Minister of Justice Amy Adams told the public that it was a preferred way, in the public interest to go a bob each way on Callinan's opinion that David Bain was not innocent by some magic formula that didn't hold water. That bob each way bet was to deny compensation but pay close enough to a million dollars anyway by reason that the compensation claim was tardy. Or in other words it had been delayed for years by the Government itself dithering perhaps on how to avoid acting fairly.
By doing this the Government was using an Executive Power. There is no Law that requires a government to make or deny payments to those applying for compensation. What is clear however is the use of executive power, according to NZ Law, and exposed by David Bain having already used Judicial Review (JR) against the application of Executive Power (EP), is a recognition that petitions for any request under executive Powers are not constrained in scope - but their treatment must adhere to the NZ Bill of Rights (BORA). Since 30 years ago when then Prime Minister Rob Muldoon pardoned Arthur Thomas and awarded him compensation of around a million dollars one could say it has been a long time between drinks from an era when there was no BORA. A long time since EP was used in a forthright way that was understood to have been applied when the legal system was locked into a Miscarriage of Justice. It could be argued that Muldoon was before his time or that he was misusing a Power - although few New Zealanders did not agree with his actions at the time, or his good sense to order a Royal Commission whose determination supported Muldoon's instinctive measure.
Since then unfortunately use of EP has become clouded in political interest and no doubt was before. Another 2 generations of politicians have failed to separate themselves from politics when considering the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in particular. Scott Watson's application took 4 years to be decided and has waited a further 4 years for his decision to seek a review of the decision. Of course such delays favour a Government, time cures all ills, or at least urgency to correct things which may be wrong in the Judicial process - the very reason why EP and JR exist.
So to recap, Muldoon acted where he could plainly see a Miscarriage of Justice. This act was similar to what any Government since could have done in the Peter Ellis case, or could do now. Amy Adams acted where it was obvious that the Government's report commissioned from Callinan was hardly worth the paper it was written on - putting it another way of course, saying that she had been told that it would be reviewed. Did she do this out of generosity to the principle and heart of what the use of the RP was designed to do? Or was she merely being pragmatic? For all intents and purposes it doesn't matter because others, including politicians, have seen the broadening of scope of Executive Powers on the one hand, and the more sobering reminder on the other, that their decisions must be advanced carefully in respect of the BORA and are not tempered in scope.
With the inevitable advance in the shelter of the BORA Judicial Review is an opportunity, as the Bain case showed, to have a fair application of the concept of Mercy brought before any Government knowing that the Courts are not excluded from the process of that application, or from what the Government considers and how, any matter in fact that might constitute relief to a NZ resident. These are some of the true concepts of what mercy is, a recognition that a system may stall or fail at some point where fairness appears to be gone. It wasn't fair for David Bain to have his application delayed for years because of the conduct of a previous Cabinet, many of whom remain in the current cabinet. It is still not fair that his application was denied the use of forensic science at the cutting edge, however that remains alive for another day and is in fact in print in international, peer reviewed papers being used in Courts, forensic science labs and Universities throughout the world. Time will submerge the resistance to science that was indeed the Callinan report. He may yet be seen as a fool who wore no clothes in the face of reality. He did however, even in his fumblings, preserve some truths that had previously been hidden. He acknowledged that suicide was possible (though it could hardly be denied), he acknowledged that Robin Bain died with blood on his palms - something that can't have got there from his own wounds, he vicariously acknowledged what Martin Van Beynan lied about for over 20 years - saying that there were no scratches found on David's chest after Van Beynan had claimed there were and that they had arrived there when David had allegedly fought with his younger brother Stephen. History will preserve that the man who died with blood on his palms got that blood there in the commission of murdering his family. A preservation supported by science that Callinan, wrongly, foolishly, perhaps even deliberately excluded to deny David Bain Justice - acts and omissions which were all part of this Government's unprecedented decision to pay an unsuccessful suitor for fairness cash to go away. They were over defending a crock of crap.
Showing posts with label David Bain Innocent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Bain Innocent. Show all posts
Monday, August 29, 2016
Friday, August 5, 2016
Who can be happy with the Bain decision?
David Bain hopefully will be happy with the Callinan decision even if it in parts reads like a comic book for the befuddled. David has now been found not guilty by a Jury, innocent by one reviewer with a 2nd reviewer sitting on the fence with barb wire stinging his bum in a report that has resulted in a long overdue payout to David Bain.
