The Dunedin Police - how to not solve a murder.

With all the evidence available to the Dunedin Police when Robin Bain was found in a highly probable suicide situation, rifle nearby, upward shot to the head, they found it easier to lay the blame elsewhere. Not only for his own death but for that of his wife and three of his children. Some 'easier' time would prove it to be.

Those police were not going to be duped by obvious evidence, they were going to search deeply into evidence which made no sense and use that. Just because Robin Bain had bruised and bloody hands,  with blood smears on the palms, a nose bleed and his blood vacuumed into the rifle from a close contact shot, allegations of incest made against him, observations of a deterioration in his mental health, the fact he was 'closed' out by his own family and living 2 nights a week in caravan outside his home and the other 5 some distance away at his school where he just happened to also live in caravan which by no means would be unusual for a school headmaster on the rocks, just because it was plainly obvious that he had killed himself, his wife and 3 of his children it was 'obvious' he couldn't be guilty.

Except that's not what a Jury decided. The only reason a Jury decided that Robin didn't kill his family, in fact overlooked the forensic proof against him was because of a Lawyer. These days if the police try to frame somebody and it doesn't work it's a Lawyer's fault. If you've not been able to make similar observations I suggest you consider the 'power' now being attributed to Michael Reed QC defender of Robin's son David, a Lawyer with experience primarily in civil cases but somehow able to 'mersmerise' a Jury with common sense rather than fantasy. Now it is Reed that is to 'blame' for Robin being guilty of killing his family. Primarily because he bewitched the Jury with uncomfortable facts that police ignored and expected a fully informed Jury to also ignore.

Well it must be very difficult to ignore such simple things as comparing two men's hands to determine which of the two had likely been involved in the killing. That comparison obviously influenced the Jury, Robin's hands battered and bruised with blood smears on his palms indicating he'd been in contact with blood before his death. David on the other hand had no cuts, bruises or blood to his hands, so unlike his father was not a candidate as to having been involved in the tragic fight his younger brother Stephen fought in a vain attempt to save himself. Of course such evidence is no magician's trick, not skilful oration stitching together some illusion but hard, bitter evidence as to who was the killer.

Equally, when Kent Parker and the now 'run away' Victor Purkiss chortled with glee that they were going to easily defend Joe Karam's defamation suit against them on the basis of truth and honest opinion, citing having taken advice from a 'defamation expert' it wasn't some magic trick that saw those 'defences' dissolved into inanity - it was Parker himself agreeing that his opinions in defaming Karam were not based on truth, nor indeed could 'honest opinion' be based on absurdity. Absurdity such as the Crown case against David Bain.  Immediately Parker's followers said that he was being victimised by a 'powerful' Lawyer Reed. Of course that overlooks the fact that Parker had been assisted by what Reed termed as 'academic' Lawyer Price from Wellington. Moreover it overlooks that Parker has claimed to be a professional person with a professional education along with political aspirations - in other words no naïve babe in the woods.

So where does it start? In the lounge at Every Street of course where a man lay dead with a rifle nearby, a bullet risen into his brain from close contact that left gsr and soot around the entry wound to his forehead, a man whose hands told the story of his own death and that of his family. That's where it started, only to later divert into absurdity when the officer in charge of the case, now retired Detective Inspector Peter Robinson, overlooked years of police experience and ignored the hands of the dead Robin Bain to the point of not even sampling and testing the blood on his hands, or the 'fresh' blood on a towel in the laundry that years later proved to be Robin's. The same man of course who never questioned 'mystery' evidence showing up 'after hours.' The very same person said to be involved with prostitutes in a city brothel and under whose watch Laniet Bain's electronic diary of clients disappeared.

