Should David Bain get compensation?

The Atheist said:
Irrelevant - the question was relations with his family and he had destroyed them regardless of the murder trial.
Click to expand...

By all accounts he'd turned his life around since then and while nasty, it is possible that those things were forgivable. Being the only suspect the police were interested and being told by the police that he murdered Guy even after the not guilty verdict? Not so much.

Lundy's problem will be getting another appeal. I'd be betting he won't even get to court. Two trials, a Privy Appeal... there's no real way forward and I imagine the fund is well and truly dry.

Public support is zero and I see no chance of him ever getting out.
Click to expand...

Does it not concern you in the least bit that the Prosecution totally changed it's narrative and the even key pieces of evidence in the second trial because their first narrative was totally destroyed?
 
Samson said:
If the ring of soot exists it was suicide. Man shoots self. Get it? :(
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish and you know it. Someone else could just as easily be holding the gun.

I repeat - it is not exculpatory evidence in any way.
 
PhantomWolf said:
By all accounts he'd turned his life around since then and while nasty, it is possible that those things were forgivable. Being the only suspect the police were interested and being told by the police that he murdered Guy even after the not guilty verdict? Not so much.
Click to expand...

Cops are filth - what more can I say?

It's not really the prosecution, though. The cops are a law unto themselves, thankfully not to the extent elsewhere.

PhantomWolf said:
Does it not concern you in the least bit that the Prosecution totally changed it's narrative and the even key pieces of evidence in the second trial because their first narrative was totally destroyed?
Click to expand...

Sure it does, but there's nothing I can do about it.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd be asking how two allegedly great defence lawyers failed to get him off when the evidence so clearly proves he couldn't have done it. The cops are useless, their evidence was laughable and it appears the jury was a joke in the second trial. I've long said the system in NZ is rotten to the core.

I can throw in Chris Kahui as another appallingly inept performance by the pigs. A double murder and the jury took about three minutes to find him not guilty. He may have even done it.

I can't wait for the road-worker murder to come up. It's another disaster waiting to happen - lots of circumstantial evidence and drawing long bows, I believe.
 
The Atheist said:
Utter rubbish and you know it. Someone else could just as easily be holding the gun.

I repeat - it is not exculpatory evidence in any way.
Click to expand...
If David was holding the gun at point blank range, are you saying that he had intimidated his father into standing still while shot in the temple at a 45 degree angle left front to right rear? I am trying to imagine the conversation going on.
When we have resolved this one we can move on to the next data point, the blood smear on Robin's wrist that was never tested for identity, and destroyed by Inspector Doyle after the first appeal was denied.

Meanwhile you can see where this is heading. Cabinet will compensate Bain, then Pora will claim, then Lundy. At this stage all cases that went to the privy council will have succeeded, and we will wonder why we got rid of it. Indeed Amy Adams may be asked to substantiate her claim made recently that checks and balances in the system are adequate.

Surely you recognise a story like this needs more attention than our gutless media accord it.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Cops are filth - what more can I say?
Click to expand...

I disagree, I do think that they get tunnel vision when they come up with a suspect though.

It's not really the prosecution, though. The cops are a law unto themselves, thankfully not to the extent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I think part of it is that many New Zealanders still have the idea that the Police never make mistakes, and part of that is created by the Police themselves refusing to accept their mistakes. As such for a lot of people, if the Police says that Person X is guilty, then they are. It doesn't matter if they actually did it or not.

Sure it does, but there's nothing I can do about it.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd be asking how two allegedly great defence lawyers failed to get him off when the evidence so clearly proves he couldn't have done it. The cops are useless, their evidence was laughable and it appears the jury was a joke in the second trial. I've long said the system in NZ is rotten to the core.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the system is rotten, I think that we put too much faith in the police. In the Lundey second trial I think a lot of it was that

a) Most people thought he was guilty after the 1st trial, the Privy Council decision didn't change that opinion.
b) The defense got blindsided by the prosecution totally changing the narrative and time of death, along with the magical microwaved McDonalds. I wonder if the prosecution has ever tried McDs fried reheated in a microwave.... :eek:

I believe the jury wanted to have confirmed what they already believed, that he was guilty.
 
Samson said:
Meanwhile you can see where this is heading. Cabinet will compensate Bain, then Pora will claim, then Lundy.
Click to expand...

You seem to keep forgetting that Lundy is still banged up. Like Cully, I'd be happy giving Pora millions.

