David Bain vs The Crown - game over [Archive] - Page 4

Mushu

7th July 2013, 15:25

Sounds like you alright. Speculation is all you are capable of seeing.

Anybody else want to repost the evidence? If I do he will only ignore it.

Here's your 'evidence' for you Ed (post 622)

The evidence that is conclusive is that no blood from any of the victims was on Robin or his clothing. Not possible in the circumstances if he was the killer. No gunpowder residue was on him, also not possible were he the killer. No evidence of any kind to allow him to have been in any of the victims rooms. Not possible were he the killer. His prints were not on the rifle. If he was the last person to have used it, the number of shots fired and the variety of angles and holds would have left clear prints in several areas of the weapon and the magazines. These are facts that specifically clear Robin Bain and prove his innocence, ergo, it is a fact that Robin did not do it.

No other evidence is even required and there is no evidence of any kind pointing to him. The above automatically negates any speculation and conjecture, which is all the defence had anyway.

:msn-wink:I think you mean vain...

And my reply from back then. (post 627)

The clothes worn during the murders were in the wash. Which poses the question if it were David why would he have blood on him later and why did he not clean up the blood in the laundry

GSR tests were not done at the scene and residue was not found on David either

There were fingerprints on the rifle not up to the standard to be tested, and we can be pretty sure Robin had had his hands on that gun at some stage whether he did it or not (20 rounds in his caravan). Also bloody gloves in Stephens room suggest that whoever did it wore gloves until that point.

Hardly incontrovertible proof there Ed.

testastretta

7th July 2013, 15:31

Crasherfromwayback

7th July 2013, 15:32

And you're boring. Who cares about your opinion of me? :doh:

Pot-Kettle. And you obviously. Else you'd simply ignore me. But you can't help yourself. But nothing else works with you. You really do think you're a step above other people Ed. It's funny but a little sad at the same time. You need to go have a good long hard look in a mirror. Ask yourself some really serious questions. See how you like the answers. If you can be honest with yourself. Which I doubt.

Mushu

7th July 2013, 15:33

I wonder how many murder/suicide cases there have been where the perpetrator leaves a suicide note (and goes to the trouble of using a computer to do so) but leaves no information to their reason other than to say that one person deserves to stay?

Of course a narcissist like David could be well expected to leave a note like the one that was left.

What makes you think Davids a narcissist?

Killing your entire family points to an abnormal thought process, no way if knowing what was going on in the killers head.

Drew

7th July 2013, 15:42

What makes you think Davids a narcissist?

Killing your entire family points to an abnormal thought process, no way if knowing what was going on in the killers head.

It's an autistic thing I heard.

I have to admit, after reading even more of that shit that went to the appeals court, I'm kinda swaying toward the "didn't do it" camp.

scumdog

7th July 2013, 17:10

David had no input as to what evidence was collected, and was probably pressured by the police to agree to the burning down of the house. Thus not his fault.

Probably????:wacko:

Right up there with 'it is thought'

Or 'it is likely'

Or 'maybe'

Very positive and convincing I don't think...

Katman

7th July 2013, 17:25

Probably????:wacko:

Right up there with 'it is thought'

Or 'it is likely'

Or 'maybe'

Very positive and convincing I don't think...

David might just as easily have had no input at all into the decision to burn the house down.

In his application for compensation he states that it was his uncle's decision.

Mushu

7th July 2013, 18:04

Probably????:wacko:

Right up there with 'it is thought'

Or 'it is likely'

Or 'maybe'

Very positive and convincing I don't think...

I had heard that he agreed to it but the police use all sorts of tactics to get what they want out of a suspect to the point that it's not unheard of for a suspect to be pressured into a false confession. Try being on the other side if the law, intimidation is the most common tool used by the police.

scumdog

7th July 2013, 18:07

I had heard that he agreed to it but the police use all sorts of tactics to get what they want out of a suspect to the point that it's not unheard of for a suspect to be pressured into a false confession. Try being on the other side if the law, intimidation is the most common tool used by the police.

Well I must give intimidation a shot - dunno what the suspects lawyer will say about it though...probably jump to his feet and tell me to stop (at least!)

Katman

7th July 2013, 18:12

Well I must give intimidation a shot - dunno what the suspects lawyer will say about it though...probably jump to his feet and tell me to stop (at least!)

And then you have the likes of Teina Pora who was questioned by police for 14 hours without a lawyer.

Drew

7th July 2013, 18:16

And then you have the likes of Teina Pora who was questioned by police for 14 hours without a lawyer.Was the person under arrest?

If so, they were told they were entitled to a lawyer, and didn't have to say anything.

Just saying.

Katman

7th July 2013, 18:18

Was the person under arrest?

If so, they were told they were entitled to a lawyer, and didn't have to say anything.

Just saying.

Are you sure of that?

He has been described as having low intelligence and I very much doubt he could have afforded a lawyer anyway.

Drew

7th July 2013, 18:20

Are you sure of that?

I very much doubt he could have afforded a lawyer anyway.One will be appointed.

"Do you understand these rights, as I have read them to you"?

Five oh get in a bit of shit for missing that step, every time a lawyer finds they ahven't done it. It doesn't get missed before processing.

Drew

7th July 2013, 18:21

Are you sure of that?

He has been described as having low intelligence and I very much doubt he could have afforded a lawyer anyway.I don't have any idea about the case or arrest you're reffering to, I should point out.

Katman

7th July 2013, 18:23

I don't have any idea about the case or arrest you're reffering to, I should point out.

You should read up about it Drew.

Makes for interesting reading.

scumdog

7th July 2013, 18:31

Are you sure of that?

He has been described as having low intelligence and I very much doubt he could have afforded a lawyer anyway.

'Afforded' a lawyer?

You don't need to worry about it, a lawyer will be provided regardless - you knew that though, didn't you??

98tls

7th July 2013, 18:32

You should read up about it Drew.

Makes for interesting reading.

Briefly...http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=teina%20pora&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTeina_P ora&ei=DAvZUYe7DqmwiQf4uYGABQ&usg=AFQjCNETZF_0Csr-ePTNHx_caoGHA_d8Cg&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aGc

Drew

7th July 2013, 18:38

You should read up about it Drew.

Makes for interesting reading.Well there ya go.

Sucks to be him.

Mushu

7th July 2013, 18:42

'Afforded' a lawyer?

You don't need to worry about it, a lawyer will be provided regardless - you knew that though, didn't you??

Yea, a public defender who doesn't give a shit, I've had a couple of run ins with them, often they don't know the clients name, let alone the aspects of the case.

People don't always know the law, if they're being questioned as a suspect without being arrested they are often not aware they have the right to leave at any time. And it's not hard to believe that asking for a lawyer would give the impression of guilt.

Myself, I wouldn't speak to the police regarding anything more serious than a traffic violation without a lawyer whether under arrest or not.

Drew

7th July 2013, 18:49

unstuck

7th July 2013, 18:52

All I know is this. "I want a lawyer" is the first thing anyone should say when arrested.

Scumdog, are people allowed to request a lawyer be present before a search warrant is carried out? No, not the rest of you cunts, just the dude who's answer is actual, and not theoretical.

I got told no, but I didnt really want one anyway. Sorry, but I cant help being a cunt.:headbang::headbang:

scumdog

7th July 2013, 18:53

All I know is this. "I want a lawyer" is the first thing anyone should say when arrested.

Scumdog, are people allowed to request a lawyer be present before a search warrant is carried out? No, not the rest of you cunts, just the dude who's answer is actual, and not theoretical.

Nup.

Not as its being executed.

(To my limited and obviously power hungry knowledge)

Unless somebody has been arrested.

Then it is 'as soon as practable'

Drew

7th July 2013, 18:56

Nup.

Not as its being executed.

(To my limited and obviously power hungry knowledge)

Unless somebody has been aressted.

Then it is 'as soon as practable'Heh. Interesting.

Chur.

Katman

7th July 2013, 19:06

You don't need to worry about it, a lawyer will be provided regardless - you knew that though, didn't you??

Actually no, I wasn't aware of that.

Wouldn't you think though that if the police are questioning someone as a murder suspect that they should insist that a lawyer is present?

Drew

7th July 2013, 19:07

Actually no, I wasn't aware of that.

Wouldn't you think though that if the police are questioning someone as a murder suspect that they should insist that a lawyer is present?If the suspect is dumb enough to not ask for one, how is it the cops problem?

Edbear

7th July 2013, 19:11

It's an autistic thing I heard.

I have to admit, after reading even more of that shit that went to the appeals court, I'm kinda swaying toward the "didn't do it" camp.

It was either Robin or David, mate. Look only at the evidence, all else is procedure and conjecture. Try to convict Robin on the evidence and you'd get laughed out of court.

Katman

7th July 2013, 19:12

If the suspect is dumb enough to not ask for one, how is it the cops problem?

I'm not saying it's the cops problem.

I'm suggesting that in the interest of complete transparency it would be wise that the police would ensure that a lawyer was there.

If they have no intention of stitching the suspect up surely the presence of a lawyer protects both the police and the suspect.

Drew

7th July 2013, 19:15

It was either Robin or David, mate. Look only at the evidence, all else is procedure and conjecture. Try to convict Robin on the evidence and you'd get laughed out of court.Poorly written on my part.

I'm leaning toward the 'should get paid' camp.

Crasherfromwayback

7th July 2013, 19:17

It was either Robin or David, mate. Look only at the evidence, all else is procedure and conjecture.

You try to come across way more intelligent than you actually are. Yet you still don't know what a *fact* is.

scumdog

7th July 2013, 19:17

Actually no, I wasn't aware of that.

Wouldn't you think though that if the police are questioning someone as a murder suspect that they should insist that a lawyer is present?

What? - and get accused of pressuring the suspect into something ....:pinch:

Drew

7th July 2013, 19:19

I'm not saying it's the cops problem.

I'm suggesting that in the interest of complete transparency it would be wise that the police would ensure that a lawyer was there.

If they have no intention of stitching the suspect up surely the presence of a lawyer protects both the police and the suspect.I don't agree at all.

A lawyer there from the get go, is only gonna slow a lot of stuff down. I'm pro cop remember, or at least I'm not anti cop. I trust them to take a photo or two, get some prints, and do a body check for injuries if the suspect was there for violent crimes.

