The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
Failed miserably.
Hard luck. This one's dead and buried.
I just feel sorry for the poor bloody offspring of that pair of utter mutants.
Should David Bain get compensation?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Failed miserably.
Hard luck. This one's dead and buried.
I just feel sorry for the poor bloody offspring of that pair of utter mutants.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
I trust a few guffaws were heard when it was decided the other day to give Baino the rifle back...
Well, except Joe Karam has requisitioned the items, and no doubt will do further testing.
Maybe he is getting bored and plans some private prosecutions against the mendacious crown experts.
Or will test to see how blood gets smeared on the victims wrists when you shoot them with that gun.
Or was the blood instead left over from washing, changing clothes, leaving one's own blood in the laundry on items, then shooting self.
Come on atheist, the science is well settled in this case. You are better than the baying crowds and poll driven cabinet who have cheated Baino.
Where did you read that?
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
I thought so too.
Atheist is far smarter than the Martin van Beynen listers of what you would need to believe.
I have no doubt Judith Collins bought in, for a range of reasons.
The list is a disgrace, but holds sway in controverting scientific evidence. Let us see how Atheist answers Fixit.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
It sure is. Pity nobody on the jury understood it and went with the sympathy verdict instead.
"Poor David... he's suffered so much."
Exactly unlike his family.
I feel sorry for Stephen fighting his father for dear life, not implicated in bizarre rituals with mum, incest with Laniet, arguments with the older girl, all who died quickly....
Why do I bother? Because that is what this forum is designed for. You are opposing its natural purpose by orbiting the evidence and looking the other way.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
...<snip>....
I admire your defence of the guilty but innocent, as in Mark Lundy, but your defence of the guilty, as in David Bain/William David Cullen Davies, weakens your case a lot.
...<snip>...
Edited by jsfisher:
Edited to remove text at odds with Rules 11 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.
Last edited by a moderator:
If Joe's impeccable research was on ebook I would post tracts that would change your view. I will suggest to him he converts trial by ambush.
Last edited by a moderator:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
First, I still think there is merit is the two murderers theory - Robyn Bain murdered his family, David murdered his father in retribution. On that basis, I personally don't think David Bain deserves compensation because IMO he was guilty of one of the murders he was charged with.
Second, the matter of the standards of proof required for compensation is something I have an issue with. If you are found not guilty of a crime, then that should be that in the eyes of the Law; you are deemed to have not committed that crime., Why should you now have to further prove you didn't do it in order to get compensation for being wrongfully convicted in the first place? On that basis, Bain ought to be compensated, even though I personally don't believe he deserves it.
IMO, the only reason for the system we have now is because the Department of Justice wants to avoid admitting their errors (and the deep flaws in the justice system in this country) and the Government is trying to avoid paying out money.
The standard for compensation should be the verdict of the jury. If you are found not guilty in a retrial after a wrongful conviction, then you should be automatically entitled to compensation. Further, I would make it part of the trial itself (rather like the opposite of a "Penalty Phase" in a US court guilty verdict for first degree murder when the death penalty is on the table). Once the jury find the convicted defendant not guilty, the trial moves on to the "Compensation Phase". The Attorney General (or their representative) and the defendant's solicitor argue in front of the jury, the amount of compensation to be paid, and the jury decides on a figure. That figure is binding an not open to appeal by either party.
Second, the matter of the standards of proof required for compensation is something I have an issue with. If you are found not guilty of a crime, then that should be that in the eyes of the Law; you are deemed to have not committed that crime., Why should you now have to further prove you didn't do it in order to get compensation for being wrongfully convicted in the first place? On that basis, Bain ought to be compensated, even though I personally don't believe he deserves it.
IMO, the only reason for the system we have now is because the Department of Justice wants to avoid admitting their errors (and the deep flaws in the justice system in this country) and the Government is trying to avoid paying out money.
The standard for compensation should be the verdict of the jury. If you are found not guilty in a retrial after a wrongful conviction, then you should be automatically entitled to compensation. Further, I would make it part of the trial itself (rather like the opposite of a "Penalty Phase" in a US court guilty verdict for first degree murder when the death penalty is on the table). Once the jury find the convicted defendant not guilty, the trial moves on to the "Compensation Phase". The Attorney General (or their representative) and the defendant's solicitor argue in front of the jury, the amount of compensation to be paid, and the jury decides on a figure. That figure is binding an not open to appeal by either party.
Last edited:
That hybrid theory just does not stack up. Joe Karam does all the forensics of timing of computer turn on. It is bullet proof. The contact wound and the least contortionate suicide trajectory further dispel this concept, and a host of other factors.
