David Bain Doco
Tarla
Kerry
wrote:
> Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
I thought it balanced, sensible, factual ( as I have always understood
the facts) and very well done. I've read the various books, followed
the court cases and taken a bit of an interest. Karam has always
annoyed me with his red herrings and general lack of insight.
I also found it very lump-in-throat-inducing thinking what they all went
through, especially young Stephen Bain
And David should stay in prison much longer than 16 years. But then I
always thought that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beware the Burberry, my son
The tongue stud that glints, the stripes that clash
Beware the chavs
And their frumious bags of hash
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Lennox
wrote:
>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
Yep, I thought it was quite good. On balance, I have always tended to
think that David did it, and last night did not change that.
For me, one of the most compelling bits of evidence was Robin Bain's
full bladder, regardless of his alleged intent to murder the family,
SURELY he would have a pee?? I know I would, before "getting down to
business"
We may never know, only circumstantial evidence, forensics a bit
shakey, and not much of a motive. God will know, if you believe in
personal buddies somewhere in the universe.
Kerry
Barry Lennox <rianz.1...@neverbox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:51 +1200, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
> Yep, I thought it was quite good. On balance, I have always tended to
> think that David did it, and last night did not change that.
>
> For me, one of the most compelling bits of evidence was Robin Bain's
> full bladder, regardless of his alleged intent to murder the family,
> SURELY he would have a pee?? I know I would, before "getting down to
> business"
Not only that, he slept the whole night. brought in the paper, killed
his whole family and then himself without needing to pee.
Before he died he apparently changed all his clothing and hid it to
'frame' David. Would a person suiciding need to frame anyone for the
murder of their family, let alone framing his own son? Who was
apparently the only one who deserved to stay......
>
> We may never know, only circumstantial evidence, forensics a bit
> shakey, and not much of a motive. God will know, if you believe in
> personal buddies somewhere in the universe.
I think the programme reinforced just how non-shaky the forensics was.
ALL of it pointed to David, none to his father
george
Barry Lennox wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:51 +1200, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
> Yep, I thought it was quite good. On balance, I have always tended to
> think that David did it, and last night did not change that.
>
> For me, one of the most compelling bits of evidence was Robin Bain's
> full bladder, regardless of his alleged intent to murder the family,
> SURELY he would have a pee?? I know I would, before "getting down to
> business"
Not if he has/had a prostate problem.
Welcome to the world of male aging :-(
Nelly
wrote:
>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
After years of thinking David was innocent I have now changed my mind.
What changed my mind was the jumper fibres underneath Stephens nails,
Robins full bladder, and the fact that Robin was left handed. There
were a few other things too, but can't remember off hand. My opinion
was that David knew about Laniet and the father and he just couldn't
handle it.
Nelly.
If you see someone without a smile, give them one of yours :-)
Penman
>
> Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
It was two hours of meaningless garbage.
(Okay, it was two hours long, and the few minutes I watched here and
there were meaningless garbage.)
Did it offer any NEW insight? No.
Any new angle on our justice system? No.
Any new analysis of our society? No.
Any kind of analysis of our society at ALL? No!
Just a bunch of lurid, voyeuristic reconstructions, and self-important
posturing by the presenter as if he was giving us something worthwhile.
Just the usual dumbed-down junkmail which is New Zealand television.
--
Penman
Agnes Volestrangler XIII
> In article <4283a6b7$1...@clear.net.nz>, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
>
> I thought it balanced, sensible, factual ( as I have always understood
> the facts) and very well done. I've read the various books, followed
> the court cases and taken a bit of an interest. Karam has always
> annoyed me with his red herrings and general lack of insight.
>
bladder? Is that likely in a man of his age, that he would choose not
to pee? Wouldn't it be likely to be a matter of considerable importance
(cf Dover Samuels!)?
That was the decider for me - that Robin hadn't killed the family, I
mean. It's so natural to take a leak first thing in the morning, I
can't imagine anyone - esp a man of his age - thinking "Gotta get teh
family killed and shoot myself, haven't got time to pee" when the rest
of the family apart from David were still asleep and another minute or
2 wouldn't make any difference.
A L P
Agnes Volestrangler XIII
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:51 +1200, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
>
> After years of thinking David was innocent I have now changed my mind.
> What changed my mind was the jumper fibres underneath Stephens nails,
> Robins full bladder, and the fact that Robin was left handed. There
> were a few other things too, but can't remember off hand. My opinion
> was that David knew about Laniet and the father and he just couldn't
> handle it.
>
>
didn't indicate that she tried to avoid her father or that she was
afraid of him - she went out and stayed at his place (caravan?) when he
was living near his school, which didn't appear to be necessary. And
she wouldn't have been the first troubled kid to have invented a
personal drama to tell among her friends, in the context of everyone
else having a drama to talk about.
A L P
evadr...@hotmail.com
> Not only that, he slept the whole night. brought in the paper, killed
his whole family and then himself without needing to pee.
Before he died he apparently changed all his clothing and hid it to
'frame' David.
I was at the Court of Appeal hearing and the judges raised that very
point with Colin Withnall QC. Mr Withnall said that Robin had a shower
or bath to clean the blood off and put new clothes on "so as not to
meet his maker with the blood of his family on him."
Yeah, right.
Agnes Volestrangler XIII
>>Tarla wrote:
>>
>>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
>
>
> It was two hours of meaningless garbage.
>
> (Okay, it was two hours long, and the few minutes I watched here and
> there were meaningless garbage.)
>
> Did it offer any NEW insight? No.
> Any new angle on our justice system? No.
> Any new analysis of our society? No.
> Any kind of analysis of our society at ALL? No!
>
Analysis of our *society*? Well, no. Nor did it deal with the global
climate change theories, or even how to season cast iron frying pans.
It was, oddly enough for a program about the Bain murders, about the
Bain murders.
You know, sort of like the weather forecast tends to be about the
weather.... which I suppose you think is a waste of time because it's
not about advances in fabric technology. Oh well, you'll never be short
of something to whine about.
A L P
Cowboy Bill
> Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
Neil
I agree she had also told story of having a baby when she was in New
Guinea and use to show people a picture of a Melanesian baby that she
claimed was hers She also said that she had tried to commit suicide by
slashing her wrist.Neither of these stories turned out to be true.Also
if she being molested by her father why would she move out of her flat
in Dunedin to live at her fathers place
Neil
geopelia
"Cowboy Bill" <c...@tombstone.com> wrote in message
news:d60of2$7ve$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Tarla wrote:
> > Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
> Guilty as sin
Probably guilty.
About the bladder - doesn't it relax at death? Or is that only the bowel?
Whoever did the killing, what could have been the motive to take a risk like
that?
Geopelia
Squirrel
wrote:
>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
I think he did it, after years of thinking otherwise
Squirrel
If homosexuality is a sickness, then I am going to start calling in queer to work.
E. Scrooge
"Scooter" <scoot...@claer.net.zn> wrote in message
news:1jd8811u1eg8kfa4e...@4ax.com...
> On , , Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:51 +1200, David Bain Doco, Tarla
> <ta...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
TV rating bullshit.
I believe in the actual court case where all parties who were directly
involved with the case presented their evidence to an impartial court of
Justice.
IMO Bain did it, but just what exactly hasppened for sure no one will ever
know.
TVNZ did that story more themselves (profit) than for the truth about the
Bain family.
