Archive

Posts Tagged ‘David Bain’

Judith Collins – Hypocrite of the Week

13 August 2013 2 comments

.

Govt must not intrude on courts

Source: Dominion Post – Govt must not intrude on courts

.

When it comes to naked hypocrisy, experience shows that National (and other rightwing) politicians excel.

Take Judith Collins’s comment in the Dominion Post on 9 August,

As Minister of Justice, I take seriously any suggestions that something went wrong in the criminal justice system. I am satisfied that there are appropriate options available to address any concerns about Pora’s case.

[…]

In the meantime, it would be constitutionally unsound for me, as a minister of the Crown, to intervene in the court process.

Say whut?!?!

Is this the same woman who, in December last year (2012) publically trashed the report from retired Canadian Judge, Ian Binnie?

Judge Binnie, who had been invited  – by the National-led government – to assessing possible compensation for wrongly convicted, David Bain.

She  dismissed Judge Binnie’s report as;

“Put simply, it would not be acceptable to make a recommendation to Cabinet based on a report that would not withstand the considerable scrutiny it would attract.

[…]

“Let me be very clear that I do not expect unsolicited reports which I have received two of in the last two months to be compensated for.”

[…]

I am very concerned that there has been this delay. It would not have been possible for me to have put forward a recommendation based on a report that I believe would not stand up to public scrutiny.”

source

“The list of errors in Mr Binnie’s report is extensive, and according to Dr Fisher could be vulnerable to judicial review.”

source

And there was more. Collins’ unprofessional behaviour and outrageous public statements were not only an insult to a respected member of the Canadian judiciary – but in effect she made New Zealand a laughing stock of the international judicial community. It will be a brave member of a foreign judiciary who takes up any future government invitation to impartially assess an issue in our country.

So for Collins to say with a straight face that it would be  “constitutionally unsound for me, as a minister of the Crown, to intervene in the court process” – or other aspect of our judicial system for that matter – is breath-taking hypocrisy. 

But then, such sanctimonious rubbish has been the hallmark of this unstable, unprincipled,  and unpredictable government.

Judith Collins is not fit to clean public toilets much less hold the position of Minister of Justice. The term “justice” is an alien  concept to her.

Meanwhile, a man most likely innocent, rots in jail.

.

judith_collins__1135773774

Collins – Unfit to be a Minister!

.

*

.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 August 2013.

.

Other Blogs

laudafinem.com:  Karam, Bain to be served Collins chilled favourite À la Carte special; “En Croute” (ON TOAST)

laudafinem.com:  Judge Judy: Collins slams Binnie’s Bain report

References

Herald on Sunday: Bain could have an enemy in the Beehive (9 December 2012)

NZ Herald: Bain report based on incorrect facts – minister (11 December 2012)

Scoop Media: Bain report: Justice Ian Binnie response to Judith Collins (12 December 2012)

Fairfax Media:  David Bain’s compo report had list of ‘errors‘ (13 December 2012)

NZ Herald: Report recommending Bain compensation is ‘flawed’ (13 December 2012)

NBR:  Bain compensation – RAW DATA – Binnie reports – Fisher Report – Judith Collins statement (13 December 2012)

.

.

= fs =

Advertisements

Audrey Young, Two Bains, old cars, and… cocoa?!?!

.

Audrey Young on the GCSB…

.

It seems that the Herald’s Audrey Young is the only journalist in the entire country who has not bought into the Official Party Line that the GCSB Act 2003 is “vague” or “flawed”.

The GCSB Act 2003 expressly forbids it from spying on the communications of New Zealanders.

But, by a series of snakes and ladders through the stated functions and objectives of the act, it convinced itself it was allowed to help the SIS and police spy on New Zealanders.

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Spying on NZ: More power to watch us

She’s 100% correct of course.

The law is about as explicit as it can get, without adding crayoned drawings for the terminally dense,

.

Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 - section 3-14

Acknowledgement:  Parliamentary Counsel Office: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003

.

Specifically,

Section 14 states,

Restrictions imposed on interceptions

14 Interceptions not to target domestic communications
  • Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

Which makes other journos look lazy or incompetant or both, when they repeat  government rhetoric about “vagueness” or “not fit for purpose” without checking the facts for themselves.

If  Audrey Young can present the facts, then so can every other journalist worth his/her salt.

Lift your game, people.

See previous related blogpost:  The GCSB law – Oh FFS!!!

.

A Tale of Two Bains…

.

The latest on the David Bain saga, and the Third Degree report on TV3 which presented damning evidence which showed Robin Bain as the most likely killer of the Bain family,

.

Complaint laid against TV3 over 'biased' Bain report

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Complaint laid against TV3 over ‘biased’ Bain report

.

Funnily enough, I cannot recall this group of obsessive-compulsives laying a similar complaint with TVNZ when Bryan Bruce (who I have much respect for, for his work on child poverty) hosted an episode on the Bain family, where he made it clear that he did not believe Robin Bain committed murder/suicide (see: The Investigator Special: The Case Against Robin Bain).

But I guess for these folk, that’s not bias, eh?

