EXCLUSIVE – Firearms experts dismisses Bain claims

Few of you Kiwis will know me or my blog. I run TFB, a popular US-based gun blog. I frequently correspond with New Zealand’s top blogger, who like me is also a gun enthusiast. When Cameron asked me to weigh in on the controversial Bain-Magazine debate, I was happy to offer my opinion. I have read the details surrounding the case and examined the photos published in the NZ Herald.

thumb_460x230

 

I have not seen the TV show where this photo was first displayed. Cam did send me the New Zealand Police press release published after the TV show was broadcasted.

The marks on Mr. Bain’s fingers look like cuts to me, but I am no more qualified to definitively say what they are, or are not, anymore than any other member of the public. It is possible a dirty magazine would leave marks on his thumb. I have shot just about every type of gun known to mankind, and have never noticed marks like that.
The hand used to reload the magazine would also be the hand most likely used to hold the rifle’s grip. The hand would be wrapped around the grip. The only instance where the other hand would be used would be if Mr. Bain was truly ambidextrous, not favoring either the left or right side. If the magazine did leave such marks, I would expect them to be rubbed away quickly.
It appears that similar marks (or cuts) are on his index finger. I cannot conceive of a scenario where a .22 magazine would leave marks on the index finder. If he had used his thumb to load the magazine, the index finger would be either be flat against the magazine or tucked up against his palm, depending on how he had used his thumb. This fact makes me suspect these marks were not made by the magazine.
If the marks on his thumb are cuts I would say it is very unlikely they were caused by the magazine for the simple reason that a gun owner would either replace the magazine or use a fine file or sandpaper to chamfer (round off) the edge. Also, I would expect the cuts to be far deeper and there to be signs of blood. When gun steel slices into flesh you bleed.
I asked my Senior Writer, Phil While, a retired police officer and a gun expert what he thought of the photo. I only told him the most basic information about the case and asked him for him opinion on the magazine without Googling for additional case information.
Phil noted the lines on his thumb appeared to be about the same distance apart from the magazine, but that there was not enough information to go on from just that photo. Phil also said “… in all the suicides I’ve worked, I have never seen a magazine removed before the person shot themselves. That makes no sense nor does the upright mag[azine].”. [WO: There were two magazines, but they weren;t briefed on that. Irrespective of the two magazines, there were no fingerprints on them despite Joe Karam now claiming that Robin Bain loaded the magazine…how do you do that without fingerprints, and leaving grease marks on your thumb?]
He further commented “I’ve worked more homicides and suicides than I can even remember… That rifle is too long without removing the shoes and using a toe to pull the trigger”. A court pathologist reported that Robin Bain was shot at a 45 degree angle into the side of his head. It seems incredible to belive someone would attempt to shoot themselves in such a difficult way, with a suppressor still attached to the rifle.
 


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.

  • peterwn

    Looks like another own goal. Crusher Collins will be laughing her head off.

    • fozzie2

      Crusher Collins like all the previous Ministers are on the wrong side – they know it, but to admit so would be sticking the fingers up some of their friend’s noses – shame but that is the level of justice in NZ. As a republican I would like to think our courts to be supreme – but they just ‘ain’t…

      • Bunswalla

        Crikey you talk some shit

        • fozzie2

          Tooshay sweetheart !!

          • Bunswalla

            Touche fucktard

  • williamabong

    Once again we are after a generous compensation package, once again David “The Family Guy” Bain should get absolutely what he is owed, NOTHING, and it’s only fair Joe Karam should be entitled to half of it.

    • unsol

      No I disagree. I don’t believe he should get a massive pay-out, but he is clearly no threat to the wider community & further, had the sloppy & dodgy actions of the police actually been addressed as they should have in 1995 he would never have been convicted. So perhaps he should get a settlement on this basis. DB would have gotten off at least on a technicality as the point of the law. It is to preserve justice & Blackstone’s ratio; that the law adheres to the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty.

      The police in this instance pursued this case on the presumption that Bain was guilty. They failed to do their job properly & in doing so cost us millions & created an ambiguity around the case that should never have been there. It was not a game of Cludo.

      • Bunswalla

        Can’t disagree more, and based on your clearly flawed previous statements (for example, you stated that David said only his father was dead on the 111 call, when in fact he said FOUR times “They’re all dead”) it looks very much like you’ve been reading this upside down.

        Agreed that the police could have done their job better in 1994 (not 1995 as you seem to think – are you really talking about the same case?), however the result would’ve been the same in the first trial and different in the second. In other words, convicted beyond reasonable doubt on both occasions.

        He should get nothing – nada – nix – zero – nyet – nein – not one brass razoo.

        • unsol

          I meant the trial was in 1995…the police have always maintained they have put the best possible evidence forward yet clearly they didn’t.

          Re the 111 call – I listened to it again. My earlier statement was from a MSM report which was clearly flawed

          • thehawkreturns

            Furthermore, the police came fresh to the case thinking “murder-suicide”. It was only after much evidence gathering that they realised that could not be the case. They also eliminated an outside agent at the same time. Conclusion by overwhelming evidence – Murder.

          • Steve

            and the Police presented evidence, the defense had the opportunity to counter it, a jury made the decision….

            If the Police didn’t narrow their focus to one line of inquiry then no one would ever get convicted…. in this case, they identified the plethora of things that discounted a plausible murder suicide and had enough evidence to ensure the defense couldn’t prove reasonable doubt…..

