Maybe Cookingwithgas gets it now.

Probably not. The concept that David Bain has been found not guilty, and therefore hate-siters can't spread their message of 'love' by claiming that David executed his family without it being defamatory is a little hard for them to comprehend. Fortunately, Trade Me has declined the opportunity for Cookingwithgas to spread her 'love' further.

Now it just needs the idiot 'Jeeves' to understand that defaming Karam doesn't mean that Karam needs to be named. I'm sure he'll get the message soon that Trade Me don't want to be responsible for Jeeve's hate campaign with its defamation and harassment.

The hate-siters still don't get it.

 

I don't read on Trade Me Boards much these days, but after someone wrote me that 'Cookingwithgas' was melting down again I took a look. She sure was angry about something perhaps she was one of those 'upset' that the over 50s site 'Grown Ups' took action over complaints about a Bain thread running there and removed it. Below is some of the conversation with Grown Ups. Before you read on I should report that 'Cookingwithgas's' logic is a flawed as ever - she is beating the drum about David's opera gloves heavily stained with blood being found under Stephens bed, some helpful wag suggested that 'David' was in such a rush he 'forgot' them. Yet the gloves tell their own story and it's not helpful to the sisters. Because the gloves were soaked through with blood, according to CWG, then that provides evidence against Robin rather than David. David had washed his hands but any fisherman knows profuse blood is hard to clean off and of course David as the 'wag' said had to be in a 'rush.' So much of a rush apparently that there were no signs of blood on his hands. Robin however, had also washed his hands, there was evidence of his blood on a towel in the laundry. However, he was unsuccessful removing all the blood on his hands. In fact 'smears' of blood remained on his palms, appearing in photos as 'blood wash.' Of course there was also red material under his nails which was never tested by police in another bad decision on this case.

Those hands (Robin's) told as much about Robin killing his family as any other evidence, more in fact. Not only did they show cuts and bruising, smeared blood on the palms (hard for a deceased person to get smeared blood on their palms unless making contact with blood and smearing before being killed,) but gsr can also be added to that. A bad look for Robin and a bad look for the story old gas is vainly trying to sell.

Hi, Someone has brought to my attention the David Bain thread. Which I have just read. It includes a link to an article previously published in the now defunct Truth Newspaper. This article includes material about myself which wholly inaccurate and which I was in the process of taking legal action over when the paper went bust. This is also an invasion of my privacy and that of my family. Secondly, a poser called Old Kiwi Kid has referred to me various times by name along with allegations that I threatened her. I treat that very seriously and ask you to remove them please. That cannot be sustained are fictional and damaging to myself and family. If they remain on your boards after this notification the responsibility will fall on Grown Up for any liability for them. Before closing I see a poster frai (something or other) making personal comments about Joe Karam in a defamatory manner. I believe that poster to be Christine Williams of Auckland, regardless of that the comments should be removed. Thanking you in anticipation

Hi,

Thanks for your email, I will look into this. Could you please provide me with direction as to where the member "Old Kiwi Kid" referred to you?

I will review the thread in question and take action as required.

Kind regards,

 

Hi.

 

Thanks for getting back. I was sent the information Thursday night. Have just read it more fully to discover that the link was placed both by ‘old kiw’ and ‘frai.’ It was also referred to by ‘corker.’

 

As follows '#558 Corker. Old Kiwi, #523 and #551. Frai #525,#529.#533. All 3 refer to threats as well.

 

I won’t bother you with the sordid details but there were complaints made by some of the JFRB group to the police. In the above ‘Old Kiwi’ claims to have been one of those threatened. No complaints were upheld. There is on going legal recourse being sought over that issue and others resulting from some members of the group threatening myself and family which I have taken to Court. On the issue of where those threats took place is still being resolved by way of civil procedures against Trade Me.

 

I was responsible for complaining to Trade Me about the use of the boards by some members of JFRB which culminated in on line defamatory attacks by some members of that group and civil proceedings by Joe Karam which were settled in his favour last year. Some of those involved in other areas against Joe Karam are named in proceeding due before the Auckland High Court for trial later this year.

 

I note a poster ‘sunsa’ referring to David Bain as a liar repeatedly. He, the poster, was foremost one of those responsible for the STT being sued in 2010 for his attacks on Karam. That matter has also now been settled. It is going beyond being reasonable for anonymous posters attacking Karam, Bain or those they think support them on line as they are not strictly the ‘publisher’ and therefore not directly responsible. This has also been a problem on Kiwi Blog where David Farrar has made directions about what can and can’t be said about Karam in particular. I hope that ‘Grown Ups’ will do the same, also with extension to David Bain. It would be very hard to sustain an argument that he is either guilty or a liar as you are probably aware.

 

As this point I simply would like the material about myself removed and some censure of those posted or referred to it. In the broader picture the ‘Kiwi Blog’ warning as Farrar used, would, I think, be a good guide line for those that may wish to discuss the case on line.

 

I’ve brought my own situation to the attention of the Privacy Commissioner, in particular how the members of JFRB went onto use the Sensible Sentencing site to publish details of where I live and other ‘revelations’ about my past which are inaccurate and design to humiliate me and have effect on my family to somehow ‘punish’ me. You will be aware that Privacy Commissioner has taken a similar case to Court this year involving Sensible Sentencing.