Over the years there have been many programmes presenting both sides of the case.

For one side to lay a complaint of “bias” is therefore just a little cheeky. More to the point, it illustrates a kind of growing “cult” mentality for some in the  Pro-Robin/David Did It camp.

They remind me of Creationists and Climate Change Deniers.

Not healthy.

.

Old cars…

.

Something that caught my eye last week was this item in the Dominion Post,

.

Ageing-car-fleet-seen-as-added-danger-on-roads

Acknowledgement: Dominion Post – Ageing car fleet seen as added danger on roads

.

It occurs to me that much like trucking figures are being used as indicators of  macro economic growth, our nationwide  car fleet can be an indicator of the economic well-being (or otherwise) of ordinary New Zealanders at street level.

In April, John Key boasted of “strong economic growth” in 2012,

We’re seeing some great results. We achieved 3% economic growth in New Zealand last year, which is higher than most developed countries, and business confidence is increasing. Over the weekend, I met Christine Lagarde from the International Monetary Fund while in China, who said she believes our economic plan is “very stable and it’s also very promising“.”

Acknowledgement: Scoop Media –  John Key: Growing our economy

Yet, if our car fleet is getting old, and fewer are being scrapped, then that indicates that the gains are not trickling down to workers.

According to Statistics NZ,

Annual growth in the labour cost index (LCI) salary and wage rates eased for the third consecutive quarter, Statistics New Zealand said today.

  • In the year to the March 2013 quarter, salary and wage rates (including overtime) increased 1.7%. This includes a 0.4% rise in the March 2013 quarter.

  • Private sector salary and ordinary time wage rates increased 1.8% in the year to the March 2013 quarter.

  • Public sector salary and ordinary time wage rates rose 1.5% in the same period. This rise in the public sector came from increases in central government (up 1.5%) and local government (up 2.1%).

  • In the March 2013 quarter, 13% of all surveyed salary and ordinary time wage rates increased.

  • Of the 13%, the median increase was 2.4%, the lowest in 12 years.

  • 56% of the surveyed sample increased in the year to the March 2013 quarter.

  • Of the 56%, the median increase was 2.9%, the lowest in 21 months.

Acknowledgement: Stats NZ – Labour Cost Index (Salary and Wage Rates): March 2013 quarter

Note the statistic buried amongst the fifures above: “In the March 2013 quarter, 13% of all surveyed salary and ordinary time wage rates increased“.

The corollary to that is that 87% had no increases to their  salary and ordinary time wages.

Little wonder that our car fleet is aging. People cannot afford to buy new (or even newer second hand) vehicles.

Wherever the wealth is going, it’s not trickling down to the 87%.

So much for Key’s pledges in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, to boost New Zealander’s wages. Add that one to his list of lies; broken promises, and dashed expectations.

.

And we told them the wealth would trickle down

.

The Price of Cocoa…

.

Three cans of cocoa tell an interesting story.

Can A is the oldest, with an expiry date of April 2011. The can measures 110mm (H) x 75mm (D). It contained 200g net dry cocoa powder.

We purchased Can B sometime  in 2011 (?). The expiry date was March 2012, so it’s the second oldest can.

Interestingly, it also contained 200g net dry cocoa powder. However,   whilst the contents remained the same as Can A – the dimensions of the can inexplicably increased; 130mm (H) x 75mm (D). Same diameter as Can A – but 20mm taller. Contents remain the same net weight.

.

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

.

A month ago we purchased Can C (expiry date, March 2015). The dimensions of this can is the same as Can B: 130mm (H) x 75mm (D). But this time, the contents decreased from 200 to 190g net dry cocoa powder. Ten grams less.

.

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

.

So the up-shot? The can-sizes have gotten bigger – whilst the contents has reduced by 5%.

On 9 June, I emailed Nestle to find out what was going on,

Kia ora,

It has recently come to my attention that two cans of Nestle Baking Cocoa measure 110mm X 75mm, whilst the other measures 130mm x 75mm.

Both contain 200g net  cocoa powder.

The smaller can measuring 110 x 75 has a “best before” date April 2011.

The larger can, 130×75 has a “best before” date March 2012.

It appears that you have increased the SIZE of the can, whilst the contents remain the same.

Is there a reason why the size of the cans  was increased, by 20mm in height?

And can you confirm that the price stayed the same; increased; or reduced; when the change was made from a 110mm height to 130mm height?

(The email was sent prior to purchasing Can C.)

Perhaps not surprisingly, I received no reply from Nestle.

Unfortunately, I never retained the receipts for Cans A and B, otherwise I could compare prices. But what’s the bet that the retail price probably increased?

So next time Dear Leader stands before the Press Gallery and claims credit for his government policies resulting in  low inflation or a drop in food prices – just remember; there are lies; damned lies, Prime Ministerial utterings, and statistics.

Mix all four together and you get a “drop in inflation and food costs less”.

And thus it came to pass…

“As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a “categorical pledge” were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grams to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.” – George Orwell,  ‘1984’

Doubleplusgood!

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 July 2013.

.

.

