Bill Rodie has used a number of identities in his years of defending the dead Robin Bain, most notably those of a female relative. By in large I don't think BR has been directly involved in the illegal activities employed by some of the other members and he should be recognised for that. On a topical, at times emotional matter, he has kept things fairly low key. He perhaps surrendered those other identities when it became obvious to him that his style of writing and obsessive points about the case were a give away as to who he was anyway despite adopting a 'new' identity.
His last foray appears to have been on the Listener website where he unfortunately made a comment that could see him in hot water. I don't think the comment was deliberately defamatory as much as showing how much perspective BR loses when writing about the dead Robin Bain. BR is certainly obsessive about the Robin who he now writes about as being seen as guilty because David is apparently to be judged innocent. Of course this is nothing new it was a proposal put to both Juries, was David or was it Robin. Also the police centered on this view from the outset, even to the point of getting David to agree to the obvious fact and later using that against him. In other words if David acknowledged it must have been either he or his father that killed the family then that was a black mark against David - such things are required when evidence points toward suicide but the police take the 'easy' way out and ignore the evidence against Robin.
BR in many ways is among the last standing and although I think I've been fair in saying that he doesn't appear to have been among the most vindictive among the hate-siters, that recognition is shallow because any difference gets lost in translation. The reason for that is the BR continues on with his distorted facts and twisted truth - he never balances his accusations against David or Joe Karam, and continues to use material which simply isn't true or correctly portrayed.
For example he talks about David's well defined fingerprints on the murder weapon, but makes no mention that fingerprints can last for years on a firearm or other parent bodies and that was confirmed at the trial. He also doesn't say that the fingerprints were in the 'carrying position' not in the 'firing position.' If that isn't enough, he provides that Robin's prints were not found on the rifle when in fact many prints were found on the rifle which may have been Robins, the investigators, or others, but which were unable to be identified because of their poor definition. He simply presents the 'well defined' fingerprints as the complete story when in fact it is no where near the complete story. I have recorded on this blog earlier scientific reports of the low percentage of fingerprints which are ever found on firearms used in crime and the wide range of reasons why, most arising from the gun oil, checkered surfaces and the more obvious that guns are not handled with fingertips anyway. So to make the bald statement and not the persuasive arguments against it is purely persecution. BR is hiding the truth as much as the police hid or destroyed evidence. BR seems unable to understand that is not his imagination or editing of the facts that has any weight on the innocence of David Bain but rather the real evidence, the real facts - included in the trial transcript which BR has clearly never read. Or if he has it has made him sicker than what he already was.
Predictably Rodie has begun attacking Justice Binnie, even before reading the report. Of course reading the report or anything else will never make any difference to Rodie because he only sees what he wants. As an observer one of the most interesting things about Rodie is why he supports somebody who clearly killed their family, he seems tortured about the true event and looks to fabricate another.
In Rodie's latest 'plea' titled 'Is Robin Bain Guilty?' he asks that question as though it were something new and not dating from 1994. It's not all in his writing, and it is clear somebody else is writing it, or some part of it, for BR. I suspect one of the journalist's mentioned in the article. He asks that 'title' question despite the 2nd Privy Council decision, the 2nd Trial verdict and the apparent finding of Ian Binnie. To his small credit he has dropped the claim that David was covered in blood but when mentioning the small amount of blood on David fails to put out one was an aged stain, the 3 marks were all identified as not being spatter - so again he can never permit the truth. He needs to keep lying by omission or in any other form to convince others that he is right and a whole system wrong.
If BR was in anyway an 'expert' that he claims to be we would be hearing from him the full pictured, not something filtered to allow his attack against Binnie to begin. His astounding view is that Binnie can't have reached the right conclusion because he didn't spend enough time doing so - even though there is evidence of months of work and interviews as well. This despite the obvious features of suicide and conclusive proof that the Crown conceded at the last trial. No, Bill is right because apparently he sometimes where tights - nothing like getting into character by dressing up when one wants to change their sex. Yes, Bill dresses up all sorts of things. He quotes a host of people with dry egg on their faces, but not those that have conceded, that like Bill, they were wrong in their earlier opinions. He drags out the hapless Bryan Bruce, who this week came out with the humdinger that the Crewe case police sought to hide that Heather Demler 'wasn't' the woman seen on the Crewe farm in the days after the murder. He conjures up the image of 'distinguished' journalists such as Martin Van Beynan who hung his hat on Peter Ellis and David Bain being guilty and was both times wrong.
