Geddis on Bain Compo Grab, Fisher was right in his review

Andrew Geddis comments at NBR in an article by Rod Vaughan (paid content) about the compo grab of David Cullen Bain:

“The cynic in me thinks they thought that the case against Bain was so clear that anyone who came in to look at it was going to give them an answer and they could make it go away.

“I genuinely think that [former Justice Minister] Simon Power thought Binnie was going to come back and say ‘he’s guilty, you don’t have to pay him’.

“And when Binnie didn’t do that, that’s when the fur started to fly.” 

So should Justice Binnie feel aggrieved at the way in which he was treated?

“Binnie’s report had major flaws that Fisher identified and I think Fisher was right. So I don’t think Binnie could feel aggrieved that cabinet has chosen not to follow his advice.

Bain deserves nothing, he is simply the lucky recipient of a concerted public relations campaign by Joe Karam to clear his name and in the process smear the reputation of a dead man who cannot defend himself.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Mr Sackunkrak

    I am still gobsmacked by Binnie’s recommendation. Lazing about in the pokie for a few years is not worth a couple of million of our hard graft.

    • AnonWgtn

      In paying Bain $1 will neither confirm nor deny that he is guilty or not guilty.
      This will be a Solomon’s judgement.
      Won’t pay legal fees though.

  • LesleyNZ

    Amen!

  • Paxmannz

    Hmm .. I believe evidence was interfered with and a vital part of it dissapeared. Why would Bain do that ?

    • dotcom

      I’ll call your bluff, Pax.  Which evidence was interfered with, and which evidence has disappeared, Pax?

      • Paxmannz

        A vital part on the gun stock was interfered with and the house was burnt down .. how convenient .. and this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened in NZ .. how many times have the police been caught at it in our fair country ?

        A few have been released and compensated after a long time in prison .. false evidence etc .. Bain was released after what, 13 years ? He deserves the proven beyond reasonable doubt at the least, and if the law could not do that then he should be compensated ..

        • Paxmannz

          You have also made the allegation that Bain lied to Binnie. What was that lie and how did you come by that information ? That is another nasty little habit of authority here in NZ is trial by media and govt ministers have no regard for privacy laws because they break the law with impunity. If the authorities are so sure of themselves then they should publish so that the public may see upon which this land of Drackonia is being built. If you cannot see the gradual erosion of our freedoms by these underhand acts then God help us all because we are slipping back into the dark ages.

          • Paxmannz

            And dotcom, it is not bluff, it is called decency.

          • dotcom

            Technicality. I called your bluff. It’s a figure of speech.

          • dotcom

            Fair questions. I don’t know which of David’s lies will be cited in the criminal action being considered against him, because the decision as to which of David’s many lies, has not yet been made by the private prosecutor concerned.

            And how do I know about it? Because in real life, I am part of the consortium who is putting the private prosecution together. This has got nothing to do with privacy or Government Ministers. I mentioned a *private* prosecution, Pax: that means no government involvement.

            Pax, it sounds like you don’t like governments or public servants of any kind. Would this be correct? And is this colouring your stance?

          • Patrick

            dotcom – go for it, full steam ahead. Cannot wait to see Bain shown up for what he is, a lying conniving murdering cunt

          • dotcom

            Thanks Patrick. I don’t often get support round here, but when someone takes the trouble as you have, we appreciate it. Credit where credit is due is pretty rare on blogs.

          • Patrick

            Excuse my language but this topic makes my blood boil, I read Karam’s books & they only made me more convinced of Bain’s guilt. The excuses/reasoning was so implausible, let alone the facts of the matter.
            Not a dollar should come from the NZ taxpayer for Bain.

          • dotcom

            We were very lucky Patrick, that Simon Power retired from Parliament just in time. Had he not had the alternative job to go to, Bain/Karam would by now have been $2-3 million richer. It was a very close call. We are very lucky that the change from Power to Crusher Collins just happened along, you might say, in the nick of time.

            The present worry is that as strong as Collins is, there must be tremendous pressure from National’s pragmatists (including the PM) to just pay up and be damned, just to put the whole Bain thing to bed.

