Why so many people refuse to accept David Bain’s innocence.
NOW, I’M NO FORENSIC SCIENTIST, but the “new” evidence of David Bain’s innocence strikes me as pretty persuasive. I’ve written “new” in inverted commas because it isn’t really new at all. The tell-tale imprint of gunshot residue on Robin Bain’s thumb was there all along in the photographic evidence, but somehow, like so many other items of evidence in the Bain trial/s, it was “overlooked” by the Police.
Had the Every Street crime scene been properly processed there’s every chance that the evidence of Robin Bain loading and reloading the magazine of the .22 rifle used to killed his family and himself would have been identified during the autopsy, and the Police investigation team’s initial impression – that the father was responsible – would have been confirmed. But, as we all know, the crime scene was a mess: procedures weren’t followed; evidence was lost; and, in the crowning folly of the Bain investigation, the whole house was allowed to be torched – destroying the crime scene forever.
But perhaps we should cut the Police a little slack. What they walked into that day was a waking nightmare of blood and horror. Few Police officers will ever encounter so much unlawful death (five bodies) in a single dwelling. It was enough to reduce the sole surviving family member, David Bain, to a gibbering wreck. The multiple errors which took place in relation to the protection of the crime scene and the gathering of evidence indicates that many of the attending Police officers weren’t in much better shape.
Even so, it is extraordinary that in the 19 years that have elapsed since that dreadful morning in June, 1994, only a Waikato businessman recognised the marks on Robin Bain’s thumb and realised that since he had evidently been touching the murder weapon’s ammunition magazine, he was more likely than anybody else to have been the perpetrator.
More extraordinary, however, has been the reaction of those who remain absolutely convinced that it was David – not Robin – who killed the Bain family. The latest revelations haven’t made even the slightest dent in their iron-clad certainty of David’s guilt. Indeed, one really struggles to think of anything, any piece of evidence, no matter how strong, that could alter their conclusion that David is the one who done it.
The questions I come back to over and over again are: “Why are these people so reluctant to believe in the possibility of David Bain’s innocence?” And, “Why is it so important to them that the original verdict should be allowed to stand?”
Part of the answer is, I believe, buried deep in the collective psyche of any community forced to confront the shock and horror of a mass killing. The same primeval urge which demands that the scene of the crime be cleansed by fire, also drives the community to find a viable culprit upon which to vent its fury.
From the most ancient regions of humanity’s psychic geography comes the jagged cry of a death for a death. Think back to Stan Graham, the multiple murderer from the West Coast. He was hunted down and shot like a wild pig. Or, David Gray, the Aramoana berserker, cornered and killed by the Anti-Terrorist Unit. To satisfy the need for communal vengeance a living body is required. With Robin dead, David was the only Bain left alive to punish.
There’s also a political aspect to the Bain Case. It’s always been there, just beneath the surface, that visceral authoritarian need to believe in an all-powerful and infallible state. It’s been driven by the sort of people whose own unbearable feelings of inadequacy and failure are quelled by forming deep emotional associations with symbols of authority, certainty and power. The very suggestion that the Police, the Prosecutor, the Judge, and the Court of Appeal were all guilty of not only getting it wrong, but also of wilfully refusing to put it right, is enough to fill them with an all-consuming rage. Campaigners like Joe Karam are perceived not a courageous seekers after justice, but as egotistical wreckers; cancer-cells in the body politic; evil-doers hell-bent on undermining people’s faith in the system.
Such people are psychically incapable of accepting the idea of official malfeasance or institutional failure – and anyone who attempts to convince them otherwise must be struck down and punished. Just think of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Mike Bush, at Inspector Bruce Hutton’s funeral. The deceased was a blameless hero. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Arthur Allan Thomas case had defamed an innocent man. No one planted anything but flowers in the Crewe’s garden. The defendant was guilty as charged.
Most of all, think of the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins.
Ian Binnie, an internationally distinguished Supreme Court Justice from Canada, is commissioned by her own Government to determine whether David Bain should be compensated for the 13 years he spent in prison. Binnie tells the Minister that he believes Bain is innocent and castigates the Police investigation of the crime for which he was wrongly convicted. Collins’ reaction? To launch an extraordinary and unprecedented public attack on Justice Binnie, and demand that his report be “peer reviewed”.
We shall never know what demons drove Robin Bain to slaughter his wife and children because, when he had completed the task, they took him with them. More frightening to me, however, are the demons that drive so many New Zealanders to discipline and persecute anyone who suggests that institutions, like individuals, are frail and prone to error.
That such people persist in defending the institutions of law and justice, even when the evidence of their failure is overwhelming, I find deeply disturbing. But that so many have such need of the emotional reinforcement supplied by the symbols of authority and power that they simply cannot accept that the system is capable of imprisoning an innocent man, fills me with more dread than a hundred homicidal fathers.
Well said.
I’ve also heard on the traps that Peter Ellis’s approach to the Privy Council is imminent.
A slow train coming, but an enormous train.
Chris – I can remember in the early 70’s travelling with a youth cricket side to the Franklin district. We were billeted a couple of days in Patumahoe – not exactly close to Pukekawa being north of the Waikato river, but in the same general area. The father of the family I stayed with was convinced that Thomas was guilty and that all questioning of it was just a bunch of stirrers who would oppose everything. It was a deeply conservative impulse that shocked an idealistic 17-year old.
Fast forward to 2013 and I tune in to Willie and JT (I shouldn’t but Jim Mora is tedious) and nothing gets the phones running hotter than the Bain compensation case and recently the Lundy appeal. And it’s much the same as Patumahoe 40 years previously, almost all callers are convinced that David did it and it’s a bunch of clever lawyers creating trouble. Strange to me that they even think it’s possible for them to have an informed opinion on it.
The same conservative impulse I think to defend our national myths – like a non-corrupt police force, great race relations, egalitarianism, heroic on the battlefield, practical and ingenious, etc. etc. They are in large part bollocks, but question them at your peril.
“The tell-tale imprint of gunshot residue on Robin Bain’s thumb”
That’s the thing, you have no idea if it was gunshot residue or not and you are stating it as fact. To me it looks like cuts on his thumb and forefinger, and it would seem that the police and Robins’s own fingerprints would agree with me.
“Why are these people so reluctant to believe in the possibility of David Bain’s innocence?”
How about the fact that the chain of events you have to believe to be true for Robin to have done it are so unbelievable, and that most of the evidence points to David? How about that as a reason?
It sounds like you’re exactly the type of person that Chris Trotter is referring to in his article. And it get’s tiresome you know. Surely you know that David Bain was found not guilty in his re trial?
Secondly, did you even watch the 3rd Degree show that raised this new/old evidence?