I doubt the cops fear a lawyer being present, other than missing out on dinner that the wife (before she leaves them) has ready.

Katman

7th July 2013, 19:26

I don't agree at all.

A lawyer there from the get go, is only gonna slow a lot of stuff down. I'm pro cop remember, or at least I'm not anti cop. I trust them to take a photo or two, get some prints, and do a body check for injuries if the suspect was there for violent crimes.

I doubt the cops fear a lawyer being present, other than missing out on dinner that the wife (before she leaves them) has ready.

I wonder if the police would have been able to convince Pora of the indemnity to prosecution that came with the 20,000 dollars if a lawyer had been present.

Edbear

7th July 2013, 19:28

You try to come across way more intelligent than you actually are. Yet you still don't know what a *fact* is.

Thanks for the red, Pete, but like I said, who cares? Simply insulting me does nothing for your rep on here and changes nothing either.

Would it not be better to use your time to actually address the issue at hand instead of just slagging me off in copycat fashion? I know it is way easier to shoot the messenger than address the message, as you don't need to justify your opinion.

Drew

7th July 2013, 19:29

I wonder if the police would have been able to convince Pora of the indemnity to prosecution that came with the 20,000 dollars if a lawyer had been present.You misunderstand me.

I mean during processing, I don't think cops should have to wait for a lawyer to get started.

Please don't keep referring to that case to make a point to me, I am less familiar with that, than the case we're being cunts about already.

Katman

7th July 2013, 19:32

You misunderstand me.

I mean during processing, I don't think cops should have to wait for a lawyer to get started.

Sorry, I though it would be obvious that I was talking about the formal questioning process.

Drew

7th July 2013, 19:33

Thanks for the red, Pete, but like I said, who cares? Simply insulting me does nothing for your rep on here and changes nothing either.

Would it not be better to use your time to actually address the issue at hand instead of just slagging me off in copycat fashion? I know it is way easier to shoot the messenger than address the message, as you don't need to justify your opinion.

No one cares that you got red rep man.

You make it too easy. You haven't made a new point in pages, and the ones you did try to make have been argued already.

Crasherfromwayback

7th July 2013, 19:33

Thanks for the red, Pete, but like I said, who cares? Simply insulting me does nothing for your rep on here

.

Unlike yourself...I couldn't give a flying fuck what people here on KB think of me. I'm not the one that tries to sound *popular* by posting shit like how many people agree with my posts like you do. Have you ever seen me do that Ed? You do. Often. Bit insecure there Ed? Bit like patting yourself on the back really. Funny...but as I said before...a bit sad too.

Drew

7th July 2013, 19:35

Sorry, I though it would be obvious that I was talking about the formal questioning process.Prolly was, my intellect has never been questioned...It's right down there.

I don't think it is the police' responsibility to make sure a scumbag has a lawyer. Let's not forget, that fucken near all of the people arrested are, in fact, cunts.

Crasherfromwayback

7th July 2013, 19:37

. Let's not forget, that fucken near all of the people arrested are, in fact, cunts.

Oi you! I've been arrested twice...and I am so!

Drew

7th July 2013, 19:41

Oi you! I've been arrested twice...and I am so!Yeah, I was speaking from first hand experience...And I'm not a cop.

Never been charged wif nuthin though.

Crasherfromwayback

7th July 2013, 19:46

Never been charged wif nuthin though.

I was. Fighting in public. Twice. Walked free both times, as it was a crock of shit as both times I was simply defending myself. Lots of *street kids* round when I went through my *punk* phase...we never really got on.

Edbear

7th July 2013, 19:50

Unlike yourself...I couldn't give a flying fuck what people here on KB think of me. I'm not the one that tries to sound *popular* by posting shit like how many people agree with my posts like you do. Have you ever seen me do that Ed? You do. Often. Bit insecure there Ed? Bit like patting yourself on the back really. Funny...but as I said before...a bit sad too.

:violin:

..........

Crasherfromwayback

7th July 2013, 19:58

:violin:

..........

Makes a change from what you normally play with. Your organ.

Edbear

7th July 2013, 20:01

Makes a change from what you normally play with. Your organ.

:lol: Keep digging, you are becoming more childish with each post. Seems the wee fish are biting well tonight, have to show off their limited vocabulary, I guess...

Drew

7th July 2013, 20:05

I was. Fighting in public. Twice. Walked free both times, as it was a crock of shit as both times I was simply defending myself. Lots of *street kids* round when I went through my *punk* phase...we never really got on.Unstuck will be proud.

unstuck

7th July 2013, 20:09

Unstuck will be proud.

Extremly so drew.:2thumbsup

Crasherfromwayback

7th July 2013, 20:09

[QUOTE=Edbear;1130575839 have to show off their limited vocabulary, I guess...[/QUOTE]

Better to use the words you know the meaning of I find. Wearing out a dictionary in the hope of seeming intelligent is a waste of time to me.

Drew

7th July 2013, 20:10

Better to use the words you know the meaning of I find. Wearing out a dictionary in the hope of seeming intelligent is a waste of time to me.Fuck off Pete, you don't own a dictionary!

Crasherfromwayback

7th July 2013, 20:12

Fuck off Pete, you don't own a dictionary!

I wrote the cunting thing mate.

Drew

7th July 2013, 20:15

I wrote the cunting thing mate.Hahahahaha, beer went everywhere!

Can't bling again.

98tls

7th July 2013, 21:09

I wrote the cunting thing mate.

Bullshit i merely asked your opinion a few times.

scissorhands

7th July 2013, 21:12

According to you fucking near everyone is autistic

with those ears hes something eh

Drew

8th July 2013, 05:42

Bullshit i merely asked your opinion a few times.

He still deserved credit!

Katman

8th July 2013, 10:01

The problem with our adversarial court system is that it's become a system of 'win at any cost' - over and above one that is interested in providing a fair hearing for the accused.

Non-disclosure, embellishment of evidence, wild speculation and even the bending of the truth have all become tools that the Crown happily uses to ensure the police's decision to prosecute is vindicated.

Drew

8th July 2013, 10:15

Katman

8th July 2013, 10:19

It's your opinion that the defense doesn't do those things?

It's my opinion that the Crown should be above doing those things.

Drew

8th July 2013, 10:23

It's my opinion that the Crown should be above doing those things.

Make up your mind man. Do you want a level playing field or not?

Katman

8th July 2013, 10:25

Make up your mind man. Do you want a level playing field or not?

Do you really want a court system where the Crown will stoop to anything to obtain a conviction against you?

Even if you're innocent?

MisterD

8th July 2013, 10:29

Even if you're innocent?

Everyone's guilty of something - I'm sure that's what they teach Day 1 at cop school.

Drew

8th July 2013, 10:58

Do you really want a court system where the Crown will stoop to anything to obtain a conviction against you?

Even if you're innocent?

Of course not. I was simply pointing out that the corruption youso detest, is more prevalent on the 'wrong' side of the law.

Banditbandit

8th July 2013, 11:03

Of course not. I was simply pointing out that the corruption youso detest, is more prevalent on the 'wrong' side of the law.

Are you sure ???

The police are paid to catch criminals and put them before the court with evidence to convict them ... defense lawyers are paid to defend people against criminal charges ...

If the police take the pay but instead go for convictions no matter what, and the defense lawyers defend people against chagres - which is the more corrupt?

Katman

8th July 2013, 11:06

Of course not. I was simply pointing out that the corruption youso detest, is more prevalent on the 'wrong' side of the law.

I'm well aware that there are defense lawyers out there who will still take on a case even where the suspect has actually been seen by 100 people to commit the crime - and then proceed to use every trick in the book to try to get their client off.

I'm saying that if the Crown wishes to be seen as having an unquestionable level of integrity (which is surely what we all would like them to have) than they have to be above using any underhanded methods to achieve their goal.

Drew

8th July 2013, 11:08

Are you sure ???

The police are paid to catch criminals and put them before the court with evidence to convict them ... defense lawyers are paid to defend people against criminal charges ...

If the police take the pay but instead go for convictions no matter what, and the defense lawyers defend people against chagres - which is the more corrupt?

I don't know. My head has caved in.

scissorhands

8th July 2013, 11:16

I don't know. My head has caved in.

wakey wakey
hands off snakey

Katman

8th July 2013, 11:32

Banditbandit

8th July 2013, 12:33

Drew

8th July 2013, 12:41

The reality is that if any one of us were to be charged with a crime that we were innocent of then it would be imperative that we could rely on the integrity and honesty of the Crown Law Office/Police.

Bwhahahahaha .. yes, we would need to rely on that - and I do not believe that we can ...

We'd have to hope for it, at the same time get the best lawyer you can find. Not the best you can afford mind, that's a mistake. I'd beg and borrow from everyone I know to pay a retainer methinks.

Katman

8th July 2013, 12:43

We'd have to hope for it, at the same time get the best lawyer you can find. Not the best you can afford mind, that's a mistake. I'd beg and borrow from everyone I know to pay a retainer methinks.

Yes, it's a shame that our current system requires a small fortune to defend one's innocence.

GCSB Thought Police

8th July 2013, 12:45

I'm terribly sorry, but this line of discussion severely undermines the credibility of our court system. Cease immediately!

Drew

8th July 2013, 13:00

Yes, it's a shame that our current system requires a small fortune to defend one's innocence.Unlike you, I don't entirely blame the police or the government for this.

Lawyers charge what they can get away with, same as nearly everyone else.

I'm terribly sorry, but this line of discussion severely undermines the credibility of our court system. Cease immediately!

Hahahahaha, come find us!

Banditbandit

8th July 2013, 13:04

Unlike you, I don't entirely blame the police or the government for this.

Lawyers charge what they can get away with, same as nearly everyone else.

Lawyrs working on legal aid (who defend most crims) get paid a set rate by the Crwon. They cannot "charge what they can gert away with".

Katman

8th July 2013, 13:08

Unlike you, I don't entirely blame the police or the government for this.

Lawyers charge what they can get away with, same as nearly everyone else.

If we could rely on the absolute integrity of the justice system then, in theory, it wouldn't have to cost you anything to defend your innocence.

Drew

8th July 2013, 13:10

Lawyrs working on legal aid (who defend most crims) get paid a set rate by the Crwon. They cannot "charge what they can gert away with".