E. Scrooge
Kerry
Agnes Volestrangler XIII <b|uebi...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Kerry wrote:
> > In article <4283a6b7$1...@clear.net.nz>, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
> >
> >
> > I thought it balanced, sensible, factual ( as I have always understood
> > the facts) and very well done. I've read the various books, followed
> > the court cases and taken a bit of an interest. Karam has always
> > annoyed me with his red herrings and general lack of insight.
> >
> Kerry, what's your opinion on Robin Bain having died with a full
> bladder? Is that likely in a man of his age, that he would choose not
> to pee? Wouldn't it be likely to be a matter of considerable importance
> (cf Dover Samuels!)?
Well it suggests he had a good nights sleep doesn't it? If he were
awake plotting the demise of his family, no doubt he would have needed a
few nervous pees
Kerry
All of that stuff was easy to say after they were dead, wasn't it?
I think it's very sad that Robin Bain was so maligned. The people who
provided those bits of 'evidence' to the police were personality
disordered attention seeking (contributor to this group at times)
loonies that wanted to be 'involved'
Regarded as unreliable witness by the judge.
Kerry
wrote:
According to an unreliable witness
Kerry
Was the most truthful presentation about the Bain family I had ever seen
I think you are wrong
E. Scrooge
"Kerry" <ker...@ihug.co.invalid> wrote in message
news:kerryd-D9185C....@news.xtra.co.nz...
> In article <1115965897.103417@ftpsrv1>,
> "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:
>
>> "Scooter" <scoot...@claer.net.zn> wrote in message
>> news:1jd8811u1eg8kfa4e...@4ax.com...
>> > On , , Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:51 +1200, David Bain Doco, Tarla
>> > <ta...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>> >
>> > It has reinforced my belief in his guilt.
>>
>> TV rating bullshit.
>>
>> I believe in the actual court case where all parties who were directly
>> involved with the case presented their evidence to an impartial court of
>> Justice.
>>
>> IMO Bain did it, but just what exactly hasppened for sure no one will
>> ever
>> know.
>>
>> TVNZ did that story more themselves (profit) than for the truth about the
>> Bain family.
>>
>> E. Scrooge
>
> Was the most truthful presentation about the Bain family I had ever seen
>
> I think you are wrong
A TV rating version of the case vs the actual court case.
LOL
Funny enough the impartial court case found David Bain guilty long ago.
Joe Karum the guy that was caught by the police for driving with no WOF a
speedometer that Karum knew wasn't working, yet he without being through the
house collecting evidence he thinks he knows more than the police were able
able to put together which used a team of people to do it.
I had the show on in the background while computing, and some the bits I saw
it was all about putting on a show to get viewers like yourself to sit down
and watch it for the night.
Not much different from the mock Jackson court trial that Fox is doing based
on the actual trial, but directed to show and present the trial the way that
they want people to see it.
E. Scrooge
Kerry
A television documentary about the key facts of the case. A summary.
Claimed nothing more
But a good, factual summary of the case
>
> Funny enough the impartial court case found David Bain guilty long ago.
>
Which was entirely the correct outcome
Neil
Yes what ever happened to Nick Greet?
Neil
McNeish
Enkidu
>
> I've always had some doubts about the incest story since her behaviour
> didn't indicate that she tried to avoid her father or that she was
> afraid of him - she went out and stayed at his place (caravan?) when he
> was living near his school, which didn't appear to be necessary. And
> she wouldn't have been the first troubled kid to have invented a
> personal drama to tell among her friends, in the context of everyone
> else having a drama to talk about.
>
consensual? Not that that is any excuse for it.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
Enkidu
>
> Whoever did the killing, what could have been the motive
> to take a risk like that?
>
E. Scrooge
"Kerry" <ker...@ihug.co.invalid> wrote in message
Just as well they got it right then with you judging them.
E. Scrooge
Neil
Good on you I'm sure there are people who will go on believing he
Innocent no mater what you showed them .Like Joe Karam although I
noticed he does seem quite as enthusiastic as he use to be
Kerry
wrote:
> No the information of the other stories comes from the book by James
> McNeish
But James McNeish doesn't think they are true
Peter Metcalfe
> Yes what ever happened to Nick Greet?
Entered a stable relationship.
--Peter Metcalfe
Matty F
> Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
I am amazed that nobody seems concerned by the unprofessional way the
crime scene and evidence was handled. The inept way that clocks and
watches were checked. The poor quality of photographs. The failure to
immediately check the body temperature of all the victims. That there
was doubt whether blood was animal or human. That the length of
footprints and feet were not checked. And lots more. Bloody ridiculous.
Scott Lemon
"Tarla" <ta...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4283a6b7$1...@clear.net.nz...
> Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
I knew next to nothing about the case, but Bain's defence didn't seem very
convincing at all - certainly not enough to be worthy of appeal after appeal
and all the fuss from Joe Karam. I think the theory of Robin doing it, while
not impossible, was very weak.
Now, the Lundy case - THERE is a case where the crown got a conviction on
unbelievably flimsy and implausible evidence. Why Karam or someone else
doesn't grab the ball and run with that one, it's a scary example of
speculative and imaginative detective work.
Kerry
Matty F <ma...@INVALIDflebus.nz> wrote:
That's what Joe Karam wants you to think
In fact none of those red herrings change anything. All the forensic
evidence points to David. None of it points to his father. That was
apparent to the forensic scientists and the police from the word go
BTMO
"Peter Metcalfe" <> wrote
>> Now, the Lundy case - THERE is a case where the crown got a conviction on
>> unbelievably flimsy and implausible evidence.
>
> How is his wife's DNA extracted from a brainstain on his own
> shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
She clearly did it herself.
"I will give you a piece of my mind when you get home!"
Peter Metcalfe
says...
> Now, the Lundy case - THERE is a case where the crown got a conviction on
> unbelievably flimsy and implausible evidence.
How is his wife's DNA extracted from a brainstain on his own
shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
--Peter Metcalfe
Scott Lemon
"Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cef33f32...@news.individual.net...
Considering all the blood one might expect from murdering two people with an
axe, there wasn't any on the shirt, in his car, under his fingernails -
anywhere. The tissue piece in question was so small the crown had to search
high and low for a laboratory who would do a test on it. The only person who
would present it in court was this guy from a lab in Texas, and he first
tested the immunostaining method used a week before the case - on a piece of
raw chicken.
There are so many questions over the Lundy prosecution's case that it
appears a much more likely miscarriage of justice than the Bain murders. I
just wondered why the Bain case has lingered on for 10 years when it is much
more cut and dried, IMO anyway.
Kerry
"Scott Lemon" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Come off it, Lundy was as guilty as sin. You just had to watch his
behaviour and body language to know that. The brain tissue is the
clincher
Scott Lemon
"Kerry" <ker...@ihug.co.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <jzZge.902$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> Matty F <ma...@INVALIDflebus.nz> wrote:
>
>> Tarla wrote:
>>
>> > Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>>
>> I am amazed that nobody seems concerned by the unprofessional way the
>> crime scene and evidence was handled. The inept way that clocks and
>> watches were checked. The poor quality of photographs. The failure to
>> immediately check the body temperature of all the victims. That there
>> was doubt whether blood was animal or human. That the length of
>> footprints and feet were not checked. And lots more. Bloody ridiculous.
>
>
> That's what Joe Karam wants you to think
>
> In fact none of those red herrings change anything. All the forensic
> evidence points to David. None of it points to his father. That was
> apparent to the forensic scientists and the police from the word go
>
Agreed, but that doesn't excuse all the sloppy detectivework. I couldn't
believe the turkey who measured the length of the gun wrongly, by 23cm! Duh!