Is any of that the work of a mesmerising Lawyer? No, none of it at all. Just as a fingerprint 'expert' lying to a Jury to help them 'understand' is also not the work of a Lawyer defending a man for his stolen freedom. It wasn't Reed that came up with the laughable assertion that David Bain interrupted 'his' murdering spree to do a paper round. A paper round during which he 'ensured' that he was seen as to prove an 'alibi.' In fact it was some lunatic in the police that thought that one up and considered the Courts and the New Zealand public so stupid that they would not connect the fact that 'needing' to be seen was incongruous when measured against the physical proof of papers in letter boxes that morning 'proving' their delivery. So who was mesmerising who, who indeed.

Kent Parker and the hate-sites devastatingly beaten.

Four years in the making and Kent Parker was beaten before his trial for defamation even began. Oddly enough Victor Purkiss never showed, nor did 30 odd witnesses also earlier scheduled to appear. Kent blamed that on money, proving  that even at the end he was lying. A great swathe of his 'witnesses' were declared to have irrelevant testimony of no value to the now failed defence of Kent.

Kent was batting a double defence of truth and honest opinion. I had this debate with he and other of the sisters on line years ago. Their arguments were flawed then and by the third day of the Trial the Judge had ruled that Parker had no defence of truth. That needs to be put in context Parker and his group's attack on Karam had no basis in truth. That is a devastating indictment against the now defunct site 'Counterspin' and the facebook site 'Justice for Robin Bain.' They were founded on lies with the purpose to lie. These groups lied and continued to lie. It has only been in the last month or so that Trade Me have finally recognised that people like 'jeeves', Ralph Taylor and 'cookingwithgas,' Catherine Kennedy have defamed Karam and Bain for years on the TM boards by continuing to lie about 'facts' of the case. Trade Me had for some time difficulty following the 're-defined' subtleties as Kennedy and Taylor found new ways to defame - largely with the assistance of Trade Me failing to recognise the pattern of the defamation, it's changing style and its fuller context. Trade Me would simply remove posts and these two and others would 'rephrase' their attack. No excuse for that by  Trade Me and they may yet have a sleeping giant of a case brought against them.

Of course the 'larger' framework was the two hate-sites, and their members, who deliberately published false information in order that others would believe David was guilty,  was that Karam knew of that guilt and so on. The frustration is that the msm have taken so long to appreciate the 'work' of Parker and the others, despite the fact that it was glaringly obvious. During some of my first experiences with the 'sisters' I quickly discovered their modus operand. When I asked an obvious question - the condition of the deceased Robin's hands. The answer was no blood, no injuries but that David was 'covered' in blood. Absolute lies as I was soon to discover. I was also to discover the currency these claims had with people who simply accepted they were true without satisfying themselves of the facts. Quickly, it would be added that David had scratches to his chest consistent with being in a fight with Stephen, but by the time of the re-trial in 2009 it was clear David had no injuries to his chest when strip searched by the police doctor only hours after the murders/suicide. Even the strip search would be lied about and continued to be lied about in particular by one disgusting person from Palmerston North. A 'man' who among various other lies claimed that he was going to support Parker and Purkiss financially - so much for that with the news from Kent himself, no money.

Despite promises of funds from people such as Kennedy and Deb Coates, none of sufficient amounts arrived. While at the very same time the public defamation, asides and subtleties of hate continued. Kent however wasn't taken advantage of, he too kept up the diatribe right until the trial. Last Friday he confessed one evident fact: his campaign wasn't built on truth, soon he would also relinquish honest opinion. Some irony in that, I've read 100s of posts where the 'sisters' carefully say 'in my opinion' as though that protects them from being liable for defamation. I doubt that Kent gets that even now.

Yet what a devastated figure he is now that it is recorded that he wasn't supporting Robin Bain but attacking Karam and David with deliberate lies. Moreover, that everything he did was based on lies and lies is neither truth nor 'opinion.' Same goes for Cameron, Curran and others - in fact for all of those now crept off to the shadows, including the sicko school teacher Williams. Others will have noted that the Courts view arguing 'truth' is an aggravating feature of defamation, clearly because it shows an unwillingness to be truthful and is simply a matter of an excuse if the truth can't be proved as is the case in Karam v Parker and Purkiss.

