Brian Edwards Media

A Persuasive Defence of Robin Bain

Stuff.co.nz

David Bain’s defence team will have to do rather better than arrogantly dismissing Bryan Bruce’s findings in last night’s documentary on the Bain killings as ‘a load of old rubbish’.

There is general agreement that either David or his father Robin were responsible for the killings. There is no other suspect.

If David is indeed innocent, then what we are asked to believe is that on the morning of June 20, 1994 Robin Bain slaughtered four members of his family, including his 14-year-old son, Stephen, who fought desperately for his life. Robin then shot himself in the temple with the rifle he had used to kill the others. Despite this bloodbath, his hands, clothes and footwear were almost entirely free of blood, what blood there was did not come from any member of his family,  and his fingerprints were not found anywhere on the rifle.

Like Bruce, I find this scenario improbable. 

Based partly on the discovery in the downstairs washing machine of a green jersey, known to have been worn by Stephen’s killer, we are then asked to surmise that Robin washed his blood-stained clothes in the washing machine and may have  changed into other clothing,  before taking his own life.

Like Bruce again, I find the idea fanciful that a man who has just slaughtered four members of his family and is intent on taking his own life, would go to the trouble of trying to conceal the evidence against him. What would be the point? If Robin Bain did indeed murder his wife and three of his children before turning the gun on himself, it can only have been an act of absolute despair, surely incompatible with the coolly calculated action involved in destroying the evidence.

Where motive is concerned, David Bain’s defence team relied on the proposition that Robin had been engaged in an incestuous relationship with his 18-year-old daughter Laniet and, fearing exposure, took his own life and the lives of her mother Margaret, sister Arawa and brother Stephen.

Bruce essentially argues that Laniet was a fantasist who invented the story of the incestuous relationship and of having given birth to a black baby after being raped in Papua New Guinea. He also casts doubt on the evidence of a photocopier salesman, Daryl Young, who claimed to have seen a half-naked Robin Bain coming out of his van in a camping ground and to have heard the voice of a young woman inside.

But it is the lack of blood on Robin’s clothes and the absence of his fingerprints on the rifle with which he is accused of having killed four members of his family and himself, that seem  to me to stretch credibility to near breaking point.

No one other than David Bain knows what actually happened in the Bain household on the morning of June 20, 1994.  What we do know is that there has been unease in New Zealand about both the conviction of David Bain and the de facto conviction of his father, Robin. Though this was not its declared intention, Bruce’s documentary provides considerable support for those who regard David Bain as New Zealand’s O.J. Simpson. It raises questions  which require a more considered response from Joe Karam and Michael Reed than merely dismissing Bruce’s findings as ‘a load of old rubbish’.

, , ,

185 Comments:

  1. Excellent analysis Brian. I’ve heard Joe Karam on Newstalk ZB this morning, and he’s singularly unimpressed, which is hardly surprising. I suspect that it will be far more difficult for David Bain to get compensation now.

  2. I think a important question is what was the Crown doing during the retrial? The evidence as presented during the documentary seemed rather compelling. You would have thought all the Crown had to do was yell ‘BLOOD BLOOD WHERE IS THE BLOOD? WHERE ARE THE BLOODY CLOTHES” during the three month trial and David would have been convicted.

  3. I believe Bryan Bruce did an excellent job in the way he presented his evidence in the TV documentary, & there is no doubt in my mind that Robin is innocent & David is not, as the killer had to be one of these two men.
    Joe Karam’s reaction to the documentary was typical of course, nothing but nothing will move Joe & one would have to question what drives him.
    I was also amused when watching the documentary how that clown was trying to find a suitable position to grip the gun’s silencer & reach the trigger at the same time directed by another clown in the courtroom, & where oh where were those fingerprints of Robin on that gun if he was supposed to be the last one to use it?…I don’t even think Mr Karam would have the answer to that.

  4. The idea that neither Robin nor David is totally innocent is one worth exploring. Here is, totally without evidence, a theory:
    Robin killed the family with the intention of trying to get away with it. He cleaned his clothes he cleaned the rifle. David comes home before Robin expects, sees what’s happened (bloody footprints) and kills Robin, explaining how Robin held the gun to his head at such a daft angle i.e. he didn’t. The cops arrive, find David a mess and do a rush job on the investigation, cocking it up in the process, ’cause to them it’s obvious who the killer is.
    Just following two simple rules leads me to this. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle. And a cock up is far more likely than a conspiracy.

    • The idea that neither Robin or David is totally innocent is one worth exploring.

      Fascinating theory, Q. Interested to see what others think of it.

  5. This doco was the kind of investigative journalism we should have a lot more of. In a reasoned, evidence-based and intelligent way it dissected a case that has gripped this country for years. Its high ratings (nearly 700,000 people) show how interested the public is in this case, and that there is an appetite out there for serious TV journalism. Halleluia to that. It also goes some way toward restoring the reputation of Robin Bain, which has been dragged through the mud by David Bain’s legal team.

    Joe Karam’s angry and unreasoned responses in the media today are typical, especially since he wasn’t able to stop the documentary going to air. He seems to think Bryan Bruce and TVNZ have had some kind of vendetta against David Bain since his acquittal, and objected to the amount of publicity TVNZ gave to the doco. It was just a network doing what they do: promoting their programmes, and reporting the news. Of course any new evidence in a case like this is news – and the revelation about the photocopier sale needs to be followed up, in my opinion.

    On that note, I see that Bryan Bruce was careful to say “in my opinion” and “my contention is” repeatedly, which should give him some defence against the inevitable complaints from David Bain’s legal team.

    Anyone wondering as to Karam’s motivations in all this should read his book. On page 20 of Karam’s book ‘David and Goliath’ he outlines the deal he made with David Bain, where they share the rights and proceeds to “any books, magazine articles and the like.” I wonder if “the like” includes compensation.

    • Anyone wondering as to Karam’s motivations in all this should read his book. On page 20 of Karam’s book ‘David and Goliath’ he outlines the deal he made with David Bain, where they share the rights and proceeds to “any books, magazine articles and the like.” I wonder if “the like” includes compensation.

      I met Joe Karam at a party some time ago and there is no doubt at all that his primary motive is an absolute belief in David Bain’s innocence. That said, he has spent an enormous amount of time and money in pursuing this cause and it would not be unreasonable for him to hope to recoup some of that. This documentary may well prove a setback.

  6. The annulling, last year, of David Bain’s conviction, was a perversion of justice of the very worst kind. Right up there with O.J. Simpson getting acquitted through the legal wizardry of the late (good job) Johnnie Cochran. I didn’t need convincing, after viewing last night’s documentary. Any vestiges of doubt, had long been erased.

    Listen to the audio of David’s 111 phone call, it was a total put-on. His voice was devoid of that cadence which intonates genuine grief, anguish and terror. It was the audio-equivalent of Mark Lundy’s third-rate performance, when he put on his grief act at the funerals of his slain wife and daughter. Lundy, appeared to require physical “support” to be held upright by two of his two friends, who were on either side of him. That nasty piece of pantomime disgraced the amateur theatre company from where he learned to ply his craft. It was parody heaped upon parody. The upper half of that monster’s body appeared slumped and rumpled. But from the waist down, he was able to support himself, just fine. Hearing David Bain’s voice on the 111 call, reminded me of that, to a T.

    If, Robin Bain had really intended to obliterate his whole family — why did he not wait for David to come home, and blast him into oblivion, too? And why, would Robin have bothered to bring in the newspaper, when he would have been consumed by the singularity of his soon-to-be-performed murderous deeds?

    The reactions from Joe Karam and Michael Reid QC, were to be wholly expected. These two have long-crossed their own moral Rubicon; where Truth must now take a back seat to preserving their own reputations and egos. They care not one whit for verisimilitude. It’s about their being seen as crusading knights; who, were successful in usurping the justice system, to enhance their respective standings amongst their own peers. It’s about maintaining the artifice of the “Good Guys”, where they can boast the depth of omniscience, which vindicated not only David Bain, but also “our” brainpower.

    And that’s why so many of us have so much revulsion — and contempt — towards those lawyers, who forgo trawling for the Truth in favour of getting their clients off. Whatever it takes. They exist in a moral wasteland. Their own parallel universe: where insatiable $ avarice, subterfuge, distortion, blinding conceit, bullying and badgering are the stock tools of their trade. Just hark back to the Auckland lawyers who acted so diligently, in the 1970s, getting Mr. Asia Syndicate, Terry Clark, off. Just how many lives were, needlessly, sacrificed to these guys’ conceit and greed.

    Don’t be fooled by the “lettered” Michael Reed: the “QC” that is plonked after his name, doesn’t confer an acuity of intellect upon him, any keener than the dim-witted jury, who were so easily seduced by his courtroom theatrics.

  7. One of the problems we face because we are getting just the bits of stories through newspapers/TV, is that we don’t get the whole story. I was thinking this after the jury service I did recently and we found the man Not Guilty for lack of a serious credible case against the man. Had it been reported with just a few bits missing the public would probably say he must be guilty.
    So I would respect the Jury in the Bain trial that having heard all the evidence, they were confident with the Not Guilty.
    There were elements of the police enquiry in the early 90s which would be unacceptable today. So I do not share your confidence that this retrying is Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

    • One of the problems we face because we are getting just the bits of stories through newspapers/TV, is that we don’t get the whole story.

      Well, that’s all entirely reasonable, but if the only options are David and Robin Bain and no compelling scientific evidence has been advanced to connect Robin with killing himself and four members of his family, then you are left with only one option: David. To my knowledge there is no real disagreement over the lack of any of his family’s blood on Robin’s clothes or body or of the fact that his fingerprints were nowhere on the gun. You cannot kill youself and then remove your fingerprints from the weapon.

  8. Hi Brian,

    Last night was perhaps for the first time that many people were exposed to an analysis of “what if Robin did it?”. Bryan Bruce produced an excellent analysis on what you’d have to believe for Robin to be the killer, and the clear conclusion, of course, is highly improbable.

    What is astounding is for many friends who believe David is innocent, that after last night many now contend Robin didn’t do it either (again, they haven’t been exposed to a precise synopsis of the crime scene and case). This puts them in a quandry – the conditioning and chanting of “David is innocent” over 15 years has led them to “not want to think David did it” (their own words) – with their own pride in not admitting they were wrong.

    I look forward to a compensation application from the Bain team and the report from the investigating QC with its inevitable conclusion that David killed his family based on a balance on probabilities.

    At the same time, the pro-Robin camp will continue chipping away as they have done, last night’s doco a prime example of their influence. I don’t believe this case is over as far as the public are concerned…

    Damian

  9. I can’t help but feel, this family of five slaughtered NZ citizens may now rest a little easier after these vile allegations against a few of them have been shown to be total BS.

    Listening to Karam this morning on ZB, rubbishing Bryan Bruce’s documentary as a money making venture, then he went on to mention his own book and upcoming book

    I’m sure the TVNZ bank of lawyers would have gone over the doco inside out checking and double checking all the information presented by Bryan Bruce for validation.

    Good on ya! NZ ON AIR

  10. The idea that neither Robin nor David is totally innocent is one worth exploring. Here is, totally without evidence, a theory:…Just following two simple rules leads me to this.

    …read kiwiblog and paraphrase :)

  11. I wish that Bryan Bruce had reminded viewers that Robyn Bain died with a full bladder. This was surely the most damning evidence against David. A man doesn’t murder his family without first having a pee.
    Joe Karam has been taken in by a narcisist who believed he ‘was the only one who deserved to live’ as the tragic message on the computer said. Where are the psychiatric reports and tests on David? It’s turned into a money earner for many people especially the legal profession so why not bring in the psychiatrists. It wouldn’t be hard to crack his evidence.

