Familicide is the name given to a particular kind of multiple murder – where one member of a family kills virtually everyone else in the family. If the perpetrator commits suicide afterwards (which occurs in 60% of such cases), it is referred to as familicide-suicide.
In June, 1994, David Bain was accused of shooting all five members of his family – the crime of familicide. He was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison – although according to Canadian judge Ian Binnie ‘no plausible motive ever emerged’. He spent 13 years in prison before a retrial, at which he was found not guilty.
Throughout this process, David’s defence team argued that Robin Bain killed his wife and children while David was out delivering newspapers; that he typed the cryptic message found on the family computer (‘Sorry. You are the only one who deserved to stay’) and then shot himself – in a case of familicide-suicide.
Binnie said David should get compensation. The Government didn’t like that idea and shopped around for another judge – one who was willing to write a report declaring that David didn’t deserve it. They found one in Ian Callinan QC, who had a history of bending the rules in Australia.
So far, not much has been reported in the New Zealand media about Callinan’s dodgy legal ethics or the extraordinary flaws in his compensation report. But there’s a wealth of information available on the David Bain Campaign website.
Familicide
But there’s another side to this story which has not seen much daylight either. A systematic review of the literature on familicide found a number of common factors in such incidents. These factors were documented by Joe Karam in his last book “Trial By Ambush: The Prosecutions Of David Bain”released in 2012.
The first is that in 95% of cases where both parents were killed, the perpetrator was the father. Only 1% of familicides are committed by an adult son. The researcher wrote:
“In cases where (one of the) sons killed both parents, the research indicates that the perpetrator is always either severely abused, suffering from severe mental disorders (usually psychotic) or psychopathic. There are no identified cases where the son exhibits none of these pathologies and does not commit suicide.”
Second, many of these fathers displayed symptoms of depression prior to the killings and a number of Robin Bain’s professional colleagues testified to this effect. Fellow teachers described Robin at the time of the killings as “deeply depressed, to the point of impairing his ability to do his job of teaching children”.
He also published graphic and inappropriate stories of violence and killings by his 9-year-old pupils in the school newsletter; one of those stories involved the murder of an entire family. The president of the Taieri Principals’ Association at the time, found this“unbelievable” and regarded the publication of these stories as “the clearest possible evidence that Robin Bain had lost touch with reality due to his mental state” (Privy Council, 2007, para 41).
It appears Robin Bain never sought professional help for depression, but this is another point of commonality; fathers who commit familicide tend to view themselves as the head of the family, and “control their outer image closely, rarely confiding in people or seeking help”. The fact that family and friends said Robin appeared to be happy is consistent with other familicides; such men internalise their personal sufferings in order to maintain appearances.
Angry vs despairing perpetrators
The literature also suggests there are two types of familicide perpetrator. At one end of the continuum, there is the angry type – men who have displayed a well-established history of anger and hostile behaviour, especially towards women. For this type, the killing of one’s partner and children is an act of revenge or punishment, usually following parental separation. At the other end of the continuum, there is the despairing type of perpetrator who has no previous history of hostile behaviour and is generally well regarded in the community. This description applies to Robin Bain. For this type, familicide, followed by suicide is “an escape both for himself and his family from an intolerable future”.
In addition to feelings of depression and anger, the literature shows that familicide is generally preceded by a prolonged build-up of shame. This usually follows parental separation or a serious breakdown in the relationship; loss of employment or significant financial losses may also be involved. These lead to a psychological loss of control and/or a perceived loss of social status. Robin Bain also fits this profile. He and Margaret had been estranged for several years and by all accounts, he was unfulfilled in his job. He had applied for a number of other teaching positions, but was unsuccessful.
But for Robin Bain, there may have been an even greater source of shame. He was a Christian, a Freemason and a respected member of the community. At the second trial, witnesses said he had been committing incest with his youngest daughter, Laniet, ever since the family came back from Papua New Guinea. If indeed he had been molesting her, this would have created intense feelings of guilt and internal conflict. It seems that “despair is the end-state for these perpetrators”.
The triggering event
The research also found that in most cases of familicide there is usually some kind of triggering event, one which leads to a sense of “ignominy, terminal public shame, mortification and self-disgust”. Testimony at the second trial suggests Laniet was about to reveal to the rest of the family what her father had been doing to her. It seems the potential loss of face Robin Bain was facing was so great, he not only killed everyone else in the family (except David), he also shot himself. This is another point of commonality. In over 60% of familicide cases, the offender subsequently commits suicide.
In summary, David Bain did not have an identified motive, did not have a mental health disorder and did not commit suicide. Robin Bain did, or had, all three. In every single aspect of this case, it is Robin Bain rather than David Bain, who fits the profile of the typical perpetrator of familicide, followed by suicide.
Roger Brooking is an alcohol and drug counsellor working in Wellington for the last fifteen years. Most of his clients are in the justice system – which is not surprising considering that 80% of crime occurs under the influence of alcohol and drugs During this time he has discovered that the courts repeatedly fail to mandate or encourage offenders into treatment.
