Herald playing catch up

TRUTH_Page_1_Jan3David Fisher has taken time out from gazing longingly into Kim Dotcom’s eyes to write an article obviously intended to try to poofinger Truth and our story about David Cullen Bain lying.

Unfortunately for David the paper was delivered yesterday and is available in stores now.

What David fails to tell the readers of the Herald is that it wasn’t actually the Herald that obtained the Official Information Act request…it was the Herald on Sunday…and they ran their story about this two Sundays ago¬†conveniently¬†ignoring this little bombshell because it didn’t suit their activism on behalf of David Cullen Bain. You will note that the article published two Sundays ago in the Herald on Sunday, editor Bryce Johns implies that Michael Guest said Bain should be paid compensation…when you will see below he says nothing of the sort.

Now we see the Herald on Sunday has passed on their OIA response to the NZ Herald…so much for the chinese walls and editorial¬†independence¬†..shattered now…and have published an article 11 days and two Sundays after the Herald on Sunday received their response from the minister’s office.

The Herald on Sunday and now through David Fisher have been caught talking out of both sides of their collective mouths.

You can buy Truth at thousands of outlets nationwide to read the real story…look for the cover pictured right.

Meanwhile here is the full release of documents Truth obtained under the OIA, including a second letter that Michael Guest wrote on the 21 December 2012. AS you can see the claims by Bryce Johns that Michael Guest said that Bain should be paid compensation are a fiction…one the Herald on Sunday was only too ready to peddle to its readers.

In the interests of making sure the Truth is told I am publishing all of the documents.

Truth – OIA response from Justice Minister

  • ConwayCaptain

    May be now that WO is the Editor in Chief of Truth and will go after the BIG GAME Stories then NZH and Fairfax will lift their game.

    • Ronnie Chow

      I think , Conway , that Cameron has the MSM by the balls . If their best investigative reporters don’t have the motivation nor the contacts to construct a real expose , they can either repeat Cameron’s articles with egg on their faces , or choose to ignore them . A lose-lose situation for them , which just increases Cameron’s credibility , as long as he reports bullet-proof stories .
      One false move , and they’ll be all over him with vengeance .

  • http://twitter.com/Inventory2 Inventory2

    I’ve just spent a few minutes reading the OIA stuff. The response from Asst Commissioner Malcolm Burgess is especially damning to Bain, and to Binnie. Well done Cam; this is a major scoop, even if the Herald has tried to flog the credit.

  • williamabong

    But for some proper policing we wouldn’t be having this discussion, Bain would be where he belongs, in jail, serving a life sentence for the cold blooded murder of his entire close family.

    Stop the Dog and Pony show that this has become, if Every st had been treated as a proper crime scene instead of a fairground attraction, if all the evidence had been placed in front the original jury, if smart tricks from sharp lawyers had been smacked down, if Bain had been put on the stand and forced to answer some probing questions, it would have been game set and match.

    Instead we have one of the country’s most accomplished murderers walking the streets and demanding a seven figure payout for the perfect crime, GO FIGURE.

    • Kimbo

      David Bain did take the stand in the first trial – and pretty much ensured his conviction with the ridiculous testimony he gave.

      Hence Reed’s “sharp lawyer” nonsense at the second trial, “David’s said all he needs to, we all know what it is, there is nothing left to say”.

      I can live with Bain exercising his right as the accused not to take the stand. That is good juris prudence. I can also handle Reed and Karam hawking Bain around for puff-ball interviews, because that is how it works with the MSM.

      But Binnie in a compensation inquiry grizzling about Michael Guest (Bain’s lawyer at the first trial) not having waived solicitor client privilege?! When Guest clearly says, “David lied”.

      Does Binnie want the facts or not?!

      And if his report was to establish the facts, what is he doing saying stuff like, “I think the Court of Appeal dismissed the whole issue of Margaret’s glasses and whether David had worn them etc saying…”the glasses and lens issue has not featured significantly in our analysis of the strength of thr (sic) Crown’s case against David. It does not in any way tend to exculpate David’ — a conclusion I (Binnie) agreed with”.

      …when the Privy Council said that the various Courts of Appeal exceeded their authority by making judgements regarding facts (which is a jury’s domain), instead of process? What “facts” the Court of Appeal weighed as significant was the problem!

