Corruption, Justice, Truth

What’s the plausible explanation? (Part 4)

8 Comments

The Binnie Report clearly states that the magazine found next to Robin Bain’s body was empty.

(iv) The Curious Placement of the empty 10 shot magazine
268. An important element of the prosecutor’s argument against suicide (and a point which found favour with the Court of Appeal) is that an empty 10 shot magazine was found close to Robin Bain’s dead right hand on the carpet resting on its narrow, slightly convex edge.
…
271. The Bain argument is that the magazine must have been placed on the floor before Robin’s death because in order to make the fatal shot Robin must have switched the empty 10 bullet magazine for the loaded 5 bullet magazine. Each of the 10 bullets was accounted for elsewhere in the house. When the Police seized the gun it was fitted with a smaller 5 shot magazine. It was a bullet from that 5 shot magazine that killed Robin. The Bain team theory is that Robin put down the empty 10 shot magazine on the flooras he fit the smaller 5 shot magazine to the rifle in preparation for suicide.

And this photo shows that there is a bullet in the magazine next to Robin Bain’s hand.

magazine
Empty magazine?
22Bullet
A .22 bullet

 

So what’s the plausible explanation?

1) That Binnie misrepresented the evidence.

2) That the Police photographer didn’t know that the magazine was supposed to be empty.

 

Justice, Psycho Killer, Qu'est-ce que c'est?

What’s the plausible explanation? (Part 3)

16 Comments

bain thumb

(1) The rifle magazine landed on its thin edge of its own accord after Robin Bain shot himself.

(2) The rifle magazine landed on its thin edge of its own accord after David Bain shot Robin.

(3) The rifle magazine was placed there by David to make it appear as if Robin had shot himself.

(4) The rifle magazine was placed there by Robin after he shot himself.

(5) The rifle magazine was placed there by the police in an attempt to frame David for the suicide death of his father.

(6) The rifle magazine was placed there by the police in an attempt to exonerate David of the murder of his father.

(7) The rifle magazine was placed there by the police just for the lulz.

Justice, Keeping It Real, Psycho Killer, Qu'est-ce que c'est?

35 improbable things before breakfast

12 Comments

093-Alice-and-the-White-Queen-q90-522x700

“Robin Bain did it.”

“I can’t believe that!” said Alice.

“Can’t you?” the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe such improbable things.”

“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as 35 improbable things before breakfast.”

The list below was originally compiled by David Farrar during David Bain’s retrial in 2009.

  1. It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies.
  2. Again a lucky guess when David Bain told police officer they are all dead.
  3. The 25 minute gap between David Bain finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and remove blood.
  4. The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee none of which he could explain were just a coincidence.
  5. The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses.
  6. The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living.
  7. David’s finger prints on gun are from a previous time.
  8. David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience.
  9. Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle OR someone else borrowed his clothes.
  10. Robin managed to execute his family on a full bladder.
  11. The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there.
  12. Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood.
  13. David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies.
  14. The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit.
  15. Robin Bain would logically wear gloves to prevent fingerprints despite it being a murder-suicide.
  16. That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. (A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.)
  17. Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message.
  18. Robin would decide David deserved to live, but go out of his way to frame him for murder.
  19. Robin Bain placed fibres from David’s jersey under Stephen’s finger nails.
  20. Robin Bain shot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible.
  21. That Robin Bain changed jerseys after he had killed his family and in particular Stephen Bain, washed the jersey, hung it on the line and then change into a brown jersey before killing himself.
  22. That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.
  23. That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch.
  24. That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.
  25. That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David.
  26. That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.
  27. That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.
  28. That even though David told a relative he hated his father, his father did not know this and deliberately decided David was the only one who deserved to live.
  29. That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death.
  30. That Laniet’s allegations of incest with Robin were true, as were her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.
  31. That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene.
  32. That it is a coincidence that on the morning of the murders David Bain took his dog onto a property, ensuring he would be noticed to give him an alibi.
  33. That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.
  34. That a sickly Robin Bain managed to overpower his teenage son who put up a furious fight.
  35. That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper from outside, despite planning to shoot himself.

Please read David Farrar’s post on the David Bain case for more (and the list of 3 somewhat unlikely things to believe before breakfast if you think David did it).

Bayes theorem, Justice, Psycho Killer, Qu'est-ce que c'est?

Rice on a chessboard

4 Comments

The story of Chess ? Povestea jocului de sah

Here’s an old fable, as told in Making Great Decisions in Business and Life by David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper.