            The fact that it’s taken Bain’s team 19 years to find something they’re calling definitive shows that it’s not as simple as in the movies…..

          • unsol

            Did they? You claim that to be fact yet their handling of the case indicates otherwise.

            Conclusion by overwhelming evidence: DB not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proof went in his favour once ALL evidence was presented – and remember that the police have said that in the last case in particular they put their best evidence forward.

          • mike

            How many times was he found guilty… and how many times was he found innocent? There is no evidence proving him innocent, there is lots of possibilities that have been thrown up to muddy the waters and make it difficult now to prove him guilty beyond doubt.

          • unsol

            If the first trial had been conducted properly he would have been found not guilty.

            The only way to reverse the ambiguity is for the police to go back in time & do their job properly.

          • Col

            Unsol, your right, just these idiots are unable to see because of the tree, the police stuffed up, and the law states ,beyond all reasonable doubt. Now all these idiots will understand this of course, because they went to school. BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, end of story.

          • Bunswalla

            Col it’s better in your case to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You have no knowledge of what you speak – the word “ALL” does not appear in the directive.

            The burden of proof for the prosecution is “beyond reasonable doubt”, not “beyond ALL reasonable doubt” or even (as the useless, expensive, biased, left-leaning bleeding heart liberal tosspot Ian Binnie wrongly supposed) “beyond A reasonable doubt”.

            Got it? Didn’t think so.

          • Col

            Oh so you understand the Queens English do you.

            Well why don’t you go fuck yourself Mr smarty pants, fuck your a weirdo. Can’t get your way poor little man.
            We are only talking about it is not an English class, the good thing is you did understand what was being said.
            ps no didn’t do well at school, waste of time, not you by the look of it, what is it like to be bright?

          • Bunswalla

            The police don’t put the evidence forward, as anyone should know. The police gather the evidence and give it to the Crown, who decide what if anything to prosecute.

          • unsol

            Only the Crown – who is the Crown exactly? Ever heard of the PPS?

            That the police put their “best evidence forward” was a direct quote from their top brass…..are you saying that they don’t know their own processes?

          • mike

            The Crown is a corporation sole that, in the Commonwealth realms and any of its provincial or state sub-divisions, represents the legal embodiment of executive, legislative, or judicial governance.

          • unsol

            Nice cut & paste there mikey mike,
            The question was directed to Buns who made an incorrect statement.

          • mike

            You asked… I answered… I informed… that’s how we educate one another.

            And pray tell what part of Brunswallas statement was incorrect?

          • unsol

            “the police gather the evidence and give it to the Crown, who decide what if anything to prosecute”

            He assumes police have no part in prosecuting cases.

        • unsol

          Btw was there 3 trials with the first being a hung jury? Or was that John Barlow?

          Anyhoo the key thing to remember is that the case for either side was always flimsy with the first trial making some rather sketchy choices such as refusing to allow the evidence of Dean Cottle & full evidence/cross examination of Mrs Laney. Had these things been allowed & other things such as the timing of the computer, the finger print on the rifle (which gave “no positive reading for human DNA” in post trial tests) & the detective (Sergeant Weir) who told the jury in 1995 he had found the left-hand lens in a visible and exposed position & was later found to be lying, been thoroughly investigated earlier (Court of Appeal would have been good) then perhaps we wouldnt have had the years of controversy at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

          • Bunswalla

            Unsol it would really help your cause if you had SOME idea what the hell you were talking about. David Bain has only ever had two trials – 1995 and 2009.

            The second jury found him not guilty – in other words they could not convict him beyond reasonable doubt. That’s a long way from saying “overwhelming evidence” and “beyond ALL reasonable doubt”.

            You’re wrong yet again (that’s pretty much every point you’ve tried to make over the last 3 days) when you say that ALL evidence was presented. Apart from the fact that much of the original evidence was destroyed some 10 years after the original conviction (after two appeal attempts and an approach to the Privy Council – all rejected out of hand as the work of fantasy, which it was), much of the prosecution evidence was not allowed to be admitted. The evidence that was refuted by the defence was not able to be challenged – Karam/Bain Inc paid handsomely for so-called “experts” (hacks, more like) to refute. dispute, try to discredit and cast jus enough doubt in the minds of largely imbecilic jurors, such that they could not in all honesty (read “lack of intelligence”) convict.

            The fact that most of the testimony was not based on actual evidence, rather on pictures and descriptions of evidence, seems conveniently to have escaped you.

          • unsol

            No you are wrong as once again you’re submitting speculation as fact.

            All relevant evidence was not submitted in the first trial but was submitted in the second.

            You have not address key issues such as Weir, Laney & Cottle

            Asking if Bain trial was hung initially or quoting a section of the 111 call from what was an incorrect MSM feed does not disprove anything I have said.

            You are playing semantics & seem to miss the irony of your comments – there was no actual evidence on EITHER side.It was circumstantial. The police argued it was compelling & won in 1995 but in 2009 the jury said otherwise.

      • mike

        He hasn’t been proven innocent though, and that is the requirement for any compensation payout.

        • Bunswalla

          Bingo!

        • unsol

          Yes, that is correct, but it doesnt mean it is set in stone. It is not law because there is no compensation law. I have raised what I think is the more pertinent issue in more detail today (Saturday’s debate)

  • Pete George

    As expected the expert opinion will be divided – like on just about every other bit of Bain evidence.

    I accept there is doubt about whether the marks could be made by a magazine. I don’t think it can be ruled as definite, or ruled out completely.