      Also, the dust and unusual positioning of the lens in Stephen’s room was the first “chink in the armour” in the Crown’s collection of physical evidence against David Bain. I remember it well, the late 1990s, the Bainiacs running up and down the land, insisting David couldn’t have worn it that Monday morning, because chances were it had been lying in Stephen’s room for weeks. So when it suits, it is a major prop in launching the PR campaign to Free Bain. But now that we can put the lens in a glasses frame on David on the Sunday night, and that same lens is found in the charnel house of Stepehn’s room where the murder occurred less than 12 hours later, and David Bain lied about it, but it has no significance?!

      And then there is this nonsense from Binnie: -

      “I add this (and what a pompous phrase that is! In effect: ‘I’m chucking in a bit of extra sage advice’) — if Michael Guest believes he is free to disclose whatever passed between him and David Bain prior to the 1995 trial and the most devastating thing he can come with is whether he wore Margeret’s glasses the prior weekend — I am greatly reinforced in my conclusion about factual innocence”.

      What?! What about David Bain’s credibility?! His f&$%ing former lawyer is motivated enough to come forward and tell you “Mr Bain specifically lied”, and that raises no questions in your mind about David Bain’s credibility?!

      Like I said, I can handle puff-ball MSM interviews, but our tax payer dollars went to this guy, charged with the responsibility of determining the likely facts of the case, and we get this shifting goal posts crap?!

      I want the money back.

      • williamabong

        Speaking to people that knew Bain prior to murdering his family the overwhelming aspect of his behaviour was the “fantasyland” his head was in, he saw himself as the father figure and was going to reform the family unit minus Robin, whom he blamed for everything that had ever happened.

        Whilst it is speculation, the prosecution could have done more to expose Bain as the control freak that he was and some of his bizarre behaviour should have been exposed.

        You are right “Mr Bain specifically lied”, speaks volumes, and when jurors attend his “get out of jail free” party questions must be asked about their impartiality.
        Bain and Karam have hoodwinked a nation into believing a lie, and his defence must have begun with “Once upon a time” as do all good fairy stories.
        I hope his new partner is a light sleeper, and live in hope that eventually the truth will be told, more than likely by people like Cam and the Truth, rather than the repeaters in the MSM

        • Kimbo

          “Whilst it is speculation, the prosecution could have done more to expose Bain as the control freak that he was and some of his bizarre behaviour hould have been exposed”.

          Yes – “black hands coming to get me..”. I know there is a whole bunch of crap out there in the general culture with mediums and psychics helping solve crimes (and they even make TV programmes about it – wasn’t ‘The X Files big in 1994?), but come on!

          That was where James McNeish’s book, ‘The mask of sanity’ was very good. Yes, it was deliberately speculative in parts (which Karam jumped on), but it does a pretty good job of painting what the Bain household was REALLY like – not the “wonderful” fanatasyland (to use your very apt phrase!) that Bain convicted himself with at trail 1.

          • Hagues

            I happen to be in the middle of reading that book. While granted I’m not finished yet (although a fair chunk into it) I find there is nothing in this book that provides any evidence of David’s guilt. Not saying that I necessarily believe David is innocent, just that the book is full of shit and gross assumption, begging the question, and draws conclusions that don’t match the evidence etc. Yes it does provide some great insight into what the family was like (mum was a freakin fruitcake) but it basically just assumes the police are correct and gives no evidence to back it up.

          • Kimbo

            “there is nothing in this book that provides any evidence of David’s guilt”.

            Yes, that is an astute observation. However, McNeish did not set out to prove David did it, but to provide the one thing that his defenders said didn’t exist (even though the Crown didn’t have to prove it): Motive

          • Hagues

            Well maybe, but the first line on the back cover is “On the evidence of this book there seems no question that David Bain is guilty.” Therefore I assumed that the book was going to provide some evidence. Instead it appears to assume that the guilty verdicts were correct and therefore provided some reason as to motive. Yes given how screwed up things were there maybe motive for David to do it, but that doesn’t prove he did, there is equal motive (or more) for Robin. Again not drawing conclusion as to who is guity, but the book has been very disappointing in terms of not actually doing what it claimed (judging by the back cover).

          • Kimbo

            Yep, again that is probably a fair comment.