          • It is a matter of public record fool, obtained under the OIA…you know the law…that Bain lied about the glasses…his lawyer did the honourable thing and let people know…again as required by law. You are clearly a conspiracy theorist who believes Robin Bain did it…only a fool would not believe David Cullen Bain killed his family.

        • Hazards001

          He was acquitted. He has to prove on the balance of probabilities that he is innocent. He has not.
          A rifles stock is one part. How can you interfere with one part? Unless you cut it down or add to it.

          The house was burnt down at the Bain families request and David Bain was one of those family members.

          You sound like another conspiracy theory or anti police nut job to me. The cops didn’t plant evidence, they didn’t need to. They originally thought the killer was dead (Robin) and investigated based on that assumption. The amount of evidence already provided by David was more than enough to make them change their minds. Why plant more?

          • dotcom

            Plus one, Hazards.

          • Indeed, David Cullen Bain specifically requested the house be torched.

          • LesleyNZ

            Well – that is very interesting because from what I can recall it has been the extended family and the police who were blamed for burning down the house. It is very timely that we are now reminded of all the facts about this case – from beginning to end. We tend to forget the facts as time passes and the facts get clouded when Joe Karam writes another book.

        • dotcom

          Pax, the Bain family burned the house down, not the police. The Bain family let the cops know about it, and the cops having completed their work there, did not object. Police had no authority to stop the house being burnt down. This is not the image your comment portrayed.

          I know the case well, and I don’t understand you comment on the gun stock. First I heard of this. Are you referring to the fact that before police arrived, the gun had apparently been partly wiped (no doubt by the killer).

          Is you beef with police, or is it with justice? Do you think David Bain was the killer, yet that he should be compensated as a punishment for claims of poor policing? If so, is that not punishing me and you, the taxpayers, for David’s killing spree, and rewarding David for killing?

          You have a wrong legal understanding of the difference between “beyond reasonable doubt” and “balance of probability”.

          Listen to this, and take your time to absorb it.

          If the jury thought that David “probably-killed-his-family”, the jury was legally bound to acquit him. Now think this through before you make your next comment. Because as unlikely as it looks, it is 100 percent correct at law.

          If David probably killed, he was entitled to a not guilty verdict.
          But if David probably killed he is not entitled to compensation.

          Not easy to comprehend, but those two statements are absolutely 100 percent correct at law.

          • Paxmannz

            Dotcom .. I did not decide to post here to be insulted by the like of Hazards001 but I should have expected that .. his type are all too common nowadays.

            Hazard, Go get your nappy changed you cheeky little whippersnapper, and when you are old enough, go and do something useful for your nation. The military specialise in people with your attitude and they will straighten you out, Shoo shoo!

            The law you say dotcom ? What I see is that many years of hard won and hard fought for rights being gradually eroded. Court houses being closed down, legal aid restricted and even the right to a trial by jury under threat.

            You have made assumptions and you have made statements based on those assumtions. One of the assumptions appears to be is that you think you are right.

            One of your above comments quote “Police had no authority to stop the house being burnt down.” unquote.

            I do not believe that to be correct, because the police have a legal duty to prevent the tampering with evidence. The house and its contents are evidence. They must have surely known that there would be an appeal.

            Balance of probability is no more than an opinion by a judge, it is not proof.

            And just take a look at this .. quote. “Are you referring to the fact that before police arrived, the gun had apparently been partly wiped (no doubt by the killer)”.unquote.

            Oh so we are to assume that the police never tamper with evidence on the basis of probability.

            dotcom are you seriously saying to me that the police do not tamper with evidence ?

            I went and got some pdf files of those reports and find that there is official scallywagging with the finger prints. And concerning your comments about correct at law then that sounds to me like a gulag charter for a show trial scenario.

            I used to believe that a Court of Law was where people went and received justice .. you know that rather pretty lady with the scales and wearing a blindfold.

            It becomes obvious to me that the Legal system and the profession here in New Zealand are off down the Gulag road for the people. what Binney and Fisher represent are two very different animals. If we are are to accept Fisher,s interpretation of the law as being the intention of Govt. then God help us all.

            I am starting to feel that we need another William Wilberforce .. try his biography .. the back benches of parliment were the very epitome of Red Neckers as he tried to have slavery abolished.