In a time of hunger, the Emperor of China wanted to repay a peasant who had saved the life of his child. The peasant could have any reward he chose, but the Emperor laughed when he heard the silly payment the foolish peasant selected: rice on a chessboard. The peasant wanted one grain of rice on the first square, doubling to two on the second, doubling to four on the third, and so on. After the Emperor agreed, his servants brought one bag of rice into his court and began tediously counting rice. Soon, he called for more and more bags of rice. Shortly, he realized that all the rice in China would not be enough. In fact, the Emperor now owed the peasant more than 300 times the total amount of rice in the world!

Those who think this lesson is merely about David Bain rice will miss the bigger message …

Bogus Science, Financial Collapse, Global Warming, Go Hard!, Green Party, Hedonism, Humour, Indoctrination, Keeping It Real, Liberate your Mind!, Live Like It's Legal, Muppets, Nihilism, Propaganda, Psychology, Sheeple, Totalitarianism

Thrash Punks invented Global Warming Doomsday… in 1987.

Leave a comment

wendy
The Plasmatics.

Wikipedia…
Maggots: The Record is the fourth and final studio album released by punk / metal band The Plasmatics in 1987. The album was released as a special “9th Anniversary Album”. Despite being called a “Plasmatics” album, it is often regarded as another Wendy O. Williams solo album, largely in part because her name is over that of the band, the merchandise for the tour has the WOW logo from her solo career, and the only other original member is Wes Beech on rhythm guitar.
Maggots: The Record was recorded in 1987 and is a concept album set 25 years in the future, where environmental abuse and the burning of fossil fuels have created a greenhouse effect, leading to an end of the world scenario.
Read more…

To really appreciate this Album you need to get a glow on…:-)

Guns

Such a nice young woman

32 Comments

2448863

David Bain’s sister Arawa was such a nice young woman. I met her once, in 1993, the year before she died. I was living in Dunedin, and one day Arawa was having a cup of tea in my kitchen, with my flatmate with whom she was friends, and I was introduced. It was a brief encounter.

After she was murdered in 1994, I spoke to my flatmate again. There was no doubt in her mind who the killer was. And there is no doubt in the minds of the extended Bain family who was responsible for the gruesome carnage that took place at 65 Every Street, Dunedin, on the morning of 20 June 1994.

Within days, the police had arrested David Bain, the sole survivor of the slaughter, on suspicion of murder. The following year, after a 3 week trial, David Bain was convicted of the murder of his five family members and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 16 year non-parole period. I figured the police had got the right man, and thought no more of it.

But then there were the appeals. I can’t remember when – I think it was at the time of the second Court of Appeal decision in September 2003 – that I had a sudden, horrifying thought. What if David Bain was actually innocent? What a horrible fate, to return from one’s morning paper round to find that one’s own father had shot dead one’s entire family and then turned the gun on himself – and then to be wrongly convicted on five counts of murder!

Was David Bain just another lying, murdering psychopath or was he the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice? I had to form my own opinion, and so, with no preconceived opinion, I set about EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE for myself. As I sifted through the evidence, two things happened. I was sickened to my stomach. And the more I read, the more obvious it became that David, not his father Robin, was the perpetrator of this horrendous crime. Quite simply, the mass of evidence points overwhelmingly to David’s guilt.

What I now struggle to understand is how so many people remain convinced of David’s innocence. Someone close to me, whom I will not name, is convinced that David Bain is innocent, seemingly on the sole grounds that David is “such a nice young man”.

He’s not.

Tui

ACT, Dogs, Jihad on Drugs™

A big thanks to John Banks

6 Comments

1283_602115356489941_1520542584_n

Here’s today’s press release from John Banks, and a transcript of his speech to Parliament.

banner-banks-parliamentry

Banks Challenges Greens To Take Stand On Animal Welfare
Press Release By ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, June 27 2013

ACT Party Leader John Banks today challenged the Green Party to stand by its principles on animal welfare.

Mr Banks says if the Greens truly care about animals, they should make a commitment to vote against the Psychoactive Substances Bill if Mojo Mathers’ amendment to rule out animal testing fails.

“There is simply no justifiable reason for unnecessary drugs to be tested on animals. They are not a lifesaving medicine, or something that will relieve suffering. People take these substances just for fun.

“Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary to prove the safety of mind altering chemicals, yet poor beagle puppies are being bred so these drugs can be tested.

“These puppies will be put in extreme pain, they will suffer and many will die – just so people can take recreational drugs on the weekend. I find that completely unacceptable.