However, all the hard evidence points to David, as succinctly pointed out by Bryan Bruce in his documentary.
Blood of victims only on David (despite evidence of a fight with a wounded victim), fingerprints of only David on the gun and computer keyboard (the latter never used by Robin) etc.
All the hard evidence collected by the police, do you really think they would find evidence that supported Davids innocence? Why no gunpowder residue test? Get a grip on yourself & take an honest look at all the evidence instead of repeating a few half truths.
And all the motive points to Robin.
Don’t make me laugh, Bryan was about as convincing as this as he was in his exoneration of killer Len Demler or similarly Ian Wishart in his latest fiction on the Scott Watson case or his previous attempts to implicate DS Weir in this case.
Bryan, in his investigator piece ‘proved’ that by handling a 22 rifle with bloody hands that he would leave fingerprints, however that is hardly rocket science and it has never been suggested that Robins hands were ‘dripping’ with blood as per Bryan’s experiment, also his attempts at discrediting witness Daryl Youngs fairly immaterial evidence at trial were very amateur and the supposed ‘evidence’ of who had sold a photocopier to Mr Bain senior on a particular date was utterly irrelevant!
In reality all your ‘hard evidence’ amounts to nothing convincing whatsoever as the crown case against David has been shown to be for around a decade now!
The hard contact wound in Robins temple in itself, together with the other factors in the case paint a much clearer image of the perpetrator!
Get your facts straight, “no fingerprints”………
There were in fact multiple fingerprints on the gun that were not able to be eliminated as belonging to either David or Robin, this sounds like the ‘Robin couldn’t have done it because no GSR was found on him line…..’ Um none was tested for either
And there were in fact no fingerprints found on the keyboard either, (or tested for!)
Excellent article.
‘He was a Christian’
Yes, well people who have called themselves Christians have been responsible for more torture, death, destruction, genocide and deceit than any other group to ever emerge on this planet.
I will leave the inquisition out of the discussion as the catholic church is not Christian despite their popularity today. What about Hitler, Mao & the ongoing repression in China, Cambodia, Russia along with a host of other non Christian nations where human rights are non existent? The Book warns that many will call themselves Christian but their actions will prove otherwise as we can see with the Bain case. I could give a list of the freedoms we enjoy today because Christians dared to stand against rulers who denied those liberties but since you think you are so clever I will let you find out for yourself.
Hitler was a Christian.
his actions contradict that statement. Definition of Christian: one who follows the teachings of Jesus – not someone who attends or attended a particular church or denomination.
I agree wholeheartedly, but some will claim, with some justification that it hasn’t been conclusively proven that Robin committed suicide, that he was killed by David.
Of course if the police had done their job with even a smidgen of professionalism I believe it would have been proven that Robin did kill himself.
Simply testing his hands for gun powder residue would have dispelled any doubt.
And now embarrassed by their botched up job, they cant accept photos of Robins hands show recent use of a firearm.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11136233
Being both depressed and happy point to Robin as the killer.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
When Robin’s body was found he was not wearing gloves….and his finger prints were not on the gun he supposedly used to kill himself. Some suicide.
Go google Sir Thomas Thorpe who researched and wrote a book on miscarriages of justice on N.Z.
Funny thing is, while he found around 20 wrongfully imprisoned people who had applied for the royal perogative of mercy, he also looked in depth at the Bain case and declared that he wasn’t one of them.
So I think I will take his word on it (unless you are going to claim he was biased as well) as opposed to a drug and alcohol counseller.
Thorp changed his mind after David was found not guilty. He said this:
“The whole business of justice involves human judgement, and therefore it’s going to make errors from time to time.”
I still want to know who gained from the property; the house was burned down but the land was still there. Did Robin Bain’s brother receive the proceeds from that land, when David was jailed? That means David received nothing from his family home?
It was reported 23 people traipsed through that house before it was closed off for investigating. At the very least the police should have been charged for perverting the course of justice. Lack of proper process originally, aided and abetted by Collins’ dodgy refusal of advice to government that differed from her preferred outcome made the govt a laughing stock.
A case for proper compensation for David Bain, definitely, and proof-positive of needing independent panels in future cases of compensation.
I haven’t done a lit review but from the news reports I’ve read over the years the pattern seems to be …
… that fathers kill their partners and all children when the children are too young to care for themselves.
… when the parents and some children die and the children are adults then it’s more likely to be one of the children (or a child’s partner) that kills them.
You got that wrong. The literature review is comprehensive; it covers all knows cases of familicide. What you have read is simply what you have read – and apparently misunderstood.
So what is the citation for the literature review then.
So why did Robin leave David alive? When it was apparent David was the most hostile to him of anyone in the family?