          • dotcom

            Pax, I think I can confidently sum your comment up by concluding that you are massively anti-police.

            You didn’t actually say who you thought killed Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen Bain. I get the impression you might even think that David might have. But I have to admit to be having to rely on my hunch rather than anything you have typed.

            In that case, you live in a dream world. There are no perfect police anywhere. And it is a fact that the more democratic a country is, the more likely countries are to have police misfeasance. See, if we could just shoot cops who go bad, cops wouldn’t go bad.

            But we have to go with what we have. Other countries do this, so ought we be able to. Binnie came here and decided that our cops had to be shown up, and this became his foremost priority. His report was badly compromised by this, and his bottom line was downright wrong.

            As a taxpayer, I would love to be able to get rid of bad cops. However, in reality there is absolutely nothing I can do about bad cops. But punishing me, and every taxpayer for what is inevitably a police force which will have its share of bad cops, is ridiculous in the extreme. Isn’t it bad enough that we don’t have perfect cops? Why then punish us again, for something we can do nothing about.

            In any case. Burning down the house changed nothing. Cops had everything they needed for the conviction they got. The only people complaining years later were the defence, saying cops shouldn’t have burned down evidence that the defence might have needed. But, but, but, who burnt it down? The defence, including David Bain, authorised it. Talk about cake and eat it too.

            Now come on out of the closet, Pax. Tell us honestly who you think killed Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen.

          • Paxmannz

            Come out of the Closet ? .. what a snide you are .. and as for justice binney and scapegoating the police, I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. You have made another assertion that you cannot back up.

            Your assertion that the police had got all the evidence they needed, yes precisely and there is the rub. So you are considering a private prosecution,? Why are you going to stand for parliment ? because there is a political dimension to this matter and that it is being channeled so that people will accept what is in the pipeline. Well mark my words once a freedom is gone it is gone forever and I trust that your children will not have to undergo that.

            There are obviously good honest police and the best way to stop the creeping corruption is to enforce the law without fear or favour, however I feel that allowing them to investigate themselves is a big mistake.

            Oh btw .. any idea what medications Robin Bain was taking ?

          • dotcom

            Sorry Pax, but your comment is really a bit of a rant compared to what I’m used to being challenged with. You have not read Binnie’s report, or you would know that he himself repeatedly expresses annoyance with New Zealand police standards – basing his findings essentially on Joe Karam’s books, and without substantiation criticising the report of the Police Conduct Authority headed by a Judge.

            Did you know for example, Pax, that David Bain discovered his dead mother with what he said was “blood streaming down her face”, then he heard his sister gurgling? And Pax, if you say you knew this, you would probably be lying, and if you said you knew it, I would ask you how you knew, because few people know this. And you would not be able to tell me how you knew that David said the “blood was streaming down her face”.

            So he had every reason (if his story had any semblance of credibility) to think that both his mother and sister might actually still be alive. So please answer me this, Pax (or anyone else reading this).

            How come it took David a further nearly half an hour to call 111 to summons help for them, while as far as David knew his family lay dying?

            And if that isn’t enough, Pax. When police responded to the 111 call by being at the Bain house within 10 minutes of the 111 call, David would not unlock the front door for them. Police could see David inside moving about, but he wouldn’t unlock the door for police, so after about 10 more minutes of this, police had to break in the front door.

            And what did Joe Karam do about this? Karam complained about the police misconduct in unnecessarily breaking in the front door. The result was that nearly 50 minutes after David Bain has seen “blood streaming down” his mother’s face, David was still preventing police from entering the house. Need I say more?

            What Binnie expected though, was a 2012 FBI-standard police investigation from our little-old 1994 Dunedin cops. Binnie was also a classic application of the CSI-effect (Wikipedia it), a very real phenomenon taught in Universities and police training units world-wide these days (but a phenomenon you, unlike police themselves, will no doubt deride).

            And my point about the house burning – and you are quickly losing my patience on this – police had all the evidence they needed, and the defence had all the information the defence needed for the criminal case to go to Court.

            Then the Defence people burnt the house down, and later it was the defence people complaining (lying – as did Binnie repeatedly in his report) that the cops burnt down evidence that could have helped the defence. But the cops *didn’t* burn it down.