Sadly I suspect the policework in this case is representative of the quality
of other major criminal investigations by NZ Police.
Scott Lemon
"Neil" <glsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d61n51$pv3$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Not many more book sales left in it.
Sue Bilstein
wrote:
>"Cowboy Bill" <c...@tombstone.com> wrote in message
>news:d60of2$7ve$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Tarla wrote:
>> > Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
>Probably guilty.
>
>About the bladder - doesn't it relax at death? Or is that only the bowel?
>
>Whoever did the killing, what could have been the motive to take a risk like
>that?
David? Money. He wanted the house. He had taken a $6000 motorbike
for a test drive a few weeks before the killings, and crashed it.
Plus, of course, love/hate/revenge on his whole awful family.
Peter Metcalfe
says...
>
> "Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cef33f32...@news.individual.net...
> > How is his wife's DNA extracted from a brainstain on his own
> > shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
> Considering all the blood one might expect from murdering two people with an
> axe, there wasn't any on the shirt, in his car, under his fingernails -
> anywhere.
Well, duh, he wasn't tested for blood underneath his fingernails because
he wasn't arrested immediately after the crime. As for no blood being
on his clothes that is because he was wearing protective clothing as
indicated by a witness.
> The tissue piece in question was so small the crown had to search
> high and low for a laboratory who would do a test on it.
So what was the tissue sample then?
> The only person who
> would present it in court was this guy from a lab in Texas, and he first
> tested the immunostaining method used a week before the case - on a piece of
> raw chicken.
It's called cutting edge research, get used to it. And if the technique
was false then any DNA recovered would have been simply garbage instead
of an exact match with his wife's DNA. Which is why Lundy's defence had
to resort to far-fetched innuendo about the police planting his wife's
brain matter on the shirt.
> There are so many questions over the Lundy prosecution's case that it
> appears a much more likely miscarriage of justice than the Bain murders.
Such as?
--Peter Metcalfe
Neil
. Unless you have very strange shape feet your foot print will be a
couple of cms shorter than your foot lenght as the tip of your big toe
and the rear most point of your heel dont touch the ground so the prints
being 2 cm shorter than David measured foot length makes them a good
match for David and to long to be Robins
Neil
Sue Bilstein
ROFLMAO!
Neil
Tarla
> In article <4283a6b7$1...@clear.net.nz>, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
>
>
>>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
>
> the facts) and very well done. I've read the various books, followed
> the court cases and taken a bit of an interest. Karam has always
> annoyed me with his red herrings and general lack of insight.
>
> I also found it very lump-in-throat-inducing thinking what they all went
> through, especially young Stephen Bain
>
> And David should stay in prison much longer than 16 years. But then I
> always thought that
I have to agree with that analysis. Karam has done a good job of
confusing the facts in the minds of the public, though.
Tarla
> In article <qje781149asg7desr...@4ax.com>,
> Barry Lennox <rianz.1...@neverbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:51 +1200, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>>
>>think that David did it, and last night did not change that.
>>
>>For me, one of the most compelling bits of evidence was Robin Bain's
>>full bladder, regardless of his alleged intent to murder the family,
>>SURELY he would have a pee?? I know I would, before "getting down to
>>business"
>
>
> Not only that, he slept the whole night. brought in the paper, killed
> his whole family and then himself without needing to pee.
> Before he died he apparently changed all his clothing and hid it to
> 'frame' David. Would a person suiciding need to frame anyone for the
> murder of their family, let alone framing his own son? Who was
> apparently the only one who deserved to stay......
>
>>We may never know, only circumstantial evidence, forensics a bit
>>shakey, and not much of a motive. God will know, if you believe in
>>personal buddies somewhere in the universe.
>
>
> I think the programme reinforced just how non-shaky the forensics was.
> ALL of it pointed to David, none to his father
Additionally, I thought the narrator's analysis with regards to the time
the computer was started versus the time the message might have been
written was spot on and quite logical. It tied up a loose end very nicely.
Tarla
The lead detective himself requested an inquiry into his handling of the
case and they found no procedural errors of note.
BTMO
"Sue Bilstein" <> wrote
>>> How is his wife's DNA extracted from a brainstain on his own
>>> shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
>>
>>She clearly did it herself.
>>
>>"I will give you a piece of my mind when you get home!"
>>
>
> ROFLMAO!
Yeah, I know - it was tacky, but it pisses me off that every *convicted*
murderer in this country has their own private cheer section who says they
"ain't done nothin' wrong!".
Screw 'em.
Ironically enough....
Scott Lemon
"Kerry" <ker...@ihug.co.invalid> wrote in message
land.
What a genius.
Agnes Volestrangler XIII
> Agnes Volestrangler XIII wrote:
>
>>
>> I've always had some doubts about the incest story since her behaviour
>> didn't indicate that she tried to avoid her father or that she was
>> afraid of him - she went out and stayed at his place (caravan?) when
>> he was living near his school, which didn't appear to be necessary.
>> And she wouldn't have been the first troubled kid to have invented a
>> personal drama to tell among her friends, in the context of everyone
>> else having a drama to talk about.
>>
> Well, I don't know. What's to say that incest can't be consensual? Not
> that that is any excuse for it.
>
revealing *all* to the rest of the family? And would it have been
phrased along the lines of "father did this to me" - surely it would be
"father and I do this" if in fact she wanted to tell her friends about
it, which would be a hell of a risk if it was something she and he
shared willingly.
Yes, incest may be consensual, but I got no hint that the allegations
involved consensual sex in this case.
A L P
Scott Lemon
"BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ij%ge.929$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Pisses you off? Sounds like you believe the NZ Police and the court system
are infallible and never to be questioned.
Sue Bilstein
>"Sue Bilstein" <> wrote
>>>
>>>"I will give you a piece of my mind when you get home!"
>>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>
>Yeah, I know - it was tacky, but it pisses me off that every *convicted*
>murderer in this country has their own private cheer section who says they
>"ain't done nothin' wrong!".
>
>Screw 'em.
>
>Ironically enough....
>
gruesome humour.
Squirrel
wrote:
Yes his time in amateure dramatics certainly paid off at the funeral,
brain tissue does it for me.
Matty F
> "Kerry" <ker...@ihug.co.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kerryd-0BC044....@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>Come off it, Lundy was as guilty as sin. You just had to watch his
>>behaviour and body language to know that. The brain tissue is the
>>clincher
>>
>
> Yes, I'm sure "body language" is accepted as evidence in any court in the
> land.
>
> What a genius.
The psychiatrists interviewing those two were puzzled about their
behaviour and "body language". Would an innocent person act "normally"
if their entire family had been brutally slaughtered?
Tarla
There was also no evidence presented that indicated that Robin Bain knew
that his daughter was going to reveal anything (if there was anything to
reveal). He would have had no motive to kill her.
Tarla
Well, I wouldn't go that far. The police are fallible. I'm not sure that
I'm fully convinced about the Hope/Smart case decision. Without bodies,
and without actually having been in the courtroom, I'm still out on the
guilt or innocence of Scott Watson.
