Robin's suicide note, a pattern of deceit?

Anybody familiar with the Bain case knows something about the suicide note, particularly the words 'deserved to stay,' giving rise to endless arguments from the twisted sisters with the claim that Robin wouldn't have used the word 'deserved' but rather 'deserves' - tense apparently being all important. Personally the words on the suicide note means little to me because it doesn't overcome evidence against Robin in the lounge scene, whether it was either word doesn't exonerate Robin from all the evidence still emerging about him. But was the word even used?...

Cox, initial statement to the police: The message on the computer read "Sorry you are the only one who deserves to stay”.

Cox, evidence in chief first trial:  It showed a message on the screen of the computer. That read: SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.

Kevin Wayne Anderson, Evidence in chief, first trial: I then entered the alcove itself, I looked through the gap in the curtains and I could see a message that was recorded on the computer and it was displayed on the screen. The message read: SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.

Milton Weir, evidence in chief, first trial: During the examination of Robin Bain, as to the alcove shown in room A on the southern side, the pathologist Mr Dempster actually looked into the alcove first; as a result of what he said I looked in there and noticed a message on the computer. I have recorded in my notebook SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.

Dempster, evidence in chief, first trial: I recollect the message on the screen. That ws the message "sorry you are the only who deserves to stay”

We can see from above that Cox gives two versions, the initial one using the word 'deserves' and the second after he was prevailed upon or 'corrected?' it becomes 'deserved.'

The old partnership Weir and Anderson unanimous on the word 'deserved' throughout. Of course Weir admitted misleading the first Jury and Anderson gave evidence in the second trial, but not the first, that David had asked for 'his' glasses to be passed to him on the morning of the tragedy. So 15 years for that to  come out, right smack on cue when the Crown were most desperate to tie Margaret Bain's old glasses to the killings. This despite there being no evidence that they were used in anyway that morning, in fact when they were said to be mysteriously found by Weir, after hours, in a room that had already been thoroughly searched by officers assigned to the job - they were dust covered. Interestingly enough the Crown contended the glasses had been used by David on a killing spree and were broken when Steven 'fought back.' The Crown said that the glasses corresponded to 'injuries' found on David's face which only became visible after he had collapsed beside his bed and the wall later in the morning, except that the 'injuries' were to the opposite side of David's face than that from which the lens had been dislodged.

Anderson told the second Jury he had never raised the evidence before (David asking for 'his' glasses) because he didn't want to be 'criticised' for moving evidence that morning when he was assigned to 'watch' David. So he clearly omitted the 'fact,' and his duty, according to his own account, despite that it could be argued that it was critical to the Crown's case and only emerged at time when the Crown case was in terminal collapse. But the glasses 'controversy' doesn't finished there because Weir had been told the true ownership of the glasses before the first trial. 'Some how' that evidence got buried and the result was damaging to David's credibility because he was in conflict with the entered 'by consent' evidence of Sanderson whose first unaltered statement was that they were David's glasses. Later he was to discover that he was mistaken and that the glasses were in fact an on old pair of Margaret's. He told Weir of this and naively anticipated that his evidence would be altered as Weir confirmed. Clearly, Sanderson didn't know then 'evidence' couldn't be simply altered he had to re-sworn. Sanderson would have had no reason not to believe Weir on that day, but I'm fairly positive he would never take his word again at anything more than face value.

Some readers will know that the 'evidence' of the ownership of the glasses was among the considerations of the Privy Council when they determined that David's first trial was an Actual Miscarriage Of Justice. So when Anderson 'admitted' handling the glasses on the morning of the killings but keeping quiet about it for over a decade it continued on as being one of the more controversial issues of the handling and gathering of evidence in the Bain case. So much so that I can't believe the evidence of Anderson about handing the glasses to David, not just because of the length of time it took him to 'admit' what he claimed happened, not only because of the mystery finding of the lens in Steven's room after hours, and by an officer not tasked with the job, but because, most firmly at the very least, that the glasses were broken and had no lens at all in them. So to take Anderson seriously David was not only asking for and claiming ownership of glasses but he was asking for a pair that had no lens at all in them and could have only been a prop in a Marx Brother's movie and not in a Crown case for murder.