 

This letter has become more extensive than intended but it is certainly in Grown Ups interests not be left carrying the can, so to speak, for what others publish on this matter in particular. To be seen to have ‘done something,’ issuing a reminder and taking further steps if necessary I am confident would secure Grown Ups ability to continue on in with it’s general intentions and not as a vehicle of cyber harassment by a relatively small group of people willing to break the law.

 

Cheers

 

 

PS You may wish to be mindful of another ‘new’ poster msspw, also a member of JFRB who it looks like has joined Grown Ups in the last couple of days, someone at the ‘centre’ of the Trade Me proceedings.

 Hi

We've made a decision to remove the discussion altogether. I have closed the thread now and it will be removed from the site tomorrow morning.

Kind regards

Cheers . Thank you. Just rereading my letter of even date I see that I referred to ‘sunsa’ which should in fact have been the poster ‘stoc.’

 

Thanks for your quick response.

 

Scott Watson: 2 hairs between he and freedom?

I think that is the case since Judith Collin's 'acceptance' of the recommendation by Ms McDonald inquiring into a Petition for an exercise of The Royal Prerogative of Mercy by Scott Watson, in which she concluded various week evidence (inaccurate identifications and recantations of those, the 'absence' of a Ketch seen in the Sounds that new year, the recantations of prison informers paid to sing) was supported 'overall' by 2 hair fibres found on a blanket on it's second search which 'may' have belonged to Olivia Hope.

I absolutely don't buy into 'silver bullet' evidence shown world wide to be of a type that is 'planted' and found in subsequent searches. Such evidence needs to be vigorously and independently investigated - that is what this Minister should have ordered before allowing what many consider an 'unsafe' conviction to stand. Three quick instances that are fairly well known, Arthur Thomas and the 'finding' of a shell cartridge on a 'second' search, David Bain a small lens found after hours by officer not tasked with the job and which followed intense earlier searches, the degraded dna that was found 'late' in the investigation of Lundy and which by bad 'science' was found to be 'brain matter' by a now discredited scientist. That's exactly the avenue Minister Collins has allowed the Watson case to enter: 'week,' discredited evidence given support by evidence which may have been planted. This Minister before 'hanging her hat' on such highly suspect evidence should have exercised 'Mercy' and common sense, open mindedness and her duty to the safe administration of Justice and sought independent advice on the passage of those 2 hairs onto the blanket, a credible explanation of how they were 'missed' in a methodical earlier search and their exact and precise potential dna link between that blanket and Olivia. To this point the link has reasonable doubt written all over it. Taken from another point of view if an independent review confirms those 2 hairs having 'properly' arrived on the blanket, and to be Olivia's the case may well be over for Scott Watson.

As it stands there are improper identifications made against Scott, then withdrawn, there is the denial of a ketch being in the Sounds yet proof there was and indications that the police didn't want to know about it, there is patchy at best 'testimony' from prison stoolies, no proof of murder, no bodies and all that held together, according to the Minister of Justice in her 'impartial' view, by 2 hairs never independently tested and which 'arrived' in suspect circumstances on a blanket, yet no blood, no bodily fluids nothing - zilch just an indulgence on the public to believe in 'silver bullet' evidence of the type that convicted Lindy Chamberlain and more recently Amanda Fox. Who said Justice?

The following shows reasons why Judith Collins should order an independent examination of those 2 hairs. Borrowed from a posting on Kiwi Blog by a defence lawyer who uses the non de plume F E Smith and who comments in the last paragraph:

Interesting article on the fallibility of DNA testing in the New York Times (I know, it is the NYT, but the article is an op-ed by a law professor, not something by one of their repeaters):

