Should David Bain get compensation?

The Atheist said:
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!
Click to expand...
You are incorrigible.
Van Beynen paints bad in the covering article, he is a failed lawyer, a failed journalist. I like him for that because he is a battler, but David Bain is innocent.
 
Samson said:
You are incorrigible.
Van Beynen paints bad in the covering article, he is a failed lawyer, a failed journalist. I like him for that because he is a battler, but David Bain is innocent.
Click to expand...

No worries, mate - I'll stick to the evidence rather than your opinion.

I do find it interesting that Van Beynen is a mirror of your boy who has fought so long for Lundy.
 
The Atheist said:
Geoff Levick
Click to expand...
Geoff is a retired very successful horticultural and agricultural chemicals importer.
He is a proper scientist, and has had plenty of contact with Joe Karam.
Despite that I have not asked what he thinks of the Bain case.
 
Samson said:
Geoff is a retired very successful horticultural and agricultural chemicals importer.
He is a proper scientist,...
Click to expand...

Cite, please?

As I understand it, he was a horse breeder who imported equine products which are classed as chemicals and that he isn't a scientist's backside, but I'm willing to stand corrected.

His cv on LinkedIn seems to support my view more than yours: https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoff-levick-53767114/?ppe=1

No university, and since he has his UE subjects in, I'd bet he'd put a degree in.
 
The Atheist said:
Cite, please?

As I understand it, he was a horse breeder who imported equine products which are classed as chemicals and that he isn't a scientist's backside, but I'm willing to stand corrected.

His cv on LinkedIn seems to support my view more than yours: https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoff-levick-53767114/?ppe=1

No university, and since he has his UE subjects in, I'd bet he'd put a degree in.
Click to expand...
His work got the Lundy case to the privy council, who accepted it in the shortest time in 180 years.
A rogue system temporarily undid this work, but it is in the way of these cases it will be resolved. Wellington in October, enjoy.

Caveat, in New Zealand the system is so cosy that inmate is largely irrelevant in the political and private club landscape. Look what happened to David Bain.
 
Samson said:
His work got the Lundy case to the privy council, who accepted it in the shortest time in 180 years.
Click to expand...

I wasn't discussing his work, I was trying to get you to acknowledge that you were incorrect.

I shall presume your avoidance of the question means he is not a scientist.
 
The Atheist said:
I wasn't discussing his work, I was trying to get you to acknowledge that you were incorrect.

I shall presume your avoidance of the question means he is not a scientist.
Click to expand...
Geoff Levick is almost as fine a scientist as Andrew Tipping j
And Suzan Glazebrooke j
Sorry, now Sir Andrew and Dame Susan. Lovely lives, doting children and grand children, but terrible terrible liars.
 
I listened to the last episode of Black Hands.
Van Beynen claims it was a careful plan but that now Bain has blocked his memory of it. I can't imagine blocking the memory of constructing a careful plan over weeks.
He claims that David shot Robin from behind the curtain.
However we know with certainty the silencer was touching Robin's temple as the single shot was fired, this is an immutable data point.

What plan could count on Robin being close to the curtain and the single shot replicating a suicide trajectory?

This podcast series is a disgrace, Van Beynen should be locked up with some rocket scientists and aircraft engineers who must show their workings to make things safely airborne.
 
Samson said:
However we know with certainty the silencer was touching Robin's temple as the single shot was fired, this is an immutable data point.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Thanks to the stupidity of the pigs, the point is neither immutable or able to be confirmed or denied.
 
Samson said:
...we know with certainty the silencer was touching Robin's temple as the single shot was fired, this is an immutable data point.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not buying this without forensic evidence. I have found nothing to corroborate this assertion, and I'm afraid the cops made such a complete pig's breakfast of their crime scene examination and the way the Robyn's body was handled, that I don't think any will be forthcoming. FFS, he was an obvious gunshot victim, found in close proximity to a potential murder weapon and with a potential suicide note on the family computer, and they didn't even bag his hands, thereby losing any chance to test for GSR. I mean, WTF!!?
 