Agnes Volestrangler XIII
boy was just totally overloaded. He was his mother's confidant and
collaborator in some pretty unrealistic schemes to renovate/rebuild the
house; he was in a way the "adult" of the household and had been for
quite some time; at 23 he was still a student living at home and though
he had friends and people who like him and are still very loyal, he
didn't seem to have really moved away from the family to be an
independent adult in his own right. As the detective who interviewed
him said, he kept going back to the idealized, very unrealistic view of
his family life, even when the detective reminded him about the problems
of the family members one by one. He was hanging on to a vision of his
family that was increasingly untenable, and what's more he was the one
who did the most towards holding this whole fragile mess together.
I am sure he did it. I can also believe that he does not know that he
did. He didn't plead temporary insanity but the unreality of his
picture of his life, and the mixture of cunning (feigning
unconsciousness or fits) and honesty (nobody in the family knowing where
the spare key was) suggest to me something like a fugue state.
He still asserts that he is innocent, and the other guys in gaol with
him believe him. They trust him. To me this suggests that he is not
lying as it would be almost impossible to keep a lie going for 10 years
in the company of men who are *SO* used to liars who say they are
innocent. So where does that leave us? With someone whose mind
mercifully wiped consciousness of the dreadful thing he had done, once
the pressure within his psyche had built up to the point where he had to
solve the family problems once and for all?
A L P
Agnes Volestrangler XIII
>
>
> Additionally, I thought the narrator's analysis with regards to the time
> the computer was started versus the time the message might have been
> written was spot on and quite logical. It tied up a loose end very nicely.
Yes, that was a perfectly sensible explanation which didn't involve any
far-fetched plotting, unlike Karam's scenarios.
I've always had difficulties with the whole timings thing. My computer
is nearly always a minute or more "off", and I don't think there are 2
time tellers in the house the same: stove, video, wrist watch, wall
clock.... And then supposing other people's watches are also up to a
minute out, and they didn't take an exact reading (nearly 5 to, etc)
there's the possibility of errors either piling one on another, or
cancelling one another out - and which is it?
A L P
Agnes Volestrangler XIII
>
>
> Come off it, Lundy was as guilty as sin. You just had to watch his
> behaviour and body language to know that. The brain tissue is the
> clincher
>
That's my gut reaction too, though I must say the timings were pretty
amazing.
However when it comes to timings being replicated, in a way it's a bit
of a red herring.
The second person tries to do it the same as the first person to prove
or disprove something. But the first person (in this case, for example)
had no restrictions - he had no tight schedule to keep to, the killing
could happen whatever time he arrived back. If the journey had taken ten
minutes longer then the killings could have been ten minutes later,
whatever. It wasn't as if he had to be at the crossing at the precise
moment the North-bound train went under the bridge over which the
Emmerdale bus was crossing so that he could throw the secret package
from the bus window onto the roof of the goods wagon, a la ye jolly olde
mysteries.
A L P
Agnes Volestrangler XIII
I
> just wondered why the Bain case has lingered on for 10 years when it is much
> more cut and dried, IMO anyway.
>
This has puzzled me too. I suppose it's a variety of reasons:
David's loyal friends who are quite unable to reconcile the person they
knew with a mass-murderer.
The fact that in a family slaughter it's "usually" the father (or
sometimes the mother). I'm sure I wasn't the only one who, hearing the
first radio report of a family killing in Dunedin with one member left
alive, immediately thought "the father must have done it".
Karam's extreme emotional reaction to the case, leading to discovery and
promulgation of "new" facts and "disgraceful" mistakes by police in the
murder investigation, fostering anti-police sentiment although the
matters he seized on with such undiscriminating energy were in fact
either already known and adequately explained or totally irrelevant.
A L P
geopelia
Let us hope that "far-fetched innuendo" isn't true. Unless someone
confesses there is no way to find out.
Scott Lemon
> In article <wq_ge.917$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>, nob...@nowhere.com
> says...
>>
>> "Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1cef33f32...@news.individual.net...
>
>> > How is his wife's DNA extracted from a brainstain on his own
>> > shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
>
>> Considering all the blood one might expect from murdering two people with
>> an
>> axe, there wasn't any on the shirt, in his car, under his fingernails -
>> anywhere.
>
> Well, duh, he wasn't tested for blood underneath his fingernails because
> he wasn't arrested immediately after the crime. As for no blood being
> on his clothes that is because he was wearing protective clothing as
> indicated by a witness.
And after hacking two people to death with an axe (presumably covering
himself in blood), this witness sees him in a tracksuit but with no blood
on it, he does not smear any blood in the car, in the boot, on the
door-handle or steering wheel, on any of his underclothes, or anything in
the motel, and all the clothing is somehow dumped on a rushed trip between
Palmerston North and Petone but never found?
>
>> The tissue piece in question was so small the crown had to search
>> high and low for a laboratory who would do a test on it.
>
> So what was the tissue sample then?
Probably what they say it is. But doesn't it seem odd that that was *all*
that was found on the shirt? And if he was wearing the shirt under the
"protective clothing", why didn't he dispose of it instead of leaving it in
the car? I'd say accidental contamination, but if you were less kind you'd
suspect it was planted. How strong would the case have been without the
brain tissue? Not very.
>
>> The only person who
>> would present it in court was this guy from a lab in Texas, and he first
>> tested the immunostaining method used a week before the case - on a piece
>> of
>> raw chicken.
>
> It's called cutting edge research, get used to it.
Cutting edge research has no place in a court of law, you have to use proven
techniques. You have a number of labs refuse to testify because they could
not come to a definitive conclusion from such a small tissue sample. Then
you keep asking labs until you can find one that will doesn't sound to me
like you're using proven techniques or any kind of valid examination of the
evidence.
And if the technique
> was false then any DNA recovered would have been simply garbage instead
> of an exact match with his wife's DNA. Which is why Lundy's defence had
> to resort to far-fetched innuendo about the police planting his wife's
> brain matter on the shirt.
I would think accidental contamination is more likely, but as I said before,
parts of the Crown's case were highly speculative and some bordering on
ludicrous.
>
>> There are so many questions over the Lundy prosecution's case that it
>> appears a much more likely miscarriage of justice than the Bain murders.
>
> Such as?
>
According to the Crown, Lundy is supposed to have driven from Petone to
Palmerston North in peak-hour traffic, parked his car 500m from his house,
run the 500m, hatcheted his wife and daughter, forced the window to look
like a break-in, fiddled with the time on the computer, donned a tracksuit
and blonde wig, run back 500m, driven back to Petone whilst stopping
somewhere to dispose of the murder weapon and all the clothing so well that
it has never been found. All in under 3 hours, at speeds up to 150km/hr
through peak-hour traffic, with no witnesses or policemen noticing this
maniac driver, avoiding all speed cameras, and all this without getting any
blood anywhere on himself or the car.
File that one under "F" for fairytale.
> --Peter Metcalfe
BTMO
"Scott Lemon" <> wrote
>>>>She clearly did it herself.
>>>>
>>>>"I will give you a piece of my mind when you get home!"
>>>>
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> Yeah, I know - it was tacky, but it pisses me off that every *convicted*
>> murderer in this country has their own private cheer section who says
>> they "ain't done nothin' wrong!".
>
> Pisses you off? Sounds like you believe the NZ Police and the court system
> are infallible and never to be questioned.
Not at all.
But as someoone else mentioned - if you do a DNA test and the results are
dodgy, you get a gibberish result. You don't get a perfect match.
And brain, present company excepted, normally resides in the skull, not the
laundry basket...
BTMO
"Sue Bilstein" <> wrote
>>>>"I will give you a piece of my mind when you get home!"