Lastly above, we have the account of Dr Dempster. He was the Crown Pathologist that urged the Crown before the retrial to consider if they should go ahead, by then he was familiar with the PC Judgement and also had experience of a body gurgling after death. Of course he appeared to be on the outer after that, with the Crown even finding other pathologists to contradict Dempster's evidence as to the close/contact shot in a bizarre exhibition of demonstrating the savaging of their own case. Some will know that those two pathologists put pressure on Dempster to 'review' his evidence. So for my money when Dempster says the word was 'deserves' I'd go for it. As for Weir and Anderson, partners in opportunistic silence, from which part of a MOJ is formed, thumbs down to their 'recollections.'

Just more to digest for those that don't think that there wasn't and isn't a concerted effort to continue to persecute David Bain, lies at every turn - even now, and joined in by a Minister of Justice.

You've said many silly things Kennard but at times the odd bit of truth finds its way in...

Edited in places:

nx wrote:

Bit like Graeme Capill and others of that ilk

Unnlike those who are nos supporters who scurry like rats to complain to the moderators aye cybernana, why did you wait a week before complaining It was most unfortunate (or was it providential) that Trademe told who complained in their warning to me.

I have complained to Trademe about personal abuse that crossed the line from nostalia-nz in his many incarnations. But I have not felt the need to complain about others to sink to their level. For the benefit of nostaligia-nz I do not drink Does that make me better than you nostalgia-nz? No it doesn't, what makes me better is that I don't feel the need to intimidate anyone. I don't feel the need to resort to abuse on a blog. If I have a comment to make about something to voice my opinion I do it to the persons face or directly to the person as I have to DC Pope and Paul Davison QC and the words I wrote were facts not "honestly held opinion" I do not need to hide behind weasel words on anonymous blog sites, or behind false names in emails.
I know no facts in the matter of R V Bain as I have never studied the case that closely

Edited by linz4me at 10:51 pm, Fri 24 Dec

First of all linz4me. Cybernana didn't complain about you and has said so. You have no proof that she complained about you but you post it as 'truth' anyway.

Secondly, you claim to have complained about me in the past and in the next sentence say that you haven't complained about others. That might make sense to you but not to me. Overall, who cares. I know that there was a campaign launched by the hate-sites against me on TM and elsewhere, the proof of that remains on the internet. You wanted me shut up. Further you and others, named yesterday have made false complaints about me to the authorities. Despite attempting to distance yourself from the hate-sites now the reality is that the record holds otherwise. You also accused me of emailing you, something else which is completely false and you use this false accusation in an effort to make purchase against myself and others. You used a lie, just as here above, you lie about cybernana and have the temerity to not post the proof. As it prevails I know why you were warned by TM and frankly I am somewhat amazed you haven't been permanently banned for a number of issues not just those including myself and family.

The purpose of the blog is fairly clear linz4me and one of those purposes is to name people such as yourself, Christine Williams, Glenda OBrien, and a host of others who have lied about others and encouraged stalking of them or their families. It is all on record. You squeal too loudly linz4me, you take personal offence when it is you involved but sit back with both pleasure and encouragement when it is others. You did a particular distasteful thing to another poster who offered you wise counsel, and that is recorded as well. Of course the new year will hopefully resolve a lot of these issues because they have taken on an importance of their own, an attempt to manipulate Justice linz4me, that began before the retrial and which eventually personalised itself into threats, intimidation and stalking - honest people with an interest in Justice don't do those things linz4me. Honest people don't make the truth, the truth is as it exists and as it is understood.

Which brings me to probably the most significant point of all, you said above 'I know no facts in the matter of R V Bain as I have never studied the case that closely' That much rate as one of the most frightening things you've ever written, despite not knowing the 'facts' you happily joined hate-sites and enjoyed attention as a legal 'expert' of sorts. Not only that you've encouraged personal attacks against members of the public in order to silence them, you've done this without understanding the case. That's a very common feature with hate-sites members, I have yet to engage with one who has a truthful interest in the case, at every opportunity platitudes are used and sweeping statements employed to justify persecution. How you can so casually dismember your own position beggars belief.

Just one quick parallel here. I've never claimed an understanding of the Watson case that is comprehensive, there are certainly things which are disturbing about some of the evidence and the arrival of the evidence, but not knowing the situation fully I've never condemned the man or the Police inquiry because to use your words 'I know no facts.' But the salient point is consistency, something that is merely a throw away line with you despite the people you and others from the hate-sites have done to hurt others.