Yes, their rates are fixed and their hours audited...Now.

Few lawyers in our country practice criminal law though I thought. The money is in realestate and taxes I imagine. Would those lawyers who are defending the accused, not have a pretty good argument that they should be being paid similarly to market rates for the rest of their profession?

These are lawyers after all, not the type to just roll over and take whatever John offers like.

Drew

8th July 2013, 13:14

If we could rely on the absolute integrity of the justice system then, in theory, it wouldn't have to cost you anything to defend your innocence.

The implication doesn't sit well. I refuse to believe that the only reason people are incarcerated, is that the police and prosecution were unlawful or underhanded.

But yes, a defense should be possible by relying on nothing more than the proven facts. But in a lot of cases, cops find nothing to implicate anyone else of the crime. So if 100% of the suspects equals you, you'd want a lawyer anyway.

Banditbandit

8th July 2013, 13:14

Yes, their rates are fixed and their hours audited...Now.

Few lawyers in our country practice criminal law though I thought. The money is in realestate and taxes I imagine. Would those lawyers who are defending the accused, not have a pretty good argument that they should be being paid similarly to market rates for the rest of their profession?

These are lawyers after all, not the type to just roll over and take whatever John offers like.

They tried - the Govt said NO - We will pay you what we think you are worth ... and it's not as if they can charge their clients .. who have no money and are probably in jail ...

Drew

8th July 2013, 13:19

They tried - the Govt said NO - We will pay you what we think you are worth ... and it's not as if they can charge their clients .. who have no money and are probably in jail ...
Justice website doesn't seem to give out the going rates, (there are a few depending on circumstance it seems), in the guidlines they make public.

Wonder how many lawyers kids are going hungry?

Katman

8th July 2013, 13:22

The implication doesn't sit well. I refuse to believe that the only reason people are incarcerated, is that the police and prosecution were unlawful or underhanded.

I'm well aware that there are many people found guilty that are just that - guilty. Most of them probably didn't need underhanded methods for the Crown to gain the conviction.

I'm talking about wrongly accused people and the lengths (and cost) that they have to go to in order to clear their name.

oldrider

8th July 2013, 14:25

Funny thing about this Bain case, the further North you go from Dunedin the more innocent David becomes ... just sayin! :psst:

scissorhands

8th July 2013, 14:33

Funny thing about this Bain case, the further North you go from Dunedin the more innocent David becomes ... just sayin! :psst:

have you checked out some Dunedin people lately?

http://rwdunedin.co.nz/998/Our-People
http://www.cutlers.co.nz/index.cfm?pagecall=staff&MenuItemID=36026&subject=Our_Team

prolly a lot less sheep shagging too

oldrider

8th July 2013, 14:39

have you checked out some Dunedin people lately?

http://rwdunedin.co.nz/998/Our-People
http://www.cutlers.co.nz/index.cfm?pagecall=staff&MenuItemID=36026&subject=Our_Team

prolly a lot less sheep shagging too

I rest my case! :rolleyes:

Banditbandit

8th July 2013, 16:19

the sides and top of a mouse yield complete prints...

The current one I'm using would not - the top is stippled plastic - not smooth enough to hold a print .. the sides are soft rubbery stuff with holes in it - no prints there either ...

Katman

9th July 2013, 15:22

In light of the information now coming out about the police withholding evidence in the Mark Lundy case, has anyone got a comment to make about post #699?

Banditbandit

9th July 2013, 15:24

In light of the information now coming out about the police withholding evidence in the Mark Lundy case, has anyone got a comment to make about post #699?

No ... what's the relevance to the Bain case?

Drew

9th July 2013, 15:25

In light of the information now coming out about the police withholding evidence in the Mark Lundy case, has anyone got a comment to make about post #699?

No. I'm not sure why you are posting about it here.

Katman

9th July 2013, 15:26

No ... what's the relevance to the Bain case?

The common bond between all these cases appears to be the conduct of the police carrying out the investigation.

Drew

9th July 2013, 15:30

The common bond between all these cases appears to be the conduct of the police carrying out the investigation.I'm not convinced about the Lundy case, but it's apparent that mistakes were definitely made in the handling of the Bain murders.

Katman

9th July 2013, 15:34

I'm not convinced about the Lundy case

Go and re-read post #191 in the Mark Lundy thread Drew.

And it certainly appears that it wasn't the only bit of information they withheld.

Edbear

9th July 2013, 15:39

I'm not convinced about the Lundy case, but it's apparent that mistakes were definitely made in the handling of the Bain murders.

Undoubtedly were. However were anyone to charge Robin Bain on the actual evidence found, as opposed to conjecture, he would have been immediately aquitted. I defy anyone to build a solid case against Robin Bain on the evidence that would stand any scrutiny in any court of law.

If there were any solid evidence that could convict him it would have been built into a case by now. Anyone who tried to present a case against Robin would be laughed out of court,.

Drew

9th July 2013, 15:42

Go and re-read post #191 in the Mark Lundy thread Drew.

And it certainly appears that it wasn't the only bit of information they withheld.

I've had a look at stuff from a few places.

To tell the truth, I don't retain info well enough to connect dots later on and make a statement with certainty anyway.

It doesn't rub me as, intentional in the Lundy case, where there is a question mark over the Bain shit.

I live, love, and bite on instinct alone. It's a gift/curse, us not so bright cunts have to work with.:first:

scissorhands

9th July 2013, 15:49

unstuck

9th July 2013, 15:49

I've had a look at stuff from a few places.

To tell the truth, I don't retain info well enough to connect dots later on and make a statement with certainty anyway.

It doesn't rub me as, intentional in the Lundy case, where there is a question mark over the Bain shit.

I live, love, and bite on instinct alone. It's a gift/curse, us not so bright cunts have to work with.:first:

Always trust your instincts dude, may save your life one day.:niceone:

Katman

9th July 2013, 16:00

It doesn't rub me as, intentional in the Lundy case, where there is a question mark over the Bain shit.

The police used, as evidence in court, the explanation that Mark must have convinced his wife to be in bed by 7pm because he was coming home to have sex.

The notes in the detective's undisclosed notebook suggests that his wife wasn't expecting him home till Wednesday though.

Two conflicting pieces of evidence Drew - both of which originate from the police.

The one that didn't fit the police's story was withheld though.

It's certainly not hard to imagine that it may have been intentional.

Crasherfromwayback

9th July 2013, 16:12

that Mark must have convinced his wife to be in bed by 7pm because he was coming home to have sex.

.

Should've been convicted for that.

Mushu

9th July 2013, 16:34

'The NZ police always get their man'
and may settle for the wrong one to maintain an atmosphere that discourages others from murder, imagine if unsolved/unpunished murders [due to lack of evidence]were commonplace:eek:

Better they have an unsolved case than send an innocent man to prison over it, imagine if you were implicated in a murder and had no alibi (maybe sitting home watching TV that night) you'd have to be shit scared, can't really trust the police to even continue following other leads once they decide your the one.

Katman

10th July 2013, 11:06

I'm not convinced about the Lundy case, but it's apparent that mistakes were definitely made in the handling of the Bain murders.

Have you read the North and South article Drew?

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

Makes for very startling reading.

There has been a more recent (Dec 2012) North and South article written as well which I haven't gotten round to reading yet.

fridayflash

10th July 2013, 11:27

Drew

10th July 2013, 13:36

Have you read the North and South article Drew?

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

Makes for very startling reading.

There has been a more recent (Dec 2012) North and South article written as well which I haven't gotten round to reading yet.I have now. It's an eye opener for sure.

On the evidence given that is mentioned in the article, and the refute, I really couldn't convict him were I on a jury.

If it was him, he did it after his hooker left. It's sloppy police work at best, I would say.

I'm gonna give up having an opinion on this kind of thing from now on. The fun of the argument, is outweighed severly by being made to look a fool...That I probably am.

Erelyes

10th July 2013, 19:55

Katman

10th July 2013, 20:10

korimako1

11th July 2013, 13:48

In light of the information now coming out about the police withholding evidence in the Mark Lundy case, has anyone got a comment to make about post #699?

Sorry I cant remember this one, but yes the police will never admit they are wrong no matter what, even when they have evidence, it gets swept away or covered up. they lie by omission. Or as in Mark Lundys case two senior officers took the stand and played the "I cant recall, I dont remember" game. well thats come back to haunt them. Grantham was at the Privy Council hearing, has he returned to NZ or has he done a Keith Murdock?

Maha

11th July 2013, 16:07

Police will (at times) make the evidence fit their investigation. Case in point, the Crewe Murders.

Even going to the extreme of planting a spent bullet shell, in a garden that had already been sieved previously. This particular garden was sieved initially by top two cops and a civilian. In court though, the two cops could not recall the civilian (who was a witness) helping them. Hutton needed to find a spent cartridge to put Thomas at the scene of the crime. Up until then, Hutton and his team had the killer take place inside the house. Thomas would never have been inside the house.

Fact is, a lot of evidence does not make it to court and it’s all well and good to make up your mind or indeed change your mind, after the fact.

Katman

11th July 2013, 16:27

Fact is, a lot of evidence does not make it to court and it’s all well and good to make up your mind or indeed change your mind, after the fact.

That's small comfort for the person who spends years inside for something they didn't do.

Drew

11th July 2013, 16:31

That's small comfort for the person who spends years inside for something they might not have done.

Fixed that for ya.

Katman

11th July 2013, 16:35

If police withhold certain evidence simply because it supports the defense rather than their case they should be charged with perverting the course of justice.

Katman

11th July 2013, 16:36

Fixed that for ya.

It didn't need fixing Drew.

Smifffy

11th July 2013, 16:38

It didn't need fixing Drew.

Drew's the kinda guy that will adjust a rear brake for no good reason.

Drew

11th July 2013, 16:41

I don't think it needed fixing Drew.
Fixed that for ya too.

Drew

11th July 2013, 16:42

Drew's the kinda guy that will adjust a rear brake for no good reason.Fuck that shit!

I ride Suzukis, because there isn't another brand on the planet that will stand up to as little maintenance.

Bald Eagle

11th July 2013, 16:48

Everyone's guilty of something - I'm sure that's what they teach Day 1 at cop school.

Was day two actually, day one was how to find the chow line.