Consider for a moment the way that Kent has been abandoned by those that promised him help. It's hard to like Kent for any reason, but the now shadowy figures such as Bill Rodie and others are the possessors of a bigger evil because they not only breath hate but retire from and abandon their own kind.

There are many issues left unresolved, not only the obvious efforts of Purkiss to 'run' but also of that Parker preparing the way already to declaring himself as unable to pay. I'm particularly interested in Van Beynan, somebody 'set up' by Fairfax and himself as the New Zealand media expert on the Bain case with the 'famous' phrase of 'sitting through nearly every minute of the retrial.' Does Van Beynan live in some kind of vacuum? Why did he never report the strip search of David Bain despite the controversy that surrounded it and how it was used literally 100s if thousands of time to present David as killer and Joe therefore of 'knowing' that David was guilty. Why didn't he step forward and 'clear' the matter up, he was after all a leading 'expert.' Why wasn't it important to him to make the truth known. After all it was he that sat at the top, he whose articles and facts were quoted. Whoops and he that 'stalked' jurors and travelled in a conference in Perth to ask a question of David in front of the world media that had no basis in truth. At least twice Fairfax have defended the reporting and 'opinions' of Van Beynan to the NZ Press Council. An opinion, much like that of Parkers, not built on truth.

It could yet be that Van Beynan is challenged on both his opinion and honesty because the inevitable conclusion of Parker's trial is also the inevitable conclusion of reading and believing that Van Beynan was, is, the foremost media authority on the Bain case - the man who 'sat through almost every minute of the trial.' I can clearly see that Van Beynan's writing on the Bain case, his obvious knowledge of how that writing was used by Parker and so in a way that he must have known bore no resemblance to the truth, was therefore a campaign against both Karam and David. He's caused a lot of harm, the hate-siters have quoted him for years in what has accumulated in Parker's defence of 'truth' and 'honest opinion' being rejected in the High Court. Van Beynan had the opportunity to put things wrong but instead chose to say that paying David compensation would be a travesty.

More of interest to come on Parker and at least one of the men taken to the shadows since the truth has become known. Will there be one pro-active and positive move by the sisters, or just sullen silence as they continue to creep away holding their purses.

Teina Pora, an imperfect man caught in an imperfect system.

One thing for certain about Teina Pora is that he knows how to talk himself into trouble. It was his attempts to frame somebody else for the murder of Susan Burdett to claim the reward that saw him being framed for her murder. I used the word imperfect for both the man and the 'system.' The officer in charge of the Burdett inquiry knew that he had an imperfect and pliable youth on his hands when he began to 'assist' Pora to confess to a crime that there is plenty of evidence he didn't commit. One of the former detectives on the Pora case now advocating for Pora's freedom recognised the imperfection and said that rather than being charged with murder Pora should have been charged with wasting police time. How could two men have such opposing views? The answer is easy, one man saw the imperfection, naivety and cunning of a 17 year old with the intellect of a young child as a pliable tool to 'solve' a murder that had been on 'the books' for some time, the other man was a thinker who worked toward the truth and not toward relieving pressure.

20 years of prison later and who is Pora? Well, no doubt there is a public expectation for some that he is 'matured,' of reasonable intelligence, someone willing to work and so on. But how can it be that a person of impaired intellect, street 'cunning' and poorly educated is somehow 'improved' by 20 years prison for a crime he didn't commit. It's hard, very hard to imagine how a 'street kid,' probably once a solvent sniffer with no education should some how be improved on the mere basis that it generally recognised that he is in prison for another man's crime. Thinking about that is important. Pora is on struggle street, just as Dougherty was before him because they have a background of neglect and crime - they are not somehow 'remedied' into good citizens just because the system finally acknowledges that they're are or were falsely imprisoned - their problems remain, in fact are deepened. These aren't good luck stories with a nice ending, they're bad luck stories with uncertain endings because the product (the men) have not suddenly been made good, rather they've been let out of a cell for a crime they didn't commit but which cell they may have entered for other reasons. These men are not the David Bain, Arthur Thomas or Allan Halls of this world, they're are refugees from a troubled life.