Samson said:
Surely you recognise a story like this needs more attention than our gutless media accord it.
Click to expand...

It's well down the list of things of things I don't think the media covers well.
 
The Atheist said:
You seem to keep forgetting that Lundy is still banged up. Like Cully, I'd be happy giving Pora millions.



It's well down the list of things of things I don't think the media covers well.
Click to expand...
I wonder what this person knows.

http://nostalgia-nz.blogspot.co.nz/

Watch this case unfold, literally. It's going to shake the foundations of not only the NZ Justice system but forensic science world wide. Mark Lundy will no doubt be seen to have been treated in an abhorrent way by the NZ Criminal Justice system in a big con. A big con that saw the officer in charge of the case that resulted in a Miscarriage of Justice 'allowed' to remain in charge of the case only to see a worse Miscarriage of Justice perpetuated on Mark Lundy. The public will eventually hear about missing brain samples autopsy photos, along with evidence admitted by our Court of Appeal that didn't even have originating paperwork supplied with it and attested under oath by a man not authorised to give expert forensic evidence in his own country. That's the truth and it's going to bust out as an enormous con of the NZ public.

And this is happening while cabinet shag around with the much easier Bain compo.
 
Samson said:
I wonder what this person knows.

Watch this case unfold, literally. It's going to shake the foundations of not only the NZ Justice system but forensic science world wide.
Click to expand...

Bold claims for a bloke with 17 followers - it's not your blog, is it?

13 months down the track since his re-conviction and I've seen nothing that encourages me to think there's any chance of him getting another appeal, let alone trial, far less be exonerated.
 
The Atheist said:
Bold claims for a bloke with 17 followers - it's not your blog, is it?

13 months down the track since his re-conviction and I've seen nothing that encourages me to think there's any chance of him getting another appeal, let alone trial, far less be exonerated.
Click to expand...
Nostalgia knows plenty trust me. The Lundy case is cited countless times by Chris Halkides as a case that should be resolved, he is very interested and uses it in teaching as a model of junk forensics. The herald may eventually emerge from under a rock. Obviously Steve Braunias and Jared Savage know the case backwards. I saw an opportunity and a story was rewritten on thursday to comply with NZ law in describing killers. Until they plead guilty don't do it.
This case is just as Nostalgia says, and you know this because you are letting people know.
No miscarriage survives the scrutiny. But there is lying fraud and corruption right through this one.
Sue Schwalger will soon be puzzled how she could have said:

that police always strived to provide value for money when investigating crimes.
"The cost of bringing matters before the courts is a routine part of doing business," she said.
"However, Police do not put a price on holding offenders to account and achieving justice for victims."
The costs of the Lundy re-trial reflected the complex nature of the investigation and the thoroughness of the police work done to ensure an extremely strong case was presented to the court, Schwalger said.
"Learnings from this case will also add value to future inquiries of this type."

After destroying several families in Marton, you might have expected her to learn.
 
Last edited:
Motive

Reading comments from Brian Edwards blog in 2010 I discovered this by Peter Entwisle

Peter Entwisle
July 9th, 2010 at 15:23
superCalo talks about Robin’s motives and says they “do not believe much of the hearsay evidence of the defence in regards this as its contridicted so many times by other hearsay and non-hearsay to make it worthless.”

He or she is not alone in thinking something like this but it is seriously confused and significantly mistaken.

The evidence in question of course is to do with Laniet’s allegations of incest with her father.

This was first presented by Dean Cottle at the first appeal. It was that she had said to him this had been happening and that she was going home that night to confront her father and family about it. Cottle’s claim about her allegation of incest with her father has since been corroborated by a number of other witnesses: two shop keepers, a school teacher, an acquaintance and some others. I forget just how many.

The confusion is thinking that this evidence is only hearsay. Regarding the alleged incest it is because none of the witnesses claimed to be first hand witnesses of that. They were only told about it by Laniet so it’s hearsay. However their evidence regarding her having made the allegations is not hearsay. They were direct witnesses of that. They heard her say it.

The mistake is thinking that any of this has been contradicted. None of it has. No evidence has been advanced at all that any of these witnesses were mistaken or lying when they said Laniet had made these allegations to them. So this evidence stands.

Its significance becomes apparent when you consider that whether or not her allegations were true they point at Robin and only Robin and do provide him with a motive.