The venerable cybernana showing that it is important to tell the truth and correct mistakes..

Actually, I must correct what I have posted. David was required to wear glasses, it was on his licence. However, he was able to drive without them (not legally of course) and evidence was given that he was occasionally seen doing just that.

Edited by cybernana at 7:46 am, Mon 22 Nov

Quotecybernana (582 ) 7:45 am, Mon 22 Nov #30662

If only one of the hangbainer twisted sisters had the ability to admit a mistake, that might even make their lies more understandable. Consider Ralph Taylor completely silent on his lies about the blood in the barrel, and DCameron unable to comment about her lies of seeing photos on non-existant scratches and the list goes on and on.

Introducing Trevor William Fox... the much despised, stalker and liar - luckytrader...

Another stalker revealed. A step closer to understanding the mechanics and set up construction of the hate sites. Anybody who can reveal any information about this individual please do so, confidentiality of source guaranteed. I particularly want to know any information at all linking this 'man' to The Press, or attempts he may have made at intimidating and outing the Chch jury or any other individual. Important issues lie at stake, nzers need to know how so much misinformation can be supplied to the public over such an extended period of time by people already aware of the truth. Nzers need to know what bridges the gap, between on the one hand having an opinion and the right to for free voice, and on the other knowing the truth but being willing to subvert it and act in a criminal way to subvert not only the right for the public to have knowledge and be fairly informed, but to at all times have the right to make fair and informed decisions arising from accurate and truthful information, logic and common sense without pressure, being stalked or bullied.

The missing gap continues to be bridged and may one day be seen as a story within itself as to not only how a man is setup for false imprisonment and persecution but additionally what constitutes the components, and motivation to continue to harass him with accusations and lies when due process has finally found its way.

A message for you trader, there's more to come, and it will be out in the open with more courtesy and power than you could ever conjure from the dark.

Bad day for the hangbainers. No scratches folks.

Worthy to note that Doyle (certainly neither he nor David would consider one another to be friends) made no mention of scratches, nor did any other police officer. Why, because it would have conflicted with the evidence of the Police Surgeon whose job it was to conduct the examination.

Another great fallacy of the case against David Bain lies exposed, just as it was for the Christchurch Jury who heard all the evidence, brought their own varied life experiences to the deliberating room and found David not guilty. Easy peasy.

On Trade Me Stockdale insists that he was 'told' by a police officer, well Moron Mike, why would a police officer tell you but not give evidence about it. You, like your fellows are thick as pig shit.

But when the chattering idiots finally swallow the bitter pill, then they might be able to think about whether or not their were intimate tests and samples taken from the body of dirty daddy.

Well who is luckytrader then?

First this from a correspondent..

Do we believe him?

Neil purkiss, I mean? about not being luckytrader?

I'm not sure I do. Too many coincidences:
same posting style, same abuse of punctuation;
both cockneys (NP is on facebook as from the East End of London, on TM misspw had a rhyming slang exchange with lucky trader as having been a cockney)
both posting almost identical things , NP on facebook, LT on TM at the same times
both connected to the juror who wrote that letter in some way

hmmm. I reserve judgment. It's possible they are not the same person - but it's also possible that they are not the same person in the same way that Christine Williams is not misspw (her daughter Amiria's account)

Well folks can judge for themselves. I do recall luckytrader implying that he recruited or attempted to recruit into some secret service of some type. However, putting things in perspective he would be up their in terms of whackiness among the other hangbainers.

Anyway, I'm sure to find out. I've made an inquiry to Trade Me about him and others, which will now form part of a legal proceeding that I should have sworn and ready for filing by Friday.

Just as an aside it was interesting to read on guilty.freeforums that Kalnovitch was actually laddiefatcat even though she vehemently denied it. All this from people who held themselves out to be honest and believers in Justice, how the mighty have fallen and will continue to fall as the scent of blood and hate that drove them blindly along is diluted to the smell of their own fear. What a turnout!

The idiot kulkkulbelle.

kulkkulbelle wrote:

FGS, he wasn't the one who slaughtered his family in cold blood. Why does he need to worry about his "arse" as you so delicately put it


for a start:

anderson was the one who claimed to find the shell in the alcove..

anderson was the one who claimed to have seen the magazine initially standing on its edge..he claims dempster knocked it over..he then stood it back up to be photographed..

anderson was the one who claimed to find the bone fragment by the rifle..despite another stating it was in the alcove..argued at trial..

anderson was the one who claimed to make safe and secure the rifle and secure prints..put on surgical gloves thereby smudging those very prints..but not till 10 hours later at 5pm..

Quotete-aroha (67 ) 2:52 pm, Mon 18 Oct #28355

The idiot kulkkulbelle, who has previously claimed to be willing to fund Kent Parker's defence, objects to facts that point to concerns about Detective Anderson's conduct. The 'coincidences' of Anderson's involvement in a number of locations of controversial exhibits certainly should be scrutinised. But kooybrain is offended and makes the point that he wasn't the killer. Well, I think we all know that kookybrain and te-aroha wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. But not being the killer wasn't the issue, the issue is of the 'convenient' involvement of Anderson in weaving together of unsubstantiated located material that in every event 'incriminated' David. From memory he might have also been the man who had the recalled 'memory' after 15 years of the claim that David asked for 'his' glasses on the morning of the killings - how very convenient memory recall.

So kookybelle te-aroha raises matters that should be of concern to us all, and earlier draws a justifiable parallel to the Thomas case planting of evidence. It's important that these things are dealt with now. As a general principle failings in a prosecution or evidence of potential evidence fabrication have to be ruthlessly investigated, it's important for all nzers, including the Police who have to bear the brunt of criticism that should rightly be laid at the feet of the offending officers and not the whole force. Look at the conduct of a particular officer and if found wanting ask the question of the OIC, because these officers are not acting independently but toward a common task. If Weir ever does write a book I hope he will have the guts not to deny the obvious and tell the obvious and tell the real and apparent truth.

On the point of the magazine being upright. I recall that evidence was 'moved' about during the photographing of the scene to the point where there is no reason to have confidence about what were the original positions of critical exhibits. Further, idiot Mike makes some assertion's about the magazine having been knocked over by Dempster and righted by good old Anderson, I can't recall if evidence was given by Dempster on the matter, but the mere fact the defence might not have questioned Anderson about that particular 'convenience' merely shows that if Dempster didn't give evidence about it then it didn't happen. Keep up folks, now is the time to right the ship.

Mike Stockdale, a blatant liar.

As has been shown below Mike Stockdale is a blatant and self-exposed liar. In the earlier post 'Mike Stockdale, a blatant liar?' he first of all alludes to a conversation with Milton Weir, giving details of the actual conversation. Then on another day, claims not to know him.

But in his true role as a hypocrite he almost daily announces David as a liar because of David's testimony being contradicted by his Aunt. This needs to be looked at a little further, David's aunt was also to become a beneficiary of the estate should David have been convicted. Much was made by the prosecution that David was lying about who the glasses belong to. David said they weren't his, at that time the Crown had clear evidence they weren't his but withheld it. So David was clearly telling the truth. His aunt's account is unsupported apart from a claim (not evidence) by Micheal Guest that David was going to 'admit' that he had been wearing the glasses that weekend. Mr Guest, we know, was David's lawyer at the time and he was later struck off for amongst other things lying to a client. So at best, Stockdale's claim is based on two different people giving conflicting accounts, evidence from one them David, claimed to have been lies by the Crown but which in fact was absolutely true. If David was telling the truth about whose glasses they were (and he was) then on the balance of things he was telling the truth about not wearing them - remembering that not one witness gave evidence of having seen him wear those glasses in the day's before the murders/suicide. 'Supporting' evidence that David had asked for the (his)glasses was later offered by a police officer who had held silent on the matter for 13 years. I find it absolutely nonsense that David would ask for glasses that were broken and therefore of no use to him that morning, more so because he is 'supposed' to have realised or known they were 'linked' to Stephen's room by a lens not yet found, and not found for many further days and only then in the most extremely odd of situations.

So Stockdale you are entitled to say that David's evidence conflicted with that of his aunt, or that indeed her account conflicted with his. You can't call him a liar. However, I can call you a liar, a stalker, a persecutor and a member and patron of hate-sites that are currently being sued in the Auckland High Court because that is true, and the truth of all of that has been provided by you. Thanks for that.

Rushing Rodney..

Who is he trying to fool, 'rushing back' to solve a 'problem,' suddenly urgent and which he has known about for over 4 years at least. Rodney wasn't concerned about the identity theft when he, McVicar and Garrett constructed a platform to enter Parliament by being tough on crime, so why is he worried now?

Richard Nixon said he wasn't a crook, maybe Rodney could use a variation ...'I'm not a crook, I'm just a convict.'

Further support for Christine misspw moronette award...

LAUGHING AT YOU said...
Moronic doesn't come close to describing this unfortunate woman.

She reminds me of a bank robber who writes his name and phone number on the bottom of his demand note.

"I've got the second trial transcripts" - Christine Williams.

Great Christine, now explain who gave them to you, so the Court's know who to contact.

September 13, 2010 4:22 PM


That's the interesting question, who she got them from. I hope this might eventually lead to uncovering some further information, I suspect it might be linked to the Jury stalking and a connection to the media. Let's face it the Crown Law Office or the Defence didn't leak this material.

From what I understand Christine Williams, and others can be brought before a Judge and made to disclose her sources because she is in Contempt of Court. Odd as it may sound, I suspect she is secretly trying to help Joe Karam by exposing the illegal activities the defendants have been up to. I don't imagine she is the type remain strong under fire and a couple of minutes in the cells for reflection could have her spilling the beans for a month.

I see in an earlier comment misspw trying to link the same behaviour to projecthr when it is in fact entirely different. If they weren't so up themselves they would have heeded what project wrote about the transcript in the beginning. Unfortunately, and true to the purest moron form, they couldn't wait and had an urgent appointment to catapult themselves off the nearest cliff.

Christine Williams (misspw) the dirty work of a stalker and liar.

He has insight into the family that nobody else has. If you are interested in the truth in this case you will listen to his honestly expressed opinion. Your suggestion that the family were only interested in the money does your credibility on these threads no good at all. His affection for this family is genuine and you can hear that clearly. The inheritance which you are obsessed with would have been divided by so many it was not much anyhow and for all you know they did something with it in memory of the family. What would you say then if someone could provide evidence of that?

Quotemisspw (65 ) 8:19 pm, Fri 10 Sep #26661

Here we see Christine Williams arguing why David Bain should continue to be denied his inheritance. She uses the argument that David's uncle Michael has 'insight' into the family that nobody else has and readers who are interested in the 'truth' will listen to uncle Michael's 'honestly expressed opinions.' But, before considering the merits of this apparent suggestion of religious witchcraft of some sort that we (the readers) should listen to someone who has insight into the family that nobody else has. We must be clear on somethings that are not subjective but which are relevant to the blind faith approach offered by a person (Christine Williams) who is already revealed as a stalker and somebody so 'objective' that she wanted to watch an innocent man hung and visible in torch light.

Uncle Michael was responsible for David's inheritance being disbursed to other members of the family at a time when David was falsely imprisoned. Uncle Michael must have been aware, as the majority of the country was, that David always denied his guilt, despite even Uncle Michael trying to elicit a confession from him. Uncle Michael was aware also, that David continued to fight for his freedom despite numerous setbacks. The disbursement or redistribution of David's inheritance was Court ordered, having been taken to the Court by his family despite their awareness that David continued to fight to have his conviction overturned. The Law that a person should not benefit from his or her crime was applied because at that point David was convicted of murder x 5. Of course now David stands as innocence man, no convictions and facing no charges. His status now is such that had Uncle Michael allow due process to unfold that David would have by now received his rightful inheritance in accordance with his parent's wills. Uncle Michael is silent on that matter, absolutely silent. Christine Williams trys to divert readers from the truth by suggesting that the inheritance for David would not have been much anyway - due to the number of other beneficiaries. I however, believe that David and his siblings were the only beneficiaries and that what is rightfully has been taken illegally.

David's lawyer Michael Reed has already publicly expressed his view, and I am sure he is right, that David's rightful inheritance should be returned. But Uncle Michael won't talk about that. What Uncle Michael will talk about is his wonderful brother who, as history records, is seen by many as a man who killed his own family. Michael, wants the country to trust in his instinct of why his brother was not a murderer (but therefore his innocent son was,) and wants those that are interested to be content that. Uncle Michael won't speak about David's money. And you can see that Uncle Michael cannot fathom that because he has gone public (and only since David was found innocent) that people are interested in a complete picture, not what he will or won't talk about, but the truth. The truth many are interested in is how, in law or in good conscience, one man can deny another property and freedom on the basis of the first man's (as misspw puts it) insight. Divine insight I don't think so. It looks to me that Uncle Michael is unable to accept the Law and due process and unable to see that another's property, stolen, misappropriated, taken prematurely or mistakenly should be returned - in Law there is no other way, no witchcraft, or religion, propaganda, or claims of insight defeat the Law and the protection of a citizen's rights and property.

Nevertheless, Christine Williams works away at the cause, citing God and doom in equal measure, stalking and lying her way as she goes about her evil work.

Justice in the South Seas

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/4109525/NZ-police-blamed-for-Solomon-trial-botch-up

In the foregoing, a High Court Judge ruled statements by 2 defendants as inadmissible. Basically, the Police denied the defendants due process including reading the suspects their rights and telling them that whatever they might say could be used against them. The Judge noted (in his words) that there were 'deficiencies in process' that 'tainted the entire interview' with the defendants and threw the statements out although not the charges against the 2 defendants.

In the Bain case there were clearly 'deficiencies in process' probably encompassing the whole case from the first minutes/hours of the investigation beginning. The police, probably correctly, assumed that the perpetrator had to be David or Robin, when they later 'decided' it was David it meant that evidence against Robin was either not pursued or ignored. To my mind that in itself was a Miscarriage of Justice along with the 'decision' of which of the two men it was, and which person therefore evidence against was to be looked for.

Let's look at the evidence against Robin that was either ignored or not pursued. Day 3 of the inquiry police were told of a potential motive, which they ignored, later one of the officers gave evidence to the effect they (the Police) weren't interested in incest because they had a murder to solve. That displays the mindset, the belief that David was guilty and whether or not Robin was an abuser of his children was neither her nor there in the greater picture. The uninterrupted blood spatter across the floor from Robin's body and on the curtains, they explained that later as proof that David stood behind the curtain, completely disregarding the nonsense of such a theory and in particular how David, standing behind the curtain, had been able to get an upward trajectory shot that required the rifle barrel to be touching Robin's head. Other things, like the fresh blood on Robin's trousers in the van, the blood and hair found in the van and never tested. The accurate profiling of Robin that should have, like it or not, shown that he was a man with real problems at the time of his death.

Not testing all of the samples of DNA found on Robin, not doing a GSR test, not seeking to reconcile the dna found inside the rifle and silencer, not seeking to reconcile that the first four killings were killer dominant downward trajectory and the last was killer 'passive' upward trajectory. Not being able to reconcile the frankness of the admissions that David innocently made, that his was the rifle, that only he had a key to it, not knowing that his sister was a prostitute and on it goes. The difficulty of David being seen outside the house when the killings had, in the final analysis, already happened. There being no motive, not that one is required in law, for David to have committed the killing, the only motives would come years later from frantic people trying to cover up or disguise Robin's incest.

Whereas in Judge David Cameron's view the 'deficiencies of process' in accordance with the suspects rights being ignored 'tainted the entire interview' it could easily be accepted that the 'deficiencies of process' in the Bain investigation 'tainted' not the entire interview but the entire inquiry. One of the most disturbing features is that it effectively took the Police until June last year to concede they'd arrested and imprisoned the wrong man, the evidence of which had not come from themselves, although it had been available to them from the outset had they not chosen to ignore it, but came instead from witnesses and experts who, given the opportunity, would have concluded that the Bain case was murder/suicide. That seems to display the failings that can happen in the adversary system, where it becomes personal for prosecuting authorities, personal rather that professional and questioning of anything that doesn't bear scrutiny. There was never a rush to 'solve' this case, there was all the time in the world. And all the time in the world for Courts (post the Privy Council decision) or the Solicitor General to acknowledge the obvious that the 'deficiencies of process' defeated Justice and Justice from being seen to be done. A point is reached when a decision can be made, that a tyre is flat and no amount of turning on the hub will make it anything other than still flat. Much like that it can be accepted the realisation that some one's gut instinct was wrong when they searched for the wrong evidence and ignored that which should never have been ignored.

From a special correspondent: The Play

Having been recruited by Goodnewsguy to perform an artistic mission in a very wet Wellington, I made the long drive to the capital to attend the preview of the new play at Downstage Theatre: The December Brother by the SEEyD theatre group. I had protested to GNG: I didn't want to contribute to the macabre commercialisation of a real tragedy that had been espoused by the hate sites with such vulgar glee. Goodnewsguy resorted to pressure, and I realised that this was a mission I could not refuse. GNG supplied me with fake noses aplenty, and a blue-rinse wig: assuring me I would blend in better with the audience thus attired. I was skeptical: didn't sound like Wellington theatre-goer attire to me. But I brought the disguise with me just in case. As it turned out, the best disguise was a warm coat, scarf and glass of pinot...

The theatre obviously had concerns: there were large warning signs on the way in that some content might offend. In the bar there were easily eavesdroppable conversations revealing prejudices: particularly a discussion of the recently shown documentary by some people who actually seem to have taken it seriously! I almost left: what was I doing there? But the words of Goodnewsguy about the yearning need of the hate-siters for a glimpse at the play made me persevere: this was in their best interests.

The play was...interesting. And good, actually, though exploitative of a very real situation. The writer and main actor, Tim Spite, had something to say that was worth hearing.

Part 1 (true: labled as non-fiction) was about the writer's father, Tony Spite, who was adopted: his story of finding his birth parents. The search was started in 1994 by his daughter, who said something in passing about not wanting to find you're related to the Bains (the case being all over the papers at the time).

Part 2 (labled as 'fiction non fiction') was an enactment of the murders at Every st: first from the perspective of David as cold, callous murderer, then from Robin as murderer remorseful after the event. Some details were wrong - they had gone for silliness of Robin changing specifically for the murders, for example. But it was a reasonably fair depiction of the event drawn from evidence from each side.

Part 3 (labelled as fiction) was the most interesting act, supposedly pulling the two stories together. A woman finds she's adopted and sets out to find her birth family: her birth mother turns out to be a Margaret Bain analog. A couple have been murdered, and their son, Cain, is locked up for it. The mother had been hit over head with frying pan (wiped, only son's fingerprints), while the father committed suicide by car exhaust through hosepipe. This act gives lots of exposure of the fixed tunnel vision of the police in the investigation of Cain's case, and of selective use or distortion of evidence; together with Cain's portrayal of his mother/parents as normal and wholesome. This portrait not true as discovered when the adopted sister is given the mother's diary to read. Realising Cain has lied to her, she challenges him...and you realise he was merely trying to maintain some privacy. There was a dig, which I enjoyed, at a pompous self-important psychiatrist pontificating about Freudian interpretations of the case showing Cain to be guilty, but then admitting he's never met the son, merely read the evidence. A staunch advocate for Cain, convinced of Cain's innocence is rather unsympathetically portrayed: apparently putting words in Cain's mouth, persuading Cain of his parents' marital difficulties... Until you realise that the whole evidence shows him to be right. An interchange between the advocate and the solicitor culminates in an exchange about truth being nothing to do with anything: justice under the adversarial system is a game to be won. Which got a rather cynical laugh from the audience.

The core message was that without knowing all the detail, you cannot and should not judge. There was an implicit but clear condemnation of the media approach to the Bain trial, and to David Bain since the trial.

As the crowd spilled out onto the cold, wet street after the play finished, there were some snippets to be overheard: the reviewer from Victoria Univesity's Salient, regretting that the play hadn't 'taken a stance'. A woman with an American accent discussing jars of rotten preserves. A middle-aged couple grumbling about the male nudity. A couple of older men saying that 'it's all in the fingerprints'. And one girl saying to her parents: "But it's not fair! Why are the papers allowed to do it when he was found innocent? Why are they so mean?"

So Goodnewsguy has his wig and noses returned unused. They would not have been out of place in parts of the audience, but they were a minority. Goodnewsguy will, I hope, be pleased with me: he was right, it is in the hate-siter's best interests.

Justice Thorp - deliberately myopic?

Quote: Sir Thomas Murray Thorp - In His Police Complaints Authority review of the Bain case.

That the glasses which were in working order the previous day but were subsequently found damaged, as to the damaged frame and one lens in the petitioner’s room and as the other lens in Stephens Room, could have been damaged in some fashion unrelated to the struggle between Stephen and his killer. And whereas it would have been normal for the short-sighted petitioner to have worn glasses when operating his firearm, since he had only half a metre of clear vision without them, it would be contrary to all common sense for his long-sighted father to wear glasses which would only have impaired his vision.
In my opinion they do not adequately recognise the significance or Mr Guest’s advice that he had been told by the petitioner that he had been wearing the glasses the day before the murders.