Looking at that imperfection of human kind brings into focus the imperfection of the 'system.' People like Pora don't generally get let go unless they acknowledge their crimes - even though they may have not committed the crime for which they are imprisoned. Follow this, 'even though you didn't do it, you must say you did or we won't let you go.' A type of 'doctrine' that is hardly of assistance in helping Pora, for instance, in developing a sense of what is right and what is wrong when viewing the system that has stolen 20 years from him. Get a little closer on that. The system demands a lie to let an innocent man go, whilst at the same time demanding the 'truth' as the Parole Board did in questioning Pora about a recent home leave. On the one hand they expect a lie, on the other the truth. Hard to keep up with, imagine then the difficulty for someone with the intellect of a pre-teenager.

Pora apparently had his parole denied for using the services of a prostitute whilst on home leave, and for meeting or spending time with an ex prisoner. When questioned about both he apparently wasn't 'truthful.' Well, not of  the expected standard. That is lying by admitting a crime he didn't commit, but being truthful for spending some time with an ex prisoner. How terrible, after all he's only spent the last 20 years every day with prisoners. The following is from the Board in respect of them denying Pora parole.

'This information was not given to the board by Mr Pora until he faced extreme questioning," the board said.
"Significantly, we find as a fact that he endeavoured to hide, deflect or evade explaining how and why he breached his conditions, and only revealed this as a consequence of careful questioning from the panel."

I written a blog earlier about Pora being in prison for 20 years for being a liar - the same reason it appears as to why he can't get out.

Greg King - some of the things he taught us.

One of them was to look deeper. He was an engaging showman in some respects, he could entertain, held humour and sharp insight in a most polite way. If kiwi speech is the key to opening doors his revelation that he was 'canvas kisser' during his amateur boxing career invited him into a nations heart. Self-depreciating, while holding a royal flush at the card table. That winning poker hand was a razor sharp intellect, a masquerade of drifting from character to character, reading the subtleties of life as though from a written page in order to chart a passage into a new world.

It seems to me that Greg King was an adventurer, looking forward so as to see how things might be made better, how understanding could prevail and open doors. Like all adventurers he was perhaps looking for himself, who he was and where he was going. Greg King was among the best lawyers in New Zealand, of anytime it seems to be in broad opinion. I think the Law excited and frustrated Greg by turn. His was the ultimate challenge, a duel of the intellect to oppose the resources of the Crown and give his clients what the Law decrees they must have - a fair trial. It's been noted elsewhere, even in recent days how many New Zealanders confuse the role of defence Lawyers, in fact have an almost middle ages view that there is no difference between an accused and his or her advocate. That in fact if the advocate was any good, or moral, they wouldn't be defending criminals - taken to its natural conclusion no one accused of a crime would be innocent and no trials would be needed.

I think that is the reason, or at least part of it, why Greg reached out to the victims of Crime to help break down the type of thinking where some of the public 'hate' the lawyer that got someone 'off' that the hater 'knew' was guilty, and therefore the Lawyer must have known was guilty as well. Fairly tough task for a compassionate man to have to deal with. A man apparently always able to appreciate the human nature in the most reviled of people and unafraid to reveal so in order to also foster wider understanding.Taken from another view, Greg King, doing 'his job' against all criticism was a very strong person. He showed that strength by doing his best for clients and by not becoming bitter or nasty toward the 'magical' few in society who some how 'know' how events took place without being there. Difficult task.