    Not sure what he’s trying to say about which hand was used. If I reload my magazine I hold it with my left hand and load with the right, so get marks on my right thumb. It’s Bain’s right thumb with marks.

    “… in all the suicides I’ve worked, I have never seen a magazine removed before the person shot themselves. That makes no sense…”

    He may not know two magazines were used and would have been switched. I presume the other magazine was in the rifle when Robin was shot.

    “nor does the upright mag[azine].”

    I don’t think the position of the magazine makes sense no matter which side of the argument you are on. It’s unlikely to fall like that but I can’t think why a murder wanting to incriminate someone would place it anywhere, and I can’t think why that if they did place it they would put it in a very unusually position.

    I think there’s doubt about when the magazine was put or ended up where it is in the photo. And I think it’s unknown when that photo was taken.

    So this looks like heading to another stalemate, unless experts can come up with compelling evidence either way.

    • Steve (TFB Editor)

      Hello, I am the author. There are two ways to load a magazine using the thumb. One it to hold the magazine and thumb in the rounds with the hand holding the magazine, placing the rounds with the other hand. The other way is to, as you do, hold it in one hand and thumb it in with the other hand. I use both depending on the magazine design and the spring strength.

      Yes, neither Phil nor I were aware that there were two magazines, so you can ignore that part of my guest post.

      • Pete George

        Hi Steve. FYI – When I load each bullet I push it in with my thumb but usually barely touch the magazine. Then when loaded (I put 9 in a 10 shot magazine, it’s a bit tight with 10) I press down with my thumb to check that the bullets spring freely – if the top bullet isn’t in fully and straight it can jam.

        It’s when I press down with my thumb I get sometimes residue marks (if the rifle’s been fired recently) and usually indentations. These indentations aren’t as sharp as the lines in the photo, they remain for a while but gradually my thumb resumes it’s natural shape. If I do other things with my thumb it speeds this up.

        • Orange

          Do you get parallel lines or ones off by 11 degrees to each other like in the photo?

          • Bunswalla

            Good point. On an actual magazine the lines are parallel. In the photo of Robin Bain they are anything but.

          • Col

            Your bright, have you ever thought the skin can move?

      • unsol

        Can you please post photos with a similar rifle – age & model.

    • Tamati

      “I accept there is doubt about whether the marks could be made by a
      magazine. I don’t think it can be ruled as definite, or ruled out
      completely.”

      Pete…go and measure your .22 mag between the two edges that cause the indentations/residue line, and compare it with the measurement of 17.5mm that the gunsmith on the TV “show” gave for the distance between the two lines on RCB’s thumb.

  • justsayin

    Good post. for the record, there were 2 mags. The 5 shot was still in the weapon and the 10 shot miraculously fell out of Robin Bains hand and landed on its edge. Would you shoot yourself in the head at such an awkward position, that needed 2 hands to hold the weapon AND while you were still trying to hold the 10 shot mag? Or did Robin put the 10 shot on the floor, then shoot himself and have his hand fall onto the floor beside it? Seems more likely that the murderer placed the mag on the floor post fact eh…

    • Two mags is irrelevant to the status of the claim by Karam and Reed that this proves that Robin Bain was the murderer.

      it ignores Karam’s claims for more than 10 years that Robin Bain wore gloves.

      It does however focus ont eh fact that he now didn’t wear gloves and if he didn’t then were are Robin Bain’s fingerprints on the trigger, on the rifle, on the silencer and on the magazines…and if they aren;t there how did he wipe them all clean after he apparently killed himself?

      Slam dunk? You bet it is…a slam dunk that Joe Karam and David Bain are bullshit artists of the highest order.

      • GarethsPussy

        But Robin wasn’t wearing any at time of death, nor were they in the room. If he loaded the magazine, in the lounge (presumably) he didn’t need to have done so with gloves on.

        BTW: I don’t think there is anything to suggest Robin did it, and I think this magazine evidence is laughable, but trying to understand where you’re coming from….

  • Nick D

    There were 2 clips used in the shooting (a 10 round and a 5 round clip), the one beside the hand had obviously been placed there before the final shot was fired.

    • Nick D

      Also, I have had marks like this left on my fingers from loading a clip plenty of times. And while loading a single clip I use a variety of techniques in the one go as a matter of course to load the bullets. I find it bizarre your gun expert has never noticed any marks “I have shot just about every type of gun known to mankind, and have never noticed marks like that.”

      • Pete George

        I never noticed any marks ever, until the 3rd Degree programme. Then I checked for myself and saw that marks were probably simply unnoticed.

        I’ve had my curent .22 for seven years and use it quite often, but mostly at night (with a headlight shooting possums) so light isn’t good and I’m busy concentrating on things other than my thumbs and fingers. And I wash my hands after I’ve been shooting.

        • Bunswalla

          So what?

      • Bunswalla

        It was probably you then. That’s about the same standard of evidentiary integrity that the murdering Bain and his shill Karam have presented.

        So, can you account for your movements on that cold morning in June 1994?

  • unsol

    This debate is great fun – will be very interesting to see what comes of this new evidence.

    “Phil also said “… in all the suicides I’ve worked, I have never seen a magazine removed before the person shot themselves. That makes no sense nor does the upright mag[azine].”

    Seems the fact that there were 2 magazines has been missed by your expert. The 10 round one (which is curved one) must have still been in the gun. The one we can see in the picture must have been the 5 round one which is rectangular/straight edges.