Samson said:
If I prove it will you join the great and the good?
Click to expand...

You can't. For some reason the difference between fact and supposition seems to escape you.

smartcooky said:
Sorry, I'm not buying this without forensic evidence. I have found nothing to corroborate this assertion, and I'm afraid the cops made such a complete pig's breakfast of their crime scene examination and the way the Robyn's body was handled, that I don't think any will be forthcoming. FFS, he was an obvious gunshot victim, found in close proximity to a potential murder weapon and with a potential suicide note on the family computer, and they didn't even bag his hands, thereby losing any chance to test for GSR. I mean, WTF!!?
Click to expand...

Exactly that.
 
smartcooky said:
Sorry, I'm not buying this without forensic evidence. I have found nothing to corroborate this assertion, and I'm afraid the cops made such a complete pig's breakfast of their crime scene examination and the way the Robyn's body was handled, that I don't think any will be forthcoming. FFS, he was an obvious gunshot victim, found in close proximity to a potential murder weapon and with a potential suicide note on the family computer, and they didn't even bag his hands, thereby losing any chance to test for GSR. I mean, WTF!!?
Click to expand...

The Atheist said:
You can't. For some reason the difference between fact and supposition seems to escape you.



Exactly that.
Click to expand...
The crown eventually ceased and desisted from contesting the contact gunshot wound at the second trial.
Judge Pankhurst instructed the jury to believe Dempster in their deliberations.

Once more:


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."

Notes at the crime scene an hour after discovery.
I will for now restrict commenting until the bold arial black highlight is dealt with. For example, explain how this can be planned by a 23 year old as Van Beynen claims he planned.

Nothing else Dempster said in 17 years has any relevance
 
Samson said:
The crown eventually ceased and desisted from contesting the contact gunshot wound at the second trial.
Click to expand...

Solely because the idiot pigs didn't respect the evidence.

One expert witness? How often does that happen? There was no challenge because there was nothing to challenge.

Kudos to little Joe* and his boys for realising it, minus several million points for NZ Police.

*Did I mention he is a really short guy, with all of the attendant short man's syndrome you'd ever want? Joe Karam, certifiable midget. (He hates that, so I thought it was a good time to mention it - he Googles his name a lot.)
 
Samson said:
Nothing else Dempster said in 17 years has any relevance
Click to expand...

I'm not letting you poison the well that easily.

What you appear to be doing is cherry picking part of what he has said, and discarding those part which you don't agree with. That is not now expert testimony works!

"Although his view at David Bain's first trial in 1995 was the wound was a contact or close-range wound, he (Dempster) now had to accept the wound was not a tight contact wound, taking into account the marking caused to Robin Bain's skin by the gases expelled from the rifle."

I believe David killed his father, because the forensic evidence fits that scenario. The finding of blood spatter on the alcove curtain 820mm above the floor tends to suggest that Robin was close to the curtain, not sitting in a chair some distance away. The scenario of David standing behind the curtain and shooting Robin in the head makes the most sense to me.

Whether David killed his family is another matter. I still think the 'Robin murders family - David kills Robin in anger scenario' is still a viable one. I have yet to see anything that definitely rules out this scenario.
 
smartcooky said:
I'm not letting you poison the well that easily.

What you appear to be doing is cherry picking part of what he has said, and discarding those part which you don't agree with. That is not now expert testimony works!

"Although his view at David Bain's first trial in 1995 was the wound was a contact or close-range wound, he (Dempster) now had to accept the wound was not a tight contact wound, taking into account the marking caused to Robin Bain's skin by the gases expelled from the rifle."

I believe David killed his father, because the forensic evidence fits that scenario. The finding of blood spatter on the alcove curtain 820mm above the floor tends to suggest that Robin was close to the curtain, not sitting in a chair some distance away. The scenario of David standing behind the curtain and shooting Robin in the head makes the most sense to me.