SAN FRANCISCO — WHEN the police arrived last November at the ransacked mansion of the millionaire investor Raveesh Kumra, outside of San Jose, Calif., they found Mr. Kumra had been blindfolded, tied and gagged. The robbers took cash, rare coins and ultimately Mr. Kumra’s life; he died at the scene, suffocated by the packaging tape used to stifle his screams. A forensics team found DNA on his fingernails that belonged to an unknown person, presumably one of the assailants. The sample was put into a DNA database and turned up a “hit” — a local man by the name of Lukis Anderson.
Bingo. Mr. Anderson was arrested and charged with murder.
There was one small problem: the 26-year-old Mr. Anderson couldn’t have been the culprit. During the night in question, he was at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, suffering from severe intoxication.
Yet he spent more than five months in jail with a possible death sentence hanging over his head. Once presented with Mr. Anderson’s hospital records, prosecutors struggled to figure out how an innocent man’s DNA could have ended up on a murder victim.
Late last month, prosecutors announced what they believe to be the answer: the paramedics who transported Mr. Anderson to the hospital were the very same individuals who responded to the crime scene at the mansion a few hours later. Prosecutors now conclude that at some point, Mr. Anderson’s DNA must have been accidentally transferred to Mr. Kumra’s body — likely by way of the paramedics’ clothing or equipment.
This theory of transference is still under investigation. Nevertheless, the certainty with which prosecutors charged Mr. Anderson with murder highlights the very real injustices that can occur when we place too much faith in DNA forensic technologies.
In the end, Mr. Anderson was lucky. His alibi was rock solid; prosecutors were forced to concede that there must have been some other explanation. It’s hard to believe that, out of the growing number of convictions based largely or exclusively on DNA evidence, there haven’t been any similar mistakes.
In one famous case of crime scene contamination, German police searched for around 15 years for a serial killer they called the “Phantom of Heilbronn” — an unknown female linked by traces of DNA to six murders across Germany and Austria. In 2009, the police found their “suspect”: a worker at a factory that produced the cotton swabs police used in their investigations had been accidentally contaminating them with her own DNA.
Contamination is not the only way DNA forensics can lead to injustice. Consider the frequent claim that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for two DNA profiles to match by coincidence. A 2005 audit of Arizona’s DNA database showed that, out of some 65,000 profiles, nearly 150 pairs matched at a level typically considered high enough to identify and prosecute suspects. Yet these profiles were clearly from different people.
There are also problems with the way DNA evidence is interpreted and presented to juries. In 2008, John Puckett — a California man in his 70s with a sexual assault record — was accused of a 1972 killing, after a trawl of the state database partially linked his DNA to crime scene evidence. As in the Anderson case, Mr. Puckett was identified and implicated primarily by this evidence. Jurors — told that there was only a one-in-1.1 million chance that this DNA match was pure coincidence — convicted him. He is now serving a life sentence.
But that one-in-1.1 million figure is misleading, according to two different expert committees, one convened by the F.B.I., the other by the National Research Council. It reflects the chance of a coincidental match in relation to the size of the general population (assuming that the suspect is the only one examined and is not related to the real culprit). Instead of the general population, we should be looking at only the number of profiles in the DNA database. Taking the size of the database into account in Mr. Puckett’s case (and, again, assuming the real culprit’s profile is not in the database) would have led to a dramatic change in the estimate, to one in three.
One juror was asked whether this figure would have affected the jury’s deliberations. “Of course it would have changed things,” he told reporters. “It would have changed a lot of things.”
DNA forensics is an invaluable tool for law enforcement. But it is most useful when it corroborates other evidence pointing to a suspect, or when used to determine whether any two individual samples match, like in the exonerations pursued by the Innocence Project.
But when the government gets into the business of warehousing millions of DNA profiles to seek “cold hits” as the primary basis for prosecutions, much more oversight by and accountability to the public is warranted. For far too long, we have allowed the myth of DNA infallibility to chip away at our skepticism of government’s prosecutorial power, undoubtedly leading to untold injustices.
In the Anderson case, thankfully, prosecutors acknowledged the obvious: their suspect could not have been in two places at once. But he was dangerously close to being on his way to death row because of that speck of DNA. That one piece of evidence — obtained from a technology with known limitations, and susceptible to human error and prosecutorial misuse — might mistakenly lead to execution at the hands of the state should send chills down every one of our spines. The next Lukis Anderson could be you. Better hope your alibi is as well documented as his.

We also know that DNA matches can be faked, and that there is also room for an unscrupulous scientist to falsify results with a very good chance of getting away with it.  In NZ, there is very little verification of DNA testing, and obtaining funding from legal aid to do so is pretty difficult, whilst doing it privately is very expensive.

It follows that if there can innocent transfer there can be deliberate transfer of DNA. Also is shown the 'odds' Juries are told as per 1 in a million and so on are demonstrably inaccurate. However, the point most clearly made that other evidence needs to be looked at to support suspect dna evidence. In the Watson case suspect evidence is being used to support suspect evidence. Time to call this case out.

 

Bain v Collins, what the Minister's decision must mean.

One thing it must mean is that it is accepted that a Minister of Justice when exercising a Prerogative Power is able to 'test' the evidence, the core of the case under review, whether it be an exercise under the Prerogative for Mercy or similarly within the Executive Council deciding 'innocence' on applications for compensation.

Judith Collins spelt out her concerns privately, and within her own ranks as to her disquiet over the recommendation by Ian Binnie that David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities. Following that, it is again confirmed that it pays to look sceptically at the process by which a man found not guilty must to be reprieved from an 'actual Miscarriage of Justice' by being able to show he, or she are innocent despite being found not guilty in a subsequent re-trial, and how reasonable or just that is. I argue for the status of Jurys to be foremost in decisions of guilt and that no 'further look behind' a verdict is needed, particularly not one that could be considered subjective,  onerous and therefore most unreasonable

The Royal Prerogative of Mercy has always been unwieldy by its interpretation of being in flux. Interpreted, according to who ever is the Minister of Justice is at the time, the sense that it has a political bias, and by the fact it is in essence the Justice Department looking into itself and reporting to a Minister who deigns to act in an impartial role, calling it a type of madness might be too kind. Looking at this aspect for more clarity, the competence of a Minister and his or her 'ability' to ignore the politics of any decision might bear, it's fairly plain to see that the Royal Prerogative, and the exercise of Executive powers in the area of Justice is disastrous - if solely for the reason that there is no 'code,' no developed history and free access to the Courts. In short, it is largely up to the Minister of the day and how pompous they may become with a largely unfettered power.