            Yes, the cops have a duty to preserve evidence for the defence. But it is a massive stretch of this duty to say that the cops have a duty to ensure that the defence preserve the defence evidence. The cops had finished with the house. They gave it back to the Bains, including David Bain and his lawyers. And they burnt it down. It was at that point defence property. And the police no longer had any duty to preserve what the defence had control over for defence interests. This is not the law in any country in the world. Nor should it be. It became Karam law, and it has since become a popular Bain urban myth.

            You tell me, Pax, what medications was Robin Bain taking. Perhaps you could tell me while you are at it, what medications was David taking. And what inferences have you invented from the urban myths surrounding whether or not he was taking any medications? Would you like to add a few inventions here? Feel free. Everyone else does at random. I don’t. But there are thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation on this. I cannot and will not, spend hours in each instance looking up references that will mean nothing to you anyway, other than handing to you opportunities to ridicule.

          • Paxmannz

            Well hey Dotcom .. I thought you would know and also if David was on anything .. I do not know if you have understood that many many irrational slaughters have been carried out whilst people have been under the effects of psychiatrist prescribed medications.

            Now it appears to me that you are in possession of a lot of information that no one else has .. where did you get that from ? and exactly what is your interest in the matter ? .. are you are a Govt lawyer ?

            You have used the term urban myth .. a term beloved of the skeptic frat, are you a skeptic ?

            You may insult me all you like because I know that is the game that skeptics also play, so its sort of sticks and stones thing for me .. but I will say it once more .. Justice .. and not half baked rants with an agenda .. Justice .. and if we lose that, and we just get law .. then Gulag here we come .. and you and your Hazards are the ones that pitched right in with the insults .. what was the saying .. do unto others ?

          • dotcom

            Speaking of Robin being on medication, I suspect you are too, heavily so, Pax. You are not making sufficient sense to be responding to.

          • LesleyNZ

            This paragraph dotcom – absolutely right! “What Binnie expected though, was a 2012 FBI-standard police investigation from our little-old 1994 Dunedin cops. Binnie was also a classic application of the CSI-effect (Wikipedia it), a very real phenomenon taught in Universities and police training units world-wide these days (but a phenomenon you, unlike police themselves, will no doubt deride).”

          • Hazards001

            “Hazards001 but I should have expected that .. his type are all too common nowadays.
            Hazard, Go get your nappy changed you cheeky little whippersnapper, and when you are old enough, go and do something useful for your nation. The military specialise in people with your attitude and they will straighten you out, Shoo shoo!”

            I’m 46 years old dipshit. I’ve lived and worked in real live combat zones. I posted facts and you do not have the decency or courage to reply to them but instead take a snide shot in someone else’s comment. You have not contributed one factoid to this thread and my comment stands you piss weak wanker. You are a hater of authority and a typical lefty piss ant. David Bain is a mass killer and you have no idea what the stock of a rifle is do you moron?

  • dotcom

    David Bain lied repeatedly to the Canadian, Justice Ian Binnie, and the lies could well be proven in a court of lie. This may well happen in a private prosecution that is in the offing, a proposed action which Cabinet has been made aware of.

    That David Bain lied to Justice Binnie, in an interview that was conducted with David Bain having taken an oath, David Bain made himself subject to the Crimes Act, section 111. Some of us are confident that a criminal prosecution under that section, would prove that he lied, and that Bain has thus fatally compromised his claim for compensation.

    Such an action would remove from the Cabinet, any prospect of a political decision being made by the pragmatists, for example by John Key.

    If David Bain were not a killer, why would he have felt the need to lie to Justice Binnie?

    [And by the way, I never refer to David Bain’s innocence or guilt or anything of the kind. These terms have too many legal complications. I always refer to David Bain as a killer, rather than as a murderer, or that he is guilty.]

    • Hazards001

      David Bain is a murdering c*nt. I have no problem whatsoever saying murder.

      • dotcom

        Yes, I can understand. But legally he is not, and never again will be, a murderer. Which makes me on balance happier to call him a “killer”, so there is no *legal* doubt of what I’m saying. But don’t let me stop you with either the c*nt bit or the other.

