Donaldob has yet again dug deeper in his latest comment on Counterspin where
he draws attention to a blog by Chris Patterson, a civil lawyer, at http://www.patterson.co.nz/site/#blog&1259
Although Patterson is arguing that David is guilty and
shouldn’t get compensation, Patterson says:
“A finding that David Bain did not, on the balance of
probabilities, kill his family is not a finding that he is innocent, but is a
finding that the prosecution against him should probably never have been
brought, and that the jury should not (if they had all the currently available
evidence before them) have ever delivered guilty
verdicts.”
The poster Donaldbob from Otago University whose main impetus seems to be attacking the Jury in a variety of facetious ways tracked down the above blog by Chris Patterson.
I won't try to explain Chris Patterson's blog overall because I can't make head nor tail of it in many places. He was apparently in Dunedin at the time of the Bain familicide, presumably at Law School. Yet in a few short sentences he's said everything the hate-siters want to hear and everything they don't, maybe he should be congratulated for that.
Interestingly, he doesn't state any facts, but suggests a reader tears a strip of paper in two and on one half list the evidence against David and on the other the evidence against Robin. Though, most conveniently, he makes no lists himself yet is somehow assured that the list for David will require extra paper. What a quaint and awkward fellow, and it is quite a fine distinction to be able to confuse the already deeply confused hate-siters. Or indeed to write an opinion piece making serious assertions but not offering any support for that other than having woken up one morning in Dunedin when it was cold.
This has left poor old donbob unsure whether he's Arthur or Martha which has set back years of productive counselling that left him with the strongest presumption that he was Martha after all. What a conundrum for him added to by the fact that the bewildered Chris Patterson suggests Binnie's finding is that David should never have been charged and prosecuted. He's exactly right on that. However this part which the hang-bainers will be wishing to concentrate on “A finding that David Bain
did not, on the balance of probabilities, kill his family is not a finding that
he is innocent” is wrong. A finding that David is innocent on BOP is
exactly that – a finding that he is innocent.
Overall Chris does nail it, despite his fascination with making lists and tearing paper to shreds, Binnie will have found David innocent on the BOP. I believe Ian Binnie will be critical that the prosecution ever proceeded thus fitting with Chris's interpretation. When the police and Crown went ahead hiding evidence, planting evidence, an incomplete inquiry and overcome with an impression of guilt those were extraordinary circumstances for which Bain must be compensated. This case wasn't about a lack of evidence, it was about hidden, planted and misinterpreted evidence, mantra's and impressions of guilt fed through the media by police. It was the police's fault that Robin wasn't investigated, that such facts as blood on Robin's palms and damaged hands were overlooked, along with red material under his fingernails. The police never paused to test not only whose blood it was on the towel in the bathroom, instead presuming wrongly that it was Davids, but when they found out they then ignored the fact that before he killed himself Robin Bain wiped a heap of blood off himself from a freshly bleeding wound. That should have assisted them to finally understand that final death scene was in fact a suicide scene, and Robin's damaged hands, recent bleeding, his blood inside the barrel indicated the obvious fact that Dempster arrived at before Detective Sergeant Doyle decided, lo and behold that they 'had a murder to solve.'
Confused or just plain stupid? Mike Stockdale has now posted a comment (referring to your blog here, too, so he is a fan of yours!). He is so funny, in a slightly pathetic sort of way. He comes across as a daft old man who has found a place to be important, silly old git.
ReplyDeleteHe has been making phone calls again, talking to Schollum, the photography chap who apparently thinks that the specular effect was the lens. Perhaps he does think that, but it was shown it could not be - even the PCA did not accept what he said! Perhaps he didn't understand the reasoning. It's crazy thinking.
Then Stockdale suggests Joe Karam is lying about the Commer van in support of Dayyl Young's evidence. He says:
"You are probably aware that Karam is now saying that Young meant the sliding door in the rear of the van.
Commer vans of that model did not have rear sliding doors."
This shows the level of Stockdale's analysis. Robin Bain's commer van certainly did have a rear side door (hinged, not sliding). If Stockdale had any sense at all, he would check the facts before defaming Karam - or perhaps he feels left out in the law suit?
As for his comment about Robin's body ending up where it did - what is he thinking? Of course if it were not possible for the body to have ended up there, the Crown would have brought evidence to that effect. The fact is, it IS possible, and it did. What is impossible is any of the various options the Crown came up with for Robin's position when (they claim) he was shot.
Not only does this post show that Stockdale's reasoning is tunnel-visioned, it shows once again that the defamation suit is seemingly a matter of no concern to Parker, as this sort of comment continues to be posted. Or perhaps Stockdale wants to see Parker bankrupted?
If you say rear door of the house it can only apply to the rear door even if not directly at the rear but to the side or vice versa. It simply means not the drivers or passengers door in this case of the van, but the one to the rear. It's silly silly stuff, even if the whole evidence of the van is removed, all the evidence of the glasses and what Schollum coughed up years later none of it changes the forensic evidence against Robin of killing his family.
DeleteFor years now the hang-bainers have looked around the peripheral aspects of this case but not at the key evidence like Robin's hands, bloody palms, and his blood on that towel. Why? because they have no answer to the fact that the proof is against Robin and a blinking van door to the rear or up some one's rear makes no difference except to the person with a door up his butt.
Yes, I saw that article posted on the JFRB facebook page. It really does have them confused.
ReplyDeleteThese counterclowns are an phenomenon in themselves. As a group & individually they are on the wrong side of history, logic & the law.One would think that would make them feel very ill indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they are publicly criticising Justice Binnies report, without having even read it,& then continue to declare that David did it, simply tells me how foolish they really are.
This loon stockdale ,the self declared grand poohbah of the bain case,along with his toady milksop friend parker, have nothing new to add.All they seem to do is recycle long since debunked nonsense which then becomes sustenance for more mindless ranting.It’s as if they are intubating from each other’s colostomy bags.
It will certainly be interesting to watch how they react when Justice Binnies report is finally made public.
When David placed his father in position to make it look like suicide he no doubt got Robins blood on his hands etc but lucky he found the green towel to wipe it all off, that's the best explanation for Robins blood on that green towel as Robin did not have any wounds from replacing the old rusty spouting that could have put that much blood on that towel, also David said the glasses were not in his room on the Sunday evening but they were there first thing on the Monday morning?? Please explain? and why did David ask the cop watching him for those glasses??
ReplyDeleteYou should seriously read the trial transcripts. If they're not available to you then read Karam's book Trial by Ambush. Just to disabuse you of some of the nonsense you've picked up. Your 'best explanation' for Robin's blood on the towel is nonsense. The towel had copious amounts of blood on it, certainly didn't correspond with smears being wiped off someone's hands, it was from a direct blood flow - either Robin's hands or most likely his nose. Check out the photos and see the blood that had run from his nose. The blood on the towel was also consistent with the smeared blood on his palms that could have only got there before he killed himself.
ReplyDeleteYour fixation with the glasses is fantasy. David didn't need glasses in the normal event of things, his glasses were under repair - read Sanderson's evidence. David didn't ask the cop to pass the glasses because A/ they weren't his, B/ they were broken with a lens missing, but most unfortunately for your campaign on behalf of the man accused of molesting his children - the cop took 15 years to 'remember' his version of events. In short the cop had no credibility, the case had no credibility - there was copious blood on the towel from direct bleeding, and your idol died with blood smears on his palms and cut bruised hands.