There has been a pathetic history of 'reviews' of convictions ordered by a Minister to last an infinity. The recent Watson one being an example of Ms McDonald taking over 3 years to report, and what has that report been? I'd say an indulgence on the public purse first of all, then secondly a 'designer' outcome best suited for the Justice Department. Nobody in their right minds doesn't realise the interest in the Watson case or understand the fairly broad public feeling that he either is innocent or his conviction is firmly unsound. Yet Ms McDonald has reached a recommendation  compromised by conclusions that in all other circumstances, except when considering the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, are decided in the Courts. She has searched among weak evidence to support a proposition that inaccurate identification in a case of circumstantial evidence is 'overcome' by other evidence. In particular the hair fibres 'evidence' which has all  the hallmarks of being 'planted.' On the face of it Ms McDonald, and the Minister primarily rely, on evidence to reject Watson's application that is weaker than the evidence in question. The failure to put Watson together with the deceased on his own boat is 'righted' by the 'discovery' of two hairs on a blanket, that had previously been searched but upon which they weren't disovered is some kind of madness - particularly when there is no absolute proof of the DNA match to either of the victims.

Why Judith Collins didn't call foul on that can only be explained by the fact that she was 'happy' with the decision - because, by example when she wasn't 'happy' with the 'Binnie decision' on Bain she made a list of 34 reasons why, excluded Bain from those, then had another 'report' written which 'addressed' her concerns exactly the way she had described in her letter, thus proving her 'right' for the 34 reasons she lain awake at nights worrying about. This, a Minister, who Joe Karam who when asked about her 'criticisms' of the Binnie report questioned what she would know about the Bain case. She never came back on that question and now finds herself in Court where it is going to be asked why she is so biased when exercising a 'nuetral' role.

If she were neutral she might have written secret letters asking why a powerful case 'endorsed by it's facts' was relying upon evidence that could be argued to have been planted. In fact she could have raised 68 bullet points as to the apparent incompetence of Ms McDonald  and ordered a secret 'Peer Review' be undertaken. Should that have happened? Well, not to the extent that I'm exaggerating but certainly, this Minister has 'descended' to the fray, willing to make her opinions known even from a position where she has made no public disagreement with Karam's claim that she knows nothing about the Bain case - apart from the fact obvious to me, that she has treated David Bain despicably, threatened him and denied him basic rights under the Law. Assuming that the Minister does not treat all petitioners with hateful threats about what he might not like  and therefore what he should. not ask to be made public, then clearly she hates David Bain and that can only be by reason that she has lost the ability to be dispassionate and employ reasoning to ensure the 'neutrality' of her role.

The arguments on that point are yet to be argued at Judicial Review. But what there is no argument about is the ad hoc, piece meal approach that a Petitioner or Applicant might find their application or petition greeted with. One certainty will be long delays. Delays which counter the tenet that Justice delayed is Justice denied. Another certainty is that a Minister, as Doug Grahem, did and as Collins has done, might not 'like' the report and intervene in some way. Pushing the train a little further along the tracks there is precedent for Judicial Review of Ministers decisions in Council, opening the way for reviews of unnecessary delay on decisions for Lawyers to consider as an option in the future. I also think the current shift toward having the Courts involved when power has apparently gone to a Minister's head, or when they have not been purposeful to their task, provides another route - 'Produce the Body' or Habeus Corpus, Checking out the Act - there is Law to provide for such a course.

The Purpose of The Act:

Purposes

The purposes of this Act are—

• (a) to reaffirm the historic and constitutional purpose of the writ of habeas corpus as a vital means of safeguarding individual liberty:

• (b) to make better provision for restoring the liberty of persons unlawfully detained by establishing an effective procedure for applications to the High Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, and the expeditious determination of those applications:

• (c) to provide certain unsuccessful parties in habeas corpus proceedings with a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal:

• (d) to abolish writs of habeas corpus other than the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum

 A Judge dealing with an application must enquire into the matters of fact and law claimed to justify the detention and is not confined in that enquiry to the correction of jurisdictional errors; but this subsection does not entitle a Judge to call into question—

• (a) a conviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court Martial of New Zealand established under section 8 of the Court Martial Act 2007, or a disciplinary officer acting under Part 5 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971; or

• (b) a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

Here it is stated that the Court may not call into question the conviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction which in my opinion doesn't exclude a Executive Power. Historically, and Habeus Corpus is a historic article, every man (and woman) must be entitled to access to the Courts, While Prerogative Powers are recognised as a safety net for unsafe convictions and miscarriages of Justice, their purpose can never have been to deny Justice but rather to ensure it - an area where the independence of the Courts is supreme in a just society.

 

11 Interim orders for release from detention

• (1) The High Court may make an interim order for the release from detention of the detained person pending final determination of the application, and may attach any conditions to the order that the court thinks appropriate to the circumstances.

 

Here it is stated that the Court may make an interim order for release from detention pending final determination of the application. The application of course being the writ of Habeus Corpus. Yet  the application could arguably be made because of the tardiness of the process of Executive Power, or  because of acts or omissions in respect of that process of Executive Power. Watson for example waiting 3 years only to find the Minister rejects the application and relies on weaker evidence than that which clearly had been undermined. When the Minister and Ms McDonald hung their hats on the 'hair fibres' to catch their falling case they paid Justice a disservice, and Scott Watson also a disservice in the process. If the Minister was capable of 'interfering' deeply in the Binnie decision on the Bain case she was also capable of the wise and 'stepped back' decision of ordering an independent review of the evidence of the two hair fibres which are seen as so important that they 'catch all' the discrepancies in the Crown case and deliver a vote of confidence in the conviction of Watson. Of course the Minister didn't do that, yet the record shows everything she has done when exercising her Executive Powers has been one sided against the applicants.