>>>>
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>>Yeah, I know - it was tacky, but it pisses me off that every *convicted*
>>murderer in this country has their own private cheer section who says they
>>"ain't done nothin' wrong!".
>>
>>Screw 'em.
>>
>>Ironically enough....
>>
> NB I wasn't being ironical at all - you made me laugh. But I like
> gruesome humour.
:-)
I will continue...
BTMO
"Scott Lemon" <> wrote
>>> Considering all the blood one might expect from murdering two people
>>> with an
>>> axe, there wasn't any on the shirt, in his car, under his fingernails -
>>> anywhere. The tissue piece in question was so small the crown had to
>>> search
>>> high and low for a laboratory who would do a test on it. The only person
>>> who
>>> would present it in court was this guy from a lab in Texas, and he first
>>> tested the immunostaining method used a week before the case - on a
>>> piece of
>>> raw chicken.
>>>
>>> There are so many questions over the Lundy prosecution's case that it
>>> appears a much more likely miscarriage of justice than the Bain murders.
>>> I
>>> just wondered why the Bain case has lingered on for 10 years when it is
>>> much
>>> more cut and dried, IMO anyway.
>>
>> Come off it, Lundy was as guilty as sin. You just had to watch his
>> behaviour and body language to know that. The brain tissue is the
>> clincher
>>
> Yes, I'm sure "body language" is accepted as evidence in any court in the
> land.
>
> What a genius.
You seemed pretty quick to wave away scientific evidence...
Nosferatu
I've always felt he's guilty, 2 things I heard before he was officially
arrested...
1. Who writes suicide notes on computers? Somebody who can't forge his
fathers handwriting thats who.
2. When fathers 'do' the family, they do all the children too because they
love them (ironically), and go to great lengths not to miss anybody . The
'suicide note' read something like 'you were the only one who deserved to
live', this goes strongly against the norm in these cases.
It was obviously David who wrote the note, and David who believes he's the
only one who deserves to live, and then you also have the motive -
cleansing. The family was just screwed up, and David sorted them out.
Nosferatu.
Neil
Yes you could see that anyone who had only read what Karam had written
would probably think he was innocent.The best thing about this Doco is
it probably present the real facts to people like that
Neil
Plus the were comparing the time to the witnesses guess of how fast
her car clock was.Also David was at the end of his paper run a the
corner of Every St and Heath St 6:40(he said in his statement to police
that he checked his watch and it was 6:40 also a witness saw him at that
intersection at 6:40)which is just over 200m down the hill from his
house.It only takes me 2 minites to walk from that corner to where the
Bain house was at a very average walking pace (I lived in Every St at
the time of the murders and for several years afterwards) and I'm older
and a lot less fit than Davd was So I dont believe it took him 5 min to
get from there to his house
Neil
Neil
supply of paper and pens
baggly grimmel
"Neil" <glsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d61492$9jg$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Agnes Volestrangler XIII wrote:
> > Nelly wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:51 +1200, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What changed my mind was the jumper fibres underneath Stephens nails,
> >> Robins full bladder, and the fact that Robin was left handed. There
> >> were a few other things too, but can't remember off hand. My opinion
> >> was that David knew about Laniet and the father and he just couldn't
> >> handle it.
> >>
> >>
> > I've always had some doubts about the incest story since her behaviour
> > didn't indicate that she tried to avoid her father or that she was
> > afraid of him - she went out and stayed at his place (caravan?) when he
> > was living near his school, which didn't appear to be necessary. And
> > she wouldn't have been the first troubled kid to have invented a
> > personal drama to tell among her friends, in the context of everyone
> > else having a drama to talk about.
> >
>
> I agree she had also told story of having a baby when she was in New
> Guinea and use to show people a picture of a Melanesian baby that she
> claimed was hers She also said that she had tried to commit suicide by
> slashing her wrist.Neither of these stories turned out to be true.Also
> if she being molested by her father why would she move out of her flat
> in Dunedin to live at her fathers place
>
> Neil
In the court transcript the only suggestion of incest came from a dairy
owner who claimed that Laniet had told the story about incest on her very
first meeting with said dairy owner and asked the dairy owner not to say
anything.
Same with the pimp and prostitution, in McNiesh's book, the person who made
the claim was very reluctant to make a statement and had to be hunted down
and finally bought to Dunedin under a warrant. Read about it.
It is obvious from McNiesh's book and from the transcripts and evidence that
David Bain is the killer.
baggly grimmel
Davids Dad was apparently an obsessive scholar of english and the way the
not was written was not in keeping with that scholastic exactness.
Something to do with
sorry you were the only one who deserved to live
or you are the only one tthat deserves to live
or deserved to live or whatever.
But the way it was wwritten contained basic errors of grammar that aroused
the suspicion that Bains dear old dad didn't write it.
"Nosferatu" <nosf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SI2he.993$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
baggly grimmel
"Scott Lemon" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:TMZge.907$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Tarla" <ta...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:4283a6b7$1...@clear.net.nz...
> > Did anyone aside from me see it? Just wondering what you thought.
>
> convincing at all - certainly not enough to be worthy of appeal after
appeal
> and all the fuss from Joe Karam. I think the theory of Robin doing it,
while
> not impossible, was very weak.
>
> Now, the Lundy case - THERE is a case where the crown got a conviction on
> doesn't grab the ball and run with that one, it's a scary example of
> speculative and imaginative detective work.
On the contrary, the Lundy case was handled brilliantly by the detectives
who finally arrested Lundy.
>
>
>
baggly grimmel
"Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cef33f32...@news.individual.net...
on
> > unbelievably flimsy and implausible evidence.
>
> shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
>
Precisely Peter, iot was either placed there by a cop, or Lundy was the
perp. I think Lundy is the perp.
baggly grimmel
"BTMO" <bt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ij%ge.929$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Sue Bilstein" <> wrote
>
> >>> shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ROFLMAO!
>
> Yeah, I know - it was tacky,
Your comments are obscene, not tacky just plain disgusting and
disrespectful.
baggly grimmel
What a joke, the police are always questioned, on every action and at all
times, during every trial and long afterward.
>
>
>
baggly grimmel
Sadly I suppose you will.
>
>
baggly grimmel
I am not. I believe that Watson killed both of those people, the evidence
is pretty clear. Incidently the 'mystery ketch' is at present in Tauranga,
was at the Furneax lodge and left the night before for the West Coast, all
accounted for. Every vessel that was at Furneaux was accounted for.
DNA from hope was found in the bottom of the sliding hatch into Blade, where
she had apparently tried to prise open the hatch. That is pretty stron
evidence, and there was a lot of other stuff that supported Watson being the
killer.
baggly grimmel
> >
> > Well, duh, he wasn't tested for blood underneath his fingernails because
> > he wasn't arrested immediately after the crime. As for no blood being
> > on his clothes that is because he was wearing protective clothing as
> > indicated by a witness.
>
> And after hacking two people to death with an axe (presumably covering
> himself in blood), this witness sees him in a tracksuit but with no blood
> on it, he does not smear any blood in the car, in the boot, on the
> door-handle or steering wheel, on any of his underclothes, or anything in
> the motel, and all the clothing is somehow dumped on a rushed trip
between
> Palmerston North and Petone but never found?
Wasn't he seen by the witness wearing a woman's gown and a blond wig but his
suit pants and shoes showed under the clothing which she thought a bit odd
and 'why was Mr Lundy dressed so oddly and running down the road away from
his house? She thought at the time.
baggly grimmel
"Agnes Volestrangler XIII" <b|uebi...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4284...@clear.net.nz...