Of course we don’t know that she actually did make them again that night to her father and some of her family. Cottle said that was her intention and another witness’s evidence appears to confirm that.

If she did accuse her father and with her mother, sister Arawa and brother Stephen present, how might he react? True or false they would be highly damaging to him personally. They would put him in danger of a prison sentence and terrible disgrace. If they were untrue he might well feel outraged and badly used by his daughter. If they were true he might well become a very frightened and angry man. If his wife, younger son and older daughter seemed to believe Laniet his hurt and anger might extend to them too.

They are extraordinary allegations and this is an extraordinary series of crimes. The allegations would provide a motive adequate to them.

For this reason it is important to be very clear about what is and is not hearsay in the evidence and to be absolutely clear that none of this has been contradicted or challenged in any significant way.

One does feel uneasy about hearsay evidence. I understand people’s concerns. But there is substantial and significant evidence here about Robin’s possible motive which is not hearsay and there is nothing at all to gainsay it.

.......................................................................................
Atheist or Cullen, does this make any difference to your theory of the crime?
Even Joe Karam furnishes less compelling material than this in Trial by Ambush. Margaret Bain also made a cash withdrawal late that night (check)

ETA it appears he has a reliable CV. I have heard of him before. I imagine he has an interest in correcting other false beliefs within the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Entwisle
 
Last edited:
Heard on the news this morning that the main one of the 3 "unamed" incarcerated witnesses which sent David Tamehire to jail has sent him (presumably John) an affidavit recanting his evidence.

Says he was given incentives to say it all

Watch this space. Could get interesting
 
Samson said:
Reading comments from Brian Edwards blog in 2010 I discovered this by Peter Entwisle

Peter Entwisle
July 9th, 2010 at 15:23
superCalo talks about Robin’s motives and says they “do not believe much of the hearsay evidence of the defence in regards this as its contridicted so many times by other hearsay and non-hearsay to make it worthless.”

He or she is not alone in thinking something like this but it is seriously confused and significantly mistaken.

The evidence in question of course is to do with Laniet’s allegations of incest with her father.

This was first presented by Dean Cottle at the first appeal. It was that she had said to him this had been happening and that she was going home that night to confront her father and family about it. Cottle’s claim about her allegation of incest with her father has since been corroborated by a number of other witnesses: two shop keepers, a school teacher, an acquaintance and some others. I forget just how many.

The confusion is thinking that this evidence is only hearsay. Regarding the alleged incest it is because none of the witnesses claimed to be first hand witnesses of that. They were only told about it by Laniet so it’s hearsay. However their evidence regarding her having made the allegations is not hearsay. They were direct witnesses of that. They heard her say it.

The mistake is thinking that any of this has been contradicted. None of it has. No evidence has been advanced at all that any of these witnesses were mistaken or lying when they said Laniet had made these allegations to them. So this evidence stands.

Its significance becomes apparent when you consider that whether or not her allegations were true they point at Robin and only Robin and do provide him with a motive.

Of course we don’t know that she actually did make them again that night to her father and some of her family. Cottle said that was her intention and another witness’s evidence appears to confirm that.

If she did accuse her father and with her mother, sister Arawa and brother Stephen present, how might he react? True or false they would be highly damaging to him personally. They would put him in danger of a prison sentence and terrible disgrace. If they were untrue he might well feel outraged and badly used by his daughter. If they were true he might well become a very frightened and angry man. If his wife, younger son and older daughter seemed to believe Laniet his hurt and anger might extend to them too.

They are extraordinary allegations and this is an extraordinary series of crimes. The allegations would provide a motive adequate to them.

For this reason it is important to be very clear about what is and is not hearsay in the evidence and to be absolutely clear that none of this has been contradicted or challenged in any significant way.

One does feel uneasy about hearsay evidence. I understand people’s concerns. But there is substantial and significant evidence here about Robin’s possible motive which is not hearsay and there is nothing at all to gainsay it.

.......................................................................................
Atheist or Cullen, does this make any difference to your theory of the crime?
Even Joe Karam furnishes less compelling material than this in Trial by Ambush. Margaret Bain also made a cash withdrawal late that night (check)

ETA it appears he has a reliable CV. I have heard of him before. I imagine he has an interest in correcting other false beliefs within the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Entwisle
Click to expand...
It's interesting but hardly more than hearsay to the actual deaths
 
cullennz said:
Heard on the news this morning that the main one of the 3 "unamed" incarcerated witnesses which sent David Tamehire to jail has sent him (presumably John) an affidavit recanting his evidence.

