CK Stead slams Binnie report as showing clear bias

The NZ Herald seems to have changed it’s tune a fair bit on David Cullen Bain, now printing stories critical of Binnie, Bain and Karam.

This morning there was a letter from CK Stead:

I have an impression that in some degree, Justice Binnie may have entered the fray in the same spirit, seeing himself as someone called in to “right a wrong”, though he is certainly not, I should add, one who is impatient with the facts or unwilling to wrestle with them, one at a time.

But that “one at a time” is part of the problem.

He’s not the only one. Have a read through the various interviews that Binnie had and read with increasing anger at was clearly a bias and opinionated judge, off to make a name for himself at the expense of NZ taxpayers.

Stead picks up on this bias and wording and notes:

As Dr Fisher points out, a circumstantial case depends on the strength of a single rope made up of many strands, any one of which may be insufficient. Justice Binnie’s method is to begin with the Luminol footprints, the weakest strand (at least in the sense of being the most technical and therefore technically arguable), declare it favours David Bain, and then bring each of the other strands in the case up against those footprints and find it wanting. And it is to the footprints he returns first in his “Summary and conclusions as to factual innocence” (p.138).

Yet even Justice Binnie admits “‘luminescence’ in the dark does not exactly give rise to laser-like accuracy”, and agrees “there must be some room for error in the Luminol measurement” (p.79/257). It seems strange, therefore, that he has “no hesitation in recommending that the Minister accept the results of the tests of Mr Walsh” [for the Defence] (p.77/251), and proceeds from that point in a manner which suggests the case for innocence has been made and needs only be demonstrated by reiterating the defence argument against each of the other strands.

His consequent bias is apparent in statements like the following: “It is only the fingerprint blood that can tie David Bain rather than Robin Bain to the killings.”Only? And there is nothing at all that can tie Robin to the murder weapon except that he was killed with it!

Another example of this bias: “Nothing has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence, considered item by item both individually and collectively, and considered in the light of my interview with David Bain” [my italics] … “persuade me that David Bain is factually innocent” (p.139/ 463). But why should items of fact, none of which, Justice Binnie concedes, is “free of difficulty”, be considered “in the light of” the accused’s own testimony, which is more likely than any other to be false?

A further example: “If David Bain’s recollection … is accepted, and I do accept it, then the force of the prosecution’s argument … is much diminished” (p.38/124). But of course if we only have to go to David Bain for the truth, then the prosecution’s argument is not just diminished – it’s dead! What kind of source is the accused for the truth of the matter in a case of murder?

Don’t believe an eminent and perspicacious writer as to the tone of bias throughout? Go read them for yourself…you will be astonished.

Now that many people are starting to get past the manufactured image of David Cullen Bain, after 15 years of persistant PR and the legal silencing of critics by Joe Karam they are starting to see the snow job that has been put on us all. The worry is that Binnie was so easily compromised and sold the sob story.

Predisposed as he is, Justice Binnie is able to wave away David’s brother’s blood on his clothes; the broken glasses at the murder scene which were of use to David but not to Robin; David’s fingerprints on the murder weapon and his handprint on the washing machine; David’s admission that he heard his sister gurgling and that he alone knew where the trigger key to the rifle was hidden; the blood on David’s gloves – and many other finer strands in that rope of circumstantial evidence. Instead of David Bain as the killer, Justice Binnie offers us (since there is no third alternative) a murder by the father, Robin, who must have worn gloves (why?) while killing his wife and children, then changed his clothes and put the blood-stained ones in the washing basket (again, why?) before killing himself, still with a silencer on the rifle (why?) and having first turned on the computer to write his confession rather than writing it by hand. Justice Binnie dispenses, it seems to me almost casually, with each of these elements, as with David’s strange behaviour after the murders.

This is the most unconscionable part of Binnie’s whole sham of a report…the laying the blame of the murders at the feet of a man who cannot defend himself…or be interviewed.

David Cullen Bain doesn’t deserve one cent in compensation. He should be carded and ignored for the strange fellow that he is and was.

  • Pissedoffyouth

    If a guy accused of murder says he didn’t do it then we should believe him.

    John Key shot the Bain family on the way to the Lundy’s house

    • geoff3012

      that was brilliant

    • Alex

      You know that Bomber Bradbury truly believes that.