  12. I also listened to Joe Karam on nat radio and his primary motive for the dismissal of the documentary appeared to be his lack of opportunity to argue his own side of the case.Travesties of Justice are not unheard of and reliance of evidence almost 16 yrs old doesnt add to ones ability to judge fairly.David Bains Guilt or Innocence is something he will most likely take to his grave.

  13. Thanks for this excellent summation, Brian. The defence has never been able to put forward any forensic evidence to show that Robin Bain killed his family and this documentary made that clear. That means that there is a killer at large who, after a massive struggle with Stephen Bain strangled him with his own T-shirt. The determination of that struggle is the most horrific thing to me. What’s to say that a mass murderer won’t strike again?

  14. The majority shareholder in TVNZ is the NZ Government. TVNZ (the New Zealand Government or some their National party cronies) encourage a documentary about Robin Bains innocence to introduce doubt about David Bains not guilty verdict in this murder case and thus muddy the waters for compensation from the National Government. Can someone also logically explain why a professional man in his mid 50s was living in a beaten up van in the middle of no where and as Daryl Young discovered during his visit “he smelled of alcohol”. Robin obviously had a lot of issues he was dealing with to have ended up with such a life.

    • The majority shareholder in TVNZ is the NZ Government. TVNZ (the New Zealand Government or some their National party cronies) encourage a documentary about Robin Bains innocence to introduce doubt about David Bains not guilty verdict in this murder case and thus muddy the waters for compensation from the National Government.

      I’m afraid that smacks of conspiracy theory paranoia, Alex.

  15. The many who think this case should’ve been left alone are scarey. They bury their heads in the sand at our national peril. What if it is us in the dock? Salacious and unproven gossip wins over both hard forensic evidence and total logic. Many innocents are going to be fitted up and true justice will be murdered.

  16. I do not remember much of the original trial but does anyone remember the reasoning for David to have killed his family?
    And,
    based on the original evidence, why could someone else not have done it??

  17. Don’t miss the upcoming clash in a couple of weeks between Michael Laws & Joe Karam on radio live, should be quite interesting as Joe contends that the weight of evidence is greater against Robin than that of David…year right!

  18. A fine analysis Brian. I am sure some of the more analytical posters will be able to clear up another point that has puzzled me for some time. Using simple mathmatics and a rudimentary knowledge of semi automatic rifles I have always failed to find a scenario where Robin didnt replace a magazine that contained live rounds (no less than 2 and no more than 5) with another fully loaded magazine to shoot himself.

  19. I feel the first defence lawyer should be called upon as a witness when the Government address the compensation issue. He would have been in the thick of it before the diversionary process blaming the dead took off. No normal son would let their father (and other family members) be defamed like has happened here, surely one would find forensic /physical evidence to clear themselves if innocent???

  20. So persuasive? How is it persuasive? The documentary was a very careful piece of visual manipulation. The images of Bryan Bruce investigating the case as we see detectives do so all the time on television. Therefore, Bryan Bruce is seen to be an authoritarian when he is not. The forensic evidence has been vastly shortened (understandable to a degree in what was a one hour documentary) and only three witnesses examined.

  21. “And, based on the original evidence, why could someone else not have done it??”

    The gun had a triggerlock on it and the fibres from the green jersey were found under Stephen’s fingernails.

    For that to be possible, someone else would have had to have broken in (no sign of forced entry) in the exact hour David was on his paper run, found the hidden triggerlock key in David’s room (which he says only he knew about), found and put on a jersey, killed four members of a family execution style, put the jersey in the washing basket/machine, then left.

  22. Glad you supported Bryan Bruce’s investigation, it’s hard to deny his methodical and objective reasoning.
    Karam and Reed’s dogmatic stance and derision are to be expected considering their massive investment, even if their client was proven to be a mass murderer, they would be desperate to recoup their losses somehow. However, their response to the ‘Investigator’ is repugnant: repetitive and crudely dismissive.
    Why not spend some more tax payer dollars and conduct a full multi-disciplinary investigation/analysis of the whole ugly mess? Personally, I’d rather that, than compensation being handed to David Bain just to shut up the squeaky wheels.

  23. Another thing that makes me believe that Robin Bain is innocent… he left his eyeglasses in the van. If he planned to murder his whole family… I don’t think he would have left something as impt as those eyeglasses.

  24. Well done Bruce, excellent facts from a thorough investigator. Best program on T.V. You have a lot of support.

  25. @gingercrush. Well said. The documentary is a sham and in due course we will see why. Somehow the use of hearsay has become an issue. And the evidence of the photocopy salesman has been questioned and doubted without good reason.
    I do not have a particular view on the guilt or innocence other than I would rather trust a jury than be manipulated by an hour-long documentary.

  26. 26

    Evidence was given at one of the trials, and I think again at the retrial, that it isn’t difficult to handle a rifle with a wooden stock and leave no fingerprints on it. In fact it’s difficult to leave fingerprints on it, there has to be some medium to hold them. That’s why the only fingerprints on the gun were David’s in old, animal blood.

    Evidence was also presented at the trial that there was blood on Robin’s clothes and body but it hadn’t been carefully examined.

    It’s also the case that while prosecution and defence agree the footprints were the killer’s they were too small to be David’s but the right size to be Robin’s.

    One could go on. There is a lot of evidence in this case.

    Brian Edward’s opening summary focuses on a few bits of it – such as the absence of Robin’s fingerprints on the gun – which gives a misleading overall impression. The jury at the re-trial were immersed in the evidence and in my view came up with the right verdict: there is no compelling case against David. As the murders had to have been done by him or his father the balance of probabilities is that Robin was the killer.

    The new evidence about the photocopier salesman doesn’t seem very compelling. Perhaps it wasn’t him who clinched the sale with Robin. It doesn’t follow that he didn’t meet him and see and hear what he said he did.

  27. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict

    The above opinion piece published after the retrial seems to provide a reasonable take on the matter.

    Personally I have felt uneasy about two things. Firstly, David’s lack of acknowledgement of his lost family after his acquittal. Mainly though, I wonder about his lack of a voice. As his aunt said on Close Up, he is a man now, a free man, he can speak for himself.

  28. 28

    People above asked about Robin’s bladder and for a psychiatric report on David.

    On the prosecution’s theory Robin Bain got up, presumably in a fairly normal state of mind, walked past a toilet and sat reading for forty odd minutes before David shot him, all with a fairly full bladder. It seems more likely he’d relieve himself first.

    At the first trial evidence was presented from Dr Mullen, a Melbourne psychiatrist, about David’s mental health. His opinion was David had no mental illness, was perhaps a little eccentric but certainly sane. Unusually the evidence was advanced by the defence and has never been contested in court.

  29. The full bladder of Robin Bain:
    When you get on in age, espcially for men, being able to go to the toilet can be a problem a painful one at times, Robin Bain might not be a exception to this.

    The lack of Robin Bains fingerprints on the gun:
    There were nine fingerprints on the gun that were not able to be identified due to imprint not sufficent, smudges, partial prints.
    Its not absurd to suggest when you shoot yourself in the head your fingers may slide down the silencer as you fall thus smudging your prints leaving only partial prints.

    The lack of family blood on Robin Bain:
    It can be assumed by viewing the household photos that most of the people in that house were what you might call messy or unclean in the way clutter and rubbish was piled up, Robin may well be in that mix. In a mans final minutes may he not think, its time for a change, I intend to go out dressed well, cleaned up and leave this dirtynes behind. So he had a shower, changed his clothes, many people I know have showers and change their dirty clothes into clean ones, its quite common.
    Now clean and refreshed he shoots himself, surely not so out there as some are suggesting.

    Robins motives.
    I personally do not believe much of the hearsay evidence of the defence in regards this as its contridicted so many times by other hearsay evidence and non-hearsay to make it worthless. I do not know the motives of someone who would kill his family be that Robin or David, I can’t imagine a reason that would make me do such a thing, so I can only suggest for either culprit it was a fit of madness.

    Joe Karam
    I’m sure hes a nice enough guy, but he is has obviously been affected by the toil this has taken on him, the calling of successive radio live hosts yesterday and asking them to hang up on any callers saying David was guilty, trying to dictate “free speech”, the cries of profit-mongering of TVNZ and the investigator all the while shilling his third book on the case, the rants, the obsessiveness, the blindness to reason, the dismissing categorically of anything that disagrees with what he believes or is indeed now forced to believe as backing off would destroy him.

    [Edited for reasons of defamation. BE]

  30. Instead of ambushing Bryan Bruce’s excellent & so well researched TV documentary, I’d welcome a similar documentary from the other side…or should I say the “dark side” by Joe Karam & his gang of cronies as Joe is reported to have said that there is more evidence against Robin than there is against David.

  31. 31

    John Dalley asked what was the motive originally suggested for David.

    The Crown suggested his motive was material gain, that he killed his family so that he would inherit the house.

    This has always seemed highly implausible. He was studying Music and for an arts degree. He was doing a paper run to earn money. This doesn’t seem the background of a person who would take such extreme action to benefit materially.

    Even if he were highly motivated to get money it would be much more likely he would try robbery or fraud.

    To convict someone it isn’t necessary to produce a motive. This is reasonable. If you had a videotape of someone shooting someone that might well be enough to show they did it, even if you couldn’t understand why.

    But the Bain family murders are extraordinary. They represent a very uncommon type of crime. To commit them you would expect the killer to have an extraordinary motive.

    This is what really turns the case against Robin. Dean Cottle’s evidence about Laniet’s allegation of incest and her intention of going home that night to confront her family with it provides Robin with the extraordinary motive. Cottle’s evidence that Laniet made the allegation has now been corroborated by several other, independent witnesses. It can’t reasonably be doubted she made the allegations.

    That being so, and, as I’ve said before, the fact they provide a motive for Robin whether they were true or not, is what really tips the balance against Robin.

    Most of the other evidence is either neutral as to whether father or son did it, or is anyway less than conclusive. In my view that other evidence mostly favours David and tends to implicate Robin.

    But that Robin had an extraordinary motive for these extraordinary crimes is what really shifts the balance against him.

    This is bound to be uncomfortable, or distressing, for those who liked him and loved him. But it doesn’t make it any less significant. Even good and generally likeable people can do terrible things if they are pushed far enough. If the allegations were untrue that’s probably what happened here. If they were true one would have to say Robin wasn’t as admirable as some who knew him closely supposed. Unfortunately there are all too many cases where that is known to be so. But, true or otherwise it is the allegations which tip the scales against Robin.

  32. Bryan Bruce’s “new evidence” sought to discredit defence witness, Darryl Young.

    Judging by messageboard and talkback feedback about lies and perjury he has succceeded brilliantly.

    His documentary is a good example of how selective choosing of the facts and editing can advance an agenda ( which btw was NOT to present the case against Robin Bain).

    The programme made much of the fact a sales record shows that Ian Arthur sold a photocopier to Robin Bain on a particular day. And that the school-teacher remembered that day as it was her last at the school and said Darryl Young did not visit that day.

    Bryan Bruce seemed to be inviting viewers to see this as evidence that Mr Young was lying or perjuring.

    What the documentary omitted telling viewers was that Mr Young never claimed to have sold a photocopier to Mr Bain on a particular day. On the contrary he explicitly said he wasn’t sure of the year.