Says he was given incentives to say it all

Watch this space. Could get interesting
Click to expand...
Coincidentally I bought Wishart's Tamihere book thursday, still trusting the mail to deliver it. There is a thread here that I will post to after reading it.
 
cullennz said:
It's interesting but hardly more than hearsay to the actual deaths
Click to expand...
I am ploughing through the comments, and it is interesting that several posters say it was not a contact wound to the temple so could not be suicide. However after posting the testimony of the only pathologist to examine the body here, who would not ever retract his evidence there was a centimeter ring of soot, I note Atheist will not challenge that.
To me it is crystal clear. Contact to the temple is suicide, distant shot is murder.

So, what we have is an uninformed population who have not availed themselves of the readily available first and precise evidence.

This is the same with Scott Guy stuff, people will not read the evidence placing MacDonald a long way from the driveway at the exact time several ear withesses heard three successive shots fired.

These singular datapoints are sufficient to resolve these cases, which is particularly good news for people like me, who have become obsessed with correcting and settling the history of these cases.

I would appreciate suggestions for the best singular datapoint to resolve the Lundy case.
 
More from BE blog

Ron Davis when he wrote this was a retired diesel mechanic, 82. He said these engines can't talk to you, so he works with evidence.

Ron Davis
July 17th, 2010 at 16:20
Uriah July 16th, 2010 at 15:52
Back to Laniet.
She had told people she was going home to tell the family about her relationship with Robin. However, it would appear that Laniet never actually made the incest allegations to her family on the weekend prior to the murders. David, the only survivor, has never said she did. So with his secret still safe, why did Robin see it necessary to murder his entire family.

Ron Davis replies
Did you not read all the evidence available in this case Uriah ? David Bain gave evidence during the first trial, that he went to bed at 9-30 on the Sunday evening ( He had a paper round next morning early.) He stated that he was awakened around midnight by a violent altercation going on out side his bedroom between his father Robin and members of his family. David did not get up and intervene in this altercation and it died down and he went back to sleep. The fact that Robin had nicks and scratches on his hands ,that according to the Pathologist who examined Robins body, had occured 6 or 7 hours prior to his death. This backs up Davids testimony because it indicates that Robin had a fight with female members of his family in order for him to have got those scratches. ( They would not have come from the fight with Stephen because Robin kept the white gloves on during that fight until he had overcome Stephen and only then did he take off the gloves in order to clear the jammed bullet from the rifle.)If Laniet had carried out her threat to tell her mother about the alleged incest, then that would surely be a motive for the fight. Also Margaret and Laniet went to the Bank after midnight and withdrew all the money in Robins Bank account. What would any of this had anything to do with David Bain??
 
Last edited:
More from Ron Davis

This guy is good. Very good.

Greg McCreanor July 19th, 2010 at 01:30

I was out of the country when the murders happened but so far I have read nothing about powder burns or powder residue. Did Robin Bain have powder burns from his self-inflicted shot ? If he did have powder burns,it could be from either his gun or another gun…but no powder burns would mean it wasn’t self-inflicted.
Can anyone enlighten me ?

Ron Davis

The Pathologist Dr Dempster did the Autopsie on Robin Bain. He was quite definite that the wound was a contact wound. Mark Lodge, the Detective who made the notes regarding the state of Robins body in the lounge also noted it as a contact wound. Both these gentlemen saw the body, they were not working from Photographs. The Crown produced two Expert witnesses to say that they thought that the shot that killed Robin Bain was fired some distance away from Robins head. I cannot recall the exact distance off the top of my head but there were two I think. one was about 27 cent and the other 14 Cent or thereabouts. One of these witnesses was a Professor and the other was a Doctor. Both these men were basing their opinion on Photographs whereas Dr Dempster did the Autopsie. The object of the Two disenting experts was to place doubt on the possiblity that Robin Bain commited suicide. They both appear to have lost sight of the fact that the wound in Robins head sprayed blood over the curtain to the computer alcove and also over the bean bag in the lounge next to Robins elbow. In order for the wound to be pressurised by gas from the cartridge explosion to enter the head it would have to be a contact or near contact wound. Given that the rifle also was fitted with a silencer, powder burns may be a little different from an unsilenced rifle. The silencer is designed to disappate the gas in order to silence it. Dr Dempster was a witness for the Crown. The other two were also witnesses for the Crown. Does that not seem a little odd?
Ron Davis