There is no doubt left, a bit like the other cases, Lundy, MacDonald, Pora, Thomas, Tamihere and probably Watson and so on. Not to mention Peter Ellis and the parent bribing. The police have screwed so many communities in these few cases, it is time the composite whole are used to raise dramatically the bar for arrest and prosecution. This is where the trouble begins and face saving takes over.
The stupid idea we will prosecute and do our best is a disaster. Guilt is dead easy to prove to a jury where it really exists. Despite the claims of the family, I suspect that Quinton Winders did murder George Taiora, a reading of the judge's decision demonstrates incompatibilities with any theory of innocence. Yet it looked all over a gang killing and mistaken identity. This is just one example where absolute proof is scarce, but no other explanation for his behaviour and history fits. Good Kings college boy but.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Definitely. I would like this thread to work the case, it needs some resolution.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
There are only three scenarios worth investigating
Scenario 1: David Bain murdered his entire family in the early hours of the morning, went out to do his paper round, then returned, turned on the computer, wrote the famous message "Sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay"
Scenario 2: Robin Bain waited for David to leave on this paper round, murdered his entire family, turned on the computer, wrote the message and then committed suicide, and David arrived home to find them all dead
Scenario 3: Robin Bain waited for David to leave on this paper round, murdered his entire family. He then turned on the computer, and wrote the message just as David arrived home to find them all dead. David and Robyn fought, a David killed him.
There are two possible times that the Bain computer could have been turned on...
Martin Cox, a software engineer from the University of Otago worked out a start time of 6.41.06am, however his methodology involved some assumptions and was hampered by the fact that the computer clock was correctly because the BIOS battery was flat so the clock only started when it was turned on. He also had to use a Policeman's analogue wrist watch that was two minutes fast and had no second had as a time reference to work back to when the computer might have been started. It is difficult to see how Mr Cox could come to such an accurate time given the inaccuracies in his measuring equipment.
Another computer expert Maatern Kleintjies employed more sophisticated technology than Cox used, said that the time could only be established as somewhere between 6.39.49am and 6.49.11.
If we take Joe Karam's assertion that whoever turned on the Bain's computer is the murderer, then we are still no wiser because David's estimate was that he arrived home at around 6:42/6:43, and this was confirmed by a neighbour, Denise Laney, who saw David at his gate just before 6.45 a.m.
If we take Maarten Kleintjes estimate as accurate, then the computer might just as easily have been already on when David arrived home, or it might not yet have been turned on. This would fit any of the three scenarios
If we take Martin Cox' less than satisfactory evidence, the computer switch-on time could only have been before David arrived home. This would rule out scenario 1
Essentially, the estimated computer start times are meaningless, and the two murderers theory is not ruled out by any of the possible start times
Scenario 1: David Bain murdered his entire family in the early hours of the morning, went out to do his paper round, then returned, turned on the computer, wrote the famous message "Sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay"
Scenario 2: Robin Bain waited for David to leave on this paper round, murdered his entire family, turned on the computer, wrote the message and then committed suicide, and David arrived home to find them all dead
Scenario 3: Robin Bain waited for David to leave on this paper round, murdered his entire family. He then turned on the computer, and wrote the message just as David arrived home to find them all dead. David and Robyn fought, a David killed him.
There are two possible times that the Bain computer could have been turned on...
Martin Cox, a software engineer from the University of Otago worked out a start time of 6.41.06am, however his methodology involved some assumptions and was hampered by the fact that the computer clock was correctly because the BIOS battery was flat so the clock only started when it was turned on. He also had to use a Policeman's analogue wrist watch that was two minutes fast and had no second had as a time reference to work back to when the computer might have been started. It is difficult to see how Mr Cox could come to such an accurate time given the inaccuracies in his measuring equipment.
Another computer expert Maatern Kleintjies employed more sophisticated technology than Cox used, said that the time could only be established as somewhere between 6.39.49am and 6.49.11.
If we take Joe Karam's assertion that whoever turned on the Bain's computer is the murderer, then we are still no wiser because David's estimate was that he arrived home at around 6:42/6:43, and this was confirmed by a neighbour, Denise Laney, who saw David at his gate just before 6.45 a.m.
If we take Maarten Kleintjes estimate as accurate, then the computer might just as easily have been already on when David arrived home, or it might not yet have been turned on. This would fit any of the three scenarios
If we take Martin Cox' less than satisfactory evidence, the computer switch-on time could only have been before David arrived home. This would rule out scenario 1
Essentially, the estimated computer start times are meaningless, and the two murderers theory is not ruled out by any of the possible start times
Martin Kleintjes was the go to guy.