    “At a guess this would have been around ’92 or ’93” – from the second trial court transcript shown on TV3 and quoted here , tinyurl.com/26vx2pq

    The possibility that Mr Young sold Mr Bain a photocopier ( say in 91) then years later Mr Arthur sold him an upgraded model would not have occurred to most viewers.

    The programme made it seem sinister that Mr Bain could not have exited his van via the rear doors as they were blocked by shelving, and lead many viewers to believe that Mr Young claimed Mr Bain exited through a rear door.

    Accounts of the trial agree that Mr Young said he knocked on a rear door. But did he claim Mr Bain exited via a rear door ?

    Compare this report in the Christchurch Press :

    ” When he ( Mr Young ) got to the van he knocked on the back door and heard voices. He moved away five or ten metres and thought he heard two different voices. He naturally assumed one was a female voice and the other voice was Robin’s.

    Robin came out and he was wearing a towel and “that was all’’.”

    tinyurl.com/o9o3os

  33. 33

    Alpaca provided a link to an article in the Press they thought was a reasonable summary of the case.

    It says in part:

    “The reasons I am sure Bain killed his family are twofold.

    The first is the incredible coincidences that we have to accept if Bain is innocent.

    For instance, we have to accept, just for a start, that the following facts all have perfectly innocent explanations not connected with the death of the Bain family – Bain’s clear and recent fingerprints on the murder rifle, the bruises on his face and torso, the blood of his brother on his clothes, a 20-minute delay before ringing the police after finding bodies, hearing his sister gurgling (and failing to help her), convenient changes in his story, a lens from damaged glasses (of no use to anyone else and found in his bedroom) turning up in his dead brother’s room, bizarre behaviour before and after the killings, not noticing the blood all over the laundry and putting the jersey worn by the killer in the washing.

    However, the best evidence relates to the implausibility of Robin Bain shooting his family and then himself.”

    The trouble with the summary is that it has some errors: David’s fingerprints on the rifle were not recent. They were in old blood which wasn’t from a Bain family member, indeed apparently wasn’t human.

    Also, when David got home he says he discovered his family were dead by going into different rooms and finding the corpses. If he were innocent that would have to be so. But of course it would also mean he would probably come in contact with some of their blood. So their blood on him doesn’t implicate him.

    The same is true of the lens. If he went into his already dead brother’s bedroom he might easily stumble or bump into something and lose the lens.

    The gurgling coming from Laniet’s body was something David mentioned, having suddenly remembered it, while giving evidence at the first trial. That seems an odd thing to do if you were guilty and trying to hide it. And expert evidence has been given that a person already dead, a corpse in fact, can gurgle in the way that apparently Laniet’s did. So it isn’t very compelling evidence of guilt.

    The nicks and bruises on David’s person are also obviously compatible with his stumbling around the house discovering the massacre.

    As for the 20 minute delay in ringing the police is it really remarkable if he is innocent? Having discovered all your family dead you would probably be in a state of shock. If you thought one was still alive you might have your wits sufficiently about you to make an urgent call. But if you thought they were all dead you might just sit, or stand, or fall to the floor in shock.

    Regarding the jersey David put in the washing machine if he was innocent and hadn’t yet discovered the murders why wouldn’t he just dump it in there, without looking at it closely? He was in the habit of putting other family members’ clothes in to wash if he found some there at that point in his routine. Without pretending this is what MUST have happened it is perfectly plausible that it did.

    The Press article goes on to give an account of what Robin apparently did if he was the killer which is indeed rather odd and involves his changing his mind from concealing the killings to deciding not to bother and killing himself instead.

    That is odd but so is the alternative.

    If David was the murderer he would have first killed his mother and siblings then gone out on his paper round knowing that his father would get up but hoping he wouldn’t accidentally discover any bodies. On getting back he would then have to hide behind a curtain in the living room and then when Robin came in to pray, quietly advance the rifle through the curtain and shoot him. Except that the rifle misfired, the bolt had to be worked and the unspent cartridge shot free. All without his father hearing. Then he would have shot Robin and carefully placed the magazine on its edge beside him. And then put an ambiguous message on the computer, or that may have had to be done sooner, but even so at a time when witness evidence apparently places him outside of the house.

    The point is this sequence of events is also odd, as odd or odder as those for Robin. The strangeness of Robin’s hypothesised course of action, when set against that of David’s, ceases to be a compelling argument for Robin’s innocence.

  34. 34

    Suzie thinks the first defence lawyer should be called when the application for compensation is heard, because they were involved before what Suzie calls the diversionary tactic of blaming the dead was started.

    She also says: No normal son would let their father (and other family members) be defamed like has happened here, surely one would find forensic /physical evidence to clear themselves if innocent???

    The original defence lawyer was Michael Guest, now a Dunedin City Councillor. He learnt of Dean Cottle’s evidence that Laniet had accused her father of incest and was going home that weekend to confront him and her family about it.

    Mr Guest had difficulty persuading David to allow that evidence to be put forward. He eventually succeeded but at the first trial virtually none of it was allowed. It was only deemed admissible on appeal.

    If you were accused of murder in such a situation you might well hope circumstantial evidence would prove your innocence. However the situation here is that most of the circumstantial evidence is ambiguous between father and son. Thew few bits which do seem fairly decisive – and favour David – such as the footprints and timing of the computer’s being turned on, have been hotly contested by the prosecution.

    But even if there had been unambiguous cicrumstantial evidence of David’s innocence that would still have implicated the father since he was the only other possible killer.

    As it happens David Bain wanted something like what Suzie has suggested. It wasn’t available and it didn’t happen. But it would have still entailed proving that his father was a mass murderer.

    However things developed with this trial there was always going to be the high probability that something was going to be established that was discreditable to at least some of the dead.

    You couldn’t get even half way to the truth without something like that happening. But over such a shocking crime the public badly needs to be able to get as near the truth as it can.

    In my view the retrial achieved that. David Bain’s acquittal reflected the balance of the evidence. The damage to others’ reputations was the unavoidable consequence of getting at the truth and securing justice.

  35. @Peter: Well said. It is not so much that your case totally defends David Bain but it does much to show that there are more ways to interpret events than the open and cut, black and white position of many. Wish I was able to explain as well as you.

  36. The defence has suggested that Robin Bain was a run down drunk who was in bad condition. The defence then tries to convince us believe that same man was able to wrestle with Stephen and then strangle him with his own T-shirt. I think anyone with a modicum of intelligence does not accept the defence case against Robin Bain.

  37. Peter in response to your posts perhaps some balance needs to be provided.

    “The possibility that Mr Young sold Mr Bain a photocopier ( say in 91) then years later Mr Arthur sold him an upgraded model would not have occurred to most viewers.”

    Sadly there is no documentation retained by the school or Youngs company that corroborate an earlier initial photocopier sale or lease.

    “Also, when David got home he says he discovered his family were dead by going into different rooms and finding the corpses. If he were innocent that would have to be so. But of course it would also mean he would probably come in contact with some of their blood. So their blood on him doesn’t implicate him.”

    Sadly Davids initial police statement was that he only saw his mother and fathers bodies and did not see anyone else. Later at trial when confronted with evidence of other blood he changed his story to seeing everyone.

    “The gurgling coming from Laniet’s body was something David mentioned, having suddenly remembered it, while giving evidence at the first trial. That seems an odd thing to do if you were guilty and trying to hide it”

    This slip is why he did not take the stand in the retrial and also why Karam will not allow him to speak publically.

    “The nicks and bruises on David’s person are also obviously compatible with his stumbling around the house discovering the massacre.”

    The defence tried to link Robins(spouting)nicks and bruises to the murders whilst you casually try to fob off Davids.

    “As for the 20 minute delay in ringing the police is it really remarkable if he is innocent? Having discovered all your family dead you would probably be in a state of shock. If you thought one was still alive you might have your wits sufficiently about you to make an urgent call. But if you thought they were all dead you might just sit, or stand, or fall to the floor in shock.”

    I agree, you wouldnt wait 20min if you thought someone was still alive. Perhaps hearing someone gurgling or something similar would cause you to ring 111. David testified he entered Laniets room when he heard the gurgle sound, then turned OFF the light and left the room?

    “Regarding the jersey David put in the washing machine if he was innocent and hadn’t yet discovered the murders why wouldn’t he just dump it in there, without looking at it closely?”

    There was enough blood on those clothes he washed for it to get on his hands and transfer a palm print onto the washing machine. How much blood can you miss.

    “On getting back he would then have to hide behind a curtain in the living room and then when Robin came in to pray, quietly advance the rifle through the curtain and shoot him. Except that the rifle misfired, the bolt had to be worked and the unspent cartridge shot free. All without his father hearing”

    The rifle was a semi automatic not bolt and there was no evidence that this cartridge found on the floor was a mechanical jamb or misfires.

    Food for thought Peter?

  38. 38

    Steve,

    When David made the 111 call he said his family were all dead. His statement to the police only mentioned going into some rooms and it is true he later expanded on that. But this is consistent with being in shock – at the time and for a good while after. Perfect recall and consistency would be much stranger.

    You describe the reference to Laniet’s gurgling as “a slip”. But that is to suppose it’s evidence of guilt. As it turns out it’s not. Dead bodies can gurgle.

    I don’t try to “fob off” David’s body injuries. It’s just that they aren’t compelling evidence he was in a struggle with his brother, any more than Robin’s were. They both had injuries which might have come from such a struggle, or from something else.

    You are wrong about David’s testimony on the gurgling. He didn’t mention it until a year later when he dramatically remembered it on the witness stand. He rang 111 a year earlier.

    How much blood can you miss on soiled washing early in the morning? I haven’t heard an expert on that. But when I get up in Dunedin in winter about 6.00 am I’m not very observant.

    There was evidence at the retrial the gun didn’t fire and the cartridge had to be ejected.

    By the way, you have confused me with another poster. I am not the “Peter” who made the statement you quoted about Mr Young. It’s easy to make such mistakes about identity and usually they don’t matter.

    In this case they do.

  39. Peter E.

    Certainly he may have been confused but the timing of his memory recall was priceless. Puzzled how he can forget how many bodies he has seen but remember his phone number and recite so distinctly. Shock is such a fickle beast i guess.

    Yes dead bodes can gurgle, something I and the rest of NZ have learnt recently. David obviously knew this little known fact though, as that would account for him not ringing the 111 to get assistance for her and also his “they are “ALL” dead” comment.

    Interior lighting at 6am in winter in Dunedin is the same as 6am in New York, London or Paris. Unless you are suggesting he loaded the washing machine in the dark that is? If so how did he manage to sort the colours(whites remained in the basket)without noticing any blood?

    I believe the evidence you speak of was the previous owners statement which the defence team made such a fuss about, which was that the rifle occassionally jambed when the 10 shot magazine was used. Such a pity that the 5 shot magazine was in the rifle when the shot was fired into Robins head.

    Non the less you made some valid points which did hold some water.

  40. Steve at 17:22

    You seem to be confusing me with Peter Entwisle.

    In fact I made only one post which included your first quote but none of the other six.

    My point was that Bryan Bruce succeeded in convincing many viewers that Darryl Young was lying by selective choice of facts and editing

    Bryan Bruce did not tell viewers that Mr Young said in court about his sale, ““At a guess this would have been around ’92 or ’93′. ”

    Mr Bruce gave the impression Mr Young claimed Robin Bain exited from the rear of his van.

    On these two points Mr Bruce sacrificed balance in the interests of his agenda – which was, I believe, to discredit Mr Young with his “new evidence”.

    Your assertion that “there is no documentation retained by the school or Youngs company that corroborate an earlier initial photocopier sale or lease” hardly provides balance for Mr Bruce’s attack on Mr Young.