(3rd degree, I know, I had to brace myself to watch it, and what is it with Duncan Garner and Guyon Espiner skulking around hunching forward like pair of vultures on the set?)
In case you didn’t here’s a few points from that show:
The gun shot residue is apparently a smudgey substance that can easily come off with a bit of abrasion. Robin Bain’s hands and all the marks, cuts and bruises on them were photographed extensively, excepting the the marks that matched the magazine of the gun. It was suggested these marks were rubbed off during the removal of his body from the house.
A forensic photographer looked at enlargements of the photo of the parallel marks on Robin Bain’s thumb and ruled out cuts.
An ex armourer from the NZ Army test fired the actual gun used in the murders and found that it was mis firing. The number of live shells that popped out during the test was consistent with the number of live shells that were left on the floor of the bedrooms.
No, I don’t know the first thing about guns, but as you know the collection and collation of evidence at the time was all over the show, and it would seem that this was a real biggie that the Police missed at the time, on top of all the other mistakes. No wonder they are reluctant to look into this evidence that has come to light. They don’t want to face it all again.
It may not be good enough for you that David Bain was found not guilty at retrial and that Ian Binnie recommended he be compensated but you need to consider the impact of the loss of his family and his imprisonment, on his life’s. Any compassionate person could see this seething anti David Bain agenda needs to stop.
Apologies. I got distracted and left a bit out on the third point:
“An ex armourer from the NZ Army test fired the actual gun used in the murders and found that it was mis firing. The number of live shells that popped out during the test was consistent with the number of live shells that were left on the floor of the bedrooms”.
The ex armourer suggested that the residue marks on Robin Bain’s thumb were were indicative of the repeated re loading of the gun due to it’s tendency to misfire.
Finally, it’s crass having to raise these gory points of evidence to those of you who continue to believe that David Bain is guilty, but it seems you have your ears closed, so it has to be said.
So the initial trial, the privy Council in May 1996, the court of appeal in 2003, Privy Council in London 2007 were all wrong then in believing that David was guilty on the balance of probabilities?
Yes, David was found not guilty at a retrial in 2009 but every law professor and expert in the country has explained to us that this fact is almost irrelevant, as being found not guilty has a completely different meaning to being found innocent on the balance of probabilities.
I know first hand the marks made by loading a .22 magazine, and those marks on Robin’s hand were not made by loading the magazine. And besides, if Robin had loaded the magazine, his fingerprints would be all over it as he was clearly not wearing gloves.
I’m afraid i am not the one with the closed ears.
Sigh. Andrew, you’re further reinforcing the very attitude that Chris Trotter is discussing. It seems you’re not concerned that the Police failed in aspects of gathering evidence which skewed the case from the start.
You know about guns? That’s great, I don’t. Seeing that the initial query about the gun shot residue smudges came from a commenter from Kiwiblog of all places maybe it’s best you take it up that site.
1. Undeniably the marks are characteristic of those made by loading and reloading this type of rifle
2. Could Robin not have wiped his fingerprints off after killing all the others but before killing himself (possibly reluctantly as he faced the reality of not being able to get away withy his crime)
1) no they are not, they are more like cracks/cuts than any imprint that may have been left by loading a .22 magazine.
2) if that was the case, Robin would have rubbed off David’s prints as well. Since both David’s and Stephens’s prints were still on the gun, i would say that in the balance of probabilities, no wiping occurred.
1. So you discount the many examples of this ‘phenomena’ then?
2. No Robin couldn’t have rubbed David’s prints of before David came home and discovered the scene and picked up the gun – Robin could also have ‘placed’ Stephen’s prints on the rifle as well in initial effort to frame him
Andrew, you are either being naive or repeating the same mantra that the Counterspin and JFRB group, that I suspect you belong to, are promoting.
The police suggest they are cuts but they have offered no evidence to support that. They state they are still testing.
As your organisation does not have the expertise, then how can you make that statment, unless you are simply trying to deceive the masses (as your group does on any media site they can access)
You are right, the gun was not wiped down, however the amount of blood on it prevented those fingerprints that were detectable on it, from being sufficiently clear to identify who they came from. They very well could have been Robins. The police should have photographed them, but didn’t. Whilst the ridging detail was not sufficient to legally identify who they belonged to, it could have provided the means to eliminate – unfortunately yet another act of police incompetence in this case.
“I know first hand the marks made by loading a .22 magazine, and those marks on Robin’s hand were not made by loading the magazine.”
Really ? So you’re a bona fide expert like those on the 3rd degree programme, are you ? What a shame the Crown didn’t call you to give evidence. By the way, have you tried loading a magazine while wearing gloves ?
Andrew
The PC in 2007 actually quashed the conviction and gave a big hint that a retrial was not necessary, they did not hear the appeal in 1996 so they “did not believe David was guilty on the balance of probabilities.
The 2003 Court of appeal decision was badly flawed and unfortunately the lawyers decided to play judge and jury with the evidence they didn’t understand. It was full of speculation and factual errors, i.e. Robin couldn’t have shot himself because of the location of the EXIT WOUND in his head (which didn’t actually exist) also using Davids statement that he hadn’t told Robin the location of the spare key is somehow proof BRD that he didn’t know where it was etc etc. The first jury were badly misled on crucial aspects of the evidence and was declared a ‘mistrial’ by the PC.
You are speculating on what the marks ‘aren’t’, what expertise allows you to make such a statement? There is also around a 95% chance that Robin would not have left identifiable prints on the gun, see Franks post below or research the case of Desmond Winnie who committed 2 murders followed by suicide in 2010, there were no prints found on the murder weapon.
That’s false and you know it. Karam and Co approached the Privy Council and demanded that there be no re-trial. The Privy Council took about 5 minutes to dismiss this suggestion.
You’ve provided absolutely no proof that David is innocent. Let’s face it, the Government isn’t going to compensate someone who has consistently lied.
Ross
The PC rejected every single argument put forward by the crown, they were not asked for a guilty/innocent verdict as you well know. They recognised that they as an appeal court shouldn’t decide ‘facts’ and left it up to the crown to decide wether or not to retry the case.
The defence did not seek an acquittal when the case was heard they sought a retrial, similarly in the Lundy case they have the option of quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial or letting it stand.
Andrew seems to think they actually believed him guilty which is bollocks and like you misrepresents there position.
Plenty of evidence supporting Davids innocence has been provided, you just pick and choose what you believe of the evidence to support your predetermined conclusion that he is guilty. Similarly you have provided no evidence that Robin is innocent, or is this just your ‘core belief’
The crown rejected every argument for guilt, join the dots!
Ah, actually they did, and the Privy Council wouldn’t have a bar of it. It took Law Lords all of 5 minutes to suggest that David be re-tried.