“The Greens have been vocal in their opposition to animal cruelty. The Greens’ animal welfare policy states:

‘Experiments on animals should only be used where they are overwhelmingly beneficial and do not cause animal suffering’ and;

‘Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons’

“Green MP Mojo Mathers’ amendment to rule out animal testing for psychoactive substances is sensible and has my full support. But what if her amendment fails to get the numbers?

“The Greens have not made any commitment to vote against the Bill and may end up supporting it regardless. That’s not good enough.

“I have campaigned for animal rights all my life and that’s why I am taking a stance against this Bill. If the Greens truly believe their own animal welfare policies, they should follow suit,” Mr Banks said.

ENDS

banner-banks-parliamentry

Psychoactive Substances Bill – Second Reading
Speech by ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, June 27 2013

I rise to oppose the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

This bill is well intentioned and aimed at ensuring psychoactive substances sold in New Zealand are as safe as possible. I want to pay respect to the Minister Todd McClay for his noble intentions with this bill.

However, I simply cannot support it.

I find it totally unacceptable that this bill fails to rule out testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals.

Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul.

I think most New Zealanders will be outraged at the idea that chemicals people use ‘just for fun’ can be and will be tested on harmless animals.

Animals will be put in extreme pain. Animals will suffer. Animals will die.

We must remember psychoactive substances are not a necessity.

Recreational drugs are not something one needs to consume. They aren’t lifesaving medicines or something that will relieve suffering. People don’t NEED to take them.

Their prolific use will cause widespread animal suffering.

There is simply no justifiable reason for unnecessary drugs to be tested on animals, and I for one find it deeply offensive that any Government would sanction it.

Animals will be in pain and will die all in the name of people wanting to take drugs on the weekend. That is simply unacceptable.
Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons.

I know the Select Committee inserted a new clause in the bill to state that animal testing should only be used when necessary, but that is not good enough.

Especially considering the Select Committee refused to hear from organisations such as SAFE and the RSPCA about the impact of animal testing.

Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary to prove the safety of these mind alerting chemicals.

Dr Ian Shaw of the University of Canterbury says non-animal testing can adequately establish whether a substance has unacceptable risks of acute toxicity.

Cell culture, ex vivo and SAR studies can all be used to establish the risks.

Even if animal testing was necessary, and I know the vast majority of New Zealanders will agree with me on this, I say tough luck to the drug manufacturers and their drug dealing distributors.

If you can’t prove your new found drug of choice is safe without putting animals in abject misery, you can’t sell your drug.

If you need to pay more for more expensive non-animal testing, again I say tough luck. That is the price you, who stand to profit from selling these drugs, must pay.

The reality is the bill could well result in drugs being test on animals in place such as China and India where animal welfare is shamefully non-existent.

The statement in the bill that overseas testing must be carried out in accordance with the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act is nonsense because there is no way for us to assess what goes on in the torture chambers of animal testing laboratories in Asia.

Despite assurances from former Minister Peter Dunne, this bill fails to rule to the use of the extremely cruel LD50 test.

These animal testing places test their drugs on man’s best friend – dogs. Or, more specifically, farmed Beagle puppies. These animals trust us, and expect to get care and love. It is obscene.

I also want to comment on the Interim Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee, and one of its members Bob Kerridge from the RSPCA.

The committee was tasked with advising about the use of animal testing.

Some have said that Mr Kerridge’s place on the committee and the committee’s view that animal testing should be condoned reveals that animal welfare groups support this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I want to place on record what Mr Kerridge said to me:

‘It is a matter of record that I am opposed to any animal testing for the approval of psychoactive products, and my presence on this Committee does not alter or condone it.”

Those who have fought for many years for the rights of animals, such as SAFE and the RSPCA are outraged by this bill and it is disingenuous to say anything different.

Finally, I want to thank Mojo Mathers for her work on this bill. I will be supporting her amendment to prohibit the use of data, collected from testing on animals here or overseas, being used to support an application to get a psychoactive substance approved. It is a sensible amendment which will protect defenceless animals.

But I say to her and her Green Party colleagues, if your amendment at Committee stage fails to get the numbers, you should vote against this bill anyway.

The Green Party has been very vocal in its animal rights stance. If you truly believe your own policies you should be standing against this bill.

We are sacrificing Beagle puppies at the altar of recreational drug use. It is a disgrace to this country.

As the most powerful creatures on this Earth, humans have a responsibility to protect all animals from senseless, worthless and shameless cruelty at all times and in all places.

ENDS

Thanks, John, for speaking out for those who can’t speak out for themselves.

Readers, please support Mojo Mathers amendment. (The most effective way you can do this is by emailing the Maori Party MPs. I’m reliably informed that whether or not her amendment gets included is likely to come down to the votes of the Maori Party.)

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!