    Nor for the accusations of perjury being made by those who uncritically adopted Mr Bruce’s agenda.

  41. Maybe Mr Entwisle might be someone with the intellect capable of enlightening me as to why there were no signs at all of Robin’s fingerprints on the murder weapon if he was in fact the last one to use it, & with all that blood in Stephen’s room after the alleged & undoughtable struggle that took place there, not a single drop or sign of Stepen’s blood found on Robin’s clothing or person.

  42. 42

    Steve,

    you are right that “shock is such a fickle beast”. One needs to be careful reading things into people’s recall if they’re subject to it.

    You say that David knew that dead bodies can gurgle when few others do – or did then. But that doesn’t seem likely.

    From what he said, at times separated by a year, he saw her body and considered her dead and he heard the body gurgle. If you know somebody’s dead and you hear them gurgle then – by logic – you know dead bodies gurgle. But if you’re in shock you may not actually make that deduction. Nor would David arrive at this later on reflection because it is clear he forgot about the gurgling until much later, at the first trial, when he remembered it on the witness stand.

    I’m not sure if you’re aware of it but Laniet’s corpse was the most frightful. She had been shot in the face as well as elsewhere and her appearance would be highly disturbing. (Several jurors were disturbed by the photographs.) Seeing her and realising she had suffered such a wound you might well suppose she was dead. Discovering her body would not be conducive to calm reasoning. It would tend to induce shock.

    You say David’s “memory recall was priceless”. I don’t know exactly what you mean but regarding the gurgling it certainly didn’t assist his case. His recollection of it while giving evidence didn’t help him at all. Many people saw it as an inadvertant admission of guilt. The prosecution treated it as such at the first trial.

    I think it was just exactly what it seemed, the sudden recall of something horrifying which had happened. If he were being calculating he wouldn’t have mentioned it. It was only later his defence produced the expert testimony that corpses can gurgle.

    Yes light levels in Dunedin in winter are the same as those in similar latitudes at similar times of the year. (Dunedin is in the northern hemisphere equivalent latitude to Venice, not New York, London or Paris.)

    But my comment was not about light levels but how observant one is at such an hour. How obvious is blood on an old green jersey? It doesn’t stand out like the ketchup in shoot-‘em-up movies. You could easily miss it if you weren’t expecting it, even as you sorted items by colour.

    Thanks for your acknowledgement of some of my points. This discussion has become too polarised. It needs more of that kind of even-handedness.

  43. 43

    Steve,

    I forgot to say before, the evidence about the gun and its jamming was not a previous owner’s statement but a misfired cartridge which had been ejected from the gun found on the floor in the room where Robin died.

  44. 44

    Thomas,

    evidence was given that it is easy to handle a rifle such as the one in the Bain case without leaving fingerprints on it.

    Robin Bain did have blood on his clothes and his person but it was not subjected to analysis.

  45. One of the experts on National Radio yesterday said that after the demonstration in Court of how Robin could have shot himself, the demonstrater left no fingerprints because of the way he held the rifle.
    Fingerprints on a gun are compelling evidence in some cases. The absence of fingerprints is not.

    The interesting thing to me about the thoughtful posts above, is that so many different credible explanations can be made on the same issue. The case isn’t and never will be conclusive.

  46. Peter,
    Okay, so the blood on Robin Bain’s clothes & person were not subjected to analysis, but having said that it is the amount of blood found on him that is important also, & hard to imagine or accept that if Robin had been in a violent struggle with Stephen that there would not have been a lot more blood on him.

  47. 47

    Thomas,

    you’re right that Robin’s body and clothes had relatively little blood on them. However the defence theory of the case is that after the killings he cleaned himself up and changed some of his clothes.

    Does that seem odd? I suppose it can although someone has argued above that if you were going to commit suicide perhaps you would like to clean yourself first.

    The state of mind of someone killing their family and preparing to kill themselves is not going to be ordinary. It seems to me they might well do rather odd things.

    I’ve pointed out above the prosecution theory of how David carried out the crimes also produces a very strange pattern of behaviour.

    As so often in this case the two cancel each other out. Whichever of the two did it their way of doing it was strange. There’s nothing here which really points a finger at either of them.

  48. 48

    Freda has wondered how if Robin Bain was a run down drunk in bad condition he was able to prevail over his son Stephen in a struggle, virtually strangling him with his tee shirt.

    Robin Bain was in his late fifties, gaunt and probably not in good condition. Even so his son Stephen was fourteen and physically still a boy. He was at that gawky stage of just starting to really grow and would probably have become another tall man like his father and older brother.

    Robin Bain, despite his condition, would have an advantage of height and weight over his younger son. He would probably also still be stronger than him though without the same stamina. If the struggle didn’t go on for too long he probably could overpower him. But it would be quite a struggle as apparently it was.

    By contrast David was already fully grown, a very tall man, taller than his father and given his age and his paper round one would expect a good deal stronger. If he were fighting his younger brother the struggle would be less and over sooner – one would expect.

    None of this is conclusive but it isn’t unreasonable to think Robin could have overcome Stephen.

    Freda also said no-one with a modicum of intelligence accepts the defence case against Robin Bain. This is obviously untrue because while you may consider them mistaken neither Jo Karam nor Michael Reed QC is without a modicum of intelligence and there are of course many others who do accept the defence case and aren’t stupid.

    Freda’s remark was perhaps not meant to be taken seriously but I mention it because the public discussion of this case has been muddied and made bad tempered by such utterances. That doesn’t help people get an accurate and balanced view of what remains an important matter.

  49. Peter, you will have to excuse me, I was being naughty when suggesting that David was aware that dead bodies gurgle. I was pointing out as you did at 15:04 that:

    “If you thought one was still alive you might have your wits sufficiently about you to make an urgent call. But if you thought they were all dead you might just sit, or stand, or fall to the floor in shock.”

    Hence, It would come naturally unless you were aware that dead bodies gurgle that you would assume the person was alive and either render assistance or phone for immediate assistance. Neither happened, Davids own testimony in trial 1 was he just turned off the light and left the room.

    Damning Peter, very damning.

  50. 50

    Q’s theory has been suggested before, though never in the courtroom. It is that Robin killed his wife and three of his children intending to get away with it by cleaning himself up. And that David came home, discovered the murders and killed his father in anger.

    For this to have happened David would have had to put on the washing, go from room to room discovering bodies and then confront his father in the living room.

    But what would his father have been doing all that time? Sitting in the living room waiting for David to enter? If he was concerned to conceal his role in the crimes wouldn’t he either take advantage of having possession of the gun to kill David too, or at least get out of there so he wasn’t discovered at the scene with the murder weapon?

    This doesn’t seem very plausible. I’m not surprised it wasn’t advanced in court.

  51. 51

    superCalo talks about Robin’s motives and says they “do not believe much of the hearsay evidence of the defence in regards this as its contridicted so many times by other hearsay and non-hearsay to make it worthless.”

    He or she is not alone in thinking something like this but it is seriously confused and significantly mistaken.

    The evidence in question of course is to do with Laniet’s allegations of incest with her father.

    This was first presented by Dean Cottle at the first appeal. It was that she had said to him this had been happening and that she was going home that night to confront her father and family about it. Cottle’s claim about her allegation of incest with her father has since been corroborated by a number of other witnesses: two shop keepers, a school teacher, an acquaintance and some others. I forget just how many.

    The confusion is thinking that this evidence is only hearsay. Regarding the alleged incest it is because none of the witnesses claimed to be first hand witnesses of that. They were only told about it by Laniet so it’s hearsay. However their evidence regarding her having made the allegations is not hearsay. They were direct witnesses of that. They heard her say it.

    The mistake is thinking that any of this has been contradicted. None of it has. No evidence has been advanced at all that any of these witnesses were mistaken or lying when they said Laniet had made these allegations to them. So this evidence stands.

    Its significance becomes apparent when you consider that whether or not her allegations were true they point at Robin and only Robin and do provide him with a motive.

    Of course we don’t know that she actually did make them again that night to her father and some of her family. Cottle said that was her intention and another witness’s evidence appears to confirm that.

    If she did accuse her father and with her mother, sister Arawa and brother Stephen present, how might he react? True or false they would be highly damaging to him personally. They would put him in danger of a prison sentence and terrible disgrace. If they were untrue he might well feel outraged and badly used by his daughter. If they were true he might well become a very frightened and angry man. If his wife, younger son and older daughter seemed to believe Laniet his hurt and anger might extend to them too.

    They are extraordinary allegations and this is an extraordinary series of crimes. The allegations would provide a motive adequate to them.

    For this reason it is important to be very clear about what is and is not hearsay in the evidence and to be absolutely clear that none of this has been contradicted or challenged in any significant way.

    One does feel uneasy about hearsay evidence. I understand people’s concerns. But there is substantial and significant evidence here about Robin’s possible motive which is not hearsay and there is nothing at all to gainsay it.

  52. Seriously,if he cared about his family he would have gone to the aid of his sister, who indicated possible survival at the ‘discovery time.’
    He deserted her when perhaps she was still alive. Maybe she was dead but you’d would treat any life signs with desperate hope and desire to save your only remaining family member.The way David Bain has treated his family since that day flies in the face of any theory that he was in comatose shock on the day. Also David was familiar with viewing death, was he not? David shot animals with his gun, didn’t he?
    After shooting animals with your own personal gun, you would know that some bullet wounds do not kill the target immediately so you would retain hope of saving your loved one if any signs of survival existed, not matter how hopeless.Why did he not seek immediate help for a perhaps wounded sister?

  53. “you’re right that Robin’s body and clothes had relatively little blood on them. However the defence theory of the case is that after the killings he cleaned himself up and changed some of his clothes.”

    Which is impossible because Robin’s hands had not been washed that morning. The initial police description describes dirt in the creases of his palms and an ESR swipe showed “mostly dirt”. You cannot clean up a murder scene and bloodied clothes without getting blood all over your hands.

    The blood on Robin Bain was tested; a representative sample was taken of the numerous spots of splattered blood, and it was all found to be his own. The blood on his top around the collar had obviously come from his own gunshot wound.

    Get your facts straight before making up stories.

  54. “Okay, so the blood on Robin Bain’s clothes & person were not subjected to analysis.”

    Not true. See above.

  55. “The mistake is thinking that any of this has been contradicted. None of it has.”

    Except by the extended Bain family and neighbours, who have all refuted allegations of incest. Again, you seem to have a very limited knowledge of the case, perhaps from only reading one or two books on the subject by one particular author.

  56. “Evidence was given at one of the trials, and I think again at the retrial, that it isn’t difficult to handle a rifle with a wooden stock and leave no fingerprints on it. In fact it’s difficult to leave fingerprints on it, there has to be some medium to hold them.”

    This is like fish in a barrel. The gun and silencer was covered in blood from the fight with Stephen. There’s your medium. The photos of the weapon show the strapping soaked in blood – the killer couldn’t wipe that off. The notion that there were old prints on the gun in animal blood was abandoned by the defense in the retrial (in favour of “not blood at all”). Please don’t muddy the waters by dredging up discredited arguments.

  57. >>Except that the rifle misfired, the
    >>bolt had to be worked and the unspent
    >>cartridge shot free. All without his
    >>father hearing.
    >
    >The rifle was a semi automatic not bolt
    >and there was no evidence that this
    >cartridge found on the floor was a
    >mechanical jamb or misfires.
    >
    >Food for thought Peter?

    Well played, Steve. No response of course. Peter doesn’t seem to let the facts get in the way of his story.