= fs =

Duelling Bainjoes…

.

old-paper-with-quill-pen-vector_34-14879

.

Letters to the Editor, in the Dominion Post

Firstly  from Mr Girardin, published on 2 July;

.

Despite the police’s best efforts at messing up the original investigation into the Bain murders, new evidence comes to light showing that it’s likely that Robin Bain loaded the rifle’s magazine. True to form, after some thought, police say the marks on his thumb could be anything – for example, cuts from working on his roof. They left out that he could have made them while shaving. If they’d done the most basic procedures – that is, bagging Robin Bain’s hands – there would have been no trial and no debate now.

Instead, they were too busy finding Margaret Bain’s glasses and saying they were David’s. The Keystone cops were investigative geniuses compared to this crew.

After the convictions of Arthur Allan Thomas, David Dougherty, Peter Ellis, Scott Watson, David Tamihere and others, plus the Urewera and Dotcom debacles, who could possibly believe a word these self-serving incompetents now say? A shake-up at police headquarters, or a decapitation, is long overdue.

LOU GIRARDIN

Stoke, Nelson

.

Which prompted this reponse from a David Did It respondant,

.

Is Lou Girardin (Letters, July 2) a former detective, private investigator, or just a CSI-type programme devotee? He criticises police investigations into the Bain murders and their responses to fanciful media revelations.

Police entered a shambolic hovel in Every St, Dunedin, in 1994 to find five Bain family members shot dead. Many, including Ms/Mr Girardin, I suspect, assumed that Robin Bain was the deranged killer.

He was so deranged that he typed, rather than scribbled, a note to his surviving son, leaving none of his fingerprints or blood on the keyboard. He then contorted himself to shoot himself through the temple, with the silencer still on the rifle. Why risk a non-fatal wound?

It wouldn’t have mattered to him (and any of the corpses) if that last shot were heard; a barrel in the mouth would have been more certain.

Then, after shooting himself, he either removed his rubber gloves or wiped his incriminating fingerprints from the murder- suicide weapon – deranged but clinically efficient?

In my view, it’s an open-and- shut case. Your letter-writer deserves a Tui.

PHILIP LYNCH

Elderslea

.

That was a tad too denigratory, I thought, and dripping with sarcasm and derision hardly seems a fitting way to conduct a debate when what we need are facts.

So not one to be left out, I offered my own 10 cents plus 15% GST worth,

.

No, Mr Lynch, Lou Giradin is not a “CSI-type programme devotee” (Letters, 4 July). Criticisms  that the police investigation in to the Bain murders was bungled is generally well known and accepted.

The most criticised aspect of the investigation is that neither David nor Robin Bain’s hands were tested for gunpowder residue; Robin Bain’s hands were not covered in plastic to protect valuable evidence; and scrappings were not taken from beneath Robin Bain’s finger nails.

However, the marks on Robin Bain’s thumb and finger are a clear indication of gunpowder residue left by re-loading the magazine clip. The measurements match.

As for Mr Lynch complaining about a lack of finger-prints on the murder/suicide weapon, in fact there were many prints, but most were smudged beyond identification.

I refer Mr Lynch to an article on fingerprinting guns, ” Factors Affecting the Recovery of Latent Prints on Firearms”, which states, “…successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms.”

The article refers to people who, watching too many TV crime shows, expect pristine prints to be easily recovered from weapons. Unfortunately, this is far from the case.

A Tui to Mr Lynch.
FRANK MACSKASY

(address & phone number supplied)

.

The issue of fingerprints is a vexing one.

Because most people’s knowledge of finger-prints in criminal investigations comes from television crime dramas, we have a distorted view of  how easily (or otherwise) they can be retrieved.

This piece offers a clear insight as to the real difficulties involved in retrieving identifiable prints from a firearm,

Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature [1,2,3] and the judicial system [4]. Fingerprint Specialists at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms San Francisco Laboratory Center have had, however, some success in this endeavor1.

In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms. Although successful recovery occurred in approximately one of ten firearms, it should be understood that not all identifiable latent prints may have been left by an offender. Some developed latent prints, for example, are subsequently identified as belonging to a person involved in the collection of the evidence2.

Jurors have been inundated with fingerprint information from television, movies and newspapers and feel that latent print evidence is a reliable means of establishing positive personal identity [5]. However, jurors are generally under the impression that every item that is touched by fingers or palms will be left with an identifiable latent print impression [6]. If an offender is arrested for possession of a firearms, jurors therefore expect his/her prints to be on it. In fact, most of the time, fingerprint specialists find no identifiable latent prints on firearms. Accordingly, attorneys often call on the fingerprint specialist to explain to the jury the many reasons for the absence of identifiable latent prints. The following reasons make latent print recovery from firearms difficult and when they are recovered, the time of deposition can seldom be determined. The purpose of this paper is to provide information to both technical and non–technical users of fingerprint identification services about what factors affect the recovery of latent prints on firearms.