  • Lyndad

    Great post

  • Bomber

    Bain told Binnie that his father was going to have a room in the new house but at trial he said that his mother had made her plans and they didn’t include his father. He said his mother felt that the marriage was completely over and she wouldn’t have settled to have his father living at the same address.

    • LesleyNZ

      And Robin Bain said at a genealogy meeting that he had organised 3 weeks before he was murdered, that his “wife Margaret had plans to build a house without a bedroom for him but he wasn’t worried because they didn’t have any money to build it in any case.” Robin also gave the impression that “he didn’t want a divorce – that the pressure for separate living came from Margaret.” So David Bain did not tell the truth to Justice Binnie. David Bain must think he can say anything nowadays because none of his family is alive to challenge him, however there are people who still remember what Robin Bain said to others very openly, just before he was murdered. Tell the truth David.

  • Bomber

    Lesley, that is interesting . It is my understanding that Robin and Margaret did come to some sort of reconciliation and that the house was going to go ahead.
    Arrangements had been made for materials for the house to be purchased in bulk with a motel owner. A demolition order for the back of the house either had or was being applied for. During the weekend immediatly prior to the killings the family had been thinning and felling trees in the vicinity of the house to enable in preparation for that demolition. New spouting had been put up on the front part of the house to tide them over until that part was demolished and Margaret Bain was annoyed about the unnecessary expense in having to do that for such a temporary measure.
    I believe David Bain lied at the trial but basically told the truth to Binnie.
    Margaret could not have built a new house without Robin agreeing to it because she would not have had enough money.

    • LesleyNZ

      I don’t believe that David did tell the truth to Binnie. He has maligned his father and allowed others who never met him to portray an image of his father that he knows is not factual or truthful. Robin Bain said there was no room for him in the new house 3 weeks before he was murdered but he wasn’t worried. Not sure why David would say that there was a room for his father. I am also not sure about the reconciliation you talk about. Please explain a bit more. From what I was told Robin Bain was trying to keep the family together and spend time with them – the reason why he used to to stay in the caravan at the back of the house during the weekends – he appeared to love them very much and spoke fondly of David that night.

  • Bomber

    Lesley,
    I have it on what I would call impeccable information that Margaret and Robin had resolved their problems and had worked out a way to continue as a family.-hence the two master bedrooms with interconnecting ensuite and the four bedrooms for the children/guests.
    So I can only think the siuation must have changed after that geneology meeting you mentioned.. Robin had also asked the meter reader to take a final reading for the schoolhouse because he said he was moving back into town.
    You know, that could have been the catalyst. David believes his father,who he said he hated, wasn’t going to be part of the new house, and then he finds he is going to be part of the new house.

    • LesleyNZ

      That is very interesting. Bomber – if what you say is true then plans must have definitely changed within that 3 week time span. From what I was told about Robin Bain – no doubt he would have been very happy that things were looking more positive all around. I was told that at the genealogy meeting that night Robin Bain spoke positively about his children and was very proud of each of them, showing newspaper clippings etc. He appeared to love them very much. He spoke very fondly of David and seemed to enjoy the fact that they sang in the Dunedin male choir together. He expressed concern about his daughter Laniet and indicated that she had been in some trouble in Dunedin, and as a consequence he had offered her and her boyfriend the opportunity to live with him at the country school where he was teaching at. Robin arranged the meeting at very short notice and ran it. He was looking forward to having another session in the future. And – 3 weeks before he was murdered, Robin Bain was NOTHING like what the David Bain defence team and their witnesses described him as. An injustice has been done to Robin Bain’s name and memory. There are still a lot of questions to be answered about what was really going on in the Bain family and what really happened the day they were murdered. Maybe now with a new report to be done we will get some honest and truthful answers.

  • Bomber

    Binnie asked Bain if there was a locking door to the lounge which he had the key for and that he controlled access to the lounge. Bain said that was an absolute fabrication .
    Yet when Kirsten Koch was interviewed on TVNZ on June 14 2009 she said the front room [lounge] door was locked when she visited Arawa not long before the murders and that Arawa had to go into David’s room to get the key to open it, while she kept a watch out for David.