  58. 58

    Bone has been following the evidence, which is good. But his or her points have some flaws.

    Robin’s body was not incompatible with cleaning. Any such cleaning wasn’t complete, which is compatible the known evidence.

    Bone is right – and I am wrong – that the blood on Robin was never submitted to any tests at all. But a “representative sample” is not the same as a comprehensive test, which is what you need to establish if there’s someone else’s blood there – or not.

    Bone thinks there’s evidence the gun and its barrel were covered in blood – Stephen’s. But there is no evidence David’s prints weren’t in that blood.

    The cartridge was found on the floor. It had been ejected. If David was killing his father how is it that Robin didn’t hear it?

    More generally these are very unusual killings. There are comparable cases in south Auckland in the 1980s and in Mosgiel, now part of Dunedin, in the 1970s.

    In the Auckland case the killer murdered his wife, and then their adult children, and some of their spouses, and then some of his grandchildren, while one grand daughter cowered in a cupboard. The motive was impending financial ruin and accompanying shame.

    In the Mosgiel case, in the 1970s, the killer – a man – slaughtered his wife and their children before setting fire to the house and killing himself – because he couldn’t pay his tax bill.

    These are the contemporary New Zealand equivalents of honour killings. They are rare but they happen. In the Bain case the defence case is that this was another. I find it plausible.

  59. to suggest one has a knowledge of any comparison between these historic cases can only devalue any posts by peter entwisle -unless he was a leading investigator in all cases- and i presume that is not the case.

  60. Thanks Bone. Interestingly, the whole misfire/misfeed evidence was a defence coo and dare I say prosecution shambles of epic proportions.

    That being the defence proposed this line of thought and that the prosecution allowed it.

    The defence wished the jury to believe that it was unlikly due to a misfeed that David would have time to clear the obstruction(incorrectly chambered shell) and then execute Robin.

    However, what the prosecution failed to make clear in response was that this was a semi automatic weapon that works on expelled energy of a fired round propelling the action back thus in turn picking up another shell. Called cycling the action.

    A round would have to be successfully fired or the action cycled manually for any misfeed of the following shell to occur.

    As only one shot was fired in that room(only one spent cartridge found)it can only either mean that if Robin was the shooter the misfed cartridge would still be jammed in the action or it was a misfeed from a previous shot elsewhere in the house or it was misfed by someone manually cycling the action in the computer alcove where the cartridge in question was found.

    Did it fall out when Robin dropped the gun. No. A live cartridge was found chambered in the breech when the police arrived which rules this out.

    So all this below was just smoke and mirrors!

    “The defence argues if the rifle misfired before Robin Bain was shot, as the finding of a misfeed in the alcove behind the curtain suggested, the noise of the rifle being cleared would have been heard and it was unlikely Mr Bain would have remained where he was, waiting to be shot.”

  61. My apologies for the double post. Don’t know what happened there.

    Peter E

    “The cartridge was found on the floor. It had been ejected”

    Correct, but not as a misfeed. I would say it was round number nine from the 10 shot magazine.

    If you think about it logically it will become apparent.

  62. 62

    Somebody is getting lost.

    If the cartridge failed they think that must either mean Robin misfired it or it was left over from the earlier killings. Perhaps.

    But it remains the case that there was an ejected shell in the alcove. This means whoever killed Robin Bain had two goes at it.

    Robin might do that. It’s not likely his son did.

  63. 63

    Steve, above, if you want to get real about it, not really.

    If you find your sister shot dead in a room, how do you really react? Not in the way you suggest, I think.

  64. The Bain saga has been riddled with a long series of possible but improbables in the favour of Robin & a couple of key ones I would say are that damned unusual & awkward position Robin would have had to contort himself into to use that rifle, & also the fact that the cartridge case was found in an upright position on the floor, but don’t blame for the police for that one, just consider that like in most crimes the perpetrator dosn’t always get in 100% right.

  65. “But it remains the case that there was an ejected shell in the alcove. This means whoever killed Robin Bain had two goes at it.”

    You are completely wrong Peter sorry.

    The evidence shows that only one shot was fired in that Room. (1 spent cartridge)That shot was the one that killed Robin.

    The only way a misfeed(where the shell lodges between the breech block and the bolt face which is what the defence claimed occurred) can happen is either by manual cycling or firing a previous shot causing the action to cycle.

    It didnt occur during the death shot(wasnt found stuck in the breech), there was no earlier shot in that room (only 1 spent shell found) thus there was no misfeed in that room.

    I believe you are getting confused between misfire and misfeed, the defence are not claiming the shell failed to fire(misfire)but that it jammed.

    How have you become such an advocate for one side when you haven’t evaluated the evidence?

  66. Peter,That wasnt intended as insulting but I am really suprised.

  67. 67

    Steve,

    I think we agree. There weren’t two shots, only one, but a shell was expelled from the weapon.

    That is what is damaging to the prosecution case.

    I am not insulted but I think these things are important.

  68. I, for one, know nothing about firearms, misfeeds, cartridges, or magazines, so I’ll stay out of this one!

  69. 69

    Steve above

    “Damning”, not really, given what you’ve just conceded.

    With respect this discussion concerns living people and deserves better than that.

  70. Peter (Not Enwisle) said: “The programme made it seem sinister that Mr Bain could not have exited his van via the rear doors as they were blocked by shelving, and lead many viewers to believe that Mr Young claimed Mr Bain exited through a rear door.

    Accounts of the trial agree that Mr Young said he knocked on a rear door. But did he claim Mr Bain exited via a rear door?”

    Also:

    “Mr Bruce gave the impression Mr Young claimed Robin Bain exited from the rear of his van.”

    I re-watched the doco earlier this evening. The footage from the trial confirms that the witness in question said Robin came out the back doors: “The door opened and Mr – Robin Bain came out of the back of the van and he was wearing a towel.”

  71. So a dam documentary is right and everything the courts have put forward over the years is wrong. We don’t need jury’s do we, all we need is a film producer, to tell us who killed who.
    Robin Bain was possibly having an incestuous relationship with Laniet. Bryan Bruce dismissed this and said that Laniet was a liar. Laniet is not here either to dispute this. Bruce got his information from others, he didn’t get it from Laniet. That girl was obviously disturbed, more than likely because of what was going on with her father. What about Cottle?
    Eveyone is going on about poor Robin, what about this girl. No this Documentary didn’t convince me, it was all about the Bain family’s pride. They couldn’t care a less about the rest of the family.

  72. “I think we agree. There weren’t two shots, only one, but a shell was expelled from the weapon.

    That is what is damaging to the prosecution case.”

    Thanks Peter for agreeing there was only one shot fired. However saying this is damaging to the prosecution case is ludicrious and I believe shows both an ignorance of how firearms work and also a bloody mindedness to accept fact that most Pro David supporters possess.

    That the so called misfeed was not found jammed in the rifle indicates either Robin after commiting suicide removed it from the breech and pumped a fresh live shell into the chamber for the police to find or it occurred during a previous shot. There as you agree was no previous shot in that room so it had,(no question about it)to be from another room.

    Out the window goes the preposterous claim that David couldnt have killed Robin because the noisey misfeed they say occurred in the alcove would have given Robin time to react.

    The existance of so called misfeed found in the alcove indicates that when manually extracted it was done by someone standing in the computer alcove. David or Robin more than likely did this whilst waiting for either the computer to start up or Robin to come in to pray.

    The only question this raises for Robins scenario is why when waiting for the computer to start up and replacing that misfeed did he not just clear the misfeed and load the next shell from the magazine already in the rifle and shoot himself. Why did he feel the need to swap magazines?

    Did he not feel confident that 2 bullets would be enough to kill himself. Why did he need a full magazine to do so?

  73. maybe – from peter entwistle’s sulky summarising last sentence, he has nothing to add on this particular discussion.
    we all realise the human horrifics here so don’t try to undeservedly put yourself above any who are only trying to find the truth. we all care or we wouldn’t post. its been good to see this intelligent volley and hope it is enlightening on this dark case. the case lends itself to comment even if karam and the lawyer says it’s closed.

  74. Bone,

    The words of Mr Young you quote do NOT confirm that ” the witness in question said Robin came out the back doors “.

    Some models of Commer vans have a side door which someone in the back can come out of. If my memory serves me the Bain van had just such a side door.

    Robin Bain could have come out of the back of the van via the side door.

  75. “Robin Bain could have come out of the back of the van via the side door.”

    That doesn’t really make sense. He said he “knocked on one of the back doors”, “the door opened” (not “a door”), and Robin “came out of the back of the van”. He didn’t mention anything about the sliding side door opening or Robin emerging from the side of the van. You can’t just believe those words mean something completely different from what they actually do. That would be a willful misinterpretation.

    If you want to defend this witness at least say he may have been mistaken about which door he knocked on after close on 20 years (although his testimony seemed quite specific in other respects – the smell of alcohol, the unsupervised class etc). At the very least, it warrants investigation.

    A valuable discussion and commentary – thanks to all.

  76. So now we have ruled out with Peters assistance we can decuce there was no occurance of a misfeed which leads us to:

    The killer started with a 10 shot magazine in the rifle, quick successions of shots to kill 4 members of the family along with that if magazines were interchanged during this spree the killer would be swapping similar amount of rounds in one mag for similar amount of rounds in the other. This basically rules out he started with a 5 shot magazine.

    The 10 shot magazine had one remaining round when found so you can deduce that 8 shots were fired out of it. Being a semi automatic if the 9th shot had been fired that last round in the magazine would have automatically fed into the rifles breech. This is consistant with 3 shots for Laniet, 1 shot for Margeret, 2 shots for Stephen and 2 shots for Arawa. 8 shots in total.

    At the conclusion of these 4 murders the murderer would have had 1 shot up the spout of the rifle, ready to fire and 1 shot still in the 10 shot magazine.

    If the murderer was Robin he carried out the murders, did all the extraordinary things like washing clothes etc that the defence suggested, and then with a rifle already loaded with 2 shots settled down in the study. Ignoring that he already had enough shots to kill himself he removed the loaded 10 shot magazine, inserted the 5 shot magazine, cycled the action to load another fresh shell into the breech, causing the live one already in the breech (the one found on the floor) to eject and then shot himself.

    One thing strike me as odd with this scenario. That he believed that he needed 4 shots to commit suicide instead of the 2 that were already loaded in the rifle.

  77. 77

    Steve,

    What really follows from these careful computations? Do you think its likely, or more to the point certain, the killer, whoever he was, was aware of exactly how many times he’d fired the gun? Or pulled the trigger?

    I don’t think you can build much on this.

    If Robin had just killed his family and was about to kill himself he might unnecessarily change the magazine. Why not?

    I think it’s a mistake to suppose the killer, whether Robin or David, was acting in an ordinary, calm frame of mind.

  78. Bone,

    “He said he “knocked on one of the back doors”, “the door opened” (not “a door”), and Robin “came out of the back of the van”. ”

    Of course if you edit out everything Mr Young said happened in between him knocking on the back door and Robin coming out you get the impression Mr Bruce sought to convey.

    Only problem is the Christchurch Press reported some of the things Mr Young said happened in between :-

    ” When he got to the van he knocked on the back door and heard voices. He moved away five or ten metres and thought he heard two different voices. He naturally assumed one was a female voice and the other voice was Robin’s.

    Robin came out and he was wearing a towel and “that was all’’.”

    Bone goes on to say :

    “He didn’t mention anything about the sliding side door opening or Robin emerging from the side of the van.”