Source: Factors Affecting the Recovery of Latent Prints on Firearms

(This article appeared as a Technical Report in the Mar/Apr 1997 issue of the Journal of Forensic Identification.)

http://www.scafo.org/library/130303.html

– See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/27/a-state-that-cannot-sin/#sthash.HGkSpO3H.dpuf

    Latent fingerprint examiners generally know that even when cutting edge technology such as cyanoacrylate fuming and laser/forensic light source examination are utilized, successful development of latent prints on firearms is difficult to achieve. In reality, very few identifiable latent prints are found on firearms, a fact that has been discussed in both the literature [1,2,3] and the judicial system [4]. Fingerprint Specialists at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms San Francisco Laboratory Center have had, however, some success in this endeavor1.

    In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms. Although successful recovery occurred in approximately one of ten firearms, it should be understood that not all identifiable latent prints may have been left by an offender. Some developed latent prints, for example, are subsequently identified as belonging to a person involved in the collection of the evidence2.

    Jurors have been inundated with fingerprint information from television, movies and newspapers and feel that latent print evidence is a reliable means of establishing positive personal identity [5]. However, jurors are generally under the impression that every item that is touched by fingers or palms will be left with an identifiable latent print impression [6]. If an offender is arrested for possession of a firearms, jurors therefore expect his/her prints to be on it.

    In fact, most of the time, fingerprint specialists find no identifiable latent prints on firearms. Accordingly, attorneys often call on the fingerprint specialist to explain to the jury the many reasons for the absence of identifiable latent prints. The following reasons make latent print recovery from firearms difficult and when they are recovered, the time of deposition can seldom be determined. The purpose of this paper is to provide information to both technical and non–technical users of fingerprint identification services about what factors affect the recovery of latent prints on firearms.

Source: Factors Affecting the Recovery of Latent Prints on Firearms

(This article appeared as a Technical Report in the Mar/Apr 1997 issue of the Journal of Forensic Identification.)

Ironically, when Mr Lynch derided Lou Girardin as a “CSI-type programme devotee“, it is actually those who demand perfect fingerprints on a murder/suicide weapon, who are more clearly influenced by such fantastical TV dramas.

In this matter,  life is not a TV programme.

.

.

= fs =

Nigella Lawson, GCSB, Christchurch re-build, and Malcolm Burgess on Campbell Live

.

Nigella Lawson

.

Is that the applause of millions of women (and men!) I can hear as Nigella Lawson re-takes control of her life?

.

Nigella Lawson moves out, blender and all

Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Nigella Lawson moves out, blender and all

.

If there’s any possible good that came out of this ghastly incident, it is that women (and a few men, perhaps) around the world have witnessed the stark reality that spousal abuse is not confined to just their lives. Even the rich and famous can be affected by this kind of violence.

On 18 March 2013, Judge Peter Boshier (Law Commissioner);  Jennifer Wademan (Barrister), and  Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts (Solicitor) presented a report entitled Domestic Violence and the Impact on Children’s Lives at the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights in Sydney, Australia.

The contents of their speech was disturbing, as well as instructive;

For a country with just over 4 million people, New Zealand has a staggering 80,000 domestic violence cases a year. This level of abuse has resulted in over 200 women and children being killed as a result of domestic violence in 12 years and countless numbers of adults and children carryingthe physical and psychological effects of that violence with them through their lives. The cost inhuman and economic terms is horrific.

[…]

New Zealand has a history of high levels of domestic violence, in part, we believe, because we are open about the problems that face us. While international research estimates that up to 80% ofdomestic violence goes unreported, and certainly that has been our experience in practice, in 2012 New Zealand Police recorded almost 47,000 incidents of domestic disputes, and initiated almost 100,000 Family Violence investigations. Of these investigations, children were present in almost 60% of cases.  If we assume the average household has 2 children, then at least 65,000 children were affected by domestic violence, in one year, in a country as small as New Zealand. Tragically, a third of all deaths from domestic violence involve children.

Source: Ministry of Justice – Domestic Violence and the Impact on Children’s Lives

I have little doubt that Ms Lawson’s experience at the hands of her husband three weeks ago was a nasty, violent, and humiliating experience. I also strongly suspect that what went on behind the walls, closed doors, and curtained windows of their family home was most likely  no less violent.

If Charles Saatchi could almost throttle his wife, in public, in a fit of rage – god only knows what he got up to out of sight.

There may well be women in our own country, also  the victims of spousal abuse, who have seen Ms Lawson make the decisive move to leave her violent husband and seek refuge elsewhere. Abused women and their children may see Ms Lawson as having escaped – and this may encourage them to do likewise.

How many will be thinking,

If she can do it, then so can I!

Whether Nigella Lawson may appreciate it or not, she may well have saved the lives of women and children here in New Zealand and around the world.

The next time I see her on TV, I’ll see Ms Lawson in an entirely new light; a woman with inner strength and a survivor.

Let’s hope others do as well.

.

I have a date…

.

… with a Parliamentary Select Committee in a week’s time.

Yep, I sent in a submission to the Intelligence and Security Committee regarding the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. This is the Bill which will legitamise the Bureau’s spying on 4.4 million New Zealanders.