 

These are fundamentals that are askew as one Minister of Justice after another fiddles while Rome burns. It is not only Watson, Bain, Pora and others that lose by such mockery, but the entire public and the belief in open and transparent Justice where all parties are held accountable in the only place that ultimately matters - the Courts.

Scott Watson: The Ketch that didn't exist?

 

The following from a correspondent. A photo of the ketch that was in Wellington for many years, and could be the same (I think) as that referred to in the police statement shown on here in an earlier blog of being in the Sounds that Christmas. Cheers to K for sending it along.

 

 

'See what I mean by the closest to similar yacht I have found now in Thailand even has the brass portholes but not in the hull.'

 

 

The Bain case - sudden silence.

Whether political pragmatism will ever step into the Bain case is a difficult question to answer. But if the time were right it is now. In the sudden silence since Joe Karam released a set of pristine prints with clear ridges that didn't show Robin Bain's thumb with cuts or scratches that might have explained, or given an alternative, to the monitored tests on the actual murder weapon undertaken by a number of experts. Tests which left marks of gunshot residue identical to those shown in a photo of Robin's thumb as he still lay dead on the floor in the lounge at Every. Photos which have given many people cause for further reflection on the Bain case.

One example is the silence of the police who had almost indulgently claimed that the marks were those of a 'handyman' who had been working on his house and cut and scratched his hands. Deputy Commissioner Burgess has kept very quiet since the photos of Karam were released because they make the lie of Burgess's comments. Even the most deliberate scheming cannot make marks appear, only to disappear and reappear again. It's farce really that Burgess is caught up in. Rather than delay comment, anticipating that Karam and his team would have the goods to withstand any scrutiny, Burgess entered the fray bereft of research and facts and was dished up proof that his explanation was a lemon a little over a week later.

Though more valid proof to see how the 'mountain of evidence' against David Bain is rendered to myth is from the hate-siters themselves and their assistants such as Sean Plunkett and others such as Martin Van Beynan - they all appear stumped and embarrassed. Theories about guitar strings, creases, cuts and scratches that were excitedly chorused have collapsed as it has dawned on the not so bright hate-siters, in basic English, that marks don't disappear and re-appear again. Even forgetting the police's own photos of the fingerprints they took which show no marks, and which Karam provided to the New Zealand pubic last week, a cautious, and non-hysterical approach would have rested it's decision on the autopsy report. Anyone going past the fact that the 'scratches, marks' were not noted by Dr Dempster the police pathologist was walking into gaga land. This after the fact that the prosecution in a 'excellently' executed own goal had brought 2 'exra' pathologists into give evidence contradicting Dempster's evidence as to a contact wound to Robin's head in what was one of the most fatal moves of the entire prosecution.

The silence goes even deeper, right into the hate-sites to those that decided that they were 'right thinking New Zealanders' and which perhaps accidentally gave them a mind set that it was okay to lie about the evidence, or repeat things they hadn't verified or which they didn't qualify to match facts which might cast doubt upon them. All this because they could 'see' what Privy Councillors couldn't see, what a Jury couldn't see. That this 'entitled' them to stalk other New Zealanders, threaten those that didn't agree with them, try to have people imprisoned, children taken away, destroy their businesses, lose their jobs of course is unexplainable except for the possibly of the view that it was mass 'psychosis' as was witnessed in the Peter Ellis case, and in, possibly the best known example, the Salem Witch Hunts 100s of years ago. People that wanted to watch lynching by 'torch' light and gloat at the harm they caused the 'deserving.'

Of course the Government took little notice of them, refusing to accept their petition, politely batting away their letters offering 'help' and other bizarre requests, 'warnings and advice.' Now with a Government Minister's decisions being taken to court by David Bain for analysis as to whether it breached the Bill of Rights, and other critical public safe guards, there is indeed a time to reflect and consider a pragmatic solution. Assuming that Burgess had been asked to 'speak out' by the Government prematurely on the issue of gsr being on Robin's hands, that assumption, even if correct, has not breached the Government silence held since David's Judicial Review was lodged. Something which leaves room for the Government now to move, allowing first of all a compromise to avoid the Judicial Review and what could possibly see the Minister tied up in years and getting a sound beating judicially. But of more interest to the public generally, a honouring of the Binnie report, and therefore of our Judicial system and the respect afforded the Jury 'system.' There is absolutely nothing to be lost in a 'early' decision or compromise because their is a groundswell of opinion about the GSR, and less widely, a more critical understanding of why David Bain was always innocent. Even in the minds of any of the recalcitrants, willing to exercise logic, the case against Robin is water-tight. Meanwhile, others in power might now be able to exercise respect for the various decisions that started with the Privy Council saying that David Bain had suffered 'an actual miscarriage of Justice.' They could also reflect on the International 'look' our system suffered when Binnie was attacked. Also how his reasoning 'close in and stepped back' has shown to be more absolute in substance than the 2 lines that 'disappeared' along with nearly 2 decades of David Bain's life. Disappeared lines sending the witches back to the 17th Century and bringing our Minister of Justice forward from the times when a fickle and vengeful King ruled the Judiciary and decided on 'fairness and natural justice by fanciful whim.

David Bain, time to look at the bigger picture.

