Bob Jones kicks the wasps nest!

Something like a 101 comments before the Herald shut shop on them on the issue of Bob's call for David Bain to be paid compensation. Comments were about 50% either way, despite the hate-siters  'bombarding' the board and 'liking' each others posts in a rather incestuous way.

Interestingly, not one of the hate-siters, led by Parker and Don Bain, had any problem with the point made that David nor his team had received a copy of Binnie's report and recommendation. Obviously that David had evidence supporting his innocence hidden for over a decade doesn't bother them either - they are consistent to a fault. They have no problem with the unfairness that has been characterised in the treatment of David by the authorities. Whether they have the capacity to realise it or not they are clearly unable to accept that fairness and due process is part of Justice, whether a person is considered guilty or not.

Of course because they fall at the first hurdle they also do not understand that before making comments about identified people one must be sure of the truth of what they say. Parker faces charges right now because he ignored that, and it looks like his new mate Don Bain might well find himself in the same boat. Why would Don Bain continue to say that David's prints were found in blood on the rifle when there was no sustained evidence that they were found in anything other than gun oil, and in the carrying position, prints of indeterminate age of course and certainly not in blood. He speaks of the rifle being wiped down when in fact there were many fingerprints found on it, I guess he thinks people are so stupid as to believe those fingerprints were somehow 'wiped' around. Too much to repeat from this certifiable idiot from Victoria University but here's another humdinger...

The defence also used taxpayer's money to scour every corner of the earth until they found an "expert" contortionist who could demonstrate how Robin may have - just - been able to hold the gun and reach the trigger to shoot himself. No explanation as to why RB wouldn't have simply pulled the silencer off and held the gun to his temple with his dominant hand.

Sounds good if you don't know the evidence, or in Don Bain's case, distort it. The primary scene examiner and police Pathologist Dr Dempster actually lived in Dunedin in fact was called to the Bain household on the morning of the murders-suicide. He didn't need to be searched for and agreed that far from a contortionist's pose that it was quite feasible or perfectly compatible with suicide, this from the only pathologist to give evidence that actually studied Robin's wound other than by photograph. The same man who agreed that the blood smears on Robin's hands were 'heavily stained, rinsed but not scrubbed.'

In all the comments, and I noted nothing new from the tired old dis-proven or completely false stuff, not a single hate-siter wrote about that blood on Robin's hands that arrived there before his death and necessarily therefore during the annihilation of his family. Not one person, prepared in all other ways to persecute David would refer to some of the most, if not the most telling forensic evidence against Robin Bain. Somehow the strip search which showed that David had no injuries also was left out, so was the fact that the Crown conceded that the computer had been turned on before David arrived home. And so it went on, laboriously and hateful as always.

However, and more to a point of the article, why hasn't David Bain been given a copy of Binnie's report? He is the man central to this application for compensation, in fact the man who made the application. Why is it kept secret from him while Cabinet apparently consider it? A few on the Herald site repeated some opinion that the contents of the report present 'difficulties' for the Justice Department. We recently heard the Minister speak out firmly against those charged with upholding the law who might act in a similar way to prison inmates, in other words who break the law. The law certainly has been broken in the Bain case and a further clue to the direction of the report in getting to terms with the 'mechanics' of the Miscarriage of Justice might well be that Ian Binnie interviewed two police officers, one who admitted in evidence to misleading the court and who spoke of 'a stance' of the Crown being the reason why critical evidence was hidden.

So why mindless fools like Parker, Don Bain continue to try and make square pegs fit round holes the point Bob Jones was making went right over their heads: the report is the business of David Bain and he should have had a copy of it immediately that it was available. Particularly in the circumstances that his application for compensation wasn't rejected out of hand. Although the 'rules' may not be exactly clear on this, other law is precise about the rights of an individual to know what information is held about them, and there can't possibly be any question when the information flow started with an application by the person seeking to know the contents of a critical report.

By reason that such applications are few and far between Judith Collins doesn't seem to realise that the public are entitled to think that David and his support team should not be seen to be having information withheld from them, particularly where information was withheld that resulted in false imprisonment - that is part of the reason for this application for compensation. Until Bob Jones spelt it out I'd been mesmerised by the whole concept of the Government setting itself up as Judge and Jury. The fact they called an independent jurist in to do the review quelled those concerns somewhat, particularly when the minister said the report would eventually be made public. If the public will know later are we to expect that is how David Bain will find out, when the report is released from a MOJ site?

Judith Collins gave a time-table which should have seen a decision made by now. If it is the case that there in an 'awkwardness' within the Ministry over the contents of the report why should any concern be shown for that other than to protect the 'privacy' of some who might be charged or face other sanctions. That isn't David Bain's problem now, that was his problem during 12 years he was falsely held in prison. Nobody was protecting the interests or privacy of David Bain, the vitriol on the Herald site shows that. Yet still he is treated with contempt by the very people who falsely held him captive - I wonder if the Minister understands that many of the public see an association between the two events: hatred and secrecy.

Judith Collins generally presents as black and white, conservative. She has told the public that she will hold people accountable, but right now it looks like David is being held accountable for the feelings or the wrong doing of those that rail roaded him into prison and through our own Court of Appeal.