            I think in terms of chronology, McNeish wrote it BEFORE Joe Karam came on the scene, and when there were only rumblings and a bit of agitation from Bain’s scarfie mates (who later managed to persuade Karam to meet Bain), and their whose primary narrative was, “He’s too gentle and mild a guy to have possibly done it!”. So there was no specific or detailed criticism of the Crown’s case to rebut. Other than the hear say of Dean Cottle that Laniet was being molested by Robin – and I thought McNeish did a very good job of showing why Cottle was thoroughly disreputable, and the judge properly disallowed his testimony, as it should always have been!

            If you leave out Cottle’s testimony (and I note he was so useless, he couldn’t even make it to the second trial despite ANOTHER summons), then there is NO motive for Robin Bain (“a wonderful dad” according to David, within his “perfect” family) to have done it. So then you are left asking the question, as the judge did at the first trial did when he directed the jury” “So who did it? Robin or David”. And then, just as Bryan Bruce so inconveniently (for Joe Karam, Michael Reed, and David Bain) asked, as the first jury no doubt did, “What physical evidence is there to connect Robin Bain to the murder of 4 members of his family”. Answer: Nyet!

            Once Karam got going, then you got the continual challenge of any and every piece of evidence, the erroneous appeal to a supposed single piece of evidence that would exonerate David (e.g., the time the computer was turned on, alleged blood of the family on Robin, bruising on Robin), and then the atomising of all the circumstantial evidence strategy. On its own, any of the unusual coincidences could have occurred (e.g., a man about to commit murder-suicide uses his son’s gloves and gun, for which there was a trigger lock, Robin Bain had no blood stains on him despite the gory mess in Stephen’s room but his son who survives does, Laniet gurgling, the magazine falling out of dead Robin’s hand and standing upright, David inadvertently washing the evidence that would have implicated his father, the bruising on David he couldn’t account for, the missing 20 minutes before David called the ambulance), but together they form the circumstantial tapestry.

            As I think McNeish quoted of the Prosecutor in the first trial, put it all together, and “if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck…”

          • Hagues

            “If you leave out Cottle’s testimony… then there is NO motive for Robin Bain…to have done it.”

            Well thats not entirely the case, not even according to McNeish’s book. Robin was the alpha male and dominant head of the family when they were missionaries to New Guinea. Fast forward to 1994 and Margaret has reduced him to living out of a van, banished from the family, and left out of the plans to redevelop the family home into a “spiritual retreat.” I’m not sure how this is any less of a motive than David’s. Not saying this makes him a murderer, but then agian many people have fucked up upbringings like David and don’t murder their family, so just saying there is equal opportunity to claim “motive” on both sides.

            Agree the physical evidence on face value implicates David. But if he planned this so well as claimed and he also had a window of time unaccounted for, why did he do such a bad job of covering up. And if his (made up) defense is that “dad did it” why is the story not put together better? Why rely on Cottle and not just claim that it was an open secret and dad was pissed off it was leaking etc? Also the stories explaining the evidence comes from a organised plan point of view. What if Robin only intended to take out Margaret and so had gloves etc but heard Stephen get up and it all went to shit from there and ended in an unplanned suiside after trying to cover it up? Lots of unanswered questions.

            In terms of the book I thought McNeish makes a big deal out of the police claim that Davis put on the load of washing after killing mum and siblings but before doing paper round, rather than after paper round as David claims, but glosses over the fact that the jumper he was seen doing the paper round in was in that wash. Hense why I don’t think the book is balanced nor provides any decent evidence.

            Personally I’m just glad God knows all and will hold the responsable person accountable in the end.

          • Kimbo

            “”If you leave out Cottle’s testimony… then there is NO motive for Robin Bain…to have done it.”

            Well thats not entirely the case, not even according to McNeish’s book. Robin was the alpha male and dominant head of the family”

            Yeah, ok. point taken. I’ll rephrase: Clearly evidenced motive (which is what all David Bain’s supporters were saying was lacking regarding David until McNeish wrote his book). So the lack of clear motive draws one inexorably back to the physical and circumstantial evidence.

            “why did he do such a bad job of covering up”.

            Is begging the question, but I think Occam’s Razor would apply: When you murder 5 people, including one (Stephen) where it goes badly wrong, then there are a lot of potential stuff-ups you can make. You may have planned it calmly, but executing it is a test of nerve, and concentration, and you will inevitable make mistakes.