And:

The police wanted to talk to Dean Cottle because they found his cell phone in Laniets room. Cottle went into the police station accomanied by his Lawyer and gave the statement about what he said Laniet had told him. Which was, that she was giving up the prostitution game and was going to tell her mother about her father Robin having an incestuous relationship with her .This was basicaly Cottles evidence. Instead of investigating this evidence ( Which Karams private detective did some time after the first trial and found several supporting witnesses for Cottles affidavit.)The police arrested David Bain.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I am ploughing through the comments, and it is interesting that several posters say it was not a contact wound to the temple so could not be suicide. However after posting the testimony of the only pathologist to examine the body here, who would not ever retract his evidence there was a centimeter ring of soot, I note Atheist will not challenge that.
To me it is crystal clear. Contact to the temple is suicide, distant shot is murder.

So, what we have is an uninformed population who have not availed themselves of the readily available first and precise evidence.

This is the same with Scott Guy stuff, people will not read the evidence placing MacDonald a long way from the driveway at the exact time several ear withesses heard three successive shots fired.

These singular datapoints are sufficient to resolve these cases, which is particularly good news for people like me, who have become obsessed with correcting and settling the history of these cases.

I would appreciate suggestions for the best singular datapoint to resolve the Lundy case.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate.

Total un-scientific and probably closed minded but Lundys display at the funeral makes any concern for him zero
 
cullennz said:
Sorry mate.

Total un-scientific and probably closed minded but Lundys display at the funeral makes any concern for him zero
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I realise it is the worst cause of any for sticking head above parapet, but I am a weird kind of masochist, it just makes me keener.
I bet the bachelor chooses his girl according to her views on the case. :D
 
The Atheist said:
I'd say the best cause, because it has the huge advantage of the guy actually being not guilty.



What?
Click to expand...
We are ultimately, on these threads, discussing a very curious phenomenon. Joe K (not to be confused with Joseph K) now stands accused.
A cab driver I know well carried a Law professor from AU, who says, like you Atheist, we, the department, have no doubt David Bain is guilty. Damn this intrigues me. Robin shot himself!!

Imagine me walking up Queen street with a sandwich board saying Lundy is innocent.

Apart from the obvious fact not one being will have heard of the hapless fellow, how would it play out?
 
This Holmes program from 1997 shows Joe Karam and James MacNeish discussing their books. MacNeish says the evidence is unimportant in understanding the killings done by David. Joe is interested in the forensic evidence showing Robin had plenty of blood on him when he shot himself.
MacNeish relies on the full bladder and noone would shoot themselves in the left temple and so on.
Unadulterated nonsense, but I suppose Judith Collins enjoyed his book

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/holmes-karam-and-mcneish-on-bain-1997
 
Last edited:
The geezer is guilty as in my opinion but if a couple of million shuts them up makes them go away all good
 
I was not aware of this from wiki.

Response by Judith Collins[edit]
The finished report was delivered to the New Zealand government in September, 2012.[49] By that stage, Simon Power had retired from Parliament and Judith Collins was the new Justice Minister. Collins sought feedback on the report from the police and the Solicitor-General and ordered a peer review of the report by a former High Court judge, Robert Fisher. Collins said one of the reasons she wanted further advice was because she received an email from Michael Guest, Bain's lawyer from his first trial who in 2001 had been disbarred for lying.[50] Guest said in the email that Bain had made a 'damning admission' to both himself and his co-Counsel at the time of the first trial 17 years earlier that he had been wearing his mother's glasses the day before the murders, and that therefore Bain could not be innocent. Joe Karam said Guest's claim was contradicted by a letter the lawyer sent to Mr Karam after the first trial, in which Guest said he was "absolutely certain David is innocent or had suffered a miscarriage of justice".[51] The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal said Guest "had a tendency toward overstatements that sometimes departed from reality and truth."[52]

In the process of getting further advice, Ms Collins refused to allow Bain's legal team to see a copy of Binnie's report. She also tried to prevent the report from being made public. Emails released to the media show her staff wanted Binnie to be kept "in the tent for as long as possible". Collins' press secretary sent her an email expressing her concern that the Canadian judge was going to go "completely feral" due to his concerns over the process.[53]

Later that month, Collins called Binnie back to New Zealand for a 15-minute meeting. Binnie subsequently reported: "It was very clear at that time that the minister was furious with the conclusion I had reached. So I left Wellington knowing my report was dead on arrival... It's not uncommon among clients to keep going through lawyers until they find someone who agrees with them."[54]



So that is how Miss Piggy deals with justice, find one lying lawyer to help cement her childish and impossible conclusions.