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        Of course he does

    • Mr_V4

      Didn’t he also swing by Aramoana on the way?

      • Patrick

        Apparently he owns a two masted ketch as well – moored in the Malborough Sounds

  • Patrick

    If it wasn’t David then it had to be Robin – but there was no forensics that suggested Robin was the perpetrator. Pretty cut & dried I would have thought. Why the taxpayer should now fork out for a guy that killed his entire family is beyond me.

    • Gazzaw

      Charlie Shovel thinks that we should Patrick. More egg on face coming up for labour. Have they backed yet another loser?

      It’s excellent to see someone with the stature of C K Stead backing your argument Cameron.

    • Alex

      The “it was David or Robin” is the core fallacy here — it’s a false dichotomy cunningly exploited by Karam and co and adopted by people who should know better.
      The only person saying it could be Robin was David. As CK Stead observes there is no evidence linking Robin to the murder weapon. The only thing we have supporting Robin’s guilt is the alleged incest; but again we only have David’s statement that this incest occurred.
      So I do not get why Binnie brought into this fallacious distinction. His job was to look at the evidence afresh. So he should have said “X is the killer”, assessed the evidence and determined, on the balance of probabilities, who X was likely to be. So he should have left open the possibility it was David, Robin or someone else.
      The only evidence “supporting” David was the footprint evidence. I put the words supporting in inverted commas, because it only supports David’s case if we accept the Crown’s argument that the footprint must have belonged to the killer. But again, Binnie was meant to be looking at this afresh and so shouldn’t have been bound by any arguments advanced earlier by the Crown. In fact, he should have dismissed this argument, on the basis that the test results were inherently dubious. It seems entirely possible that the footprint could have belonged to anyone walking around the property within over a day or so before the murders.
      While it seems probable that the footprint didn’t belong to David, Binnie didn’t then consider whether that footprint belonged to Robin. Now this is very odd if you start from the premise (as he did) that it was either David or Robin. Because if he also agreed with the Crown’s argument that the footprint must have belonged to the killer and, let us assume that the footprint couldn’t be shown to be Robin’s, then the whole case in favour of Robin falls into disarray.
      So I agree with CK Stead that Binnie was clearly predisposed to favour David. It’s the only explanation why a supposedly eminent judicial mind could have written such an atrociously reasoned report.
      If I ever have the misfortune of crossing David’s path, I will not hesitate to say out loud “you are a nasty murderer and a liar”.

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        When Binnie finished his report…surprisingly the detail of it started leaking out…perhaps not so surprising given it appears that Karam and co had a hand in helping Binnie write it….

        • fozzie2

          We all know were the leaks came from – whale you were crowing them long before anyone involved the the case had a copy ….

  • Tony

    I don’t see why NZ should accept such a poor job. Binnie should be sued so that we can our money back.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      He is a charlatan…not unlike those who support David Cullen Bain

    • AnonWgtn

      Binnie had no criminal law experience. He was basically a civil lawyer.

  • dragonfly

    “This is the most unconscionable part of Binnie’s whole sham of a report…the laying the blame of the murders at the feet of a man who cannot defend himself…or be interviewed.”

    Well, that’s what happens if you molest your daughters and then shoot your whole family and then yourself – you can’t defend yourself or be interviewed. I have a real problem with the idea that once you’re dead you can’t be blamed for anything. It’s just not logical. Some of us know about the patterns of family dysfunction and incest and don’t see Robin Bain in the same way as people who don’t know about those things. Some of us come from families where the mass killing thing never actually happened, but all the same never did seem entirely unimaginable.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      What a load of hogwash….there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Robin shot anyone, including himself…in fact it is almost impossible for him to have shot himself where he did…but you just go on believing the lies of David Cullen Bain.

      I bet you also take homeopathic remedies…

      • Alex

        Let us not forget the defence’s lead witness, who was demonstrating that it was possible for a person to commit suicide with a rifle, but required the assistance of another person to keep the damn thing straight!

      • dragonfly

        No I don’t take homeopathic remedies. Homeopathy is bullshit. Just like Fisher’s report and the “eminent and perspicacious writer” CK Stead’s analysis of it. For example, CK Stead states, “In every case where the original police enquiry failed to preserve, or to look for, evidence … the David Bain team has used this failure as if here was a piece of evidence that would have cleared his name; and Justice Binnie has tended to follow them in this.”

