then themselves is an outrage and continuing to bring it forward when it has been thoroughly discredited and disproved only serves to cause great distress for the surviving members of both families, and their closest friends of that era, the Hewsons. CM.com

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,798 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    “They are both academic written to prescription bullshit much like Fisher on Binnie essay or Kristy McDonald on the RPOM application for Scott Watson.”

    The last sentence in respect of Fisher on Binnie would have to be the moat fatuous piece of nonsense ever posted on KB.It was not Fisher’s fault that Bain’s interview with Binnie was so full of holes and Binnie did not have the wit and presence of mind to see through the them.
    The holes were gigantic.!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. cricko (359 comments) says:

    Gidday Rowan.

    The assertion by Chris Birts that the pathology report by Dr Cairns completely debunks the murder/suicide possibility
    is simply not true. It does no such thing.

    Here is the review of the pathological reports.

    http://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/crewe-review-appendix-7-assessment-pathology-reports

    What in particular do you feel Birts is relying on to declare the murder/suicide an “impossibility” ?

    Of course none of us will ever know the truth now but it seems to me that Birts at least is, “Full of it.” as they say and has totally overplayed his hand by comming to unsubstantiated definitive conclusions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. cricko (359 comments) says:

    Also, this could go on forever, and it probably will, but.

    Harvey Crewe was a big man known to have a temper.
    Jeanette had all the money, she inherited the farm.
    She was a control freak of sorts. (When Harvey wanted to use the Morris Minor car he had to ask for her
    permission before she would let him have the keys which she kept.
    There was an argument over something that night.
    Harvey finally lost it and whacked her, maybe with some instrument.
    She got the .22 and shot him in retaliation.
    She called her dad, Demler for help after the event.
    He helped her clean up and together they dumped Harvey in the river.
    Jeanette was the woman seen in the garden (point 80.60 of the “profilers’ report.)
    She fed Rochelle for those few days.
    She commits suicide.
    Demler finds her body, she may have told him what she intended so he could care for Rochelle.
    Regardless, Demler then dumps her body and the .22 in the Waikato to avoid issues with concealing evidence
    of Harveys murder and the shame of her suicide/murder.

    This, very brief summary of things explains in some part Demlers weird conduct and lack of cooperation
    with police.

    This is not my scenario, it is Paul Temm QCs (who happened to be a neighbour of mine at the time)

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

    The murder/suicide theory has some weight and warrants consideration, although it is harder to fit in my opinion.

    What neither of these theories take into account are the crimes previously committed on the Crewe property. These make it fairly obvious that someone with knowledge of the Crewe property and their habits disliked them, and/or wanted to scare them away, or worse.

    Demler could loosely fit this criteria – perhaps he wanted to scare them enough to make them move away, and when they didn’t work, took the alternative.

    Trying to fit it to the murder/suicide, is harder, although it was reported that Harvey could have had a borderline mood disorder, perhaps committing the crimes to scare his wife, or claim insurance money? who knows, but then we are left with who moved the bodies and cleaned up – Demler ? Why not just tell the truth, the worst he could have been charged with was interference, whereas he came close to being charged with double murder?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Dear dear
    Now Stupidboy comes to defend killer Robin, the “fatuous nonsense” you refer is actually the crown case against David which you continue to promote as fact. Stupidboy you don’t seem to be able to distinguish proof from evidence, much the same as in the police report, The police witnesses present did not have any problem with either Binnies questions or Davids answers, the ‘holes’ only exist in your head Stupidboy, can you actually point out any of these holes explicitly brought out in the porno judges so called ‘peer review’?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Interesting that according to Metcalph, Demler wasn’t the killer because he didn’t fit the ‘profile’, what a joke, I thought the whole chapter on the profiles was a joke, who are these profilers and what sort of qualifications do they have?

    Cricko
    Certainly Birt is not the only one that to quote you that is
    “Full of it.” as they say and has totally overplayed his hand by coming to unsubstantiated definitive conclusions.

    The same statement can apply to the whole police report, where is the evidence that Demler and his lady friend were ‘in no way involved’ ? totally non existent!!

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

    The profiler virtually ruled out Thomas completely, and concentrated on a third party being responsible (supposedly the same person that lit the fires/theft etc).

    It is very difficult to take any report seriously when they base the fact that the dogs had no food, but water, when they were found, as indication that they had not been fed for several days.

    yeah, because farm dogs always let their food sit around in their bowls until they are ready to eat it, as they are such pampered pooches. One argument given a while back claimed the same, but went so far as to suggest because when the dogs were subsequently fed, they ate their food really quickly proving that they hadn’t been fed for days.

    With experts like this looking after the country’s safety, we’ve got nothing to fear!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan,
    ,
    Dear oh dear yourself.I understand Team David have now abondoed the Judicial review in favour of the substantive hearing.No doubt Bain will be coached rather more diligently this time around to mask the serious flaws in his case that were blown open unwittingly by Binnie.
    Hopefully he can get down to serious issues like accounting for the glaring discrepancy of his remembering the details of the crime scene rather than those silly goat allegations of his.!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Cricko
    The original pathology report of Francis Cairns explicitly stated that survival would not have been very long after sustaining such an injury, this is what Chris Birt would have been relying on.

    Judith
    The profilers scenarios were ridiculous, they were even suggesting the offender stole and returned the Thomas gun from his farm because the police still won’t accept that it isn’t the murder weapon

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    You’re wasting your talents here Judith.

    Pop down to Wainui and together we can explore every facet of both the legal and the illegal aspects of human behaviour! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    No judicial review has been abandoned it is still ongoing, unsurprisingly you are again at variance with the facts but that’s nothing new is it!
    How much have you contributed for your cult leader he must be in desperate need of cash, I hear he has abandoned his appeal and was filing for bankruptcy, now I call that Karma.

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

    @ Johnboy (15,038 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    I was talking to a friend who is in J’Ville – she reckons its pretty filthy there at the moment and has been all day. What is it you lot do to deserve such terrible weather?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Filthy is as filthy does Judith. I’m just not doing enough filthy over here in Wainui at the mo.

    You could change all that if you wanted to! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    The profilers report is about as convincing as that psychological hogwash piece of fiction written by James McNeish on the Bain case. McNeish completely fails at his attempt at being a shrink, he should have stuck to writing fiction. Its been quite a while since I read it but his attempts to make David insane were laughable!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. cricko (359 comments) says:

    Judith 4.27
    Thing is, were there previous crimes committed on the Crewes property ?

    see my effort @ 11.46
    The fires can both be accounted for naturally.
    Was there a burglary ?

    To me this smacks of “profilers ” conjuring withn events. They refer to other possible crimes but do not detail them. Why not?
    Sounds like the old trick of deciding on your scenario first then listing ‘facts’ to support it.
    Kinda like the mind set that fucked A A Thomas. Nothing has changed.

    PS. I wasn’t joking earlier when I suggested that the “profilers’ consisted of a young female constable with a BA in psycology and a dutchman. (Sweet F.A. practical experience.)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan,

    Where did McNeish in his book attempted to try and establish Bain as insane.? It’s obvious that it has been a long time since you’ve read it – if yo’ve actually ever have at all.!
    BTW Mc Neish has written a numbe of books and articles of non fiction inluding the one on Paddy Costello that featured in a documentary on TV recently.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Cricko
    The murder scenario you portrayed by Paul Temm and Pat Booth is bizarre, I don’t see how if they openly accuse Demler as being an accessory after the fact yet they are that insistent that he is an accessory only and not the killer, why would Demler dump the bodies in the river? if it happened this way, why remove the bodies at all? Jeanettes so called ‘suicide’ would have been very difficult with a long rifle, there are far simpler ways, see my 11.47 re Dempsters demonstration on Robin Bains suicide, Jeanette would have had to have adopted a similar approach, and above the ear has got to be far more difficult than the temple.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    What a laugh dear Wowan’s description of Philip Boyce having to demonstate the most highly complicated convoluted manner ever in which Robin may of killed himself, instead of choosing a more easy and simpler method that a right handed person would of in fact chosen. That and no aaterial spray from his wound found on his hands, sleeves of his Jeresey etc.
    Laughable when Boyce got his Maths wrong and had to take the stand again to present his modified measurement of gun to head contact distance. 12cm from 2O or so cms.
    Ooops.!,

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. cricko (359 comments) says:

    Rowan

    you say, “I don’t see how……..”
    Now there is a suprise.

    Note. Seems you ask the questions and I supply the answers.
    Then you ask the same questions again.
    Every question in your 5.55 has been answered. Read back.

    Pay attention.
    for example, Check out 10.47 am. Thats how. Simple.
    Get a gun, try it out (the demo i mean, no need to whack yourself) as I described.
    See how easy it is in practice, then you can begin to comprehend.

    Anyway, no hard feelings.
    Good luck to you, and good luck to your family.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Oops Stupidboy is again at variance with the facts surprise surprise, he thinks the crown case is BRD where as Ian Binnie found in reality no individual piece even meets the BOP standard, the revised calculation is the over reach not the distance between the gun and his head, which as you already know is hard contact you drongo! So he would have had 12cm overreach and not 20cm big deal he could have still reached the trigger easily with any of his fingers or his thumb, surprise that you are again misrepresenting the facts!
    And maybe d..rrbrain the arterial spray was sucked up the rifle which explains the blood in the barrel from a hard contact wound to the head.
    Get your facts straight idiot!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Recidivist_offender (31 comments) says:

    What an immense waste of taxpayers money. I really hope the Police budget gets dramatically slashed in next years budget.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan, and the David Bain band plays on and on as Compensation is still denied him.This time around It will be Bain who will have the onus of proving the points you and others raised using the BOP test .
    .Not the other way as the biased Binnie attempted to do.
    BTW no extraordinary circumstance like planted evidence will avail Bain as even Pat Booth has so astutely observed.
    We await the panel’s final decision when it eventually first convenes perhaps next year.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Already done Stupidboy and even Fisher did not try to argue with the reports conclusions, it will be the tax lawyer having to explain how she is denying Bain due process, how the Fisher report was not written to predetermined conclusions and that her actions were ‘fair and reasonable’ you Stupidboy are just after a favourable conclusion that you agree with, much like the tax lawyer and the police review of the Crewe case the truth is just an irrelevant distraction

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan, just a reminder Reed’s speciality is Administrative Law if you want to Try the Tax lawyer ploy.I think Team David are now resigned to the fact that Courts have no real jurisdiction over Cabinet’s guidelines and discretions on Compensation claims,
    We will wait and see when the Panel begins it’s deliberations and makes it’s final decision.Bain failed the first round rather badly so at least he gets a second bite.
    But being no extraordinary circumstance like planted evidence I don’t fancy his chances frankly and in IMHO.!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘I understand Team David have now abondoed the Judicial review in favour of the substantial hearing.’

    Just about as good as the ‘abandoning the appeal’ that can’t take place before the hearing.

    ‘I think Team David are now resigned to the fact that the Courts had no real jurisdiction over Cabinet’s guidelines and discretions on Compensation claims.’

    Gets funnier by the minute – ‘I understand’ and ‘I think.’ Seems to an outrageous liberty – but there you go. But congratulations on losing the appeal to PC, the Trial, and kent’s little diversion into stardom.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, you’ve understandably missed the point about Compensation ClaimVisv still denied David Bain too.Let’s not forget that all important point.
    You agree with Pat Booth that Bain’s compensation bid lacks that other all important point of planted evidence.?
    Outrageous liberty on both points,eh.!?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    You made the claim about the ‘abandoned appeal,’ last year I think it was. You now ‘explain’ decisions that are yet to be made.
    Do a little work on that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Team David can make more of an emotional appeal through cabinet decisions than the courts. Internet Mana and the Greens will back a ‘fair payout’ against rich prick Key. They’ll do his bidding. They won’t give a fuck about the outcome though.

    A million of taxpayers money will go a long way in keeping the Greens in the news for a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    ‘I think’ and ‘I understand’
    Trouble is Stupidboy you don’t adequately do either, and make stupid statements like the Bain team have abandoned the appeal (which can’t take place before the hearing), this case is well beyond your limited intelligence or !

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

    Good piece in the Herald Today. Totally agree with both Steps. There is a great need for both forms of review – perhaps increasingly so in politics.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303220

    “Step one is to immediately introduce a Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate such cases. I note with satisfaction this is Labour Party policy. Predictably, Collins sees no such need. Of course not; her response to the Privy Council declaring Mark Lundy’s convictions unsafe after 12 years was that it was an example of the system working well.

    Step two — we need an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), as they have in New South Wales. This way, the repeated political claim that our public service, which includes the police and judiciary as well as politicians themselves, is corruption free can be put to the test.”

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

    @ Harriet (4,542 comments) says:
    August 2nd, 2014 at 11:12 pm

    It shouldn’t have anything to do with politics Harriet. It is a matter of justice. Such a decision should never be decided by the government of the day for all the obvious reasons.

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

    For 13 years, Joe Karam fought to free David Bain. Today, the justice campaigner writes exclusively for the Herald on Sunday on this week’s review of the Crewe murders, and on law changes he believes are needed

    As winter approached in 1970, I was an 18-year-old student, hoping to play in the All Black trials and be selected to tour South Africa. But I broke my knee cap, and so on that bleak day in June, when the disappearance of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe was reported, I was at home recovering, my leg in plaster.

    I became enthralled in the case. Murders were few and far between then, and this was a real whodunit. Ordinary country folk gunned down in their farmhouse — this just did not happen.

    The media coverage was prolific. With time on my hands, I read everything and followed the ensuing trials and appeals, the free Arthur Thomas campaign and the royal commission with great interest. The case dominated the news for a decade and, international events aside, was matched only by the other great disaster of the time on Mt Erebus.

    What began as the Crewe murders evolved into the Arthur Allan Thomas case and wound up as the greatest single disaster to confront our police. Their botched investigation saw Thomas wrongly convicted — twice.

    For the past 44 years, successive police commissioners have publicly refused to acknowledge the force’s failings, and even worse, fuelled the proposition that they did in fact “get their man”. They even went so far as to provide a formal show of arms at the funeral of Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton, the officer accused of planting the cartridge case that implicated Thomas, with a eulogy from Mike Bush, now the commissioner.

    As is well known, I have spent the past two decades confronting similar problems to those faced by Thomas four decades ago: police refusal to admit they are wrong; police cover-ups when they do get it wrong; instances of corruption in the criminal justice process. It is presumably due to my success in confronting these issues that the Herald on Sunday asked me to comment on the Crewe murders review.

    First, let me get a couple of things straight. I am not anti-police. I am sure the overwhelming majority of officers are not crooks. I believe that a strong democracy needs a well-resourced and trusted police force. My comments, therefore, are not an attack on the 9,000 or so men and woman out there doing a tough, dangerous and often thankless task.

    Having said that, this review is not worthy of serious consideration. It has been a complete waste of public funds and the four years of detectives’ time it took to produce.

    In similar vein to Independent Police Conduct Authority reports, it is no more than a public relations exercise. It claims to be exhaustive and comprehensive, but so long as the police remain the reviewers of the police, we have only their word for that.

    The detectives who conducted the review are extolled for their dedication by the same commissioner who hailed Hutton as an officer of great integrity. What weight can be put on his utterances?

    I was particularly interested to see how it would deal with the two major problems it confronted — the planting accusation against Hutton and the integrity of the decision to charge Thomas. It seems to me it goes like this: “We may have been corrupt, but, wink wink, nod nod, at least we targeted the correct family.”

    At the same time, no attempt was made during the four-year review, as far as I can see, to match the 15 or 20 unidentified fingerprints located at the murder scene. Thomas, by the way, was eliminated in 1970 as having made these prints.

    As far as police reviews go, I was involved in one of the other most highly publicised of all time; the one done as a result of the publication of my first book, David and Goliath, the Bain Family Murders, in 1997. That report found that the police investigation into the deaths of the Bain family was a copybook inquiry, conducted with integrity.

    For nearly two decades senior police, including commissioners, reiterated that finding, and claimed they had a mountain of evidence against David. That mountain disintegrated into a small pile of rubble at the 2009 retrial.

    Put simply, police reviews of police actions cannot be trusted or believed. Similarly, police reviews of criminal cases that go off the rails are a waste of time. Invariably, they diminish police shortcomings, find no new evidence and seek to close down discussion. Just as predictably, they are a source of derision and amazement from the public, and bring the reputation of the organisation into even greater disrepute.

    Prominent proponents of the status quo are police national headquarters themselves, and others with close connections such as former police minister Judith Collins and former High Court judge Robert Fisher, who acted for the police at the 1981 royal commission.

    The Independent Police Complaints Authority is the ultimate toothless tiger. If New Zealand wishes to rid itself of the plague of miscarriages of justice that go on for decades — such as Thomas, Bain, Doherty, Ellis, Pora and many others — we must change the way we deal with them. There are two elementary and prescient requirements.

    Step one is to immediately introduce a Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate such cases. I note with satisfaction this is Labour Party policy. Predictably, Collins sees no such need. Of course not; her response to the Privy Council declaring Mark Lundy’s convictions unsafe after 12 years was that it was an example of the system working well.

    Step two — we need an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), as they have in New South Wales. This way, the repeated political claim that our public service, which includes the police and judiciary as well as politicians themselves, is corruption free can be put to the test.

    It is notable that a former police minister, John Banks, and a former justice minister, Doug Graham — both in office in 1995 when Bain was wrongly convicted — now have convictions. How many more such cases would there be if we had an ICAC?

    – Herald on Sunday

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Unity (609 comments) says:

    I totally agree with Jackinabox with regard to an ICAC and a Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, one more thing that needs to be noted is that with New Zealand being such a small country, we would need people from outside the country to sit on these Commissions to be sure of complete impartiality. I have a jaundiced impression of the Judges in this country and feel it is such a pity the Privy Council was done away with. We surely could do with it to look at many cases. Is there any way of bringing it back? Failing that we must be very very sure that any Commission is completely impartial and to be sure of that, the people MUST be from outside the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Jackinabox , your last paragraph destroys your rather ponderous presentation.In 1995 a Jury found David Bain Guilty not John Banks nor Doug Graham. That they’ve had subsequent convictions is irrelavant and I can only conclude your paranoid and silly enough to believe they both had a hand in the Jury’s decision.?

    Ok Nostalgia and woman the judicial review is still on the table. Terriffic .!.Then we can therefore wait till say 2016 for a fresh hearing by a panel of three where Bain might of finally of sorted out his contradictions and inconstancies exposed in the Binnie report .?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    That’s an outcome possibility stephieboy, but unlikely. There are a host of reasons why that shouldn’t be the case, possibly foremost is the undertaking given by the previous Minister – after that is the BORA, analysis of the arguments including an Judicial interpretation of what an exercise of the ‘Royal Prerogative’ is, both here and in Britain as well – where it originated. Potentially, there are questions about ‘double jeopardy’ that is asking a petitioner to travel the same ‘journey’ by which he was favoured in a previous outcome and the list goes on. It’s really of more interest now because the evidence of DB’s guilt and innocence has been judged although I’m confident there is more to come on that as well. It cannot be overlooked that Fisher forwarded the view that Binnie may well have found in DB’s favour if he had followed the ‘logic’ that Fisher considered ought to have been applied – another difficult barrier to the Minister departing the normal ‘executive’ role.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Heh Nos..

    Well said.

    Did Collins and her surrogates just wince?

    F

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Not a desirable bag of snakes to be holding flipper and they’re welcome to try and defend them, treacherous and dangerous they will prove to be – particularly when their patron attempts to disown them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, more ponderous and pontificating nonsense.The issues are pretty simple to me namely the decision to pay compensation is Cabinet’s alone and is a discretionary one. The Royal prerogative of mercy has little to do with it and whether Fisher or Binnie said this or that is not that relevant either.
    The final say so is with the Executive in Cabinet and which the courts have no jurisdiction.If the Executive and cabinet exceed their mandate then it comes back to the electorate.Thus it’s ultimately a political decision at the end of the day..

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

    Chris Brit’s comments regarding the four strands of the Police review: crewemurders.com

    1/ The Thomas rifle. Upon the return of this firearm and placement into the hands of Vivien Thomas on 8 September 1970 (after the first seizure as one of 64 rifles collected during August) its bearer, Detective Sergeant Mike Charles, advised that this firearm was of no relevance to the Crewe murders. Charles had every reason to such a categorical assertion. The Thomas rifle had been tested by the DSIR’s forensic scientist, Dr Donald Nelson, whose notes of that examination clearly state ‘no match seen’. In essence, bullets test fired from that .22 Browning did not match the No.8 bullets recovered from the heads of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. The Thomas rifle produces what is often described as ‘trough’ scoring. It did in 1970 and it does to this day. No such scoring exists on the murder bullets. Criminal acts were committed by the Police in suppressing knowledge of Dr Nelson’s test examination notes until this document finally came to light during the 1980 Thomas Royal Commission. This was material evidence which Crewe inquiry head, the now disgraced Detective Inspector Bruce Hutton, failed to disclose to Defence lawyers at either of the two Supreme Court trials of Arthur Thomas and it is contended that he did so deliberately. [Despite what Police now claim, this was criminal act on his part as any evidence that shows someone is innocent of a crime is material evidence].

    2/ The axle produced at the Depositions and two Thomas trials – said to have been attached to the body of Harvey Crewe but actually found on the riverbed below his remains – has distinctive welding which was not on the trailer purchased by Allan Thomas senior in 1959 and renovated by Meremere engineer Rod Rasmussen in 1965. This is refutable. Evidence to that fact was given at the Royal Commission by the two previous owners of that trailer and by Thomas senior. The ‘Harvey Crewe’ axle thus has no connection with the Thomases. It has been conclusively demonstrated that it did not come from the renovated Thomas trailer and its origin is unknown to this day.

    3/ The stub axles ‘discovered’ by Detective Len Johnston at one of three Thomas farm tips with such ease and within minutes of him commencing a search of that precise physical location on 20 October 1970 – were undoubtedly placed there by him five days earlier. The recent evidence provided by Rod Rasmussen – who has declared publicly that Johnston showed him the stubs on the second visit from that officer (several days after 12 October 1970) proves this very point. Johnston presented to Rasmuseen two stub axles five days before he ‘found’ them at the Thomas farm. Johnston’s own evidence at the subsequent Court proceedings against Arthur Thomas confirms having been to see Rasmussen, he then went to the Thomas farm, alone – on 15 October.

    4/ Scientific analysis of the steel fencing wire from the body of Harvey Crewe, carried out by scientist Ian Devereux and presented to the 1980 Thomas Royal Commission demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was no similarity to wire samples taken from the Thomas farm.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    I wish you jokers would [deleted by DPF]

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Still, even though you are obviously practising to be a forensic scientist Judith I won’t hold that against you if you pop down to see me! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa Johnboy, what a laugh! Have been watching this whole thing deteriorate and off track, thats the best laugh Ive had this year! Thanks!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    One must always keep in sight the fact that [deleted by DPF]

    [DPF: 20 demerits. You know the rules]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Yes, totally off track here, I often wonder if ‘Nosti’ is desperately trying to retry his own cases? Wouldnt that be a sight to behold?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    More snake oil from Stupidboy, why is it so hard to stick to the facts? No the ongoing lies and CS spin that he has always believed gives him a much better fantasy story to believe

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Is this a thread about the Crewe murders, or have the Bainiacs taken over?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    the Executive in Cabinet and which the courts have no jurisdiction.If the Executive and cabinet exceed their mandate then I….

    ***

    Well, so says the silly little S boy….

    Pray tell us, S…. When was the cabinet elevated above the Courts?.

    That may be your wish, but you ought to understand that everything the Cabinet does must be within the law, and may be subject to JR … no iffs .. no buts.

    But all this is far from the Police / Crewe malfeasance, so let us revert….

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

    Another excellent comment made by Chris Brit, that needs repeating here: –

    “The New Zealand Police have blatantly attempted, via the Crewe review report, to settle the score. Having failed to get their men off the hook at the 1980 Thomas Royal Commission and subsequently before a full bench of the Court of Appeal two years later, it is clear they have been permitted to present a report which condemns many – and not just the Thomas. There is no limit to use of the tactic of denigration and defamation within a report that would have taken on an entirely new persona had the likes of the New South Wales Judge Robert Taylor, Peter Ryan, Bruce Hutton, Len Johnson and other key players been alive to respond, as surely they would have done.
    As one prominent talkback radio host observed this last week, it’s time for the New Zealand Police to take ownership of this issue, to openly and honestly and categorically ‘fess up, and to provide the confidence that the cultural change so many have been seeking for so long is actually going to occur. This report demonstrates that despite a multitude of platitudes and assurances from those at the top of the New Zealand Police that things have radically changed in this organisation, nothing further from the truth could be imagined.

    Crewemurders. Com observes – as it has done consistently since it was launched two years ago – that no Police force in the Western world has ever changed of its own free will. Those that have made the necessary quantum leap in culture change have done so because they have been forced to do so. One needs to look no further than the Police forces of Queensland and New South Wales to confirm that as a reality.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Judith hasn’t responded re her gymnastic abilities….I shall just let my mind wander! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    The facts are flipper Parliament ( including the executive and cabinet ) is the supreme law of the land making and unmaking laws tempered by important considerations such as the real court of public opinion and constitutional conventions.
    Any compensation claim is subject to those singular facts.A tribunal convened may indeed find in Bain’s favour but at the end off the day it’s Cabinet that has the final say and discretion if a claim is to be paid.
    Meanwhile I’m satisfied, for the time being, that Bain goes empty handed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. goldnkiwi (1,513 comments) says:

    Seems to me that that Karam article in the Herald was a political advertisement for Labour lol.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy is about as convincing in that “daddy is innocent” myth he keeps posting as the police view is that Thomas is still the most likely killer and that Demler is “in no way involved”, also comparable with the misinformation spread about the Crewe case by Bryan Bruce in his investigator documentary or Ian Wishart in his recent book, or conspiracy theory which would be a better description!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    DPF
    A rather dumb suggestion re Ewen McDonald, there is no evidence that he has killed anything other than the farm animals that he is currently incarcerated for

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. goldnkiwi (1,513 comments) says:

    Johnboy (15,112 comments) says:

    August 3rd, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    That you know of….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    goldenkiw, I wonder if the Herald will get Pat Booth’s feedback on David Bain’s chances for compo considering that he felt his claim lacked the vital planted evidence factor.?
    I think Karam is trying the only option left to him and that is politicize his clients claim.
    Wowan , as DPF astutely observed earlier there must be killer out there with so many innocent like
    LundY, Watson and now Mc Donald

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    Do you really believe that Ewen McD is guilty? Or Scott Watson? There is just no case against either of them, try reading Mike Whites book on the Scott Guy case to see how utterly implausible and unlikely it is that he killed them. Yes I know there is no other suspects and I don’t expect anyone else to ever be charged with the killing but this doesn’t make Ewen the killer, as to Watson there is just no evidence at all and many demonstrated flaws in the crown case. Lundy is interesting no idea if he did it or not, maybe he did but certainly not on the wacky scenario put up by the crown, yes there must be a killer but maybe there was someone out there that had a serious grevience against him or was sent around to teach him a lesson, possible but unlikely that we will ever know the full truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘The facts are flipper Parliament ( including the executive and cabinet ) is the supreme law of the land’

    No wonder the sisters have sanitary problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Sorry nostalgia and wowan but the concept of Parliament as the supreme law making body under our constitution is discussed here,

    http://nzlegalsystemclasswiki.wikispaces.com/Parliamentary+Supremacy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    PS nostalgia , your churlish and infantile remarks not withstanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Unity (609 comments) says:

    Rowan, I ‘know’ that Scott Watson didn’t do it because I followed the case from when they produced the identikit picture of the scruffy longish haired man in the water taxi who was with Ben and Olivia. Photos taken of Scott Watson on the night showed very close cropped dark hair – nothing like the identikit picture – quite the opposite in fact. Then the water taxi dropped the scruffy man and Ben and Olivia off onto a large ketch (2 masts) with portholes and much ropework along the side. Watson had a tiny little one masted sloop with no portholes or rope work. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know they had the wrong man and the wrong boat before they even started so how he got convicted shows just how fallible our adversarial justice (injustice?) system is. We should be more interested in ‘did he do it?’, and not resort to the trickery that has been very evident in this case.

    As for Ewen McDonald, there is one very crazy envious man there and with the other inexplicable things he did to Scott Guy and other neighbours, I feel he would be the most likely one to have done the deed.