Ironically, Joe Karam banged on for years how David deserved his day in court and all the evidence should be heard, but Karam tried to scupper the trial from the word go. Further, Bain’s legal team appealed against so much of the evidence that at one point, the appeal court said that there would be no evidence left if it was all ruled inadmissible!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10547139
Ross
You are again misrepresenting the PC findings.
In very simple terms Karam, Reed et al appealed the 2003 Court of Appeal decision to the PC seeking a retrial (not an acquittal!), The PC quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, (which is what was originally sought)they left it up to NZ law to decide if whether or not to go ahead with it. There were around 8 substantive areas not technicalities.
After the crown had ordered a retrial the defence went back seeking an acquittal but the PC declined to hear it again having already made there decision.
Reed said (you can read this in your link) that had they known what they knew before the appeal they would have sought an acquittal originally.
The current Lundy appeal is also seeking a retrial similarly (Not an acquittal)
The PC emphatically rejected all the crowns arguments for guilt, so don’t agree with you and your cult followers that “David must have done it” clearly you know better than them!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8851997/Media-drawn-into-Bain-blame-game
Please read this brilliant written link… if you think David is innocent ….well he’s not!
…. It’s amazing how robin went on a crazy shooting spree ..had a fight with with some one physically stronger ..with no bruises or blood ..had time to change his clothes put a wash on ..wrote a letter on the computer .. clean the finger prints off the keyboard .. Just incase someone thought it was him…then shoot him self in such a strange way that its almost not logical or easy ..then slump down place the rifle away from his body , place the cartridge perfectly on its side , wipe the prints off the gun or magazine .of course …just in case some one thought it was him ..
And in the pathology report .. Robins bains bladder was over full with urine … He physically would have been needing to go for a morning wee wee….but he didn’t ….mmmmm
…
Yes, van Benyen has a lot invested in his position and as Chris wrote almost any new revelation is unlikely to shift the mind set of many.
But your choice to highlight the full bladder argument (now inflated to “over” full bladder) is weak.
Has it not occurred to those raising this issue that in order to be relevant it merely states that it is unlikely that Robin rose and immediately went on a killing spree?
Where is the evidence to say he hadn’t been awake all night or rose hours before and had relieved himself earlier? That people relieve themselves upon rising is a fair observation, but they also accumulate urine over time.
Yes…valid point…but at the end of the day the bladder adds to an overall picture …its still a fact ..
And it still points to..David
Roly – why is it a “fact”?!
Think about it for a moment… Robin lived outside, in a decrepit caravan. In the morning he trooped into the house.
So he had ample opportunity to relieve himself outside – or in the toilet upstairs that he would have walked past to get to the lounge.
But he didn’t. It’s as if he had something more “pressing” on his mind that morning.
As someone who is close to his age, the first thing I need to do in the morning is make a dash for the loo. It’s bizarre that he missed TWO opportunities to do so.
Ever wondered why?
No wondering ….he was shot unexpectedly.. Before he could ..With a gunshot to the back of the head ..seems more realistic than having all the time planning and walking round the house .. Having plenty of chances to relieve himself.. You would understand that gravity plays a big part and you would be some what uncomfortable ..charging around …
I suggest you check your facts Roly.
The shot was to Robins left temple not the back of his head. You could also do some basic research on the characteristics of suicide wounds by firearms. Contact wounds to the front of the head are actually around 95% more likely to be suicide than homicide
Shot tthe BACK of his head?
Roly if all your reading of the evidence is as flawed as your comment, no wonder you are arguing from an equally flawed position.
Funny thing, that. I used to be neutral on this issue. But the more I read from the Robin Bain defence group, the more it pushed me to accepthe verdict of the 2009 re-trial.
The amount of misinformation from the Robin Bain group is just mind-blowing.
ok ok (my bad) ….. hes was shot in the temple – how is it then… if he shot himself in the temple with a single fatal shot – by holding the rifle pressed against his head( as the defence demostrated) .. why was there no gun residue or powder burns to the head – which if you know how a gun works –this would leave a mark –
but also no blood or flesh on the tip of the gun either ..
come… on – hes was shot by someone else…the distance needed to not show these charateristics – would have meant he was shot from a distance that would be impossible to pull the trigger himself –
and then place the gun away from his body and not slump with the rifle in his hands!!
Roly
I suggest you find a more reliable source of ‘facts’ than the CS/JFRB ‘spin’
Robin was actually shot with a close contact wound, this was the view of the pathologist who examined the wound and confirmed at the retrial with the finding that there was blood in the barrel of the rifle. This would not be there in the event of a distant or intermediate wound which the other two pathologists tried to argue for.
As to “no gun residue” or “powder burns” swabs were not taken within the required time frame and the body was not protected to preserve any potential residue.
Given that it was shown at the retrial that Robin was standing when he died and the trajectory of the shot was upward then it is pretty bloody difficult to explain how it is anything other than self inflicted. DOn’t worry Kieran Raftery wasn’t able to give any explanation for Robins death either and avoided the lounge scene altogether.
Roly, your description of events surrounding Robin Bain are at variance with Police photos and the few forensics tests they carried out.
I suggest you re-read the evidence if you’re going to support the DDI faction.
Ok I guess I’m no csi specialist .. But isn’t it still weird that robin after shooting himself the gun was away from the body .. And Robin wasn’t holding it as if it was a fatal shot… Hes clever
?!?!
The rifle was lying beside him. Look for yourself. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/sites/davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/files/Magazine_0.JPG?1320810750
There is no evidence that Robin Bain’s bladder was full. In men of his age the bladder capacity varies, as does the amount it can hold before the urge to pee if felt.
It is also known that heightened states of adrenilen can actually reduce the need to pee.
Dr Dempster did not measure if Robin’s bladder was full or even half full – he did not measure its capacity at all, only the amount of fluid in it.
Dr Dempster was so concerned about the way his evidence was treated by the Crown at the first trial, he actually wrote to the Crown warning them not to take any inferences from it.
Using the word “unbelievable” is precisely what Chris is referring to.
It’s only “unbelievable” because you don’t believe it. That doesn’t change the nature of the evidence; the three month long trial; the 180 witnesses who gave evidence; and 12 jurors who came to a verdict based on everything presented to them.
By contrast, your “belief” is based on what you’ve read and heard from media reports.
And in saying it “looks like cuts”, you choose to dismiss the fact that the marks are consistent with the width of the ammo clip. Or that others got similar marks on their fingers/thumbs.
The question is, why is it easier to BELIEVE that the marks are something else – when two facts point to them being residue from the ammo clip.
See? Again that points to what Chris was referring to – and which I believe he has sussed 100%.
This isn’t so much about evidence, as much as having a belief system validated.