        This is what Binnie actually said though; “The Bain team suggests that Robin’s guilt can be inferred from physical evidence at the scene that was not tested. I agree with the Crown Law Office that none of this evidence was probative of Robin’s guilt.” CK Stead appears to have serious comprehension problems.

        CK Stead also states, “But that “one at a time” is part of the problem. As Dr Fisher points out, a circumstantial case depends on the strength of a single rope made up of many strands, any one of which may be insufficient. Justice Binnie’s method is to begin with the Luminol footprints, the weakest strand (at least in the sense of being the most technical and therefore technically arguable), declare it favours David Bain, and then bring each of the other strands in the case up against those footprints and find it wanting.” Except this isn’t what Binnie did. He actually followed a Bayesian process – the one Fisher recommends but is in fact clueless about.

        Also, Laniet was a prostitute. That does not prove incest, but it’s not a bad indicator. If you really want to do the Bayesian thing, based on actual data, you would assign a high probability to her being the victim of incest based on this alone (even without the other evidence). Just because CK Stead is an “”eminent and perspicacious writer” and Fisher is supposedly one of our “pre-eminent legal scholars”, it doesn’t mean they’re not fuckwits. You only have to read the shit they write to see that they don’t make sense.

        • Bunswalla

          “This is what Binnie actually said though; “The Bain team suggests that Robin’s guilt can be inferred from physical evidence at the scene that was not tested. I agree with the Crown Law Office that none of this evidence was probative of Robin’s guilt.” CK Stead appears to have serious comprehension problems.”

          Well you’ve certainly demonstrated your own lack of comprehension. You see, David Bain’s defence team suggested that non-existent evidence would have proved that Robin Bain committed the murders. The Crown Law Office, on the other hand, who by the way are NOT David Bain’s defence team, took the (IMO) entirely reasonable and 100% correct view that such evidence did not prove that Robin did it.

          Do you understand now? I realise it’s very simple, but for some reason you seem to have entirely missed the point.

          • dragonfly

            “You see, David Bain’s defence team suggested that non-existent evidence would have proved that Robin Bain committed the murders. The Crown Law Office, on the other hand, who by the way are NOT David Bain’s defence team, took the (IMO) entirely reasonable and 100% correct view that such evidence did not prove that Robin did it.”

            You’re entirely right, Bunswalla. David Bain’s defence team did suggest this, and the Crown Law office, as you say, took the view that such evidence did not prove that Robin did it. Binnie took exactly the same view as the Crown Law office, but that is in opposition to what both CK Stead and Fisher said he did. That’s the point I was trying to make – that CK Stead and Fisher have misrepresented what Binnie did.

            It’s clearly not me who has problems with comprehending simple points.

        • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

          Are you sure you don;t believe in homeopathy…because you certainly do believe in some whacked out shit there.

          I’ve read Binnie’s interviews…they are a travesty…you should do the same…shocking leading of witnesses, hectoring and badgering…the man was filled with the notion that Bain was innocent before he even got started…he even said so in an interview in Canada before he even got here.

          You are in fantasy land if you believe the Karam and Bain bullshit show.

          • dragonfly

            Fair enough, I haven’t read Binnie’s interviews, and I should, and I will. But you say that Binnie “was filled with the notion that Bain was innocent before he even got started…he even said so in an interview in Canada before he even got here.” I’ve read a link you provided that you think demonstrated that, and I don’t interpret it that way. I suspect I may read Binnie’s interviews differently to you too (but we’ll see).

            What I have done, though, is properly read Binnie’s report, and Fisher’s review, which very few people seem to have done. Binnie’s report is a beautiful, lucid piece of work. Fisher’s report is an abomination, and I cannot respect anyone (on an intellectual level) who does not understand that. It is profoundly illogical (to the point of stupidity), and he pretends to know about probability theory, when he knows nothing about it.

          • Alex

            Listen: the merits of Fisher’s critique are irrelevant; attacking Binnie’s report does not necessarily mean subscribing to Fisher’s world view (with a very few exceptions, most QCs are abysmal at opinion writing anyway). Binnie’s report might be “beautiful [and] lucid”, but it’s reasoning is not sound. Look beyond the prose, and examine it’s structure — it leaks bucket loads.