Perhaps a nation of headline readers who are automatically anti authority
and thus anti police provided a fertile audience.
baggly grimmel
"Tarla" <ta...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4284...@clear.net.nz...
> Kerry wrote:
> > In article <4283a6b7$1...@clear.net.nz>, Tarla <ta...@inspire.net.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > the facts) and very well done. I've read the various books, followed
> > the court cases and taken a bit of an interest. Karam has always
> > annoyed me with his red herrings and general lack of insight.
> >
> > I also found it very lump-in-throat-inducing thinking what they all went
> > through, especially young Stephen Bain
> >
> > And David should stay in prison much longer than 16 years. But then I
> > always thought that
>
> I have to agree with that analysis. Karam has done a good job of
> confusing the facts in the minds of the public, though.
But not in our minds tho eh?...are we part of the public or what?
baggly grimmel
"Agnes Volestrangler XIII" <b|uebi...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4284...@clear.net.nz...
A plus or minus 3 to 5 minutes error is likely, perhaps even probable.
Kerry
"Nosferatu" <nosf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think the fact that he has always denied it suggests it was far more
basic than cleansing. David always intended to get away with it and
make his father take the rap, he calculated and planned it that way. He
wasn't cleansing the family, what did he have to cleanse Steven and
Arawa for? I believe the stuff about LAniet and her father to be
nothing but convenient gossip.
It wasn't cleansing it just suited him to kill his family for reasons
unknown to us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beware the Burberry, my son
The tongue stud that glints, the stripes that clash
Beware the chavs
And their frumious bags of hash
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Metcalfe
> > In article <wq_ge.917$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>, nob...@nowhere.com
> > says...
> >> "Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1cef33f32...@news.individual.net...
> >> > How is his wife's DNA extracted from a brainstain on his own
> >> > shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
> >> Considering all the blood one might expect from murdering two people with
> >> an
> >> axe, there wasn't any on the shirt, in his car, under his fingernails -
> >> anywhere.
> > Well, duh, he wasn't tested for blood underneath his fingernails because
> > he wasn't arrested immediately after the crime. As for no blood being
> > on his clothes that is because he was wearing protective clothing as
> > indicated by a witness.
> And after hacking two people to death with an axe (presumably covering
> himself in blood), this witness sees him in a tracksuit but with no blood
> on it,
She saw him before the murders, not after.
> he does not smear any blood in the car, in the boot, on the
> door-handle or steering wheel,
It's called gloves.
> on any of his underclothes,
Duh, he was wearing other clothing to avoid getting blood on the
underclothes.
> or anything in the motel,
Because he had cleaned up by then?
> and all the clothing is somehow dumped on a rushed trip between
> Palmerston North and Petone but never found?
He doesn't need to dump it then, he has plenty of opportunity
to dump the clothes overnight as the bodies have not been found.
> >> The tissue piece in question was so small the crown had to search
> >> high and low for a laboratory who would do a test on it.
> > So what was the tissue sample then?
> Probably what they say it is.
In which case, he's guilty.
> But doesn't it seem odd that that was *all*
> that was found on the shirt?
No. If the police were smearing evidence as you think, they would
have put far far more on it.
> And if he was wearing the shirt under the
> "protective clothing", why didn't he dispose of it instead of leaving it in
> the car?
Because he looked at the shirt and saw that it was clean and
decided to keep it.
> I'd say accidental contamination,
How? The shirt never came in contact with the bodies after the
murders.
> >> The only person who
> >> would present it in court was this guy from a lab in Texas, and he first
> >> tested the immunostaining method used a week before the case - on a piece
> >> of raw chicken.
> > It's called cutting edge research, get used to it.
> Cutting edge research has no place in a court of law, you have to use proven
> techniques.
But the technique is proven in that it turns up cells that are human
brain cells and contained his wife's DNA. Even you admit this above
so why are you complaining about it?
> You have a number of labs refuse to testify because they could
> not come to a definitive conclusion from such a small tissue sample.
So? The fact that the lab turned up the wife's DNA and not
random garbage *is* evidence that a definitive conclusion has
been reached.
> Then
> you keep asking labs until you can find one that will doesn't sound to me
> like you're using proven techniques or any kind of valid examination of the
> evidence.
What "proven" (according to your usage of the word, I must point out)
should have been performed on the shirt first before taking it to
the lab?
> > And if the technique
> > was false then any DNA recovered would have been simply garbage instead
> > of an exact match with his wife's DNA. Which is why Lundy's defence had
> > to resort to far-fetched innuendo about the police planting his wife's
> > brain matter on the shirt.
> I would think accidental contamination is more likely,
How so? And in doing so, you've just made a great big hole in your
own arguments against admitting this evidence. If it is the Wife's
DNA on the shirt, then there's no reason not to rely on that evidence
in court.
> but as I said before,
> parts of the Crown's case were highly speculative and some bordering on
> ludicrous.
All that the crown needs to do is to prove that Mark Lundy killed his
wife and daughter. There is no need for the crown to prove every
single aspect of how Mark Lundy committed the crime.
> >> There are so many questions over the Lundy prosecution's case that it
> >> appears a much more likely miscarriage of justice than the Bain murders.
> > Such as?
> According to the Crown, Lundy is supposed to have driven from Petone to
> Palmerston North in peak-hour traffic, parked his car 500m from his house,
> run the 500m, hatcheted his wife and daughter, forced the window to look
> like a break-in, fiddled with the time on the computer, donned a tracksuit
> and blonde wig, run back 500m, driven back to Petone whilst stopping
> somewhere to dispose of the murder weapon and all the clothing so well that
> it has never been found. All in under 3 hours, at speeds up to 150km/hr
> through peak-hour traffic, with no witnesses or policemen noticing this
> maniac driver, avoiding all speed cameras, and all this without getting any
> blood anywhere on himself or the car.
So why wasn't he answering his cell-phone during that period of time?
Why was he making freudian slips about having driven home that night
when he was actually talking about driving home the next day after the
bodies had been discovered? Why was there a discrepancy in amount
of petrol in his car which does not fit in with his version of events
but does fit in with a surreptious trip to Palmy and back on the
night of the murder? The more any reasonable person looks at these
questions and others, the more they come to the conclusion that yes,
these things happened the way the crown says they did.
> File that one under "F" for fairytale.
Right next to the file name named "scott lemon" filed under "F" for
Fool?
--Peter Metcalfe
Tarla
As I said, I haven't read the court transcripts. That trial started just
after we arrived.
Tarla
Actually, I read the Bain murder story on the Crime Library site after
hearing about a piece of art that was causing a bit of controversy in
Dunedin when I was down there. The story there, gave Karams side but not
all of the answers, so in truth, until this documentary, I really wasn't
sure if he had done it or not. I think this doco did a very good job of
presenting the case against him, the defense, and came to a valid
conclusion, although I don't like the fact that they used the appeal of
authority as one of their points.
Scott Lemon
of any other forensic evidence that's unusual. If Lundy had murdered his
wife and child, he would have done so under the same (if not greater) time
pressures than Bain did. Bain committed the murders with a gun instead of an
axe, and left blood smears everywhere - on the walls, on his socks, on the
jumper, one the gun and on the washing machine. Yet Lundy somehow manages to
commit a much more bloody act - under time pressure - but leaves no blood
traces - in the house, on his clothes, in the car, in the motel? Nor is
there any sign of anyone having done any cleaning up in the house, and the
"witness" sees a blonde jogger with no blood on his clothes, hands, hair,
etc.