Each person reading Callinan's report, and his comment in para 64, that he wasn't prepared to say either murder or suicide will find different matters of interest to them. The overall outcome from my point of view is that David Bain gets paid compensation and more than likely than not
receives other concessions that reconcile with the consistence of him being found, both not guilty by a Jury, and innocent of 5 charges of killing in a review that made the then Minister of Justice puke. Metaphorically, David Bain was asked to pick hot coals from which the outcome would be proof of his guilt or innocence, despite those practices from the middle ages - he showed no scars This is a victory for sanity after a bewildering case that can be classed by 3 things: 'not guilty, innocent, I don't know.'
Even the apparently mortally wounded people who insisted David would not get a cent, still refer to the Binnie report. The report prevails over time and the shabby treatment afforded it from our Government. It will become part of NZ history, this payment if finalised will prevail as one of the largest compo payments in NZ history despite whatever name given to the payment. It will enter folklore that the Crown negotiated their way out of misusing the Binnie report, then protected itself with a settlement offer to avoid having the Callinan report dismembered in the Courts. Pragmatically why would they not want to bail out - should have done so years ago and saved around 50 million that could have been more usefully spent elsewhere rather than vainly trying to bury a Miscarriage of Justice.
The Callinan report is in itself a travesty. Callinan was not empowered to place himself in the role of a Jury. The Privy Council have ruled that it is not the role of Judges or Courts of Appeal to assume the role of a Jury. This report has weakened confidence in the Crown absolutely standing by Juries, but the Jury system will prevail despite Callinan giving himself god like powers to assume what a functioning Jury should have decided. Callinan was getting paid to deliver something that was already tagged as having to satisfy the Government, as Binnie found out - but the Jury were never paid, they took their life experiences into the Jury room and decided in a record time that David was not guilty, 5 times over.
Callinan escaped into the mumbo jumbo of what people said and how people acted. He offered a new and scientifically impossible scenario for Robin's suicide. That it was fluid or moving, no other person has ever suggested this, predictably Callinan himself was never able to transcribe that theory to the known facts of Robin's death - because the theory, much like other matters in his report didn't need to stack up and be defendable in Court because it was to be buried in a financial settlement. He ignored that Cox for the Crown conceded the computer turn on time to have happened when David was seen outside the house. He ignored fresh blood on Robin's trousers and a blood smear found on his hands. No man committing suicide gets blood smeared on his hands in the process, removes his pants away from where he was killed and returns like the walking dead in a zombie show. In fact the Crown's case has been a zombie show for years.
Where Callinan searched into David's past, assuming the role of a Psychiatrist, just as he had assumed the role of the Jury, he elevated himself above a specialist Psychiatrist who remains a member of the NZ Parole Board, a man who actually met and treated David Bain - something Callinan with his all seeing eye apparently felt as unnecessary. It was also unnecessary for Callinan to investigate an earlier event where Robin was said to have threatened neighbours with a rifle in Wellington, he did not investigate if Robin had ever had a firearms licence and if he did why it was taken off him. Apart from writing disdainfully of Margaret and Laniet Bain in particular he never gave recognition to a letter written by Margaret to an old friend that she was concerned that Robin 'would get a gun and shoot the lot of them (family.) It's doubtful that she wrote that without some reason for doing so. He also treated with disdain evidence that was given under oath of Laniet saying that she her father had an improper sexual relationship with her as a child, noting that the evidence pre-dated the murders by years. But of course he was an expert on all such matters and quite capable of knowing 'best' what he could ignore as he tried to rebuild the Crown case.
Callinan even decided that Weir didn't plant the lens, something Weir was unable to prove in Court himself, and was wholly silent on the fact that Weir hid evidence from the first Jury. Anyone with an open mind could have seen that Weir hid things and found things in a particular order to 'help' a case. Callinan didn't think it was necessary to record that Weir under oath said that he felt hounded before leaving police because other police mocked him as a planter of evidence, poor diddums. Anyone that is except Callinan busy trying to paint over the cracks with long winded observations about what people said concerning matters far beyond the room where Robin shot himself and little of anything observant to the evidence found there. He rehashed evidence to suit his case, something he would never be able to have done in Court under cross examination of the evidence rather than his weak interpretation of what was said. Ultimately however, he did not move the rock of David's innocence, something that the Crown acknowledged with their settlement.