Maha

11th July 2013, 16:51

That's small comfort for the person who spends years inside for something they didn't do.

Could also work in their favour, both side veto considered evidence.

Maha

11th July 2013, 16:53

Fuck that shit!

I ride Suzukis, because there isn't another brand on the planet that will stand up to as little maintenance.

I once heard that Harris chap say ''lower income earners will buy a Suzuki''... I bought one:confused:

Drew

11th July 2013, 16:55

I once heard that Harris cunt say ''lower income earners will by a Suzuki''... I bought one:confused:

Fixed that for ya.

Maha

11th July 2013, 16:57

Fixed that for ya.

He was wrong anyway, that Bain fulla couldn't afford one on his income and it don't come much lower that head paper boy for Dunedin east...:laugh:

blinage due is starting to add up

Crasherfromwayback

11th July 2013, 17:16

*Buy*a Suzuki. The Suzuki didn't actually do anything...

scumdog

11th July 2013, 17:40

If police withhold certain evidence simply because it supports the defense rather than their case they should be charged with perverting the course of justice.

How about swearing a private information for that charge, you KNOW you can do it...:msn-wink:

Katman

11th July 2013, 17:55

Fixed that for ya too.

It didn't need fixing Drew.

My post referred to those people who know they have been wrongly imprisoned - not those who we can't decide whether they did it or not.

Littleman

11th July 2013, 18:06

:Oi:
Jeez, poor bugger indeed. Based on reading that it's a bazillion to one that Mark Lundy would have done the deed, never mind reasonable doubt.

How on earth could the court of appeal have turned that down?

I held my breath at this point. But no, a legitimate question simply dimissed. We were so close people.

Katman

11th July 2013, 18:28

So once again, it appears that the police, with their claim that the black marks on Robin Bain's thumb and forefinger are shown as white smudges on their fingerprint samples, are just bullshitting us.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/police-request-original-robin-bain-fingerprints-following-new-evidence-5505957

oneofsix

11th July 2013, 18:52

Jeez, poor bugger indeed. Based on reading that it's a bazillion to one that Mark Lundy would have done the deed, never mind reasonable doubt.

How on earth could the court of appeal have turned that down?

:Oi:

I held my breath at this point. But no, a legitimate question simply dimissed. We were so close people.

Quite easy actually. Like in the Bain case and several others our appeal system doesn't ask them to consider the original evidence but rather the legal process or if new evidence presented would possibly have changed the out come in their legal opinion. In other words :bs:

oldrider

11th July 2013, 20:43

This thread reads about as convincing as the official case files and together they are indicative that this country is a bloody legal mess .. God help us! :thud:

98tls

11th July 2013, 20:52

This thread reads about as convincing as the official case files and together they are indicative that this country is a bloody legal mess .. God help us! :thud:

Still...its at least a way of avoiding Coronation Street,though at times i could swear Kirks online.

Winston001

11th July 2013, 23:29

Quite easy actually. Like in the Bain case and several others our appeal system doesn't ask them to consider the original evidence but rather the legal process or if new evidence presented would possibly have changed the out come in their legal opinion.

Not really.

Appeals are not and can never be retrials. Instead they are an examination of the case to see if there are any obvious flaws. For example, a jury which decided guilty for a drug grower because he didn't understand the difference between seed tomatoes and grafted tomatoes. The dope plants grew like grafted toms but there was no evidence about the differences. The jury just knew about it, applied common sense, and convicted.

No good. Retrial.

Most appeals are on points of law - judge gave wrong instructions to the jury or misinterpreted the law. On rare occassions it can be argued that the weight of evidence was against conviction and the jury got it wrong. Damned hard to prove.

Whatever. Usually if an appeal is successful there is a new trial, so the accused does not get to walk.

korimako1

12th July 2013, 09:14

Better they have an unsolved case than send an innocent man to prison over it, imagine if you were implicated in a murder and had no alibi (maybe sitting home watching TV that night) you'd have to be shit scared, can't really trust the police to even continue following other leads once they decide your the one.

absolutely, bad things happen to good people. Be afraid, be very afraid.

scumdog

12th July 2013, 12:31

absolutely, bad things happen to good people. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Pfft, half a century plus and still haven't experienced what a 'bad thing' is...

Drew

12th July 2013, 12:35

Pfft, half a century plus and still haven't experienced what a 'bad thing' is...You are a bad man though.:laugh:

HenryDorsetCase

12th July 2013, 13:29

http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/joe-karam-several-others-found-dead-in-bain-home/

BREAKING NEWS

In what witnesses are describing as a horrific scene, former All Black Joe Karam has been found dead this morning along with a number of other prominent Bain supporters, including lawyer Michael Reed and retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie, in the Christchurch home of David Bain.

Katman

12th July 2013, 13:32

One of The Civilian's weaker attempts.

Banditbandit

12th July 2013, 13:34

Pfft, half a century plus and still haven't experienced what a 'bad thing' is...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NZ9_eS-uVQs/Tl6JVmR_xTI/AAAAAAAADUg/qgf1fpteBTo/s1600/Bad%2BThings%2B%253A%2BBook%2Bgirl.jpg

korimako1

12th July 2013, 16:27

Pfft, half a century plus and still haven't experienced what a 'bad thing' is...

simple answer is that perhaps you are not a good person.
Or you are lucky, there are many people out there who experience 'bad things', it doesn't have to be being fitted up for something they haven't done. perhaps you have a short memory or a selective one.

Banditbandit

12th July 2013, 16:30

simple answer is that obviously you are not a good person.

Naaa .. he's a cop ...

korimako1

12th July 2013, 16:39

Naaa .. he's a cop ...

Of course, blinkers.

scumdog

12th July 2013, 19:17

simple answer is that perhaps you are not a good person.
Or you are lucky, there are many people out there who experience 'bad things', it doesn't have to be being fitted up for something they haven't done. perhaps you have a short memory or a selective one.

Nah, I guess I'm lucky - not Lotto-winning lucky but still managed to slip past shit that has nailed others.
And my memory ain't short not selective.

Mind you, some of the shit I've had COULD be construed as 'bad things' but my attitude kinda overcame them...

Littleman

12th July 2013, 19:26

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that Bain sympathisers keep our media friends in business, and happy.

Smifffy

12th July 2013, 20:28

I once laid a complaint with our local plod regarding a sick fuck attempting to get in the pants of my young son. Paid for new phone, top up cards, airline tickets for a boyhood dream holiday for him etc. Rides to his holiday home for swims in his pool...

(Etc. removed for brevity before the mods do it)

Apparently that will be the cops fault. Still I bet that if the sick fuck met an untimely, nasty, violent end, and you had no good alibi, and they decided to put you in the frame, the fact that you had gone to the cops earlier and had received no satisfaction would be front and centre in the case against you.

That's how this shit really works.

Smifffy

12th July 2013, 20:30

That's how this shit really works.

Including the fact that you still post online about it.

Smifffy

12th July 2013, 20:39

Of course it was!

:argh:

:Oops:

:doh:

:whocares:

Nice edit of the quote to destroy the context. Whatever.

Mom

12th July 2013, 20:52

Nice edit of the quote to destroy the context. Whatever.

Sorry. Lost in translation.

Katman

12th July 2013, 20:58

Sorry. Lost in translation.

That's Mark rubbing off on you.

Smifffy

12th July 2013, 21:04

Sorry. Lost in translation.

Apparently. Never mind, stop apologising, I forgive you already.

Mom

12th July 2013, 21:07

Apparently. Never mind, stop apologising, I forgive you already.

Its all Marks fault apparently :killingme

:rolleyes:

AllanB

12th July 2013, 21:39

Fucking Bain did it. Joe needs to just admit his gay love and get over it .......

scissorhands

12th July 2013, 21:45

you can tell when its Friday night on KB...

korimako1

12th July 2013, 21:49

Nah, I guess I'm lucky - not Lotto-winning lucky but still managed to slip past shit that has nailed others.
And my memory ain't short not selective.

Mind you, some of the shit I've had COULD be construed as 'bad things' but my attitude kinda overcame them...

Fair enough.

Murray

12th July 2013, 22:18

Anyway back to the title subject

I have no doubt at all that Bain did it!!!!!

Winston001

12th July 2013, 23:12

Naaa .. he's a cop ...

simple answer is that perhaps you are not a good person.
Or you are lucky, there are many people out there who experience 'bad things', it doesn't have to be being fitted up for something they haven't done. perhaps you have a short memory or a selective one.

I know this is just KB and the interweb but I am tiring of the nasty purile comments directed against Scumdog and on a larger scale, against the character of police officers.

Scummy is known by many KBers and is liked and respected. A laid-back decent man.

By all means argue fervently and angrily, just leave the gratuitous stuff aside.

Crasherfromwayback

12th July 2013, 23:29

I know this is just KB and the interweb but I am tiring of the nasty purile comments directed against Scumdog and on a larger scale, against the character of police officers.

Scummy is known by many KBers and is liked and respected. A laid-back decent man.

By all means argue fervently and angrily, just leave the gratuitous stuff aside.

I agree. All my dealings with him have been 100% great. Strikes me as a GC.

unstuck

13th July 2013, 05:47

I agree. All my dealings with him have been 100% great. Strikes me as a GC.

But still a C.:msn-wink:

Cop that is.:whistle:

Edbear

13th July 2013, 10:54

Having spent some time with Scummy and his lovely wife at a hot rod show, I can vouch that not only is he a great guy with a great wife, ( and a great taste in classics!), but he's more than up to whatever any silliness can be thrown his way on here... :cool:

Edbear

13th July 2013, 10:57

Back on topic, it reamins simply that there are only two supects, Robin or David, and as many in the news have pointed out, there is no possible way Robin could be ever found guilty on the evidence. If Joe karam were to take Robin's side and defend him it would be too easy.

Fact is, Pete, (!), Robin did not commit the murders, end of!

unstuck

13th July 2013, 11:01

Or did he? And on it goes.......................:innocent:

Crasherfromwayback

13th July 2013, 11:06

.

Fact is, Pete, (!), Robin did not commit the murders, end of!

Because your word is gospel. Pass me another Tui.

Robbo

13th July 2013, 11:14

Fucking Bain did it. Joe needs to just admit his gay love and get over it .......

I think they have just "come out" :niceone:

Edbear

13th July 2013, 11:16

Because your word is gospel. Pass me another Tui.