By now we at least see another of the sides of Greg's character, his complexity and by turn simple view toward others. He was a benevolent man toward others, despite what inner feelings he might have had. It could be said he 'hid' some of feelings behind the complexity of characters he played and was to various people. Greg was dying of cancer, either in the shorter or longer term despite having the life he undoubtedly loved, along with a family he loved. For all that has been written or spoken about in recent days in respect of what has been revealed of Greg's suicide note, it has focused on his revelations that the was 'haunted' by the dead. Very easy to forget, when considering that claim, that Greg was depressed - yet hard for me to consider the comments as super imposing themselves over a man realising he was perhaps at death's door and soon to depart from his family, a family he may have been unable to bear the thought that they would see him suffer as they suffered too.

In those feelings Greg King would not have stood apart from few other New Zealanders, realising toward the end that things loved or cherished were family and kindness above all else. He may have been a great Lawyer, a defender of the apparently indefensible, someone willing and able to take on cases where he considered a person truly innocent and the victim, or potential victim of an injustice - but he was as he admitted, a 'canvas kisser.' I don't recall having heard the self-depreciating term before Greg used it, that despite all it's potential humorous nuances belied a fighter of great strength. A man it seems who, faced with his own personal and final battle, was unable to bear the thought of what would be his greatest loss, that of his wife, daughter and wider family.

Kent Parker - it did get crazier.

I got the answer to my question yesterday about whether things with Parker could get any crazier, because they sure did today. If I have the framework correct Kent Parker swore or affirmed an affidavit, which is the same as giving evidence under oath, in which he admitted today that he lied. The legal term for that is perjury, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. The chances are that someone may lay a complaint with police, or indeed the Judge may order that it be brought to their attention that Parker has admitted perjury.

Many people have known for years that Parkers whole campaign has been built on lies but to learn that he acknowledged it in the Auckland High Court is 'out there' by any definition. He also apologised. It seems that Parker was always going to fold but what is inexplicable is the fact that he didn't do so years ago when the cost to him would have been less. Now even his freedom is at question. It's difficult to imagine how he must feel, no doubt sorry for himself, but it is bewildering to consider how he possibly sees the evaporation of his own hate campaign pass in the dock at the High Court. The man obviously has a martyr's type complex, but one he generated from his own ambition without the apparent ability to see that an argument cannot survive on foundation of lies. It is almost as if he pushed the envelope as much as possible knowing full well he was headed for disaster. I've often written of my belief that he has unfortunate psychiatric history and today seems to underline that.

That is not to forget that he attracted, or was attracted to like minded gullible people who bonded for a 'noble' cause, a cause that they have effectively destroyed. They have added to the ignominy of the memory of Robin Bain, not only as killer of his family, but as someone capable in death of becoming the figure head of a cult. Consider how many of Kent's 'good people' are disturbed that Robin couldn't defend himself of the charges, when in fact he made the decision not to defend the charges but kill himself instead, along with the allegations of incest from his daughters. Robin wanted out. Parker and co wanted his 'salvation' even though by their efforts Parker's 'crew' have forever underlined that which Robin wanted hidden.

I've been told that Parker has taken his 'site' off line, this on the same day he apologised and agreed that he was a liar and perjurer. So what now? I'm unsure but no doubt there is 'exposure' on the way for a number of people. Parker has handed over the 'secrets,' he has coughed and the prize of what went on behind the scenes is now in Karam's hands and from there a new journey, I suspect begins.

Kent Parker - can it get any crazier?

I know a number of people have looked forward to today with some anticipation of finally seeing Kent and Vic Purkiss's defamation trial start. It was long ago predicted that the trial would not become a venue for Kent's ego and wacky ideas. In fact much of his intended defence was struck out earlier, some of the dimwits he intended to call weren't considered either credible or material to a defence against defamation. I've suggested in the past that maybe Kent or Vic would do a runner, and it appears that Vic Purkiss has indeed 'hit the toe.'