“… that visceral authoritarian need to believe in an all-powerful and infallible state. It’s been driven by the sort of people whose own unbearable feelings of inadequacy and failure are quelled by forming deep emotional associations with symbols of authority, certainty and power… ”
You lost me there Chris, and I think you lost yourself too with the emotive language. You are creating a straw man for readers to burn while you pour vitriol upon hypothetical upon assumption upon speculation.
You might be describing a certain type of talkback caller (or internet blogger for that matter) but don’t try to smear a bunch of sensible, thinking people in order to invalidate their opinions. They are just as entitled to them as you are to yours.
The questions I come back to over and over again are: “Why are these people so reluctant to believe in the possibility of David Bain’s innocence?”
You could as usefully ask yourself over and over again “Why are these people so reluctant to believe in the possibility of David Bain’s guilt?”
…the evidence of Robin Bain loading and reloading the magazine of the .22 rifle used to killed his family and himself…
This being a prime example. First, you know that Robin Bain killed his family and himself, do you, that you treat it so casually as a given? Second, this “evidence” of his guilt is someone’s opinion about some marks visible in a photo – the people who actually inspected the body didn’t find any “evidence” against him in those marks. If you find the asserted “evidence” conclusive under those circumstances, it can only be because you are determined to believe.
…that visceral authoritarian need to believe in an all-powerful and infallible state.
Nice straw man, but I doubt there’s anyone who’s read anything about this crime who could characterise its investigators as “infallible.” If you’re looking for a “visceral need to believe,” review your own statement “We shall never know what demons drove Robin Bain to slaughter his wife and children…” – it’s a classic of the genre.
Milt, you and others who re-litigate this case do so from a position of ignorance and pre-conceived theories.
Meanwhile the actual retrial took three months and the jurors heard all the evidence from both sides which you clearly did not.
You and the rest of the Robin Bain groupies are fixated on this issue to the point of obsession and continuing to persecute a man found not guilty.
To me you’re not interested in facts, you’re simply interested in having your beliefs validated, as others have mentioned.
My “beliefs” are:
1. That there isn’t sufficient evidence to be sure which of them did it.
2. Which makes devout belief in the guilt of one or the other of them, as demonstrated by the author of the post, foolish.
3. That it’s nevertheless possible to hold an opinion on whether the evidence points more towards one than the other, and to argue for that opinion.
And yes, so far every comments thread I’ve seen on this subject validates those beliefs.
An excellent summation, Chris. And proven by the many comments left by armchair “experts” who, not having sat through three months of evidence, witnesses, and cross-examination, still feel they are experts.
How closed minded are the David Is Guilty brigade? Oh, about as closed as one chap said on another messageboard who said – after having heard Duncan Garner suggest on radio that new evidence pointed to Robin Bain – that he would not watch the programme.
His mind was closed. David is guilty. End of story.
To me, much of the anti-David Bain comments verge on religious belief. Try arguing evolution with a Creationist, and you begin to understand.
As evidenced by comments like,
The answer is mind-numbingly simple of course; a second jury looked at new evidence and arrived at five not guilty verdicts.
Bain’s guilt is impossible because a jury found him not guilty? That’s not so much “mind-numbingly simple” as “brain-hurtingly stupid.”
To me, much of the anti-David Bain comments verge on religious belief.
Well yes, except that “anti-David” is superfluous – many commenters from both sides display religious levels of belief. Chris’ bald statements that Robin Bain was the murderer provide an excellent example of it, as does your endorsement of his belief.
*sighs*
Ok, Milt. Let me spell it out in one syllable words or less…
David Bain is not guilty because 12 jurors found him not guilty.
Because 180 witnesses were involved in the trial.
Because the trial took three months to conduct.
Because you weren’t present throughout all 3 months of the trial (neither was I).
Because all you know of the Trial is,
(a) what the media presented,
(b) what you saw of what the media presented.
I can show you two media reports; of the same day; relating to the same evidence. However one reporting mentioned a salient fact that the other report omitted.
But it’s all pointless, because regardless of what I or anyone says, the re-trial was seemingly irrelevant.
Found the media reports.
The following media stories relate to testimony concerning an item of clothing.
Note which one gives more explicit detail:
Source: Blood on David Bain’s socks evaluated
BY MARTIN VAN BEYNEN
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2311382/Blood-on-David-Bains-socks-evaluated
Source: David Bain’s sock had sibling’s blood on it, court told
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10564910
If you had the Herald story by not the VAN BEYNEN report, your impression would be vastly different.
That is the danger of being only partially informed; relying on media reports that cover on a small fragment of each day’s evidence and testimony.
Hence why I place greater emphasis on the re-trial than in the armchair experts who (a) were not physically present (b) did not hear the testimony (c) did not see the evidence.
The David Did It brigade would have more credibility if they’d sat through all three months of the trial – rather than cherry-picking bits and pieces to suit their own beliefs.
Curiously, Beynen sat through at least the second trial and the Ellis trial.
He’s agin David but pro Peter.
Agreed.
Here is a fact: no one alive knows if David Bain killed the Bain family, except David Bain.
Here is an opinion: The second verdict was manifestly right and proper. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Those who challenge the second verdict ought to think about that. The fact that we still indulge in arguments over the verdict is concrete manifestation of existing reasonable doubt. Bucket loads of it.
Contrary to Judith Collin’s claims*, the verdict means that in the eyes of the law, D Bain is innocent of the charge of murder.
* She ought to know better, I recall Doug (my own grave) Graham denying Dougherty compensation and pontificating on how an acquittal didn’t “prove” innocence.
I’m aware Bain was found not guilty at his retrial – it was a reasonable verdict for the jury to reach, given that the evidence against him is all circumstantial and the defence successfully raised doubts about much of it.
I’m interested more in your apparent conviction that being found not guilty means it’s impossible Bain actually is guilty. Is your logic (if we could call it that) consistent? For example, do you also believe that a guilty verdict means it’s impossible a defendant actually is innocent?
Is your logic (if we could call it that) consistent? For example, do you also believe that a guilty verdict means it’s impossible a defendant actually is innocent?
Such invertible logic has nothing to do with it. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.
Read my 9.40 post again.
Here is a fact: no one alive knows if David Bain killed the Bain family, except David Bain.
Yes. And yet so many, including the author of the post and a number of commenters on it, believe with a staunch and unshakeable faith that Robin Bain killed the Bain family. As an example of quasi-religious delusion it’s impressive, but not in any other way.
Contrary to Judith Collin’s claims*, the verdict means that in the eyes of the law, D Bain is innocent of the charge of murder.
Can you link to these claims? I may not like Collins, but she doesn’t strike me as stupid enough to state something so obviously wrong. Perhaps you’re mixing it up with what she’s said about criteria for compensation? Those certainly do involve more than a not guilty verdict.
Fair question, I should rephrase as it is incorrect as written.