Not my words, I just agree with the verdict of many highly qualified people. That's the funny thing about you and the others of your opinion, you think that if I agree with a qualified person, then that qualified person must be wrong.

If you're so much cleverer, what is your opinion on who dunnit?

Crasherfromwayback

13th July 2013, 12:01

Not my words, I just agree with the verdict of many highly qualified people. That's the funny thing about you and the others of your opinion, you think that if I agree with a qualified person, then that qualified person must be wrong.

If you're so much cleverer, what is your opinion on who dunnit?

No. Your words are that Robin didn't do it, and that that's a fact. That's the difference between you and I Ed. I'm not arrogant enough to call my opinion a *fact*. Because it is just that. An opinion.

onearmedbandit

13th July 2013, 16:10

Not my words, I just agree with the verdict of many highly qualified people. That's the funny thing about you and the others of your opinion, you think that if I agree with a qualified person, then that qualified person must be wrong.

If you're so much cleverer, what is your opinion on who dunnit?

Bwahahahahaha, the 'verdict of many highly qualified people'. I could reference literally thousands of decisions like that which have been proven to be wrong.

Swoop

13th July 2013, 16:46

Fucking Bain did it.
Yup.
Robin certainly did.

Or was it the butler, in the library, with the candlestick holder?:scratch:

oldrider

13th July 2013, 18:06

Yup.
Robin certainly did.

Or was it the butler, in the library, with the candlestick holder?:scratch:

In my humble opinion, the only thing that Robin did was die when he was shot. (just ask David, he is the only one that knows and he ain't telling!)

Edbear

13th July 2013, 19:18

No. Your words are that Robin didn't do it, and that that's a fact. That's the difference between you and I Ed. I'm not arrogant enough to call my opinion a *fact*. Because it is just that. An opinion.

Bwahahahahaha, the 'verdict of many highly qualified people'. I could reference literally thousands of decisions like that which have been proven to be wrong.

None of that matters when the evidence proves Robin was not the killer. You can scoff and argue semantics all you want, it won't alter the evidence.

Crasherfromwayback

13th July 2013, 19:35

None of that matters when the evidence proves Robin was not the killer. .

*Proves*? *Fact*? Your grasp of the English lanuage is average at best Ed. Your opinion of yourself and your intelligence however, is off the fucking scale.

Edbear

13th July 2013, 20:25

Cry me a river, Pete. As long as you're happy.

The little minds are biting tonight. Hi Blackdog!

Mushu

13th July 2013, 21:30

None of that matters when the evidence proves Robin was not the killer. You can scoff and argue semantics all you want, it won't alter the evidence.

Yes, and you have quoted this evidence several times only to be met with opposition and reasoning which shows your evidence actually proves nothing and then you wait a page or two and continue on spouting the same tired old shit. It's like arguing with a child.

Crasherfromwayback

13th July 2013, 21:35

Yes, and you have quoted this evidence several times only to be met with opposition and reasoning which shows your evidence actually proves nothing and then you wait a page or two and continue on spouting the same tired old shit. It's like arguing with a child.

Mate...Ed's the only one that knows for a *fact* what actually happened don't ya know! That's a fact. Or not.

Drew

14th July 2013, 10:19

Yip. I did my bestest, but making am argument that agrees with Ed was too much for me.

You're on your own fella.

Hinny

15th July 2013, 13:45

... can't really trust the police to even continue following other leads once they decide your the one.

Bain case contradicts that assertion.
They thought Robin was the killer and tried to find evidence to support their theory. Couldn't find any.
Dude in charge told them to go back and let the evidence speak for itself. The weight of evidence led to an obvious conclusion and so they charged David.
As the Court of Appeal noted - 'you won't find a jury in the land that would find David not guilty'.
The tide of media over the succeeding years changed that.

Edbear

15th July 2013, 14:06

Bain case contradicts that assertion.
They thought Robin was the killer and tried to find evidence to support their theory. Couldn't find any.
Dude in charge told them to go back and let the evidence speak for itself. The weight of evidence led to an obvious conclusion and so they charged David.
As the Court of Appeal noted - 'you won't find a jury in the land that would find David not guilty'.
The tide of media over the succeeding years changed that.

And you won't find a jury in the land that would convict Robin, either.

Banditbandit

15th July 2013, 15:01

And you won't find a jury in the land that would convict Robin, either.

Fuck Eddie Boy - that's a very big statement ... (Sure, he's dead - so you're safe .. but if he was alive, now that might be interesting ... )

Crasherfromwayback

15th July 2013, 15:05

Fuck Eddie Boy - that's a very big statement ... (Sure, he's dead - so you're safe .. but if he was alive, now that might be interesting ... )

No. It's a fact.

Drew

15th July 2013, 16:01

No. It's a fact.Seems to be a lot of people doing this lately. And for once, I bet I'm in the minority for knowing of the song before now...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/N1hIZH98S70" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

OK, I remembered the title of the song, but it's fucken old, and my old man was playing it while I was in the womb in all likelyhood.

Edbear

15th July 2013, 16:08

Fuck Eddie Boy - that's a very big statement ... (Sure, he's dead - so you're safe .. but if he was alive, now that might be interesting ... )

Nah, just look at the evidence. Not just me thinks that either if you look around.

Banditbandit

15th July 2013, 16:12

See .. you just think that .. crasher reckons it's a fact .. but he's wriong too ...

I would certainly convict Robin Bain if I was on a jury - eleven more to go and you have Robin Bain (if he was alive) in jail for four murders ...

Committing suicide is not illegal (funnily enough) .. trying to is though ..

Crasherfromwayback

15th July 2013, 16:14

See .. you just think that .. crasher reckons it's a fact .. but he's wriong too ...

..

Like fuck I do. I'm taking the piss out of Ed because Ed says his opinion is fact.

Drew

15th July 2013, 16:17

Like fuck I do. I'm taking the piss out of Ed because Ed says his opinion is fact.

Fuck you're reminding me of some random songs today bro.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zJ1LWduayqc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Banditbandit

15th July 2013, 16:18

Like fuck I do. I'm taking the piss out of Ed because Ed says his opinion is fact.

Oh .. sorry .. I don't follow this thread too closely (bored) .. just drop in now and then for a look ... and a laugh

Katman

15th July 2013, 16:57

Nah, just look at the evidence. Not just me thinks that either if you look around.

You need to learn the difference between 'opinion' and 'fact' Ed.

Crasherfromwayback

15th July 2013, 17:05

You need to learn the difference between 'opinion' and 'fact' Ed.

Several times I've done my best to assist Ed...but you know what they say about horses and water....

98tls

15th July 2013, 17:38

"there is no such thing as public opinion,only published opinion".WC.

Hinny

15th July 2013, 19:21

..

I would certainly convict Robin Bain if I was on a jury - eleven more to go and you have Robin Bain (if he was alive) in jail for four murders . ..

Oh .. sorry .. I don't follow this thread too closely (bored) .. just drop in now and then for a look ... and a laugh

Obviously haven't followed the case too closely either to have an opinion like that... Or would you care to try and make the case against him?
Joe Karam reckons there is more evidence against Robin than David - clearly if the generally accepted opinion that one of them is responsible you must hold this opinion as well.
Would you care to put up your 'evidence' and let it be critiqued by the masses?
Please don't start with the latest red herring - gun powder residue marks.
I can put that one to rest by pointing out the photograph showed red in the bottom of the groove - obviously from a scrape/injury. This explains the white blurry bits on the last fingerprints. Why it wasn't on the earlier ones was the reason the fingerprint experts deemed them unsatisfactory and thus new prints were taken.

Hinny

15th July 2013, 19:28

Which included presenting misleading evidence, and not presenting important evidence at all

David was a sitting duck with his crown solicitor and his mental handicaps, and a general dislike for him based on

'HIS FACE AND DEMEANOUR'

PURSUING A GUILTY CONVICTION IN THIS MANNER
ON WHAT AN AUTISTIC LIKE PAPERBOY
SAID IN INTERVIEWS
AND WHOS MUM DRESSED HIM FUNNY

IS PLAIN BAD POLICING

His face and demeanor - Body language speaks volumes. Look at the reaction to the not guilty verdict.

His Mum made the jerseys he wore - to his designs. That was almost enough to have him locked up.

Hinny

15th July 2013, 19:42

Poorly written on my part.

I'm leaning toward the 'should get paid' camp.

Stop leaning that way.
It's poorly thought out.

BTW.
Your self-deprecation is probably not healthy. There are plenty of people in the world that delight in running people down and I would submit KB has more than the average populace. Better to show they are wrong than get in first and do their business for them.

Drew

15th July 2013, 19:55

Stop leaning that way.
It's poorly thought out.

BTW.
Your self-deprecation is probably not healthy. There are plenty of people in the world that delight in running people down and I would submit KB has more than the average populace. Better to show they are wrong than get in first and do their business for them.

I'm not saying David didn't do it. Last man standing, 99% of the time did it.

I'm just saying the prosecution failed.

Hinny

15th July 2013, 21:18

I'm not saying David didn't do it. Last man standing, 99% of the time did it.

I'm just saying the prosecution failed.

I thought you said you were leaning towards paying him some of our money.
The prosecution failed because a smart lawyer got all the evidence against him barred. If the jury had some of that evidence do you think they would have let him off?

98tls

15th July 2013, 21:21

His Mum made the jerseys he wore - to his designs. That was almost enough to have him locked up.

:clap:Finally,all these years later eh.Anyone capable of knitting such a thing would surely have no problem offing there kinfolk if not for any other reason than being asked to knit another.

Hinny

15th July 2013, 21:29

:clap:Finally,all these years later eh.Anyone capable of knitting such a thing would surely have no problem offing there kinfolk if not for any other reason than being asked to knit another.

Are you suggesting his Mum was the killer?
More likely wound (frontal head shot) for a self administered one than Robin's. Not one in 10,000 came anywhere near that style / trajectory.
He was close to his Mum. Maybe should could have written that he was the only one that deserved to stay.

Not very likely though is it?

From what I have read it is more likely the narcissistic killer who would write such a thing.

Drew

16th July 2013, 05:49

I thought you said you were leaning towards paying him some of our money.
The prosecution failed because a smart lawyer got all the evidence against him barred. If the jury had some of that evidence do you think they would have let him off?Yeah, that's what I said.