I have mixed feelings about that because of reports that his wife is poorly. Taking into account many of those that objected, or do object, to Counterspin and JFRB is because of attacks on family members or threats of attacks against the children and families of those that oppose the hate-campaigners - I feel with certainty that there is no pleasure felt for the difficulties Parker and co have caused their own families because that would make those that oppose them no different than them. An importance difference between the sides has always been to observe the truth knowing how dangerous, and what harm lies can cause. When Auckland school teacher Christine Williams threatened to send Mongrel Mob members to my house, or to 'rescue' my children and wife to the chortles and glee of other hate-siters there was no response in kind. No debasing a protest that it wasn't right to 'stalk' and threaten others to prove who was right and who was wrong. When Williams and others laid false complaints raised from their imaginations with police, and anyone else who would listen, it was important not to be drawn down to that level. To have done so would not honour an interest in Justice, in fact it would dishonour it in the same way the hate-siters have done.

Another reason I have mixed feelings is because of how unworthy an opponent Parker and co have shown themselves to be - something which has been indicated throughout by their lies. If somebody is right, why do they need to lie? Detective Jones showed that during the retrial where he admitted to lying in order to help the Jury understand the truth. How apt those words were for the description of what Parker, Williams and others have done. Here now is the reason not to have responded in kind because the very argument used to persecute David Bain has been a lie, and to respond with lies would have been the same as using the logic of Jones. The same also as Martin Van Beynan stalking jurors and demanding information from them, writing about the trial but leaving out key evidence that would have exposed that he too was on a campaign. Elsewhere in this blog are shown links between the hate-sites, their members and Van Beynan. Make no mistake the machinations of the hate-sites was wide spread, used as they often were by those that 'fed' them lies to compliment their own

By now it will have been decided if a summary Judgement has been entered against Vic Purkiss and no doubt tomorrow or soon after the Judge will find against Parker. It seems, predictably that Parker was cautioned many times today not use his opportunity to cross examine in order to make statements - read speeches. So a prediction of mine that he may well be placed in Contempt of Court may still happen. Michael Reed expressed in his opening what has long been obvious: that there was no campaign for 'Justice' for Robin Bain but that it was a vehicle to express hatred against Karam, Bain or anyone that might not agree with that expression of hatred.

I started off this blog by asking the question as to whether or not Parker can get any crazier. Of course he can because we have already seen a lunatic leading a bunch of other nuts on a hate-campaign, culminating in a High Court Trial where a defendant(s) is given the attention so desperately craved. One who sits looking a paperwork with interest as though the written word and truth were the currency of his endeavour, rather than spite and evil.

Tough week for the 'hang bainers.'

Started out promising enough with police 'rejecting' the suggested evidence from David Giles that there was the probability of the gunshot residue showing on the thumb of Robin Bain in a crime scene photo. The rejoicing became somewhat muted when the nutjobs read the released reports instead of just salivating over the 'headlines'. There it was revealed that the ESIR scientist was unable to rule out that it was gsr and the police confirmed lines that were visible (but said not to exist by many of the gabbling sisters) were possibly from aged injuries. Of course the police didn't have the support of their own pathologist who had earlier said there were no marks present on the thumb in the morgue. So more on that to come.

It was with some excitement that a recycled 'mama' with a thing about donkeys was a candidate for mayor, as she, it, her, had done many times before only to discover that her previous rejection by her own town wasn't a transient situation but permanent. Now there may be questions for that same person as to whether a stalker and member of a hate-site is a fit and proper person to be at the Bar. The sisters were being rejected all round while one of their number again publicised a paedophile bent on line, only to snivel off and complain when the natural accusations were levelled against him or her, that attempting to excuse acts of paedophilia are actually supporting such acts. The dirty side to the sisters revealed once again., not one of them taking umbrage that the dirty old coot should express his 'benign' acceptance of acts that don't warrant mentioning here.

As these ducks of failure line up, hovering above has been the spectre of the ultimate betrayal of one another that is the 'sisterhood' - the defamation trial of Parker and Purkiss which begins today. For the man who considered he would start a political party on the strength of the number of members of his hate-sites his support has largely gone. He's been left to it, used and abused by those that now slink back into the shadows, some of whom have changed not only their cyber identities but their real identities, one such person being Annette Curran who introduced 'stalking' as a tool for the twisted sisters.