    As for landing upright – why couldnt this happen? My daughter at 6 months was lying on her back in front of me on a raised change table while I put her booties back on. ‘Nek minute’ she had slid off between me & the change table & landed on her hands & knees. She screamed with indignation, but was thankfully OK (yaye for our local doctor who was happy to make a house visit to an anxious & tearful mum).

    Put being sometimes landing defies gravity.

    • kaykaybee

      May I respectfully suggest that the “falling bodies” physics involved in your baby’s fall and that of the magazine are quite different.

      • unsol

        Of course the physics are different ! :-) But point being sometimes freaky things happen. The way she landed was completely different to how one would expect.

        Perhaps it the same can be said about the magazine. It would have been dropped rather than tossed so being heavy perhaps the odds of it landing on its edge are greater.

        • kaykaybee

          Freaky things do indeed happen, but I’d hazard a guess all the readers of this blog could stand around dropping a magazine for a week and not have one land narrow side. ;)

          • unsol

            ALL the readers? So you’re saying odds are more than several thousand to one? What are the odds of the police having moved it before taking a picture meaning the issue is null & void? I’d hazard a guess & say those odds are fairly good :)

          • kaykaybee

            Yes, several thousand to one is exactly what I’m postulating.

          • thehawkreturns

            Lets say the cops did it. I guess they were trying to lead us away from David as the killer then? After all, they must have scratched the marks on Robin’s thumb as well eh?

          • unsol

            How do you know they are scratches?

            Cops – in this instance they were sloppy not necessarily trying to pull a Bruce Hutton. Although Detective Sergeant Weir turned out to be a liar. Who knows. Time will tell. It’s cost us a heaps so far so whats another million or 2…

          • thehawkreturns

            Scratches or magazine marks doesn’t matter – they were clearly trying to implicate Robin then, were they? I guess the irony in my first comment flew too high. If they were trying to implicate Robin why did they charge David? Hope you can follow that.

          • Ever

      • Bunswalla

        Yes but if the baby’s back had been buttered then surely it would’ve landed on it’s back. I tried it with a cat once and still have the scars.

        • Orange

          It’s meant to just hover in the air…

    • thehawkreturns

      I think the point is not that the magazine couldn’t have fallen like that but it was yet ANOTHER unlikely line of reasoning to produce Robin as the fall guy instead of the much more likely pattern of events that point to David as the psycho-killer.

  • Pete George

    The magazine could have:
    – fallen out of Robin’s hand before or after he shot himself
    – fallen out of David’s hand at various times
    – been placed there carefully by Robin before shooting himself (why?)
    – been placed carefully there by David after shooting Robin (why?)
    – been placed there by David when he found his father dead or any time later
    – been placed there by emergency personnel
    – been placed there by police (I hope not)
    – been kicked by David or others hitting Robins hand and balancing
    – been kicked against the hand until Robin was moved a bit
    – etc etc

    And I think it is most likely a red herring. I don’t see why anyone would want to deliberately place it. Has anyone come up with a credible motive for that? Why would it incriminate Robin in a suicide?

    • unsol

      “been placed there by police (I hope not)”…I’d say it is more plausible they moved itrather than actually planted…perhaps to get the body & magazine in the same shot? They were sloppy, but I doubt any tried to pull a Bruce Hutton..

      • mike

        You are an Army Officer aren’t you… I can tell.

        • unsol

          Yep you got me….:) kidding of course

          • mike

            That explains why you are an arrogant opinionated person… I have only ever met a couple of Officers who deserved respect… most of you seem to think it’s an automatic thing because of your rank.

          • unsol

            I’m not an army person but you’re clearly a snarky prick where humour is apparently lost on you.

            If you’re going to try & pick a fight than perhaps I should rephrase my first comment: you’re an uneducated patronizing buffoon who lacks the intellect to decipher fact from fiction.

            But I will be kind & humour you: tell me in an exact quote what my opinion is in this case then prove I am wrong in accordance with current law & best practice.

          • mike

            So why did you lie to me when I asked? That is before you went back and edited your response… sort of shoots your credibility to shit.

            I am not a lawyer, so I can not nor will I attempt to quote current law and best practice… what I can give you is the fact that he was found guilty (like it or not) and he was never found innocent. And in order to receive any compensation this is the pre-requisite.

            “His case falls outside Cabinet rules on compensation and so the Government is not obliged to pay him anything – but may do so if he is able to establish his innocence on ‘the balance of probabilities’ and is also considered to be the ‘victim of exceptional circumstances’.”

          • unsol

            Hardly. I decided to edit as thought I would be kinder…you know because despite coming across as a complete wanker, one never knows how vulnerable people are on the other side of the screen. I’m being serious.

            “I said yep you got me :) kidding of course”. That is called being tongue in cheek as I assumed you were…your comment had no relevance to the reply I gave to Pete.

            Bains case may fall outside Cabinet rules at the moment, but that could change as it would appear to undermine the premise of innocent until proven guilty: innocent person charged – convicted – PC rules miscarriage of justice – retrial/not guilty = innocent.

            The test of guilt failed when held up to proper scrutiny.

          • unsol

            Mike I have decided to keep this down to one comment so I have edited my first reply to the topic on today’s post.

  • Ronnie Chow

    How about getting a volunteer with the same height , weight and arm length to try to get that shot angle with the same gun and configuration . I assume this has been done ?

    • kaykaybee

      The defence’s version of events (complete with helmets and steel rods). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr13rG7YmNY
      Lord only knows why he wouldn’t have just put it in his mouth or under his chin, rather than contort himself without the assistance of their elaborate stabilising headgear and a guiding rod down the barrel

      • Ronnie Chow

        What muppet downvoted that?