    Possibly he didn’t. But to state it as fact is assumption. It is unwise to assume what Mr Young did not say on the basis of snippets of evidence edited to suit an agenda.

    Equally unwise to cast aspersions on Mr Young’s veracity on the same basis.

  79. it was a little perplexing to hear mr. young’s response to brian bruce’s intro to him on the phone – i’ve moved on mate – an oddly transitionary remark, like one you’d make after a relationsip breakdown, not being a crucial witness in a case about the ambush mass murder of sleeping women and children. and he’s moved on.,,,? bizarre. i have been a school principal and i bet there would have been major talk and action immediately if someone had seen me half naked! sorry, too weird.

  80. 80

    BJE

    I think the answer is he probably thought she was dead. The wounds, apart from anything else would suggest that.

    And while he might have seen possums and rabbits still alive after being shot that is not the same thing as finding your sister murdered.

    The gurgling of the corpse would be just another inexplicable nightmare, forced out of the mind because of its gruesomeness – only to reappear a year later when David was trying to give evidence about what happened.

  81. “Possibly he didn’t. But to state it as fact is assumption. It is unwise to assume what Mr Young did not say on the basis of snippets of evidence edited to suit an agenda.”

    Yes, you’re right there. He was edited and it is unwise of me to assume too much on that basis. Touche.

  82. The use of gloves and a computer for a suicide note implies that the perpetrator wished to hide their identity. Surely, if Robin Bain was the self confessed killer, he would have had no need for gloves and would have left a suicide note in his own hand-writing. The whole affair looks like a badly botched up attempt to frame Robin….or a very ingenius and successful attempt to frame David “the only one who deserved to stay”.

  83. it is just the cumulative build up of all the inconsistencies in this case, peter e, that create questions. you may well say, yes – on both sides – but every step of the way it’s like some intricately planned,naiive plot to kill and not a reactive flurry of violence.

  84. Edward,
    Many people in this world defy logic, but you are not one of those people & I’m with you on this one.

  85. Show me irrefutible forensic evidence that Robin Bain was the murderer.

    Not interested in “expert” testimony of what they think occured, we all know if you look hard enough you will eventually find someone who agrees to your viewpoint for a fee.

    Not interested in photocopier sales people who are looking for their five minutes of fame.

    I’m not interested in Laniets claim that she was a victim of incest, from a hooker who couldnt decide whether she had a black, white or aborted baby her claims should certainly be considered suspect.

    I want a smoking gun in his hand or victims blood on his clothes or body. I want a confession or a witness who can testify that he told them of his intention to commit a crime.

    Unless you have that, your argument against Robin Bain is nothing more than conjecture. Nothing more than making him a scapegoat who cannot defend himself.

  86. Yes Thomas, it pays to employ simple logic first of all and build up from there on instead of going for the crackpot theories that seem to hatch out in some minds. The police may have botched a few things but their basic forensic training produced some convincing evidence for them to effect an arrest. Robin’s unwashed hands and lack of powder burns consistent with a self inflicted, point blank shot to the temple is all one need to consider to determine if his death was a suicide. Further more, we have been told from character testimonies that the man wouldn’t kill a bumble bee or a trapped possum, let alone his own progeny. It wasn’t Robin’s gun and he wasn’t a hunter used to dispatching his God’s furry little creatures to oblivion. And he isn’t reported to have threatened his family with the said gun. He also has no record of voicing criminal intent to commit a sexual crime using an alibi.
    If I was David and knew beyond all shadow of a doubt that I was innocent I would surely have something to say about it all instead of remaining silent and having some Clown Princes of the legal world do my bidding.

  87. I seem to recollect that NO_ONE made any allegations about incest until AFTER Dean Cottle chickened out of repeating his slander under oath at the first trial.

  88. Yes Edward,your’e still so well on track in what you’re saying & of course there is no way those so-called ‘Clown Princes’ were ever going to risk David opening his mouth on the stand.

  89. Quite right Thomas. He could bungle things and kill the goose that is laying all those golden eggs at the tax payer’s expense. Karem and Reed have probably already made more out of all this than David would have got from the family will. God spare us from any more books and worst of all a film about the whole grotesque affair. Merv at the top of this blog page certainly has the right angle on the Clown Princes of lawers involved and the stupid jury duped by their sophistry.

  90. good summary Brian. Something that Bruce didn’t cover was the incest allegations. He seemed content to show that Laniet was a fantasist, but he didn’t go on to show how her claims of pregnancy, undermined any claim about incest. The only witnesses to these claims were themeleves, like Cottle, unreliable. Unsurprising as they came forward in response to a newspaper advertisement from Karam. At the Chch trial a doctor gave evidence that a conversation of Laniet’s she overheard while Laniet was in her (the doctor’s) surgery ‘could have been to Robin’ and ‘could have been’ an indication of concern that she woudl be unable to have sex with him as she had contracted an STD. As far as I know the doctor produced no evidence of this ‘memory’ and it was not produced at the first trial. Either the doctor was negligent in not reporting her concerns when they first arose in 1994, or she imagined the interpretation after she became aware of the incest allegations. Perhaps she had something in common with Laniet.

  91. http://bit.ly/c0KOCQ

    Paulie knows who dunnit!

  92. Doug Zee
    July 11th, 2010
    I’m not interested in Laniets claim that she was a victim of incest, from a hooker who couldnt decide whether she had a black, white or aborted baby her claims should certainly be considered suspect.

    Well you should be! Laniet it is not here to defend herself either. heresay from Bruce about what the family said. Oh Robin wouldn’t do that. haha, heard that before. The girl was showing all the signs of a person having been interferred with. Why would she say her father was having an incestuous relationship if it wasn’t true.
    The way Robin Bain was living, wou would have to be unbalanced and not right in the head.very suspect to me.

  93. yes- the smell of the compensation money is there and tantalisingly close.
    the best way of defence is attack. diversion methods also help. as soon as paedophilia or incest are ever concocted and stapled to an individual, the general public are paralysed to refute the unsubstantiated invention, in case they become somehow socially tarnished when associating with such a label – and the witchhunters come out and revel in such baseless accusations. poor old robin, who’d never hurt a fly didn’t stand a chance.

  94. why didnt robin remove the silencer from the rifle

  95. Back to the washing. So Dave did the wash every morning. It was too dark for Dave to notice the blood on the jersy,fair enough, but he would have known he was handling a jersey.So why would he put the jersey in with the other garments on an ordinary cold wash? The family appears to have had a nice collection of woollens, some of which Margaret herself knitted.Dave’s own colourful collection appears to have been well taken care of. Why didn’t he throw the green jumper aside till he did a “wool wash?”

  96. @Peter Entwisle: Sorry to interrupt your ramblings, but you miss an very obvious issue, and that is, that Robin didn’t wash himself, as he still had dirt in the creases of his hands and under his finger nails. And yes, all of the blood of large enough size to be analysed on his clothes was analysed. The only blood that wasn’t analysed was the blood on his thumb. However, let us see, on a statistical basis, and based on the fact that you as well as the defence claim that he changed his clothes, you wouldn’t have found any other blood on him. Regarding the cartridge, what is to say that David didn’t eject a cartridge that had jammed at some earlier time?

    The problem with your analysis is this. One part contradicts the other. You say that Robin must have washed himself and then changed into his usual clothes. But then you say that some of the blood was from other members of the family. How so, when he had changed out of the other clothes? Likewise, how did David possibly manage to run the full washing machine cycle in the time between when he arrived home and when the police arrived, and the fact that no such noise is heard during the 111 call? And how, even in the dingiest of laundries, did David manage to sort the dark, bloodied clothes from the whites (and which somehow didn’t get blood on them in the process) without noticing the copious amounts of blood on them. All I can say is that the only way to explain one part of the defence claim is to ignore another part of the defence claim, therefore each part contradicts the other. Also, I leave my parting note about the distinguished defence pathologist, who, whilst stating that he believed that Robin had committed suicide, he deferred to the examining pathologist, who he said was in the best position to determine the actual cause of death, and that was the Crown coroner. And what did he believe? Robin Bain did not commit suicide. You will note that the Dunedin coroner has still not changed Robin Bain’s death certificate, which states: Life wilfully taken, that is, he was murdered.

    Also, Daryl Young quite clearly states in the video evidence, not the Press report, that Robin was naked with a towel wrapped around him and that Robin came out the back door. As Bryan Bruce demonstrates, it was impossible for him to have come out the back door of the van, and also, that if Daryl Young had looked through the alternative door, he would have seen the complete interior of the van, and those there would have been no mistake. Like his vagueness about the year, Daryl Young was obviously unclear about some of his other testimony. As well, if the year in which he allegedly sold the alleged photocopier to Robin Bain was in fact 1991, and not 1992/93, as he claimed in his allegedly accurate evidence, then it would make it even less relevant than it already was. As I have already discussed elsewhere on this site, I would have to say that, as with much of the evidence against Robin that was designed to impugn his good character, it was provided by witnesses who knew him less than well. If it was that Daryl Young’s evidence was so important to the case, the defence should have ensured, as Bryan Bruce did, so easily and clearly, they should have taken the trouble to find corroborating witnesses and documentary proof to back this evidence up. I would suggest that you could interview former teachers at the school to ask them how many photocopiers that the school had had in the past. Remember, photocopiers in the years we are talking about were very expensive items, and would have been a major item on the inventory register and would thus be relatively easily traced, from both ends. The evidence about the photocopier that Ian Arthur sold was obviously readily at hand, so one would assume that the same company probably had evidence, if any, about previous photocopiers they had sold to the Taieri Mouth school. But the defence team obviously weren’t interested in such niceties.

  97. Dianne

    What a purely cosmetic and emotional response.

    You offered nothing to this debate.

  98. Smiker, the silencer was fixed in place with a metal clip similar to use on a garden hose, he would of needed a screwdriver to remove.

    Gavin, excellent post, one item you mention should warrant more emphasis.

    The washing machine was tested numerous times and found the cycle took 57 minutes to complete. Why was it not still going when the police arrived at 7.33am. David suggest he put the machine on between 6.45am and 7.00am.

  99. @Peter Enwisle. Another point, regarding the Psychiatrist from Melbourne and the New Zealand Psychiatrist, Philip Brinded as well found that David was not insane. Let me see. The prosecution was very keen to show that David wasn’t insane, or else David would have gotten off the charge by way of insanity. The defence were also keen to show him as not being insane, as then the prosecution would have had an advantage at trial, that the person being defended was insane and therefore prone to strange behaviour. How many murderers are considered insane? Insanity is regarded as an excuse for not being guilty by way of insanity. That is why David was not consigned to the insane asylum. The usual reason for someone murdering someone is anger or a similar emotion. Hence, of course David wasn’t insane. His reason for murdering his family would have been that he was upset about something. Anger and emotional disturbance is probably the more likely reason. It is quite possible that David was jealous of the fact that his mother had told him off about bossing the children, or that their plans to build a house were going out the door, and there is always the possibility he would have inherited the family fortune. However, in a criminal trial, the prosecution is not necessarily concerned about motive. Their only concern is proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did the deed. I would suggest that most people would easily find that the evidence, without a lot of manipulation and 13 or 14 years of being able to twist the tale would easily be able to see who did the deed, and it wasn’t a 58 year old man.

  100. @Dianne: “So a dam documentary is right and everything the courts have put forward over the years is wrong. We don’t need jury’s do we, all we need is a film producer, to tell us who killed who.”