    I always believed Mark Lundy was guilty until the Privy Council listed down the reasons it would have been impossible for him to have done it. Once again, the Police got a mind set and set out to prove his guilt but I now accept the Privy Council’s findings.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Unity
    read “who killed Scott Guy” by Mike White, the police case against Ewen is laughable. He is supposed to have biked the distance between his house and the crime scene, hidden by the gate and killed Scott shortly after 6.40 a.m (witnesses heard shots around 7) and been back at his place having cleaned up and disposed of everything and been in his milking gear outside the milking shed just afterward 7 which is recorded as when the milking shed was unlocked by him. He had to bike past his worker who was waiting for him carrying the gun and not been seen, broken down the gun and put it back in its hiding place where it was found. He has about 10-15 min tops to do everything he is accused of and not This basically requires him to be in two places at once which is ridiculous. If he is the “most likely” person to have done it you still have to put him outside Scott’s gate with the gun and back outside the milking shed just after 7am. Read mikes book for everything the scenario requires but it is utterly ludicrous and I don’t buy it for a minute!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    Answer Flips question when was it that cabinet elevated itself above the courts?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan, from my link above,


    The supremacy of Parliament over the Sovereign was established in England by the Bill of Rights 1688. This remains part of New Zealand’s law today.

    The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarised in three points:

    Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
    No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
    A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

    Parliament is the supreme legislative power. It has two constituent parts:
    the Sovereign (represented in New Zealand by the Governor-General)
    the House of Representatives

    It follows that nobody including a Court of Law can question Parliament’s laws. Although the rule speaks of ‘no-one’, the key issue is whether the Court can challenge Parliament. Under the traditional model of Parliamentary Sovereignty the answer is ‘no’.

    The concept of parliamentary sovereignty in New Zealand is derived from that in the United Kingdom but differs in that New Zealand has no devolved institutions and supra-national obligations. New Zealand’s unitary and insular status avoids any comparable limitations on legislative power:
    The constitutional position in New Zealand… is clear and unambiguous. Parliament is supreme and the function of the courts is to interpret the law as laid down by Parliament. The courts do not have a power to consider the validity of properly enacted laws.”

    Do note the last paragraph and nor do the courts, I would think , have the power to abrogate the Cabinet guidelines to compensation and its discretionary nature
    .

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

    “The facts are flipper Parliament ( including the executive and cabinet ) is the supreme law of the land”

    lex terre:
    The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    common law
    1. As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained amongst most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. (Black’s 2nd)

    “Parliament can make laws concerning anything.”

    Hold onto your hat, boys and girls, the law of gravity could be up for ammendment.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Unity (609 comments) says:

    Thanks for that, Rowan. It certainly sounds as though it is a ridiculous thought when you put it like that. I haven’t come across all that information and just based my thoughts on the other ‘crimes’ he did. The crimes he did do were certainly strange things to do to Scott (his wife’s brother!) and Kylie and his neighbours and suggest he has a bad character flaw. I will try and get a copy of the book through the library.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Unity (609 comments) says:

    I’ve just googled the book, Rowan, and learned that Kylie Guy’s sister totally rubbished the book, so I don’t know what to think now. Apparently the family wasn’t interviewed, so Mike White must have got his information from others and possibly the Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Unity
    I would recommend that, Kylee Guy believes EM to be guilty so disagrees with the conclusion hence the book is “rubbish” in her opinion. At the time of his trial I thought that Ewen was guilty but since then I have read some of the North and South articles on the case also by Mike White, Mikes book and also another book written by Scott’s parents, the latter dealt more with their experiences as a family since the tragedy rather than EM’s trial or the evidence against him. Now I think it is about as ridiculous as the police scenario of Thomas shooting the Crewes through the open windows or the ridiculous dual rapist scenario that they are trying to argue for Pora and Rewa to have jointly been involved in Susan Burdett’s murder, I think that Malcolm Burgess should argue the crowns case at the PC later this year, with his idiotic statements like “2 juries have convicted him therefore the possibility that he might be innocent is illegal….” his interview with Paula Penfold is amusing there were a lot of own goals similarly with John Campbell on the Bain fingerprint tests.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Unity (609 comments) says:

    You could be right, Rowan. I will try and get a copy of the book and read it for myself. It was actually Kylee Guy’s sister who rubbished the book. I have to say though that I don’t always agree with North and South’s articles and conclusions but I try to keep an open mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. William of Ockham (39 comments) says:

    The whole point of a jury is to bring a human element into the trial, and not depend just on the letter of the law. Had the jury known what a rotten sod he was, Macdonald would have been convicted, perhaps unsafely allowing appeals, but most likely rightly.

    The problem with juries is, no matter how clear the evidence, they can be manipulated. We have seen this with Bain – guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt on the totality of the forensic evidence.

    With AA Thomas, there was no strong evidence he was involved, that is why the .22 shell case was so important. Proving it was fraudulent does not prove he is innocent, which is why the police are still reluctant to say they got it wrong. Perhaps they didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The whole point of a jury is to bring a human element into the trial, and not depend just on the letter of the law.

    It’s not about humans. The role of the jury is to find matters of fact, in contrast with the judge’s involvement only in matters of law.
    As far as the trial is concerned, all that matters is if he was in fact guilty of the alleged crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    “Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt…..”
    Another “Daddy didn’t do it” d…head, give it up fool, no convincing evidence at all, not one single item that stands up to the bop test, the “mountain of evidence” is a joke and exists only in your head, when evaluated objectively none of the crown case positively implicates David at all and can be explained either way. However the crown have no explaination of the forensic and pathology evidence in Daddy’s death scene so don’t try to, maybe ‘William of ookham’ can but I won’t be holding my breath

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Judith
    Where did you find Chris Birts comments on the review? There is nothing new on his website which I have checked a couple of times

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @rowan

    He emailed them. I think you can get his email address through his site and get his updated comments. He makes some good points and is working on more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. William of Ockham (39 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,818 comments) says: August 4th, 2014 at 8:57 pm
    “Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt…..” Another “Daddy didn’t do it”

    I said Bain was guilty (of killing the family). I never said which one. Interesting you jump to defend David…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    How can the police justify not accepting 3 opinions (from their own side) that Rochelle was fed. A fair ‘new’ enquiry would have seen them pursue those opinions, including interviewing Norma Demler as to the Roddick sighting, and the statements that she moved to Pukekawa early than she claimed. That may have given this inquiry some weight, rather than screeds on matching up wire.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Oliver Twist (110 comments) says:

    UglyTruth says: August 4th, 2014 at 8:15 pm. It’s not about humans… the jury is to find matters of fact, in contrast with the judge’s matters of law… all that matters is if he was in fact guilty of the alleged crimes.

    So we chose top experts to decide matters of law yet chose random nobodies – with no demonstrated knowledge or ability to reason – to decide matters of fact. When all that matters is getting to the truth… How does that work?

    Well we know how it worked for David Bain. A dodgy jury let him off despite a plethora of evidence it wasn’t Robin Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    I think the term “evidence” has been incorrectly applied here, ‘evidence’ is simply information of which there is far to much of, the better word to use would be proof, the police in their report have decided to disregard any evidence pointing to Demler because it would make them look like a bunch of idiots. There is plenty that they could have used and plenty of reasons why Demler is the most likely killer, it just doesn’t meet the required standard of proof although it would be interesting if an impartial report was assessing on a bop standard who the most likely killer was what it’s conclusions would be.

    Similarly the nutters here who continue to defend killer Robin like to throw around the term “evidence” but in reality they are about as convincing as the police continued stance that Thomas is still the most likely killer and Demler and his girlfriend were “in no way involved”, the standard of proof they continually adopt is very very low and in reality none of their “evidence” constitutes proof of anything!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Ok William of ookham
    Robin committed suicide beyond any “shadow of a doubt” this makes him the Every St murderer.
    QED

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

    Rowan, I don’t know if you’re about, but I’m sure you will be interested. 3 Degrees is looking at the Crewe murders tonight 6/8/14

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Longknives (4,858 comments) says:

    Creepy!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan,

    “beyond any shadow of doubt… “???

    This will explain of course why his son’s beggar bowl still remains empty with his compo hand out .?

    Trust 3rd degree will do a better job than the hash they made of Robin Bain” marks “allegations

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    Yes I know that the compensation saga is still ongoing, cabinet does not want to accept the truth of the matter so are shopping around for a more favourable report that gives them the conclusion they want.
    Just because cabinet refuses to accept the truth of the matter does not make it false, just as not paying compensation does not make David guilty as your shallow mind seems to somehow believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan,

    This issue is a simple one.Bain does not meet the cabinet guidelines. it has nothing to do with his or his sponsor’s version of the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    I think Des Thomas is barking up the wrong tree trying to suggest that the Eyre rifle could be the murder weapon, yes there are some inconsistencies in what was initially recorded back in 1970 but even if the rifle did have 6 lands and grooves that does not make it the murder weapon. There were other guns in the area not tested including the Chennels combination firearm inherited by Demler. There is no proof that the Eyre rifle was involved or that the crimes were committed by a member of the family, the same cannot be said about Demler despite the repeated police denials to the contrary.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Yes it is a simple issue stephieboy. The decision must be consistent with the facts, the essence of a prerogative power, due process, the law, fairness and TBORA – just to begin. You mistakenly said that Parliament is the ‘supreme law’ recently, add that to your claim that appeals precede the hearings and it’s plain that simplicity is indeed a gigantic hurdle for you – but don’t give up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    As you well know that David needs to show on the bop standard that he didn’t commit the crimes. To refresh your memory Simon Power back in 2010 commissioned Binnie to decide the question of whether or not he did it, it was supposed to be a simple and transparent process to satisfy both parties. However the arrogant tax lawyer having disagreed with the conclusions has assumed the roles of judge, jury and executioner and is shopping around for a more favourable opinion that will suppress the truth, that is the banana republic that is justice in NZ, what a joke!
    Also what is a joke is f…tards like you who think you know better than the courts and are trying to run a third trial via the media. That didn’t work out so well for your mate Kent now did it!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, Bain does not meet the cabinet guidelines . There is no extraordinary circumstances like planted evidence. as with AAT .
    I stand by the fact that Parliament is the Sovereign law under our constitution.

    The only remedy that will avail Bain is a possible political one i.e. remove the present government and get a cabinet more favorably disposed even despite the evidence to the contrary.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    You may now have had 3 goes at it, but this is still what you said…

    ‘The facts are flipper Parliament ( including the executive and cabinet ) is the supreme law of the land’

    Cabinet guidelines are not above the Law. Don’t worry, you’ll never get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    Plenty of ‘extraordinary circumstances, it is all detailed in the Binnie report, however it needs to be read objectively which I don’t believe you are capable of as you already had made up your mind long before reading it, so unsurprisingly it was “flawed” right from the moment you started. It also requires comprehension and a brain something which you again are lacking.

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

    There are exceptional circumstances which are prescribed in the guidelines and that is in reference to serious incompetence by the authorities. I think regardless of whatever side you are on, the fact remains that the police conducted one of the most shoddy investigations in their history. A competent investigation would have left no room for doubt and therefore the criteria is met and was confirmed by binnie. To dispute that they will have to prove the inquiry was text book and we all know that can never be done. The cabinet cannot just pretend binnie’s report does not exist without providing an alternative and so far they haven’t done that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Judith, Cabinet would be fully appraised of Binnie’s report and the reasons for its rejection. This includes , amongst many things,the failure of Binnie to act judicially meaning a willingness to interview and hear all those witness who gave a view contrary to Bain’s . Binnie also displayed predetermination and bias in favour of Bain. Also failing to apply the balance of probabilities test to Bain’s testimony. Remember the onus was and still is on Bain to prove his innocence under the guidelines . Not reasonable doubt in his favour as in the 1995 and 2009 trials.
    Binnie not only failed to apply the proper evidential standard under the guidelines. He also never really understood his mandate possibly due to his commercial law background and also as a political appointee to the Canadian Supreme Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Way to go stephie. Just say, if we wanted to be funny about it, not uptight or anything – and all the silly things you said were true – then why did the Government give the job to somebody, a mere international Jurist, when they knew he had a commercial law (and criminal law) background and was a political appointee to the Canadian Supreme Court (the only way of appointment probably,) the job? Do you put it down to absent mindedness?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Pukekawa farmer, John Eyre’s rifle, like the Thomas rifle, had six lands in 1970, he lived much closer than Arthur Thomas to the Crewes but was never fingerprinted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Nostalgia , it was I understand the insistence by the Bain Defence team that an overseas judge be appointed.for the review. Simon Powers appointment of a Canadian supreme court seemed reasonable and sensible at the time.No arguments there but it’s the poor quality of his report that shows a feeble grasp of NZ Criminal, evidential and procedural law . That in hindsight tells us the need to get say an Aussie judge with similar and parallel jurisdictions and thence more familiar and well informed.

    Also Judith Collins the Tax lawyer, Iain Binnie the Commercial Lawyer and Michael Reed the Admiistrative lawyer.
    Go and figure !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Unity (609 comments) says:

    The Government had better start saving up because Thomas, Bain and one or two others aren’t the only corrupt prosecutions. They will have to pay Scott Watson a massive amount when the truth finally comes out. I also believe Peter Ellis was innocent and if these are anything to go by, there will be others.

    It’s very obvious that all too often the Police get a mindset very early in the piece, and then either can’t or won’t take into account anything that doesn’t fit this mindset. It’s happened all too often for this not to be the case. On the other hand I also firmly believe there people walking around out there who were guilty but weren’t found to be so.

    This then leads to the fact that our justice system is inadequate and fallible. It is an adversarial system and prosecutions are obtained or not, depending on how clever the defence is all too often or technicalities. We should have the inquisatorial system which is firm on ‘did the person do it?’. I know it doesn’t fit with our Westminster style of things but we need to change it to avoid all these miscarriages of justice. I call it an injustice system because too often it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    All just words Stupidboy, Binnie understood all of this, it is you who are making all these ridiculous allegations because you disagree with him, this doesn’t make Binnie wrong it just makes you stupid. Get that through your thick skull!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan sunshine, Binnie did get a great many things wrong ands not just the that the 10 shot magazine was empty , Robin’ had only a Radio clock, the police were responsible for burning down 65 Every St , Dr Brindid stated that David had no predisposition to murder etc, etc . He also failed to check out David Bain’s statements against what other witnesses said amongst many other things. Binne for example failed to check Bains claim about the scratch marks by failing to interview Thomas Samuel’s and the witness Bain was with on the Wednesday evening before his arrest .
    This what happens when you apply the incorrect standard of proof requited under the cabinet guidelines. .
    Yes Binnie actually got many, many things wrong . Now get that trough your thick skull.. !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Blah blah blah Stupidboy
    What a list of really important significant factors really that the best you can do! The number of bullets in the magazine is completely immaterial similarly the ‘scratches’ that the prison officer suddenly remembered after 15 years. You are incorrect in a number of your assertions, the burning down of the house could not have occurred as early as it did had it not been released it to the family.
    It is you Stupidboy who have got these things wrong because the answers that you think you ‘know’ are incorrect and you cannot objectively look at the report without ‘knowing’ the conclusion first.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan, I invite you yet gain to revisit the Police Report in response to Biinnie’s. Are you suggesting the Police were lying in respect of releasing 65 Every St to the executors of the family estate for their disposal as they saw fit. ( para graph 57 ) .?
    Some conspiracy there maybe.?

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/forum/full-text-of-errors-and-concerns-found-by-police-in-binnies-report

    Anyone reading it fairly and objectively can see why Binnie was incapable of handling the evidence in accordance with principles of natural justice i.e.the ability hear the other side and not only Bain’s accounts.
    Thomas Samuel’s and the Witness of the wedsnday evening at least deserved some kind of hearing but I think , as well now know, Binnie had other ideas that were largely predetermined ,IMO

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    You seem to place a great deal of faith in internal police reports but they are not worth the time of day, I’m sure to your miniscule braincells that simply because the police said it this somehow makes an allegation a fact.
    Does the police stating that the Thomas gun is still the most likely murder weapon make it true?
    Does the statement Demler and his girlfriend were ‘in no way involved’ in the Crewe murders similarly make it true?

    Yes we have been over the police response to Binnie but apart from immaterial errors like the number of bullets in the magazine, the ‘errors’ are mostly on behalf of the police where they make factually incorrect statements like it was not a requirement in the detective manual to cut out the skin from around the bullet wound where there is a high likelihood that it is self inflicted.
    The police response to Binnie deserves the same level of respect as the recent police investigation into Crewe Murders or the (Independent) Police Covering Arse Authority published report on the handling of the Malcolm Rewa rape case, i.e. none at all.

    The police are not an independent party here Stupidboy, what do you really think is their true objective in any of these internal reports?? Its called covering their arses not very hard to work out (at least for anyone with more brain cells than you!)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan,.each of the police responses to Binnie are deserving of a response including paragraph 57 . Your hysteria wont take you very far as you continue to bury your conk in the sand. Am not concerned about Thomas’s gun and Demler’s statement as they have no bearing on the issues at hand and the Detective’s manual and what it says or doesn’t , not withstanding.
    The police response to Binnie has no bearing to that recent inquiry to the Crewe murders . Objective or not I again invite you to respond to the points and concerns they raised about Binnie’s report.
    Again lets maybe begin at paragraph 57.
    What evidence do you or Binnie have that they’re lying.???

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    This is actually a thread about the Crewe investigation and it is you who keep trying to make it about Bain. You are pretty shallow minded if you put faith in any police internal investigation or review of complaints against them. (But we already knew that don’t we)
    You are avoiding the issues here and shifting the goalposts, I may consider going through the list tomorrow, but again what was the objective of the police in this response, or in the Crewe investigation or the 1997 Bain PCA etc etc. Do you see a pattern at all? Not very hard to work out (even for you)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Unsurprisingly the police responses are very predictable, I have only skimmed over the points briefly but it does certainly follow the usual pattern deny, deny, deny as they have again done in the Crewe investigation, neither report can substantiate its allegations but that’s hardly surprising now is it!

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

    ” I’m sure to your miniscule braincells that simply because the police said it this somehow makes an allegation a fact.”

    If a policeman says one thing the opposite is probably the truth. That’s my experience anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan , it was you who introduced Bain and Binnie into the debate.

    Here,

    Rowan (1,833 comments) says:
    August 1st, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    The police objective to the response.? Simply Binnie made numerous egregious errors and assumptions of fact.

    Shifting what goalposts. and what patterns ???

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    The substance of what I posted back then was about the police review of the Crewe case, In one sentence at the end there was a passing reference to the Binnie and Kristy McDonald reports, that was it, it certainly wasn’t the substance of the post. It is you who keep trying to change it to a Bain thread. You are starting to sound like a broken record much like that imbecilic twit “muggins” who thankfully hasn’t been posting on KB of late!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    You really are a simpleton aren’t you, the police objective in their response is called covering their arses, this is the same as in their earlier PCA investigation and also in the recent published Crewe murder review, I suppose you to believe that the Bain investigation was copybook just like the PCA investigation found!
    Regarding paragraph 57 in the police response, the family would not have been in a position to burn down the house had it not been prematurely given back to them by the textbook cops so that is another error of judgement on behalf of the police.

    Your predictable response to this will no doubt be to deny and defend the police actions but this doesn’t actually change anything.
    The police gave back the house to Michael Bain and the family without removing important items that could have helped solved the crime. That decision was premature and as a result evidence such as Robins footprints in the murder scene went up in smoke, no amount of your denials will change any of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan,

    What incriminating evidence did the police leave behind when they returned the house to the executors of the Bain estate.? I understand that the portion of carpet with t David Bain’s foot prints that he had admitted to have been walking had been uplifted. It was ,I believe, only disposed of after Bain’s failed Court of Appeal attempt.

    PS and BTW,

    Paragraph 265 – footnote 142 asserts that the failure by the Pathologist and Police to cut out the skin around Robin Baln’s head wound was “in violation of the Detective Manual … D This assertion is based on a question from Mr Reed QC in cross examination, which was not supported by the witness testimony In response. Mr Reed QC and the Hon Mr Binnie are factually incorrect. The Detective Manual did not in 1994, and does not now, contain that direction

    and,

    Para 41

    Footprints in blood – foot lengths found in favour or David Bain
    .
    Binnie has determined this evidence in a particular way that is favourable to David Bain, ignoring the fact that Bain said at his trial that he walked through the area where the footprinls were found with bloodied socks. The defence at his first trial conceded this evidence

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    “I understand”
    You are again incorrect Stupidboy and don’t understand any aspect of the case surprise surprise, the carpet containing the bloody footprints was never uplifted at any stage and went up in smoke with the house. Yes it was conceded for some stupid reason known only by the corrupt fraud representing him that the footprints were David’s this was idiotic and based on Hentschells measurement of the socks which was considered a more reliable indicator of the foot length than their shoes, This was not even questioned by Guest!
    Re paragraph 265 the police are wrong and the manual did contain this directive but this has been pointed out to you how many times Stupidboy, The entire response is worthy of the same consideration and respect as the police investigation into the Crewe homicides ie none at all and it would make good toilet paper!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Woman , I used the term ” I understand ” obviously reservedly and not equivocally ,and may I add, not dogmatically and arrogantly as you deal with the Bain evidence as well as the Binnie report.
    You’ve simply reduced the the decision to Burn the house down to a police Conspiracy possibly in collusion of the executors of f the estate,
    .Right.?

    Your fortunate that Guest is not as litigious as Bain’s principal advocate.But am sure Guest is not losing sleep over your inflammatory remarks.Guest was always frank and up front about his shortcomings and it was not his fault that he effectively put the skids under Bain’s compo claim.The facts remain that Bain lied before the court about those incriminating broken glasses found in his room and that he had worn on the weekend.There at least are four witnesses that can vouch for that very fact.

    I can only go by what the police stated in para 265 and you parroting a denial in response does not change that fact. At least
    you appear to accept para 41 where Bain did to admit walking in the exact same area where the bloody footprints were found.
    And we can agree with Peter Hentscell who was the only one who examined the footprints , the largest being 280mm .Since he measured only the brightest of luminance it was not a complete toe and heel measurement it would of fitted David’s 300 mm quite perfectly.

    Are we to believe Team David that Robin after walking through the house without his shoes decided to put them back on when he decided to kill himself.?

    As we can see the Crewe murders are very,very different..Certainly there are none of the controversies surrounding the Bain murders and as I sated before , as Pat Booth. Observed, it lacks a “planted bullet ” evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Drr Stupidboy
    Hentschells evidence before he tried to fudge it was that the footprints were ‘complete’ so therefore they are to small to have been made by David, unless Hentschell was borrowing Ngamokis ruler to measure them and under measured them then they were made by Robin and no amount of bullshit from you will change this.
    I never suggested that it was a police conspiracy to burn down the house only that it was done prematurely and the carpet should have been removed first, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your spin.
    More smoke and mirrors from you with no substantiating facts surprise surprise!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    woman , when did Hentschell try to falsify/ fudge the evidence.??I He made it quote clear that the 280mm was not a complete foot measurement but only represented the brightest area of luminescence.
    You concede Police paragraph 41 that David Bain admitted to waking in the area where the bloodied footprints were found.?
    The explanation why if it was Robin he decided to put his shoes back on when he suicided.?
    Please do spare us the “dressing up going to meet his maker” canard from the retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Own goal Stupidboy, This is what Hentschel actually said about the footprints, again you are down right lying when you say that they are ‘incomplete’

    234. Two of the six prints were described by Mr Hentschel as “complete”. He measured one of these to be 280 millimetres. Mr Hentschel’s 1995 trial evidence was quoted in the judgment of the Privy Council at paragraph 53:
    In his evidence given at trial Mr Hentschel said of that:
    “I said I measured at 280 millimetres. That print encompassed both the heel and the toes, that was a complete print from heel to toe.”
    This evidence he repeated:
    “The other prints that I detected with Luminol showed the toes as well, taken from the top of the toes to the heel.”
    Giving oral evidence to the second Court of Appeal, Mr Hentschel testified to the same effect. (emphasis added)

    239. Mr Hentschel agreed in cross-examination that in the 15 years between the June 1994 investigation and the 2009 retrial he had never before suggested that a 280mm footprint could be made by a foot larger than 280mm. “That is the first time you’ve ventured that opinion in this case in any courtroom or affidavit?” “Yes”. Mr Hentschel offered no scientific basis for his “larger rather than smaller” view apart from some last minute experiments he did with footprints in ink which he agreed were not of a “scientific quality” and were not at “a level you would expect for trying to determine blood soaked on stockinged feet walking on carpet”. What Mr Hentschel seemed to be saying is that because he believes David Bain to be guilty and David Bain’s foot is larger than 280mm it must therefore follow that the 280mm prints must have been no more than partial prints despite his consistent testimony for 15 years that they were complete prints.
    241. Mr Hentschel also pointed out that “because of the natural curve of the heel and toes, there will be parts of the foot that form part of the measurement of the foot but which do not contact the surface of the ground when standing.” No doubt this is true. It is also agreed that a person when walking leaves a larger print because of the flattening effect caused by the downward pressure on a moving foot. In order to make his murderous rounds the killer must have been moving around, not standing still. As it happens, however, “the natural curve of the heel and toes” and the difference between a print made by an individual when walking or standing, were tested by ESR scientist Kevin Walsh in 1997 (for the Joint Police/Police Complaints Authority review) and in 2008 (for the 2009 retrial). So we do have some empirical ESR data on these points, but it does not originate with Mr Hentschel.
    The Crown Law Office Submission urges acceptance of Mr Hentschel’s revised testimony (even if, by his account, not a revised view) on the basis that when Mr Hentschel used the word “complete” he simply intended to distinguish the two prints he described as being “from the top of toes to the heel” from the other four prints he described as “partial”. I accept that Mr Hentschel juxtaposed “complete” from “partial”, but it is clear Mr Hentschel also used “complete” in the functional sense that the print enabled him to inculpate David and exculpate Robin. The Bain submission simply takes the methodology that helped convict David Bain and, harnessing the subsequent test results of ESR scientist Mr Walsh, now uses it to David Bain’s advantage.
    There was clothing of Robins in the washing basket subsequently washed by David. This included a pair of his socks.
    Not going there in terms of why, this is just emotional bs, You can ask Robin when you get to hell!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    This poster has the measure of Binnie who again displays his predetermination and bias in favor of Bain in all things including the foot print evidence

    .Raskolnikov (8) Says:
    December 20th, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    “I think Binnie’s approach to the footprint evidence was flawed. He relies heavily on Mr Walsh’s (an ESR scientist) tests, which were performed with a “completely bloodied” sock. Of the luminol prints left at the scene, only one was “complete” (showing both heel and toe areas) and none were visible to the naked eye, so it is unlikely the sock was “completely bloodied” as in the experiment, or else there would be visible and partly-visible prints. Importantly, Hentschel (the man who saw and measured the print on site) testified that he only measured the area of brightest luminescence, and that there was no way of knowing exactly how much bigger the foot was than the print, but that it was at least 280mm long.

    Furthermore, from his tests Walsh concluded that a foot 270mm long would leave an average print of 282mm but a foot 298mm long would leave an average print of 297mm. This should have rung alarm bells for Binnie about the complete inconsistency of this test. Why should one size foot leave luminol prints on average 12mm longer than the foot and another size foot leave luminol prints 1mm shorter? Was the same amount of blood applied? Was Walsh measuring the complete luminesence or only the brightest luminescence as Henstchel was at the scene? As Walsh testified at the retrial, measuring luminol prints is not easy, and the prints at the scene could have been made by David (testimony Binnie does not seem to have relied on, even though he relies on Walsh’s evidence elsewhere). Later the judge in that trial would point out that these tests did not mimic the way the blood came to be on the socks that morning, which was by transference from blood (possibly smeared) already on carpet – not by stepping in a tray of animal blood. Binnie acknowledges this point, but says it is covered because they took an average length over a serious of prints as the prints faded. I don’t think that covers it, because you’re still starting with a more completely bloody foot than would have been the case, so more luminescence.

    So taking a wildly inconsistent test, Binnie makes the further and equally wild assumption that the print measured at the scene was in fact an “average” print. Walsh had measured a series of prints (some as small as 286mm with a completely bloodied sock on a 298mm foot) and taken the average length. Binnie then accepts this average as the pivotal piece of evidence exonerating David. This seems a giant leap of faith. In fact, later in his report, in dismissing Mr Kleintjes’ approximate computer-switch-on time deduction (by taking the mean point of a series of plus or minuses), he sneers at the prosecution’s use of the phrase “median logic”, saying splitting the difference “may be acceptable for lawyers haggling over settlement of a personal injury claim”, when in fact he readily accepts a very similar type of evidence on the luminol prints. So Walsh taking an average luminol print length in place of a foot with an unknown quantity of blood on it is definitive – and should be relied upon as proving innocence on the balance of probabilities – but Kleintjes suggesting a median of two extremes is “pretty odd”. There is a lack of consistency in these two positions that I find “pretty odd”.

    In conclusion, Binnie’s finding that Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities is based on an inconsistent test and the leap of faith that the print found at the scene is in fact an “average” print, when there is much uncertainty over how such prints are measured and how much blood was on the sock. I would still suggest it is more likely to have been made by a larger foot with less blood on it (because there are no visible prints), but it is, at the very least, inconclusive.”

    Inconclusive indeed and the need also to emphasize in the retrial Mr Justice Pankhurst highly critical of both the Prosecution and Defences experiments which failed to replicate the conditions on the Monday morning at 65 Every St.How much blood there was actually on the carpet is anyones guess.

    wowan you again typically resorting to abuse. A sure sign of one loosing the argument as you did with me and others with your ” child fiddler ” abuse .

    I wonder whom you learn’t that from.?

    You’ve yet again completely avoid the issue about Robin’s socks. There is absolutely no evidence that Robin got changed out of his socks into a ” fresh ” pair. That a pair of his socks may of been in the wash basket tells us nothing that will assist Bain when and if a fresh claim is lodged . Next time around the onus will be on him to prove otherwise.

    An impossible task . !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    No, evidentially the crown lost every argument and you are just reparroting their spin. Hentschel always claimed that the footprint was complete right up to the time that he realised that it was to small to have been made by David then all of a sudden it became ‘incomplete’ The size of the footprints didn’t actually change. He had the other footprints to compare with and two of them he could see the extremities of the heel and toe therefore they were ‘complete’ He offers no basis for his opinion at the second trial basically he believes David to be guilty so has modified the evidence to fit the theory. In the original trial he provided misleading evidence over David and Robins feet size by comparing the footprints found with an unstretched sock. This was ridiculous but I suppose it allowed him to fudge the footprint evidence in favour of the prosecution when the truth of the matter was otherwise.
    No Stupidboy I have not referred to “child/kiddie fiddling” anywhere in my post, another own goal from you. As to another claim being lodged, you are just speculating while the current one is subject to judical review.
    Unsurprisingly more smoke and mirrors from you here Stupidboy, try to do better next time! but then again all your arguments are just that shallow so I won’t be holding my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan, this is the nub of it,

    “In conclusion, Binnie’s finding that Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities is based on an inconsistent test and the leap of faith that the print found at the scene is in fact an “average” print, when there is much uncertainty over how such prints are measured and how much blood was on the sock. I would still suggest it is more likely to have been made by a larger foot with less blood on it (because there are no visible prints), but it is, at the very least, inconclusive.”

    Binnie made the mistake of using Walsh’s measurement based on his experiments which like the defence’s failed to take account of and mimic the actual amount of blood present on the carpet on the morning of the 20th June 1994.
    That amount of blood actually present is anyones guess as Mr Justice Prankhurst so pertinently reminded the Court at the retrial.A more honest assessment of the footprint evidence is that at best is inconclusive .

    Smoke and Mirrors or not my bets are that Bain is going to make a hard job of it next time around when the onus will be truly on him to show otherwise .
    This includes conclusively proving on the BOP that his father was wearing those socks allegedly found in the wash.

    You did , I believe, refer to me once as “child fiddler” in a pique of one your more typical tantrums .!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, who did kill the Crewes?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Longknives (4,858 comments) says:

    Robin Bain by the look of things Mikey….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    I’m not sure his whereabouts in 1970 have been properly accounted for. How likely is it that he could live for many decades and only commit one mass murder?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    This the best you have! pathetic, Hentschel offered no evidence other than his ‘opinion’ to support his stance in the second trial that the footprint was ‘incomplete’ and had always previously stated (between 1995 and 2009) that it was a complete footprint, he changed his stance when he realised that the footprints were not made by David.
    Your lame attempt at discreding the footprint evidence is laughable, if you want to win the argument you will have to prove that a foot can leave a complete imprint of itself that is actually smaller than the foot itself. Good luck with that!
    I have only ever referred to Robin as a ‘kiddie fiddler’ this is proven by the facts, the only other time I have made reference to it is calling some of Kents witch-sniffing cult “pedo supporters” as in you campaign for a pedo!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan,

    Where did Hentschel ” … changed his stance when he realised that the footprints were not made by David.” precisely .?
    Offered an”opinion” ? He was there at th crime scene . What does Team David have except to argue on specious technicalities and a highly flawed experiment in the retrial.
    I much prefer the reason and logic of Mr Justice Pankurst who saw that both the prosecution and defence’s experiments were highly flawed . Again they did not and could not replicate the “actual ” amount of blood found on the carpet .
    In that respect they were highly speculative and inconclusive .
    But at least we’ve got David admitting he walked in the very same area.
    And of course those socks that Robin was alleged to got out of and changed into his Sunday best “to meet his maker.”
    How thoughtful and considerate of him to tidy up after him and put those alleged bloody clothes and socks in the laundry for his son to wash.

    Sheesh.. !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Drr Stupidboy
    I’ll repost this extract for you, comprehend it Dr Hentschel never suggested at any stage before the 2009 retrial suggested that the prints were anything other than complete. This is what you would like us to somehow believe! And you have the gall to suggest the defence experiments were flawed!!

    234. Two of the six prints were described by Mr Hentschel as “complete”. He measured one of these to be 280 millimetres. Mr Hentschel’s 1995 trial evidence was quoted in the judgment of the Privy Council at paragraph 53:
    In his evidence given at trial Mr Hentschel said of that:
    “I said I measured at 280 millimetres. That print encompassed both the heel and the toes, that was a complete print from heel to toe.”
    This evidence he repeated:
    “The other prints that I detected with Luminol showed the toes as well, taken from the top of the toes to the heel.”
    Giving oral evidence to the second Court of Appeal, Mr Hentschel testified to the same effect. (emphasis added)

    239. Mr Hentschel agreed in cross-examination that in the 15 years between the June 1994 investigation and the 2009 retrial he had never before suggested that a 280mm footprint could be made by a foot larger than 280mm. “That is the first time you’ve ventured that opinion in this case in any courtroom or affidavit?” “Yes”. Mr Hentschel offered no scientific basis for his “larger rather than smaller” view apart from some last minute experiments he did with footprints in ink which he agreed were not of a “scientific quality” and were not at “a level you would expect for trying to determine blood soaked on stockinged feet walking on carpet”. What Mr Hentschel seemed to be saying is that because he believes David Bain to be guilty and David Bain’s foot is larger than 280mm it must therefore follow that the 280mm prints must have been no more than partial prints despite his consistent testimony for 15 years that they were complete prints.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Re that luminol sockprint.
    Justice Binnie was absolutely certain that sockprint was made by Robin Bain. But no-one even knows [ not even Hentschel] which sockprint was the best sockprint. It was either the one in the hall facing towards the door or the one in the hall facing towards Laniets room. That second sockprint could well have been a standing print and guess what? When Kevan Walsh used his foot to measure a standing print the average length was 279mm. His foot was 298mm long. David Bain’s foot was 300mm and that sockprint measured 280mm.
    Those sockprints must have been made by David Bain. Both his socks had blood on the soles of them, one more so than the other. It would have been the bloodiest sock that made that print. Think about it. David Bain would have left some luminol sockprints . If those prints weren’t his then where were his?
    Furthermore, when Hentschel was interviewed by the PCA in 1997 he said he might not have been able to see the extremities of the heel and toes. At the retrial he said he only measured the areas of strongest luminescence, and that there might have been lighter areas beyond that that he did not include.
    The only question would be is whether David Bain trod in his brother’s blood before he went on his paper round or when he came back from his paper round.
    Robin Bain did not change his clothes to meet his maker. Bet on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Robin Bain died with blood smears, cuts and bruises to his hands, his fresh blood on the laundry towel and evidence of a nose bleed. He’d been fighting with someone that morning and damaged his bloodied hands. Bet on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Robin Bain died with his own blood on his hands. The minor abrasions were probably caused when he was repairing the guttering that weekend. At the first trial Dempster said those abrasions were definitely more than three hours old at the time of his death . No-one knows why his blood was on that towel, but David could have used it when he was tidying up the crime scene. Robin Bain’s body had almost certainly been moved subsequent to his death but before the police arrived. Even Karam says his head had been moved. If there was evidence of a nose bleed, something that was never mentioned in court and appears to be a myth perpetrated by a myth perpetrator, then that could be explained by small bones in his head being broken when he was shot, causing blood to run from his nose when his body was moved.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Blood smears wiped. A dead man wipes blood off his hands and bleeds on a towel, moon landing alert!
    Anyway all that is over. The next event is the JR, I wonder if the Court might be prepared to hear new evidence – because there is bucket loads and it’s all against the man who died without underpants on and blood on his hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    From the retrial transcript. Anna Sandiford being cross-examined by the Crown Prosecutor.
    As far as your understanding of Mr Hentschel’s evidence, what did you understand it was from what he said in Court?
    13. Sorry, when – my understanding of what he said was when he described a complete print of the bloodied sock at the scene as from the top of the toe to the back of the heel.
    And when he measured it, can you remember what he said about the measurement when it luminesced?
    14. 280 millimetres, two lots of 280 millimetres.
    Yeah but what was he measuring?
    15. The tip of the toe to the back of the heel.
    But do you remember anything else he said about that?
    16. No.
    Do you have his evidence there?
    17. Um, oh I have one or two pages, I don’t have all of it.
    You don’t have all of his evidence?
    18. No, I don’t think.
    Do you remember he talked about looking for the area of brightest luminescence?
    19. Yes. If you have a page reference I’ll have a look see if I’ve got that –
    I’m just going to see if I can find that for you because I may have got the wrong page reference there. Yes it’s page 1421.
    .
    20. Talking about his measurement, have you got that page there with you?
    21. I do, yes. Whereabouts.
    If I can take you to about line 21, 22.
    22. Yes..
    “I would have used my thumbs this way so that the top of the edge of the nail would be in line with the strongest luminescence and the distance in between would be measured.”
    23. Yes.
    So he was measuring the area of strongest luminescence, wasn’t he?
    24. Yes so he says, yes.
    And then the next answer, where he says, “We measured from the strongest luminescence”, do you see there?
    25. Yes.
    – “We measured from the strongest luminescence limits –
    26. Yes.
    – but there could have been some fainter areas beyond that.”
    27. Yes

    No-one can say with any certainty who made those sock covered footprints. On reviewing his notes in August 2014 Mr Hentschel said he was not sure which of the two 280mm prints was the best print. The print outside Laniet’s door could well have been a standing print. Kevan Walsh’s average standing print for a 298mm foot was 279mm. Anna Sandiford does not appear to have tested the measurement of David Bain’s standing print. However ,the soles of David Bain’s socks did have blood on them one more than the other. The bloodiest sock would have left luminol sockprints. If those sockprints were not his then why did Peter Hentschel not find those luminol prints?
    Answer , of course, is that he did find five of those sockprints.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    When David Bain moved his father’s body he smeared the blood spatter that was on his fathers hands.
    Re the judicial review. Well, Karam has given up on trying to access those documents. He is going for a different approach. If he succeeds he may try for compensation again. But Binnie’s report has been rubbished, so if Bain wants compensation he is going to have to front up again and he sure as hell won’t get away with the same lies he told Binnie.
    What did he say? I didn’t need my mother’s glasses to watch that video. He told his lawyer he was wearing those glasses when he watched that video.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Nostalgia , new evidence by the “bucket loads.” ?

    Some examples please.?

    Time and Time again it has shown that the abrasions on his hand were insignificant including the 20mm bruise . Of course we know the alleged “clayton ” teeth marks were could be “many, many different things”, as the Defence expert witness conceded ,on learning that Robin had been fixing the gutters that weekend.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    stephie,
    We are supposed to believe that Robin Bain, who was right-handed , shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and wearing a beanie , without leaving his fingerprints on the silencer and without leaving his fingerprints on the 10 shot magazine when he supposedly placed it upright on the floor before supposedly shooting himself.
    Beam me up Scotty!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘When David Bain moved his father’s body he smeared the blood spatter that was on his fathers hands.’

    Check out the difference between smears and spatter, then explain how spatter got on the palms or how spatter on the floor wasn’t disturbed and that their was no shielding. You’re better to stick with what Mrs Laney said.

    I wonder how the fresh blood from Robin got on the laundry towel, or the fresh blood on his trousers van in the van. He had blood all over himself and no underpants on.

    Translation for the bewildered:

    ‘Yes.
    – but there could have been some fainter areas beyond that.”
    27. Yes’

    Could have been beyond doesn’t to mean there was any beyond, keep trying.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    As I have already stated that sockprint could have been a standing print and David Bain’s standing print would have measured 280mm. Funny how Walsh checked the size of a standing print and Sandiford didn’t. David Bain had blood on the soles of his socks, more so one than the other so he would have left prints that would have luminisced. Where were those prints?
    No-one knows how old that blood was on the green towel in the laundry but if it was fresh David possibly used that towel to clean up in the lounge.
    What are trousers van?
    Blood all over himself my posterior. Just a few smears on his hand caused when David moved his father’s body. Plus that splash of blood spatter on a fingernail.
    Why would he have underpants on? He had just come into the house to pray. He didn’t need to wear underpants when he was praying. I am sure God wouldn’t mind.
    I am quite happy to stick with what Denise Laney said. She said she thought he was putting a paper in the box because she saw David Bain reaching around the hedge. Fact is she saw him taking a paper out of the box, the paper he had forgotten to take into the house when he arrived home because he had other things on his mind.
    Keep trying.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Wait till the latest book on the Bain saga comes out. It will be a revelation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Yawn
    Now aunt fanny the ‘expert’ turns up. It is no surprise that she again has misrepresented the facts with her own bullshit. But that’s nothing new is it!

    Stupidboy
    If we ignore the defence experiments on the footprints because they are ‘inconclusive’ we are still left with some basic underlying facts in that in Hentshels original evidence the footprints were described as ‘complete’ and that he could see the extremities of the heel and toes. Also the prints were measured at 280mm long. Therefore unless Hentschel was borrowing Ngamokis ruler and under measured the prints then they cannot have been made by a foot larger than 280mm while still being a “complete” print so with a high degree of certainty that the prints were made by Robin and he is the killer. QED

    PS what the corrupt fraudulent ex lawyer had David say in defence is not relevant. The idiot didn’t even question Hentschel on using the sock length as a better indicator of the foot size than the actual feet measurement!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan, borrrring.

    !the answers are brilliantly laid out with posts at 8.50 am and Anna Sandford under cross examination at 9.25am. If anyone can say the evidence is equivocal way way are totally deluded.

    All I know is that Robin died in the pair of socks and clothes he got into when he got up . BTW we can agree with Muggins,

    “Robin Bain did not change his clothes to meet his maker. Bet on it.”

    Socks included .!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    If you has read that post properly you would have noted that no-one knows whether the best print was a walking print or a standing print. David Bain’s standing print would have measured about 280mm had Sandiford bothered to check.
    Justice Binnie hung his hat on that sockprint. He was sure it was made by Robin. He has no idea who it was made by.
    David Bain had blood on the soles of both his socks, more on one than the other. Cropp thought it might have been the sock from Bain’s right foot that had the most blood on it. That was the foot that made the bloody sockprints. David Bain almost certainly made those prints otherwise where were they? They must have been able to be found by luminol testing.
    As for that barrister, don’t forget David Bain’s co-counsel was there at the time and she heard Bain say that he was wearing those glasses when he watched that video on the Sunday night. So he has lied about not wearing them. Fancy him telling Binnie he didn’t need to wear them to watch that video because he sat in a big chair near the TV. What a liar!
    However Binnie appears to accept David Bain is lying about those glasses but for some unknown reason does not seem to be able to link them to Stephen’s murder. He even suggested that lens might have been in Stephen’s room for some time. Does that mean he thought David was wearing those glasses with only one lens in them? Spare me from Canadian international jurists. No wonder his report was binned.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy

    “All I know…..”
    All you know Stupidboy is nothing, another own goal, your statement is garbage. In order to know that daddy “didn’t” change his clothes then you would have had to have been there which would also make you in all likelihood the killer. Facts are facts Stupidboy and no amount of lies, misrepresentation and fudging on your part will change any of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    “What a liar”
    Aunt Fanny I suggest you go and look in the mirror, as usual you are spouting crap. Why don’t you bugger of back to your goat and stop misrepresenting the facts!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggins
    You are an insult to human intelligence and just a distracting annoyance on this blog. Why you expect anyone to take you seriously is laughable, I suggest you seriously get some psychiatric help but you are probably beyond anything anyone can do for you but a doctors referral to the Mason clinic would be a good option!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan ,
    Instead of trying to debate with me you make puerile [ meaning childish] and petulant [meaning peevish] comments , a sure sign that you accept you have lost the argument.
    David Bain lied at the trial and he lied to Binnie, and not just about those glasses. Suck it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Bain lied over crucial evidence, says lawyer
    on January 9, 2013 12:01 am in News / no comments

    bainGlasses
    By Editor Cam Slater with additional reporting by Stephen Cook

    DAVID CULLEN BAIN’S innocence has been thrown into doubt after revelations he lied about crucial evidence at his first murder trial.

    The debate over one of New Zealand’s most contentious criminal cases was re ignited this week with the release under the Official Information Act of a letter from Bain’s former lawyer Michael Guest to Justice Minister Judith Collins.

    Guest said Bain “specifically lied” about wearing the “all-important” glasses on the night before the murder.

    The prescription glasses, which belonged to Bain’s mother, Margaret, were central to the contention that Bain murdered his entire family in the June, 1994 ,killings.

    Bain was severely short-sighted and without his mother’s glasses (his were away being repaired) he would have had difficulty firing the murder weapon with any accuracy.

    During his 1995 murder trial Bain argued that he had not worn the glasses discovered in his bedroom with a lens missing (that lens was later found near the body of his murdered brother Stephen) for over a year.
    But, in his letter to Collins Guest reveals Bain had told him and co-counsel Jonelle Williams an entirely different story.
    Guest said in pre-trial discussions Bain had actually admitted to wearing his mother’s spectacles on the Sunday evening before the 6.30am murders the following morning.

    Guest immediately notified the Crown solicitor Bill Wright of this startling admission, but because the trial was in its closing three days, he elected not to inform the jury or the trial judge. Guest has questioned Bain’s innocence ever since.

    He believes any suggestion Bain is innocent of murdering his family “is not a correct conclusion”.
    “The importance of this admission of wearing the glasses the night before is, quite simply, a damning admission because the police found the bent frame and one lens in David’s bedroom and the other lens in his murdered brother’s bedroom,” writes Guest in his letter to Collins.

    Bain’s aunt also gave evidence during at the retrial that Bain had told her after the murders that he had worn a pair of his mother’s spectacles on the weekend prior to the murders.

    In the context of Bain’s later acquittal on the murder charges, the revelation raises two significant questions – firstly why did Bain lie about the glasses and secondly if he was prepared to lie about such a critical piece of evidence what else was he possibly untruthful about.

    One suggestion is that Bain lied to the jury about the glasses because he knew how incriminating that evidence would be.

    Bain was never able to explain why the broken glasses were in his room and how one of those lens ended up in his brother’s room near where the body was found.

    The Crown had argued that the glasses were broken during a struggle between Bain and his 14-year-old brother and Bain neither had the eyesight nor the presence of mind to retrieve the lens discovered near the body.

    At Bain’s retrial in 2009 Bain’s defence counsel Michael Reed QC suggested that Detective Milton Weir had planted the lens near the body, but produced nothing in the way of evidence to support that argument.
    Surprisingly in his recent findings Justice Ian Binnie, the Canadian judge appointed by the Government to examine Bain’s application for compensation, was nonplussed about Bain’s admission about the glasses.
    He believed there were credibility issues with those who gave evidence about the glasses, but regardless of that there “was none of the expected blood or other biological matter” on the glasses to link Bain to the murder.

    Justice Binnie’s findings are in direct contradiction to Justice Thorp’s 1996 review of the Bain Police Complaints Authority report, in which he refers to this evidence as significant.

    Bain was convicted in May 1995 of the murders of his parents Robin (58) and Margaret (50) and his siblings Arawa (19), Laniet (18) and Stephen (14).

    The Crown claimed Bain had killed his entire family after completing his early morning paper round, but could not provide a motive for the murders.

    Bain served 13 ½ years of a life sentence before successfully appealing his original convictions to the Privy Council.

    At his second trial in 2009 he was acquitted on all charges.

    Since the acquittal the focus has turned to whether Bain should receive compensation for the years he spend behind bars. Because the case falls outside Cabinet rules on compensation the Government is obliged to pay Bain only if he is able to establish his innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    Due to the high-profile nature of the case, Justice Binnie was commissioned at a cost of $400,000 to the taxpayer to examine the compensation claim.

    In his report, which has since been rejected outright by Collins and the government, he claimed there were “egregious errors” and there were “numerous instances” of “investigative ineptitude” that led directly to the “wrongful conviction” of Bain.

    The report concluded that “on the balance of probabilities” Bain was innocent of the 1994 murders and should be paid compensation for wrongful imprisonment and conviction.

    Collins then sought a review of the Binnie report from Robert Fisher QC which found that Binnie went beyond his mandate, his approach to the evidence was seriously skewed and he appeared to accept Bain’s versions without question.

    Collins is now seeking another review with no decision on compensation due until later in the year.
    On the Binnie report she has said: “It is so fundamentally flawed as to the entire basis of it… fatally flawed”

    She said evidence ignored in the report included: “blood stains on Mr David Bain’s clothing, the broken glasses, Mr David Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle, Mr Robin Bain’s motive and mental stability, Mr David Bain’s post-event admissions and Mr David Bain’s admission that he heard Laniet gurgling.”

    Guest – who was struck off in 2001 for professional misconduct after lying to a client – has now weighed in with criticism of Binnie’s findings, saying it was incredible that the Canadian judge did not interview either him or his co-counsel despite legal privilege being waived for the purposes of the Police Complaints Authority investigation in the 90s.

    In his letter to Collins obtained by Truth Guest refers to the spectacles and his concerns about Binnie trying to “blind you to the relevance of that evidence.

    He said although he had been struck off it did not alter the “incontrovertible facts of the matter”.
    “However much of a scoundrel Justice Binnie wishes to paint me the salient facts are these… Mr Bain informed both myself and my co-counsel… that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening…” Guest said, adding that
    “… Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings.”
    Guest then accused Binnie of misleading Collins by relying upon passages from the Court of Appeal findings relating to the glasses.
    In its 2003 decision the Court of Appeal stated “the glasses and lens issue has not featured significantly in our analysis of the strength of the case against David…and it does not feature significantly in resolving the substance of the case.

    But Guest said those remarks related to another issue with the glasses and not the fact Bain had lied during the trial.

    “The court did not know of the evidence of what David Bain had told myself and my co-counsel and what we had told the Crown solicitor at trial,” Guest said.

    “Consequently, it can be stated on reasonable grounds that Justice Binnie has himself succumbed to a tunnel visioned approach to the assessment of all relevant evidence relating the prime question he was asked to answer.”

    “Binnie succumbed to tunnel vision”. Sure did. Just like Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan,

    just keep updating us with the “bucket loads ” of ” new ” evidence please.!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    “A sure sign you have lost the argument”
    Classic
    Muggins
    It is pointless trying to engage with you because you cannot apply brain to any of your arguments, no I have not “lost” any argument, you have not provided any evidential support for anything that you have said, hence there is no argument to lose. You are a broken record and just reparrot the arguments that the crown have already lost. Another own goal!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Sure thing Stupidboy
    Just as soon as you prove that a “complete” footprint can be made by a foot which is larger than it. Good luck with that!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. Unity (609 comments) says:

    This is supposed to be a blog about the Crewes but the Bains seems to have overtaken it. Can I just put in my tuppence worth herre?

    I know I will get down ticks and I also know that my gut instinct should have nothing to do with things but have any of you met David Bain personally? I was at a market a couple of years ago collecting signatures for a petition and these two gentlemen who had 2 children aged somewhere between 10 and 13 with them passed by me. I looked up and did a double take and said to one of them ‘you’re David Bain aren’t you? I bet you hate people saying that’. He coyly admitted he was and I was instantly taken with the gut instinct that there was no way he was guilty of murder, especially mass murder. He was such a nice gentle man and very well dressed and I took an immediate liking of him. He was with another man who obviously had his 2 children with him. I asked myself if I would go out with a mass murderer especially with my children in tow. I thought the other man obviously knew David very well and he was quite unconcerned being in his company – and with his two children. David Bain has lots of loyal friends who have stood by him through everything. They know him much better than we do. He is engaged (or is he now married?) and his fiance’s mother is very happy her daughter is engaged to him. I’m sure they are now married. I seem to think she may even be pregnant and he is going to be a father at last.

    Someone doesn’t suddenly commit mass murder especially of their whole family, and then go on with their lives in a normal way without some abnormal sign cropping up at some stage. His long time friends seem to have stuck by him and having actually met him, there is absolutely no way I’ll believe he’s guilty. He is so much nicer in person than the person we have seen time and time again on our screens. I’m not a gullible idiot who is easily taken in as I have a very enquiring mind. So whatever the evidence says, it’s not foolproof. I had thought anyway that the computer was turned on before he got home and the message typed. What’s happened to that scenario?

    I will now await the down ticks!!??

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Unity
    A good accurate summary of the situation, you would really have to be a gullible idiot or a brainless moron like “muggins” or Stupidboy to believe the train wreck that is the crown case against David.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Unity (609 comments) says:

    Thanks, Rowan. All that is needed now is for him to get his compensation and I hope he does sooner rather than later. It’s disgraceful that he hasn’t been paid out before now. The Government is stalling – or is it stonewalling? Joe Karam deserves a medal for all the hard work he’s put in and he’s certainly been very loyal far and beyond the call of duty, or whatever. However he also knows David much better than the people who are trying to make out he’s guilty, most of whom have probably never met the man. Tellingly, Joe Karam was also quite happy for his own adult children to be in David’s company.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggins & Stupidboy
    Dr Hentschel has a similar level of credibility with his evidence on the footprints as Kim Jones. Both of them gave evidence at the retrial which completely contradicted what they said in 1995. They cannot both be true so that makes at least one time the evidence they gave was false and therefore misleading. It was my understanding in a criminal trial that the witness swears to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” it’s a pity that Jones and Hentschel didn’t feel that this rule applied to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Unity,
    So you are saying because you have met David Bain and your gut instinct told you he was not a murderer. Forget about all the evidence that points to him being a multiple murderer, just go with your gut.
    Do you really believe Robin Bain changed his clothes before he supposedly shot himself?
    Do you really believe that a right-handed man would shoot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair while wearing a beanie?
    Do you really believe that the same man would leave no fingerprints on the silencer he was supposed to be holding?
    Do you really believe same man would leave a magazine upright on the floor without leaving his fingerprints on it?
    Do you really believe David Bain got those three bruises on his head when that police officer pulled him into a recovery position after he supposedly fainted?
    Do you really believe that he got his brother’s blood on his clothes by way of innocent transfer?.
    Do you really believe that somehow there is an innocent explanation as to how a lens from the glasses he was wearing to watch TV the previous evening was found on the floor in his brother’s room.
    Do you really believe he would have seen his mother’s eyes open and blood streaming down her face when he arrived home when the experts all said that his mother’s eyes would have closed very quickly after she was shot through the eyelid?
    Do you really believe that David Bain’s fingerprints were in animal blood when the blood adjacent to those fingerprints was human blood?
    Do you really believe that those fingerprints would be still in pristine condition after David Bain’s hunting trip a few month’s earlier, given all the handling of that rifle on the Sunday morning?
    Do you really believe David Bain changed his story as to owned the green jersey the killer wore when he took the stand for any other reason than to point the finger at his father?
    Do you really believe he told the court that his mother had said his father wasn’t going to be part of the new house for any other reason than to make it look as if his father was on the outer, not forgetting that he told Justice Binnie that his father was going to have a room in the new house?
    Have you seen a photo of those track pants that were in the wash compared to the pair of track pants that Robin Bain was wearing? Bet you haven’t. They obviously belonged to David Bain but he won’t admit it, the reason being that he doesn’t want anyone to think he was wearing them on that Monday morning.
    Do you really believe David Bain would have left no luminol sockprints given that he had blood on the soles of his socks?
    Do you really believe that those scratches and/or bruises on his torso were caused by the “hand of God”.
    Do you really believe that for some unknown reason Robin Bain wore David’s gloves when he had his own gloves?
    Do you really believe Robin Bain would have worn any gloves if he intended to commit suicide?
    Do you really believe that Robin Bain would have typed that message on the computer when he could have left a hand-written message which would have exonerated David?
    David Bain said he didn’t bring the paper in that morning. Why would he not have brought the paper in given that he said he usually brought it in when he ran his paper round which is what he did that morning. He said he left earlier than usual on his paper run that morning – why did he do that?
    Why did he not turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home given that it was pitch black at the time?
    Why did he put that green jersey in the wash when the house rules where that all hand-knitted woollen garments were always to be washed by hand?
    Do you really believe that he didn’t see blood on those clothes he put in the wash given that he could see to read a book the previous night in a similar light?
    I could go on , but I will leave you to digest the above.
    However, I would not be surprised if you still end up going “with your gut”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. Unity (609 comments) says:

    Like I said, Muggins, you haven’t met the man. I can well imagine how David had blood everywhere. He would have been totally distraught when he arrived home to see the carnage and would have gone from room to room, possibly lifting the bodies to try and make them come alive. It must have been dreadful – unimaginable.

    There are a lot of unexplained things that happened, like there often is when there is carnage involved, but I still say it, that no-one would mix with a mass murderer as if he was a normal person, let alone have their children in his company. I go with the fact that his friends have not deserted him and they know him far better than the rest of us. Also, if he could do such a dreadful heinous act, he wouldn’t be able to continuously act like a normal person. That act was done by a demented soul. How David has managed to come out appearing normal after all of this as well as a lengthy time in prison is quite beyond me and speaks volumes of his strength of character. All the conflicting evidence just goes to prove that the so-called experts themselves can’t work it all out. Often something quite innocent can make someone look guilty in certain circumstances.

    I’m putting my trust in the people who know him well. It may sound airy fairy to you, Muggins, and certainly wouldn’t stand up in a Court of law, but we all know how horribly wrong the Courts get it in too many instances in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Hi Unity, I’ve never let the human tragedy affect me too much when considering the Bain case. Miscarriages of Justice can happen to anyone. Watson is quite likely one and his past has been coloured but not essentially bad, same goes for Pora. The Bain case when all feelings are put aside has questions that are unable to be answered by anything other than Robin’s guilt. They are not ‘distant’ questions but relate to the forensic evidence found on his body and around him – essentially beginning with his hands. Your points of his ‘survival’ and character don’t make him not guilty of course, but do make the hate heaped upon him by idiots who make long lists, speak about ‘his’ jersey, elevate themselves to be able to ‘peer review’ a critical analysis of the case, even while saying they don’t hate him, form a disturbing element in our Justice system – one which I expect to emerge more clearly, and which has been, at least in part, from within the halls of power. You’ll see more of that next year, quite early on the Court calendar.

    You will never convince such people to change their minds because they have invested fully in the concept of ‘knowing’ the truth. Better to leave them to their misery and need to heap their own shortcomings on others. There is a lot more to come in this case, it will be an interesting watch as the ‘investment’ continues to unravel into monopoly money.

    Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Unity ,
    I daresay if you had met Nicholas Browning your gut feeling would have told you that he couldn’t have murdered his parents and brothers.
    http://www.murderpedia.org/male.B/b/browning-nicholas.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. Unity (609 comments) says:

    I have no idea about the Browning case nor am I the remotest interested, Muggins. Nothing that happens in the US surprises me. I will look forward with interest to what Nostalgia has alluded to is yet to come. I like to think the truth will come out in the end.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Unity
    You are wasting your time with the broken record “muggins” above, he has no idea what he is talking about and can never substantiate a single thing he posts. You can guarantee that any post written by him will contain deliberate misrepresentations of the truth and downright lies, best just to leave the idiot to his own delusional beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Some people who have met David Bain can’t believe that he is ,in all probability. a multi-murderer. So they blame his father.
    I just look at the evidence. Virtually all the evidence points to David Bain as being the perpetrator. The only reason given for his father committing the crime is that Laniet was going home that weekend to tell the family that she had been a prostitute and that her father had been having sex with her and that caused Robin to kill four members of his family and himself because he couldn’t stand the shame of that getting out. But a couple of things wrong with that theory. Why didn’t he kill David as well? Why was David “the only one who deserved to stay”? To me that message pointed to David’s perceived superiority over the rest of the family. Also, there is no evidence that Laniet ever did what she said she was going to do. David never said he heard her say that. What we do know is that she told acquaintances she met up with on the Sunday that David had called a family meeting for that night which she didn’t want to go to because David was “freaky” and she was frightened of him. She said David had told her if she didn’t go he would drag her there kicking and screaming if he had to. And David told his aunt that it was he that had gone down to the Museum Cafe where David worked and asked Laniet to come home on the Sunday night.
    And another thing. Joe Karam wrote , in his booklet Innocent, that Robin Bain was almost certainly incestuously molesting Laniet and that a prominent member of the Dunedin male choir had stated that suspicions of that behaviour were common knowledge. If that behaviour was common knowledge why would Robin Bain be worried about the story getting out?
    Now call me a cynic if you like but I reckon David wanted Laniet home because he didn’t want any member of his family left alive for the police to question.
    Maybe he didn’t want to share the $320000 inheritance either.
    I am pretty sure that if David Bain had not exercised his “right to silence” at the retrial he may well have been found guilty.
    I firmly believe we should do away with the “right to silence”. It’s an old law that is not needed today.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Unity,
    This may come as a surprise to you but some people who know David Bain very well are absolutely certain he killed his family, even more certain than I am.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggins
    So there are others that are more delusional than you on the Bain case, so what!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Correct there Muggins. Unity needs to be reminded that a large segment of his extended family including his Uncle ,Michael Bain ( Robin’s brother ) believe David is the murderer.
    And unity another very important point is that you can’t judge a person solely by their demeanor and appearances . This is what the defence tried to do with Robin at the retrial. He was allegedly dirty, smelly and slovenly dressed etc therefore this made him a murderer. This view strongly supported by , I believe, wowan and Nostalgia .These allegations were made by people who barely knew him. You might like to ask David himself about these allegations . He has publicly not commented about them but at Perth he told his audience that his father was in fact a fine lovable father.Also a number of witnesses at the retrial confirmed this view .
    Interesting don’t you think.?

    Those appearances of course equally apply to David. I think the trouble we all have is that we have this Freddy Kruger or Anthony Bates monster image of a mass murderer when in most instances they are in fact the ever so nice .neighbour next door, Appearances can be so beguiling, seductive and highly misleading especially when it comes to them .
    Hopefully the facts and issues raised by Muggins and myself might spur you to ask David some more deeply probing and pertinent questions.
    What has this to do with the Crewe murders.? A lot really and this is largely because Bain’s supporters have attempted to use AAT’s undoubted innocence to promote Bain’s. No two murder cases could be so unalike.

    BTW wowan, Nostalgia and others have promoted the image of Robin as the sicko ” child fiddler”in regard to the incest allegations. About one of the only things Binnie got right was to dismiss them finding ” a lot of smoke and no fire. “

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Unity,
    It is obvious that you believe that, having met David Bain, he couldn’t have murdered his family. Had you studied the evidence as I have you may have changed your mind.
    You mention how David Bain may have gotten Stephen’s blood on his clothing. But how do you think he would have Stephen’s blood on the crutch of his shorts?
    It has been proven that David Bain has lied on oath. If you believe he has always told the truth then what you are inferring is that everyone else is lying. His lawyer, his co-counsel at the first trial , his aunt, his cousin, his school friend, Arawa’s friend, etc, etc.
    However if you can accept that David Bain has been untruthful, then maybe you might be prepared to accept that your gut feeling about him is wrong. Over the years many people have had gut feelings that they were sure were right only to be proved wrong. The hardest people to convince are those who go by their gut feeling. Forget all the evidence, my gut is what I prefer to go by.
    Let me tell you that the Minister of Justice is well aware that David Bain has lied on oath and that he won’t be getting any compensation unless he is prepared to be interviewed again . If he is willing to be interviewed for a second time I am sure the person or persons interviewing him won’t be going by their gut feelings and they won’t suffer from tunnel vision.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Much like all your allegations then Stupidboy, I’m sure Robin was at least once a kind and loving father in exactly the way his brother remembers him, I have never claimed that he was a psychopath, good people do bad things, in the recent Dunedin murder suicide, it was completely out of character behaviour for Edward Livingstone, but there is no denying that it occurred, there is strong evidence (which you conveniently overlook) that Robin was losing it. It also fits with the profile, there is no evidence that David or Robin was a pyschopath.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    No Muggins
    There is only one person who it has been shown time and time again is a lying piece of crap and that is yours truly.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    “Do you really believe…..”

    Unity the better question to ask is do you really believe anything that the idiot claims or posts here?
    To that there can be only one answer

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan,

    Robin loosing it.? Not according to his Doctor at the retrial ,

    “The Bain’s family doctor, Peter McLeod, told the court his only prior knowledge of the family was that they had been in Papua New Guinea and the girls had both had malaria.
    He was aware Margaret had not had the children vaccinated but said some people chose not to immunise, “perhaps for fear of adverse reactions”.
    He had treated Robin Bain for a chest infection some time before the murders and had also seen the accused after he cut his foot with a chainsaw.
    Dr McLeod said he thought Robin Bain seemed relatively healthy, apart from the chest infection. He was slimly built and certainly not overweight.
    There was no suggestion of any psychiatric illness, but Dr McLeod agreed Robin had not discussed anything intimate with him.”

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/53479/prison-guard-recalls-scratches-bain?page=0%2C1

    An Educational Psychologist Cyril Widen claimed he looked depressed but was not qualified nor did he or anyone clinically assess Robin for depression. Nor was he prescribed medication as far as we know. But maybe David can illuminate us.?

    You see again the same ” appearances ” rubbish – he looks this and that etc. Plus being or looking depressed does not necessarily make you a murderer.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    No he was not formally diagnosed as depressed but the evidence of Cyril Wilden, Malin Stone, Joan Withers and others shows that he was losing it, good people can do bad things Stupidboy, they don’t have to be psychopathic

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    These from the trial transcripts are a number of educational and other professionals who had nothing but positive accounts of Robin and a person who was not “loosing it” as you describe wowan.!

    10.2 Dorothie Duthie, who was the chairperson of the Board of Trustees at Taieri Beach School from 1989 to 1993 and who had regular contact with Robin up until the end of 1993 and less regularly in 1994 (p2228 of retrial transcripts):
    Q.        And between or during 1989 to 1993 were you the chairperson at Taieri Beach School?
    A.        That’s right.
    Q.        And was that the Board of Trustees period throughout that period or not?
    A.        Yes, I was originally on the school committee and when it combined to the Board of Trustees I carried on in that role.
    Q.        And were you in that role in 1991 when Mr Bain was appointed principal at the school?
    A.        I was.
    Q.        And what sort of interaction would you have with him during those early years for a start?
    A.        Um, quite a lot.  It was a busy time and I spent a lot of time with Robin.  He usually consulted me before board meetings, particularly.  He had a lot of plans and ideas and yeah we spent a lot of time together.  He was a colleague and later became a good friend.
    Q.        During the initial period, were there ideas that he spoke to you about, renovations?
    A.        Yes, um, the first major one was the computer education and setting up a computer system within the school.  That took up a lot of time and effort and he was very innovative in getting funding from various sources including Telecom, so it was a biggie yes.
    Q.        And do you recall other areas of a similar innovative nature or not, at this stage?
    A.        Oh just things like the vegetable garden which is usual in a primary school.  He was talking about building a secret garden with mazes and things like that but that didn’t eventuate.
    Q.        So how did you see him as a teacher and a principal?
    A.        Um, he was an ideas man, he didn’t like paperwork.  He liked to be with the children and doing things with them, different things to give children as many opportunities and varied opportunities.  That was his focus.
    Q.        Can you recall what decile the school was?
    A.        No.
    Q.        Now you also saw him I think in a social situation from time to time when he came to your house for a meal?
    A.        Yes, to initially – well usually principals lived out of town and to save them going home and then coming back to the school for a board meeting, I would invite them for dinner and it was usually an opportunity to talk about things that were going to come up at the meeting anyway.  So it just became a habit that Robin came to dinner on Board of Trustees nights, but he also came at other times to consult with my son who was a computer science student at the time and he was consulting John about computer matters with the system at the school.
    Q.        How did you find him in those situations?
    A.        Oh usually jovial, very witty, he was very quick on the repartee.  I could never keep up with him, he always had some – some answer that cracked us up.  He was very good – I had three sons and he fitted in very well with my husband and the three children at that time.
    10.3 Christine Harrex, was a relief teacher who also worked half a day a week at Taieri Mouth School with Robin as principal relief. P2240 of transcripts:
    Q.        Were you working at the school at the time of his death?
    A.        Yes I was.
    Q.        During the period 1991 to 1994 did you get to know him?
    A.        Yes I did.
    Q.        How would you describe him?
    A.        Robin was a really, he was a quiet man but a gentle person a real gentlemen.  He was very caring and considerate.  He was very, had really, he wanted the very best for those children, and the children at Taieri Beach were often, didn’t have a broad, you know, they hadn’t experienced much of life outside of Taieri Mouth and he really wanted to expand their horizons, he was really – he did good things for those children.
    Q.        Did you have any firsthand experience of his caring nature in terms of your own personal life?
    A.        Yes, prior to, at the end of 1993 our daughter had a serious car accident at – she was travelling back into Dunedin, oh no, coming home from Dunedin and her car hit a pole in a hail storm and Robin saw her car on his way back to Dunedin and stopped and he’d recognised the car and stopped and rang me to make sure that we knew about it.  You know he was just so thoughtful over those weeks, she was in hospital and just forget about school, we can cope at school and then at the beginning of the next year three months later our son was teaching in Auckland and he had a serious accident too going to school.  A car didn’t see him in the light and he was cycling and he was – had another accident and just the way Robin you know, he handled me that day at school when I got the news, it was really, it was very caring and he spoke to my husband first when he rang the school and he made sure the staff, the other staff gave me space and –
    Q.        In the school itself how did he get on with the other staff?
    A.        Really good, really good.  We all had a – it was a very friendly, it was a nice place to work.
    10.4 William Christie, who was a nurse who participated in the choir with Robin Bain did not think that Robin was depressed.  Unlike Wilden, the educational psychologist, who works in education and whose main focus is children’s learning, Christie works in health and his main focus is adult health.  His assessment would be every bit as good as Wilden’s.  Christie had the following testimony (p2261):
    Q.        Throughout that period of time have you had experience with people with depression and other mental disorders?
    A.        I have had quite a lot of experience over that time, yes certainly meeting people’s mental needs and assisting and supporting them.
    Q.        Depression, is that an illness that can affect the elderly?
    A.        Indeed it is, in many forms.  Sometimes mild depression which I think most people experience from time to time but sometimes more severely when people need therapy.
    Q.        And have you yourself observed over your nursing career the symptoms of the various forms of depression?
    A.        Yes I have.
    Q.        What are the symptoms of depression?
    A.        Well, largely a feeling of hopelessness, lack of motivation, apathy and in severe forms not wanting to face up to life’s realities.
    Q.        Now in 1986 did you join the Royal Dunedin Male Choir?
    A.        1986, yes I did.
    Q.        And you remained a member until when?
    A.        Until I left Dunedin in 1995.
    Q.        Now around 1990, do you recall Robin and David Bain joining the choir?
    A.        I do, yes.
    Q.        And did you get to know them?
    A.        I got to know them reasonably well, I would often speak with them at our brief tea break during our weekly rehearsals.
    Then later:
    Q.        And how did Robin strike you over those three and a half, four years, as a person?
    A.        He was a quiet person, inclined to be fairly serious, earnest and full of goodwill.  He struck me as being a supportive father in that I recall an occasion when addressing the 80 or 90 men who were in the Male Choir, explaining that David was in a musical show and that he had tickets available if anybody would like to – to have them.
    Q.        Throughout the period that you knew Robin, did he show to your view any signs of depression?
    A.        No, not at all.
    Q.        Now approximately two weeks prior to the death of Robin, do you recall being at a choir practice when Robin approached you to discuss something with you?
    A.        Yes.  Either on the Monday immediately prior to his death or perhaps the Monday before that, Robin suggested to me that as he and I were the only two men in the choir who had sons also in the choir, we could work up a quartet and that would be – provide an item that we could perform.  He was positive about the future and our parting words were that he would look up some music for us to work up.
    Q.        And sorry you may have said, what was he like about this proposal?
    A.        He was positive and his intention was that we would develop it and work it up.
    Q.        Now how does that particular event strike you in terms of a suggestion that Robin was suffering from depression?
    A.        Oh I think it’s quite contrary to – he was not – he didn’t display any form, symptoms of depression at that time.
    Q.        And why in respect of this particular event do you say that?
    A.        In respect of his proposal.
    Q.        Mmm?
    A.        Ah, simply that I think his – his mental state has since been questioned and I felt that I had a contribution to show that as recently as two weeks before his death, he didn’t display any form of depression.
    Q.        In your time as being a nurse over that 40 year period, have you seen people progress into depression?
    A.        Yes I have.  Not rapidly, depression is a mental condition which tends to gradually overwhelm people.
    Q.        And this proposal that Robin made to you, you said you thought it was sorry how long before his death?
    A.        Either one week or two weeks before he died.
    10.5 Ingrid Dunckley, also an educational psychologist working for the SES had normal business communications with Robin right up to the time he died and was due to meet him on the day of his death:
    Q.        Did you have any contact with Taieri Beach School or the principal there?
    A.        I had a call from the principal on Friday the 17th.  He rang me to – I was collating the teacher aid hours for the children with special needs, we allocate money for schools to get some additional support for those children, and he telephoned me to discuss the children that he required some funding for.  So we discussed the criteria for funding and we discussed which children, yeah.
    Q.        When you say Friday the 17th, of June 1994?
    A.        Mhm.
    Q.        Do you recall what type of conversation it was in general terms?
    A.        A very pleasant conversation, a very normal sort of discussion, we laughed, I don’t recall what we laughed about but we did laugh and – yeah it was just very normal, pleasant conversation.
    Q.        As a result of the telephone call on Friday the 17th of June was anything else arranged?
    A.        Yes, we – he hadn’t, Mr Bain hadn’t collated all the information, so he was going to bring it into me on Monday morning at the office, the information in relation to the particular children that he wanted help for.
    Q.        When you say the Monday morning, the following Monday morning, the 20th of June?
    A.        Yes.
    Q.        Do you know what time that appointment had been made for or not?
    A.        No I don’t, no.

    A part of the problem with Robin was his teaching method was more unconventional and unstructured similar to Rudolf Steiner .This would of met by some with disapproval used to a more structured and disciplined, rote form of leaning.
    Also its important to bear in mind that Robin had a lot to deal with both an over bearing and domination wife and a son who chose for number of years unemployment as an option with the exception of his newspaper round .
    But what we also see from the retrial the Defence puting a lot of energy and resources into smearing and discrediting Robin’s good name while his son watched silently and rather glibly on.
    Certainly depression is not necessarily a predictor of mass murder as sadly Robin William’s untimely death pertinently reminds us.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Yes Stupidboy
    There were some colleagues of Robin who spoke positively of Robin at the retrial, that is not disputed, however you choose to use a select few opinions and conveniently overlook the testimonys of Malin Stone, Cyril Wilden, Joan Withers, the meter reader and others which gives a better picture of the situation. Why do you pick and choose what to believe?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan,

    A meter reader.?? Now how well and intimately did he know Robin so to give a “better picture .” ?

    Cyril Wilden.? Again he was not trained to give a clinical assessment , diagnose and treatment . I find it strange that if Robin’s condition was so dire as he claims then why he did not report it to the ERO.? The others as well.?
    Something is not quite right there.

    The idea of Robin “loosing it” is also seriously flawed because ,

    . “People who suffer depression, while likely to kill themselves, are no more likely to commit murder than any other person.  In other words, murder is not linked to depression.

    In the instances of people “losing it” and going on shooting sprees that Karam uses by way of example, the killer leaves a very visible trail.  In the Bain murders the killer sought to hide his identity as much as possible by using gloves, washing bloodied clothes and wiping fingerprints off the gun.  The evidence suggests then, that the murders were carefully planned and executed rather than the result of someone “losing it”.

    Have you or unity spoke to David about these issues by chance,??

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Own goal Stupidboy

    “Wiping fingerprints of the gun”
    Which explains why the gun contained many prints both identifiable and unidentifiable, the gun was not wiped down idiot, no there is no evidence of planning at all get your facts straight d….head!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Your own goal wowan,

    The only identifiable fingerprints found on David’s gun were his and Stephen’s. I standby the claim the gun appeared to show signs of being wiped down as though to remove fingerprints.” Unidentifiable” is just obfuscating . Became unidentifiable because of what exactly .?

    But the main point is that the murders had all the signs of careful planning and premeditation and not some who had ” lost it ‘ and went on a shooting rampage .!

    The computer message e.g was a key ingredient of that. An untraceable message is a real giveaway . Clever, clever! Then the paper run alibi , the gloves etc, etc.
    But as we well know there is no such thing as a perfect crime, eh Small wonder the compo claim is in limbo.!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    stephie,
    With all due respect there have been known to be perfect crimes and if it hadn’t been for Stephen I reckon David Bain would have got away with one.
    I mean there would have been no blood from Stephen on his clothes.
    There would have been no blood on the rifle.
    There would have been no bloody gloves.
    There would not have been a pristine set of his fingerprints on the rifle.
    There would have been no broken glasses.
    There would have been no bruises on his head and torso.
    The police would have probably said it was a murder/suicide and wrapped up the case in a couple of days.
    There would have been no bloody clothes to put in the wash. Probably no need to even do the washing.
    David would have just said he came home , went into his room, turned the light on ,noticed his rifle was missing and then gone around the house and found everyone dead.
    The only query the police might have had is the delay in dialing 111, but they would have accepted David might have been too shocked to call the emergency services straight away.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan and Nostalgia,

    I’ve just leant something interesting.!

    Michael Guest said it was he that thought up that “:changed his clothes to meet his maker” phrase but he didn’t use it in his closing address because he thought the jury wouldn’t believe it.

    Obviosly the Jury in Dunedin were not into fanciful obfuscation .!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    No you have not and never will learn anything regarding this case, the computer is evidence of “planning” to you bollocks, the crown conceded that it was likely that Robin turned it on, as he was the only one in the house at the time, in 1995 it was not in dispute that it was turned on by the killer, therefore as Robin turned on the computer, on the crowns original evidence he is the killer.
    Another own goal Stupidboy!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan,

    David in his statement to the police said that he was at the corner of Heath and Every street at 6.40 am. Later he also said in another statement to police that he was home just after 6.40.  A key witness, Denise Laney, stated that she saw David at the entrance to his driveway at sometime between 6.40 and 6.45.

    A reminder that Denise Laney could only put the timing between 6.40 and 6.45 and recall she started work at 6.45 am therefore its more likely she saw David closer to 6.40 therefore plenty of time to switch the computer on . I believe Karam claimed she definitely said she saw David at 6.45 am but this is not the case.

    As I’ve stated Robin turning on the Computer raises a whole raft of questions including obviously why type a message when a written note would be easier and more plausible . Someone ;didn’t want the message to be traceable and why david gets special favorable consideration.?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    This is what Muggins and Stupidboy would have us believe with the idiotic claim that the rifle was wiped down. Supersleuth = muggins

    “Those prints were smudged when David Bain wiped the rifle down,quite possibly as per that sketch on JFRB Facebook.
    supersleuth”(0 ) 3:39 pm, Mon 18 Oct

    For some reason M….. seems to feel that because he says something, we should all believe it, no matter how implausible, no matter that the evidence dictates otherwise, in his world, his word is fact. He continually repeats the same message over and over, despite having been disproved on numerous occasions by reasoned argument and physical evidence.

    Above we have an example of him repeating his well worn tale that the rifle used to kill the Bain’s had been wiped down. As anyone researching the killings can tell you, fingerprints belonging to David were found, one of Stephen’s was found on the silencer, and several other partial fingerprints were found on the body of the rifle. The reason why these fingerprints could not be identified belonging to a specific person, was due to the fact they were incomplete. They had some ridging detail, but not enough detail to attribute them.

    If the rifle had been wiped down, as Mr S…… repeatedly argues, there would be smudged blood, and nothing detectable indicating the existence of fingerprints. There would be no ridging detail at all.

    In order to fit S…..’s scenario, the killer would have had to find each of the prints on the gun and delicately wipe a portion away leaving enough remaining ridging detail to identify them as fingerprints, and not blood smudges. How stupid does he think we are? How silly is he? Again his argument is fanciful, and lacks the application of commonsense.

    I presume Mr S….. has been instructed to continue the Counterspin Trademe campaign, because he is the best they have to offer. A sad reflection on the rest of the group.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Bollocks Stupidboy
    The crown conceded it was more likely that Robin turned on the computer but that this “didn’t matter”, after they heard the correct evidence over the start time and also Denise Laneys additional statement which had not been heard in 1995.
    “therefore…..”
    Again your conclusions are garbage based solely on selecting the evidence to match your fantasy scenario, reality says otherwise d…head!
    Maybe Robin intended to write more but saw David arriving home and didn’t want to have to explain himself!
    If David turned on the computer then you have the ridiculous unexplained scenario of him hiding behind the curtains with the computer running and Robin not sensing either of them, but feel free to explain this the crown certainly couldn’t!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    You must understand Rowan that Aunt Fanny is a spinster who has never been titillated in the traditional sense. Apparently she has been quite willing but time and residual ugliness has unfortunately been inhibiting, as have her visits to the outhouse where the whole neighbourhood have experienced the loudness and smell of her flatulence problem. This could explain her earlier interest in dog droppings.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Rowan and Nostalgia, now you have reached the depths of infantile name calling and mud slinging, do either of you actually know ‘Who killed the Crewes’?, if not, please move on…….

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Honeybadger

    Len Demler
    read the earlier comments in the thread or Case of the Missing Bloodstain by Keith Hunter, The police report is rubbish, its conclusions are just baseless statements, without any reasoning whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan,

    I understand at the retrial the computer turn on time was a matter of dispute between the Prosecution and Defence,? When did exactly the Prosecution concede other wise.?

    My simple question again is why was David selected as the one who deserved to stay considering the fact that e.g Arawa was Dux at Bayfield and studying to be a teacher with a bright future ahead of her.?
    Why not even Stephen an apparently spritely, chirpy and much loved young fellow.?
    What made David so special compared to them that made him the one who deserved to stay .?

    Since the rifle was covered in blood it’s very surprising that more clearly defined fingerprints were not found instead of” incomplete.” ones. What does that tell us exactly and how does it implicate Robin when none were identified belonging to him including the upturned magazine.
    All we know is David left pristine prints and Stephen left one on the silencer . David’s bloody opera gloves were found discarded in Stephen’s room including the lens from the broken pair found in David’s.
    Not hard therefore to connect the dots there.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    If you don’t know when the Crown conceded that point stephieboy it’s simply another reason to accept that you have no idea what you are talking about. Good luck with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Nostalgia , the source where the Prosecution concede thus. ? But even if they did how does that progress the matter .?
    Why type out an untraceable note when a simple pen/ pencil paper would suffice. ?What did Robin have to conceal when intent on suicide.? And what made David so special as to be the only one who deserved to stay compared to say Arawa and Stephen.??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    Ask Robin, how the hell are we supposed to know what he was thinking or why he did it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan,

    more typical evasions and sidestepping. But it’s all academic now that David ,with the able assistance of the indulgent Iain Binnie ,unwittingly exposed the contradictions and inconsistencies in the account of his actions and behaviour on the morning of the 20th June 1994.

    As I’ve noted before slam dunk type planted bullet evidence does not avail Bain.

    As an afterthought this is worth thinking about. !

    When the police arrived at Every St all the lights were off baring the one in Margaret’s room . Now that does not seem to be the actions of someone who had just chanced and stumbled on a crime scene. ?David being an innocent “finder” who would have left the lights on after ascertaining all the family members were deceased, as reported in the 111 call . It seems obvious that David created the crime scene.!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    You have joined the dots to fit your predetermined conclusion. You point to David’s gloves as ‘evidence’ that he wore them, however stepping back and looking objectively at them is that they were a pair of gloves taken by the killer from David’s room. The same room where Robin also kept clothes, just because they were David’s is not evidence that he wore them, ownership is unimportant, similarly the green jersey was not owned by David, but I suppose that this ‘doesn’t’ matter to your delusional mind

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  311. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    Let’s just look at your supposed “evidential” argument and see if anything stands up to the BOP test

    The footprints, on Hentshels evidence for 15 years that this was a “complete 280mm print” the probability that he got the measurement wrong is very low.

    Did the killer wear Margaret’s glasses? and was the lens dislodged during the fight with Stephen
    One would have to question why David who didn’t need glasses for close up vision would need them to shoot 4 people in bed at point blank range. Given that the one lens was adjusted for Margaret’s astigmatism, then this probability is around 0
    Maybe David wiped the lens clean and hid it under the ice skate boot.

    Was the gun wiped down by the killer?
    See yesterday at 9.42 but I suppose to you David delicately wiped down the prints taking particular care to leave enough ridging detail to identify them as fingerprints and not blood smudges. In reality likelyhood 0

    Who turned on the computer?
    On Rafterys concession Daddy, see yesterday’s discussion

    The chance of a close contact upward trajectory wound not being self inflicted?
    Based on published research less than 5%
    Etc etc

    Not to hard to come to an evidence based conclusion!

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

    Mornin’ Moron

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  313. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    muggins (3,009 comments) says: August 14th, 2014 at 4:47 pm. stephie, With all due respect there have been known to be perfect crimes and if it hadn’t been for Stephen I reckon David Bain would have got away with one.

    I mean there would have been no blood from Stephen on his clothes.
    There would have been no blood on the rifle.
    There would have been no bloody gloves.
    There would not have been a pristine set of his fingerprints on the rifle.
    There would have been no broken glasses.
    There would have been no bruises on his head and torso.
    The police would have probably said it was a murder/suicide and wrapped up the case in a couple of days.
    There would have been no bloody clothes to put in the wash. Probably no need to even do the washing.
    David would have just said he came home , went into his room, turned the light on ,noticed his rifle was missing and then gone around the house and found everyone dead.
    The only query the police might have had is the delay in dialing 111, but they would have accepted David might have been too shocked to call the emergency services straight away.

    muggins, very very good way of looking at it. The violent and bloody fight with Stephen was his downfall. Binnie Dunce should return his fee.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  314. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    stephieboy (2,396 comments) says: August 14th, 2014 at 3:09 pm. The idea of Robin “loosing it” is also seriously flawed because people who suffer depression, while likely to kill themselves, are no more likely to commit murder than any other person. In other words, murder is not linked to depression.

    In the instances of people “losing it” and going on shooting sprees that Karam uses by way of example, the killer leaves a very visible trail. In the Bain murders the killer sought to hide his identity as much as possible by using gloves, washing bloodied clothes and wiping fingerprints off the gun. The evidence suggests then, that the murders were carefully planned and executed rather than the result of someone “losing it”.

    Very very good, stephieboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  315. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    How’s those flying lessons going Dennis? Must have been a shock for to find out you lived in the North Island and not the South. But it was bloody generous of you to prove not once, but twice, how the hang bainers theories ‘fly.’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  316. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Made an error of judgement, Nosty McDonald, not waiting for the tide to go out, but didn’t kill anyone. Unlike you and Bain.

    Not too many pilots have landed safely after an engine failure some 5nm offshore at 2000ft, and dodged about a thousand people on the beach.

    But do keep showing yourself up as an ignoranus. XXX Dennis

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  317. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Did you think it was a flying boat Dennis? Some mechanic as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  318. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Morning Denny Dunce
    That really the best you can do? Get a life a…hole!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  319. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Trying to put the knife in, Nosty? Brand new engine, Nosty, 2 hours only. Unfortunately the engineer overlooked a kink in the fuel line and I hadn’t inspected it. Trust, Nosty, trust.

    PS. When I say “Mornin’ Moron”, why does Rowan think I am talking to him? Just curious, he answers every time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  320. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Not the ‘expert’ you think you are then Denny, you can now add pilot to the already long list. The only thing you appear to be an expert at is arsehole

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  321. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    Endangering 1000 beach goers Dennis and seeking plaudits because you didn’t harm any of them??? Blame the engineer Dennis, way to go – I suppose he also told you take the beach rather than hit the waves. Chickens these days – hardly the “Magnificent men in their flying machines,’ more like “Magnificent bull crappers.’ I saw that brown patch on your seat old son.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  322. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    So, who did kill the Crewes?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  323. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Of course I didn’t endanger those on the beach, Nosty, they were all down one end and I could see the rocky part was clear. What do you think I am? A murderer? I’m not like, Nasty.

    No brown patch either, the aircraft has a ballistic parachute that could have been deployed if needed for a safe descent.

    Not you responsible for the kink, Rowan, was it. Sounds a bit like you. Kinky killer-lover.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  324. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan,
    It remains my position that Henstschell who was the only one who examined the prints in situ measured the area of brightest luminescence and not the complete tip to toe and heel. Besides not only we have David admitting to walking in the area but blood was found on the sole of his socks with more on the right foot. None were found on Robin’s socks that he was wearing .

    Margaret and David shared a similar vision impairment i.e they were both short sighted meaning that they could not see longer distances clearly. Obviously wearing the glasses on the morning of the murders would be a considerable advantage to David and not Robin who was long sighted the direct opposite and therefore useless to him.

    Besides we have the evidence of David changing his testimony in the first trial and four witnesses who can confirm that David stated that he had used his Mother’s glasses over the weekend. He stated to his Aunr that that he could use them and got him by . And we get the useless Binnie saying they’re ” unexplained.”

    It is reasonable to conclude that the unidentifiable fingerprints could of resulted from wiping the rifle in an attempt to conceal their identity. A pity the murderer forgot about his pristine set of prints in blood on the rifle’s fore stock.

    The key issue with the computer is who typed the computer image. Not the turn on time, Nevertheless Denise Laney’s testimony makes it perfectly conceivable that David could of switched it on within the time frame.

    The contact wound.? All it shows that it was a close range shot and a simple slight tilt of the head could of achieved the same result.. Besides Dr Demspter who did did the original autopsy and examination of Robin’s head wound concluded that it was not consistent with suicide.

    etc, etc, etc

    BTW the statistics of a right handed person shooting themselves in the opposite temple and with a rifle and the silencer still attached.?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  325. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Boring Stupidboy

    It is actually the crown evidence that the footprints were complete, and used by them in 1995 to exclude “Daddy” as the killer by Hentschel misleading the jury over the foot sizes.
    Another own goal re the glasses, the lens adjusted for astigmatism would have badly distorted David’s vision, and the correct placement of the lens showed that it was very unlikely to have been dislodged in a struggle.
    Yes for one as stupid as you are it may seem reasonable to believe the 9.42 posting about wiping down the gun but here on planet earth plain ridiculous. We also know from the retrial that the fingerprints were not in any sort of blood once the lies told by Kim Jones in 1995 were exposed at the retrial.
    Rafterys concession that Robin turned on the computer suggests that “perfectly conceivable” is another own goal.
    Re the contact wound, the better question to ask is given that the rifle had a silencer attached what’s the probability that Daddy would remove it, he would have to have gone to find a screwdriver in the bloody mess of a house and risked being discovered by David, why would he do that, left temple is a non issue, the shot was in an upward trajectory, for it to have been fired by David given that he was taller he would have to be crouched down on the floor, try planet ridiculous with this scenario.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  326. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy

    4 Crown experts who mislead the jury in 1995
    Hentschel, Jones, Weir and Ngamoki, 2 of them even admitted it but as we know Kim Jones was only trying to “help the jury understand” which justifies why he lied to them.
    Yet their evidence is still ‘reliable’ and ‘trustworthy’ to you! Not hard to see why the PC, the jury and Binnie saw otherwise but you know better don’t you Stupidboy!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  327. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    But, who killed the Crewes?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  328. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    ‘dodged about a thousand people on the beach’…… becomes…..’they were all down one end and I could see the rocky part was clear.’

    Have another go Dennis, I know the beach well. Or just admit you crapped yourself so much you didn’t regain your senses enough to realise you weren’t Captain Ladd and that there’s a difference between water and sand – like there’s a difference between a scientist and a dimwit dentist. It all might have turned out quite romantic though Dennis, except that your co-star was a bloke and not Princess Grace – keep trying though something might go right. Perhaps search to see if there is anybody else alive who crashed landed twice in half an hour.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  329. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Mikenmild

    Len Demler

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  330. mikenmild (11,662 comments) says:

    You’re just obsessed with the idea of a father as murderer.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  331. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    No Mikey
    I just look at the evidence, read Keith Hunters book and then try ask yourself who else would have done it. A third party would never have gone back to the scene whereas Demler could do it undetected, also unless you buy the ridiculous theory that they were shot through the open window (which the police report does) then the killer was a guest in their house and well known to them. Who else could that be other than Demler who was known to share a meal with them at least once a week.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  332. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    aw shucks, seeing as two people have bought the Bain case into this discussion repeatedly, I will throw a question in for the ‘experts’ to answer, or not. “What did the Victorian Armourer have to say about ‘that’ gun’? Either of the ‘two people’ who have insisted on discussing Bain here on the Crewe topic care to answer?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  333. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    *** ” …Victorian Armourer have to say about ‘that’ gun’? Either …”

    ****

    Which gun ????

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  334. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Honeybadger
    Who cares, I have not seen any substantiated claims made by it, whatever it said it would only be basing its opinion on photographs and would not have been in the position of Dr Dempster who examined Robins temple wound in the flesh. The idiots will say that Karam didn’t call it because it concluded that “Robin didn’t do it” but this is unsubstainiated, Karam had more than enough experts to show otherwise.
    The crown hired their own two “expert” pathologists to try and discredit Dempster who was their own witness, what does that tell you about the strength of their case? They were both shown up as being way out of their depth, yet the crown was still asking the jury to accept their evidence over Dr Dempster.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  335. SGA (1,123 comments) says:

    stephieboy at 3:09 pm

    “People who suffer depression, while likely to kill themselves, are no more likely to commit murder than any other person. In other words, murder is not linked to depression.

    Perhaps not murder per se, but it is linked to murder-suicide
    Murder-Suicide: A Review of the Recent Literature, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 37:3:371-376 (September 2009)
    http://www.jaapl.org/content/37/3/371.long
    From the Abstract –

    There are, however, some distinct risk factors for murder-suicide including: substance abuse (not as common), mostly male perpetrators, depression (more common), and older male caregivers are at risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  336. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    you see, Rowan, your first response….’who cares’, says it all, it discredited the theory that Robin had shot himself, but you go right on spouting your theories, doesnt bother me at all. I know, and the killer knows, and I wonder how much peace of mind he gets? As for compensation, I think the term is ‘whistle for it’?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  337. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Honeybadger
    So what, even if it concluded that he didn’t (which is completely unsubstantiated) then it is still only an opinion just like Dr Thompson and Dr Ferris who had the same opinion, at the retrial they were both shown up as incompetent idiots and their ‘evidence’ totally incorrect.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  338. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    SGA, at issue is that because you might be depressed does not necessarily make you a murderer. In that sense depression is not linked to murder your learned article not withstanding.
    There is no evidence that Robin Bain was clinically depressed and all we have is an observation from an Educational Psychologist who was not qualified or trained to give a clinical diagnosis. Besides Robin’s supervisor at Education Services Ingrid Dunckly disputed Cyril Wilden’s conclusions .
    If Robin alleged depression was that dire then am sure he would of raised it with his Doctor. Instead Dr McLeod treated him for severe infection and that alone could easily explain his alleged “depressed ‘ , fatigued disheveled unwell state .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  339. Longknives (4,858 comments) says:

    “Dr Thompson and Dr Ferris who had the same opinion, at the retrial they were both shown up as incompetent idiots and their ‘evidence’ totally incorrect.”

    By ‘Dr’ Karam??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  340. SGA (1,123 comments) says:

    stephieboy at 12:18 pm

    SGA, at issue is that because you might be depressed does not necessarily make you a murderer. In that sense depression is not linked to murder your learned article not withstanding.

    IF Robin Bain killed his family, then what we know about the link between murder-suicide and depression is far more relevent than rabbiting on about the general link between depression and murder. To pretend otherwise would be silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  341. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Rowan, in what ways were both Dr Thomson and Dr Ferris incompetent precisely.?? And where did Dr Dempster agree and sided with the Defence on their murder/ suicide scenario other than to say it was possible. ?
    Anything is possible including winning lotto but rather unlikely.!

    The facts are that David admitted to wearing the broken glasses that weekend in front of his Lawyer , his co counsel , his aunt and uncle. On understanding the incriminating implications he changed his testimony and lied in court about them.The Opthmologsit Dr Sanderson stated that the broken glasses were useless for Robin but as both Margaret and and David shared similar vision impairment characteristics could be used by him.

    Lies by Kim Jones at the retrial were not exposed by the Defence. His original evidence in 1995 was very damaging to David as he examined his rifle shortly after the murders and was in a much better position to assess it than Mander or the Defence. By the time of the retrial the original blood had sufficiently deteriorated over the long years to be almost interminable .All the Defence tried to do was capitalize on that fact coming up with the ludicrous rabbit’s blood theory.

    Re the computer- again the vital issue is who typed the message. ?? The turn on time is actually a red hearing as it very well be that Robin did turn it on preparing as he was for a meeting with Ingrid Dunckey at the Education Office that morning. Equally it could of been David who could switched it on with in the time frame. Robin had no reason whatsoever to leave an untraceable non incrimination message , David did.

    All it takes is a slight tilt of the head to achieve the trajectory angle with David confronting his father in the lounge standing or crouching with the gun against pointed against his Dad’s head.

    Answer the question as to the percentage of suicides conducted by right handed people shooting themselves in the left temple with or with out a silencer/ rifle choosing most awkward position to do so.??

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  342. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Bollocks Stupidboy
    More lies from you as usual, Ferris and Thompson tried to show that the shot was an intermediate shot fired from some distance from Robin and tried to get Dempster to say it was not close contact, this was bollocks, as is Ferris’s suggestion that blood splatter on the curtains was caused by Robins body being “shaken” also he was wrong about Laniets gurgling noises and the sequence of the 3 shots, feel free to show me any occasion where he was correct about anything!

    All this has previously been explained to you, I suggest you watch Reeds cross examination of Dr Dempster
    “The facts are David…..” Where specifically Stupidboy? you only have the words of an unscrupulous struck of lawyer who also proved that he was a corrupt fraud, this is hardly proof.

    No Kim Jones did lie to the 1995 jury when he told them that on scientific analysis of the rifle that he saw blood “fluorescing under the polilight, but when it was put to him that blood does not fluoresce at all he said that he knew that but he was just trying “to help them understand it better” ie he told them what he wanted them to hear knowing that it was false, no the defence did not only have the ludicrous “rabbit blood theory” , this is an own goal, rather Carl Lloyd showed scientifically that the fingerprints were not made in blood at all and were latent fingerprints but you already knew that didn’t you Stupidboy.

    No the computer was clearly turned on by the killer, any suggestions otherwise are completely ridiculous, and as David was not back in the house at the time that just leaves who?

    The most “awkward possible angle” is bollocks, as per Boyces demonstrations it did not require any difficult contortions and he was able to use any of his fingers or his thumb

    “All that is required….”
    ie complete cooperation from Robin also for Robin to allow him to have two attempts given that the first shot failed, a ludicrous scenario!

    Stupidboy you are a grand total of 0.00000% convincing

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  343. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Stephieboy (note I dont abuse your name in a childish way), you are wasting your breath, or to be more precise, your fingers. It would not matter at this stage if David finally stood up and admitted he was the killer of the family, nothing anyone could say, would sway Rowan or Nostalgia in the least, nor Mr Karam for that matter. Anyone who testified for the prosecution are ‘ incompetent idiots’, and spoke ‘bollocks’ at the trial, but note, not the ones who testified for David’s defence, they all wore halo’s…..

    The sooner the right to silence is abolished, the better..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  344. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Honeybadger

    If Robins spirit visited you and confessed to you, or you meet him in hell then no doubt to you he will be “innocent”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  345. MH (810 comments) says:

    Is Commodore Air Chief Vice Brigadier Bainimarama related to David? Was his mission here recently to break him out of the country?

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

    Rowan, it does not sadden me in the least you resort to abusing anyone who doesnt agree wth your theories, I expect it as you obviously cannot keep a sensible head where the Bain is involved, but I am sorry for you, sorry that you cannot string a few sentences together without resort to abuse, just think how far you could get with your theories if you were pleasant!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  347. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Honeybadger

    I dislike cyberbullies that use the internet and various blog sites to spread misinformation, defamation, lies and would start a witch-hunt about someone who was shown to be a victim of a great injustice, also those that are so totally arrogant as to place their opinions above those of the courts and independent appointed experts. I am just exposing them as the charlatans that they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  348. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    ‘so totally arrogant as to place their opinion above those of the courts and independent appointed experts’ So in your view, no one is allowed to have their own opinions?, and those who epxress their own opinions are charlatans?
    I think you will find, there were two trials, and despite what you think, people ARE allowed to express their views. I agree with you, I dislike cyberbullies also, expecially those who feel the need to be abusive to those who elect to air their own opinions….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  349. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Honeybadger
    Opinions are like arseholes everyone has one, I don’t have a problem with you having an opinion either way but if bloggers here are going to post bullshit and defamatory comments then I will call them on it. Also stating your opinion as fact is exceedingly arrogant which is what most of Robins supporters here do.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  350. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Honey badger , we are not dealing with your typical poster.Woman and others like Nostalgia N Z have had quite a checkered history with resorting to abuse ( child fiddler is but one ) to try to win an argument and intimidate their opponents .This among many things leads one with the impression that we are dealing with a cult ofr tin foil hatters. Neither rational or reasoned.
    .Nothing new there.

    woman, I challenge you to re read and study the Binnie report.With a highlighter enter and note the over 60 errors of assumption and fact that Binnie made relating to the facts of the Bain case.Next highlight the numerous occasions Binnie displayed pre dermination and bias in favour of Bain including his abject failure to check out Bain’s statements against what other witnesses have stated.Very importantly highlighting the numerous ways Bain misled Binnie in regard to accounting for his actions. The failure of Binnie to follow his brief for the claim that included the failure to apply the correct onus of proof ,remembering under the cabinet guidelines, it is Bain who has to prove innocence unlike the two previous trials.

    Meanwhile we can derive considerable satisfaction that compensation continues to elude David Bain.Can’t see how he could overcome the huge obstacles unless you can point to the alleged ” bucket loads” of new evidence that will clinch things for Bain this time around , if it it ever happens .

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  351. Nostalgia-NZ (5,274 comments) says:

    You make mistake after mistake stephie-boy, the JR ‘appeal’, the Government being the Supreme Law, the Crown not conceding that Robin turned the computer on and so it goes on. All this littered with rubbish about wiped fingerprints proves that you don’t absorb anything except for what you want to believe – it’s the character of the hang-bainers and really the reason why there is no point in engaging with you. Rowan is happy to point out your deliberate lies, I’ve given up – there is other stuff stewing with this case and covering old ground with people who are unable to even understand the basics of the ‘vacuum’ affect of a rifle barrel, the checkered and oiled surfaces of firearms not being conducive to leaving fingerprints show, along with your ability to shake off ‘mistakes’ and in the next breath present as informed is so last century. Enjoy yourself….achieving nothing must be quite gratifying for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  352. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Nostalgia NZ, good one and your post perfectly illustrates why Compensation eludes Bain and will continue to do so.Just get that highlighter out and comb through the report again.!

    That’s fine.!

    Meanwhile re Crewe murders.I concur with DPF ,” I used to think it was Demler ,, but who knows.”

    Sadly Rochelle will never likely get her questions answered..?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  353. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    I have read the Binnie report and I have challenged you to substantiate any of these “60 errors and assumptions” to date you have not done so and just continue to parrot what the police have said, you seem to think that because they say it this makes it gospel, wrong Stupidboy!! I find it more satisfying to point out the errors of fact in your posts as they certainly contain many as N-NZ has alluded to. Denying David his rightful compensation will not change the facts and neither will the tax lawyer by shopping around for a more favourable opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  354. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Achievements to date of the witch-hunt Kent Parker ran against Karam and Bain
    1. They managed to convince a high standing International jurist that David was most likely innocent
    2. After each signing the petition multiple times they managed to get votes from less than 1% of the population of NZ
    3. Cult leader Kent has managed to get himself bankrupted while his loyal followers who promised him money have abandoned him

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  355. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    ‘unable to even understand the basics of the ‘vacuum’ well, I would suppose, that ‘vacuum’ would apply if someone held the gun for Robin, or Robin held it, either way, it works. I would have thought Nostalgia that you at least would understand that?

    Stephieboy, I had figured the ‘untypical’ abusers here quite some time ago, I just dont understand (well I do) the need for the shit** abuse, must be so frustrating for them that you will not swallow their ‘theories’..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  356. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    I would suppose, that ‘vacuum’ would apply if someone held the gun for Robin, or Robin held it, either way,

    Held the gun for Robin?
    Yep, I can imagine this.
    “Son, can you come and hold this gun for me? I want to shoot myself but am having trouble with it.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  357. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Wowan ,just carry on with your highlighter and re re read the Binnie report But I understand with a closed and rather paranoid mind like yours how difficult that undertaking will be.
    As I’ve said I remain very satisfied that compensation is still denied Bain and unlike AAT he doesn’t meet an equivalent “extraordinary circumstances ” test such as planted evidence.

    Kamz, and unlike David not leave any of his finger prints on his son’s rifle and magazine after very thoughtful doing a tidy up and leaving his alleged clothes in the laundry for Davey boy to wash.

    You also need to get your highlighter out.!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  358. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    I see the call has gone out for reinforcements..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  359. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy & Honeybadger
    I certainly hope that neither of you are ever or have ever been called to sit on a jury, this would require far more objectivity than you possess, being able to stand back and look at the evidence before drawing conclusions whereas you just cherry pick out certain items to support what you have already predetermined the conclusion to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  360. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    woman , do something useful for a change open your eyes and in despite of your deluded mind have another go at the now dumped and discredited Binnie report.

    Just do a bit of your own “cherry picking ” so to speak highlighting where Binnie the Commercial Lawyer got so many things so obviously wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  361. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy

    Your suggestion that Robin turned on the computer and then David shot him is absurd. What did Robin do after this? Stand there waiting for David to shoot him or go for a walk around the bloody house and not notice anything amiss or call for help.

    It stands to reason that the computer was turned on by Robin, if David was the killer and turned on the computer why on earth would he do it before do it BEFORE dispatching Robin.
    Please do enlighten us as to the sequence of events that you think happened starting with David arriving home at around 6.45 or better still Robin waking up for the day. This will be hilarious!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  362. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    What’s your expertise in criminal law and the law of evidence? No you are just a self appointed do gooder who has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. It’s so obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    PS I’m still waiting for any substantiation of these “60 errors of fact” but that’s just more smoke and mirrors from you now isn’t it!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  363. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    oh no, is Rowan tring to tell us he/she is based in criminal law and already knows everything? knows everything but cannot find a highlighter..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  364. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    If David Bain wasn’t the perpetrator then one would have to believe

    [1] That there was some innocent reason why the frame of the glasses he told his lawyer he had been wearing to watch TV the previous evening was found damaged on a chair in his bedroom the next morning.
    [2] That there was some innocent reason why one lens from those glasses was found in his brother’s room.
    [3] That the three bruises on his head were caused when the Constable in his room pulled him into a recovery position after he had supposedly fainted.
    [4] That there was some innocent explanation for the bruises and/or scratches on his torso.
    [5] That his father was wearing his gloves.
    [6] That his father would type a message rather than hand-write one.
    [7] That his father had managed to find the trigger lock.
    [8] That the reason he had Stephen’s blood on his clothes was by way of innocent transfer, or, in the case of the blood on his socks, because he had walked into Stephen’s room.
    [9] That the only identifiable prints on the rifle, apart from one of Stephen’s on the silencer, were a pristine set of his.
    [10] That those prints were in animal blood when a sample taken from adjacent to them tested positive for human blood.
    [11] That those prints were still in pristine condition after a hunting expedition some months before, given all the handling that rifle would have had that morning.
    [12] That he didn’t type that message on the computer even though it pointed to his superiority over the rest of the family.
    [13] That there was some innocent reason why he didn’t phone the emergency services until 15/20 minutes after he would have found the last body.
    [14] That the washing machine had completed it cycle in around 40 minutes even though he himself said it usually took between 45 minutes and an hour.
    [15] That the plan he told his school friend about using his paper round as an alibi to molest a female jogger wasn’t a precursor to him using a similar plan on Monday 20th June 1994.
    [16] That he did not turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home even though it was pitch black at the time. Had he done so he would have seen that his rifle was missing and so wouldn’t have done the washing.
    [17]That he did not notice the blood on the clothing that was in the wash basket .
    [18] That he did not notice some of that blood had transferred to his hand.
    [19] That he saw his mother’s eyes open when he arrived home even though pathologists said they would have closed shortly after she was shot through the eyelid.
    [20] That he saw blood streaming down his mother’s face when he arrived home.
    [21] That he changed his story when he took the stand as to who owned the green jersey the killer wore [ after previously having confirmed it belonged to his sister Arawa ] for any other reason than to implicate his father.
    [22] That he told the court that his mother had said that his father was not going to be part of the new house for any other reason than to make it appear his mother and father were irreconcilable when he was fully aware his father was going to have a room in that house.
    [23] That Laniet was lying when she told acquaintances that she met around Sunday lunchtime that she did not want to go to a family meeting that David had called for that Sunday evening because she was scared of him and said he was freaky.
    [24] That he heard his sister gurgling when he arrived home.
    [25] That the blue track pants in the wash were not his, even though they were far too large to have belonged to any other family member.
    [26] That there was an innocent reason for him placing that green jersey in the washing machine when his mother had a strict rule that all hand knitted woollen garments were always to be hand washed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  365. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    You do not know when David Bain arrived home. All you know is that Denise Laney saw him at the gate at around 6.45am. She said she saw him squeezing round the hedge as if he was putting a paper in the box. Maybe he was taking a paper out of the box. In his hurry to get into the house at between 6.42 and 6.43 he forgot to pick up the paper, something he always did when he ran his paper round which is what he did that morning. So he went back down to the box to get it which is when Denise Laney saw him.
    This will all be in a new book that will be coming out later this year. Make sure you buy a copy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  366. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The reason why David Bain wanted to turn the computer on is because he didn’t want to waste any time phoning 111 after he had shot his father. Simple as.
    But his father was later coming into the house than he expected, hence that delay in phoning the emergency services.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  367. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    And here’s Aunt Fannys latest 2 cents worth, it is not worth the time of day and why any sane person would believe anything this broken record posts is beyond me, I certainly don’t believe any of her spin or anything she posts!!

    Honeybadger
    Where have I made any claims of this? Don’t put words in my mouth!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  368. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Even David Bain accepts there was blood under his fingerprints. He told Binnie J that his best notion was that it was animal blood from the summer. So we are expected to believe that although the blood adjacent to those fingerprints was human blood the blood underneath those fingerprints was animal blood.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  369. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    It’s not that you don’t believe anything I post, it’s just that you don’t want to believe anything I post because you know it makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  370. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    When I said David Bain wiped the rifle down I wasn’t necessarily inferring he wiped it down to remove his fingerprints. He could have just given it a wipe so as to remove the surplus blood from it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  371. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    I wonder what Joe Karam thinks about the Collins revelations?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  372. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    No Muggins
    It is all bullcrap and this has been shown to you time and time again, you just never learn anything and repost the same discredited arguments because you don’t have a brain.
    I’m sure your long list of ‘spin’ looks very impressive to your delusional mind but if the number of lies and misrepresentations were removed you would be left with pretty much nothing.

    Heres a rational thought out response to a “bad luck” post that I have regularly seen you C & P in a number of the previous threads, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was you who sent it to Whale in the first place. It covers most of your 26 points of spin.

    Whale oil’s bull crap

    It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies

    David Bain had memory loss associated with shock. That whale oil would expect someone to be cool, calm and rational in such conditions, says an awful lot about whaleoil, and none of it very nice.

    Again a lucky guess when DB told police officer they are all dead

    See above – I think Whaleoil does mammals in general a disservice by using that name – whales are intelligent beings, whilst whaleoil is, well anything but…

    The 25 minute gap between DB finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and removed blood.

    It was recorded in Margaret’s diary, and by family friends that David used to do the family’s washing on return from his paper run. Perhaps Whaleoil in unfamiliar with washing?

    The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee – none of which he could explain, were just a coincidence

    The bruise on David’s head can be explained by the fall between the bed and the wall, and the dresser (which the crown very nicely forgot to include in their drawings when they presented the evidence at the first trial. The gap is infact so small it would be almost impossible not for Bain to have hurt himself). The scratches on his chest were not there on the day of the murders. Witnesses who examined Bain never recorded them, but recorded the other injuries. The scrap of skin missing from the knee could have come from the fall on the Thursday, or the one previously mentioned.

    The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses

    Why should David Bain notice the lens was missing from a pair of glasses he didn’t need? Whaleoil seems to be confused here – the glasses weren’t David’s, no one was using them, they were broken, and unable to be used and the spare lens had that much dust on it, it would have been impossible to see through. Nor did David need the glasses to do everything, especially up close things, maybe Whaleoil needs glasses to find his willy and take a pee, but most men don’t.

    The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living

    There were a number of injuries on Robin that couldn’t be explained by normal living – but lets not let the truth get in the way of a Whale splurting.

    David’s finger prints on the gun are from a previous time

    Yes, is it strange that a person who owned the gun and used it regularly left prints on it? Only according to a whale – the prints were not in blood, or made with blood, blubber features!!

    David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience

    Many people, whose lives are going extraordinary well, and being in love of the first time feel like ‘it can’t last’, that something bad will happen to ruin it – Whale has obviously never had anything good going for him, so we cannot expect him to understand this emotion.

    Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle – OR someone else borrowed his clothes

    The small amount of Blood on David’s clothing was wiped blood off door jambs – it was not on the front of the shirt, which is where it would have been if he was struggling with Stephen – of course Whales don’t wear clothes, especially fat ones – so how would he know?

    The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there

    Doh! That is where they were kept, on top of the dresser, where obviously Robin, who had used the rifle because there were spent cartridges in his caravan, had left them, before going to kill his family.

    Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood and the fibres from jersey found under Steven’s finger nails

    The jersey did not fit David, did not shrink in the washing, because the fibres show not signs of felting, that is obvious when shrinking has occurred

    David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies

    The palm print was not proven to be in blood, and could have been in washing powder, however, loading the clothes from the basket into the machine could have transferred blood on to his palms, and with the dull lighting in the room – so dull that the police had to get external lighting to see, it was unlikely David would have noticed the blood as there was other wet washing from the winter swim in the wash as well.

    The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit

    One ambulance officer said that in court, however the notes made at the time were different. Who to believe, someone a year later or on the day?

    Robin Bain would logically wear gloves to prevent fingerprints despite it being a murder-suicide

    The gloves were probably not worn to stop fingerprints, but like in many cases of familicide the perpetrator attempts to stop his family’s blood getting on him.

    Robin Bain didn’t wear gloves as he loaded the magazine…then put on gloves to kill his family, then took them off without smudging the “magazine marks”.

    DOH! The gloves were lost in the fight with Stephen – they were found in Stephen’s room when obviously the plan to kill the family in their sleep went wrong.

    That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.

    Perhaps the Computer enthusiast was going to write more, but when he saw David returning early from the Paper round, had to stop with the one line –

    Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message

    see above, he probably thought he had more time – David was home earlier than usual and men who are crazy enough to kill their families don’t always think like the rest of us – that excludes whaleoil of course.

    Robin would decide David deserved to live, but go out of his way to frame him for murder

    Robin never framed David – he was not to know that our incompetent police force wouldn’t be able to conduct an efficient investigation, besides, wouldn’t that require Robin thinking rationally – I know it’s a concept the whale isn’t familiar with – but really!

    Robin Bain placed fibres from Davids jersey under Stephen’s finger nails

    No, Stephen got them under his fingernails when he grabbed his fathers jersey – keep up Whale – even the police conceded that one.

    Robin would finish shooting his family, remove the magazine, place it on the ground carefully on standing upright on its side, then shoot himself so that when his body fell his hand was right beside the magazine which remained standing on its side.

    There is no evidence that this is how the cartridge was originally or that Robin’s arm had not been moved when the police interfered with Robin’s clothing.

    Robin Bain would shoot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible?

    Dr Dempster accepted that the position Robin committed suicide in was an acceptable position for suicide and did not involve any unusual contortions of the body. Dr Dempster did see the crime scene, I don’t think the Whale was invited.

    That Robin Bain changed jerseys after he had killed his family and in particular Stephen Bain, washed the jersey, hung it on the line and then change into a brown jersey before killing himself?

    The Green jersey was NOT found on the clothes line –

    That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.

    There is a logical reason, but Whale doesn’t understand logic.

    That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch

    It was David Bain’s own blood from an acne bleed –

    That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.

    There was bloody washing in the load of washing –

    That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David

    Laniet never said anything of the sort – the friend, decided after the murders that an innocent remark was a threat.

    That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.

    It was Margaret that called the meeting and told people that Laniet was coming home for the meeting, which the Bain family was used to holding on Sunday nights – as recorded in Mask of Sanity

    That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.

    The house was recorded as freezing – I’d wear a hat too – we don’t all have copious quantities of blubber – eh blubber features?

    That even though David told a relative he hated his father, his father did not know this and deliberately decided David was the only one who deserved to live

    David said – if my father has done this I hate him – after the events, David speaks very highly of his father – but … oh forget it, it takes brains and a touch of humanity to understand – something Whaleoil would know nothing about .

    That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death

    Dr Dempster said the Dead Laniet’s body could have made such noises for a substantial amount of time after death – who to believe Whaleoil or the pathologist?

    That Laniet allegations of incest with Robin was true, as was her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.

    The claims of giving birth didn’t have to be true – doesn’t mean the incest didn’t happen. Arawa said Dad taught her how to insert her fingers into her vagina before she was 10 years of age – hardly standard father daughter stuff, but then I am not sure on the habits of Whales.

    That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene.

    Wrong, there was blood on Robin Bain that was in places that couldn’t have come from his own wound, but was not tested by police to determine whose blood it was.

    That it is a coincidence that on the morning of the murders Bain took his dog onto a property, ensuring he would be noticed to give him an alibi.

    Bain frequently took the dog onto that property, despite being told not to – doesn’t indicate murder.

    That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.

    Already covered!

    That a sickly Robin Bain managed to overpower his teenage son who put up a furious fight

    Stephen was shot through one hand, and bleeding profusely, any uninjured adult could have overpowered him – he was fighting with one hand and getting weak quickly

    That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper from outside, despite planning to shoot himself

    No proof Robin got the paper in, David could have, he just can’t remember bringing it in but it was his usual habit to do so.

    That Robin Bain did all of the above without taking a piss.

    Who says he needed to ? 400 mls of urine does not necessarily mean a full bladder or that the urge to urinate is activated – depends from person to person, and Robin bladder was not measured, if he needed to pee, why didn’t he walk into the bathroom instead of the lounge – maybe whales pee everywhere but most humans don’t.

    That’s a fail for the Whale – loser!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  373. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggins
    This would be the blood that “fluoresced” when Kim Jones ran the polilight over it, own goal, it was shown by Carl Lloyd that there was no blood under the fingerprints at all and that Jones (much like you) was a liar who had misled the 1995 jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  374. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    We briefly interrupt this debate with a public service announcement:

    Underground will live forever baby. We’re just like roaches. Never die, always living. And on that note, let’s get back to the program – Trancesetter – Roaches (Peace Division Mix)

    Carry on!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  375. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    I am not Cameron Slater.
    Yes, David Bain was familiar with doing the washing. That is why
    [1] He knew the wash took between 45 minutes and an hour and
    [2] He knew never to wash hand knitted woollen garments in the washing machine.
    I do not believe that 15/20 minute gap between David Bain finding the last body and phoning 111 has anything to do with the washing. He turned the washing machine on before he went on his paper round. The delay was probably caused because his father entered the house later than usual, the reason being he wasn’t in any hurry to go to school as he had an appointment with an Education Board official in Dunedin that morning.
    That palm print on the washing machine was in blood, bet on it. Anyway David Bain told a detective that he didn’t have blood on his hands because he had washed them.
    David Bain said he hated his father because he was sneaky. Stop trying to misrepresent the evidence.
    I don’t necessarily believe Bain wanted to be seen that morning. That woman with the dog gave a completely different version of events when she testified at the trial. Had she been alive at the time of the retrial Reed would have torn her apart.
    David Bain said he didn’t bring the paper in. However he could have been lying about that. I am inclined to think he did bring it in. He forgot to bring it in and then went back down to the gate to get it, hence Denise Laney seeing him.
    You do not know whether those smears of blood on his hands were his or not. Might I remind you that in David & Goliath Karam said he was sure that if the blood on Robin Bain’s clothes had been tested it would have proved to have come from a member of his family. Well, it was tested and found to be his own blood. Karam was dead wrong about that just as he is probably dead wrong about the blood on Robin Bain’s hands.
    Rather unusual that Robin Bain did all he was supposed to have done on a full bladder, don’tcha think?
    Very strange he placed that magazine on it’s edge without leaving any fingerprints on it, don’tcha think?
    A witness said that Arawa had told her how to insert her fingers in her vagina. So what? And do young girls need to be told how to do that, don’t most of them know already?
    Yes , Dr Dempster did have reservations about how long those gurgling noises would have lasted but more that one pathologist testified that the shot to Laniet’s cheek was the first shot which would have caused her to make gurgling noises and that after the second and third shoots any gurgling would have ceased shortly thereafter.
    What Laniet actually told those acquaintances she met up with on the Sunday prior to her being murdered was that David had called a family meeting that she didn’t want to go to because she was frightened of him and that he was freaky but he had told her if she didn’t go he would take her there “kicking and screaming” if he had to.
    The police did not concede that Stephen had fibres from his father’s jersey under his fingernails. It was never proven who the jersey the killer wore belonged to. David said it belonged to Arawa then changed his story when he took the stand so as to incriminate his father.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  376. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    David Bain accepts there was blood under those fingerprints. He told Binnie J that his best notion was that it was animal blood from the summer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  377. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    Rowan, your question (demand) to Stephieboy re his ‘expertise in criminal law’, implies that you have such

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  378. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggins
    When did I suggest that you were Whale? read what I said f…tard I said it would not surprise me if it was you who sent the “bad luck” spin to Whale in the first place.

    “I do not believe”
    Facts are facts muggy, your personal belief doesn’t change any of it

    You do not know the sequence of events that took place hence don’t try and tell us what happened and when, this is just unfounded speculation

    “Stop trying to misrepresent the evidence”
    Classic irony from the KBs biggest bullcrapper, I haven’t seen a single post on any KB Bain thread without misrepresentation.

    “So what? And do young girls need to be told how to do that, don’t most of them know already?”
    Yes I can see why you admire Robin so much with a statement like that, is this the sort of behaviour that you demonstrated to your daughters?

    “Very strange he placed that magazine on it’s edge without leaving any fingerprints on it, don’tcha think?”
    No its shiny surface would be make it very unlikely that he would leave fingerprints on it however it did leave identical matching impressions on his thumb, Own goal f…tard

    Overall 0.00000% convincing

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  379. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Honeybadger

    No it was in direct response to his comment re Justice Binnies commercial law background and supposed “errors”, which in reality Stupidboy (or the police) disagreeing with his points doesn’t make them wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  380. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    errors? does J Binnie not have a background in commercial law?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  381. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    woman, you earlier made a snide ference to Judith Collins as Tax Lawyer inferring her lack of expertise in Criminal and evidence law.
    By your reasoning it should apply to Binnie a Commercial and Corporte Lawyer..?

    Yes.?

    The police identification of errors by Binnie do require a response which you’ve persistently failed to front up.!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  382. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Have you been spying on me? How do you know I even have a daughter, or daughters. Keep your sticky beak out of my personal life. What I was implying is that most young girls would know how to insert their fingers in their vaginas . Don’t you think your daughters would have known how to do that without you telling them?
    And it appears you still believe those non vertical lines on Robin Bain’s thumb were left by that magazine. Another own goal, Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  383. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Just as soon as you substantiate any of these “errors” Stupidboy. It has already been pointed out to you that where the cops try to say what the detective manual “doesn’t say” is totally incorrect. All the other points raised are of a similar quality.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  384. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    If Robin did it,

    If Robin Bain murdered four members of his family and then committed suicide one would have to believe
    [1] That a right-handed man would supposedly shoot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and wearing a beanie without leaving any of his fingerprints on either the rifle or silencer.
    [2] That the same man for some reason supposedly removed the 10 shot magazine from the rifle when it still had three live rounds in it and placed it in an upright position on the floor without leaving any fingerprints on it.
    [3] That he supposedly wore his son David’s gloves when he could have worn his own gloves.
    [4] That he wore gloves at all, seeing as he was supposedly going to commit suicide.
    [5] That he supposedly typed a message on a computer saying sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay, when it would have been easier for him to have left a hand-written note and thus confirm he was, in fact, the perpetrator.
    [6] That he , being a schoolteacher, used the word “deserved” when the correct word would have been “deserves”.
    [6] That he supposedly changed his clothes after he had murdered four members of his family and put those clothes in the wash basket before committing suicide.
    [7] That he would have bothered to have gone out to the gate and brought that morning’s paper in.
    [8] That he would have bothered to turn the radio in his caravan on.
    [9] That he supposedly had blood from his son Stephen on his hands when all the blood on his clothing was his own blood.
    [10] That he hadn’t bothered to go to the toilet even though he had a full bladder.
    [11] That the insignificant abrasions on his hands were caused when he was supposedly struggling with Stephen rather than the work he had carried out removing and replacing the guttering that weekend.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  385. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggy
    Only a true sicko would think that this is appropriate behaviour for a father to demonstrate to his daughter

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  386. Longknives (4,858 comments) says:

    That’s pretty compelling Muggins!
    Only a star-struck jury hoping to get an invite to the after party would ignore such overwhelming evidence!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  387. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    ustice Binnie’s amended report.

    In his report Justice Binnie writes
    “ In particular I accept that David Bain has been inconsistent with his statements about whether or not he wore Margaret’s glasses on the weekend of the murders. This inconsistency gives rise to issues of both substance and credibility”.

    It most certainly does. We know that David Bain told his lawyer at the first trial , Michael Guest, with his co-counsel present that he had been wearing the glasses that were found in his room on the Sunday night prior . We know that he had told his aunt Janis Clark that he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses the weekend prior to the killings while his were in being repaired. We know he lied on oath when questioned about those glasses. We know he lied to Justice Binnie when questioned about those glasses. The question is how many more lies has he told?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  388. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    The way the Bain family were, and we know that Margaret and Robin used to have sex out in the open and that David used to watch them, nothing would appear to be inappropriate so far as they were concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  389. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggy
    All your long list shows is that your proposed scenario is not very convincing, points such as “brought in the newspaper” are irrelevant. What if David brought it in?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  390. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    LK

    Maybe the jury have more intelligence than you and Muggy and can see through the smoke and mirrors put up by muggy

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  391. Longknives (4,858 comments) says:

    “Maybe the jury have more intelligence than you”

    Like this criminal?

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Bain-juror-had-theft-convictions-complaint-laid/tabid/423/articleID/164913/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  392. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    LK
    Even with the theft conviction I’m still sure that she possesses more intelligence than you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  393. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    You mean you have been going round asking women if they put there fingers in their vaginas when they were children? I am surprised they didn’t call the police.
    And you call me a sicko. For you to even think of doing that shows what a sick person you really are.
    Mind you what would I expect from someone who has looked up my address and threatened to come and sort me out.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  394. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    I have already said I believe David lied when he said he didn’t bring the paper in. I think he forgot to bring it in seeing as he was in a hurry to get inside and then went back out to the gate to take it out of the box and that is when Denise Laney saw him.
    I am pleased you thought the rest of the points I made were convincing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  395. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I was so shocked when I read that post from Kanz where he said he had being going round asking women if they put their fingers in their vaginas when they were children that I made a spelling mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  396. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Yes the usual 0.00000% convincing Muggy, I think I could create a more convincing scenario for the goat or the dog being the killer than your fantasy scenario.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  397. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz ,
    I bet they were horrified. I bet they wondered what sort of person you are.
    Kanz. Did you put your fingers in you vagina when you were a child?
    A. What are you , a pervert?
    Q. No, I just wanted to know because Robin Bain is said to have told one of his daughters how to do it.
    A. So you mean to say you are using that excuse to ask me whether I put my fingers in my vagina when I was a child. Get away from me.
    That is definitely going in that new book.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  398. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    You seem to have fascination about goats and dogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  399. SGA (1,123 comments) says:

    Gish Gallop

    The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments – the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or “gotcha” arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one’s opponent.

    Examples are commonly found in “list” articles that may claim to show “100 reasons for” something, or “50 reasons against” something. At this sort of level, with dozens upon dozens of minor arguments, each individual point on the list may only be a single sentence or two, and many may be a repeat or vague re-wording of a previous one. This is the intention: although it is trivial amount of effort on the part of the galloper to make a point, particularly if they just need to re-iterate an existing one a different way, a refutation may take much longer and someone addressing will be unable to refute all points in a similarly short order. If even one argument in a Gish Gallop is left standing at the end, or addressed insufficiently, the galloper will attempt to claim victory.

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

    S*******e had a change of mind then? So it was only ‘normal’ in your house and Robin Bain’s. Sickos

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  401. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    I am not sure who you are referring to when you say “in your house”. Not me , I trust.
    Do you really believe those women would have told you if they had in fact put their fingers in their vaginas when they were children? I am surprised you didn’t at least get your face slapped. I am starting to wonder what sort of women they were that would even tolerate being asked such a question. I certainly wouldn’t ask any woman that I know the question you asked those women, wouldn’t even give it a thought. I have to wonder what goes on in that head of yours and what sort of women you associate with.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  402. Honeybadger (226 comments) says:

    That is disgusting Kanz, absolutely disgusting, that anyone (you) would ask a woman that question

    That leaves me sickened to see any discussion deteriorating to such a level

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  403. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    S*******e not women who think it is ‘normal’ as you do or have you been lying all along when you claimed it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  404. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Most of us normal folks is still struggling with “Who shot JR”. :)

    Don’t let any of that get in the way of your folks wankfest of course! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  405. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    On the bright side, Johnboy, at least they’ve moved past 400 comments!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  406. Nookin (3,455 comments) says:

    They still have about 1800 to match earlier efforts. Judith will be here soon. They should cut that out by bedtime, then.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  407. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    So, Nookin, are you saying that they’ve called for reinforcements in their quest for (ir)relevance?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  408. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    [Deleted by DPF and 20 demerits. You are now on 90]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  409. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggins/Sleuth

    [DPF: Deleted and 50 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  410. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    Rowan:

    Recognise this, now who is it that has the obsession with dogs, are you now into bestiality as well as showing girls where to put there fingers!!

    Regardless of which side one takes in the David Bain debate, that’s a pretty fucking stupid thing to say.

    Edit: thumbs down all you like, Rowan, but in the meantime I’ll pass on your comment to DPF. He’ll sort you out, dickhead!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  411. SGA (1,123 comments) says:

    @Nostradamus
    The black hole beckons – you only have a limited number of posts here before you enter the point of no return :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  412. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Honeybadger
    Muggins is the sicko here, look at what he is suggesting is appropriate behaviour for a father!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  413. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Piss of Nostradamus it was him that made the suggestion that I had an obsession with dogs, that is his posting not mine, I just reproduced it to show the truth of the matter!
    Crawl back to your kennel f…wit!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  414. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    Rowan:

    You fuck off!

    Show me the comment about the obsession with dogs, and I’ll report that to DPF, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  415. dad4justice (8,303 comments) says:

    Rowan – Nostradumus is the resident trap door spider. Don’t worry its a troll of the highest order always distorting and twisting situations to gain attention. Watch the cowardly jerk he is a nark, always running off to Farrar trying to get people banned. It has no life and this is his only hobby.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  416. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    Oh look – D4J is stalking me!

    So, D4J, do you approve of someone accusing someone else of being into bestiality and teaching girls to put fingers in their vaginas?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  417. dad4justice (8,303 comments) says:

    As I said Rowan this unhinged creep Nostradumus always distorts the situation, saying I stalk him is just another malicious lie from just another mentally unwell kiwiblogger.

    I don’t talk to the thing as its just not worth the drama, I actually feel sorry for such a loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  418. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    D4J:

    Your first comment on this thread was at 6:41pm – just after I commented. The only purpose of your comment was to address Rowan about me. So, nice try at starting a flame-war, but you haven’t answered my question: do you approve of someone accusing someone else of being into bestiality and teaching girls to put fingers in their vaginas?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  419. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Look at the 5.16 post Nostra
    No of course I don’t approve of that, hence why I find Muggins a sick creep. Also look at the 2.47 post (its quite long but the 4th response up from the bottom specifically)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  420. dad4justice (8,303 comments) says:

    Hey Rowan just to prove how cowardly Nostradumus is he has just linked my comments on here onto the General Debate thread. I told you this jellyfish has no life, but you should see his d4j doll, its bigger than his stupid ego.

    Rowan you must forgive Nostra he is pretty dumb and I don’t think it can read very well.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  421. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    Rowan:

    Yes, having now looked at Muggins’ 5:16pm comment, I agree that it was a bad-taste comment.

    D4J: You really are pathetic. You pop up on this thread because I’m here, and then you deny stalking me. I mean, seriously, are you that dense?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  422. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Rowan (of extraordinary patience)……. Nos-NZ….. and Kanz…..

    If it were not important (in the interests of ensuring that justice is done, and seen to be done, and that an innocent young man – David Bain – is properly compensated for the gross and obscene wrong perpetrated against him by the State), to debunk the crap that the flat earth society, and their newly spawned “Honeywhatsit” continue to propagate, it would be silly to continue to present facts, and official transcripts, to correct their heretical preaching. I say silly because they do not have the intelligence to read and understand the actual meaning of words, nor to apply neutral logic to those words. Dumbasses all.

    But Rowan, Nos, and Kanz, you have more time and patience than me. I simply look at the crap they continue to spew, week after week, and shake my head that anyone outside the Mason Clinic could seriously advance such rubbish as fact.

    Now, as for Ms J Collins and Mr C Slater, I suspect that Cam Slater has been sold a pup by Collins, who in turn has been sold a litter of pups by the self-serving Crown Law/Police cabal. Theirs is an “orchestrated litany of lies”, to quote Mahan J. on another injustice.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  423. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz ,
    Stop misrepresenting what I have posted. I have never said that it was normal behaviour for a father to show his daughter how to put her fingers in her vagina . What I did say that is that nothing would seem inappropriate to Robin and Margaret Bain. They were known to have sex in the open with David watching them.
    Now if you keep misrepresenting me I will have no option but to take the matter further.
    What I find is abnormal behaviour is you going round asking women if they ever inserted their fingers in their vaginas when they were children under the pretext of conducting a survey.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  424. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    flipper ,
    David Bain almost certainly a multiple murderer and certainly does not deserve any compensation. The Binnie report is so full of errors it is no wonder it was binned. And as for a litany of lies, well David Bain has told a litany of lies on oath.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  425. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    So I posted a facetious post about the Bain dog about four years ago and yet you are still referring to it . That is why I said it appeared you had an obsession with dogs. As for an obsession with goats , well we all know David Bain seems to have an obsession with goats seeing as he lied to Binnie J when he said he saw his friend having a sexual encounter with one.
    He was lucky to get away with that. The person in question thought about taking it further but decided that because everyone knew that Bain was a liar he would just forget about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  426. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    Muggins:

    I don’t have a vested interest in the Bain case one way or the other.

    But, seriously dude, I don’t think you’re doing yourself any favours with your comments on dogs and goats (particularly when you personalise it by association with Rowan).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  427. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins/S*******e it is you who has the obsession with this. You who introduced the subject into this thread. As for me asking my female friends, they don’t mind because I am not creepy, more than can be said for you, with your obsession of the sexual matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  428. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Take your point, Nosty, I was only winding Rowan up. He did mention dogs and goats first in his post at 5.11pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  429. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    From Rowan’s post at 2.05pm.
    The claims of giving birth didn’t have to be true – doesn’t mean the incest didn’t happen. Arawa said Dad taught her how to insert her fingers into her vagina before she was 10 years of age – hardly standard father daughter stuff, but then I am not sure on the habits of Whales.

    It was Rowan who first mention the fingers in the vagina, I just replied to his post.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  430. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz ,
    You say your female friends don’t mind you asking them if they put their fingers in their vaginas when they were a child because you are not creepy.
    I reckon anyone who asked any female that would have to be a real creepy creep. You [and Rowan] do appear to be obsessed with vagina’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  431. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    “And as for the litany of lies…”

    Yes we only have to read any of muggins posts to see any evidence of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  432. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Nostra
    The sick inappropriate comment came from none other than the broken record “muggins” here so if you are going to nark to DPF make sure you get the facts straight!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  433. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Woman just get busy with that highlighter spotting the numerous egregerious errors that litter the Binnie report.A very necessary first step in your understanding why it was dumped.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  434. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    The only people making inappropriate comments on this thread are you and Kanz, but more especially Kanz.
    And if Nostradamus has contacted Farrar about Kanz’s posts let me assure you he isn’t the only one.
    I find it rather incongruous the way you and Kanz try to discredit me because you know you can’t beat me any other way.
    But it ain’t going to work, Rowan , never has and never will.
    Just like you try and discredit Michael Guest and anyone else who says that David Bain is a liar. A habitual liar, as a matter of fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  435. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    Yes I know the tax lawyer didn’t like its conclusions so got the porno judge to write a written to “peer review” it, in reality it was a prescription academic essay disagreeing with it, that doesn’t make it flawed Stupidboy.

    “A habitual liar”
    Only habitual liar here muggins is yours truly. Yes your comment about what Robin Bain was showing his daughter was very “appropriate” wasn’t it! Sicko!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  436. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    woman,just keep us updated about this judicial review business ( if it ever happens ), the convening of the fresh compo claim ( if it ever happens ) and the” bucket loads ” of new evidence ” which thus far has never happened..

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  437. 2clever4U (20 comments) says:

    A woman in the second jury appeared on TV saying David Bain wasn’t innocent, but Mr Binnie wouldn’t listen to her.

    What more does any normal person want to know?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  438. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    2clever4U , as far am aware Binnie failed to interview anyone who would of provided different information other than what he read in Karam’s books or what David Bain told him which made him captive to the Defences narrative.
    He was not mandated to do that given also it was Bain who had the onus of proving his innocence.!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  439. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan, but two items of your fatuous nonsense ,

    “The gloves were probably not worn to stop fingerprints, but like in many cases of familicide the perpetrator attempts to stop his family’s blood getting on him.

    Robin Bain didn’t wear gloves as he loaded the magazine…then put on gloves to kill his family, then took them off without smudging the “magazine marks”.

    The peer reviewed learned item of research that states this ” probability ” .?

    Robin chose his son’s glove’s to implicate him and then changed his mind and typed the computer message .?

    Yeah Right. ! ?

    Hope this represents part of the core of ” bucket Loads ” of new evidence in the reconvened Compensation claim ( if it actually reconvenes. )

    LMAO.!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  440. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    David Bain.

    In the billiards room.

    With the lead pipe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  441. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,907 comments) says:

    August 17th, 2014 at 10:11 pm

    Stupidboy
    Yes I know the tax lawyer didn’t like its conclusions so got the porno judge to write a written to “peer review” it, in reality it was a prescription academic essay disagreeing with it, that doesn’t make it flawed Stupidboy.

    “A habitual liar”
    Only habitual liar here muggins is yours truly. Yes your comment about what Robin Bain was showing his daughter was very “appropriate” wasn’t it! Sicko!
    ****
    Excellent answers to both….

    But in relation to all opportunity being provided to fringe nutters to present their views, Binnie notes that he had read and considered all such views, including those on certain web sites. He went further in his full report, but for the sake of brevity, the following extract from his Media Statement when in Helsinki at the International Commission of Jurists meeting, will complete the picture:

    *** …
    3. The language of the press release [Collins] shows it to be a political document which, given that the Minister is engaged in a political exercise, is not surprising. David Bain is seeking a discretionary payment from Cabinet and Cabinet is a political body that makes political decisions. However I expected the Minister to follow a fair and even handed process leading up to that political decision. She is, after all, the Minister of Justice. The purpose of this email is to give people the facts to enable them to determine for themselves whether or not the process has been even-handed.

    4. The press release states that my Report was referred to the Solicitor General for “advice”. This makes it sound as though the Solicitor General is some sort of independent official whereas, in fact, his office attempted for almost 17 years to uphold a conviction of David Bain that New Zealand’s highest appeal Court decided in 2007 was a miscarriage of justice — a conclusion reinforced by Mr Bain’s acquittal by a Christchurch jury in 2009. The Solicitor General was and remains part of the prosecutorial team. The opposing parties in the compensation inquiry were David Bain and the Crown Law Office. At a January 2012 meeting held at the Ministry of Justice for me to obtain the views of the Crown Law Office as to how the inquiry should proceed (a similar meeting was held with the Bain people) I was introduced to the then Solicitor General, David Collins, who had unsuccessfully argued the case against David Bain before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He was not, and did not pretend to be, independent. For present purposes the Solicitor General is equivalent to the Crown Law Office.

    5. It is a curious feature of this case that all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt. By far the most prominent, of course, were the five judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision in 2003 that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. In that appeal, too, David Bain’s arguments were dismissed by the Solicitor General as based on incorrect facts and a misapprehension of New Zealand law. The Privy Council judgment was authored by Lord Thomas Bingham, generally regarded as one of the brightest and best judges produced by the common law world since the Second World War. In a much more modest capacity, as a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, I too have expressed views on the respective merits of the case of Mr Bain and the Crown. People are free to disagree with my views (as they are free to disagree with the views of the Privy Council and the 2009 Christchurch jury), but it is no disrespect to the able Hon Robert Fisher QC to note that the Minister is keen to repatriate the Bain case to her home turf. …”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  442. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    flipper, but a small detail about the five law lords decision naturally over looked by you and the probainers . They did not make a decision as to either the guilt or innocence of Bain but rather that a second trial ordered so that the so called new evidence could be heard before a jury in a retrial.

    The learned judges including the best and brightest Lord Bingham also recommended that Bain be kept behind bars pending his trial.

    The Cabinet guidelines are absolutely necessary because ,among many different things , an acquittal does not necessarily mean innocence as the dumped Binnie report has graphically demonstrated .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  443. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Stupid one…
    1. Learn something about the legal process before you pontificate. But I shall try, for a simpleton like you, to explain the process.

    2. The Law Lords were NOT asked to find him (DB) either guilty or not guilty.

    3. Reed, on behalf of Bain, sought to have the convictions quashed, on various grounds.

    4. Collins (Sol Gen) et al and the Crown opposed, and sought dismissal of the appeal.

    5. The Law Lords rejected the Crown’s submissions on all counts, and expunged the convictions.

    6. According to the customary practice, they sent the case back to N Z, and noted that Bain was then technically held on remand .