      • And amazingly, after killing himself in these contorted positions there were no fingerprints on the gun, either the trigger, the rifle, the barrel and the silencer…and we ow know that he wasn’t wearing gloves because Joe Karam says he wasn’t when for more than 10 years he says he was…oh dear, the stories don’t match up.

        • Bunswalla

          That’s because Joe was holding the rifle – we have proof. A slam dunk if ever there was one Mr Karam.

          • Rodger T

            So the real question is, why has Karam not been charged with aiding a suicide? The plot thickens. ; )

        • opusx

          Did the Police find a toe print on the trigger. That would be helpful to Karam and the fruit loop QC I believe.

        • Vixx

          hahaha

  • Debbie

    Theory: I am sure that DB would have looked at all these photos numerous times. I find it hard to believe that he did not notice the marks himself…if I was innocent of such a heinous crime I would dedicate my life trying to prove my innocence, going over all the material with a fine toothed comb, including photos. So….what if he did see the marks before now? And if he did…why did he not bring them to the attention of his lawyer?? Because he knew they were not cartridge marks and therefore did not consider them important. How did he know they were not cartridge marks??…because he knew his father never handled the gun.

  • opusx

    I doff my hat to you Cam for doing a great job in trying to highlight this Karam stunt for what it is, but I doubt very much you will sway some if the Woman’s Weekly readers who follow your blog.

  • Kim Arnold

    what about karam saying daddy bain wore gloves…..the survivor killed them all…no money should be paid out

  • RHal

    Cameron, there really isn’t much I disagree with you on.

    I’ve historically leaned more towards DB committing this than RB. But I’ve had to change my opinion – for whatever it was worth. It’s not like swinging from voting Act to the Greens, I’m just a minority type of personality that’s willing to look at the likelihood I’m incorrect. The Privy Council didn’t sway me, nor Binnie but the recent evidence has. And I’m not willing to take our keystone cop’s speculation about cuts over obvious real magazine marks. There’s a great post listing how the magazine ended up how it did but it’s time to stop splitting hairs.

    People stop making this complicated. It isn’t.

    1. Take the emotion out of it. On the probability DB is innocent. That doesn’t mean he is.

    2. In simple terms, the Police ‘ballsed’ everything up – nothing new here

    3. Do we want a society with a criminal justice system where we can convicted on the standard of investigation and lack of strong evidence as demonstrated in the Bain Case.

    In regard to point 3, it has far wider implications for us all. We have to ask ourselves; are we comfortable with ‘Unsafe Convictions’? If someone takes another’s life and they are clever enough (or lucky enough) to not leave evidence worthy of leading to a conviction – do we want the criminal justice system to ‘Fill in the blanks’ and get a conviction anyway, just to keep us all safe? Is that style of thinking, truly the direction we want to be head?

    Finally, I know a bit about Joe Karam. Unfortunate things about the man. But in this situation he’s has now basically won. It’s just a matter of time. It’s time to stop the David Bain Industry that is costing the tax payer and lining the pockets of too many ‘supporters’, and move on.

    • Orange

      1. No, have you not see the 37 point list? http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/06/not-one-cent-new-evidence-proves-nothing/
      2. No, unless you’re comparing to how such an investigation would be conducted 20 years later.
      3. There is strong evidence which points in one direction. Two trials confirmed this. What you are really asking is if NZ wants a system where we can ignore the conclusion of public court trials as we see fit.

      • And a system where one perso can drip feed manipulated PR to a gullible media and public in order to change history.

        • RHal

          Yep Joes on to a winner, he doesn’t ever want this to end. Not really. But through the media, he’s starting to win, that’s one of my points. The media aren’t so much gullible but keen for a bit of sensationalism for a few sales. BTW, I was in 6th form journalism class with Garner – his work was fairly good then but I’m not sure it’s improved a great deal.

          • Bunswalla

            He’s won nothing. He’ll get nothing. You can push his barrow, for whatever reason you wish, but it changes nothing. Any intelligent person recognises the desperate act of a charlatan. If he had genuine evidence – a smoking gun, genuine parallel magazine marks, a video of Robin saying “I dunnit” – whatever – he would go to Judith Collins, to the Police, to the Courts, to the Privy Council.

            Instead he scurries off. like the cockroach he is, to TV3. TV3! part of an organisation so corrupt, so morally bankrupt, so bereft of integrity it happily walks away from debts of $600 million and sets itself up in a new entity and pretends nothing has happened.

            Once, journalism in New Zealand showed the finest aspects of the profession. Now it’s a charade, a travesty, and schmucks like you fall for it, every time.

      • RHal

        Wow, are the Police blogging here themselves? Is Cam on to this or is he part of it?

        1. Yes obviously.

        2. Yes even by standards then.
        3. Subjective, interpretable many ways, both sides think they have slam dunks, but no one truly does. The case has garnered considerable interest outside of NZ and they’re laughing at us. Look, sometimes people get away with murder. You seem to have a lot of faith in the NZ Court, but you shouldn’t.

        • unsol

          Nicely said. Anyone who has a hard & fast opinion on this case, especially anyone who has not been privvy to all documents, recordings, photos etc, is naive – irrespective of what side the claim to be on.

          Interesting that when one probes people’s reasonings or suggests alternatives they merely regurgitate police opinion.