I refer to the legal confidence trick surrounding compensation, where a person found innocent of a crime by the court, yet has served prison time for the crime, has then to prove innocence to qualify for compensation.
Here are some of the points raised by Collins courtesy of patsy opinion from Robert Fischer [ http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0202/S00077/judicial-net-porn-viewing-investigation-widens.htm ]
Mr Binnie regarded the jury acquittal as something that was relevant to whether Mr Bain had proved his innocence.
Mr Binnie accepted Mr Bain’s version of events without question, except where it directly contradicted other witnesses.
Mr Binnie arrived at a provisional conclusion of innocence based on one item (luminol footprints), followed by a serial testing of that conclusion, instead of considering the cumulative effect of all evidence. This approach skewed the findings towards innocence.
Mr Binnie’s approach was markedly generous to Mr Bain in its reliance on background facts sourced from him.
Instead of requiring Mr Bain to satisfy him on the balance of probabilities, Mr Binnie imposed an onus on the Crown whenever the Crown suggested a factual possibility inconsistent with Mr Bain’s innocence.
Mr Binnie relied on ‘innocent openness’ defences to turn incriminating admissions or clues into points thought to support Mr Bain’s genuineness and credibility.
Mr Binnie went beyond his mandate. He did not have authority to conclude whether there were extraordinary circumstances, or make a recommendation on whether compensation should be paid.
Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Justice-Binnies-report-markedly-generous-to-Bain/tabid/1607/articleID/280283/Default.aspx#ixzz2Xa8N9RBe
The smoking gun (I know, terrible pun) is surely that no fingerprints from Robin Bain were found on the rifle? Plenty from David, but none from Robin. Why is this critical piece of evidence continually glossed over by David Bain supporters? Am I missing something?
The Brian Bruce documentary I think summarised the FACTS of this case well:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10656436
Bryan Buce’s treatment of these cases (Bain, Lundy, Crewe, Ellis etc) has invariably been superficial at best and outrightly disingenuous at worst. Perhaps some of the worst NZ television I’ve seen.
Read another opinion, from journalist Keith Hunter, regarding Bruce’s distortions of the Crewe case here:
http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/?page=news#Ep10
Is there a refutation article Bruce’s Bain documentary specifically. I seriously don’t care how biased Bruce was in any case other than the Bain case, because THAT is case we are talking about. I could be the worlds greatest liar, continually saying that 3+3=5, and getting criticised for it. But when I say one day that 2+2=4, it is NOT somehow less true because of my previous lie. I believe this is typically referred to as a Straw Man Argument. The truth is exactly that, regardless. Was Bruce disingenuous and biased in his Bain doco? If so, how?
Suggest you read the link for a distillation of Bruce’s MO in part of his Bain film and similar tricks in other films.
There were not plenty of David Bain’s prints found on the rifle. There was one set, which was proved to not be in blood. In fact the Crown experts argued, lied, and confused the situation by taking tests from areas where the fingerprints were found, and but telling the court they were from the fingerprints themselves.
There was no human DNA or blood found where the fingerprints were, therefore, they cannot link David Bain to the deaths. As it was David Bain’s rifle, it was only natural that his prints would be on it somewhere.
The Crown need to provide evidence that linked David to that gun that morning by producing his fingerprints in human blood. They failed to do that. Therefore the fingerprint issue is a moot one.
Other than owning that gun, there is nothing that links him to using it on 20 June 1994.
This evidence certainly assists the case of David Bain’s innocence, but it’s not necessarily definitive evidence to support his innocence.
While watching the presentation of this evidence on 3rd Degree I thought wouldn’t it be possible to create the marks on someone else’s person with the used magazine. It just requires a stroke without excess pressure to make the marks. Couldn’t it be possible David Bain was attentive to details, conducted the killings and ejected the spent magazine at the end to make the tell-tale marks on the body to assist in framing the father as the murderer? Proving this theory obviously has its fair share of problems though.
It’s important the merits of the evidence be considered, emotive and prejudicial sentiment from either camp of innocent or guilty doesn’t help. The worst is if this case develops into some intense, bizarre political issue.
If David Bain had been more thoughtful he would have at least made sure there were fingerprints other than his own on the rifle! He could have wiped the gun down and simply pressed the gun into the hands of Robin, but he clearly did not – very UNTHOUGHTFUL, no? It’s all a moot point however, since imo it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill yourself with a gun, with your bare hands, and not leave your own fingerprints behind on the gun anywhere (specifically the trigger). I ask again, what am I missing?
That’s why I said: ”Proving this theory obviously has its fair share of problems though.” If David Bain is the murderer there was a number of things he was careless with to conceal his actions.
Read somewhere that the magazine in the photo besides Robin Bain’s hand, standing on its edge on the floor, because of its dimensions and shape if it fell the chances would’ve been almost zero that it would be standing as it was (supposedly confirmed by experiment). Suggests it may’ve been placed there to frame Robin as the murderer.
Unless you’re involved in a multiple murder while trying to conceal your actions, who knows what one’s thought processes would be.
The crux of my previous comment is; some are using this “new” evidence with enthusiasm suggestive of definitive proof Robin did it. Say there was proof these are marks from handling the magazine; one can’t discount outright the possibility someone can transfer the marks on the body, hence the other suspected killer. The fingerprint evidence on the rifle is a sticky wicket in terms of the theory Robin is the murderer, notice the 3rd Degree story covered this point very lightly.
“It’s all a moot point however, since imo it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill yourself with a gun, with your bare hands, and not leave your own fingerprints behind on the gun anywhere (specifically the trigger) ”
Actually, it is. Fingerprints are actrually easily smudged and the prints that were on the rifle were unidentifiable.
It’s only Hollywood that shows that prints will always be present, and in an identifiable state.
All it take is to move a finger or hand minutely – and the print is smudged.
As were the prints on the rifle.
“It’s all a moot point however, since imo it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill yourself with a gun, with your bare hands, and not leave your own fingerprints behind on the gun anywhere (specifically the trigger).”
Own goal here, If you look at the evidence in the recent case of Desmond Winnie in the Manuwatu, you will see that there were no fingerprints found on the gun. Its actually very difficult to leave identifiable prints on the wooden surface of a rifle. In this case Davids prints were on the forestock, there were no prints found in the vicinity of the trigger.
It is ridiculous to say David orchestrated the murders but left his fingerprints on the rifle
Very good, I understand your point.
Why is that any more ridiculous than Robin committing the murders, leaving a suicide note admitting it, and NOT leaving fingerprints on the rifle?