But if you go back to the Lundy thread you will find our friend HardCheese chimed in as computer expert that became fascinated by the impossibilty of Kleintjes, and the crown attributing plausibilty to his false 2002 narrative.
This of course does not make his work on Bain worthless, but it is not helpful on his CV.
The idea there was a fight between Robin and David culminating in a singular gunshot that replicated the least contortionate suicide trajectory AND was a contact shot is dealt with by Bayes. But it is actually better dealt with by common sense. What are the odds? I would rather back black 22 with my rent money than this eventuality.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I have to confess I'm pretty much completely ignorant of the intricacies of this case, my entire knowledge pretty much coming from Wikipedia. From what I understand, Scenario 1 is the prosecution case, Scenario 2 is the defence case. But why is Scenario 3 is here - if that had happened, wouldn't Bain have put that forward as his defence?
As I have said, the evidence points exclusively to 2.
It would be in Joe Karam and David Bain's interests to release his books electronically. They are profound exposees of this quasi criminal behaviour by the state. Their performance is very similar to the Italians in the Knox case that I know you follow. The cases map perfectly, where the person who discovers the crime scene is hunted into jail with fabricated and logistically and scientifically impossible scenarios..
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its not a very good idea to admit that you murdered your father in revenge for him killing your family... You will still face a lengthy prison sentence for that, and knowing the crooked Police and Justice system we have in this country, they will almost certainly try to pin the other murders on you.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Does anyone else seriously propose the two murderers theory you support?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I first heard the theory back in 2010. It arose because there were a couple of real problems with the theory that Robin killed his family and committed suicide.
Firstly, there was no blood from the family at all on Robin's clothes. This is particularly significant because it is well established Stephen fought ferociously with his killer. The killer washed his bloody clothes in the laundry and got changed, so if Robin was the sole killer, intent on committing suicide, why would he bother with all that.
Secondly, none of Robins fingerprints were on the gun which there certainly should have been had he shot himself with it in the manner claimed by the defence.
However, if Robin Bain killed his family, and fully intended to get away with the murders, then its reasonable that he might have washed his clothes and got changed (certainly more reasonable than if he intended suicide) The theory then goes on to say that Robin cleaned the gun (explaining why his fingerprints were not on it). Then David comes home before Robin expects him to, finds his family murdered (explaining David's bloody footprints) and kills Robin.
Matthew Best:
This theory is a complete red herring.
Do not waste your limited time on it.
Trust me.
Even better buy Trial by Ambush as Holly Goodhead did. She is a stalwart for wrongful convictions.
Injustice Anywhere waves a fist at all manufactured evidence.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
Didn't matter in the end - emotion, not evidence, ruled the second trial.
Karam, Wendy Petrie, the juror who just had to give the future William Davies a big hug, Samson, and all the people who cheered the not guilty verdict bought the idea. I will admit that having a superior, rapist, alternate murderer helped, just as the stupid pigs' lack of attention to evidence had plenty to do with it, too. "Shall we convict that nice young man or a beastly rapist who
s raping his own daughter?"
You have to hand it to Joe Karam - nobody else thought of making a murderer into a victim and profiting from it. Mark Twain wrote about the effect in Tom Sawyer, and we see the extreme end of it with the marriage between the ex-lawyer and rapist/murderer in jail the other day.
I mentioned Holly Goodhead because she works for the release of Jeremy Bamber, who in a similar fashion is taking the rap for a quad murder suicide by his sister.
Atheist:
You have not even once discussed the crime scene as found in Bain, and are defaming David Bain, albeit on kiwiblog this is rife so I suppose it is OK here too.
David Farrar runs the most read blog in New Zealand and he demeaned his credibility and joined the defamation brigade with the recent rifle return blog. He should be called to account by Joe Karam.
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
Incorrect. I've discussed it ad nauseum and see no reason to revisit it.
That is truly tragic.
I don't see him bringing a defamation case anytime soon, because he might just get caught up in an OJ-style civil case where the evidence is re-examined and he is found on the balance of probabilities to have been the perpetrator.
That would be both funny and poetic justice.
Note that Karam's defamation actions have been people questioning his motives, not whether Baino is guilty.
Try figuring out why else neither of those two stalwarts of injustice has ever tried to make a claim against anyone when there is clear evidence of hundreds of "defamations", as you call them, or "facts" as most people call them.
I have never seen a David guilter explain the combination of the contact gunshot wound and the perfect suicide trajectory.
David would need to have calculated this prior to the hope his father would allow him near enough to make this shot. This datapoint kills your theory stone dead unless you can explain in words the steps in the real world leading to this singular outcome. And remember one shot only is allowed.
I am looking forward to your solution.