I guess David Bain knows how it feels to be Kermit the frog.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
So that is how Miss Piggy deals with justice, find one lying lawyer to help cement her childish and impossible conclusions.

I guess David Bain knows how it feels to be Kermit the frog.
Click to expand...


This is nothing new.

The Police do the same thing re expert witnesses, they will keep shopping until they get someone who is willing to testify to what they want to hear.

There is no doubt at all in my mind that Rodney Miller was a forensics "hired gun" that the Police searched the world for for months while they kept Lundy's polo shirt in the Station-house safe (breaking the chain of custody while allowing any policeman there unsigned access to it).
 
Dr Alec Dempster, the pathologist:

He described the entry wound to Robin Bain as being 4mm in diameter surrounded by a ring of soot up to 10 mm in diameter.
"This indicates to me that this is a contact wound where the muzzle of the gun has been held in direct contact with the skin of the deceased."

Robin Bain committed suicide unless someone can explain how David pacified him first.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
"hold this gun to your head and pull the trigger, or I will shot you!"
Click to expand...
Tooth fairy runs rampant. The problem Ramjets is that trajectory.
It is exactly that of a suicide as pictured in the photograph Alec Dempster replicating the respective positions of Robin and his gun. 45 degrees left temple to right rear of skull, and 10 degrees up.
It was suicide alright, but Amy Adams is too stupid to understand it. Or too keen on the votes. Hmm the latter. I have explained to her the suicide so I know she knows.
 
cullennz said:
Bain has been denied compensation but has accepted 900k in costs to shut up and go away.
Click to expand...

I can live with that.

His legal costs chasing it probably amount to that anyway.

At least it's only $150k/victim. The ultimate insult would have been $6 mio compo.

The mio will be enough for his to kick-start that opera career.

:dl:
 
The Atheist said:
I can live with that.

His legal costs chasing it probably amount to that anyway.

At least it's only $150k/victim. The ultimate insult would have been $6 mio compo.

The mio will be enough for his to kick-start that opera career.

:dl:
Click to expand...
Tend to agree. Just paid a bit to go away.
 
cullennz said:
Tend to agree. Just paid a bit to go away.
Click to expand...

Regardless of his actual guilt or not, I reckon the only three people in NZ who aren't completely turned off by Baino as a person are Samson, Joe the Joo and that disgusting blonde thing who reads the news on TV1. I think her name's Wendy Petrie.
 
The Atheist said:
Regardless of his actual guilt or not, I reckon the only three people in NZ who aren't completely turned off by Baino as a person are Samson, Joe the Joo and that disgusting blonde thing who reads the news on TV1. I think her name's Wendy Petrie.
Click to expand...
Atheist: I know you well enough now that you can divine a new view. You are a rationalist. Science rules global warming, pest control and criminal cases.
Yep, you are a new age flexible man.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Baino & Karam: still crying.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11750530

Poor old Baino - the judge made hurtful comments about him.

Probably shouldn't have shot all his family.
Click to expand...
Atheist, some points.
1. Margaret Bain wrote a letter to a friend saying she was concerned Robin Bain was going to grab a gun and shoot them all.
2. Margaret Bain and Laniet Bain were confirmed by security footage to have withdrawn as much cash from a machine as possible about midnight, 5 hours before they were both shot.
3. Robin Bain had blood smeared on his wrists, as photographed at the crime scene. The blood was not tested. The crown does not dispute the photographs or the substance they show to exist at the time he was shot.
4. The crown agrees he was shot with the gun muzzle in contact with his temple.
5. The crown agrees that there was his blood on towells.
6. The evidence he was having sex with Laniet is in fact overwhelming, and a powerful motive for murder as you and Smartcooky are suggesting is a strong motive for murder in a similar case.
7. Charlie Wilkes has stated on this thread he gets exactly the same marks on his thumb as discovered in a photograph of Robin Bain's thumb by one of Fixit's mates, when pressing bullets into a semi automatic 22 cartridge,
8. David Bain was outside the house when the computer was turned on. This is conceded by the crown.
9. Callinan is a lying liar hired for a specific purpose by John Key, to try to get your vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom