Robin Bain's blood.

Followers of the Bain case will be familiar with the questions put to David about blood found on a towel in the laundry on the morning his family were killed.  David was asked how the blood got onto the towel, an important question in context of the murder inquiry but the presumption that David should know how the blood arrived there tells us exactly what the mindset of the officer was. The detective had already decided that David was guilty and therefore knew how the blood got that onto the towel or was somehow at least responsible for an explanation.

Leaving that for a moment to look at another significant piece of evidence the computer turn on time. This was heralded as being critical by police because it proved David wrote the suicide note. It was so critical that Detective Anderson timing the tracing of the computer turn on time with an expert gave the expert a time 2 minutes earlier than the actual time. He would later explain this situation as one he would have 'cleared up,' or words to that effect, had he been asked. The reality is the significance of the computer message was a foundation of the case against David yet first of all police would mislead the technician about the actual time of the test, then bury that information thus giving weight to the Crown's false assertion that David was indeed home when the computer was turned on. This went further though,  a police computer 'expert' that calculated the turn on time for the Crown would later admit that his opinion evidence on the computer turn on time was an impossibility. Somewhere along the line a police officer gives a false time to a technician allowing another impossibility that David was home before the computer was turned on, later an expert calculates that time using a mid point between 2 stated times, one of which was an impossibility but which however gives the 'right' result to support the claim that David was home, turned the computer on and wrote the suicide note. Some readers will recall that the Crown toward the end of their case conceded that Robin had most likely turned on the computer as they would drop that infamous, and wrong, claim that Robin's fingerprints should have been found on the rifle. If they knew that the computer can't have been turned on when David was home why did they say the opposite for so many years, why did Anderson keep mum about the truth of the time, or Kleintjes manufacture a false and impossible relative time point to 'prove' David was home. More to the point would be the question as to why the Crown ever let such material into evidence when they knew it was false, if they didn't know it was false they would never have made concessions in relation to it during trial number 2.

By diverting to the fingerprints, and the computer turn on time, we have the opportunity to show how the police put their theories into practice, they simply misled on the facts. This wasn't earlier in the inquiry, this was at the point of the 'guilty mindset' being all absorbing. The bloody towel, on the other hand, was in the early days of the inquiry before David had even been charged. On what basis could David have been asked to explain  blood on a towel, that time would show belonged to his father? None, absolutely none. Looking at that question another way was it fair to ask David to explain something that he didn't know about and later use that against him, or was this an example of the police pulling a case based on something they were yet to have evidence to support? Wouldn't normal procedure be to test whose blood it was on the towel and leave the traumatised young man alone until that fact was discovered? Yes it would be normal, but this wasn't a normal investigation because police had already decided David was guilty as evidenced by that question.

Moving to the revelation that it was Robin's blood on the towel, blood soaked as it has been described in a damning way against David. If it had been so important for David to explain how blood got on the towel, then in 2003 when police learnt that it was in fact Robin's blood on the towel, which fitted therefore, with the murder/suicide scenario - why then did the police not re-evaluate their entire position? By then they already had an opinion from their own pathologist that Robin's wound was likely suicide, they knew from their own files that David had not been home when the computer was booted, they knew of Robin's state of mind, that it would also be expected that his fingerprints would not be on the rifle, that Robin's palms had blood on them and that his hands had bleed - a match no doubt for the towel. Instead they kept 'manfully' on, presenting again their discredited case as though there was no alternative such as, for example, conceding that Robin was plainly the killer.

Why would the Crown and police not be disturbed to find that it was Robin's blood on the towel, a towel found contemporaneously with Robin's body with blood on his hands? Wasn't it a reasonable and deduct-able conclusion that towel with Robin's blood on it showed even more clearly that he had killed first his family and then himself? Yes it was. I'm unaware of whether the Crown had any explanation for that blood which previously had been 'evidence' against David, even though his hands were clean, he had no recent wounds that would have produced blood and unlike his father he didn't have red matter found under his nails. I've read that one of Robin's wounds was across a vein on his hand, veins of course bleed profusely but because of the difficulty Robin had cleaning his palms, leaving smear marks, one would expect that he would have had similar trouble with the tops of his hands, particularly because of the abrasions and bruises there that would have been becoming quite sore as he reflected on what he had done whilst he cleaned himself up as well as he could.

Any rugby player or contact sport player knows that besides an artery or a deep cut, a forehead wound etc, a blow to the nose causes profuse blood. The blood on the towel, that on Robin's palms and damaged hands, the evidence of the fight in Stephen's room completed the basic picture of Robin's guilt, not tricky science, not loaded questions, hidden times, and hidden statements but straight forward proof, Robin had been fighting that morning, he had the blood on his hands and on the towel he used, to prove that.

That bloody towel is the towel now around the necks of the Crown, it was the Crown that accepted the 'importance' of the towel when the blood was thought to Stephen's but never tested, washed off  from the hands of David. But when it proved to be Robin's blood, good proof that he was the killer - it was no longer important. Looking back over some notes taken from Joe Karam's Trial By Ambush today I saw that I noted that Detective's Van Turnhout's 'recovered memory' of seeing a lens on the chair in David's room had never been recorded in the 15 years he had forgotten it before his memory burst at the second trial. And on those glasses that the police have so badly discredited themselves over, it has long been recorded that David's vision was 75% normal without glasses.

Every where you look in this case police misconduct has been at work by a few officers, but the greater worry is that the Crown chose to overlook that. I suspect Binnie's report, if it has highlighted these obvious facts sits uncomfortably in the care of the Justice Department, uncomfortable as Robin must have felt wiping his own copious spilt blood on that towel.

No answer from Kenty.

Sometimes I think old Kenty has got the huff with me even though I could never imagine why. I've always been pretty helpful to Kent. I warned him of the possibility of being sued, something which he chose to ignore. I offered advice once he had been sued that he didn't have a dog's show and that he should retract and settle. Now, by all accounts, his own twisted sisters are plating a rope in anticipation of him copping it in record time in  the Auckland High Court next year. One thing about the sisters is that they enjoy any lynching and apparently there is much excitement at the prospect of Kent's metaphorical hanging in 2013.

On the subject of Kent rejecting helpful advice, or painful remedies to help him recognise that his feathers don't have to have all fallen out to indicate his goose is cooked, I wrote him the following in response to receiving information that he was still at it publishing defamatory material on his rotten hate-site. But he's not talking, he's got the pip with me for some reason, either that or he's deliberately trying to hurt my feelings. Oh gosh.

Perhaps in Kent's mind he considers that not removing the defamatory material may prove that he's not responsible for it, an old and rejected argument he's used before.

Dear Kent

Kent the following are examples of public defamation on your site Counterspin. The yellow highlighted comments are from your site in the form of a blog of avid David Bain hater who purports in the circumstances of the blog to be an ‘impartial observer.’ The red comments point out why the comments are defamatory, these were sent to me by an appropriate party who monitors your site for defamatory comment and hate speech. In these particular circumstances the comments bring defamatory comments linked with the purpose of attempting to engender public hatred against David Bain and his legal advisers. Both yourself and the author are responsible for these comments. The comments can not be sustained with fact, and do not constitute reasonable opinion because they are divorced from physical evidence. As you are aware a verdict of not guilty in a New Zealand High Court has been entered on this matter, therefore the comments are most likely in contempt of the Court. Not withstanding any of the above, there are unconfirmed reports that Justice Ian Binnie has concluded that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities. Therefore the whole concept of his implied guilt, alleged behaviour and conduct is dissolved in law.

I will be forwarding this on to other parties for their consideration. Due to your experiences of date you may, or may not react to my advice that you remove this material, the poster, and or shut down your site. It does you a great disservice with the charges that you already face that you continue to allow defamation and hate-speech on your public site.

Yours faithfully

Against David Bain first,as there is more evidence pointing to him as being the perpetrator than there is against his father.(no there isn’t and according to the leaked Binnie report this is on dangerous ground)

Just prior to the trial David Bain's lawyer told the Crown prosecutor that David was going to admit to wearing those glasses that were found in his room on the Sunday and the days prior. (This is disputed and there is no proof. Mr X's implication is that David lied)

Now to those scratches or bruises on David Bain's torso. How did they get there? The only person who can answer that question is David Bain and he says he doesn't know how the answer to that question.
Now his defence team say that those marks weren't there on the Monday morning because when Dr Pryde examined Bain he strip-searched him and didn't note those marks on a diagram on which he had noted those bruises on David Bain's head,that nick on his knee and the tattoo that David Bain on his left arm above the bicep.
But does this mean that Dr Pryde actually had Bain remove that T-shirt that he had been wearing?
When he was giving his speech at that Injustice Conference Bain said he was medically strip-searched and that every orifice was examined.
As an impartial observer I have to ask the question "How did Bain get those scratches on his torso". I can't help thinking that they are linked to those fibres from the green jersey that the killer wore that were found beneath Stephen's fingernails. (In this he is ignoring the fact that there is evidence that those scratches did not exist that morning and are therefore irrelevant)

However an impartial observer would have thought it would be rather unusual for a right-handed man to shoot himself in the left temple. (No, it’s very common)

an affidavit was signed and sent to the Ministry of Justice[24/8/2010] by Laniet's best friend at Bayfield College. She said that Laniet had told her that David had been molesting her. Her friend said she had to leave home and she found a place for her to stay at. But a couple of weeks later David came to the school and told her everything would be ok if she came home again. (The writing of the affidavit and submission of it is one thing. Publication of this summary of the content is defamatory)

Disturbed by David's behaviour as a child Margaret and robin sought leave from the Church so as to take him to Darwin for pschiatric assessment and counselling. David denied under oath that he had ever had pschiatric counselling. (This is accusing David of perjury) 

                                                  ----------------------------------------------

Some of the comments in red give a clue in my opinion that Binnie's report is likely to have closely examined a culture of having approached the false imprisonment of David Bain, by both the police and Crown, with a pre-determined 'guilty mindset' that saw evidence, or only sought explanations of evidence that corresponded with that 'guilty mindset.' In other words not only did some of the investigators pre-suppose David's guilt but also did personnel employed by the Crown. This if analysed by Ian Binnie will be a critical watershed in the fair and unfair administration of Justice in New Zealand for it would acknowledge that both police and Crown can be, and are at times, influenced by perceived guilt of a suspect to the point of closing down all other avenues of inquiry, and indeed as happened in the Bain case, 'finding' and 'hiding' evidence to make their case. Of course that presents another concern, a practical one facing the defence teams of Watson and Pora, for example - where a suspect is chosen and his or her guilt manufactured by the treatment of evidence  and evidence which is 'found' after the fact of earlier searches on so on.

Ken Parker presents as someone unconcerned about David's innocence for example, he saw an opportunity to profit from persecuting him. Others, including in the inquiry and the Crown Law office, appear never having been willing to even consider it - I don't know which is worse because both are a modern form of cannibalism where a person if not eaten is destroyed by a culture of empowerment to Judge all others with whim, convenience, indifference or just hate.

The Bain Case: Another shadow?

While speculation builds about the detail of Ian Binnie's report into the circumstances surrounding the false imprisonment of David Bain I have been concentrating my expectations on details on the inquiry, hidden evidence, biased media reports and so on. The following has reminded me that the report may not only include such things, additional to a narrative showing David innocent on the BOP one speculator considers that the report could go further as the following suggests....

'Actually, I think he is quite likely to say that the supposed evidence of David’s guilt only stands up if viewed from a prior stance of guilt. It is an issue that has prevailed throughout the case from the very start, and has clearly coloured the judgment of the appeal courts and Crown prosecutors.

He has been asked to report on the circumstances of the case as well as on innocence, and I think this is significant in the circumstances. You may be right, but I hope you’re wrong J   

Fairly hard to argue that the circumstances Ian Binnie has reported on doesn't include a 'prior stance of guilt' adopted by first of all the police but indeed also the prosecutors, Courts and Appeal Courts - because they too got it wrong, possibly also deliberately. It's easy to see that the NZ Courts were indeed influenced by a prior stance of guilt. While I've been critical of that stance earlier I had assumed, as I've written earlier, that the blame would begin with the Dunedin police involved in the inquiry and go little further. Even though it is the case that I've always seen our Courts as complicit in the Miscarriage of Justice perpetrated on David Bain.

The circumstances are clear, our Courts failed badly in the Bain case; particularly so when it became apparent that evidence had been with held and that a mantra of guilt was being sung in the popular media, most apparently under the tutorship of the self-acclaimed expert on the case Martyn Van beynan. When something was torn down in the Courts there would be replies in the media such as 'no evidence' against Robin, 'scratches' on the chest of David from a fight with Stephen. It's hardly likely that any informed Court was ever going to accept such 'evidence' when it was not contained in the transcripts but something very odd was at work. The Court of Appeal referring to an exit wound of Robin's head that the records shows didn't exist is a strong clue that if they were aware of all the evidence that they didn't understand it, even before they put themselves in the role of a Jury, knowing full well that wasn't their precinct.

Whilst they were willing to assume the role of Judges and Jury they were never mindful of the beast that lurked in the background even though it yelled out loudly of a MOJ. No meaningful inquiry into the prime suspect, a lens found after previous searches, a witness confirming that David couldn't have been home when the computer was turned on and the last message from Robin written, another confirming that the glasses said to belong to David did not, the red material under Robin's nails, the damage to his hands and the blood on his palms, his fragile mental state, the used cartridges kept in his van and so the list goes on. Just one of those points was enough to hear the message of a MOJ - but no it was ignored and instead our Courts looked to put fantasy together to withstand solid proof of innocence and even more solid proof of a deliberate MOJ.

That beast could first be heard the morning DS Weir reported to DS Doyle of finding a lens in a room already searched, and as Lee Hinkleman points out 'apparently' seen or shown in a photograph taken days before it was 'found.' Even by then Doyle had already 'decided' not to investigate the main and obvious suspect because he had a 'murder to solve.' What other language would any Court or tribunal need to identify that a culture of a prior stance of guilt prevailed. In NZ obviously a lot more, with all the clear evidence of suicide, other evidence to show that police had deliberately withheld evidence which in every case was unhelpful to them and not David yet still our Courts turned a blind eye - a common practice or a one off?

Money says a common practice in at least some cases, certainly the Bain and Thomas cases, also that of Pora, Allan Hall and perhaps one presenting as another of the worst - Scott Watson. So my correspondent says that they hope I'm wrong in my evaluation the report will not extend to the Judiciary. Well, I in fact also hope I'm wrong. If the Thomas case is still stalled after 30 years when others should be charged for being involved in the murders, or the framing of Thomas, we do need Ian Binnie to have analysed what has, and can wrong in our Justice system at the level of the prosecution and Judiciary. Fingers crossed on that.

Front page departure.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7779871/Dear-Mr-Key-please-don-t-leave-us-to-die

I'm looking forward to Cabinet making a decision to bring the Afghan interpreters and their families to New Zealand, or to assist them passage to other safe countries before our troops come home. The issue has been highlighted for several years now but is becoming a pressing matter with the expectation of the withdrawal of New Zealand troops from Afghanistan in 2013.

Nobody is entitled to, and few will, look back on our involvement in Afghanistan as having achieved a success fundamental to the misconstrued term 'War against Terror.' But there we have seen that our soldiers have risen above expectation in their efforts, most often in the difficult concept of bringing help to a country ostensibly under invasion. Our troops have been tasked to help rebuild strategic public services, essentially a neutral role in a country at war. But it is clear that  the neutrality of our role in Afghanistan is not appreciated by those that see New Zealand as part of a coalition of invasion.

The war in Afghanistan was never able to be won, because as in Iraq, defending armies predictably melted away into civilian life from where they continued their campaign. The striking thing is that this was an invasion by the most powerful allied force in the world, and it was against a third world nation ostensibly without a army, navy or Air Force, yet even from the beginning it was plain it was a war that couldn't be won. A war that became conflicted with it's stated reason. On the evaluation of terror the recent 'double tap' strikes by drones show how far the 'war' has distanced itself from it's 'noble' intentions. If there had been no invasion there would be no opportunity for the Taliban to claim the victory they already have, there would be no recognition that, like the Taliban,  America has broken all the rules of war, having first introduced the odd couplet 'War against Terrorism' they have sullied their own position and allowed themselves to foot it with the terrorists, refusing to treat prisoners as POWs, renditions, willingness to transport prisoners into exile where International Law, including the Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

Of course such translations are not the business of New Zealand troops, and successive NZ Governments have held to legal conventions. Likewise I expect that Cabinet fully appreciates that the Taliban troops that slipped into the night will emerge to take revenge on their own countryman, as they have continued to do to this day. What our troops have achieved will only be strengthened by a Government decision to look after those that helped us, and who for that reason, are in perilous and real danger. That must be out duty. If even the enemies of our troops observe that New Zealanders do not depart friends in time of peril then our nation has spoken for the New Zealand view of the World, most often as bridge builders and those that will be there what ever the pressure maybe. Where bridges have been destroyed our troops have rebuilt them, working with Afghans as people no different than ourselves.

Afghanistan has shown the world for a second time in recent memory that it can defeat great armies using time, patience and stealth. I hope what we as a country have shown not only Afghanistan, but the world, our independence, also our vision that the world is built on people, not by raining bombs, double tapped for deadly effect.

CounterSpin: Countersunk?

Old Kenty must have been beside himself when he dreamed up the idea of riding into Parliament on a campaign of twisting the truth. The fact that he was an opportunist doesn't count against him, because opportunism is, and can be a treasured asset. But a person has to think about what an 'opportunity' really is, the core of the opportunity, whether they want to embrace it and if it will fly.

Make no mistake Kent Parker wasn't the first person to begin spreading 'spin' about the Bain case, that happened long before his involvement and arose out of the precincts of the Dunedin Police as early as 1994. We got the paper run 'alibi,' the photo of David carried from the scene and the later presentation that his shock and bewilderment was 'acting,' that the murder weapon was smeared in blood, that Robin Bain had no  injuries, that the suicide 'scene' had been carefully constructed by an off beat youth whose extended family had wiped their hands of, a computer message, witchcraft and a list of other things as it turns out too bizarre to be true. That has been the cross roads for Parker and his hate-site members, they believed without clinical observation, they believed because they wanted to, and that by believing could promote themselves above others unable to clearly see the truth, the facts, the 'simplicity' of it all.

Anyone who has children knows that as they develop, learn reasoning, they no longer accept things on face value, in fact they enjoy in most circumstances grappling with the feasibility of things in order to understand the mechanics, physics or human nature of events as part of the natural curiosity that drives us along. Sometimes of course that curiosity drives us in the wrong direction, most often because of personal make-up, upbringing, environment and so on. In the modern world most of those impediments to clear reasoning can be left behind, brain function and progressiveness endures into old age so that a person matures - perhaps also matures from a previous lifestyle, or environment or lifestyle choices. It is at this point that show how odd Parker and his cohorts are. They brought no discernment or logic to their decisions, well, certainly not with David Bain.

Even now it is plain to see, for the remaining few of them, that they still don't realise they were used. That they were seen as gullible, able to be influenced and used by others in order to sell the failed campaign of injustice against David Bain. In time they fit back in the early years of childhood, gobbling up spell binding stories of horror, one with real and living characters to it, they can listen to all such things and be, like the author, or story teller - a white knight emerging through the darkness. This despite the reality that the true story was before them at all times, and the narrator, as narrators will want to do, was leading them down a path so that when they emerged it was into darkness and scripted as villains and ogres.

Most of us have a point in time when we may feel sorry for the bewilderment of an adversary, even when that adversary has acted with deceit and malice in all that they've done. Sorry, perhaps, because the way that person sees them is in conflict with reality, the world, how others will view them. It was never a noble cause to spread hate about David Bain, it was never a noble cause to hungrily swallow all ill spoken of him and ignore facts instead. It was never commendable to speak of understanding things that couldn't be understood or didn't make sense by harbouring a view that the holder of the truth was enlightened and those that resisted must be struck down in some way.

I suspect that Kent Parker never had the character to be concerned that what he was doing might be wrong and hurting others. I think he is one of those real individuals who have no ability to reason compassion, to be restrained on a matter until being sure, and even then, if proceeding, not to so in a way that hurts others or promotes others being hurt. But you can see why he drew in so many nutters, because if they believed he didn't question them. He gave them a home, men and women who at first appeared quite reasonable, and reasoning but who soon got lost in themselves, their own inadequacies and bitterness.

Many have left Parker and the crusade of a few bent cops and their media pals behind, good on them for that because obviously the truth of this case has become more and more apparent. However, a few hang in, and they're not the brightest. One most recently has offered to 'peer review.' Justice Binnie's decision, this is  a guy who has 'studied' the case for years and 'shows' it by still sprouting some of the obvious spin now many years outdated. Of course despite the hate-siters generally saying that they would accept the Binnie decision and in fact were looking forward to it, many have now turned sour. Some are going to write to the 'Minister' no doubt to tell the Minister the truth as they see it or have been told. These of course are the same people who had their submissions returned to them unopened, and who are probably seen as nutters even in Parliament. Their accusations that Binnie may not have written his own report but that 'someone' else may have, conspiracies abound and I imagine that nutter in particular considers that Joe Karam or some other some how wrote the report.

In all it just shows how tragic and pathetic these people are. One or two of my correspondents consider them to also be dangerous and I suppose they are because that have certainly threatened all sorts of violence in the past - however they seem more like turtles on their backs, at the moment, that need righting and being led to water. The exception is of course is that the legendary turtle wins the race so in fact the hate-siters are the flash Harry's who with 5 minutes of experience from swallowing a few mouthfuls of bs lay in the glare of their own importance, while the turtle, always to task - wins the race.

Ewen MacDonald: What's left?

I think what is left after the acquittal of EM and following his sentence on other charges has been best summed up by his ex wife Anna Guy. She has told the country that she supports the Jury's decision because they, unlike her and the rest of the country, heard all the evidence against EM. She has also said that she doesn't know whether her ex husband killed her brother Scott, precisely explaining the same situation every other New Zealander is in except for one, and or/any accomplices the killer may have had.

What Anna told those that watched 60 minutes on Sunday night was of the conflicted character of Ewen MacDonald, she spoke about his double life, his resolute decision making from which in her experience, he would never alter. Once he had made up his mind that was it. She succinctly and with humour explained away the rumours spread throughout the country about EM, whilst also speaking of her personal betrayal by him. Most astoundingly, and quite remarkably given her situation, she did not convolute the betrayal she felt into a belief therefore that EM was guilty. She also spoke of her father Bryan and her decision, to attend the trial with an open mind. Interestingly, telling us in the process that other witnesses, presumably including some from within her family, gave evidence believing EM was guilty. Anna told us precisely that; some in her family, by not being included in those that had not made up their minds, thought EM was guilty for reasons clearly not attached to evidence but more to emotion. I think we saw that by some of the hostility shown toward EM when evidence was given and in the aftermath of the trial. Who could ultimately blame those witnesses for being unable to withhold judgement when in the wider community the Jury's decision was met with hysteria by some others who, like those family members, didn't know whether EM was guilty or not but were prepared, willing in fact, to proclaim his guilt anyway.

There is a micro-dot of reality that Anna Guy has unwillingly displayed to the public of New Zealand at large about where decisions of guilt or innocence are decided. I use the word unwillingly because she, and I'm sure  the majority would agree, would far more willingly have preferred not to have been touched by this tragedy. But that's not all she has provided the public of New Zealand, because she spoke about the pain of having to give evidence, underlying in my opinion the lack of consideration shown to her and other witnesses by calling them to the dock not once, but several times. Those witnesses, as we've since seen, were all hugely capable of giving evidence once and in sharp detail. As I've written earlier I feel the Crown had been unable to resist the potential of having distraught witnesses called a number of times to engender sympathy for them, and prejudice against EM as being responsible for that distress. There was no need for it, these weren't professional police witnesses but real people who were under going a type of hell few will ever experience.

I think we also saw that the Crown were 'at work' inside the family, trying to split them apart and I can recall writing about a request from the Crown that the Guy's didn't attend some hearings for fear that it looked like they were supporting EM. Obviously with a weak case the Crown were looking for perceptions of guilt to carry the day where evidence fell short. Real Justice, for the family or the public? Not in my opinion. One could easily argue that MacDonald should never have been charged and the Crown relied on factors beyond evidence in the hope of bringing a conviction home. Whatever the efforts of the Crown or police may have  or not have been, I doubt they would escape the analysis of one of the victims herself - Anna Guy, that she didn't know if her ex husband was guilty and that it was for a Jury to decide who had heard all the evidence.