Because a mass murder scene would be beyond horrific to enter and process and if it also involved members of your own family it would be completely understandable to scramble around desperately grabbing at the rifle your father was slumped dead over – or do you think you would be in complete control and know for certain you would do exactly what would be legally expected ie: call Police, not touch anything basically emotionally remove yourself from the horror – if so do you want a medal or chest to pin it on
Anne,
David told Binnie that he went from room to room looking for his family. He heard Laniet gurgle, yet didn’t get help. Instead, he went to Arawa’s bedroom, then into the lounge where he found his father. Remarkably, he never left the house, despite the fact that a killer could have been in the house! David apparently didn’t feel scared. I am certain that I wouldn’t have remained in a house where there could be a killer lurking and where my sister could still be alive.
“Remarkably”?! I think not. It happened before, two years prior to the Bain case;
Source: Day of slaughter on family farm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10440545
And according to the 111 call, Davin Bain was in hysterics. I trust you’ve heard the call yourself?
So you’d know precisely how you would react if you walked into your home and every family member was lying dead in their bed, or floor, shot to death?
You’re a better man than the rest of us, Ross.
I don’t know how I’d react or what I’d do. It’s a nightmarish scenario very, very, few will ever have to face (thankfully).
A very poor example, Frank. You’re comparing 22 year old David with a 9 year old child who was scared. That proves my point. The child was apparently too scared to move because she too could have been killed. But David wandered from room to room, going downstairs and then upstairs. It was 25 minutes from the time he returned home until he called police. He certainly didn’t rush to call emergency services, despite him hearing his sister gurgle. In fact, he’s said that after hearing her gurgle, he went downstairs to Arawa’s bedroom before then going upstairs to the lounge (to see that his father was dead).
Ross, you seem to know so much about how someone should react in such an awful situation. Did you study a textbook om how to respond when walking into a house faced with the deaths of all your family?
I said how I’d react. I certainly would not go from room to room looking for bodies when the killer could still be in the house and when I’ve just heard that one of my siblings could still be alive.
That’s about the only fair point the gurgling observation might raise and yet, in terms of evidence against David Bain, the observation amounts to pure conjecture only.
I was quite surprised that van Beynen presented this aspect as a “clincher”.
I thought it was more of an own goal from MVB, I thought he presented himself very poorly, ‘um um the police might be able to come up with something to explain it’ all his arguments have long since been rejected and there is very little evidential basis to support them
I don’t think it was the clincher for MVB. He pointed to “20 to 30” pieces of evidence. I’d be interested to see if those who think Robin murdered his family can come up with 20 to 30 pieces of evidence.
Rowan, the police don’t have to explain the marks on Robin’s fingers. David proclaims he is innocent, notwithstanding that his public statements and conduct raise questions about his “innocence”. It is up to David to prove that Robin loaded the gun and murdered his family. Like Justice Binnie, you seem confused as to where the onus of proof lies.
One would have to be extremely naive not to consider the latest marks together with the bruising on his hands, agreed by 2 crown pathologists at the retrial to be around 6 hours old and blood under his fingernails as ‘evidence’ implicating Robin
When it comes to trying to change peoples minds, once they’ve decided on something, in 99.9% of the time, you may as well piss against the wind! Thomas, Bain, Peter Ellis, it’s amazing how vehement people get in their insistences…..
Good summation Chris.
It’s interesting though that there are stll those folk (like the NZ Police) who maintain that Arthur Allen Thomas was indeed guilty of the Crew murders.
When you try and point out that the gardens were sieve-searched at least twice before a cartridge case in near-mint condition was found during a subsequent seearch, they just refuse to hear it.
Ditto for David Dougherty, even though subsequent DNA testing proved that he was not the person who attacked a 12 year old girl. The actual rapist was caught years later.
As for convicted murderers Scott Watson and Mark Lundy – are they innocent? Guilty? I’ve no idea. I wasn’t present at either trial; I haven’t read the Court transcipts nor looked at the evidence – therefore I’m in no position to venture a credible opinion.
As it should be when dealing with such complex matters.
Never mind the smudges. What about the fingerprints on the gun ?
Never mind the smudges. What about….
Yeah, lets look the other way and ignore this.
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
All true. Odd coincidence and really shitty luck for David Bain though, that despite the declared unlikelihood of leaving useful prints on a rifle, the victim who tried to deflect the muzzle away left a useful print, and David left two that were, ahem, somehow still pristine despite having been there for months, but the bloke doing all the shooting, using the rifle in hand-to-hand combat and eventually taking a good grip on the barrel or silencer in order to shoot himself left no useful print at all. Gosh what bad luck.
Who says David’s prints were “pristine”?
When even the top cops use phrases such as “integrity beyond reproach” for illegal actions and bent cops.
When we have consecutive dishonest police and justice ministers.
When the police habitually lie.
It makes me of the opinion that anyone who parrots police ‘facts & evidence’, is a willful idiot ……..
We have a very dishonest police force ……..
Well, what a load of fingerprint, gun, gunshot residue, cartridge loading experts we have in NZ. Not to mention those who are just as determined to think this man is as innocent as what this article is about. I could even add, a journalist who is also a psychology major and knows exactly how a denier thinks. The only one who knows anything at all is David Bain. Not content with being released and presumed innocent, he needs an amount of money now to feel what; avenged, satisfied, complete?
We as a society need to pay him so we can say sorry and feel complete. It’s about us in the end, not about David.
Actually, “we as a society” don’t need to pay him, because he doesn’t meet the criteria for a payment. The argument Bain is having with the government is over whether or not it should just give him some money anyway, despite him not meeting the criteria. “We as a society” don’t have a view on whether it should or not – the decision to make an ex gratia payment is entirely up to Cabinet.
Sure if that’s the way you feel, then I suggest you pay so you feel good, and then, so you can feel really good you can pay my share as well because I certainly wouldn’t pay him anything….
Meanwhile, Teina Pora still sits in prison. How many other innocents inside? How many others will be locked up to satisfy a Police desire to get convictions rather than solve crimes? Why do we, as a society, love a Minister of Justice who promotes injustice? What’s so hard about saying sorry?
Not sure why you think he should be out, after reading about his case on the internet, even he didn’t seem to recall what happened, initially, he claimed he drove two Mongrel Mob members to the house and acted as lookout. He later said he went into the house after “hearing noises and seeing the crimes being carried out”. Still later, he said he held Burdett down by the arms while the others raped her.
If one tells the truth to begin with one doesn’t need to remember so many details…..
It is interesting to see so many familiar names from the Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain group, such as Milt above, commenting and trying as best they can to sway the public opinion.
They are the sort of people this article mentions. They represent a group that has gone to great lengths, much of it dishonestly, to not just attack David Bain, but also Joe Karam, and I might add, anyone that supports either of those people.
When they discuss the evidence, they are never open and straight with it, always only presenting 1st trial evidence, and never mentioning subsequent evidence that disproved many of the assertions made in the first hearing. We saw this from Martin Van Beynen last night, it was like he had stopped absorbing information after the first trial.
When this group and others like them, have to go to dishonest means to try and make the ‘truth’ (as they call it) known – then we all should know nothing about them represents the truth. should all be very concerned. Their actions are that of ‘witch sniffers’ – the sort of people who met at the barn with ropes in their hands. They do not want the truth, they want to be right.
As this very good article says, there are many reasons why they cannot accept Robin was guilty. I suggest another one – personal guilt. Many people saw the dysfunction in the Bain family, and did nothing. Even extended family, Robin’s brother, noted he was struggling, but never bothered to visit after that, offer to help, offer him a place to sleep with dignity.
I suggest many of the people that can’t accept Robin Bain’s guilt are too afraid to, because of what it says about them.
Hi “Judith”
The drivel above wouldn’t merit a response, except that it declares me a member of “the Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain group.” Coming as it does from one of the sadly delusional Bainologists who’ve made intense debate over who is the worst liar their life’s work, I’m not going to take it very seriously – but I nevertheless can’t just have you declare me one of your number and let it stand. For the record, no – not one of, associated with or in communication with any of the people involved in the Counterspin or JFRB groups, ever (as far as I know, anyway).
Chris, a more important question is: why are you (and many others) reluctant to believe that David Bain is the likely killer? This is a man who, when interviewed in 2009 after his retrial, said “You would think that whether you believe that I’m innocent or whether you believe I‘m guilty, you’d say ‘well, if he’s guilty, he’s served his time, let him get on with life…'” That tells me he had no respect for his family. To think that if he murdered 5 members of his family he believes he should be able to get on with his life, is not the sort of comment I’d expect from someone who claims to be innocent. At the same time, David said it was his “core belief” that he was innocent. A core belief is a strongly held belief that may or may not be true. I find it remarkable that David seems to be unsure whether or not he massacred his family.
The evidence points to David being the killer. But I get the impression that you feel better believing that Robin did it. How bizarre.
Have you seen the prints, Frank? They look pristine to me.
Ross, having read Chris’s post and seen the THIRD DEGREE programme, it appears you’re not willing to consider any evidence unlss it backs up your beliefs.
Why are you picking only that which validates your assertons? In all fairness,shouldn’t you be looking at all the evidence?
Have you looked at all the evidence? It doesn’t seem so, given your focus on just one piece of evidence, an old photograph that proves nothing.
Ross
Given that no photographs were ever taken showing the fingerprints, interested to know where you get the ‘pristine’ prints from? or does it just make your spin sound a bit better. Was it maybe from Kim Jones? the crown ‘expert’ who lied to the first jury about the colour of the ‘blood’ under examination and all his evidence was shown to be total bollocks at the retrial?
There were indeed photos taken.
There were not, Jones said they were ‘well defined’ his evidence rejected for above reasons. Interestingly though if the prints were pristine this would not support the crown theory that they were ‘bloody’ which is unsupported by the evidence (again) as blood pools meaning the prints would be likely to be smudged and not at all ‘well defined’ (much like the condition of the additional 9 unidentifiable ones)
There was no trace at all of any blood of any kind found from Davids prints despite extensive testing so no evidential basis to make the claim. But again it strengthens your argument so why let the facts get in the way!
Rowan, I have seen photos of the fingerprints. They are publicly available. The defence doesn’t contest the fact that David’s prints were on the rifle, so I have no idea why you are arguing.
Ross, there were no photos taken of the prints so anything you have seen is likely photo shopped from counterspin. You are right the defence don’t contest the presence of Davids fingerprints but I was pointing out to you the crowns argument is flawed. There is no evidence apart from Kim Jones that they were in blood or ‘pristine’. He discredited himself at the retrial. Extensive scientific testing revealed the opposite of his arguments. The presence of fingerprints confirm that it was Davids gun nothing more or less. It doesn’t exclude Robin as identifiable fingerprints are seldom found and there are further unidentified not able to be excluded as his
Prints of his father – the alleged killer – couldn’t be found on the rifle but David’s could be found in pristine condition. How unlucky is that! Similarly, Robin allegedly changed out of his bloody clothes and wore David’s gloves which of course were covered with blood! It just gets worse for David. On top of that David had blood from his family on his shorts, t-shirt and socks! Incredible. He must be the unluckiest person in the world.
[…] – See more at: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/27/a-state-that-cannot-sin/#sthash.HGkSpO3H.dpuf […]
Why are these people so reluctant to believe in the possibility of David Bain’s innocence?
One answer may be that even those who have not followed any of the evidence, would still understand something of the human nature. The difficulty in accepting that Robin woke up one morning and for whatever reason decided to commit murder suicide. If being so determined to kill himself and entire family, and yet he chose not to wait the short period of time until David returned home from the paper round.
But I agree that the possible powder mark on the thumb evidence needs to looked into by police. I’m sure if police ever come across new evidence that exonerates someone who is incarcerated, they would immediately act to rectify, and let the persons lawyer know about the development. Is there any stat on the number of times the police have ever done this?
The so-called “slam dunk” now seems to have been a spectacular own goal.
http://blog.naturespic.com/2013/06/27/why-the-new-bain-murder-evidence-is-unsafe-ill-prove-it.html
Chris, you’ve not addressed my earlier question: why do you find it so hard to accept that David probably murdered his family?
Ross
It appears the ‘own goal’ is actually from Malcolm Burgess in his Campbell Live piece stating ‘that if the marks were powder residue, we would expect to see a complete fingerprint’ and showing the second set of Robins prints showing the ‘cuts’.
Given that these ‘cuts’ were not there in the first set of prints how do you imagine they got there. Did Dempster maybe make the cuts in the morgue?
I unlike you and JFRB have considered both the possibilities of guilt and innocence, but the guilty one just leaves to many unanswered questions and most of the so called crown ‘evidence’ against David is consistent with either scenario. A bit more difficult to explain against Robin though.
In the Application for Royal Perogative of Mercy: David Cullen Bain it is recorded what the coroner said…In addition, Dr Dempster found that Robin’s stomach was ‘effectively empty’, and his
bladder contained ‘around 400 mm of urine’ (the reference to ‘mm’ is probably an error made during transcription. Presumably, Dr Dempster would have measured the liquid in millilitres, and referred to ‘ml’ in oral evidence at court), which he regards as “a normal overnight collection, the amount an individual would pass on getting up in the morning” So those of you who know so much about the urine evidence and have written about ‘full meaning etc ‘ are talking through a hole in your heads… if you are a urologist and you think you know more than the coroner post your credentials on here or learn to read all of the evidence before making your off the cuff comments…
Some of you made comments in regards the fingerprints on/or not on the gun and made all sorts of stupid suggestions as to how Robin might have wiped it down, well considering there were blood stained gloves found in Stephen’s room one considers the murderer took special care not to leave fingerprints at the start with but then didn’t bother and just shot the other two people without using gloves why isn’t there???…..