    7. Bain was ordered released on bail.

    8. At much cost to taxpayers, Collins (Sol Gen) proceeded with a second trial.

    9. In near record time, the jury found DB not guilty.

    10. Power appointed Binnie to independently review the compensation case.

    11. Binnie did, and the Crown were present when Binnie interviewed Bain, and others relevant to his inquiry. .

    12. The Crown did not seek any cross examination of Bain, nor did it seek to offer anything in rebuttal.

    13. Game, set, and match to Messrs Reed, Bain and Karam.

    14. Is your problem the fact that Binnie, and experienced and independent jurist of the highest standing, having examined your ravings, and those other gratuitous contributions, dismissed your views as specious?????

    15. The Crown, aka Collins (MoJ) welshed on a Cabinet approved deal to settle.

    16. Work it out. It will only end in tears for you, Judith Collins, and her supporters, as its has for the idiot who libelled Joe Karam.

    ***
    The Outside The Beltway Group, reported last year:

    “Judith Collins sought to “play in the bigs”. But she and her advisors have been shown to be “babes in the wood”, to use an NZ expression.
    They probably, almost certainly, thought they could brow-beat Justice Binnie, as they might a New Zealand Q.C., or judicial figure. But they did NOT see the 5000 ton freight train roaring down the tracks at 85 mph. The tame Dunedin academics, and Wellington bureaucrats, supporting [manipulating or capturing] her, along with poor Robert Fisher, were all taken-aback when Ian Binnie counter-attacked, as North American judges and attorneys are want to do – especially when they know that they have been unjustly “dissed” by an overly clever lawmaker.
    They did not realise that the Hon Justice Ian Binnie, a former Minister in a nation of 30+ million, and a former Justice on that nation’s Supreme Court, with more than 40 years’ experience as a litigator, and quite accustomed to “playing in the bigs”, would never be intimidated by “an Auckland tax lawyer”, and her naive advisors. Only a fool would not have anticipated a counter-battery.
    “If Justice Binnie had played by Collins’ rules he would have buried her under a “pile-up”, as he did Fisher. Politely, of course. But he was kind, well sort of. Mrs Collins, unfortunately for her, was simply echoing her bureaucrats. Not a good idea when “playing in the bigs” with 2500 lb. Rhinos [with apologies to Ian Binnie] !
    – a North American perspective from JD, Attorney at Law, King City,, OR., (OTB 3) USofA. “

    Tough shit raghead stupidboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  444. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    Tsk, tsk, tsk flipped out.!

    All I know is and all there is to need to know is that the PC sought not so much acquit Bain ,proclaim his innocence and order his release but more that a retrial be ordered for Jury to evaluate the so called ” fresh ” evidence.
    In record time.?? and at least two jurors who subsequently have had doubts about the verdict and one of whom has stated that it wasn’t their task to find Robin guilty but whether there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit his son.Another who felt David Bain should not receive compensation, another couple of members who have known to have slept during the retrial. A couple of others demonstrating their objectivity and impartially by foolishly attending a Defence post trial celebration .
    A jury decision that can be said to be partly responsible for the present impasse.

    An e fail for the spin and opinion piece on Binnie the Commercial and Corporate lawyer and the political appointee to the Canadian Supreme .Less it seems on judicial merit as applies here and the UK.. Appears more like a piqued Attorney at Law at the drubbing Binnie received due to his ineptness in comprehending , understanding and applying his mandate.

    PS for wowan, Nostalgia NZ and you from the Privy Council including the highly esteemed Lord Thomas Bingham,

    This is what the Privy Council had to say about the lens in 2007:
     
    “The Crown’s thesis that David Bain was wearing the glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen, before shooting him, is certainly a tenable one on the evidence. Indeed, in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stephen’s bedroom, where he was killed, and the Crown’s thesis is a strong one. The issue for us, however, is whether it is reasonably possible the lens could have got into the vicinity of Stephen’s dead body in a manner or at a time which was unrelated to the murders. That could be so only if the lens was there prior to the time when the murderer entered the room to shoot Stephen. There is no direct evidence suggesting how or why a lens from a pair of glasses Stephen never wore, and had no need to wear, was already on the floor in his bedroom, prior to his being shot.”

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

    Binnie Dunce said when he arrived he was canvassing pro-Bain views only. I remember thinking that was odd. As far as he was concerned the Crown case represented the anti-Bain side in totality.

    Well, the Crown lawyers fucked up. How they couldn’t get a conviction with all that evidence is beyond me. Of course having a biased, stupid and lazy jury didn’t help.

    Then we had poor old what’s-his-name. Thinking he could take on the rotten legal system and win a victory for truth and justice. As if lawyers care about truth and judges care about reality.

    Unlike the Crewe murders, we have a choice between only two men, one murdered. Simple, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  446. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy @ 1.45

    Own goal re the gloves, the gloves were discarded in Stephens room after the fight so therefore Robin was NOT wearing them when he shot himself, the magazine marks were most probably caused when he swapped the magazines before dispatching himself, hence the only factious nonsense is from yours truly.
    “Robin chose to wear his sons gloves…” More factious nonsense, daddy took a pair of gloves from the room in which he kept his clothes, the ownership is irrelevant.
    Own goal idiot!

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

    Dennis Horne (2,079 comments) says:
    August 18th, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    Binnie Dunce said when he arrived he was canvassing pro-Bain views only. I remember thinking that was odd. As far as he was concerned the Crown case represented the anti-Bain side in totality.

    Does somebody feed you this crap or do you pluck it out of your own arse?
    Binnie not only read the counterspin bullshit but the JFRB shit too.
    He interviewed 3 people, Bain and 2 of the cops who stitched him up. You are just pissed because he was smarter than the 2 dumb cops.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  448. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan, is that all the” buckets “of new evidence amounts to.?

    Another tawdry rehash from supporters propaganda machine.

    I see Robin discarded his blood soaked gloves , transferred naturally the blood to David”s gun then thought whoops- I better try and remove my fingerprints in case I get caught out and identified . Then decide to shoot myself in the most awkward way possible in my left temple. though am right handed .
    And without leaving any of my families blood on me nor mine on the bloody gun and strap.

    Makes perfect sense now ,doesn’t it people . ??!!

    Yet again LMAO .!

    Kanz, methinks Dennis is actually delighted that the Binnie report is dumped for obvious reasons .
    You>.?
    BT W Binine did make sure he read Karam’s three tomes and was hooked.!

    But you.???

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  449. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy
    We all already knew that it was not the jury’s role to find David “innocent” or Robin “guilty” and what the verdicts meant before before the stupid juror decided to speak out, I also watched the 20/20 piece and never actually heard her say that she thought that David was “guilty” I actually saw the presenter say explicitly that she was not trying to challenge the verdict, take whatever conclusions you like from what she said but she didn’t add anything new to the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  450. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    No Stupidboy

    I never claimed that, it was just a direct response to your idiotic argument. Also posting a ridiculous scenario like above just shows us that you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Own goal Stephiedunce

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  451. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Rowan, I see from his last post that it is stupidboy who tells old Denny what he thinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  452. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy

    Instead of just parroting the “most awkward way possible” bullshit, can you actually substantiate this? No actually the temple is the most common place for a self inflicted shot and a close contact wound is also around 95% more likely to be self inflicted, the “most awkward way possible” is just a lie borrowed from the police, Boyce was able to demonstrate how it was easy and required no difficult contortions to which Dr Dempster agreed with.
    Another own goal!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  453. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wown, re juror . ? Was it this one you are referring to who felt Bain should not be paid compensation ,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6472004/Don-t-pay-Bain-compo-juror

    Another juror sent a letter to the Press stating that it was not their role to assess Robin’s culpability or guilt but whether there was enough reasonable doubt or not to acquit Bain.

    I would say a right handed person deciding to shoot themselves in the opposite temple would be very awkward and unusual. 95% more likely in the said manner .? Link. ?

    Dr Dempster supporting and approving Boyce ‘s scenario.?? Link for that too,.?

    The vivid memory about Boyce is he revealingly having to take the stand again and change his testimony from 20cm distance to 12 cm distance .
    HIghly amusing actually.!

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

    I don’t care about David Bain; he ain’t getting any compensation. Not now, not ever. His luck has run out. The fanatic. The dopey jury. The dunce Binnie. The end.

    There is a lot of forensic evidence. Either David Bain tried to set the scene to look like murder-suicide, and failed, or Robin Bain set the scene to look like murder, and succeeded.

    So how can we tell which? Easy.

    1. David said: The judge was very good to me.
    2. David said: My core belief is I wasn’t there.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  455. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    I’m only a stupid old bastard that’s been around firarms for 50 odd years but I have to disagree with you Rowan.

    The mouth is the best target for suicide. You grip the muzzle with your mouth and it minimises the shakes you naturally get squeezing the trigger.

    Why would you use the temple when you may shudder at the crucial moment and take a wedge out of your skull or amputate some of your ear or jaw? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  456. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Come to think of it, we need someone to make a *controversial New Zealand* edition of Cluedo.

    Suspects: Scott Watson, Ewen McDonald, David Bain, Mark Lundy, David Tamihere, Arthur Thomas, and Constable Shipton.

    Objects: Shotgun, axe, Dive shoes, golf club, handcuffs, calf hammer, hooker’s underpants…

    Locations: A yacht with one or more masts, the dining room, Huka Falls, the farm, the Bucket Fountain, the bush…

    Or is it too soon?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  457. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    We could have some dodgy Murri’s lurking outside the library or the study to steal the body RRM! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  458. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy

    A good piece summing up the third juror actions
    from http://www.laudafinem.com

    TVNZ, Rogue Jurors Campaign Exposed

    November 23, 2012 by laudafinem

    Update: The second Juror, the NZ Bain Trial

    Regular followers of this blog will be well aware that the Team @ Lauda Finem deplore injustice and delight in exposing those who participate and or in anyway contribute to injustice or with malice conspire to harm others.

    Last Sunday New Zealand’s state owned broadcaster Television New Zealand was responsible for just that, a cynical and malicious attempt to harm David Bain and his champion Joe Karam.

    The vehicle used was the broadcasters weekly program, SUNDAY, presented by Miriama Kamo. One of the programs Journo’s, Janet McIntyre, and it’s producers, Chris Cooke and Max Adams, threw together an episode that we are loath to call journalism.

    Composite mugshot one: TVNZ’s “the third juror”

    Subsequent to posting our article, Public confidence in NZ Courts on the verge of collapse: rogue juror’s out of control, Lauda Finem volunteers have been inundated with emails denouncing the SUNDAY program, the so called “third juror” and (what the overwhelming majority of our correspondents felt was) the programs hidden agenda. We should also note the fact that we also received a number of very nasty emails intent on re-trying David Bain.

    That aside, the emails, taken as a whole, shed a great deal of light on particular patterns of behaviour and what to us appeared to be a single source from which the negative commentators had drawn their inspiration. There were also a number of comments, most of which for very good reasons we didn’t publish, that linked the TVNZ program and the third juror to that same strangely malevolent source, an individual by the name of Kent Parker and his website; http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/kent-parker.

    One of our regular informants, and a number of others, provided additional information that we are still working our way through.

    Amongst the material we received were references to evidence available online that also points to the likelihood of a link between the aforementioned anti Bain protagonist Kent Parker and TVNZ’s “the third juror“.

    Mr Parker it seems holds very strong views on David Bain and he appears to have garnered quite a following, a fan club that is clearly intent on re-litigating the case through the court of public opinion. Whilst our research indicates that this group is not particularly sizable by any means it has certainly managed to appear larger than life ably assisted by complicit media organisations, TVNZ amongst them.

    It’s certainly evident in the SUNDAY program, clearly the journalist and the programs two producers wanted their viewers to believe that they and “the third juror” had, for the first time exposed serious wrong doing in the Bain trial but, unfortunately, nothing could have been further from the truth.

    The programs viewers were introduced to the third juror in a way that would have the more gullible viewers believing that she had, for the first time, stepped forward to expose the alleged wrong doing by her fellow jurors in the Bain trial. There was a deliberate attempt by the presenter, the producers and “the third juror” to mislead the audience by presenting the allegations as brand spanking new allegations and a stop press SUNDAY exclusive.

    The producers and the journo doing the interview went to extraordinary lengths to paint their “third juror” as an honest and concerned citizen who had contacted TVNZ with deep concerns involving alleged wrong doing in the jury room during Bain’s 2009 retrial.

    The way in which the program was scripted, naive viewers the third jurors revelations would have seemed quite extraordinary, which of course was exactly what those behind this bullshit propaganda piece wanted.

    For those of us who are a little more experience however the programs agenda became transparent as the story slowly unfolded, despite the cleverly crafted smoke and mirrors that invited the viewer to believe that the story was all about the third jurors concerns in and around the juries deliberations.

    In 2011, three members of the Lauda Finem team attended an event at the Sydney Town Hall. One of the speakers at this event, controversial journalist John Pilger, spoke on the subject of the media and the manipulation of public opinion. In doing so he referred to the American nephew of psychologist Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays. Bernays was a pioneer in the use of public relations and propaganda, he was in fact the father of spin. Bernays described spin as “the intelligent manipulation of the public with “false realities” which a compliant media would dispense”.

    In this case the concerns expressed by John Pilger have taken real life form, an almost text book example of Edward Bernays notion of spin with “the intelligent manipulation” of the SUNDAY programs viewers with “false realities” by a compliant television New Zealand, with the objective of influencing public opinion. Every fair minded New Zealander should now be deeply concerned with this outrageous behaviour.

    Another of the speakers at the aforementioned event, renowned human rights barrister Julian Burnside QC, addressed the audience of 2500. Amongst the many subjects Mr Burnside spoke to was the criminal justice system and the importance of an indespensible cornerstone “the presumption of innocence”. This is yet another of the issues that should now concern New Zealander’s given that the SUNDAY program in question appears to have ridden roughshod over this very important notion. It’s a very disturbing behaviour that is fast becoming the norm amongst New Zealand’s journalists

    As we have pointed out many times before spin doctors, when trying to manipulate the public, often rely on presenting information in isolation and the interview with the so called third juror is a text book example of that formula.

    Readers will recall that Lauda Finem, after viewing the program, suspected that something was not quite right, in fact everything about the program screamed wrong!

    We raised a number of concerns about the behaviour of the third juror and we left readers with a series of question, some of which we now have answers to:

    Was “the third juror” attempting to subvert David Bain’s bid for compensation?

    It is our view that this is exactly what “the third Juror” was attempting to do; ably assisted by TVNZ, journalist Janet McIntrye and Sundays producers Chris Cooke and Max Adams. She had form in that she had contacted the Christchurch Press in February this year with the same intention:

    “A juror from the second trial of David Bain wrote to the justice minister urging him not to pay compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment”

    Source: Don’t pay Bain compo – juror (Fairfax)

    Why didn’t Crown law immediately investigate her behaviour, in contacting Justice Binnie, when Binnie had reported it to Crown Law?

    Lauda Finem believes that the reasons behind Justice Binnie’s referring “the third jurors” correspondence to crown law is that he had serious concerns, similar to those which we have expressed. That he was likely wanting to know how she had obtained his personal contact details and details of what he was considering, which included the knowledge that the judge asked for and been given Joe Karam’s book. This of course resulted in Judge Binnie going public, after the fact, again in February this year:

    Judge asks for Karam books to decide compo claim (Fairfax)

    That she had, we believe, in her email and attached affidavit disclosed confidential detail of the deliberations of the jury and as such had committed a criminal offence. We believe it more than likely that she had disclosed juries deliberations in her correspondence with Justice Binnie for the simple reason that she had again committed the offence when she wrote to then Justice Minister Simon Power in April 2010 and yet again when she (undoubtedly prompted by judge Binnie public admission of his request for Joe Karam’s book two weeks earlier ) contacted journalist Martin Van Beynen at the Christchurch Press in the weeks prior to the 24th February 2012:

    “The juror wrote to then justice minister Simon Power in April 2010 raising, among other things, misgivings about the conduct of the jury during the trial.

    Much of the letter cannot be reported because the law prevents the publication of material revealing the deliberations of a jury. The Bain juror also expressed concerns about the jury not having access to evidence that was suppressed until the verdict was reached and then released after the trial.

    In the letter, the juror reveals three other jurors, of their own volition, visited Every St, where the murders took place, during the trial”

    Is she suffering from mental illness or is she just a complete fuckwit?

    We’ll leave our readers to form their own conclusions when attempting to answer the above question.

    Halfwit TVNZ hack Janet McIntyre; what the hell were they thinking?

    Having established the fact that this juror, a woman that TVNZ last Sunday tried to paint in a benign saint complete with a luminous halo and as having just come forward in the interest of justice and the preservation of the sanctity of the jury, is one in the same person that has spent the past two and a half years covertly maliciously endeavouring to undermine David Bain’s bid for compensation for the 13 years he spent behind bars, a bid that has likely been supported in the report, commissioned by the government, by retired Canadian Judge Ian Binnie.

    This Juror’s reprehensible behaviour has gone undetected and unpunished simply because she could not be identified. Comfortable in the knowledge that the public would be none the wiser she kept popping up again and again knowing that she could only ever be identified as “A juror” who in the mind of the public could have been any one of the twelve people that sat in judgement of David Bain.

    The third jurors connection to the malevolent Mr Ken Parker is to be found in one of the dirty little stories, containing the exact same allegations aired on TVNZ which was posted on his website on or about the 18th January 2012 just a matter of weeks prior to Judge Binnie (5th February 1012) publicly disclosing the fact that he had requested a copy of Joe Karam’s book and then journalist Martin Van Beynen’s article in the Christchurch Press (24th February 2012) all in the short space of a little over one month; coincidence perhaps? We very much doubt it. It seems, to us at least, that this pair of nasty little malicious fuck tard’s had been acting in tandem in numerous attempts at creating clusterfucks for Bain and Karam’s campaign for compensation:

    EXCLUSIVE – Juror Misconduct in 2009 Bain Retrial

    A member of the jury from the 2009 retrial of David Bain reports the following took place during the course of the trial:
    1.Early in the trial (well before the prosecution closed), one jury member suggested that, “Once this is all over, I’ll invite Joe Karam over to my house so we can all meet him.”
    2.Another jury member bought one of Karam’s books at some stage during the trial. He made it clear that his wife, who attended the trial from time to time, was trying to get it autographed by Karam.
    3.This same juror presented some printouts about Karam’s campaign that he/she had downloaded from the internet. The juror was quick to add that he/she hadn’t read them, yet he/she still brought them in to show other members of the jury.

    The above is additional to previous reports of jury members being invited to attend the after trial party by the Defence team and then two of them turning up before realising that it was highly inappropriate to do so and reports of one jury member hugging the defendant.

    It has been brought to our attention that in NZ law we are not meant to publish anything this close to the inner deliberations of a jury in a criminal trial, but in this case we claim that publication is in the public interest and we will defend our right to do so.

    Also the following has been revealed on stuff.co.nz:

    Three jurors also visited Every Street of their own volition, this despite the requirement that jurors not make their own investigations, but base their decision on what is presented to them in court.

    There is a very strong argument that reprinting of the book David and Goliath was a violation of sub justice

    As for the allegations of inappropriate conduct that this woman has repeatedly been throwing at her fellow jurors over the past two and a half years, it’s the worst case of “the pot calling the kettle black” that we’ve seen in a long long time.

    Lets just hope that this little fucked up piece of TVNZ propaganda was not another cynical attempt by the National Party in governments spin machine to turn public opinion against Bain so that they can avoid having to cough the compensation he deserves!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  459. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy

    So Robin had an extra 12cm overreach and not 20cm, big deal he could still reach the trigger with any of his 4 fingers or thumb as per Boyces demonstration.
    No I don’t feel the need to provide you links, try reading the books or using the internet the information is out there, Watch Reeds cross examination of Dr Dempster for a start, then the trial extracts are reproduced in Karams book (but I suppose he has just invented the questions and Dempster’s responses)
    Either way you just parroting the “most awkward way possible” is just a lie and shows us that you have no idea what you are talking about!

    Re the juror’s letter it was never there role to decide whether or not Bain should be compensated so there letter or opinions on the matter are just irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  460. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    A brief summary of the “non existent” forensic evidence against Daddy, with thanks to N-NZ

    A brief summary:

    >fresh blood on two pairs of trousers in Robin’s caravan
    >a bloodied hair on the sweatshirt in the commer van
    >the footprints: first trial said that they must be David’s because they matched the (unstretched) length of his socks (280mm). Second trial showed David’s feet to be considerably longer (300mm)
    >blood inside the barrel of the rifle showing the shot to Robin being a close contact shot
    >Laniet was shot through something and this intervening something introduced yaw in the bullet creating a larger entrance wound: not a contact would as previously thought.
    >Laniet had told several people that her father molested her (possible motive, not brought out at first trial)
    >The fingerprints on the rifle from David could not have been blood
    >there were numerous other prints on the rifle (partial/unidentifiable)
    >the proposition of Robin shooting himself being impossible or extremely difficult was shown to be false and that it was relatively easy
    >the blood spatter evidence was new
    >the blood spatter evidence that showed the blood and brain spatter on Robin’s shoe wasn’t his own
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed their was no screen (a gunman) between Robin and the spread of the spatter
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that had a gunman been involved in Robin’s death the shot would have been impossible without a required distorted pose from Robin (perhaps standing on a chair)
    >the blood spatter evidence which showed that the gunman would have needed Robin’s co-operation in own death and anyway would have been impossible not to have left a ‘shielded’ area in the spatter
    >DNA evidence was new
    >the information about the correct lens placement was new
    >the details of the correct computer turn-on timing was new
    >the details or the washing machine cycle duration was new
    >some of the details of the blood-staining was new (eg in the first trial the stain on the back of David’s shirt was an ‘old’ stain pre-dating the murders)
    >The flap of skin found in Stephens room and ‘said’ to be Davids was proven to be Stephens.

    Overall the forensic proof proves Robin the killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  461. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    I alluded to this previously but am going to do so again, daddy’s supporters do not appear capable of distinguishing between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’. This was also evident in the recent published police report into the Crewe murders where they made baseless statements with no supporting proof or evidence of any kind such as “Demler and his 2nd wife were in no way involved”

    Evidence is simply information which there is far to much of in the Bain case, in the police case it is all circumstantial and open to interpretation which Muggy, Stupidboy, Denny dunce etc have interpreted in their own naive minds as being the “only possible explanation”
    Does this make it so? Well only to one as stupid as them. Also there response to disproving any defence explanations seems to be to come up with a very unlikely scenario ie what Robin “must” have done if he was the perpetrator. This was also evident at the retrial where Dr Dempster was asked to demonstrate by the crown a very unlikely way in which a person could shoot themselves which the crown would ask you to believe is “proof” that he “didn’t”. He admitted in cross examination that he was not asked to show it “in any other way”
    So in all far to much “evidence” from the witch-sniffing mob, but so far 0.00000% proof of any of it.
    There is physical evidence that meets the standard of proof against Daddy such as the shot that killed him had an upward trajectory and was in hard contact with his head for a start and a lot of what is in N-NZs excellent summary

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  462. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    wowan, I’ve just selected two of your so called “new evidence”,

    >Laniet had told several people that her father molested her (possible motive, not brought out at first trial)
    >The fingerprints on the rifle from David could not have been blood

    The first is based on here say evidence and even Binnie was not impressed finding ” a lot of smoke and no fire ” quite possibly noting that Laniet chose to go and stay with her father at Taieri for several weeks prior to the murders . Her friend who boarded with them Kylie Cunningham testified in the retrial that he witnessed nothing unusual in their relationship . Laniet was known to tell lots of porkies including having babies at 11- 12 including a black one

    Could of nnot been in bllod.?? Well that s what Mander claimed but he had only the luxury of examining the rifle over 15 years after the murder. By then the blood products had sufficiently deteriorated so not to give a definitive and conclusive answer on that score. .

    Own goal on those two alone and certainly not new evidence .
    Most evidence is actually circunstantial as rarely is the offender caught red handed so to speak . Thus making great efforts to conceal and hide evidence implicating himself as happened wit the Bain case .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  463. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    No Stupidboy
    The own goal is on your part, Mander is the crown prosecutor, I think you are meaning Carl Lloyd who successfully exposed Kim Jones as a liar at the retrial. It has already been explained to you that blood does not “fluoresce” under a polilight as Kim Jones claimed in 1995, he admitted this but thought the 1995 jury would understand things better if they thought it did.
    Also he agreed that the ridges in the photo should be black if the prints were made in blood whereas they were white but the photo according to Jones was ” a negative” not according to the police photographer! In Jones evidence he said the fingerprints were very well defined which is also inconsistent with “bloody prints”
    Who to believe? Kim Jones who contradicted most of the crown evidence as well as the defence and admitted that what he told the 1995 jury was incorrect. His evidence was unsupported by science, the polilight manual and common sense, or Lloyd.
    Not to hard Stupidboy!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  464. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Also Stupidboy
    Nothing I have posted is “new evidence” it was all brought out at the retrial and is long established!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  465. muggins (3,800 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.
    It was suggested by the defence that blood was found in the barrel of the rifle. This finding was attributed to Peter Hentschel but does not seem to appear in the notes of evidence.
    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. “
    Further examination by the Crown Prosecutor went as follows.
    Q. Doctor, you told us about the clothing Mr Bain was wearing at the time you saw him , what sort of head wear if any did you notice?
    A. There was a knitted green beanie which was tucked in the hood of his sweatshirt,it was lying behind his head when he was in the living room.
    Q. Are you able to comment ,from your experience in self-inflicted wound, whether that is usual, unusual or otherwise?
    A. Well if Robin Bain inflicted this wound on himself one would have to say it would be unusual for him to be wearing headgear. In my experience I have never come across anybody who shot themselves in the head who was wearing headgear at the time and I think it’s a pretty uncommon event.
    Q. The various considerations you have referred to such as the clothing, the position of the wound, the trajectory and the angle,were they matters which you considered ,or viewed of assistance or not of assistance in deciding whether this was a self inflicted wound or not?
    A. Well my conclusion was that it was most unlikely to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but I couldn’t exclude that possibility completely .
    Q. Why do you say that?
    A. The main reason for that was the trajectory, the difficulty of accessing the trigger with the rifle held in that position, they would be the main factors that influenced that decision.

    On top of that Robin Bain left no fingerprints on the rifle. While it is not unusual for a person to commit suicide by firearm without leaving any fingerprints on it one would have thought that in this particular case Robin Bain would have left some fingerprints. The manner in which he would have had grip [especially] the long cylindrical silencer would have been conducive to leaving good impressions or at the very least finger definitions where he gripped it’s surfaces, remembering that a print from Stephen was found on the silencer.

    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%
    An impartial observer might wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple with a .22 rifle.
    The same observer might also wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached.
    And that same observer might also wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair.
    Furthermore, that same observer might also wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and wearing a beanie.
    And that same observer might also wonder how many right-handed men have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the left temple using a .22 rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair , wearing a beanie, and without leaving any fingerprints on the silencer.
    And, apart from all that ,a set of David Bain’s fingerprints, supposedly from the summer, were left in a pristine condition on the rifle.
    Then there is that 10 shot magazine that was found in an upright position within milimetres of Robin Bain’s right hand. Why would he have placed that magazine in an upright position on the floor when he could have just dropped it or placed it on the coffee table? Also, one would have thought that if that magazine was there prior to Robin Bain’s body falling to the floor the contact of his arm with the carpet would have been enough to cause that magazine to fall over. And there were no fingerprints on that magazine.
    A live round was found of the floor of the lounge. A Mr Philip Boyce was cross-examined about that live round. Part of that cross-examination was as follows.
    Now this bullet we know was found on the floor by Robin’s body by the rifle?
    1. Yes.
    If it was caused by this cartridge being simply loaded into the magazine as distinct from any misfeed, how would the bullet get out again to get on the floor?
    2. It would have to have been physically taken out of the magazine again.
    So can it be related to – if it’s simply gone into the magazine, can it be related to a misfire then?
    3. To a misfeed.
    Yes, misfeed sorry, not misfire.
    4. If it’s going into the magazine, no it can’t. If it’s coming out of the magazine, yes it can.
    But to get it out and get it on to the floor, explain again how you would do that?
    5. To get it out, to get it on to the floor, it would either have to be a misfeed and then cleared or the magazine would have to be physically taken from the rifle, the round simply ejected out and the magazine put back in the rifle.

