Fisher's reasoning 'flawed' by design?

According to the following Fisher has exposed a lack of credibility in his reasoning. One could be forgiven for taking that as deliberate, just as it was a deliberate decision by Justice Minister Collins to preclude Ian Binnie from her 'concerns' about his findings culminating in keeping a secrecy operating for many months between her, The Crown, and the compliant Fisher toward the 'impartial' Minister's own ends. It is not to be forgotten that the 'bigger picture' is that Collins has moved attention away from the detail of the Binnie report, firstly by making wide generalisations which were not substantiated, despite the attacking of Binnie with insults. Fisher goes no further than the point where the Crown's failed case stalled, he looks instead to labour the public with 'reasoning' far divorced from the facts of the case, or from a logical reasoning process. To me, that is deliberate muddying of the waters, a dilution of common sense and precise reasoning of facts which neither Collins, The Crown nor Fisher can penetrate even 'off the ball.' It shows the Minister's bias, she 'crossed over' from a neutral role to one of defacto Prosecutor, that was never her role. Even the King of England had that role removed from him nearly a 1000 years ago by the magna carta. Collins steps back into the dark ages and beyond along with her followers of witch craft, lanterns and pitch forks abreast.

Analyst has left a new comment on your post "Double take here....":

Looking at the recent posts on the Bain threads on kiwiblog, it is quite clear that the majority of the contributors have no understanding of probabilistic reasoning in law.
More worryingly, it seems from Fisher's report that he also has little understanding of it. He cites Bayesian reasoning, but then gives an example of armies and gladiators which show quite clearly that he does not understand it. This lack of understanding, I assume, explains why he claims that Binnie did not weigh up the evidence as a whole - which in fact he quite obviously did.
I have reviewed Fisher's reports on other compensation claims for his decision processes in light of this, and there is absolutely no evidence of him having applied Bayesian analysis or even the principles underpinning them. He appears to have operated a far less sophisticated and less independent approach.
This is very alarming. It means that knee-jerk response is operating at the highest levels in New Zealand. Which in turn means the chance of dispassionate fairness is almost nil. This affects not just Bain, but potentially every contested case before the courts.