The Callinan report is in itself a travesty. Callinan was not empowered to place himself in the role of a Jury. The Privy Council have ruled that it is not the role of Judges or Courts of Appeal to assume the role of a Jury. This report has weakened confidence in the Crown absolutely standing by Juries, but the Jury system will prevail despite Callinan giving himself god like powers to assume what a functioning Jury should have decided. Callinan was getting paid to deliver something that was already tagged as having to satisfy the Government, as Binnie found out - but the Jury were never paid, they took their life experiences into the Jury room and decided in a record time that David was not guilty, 5 times over.
Callinan escaped into the mumbo jumbo of what people said and how people acted. He offered a new and scientifically impossible scenario for Robin's suicide. That it was fluid or moving, no other person has ever suggested this, predictably Callinan himself was never able to transcribe that theory to the known facts of Robin's death - because the theory, much like other matters in his report didn't need to stack up and be defendable in Court because it was to be buried in a financial settlement. He ignored that Cox for the Crown conceded the computer turn on time to have happened when David was seen outside the house. He ignored fresh blood on Robin's trousers and a blood smear found on his hands. No man committing suicide gets blood smeared on his hands in the process, removes his pants away from where he was killed and returns like the walking dead in a zombie show. In fact the Crown's case has been a zombie show for years.
Where Callinan searched into David's past, assuming the role of a Psychiatrist, just as he had assumed the role of the Jury, he elevated himself above a specialist Psychiatrist who remains a member of the NZ Parole Board, a man who actually met and treated David Bain - something Callinan with his all seeing eye apparently felt as unnecessary. It was also unnecessary for Callinan to investigate an earlier event where Robin was said to have threatened neighbours with a rifle in Wellington, he did not investigate if Robin had ever had a firearms licence and if he did why it was taken off him. Apart from writing disdainfully of Margaret and Laniet Bain in particular he never gave recognition to a letter written by Margaret to an old friend that she was concerned that Robin 'would get a gun and shoot the lot of them (family.) It's doubtful that she wrote that without some reason for doing so. He also treated with disdain evidence that was given under oath of Laniet saying that she her father had an improper sexual relationship with her as a child, noting that the evidence pre-dated the murders by years. But of course he was an expert on all such matters and quite capable of knowing 'best' what he could ignore as he tried to rebuild the Crown case.
Callinan even decided that Weir didn't plant the lens, something Weir was unable to prove in Court himself, and was wholly silent on the fact that Weir hid evidence from the first Jury. Anyone with an open mind could have seen that Weir hid things and found things in a particular order to 'help' a case. Callinan didn't think it was necessary to record that Weir under oath said that he felt hounded before leaving police because other police mocked him as a planter of evidence, poor diddums. Anyone that is except Callinan busy trying to paint over the cracks with long winded observations about what people said concerning matters far beyond the room where Robin shot himself and little of anything observant to the evidence found there. He rehashed evidence to suit his case, something he would never be able to have done in Court under cross examination of the evidence rather than his weak interpretation of what was said. Ultimately however, he did not move the rock of David's innocence, something that the Crown acknowledged with their settlement.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Aunt Fanny finally gets to ask David Bain some questions.
Aunty Fanny: Well David, I know that you are probably not as conversant with internet as myself so I should tell you that I have considerable savvy with internet use even though I'm barely five foot three and an old coot with farting problems. Despite not being a big internet user I'm going to ask you directly what have you heard about my considerable internet exploits? Speak clearly and slowly into my ear horn if you don't mind.
DB: Good afternoon Fanny. I am aware that since you brought a second hand computer in 2009 you've managed to get yourself, Kent Parker, Vic Purkiss, The Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax sued and that you've been 'smart enough' to do a runner on each occasion. That's pretty formidable.
Aunt Fanny: It hasn't been easy I can tell you that. Kent Parker threatened to enjoin me in the proceedings because he said it was as the result of my big mouth and not having a clue as to what I'm talking about which resulted in he and Vic getting sued. Quick as a flash I said a mad man can't be enjoined if he doesn't realise he's got a big mouth and doesn't know what the hell the he's talking about. That got him thinking. A slow process I'll admit. So I told him I was resigning as a site administrator. I promised to fully support him financially in his efforts to clear his name. He swallowed that. The truth is David that I was going to send in that $5 but my wife wouldn't let me. She even threatened to cut my cords, she's never done that before so I didn't know what to expect. What with my farting problem and didn't really want me cords cut as well. But don't try getting me off the subject David. It can't be done. Have you heard of my 'relationship' with the Minister of Justice.