As the Clerk of the Committee, Lesley Ferguson wrote in an email to me,

Thank you for your submission on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. A copy of your submission has been distributed to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee which is considering this bill.

 The Intelligence and Security Committee is to hear submissions orally. In accordance with your request to meet with the committee to give further evidence, a date and time of  Friday, 5 July 2013 from 10.20am to 10.40am has been allocated for you to appear before the committee to present your oral evidence.

 The committee will have read your written submission. It will therefore not be necessary to read your written submission to them. Instead, the committee will be expecting you to elaborate further on your written evidence.

 The venue for the hearing is Select Committee Meeting Room 2, Bowen House, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. Please ensure you are at the venue at least 15 minutes before your allotted time.

 Please provide me with the name(s) and designation(s) of those who will be presenting to the committee.

 Your submission is released publicly upon you giving oral evidence to the committee.  The committee intends that hearings will be conducted in public. You may however apply for any or all of your evidence to be heard in private or secret. The committee would require reasons before agreeing to such a request. Please contact me if you wish to make such an application.

 While the evidence you provide to the committee is covered by parliamentary privilege, please note that a Court ruling held that a person may be liable in defamation if that person makes a defamatory statement in a situation that is protected by parliamentary privilege (such as an oral presentation to a select committee) and later affirms that statement (without actually repeating it) on an occasion that is not protected by parliamentary privilege.

 

 Now all I have to do is figure out what the heck I want to say…

I have a couple of ideas.

Anyone else?

By the way – I wonder what the SIS and GCSB thought of my submission?

.

The Christchurch re-build…

.

… seems to have engendered a detente between the Mayor and Christchurch City Council on one side, and Gerry Brownlee and Central Government on the other. It’s probably a somewhat shakey detente – one liable to crack, splinter, and fall apart at even a low  political seismic event.

.

Govt announces Christchurch rebuild funding

Acknowledgement:  NZ Herald – Govt announces Christchurch rebuild funding

.

It was only a month ago that Key was pressuring Christchurch City Council to sell it’s strategic assets to finance part of the rebuild,

It is for the council to say ‘do you want the nice-to-haves.  Then they’ll ask how are you going to pay? That could be through rates or asset sales.

Key referred to  “partially floating assets, so the council remained in control but still raised money”, was “ incredibly logical .

Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Asset sales could help pay for rebuild – Key

Mayor Bob Parker and the Christchurch City Council rightly rejected the idea. After all, why should Christchurch be asset-stripped simply because of events beyond it’s control?

At least National’s decision to partially privatise state assets was as a result of it’s own folly by giving away billions in tax cuts that the country could ill afford. Future generations will be the ones to pay for National’s short-sighted decisions.

If Christchurch needs extra cash to assist in it’s rebuild then I have a suggestion: bonds.

Like the War Bonds during World War 2,

.

War Bonds

.

But instead of Bonds for Destruction – these would be Bonds for Construction! Not Bonds to Bomb – but Bonds To Build!

If every New Zealander, on average, bought $100 worth of  Bonds To Build that would assist Christchurch to the tune of around $440 million.

The government could assist by diverting  student debt repayments from New Zealanders abroad, into Bonds To Build.

It might even help if National post-poned further partial SOE sales and instead encouraged “mums  and dads” investors to buy Bonds instead.

Imagine stirring up our latent patriotism as Kiwis; getting kids involved to save their “pennies” and with every dollar, they bought a Bond To Build! I’m imagining Campbell Live jumping onboard and going school to school to film children buying Bonds.

Perhaps it sounds ‘goofy’ – but if bonds were useful during wartime, then just maybe we could resurrect this old idea and put it to good use again.

I know our household would be “in”!

.

Malcolm Burgess on Campbell Live

.

On Wdednesday night, 26 June, TV3’s Third Degree presented evidence which was the clearest indication to date  that Robin Bain did indeed commit familiy annihilation, killing his wife and children, and then turning the rifle on himself.

The evidence was in the form of marks on Robin’s thumb and finger which have been recognised by forearms experts as gunpowder residue – caused when a rifle clip is reloaded, and thethumb or finger scraps against the top of the ammo-clip.

Pictures of Robin Bain’s hand, and the gunpowder residue marks are visible – when you know what to look for,

.

Bain case - Two dark lines on thumb point to father as killer -  image

.

robin_bain_hand_with_magazine_marks_circled__david_bain_case__2_3_4_N2

.

The twin lines are the same width as the top of the ammo clip, resting to the left of  Robin Bain’s hand. Third Degree conducted tests with the rifle and found that similar marks were left on the thumbs/fingers when others re-loaded the rifle; twin streaks. Gunpowder residue.

The following evening (27 June), John Campbell interviewed Asst Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess,

.

Campbell Live - David Bain - asst police commissioner malcolm burgess - new evidence - gunpowder residue

Acknowledgement: TV3 – Campbell Live – ‘It isn’t a powder smudge’ – Asst Police Commissioner

.

