Holly there are many different lifestyles in NZ as no doubt everywhere, and no one interferes, which is as it should be. They were all essentially adults except Stephen, free to move.
Robin Bain killed his family, then because David was out he left a note of regret to David on the computer just before shooting himself. Joe Karam proved all this, nothing will ever change these facts. Lamenting Robin's ability to speak out is somewhat circular. He never meant to screw David's life so comprehensively, but it was incest, corroborated by several witnesses who could not testify. David has been kind to his father by never using it to defend himself.
Here is a post I put to kiwi blog.
In this verbatim extract from Kim Hill's interview with Ian Binnie, he demonstrates that Judith Collins did not read his report, and that Michael Guest and John Pike might be deemed to have violated their duty to New Zealand courts. What Judith Collins did was an unspeakable outrage, she must be voted from office for this, and be seen to have ruled herself from any position that can do further damage to New Zealand's international reputation.
In the rest of the interview Binnie shows total command of the science, logistics and motivations in the mass murder suicide by Robin Bain.
Maybe someone will be civilised enough to GENERALLY DEBATE matters in this interview and the concerns I have just outlined. Ideally the three he accuses of deceit will answer his specific allegations publicly some day, because they will never disappear.
KH:
Right.. and you wrote up your report, and you sent it off, what was the first inkling you got, that the government or the minister was unhappy with it.
IB:
I had some inkling beforehand that the minister was a sort of Law and Order character and she was not going to be pleased with my view, the first contact I had, I was summonsed - I was in Cairo at the time, to come to Auckland to meet with the Minister,
KH:
This is Judith Collins now..
IB:
Yes Judith Collins, and I had a 15 minute meeting, which meant I’d spent about an hour in an aeroplane for every minute I had with the Minister, I had the very clear impression she had not read my report.
She certainly knew what the bottom line was, and she had a briefing note, which I had been given beforehand, which set out three points, those are the only points that she touched on, and when I responded, one of them was this thing about Michael Guest, er, Michael Guest says he’s guilty.
KH:
Michael Guest is a lawyer?
IB:
Michael Guest is the original defence lawyer, and defence lawyers aren’t very happy when a client spends 13yrs in jail, and is then acquitted by the Privy Council - why the minister would attach importance to what Michael Guest said, is beyond me, but the minister did not seem to realise,
KH:
But hang on, you’re saying Michael Guest is a defence lawyer right?
IB:
Yep.
KH:
So why would a defence lawyer feel obliged to say that David Bain is now guilty are you suggesting that because someone else has found him innocent, he’s aggrieved?
IB:
No no what Im suggesting is that there's a certain level of professional embarrassment if you have unsuccessfully defended somebody... it makes you feel better in the end if they’re guilty anyway.
KH:
Alright I understand... yep.
IB:
My point is this, that when I replied to the ministers point about Michael Guest has sent me an email that David Bain is guilty, I mean there was zero registration on the face of the minister, (long pause) that I had even dealt with this in my report. And in fact what she
was telling me, I had already ACCEPTED in the report in black and white, I said on this point, I said I accept what Michael Guest said, the minister didn’t seem to realise that.
KH:
By which you deduce that she did not read the report.
IB:
Well there were a number of items er.. for example she has one or another of her points had to do with Sir Thomas Thorpe, who had interviewed David Bain, who really concluded that his application for clemency shouldn’t go anywhere because... er there was nothing to it - well of course a few years later the Privy Council said yes! theres a lot! Theres a lot here and theres a real problem with this case and we are quashing the convictions not as technical miscarriages of justice but the word they used was this has been an ACTUAL miscarriage of justice.
So how one can leap-frog back over the Privy Council to ’Tommy Thorpe’ she called him, years before and say well look what Tommy Thorpe says, suggests that she had no grip of anything that had gone on, ah in between, all of which was in my report.
KH:
It seems that Judith Collins told Dr Robert Fisher that she believed that there were significant problems with your report I wonder, how she concluded that.. have you any ideas?
IB:
Yes I have no doubt at all that the prosecutors John Pike and er, his colleague, had been with the Bain case for years, they were very heavily committed to the prosecution they had gone to the Privy Council - lost at the Privy Council, had gone into this 12 week re-trial, lost at the retrial. they didn’t want to give up! There is no way Judith Collins could have prepared that letter of instruction, I think it came straight from the prosecutors and she signed off, and away we went.