Scott Lemon
"baggly grimmel" <ga...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4285...@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Scott Lemon" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:0w1he.969$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>> >
>> > Well, duh, he wasn't tested for blood underneath his fingernails
>> > because
>> > he wasn't arrested immediately after the crime. As for no blood being
>> > on his clothes that is because he was wearing protective clothing as
>> > indicated by a witness.
>>
>> And after hacking two people to death with an axe (presumably covering
>> himself in blood), this witness sees him in a tracksuit but with no
>> blood
>> on it, he does not smear any blood in the car, in the boot, on the
>> door-handle or steering wheel, on any of his underclothes, or anything in
>> the motel, and all the clothing is somehow dumped on a rushed trip
> between
>> Palmerston North and Petone but never found?
>
> Wasn't he seen by the witness wearing a woman's gown and a blond wig but
> his
> suit pants and shoes showed under the clothing which she thought a bit odd
> and 'why was Mr Lundy dressed so oddly and running down the road away from
> his house? She thought at the time.
>>
put it that the jogger was him as part of their theory of how the murder
occurred.
Scott Lemon
"Shane" <sh...@weasel.is-a-geek.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.13....@weasel.is-a-geek.net...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:58:26 +1200, Scott Lemon wrote:
>
>>
>> "Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
>>> In article <wq_ge.917$94.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>, nob...@nowhere.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.1cef33f32...@news.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> > shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
>>>
>>>> with
>>>> an
>>>> axe, there wasn't any on the shirt, in his car, under his fingernails -
>>>> anywhere.
>>>
>>> he wasn't arrested immediately after the crime. As for no blood being
>>> on his clothes that is because he was wearing protective clothing as
>>> indicated by a witness.
>>
>> And after hacking two people to death with an axe (presumably covering
>> himself in blood), this witness sees him in a tracksuit but with no
>> blood
>> on it, he does not smear any blood in the car, in the boot, on the
>> door-handle or steering wheel, on any of his underclothes, or anything in
>> the motel, and all the clothing is somehow dumped on a rushed trip
>> between
>> Palmerston North and Petone but never found?
>>
>>>
>>>> high and low for a laboratory who would do a test on it.
>>>
>>
>> *all*
>> that was found on the shirt? And if he was wearing the shirt under the
>> "protective clothing", why didn't he dispose of it instead of leaving it
>> in
>> you'd
>> suspect it was planted. How strong would the case have been without the
>> brain tissue? Not very.
>>
>
> Couldnt afford the test to see what it was
>
>>>
>>>> The only person who
>>>> would present it in court was this guy from a lab in Texas, and he
>>>> first tested the immunostaining method used a week before the case -
>>>> on a piece of
>>>> raw chicken.
>>>
>>
>> Cutting edge research has no place in a court of law, you have to use
>> they could not come to a definitive conclusion from such a small tissue
>> doesn't sound to me like you're using proven techniques or any kind of
>> valid examination of the evidence.
>>
>>> was false then any DNA recovered would have been simply garbage instead
>>> of an exact match with his wife's DNA. Which is why Lundy's defence
>>> had to resort to far-fetched innuendo about the police planting his
>>> wife's brain matter on the shirt.
>>
>> before, parts of the Crown's case were highly speculative and some
>> bordering on ludicrous.
>>
>>
>>>> appears a much more likely miscarriage of justice than the Bain
>>>> murders.
>>>
>>>
>> According to the Crown, Lundy is supposed to have driven from Petone to
>> Palmerston North in peak-hour traffic, parked his car 500m from his
>> house, run the 500m, hatcheted his wife and daughter, forced the window
>> to look like a break-in, fiddled with the time on the computer, donned a
>> tracksuit and blonde wig, run back 500m, driven back to Petone whilst
>> stopping somewhere to dispose of the murder weapon and all the clothing
>> so well that it has never been found. All in under 3 hours, at speeds up
>> to 150km/hr through peak-hour traffic, with no witnesses or policemen
>> noticing this maniac driver, avoiding all speed cameras, and all this
>> without getting any blood anywhere on himself or the car.
>>
>>
>>
>
> themselves within the specified times, and were unable to do it
> also, I grew up within 600 metres of the murders and the 500m run from his
> house to where he was spotted by the witness involves running past a
> dairy, another shop, and a fish and chip shop, I forget the times they
> think the murders took place, but there would/should have been several
> witnesses at either the fish and chip shop, or the dairy (even if he had
> been running on the other side of the road from the shops)
>
> Personally I felt Mark Lundy was the murderer, I just dont think the crown
> _proved_ it, which makes for an uncomfortable conviction from my POV
>>
Uncomfortable is exactly the word. They certainly didn't do so beyond
"reasonable doubt".
I am who I am
|
| Yes what ever happened to Nick Greet?
Who wants to known and why?
BTMO
"baggly grimmel" <> wrote
>> I will continue...
>
> Sadly I suppose you will.
Yes, I will.
Ain't it grand?
I see you have changed your nick again...
BTMO
"baggly grimmel" <> wrote
>> >>> How is his wife's DNA extracted from a brainstain on his own
>> >>> shirt "unbelievably flimsy and implausible"?
>> >>
>> >>She clearly did it herself.
>> >>
>> >>"I will give you a piece of my mind when you get home!"
>> >>
>> >
>> > ROFLMAO!
>>
>> Yeah, I know - it was tacky,
>
> Your comments are obscene, not tacky just plain disgusting and
> disrespectful.
I fear the dead...
BTMO
"Scott Lemon" <> wrote
>>> What a genius.
>>
>> You seemed pretty quick to wave away scientific evidence...
> I think the evidence is fine. It's the presence of such evidence in
> absence of any other forensic evidence that's unusual. If Lundy had
> murdered his wife and child, he would have done so under the same (if not
> greater) time pressures than Bain did. Bain committed the murders with a
> gun instead of an axe, and left blood smears everywhere - on the walls, on
> his socks, on the jumper, one the gun and on the washing machine. Yet
> Lundy somehow manages to commit a much more bloody act - under time
> pressure - but leaves no blood traces - in the house, on his clothes, in
> the car, in the motel? Nor is there any sign of anyone having done any
> cleaning up in the house, and the "witness" sees a blonde jogger with no
> blood on his clothes, hands, hair, etc.
Yeah, funny how the real world works against expectations sometimes, isn't
it...
Scott Lemon
No she didn't. Her testimony and the prosecution's case had him running
*away* from the scene in a female blonde wig and a tracksuit.
>> he does not smear any blood in the car, in the boot, on the
>> door-handle or steering wheel,
>
> It's called gloves.
Which were not seen by the witness. So under this tracksuit over a
blood-soaked suit, he also had to be somehow carrying a pair of gloves as
well as a tomahawk, and jog 500m with them This is a not-very-fit 120kg+ guy
who has to do the run in record time.
>
>> on any of his underclothes,
>
> Duh, he was wearing other clothing to avoid getting blood on the
> underclothes.
Which, according to the prosecution, in his 150km/hr dash back to Petone he
had time to stop somewhere, remove both sets of clothing, and his shoes
(which miraculously did not leave ANY microscopic blood spots in the car)
put them all in a plastic bag, threw it all into a body of water, cleaned
himself, changed into the polo shirt and none of these actions smeared any
blood anywhere.
>> or anything in the motel,
>
> Because he had cleaned up by then?