I would suggest to you, before you start believing that Robin killed his family and then killed himself, see if you can borrow a rifle put a silencer on the end of it make sure it is not loaded, please… and see how damn difficult it is to shoot yourself in the same way that Robin was shot is supposed to have shot himself…
OKAY so you all think it is easy,….. seems funny that the person who tried to demonstrate in the trial a way he could have done it took ages to get in to a position that allowed him to achieve it and that involved having one leg up on the chair or something
Hey but you all try it… and after, if you still think that Robin is the killer…… you now have to believe that he waited for David to leave on his paper run, he got dressed, he came into the house, he found the trigger lock to the rifle, which is lucky because he didn’t actually know where it was because the rifle was Davids and he had hidden the lock… so after finding it he went and shot his wife, and then he shot his daughter but when he went to shoot Stephen he got into a fight because Stephen fought for his life, but in the end he shot him too. Up till now he had been wearing gloves, David’s gloves…but he disguarded them because they were soaked in blood. Then he heard his daughter gurgling (just like David said he did, strange???…) so he went back to her room and shot her in the head, but remember David heard her gurgling???.. then he went downstairs and shot his other daughter, and then he must have washed and dried his own clothes because when he died he was wearing the exact same clothes he had worn the day before, and of course he must of showered because he had no blood on him other than 3 tiny spots that could not be identified and his own blood…Are you still thinking??? He got dressed again, right down to his socks and shoes and his favourite little green hat. Strange that his socks and shoes had no blood on them at all, weird isn’t it….. then he goes upstairs again and waits till almost the very last minute before David arrives home, he quickly turns on the computer, which was David’s and typed a quick note to say that David was the only one that deserved to stay..he never even bothered to put love dad kiss, kiss, wow how thoughtless..and here he was typing a note to tell his son he was the only one who deserved to stay, how could he leave it in such a way that the chosen one would ever be held responsible. How awful, then he goes into the lounge sits down and must have done all sorts of moves till finally he was able to shoot himself..he didnt even remove his favourite little green hat, and not once did he go for a pee!!! ….. Oh I forgot, before he did that he placed the cartridge nicely on it side, isn’t it lucky that when his hand fell after he died he didn’t knock it over or else no one would have thought of it being the slamdunk evidence…and as one final gesture after he died he wiped his prints off the gun what a shame he didn’t wipe Davids off as well…..
Now this story didn’t begin with once upon a time, and didn’t have a happy ending, but this is what you people who believe that DB is innocent are expecting me to believe what happened ……..
If he went through the hassle of turning on a computer to leave a note to tell his son he was the chosen one why would he not sign it? and type it? He was a teacher, it would have taken 30 seconds to write the same thing..why not write a note in your own handwriting, make sure that everyone knows you did it to save your favourite son being blamed, why not have a pee, why wear gloves, or why not at least wear your own, why shower, why wash clothes, why change clothes, why put shoes and socks on, why only wipe your own fingerprints off, why do any of this if you are going to kill yourself, why shoot your self in this almost impossible way when you could have simply put the gun in your mouth and pulled the trigger with your toes….damn you would have had to take those shoes and socks off first and you had just cleaned them…..because they didn’t have any blood on….
So please let me know how you all get on experimenting with your unloaded gun (don’t forget the silencer), and please remember that Robin was supposed to have achieved the position and shot himself in the space of about 5 minutes…. and just as a foot note, remember that the killer had a big fight with Stephen, must of been a big one because the gloves were blood soaked, wonder why Robin didn’t have any marks that indicated a fight ( some would be expert dentist said oh they could be teeth marks on his hand… strange that in order to get a mark like the dentist drew meant that Robin was supposed to have hit Stephen with the back of his hand upwards inside Stephens mouth, oh look another experiment for you to do, the picture is on the internet… on the other hand David had injuries to his face but unfortunately he couldn’t recall how he got them
Thurza
I definitely believe that Robin is guilty but I definitely do not believe your ridiculous scenario of what ‘must’ have happened. A huge amount of speculation and nonsense, It has NEVER been suggested that Robin (or David) showered. There is a lot more blood on him than the ‘3 spots’ how did he get blood under his fingernails? certainly not as an ‘innocent victim’.
The demonstration by Boyce showed the ease of Robin’s suicide, Dempster agreed there were no difficult contortions required and Robin did not require headgear so it would have been easier still.
Maybe you could explain the reverse that Kieran Raftery was unable to at the retrial, how he was murdered, given that it was established that he was standing and the shot was contact with an upward trajectory. There is also a misfired bullet to take into account and the blood splatter on the curtains.
The evidence is there for you to read, what interpretation you choose to put on it is up to you…perhaps when you read it you see all sorts of things relating to David Bain and his glasses … perhaps you would then like to read exactly what his own lawyer wrote in respect of those glasses, you can find that if you look for it as well, but here is the most interesting part copied and pasted from that very email…………………..My concern is that neither myself nor my co-Counsel were interviewed by the Canadian Judge despite the Bain team suspending privilege for the purposes of the Police Complaints Authority Investigation in 1997. I told that Investigation (relieved from the obligation of privilege) that Mr Bain has informed both myself and my co-Counsel that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening before the 6.30 am murders the next morning.
That was a devastating admission and we took all possible steps within our ethical duties to minimise the possibility of that information coming out at trial. However, in response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did. Mr W.J. Wright, for the Crown, decided that due to the fact that we were in the closing three days of an almost three week trial, we would simply let matters lie and proceed. ……… you can call me everything you like and challenge anything you don’t agree with ………but when your own lawyer changes his mind as to your innocence something definitely smells and that something isn’t the invisible blood under Robin’s fingernails…..
.
“Why are these people so reluctant to believe in the possibility of David Bain’s innocence?” – Out of the hundreds of documents I have read in respect to this case this one short paragraph is the thing that says the most to me about who did it….
Robin’s brother, Michael Bain, told Michael Reed, QC, for the accused, that the Bains had enough money to build the house if their assets were capitalised..Earlier, he told the court that on a prison visit on June 28 he asked David Bain: “Did you do it?”
No-one in the family had asked him and he took it on himself to pose the question. Bain did not say “he didn’t do it”, but said:
“I’ve told my side to the police and I stick to that.”
what strange words to choose ‘my side’, almost says there was another side…. and THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO ME
Yes, it is a very odd thing to say, just as odd as David’s comment post-re-retrial that it was his “core belief” that he was innocent.
David has proven himself a liar time and time again. I do not understand why an allegedly innocent person would need to keep telling lies.
Listen Chris, you are not a psychologist.
Comments are closed.