          That to me is no different than those who do a copy & paste out of Karam’s books.

          The only person who knows for sure is DB. For everyone else it comes down to the burden of proof – which found in favour of him. Innocence – irrelevant. Judith Collins will succumb to overwhelming public opinion & pay him.

          And so what. DB is appears to be no risk to anyone & seems willing to contribute. That in itself is far better than the 7000 or so people in our prisons who are currently costing us up to $90k p/a

          • Orange

            But you are holding that view hard and fast. Don’t be a hypocrite. Just because people don’t have all the possible information about everything does not mean they can’t have an informed opinion. 9/10 times agnosticism is stupid. Look at the evidence, make a call, stick to it until convinced by evidence to the contrary. But by all means, go back to name calling if you think it helps, everyone who disagrees with you is naive.

          • unsol

            Holding what view? That the courts made their decision? I think you are confused with what hypocrite actually means….

            “Look at the evidence” the problem is no one on here has seen all the evidence have they? You can form an opinion but you can’t make an absolute judgement; you’re speculating, nothing more.

            I have my own theories, but end of the day the courts decide and the biggest issue with this case is that the courts were not able to assess ALL information whether due to lies, failure to submit it, collect it or judges’ rulings.

          • Orange

            yawn

          • Bunswalla

            Make up your mind unsol. Not long ago you opined that the court heard ALL the evidence and decided overwhelmingly against ALL reasonable doubt.

            Now you’re admitting (correctly, which is a refreshing change) that the big problem is that the courts were not able to assess ALL information.

            Are you simply trolling?

          • unsol

            Once again you need to stop assuming things and actually read people’s comments. I have said or implied that the court in 2009 heard all relevant evidence. The court in 1995 didn’t.

            That is when the courts finally heard ALL evidence DB was found not guilty…

            Playing the troll card is as silly as throwing in a Hitler argument.

          • RHal

            unsol I think your comments truly make sense, youve summarized it better than anyone in less words.

            We are of course entitled to opinions and be influenced by what we are. But there comes a time to stop the nonsense and start following the money trail…

          • mike

            Not Crusher… she doesn’t like Bain because she thinks he is guilty. He isn’t entitled to any payout, he wasn’t found innocent… he should just take some of Karam’s profits from his book and move to South America with Assange and Snowden.

          • unsol

            Now that I can agree with.

        • Bunswalla

          Haven’t seen you here much, Retard Halitosis. Orange on the other hand is a regular contributor with invariably well-considered views. I’m not saying I agree with them always, but he doesn’t just pull stuff out of his arse, like…er…ah..well…you.

          • unsol

            If you have a look at many recent comments you will see a whole heap of ‘new’ people have started to sign in….perhaps they are part of the ghost readers (of which there are how many? 2000?) and have decided to finally comment.

    • thehawkreturns

      Have you read the case? Even “Canvas/Herald” magazine wrote it up a few years back. The principle evidence is the strongest I have seen beyond reliable eyewitness and DNA. Rather than a police balls up I think this was a very well worked case producing, for them initially, a surprising outcome. Only David Bain could be the killer. Nothing I seen produced by the Defence to implicate the father is of any substance. Magazine marks on the thumb – yeah right.

    • LesleyNZ

      DB was found not guilty – he was not found to be innocent. He has to prove his innocence for compensation. That is why his defence team decided to use Mediaworks TV3 to propagate their latest theory to try and convince us that David Bain did not murder his family. They have made fools of themselves. They continue ignore crucial evidence because they know where it points to.

  • RightOfGenghis

    There is only one man alive who knows what happened. Isn’t it time he was turned over to some specialists trained in the art of extracting the truth? I’m thinking Iran, China, Russia…

    • unsol

      Yep that’s it isn’t it – only DB knows with absolute certainty what happened

      Re Iran et all….or WO – he claims he’s a tough guy….actually, come to think of it, so do a few of the boys on here. Let’s see if they have got what it takes….after putting them through the necessary interrogation training of course :-)

      • mike

        What interrogation training do you need? A wet sponge, a car battery and some jumper cables, an old steel bed frame and some wire worked well for most Eastern European and Middle Eastern security forces… or maybe just a phone book or a sock full of dollar coins.

        • unsol

          You seem to be in the know….something to share perhaps?

    • RHal

      RoG…I guarantee the Chinese can look after our worst 5% offenders for a very nominal cost, nothing like the 90K mentioned by unsol. And the Chinese will get their own definition of compliance and we’ll get the other 95% doing what they are told. Lol, a topic for another day!

  • steve and monique

    Basic fact. If he is innocent,and there is no doubt,then pay up. There is still doubt regards his innocence,and a couple of marks that could,or might not be residue/imprints from a .22 magazine on his dads thumb/finger does not clear David of this crime. To much does not add up,and some evidence seems staged to some degree. Remember David enjoyed acting,and liked drama. Is this whole show just that,a show,and a chance to get away with murder. Or have we all got it wrong. Until it is crystal clear, freedom is the only compensation that is appropriate.

    • unsol

      Or maybe reach a compromise – this case has cost us so much money so give him a token for the mishandling of the case (as he would have gotten off had this been properly examined in the first trial) & then leave it there. Surely it would be cheaper for the State to just cut its losses instead of this endless fighting with the one trick pony Karam – he will never let this go & public opinion seems to be overwhelmingly in DB’s favour. Sometimes nonsense makes sense.