He was unfairly tried. End of really.

scissorhands

17th July 2013, 09:24

Yeah, that's what I said.

He was unfairly tried. End of really.

Headline on Day 1 of trial: "Newspaper boy delivers death to family." David Bain convicted long before jury made their verdict?

TV3 The Vote 8.35pm tonight
all about the Bain boy....again

The authorities want to get some more mileage from this
Maybe be some dodgy legislation going through again....

Must be rough on peeps with large, sticky outey ears

Swoop

17th July 2013, 11:36

Must be rough on peeps with large, sticky outey ears
Are you suggesting Prince Charles could have done it?:whistle:

korimako1

17th July 2013, 11:48

His Mum made the jerseys he wore - to his designs. That was almost enough to have him locked up.[/QUOTE]

I will stand corrected but didn't a policeman give him "the jersey" which is now infamous.

scumdog

17th July 2013, 13:08

His Mum made the jerseys he wore - to his designs. That was almost enough to have him locked up.

I will stand corrected but didn't a policeman give him "the jersey" which is now infamous.[/QUOTE]

At last, SOMEBODY'S onto it!

Yep, ex op-shop item I believe.

Hinny

18th July 2013, 08:01

Yeah, that's what I said.

He was unfairly tried. End of really.

He was unfairly tried, some may argue, and that is why he got off.

You don't get a jackpot prize as well.

oldrider

18th July 2013, 10:14

In the beginning my sympathies were for David Bain but as time evidence and circumstance history etc have moved on, my "opinion" is that he did it!

I bet he can not believe his luck in having his own special knight in shining armour coming along and devoting his "life" to promoting his innocence! :facepalm:

Meanwhile five murders remain unsolved and the nations taxpayers are begging for the right to compensate the only living suspect for doing it! :tugger:

Only David Bain knows the "truth" and Joe will never ever let him be asked the questions (cross examined) in a court of law, I wonder why not? :doh:

Edbear

18th July 2013, 10:20

oldrider

18th July 2013, 15:07

And that's a fact..! :whistle:

Steady Eddy, I only said it was my "opinion"!

As is the fact that it is only my opinion that David Bain is a very cool calm and calculating person who is (IMHO) capable of such behaviour!

He looks down at Joe and gives me the impression that he is thinking, I don't know where you came from Joe but I'll take it anyway!

If I am wrong I would love to have him clearly proved innocent so that I could eat my words but the more I see/hear/read of him the more I believe he did it! :yes:

Edbear

18th July 2013, 15:43

Steady Eddy, I only said it was my "opinion"!

As is the fact that it is only my opinion that David Bain is a very cool calm and calculating person who is (IMHO) capable of such behaviour!

He looks down at Joe and gives me the impression that he is thinking, I don't know where you came from Joe but I'll take it anyway!

If I am wrong I would love to have him clearly proved innocent so that I could eat my words but the more I see/hear/read of him the more I believe he did it! :yes:

Ha ha! I had to put that in... :innocent:

scissorhands

18th July 2013, 16:02

I will stand corrected but didn't a policeman give him "the jersey" which is now infamous.
[/QUOTE]

It gets more sinister all the time....

Smifffy

18th July 2013, 20:41

It gets more sinister all the time....[/QUOTE]

yeah, should have let the cunt freeze to death. Woulda saved us a shitload of $$

Banditbandit

19th July 2013, 11:45

Obviously haven't followed the case too closely either to have an opinion like that... Or would you care to try and make the case against him?
Joe Karam reckons there is more evidence against Robin than David - clearly if the generally accepted opinion that one of them is responsible you must hold this opinion as well.
Would you care to put up your 'evidence' and let it be critiqued by the masses?
Please don't start with the latest red herring - gun powder residue marks.
I can put that one to rest by pointing out the photograph showed red in the bottom of the groove - obviously from a scrape/injury. This explains the white blurry bits on the last fingerprints. Why it wasn't on the earlier ones was the reason the fingerprint experts deemed them unsatisfactory and thus new prints were taken.

Naa .. see the evidence is already there and already being discussed .. I do not have to justify my position to you .. clearly the evidence convinces me that Robin is guilty - the fact that it does not convince you has no bearing on that. If I was on a jury I would find Robin guilty - if you were on the jury clearly you would not find him guilty ..

Does that mean Robin is guilty or innocent ??? It means no9thign more than we disagree about the validity of the evidence presented.

(And no, I am not convinced that the marks on his thumb are cuts - there are NO, I repeat NO breaks in the loops and whorls on the earlier fingerprints - if there were any cuts they would show up as breaks in those lops and whorls. The fact that a later fingerprint taken does show breaks means bugger all. I would expect an unsatisfactory fingerprint to not show complete loops and whorls (much like the later one) - to me a satisfactorty fingerprint shows ALL the looops and whorls intact ... which means we disagree over which is the satisfactory print as well)

Banditbandit

19th July 2013, 12:04

Hinny

20th July 2013, 06:17

I don't see any red marks that might be blood in the lines on Robin's hand - and I reproduced identical marks using the magazine from one of my own .22 rifles ...

http://media2.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2013/07/12/260613SPLCLOSE1_3_t460.JPG

Aas far as the marks being cuts ... Go here ...

http://www.theforensicgroup.co.nz/forensic-news/robin-bain-finger-marks/

Well I did look at the link.
Does it escape you that none of the reproduced marks are similar to the marks in the photograph of Robin's hands?
The images shown on television were much clearer than the image you have posted.
Clearly sharp edged and with blood in the bottom of the groove.
This story has as much validity as Joe Karam's 3 to 4 litre bladder capacity.
The Herald article states the lines match perfectly with a .22 magazine. In fact they don't.
This could be an example of the dangers of believing anything you read in the Herald.

korimako1

20th July 2013, 09:29

Well I did look at the link.
Does it escape you that none of the reproduced marks are similar to the marks in the photograph of Robin's hands?
The images shown on television were much clearer than the image you have posted.
Clearly sharp edged and with blood in the bottom of the groove.
This story has as much validity as Joe Karam's 3 to 4 litre bladder capacity.
The Herald article states the lines match perfectly with a .22 magazine. In fact they don't.
This could be an example of the dangers of believing anything you read in the Herald.

I dont have an opinion either way, but reproductions of pics can be dubious with photoshop and all the others that can manipulate photos one way or the other. inserting or removing things/colours.
this case has been a shambles from day one like many others. the police should throw away their
"how to investigate a murder for dummies" manuals they are useless.

scumdog

20th July 2013, 10:16

I dont have an opinion either way, but reproductions of pics can be dubious with photoshop and all the others that can manipulate photos one way or the other. inserting or removing things/colours.
this case has been a shambles from day one like many others. the police should throw away their
"how to investigate a murder for dummies" manuals they are useless.

Join up, show 'em how!

Better work stories then huh...

Hinny

20th July 2013, 18:41

I don't see any red marks that might be blood in the lines on Robin's hand - and I reproduced identical marks using the magazine from one of my own .22 rifles ...

http://media2.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2013/07/12/260613SPLCLOSE1_3_t460.JPG

Aas far as the marks being cuts ... Go here ...

http://www.theforensicgroup.co.nz/forensic-news/robin-bain-finger-marks/

Is the other red mark on Robins thumb the 'injury' that Karam reckoned Robin had.
From all accounts the 'injury' was about the size of a mark from a ballpoint pen.
He raised the 'injury' that Robin had in defense to the point that was made that David was the one who looked like he had been in a fight.
"Robin had injuries too..." he said.
He's a joke.

Interesting that the David supporters want to rely on the earlier fingerprints.
The ones that were determined by a 'fingerprint expert' to be unsatisfactory and hence the taking of new prints.
These later fingerprints show the marks.

Laava

20th July 2013, 20:33

This whole thread smacks of wrong. David Bain vs the Crown- Game over?
nah, not even close. Nothing has been proved at all or can possibly be proved. Let it go DB supporters, Joe Karam has got it all under control.

korimako1

7th August 2013, 15:37

So police are going to retest Robin Bains fingerprints and test fire the weapon to see if it leaves residue, Any guesses what Judith Collins will have to say about that?

scumdog

7th August 2013, 17:09

So police are going to retest Robin Bains fingerprints and test fire the weapon to see if it leaves residue, Any guesses what Judith Collins will have to say about that?

Goodness me?
Whatevva?
Tell him he's dreamin'?

leathel

8th August 2013, 07:25

Banditbandit

8th August 2013, 09:46

Just wondering how the mark on the end of the finger got there? If using the thumb to load the mag the finger should be around the back of the mag..... and if it did get marked it should not near line up with the thumb marks with the hand in that position ??

There are several different ways to use your fingers adn thumb to load a magazine (I don't habitually use any method that leaves marks like this)

If you hold the mag in one hand facing away from you and push the round in with your thumb, you are right, the lines would be on the thumb, running from top to bottom, and if you hold he magazine sideas adn push it across with your thumb the lines will be running accross the thumb, not up and down. (This method is easiest to do with one hand) THis is the way the marks on Robin's thumb may well have been produced when he loaded the magazine.

But if you hold the magazine sideways in one hand and push the round in with your finger you are likely to get the marks running across a finger.

The mark on Robin's finger could be because he loaded the mag using both grips at differnet times (yes, if he commonly used the gun he would only use one method - it wasn't his gun and he may not be used to it and he may have used different methods - yes, a lot of "may" )or it could be because he brushed his fingers across a different part of the gun or mag ...

Banditbandit

8th August 2013, 09:50

Well I did look at the link.
Does it escape you that none of the reproduced marks are similar to the marks in the photograph of Robin's hands?

The marks wil be different depending on how hard each person pushed down on the mag to get the roudn in - the flexible strength of their skin and how much it was pushed down .. the number of rounds that left resuidue on the mag ... etc etc. I would not expect identical marks on every person ... but they were similar enough to convince me ..

The images shown on television were much clearer than the image you have posted.
Clearly sharp edged and with blood in the bottom of the groove.

Oh. I thought this picture was clearer than the one on TV ... You can see the fingerprint grooves in this picture - but not in the TV ones ... just goes to show aye? Don't rely on photos - I have seen the same marks on my own thmb from loading a mag that way - and it hadn't been fired recently ... just pulled it out of the cupboard and loaded a shell - bingo there were the marks.