          • Mr_V4

            “Binnie’s report is a beautiful, lucid piece of work”

            Oh FFS. David/Joe that must be you to draw such a ludicrous conclusion.

          • dragonfly

            Or it could be Rodney Hide – he thought the same thing.

        • Alex

          The problem with Binnie’s treatment of the circumstantial evidence is two-fold:

          1. He looks at each piece individually, shows that they don’t by themselves prove anything, and says “there you go” David didn’t do it. What Fisher QC is saying is that it isn’t that simple. You must weigh all the evidence together, because it is the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence that is important. Evidence that considered by itself might snap, may nonetheless twine together to create a strong case. Now there are passages in the report that suggest Binnie knew this. So Fisher’s point seems to be that Binnie puts too much weight on the individual weaknesses and not enough weight on the cumulative effect. Whether Fisher is correct is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ.

          2. Even if Binnie is correct in concluding that the evidence supporting David’s guilt is weak, it does not automatically follow that Robin did it. This is the fallacious leap of logic Binnie makes. If the evidence that David is guilty is weak, then the evidence that Robin did it must be weaker. But the point still remains that, on the basis of what evidence there is, David is the person most likely to have committed the murders, and he has not adduced one piece of evidence that positively exculpates him. Remember the onus of proof is on David to prove on the balance of probabilities that he didn’t do it.

          With respect, you’re blinded by this “incest” allegation. There is not one piece of objective evidence to prove this — it was all based on hearsay. Nor does the fact that Laniet may have been a prostitute at all support the presence of incest (I suspect most prostitutes out there are not incest victims).

          But even if there had been incest, this only goes to motive. It does not by itself prove that Robin committed the murders. It would have only become probative if, on the basis of the other tangible evidence, it was finally balanced whether David or Robin committed the murders. The presence of a motive for Robin, and no apparent motive on David’s part, would have swung the balance in David’s favour. But here’s the thing: there is not one shred of credible evidence showing that Robin committed these murders.

          I’ve always wondered why enthusiasts of the incest theory don’t entertain the possibility that any incest was actually between David and Laniet, and that Laniet was intending to reveal this. Now, wouldn’t that be a more credible explanation of David’s possible motive, and be consistent with the other evidence?

          • dragonfly

            “What Fisher QC is saying is that it isn’t that simple. You must weigh all the evidence together, because it is the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence that is important. Evidence that considered by itself might snap, may nonetheless twine together to create a strong case.”

            Why do so many people believe that Binnie did what Fisher said he did? Binnie did weigh all the evidence together, and consider the cumulative effect. Doesn’t it worry you that Fisher complains about Binnie not following a Bayesian process, when Fisher actually doesn’t understand what a Bayesian process is? For example, Fisher says, “The effect of combining [the different items of evidence] is not so much a matter of adding the various strands in the rope as multiplying them; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” But according to Robertson and Vignaux (who Fisher references with respect to Bayes’ Theorem); “The strength of one strand may affect the strength of the whole rope but it cannot affect the strength of another particular strand.” Fisher just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

            You say, “Nor does the fact that Laniet may have been a prostitute at all support the presence of incest (I suspect most prostitutes out there are not incest victims).” You are just so wrong about this – there is a lot of data out there that says otherwise.

          • Alex

            Read the entirety of my first paragraph. Fisher and Binnie ultimately disagree as to the “weight” to be attached to the individual weaknesses vs the combined effect.

            This talk of Bayes’ Theorem is pure academic wank on Fisher’s part. That academic commentators refer to it is here nor there in a court of law; and not once in undergrad and postgrad study of evidence did I ever see a court apply it.

            The courts’ eschew such theoretical rubbish, largely because it is left to the jury to decide matters of fact. And the Anglo-Commonwealth courts are totally adverse to drawing inferences of guilt from social data/statistics. The point is to determine whether the particular factual evidence shows that the particular individual cocerned did something or not.

            The incest and prostitution link is mere estimate; raise that in the court of law and see how far you get before the judge tells you to shut up.

            So don’t get hung up about Fisher’s pomposity in intoning a theorem.