He even quotes lawyers who have said that David needed to find 'silver bullet' evidence to prove his innocence. In other words some 'magical' single event - when in fact a series of events of evidence shows compellingly Robin's guilt. So even to this point Rodie is unable to focus on where the case has reached and rather looks back for where it once was - existing as an 'actual Misccariage of Justice.' How Bill must hate those words, he must shed tears at the thought of them and the dead Robin. He seems not to understand the passage of time. Not to understand that the case has moved light years from the time when the Dunedin police wouldn't investigate the prime suspect because they had a murder to 'solve.'
Bill Rodie is like the rest of the sad old men on that site who have apparently been so thrilled to find a place where they are accepted and listened to that they cast all caution to the winds. Of a more trusting generation: they trust the police to be 'right' and turn a blind eye to any minor short-cuts or dubious evidence, accepting the 'story' as compelling. So much easier to believe that a young man was murderous than to actually think about the evidence. Too hard to face the reality that one of them - a man of their generation - could have reached such abject despair that he would kill himself, and take his family with him. No, that would let the side down: reveal that the men such as they are fallible, weak human beings.
ReplyDeleteAnd the little details like the evidence Robin shot himself? The contact shot? The sheer impossibility of anyone else having fired that shot, taking the blood spatter and structure of the room into account? Little details like the residual blood on Robin's hands? The smears and stains that could NOT have come from his own wound? Little details like the partial prints all over the rifle showing it could not have been wiped? Little details like the footprints that David could not have made but were a perfect fit for Robin? Little details like the withheld evidence? pfft! never mind the details, look at the big picture! Focus on the full bladder (because they know what that feels like). Focus on questions that can't be answered. Never, never allow any self-doubt or question that perhaps you got it wrong. Because if you did, what does that make you? Just another sad old man who really is as unimportant as you feared you might be.
The bees are dying too...
Rodie is such a dickhead he thinks that putting one side, or part of a story forward is enough. He then draws on what other people have said, not necessarily about specifics, but general comments - to 'prove' he is correct. How naive those nutters are, they fail to grab the basic reality that all facts but endure scrutiny, and simply avoiding the scrutiny, doesn't prove them. We even have one idiot among them who still can't grasp that David was strip searched and no scratches were found on his chest. This person then builds a 'case' on that ignoring the evidence that shows he is either just a flat out liar or certifiable.
Delete'Charles' has commented on that blog. He says:
ReplyDelete"Karam has said than unless a person has sat through the court case and heard ALL the evidence, then they are not competent to comment. All I can say is that opinion would disqualify Justice Binnie. And what about Martin van Beynen who sat through the entire trial.
This outcome has left me deeply disillusioned with the NZ Justice system."
This ties in what you have blogged on previously about the media coverage and Van Beynen in particular. It is astonishing that given the unexpected finding (to them) by Justice Binnie, their default position is to question Justice Binnie and the justice system, rather than to question the source of their information: largely the media.
It appears their trust of an unregulated media, and Van Beynen in particular, is so absolute that it doesn't occur to them to question his reportage. This seems incredible, and yet it is obviously the case. That is giving the media, and individual journalists, far too much power. It shows, if it were necessary, how utterly flawed is their much-touted 'court of public opinion'.
Weird stuff isn't it?
DeleteIan Binnie has read everything he required of himself to make a decision. van Beynan on the other hand is either so thick he was unable to follow the evidence or he was on a deliberate course to mislead the public. van beynan may have some access to some material but no where near the measure of all the material at Binnie's disposal. However, we seem from vb reporting that he clearly didn't understand the evidence or as I wrote was a course to mislead the public.
But overall, typical of Bill Rodie and the others, they look to quote what various people have said - presumably on the basis because they've said something they therefore must be experts. The cold truth is that McLeod, Edwards, Hodge and others know virtually nothing about the case that is factual - they've apparently relied on the reporting on van beynan who, as time will show, deliberately said out to mislead the public through the print media.
You're right about it not occurring to them to question van beynan's reporting, but essentially they read and accept what they want to believe - the very essence of their problem. Many of them are just very dumb, hate-filled people.
And still they have yet to read the report.