    In fact there is another way that live round could have ended up on the floor. For safe unloading of a .22 semi-automatic rifle you [a] engage the safety catch [b] remove the magazine and [c] pull the cocking handle back and check that the chamber is cleared.
    If there is still a round in the chamber it will be ejected at stage [c] of the safety check.
    Because there will still rounds in the magazine the following can be concluded. If someone else had shot Robin and unloaded the rifle, then stage three of the safety procedure above would have resulted in a live round being ejected.
    If Robin Bain had experienced a misfeed or a misfire he would had to have unwound himself from the alleged contorted left-hand shooting position, cleared the misfeed/misfire, re-engage the alleged contorted left-hand shooting position ,and then tried again. All this without getting any of his prints on the rifle.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  466. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Correction.
    I have now received Peter Hentschel’s 82 pages of notes and he has noted that there was blood in the barrel. He tells me it would have been just inside the silencer.
    So it would appear that Dempster is correct when he said that wound to Robin Bain’s head was a close contact wound.
    However that does not prove that he committed suicide any more than it proves David Bain didn’t kill him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  467. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Aunt Fanny
    No it doesn’t “prove” it it just makes it over 95% more likely to be self inflicted, unless we accept the alternative scenario that Robin allowed David to hold a gun in close contact with his head and have two go’s at shooting him, sorry but this is ridiculous! Your other way is bullshit and just shows us that you don’t know what your talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  468. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    It is obvious you did not read all of my post. That “two goes” you refer to is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
    The most likely reason for that live round on the floor [which was never proved to be a misfeed -another myth] was that when David Bain changed the magazines that round ejected on to the floor of the lounge.
    It will all be revealed in that new book. Make sure you buy a copy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  469. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Recognise these Muggins
    Own goal!
    With thanks to Nosty for pointing it out.

    And here’s another humdinger from you Mike, it’s called ‘where the bullet didn’t come from.’

    David Bain then leaves the alcove and goes into the lounge.He carries out a safe unloading procedure which would include removing the magazine and pulling the bolt back.If there was a round in the chamber it would be ejected. That is why that bullet is on the floor of the lounge.Simple as.

    Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:26 pm, Fri 22 Oct #28499

    Later, when he has ‘discovered’ the rifle had a live round in the chamber when found Mike re-explains…

    David Bain was hardly likely to eject a live round from the magazine that was in the rifle,was he?I doubt that even his defence team would have been able to explain how a dead man could clear the rifle.

    Edited by supersleuth at 9:34 am, Sun 24 Oct

    Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 9:23 am, Sun 24 Oct #28543

    PS I read enough of the post to realise that you have no idea what you are talking about!

    [DPF: Please don’t refer to people by names other than which they blog under]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  470. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Btw, Rowan
    If you don’t want to get more demerits could I suggest you keep a civil tongue in your head. I haven’t complained about you for some time so don’t blame me for those 50 demerits you just received but if you keep referring to me as Aunt Fanny and use the term bullshit when in fact I am giving a probable scenario then I will make a complaint.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  471. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Thanks for posting that Rowan. Yes, I admit I was pretty green when I posted that about four years ago, or whenever.
    Bit like Karam saying that the blood on Robin Bain’s clothing , if tested, would have been found to have come from a member of his family. He knows better now and so do I. We have both learnt from our mistakes. Trouble is, you haven’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  472. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    So far as nosty goes, well he keeps referring to the blood being deep in the barrel when in fact it was just inside the end of the silencer.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  473. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Well you are pretty much reposting the same scenario so its obvious that you haven’t learnt very much in those 4 years.
    Re the blood in the barrel the depth is irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  474. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    You need to read those posts again , Rowan, not the same scenario at all.
    I didn’t say the depth of the blood in the barrel was relevant, I have already accepted it was Robin Bain’s blood as per my post at 12.52 above which you appear not to have either read or understood.
    I was simply pointing out that Nosty had made a mistake as he kept saying that the blood was deep in the barrel. He now knows better, thanks to muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  475. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    You see Rowan, I used to believe that David hid in the computer alcove. Now I believe he accosted his father in the lounge and shot him when his was in an upright position. Didn’t quite get the angle of the shot quite right, one of the many reasons why his father did not appear to have committed suicide.
    I mean Karam made many mistakes when he wrote David and Goliath. He has learnt from those mistakes. I have learnt from my mistakes. You need to learn from your mistakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  476. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    A small amount of blood from daddy’s clothes was tested and shown to be his, so what? We know that none of the blood on his body was collected or tested at all including the splash on his index finger which is in the right direction to have come from someone else (say for instance the third shot at Laniet) the smeared blood on his hands or the red ‘bloodlike’ substance under his fingernails none of which were ever collected or tested, the blood smears and injuries to his hands is not consistent with coming from his temple wound so where do you suppose they came from?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  477. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    The crown seem to like the hiding behind tag curtain in the computer alcove scenario muggy are you suggesting you know better, geez Robin must have been a very cooperative victim, given that you accept that the shot was fired from in contact with his temple.

    PS
    Am going out to do a late shift now more tomorrow

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  478. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    It was not a small amount of blood from Robin Bain’s clothes that were tested, from memory there were over 50 samples tested, so Karam actually made 50 mistakes.
    And if he got it wrong about the blood on Robin Bain’s clothes , he probably is wrong about the blood on his hands as well.
    All this talk about Robin Bain only rinsing his hands , I reckon that is a load of rubbish. I have suffered from nosebleeds for years and let me tell you blood washes off skin very easily. Once you have given your hands a rinse there is no blood left on them. That is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators. That “bloodlike” substance could have just as easy have been rust from that old guttering. That looks similar to blood and I know that from experience. When I got blood under my fingernails it washed away easily, but the rust from the guttering didn’t. Those minor abrasions on his hands could have been up to 24 hours old. At the first trial, the trial you like to refer to when discussing the length of those sockprints, Dempster said those abrasions were definitely more than three hours old at the time Robin Bain died.
    As I have already explained more than once, but you seem to be unable to comprehend, is that David Bain could have smeared blood on his father’s hands when he moved his body, and even the defence appear to accept Robin Bain’s body could have been moved. And the police certainly did not move it before those photos were taken.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  479. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    The Crown had a number of scenarios. We all know Robin Bain was a pacifist, he is just the sort of person that could have been shot without putting up a struggle, specially if David had told him everyone else was dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  480. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    Surprised to hear you are employed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  481. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Rowan, old Fanny has just stated “the crown had a number of scenarios”, and her previous posts show that she has changed her mind many times about how Bain was supposed to have shot his father.
    All that proves is that both the crown and fanny will chop as many edges off the jigsaw puzzle as they want to so they can make their case. Who cares if the picture is unrecognizable when they have stuck it together.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  482. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz
    I haven’t changed my mind as much as Joe.
    And his picture still doesn’t look right.
    I mean he reckons that Robin Bain , a right-handed man, shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached, while standing with one foot on a chair , and wearing a beanie. Not only is he supposed to have completed that feat, but he is also supposed to changed magazines, place one magazine upright on the floor without leaving his fingerprints on it, and hold the silencer without leaving any fingerprints on it. And all that without damaging a pristine set of David’s fingerprints.
    Oh, and I nearly forgot , type a message on the computer when he could have written on thus exonerating the only one who deserved to stay.
    Now the simple answer is that David Bain confronted his father and shot him in the head while covering his hands with something. Either before or after doing that he typed a message on the computer saying he was the only one who deserved to stay. The reason why he typed it is that he couldn’t write it because if he had it would have been easy to prove it wasn’t his father’s handwriting.
    Btw, Kanz , unless you want more demerits , if you are going to refer to me by name, use muggins.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  483. 2clever4U (20 comments) says:

    Only someone with a screw loose could see the evidence as pointing at Robin Bain, assuming (s)he had studied it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  484. flipper (4,196 comments) says:

    Yep…
    A fuckwit, screw-loose like 2clever4U…..

    U, fuckwit are, by your lights, more qualified than the very best independent legal minds.

    Now, go change your name again, but also, get lost.

    You will not of course, but in your own interests, seek urgent psychiatric help.

    DPF already has enough worries without mental explosions by f/wits like U.

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

    Thanks, flipper, a laugh is just what I needed.

    Which legal minds have ever said Bain was innocent? Binnie J. A politician turned judge, no prior experience on the bench. Wow!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  486. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    The old woman who thinks she knows better than the PC, 12 jurors and an international jurist of the highest order, yet hasn’t grown past the 5 year old stage of….*sniff sniff* I’m gonna tell the teacher on you”. Who thinks anybody in their right mind would ever listen to a word she has to say?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  487. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The trouble is that some of David Bain’s supporters have seen the evidence, some of them ,like myself, have even read the retrial transcript. I sometimes wonder if they really do know that David did it but post the opposite just to wind people like myself up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  488. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    Looks like DF did, seeing as some of your posts were deleted [most unusual for that to happen] plus you got a few more demerits to boot.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  489. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    For your information those jurors only thought there was reasonable doubt. It would appear that international jurist went into the room determined to find David Bain innocent, no matter how many lies he told him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  490. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Bravo! Can’t win the debate, so get the teacher to take out the opponent. Bet it makes you feel good, I realise you need something to.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  491. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins (3,054 comments) says:
    August 19th, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Kanz,
    For your information those jurors only thought there was reasonable doubt.

    You have no idea what the jurors thought. You only know what 1 attention seeker said well after the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  492. tom hunter (5,078 comments) says:

    12 hours of dogs barking

    Hat tip, cha, from months ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  493. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    You were told why those posts were deleted, so don’t blame me. You shot yourself in the foot.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  494. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz,
    It was you who implied those jurors believed Bain was innocent. You don’t know what they thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  495. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Justice Binnie writes

    “The curious placement of the empty 10 shot magazine.
    An important element of the prosecutors argument against suicide [and a point which also found favour with the Court of Appeal] is that an empty 10 shot magazine was found close to Robin Bain’s dead right hand on the carpet resting on its narrow ,slightly convex edge. The Crown Law Office says it is unlikely such an object randomly dropped would wind up on it’s narrow edge. Police reconstruction tests support this conclusion. The position of the magazine is more consistent with deliberate placement than with a natural fall from Robin’s dying grasp.
    I accept this to be so , but the issue resolves into the usual question-whose placement , Robin’s or David’s?
    The curious placement of the magazine on the convex edge rather than on it’s flat side does not help in determining whether Robin or David who did it. Curious or not , either man could have done it.
    The Crown Law Office Submission acknowledges that it “is of course possible ” that Robin placed the magazine on the floor prior to him committing suicide but the Crown Law Office cannot think of a “logical reason for him doing so”. But there is no logical reason suggested for David Bain doing so either.
    The Bain argument is that the magazine must have been placed on the floor before Robin’s death because in order to make the fatal shot Robin must have switched the empty 10 bullet magazine for the loaded 5 bullet magazine. Each of the 10 bullets was accounted for elsewhere in the house. When the police seized the gun it was fitted with a smaller 5 shot magazine. It was a bullet from the 5 shot magazine that killed Robin. The Bain theory is that Robin put down the empty 10 shot magazine on the floor as he fit the smaller 5 shot magazine in preparation for suicide.
    Contrary to the view taken by the Court of Appeal in 2002 , I do not regard the evidence of the standing empty magazine as pointing decisively at David. In my view the placement, curious though it is , excludes neither David nor Robin ,it is neither inculpatory or exculpatory of either man.”

    Justice Binnie is incorrect when he refers to the “empty 10 shot magazine”. In fact there were three live rounds in that magazine as a witness at the retrial testified.
    Q. So that is the magazine we see in the photo?
    A. It is, yes.
    Q. Is that a 10 shot magazine?
    A. It is a 10 shot magazine.
    Q. Was there any ammunition in that or was it empty?
    A. I believe there was ammunition in it. That is my recollection. I have made no notes of how many bullets are in there but I do observe one shell, sorry, three shells.
    Q. In the package?
    A. In the package.

    Exhibit 25 produced, [10 shot]magazine with shells.

    So obviously this puts a different complexion on the placement of that magazine. Why would Robin Bain change magazines when there were still three rounds in the 10 shot magazine and place the 10 shot magazine upright on the floor?
    The defence have suggested that Robin Bain was falling when his blood spattered on to the alcove curtain, therefore his body must have been moved. Only David could have moved his father’s body prior to the arrival of the police. After moving his body he could well have placed that 10 shot magazine upright within millimetres of his father’s outstretched right hand as part of his “staging” of a suicide.

    One of many examples of Binnie J’s incompetence.

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

    The magazine on its side. It was placed by David to make it look like it fell from his dead father’s hand: scene setting. It’s fucking obvious. Why would Robin place it there? Binnie, were you hypnotised?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  497. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    You were told why those posts were deleted, so don’t blame me. You shot yourself in the foot.

    Nah, had no idea posts were even removed. Only knew that you had threatened to pimp to DPF. Still, more power to you….. a win… pimping as a five year old would must make you feel real big.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  498. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Back earlier than expected

    “The Crown had a number of scenarios. We all know Robin Bain was a pacifist, he is just the sort of person that could have been shot without putting up a struggle, specially if David had told him everyone else was dead.”

    Own goal Muggy
    The crown didn’t actually provide a single scenario Muggy simply because they didn’t have one so didn’t , The only “scenario” I have seen you idiots come up with is Marzukas comedy clip which is hugely entertaining but in reality completely ridiculous.

    “David Bain could have smeared blood on his father’s hands when he moved his body”
    Classic more stupidity from you, would you like to explain how and while your at it maybe the blood staining on the curtains, the best that James Ferris could offer on behalf of the crown was that it was caused by “shaking the dead body”

    “so Karam actually made 50 mistakes”
    No untrue, substantiate any of this

    Muggy, you will never surprise me, in pretty much every single one of your 3000+ comments on KB you misrepresent the truth, tell downright lies and just parrot the crown spin dressed up with some more of your own

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  499. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Kanz

    It was Nostradamus who is the resident trap door spider who narked to DPF over the comments, I pointed out muggins obsession with the Bain dog by reproducing one of his earlier posts in response to his suggestion that I am “obsessed” with dogs, this was unacceptable to the self appointed comments policeman Nostradamus who blabbed to DPF and got us demerits.
    I probably went over the top with the bestiality suggestion but Nostra should just but out, none of it was directed at him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  500. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Rowan, he had the truth of the situation and muggin’s obsessions pointed out to him on another thread by another member. He acknowledged that he didn’t know any of the background and said he had been wrong. Nostradamus that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  501. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Kanz
    Yes I saw that but I believe he had already blabbed to DPF hence the demerits.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  502. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan
    Karam said that if the blood on Robin Bain’s clothes had been tested it would have been found to have come from a member of the family.
    There were over 50 spots of blood tested and they were all proved to have come from Robin except one that was indeterminate.
    50 spots wrong = 50 mistakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  503. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Muggy
    We know that none of the jury felt strongly enough about the crown case as the case was dismissed in near record time with none of the jurors arguing for a guilty verdict. What did this tell you about the crowns “mountain of evidence”?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  504. RichardX (329 comments) says:

    19 days and over 500 comments and nobody has changed their opinion

    Some people do not allow evidence and reason to alter their beliefs about murder cases or evolution

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  505. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Rowan,
    The only scenario for Robin’s suicide that the defence could come up with is that he [a right-handed man] shot himself in the left temple using a rifle with a silencer attached while standing with one foot on a chair and wearing a beanie. They also suggested his head was falling when that blood spatter went onto the alcove curtain. That would mean his body must have been moved subsequent to his death but before the police arrived.
    Own goal, Rowan.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  506. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    The jury had been sitting for over 50 days. We don’t know how they felt. I would suggest they had enough, decided what the hell, he’s spent 13 years in prison. We know one of the jurors was a thief. We know one of the jurors did not believe Robin Bain did it.
    So the fact they made a quick decision tells me nothing.
    Anyway, I am not interested in the jury’s decision. It is Binnie’s decision that is in question. As Michael Guest has already said, he was suffering from tunnel vision. I have already posted one example of his incompetence. There are many more. If you want to see the rest of them buy the book.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  507. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Dear oh dear, the boys are crying because because they got a few demerits. Someone pass them a hanky.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  508. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Btw, Rowan. Muggy is ok.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  509. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    No Muggy

    The suicide was shown to be simple and could be achieved with 12 cm overreach and Daddy able to reach the trigger with any of his 4 fingers or thumb. The chair is only one of the scenarios offered. You idiots make stupid statements like “it took JK’s assistance” to demonstrate it or that “the defence required headgear” but this is idiotic as if Justice Pankhurst would have allowed it!
    You are just speculating as to the exact circumstances, we don’t know but this doesn’t matter.

    Ask yourself this question Muggy, Given that the Bain rifle had a silencer attached whats the probability that Daddy would remove it prior to dispatching himself? This would require a screwdriver and would risk discovery by David.
    This is not the same as the probability that a person would choose to shoot themselves with a silenced rifle. This is called conditional probability but I am sure that this is way over your head and naïve understanding. The same applies to the left temple shot, that is a given.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  510. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    This your book Muggy

    It would be worth the laugh but I doubt many outside the Mason clinic or the clinically insane would take you seriously.
    Time for some more meds!

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

    Why would Robin spare David after killing the rest? It’s ludicrous. it’s preposterous. It’s nonsense. It’s impossible. In fact, it’s madness to think he would.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  512. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (2,095 comments) says:
    August 19th, 2014 at 10:12 pm

    Why would Robin spare David after killing the rest? It’s ludicrous. it’s preposterous. It’s nonsense. It’s impossible. In fact, it’s madness to think he would.

    Because he wasn’t in the house, and he wasn’t sleeping as the others were. Robin had to wait until he left the house before he could get and load the gun. How do you think David would have reacted if the old man said, “Just borrowing you gun son, gonna wipe out the family including you and myself but I need your gun to do it”.?
    It’s even more ludicrous, preposterous, nonsense and madness for you to think he could have done that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  513. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Why would do they lie, distort?
    with thanks to beyond, from counterspinthetruth.co.nz

    If we take the example of Supersleuth, an elderly gent, in the final trimester of his life, it’s easy to see why he is in such denial. This is his life. For several years now he has invested his time, money and his reputation on discrediting David Bain’s defence, and subsequently Joe Karam. Everyone he’s spoken to in the last few years would have heard his story.

    Not only is his credibility on the line with his friends and relations, but he has contacted officials, members of Parliament, witnesses etc. He has banked everything he has, including his own relationships, on being right about David Bain. If he is proved wrong, then his life will no longer have meaning. People will regard him as nothing but a raving loon that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Instead of ending his life on a high, and being remembered for his positive input to the Counterspin campaign, he will be remembered as a vindictive fool. If he’s remembered at all. His own mind will never allow him to accept this no matter what evidence he is given, he cannot change.

    The same could be said for the other elderly gents in the Counterspin campaign, who have done similar to Sleuth. Once they had stated their opinion, backing down was just to hard, so instead they feed off each other, approving what each has to say, which gives them permission to continue along the same path.

    If you consider the ages of the Counterspinners, it’s not hard to work out their motives. Other than the egotistical Kent Parker, and the attention seeking Melanie White, the large majority of members are either women in the fifties/sixties, or elderly men. The other dregs are connected to the family or detectives/ambulance staff. Consider these relationships and ages, and the answer for their behaviour is obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  514. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    Rowan, that ‘beyond’ from counterspinthetruth.co.nz has an uncanny ability to cut through the bullshit and tell it like it is. He/she is very clever and most astute.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  515. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Kanz (1,239 comments) says: August 19th, 2014 at 10:22 pm
    Dennis Horne: Why would Robin spare David after killing the rest?

    Because he wasn’t in the house,

    And Robin couldn’t wait five minutes? Or less? He would know David was due home. What a load of cobblers. Absolute rubbish.

    But I can see how it would make complete sense to a complete lunatic. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  516. SGA (1,123 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne at 10:12 pm

    Why would Robin spare David after killing the rest?

    Who knows? Hypothetically (assuming Robin did the killings), there are a number of obvious possibilities (any of which would be difficult to prove or disprove conclusively from what I can tell). These come quickly to mind –
    1. He never intended to kill David because, for whatever reason, he didn’t feel quite as negatively (estrangment? separation? betrayal?) towards David as the others.
    2. He never intended to kill David because David hadn’t been part of some relatively recent event that had precipitated what happened.
    3. He intended to kill David, but during the “calm after the storm” he decided he just wanted it to be “all over” (or couldn’t face “starting again”).
    4. He intended to kill David, but after the difficulties he’d already had, he began to worry about what might go wrong (and prevent him from suicide – his ultimate goal).

    These aren’t mutually exclusive, of course – you could put 2 or 3 of these together to varying degrees.

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

    SGA. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but look at the totality. None of that fits with the rest of the picture. He’d just put the chainsaw in his van to take to school, after a disagreement with David. David was the one lounging around doing nothing. David was the one keeping him out of his computer alcove. He could have taken the rifle while David was out and shot him when he returned, then shot himself. But he was supposed to shoot the ones he loved and spare David. What a load of bollocks.

    Then look at the forensic evidence. Or lack of it. Nothing connects Robin with the rifle. Nothing.

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

    Dennis Horne at 7:57 am

    What a load of bollocks.

    LOL
    You did ask. Sorry you didn’t like the answer.
    (PS – and unrelated – sorry about your plane – glad you weren’t badly hurt)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  519. tom hunter (5,078 comments) says:

    I doubt anyone is interested any longer but the best thread on what was supposed to be the topic of this post, can actually be found in the following Kiwiblog posting from four years ago – it even has the same title 2010: Who killed the Crewes.

    I especially liked the to-and-fro between AAT’s son in law and ex-cop PaulEastBay.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  520. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    SGA
    I would advise you to read all the evidence before trying to explain why Robin wouldn’t have shot David.
    Start with the retrial transcript, then the trial transcript ,then the Court of Appeal hearings, etc., etc.
    If Robin Bain never intended to kill David then what would be the reason for him wearing David’s gloves if he was going to commit suicide, in fact why would he wear gloves at all?
    Why would he have typed that message on the computer when a simple hand-written note would have exonerated the only one who deserved to stay?.

    Do you really believe that David Bain could have gotten his brother’s blood on his clothes by way of innocent transfer?
    Do you really believe that David Bain could have got those three bruises on his head when he was pulled into the recovery position after supposedly fainting?
    Do you really believe that David Bain could have got those scratches and/or bruises on his torso for some other reason than being in a struggle with Stephen?
    Do you really believe that it was animal blood under his fingerprints on the rifle when a sample taken from adjacent to those fingerprints tested positive for human blood?
    Do you really believe those fingerprints would still have been in pristine condition after all the handling of the rifle that morning?
    Do you really believe that there is some innocent explanation as to why the glasses that he told his lawyer he had been using to watch TV the previous evening had a damaged frame the next morning and that one lens from those glasses was found in his brothers room?.
    Do you really believe he didn’t notice the blood on those clothes in the wash basket when he was able to read a book when he went to bed in a room that had no better lighting in it than the laundry?
    Do you really believe the washing only took about 40 minutes that morning when he said it usually took between 45 minutes and an hour?
    Have you seen a photo of those blue track pants that were in the wash compared to the pair of trackpants his father was wearing when he died? I very much doubt it, because if you had you would know that David Bain was lying when he told Justice Binnie they were not his.
    Can you give me a reason why David Bain put that green jersey in the washing machine that morning when his mother was very strict about all hand kniited woollen garments being washed by hand?

    I await your explanations with interest.

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

    So who did kill the Crewes?

    Well, we know it wasn’t Arthur Allan Thomas, and it wasn’t me.

    So, how are the rest of you placed for a motive, or an alibi?

    It appears that we are back to square one with this case. The police determined to rule out the most obvious – so, what were you doing ‘back then’? check your diaries! :P

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  522. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Yes, who did kill the Crewes?
    I originally thought it was Thomas, but then when I read about that planted cartridge case I started to read more about the case. I now believe it is unlikely that Thomas did it even though it could well have been his rifle that was used. My problem with Thomas doing it is that what reason would he have to kill them ?
    Whereas Len Demler did have a reason and that is why I believe he is the most likely perpetrator. The police seem to be saying it wasn’t Demler but I wonder if that they aren’t just saying that to appease Rochelle. They are telling her what she wants to hear, that her grandfather didn’t do it.
    But if it wasn’t Demler and it wasn’t Thomas then there must be someone out there who has gotten away with it.
    I haven’t got a clue who that someone might be .

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  523. SGA (1,123 comments) says:

    muggins at 9:23 am

    SGA
    I would advise you to read all the evidence before trying to explain why Robin wouldn’t have shot David.
    … snip, snip, snip …

    Another Gish Gallop :-) Others here, far more knowledgable concerning the physical evidence than I, have engaged you on such points over and over again.

    Dennis asked a specific question to which I gave him a number of possibilities. He doesn’t like the answers, and, to be honest, I guess I expected that. It doesn’t bother me that much because I’ve no deep-seated emotional or psychological investment here.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  524. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    SGA

    So what you are really saying is that you have no answers to my questions.
    And nor do those others that have engaged me on kiwiblog.
    All most of them do is try to discredit me instead of answering my questions.
    I don’t have any emotional involvement either, just trying to make sure the truth gets out.

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

    muggins at 10:51 am

    So what you are really saying is that you have no answers to my questions.

    My reply to you was very clear – I’m not “really” saying anything else. That exists only in your imagination, I’m sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  526. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    So you have no answers to my questions?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  527. stephieboy (3,379 comments) says:

    woman, yes your correct it was Carl Lloyd the defences fingerprint expert. But the idea that Kim Jones was some how misleading the Jury is just so much fatuous nonsense as Jones ,recalled to give rebuttal evidence ,demonstrates here ,

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/58414/crown-adamant-rifle-fingerprints-blood
    and here as well,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/2385649/Bain-trial-Fingerprints-in-blood

    The facts will always remain the same . Kim Jones had the decisive advantage of viewing David’s gun covered in blood two days after the murders . Also the blood on the rifle was found to be of a blood group consistent as coming from either Laniet, Stephen or David but not any other family members.

    Very damning. !

    The defence well understood this so it was vital they try and discredit it through a process of analysis and the rather specious reasoning derived therefrom.

    Lloyd’s big problem was the blood where David’s fingerprints were found had sufficiently deteriorated over the 15 or so years to make it difficult for him to be clear in his own mind what the substance really was . But that presented a grand opportunity for the defence to indulge in some obfuscation hence the ludicrously implausible rabbit’s blood theory ( ignoring the fact that rabbits don’t hemorrhage a lot when shot ) and that David’s fingerprints from the alleged rabbit hunting could not of survived the extra handling in an energetic mass shooting .

    Are we also to believe that Stephen’s fingerprint in blood was from the same rabbit hunting expedition ? Of course not.!

    Also the blood had sufficiently deteriorated over the long years to give Lloyd room to raise doubts as to whether it was blood at all. But Jones simply observed the prints were in blood because they appeared red in colour , examining the gun so shortly after the murders. A decisive advantage that Lloyd never had.
    There is no evidence that Jone perjured himself and there is no evidence that the retrial judge came to that conclusion so as to declare him a hostile witness and charge him thus .

    The defence goal was, at the end of the day a simple one, to create a smokescreen on fine technical points to raise a reasonable doubt in the Juries mind.This served them well in the retrial but in the dumped Binnie report with its higher standard of proof threshold t has proved to be their undoing .!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  528. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Excellent post, Stephie.
    Peter Hentschel also confirms that there was blood under those fingerprints, but he did not take a sample from under the prints because he and Kim Jones agreed those prints should be kept in pristine condition.
    His notes read
    Blood found on
    [i] sling at both attachment points.
    [ii] on front of scope
    [iii] on barrel extensive smearing
    [iv] on silencer extensive smearing
    [v] on stock
    [vi] little blood found on forearm where prints were found.
    Forearm by fingerprints fairly clean, possibly shrouded by other object -hand?arm?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  529. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I see SPC still hasn’t answered my questions, even though he/she says he/she has seen others answer them.
    They are simple enough questions, but obviously he/she has found them too difficult to answer.
    Why am I not surprised.

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

    SGA. Reductio ad absurdum? Perhaps a little green man told Robin to stop and spare David. Or a big pink woman. Or a goblin. Fairy. Goat? Pity Robin hadn’t become irrational or started hallucinating sooner…

    Unless there is indisputable photographic evidence and a number of reliable witnesses, there can never be anything more than a “picture” built up from the fragments, like a jigsaw, of any complex transient event.

    Fragmentation of the picture or narrative is how the Baniacs operate. Even if the likelihood of it not being David for each occurrence approaches zero, the defence say no one can prove it was David on that point. That is true. But irrelevant.

    We have to look at the total picture, how all the pieces fit together.

    We can only make one picture, it must be David or Robin. The picture doesn’t look exactly 100% like David, but it doesn’t look at all like Robin. Not even 1%.

    The jury verdict was wrong. Binnie is a dunce. The legal system is an expensive farce.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  531. SGA (1,123 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne
    You asked one specific question at 10:12pm last night (go back and look). Your question is predicated on the assumption that Robin Bain had commited a murder-suicide – “Why would Robin spare David after killing the rest?”. I gave you a number of possible answers to that question. I don’t see why you have your knickers in such a twist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  532. Unity (609 comments) says:

    Don’t forget the wrong verdict can come from circumstantial evidence. It all depends on which piece you place the most emphasis. I prefer to go by the people who knew David personally, have stood by him through it all, and not those relatives who would naturally be defensive of Robin which is what families naturally do. We will probably never know everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  533. Rowan (2,520 comments) says:

    Stupidboy

    Own goal
    No Kim Jones lied to the jury by telling them what he wanted them to hear when it was patently false. Have a read of the following where it was directly put to him. His response to why he gave false evidence in a murder trial wa