DB: I haven't heard much about that except that I did read that you offered to 'peer review' Ian Binnie's report and when Ms Collins finally stopped laughing she told you ever she ever needs a bum boy's office report reviewed she'd be in contact.
Aunt Fanny: Don't believe everything you hear David.
DB: I actually read it.
Aunt Fanny: Look David, I had to say something meaningful when it came out that you'd been strip searched the day you lost you family, and that there were no injuries to your chest recorded. I really got egg on my fact over that one.
DB: Yes, there's still some stuck in your ear horn and eyebrows.
Aunt Fanny: I suppose you know that when I found out that your father had blood smears on his palms consistent with having been in contact with blood that morning that I said you put it there. I was desperate then as well. Really, all I have been able to do is misquote people and tell lies since I found out what a dick I've made of myself. I sort of hope that people don't notice that anything that I might be able to use against you I claim to be the truth and anything I can't use, to be lies.
DB: I've heard that yes.
Aunty Fanny: Well, it's sort of true that I was a bum boy in the office of a car yard. But once I got a second hand computer it was a big chance for me because people can't tell on the internet that I'm a dwarf with egg stuck in my eye brows and in my ear horn. But then I made my first mistake when I tried to explain how you dad might have shown Laniet how to do some personal things and after that nos starting saying that I was a fiddler on the roof so I complained to everybody in NZ about it, even the police. The problem was that it was in writing. I was sort of stuck so I started talking about what Denise Laney might have said, about dog shit and well ..... sex with goats. You don't think I've got a problem do you David?
DB: No, it's probably 99% of the population that has a problem but maybe not you.
Aunt Fanny: Cheers for that, happy new year.
DB: Right you are.
DB: Good afternoon Fanny. I am aware that since you brought a second hand computer in 2009 you've managed to get yourself, Kent Parker, Vic Purkiss, The Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax sued and that you've been 'smart enough' to do a runner on each occasion. That's pretty formidable.
Aunt Fanny: It hasn't been easy I can tell you that. Kent Parker threatened to enjoin me in the proceedings because he said it was as the result of my big mouth and not having a clue as to what I'm talking about which resulted in he and Vic getting sued. Quick as a flash I said a mad man can't be enjoined if he doesn't realise he's got a big mouth and doesn't know what the hell the he's talking about. That got him thinking. A slow process I'll admit. So I told him I was resigning as a site administrator. I promised to fully support him financially in his efforts to clear his name. He swallowed that. The truth is David that I was going to send in that $5 but my wife wouldn't let me. She even threatened to cut my cords, she's never done that before so I didn't know what to expect. What with my farting problem and didn't really want me cords cut as well. But don't try getting me off the subject David. It can't be done. Have you heard of my 'relationship' with the Minister of Justice.
DB: I haven't heard much about that except that I did read that you offered to 'peer review' Ian Binnie's report and when Ms Collins finally stopped laughing she told you ever she ever needs a bum boy's office report reviewed she'd be in contact.
Aunt Fanny: Don't believe everything you hear David.
DB: I actually read it.
Aunt Fanny: Look David, I had to say something meaningful when it came out that you'd been strip searched the day you lost you family, and that there were no injuries to your chest recorded. I really got egg on my fact over that one.
DB: Yes, there's still some stuck in your ear horn and eyebrows.
Aunt Fanny: I suppose you know that when I found out that your father had blood smears on his palms consistent with having been in contact with blood that morning that I said you put it there. I was desperate then as well. Really, all I have been able to do is misquote people and tell lies since I found out what a dick I've made of myself. I sort of hope that people don't notice that anything that I might be able to use against you I claim to be the truth and anything I can't use, to be lies.
DB: I've heard that yes.
Aunty Fanny: Well, it's sort of true that I was a bum boy in the office of a car yard. But once I got a second hand computer it was a big chance for me because people can't tell on the internet that I'm a dwarf with egg stuck in my eye brows and in my ear horn. But then I made my first mistake when I tried to explain how you dad might have shown Laniet how to do some personal things and after that nos starting saying that I was a fiddler on the roof so I complained to everybody in NZ about it, even the police. The problem was that it was in writing. I was sort of stuck so I started talking about what Denise Laney might have said, about dog shit and well ..... sex with goats. You don't think I've got a problem do you David?
DB: No, it's probably 99% of the population that has a problem but maybe not you.
Aunt Fanny: Cheers for that, happy new year.
DB: Right you are.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)