            “Why rely on Cottle and not just claim that it was an open secret and dad as pissed off it was leaking etc?”

            No, I think you are over-looking the last minute nature of Cottle’s account of Laniet telling him about the alleged incest coming to light. NO ONE knew or suspected it, David certainly didn’t, or he would have told his lawyer. Instead, it was a last-grasp straw that came to the attention of the defence near the end of the first trial.

            “What if Robin only intended to take out Margaret and so had gloves etc
            but heard Stephen get up and it all went to shit from there and ended in
            an unplanned suiside after trying to cover it up?”

            No, that scenario is really unlikely, because it doesn’t explain the unfathomable reason why according to the suicide note, David was only one who “deserved to stay” (which, in another unfortunate coincidence for David, was typed on the computer, rather than in hand-writing, which could have been verified as Robin’s). Whoever killed one family member had almost certainly pre-meditated the murder of the other three (or four, if it was David).

            Also, it couldn’t have been Stephen whom Robin woke up if he killed Margaret. Stephen almost certainly woke up just before the killer pulled the trigger, instinctively pushed the barrel away from his face, and the bullet grazed his skull, and the poor kid bled copious amounts of blood, before he was over-powered in a violent struggle, and was strangled (from memory with his own t shirt).

            But no, timing of the washing of the jersey is not significant in and of itself, but it is the shortest day in Dunedin in a relatively large family (who probably co-ordinate their washing) and David just happens to decide to wash a small amount of clothes, and accidentally leave your bloody palm print on the washing machine – supposedly before you’ve discovered the dead bodies so David must have accidentally brushed his palm against somewhere where Robin, who no longer has any blood other than his own on him, left it – and then accidentally wash away evidence that could have exonerated you.

            Man, David Bain was unlucky. Not only are his family all dead, but it seems his dead dad, and his unwitting accidents are all conspiring to point ALL the physical evidence in only direction. Did I mention that the spent cartridge case from the fatal shot to Robin’s head goes flying out of the rifle, and through a small gap in the curtains and into the computer alcove. Even with a bullet in his skull, Robin Bain is still accidentally setting up his son to make it look like he didn’t commit suicide.

          • Hagues

            You make some excellent points there Kimbo. Just want to reiterate I was only commentating on the quality of the McNeish book since I happen to be reading it, not on whether David is guilty or not.

          • Kimbo

            Point understood :)

  • Grizz30

    It is a pity the forensic work-up of this case was sloppy as it would have more likely proven David Bain’s guilt. However It might just be me, but I see the sentinal murder is being that of David’s Brother Stephen. What we do know is that Stephen’s room was the scene of an almighty bloody fight, Robin was found with only his own blood on his clothing without any evidence found of him changing his clothes, there were bloody handprints all over the washing machine with a freshly washed set of David’s clothes in the machine. To me the balance of probabilities in Stephen’s murder points to one out of David and Robin and if Robin did it, he made a convinving job makking it look like David was the killer.

    What has also never been explained is why David was the only one who deserved to live. I have never heard bad words said about Stephen. A lot of fact and fantasy has been made of Laniet and her relationship with her father and bordellos around town. However, what was so bad about the other sister Arawa? Only David would know these issues and if he wants compensation, he should come clean about the goings on in his family.

  • Dave

    I have not followed the Bain case closely, but have taken an interest since the compo claim. It is interesting, that Binnie was paid a fortune for a very flawed and useless report, which went well outside the terms of reference, and confused facts from different trials and appeals. I wonder why the Crown is NOT claiming back the fees, as the report is not to specifications, or fit for the purpose it was commissioned. If it were an engineers report on a structural issue, or an Auditors report, and either got it wrong, we would be in court suing their sorry arses for professional negligence. Why are we not going after the Binn Reprot author. The police also deserve an apology as they have been misquoted over and over by Binnie.

    It also seems to me, whilst struck off, Michael Guest knows a lot more, and i for one would love him to speak out.

    Final point, whilst criticized for her handling of this affair, my sincere thanks and congratulations to Judith Collins, impressive handling of this in very difficult circumstances. I guess Binnie wont be invited to the Collins Parties!!

57%