The chain of bizarre events and coincidences and the total suspension of disbelief that is required to believe Robin did it (fought Stephen and won without getting a single scratch/bruise (which David had in abundance), didn’t leave a fingerprint on the gun, etc etc) leaves no doubt in my mind David did it. He got lucky on the jury selection in that he had several jurors who had already decided he was innocent (how many other trials have you seen where jurors hugged the defendant afterwards?) and two other jurors who lacked the mental capacity to follow even the most basic evidence and went along with the crowd when it came to giving a verdict. Guilty as OJ.
Good grief
“it was apparent David was the most hostile to him of anyone in the family?”
” ….scratch/bruise (which David had in abundance)”
“..no finger prints on the gun”
Where on earth did you read that?
You (everybody does) really need to read Justice Binnie’s report.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1212/02_Justice_Binnies_amended_report.pdf.pdf
He struggled to kill Stephen who was only 14. He left David alive because if he tried to kill David, he would have been unsuccessful and ended up in jail.
Nothing to do with Robins incestuous relationship /depression or odd behaviour? I suppose you’d find David guilty for all of that also.
What we do know is the evidence was burnt down in a hurry and David was not guilty of that!
The reality is the chain of events that David is supposed to have done in order to carry out this crime is a lot more far fetched than what in reality most likely happened.
I’d also suggest you get your facts straight! Robin had recent injuries, bruising and untested blood on his hands which the best explanation the cops could come up with was ‘cleaning the guttering’
Also there were multiple unidentified prints on the gun so you cannot claim that they were ‘not Robins’
The case is a farce and the shopping round for a more favourable ‘conclusion’ because they didn’t get one first time round is a disgrace, and despite all their efforts Callinan’s report does not offer any ‘conclusions’ as to what happened so the crime is at best (as far as the crown stands) indeterminate
I note the casual way, “If indeed he had been molesting her, this would have created intense feelings of guilt and internal conflict” is introduced and added as sort of evidence or an indication.
Does the research on familicide indicate that 91% of perpetrators were breast fed for less than one month after birth and that Robin Bain fell into that group?
Just as fatuous and irrelevant.
Testimony that Robin Bain had been commiting incest with his daughter was introduced as evidence to the Privy Council in 2007(which found a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred) and at the second trial in 2009 (which found David not guilty).
Dear oh dear. Lets first talk about the defence and their role of creating doubt in the mind of the jury making outlandish unsubstantiated claims about an old white guy.
Then look at the evidence against, no finger prints on the gun, gloves used but removed in process of subduing the son, had a shower afterwards, no clothes with any blood on them, left a pile of washing for david to put on, hands tested some hours afterwards but no residue, davids gun, hadn’t had time to have pee, and all achieved after his alarm set for 6.30am so he could get dressed and do the job in 20mins. There is no way Robin Bain killed his family.
That only leaves one logical conclusion
How about the outlandish claim that David killed his entire family for no reason at all. Yeah right!
Forget motive or lack of – it’s just speculation.
Just look at the physical evidence – and that tells you who the killer was.
And, tell me that Stephen’s blood found in the crotch of David’s shorts was because he accidentally sat on him after discovering him dead.
You must have been part of the first jury?
“outlandish unsubstantiated claims about an old white guy.”
Who had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. That’s normal ?
There is no proof of the incestuous relationship and as father of four daughters I find it somewhat obscene that this is used by the defence in the creation of doubt about Robin Bain’s integrity.
Typical defence tactics create a story about a sad old lonely deceased man tell the world he smelt bad was depressed dressed in rags oh and by the way had an incestuous relationship with a daughter, sounds like the sort of story you read in a novel VERY CONVENIENT.
What is even worse is that people now think of this fiction as fact.
Everybody that I know who claims david is innocent had decided that before the second trial, I looked at the evidence followed the case closely and picked up on details such as the witness who had been involved in over 1600 cases of suicide and had not seen a single case of a right handed man shooting himself in the left temple.
I have also read justice Binnies report in detail and I was saddened that a judge created such a work of fiction. it is a very poor quality document
And just as a parting comment maybe we need to introduce that suppressed evidence from a living witness who claims one of the siblings told her david was terrifying the household with his gun.
And as for david killing his family for no reason well I could give you a couple of good reasons and these are the usual ones.
Of course the defence would seek to create doubt. Of course they would use the incest angle. And of course then some, like on here, would then take that as gospel, it happened.
The notion of something being “introduced as evidence” automatically meaning that it is true, is fact, is obviously silly. That would mean everything being said in every courtroom by every person giving evidence was true.
The tipping point was the family meeting on June 19th 1994 the night before the event of the following morning which was attended by one of the uncles of the family.
As far as i am aware there has never been an explanation of what was discussed that night at 65 Every st but it is crucial too explaining a possible motive for the killing of five people the next morning.
If Robins mental state had deteriorated too the point that he saw no other way out but too kill the entire family why did he let one live after killing the other four, and knowing David would be out at this time would he not have got up in the night when every one was asleep and shot them in their beds while they slept and then killed himself leaving no one alive ?
Only David Bain knows why this happened and what led up to this appalling crime and the death of five members of his family.
Comments are closed.