This story has as much validity as Joe Karam's 3 to 4 litre bladder capacity.

What are you going to say if the police run their tests and then agree that the marks are from Robin loading the mag? A closed mind is never good for the owner ...

The Herald article states the lines match perfectly with a .22 magazine. In fact they don't.
This could be an example of the dangers of believing anything you read in the Herald.

Only fools act on what they read in newspapers.

MisterD

8th August 2013, 10:15

What are you going to say if the police run their tests and then agree that the marks are from Robin loading the mag? A closed mind is never good for the owner ...

What would you say if the police run their tests and say the gun only has David's prints on it, and they're in human blood?

Katman

8th August 2013, 10:22

What would you say if the police run their tests and say the gun only has David's prints on it, and they're in human blood?

That has already been ruled out.

There were other prints on the rifle but they were deemed to be unidentifable and the blood in which David's print were found was shown to have no human DNA.

MisterD

8th August 2013, 10:41

That has already been ruled out.

There were other prints on the rifle but they were deemed to be unidentifable and the blood in which David's print were found was shown to have no human DNA.

It was a rhetorical question. However "Found to have no human DNA" and "not able to extract sufficient DNA to test whether human or not" are not the same thing. Technology has moved on since then.

Question: Was it to explain the lack of Robin's prints that Joe spent so many years telling us that Robin must have worn gloves?

leathel

8th August 2013, 10:46

There are several different ways to use your fingers adn thumb to load a magazine (I don't habitually use any method that leaves marks like this)

If you hold the mag in one hand facing away from you and push the round in with your thumb, you are right, the lines would be on the thumb, running from top to bottom, and if you hold he magazine sideas adn push it across with your thumb the lines will be running accross the thumb, not up and down. (This method is easiest to do with one hand) THis is the way the marks on Robin's thumb may well have been produced when he loaded the magazine.

But if you hold the magazine sideways in one hand and push the round in with your finger you are likely to get the marks running across a finger.

The mark on Robin's finger could be because he loaded the mag using both grips at differnet times (yes, if he commonly used the gun he would only use one method - it wasn't his gun and he may not be used to it and he may have used different methods - yes, a lot of "may" )or it could be because he brushed his fingers across a different part of the gun or mag ...

if he loaded the mag 2 ways to get the marks like that it is very very uncanny that the lines almost line up with his hand in the position it ended up in..... almost like the mag may have been dropped on the dead hand end first and fell to the side :msn-wink:

Edbear

8th August 2013, 10:56

if he loaded the mag 2 ways to get the marks like that it is very very uncanny that the lines almost line up with his hand in the position it ended up in..... almost like the mag may have been dropped on the dead hand end first and fell to the side :msn-wink:

Yup, just falling neatly onto its edge...

Katman

8th August 2013, 10:58

Yup, just falling neatly onto its edge...

Why do you think it's strange that the magazine is on it's edge?

It didn't necessarily 'fall' there - it could just have easily (and more likely) been 'placed' there.

MisterD

8th August 2013, 11:06

It didn't necessarily 'fall' there - it could just have easily (and more likely) been 'placed' there.

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.

Katman

8th August 2013, 11:26

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.

Or just as easily by Robin before he shot himself.

scott411

8th August 2013, 11:27

I thought the defence said that Robin wore gloves, and that is why there were no makes on him, now he loaded the mag with bare hands, and put gloves on?

Katman

8th August 2013, 11:44

I thought the defence said that Robin wore gloves, and that is why there were no makes on him, now he loaded the mag with bare hands, and put gloves on?

With the number of shots and misfires one of the magazines had to be reloaded at some stage during the shooting.

That could have occurred after the gloves were taken off.

Banditbandit

8th August 2013, 13:29

What would you say if the police run their tests and say the gun only has David's prints on it, and they're in human blood?

I'd say that proves that David handled the gun that day - maybe he handled it when he got home and found every one dead - maybe he was the one who handled it and pulled the trigger and killed them all. It would increase the evidence against David. That is not the case though. The bloood was not human.

David's fingerprints were on the gun - not surprising - it was his gun. Stephen's prints were on the gun - not surprising .. he may have gone shooting things with his older brother - if Stephen grabbed the gun during a struggle with the gunman I would not expect to frind his fingerprints on the gun. He would be grabbing the barrel or that end of the gun - his fingers would go right around and not necessarily make a good print on that part of the gun. If Stephen's fingerprints were found on the butt and around the breach I would say they were not left there during a struggle with the gunman.

I understand there were also other fingerprints on the gun, but not up to evidential standard to say whose prints they were.

Fingerprints prove that someone handled the gun. The lack of fingerprints to evidential standard does NOT prove that another person did not handle the gun.

scissorhands

8th August 2013, 14:24

I thought the defence said that Robin wore gloves, and that is why there were no makes on him, now he loaded the mag with bare hands, and put gloves on?

one would remove gloves to reload a magazine, as a biker inserts his ignition key before wearing both gloves

Banditbandit

8th August 2013, 15:43

If you know anything about using guns, gloves are not really an option - unless you use very light rubber gloves, anything else will make it pretty hard to get a finger through the trigger guard and around the trigger - I hunted in very cold weather with fingerless gloves (or adapted woollen ones with the index finger shortened) so I could get through the trigger guard.

I always wondered why the defense made that claim ??? It actually weakens their case ... in that it's stretching credibility to believe that.

Murray

8th August 2013, 16:37

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.

Or just as easily by Robin before he shot himself.

Why would Robin want to stage a scene if he left a note saying David was the only one who deserved to live - surely he would not want to stage anything that might implicate David??

Edbear

8th August 2013, 17:34

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.

Why would Robin want to stage a scene if he left a note saying David was the only one who deserved to live - surely he would not want to stage anything that might implicate David??

Logic has no place in this thread... ;)

Hinny

8th August 2013, 19:29

I think David's keenness to get the rifle back is very telling.

Bandit bandit Asserting that the blood was not human is merely believing one expert over another.

Two conflicting assertions by experts makes it inconclusive as far as I am concerned.

A clear case of believing what you want to believe.

The defence 'experts' are worrisome.
Like the Pathologist they brought over from England. Or should I say 'we' brought over from England.
Gave his testimony, contradicted the NZ pathologist and then buggered off back to England before he could be cross-examined.
He was going to be cross examined by video link but it failed. Tui moment.
He was as believable as that joke they brought over from Tasmania to assert "I shot the prick, I shot/" sounded to him like "I can't".
It must have taken some searching to find these people. Have to search all over the world for them.

Katman

8th August 2013, 20:09

Why would Robin want to stage a scene if he left a note saying David was the only one who deserved to live - surely he would not want to stage anything that might implicate David??

What is so staged about placing a magazine on the floor beside you before topping yourself?

Robin was shot by the rifle - not the magazine.

If the rifle had landed balanced on the end of it's barrel, that might have been worthy of mention. The magazine standing on it's side isn't.

Murray

9th August 2013, 08:43

What is so staged about placing a magazine on the floor beside you before topping yourself?
If the rifle had landed balanced on the end of it's barrel, that might have been worthy of mention. The magazine standing on it's side isn't.

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.

Or just as easily by Robin before he shot himself.

Your the one who wrote "Or just as easily blah blah blah"
Now its "what is so staged"

Make up your mind!!

Banditbandit

9th August 2013, 09:39

Bandit bandit Asserting that the blood was not human is merely believing one expert over another.

That's true - the blood was never tested (another police fuck up)

The prosecution also say that:
A) Stephen's room was covered in blood and the murderer's gloves would have been absolutely soaked in it.
B) the David's fingerprints on the gun in blood prove he was the killer

Well sorry, if the killer wore gloves then the bloody fingerprints were not the murderer's.

Hunters get blood on weapons after a kill - it's hard not to unless you have a very clean kill and don't clean it up on the spot. So, if the killer owroe gloves then David's fingerprints in blood on the gun were not put there during the killings - and would be animal blood from a hunting expidition.

oldrider

9th August 2013, 09:58

Banditbandit

9th August 2013, 10:00

Yes, you are right.

If David Bain did not commit the murderous rampage (and I beleive he did not) then he has become a living victim of this outrage.

Hinny

9th August 2013, 10:14

Five people dead by shooting is a massacre, an outrage, why doesn't anybody in this country seem to care about that?

All everyone seems to care about is blaming the police and paying out compensation to the only living suspect who is free on the shakiest of grounds!

I think sometimes this country spends too much time standing on it's head. The five murdered victims deserve better than that, surely! :sick:

People have become very blase about killing other humans.
There have been 65 wars since the end of WW2.
It seems most video games feature killing others as the main goal.
We have a Prime Minister who professes to love battle scenes in movies and obviously wants to be a player in the War of Terror.
The terrorists in Libya were being paid $150 a month.
How many people would have been killed with the money John Key gave to them? Our tax money.
And not a word is spoken.
Kill five people and it is an outrage. Kill millions and it is ignored.

Hinny

9th August 2013, 10:34

That's true - the blood was never tested (another police fuck up)

The prosecution also say that:
A) Stephen's room was covered in blood and the murderer's gloves would have been absolutely soaked in it.
B) the David's fingerprints on the gun in blood prove he was the killer

Well sorry, if the killer wore gloves then the bloody fingerprints were not the murderer's.

Hunters get blood on weapons after a kill - it's hard not to unless you have a very clean kill and don't clean it up on the spot. So, if the killer owroe gloves then David's fingerprints in blood on the gun were not put there during the killings - and would be animal blood from a hunting expidition.

A.'Absolutely soaked in blood.' Why not just the amount of blood that was on Davids bloody gloves found in Stephen's room?

B David's fingerprints on the gun don't prove he was the killer by themselves. Just adds to the case.

'Hunters get blood on weapons after a kill.' That is a ridiculous assertion. Like saying they get food on their clothing after eating.
Why the hell would you pick up a dead rabbit by the part of the animal that has got blood on it? That would just be dumb.

Your deduction re the gloves is also flawed.
After the first shot to Stephen's head, ( which Joe Karam contends left a 25mm deep furrow across his head!) the gun jambed.
It may well have been at this point David took off a glove to unjam it. or they could have come off in the fight. One could imagine a few possible scenarios.