      • Let’s just conduct all trials in public with Judge Judy acting…that is basically what you are suggesting…I used to think you were intelligent until you started down the support David Bain track and believing a poorly rating current affairs show desperate for attention

        • unsol

          Don’t be silly. I am suggesting nothing of the sort nor have I given my opinion – I have merely offered support for 1 of the less popular theories only because it appeals in a Law & Order (TV) kind of way.

          I used to think you had empathy & a moral compass; opinions can always change.

          Key thing with this: you are only putting forward an opinion based on information fed to you via MSM “decent journalists, trained and skilled”. In other words, you are merely speculating; the courts that was finally privy to ALL information found him not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

          Surely you are smart enough to recognise that….

          Edit: and you of all people are in no position to mock a show that makes a mockery of investigative journalism…..you are loving it. Stats will be looking fab for June.

          • mike

            You have espoused your opinion (or opinions) quite freely over the past few days.

          • unsol

            And what is my opinion exactly?

        • RHal

          Whale, I can’t understand you trivializing and giving dumbed down interpretations of others arguments. C’mon please you’re better than strawman!!

          If you re-read what has been said this is not about arguing amongst intelligent folk like you, me, Orange unsol or any of us. It’s about moving with the Bain case, and, in the process – stopping Karam enjoying his moment as the ringmaster of this circus.

          Instead of focusing on this bit of evidence or that bit, lets look at whats happening and who stands to gain / lose what. The who is losing part is easy – all of us, by trickery, incompetence and inferior process. And it will cost usmany millions from here. Who gains, that is what we need to consider.

          • unsol

            Who knows why he chooses to throw in cantankerous or contentious comments, but one things for certain – he loves to try & get under people’s skin….most likely because it increases page views :-)

            And why not – no one forces any of us to take what is so obviously bait. Getting personally attached to BS like blogs is wasted energy..the leverage is all in our hands as we can just log off.

            Point being if people make silly comments that don’t even articulate a sensible alternative or objection to a point or points that have been raised then clearly they are not interested in having a discussion.

          • RHal

            Yeah you are right. I couldn’t do his job and keep up with everything he does.

            So I guess his role is to release the odd intelligent piece and then at other times ‘try & get under peoples skin’. The problem is sometimes doing that means the guy is spread too thin and doesn’t exactly do himself justice.

          • mike

            See another opinion!

          • unsol

            Trolling now mikey mike – look at you busy fishing….

      • steve and monique

        We have given him a token for the mishandling.He is walking free. David Bain can write a book if he wants money. Any suggestion for a title?.

        • unsol

          No we havent – he was stripped of everything from a case where Blackstone’s formulation should have most certainly applied. This isnt going away, Karam will never let it so how much more should the taxpayer pay for?

          Title “I didn’t do it”…that is the catch cry of most inmates :)

          • steve and monique

            When you look at all the points/evidence,can you say you are 100% happy he is not guilty.

          • unsol

            Of course. he is no threat to the wider community. And the point of the crown having to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is to protect innocent people from being wrongly convicted- Blackstone’s formulation must always be preserved as it is far better than any alternative.

            The premise is innocent until proven guilty. He was not found guilty so he is by law innocent & therefore entitled to compensation.

            And all this RB vs DB debate misses other avenues of investigation that were not considered – such as Stephen killing everyone & David killing him after a struggle than having a meltdown…it would explain he footprints & bruises.

            Everyone has theories & everyone speculates but the law is quite clear.

          • steve and monique

            Good to see you have a firm opinion on this. I still do not feel it is cut and dry. So my comments are based on my opinion. Cheers,and thanks for your airing what you think.

          • Bunswalla

            Your level of misinformation, utter failure to grasp the evidence and the timeline, and the tenacity with which you cling to hopelessly fallible positions, are all breathtaking. Bravo!

          • unsol

            Clap. Clap. Clap.

            Your comment is juvenile, devoid of fact, is presumption only & indicative of a lack in basic knowledge pertaining to our justice system & an inability to articulate an even slightly valid retort, let alone formulate a substantive argument that is NOT based on speculation.

            By failing to even address they key points I raised above & instead choosing to respond with a silly, pathetic nonsensical comment I can only assume that basic legal matters are beyond your comprehension.

            So take a bow – you’ve just won arsehole of the day. Woot toot. Go you keyboard warrior.

          • unsol

            Buns your feisty BS is good fun but I have decided to just get back to the core issues so edited my first reply to the topic on today’s post.

          • mike

            What happened to all your previous posts? I was looking forward to responding to all your wild accusations and vented rage.

          • mike

            Oh another opinion, glad to see you stuck to your guns about not having an opinion.

            But a trial is not to determine whether someone is a danger to society or not, it is to determine guilt or innocence in regards to a particular crime.

            Unless you are a psychiatrist and have interviewed David Bain regularly over the past 20 years you are not in a position to determine whether he is a threat or not…

            There was no miscarriage of justice despite what the last case said… the jury was not impartital, there is no such thing in NZ when it comes to this case. It should of been heard fully in another country, or fly in a jury from another country to hear the case… and not just the new evidence. Give both the prosecution and defence an opportunity to argue their whole case with all evidence being submitted. Then we would see whether or not he is innocent or guilty.

          • unsol

            Opinion on whether DB actually killed his family? I havent offered one. Care to prove me wrong mikey mike?

            Opinion on dickheads – sure. Act like one expect to be called one.

            DB mental state – may I suggest you read the DB psych info that is public information.

            “There was no miscarriage of justice despite what the last case said..”…another opinion of yours. :) But based on what? Because you know best????

            “the jury was not impartial, there is no such thing in NZ when it comes to this case.” But is any jury ever impartial – isn’t the concept of impartial juries a complete misnomer as everyone comes to a jury coloured by their own experiences, values etc.

            “or fly in a jury from another country to hear the case… and not just the new evidence” Ok, but if they came back stating not guilty – drew the same conclusions as Justice Binny….a Canadian judge who had no knowledge of the case? What then? Still assume guilty because the biased jury (in your view & n Dunedin where EVERYONE was talking about the case!) declared this to be so in 1995???

          • mike

            He had nothing… well after he killed his family anyway.

        • RHal

          Ok I’ll bite – all tongue in cheek of course….

          suggested book titles…

          1. David Bain: Meal Ticket
          2. (I Did It) My Way
          3. 13 Years and All I Got Was This Jumpsuit

          4. David Bain’s European Discovery

          Perhaps when they’re all out David Bain and Scotty W can join Wellington’s top hooker enthusiast to become a musical combo, ‘The Mark Lundy Trio’.

          Oops a digression too far perhaps. Unsol is correct, default position is Innocent until Proven guilty and this is all that is relevant. DB is ‘walking free’ for a reason.

          I will say this about the piece of evidence that came to light in via the sensationalism of the media:

          If David Bain thought to plant residue on his fathers hands then he nothing short of a criminal mastermind. If he sought to then not even mention it to another human being through investigations and trials and years in prison, or leak it’s presence in some way during a long prison sentence, if he saw into the future when technological advancement would give end-users power to view evidence over the internet and ‘blow it up’, if David Bain just hoped some Hamilton businessman who had farming experience, would take a break from net porn, and hopefully discover these shots by chance….then he gets my vote! I mention such absurdities because The NZ Police continually ask me to believe in their ridiculous speculations and conclusions, and they couldn’t follow process in this case.

          • steve and monique

            Add Ewen MacDonald to the mix ,and you get a the A team. Problem is this group of 4 are not all wrongfully convicted.

          • Bunswalla

            Wake up to yourself and get a ruler out. Measure the width between the lines at one end. Make a note of the distance. Measure the width between the lines at the other end. Make a note of the distance. Compare the two. Note the significant difference between the two numbers. Ponder what that means.

            Apologise, retract and find something useful to do.

        • Bunswalla

          Yes, the same one OJ Simpson chose. “If I Did It”

        • Bunswalla

          “Dad Did It While I Was On My Paper-Round. Yeah, Right”

          • unsol

            Nice memory….

      • Bunswalla

        That makes sense – the case has cost us so much money so let’s throw some more on the bonfire! yeah, right – love your logic. Not.

        Give the murdering bastard what he deserves – a long drop off a short rope.

        • unsol

          No I said it will continue to cost us – he is a free man, he isn’t going back to jail & this battle will not stop.

          So how much more are you happy for the government to spend fighting the DB team off?

  • fozzie2

    FFS how ‘primed is this guy/ess !! Please wa’il you can do better than this mock hero worship !!

    “I frequently correspond with New Zealand’s top blogger, who like me is also a gun enthusiast.”

    • Bunswalla

      FFS what a cock are you?

      • fozzie2

        A very fine feathered one sir – “of the very best plumage’ !

    • LesleyNZ

      This is the top blog – even you read it.

  • LesleyNZ

    I just showed the photo to my daughter and son-in-law. They hadn’t seen it before. My daughter said that she frequently has cuts like that on her thumbs and fingers – from cooking . My son-in-law – who works with tools in his trade said – hmm – think I got some cuts like that today – here have a look. 3rd Degree – your ratings might have zoomed – but the content is nonsense. And sad to think viewers believe it all. One thing this latest saga has proved – our jury system is no longer relevant. We have too many armchair detectives and judges – who are also able to serve on a jury.

    • Bunswalla

      Even worse Lesley, and far more dispiriting, is the low level of intelligence displayed by many on this blog and in the court of public opinion. Those disaffected losers who see conspiracy theories and chicanery everywhere in authority.

      The real chicanery is in the heart of David “Family Guy” Bain and his hapless shill, Joe Karam.

      • unsol

        You’re on fire – where are the conspiracy theories? I have seen 3 people say they are 50/50 but find the 3rd degree info compelling, 1 person offer a theory that RB killed everyone & DB killed him & another state Stephen killed everyone & DB killed him (which might explain bruising & smaller footprint. I have said NZ law assumes innocence until proven guilty, he was found not guilty in 2009 after the PC declared there had been a “substantial” miscarriage of justice – which makes the 1995 verdict null & void. This he is innocent for all intents & purposes of the law. This doesnt mean that he didnt do it, but the case as it stands should never have resulted in a guilty verdict so he should never have gone to prison. This is about preserving the core values of our legal system – namely Blackstone’s formulation. You are flogging a dead horse You will get a bit of support on here, but the it is over. He is free & he will be awarded compensation.

      • LesleyNZ

        Yep! You are right.

    • unsol

      “We have too many armchair detectives and judges”…ironic given you have never held a magazine or loaded one!

  • cpt-kirk

    i don’t think the photo on this page is the same as on the video.

  • Vixx

    An admission of guilt?

  • Marcus50

    One thing seems certain, crusher Collins is going to spend more in legal costs finding a reason not to pay Bain than she would have had to pay if he was innocent. The whole thing has become a tedious and untidy mess created in the first instance by Simon Power and exacerbated by Collins.

38%