    Umm, well, no, the first trial got it spot on! No hearsay evidence there. And of course, Michael Guest defended David then, and silly him, allowed David to take the witness stand. And David then changed his story, which contradicted his earlier statements to the police. Tsk, tsk. And the prosecution got it right in the retrial and of course there were all of the other trials and investigations that show that the police got it right. What I am sure of is that I will never convince you against your will, even if the evidence shows otherwise. You take the word of the few people who knew Robin only in passing or briefly and not the word of the many who knew him quite well. And the fact that even Laniet’s friends knew she was prone to fibs,and a certain pathologist who examined her corpse and found her to have never been pregnant, giving the lie to her statements about having a baby. Why then did she also not lie about the incest? And of course, what about incest with David? I believe that one of her statements was that she was committing incest with an older male member of the family. Wasn’t David also an older male member of the family? Therefore it would have been David who was going to be exposed, not Robin. Now that would put the cat amongst the pigeons. Dianne, if I were profiling a killer, I would start would the most likely. The most likely killer is someone from the age of 15 to 40, male, of odd behaviour. In particular, someone between the age of 18 to 25. Who fits that profile? Oh, let me see.

  101. @BE why didnt robin remove the silencer from the rifle

    Now that is a good question! I think it was answered above as well, but it is quite simple. The silencer was screwed on to the rifle, of the type that would require screwdriver to remove. Also, check out these stats. The shot that killed Robin was to the left side of the temple, at a particularly odd angle.

    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html

    Note that only 3.3% of those who commit suicide using a rifle do so by shooting themselves through the left temple. In fact more do so by shooting themselves through the back of the head (3.8%). 97% were contact wounds. Robin’s was not a contact wound, as determined by the examining forensic pathologist. So, the 3.3% who do so by shooting themselves through left temple can safely by the 10% of those in society who are left-handed. Robin was right handed. And no contact wound. That makes Robin less likely to have committed the deeds. As I have stated elsewhere, only 1.8% of murders are committed by males over age of 50. Would you like me to continue, or am I overwhelming you with information? By the way, there is heaps more of information where that comes from. The median age of those committing Familicide is 34 + or – 1.8 years. Robin also doesn’t fall into this category. So, when profiling a killer, you would be looking for someone quite a lot younger, and then you would look for the one prone to odd behaviour and who owns and uses the gun, and also who knew where the spare trigger lock key was and who had a need for his mother’s glasses which he was seen wearing during the weekend. So, that somewhat rules out Robin, does it not? And as I pointed out, check out the profiles of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. You don’t have to be a dirty looking old man to kill lots of people.

  102. Brian, there was blood on Robins fingernails, it was not tested so we don’t know whose blood it was or where it came from. But the point is why was there blood on Robins finger nails at all? To get that amount of blood around the edges of your nails there had to be plenty of it prior to a bad had cleaning job, the sort of cleaning job one might expect from a person whose standards had slipped somewhat.

    New Zealanders need not worry about the guilt or innocence of David Bain, this case is about the incompetence of the police operation and the inability of the court system to see through that incompetence. This is what should be on the mind of every new Zealander because it could be you in court next time watching the police present only information that convicts their victim and not knowing what they have ignored or dismissed because it did not support their argument.

  103. A bus can be driven through the case presented by Brain Bruce.
    Robin Bain does not need defending. It is unfortunate that the only option open to someone convicted in new Zealand, is to point the finger at an alternative, when the police should show that they have considered that alternative. Robins family and friends should stop being so bloody precious.
    Why when Robin Bains hands were predominantly clear of blood, but not totally, did Bruce smear blood all over his hands for the demo?
    Why did he only present the one option for holding the gun when he said the gun could have been held in three positions?
    Why on the second question to the salesman, over the phone, did Bruce show his hand and scare him off?
    Why did Bruce dismiss conjecture on the part of the defence and then produce a bucket full himself?
    Why is it abnormal for a person like Robin not to go to the toilet prior to a killing. But it is normal to go and collect the paper then go into the lounge to read it? Still with a full bladder.
    What evidence did Bruce present that supports his conjecture that Robin could not see to get the key to open the door or unlock the gun?
    The definition of hearsay, (heard through another not directly) No hearsay was presented to the court by the defence or the police.

  104. Paul,

    The police found the rifle covered in blood so I assume the most valid way to test if Robins fingerprints could be reasonably expected to be found would be to replicate the original conditions. to go away from those boundaries would be irresponsible.

    I believe he replicated the initial held position as proposed by the defence.

    I cannot see what issue you have with his timing of questions to Young. Although I am glad that you agree that once the question was posed about conflicting evidence, Mr Young appeared scared. Perhaps the question you need to be asking is “why was that?”

    The newspaper was found still folded on a cabinet in the hallway. So little point in following your line of questions there.

    The legal definition of hearsay is: Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

    Example: Cottles testimony is based on what Laniet had said to him.

    or

    The prostitutes testimony was that Laniet told her of the incest, however the prostitute had no direct knowledge that this incest had occurred other than Laniets claim.

    It appears that the bus you refer to has just travelled through your post:)

  105. Doug’
    Nice one, I’m still laughing at the picture in my mind of that bus ripping Paul’s ramblings to shreads.

  106. Peter Entwisle
    As I have found to be the case with so many who are willing to believe that Robin Bain killed his family you have stated practically as fact may things which are incorrect. Too many for me to be bothered going back over them. Some of them I believe have been pointed out to you. My over-riding impression is that you have garnered many of the ridiculous and demolished statements made by champions of DB, but then added a few of your own for example that Robin Bain “sat reading for forty odd minutes before David shot him, all with a fairly full bladder.” Where did you get that one from? Sorry, you have been very misled.

  107. Thanks Doug, I think if you read and responded to all of what I said, in both postings, you will find the bus still rolling.
    I accept your point on hearsay. Compare Bruce questions to the teacher and the salesman, I was troubled that he gave away his position straight away. The point on the paper was that some claim one would have a piss before going about a killing, therefore Robin could not have done it. My point was that he was still able to collect the paper and go inside still without having a piss.

    I am not interested in mine, yours, or others conclusions of guilt. My concern lies in the case presented to the court By the police, a shoddy one a best.
    I would be interested to hear what you have to say about the police ordering the destruction of the blood samples and scrapping taken from Robins fingernails. Why? Why only that evidence? Why were they not presented for testing?
    Thomas, even the police admit that Bruce came up with nothing new and nothing that had not already been presented in the court. Want to come for a ride in my bus? it is still rolling.

  108. Paul,
    Hell no!! it might still be rolling but it’s out of control.

  109. “Brian, there was blood on Robins fingernails, it was not tested so we don’t know whose blood it was or where it came from. But the point is why was there blood on Robins finger nails at all? To get that amount of blood around the edges of your nails there had to be plenty of it prior to a bad had cleaning job, the sort of cleaning job one might expect from a person whose standards had slipped somewhat.”

    There was a “possible trace” of blood among the dirt under his fingernails. It was never confirmed that it was blood because there was too little to test (i.e. an inconsequential amount). There was one small drop of blood on the top of one of Robin’s nails – again, too small to be tested. We’ve already established Robin didn’t wash his hands that morning. Whoever was in the fight with Stephen that morning would have been dealing with a large amount of blood of their palms and fingers as sthey were wearing blood-soaked gloves.

    “this case is about the incompetence of the police operation”

    Citation needed. Here’s one:

    The independent Police Complaints Authority under Judge N C Jaine (PCA) and B P Duncan (former Assistant Commissioner of Police) found: “The broad contention that the investigation was a bungled effort which led to a wrong conclusion being drawn, and that officers then selected evidence to support that conclusion, is rejected. We believe the original investigation was mounted and pursued with proper regard to standards, policy and procedures and that those involved acquitted themselves with integrity. We found no evidence of criminal behaviour or misconduct by any Police officer.”

    It’s almost as if someone has been repeatedly saying that the case was bungled, and that idea has taken hold in some people’s minds, when there is nothing to substantiate that claim.

  110. hear hear bone.

  111. Paul, i believe that everything bar this point has been answered to an acceptable level.

    “My point was that he was still able to collect the paper and go inside still without having a piss.”

    I would suspect that he went inside the house before relieving himself due to the fact that this is where the toilet was. He also had entered the house through the front door, so stopping to grab the paper is of little consequence to your argument.

  112. 112

    BJE said:

    “it is just the cumulative build up of all the inconsistencies in this case, peter e, that create questions. you may well say, yes – on both sides – but every step of the way it’s like some intricately planned,naiive plot to kill and not a reactive flurry of violence.”

    OK. But what would be the basis of that naive plot if David was the killer? He wanted to make money? That doesn’t fit with his known life to that day. He was insane and/or “lost it”? The only evidence on his sanity is that he wasn’t insane. Saying he “lost it” amounts to saying one doesn’t really know.

    On the other hand Laniet definitely made allegations against her father, not David. That gives Robin a reason to “lose it”, to commit the murders out of anger, or out of old-fashioned patriarchal rage.(Read Leviticus.)

    The evidence of rage is the shot to Laniet’s face. She was the only one killed that way.

    (Sorry about the double post. Just trying to be careful about what I’m saying and self-editing this way.)

  113. 113

    Doug Zee above,

    The whole point is there is no smoking gun. That is why there have been all these trials, appeals and the retrial.

    Even so, it’s not that hard to work out what happened. You have to put aside some prejudices.

  114. 114

    Edward said:

    “The use of gloves and a computer for a suicide note implies that the perpetrator wished to hide their identity. Surely, if Robin Bain was the self confessed killer, he would have had no need for gloves and would have left a suicide note in his own hand-writing. The whole affair looks like a badly botched up attempt to frame Robin….or a very ingenius and successful attempt to frame David “the only one who deserved to stay”.”

    The defence theory is that Robin started intending to conceal the crimes, but changed his mind and decided to commit suicide and (sort of) explain himself instead.

    Complicated? Yes. Impossible? Certainly not. What happened? On the balance of probabilities? More likely than anything else so far suggested.

  115. 115

    Edward said:

    “Yes Thomas, it pays to employ simple logic first of all and build up from there on instead of going for the crackpot theories that seem to hatch out in some minds. The police may have botched a few things but their basic forensic training produced some convincing evidence for them to effect an arrest. Robin’s unwashed hands and lack of powder burns consistent with a self inflicted, point blank shot to the temple is all one need to consider to determine if his death was a suicide. Further more, we have been told from character testimonies that the man wouldn’t kill a bumble bee or a trapped possum, let alone his own progeny. It wasn’t Robin’s gun and he wasn’t a hunter used to dispatching his God’s furry little creatures to oblivion. And he isn’t reported to have threatened his family with the said gun. He also has no record of voicing criminal intent to commit a sexual crime using an alibi.
    If I was David and knew beyond all shadow of a doubt that I was innocent I would surely have something to say about it all instead of remaining silent and having some Clown Princes of the legal world do my bidding.”

    The police started by thinking it was murder/suicide by Robin – on the Monday. When Dean Cottle came forward with his evidence on the Wednesday, the Detective Inspector then returned to the crime scene and found more evidence. (The lens in Stephen’s room.) On the Friday he arrested David and spent the next year building a case against him.

    The Crown pathologist, Mr Dempster, started by thinking it was murder/suicide by Robin. After discussing the case further with the Detective in charge he changed his mind and decided maybe Robin hadn’t committed suicide.

    A former Dunedin Crown pathologist, without any connection to Jo Karam, independently submitted his view that Robin’s death was a clear case of suicide.

    There is indeed evidence that Robin was reluctant to kill an insect. On the other hand there is evidence that he too had shot animals like rabbits and possums – and, from memory here – that he had introduced David to hunting.