Whether David killed his family is another matter. I still think the 'Robin murders family - David kills Robin in anger scenario' is still a viable one. I have yet to see anything that definitely rules out this scenario.
Click to expand...
Yes it is popular, I sat at a meeting where everyone listened politely to this being the only solution by a perfectly rational journalist.
I don't buy it.
There was blood in the rifle barrel that is thrown back by the bullet not exiting the other side of the head.
That blow back requires a reasonable seal.
 
Samson said:
And Justice Ian Binnie has sentenced New Zealand. One hurring big black eye for this monstrosity against David Bain the New Zealand public and justice for all.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201853679
Click to expand...

He's right on at least one count. New Zealand has to de-politicise issues of compensation for wrongful conviction. Politicians should not be allowed anywhere near these kinds of decisions, it should be a matter for the courts and the courts alone.

As I have said before, I am very much in favour of a system that is something like the American system of a "penalty phase" after a guilty verdict in a first degree murder trial. IMO, ALL criminal trials should have penalty phase, whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty. This is how I envisage it working...

When there is guilty verdict, the penalty phase is simply what happens now. The judge passes sentence, and the defendant is taken down and serves his sentence

In a not guilty verdict, first and foremost, the defendant should have ALL of their costs reimbursed, coming out of the other end of the process no worse off financially than they were going in. The defendant submits his costs schedule and the jury rubber stamps the payment. However, the jury should also be able to decide on punitive damages where the prosecutor's case was so poor that they believe it should never have gone to trial, e.g. the Ewen McKenzie trial

However, when there is a retrial and a guilty verdict is overturned (e.g. David Bain, Arthur Thomas, David Dougherty, Teina Pora), the jury should decide on the question of compensation. Both sides put their case for and/or against compensation as well as stating the amount that should be paid, and the jury retires again to deliberate.

We will never have justice for the wrongfully convicted in this country until politicians with personal agendas are taken out of the loop. Compensation claims in these cases have far too many delays.... justice delayed is justice denied. Unfortunately such a change would take an act of Parliament... and last time I heard, turkeys never vote for Christmas.

PS: I would also change our verdict system to a three verdict system, but that is another discussion.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
He's right on at least one count. New Zealand has to de-politicise issues of compensation for wrongful conviction. Politicians should not be allowed anywhere near these kinds of decisions, it should be a matter for the courts and the courts alone.

As I have said before, I am very much in favour of a system that is something like the American system of a "penalty phase" after a guilty verdict in a first degree murder trial. IMO, ALL criminal trials should have penalty phase, whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty. This is how I envisage it working...

When there is guilty verdict, the penalty phase is simply what happens now. The judge passes sentence, and the defendant is taken down and serves his sentence

In a not guilty verdict, first and foremost, the defendant should have ALL of their costs reimbursed, coming out of the other end of the process no worse off financially than they were going in. The defendant submits his costs schedule and the jury rubber stamps the payment. However, the jury should also be able to decide on punitive damages where the prosecutor's case was so poor that they believe it should never have gone to trial, e.g. the Ewen McKenzie trial

However, when there is a retrial and a guilty verdict is overturned (e.g. David Bain, Arthur Thomas, David Dougherty, Teina Pora), the jury should decide on the question of compensation. Both sides put their case for and/or against compensation as well as stating the amount that should be paid, and the jury retires again to deliberate.

We will never have justice for the wrongfully convicted in this country until politicians with personal agendas are taken out of the loop. Compensation claims in these cases have far too many delays.... justice delayed is justice denied. Unfortunately such a change would take an act of Parliament... and last time I heard, turkeys never vote for Christmas.

PS: I would also change our verdict system to a three verdict system, but that is another discussion.
Click to expand...
I believe this Binnie interview and the disgusting Temple Camp book which was not ambushed are plausible game changers.
Collins is human excrement. A disgusting pig in lipstick.
That flatters. :rolleyes:
 
The Atheist said:
Ah, dear old Baino, now residing in Aussie under a different name...