          • dragonfly

            “Read the entirety of my first paragraph. Fisher and Binnie ultimately disagree as to the “weight” to be attached to the individual weaknesses vs the combined effect.”

            Yes, but it is not legitimate for Fisher (i.e. Collins) to at this point complain that Binnie did not assign weights to individual items of evidence that they would have liked him to. And Fisher has been careful to pretend that this is not what he is doing. Fisher and Collins can only complain about process. I do think Fisher is a wanker, but I’m no longer sure that the application of a Bayes’ process is unreasonable. That’s because that is what Binnie seems to have intuitively done. I agree that it is basically redundant though, in that someone doesn’t need to understand it to do it, and in that sense it is academic. But if the best that Fisher can come up with is wank and illogic, doesn’t that tell you something? However, I see your point that “attacking Binnie’s report does not necessarily mean subscribing to Fisher’s world view”. But I can’t see that Binnie’s report can be legitimately attacked, on a logical basis.

            “…the Anglo-Commonwealth courts are totally adverse to drawing inferences of guilt from social data/statistics … The incest and prostitution link is mere estimate; raise that in the court of law and see how far you get before the judge tells you to shut up.”

            You were the one who said, “Nor does the fact that Laniet may have been a prostitute at all support the presence of incest (I suspect most prostitutes out there are not incest victims).” I was countering what you said, not arguing in a court of law.

            Also, have you not noticed that the strands of rope analogy doesn’t work for a review process? It only works where someone is advancing a one-sided point of view – that is, either prosecuting or defending. Anyone who doesn’t see that has not thought through to the deep, underlying logical process that must support any reasoning about these issues. This is where a Bayes’ process maybe does seem to have its place. Again though, it does not need to be formalized, and an intuitive application works perfectly well.

            And I’ve just read your next comment. And I have looked beyond Binnie’s prose (easy with Binnie, because, unlike with Fisher, his prose takes a back seat) to the underlying structure. It still looks beautiful to me.

          • Alex

            That this issue is generating such debate justifies a second report, regardless of your opinion on Binnie’s report.

            As I’ve said earlier, my biggest problem with Binnie is with his reasoning.

            Let me accept for the sake of argument that Binnie is correct that the evidence supporting David’s guilt is weak (a second opinion on this fundamental point is warranted), it does not mean that David has proven on the b of p that he didn’t commit the murders.

            This is because Binnie needed to then consider who else could have committed the murders.

            We know that the only other suspect was Robin (since there is no evidence or suggestion of a third person).

            Did the evidence show that Robin committed the murders? I would suggest that the evidence of Robin’s guilt is weak also.

            Consequently, at this stage, it cannot be concluded on the b of p that either committed the murders. But (and it’s the crucial but) we know for certain that one of them did it, so it’s not game over yet.

            Therefore it is necessary to compare the case for David against the case for Robin, and in light of this ask who is more likely to have committed the murders? It is at this point that Binnie’s report falls apart: whatever the weaknesses in the evidence supporting David’s guilt, the evidence supporting Robin’s guilt is even weaker. This point is not acknowledged by Binnie.

            So on the basis of the evidence that there is, David (rather than Robin) seems to be the most likely to committed the murders on the b of p.

            As has been said by CK Stead, and many commentators, the biggest problem here is that Binnie appears to have been unduly been influenced by David. This along with his reading of Karam’s books raises the very real doubt as to whether he brought entirely independent thought to his investigation. These doubts alone undermine the report.

          • dragonfly

            If all that Binnie had done was conclude that the evidence supporting David Bain’s guilt was weak, then I would agree with you, on a balance of probabilities basis, that that would be inadequate to find David Bain innocent. But Binnie did more than that. He found that the evidence supporting David Bain’s innocence was fairly strong. The main (but not only) evidence in question was the luminol footprint evidence. Not only did this item of evidence reasonably strongly point to David Bain’s innocence – it also reasonably strongly pointed to Robin Bain’s guilt. What you say about the evidence supporting Robin’s guilt being weaker than the evidence supporting David Bain’s guilt is wrong. It may be your personal opinion that, “whatever the weaknesses in the evidence supporting David’s guilt, the evidence supporting Robin’s guilt is even weaker”, but that was not Binnie’s opinion.