Burgess’s responses to John Campbell’s questions were enlightening…

At 5:00, Burgess suggests that the marks are not gunpowder residue but cuts,

“ …one of the other alternatives that hasn’t been properly considered is that this is in fact a nick on Robin Bain’s thumb…”

John Campbell then pointed out that Police Pathologist, Dr Alex Dempster photographed and recorded every cut and abrasion on Robin Bain’s hands, and said, “he appears not to have photographed the cuts”.

Burgess couldn’t answer Campbell’s question, except postulating that “beyond perhaps observing that he would’ve clearly been  interested in fresh injuries   this indeed, if it is a nick or a cut,  does not appear to be a fresh injury”.

Campbell then pointed out that the distance between the two marks on Robin Bain’s thumb was “absolutely consistent with the distance – absolutely consistent with the distance in  the magazine [clip] – and  absolutely consistent with the kind of smudging that we see from the residue of  people who have  been loading magazines after discharging”.

Burgess steadfastly rejected the new evidence and said,

I’m not convinced that what we’re seeing is indeed what  was portrayed last night”.

Campbell then asked Burgess if the NZ Police would conduct similar tests to that carried out by the Third Degree team on 26 June. It was a fair question.

However Burgess’s response was luke-warm, at best,

Well, I guess we’re always open to look at exploring,  or I guess eliminating doubt, John, but that works from the principle that indeed what we’re seeing there is a powder smudge. I guess what we’re saying and what we’re suggesting by virtue of the fingerprint evidence is that perhaps that’s not indeed the case.  That’s it’s a cut, or a nick to the thumb, or some other mark there rather than a powder smudge.  So I think you’ve got to be a little careful which, what the basis of your hypothesis is before you start reaching [for] firm conclusions. We’re very happy, and indeed had we known this story was going to air in the form that it was , we would have been very happy to discuss the fingerprint evidence with Mr Bain’s team and see whether that enabled them to reach a [garbled] sustainable conclusion

When Campbell asked if the Police was not going to “stage any kind of test” to see if it was possible that the marks were gunpowder residue, Burgess replied,

Well I think the key for us is to try and  determine whether in fact  it’s an injury, whether in fact  the fingerprint evidence  can help us make that call – ”

Campbell, “How will you go about  determining that?

“ – and that therefore  in fact eliminates or tends to eliminate the possibility that it’s [gun]powder [residue].”

Burgess added near the end of the interview,

We’re interested in trying to establish the truth

No, he’s not.

He’s not trything to establish the truth whatsoever. His purpose is  solely to protect his backside and that of the NZ Police as a whole.

Every response from Burgess referred to “fingerprint evidence”. In Burgess’s  mind,  according to those  finger-print records taken by Police in 1994, the marks were  “cuts or nicks”, and not gunpowder residue.

He has already pre-judged this issue and come to a pre-determined conclusion: they are “cuts or nicks”, and nothing more.

Is it any wonder than police have stuffed up so many investigations, which have resulted in innocent people ending up in prison? How can an investigation be conducted with an open mind if officers like Burgess are pre-disposed to an outcome?

This is the kind of thinking that over-looks critical evidence.

This is the kind of thinking that sends innocent people to prison.

This is the kind of thinking  that misinterprets evidence.

For example, Robin Bain’s fingerprint file doesn’t show two cuts at all. It shows one mark on the lower part of his thumb that could be anything (which, remember, Police Pathologist, Alex Dempster, did not record as a cut or abrasion when he examined Robin Bain’s  hands),

.

Campbell Live - David Bain - asst police commissioner malcolm burgess - new evidence - gunpowder residue - fingerprints

.

So where is the second “nick or cut” on Robin Bain’s thumb-print? It isn’t there.

I won’t be waiting for the Police to review this new evidence. Burgess has made it abundantly clear that they have already dismissed the marks as “nicks or cuts”. Accepting the marks as gunpowder residue would mean the following;

  1. The clearest evidence yet that Police bungled the most basic aspects of the murder/suicide investigation,
  2. The best evidence to date (aside from the bloodied sockprints) that Robin Bain was the killer.
  3. An inability for the Police to consider new evidence where it threatens their image and reputation.

Of those three points, I find #3 the most disturbing.

With a supercilious smile and more than a hint of arroganance, Asst Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess  essentially told the public to “go get stuffed”; the NZ Police  will not countenance new evidence that may threaten their credibility or reputation.

This is ominous in a way that I can barely describe;  the Police are refusing to  look at new evidence impartially.

Does this mean  that their  first obligation is to themselves and their own reputation,  and not the law?

If so, they have become a law unto themselves.

If you doubt what I am telling you –  look at the video again.

Now tell me it doesn’t make you uneasy.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 June 2013.

.

.

= fs =

Bricks, Bouquets, Bain, and Winston Peters

30 June 2013 1 comment

.

Brickbats

.

Brick1

.

There is an unpleasant tendency in our politics for parties to bash each other when they amend or dump a policy.

I’m not referring to breaking election pledges, such as National’s raising GST when Key promised that would not happen. That was clearly dishonest, and worthy of public condemnation.

I am referring to Parties putting forward a new policy outside of the Election period, and which the public has not had an opportunity to consider. These are policies that have not been tested, and are yet to be  subject to scrutiny, debate, and a verdict from the public.