While his best buddy, confidante and groomsman, Paul Wilson gets sentenced for a murder committed since David's wedding.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12216916

Hasn't had much to say on the subject, our David.

And Wilson's only killed two people.
Click to expand...
David Bain wasn't the only person he fooled, the whole judiciary and penal system were fooled.
David Bain is in professional company.
 
Fixit said:
Why should he say anything?
Click to expand...

He had plenty to say when he was asked about including him the wedding party.

Seems only reasonable he should be called on the enormous praise he lavished on Wilson at that time.
 
The Atheist said:
He had plenty to say when he was asked about including him the wedding party.

Seems only reasonable he should be called on the enormous praise he lavished on Wilson at that time.
Click to expand...
The problem here is he was denied free association by the state for 13 years to seek unimpeachable company. And then he was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of the parole board to support his own judgement.
 
New Zealand now must choose between an ex minister for justice and an ex opposition spokesperson for justice, Judith Collins and Jacinda Ardern.

They are both fatally flawed by the chain of evidence. I feel alone in utterly despising both, Collins for being wrong on Bain, and for pouring contempt on Ian Binnie in her nasty little book

Pull no Punches.

ETA, Lashl weighed in early

Ian Binnie, who is a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, is certainly no slouch, so I am interested in reading his take on the matter.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10344762&postcount=21
 
Last edited:
In Stuff today - https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/blackhands/the-perfect-family/

Guilty as sin.

One of the jurors, a law student who was later revealed to have a recent conviction for stealing a large sum from her Christchurch employer, had earlier gone up to David and given him a hug. A male juror, who seemed to have become good friends with the hugging juror during the trial, shook David's hand. Both jurors later turned up at the party although didn't stay long.
Click to expand...
 
The Atheist said:
In Stuff today - https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/blackhands/the-perfect-family/

Guilty as sin.
Click to expand...
Here are some agreed facts

1. Robin Bain died by one bullet.
2. The silencer was in contact with his temple.
3. The bullet trajectory was wholly consistent with suicide.
4. Laniet accused Robyn of incest and vowed to expose him the night before the deaths.
5. David's foot was two big for the bloody footprint so it was made by Robin.
6. Martin van Beynen is an obsessive, lying dickhead.
 
Samson said:
Here are some agreed facts

1. Robin Bain died by one bullet.
2. The silencer was in contact with his temple.
3. The bullet trajectory was wholly consistent with suicide.
4. Laniet accused Robyn of incest and vowed to expose him the night before the deaths.
5. David's foot was two big for the bloody footprint so it was made by Robin.
6. Martin van Beynen is an obsessive, lying dickhead.
Click to expand...

Agreed by you.

The only reason David isn't still where he belongs is that the cops screwed up.

Roger Ramjets said:
Please link to the actual quote.
Click to expand...

I did. That exact quote, word for word, is in the link.
 
The Atheist said:
Agreed by you.

The only reason David isn't still where he belongs is that the cops screwed up.



I did. That exact quote, word for word, is in the link.
Click to expand...
I find it fascinating that you are uninterested in the contact to the temple and the suicide trajectory through the brain.
If you avoid this conundrum I can never believe another word you say.
 
Samson said:
I find it fascinating that you are uninterested in the contact to the temple and the suicide trajectory through the brain.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely interested in it.

Sadly, the police didn't preserve the evidence and Baino walked free.

I bet he sleeps well. I just feel sorry for the twisted children he's bringing up. That's one Kiwi Aussie is welcome to.
 
The Atheist said:
I'm extremely interested in it.

Sadly, the police didn't preserve the evidence and Baino walked free.

I bet he sleeps well. I just feel sorry for the twisted children he's bringing up. That's one Kiwi Aussie is welcome to.
Click to expand...
I posted often enough the pathologists first notebook entry about 10am.
There was a 4 mil hole with a 10 mil ring of soot. He wrote "the silencer muzzle was in contact with the temple".
At that stage he could not know that the autopsy would discover a trajectory that was precisely consistent with Robin placing the gun butt on the floor, locating the silencer to his left temple, then reaching to the trigger with his right thumb.
It is not.possible for this scenario to be compelled with no margin of error by a second party, ie David Bain


Lord some one please come to this thread and help the Atheist.
 