            You said earlier, “Even if Binnie is correct in concluding that the evidence supporting David’s guilt is weak, it does not automatically follow that Robin did it. This is the fallacious leap of logic Binnie makes.” As I have just pointed out, Binnie did not make this fallacious leap of logic.

            You say, “While it seems probable that the footprint didn’t belong to David, Binnie didn’t then consider whether that footprint belonged to Robin.” The only way that footprint didn’t belong to David or Robin Bain, is if the police stuffed up yet again. No-one has suggested, in this particular instance, that that happened. So it is completely reasonable for Binnie to conclude that if it wasn’t David Bain’s footprint, then it must have been Robin Bain’s footprint.

            If David Bain can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he is innocent, then there is no need for him to also separately prove that Robin Bain is guilty. If the starting premise was that one of them did it, then it goes without saying that if, on the balance of probabilities David Bain is innocent, then on the balance of probabilities Robin must be guilty. That is a matter of simple logic.

            You may not be aware that the incest evidence is stronger than you realise. You say, “We only have David’s statement that this incest occurred.” That is completely wrong – David Bain never stated any such thing. When confronted with the allegation about Robin Bain and Laniet, he did not initially believe it could be true. With respect to Laniet, the evidence came from several independent people. There was also evidence, provided by a childhood friend of Arawa’s, that Robin Bain molested Arawa.

          • Alex

            Binnie necessarily DID find that Robin had done it. This is the whole point.

            He mightn’t have said it expressly, but it is the necessary implication of him concluding that David didn’t do it on the b of p. Binnie agreed that it was either David or Robin. He concluded that it wasn’t David, so a fortitiori he must have concluded it was Robin.

            This is the point I have a huge problem with. Binnie has not assessed the case against Robin with any any of the vigour he has done with David’s. He must necessarily do this to test his conclusion that David didn’t do it. For example, what if he had done so and found that neither David nor Robin could be said to have done it on the b of p. Clearly that’s an unsatisfactory and logically inconsistent conclusion. What then?

            The evidence against Robin appears to be extremely weak. It HAS NOT been tested in a court of law and needs to be examined thoroughly. All that has happened so far is that evidence against Robin has been raised by the defence in the context of a trial for the purposes of establishing a reasonable doubt that David didn’t do it. This is far from adequate examination.

            Now again, this incest allegation. I referred to it several times but you still are besotted by it.

            First, you’ve just implicitly acknowledged the only “evidence” is hearsay (ie, someone heard Laniet say that it had happened). Prima facie, this is not admissible in a court of law to prove a criminal allegation. In other words, if Robin had been on trial for incest, the courts wouldn’t have heard that evidence.

            Second, even if we accept that incest did happen, as I’ve repeatedly said, it still does not directly prove that Robin murdered. As I’ve said time and time again, there is next to no physical evidence showing that Robin fired the gun, fought with Stephen before his death, etc.

            To me Binnie’s key failure is that he approached this like a defence counsel: he sought to prove that David didn’t do it and ignored all other avenues of inquiry. What I’m saying — and others are as well — that Binnie’s job was to look at the evidence more like a Royal Commission would by looking at it from ALL angles. So he should have effectively put both David and Robin on trial.

            My big problem with David supporters is that, while they are very keen to point out the weaknesses of the evidence against him, they do not grapple with the fact that the evidence against Robin is even weaker. Until someone can actually make a compelling case proving Robin did it, then people will continue to suspect David.

            Let us also not forget the whole purpose of this inquiry: it is to see whether the Police case/conduct was so lamentable that it shouldn’t have gone to court at all. As the debates show, it is entirely arguable whether David is guilty or not. This alone validates the matter going before the court. For that reason, David does not deserve compensation.

            But all this has made me more and more angry at bloody Simon Power for getting us into this mess. What the hell was he thinking appointing only one person to review this? He should have appointed three people (retired judges from Australia, Canada and England), of which two should have had criminal law backgrounds, and the report should have been peer reviewed by eminent overseas criminal law academics, before it was released.

            This whole process is one unmitigated disaster.

          • GregM

            Very good information, thank you Alex.

    • Pissedoffyouth

      Don’t be silly, if the incest thing came into it the only person who knew was David. So why did he kill the others, and leave the runt of the litter to live?