When arguments become tired because of the repeating or reconfiguring, when tempers fray because of personal investment threatening to pay a dividend of being wrong it is probably time to step back, time to put away misconceptions, things misunderstood, personal likes and dislikes, theories, evidence which no longer holds water or which has been rendered irrelevant or of little consequence - lets give it a try with the Bain case, put forward what was 'known' and what it might have turned out to be that gave many the conviction that David Bain was guilty and his father an innocent victim.

I'll try to keep it in chronological order so preferred by the professionals and list the original myths that pointed to David and which cleared Robin. If you bother to read on forgive me my layman's pedigree, fractured in places memory and basic approach.

Paper boy uses paper round as alibi. This was a biggie, fostered by police and consumed by some of the press. Personally, I had to think about this one for only a short time before I was able to discount it. It is impossible to imagine that a determined killer trying to get away with a crime would interrupt his killing spree to do a paper round. The obvious reason because of the apparent risk factor, all that was needed was Robin to come into the house, find the bodies and the game was up - the police would be at the house before David got home. Then when considering that the police searched for witnesses who could say that their papers were delivered early, or that David made a point of being seen, didn't make sense either. The 'early' bit was soon quashed because those that claimed their paper was delivered early were unable to distinguish the time it was delivered at normally, and therefore were unable to say it was late, early or on time. The next part was too simple to be true, David would not have needed to be seen delivering the papers, because the proof of their delivery was when customers took them from their letter boxes, to believe otherwise was to assume a 'mystery' person had delivered the papers and David needed to be seen to show that it was really he delivering them that morning - logic failure there and on the whole 'concept' of an alibi.

The hands of the 2 suspects David and Robin. Having spent part of my life brawling and being otherwise engaged in the 'dark arts' of street fighting I know a little about broken bones in the hands and wrists, severed ligaments, knuckles misshaped and so on. Accordingly, in the early days of the Bain 'debates' on Trade Me it seemed common sense to me that the hands of the 2 men were important, I also knew that police would look for that as a matter of routine - in much the same way the crime shows on TV look for gunshot residue and so on. The hands tell a story. When I posed the question on TM, the sisters said Robin's hands were clean, no blood, no damage whilst also claiming that David was 'covered in blood.' At the time, Lee Hinkleman the weatherman and fly fisherman, was around as more or less a 'one man band' against the mad hatters. He told a different story, quoting from evidence which showed Robin's hands were damaged, had blood on them while conversely David's hand had neither blood or injury. First lesson for me, don't trust the sisters because they lie. It was at the re-trial that it emerged photos found by pathologist Dempster in preparation for the re-trial showed that the first Jury had not been aware of the blood smears on Robin's palms - smears which in itself show guilt, a guilt strengthened by 'bruised and battered hands' as I later called them to 'cheer up' the sisters. The 'covered in blood' would result in actually being an aged 'spot' of blood not contemporaneous with the murders, and a 'smear' that could have resulted from brushing against a door jamb in the Every Street house that morning following the horror of discovering his family dead.

The computer turn on time. This was another biggie, almost able to get the 'girls' widdling in their knickers, it meant that David had turned on the computer and compiled the suicide note. Well no it didn't. The Crown conceded at the retrial that the computer may have been turned on before David got home from the 'alibi' round. Additionally, it was revealed that Robin was the frequent user of the computer and the text 'copied' from the computer by police was wrong in tense compared to the notes taken by Dempster.

Why didn't Robin removed the silencer when killing himself because it would have been 'easier' for him. The short answer is he didn't need to remove the silencer, he was well able to reach the trigger. Independent proof of him killing himself in that manner is blood going in two directions onm his trousers above and below his knee, entirely consistent with he having raised a leg on the chair in the manner shown to the Jury. Not only consistent with the knee being raised but the 'uninterrupted' spatter that spread from Robin's wound which had no 'shielding' where a gunman would have needed to have stood to execute an upward trajectory shot on Robin who by some 'miracle' would have been fully co-operating in his own death by leaning his head on the rifle, waiting while it was reloaded after a mis feed, and other factors now known to the wider public. But the 'easier' part is kind of humorous in  a 'black' way. It suggests that Robin was calm and ordered and concerned with what was easiest for him when killing himself.

Robin's DNA inside the rifle. This was a well kept 'secret' particularly by the foremost 'expert' on the case Van Beynan. He appears not to have wanted the public to know that Robin's dna was found deep inside the rifle because it meant a 'close contact' shot killed Robin. But it was discovered by the public (being in working notes of one of the investigating specialists)  and any 'hopeful' evidence that it might have belonged to somebody else was dismissed at the re-trial by the evidence that the lead of a bullet is 'oversized' to make a 'snug' fit in the rifle barrel in order not to have gas and therefore energy escape around it during the firing. In short the barrel is 'cleaned' of any dna on each firing, so the last shot left Robin's dna in the rifle, proof again of his suicide.

David's blood on the laundry towel. Actually no. Robin's blood on the laundry towel it was discovered many years after the assumption that it had was David's, tests proved it was Robins. So Robin had been bleeding that morning before he died, he had injuries to his hands and blood on his palms, he was a passive entrant into his own death and had 'helped' out further by writing a suicide note - too easy to follow?