I can imagine that it would have been quite easy for someone of a different make-up and character than that of Anna and her father, to become absorbed by what they didn't know and allow the product of that to become that they were sure that EM was guilty. That would have provided them to 'escape' by hating someone for being guilty even when not sure of the guilt. We see Anna unwilling to hate somebody without sure reason and could fairly assume that she may be among the rare few that don't hate at all - with or without reason perhaps because she understands to hate others invariably lets a beast through the doors. So I asked a question 'What's left?' I think we see for at least two of the parties savaged by the death of Scott Guy, that it isn't hate.....

The bewildering logic of a hate-siter.

Sent on from a correspondent. A person called donalddob in an attack against Justice Binnie on the Counterspin Hate-Site. 'dob' suggests Ian Binnie made some sort of quick decision because of financial constraints - or in other words simply believes there is no merit to his report. Interestingly elsewhere in the 'article' that he has written On Counterspin he muses that Binnie should have been double checking forensic evidence against Robin that was presented by the defence. That in itself shows how far from the mark these nutters are. In one breath they repeat the mantra 'no evidence against Robin' then in the next argue that the evidence that doesn't exist in their minds should nevertheless be 'double checked' by Binnie. Not only that, but they fail to realise that a prosecution relies on the evidence from the Crown and of course therefore if it fails to reach the required standard the charges are not sustained and are rejected. Donbob, whoever he is in his wretchedly weak mind, accepts without realising it perhaps, that the case against David doesn't, and never did stack up, so wants the defence evidence reviewed. I know it must hurt you to think donalddob, it must be very painful indeed, but talk to your psychiatrist about this. Explain to him that you are not really insane because the proof of your insanity while compelling, was not as compelling as your defence - proving your insanity. Good work bob. So follows...

I imagined a scientific experiment that involved the following.

Find a person who has dirt in the creases of their hands. Photograph the dirt in the creases. Get this person to wear blood-soaked opera gloves and wrestle with another person for 10 seconds. Make them take the gloves off. Make them handle a blood smeared rifle. Using a syringe and needle, injects speck of blood onto thumbs and fingers. Photograph the  hands again. Give the person cloth towels, paper towels, soap and a washbasin offering both hot and cold water. Give the person 10 minutes to remove the blood stains without removing the dirt in the creases of the hands, and without removing the specks of blood. Then get them to changes clothes, type a computer message, and handle a blood smeared rifle. Take another set of photographs of the hands. Compare the before/after state of the dirt in the creases. Does dirt dissolve in blood?

Above we get the chance to look at dumbbob's imagination, and what an imagination it is captured in time as approximately 20 years out of date. As most people now know the rifle wasn't smeared in blood but Robin's hands, his palms in particular were. The very fact of that is why David Bain should never have been charged because it was his father found beside the suicide weapon with an abundance of forensic evidence to show he was the only one present when he despatched himself with a contact shot to his left temple, a shot that rose rather than fell and which didn't exit his skull - despite our Appeal Court  claiming that it did. As for the specks of blood on Robin's hands, apparently dumbdod thinks they should have been washed off even before they arrived there on Robin's hands, at the point of his suicide. Arguing that the blood spots should have been washed off is another concession of Robin Bain as the killer from the bewildered 'dob.' 'dob' asks gleefully 'does dirt dissolve in blood,' well in the case of Dear daddy it didn't dob - that's why the smears remained and why there were photographed, photographs shown to the second Jury.

dumbbob still attempts to claim that Robin's palms were blood free but dirty, it would have been interesting if they were blood free, but it still wouldn't have disproved his suicide. Additionally, the washing of Robin's hands, as described by dumbbob didn't remove the ingrained dirt, the blood smears nor the red material found under his nails, nor did it remove the bite marks and other cuts and contusions to his hands.

Unfortunately, dumbob, Bill Rodie and others haven't yet realised that the 'evidence' they present against Binnie's apparent findings, against David and by proxy therefore against the reputation of Joe Karam, is pure defamation for which, like Parker and Purkiss, they may yet be sued. All the tired arguments about free speech do not overcome the truth, the truth is that Robin Bain died with blood smears on his hands, despite as dumbbob says, trying to wash them off. Another truth is that Rodie and others have persecuted Karam and Bain for years with not only omissions, but as in this case with blatant lies.