      It was well known that David wasn’t seen fondly by Robin, and David was jealous of the attention Robin gave to his brother – so why kill everyone else and tell David he deserved to live the most? Sounds like a jealous brother killing his family because daddy liked his other siblings more.

      Oh, and who the hell would go home, ring the cops and then proceed to wash his jumper?

      • dragonfly

        “Don’t be silly, if the incest thing came into it the only person who knew was David. So why did he kill the others, and leave the runt of the litter to live?”

        You’ve got that entirely the wrong way round. David is the only one who definitely didn’t know about the incest allegations. In fact, it is possible that by the morning of the killings, he was the only member of the family who didn’t know.

        • Pissedoffyouth

          The ones who “knew about it” were killed by somebody – no cousins or anything knew. And how did Robin, if he killed the family, know that someone hadn’t told David?

          And I think David made it up based on the fact that because she was a prostitute people would believe it hook link and sinker.

  • Sage

    DB, Black hands are not coming for you, it’s way worse, Crusher has your number boy. Advice to fiance thingee, when its announced, best you stay at a friends that night.

  • Bunswalla

    I agree with your post, Cam – if by “strange fellow” you mean multiple murdering lying cunt. And I think you do.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      Yes I do

  • buzzler

    It was very telling at a press interview after his release,when a reporter asked DB if he had killed his family.DB said nothing,waiting for Joe or his lawyer to respond.His silence spoke volumes.

  • GregM

    GregM’s recommendation for today, read this lot. the whole thing is a crock of shit.

    Read it , then file it in the rubbish binnie.

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/media/in-focus/topic-library/David-Bain-reports/justice-binnie

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      I have and am appalled at the transcripts…especially Binnie’s rather soft interview with David Cullen Bain…i got the distinct impression that DCB was running a script…and he muffed his lines several times.

      • GregM

        That’s what I thought, what a fucking joke.
        For someone that wanted to be an opera singer he is not very good at remembering his lines is he.
        Guilty as shit.

  • Mr_V4

    Whale, I couldn’t help but notice there was no cover girl next to David Bain on the recent issue of Truth.

    Quite surprising since Bain is now such a celebrity ladies man I would have thought they’d be queueing up to feature alongside?
    Or did the girl you have lined up happen to go for a jog while a certain someone was on their paper round?

  • buzzler

    If the Government decides that no compensation is to be paid because DB cant prove he is innocent,can that decision be appealed by Joe and Co?

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      Nope it can’t because it is a decision for cabinet not in a court.

  • Blossom

    The bit that really got on my goat was when David got confused about whether his hands should have been wet or dry after sorting the washing and “an unidentified male voice” asked Binnie for a coffee break …

  • caseythedog

    Great talkback tonight, but people think the whole family was barking mad. not true. Arawa was a beautiful, confident intelligent girl- dux of school & training at teacher’s college. Stephen was a popular sporty boy, and robin was trying to hold the family together along with a responsible fulltime job, having been kicked out by his nutty wife to the caravan.

  • caseythedog

    Laniet on the other hand had disclosed to her best school friend that DAVID had been incestuous with her. No wonder she was mixed uo!!! She was happy staying at Robin’s house though when she was staying there. This best friend has since testified to this.

  • caseythedog

    So Joe’s job definition as PR appears to have slipped from public relations to per rectum.
    Blindingly obvious now, that no compensation will be forthcoming.
    Unfortunately the ill-informed, the quaker jerseys, and the rabid police haters will cry unfair.
    We have to shout from the rooftops for the next twelve years what a gentle, loving, pacifist, and a good father Robin was. Ask David- he agrees!!!!!!!!

  • Marcus50

    The problem for Collins is that now she has publicly trashed the Binnie report through the media she only has two options. Go straight to cabinet and recommend no compensation which is hardly going to fly or commission a new report. This will take another six months and leave the impression that Collins is shopping around for an opinion that suits her own views.

    Bain cannot prove that he did not commit the murders any more than the crown was able to prove his guilt. So compensation is unlikely but Collins outbursts in the media against Binnie have undermined her position somewhat. Surely the logical approach would have been to take the Binnie report and Fisher commentary to Cabinet with a recommendation for a new report and have cabinet collectively make the call.

84%