David had injuries consistent with being in a fight with his younger brother Stephen. No again. The injuries to David's head were not noted by the medic staff first attending him or by the police officer assigned to stay with him. They only became apparent after David fainted, falling between his bed and the wall. Similarly, the 'scratches' on David's chest were not noted when David was fully strip searched by the Police Doctor Pryde. As the sisters need conspiracies to believe in, then that is one for them, that Dr Pryde hid the evidence of  scratches to help David out and 'wreck' the Crown case.

Much of what is discussed above had previously been included in the 'mountain of evidence' against David which now has the similarity to a deep trench. All this before David Giles arrives on the scene.

Before looking again at what David Giles discovered, it should be noted that David Bain is clearly innocent because of the 'collapse' of the 'mountain' of evidence against him, replaced by an actual 'mountain' of evidence against Robin shown in part above. The 'Giles' evidence is not new evidence at all, more newly discovered in a manner that is probably of some embarrassment to others involved in the Bain case, but which is however most welcome because it supports and strengthens the case against the real killer Robin Bain. GSR, or most likely gsr was discovered shown in a police photo, replicated recently in tests using the actual murder weapon and something which one might naively assume would be welcomed by all sides. It is probably disappointing for many New Zealanders following the case to see the police, as in the Thomas case and others, holding on to a false 'conviction' at all costs. If there is any good to come of it the beginnings are already begun to be seen; the Minister of Justice taken to Court for denying David Bain due process  and natural Justice in his application for Judicial Review.

'Stepping back' as I indicated in para 1 has become important now. Stepping back shows a mountain to have 'disappeared.' Stepping back has also shown a clear and vivid trail of forensic proof which individually and in total shows Robin as the killer of his family and himself. Emphasis shifts from a lack of evidence against David to a 'mountain' against Robin, clear and present proof against him. It is now The Crown asking for 'reasonable doubt' to be exercised on the evidence against 'their' man. The 'system' has effectively reversed, the accuser (the titular head anyway) is now in the box and seen to be 'defending' the man to whom all (well, a significant and insurmountable amount) forensic evidence is accumulated against and, as said above, for whom the 'plea' has become reasonable doubt. David Bain sits in the front row, watching the almost 'dramatic' circle that has seen him accused, imprisoned, freed and found not guilty only to be plotted against by the 'titular' head representing those that falsely accused and imprisoned him.

Scott Watson and being Judith.

These are unprecedented times in the New Zealand Justice system. Right when there are steady falls in the crime rate with crimes of violence falling, when police are resourced enough to be investigating burglaries and other crime while at the same time promoting a  'rescue and save' mission on South Auckland youth that the country will reap the long term benefits from for years to come, we have the struggling Minister of Justice Judith Collins, locked in a time warp.

Being Judith can't be an easy job. Yet being Judith and at the same time the Minister of Justice appears to be an impossibility. The whole country knows that there are several high profile convictions that are flawed and won't go away. I suggest they represent not a series of individual problems but a accumulation of problems into one mass and how the country is dealing with them is left in the hands of a myopic practitioner whose political aspirations cloud her every move.

The subject of the ability of the current Minister of Justice being able to deal with even a single case from the number of examples of current Miscarriages of Justice is exhaustive, not least because the Minister has made it so. However, a place to start is to look at whether this Minister has the tools and intellect to manoeuvre the issues safely forward in a robust, and fair way, capable of satisfying the majority of New Zealanders. We have two glaring examples that indicate she can't, that she has floundered at the first hurdle.

That hurdle would have to be the Bain case in which she has invested deeply in denying Justice and Due Process to David Bain. A denial to the extent she has been exposed as manipulating behind the scenes against David Bain and the international jurist Ian Binnie. She has effectively been 'taken' to Court for operating an 'independent' 'parallel' version of Executive Power taken from the middle ages, as though she has the independent 'powers' of ruler pre the signing of the Magna Carta. That's a lot on this Minister's plate without a single thought, it appears, by either the Minister herself (for she in the first instance is the most responsible) or her caucus colleagues, that at least while the inquiry into her conduct is resolved in the Auckland High Court that she should not be continuing to administer the role which extends to other cases also, as yet, unresolved.

One of those cases is that of Scott Watson and whom the Minister 'dismissed' an application for exercise of the 'Royal Prerogative of Mercy' (how grand that all sounds if you're not Scott or the 1000s of New Zealanders concerned about the case.) The application was 'reviewed' by an old Government favourite, Ms McDonald, who it appears is a favoured 'gun for hire' to such an extent her involvement in the review had been greeted with cynicism even before the lengthy exercise was completed and her hefty cheque banked to the satisfaction of this Minister.

This, added to the revelations of the plot against Justice Binnie, many would think make a mockery of the title of the word Justice. No less so because of who the Minister has counted among those in her 'inner court,' her 'confidantes,' 'advisors' and those tasked to spread propaganda and stitch together 'legal' arguments for the already bewildered. We see among their number the highly paid and 'reliable to the cause Ms McDonald,' 2 'fallen' ex Judges, a reporter with a history of persecuting the wrongly convicted and a blubbery want to be 'go to hard man' and his sobbing counterpart who make up just two of his personalities. The Court of an informed and liberal thinking progressive Minister? or simply tried and 'true' deadbeats?

An invigorated Minister new to the job may have well accepted the challenge of 'aged' cases of injustice with an enthusiasm to package a novel, expedient and fiscally responsible reply to the task before her. But here we have a Minister stuck for ideas apart from bludgeoning and bullying while paying out her hired help to paint over the cracks and fool some of the people, some of the time.

The very same Judith who told the public that their children couldn't be fully protected from on line bullying, and encouragement to self-harm or suicide, until she implemented a new law, which she described as 'world leading.' Yes, indeed, but not as world leading as The Harassment Act already enshrined in legislation. Being Judith must be very difficult some days.

Martin 'Probably' Van Beynan

It's been a 'big' week for the hate-siters one in which it appears they felt sure they would bounce back from the 'shocking news' for them that David Giles had demonstrated on TV3's 3 Degree show the high probability that David Bain is innocent and that his father, the late Robin, had not only killed David's mother and his three siblings but suicided in a 'classic' way in the lounge of the family home in Every Street Dunedin.

The hate-siters or the 'twisted sisters' as I sometime call them fought back earlier in the week when one of their administrators Melanie White complained that the 3 Degrees programme had been biased. Interestingly, the 3 Degrees show followed experiments on the murder weapon under observation of the police, scientists and various experts, in as much that observation was recorded it is hard for me to understand why something 'observed' requires to be balanced and how that balancing act could take place anyway. As some may have seen, 3 Degrees, invited long time 'expert' Martin Van Beynan onto the show last night no doubt to allow Martin to provide some 'balance.'

In as much as no other individual in New Zealand has contributed so much to the controversy surrounding the Bain case this was expected to be high, real life, drama. MVB has crowned himself an expert on the case and in the last week many commentators critical of David Bain have been quite flustered by the 'discovery' of David Giles that had been overlooked by police, experts and the public alike, creating an air of doubt and unease for those so use to rubbishing anything they could about David's acquittal, his compensation claim, and often referring to the 'expert' reports of MVB. Reading the Counterspin site before the show one commentator 'Charles' was glowing in his praise of the expertise and knowledge of MVB and predicting that the outcome would be positive for the battered campaign of the hate-siters.

Rather than seeimg a coherent and thoughtful speaker, MVB came across as unsure of himself, even confused. He wasn't able to get into stride, he may have realised too late that all his arguments which had been dismissed by a Jury, and by Justice Binnie, in his review of the evidence, had long ago lost their impact for many people, and those with a dispassionate view were most likely expecting a reasoned argument regarding the 'Giles find.' It never came, so weak was the MVB response that it culminated with a claim that police would 'probably' come up with something to explain what the expert MVB could not. I got the impression that live MVB was out of his depth, not only regarding his lack of knowledge of the Bain case but without his 'supporting cast' in the media - the hate-siters who would quote his misinformation about 'mountains of evidence' accepting a one sided biased observation about the evidence gleefully.

Martin claimed to have 30 points, which became 20 and finally he decided on 5 which would deflate the possible gsr evidence, yet they were all rejected or explained evidence that he merely parroted in a mantra type way, not directly or even remotely touching upon the key finding of Giles. I think most people would appreciate a school yard style argument where one boy, having not been able to match the other, brings up something else miles from the point of the argument - MVB demonstrated that last night almost to the point that revealed him as a fraud. I expect a 'investigative journalist,' if he didn't have something critical to add, would not skip to well-worn peripherals. In fact I'm sure a bona fide journalist would do that because he or she would not have invested in being right, would instead be interested in the outcome and open minded. That's what journalism is about it seems to me, discovery, not fear of being wrong, perhaps most of all it's about the New Zealand quality of appreciating fairness and not being bitter, disturbed or put off stride to discover that a wrong route had been taken.

But MVB is not a fair man, if was he would not still be repeating mantras which have been disproved. He would have long ago reported the critical factor of Robin's dna being found deep inside the rifle - the result of an upward contact shot. He would have accepted that blood smears on Robin's palms pointed firmly to his guilt and that the characteristics of his suicide, contact upward shot and  put the statistical support for suicide in the above 90% region. This before the most basic approach of comparing the hands of the two 'suspects' - Robin's being bloody and bruised and David's clean and uninjured. He would not have searched for ridiculous arguments of Robin having injured his hands fixing guttering, injuries, in the case of the gsr 'burns' which showed in a photo but which were gone by the time of autopsy. 'Burns' with an alignment to the magazine width.

However right from the start, like he did last night, and which his followers from the hate-sites repeat, he would answer one piece of evidence pointing to Robin by parroting other evidence that he believed pointed to David. As I've written above, school yard stuff not effective and searching journalism, rather complete, biased, nonsense. All reasons why I believe MVB gave such a stuttering performance, he knows he has been found out and it makes him feel sick. He realises his 'investment' has been pure persecution swallowed up by nutters who can't and don't want to think for themselves.

For those that saw or heard the evidence of Dr Dempster, the Crown Pathologist, at the Bain trials, compare Dempster's response to the possibility of other explanations for evidence - completely neutral and unthreatened by it. Dempster did not burst out with the claim that he was the 'expert' and therefore he was not to be questioned on his commitment is to his science and the truth of it. MVB 'double faulted', he couldn't appreciate that many were critically interested in the 'Gile' evidence and would not be swayed by talk about 'pristine' fingerprints, full bladders and gurgling. He finally revealed himself as having missed the bus and having had mislead the NZ public, now the only question that remains is why?