Recent examples include Labour dropping their policy to remove GST from fresh food; National changing their policy on class-room sizes; and the Greens dumping their policy on Quantitative Easing.

National’s “u-turn”  on the Auckland rail-loop is another example. In this instance, the issue of the Rail Loop has been discussed and debated in the public arena. Eventually,  National Ministers realised that there was strong public support for this project and their own oppositional posture was no longer tenable. (No doubt this realisation was amply assisted by Focus Groups.)

So, yesterday, the Nats announced that they would be supporting the Rail Loop, with appropriate levels of funding,

.

Govt to contribute to Auckland rail link

Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Govt to contribute to Auckland rail link

.

– and the response from Labour; other political opponents; and the media was to slam National for it’s “u turn”.

Now, I’ll emphasise the point here that I am no friend of right wing governments. That includes this National government.

But. When the Nats  change their policies to be more in line with New Zealanders’ expectations; and when they dump an unpopular policy which was based more on ideological clap-trap rather than common sense; and when they bow to public and political pressure to adopt more progressive policies – they should be encouraged and applauded.

Otherwise, if we’re not going to give  positive reinforcement to their policy changes, the Nats will simply refuse to countenance future backdowns when faced with public opposition.

After all,  where is the profit in listening to criticism and dropping a policy  if you’re going to be bollicked regardless?

In this respect, I think there is a fair degree of immaturity on this issue and it’s high time we did a bit of growing up. Schoolyard tit-for-tats is no way to do consenting adult politics.

Hat-tip: No Right Turn

.

Bouquets

.

Bouquet3

.

Big Ups to National for reversing it’s opposition to the Auckland Rail Loop.  This will be of major benefit to Auckland; improve public transport; take pressure of roads; reduce petrol consumption (and petroleum imports); create new jobs; and boost the economy. There is no downside to this major infra-structure project.

My only criticism is that National has delayed the project by three years; planning to start in 2020, rather than 2017. I see no practical reason for this delay and will only push up the cost of the project.

If it’s worthy of support by central government then it’s worthy of being initiated ASAP.

This blogger looks forward to more progressive changes to National’s policies.

.

The Bain Mystery: case closed

.

Bain case - Two dark lines on thumb point to father as killer

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald: Bain case: Two dark lines on thumb point to father as killer

.

Last night’s (26 June) Third Degree on TV3 was as dramatic as the programme promos made out. New evidence indicates fairly conclusively that the muderer of the Bain family in 1994 was indeed – Robin Bain.

Twin carbon-streaks on his thumb are a match with the rifle’s ammo-clip.

Along with the bloodied foot-prints tracked through the Bain residence, which were closer to Robin Bain’s foot-size than David’s, this is the evidence which conclusively identifies the killer as Robin Bain.

In the US, this kind of homocide is known as the “family annihilator”, where the most common perpetrator is the father/step father/boyfriend. In a remarkably similar case  in New Zealand in 1992, a  family annihilation was committed in a  manner eerily resembling the Bain killings;

On May 20, 1992, Brian Schlaepfer, 64, shot or stabbed the family, killing his wife Jocelyn, 55, his three sons, Peter, 39, Karl, 33, and Darrell, 31. Also slain were Peter’s wife Hazel, 42, and their son Aaron, 11.

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Day of slaughter on family farm

It is time for Justice Minister Judith Collins to pull finger and  pay David Bain compensation. There is no logical reason to stall any longer.

Whoever is holding up this process in National’s caucus no longer has a rationale for their intransigence.

What’s it to be, Ms Collins – bouquets or brickbats?

.

Winston Peters channels Orwell

.

Peters blasts 'Orwellian' censorship over stand on migrants

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Peters blasts ‘Orwellian’ censorship over stand on migrants

.

The irony of Winston Peters channelling George Orwell’s 1984 should not be lost on anyone.  Mr Peters points out that life under Orwell’s totalitarian regime of Big Brother involved absolute suppression of free speech.  The slightest murmur of dissent invited dreadful retaliation by The State.

But Mr Peters also forgot to mention that in 1984, Big Brother was able to maintain it’s iron grip over the people by means of total surveillance.

Quite simply,  in 1984 the State watched and listened to everything that people said. Everything. No one was exempt.

Which sounds remarkably like the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill.

This Bill seeks to expand the powers of the GCSB to be allowed to spy on all New Zealanders.

Winston Peters is considering supporting this Bill (see:  Peters open to compromise over GCSB bill).

So, what was it you were saying about George Orwell’s 1984, Mr Peters?

Vote the Bill down, Mr Peters, vote it down. Do it for free speech; do it for privacy, and do it to keep Big Brother out of our lives.

Bouquets or brickbats?, Mr Peters?

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 June 2013.

.

*

.