Today has been put aside for Legal argument and pre-trial matters. With large swathes excised by the Courts from their original defence Kent and Vic will have even less by the end of the day. While due process must be observed at all costs it sees inevitable that the 2 men will have little  of any substance to offer as a defence. Even a late swerve away and putting some of the blame on other members of the group will be too little too late. The words 'right thinking New Zealanders' will be consigned to history as the catch cry of modern day witches and a lynch mob fascinated by fire at night and the hangman's noose. No wonder they now cringe from the light. Does just one of them have the fortitude or strength of character to apologise. the ability to accept their own short comings and accept that it was self-hate and inadequacy that drove them on in their lust for blood and violence - I wouldn't bet on it.

Do they ponder now the 'mountain of evidence' now evaporated into tearful mist, the lies about strip searches and the planting of evidence, the leadership of the garbage written by Van Beynan as he stalked jurors and omitted the truth that always proved Robin's guilt - certainly not, because those with that capacity long ago left the ranks realising the mistake and the bizarre surroundings of 'right thinking New Zealanders' who saw it as right to lie, threaten to take away children, employ gang members to sort out the families of those that dared to reject the sister's threats, to sabotage family and work situations even lay false complaints with police - and all for what, to be proved wrong and to slink away after dropping Parker and Purkiss in it facing dire financial forebodings.

Mark Lundy - what happened to him?

By one account he had a deliberate plan of murder, creating an alibi and killing his wife 'quietly' with a tomahawk, dressed as a woman and oblivious to his own daughter asleep in the house and able to hear the screams of her mother as she died. What did he do, killed his daughter because she recognised him dressed as a woman and continued on with his perfect plan. I suppose you have to think that if he so willingly killed his daughter because she woke to hear the awful slaughter of her mother, why he hadn't just killed them both from the outset instead of malingering over a fine detailed plan that required a bludgeoning and chopping to death of Christine without Amber being woken from sleep.

It's a hard picture to reconcile. Which is no doubt part of the public response to him, ridicule about his weight, his looks, his 'amateurish' acting and so forth. None of that however is proof of murder. It is proof of some in society that convince themselves of the guilt or horridness of others based on how they look - we may be able to call it the Bain 'phenomenon.' Few, 'thoughtful' on line debates about the Bain case don't contain an element of ridicule to compensate for the lack of evidence proving David guilty and his father innocent. Of course others joining in that ridicule, or supporting it, are betraying an emotion that has coloured not only their thinking but all their opinions. These will be people that have a deeply held belief upon which all their judgements are made, that belief is that Lundy or David Bain are guilty formed by impressions, antagonism, hate and so forth that advance to become shrouded in 'facts.' The very reason why some Bain detractors years after various pieces of key evidence have been disproved, or explained, repeat them ad nauseum as though they are fresh points which other people somehow don't know or understand.

Those 'beliefs' are important because they hide, at least to the mind of the individual, that their motivation is little more than hatred against what the late Harry Cohen would describe as a 'public whipping boy.' What the malevolence against David Bain and Mark Lundy displays in today's society belies that haphazardness of Justice 100s of years after the Salem witch hunts. For we have a man apparently hurling abuse as Lundy is released on bail, a person who no doubt has a core 'belief' in his guilt but who I'm sure would not have read or properly understood this week's Privy Council decision. That's at one level, another is the hate-campaigns self described as campaigns and which it seems even Ministers of the Crown become susceptible, fearing, or sensing, that it is 'public opinion' that must be heeded for political purposes - the most vocal of those being the Sensible Sentencing Trust and it's 'crossed' over membership in the Justice for Robin Bain group and its associated shadow Counterspin.