>> and all the clothing is somehow dumped on a rushed trip between
>> Palmerston North and Petone but never found?
>
> He doesn't need to dump it then, he has plenty of opportunity
> to dump the clothes overnight as the bodies have not been found.
>
>> >> The tissue piece in question was so small the crown had to search
>> >> high and low for a laboratory who would do a test on it.
>
>> > So what was the tissue sample then?
>
>> Probably what they say it is.
>
> In which case, he's guilty.
Have you never heard of contamination of evidence?
>
>> But doesn't it seem odd that that was *all*
>> that was found on the shirt?
>
> No. If the police were smearing evidence as you think, they would
> have put far far more on it.
I don't think the police smeared it, I think it's more likely laboratory
contamination.
What concerns me about the case is that all the other prosecution evidence
is based around a high speed trip that is fanciful to the point of being
laughable. If they had managed to replicate Lundy's alleged 150/khr run
under the same conditions, then I might have a different view of the
microscopic tissue sample. How can you take the rest of the evidence
seriously with the trip being the major premise of their case?
>
>> And if he was wearing the shirt under the
>> "protective clothing", why didn't he dispose of it instead of leaving it
>> in
>> the car?
>
> Because he looked at the shirt and saw that it was clean and
> decided to keep it.
Oh, please! He's smart enough to alter the time on the computer without
detection, yet doesn't dispose of the shirt he was wearing on the drive
back?
>
>> I'd say accidental contamination,
>
> How? The shirt never came in contact with the bodies after the
> murders.
While it was being tested, goose. Even standard DNA testing is not exempt
from human error. There are a few recent cases (David Dougherty is one)
where DNA mixup was resposible for an incorrect conviction or acquittal.
>
>> >> The only person who
>> >> would present it in court was this guy from a lab in Texas, and he
>> >> first
>> >> tested the immunostaining method used a week before the case - on a
>> >> piece
>> >> of raw chicken.
>
>> > It's called cutting edge research, get used to it.
>
>> Cutting edge research has no place in a court of law, you have to use
>> proven
>> techniques.
>
> But the technique is proven in that it turns up cells that are human
> brain cells and contained his wife's DNA. Even you admit this above
> so why are you complaining about it?
I mean time-proven techniques. The basis of a crucial piece of evidence was
based on a method that is not normally used in forensics.
>> You have a number of labs refuse to testify because they could
>> not come to a definitive conclusion from such a small tissue sample.
>
> So? The fact that the lab turned up the wife's DNA and not
> random garbage *is* evidence that a definitive conclusion has
> been reached.
What??? So, as long as a conclusion is reached, it doesn't matter how you
get there?
>> Then
>> you keep asking labs until you can find one that will doesn't sound to me
>> like you're using proven techniques or any kind of valid examination of
>> the
>> evidence.
>
> What "proven" (according to your usage of the word, I must point out)
> should have been performed on the shirt first before taking it to
> the lab?
If you can't use a technique generally agreed to in the scientific community
as valid, then you shouldn't be able to use it as evidence, full stop. The
fact that a whole buch of labs did not want to use the method to testify
doesn't appear to me that it is valid.
>
>> > And if the technique
>> > was false then any DNA recovered would have been simply garbage instead
>> > of an exact match with his wife's DNA. Which is why Lundy's defence
>> > had
>> > to resort to far-fetched innuendo about the police planting his wife's
>> > brain matter on the shirt.
>
>> I would think accidental contamination is more likely,
>
> How so? And in doing so, you've just made a great big hole in your
> own arguments against admitting this evidence. If it is the Wife's
> DNA on the shirt, then there's no reason not to rely on that evidence
> in court.
Its not unlikely her DNA would be on the shirt in some form or other, his
wife probably would have contact with most of his clothes. The issue is
whether the tissue is from his wife's brain or spinal cord, not whether
there is his wife's DNA present on the shirt. There's no law against you
having your wife's DNA on your shirt.
So they have used an uncommonly used test, by the only lab that will do it
on a sample of that size, and used it for the first time on fabric, and for
the first time in a court. It would have been more convincing if they had a
respected person in the field to attest to the validity of the
immunostaining process used. But they didn't AFAIK.
>> but as I said before,
>> parts of the Crown's case were highly speculative and some bordering on
>> ludicrous.
>
> All that the crown needs to do is to prove that Mark Lundy killed his
> wife and daughter. There is no need for the crown to prove every
> single aspect of how Mark Lundy committed the crime.
No, but they have to put forward a theory of how it could have been done,
and at least a credible one if they hope to prosecute. There are so many
parts to their case that are simply *not* credible that it staggers me as to
how a jury could have come up with a guilty verdict. I suspect it was simply
the way the evidence was presented to the jury (either that, or they got the
thickest dozen people they could lay their hands on) - borne out by the TV
show that presented the same evidence and from memory came out with 3 guilty
and 9 not guilty.
>> >> There are so many questions over the Lundy prosecution's case that it
>> >> appears a much more likely miscarriage of justice than the Bain
>> >> murders.
>
>> > Such as?
>
>> According to the Crown, Lundy is supposed to have driven from Petone to
>> Palmerston North in peak-hour traffic, parked his car 500m from his
>> house,
>> run the 500m, hatcheted his wife and daughter, forced the window to look
>> like a break-in, fiddled with the time on the computer, donned a
>> tracksuit
>> and blonde wig, run back 500m, driven back to Petone whilst stopping
>> somewhere to dispose of the murder weapon and all the clothing so well
>> that
>> it has never been found. All in under 3 hours, at speeds up to 150km/hr
>> through peak-hour traffic, with no witnesses or policemen noticing this
>> maniac driver, avoiding all speed cameras, and all this without getting
>> any
>> blood anywhere on himself or the car.
>
> So why wasn't he answering his cell-phone during that period of time?
What revelance does that have to whether he could have made the trip or not?
None. Besides, it's not unusual to not answer your cellphone for a couple of
hours. If I have mine on my desk or on the benchtop, and I'm wandering
around the office or around the house, I do it every day.
> Why was he making freudian slips about having driven home that night
> when he was actually talking about driving home the next day after the
> bodies had been discovered? Why was there a discrepancy in amount
> of petrol in his car which does not fit in with his version of events
> but does fit in with a surreptious trip to Palmy and back on the
> night of the murder? The more any reasonable person looks at these
> questions and others, the more they come to the conclusion that yes,
> these things happened the way the crown says they did.
Except for the slightly large point about making a 3 hour trip that, for
everyone who has attempted it, is physically impossible.
>
>> File that one under "F" for fairytale.
>
> Right next to the file name named "scott lemon" filed under "F" for
> Fool?
Says the person who got the first thing he wrote about the case completely
wrong.
Another Guy
Another Guy
>
SNIP
> No, but they have to put forward a theory of how it could have been done,
> and at least a credible one if they hope to prosecute. There are so many
> parts to their case that are simply *not* credible that it staggers me as
> to how a jury could have come up with a guilty verdict. I suspect it was
> simply the way the evidence was presented to the jury (either that, or
> they got the thickest dozen people they could lay their hands on) - borne
> out by the TV show that presented the same evidence and from memory came
> out with 3 guilty and 9 not guilty.
And that TV infotainment show was a credible test of the evidence??? More so
than a full trial??
SNIP
BTMO
"Another Guy" <> wrote
>> Uncomfortable is exactly the word. They certainly didn't do so beyond
>> "reasonable doubt".
>>
>>
> The jury thought so
Ouch.
;-)