Back to the 1 inch deep furrow across the top of Stephen's head.
He must have had a really fat head. I sure don't think I have 25mm above my skull to where my hair used to be.

It doesn't take much rational or logical thought to pick holes in every 'point' that Joe Karam makes.

Katman

9th August 2013, 10:47

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.

Your the one who wrote "Or just as easily blah blah blah"
Now its "what is so staged"

Make up your mind!!

You're the one calling the positioning of the magazine "staged".

What is "staged" about placing a magazine on the floor before you shoot yourself?

Katman

9th August 2013, 10:51

Your the one who wrote "Or just as easily blah blah blah"
Now its "what is so staged"

Make up your mind!!

Read the three quotes below.

Now imagine that the third quote has the words 'placed there' before the words 'by Robin'.

Understand now?

It didn't necessarily 'fall' there - it could just have easily (and more likely) been 'placed' there.

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.

Or just as easily by Robin before he shot himself.

scumdog

9th August 2013, 12:48

What is "staged" about placing a magazine on the floor before you shoot yourself?

Placing it up on edge like that on a carpetted floor is something I cannot recall doing - ever.

Or seeing somebody else doing.

So whoever put it there must have taken the time to balance it on its edge - or 'somebody' else moved it there like that.

And I tried dropping a mag many times to see if it could land on edge (Not saying it COULDN'T happen) - but you would have better odds on tossing a coin and it landing heads-up ten times in a row...

scumdog

9th August 2013, 12:51

B David's fingerprints on the gun don't prove he was the killer by themselves. Just adds to the case.

'Hunters get blood on weapons after a kill.' That is a ridiculous assertion. Like saying they get food on their clothing after eating.
Why the hell would you pick up a dead rabbit by the part of the animal that has got blood on it? That would just be dumb.

I gut rabbits and hares (and everything else I shoot) almost straight away - less weight to carry for a start.

And while I try to wipe all the blood off on the grass there is always some that gets onto the rifle.

Katman

9th August 2013, 13:06

And I tried dropping a mag many times to see if it could land on edge (Not saying it COULDN'T happen) - but you would have better odds on tossing a coin and it landing heads-up ten times in a row...

I would say it's quite clear that the magazine wasn't 'dropped' there.

It could just as easily have been placed there by Robin Bain though.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

Hinny

9th August 2013, 17:45

I would say it's quite clear that the magazine wasn't 'dropped' there.

It could just as easily have been placed there by Robin Bain though.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

Before or after he shot himself and dragged his body across the floor?

Hinny

9th August 2013, 18:31

That's true - the blood was never tested (another police fuck up)

Where did you get that idea from?
You may give credence to the defence argument if you believe this is true. The fact is that it is not true.

Kim Jones, a fingerprint technician with the Christchurch police, said he examined the rifle on 21 June 1994 and discovered "sharp, definitive and recent'' fingerprints belonging to David Bain. The fingerprints were deposited by fingers covered in blood which when tested returned characteristics consistent with human blood.
These matched David Bain's fingerprints from four fingers of his left hand, Jones said. The prints had been placed by fingers covered in blood on a clear surface and were "sharp and very definitive''. The fingerprints had been placed with such pressure and were so clear he was left in no doubt they were of recent origin.
He said " if prints were put on the rifle during a hunting trip before the murders, they would have been destroyed with subsequent handling. He said he believed the prints were recent because the hemoglobin in the blood had not oxidized and the blood had therefore not turned dark brown in color."
He found that "the rifle was covered in its entirety - itself, the stock, the strap, the scope and the silencer, '' with blood.
Another scientist, Dr Cropp, said he was given five plastic tubes with blood samples scraped from the rifle. His testing confirmed the five samples were human blood and four of them were of one particular type. The blood could have come from David, Stephen or Laniet, but not from the rest of the family.
The Defence called in British fingerprint expert Carl Lloyd as a witness and he claimed that the fingerprints were not in human blood and may not in fact be in blood at all.His testimony is not worth anything though as the blood had deteriorated so much that nobody could show what it was. The defence couldn't contest the claim because of this and that may have swayed the jury - or you.
My take is that it is another 'expert' called by the defence that fits the definition of an expert - X being an unknown quantity and spurt - a drip under pressure.
He is unbelievable.

The fingerprints on the gun are indisputably David's and are in human blood therefore they connect David closely to the crime.
The Defence argument about animal blood on the gun is weak because the activity on the morning of the murders would have destroyed them, and also, when shooting small animals, only negligent amounts of blood are ever transferred to the hands, if at all, when picking them up.
The gun was covered in fresh blood from David, Stephen or Laniet.

Hinny

9th August 2013, 18:34

http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/files/Stephens%20fingerprint.JPG?1348349536

But look at the print of Stephens. Across the middle is a couple of parallel lines which would indicate that he loaded a magazine.
The plot thickens.....

oldrider

9th August 2013, 19:40

The performance of New Zealand Police, lawyers, Judges and justice generally is being placed in question now almost every day and seems to be getting worse!

Taking a leaf out of defence councils book perhaps we should be outsourcing these services to countries that have the required level of expertise!

This might get better results and save a lot of taxpayers money!

Defence councils outsource these services by constantly referring and demanding that we use the British Privy Council to usurp the NZ services for better legal interpretations!

NZ Police could then focus entirely on general policing duties and traffic duties which they seem more suited and trained for therefore solving the recruiting shortages at the same time! :whistle:

Madness

9th August 2013, 20:07

NZ Police could then focus entirely on general policing duties and traffic duties which they seem more suited and trained for therefore solving the recruiting shortages at the same time! :whistle:

Last time I appeared in the District Court (on a bullshit charge) I was surprised to see that the prosecutor was a civvy. I got the impression that the outsourcing of prosecution services was mainstream practice already.

Maybe this had something to do with the outcome of my case, which would have been more acceptable if my expenses had been reimbursed (Tui?) on top of the charge being dropped once we showed them through a transcript of Police communications what a complete lack of proof they had.

My Missus comes from North America and held the Police in the utmost of respect, right up until that case. Me, I always knew they NZ popo are dodgy, I'd just never been arse fucked by them personally until then. Cunts.

Smifffy

9th August 2013, 22:54

My Missus comes from North America and held the Police in the utmost of respect, right up until that case. Me, I always knew they NZ popo are dodgy, I'd just never been arse fucked by them personally until then. Cunts.

Ken A! My wife is also from N America, and still has that attitude. After a couple of trips over there, I can see why, despite the donut munching stereotypes. Very helpful.

One time in Oz I was enjoying some vendor hospitality at an aussie rules game. Hospitality was quite good, given his expense account. Afterwards as we wander/staggered out of the stadium looking for somewhere to eat, we couldn't find anywhere, since for him it was an away game in the suburbs and for me I was in austruckinfalia. He decided to bowl up to a couple of popo standing on a street corner to ask them about restaurants. As a clean living, law abiding kiwi this idea shocked me. "Don't go near them" I protested. "They'll just get stroppy or take the piss and tell us to fuck off, being as we're 4 sheets to the wind" instead we ended up in a street of good restaurants and I had a great meal on his expense account.

The cop in the USA that helped us out when her mom's car broke down, or the time we got lost in our rental car in the dodgiest part of town in a dodgy city, were much better than we would have expected from an NZ copper.

Hinny

10th August 2013, 08:28

scumdog

10th August 2013, 10:01

eld the Police in the utmost of respect, right up until that case. Me, I always knew they NZ popo are dodgy, I'd just never been arse fucked by them personally until then. Cunts.

The 'perk' of living near a large population??

Better service (and work stories) down here...

Edbear

10th August 2013, 12:48

Madness

10th August 2013, 13:11

Try as I might, I've never had dodgy dealings with the Police. I do most things right, obey the law and all that, but never have the Police targetted me to stitch me up or charge me falsely. What am I doing wrong..? :wacko:

That's very short-sighted of you Ed but we've come to expect that from you so it comes as no surprise. Cock.

Edbear

10th August 2013, 13:14

That's very short-sighted of you Ed but we've come to expect that from you so it comes as no surprise. Cock.

Touchy today... LOL!!! Hook, line and sinker! :laugh:

Madness

10th August 2013, 13:17

Touchy today... LOL!!! Hook, line and sinker! :laugh:

Whatever Ed. I must say I'm saddened by the thought that your health must be on the improve.

Swoop

10th August 2013, 15:36

I think David's keenness to get the rifle back is very telling.
Please tell us more.

DB is not "getting it back" as it is an exhibit of the court and will not be released, let alone returned, to him.
He will not be at the testing of the rifle either, due to work commitments.

So your comment is intended as...???

Hinny

10th August 2013, 19:57

Please tell us more.

DB is not "getting it back" as it is an exhibit of the court and will not be released, let alone returned, to him.
He will not be at the testing of the rifle either, due to work commitments.

So your comment is intended as...???

Tell you more about what?

'DB is not "getting it back"' - How can you be sure he won't get it back?
The case is over and done with. Double jeopardy means he can't be tried again. (Teach them to put all 5 murders in one charge).
Since he can't be tried again the Bain/Karam camp (or is that the Karam/Bain camp) have argued that the courts no longer have any need for it and as it is David's property it should be returned to him.

Intent of my comment - was to highlight one more occurrence of the 'stifle all investigation of the case' programme they have run.
The 'stifle all evidence in the case' programme proved to be, IMO, the winning strategy whereby they were able to get most of the evidence against David suppressed or called into question by (dodgy) 'experts'.
The British fingerprint expert Carl Lloyd who reckoned the prints were not in human blood and it may not have been blood at all.
This may well have raised a doubt in the minds of the jury. It certainly appears to have been considered proof by some that Davids fingerprints were not in human blood .
This is clearly rubbish. The fresh blood covering the rifle had David's fresh fingerprints in it when it was examined at the beginning of the investigation. It was determined to have been from David, Stephen or Laniet. No other members of the family.
Conjecture on the part of the Pommie 'expert' was not able to be refuted by the prosecution as the blood had degraded to the point where they could no longer establish anything from it. Two sides to the coin - obviously the expert could not prove his outlandish claim either. - That appears to be overlooked by 'believers'.

The possibility that a new process in the future could definitively show that it was human blood could be a good reason to get the rifle and dispose of it asap.