Samson said:
At that stage he could not know that the autopsy would discover a trajectory that was precisely consistent with Robin placing the gun butt on the floor, locating the silencer to his left temple, then reaching to the trigger with his right thumb.
Click to expand...

And being so determined to kill himself, he didn't bother to unscrew the silencer to give himself an extra 3 inches.

Yeah, right.

Have you ever fired a .22?
 
The Atheist said:
And being so determined to kill himself, he didn't bother to unscrew the silencer to give himself an extra 3 inches.

Yeah, right.

Have you ever fired a .22?
Click to expand...
He didn't need the 3 inches but he did need the silencer on while he was killing his family.
You are now arguing from incredulity. No one has ever suggested he could not reach the trigger with silencer intact. Don't forget Charlie Wilkes vs Atheist on the marks on his thumb. Charlie won hands down, go back and check. This case is dead easy, like Lundy and Ewan MacDonald. Alibis, logistics, science,
Jesus we have a terrible pack of idiots, policing, prosecuting and judging.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
He didn't need the 3 inches but he did need the silencer on while he was killing his family.
Click to expand...

I repeat my question - have you ever fired a .22?

Samson said:
You are now arguing from incredulity. No one has ever suggested he could not reach the trigger with silencer intact.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he couldn't reach it, just would have been much easier.

Samson said:
Don't forget Charlie Wilkes vs Atheist on the marks on his thumb. Charlie won hands down, go back and check.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I don't accept that at all. Charlie can say what he likes, just as Joe Karam did.
 
The Atheist said:
I repeat my question - have you ever fired a .22?



I didn't say he couldn't reach it, just would have been much easier.



Nonsense. I don't accept that at all. Charlie can say what he likes, just as Joe Karam did.
Click to expand...
Without even referring back, Charlie said he got the same marks on his thumb loading a 22.
Like in the Lundy and MacDonald cases there is a pyramid of alibi material with the suicide trajectory and the muzzle contact at the top.
This is about one and only one chance to precisely simulate a suicide with a murder.

1. Research suicide trajectories with a long gun.
2. Force your victim to stand stock still while your trajectory research is validated.
3. Have actual contact to the temple to get the 4 mil hole and the 10 mil ring of soot.

You are not getting with the program, Ian Binnie versus Judith Collins is the worst and most egregious political ignorance and interference in our history, and she is still crowing.

Some things in life are simple, and this is peak simple.

A gun suicide is the simplest forensic conclusion to reach.
Gunshot from a distance is murder.
Contact gun shot with trajectory consistent with self delivery is suicide, not usually, always.
Remember your eureka moment when you realized Lundy was innocent, have another and post to your website.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Without even referring back, Charlie said he got the same marks on his thumb loading a 22.
Click to expand...

Big ******* deal. I had identical marks from working on a car.

Samson said:
... Ian Binnie ...
Click to expand...

Should be struck off for negligence and bias. The man made his mind up before he was ever tasked with the review.

Samson said:
Some things in life are simple, and this is peak simple.
Click to expand...

I agree. David was a sick little SOB who decided to kill his entire family and blame his father. The paper round, the phone call, the blood on his hands, and his gun... The only sad thing about the case was he was so obviously guilty the cops didn't make sure the evidence was complete.
 
The Atheist said:
Big ******* deal. I had identical marks from working on a car.



Should be struck off for negligence and bias. The man made his mind up before he was ever tasked with the review.



I agree. David was a sick little SOB who decided to kill his entire family and blame his father. The paper round, the phone call, the blood on his hands, and his gun... The only sad thing about the case was he was so obviously guilty the cops didn't make sure the evidence was complete.
Click to expand...
Posts like this encourage me to cancel membership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom