Binnie on Bain

Sunday tonight has an interview of retired judge Ian Binnie on the Bain murders. Very interesting – if you want to see it and have missed it then try TV +1 from 8:30.

Binnie wrote the report that said that in all probability David Bain was innocent and deserved compensation from the Crown. It created a political furore.

Binnie believes David is almost certainly innocent, and that his father set things up to make it look like David had done it in an act of revenge.

He cites in particular that David Bain had no history of mental instability while his father Robin was in a deteriorating state and was effectively estranged from his family.

One thing doesn’t make sense if David did it – why did he kill his mother and siblings, go on his paper run, and then return and shoot his father.

Binnie says that the police inquiry was inept, complicated somewhat by the burning down of the Bain house by the Police about two weeks after the murders.

There is still a number of aspects that don’t make sense and could implicate both David and Robin.

Binnie says that Judith Collins is the poster case why a politician should not get involved in legal cases – she was Minister of Justice when the Binnie report was released.

Leave a comment

40 Comments

  1. patupaiarehe

     /  February 26, 2017

    Thanks Pete, sounds worth a watch

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  February 26, 2017

    Binnies ego is injured.There are 3 sure bets in life…death,taxes and David Bains guilt.Binnie relied on emotion and Karams books which were pure fiction.The most repugnant aspects of the case were that 5 people were murdered and Robin Bain slandered mercilessly ,all in the name of commercial gain.Karam made a great living out of this…it was a celebrity endorsement.The evidence against David Bain is overwhelming,the Police made some errors but they did not negate the facts of the case.David Bain before being rehearsed…’I’m the only one who really knows what happened’.Karam,David just wants the chance to give evidence,his side of the story….at the trial…no show….defence moved for misstrial on 3 occassions for spurious reasons.No one was more surprised than Karam when the verdict was …not guilty.At Karams first meeting with David he got a signed contract of 50/50 re any settlements and revenues….like a boxing promoter…less expenses…of course.

    Reply
  3. PDB

     /  February 26, 2017

    Things linking Robin Bain to the murders – 0

    Things linking David Bain to the murders – 30+

    Binnie was a joke, best thing Collins ever did was throw his nonsense out. “He cites in particular that David Bain had no history of mental instability while his father Robin was in a deteriorating state and was effectively estranged from his family.” In actual fact the mental instability of Robin was not proven (also the incest claim) and made up by Karem, whilst David Bain telling some old school mates before the murders that he wanted to abduct a jogger and rape her whilst using his paper run as an alibi was suppressed at trial – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576815

    Not only that but he told his own lawyers that he committed perjury in the first trial in saying he wasn’t wearing his mothers glasses at the time of the murders, the very same glasses that were broken in the fight with Stephen, the broken frame left in David’s room and the broken lens in Stephen’s room. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10856832

    PG: “One thing doesn’t make sense if David did it – why did he kill his mother and siblings, go on his paper run, and then return and shoot his father”. Maybe Bain was initially going to have the father find the bodies but when he got back his father had yet to enter the house? We are trying to make sense of a senseless shooting by David who was the one person in the family with mental problems & a history of odd behavior towards family members.

    Reply
    • patupaiarehe

       /  February 26, 2017

      I said that he raised some interesting points Pants. I don’t recall saying I know that David Bain is innocent. Only one man alive knows for sure what happened that day.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  February 26, 2017

        and who would that man be Patu….you see that could only be the …killer…the mistake David Bain made with his unguarded statement ,before Karam told him to answer in future ….’I don’t know…I wasn’t ..there’!

        Reply
      • PDB

         /  February 26, 2017

        As Blazer asked “what interesting points”? The only thing he got right in his report was that the police investigation was crap. Though the evidence was so overwhelming in terms of David’s guilt that didn’t matter in the end.

        Reply
        • patupaiarehe

           /  February 26, 2017

          ‘Bloody sock prints, but no blood inside the shoes….”
          I really don’t know whether he is innocent or not, since I haven’t had the chance to review all the evidence. You two, however, seem to have made up your minds….

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  February 26, 2017

            I have reviewed ALL the evidence.The blood evidence…David had his young brother Stevens blood on his underpants….explanation….’the cat must have brushed..against …him’!!!That poor young man fought like a tiger before David killed him.He was a promising 14 y.o athlete,his sister also murdered dux of the school…but David ,a 22y.o living at home with a paper round,was the …’only one who deserved to…stay’!Give me…strength.

            Reply
          • patupaiarehe

             /  February 26, 2017

            Also Pants, do you remember that piece on the news a while back, about marks on Robin’s fingers that were consistent with loading a magazine shortly before his death? A friend of mine, who hunts every weekend he can, and knows a lot about firearms, reckons that Robin did it, based on that alone.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  February 26, 2017

              Duncan Garner sensationalist beat up….proven to be unreliable when tests were done.Does your friend think the cartridge could be perfectly balanced on the carpet as well.?Have a look at the trial evidence when the defence tried to show how Robin could have shot himself with the rifle on that angleIts farcical,Karam jumped up to try and act it out,on YT..I believe.

            • PDB

               /  February 26, 2017

              You know why we didn’t hear much about it after it was aired? Because the police went public and proved 100% it was nonsense……even Karam quickly gave up on that one.

              Police statement: “We know for example that Robin Bain was doing work to the roof and spouting of his Every Street home in the days leading up to the killings – any Kiwi handyman knows the sort of damage this can do to the hands.  Post mortem examination of Robin Bain’s hands shows a number of minor abrasions and marks you would expect to find with someone familiar with manual work”.

              “Indeed, police have today conducted a preliminary examination of fingerprints taken from Robin Bain after his death. These prints show an absence of fingerprint markings in the same place on his right thumb as the dark marks appearing in the photograph.  Our fingerprint experts advise that this is consistent with someone sustaining cuts or damage to the fingers prior to prints being taken, which would then affect the print image”.

              “Had these been powder marks or smudges as claimed, we would expect to see a complete fingerprint image.
              “I also reiterate the evidence put forward in court that the only identifiable fingerprints found on the firearm belonged to David and Stephen Bain”.

              “However, I am mindful that this theory has been put forward through a programme whose makers chose not to seek comment from police prior to broadcast, and who also refused to provide details about their story when approached by police on Tuesday.”

              “Had they done so then we would have pointed out that fingerprints had been presented in evidence and have always been available through the court to help them decide if their story stacked up.”

            • patupaiarehe

               /  February 26, 2017

              Well my mate, who regularly loads a .22 magazine similar to the one shown in the article, and who also saw the photo of Robins fingers, reckons that he has marks exactly like those on his fingers every time he comes back from a rabbit shoot. And I did ask him if there was any way similar marks could appear on someones fingers, from working on their roof. He reckoned “Yup, if they were nailing it down with .22 cartridges….”

            • Blazer

               /  February 26, 2017

              well on that basis,we can ignore all that bad luck as listed by PDB,and come to the conclusion that David is …innocent…mind you ,can you elaborate on… this statement….’ Only one man alive knows for sure what happened that day.’….like….who is that…man?

            • PDB

               /  February 26, 2017

              I’ve always been amazed as to how Robin Bain committed suicide wearing no gloves and THEN wiped his fingerprints off the rifle………

              Police: “I also reiterate the evidence put forward in court that the only identifiable fingerprints found on the firearm belonged to David and Stephen Bain”.

            • PDB

               /  February 26, 2017

              Note how Karam said Robin shot himself – would have had to brace himself and hold the gun tight so why no fingerprints? Why leave the silencer on? Why did Robin not knock any furniture over when he fell?And at that angle there is zero chance that a cartridge would land perfectly on its edge. This is Disneyland stuff.

            • patupaiarehe

               /  February 26, 2017

              @Blazer
              You know who, & he isn’t necessarily the guilty one.
              @Pants
              They can’t take prints from the trigger.
              I am not trying to play ‘counsel for the defence’ here BTW. I have no idea what really happened on that morning, & neither do either of you.

            • PDB

               /  February 26, 2017

              Patu – see pic above – gun was so long he had to brace the top end of the gun as well as pull the trigger – Robin’s prints should be all over the end of it.

            • PDB

               /  February 26, 2017

              Also note Robin was right handed – pulling the trigger with his left hand to shoot himself in the left temple is not the natural thing to do making an already difficult task even more so.

  4. Nelly Smickers

     /  February 26, 2017

    We just watched this on *Sunday* as well…..when I asked Wayne what he thought, he said “Hopefully it’ll be the catalyst for a shitload more *David Bain* jokes” 😄

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  February 26, 2017

      @Patu…this only one man who knows what happened…..surely this man can enlighten us,if he is not necessarily guilty….or ?…you’re in quicksand here Patu,….lets move on.

      Reply
      • patupaiarehe

         /  February 26, 2017

        Quicksand Blazer? Just because you care about this a lot, don’t be foolish enough to thunk those feelings are reciprocated… 😛

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  February 27, 2017

          5 people being murdered and the travesty that followed is worth …caring about.The industry Karam cultivated is quite ..repugnant.

          Reply
  5. PDB

     /  February 26, 2017

    If you haven’t read this, for the ‘David Bain is innocent’ freaks he sure was unlucky……well worth quoting again.

    Bad luck that his father was able to find the spare trigger lock key. 
    Bad luck that his father decided to wear David’s gloves instead of his own.
    Bad luck that his father decided to wear gloves even though he was going to commit suicide.
    Bad luck that the only identifiable prints on the rifle were David’s.
    Bad luck that those prints were in pristine condition and hadn’t been smeared with all the handling of the rifle that morning.
    Bad luck that his father took the 10 shot magazine out of the rifle while it still had three rounds in it and placed it upright on the floor when he could have just left it in the firearm. 
    Bad luck that David had Stephen’s blood on his clothes.
    Bad luck that the glasses belonging to his mother that he said he wore when his were unavailable were found in a damaged condition in his room with one lens missing.
    Bad luck that the missing lens was found in Stephen’s room.
    Bad luck that David told his lawyer that he had been wearing his mother’s glasses on the Sunday night prior to the killings. 
    Bad luck that his aunt testified that David had told her he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses that weekend.
    Bad luck that he had bruises on his head and torso consistent with him having been a fight/struggle.
    Bad luck that his father changed into some tatty old clothes before he supposedly committed suicide.
    Bad luck David didn’t realise  those clothes that his father changed out of were in the wash-basket and that he put them in the washing machine without seeing any blood on them.
    Bad luck that his father did not have enough blood on his hands to enable that blood to be tested. 
    Bad luck that his father typed a message on the computer instead of hand-writing one.
    Bad luck that the message on the computer amounted to David’s superiority over the rest of the family.
    Bad luck that his father’s head appeared to have been moved subsequent to his death. 
    Bad luck that his father’s body appeared to have been moved subsequent to his death. 
    Bad luck his father had a full bladder. 
    Bad luck that David apparently fainted after finding his family dead and that he didn’t “come around” until after twenty minutes had passed. Had he not fainted he would have phoned the emergency services straight away and the police would have arrived twenty minutes earlier and found the washing machine still operating.
    Bad luck that David told the phone operator that all his family was dead then later told a police officer he had only seen his mother and father.
    Bad luck that David didn’t turn his bedroom light on when he arrived home. Had he done so he would have seen the trigger lock on the floor and wouldn’t have done the washing.
    Bad luck that when the washing machine cycle was tested it took an hour.
    Bad luck that Laniet told acquaintances that she met when going to work on the Sunday that she didn’t want to go to the family meeting that David had called for that evening because he was acting freaky and that she was frightened of him.
    Bad luck his Gondolier’s T-shirt had a stain that looked like blood on it that he said wasn’t there when he put it in the wash the previous evening.
    Bad luck that he told a female companion prior to the killings that something terrible was going to happen.  
    Bad luck he told his friend Mark Buckley of his plan to molest a female jogger using his paper round as an alibi.
    Bad luck his right-handed father supposedly shot himself in the left temple and did so without removing the silencer from the rifle.
    Bad luck his father supposedly changed magazines when there was no need to and placed the magazine he removed upright on the floor.
    Bad luck that David heard his sister gurgling and described that gurgling exactly how she would have gurgled if she had been shot once through the cheek and was still alive.
    Bad luck that David saw his mother’s eyes open when experts said they should have shut shortly after she was shot through the eyelid.
    Bad luck that when the photo of the bloody sock print was taken that the luminol didn’t show up so it could be proved to have shown the extremities of the heel and toes. 
    Bad luck that he told police officers the green jersey that it was later proved to have been worn by the killer belonged to Arawa.
    Bad luck that the blue track pants in the wash which he never admitted were his were too long to have been worn by any other family member.  
    Bad luck that he said he didn’t bring the paper in which meant that his father must have  brought it in even though he was apparently intending to commit suicide.

    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/karam-would-have-us-believe-that-david-bain-had-a-great-deal-of-bad-luck

    Reply
    • Brown

       /  February 27, 2017

      Bad luck that the NZ taxpayer has paid the killer and his sponsor $1,000,000 to compensate for hurty feelings or something.

      Reply
  6. Yvonne Rahui

     /  February 27, 2017

    I want to know why the very first news break about the shootings, reported the fact that Robin, who was living estranged from the family, had just returned from a weekend away with his daughter Laniet..(it also showed his caravan living quarters and mentioned if I remember, his deteriorating mental state ), BUT then following ones didn’t mention this fact again. .The
    media as I recall very quickly started to fixate on Davids ‘nerdy’ type appearance. It was revealed by a friend of Laniets that she had told her father that she was going to reveal to the family the incestuous relationship between her & her father..next thing she is dead along with others in the family. IT WAS NOT Karem who made these claims of incest!,

    Ian Binnie is highly regarded in his profession & not a silly man & came to his conclusions clearly after a comprehensive review of the case. The Criminal Bar Association of NZ obviously highly regard him as well & must believe his findings as they have invited him to address it”s members in August, which he has accepted. Why would they invite someone who Judith Collins & other so called notables have seen as presenting an infallible review?

    Joe Karem is not a silly man, who just gave up his entire life almost, to help David prove his innocence just on a wim..nor for fame or money. Anyone can tell his sincerity in his belief of David and his sense of justice..it became, I believe, a moral duty to see it resolved fully! Initially it was to help Davids friends as he saw how committed they were in their belief of his innocence. A lot of crucial evidence was tampered with, & I believe, in an attempt to frame David & protect Robin! From what. Could he have been a Free Mason & along with others brought in to prove his innocence. I don’t say this lightly-I know that system works & how they will go to great lengths to protect their own. I’ve read that many judges are ones & this is how they work. Anyway..it makes me wonder..we never know the full truth about so much. If it could be ruled out then I’d have to look elsewhere as to why.

    David didn’t admit to driving with glasses on the Sunday after earlier saying he didn’t have gasses . I believe Binnie knew that David was actually admitting to driving without glasses BUT with Laniet in the car.. This is something someone brought up regarding Binnie”s report..saying Binnie let him lie and yet still found him not guilty. I say Binnie knew exactly what David was saying! ‘I did drive without glasses but I had Laniet with me’. He knew he shouldn’t have been but he did so knowing he had Laniets eyes & instructions of help as well as his own familiarity of the area along with the probability of slow driving with slight vision.. (what is his vision like without glasses-if blind then I’ve got it totally wrong!) There…my version but probably kinda what was actually how it was..& why Binnie didn’t see it as a problem in his summation.

    Pete George said that there is no compelling evidence either way..well I believe the fact that Laniet & -her father being away for the weekend before, is compelling..taking into account the circumstances and the obvious estrangement of him from the family as well as other factual bits of descriptions (not considering any friends/extended families/acquaintances, verbal evidence), about his living, down to what he was reading even!

    Don’t judge a book by it’s cover as the media would have us do. And really some of the hearsay evidence..some can be exaggerated & misconstrued & even made to make that one become so important to the case.

    Reply
  7. Blazer

     /  February 27, 2017

    Hers a starter for you yvonne….’A lot of crucial evidence was tampered with, & I believe, in an attempt to frame David & protect Robin! From what. Could he have been a Free Mason….’graspin g at straws and ignoring evidence.Why was David the only one who deserved to stay do you think?

    Reply
  8. Blazer

     /  February 27, 2017

    @Yvonne..’. And really some of the hearsay evidence..some can be exaggerated & misconstrued & even made to make that one become so important to the case.’….sure can Yvonne, that was the defences flimsy case….unsubstantiated rumours ,fuelled by them about incest,slandering someone who could not defend themselves.Funny how you say…’the fact that Laniet & -her father being away for the weekend before, is compelling..’.You must have read Karams fiction and have no regard for facts.How do you think Karam made a living all those years?

    Reply
  9. PDB

     /  February 27, 2017

    @Yvonne: I could dissect all of which you wrote in minute detail but I can’t be bothered.

    To sum up all your evidence is either ‘Heresay’ or in terms of evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative the evidence is to your mind ‘tampered with’. The evidence linking David to the killing is compelling, physical (bruising to head, glasses he wore found damaged in Stephen’s room where a fight had occurred etc), with contradictions in Bain’s testimony (Bain said ‘they are all dead’ to police though he admitted he only saw the bodies of his parents etc), and comprehensive (95% of all evidence points to him being the killer).

    Karam for whatever reason has made it his life’s mission to free an obviously guilty man. You mention the glasses which Karam lied (on purpose or by error) about in his books in order to dismiss their importance to the case against David. In his books Karam said David’s mothers glasses were of no use to David but this is contradicted by David himself in sworn testimony that he often borrowed his mothers glasses when his weren’t available – at the time of the murders David’s glasses were away being fixed.

    The glasses is not the only time David lied at the first trial regarding key evidence linking him to the killings. The green jersey that the killer wore (fibres of it were found under Stephens fingernails and it also smeared blood over Stephens wall) – David originally said it was his sister’s then during trial changed his mind in saying it belonged to Robin knowing full well by then that blaming Robin for the killing was his only way to avoid being convicted. David Bain also lied when he said at trial that he couldn’t remember the colours of the jerseys he chucked into the washing machine that morning until he was reminded at trial that he was on record as saying one was green. This green jersey would have been covered in blood so how did David see the colour and not the blood covering it? Why did he not notice he had blood on his hands when he left his bloodied handprint on the washing machine? Is it possible that he washed all the killers clothes without noticing they were heavily covered in fresh blood??

    “Pete George said that there is no compelling evidence either way” – PG would be wrong, there is a mountain of compelling evidence and it all points to David being the killer.

    Reply
  10. The real problem is that David Bain was entitled to a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. After all the legal processes had been gone though he was finally found in a Court of Law as NOT GUILTY. Based on the truism that it is better to see 100 guilty criminals go free that to see an innocent man judged guilty (or something like that). It is a pity that the Scottish finding of NOT PROVEN wasn’t in the judicial lexicon.

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  February 27, 2017

      Indeed…..

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10848471

      “There’s been a lot of speculation that it means that he was found innocent. And I was a juror and I never found David Bain innocent,” she said.
      She pointed out that the jury was never asked to find Bain innocent, but whether or not the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
      “And that they did not do,” she said.
      The woman said she didn’t believe Bain should get compensation “on the balance of probabilities”.

      However I disagree that the crown could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that David was the killer – the sheer weight of evidence is overwhelming.

      Reply
      • Thanks for that PDB. Very unusual to read a comment by a member of the jury, and possibly illegal, Nonetheless she must have felt very strongly that he was NOT INNOCENT but the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Pretty much right out of the horses mouth and very revealing commet.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  February 27, 2017

          These were more disturbing from a Jury prospective: “After Mr Bain left, a couple of the jurors approached him and gave him a hug, smiled and told him good luck”.

          http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/david-bain-speechless-after-not-guilty-verdicts-read-2009060519

          “A member of the jury from the 2009 retrial of David Bain reports the following took place during the course of the trial:
          *Early in the trial (well before the prosecution closed), one jury member suggested that, “Once this is all over, I’ll invite Joe Karam over to my house so we can all meet him.”
          *At week nine, after the prosecution case had completed a jury member suggested that they go to the judge with their not guilty verdict and save the taxpayer a lot of money.  A vote was taken and two others agreed.
          *Two of the jurors who agreed to the above idea, then spent the rest of the trial swapping notes and not paying attention, something which was noticed by Martin Van Beynen, journalist of the Press.
          *These same two jurors were the ones who hugged David Bain after the trial and went to his victory party.
          *Another jury member brought in one of Karam’s books at some stage during the trial. He made it clear that his wife, who attended the trial from time to time, was trying to get it autographed by Karam.
          *This same juror presented some printouts about Karam’s campaign that he/she had downloaded from the internet. The juror was quick to add that he/she hadn’t read them, yet he/she still brought them in to show other members of the jury.
          *At the end of the trial, jurors were instructed to leave via the back door.  Six of them refused and left via the front door where the media and David Bain were.”

          http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/news/exclusive-juror-misconduct-in-2009-bain-retrial

          “The juror, a student, pleaded guilty to stealing about $6000 from her Christchurch employer in March 2007, Fairfax newspapers reported.
          Neither the prosecution nor defence was aware of her conviction at the time the jury was empanelled.
          Jurors are not obliged to declare past offences, and no law prevents convicted offenders from sitting on juries.
          The juror, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted under her maiden name and has since changed her name twice.
          She attended celebrations with the Bain defence teams and was seen hugging him after the verdict.
          Robin’s brother, Michael Bain, today questioned whether the trial would have been fairer had the juror been disqualified.”

          http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10657315

          Reply
  11. I presume you meant “perspective” rather than “prospective” in your comment PDB, else it is confusing. The whole handling sounds very un-jury like. and should have been followed up by the Police. Thanks for the perspective.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s