I bet Sir Tom was a good bloke, I bet he did all he could to present as a good and fair bloke. But I don't know of any evidence that said that Margaret's old glasses were in working order the day before the Bain murders. Anybody that knows of such evidence might wish to email me.
In the meantime Sir Tom seems to be in error as to what David would have been able to see without his glasses. In Sir Tom's view David couldn't see more than half a metre without them, but that's not what witnesses at the trial said. He concludes on this point that it would be 'contrary to all common sense' for his (David's) long-sighted father to wear glasses which would have only impaired his vision. Well, I would have thought it was 'contrary to all common sense' to answer a proposal that was never forwarded. I don't think anybody, apart from Old Tom, has ever said that Robin was wearing Margaret's glasses when he shot his family. I appreciate that Tom Tom was trying to tidy up an unlawful conviction that had resulted from an actual Miscarriage of Justice, but I think he was adding to the miscarriage by making assertions that were 'contrary to all common sense' when in fact nobody had made them. To use imaginary assertions to compliment the Crown who, as time has shown, had perpetrated an actual MOJ makes old Tom look like silly Tom.
After this startling answer to a claim that had never been made, Tom Tom really got wound up. He stated that he felt more emphasis should have been given to the 'never given on oath evidence' from Michael Guest that David was going to admit wearing the glasses belonging to his mother. It is apparent that Tom Tom thought that David was going to do the 'decent' thing and link himself to a glass lens that had been found in the most mysterious circumstances in the deceased Stephen Bain's room. That would have been a great help in perpetuating the MOJ and dispelled any questions as to why the lens was under clothing, dust covered and not bearing any DNA from the scene that had seen blood scattered throughout.
I guess by then Tommy Tom had got on a roll by then and may have been unaware at the time (I can't recall the sequence of events at the moment) that the herald of this message was a disbarred member of the Bar who among other things has been disbarred for lying.

Why was the Pathologist kept from the house?

I know the police have stated that they wanted to preserve the scene, thus being the reason for keeping The Crown Pathologist, Dempster, waiting outside Every Street for several hours. However, this man was the foremost expert to visit the scene that day, it was critical that it should be him examining the bodies at the first opportunity. To suggest he was somehow inept at not containing samples or collecting evidence stretches credibility. Particularly, when we have seen (on video) the general abandon with which the officers on the scene gathered critical evidence - the gathering off the floor off clothing and such like to be carted away in a blanket. I think we all understand that blood for example (or any other dna) would be transferred from one item to another in this way. Just as we all understand that core temperatures of the bodies were left unattended through many hours when the possibility of determining the times of death were lost.

During this period when Dempster was left outside the house the police experimented with tomato sauce spray to assist in determining features of the deaths, something which is as bizarre as it sounds. Could some of the police have had misgivings about surrendering the scene to the expert too soon? I recall a Detective giving evidence that he asked senior staff about the Gunshot Residue Tests early in the morning. Obviously this man had no inhibitions about what correct procedure was. Unfortunately compounding the 'mistakes' made in these first few hours of the investigations is anectodal evidence of some of the inquiry staff being aware of Laniet's role in prostitution, and even the exploitation of some officers of this situation Laniet have become involved in.

We also know that an electronic diary that Laniet owned eventually disappeared while in police hands, as also we know that the record of calls to and from her mobile phone were never recovered. Certainly within days police were made aware of allegations that Laniet had been the subject of abuse from her father, these claims however were not investigated because as one officer put it 'they had a murder case to solve.' A fairly novel statement when even armchair critics understand that motive can, and often does, lead to the murderer.

Without touching on the suggestions of incest in any great detail here, I'll mention two points that the hate-sites labour. Firstly, a victim of incest may not necessarily have an ongoing 'relationship' with their abuser. The fact that Laniet met her father at the school is neither here nor there in terms of whether any abuse had taken place. She was of course older, 'use' to the situation if it were true, and may have some control over Robin about her favours for him.

Secondly, while Laniet is rounded upon at length by Robin defenders and anything she is alleged to have said to a vast range of people who gave evidence to that effect at the trial - assumes that Laniet was simply providing an alibi for David in preparation for her own death. That, like many things in the Bain case, doesn't wash.