Thank you in advance, as they say.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
1 As you very well know, there is insufficient evidence to say with surety it was a contact wound thanks to the idiot pigs' lack of diligence.
2 Perfect suicide trajectory my backside.
At least we have isolated some points, what is the most fundamental point you have that labels David as the killer, and I will try to discuss that.
One evidence point at a time is fine.
Would irrefutable evidence change your view or are you too far gone?
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
Of course, but unless you have something Joe or the second trial hasn't already heard you're just wasting your time repeating supposition.
I suspect your view of what constitutes "irrefutable evidence" differs from mine.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Last period to post in this thread wins.
This signature is intended to irradiate people.
I was attempting a cryptic crossword earlier, but I am no damn good.
The Bain case is part of a series that shows the darkest attributes of humankind, pitchforking victims by villagers. And this is in a country ranked least corrupt in the world. I attended a meeting today where I was stunned once more by machinery of state defeating the most important principle of government, attend to the interests of all your citizens.
No, I am not hyperbolising.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
OK, so here is some of the evidence against David Bain that I have difficulty in dismissing...
Laniet
David said he heard gurgling and groaning. Only the killer could have heard that
David organised a family meeting for the night before the murders, and he insisted that Laniet be there and stay over.
The Gun
The gun belonged to David
He was the only person who knew the location of the trigger lock keys (he testified to this)
David's bloody fingerprints were found on the gun
David intimidated his family with his gun
Stephen
David had injuries consistent with a fight with Stephen
David's bloody gloves were found in Stephen's Room
The blood on David's clothes belonged to Stephen
Other topics
David washed the blood soaked clothes.
David fantasized about using his paper run as an alibi to commit a crime (testfied to by the person he told)
Robin Bain's body appeared to have been moved
David had no answer to many questions about evidence linking him to the murders.
Laniet
David said he heard gurgling and groaning. Only the killer could have heard that
David organised a family meeting for the night before the murders, and he insisted that Laniet be there and stay over.
The Gun
The gun belonged to David
He was the only person who knew the location of the trigger lock keys (he testified to this)
David's bloody fingerprints were found on the gun
David intimidated his family with his gun
Stephen
David had injuries consistent with a fight with Stephen
David's bloody gloves were found in Stephen's Room
The blood on David's clothes belonged to Stephen
Other topics
David washed the blood soaked clothes.
David fantasized about using his paper run as an alibi to commit a crime (testfied to by the person he told)
Robin Bain's body appeared to have been moved
David had no answer to many questions about evidence linking him to the murders.
Smartcooky:
It is commonplace for the innocent, who discover a crime scene, to be unable with perfect mental acuity, to answer those questions that might link him to the crime scene.
I discuss this case, and the Watson case, and the Lundy case in prodigious detail with another member of this forum.
David Bain walked into a crime scene.
Amanda Knox walked into a crime scene.
Russ Faria walked into a crime scene.
The murders were committed by others.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
What a breathtaking example of dismissing physical evidence with a hand-wave.
Were you on the jury for the second trial?
You have seen how juries operate in New Zealand. They don't even consider the hard physical evidence.
Blood on Robin Bain's Hands when he gets out of bed?
No Atheist, no, this alone illuminates the journey.
I am completely satisfied he killed his family after Laniet and Margaret went at midnight to drain the cash machine. The latter is uncontested fact that requires a real world explanation. Deny it with your evidence. Explain why they would do this before a completely surprise attack by their son and brother. And so on. The list mirrors the Lundy hoax I promise you.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Discovering the crimes scene does not account for
The injuries consistent with a fight
The broken spectacles in David's room and the missing lens in Stephen's room
David bloody fingerprints on the gun (and the lack of Robin's prints on same)
David's bloody gloves in Stephen's room
Why David washed the bloody clothes
You can't just dismiss these things with a handwave and a dubious comparison to other cases. You need back up your viewpoint by addressing how all of this evidence (in this post and my previous post) is consistent with David not having committed the crimes, on a point by point basis.
Last edited:
I purchased a second hand copy of David and Goliath from that great second hand bookshop in Picton recently.
Joe answers those questions back in 1996.
I am planning to strongly suggest to him to put his books on kindle, so we can quote relevant tracts, there is no other way I envisage of clearing these matters up.
Last edited:
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
Nice admission.
I've campaigned against juries for decades, so you have no need to sell it to me.
I'm equally confident that a panel of professional jurists hearing the Bain evidence would have sent him back to jail.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
Anyone with far too much time on their hands listening to the Stuff podcasts is welcome to keep the thread up to date with the evidence & conclusions!
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Just started listening. If they have anything new and exciting I'll let you know, or you can listen to it here