  • Bomber
  • Bomber

    Lesley, Cunningham was not Laniet’s boyfriend,he was just a friend. His girlfriend used to visit him at the schoolhouse from time to time.
    Yes,my understanding is that Robin always spoke well of his children, but you do have to wonder . I mean he knew Laniet had been a prostitute and she knew that he knew. My understanding is that she did move out to the schoolhouse to get away from the the people she had been working with. It appears she gave up prostitution virtually on her 18th birthday,which would have coincided with her going on the dole.
    And then there was David. All family members can relate to instances of unkindness,meanness and extreme agressiveness by David. Two of the worst where when he kicked down the toilet door when Laniet refused to exit on demand and kicking Arawa on the ground. His parents made concessions for David all his life-they always excused and explained away his unsocial behaviour and made allowances.

  • Bomber

    Bain told Binnie he couldn’t drive without his glasses, and then he tells him he drove down to collect fish and chips.
    And then we have the “No ,I didn’t wear my mother’s glasses story”. Not only did he tell his lawyer he would be admitting to wearing them but his aunt also testified that he had told her he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses when his were in being repaired. “They weren’t perfect ” he said, but they “got him by”.
    At the first trial he said he wore his mother’s glasses to watch TV if his were not available. But he tells Binnie that he watched a video on TV on the Sunday night. He said he didn’t need his mother’s glasses to watch it because he sat in a big chair close to the TV.
    He never mentioned that big chair at the first trial.

  • Bomber

    Binnie asks Bain if the estimated time of 2/3 minutes it took for him to get from Heath Street to home is accurate and Bain tells him no because he said he has since walked it himself and it took quite a bit longer. It would interesting to know how much longer because a police officer walked that distance in 2m15s.
    Then he says he had to wait for his dog because she kept wanting to stop and rest.
    Funny how he never mentioned that to the police when he told them he estimated it would take him 2/3 minutes to get home. .

  • Bomber

    Binnie asks Bain about that cup of tea that he mentioned at that conference. He saw his mother’s light on as he was about to go downstairs and thought he would make her a cup of tea. Bain says he meant coffee, and the reason he didn’t bring it to her after doing the washing was because he was all sweaty.
    That cuppa was first mentioned in Trial by Ambush. Karam had David thinking about it when he saw his mother’s light on after he came up the stairs,not before he went down the stairs.. And it was a cup of tea in Karam’s book.

  • Bomber

    Bain told Binnie he seperated the whites from the darks and that he put the darks in the washing machine. But there was light coloured clothing on the clothesline and coloured clothing in the washbasket.

    • LesleyNZ

      I am amazed that Binnie accepted all this from Bain – as truth. Getting more bizarre by the comments posted! Bain should have gone through all the old court documents to make sure his version married up with what he first said.

  • Bomber
  • Bomber

    Binnie mentions to Bain that he had said he saw his mother’s eyes open and Bain said that is his recall. Then Binnie says that the pathologists say there were more likely to be closed and Bain beats around the bush, talking about dreams and false reflections.
    As an interesting aside, when giving his speech at that conference in Perth he said he saw blood “streaming ” down his mother’s face. Would there be blood still streaming down her face long after she was dead?

  • Bomber

    There were a pair of track pants in the wash. Binnie shows Bain an exhibit from the crimes book and he says that that exhibit compares what the police believed to be David’s track pants with a pair of Robin’s track pants which indicated that the track pants in the wash could not be Robin’s.
    David says that in all honesty he does not recognise those track pants . He can remember other track pants but not those track pants.
    Binnie said “Could be another member” but the only problem with that comment is that the only member of the Bain family that was taller than Robin was David. Arawa was the same height as her father,according to David.
    Some people might ask why it matters who those track pants belong to.
    The police say that they believe that blood on Bain’s shorts seeped through from outer clothing,i e those track pants.
    The defence say that blood on Bain’s shorts got there by innocent transference.
    That’s why it matters.
    As an interesting aside when Karam wrote to the Privy Council he said the track pants in the wash belonged to Robin[ the police had said they belonged to David].
    But David does not tell Binnie they were his father’s. One can only presume he must have told Joe Karam they were his father’s.

52%