References

NZ Herald: Day of slaughter on family farm (19 May 2007)

TVNZ: Bain trial considers sockprint measurements (20 April 2009)

Fairfax media: Key ‘no GST rise’ video emerges (10 Feb 2010)

Fairfax media: Class-size backdown ‘to haunt National‘ (10 June 2012)

TV3:  Labour gone cold on GST-free food (25 March 2013)

NZ Herald: Greens ditch quantitative easing policy (19 June 2013

NZ Herald: Peters blasts ‘Orwellian’ censorship over stand on migrants (25 June 2013)

Radio NZ:  Govt to contribute to Auckland rail link (26 June 2013)

TVNZ:  Peters open to compromise over GCSB bill (26 June 2013)

NZ Herald: Bain case: Two dark lines on thumb point to father as killer (26 June 2013)

.

.

= fs =

Judith Collins and the Bain of her ministerial career…

31 January 2013 3 comments

.

Bain compensation decision months away

Source

.

It must be true; David Bain has an enemy in the current National Cabinet. Someone (Collins?) has taken it upon her (his) self to ride roughshod over the Privy Council, the re-trial, and retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie, to come to their own conclusions.

If anyone ever wondered what it would be like to have political control of our judicial system – this is pretty damned close to it.

“Justice” Minister Judith Collins is quite openly holding up David Bain’s claim for compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

After publicly trashing retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie’s Report into the matter – along with his reputation – Collins sought a “peer-review” from Robert Fisher, QC.

Fisher duly rubbished Binnie’s report and recommendation for compensation as “flawed” (see:  Bain compo recommended but Binnie report ‘flawed‘). In turn, Fisher’s “peer review” was rubbished – evidently he hadn’t read up on the Bain case!

Months have passed, it appears that Collins is stonewalling. Evidently, a final decision is yet more “months away”.

Now there is talk of Collins requesting another “independent” review.

Well, I hope she’s not going to be looking overseas. After National’s crass, insulting behaviour over Justice Binnie, I doubt any other Jurist would take up an offer from this current National government.

Instead there is talk of an “independent panel”.

Oh, really? How independent? Not too independent, I think – Commissar Collins might not like it.

And if an Independent Panel came to the same conclusion as Justice Binnie – what then? Best of five – two more “independent reviews”!?

If an independent panel deliverers the “wrong” result, perhaps Collins could ramp up the decision-making process. Perhaps a nationwide referendum? We could poll all 4.4 million New Zealanders whether or not to pay Bain?

If we go down the referendum road, it should be a low-cost affair. After all, the Nats are struggling to balance the books and are practically taking money from schoolboys and girls doing paper rounds. So a referendum should be done on the cheap.

Maybe via electronic means?

Facebook!?

Imagine deciding a human being’s fate – by just a click –  *Like* or *Don’t Like*.

The Village Mob, 21st century-style.

.

internet_lynch_mobs_Cleverbot_said_Im_correct-s391x337-96144-535

.

Thank the gods for progress.

[Note to National: This blogpost was mainly satirical and suggestions to use Facebook, or any other electronic means, to determine whether or not Bain should be compensated were an exercise in satire. My suggestion is, quite simply; stop farting about and PAY the man!]

.

*

.

References

Radio NZ: Minister not ruling out new report on Bain claim

Dominion Post: Bain compensation decision months away

Other Blogs

The Pundit: Crowdsourcing the Binnie report (and the Fisher report on the Binnie report …)

.

= fs =

David Bain – the final call for justice

11 September 2012 25 comments

.

Full story

.

Lucy Akatere, Krishla Fuataha  , & Tania Vini

Shane Cribb

David Dougherty

Aaron Farmer

Rex Haig

Arthur Allan Thomas

et al…

And the name David Bain can be added to the above (incomplete) list of wrongful convictions in this country.

After David Bain’s re-trial and five  Not Guilty verdicts, the issue of compensation arose. The government correctly sought an impartial adjudicator from outside the country, retired Canadian Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie, to rule on the issue.

The above Herald article suggests that Judge Binnie will be issuing a recommendation that David Bain be offered compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

This blogger agree with that recommendation.

The Bain Case has been controversial since the initial murders, one dark wintry morning in 1994. The evidence against David Bain was circumstantial at best, and in at least one matter, was incorrectly presented to the first trial in 1995.

Based on new evidence, and correct interpretation of old evidence, the retrial in 2009 returned the only verdict possible.

This will no doubt bring a torrent of fury from any armchair “jurists” who express a fanatical – almost religious – view of David Bain’s guilt.  Some of these armchair “jurists” have cherry-picked evidence to suit their own views and prejudices. Some have watched too much American crime shows. Some are downright deranged cranks. (A minority are more considered in their views, despite holding views contrary to the Not Guilty verdict.)

No doubt there will always be a small, vociferous minority who believe that they alone ‘Know The Truth’ and contest the Not Guilty verdict. Despite not having sat through the trial nor heard all the evidence and testimony, they obviously know better than the twelve men and women who sat through the entire process.

Luckily for us all, we do not have Jury By Internet.

It would be a dire society to live in if  “armchair jurists” were to sit in judgement of any of us.

.

*

.

Sources

Forejustice.org:  Wrongly Convicted Database Index

NZ Herald: Bain innocent and deserves payout, judge tells Cabinet

.

.

= fs =