So if, as it seems, there are a flood of cases of Miscarriages of Justice on the books why is their no political leadership, no control over a whole picture that impacts on the Public? It is political forbearance or indeed is it bowing to the basest political tool of all - fear? I have written about the clear venom the current Minister of Justice betrayed against David Bain when she 'warned' that she wouldn't release the Binnie report because David may not like the contents. When the report was released there was nothing for David not to like that was not overcome by the lucid reasoning and decision that he was not guilty of his guilty his family, was in fact innocent of the balance of probabilities.

At the 'end' of all these 'attacks' that disguise hatred are in fact real people, most of whom ultimately are proven to be innocent and the victims of a corrupt state unable or unwilling to accept blame, in other words the state has become, or is seen to have become, an institution disproving of Bain or Lundy's looks, their 'acting' of 'evidence' against them which in many circumstances is either fabricated or in fact evidence of nothing at all but a fillip to ignite that shroud that is 'carefully' built to hide the black heart of hatred. The sort of hatred that insulates a tortured individual from their belief or fears about their shortcomings, looks, awkwardness, personality traits that they wish to project away onto the 'public whipping boy' in order that they themselves will not be looked at closely but seen in the ranks of those marching off to a modern day execution where words and logic are smeared with bile.

Walsh and Police support the Giles evidence?

Has been a dramatic week in the New Zealand Justice arena since Monday. It seems likely that the release of the report into the claims of gunshot residue being on the hands of the late Robin Bain was timed to coincide with the release of the Privy Council decision in another controversial case - that of Mark Lundy which I shall blog about later.

Firstly to that report. In essence ESIR scientist Walh hasn't been able to discount that Robin Bain's thumb was photographed with gsr at the murder scene. He has confirmed the method of transfer shown on the show 3 Degrees is possible, though his opinion that it was unlikely in this case. By any estimation that falls into the category of reasonable doubt that David was not the killer but rather that it was Robin Bain. Unfortunately, and I don't know the reason why, but there was no mention of the corroborating evidence of Robin being the user of the firearm that morning, also discovered by David Giles and mentioned below in other blogs along with photographs of the same. I know that information was sent to the Minister, it is strange it wasn't covered in the report released last Monday. The public need to know how Walsh has or will evaluate that evidence. It seems likely that the 'coincidences' of the marks on Robin's hands from what seems to be handling the rifle will make a conclusion that he was the killer highly probable.

As to the police response. It seems Deputy Commissioner Burgess has 'out smarted' himself. He sticks with the tried and 'true' marks from home handy man 'work.' However, he has no support for that from the police Pathologist in the case Dr Alex Dempster who has said, unequivocally, that he did not see or record the marks in the mortuary when further examining the body of Robin Bain after a preliminary examination at the scene. In fact by the time Dempster was allowed to examine the scene the gsr may have already degenerated and no longer been visible, or simply been 'wiped off' as the detectives moved the body, rifle and magazine about the scene of Robin's death. But what Burgess has 'agreed' is that at some point there were marks on Robin's thumb, hardly a concession by virtue that many in New Zealand have also now seen them. Burgess has hung his hat on the fact there were marks but they were from injuries, of course those 'injuries' were unable to be seen by Dempster in the morgue and unable to be photographed by either Dempster's staff or police. How odd that Burgess did not explain that.

It's safe to agree that the allegation of marks of gsr on Robin's hands has not gone away. It has further support because Walsh has agreed they could have transferred there from the magazine and Burgess that they were present in the morgue but are not 'revealed' in photographs. It's steady as she goes, two Crown specialists on side that there might have been gsr and to this point no apparent report on associated marks on Robin's hands likely corroborating one another.

Think of the theory's already dismissed, that the marks were wrinkles, from playing a guitar, that they didn't exist to now agreement, even from police, that they did exist but somehow disappeared to the eye and weren't revealed in morgue photographs. Photographs, many will remember that showed recent cuts, bruises and blood on the hands of Robin Bain. As I say above the gsr hasn't gone away it has come closer.