    There is no evidence at all that David ever threatened his family or anyone else with a gun, or anything else.

  116. 116

    Further to the above, David Bain gave evidence to the police for a year. He then stood up in court and gave evidence on the witness stand at the first trial.

    He wasn’t legally obliged to do either of those things but he did.

    If he is reluctant to say more now he may be waiting for the wider public to catch up with what he and others have already said about the murders where there is already a lot of evidence deposed but not a corresponding grasp of it in the public discussion of the case.

  117. 117

    Number Eleven said:

    “I seem to recollect that NO_ONE made any allegations about incest until AFTER Dean Cottle chickened out of repeating his slander under oath at the first trial.”

    Cottle volunteered his evidence a year before the first trial.

    Most of it wasn’t allowed at the trial. It only got heard at the appeal.

    Since then it has been confirmed by several witnesses that Laniet made the allegations. There is no evidence from any one that she didn’t make them.

    The arguments have been – irrelevantly for the question of guilt – about whether they are true.

    Her uncles and aunt, Robin’s siblings, don’t deny she made them.

  118. 118

    thebannie said:

    “good summary Brian. Something that Bruce didn’t cover was the incest allegations. He seemed content to show that Laniet was a fantasist, but he didn’t go on to show how her claims of pregnancy, undermined any claim about incest. The only witnesses to these claims were themeleves, like Cottle, unreliable. Unsurprising as they came forward in response to a newspaper advertisement from Karam. At the Chch trial a doctor gave evidence that a conversation of Laniet’s she overheard while Laniet was in her (the doctor’s) surgery ‘could have been to Robin’ and ‘could have been’ an indication of concern that she woudl be unable to have sex with him as she had contracted an STD. As far as I know the doctor produced no evidence of this ‘memory’ and it was not produced at the first trial. Either the doctor was negligent in not reporting her concerns when they first arose in 1994, or she imagined the interpretation after she became aware of the incest allegations. Perhaps she had something in common with Laniet.”

    How do Laniet’s claims about pregnancy undermine her claims about incest? You can be a partner to incest without having been or getting pregnant. Laniet may never have been pregnant and still have had sex with her father.

    Cottle’s evidence was excluded at the first trial on the grounds he was an unreliable witness. It was admitted at appeal. He may have had a “bad character” but how did he stand to gain by coming forward with these claims?

    No question was ever raised over the character of the other witnesses who said they’d heard Laniet make the same allegations. They include two shopkeepers, a friend and a former teacher.

    There can really be no doubt Laniet made the allegations. They pointed at Robin, and only at Robin. Their truth is irrelevant to their significance as a motive, for him.

  119. 119

    Dianne said:

    “Well you should be! Laniet it is not here to defend herself either. heresay from Bruce about what the family said. Oh Robin wouldn’t do that. haha, heard that before. The girl was showing all the signs of a person having been interferred with. Why would she say her father was having an incestuous relationship if it wasn’t true.
    The way Robin Bain was living, wou would have to be unbalanced and not right in the head.very suspect to me.”

    Dianne has a point. Laniet’s allegations give Robin a motive whether or not they are true. But they are also consistent with being true – as are Laniet’s untrue stories about having had a black baby.

    And yes, if people are concerned about Robin’s posthumous reputation, what about Laniet’s?

    To find truth and justice in a case like this you can’t hide behind conventions such as speaking no ill of the dead. Laniet may have been the greatest victim of all.

  120. 120

    bje said:

    “yes- the smell of the compensation money is there and tantalisingly close.
    the best way of defence is attack. diversion methods also help. as soon as paedophilia or incest are ever concocted and stapled to an individual, the general public are paralysed to refute the unsubstantiated invention, in case they become somehow socially tarnished when associating with such a label – and the witchhunters come out and revel in such baseless accusations. poor old robin, who’d never hurt a fly didn’t stand a chance.”

    But if you are a victim of incest try saying it out aloud and see how other people react.

    They go into denial.

    It’s worth considering too that at the moment, the people decrying Laniet’s allegations, and David’s innocence, are Robin’s siblings – who have a large material motive not to see David judged worthy of compensation. They might have to hand back the money they “inherited”.

  121. 121

    BE said:

    “why didnt robin remove the silencer from the rifle

    Now that is a good question!”

    Why would he? If you’ve just killed your family, and then decided on suicide, how carefully would you be thinking about the way of doing it?

    It is a mistake to think whoever was the killer was carefully thinking about the best way of doing it.

    These were family killings, unlikely to be cold=blooded executions. The hard evidence shows they were not.

  122. 122

    MTAN is still thinking the washing turns over the dark in the morning.

    It doesn’t. It turns over how much notice people take of such things early in the morning, performing a routine. The answer is, not much. It’s worth observing it’s not a very significant part of the evidence in any of the trials.

  123. Bone, Some very good points raised here thanks. The PCA may have looked and decided that the police were not guilty of a crime or had not bungled the investigation. But what people forget is that in court it is not just the defendant who is being judged by his or her peers, it is also the police. In this case the police were found wanting, they were found to have bungled, hence the result. If a defendant has to accept the out come so do the police. All I want to come from this is an alteration to the way the police go about things to prevent this happening again.

    We all have different opinions on different aspects of the case and the discussion has been generally convivial. But in the end we may as well save our breath for cooling the porridge.

  124. No dispute that Laniet told various people she was in an incestuous relationship with her father. However at other times she had told people she had become pregnant in PNG, had a black baby and had an abortion. She appears to have been a story teller and so doubt must be shone upon the reliability to her claim and the claim that she was going home that weekend to tell the family about the incest.

    Other witnesses stated that she told them she was going home that weekend because David had ordered her too. She further told the same people that she was scared of David.

  125. 125

    Gavin has a long post so I’ll answer it one bit at a time.

    His first part is:

    “@Peter Entwisle: Sorry to interrupt your ramblings, but you miss an very obvious issue, and that is, that Robin didn’t wash himself, as he still had dirt in the creases of his hands and under his finger nails. And yes, all of the blood of large enough size to be analysed on his clothes was analysed. The only blood that wasn’t analysed was the blood on his thumb. However, let us see, on a statistical basis, and based on the fact that you as well as the defence claim that he changed his clothes, you wouldn’t have found any other blood on him. Regarding the cartridge, what is to say that David didn’t eject a cartridge that had jammed at some earlier time?

    The problem with your analysis is this. One part contradicts the other. You say that Robin must have washed himself and then changed into his usual clothes. But then you say that some of the blood was from other members of the family. How so, when he had changed out of the other clothes? Likewise, how did David possibly manage to run the full washing machine cycle in the time between when he arrived home and when the police arrived, and the fact that no such noise is heard during the 111 call? And how, even in the dingiest of laundries, did David manage to sort the dark, bloodied clothes from the whites (and which somehow didn’t get blood on them in the process) without noticing the copious amounts of blood on them. All I can say is that the only way to explain one part of the defence claim is to ignore another part of the defence claim, therefore each part contradicts the other. Also, I leave my parting note about the distinguished defence pathologist, who, whilst stating that he believed that Robin had committed suicide, he deferred to the examining pathologist, who he said was in the best position to determine the actual cause of death, and that was the Crown coroner. And what did he believe? Robin Bain did not commit suicide. You will note that the Dunedin coroner has still not changed Robin Bain’s death certificate, which states: Life wilfully taken, that is, he was murdered.”

    What is the evidence that Robin didn’t wash himself? That at least he had some dirt still on him.

    I suggest that’s not evidence that he hadn’t at least had a try – and succeeded in getting rid of the most obvious.

    The analysis of the blood on Robin: was that DNA analysis? I don’t think so. From memory it was old-fashioned, good enough, blood type. In this case what does it tell you? Squat.

    The cartridge: it was there in the room where Robin died. How did it get there? You tell me.

    How did Robin manage to clean himself and change his clothes while still having some of the other dead people’s blood on his clothes and his person?

    In the first place I have never claimed that. In the second Robin did have blood on his clothes and his person. If it had been carefully analysed we might know whose it was. As that wasn’t done we don’t. But we shouldn’t assume it wasn’t his wife’s and children’s.

    The sound of the laundry and the 111 call: have another look at the evidence. The 111 call was much later than any time the washing machine was still going.

    Regarding the pathologists I refer you to my post above. Mr Dempster started by thinking it was murder/suicide by Robin Bain. After the police talked to him he changed his mind. Another independent one said Robin’s death was an obvious case of suicide.

    It’s good to focus on the evidence.

  126. 126

    Gavin part 2.

    Daryl Young’s evidence is not particularly material to the case. It is that he saw Robin Bain, who came out of his caravan at Taieri Beach, wrapped only in a towel, while he thought there was a woman inside the caravan.

    Is this a terrible indictment of Robin Bain? No, obviously it isn’t. But against the suggestion Robin was a paragon, at that time, in conventional terms, no, it obviously shows he wasn’t.

    There are no smoking guns. Laniet’s allegations were directed against her father, not her brother. Whether they were true or false they tip the balance of the evidence against Robin.

  127. 127

    Gavin to Dianne.

    Gavin is wrong. Dean Cottle’s evidence was not ruled out of the first trial on the ground it was hearsay. Even then in murder trials hearsay evidence was admissible and Cottle’s evidence wasn’t hearsay.

    It was ruled out on the ground Cottle was not a reliable witness. It was admitted on appeal and subsequently confirmed by witnesses whose character has never been called into question.

    It has to be said again: that Laniet made the allegations of incest is not hearsay; it is undisputed first hand witness evidence.

  128. 128

    Gavin again:

    “Why then did she also not lie about the incest? And of course, what about incest with David? I believe that one of her statements was that she was committing incest with an older male member of the family. Wasn’t David also an older male member of the family?”

    This is making it up as you go along. There is no evidence at all that Laniet ever alleged incest against David.

    This kind of misrepresentation is – worse than sad.

    For the record, Laniet never said “she was comitting incest with an older male memebr of tha family”. She said she was having a “relationship” with Robin.

  129. 129

    Paul said:

    “New Zealanders need not worry about the guilt or innocence of David Bain, this case is about the incompetence of the police operation and the inability of the court system to see through that incompetence. This is what should be on the mind of every new Zealander”

    With respect no. The first duty of any citizen, in this country or any other, is to try to establish truth and justice. It concerns individuals, some living, some dead.

    The poor performance of the police is a secondary concern.

  130. 130

    Doug Zee again repeated the same mistake:

    “The legal definition of hearsay is: Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

    Example: Cottles testimony is based on what Laniet had said to him.”

    His evidence of what she said is not hearsay. Whether what she said was true or false, it does accuse her father, Robin, no-one else.

    or

    The prostitutes testimony was that Laniet told her of the incest, however the prostitute had no direct knowledge that this incest had occurred other than Laniets claim.

    It appears that the bus you refer to has just travelled through your post:)

  131. 131

    And,

    who is Doug Zee trying to talk about with his reference to the “prostitute’s testimony”?

    There is evidence, deposed again at the retrial, from people who weren’t prostitutes, that Laniet made these allegations.

  132. One thing is for sure and that is that things went pear shaped for the killer in Stephen’s room. They hadn’t counted on a life and death struggle with the young lad. As a result the killer suffered injuries and got covered in Stephen’s blood. This would have thrown a spanner in the works of a premeditated course of action and possibly unsettled the thinking of the killer. Robin Bain wasn’t showing the signs of a violent struggle, where as David was.

  133. Peter E

    I find it quite insulting that you suggest that I need to put aside my prejudices.

    I think you will find in all my posts, I deal with all the facts, evidence presumed and theories put forward by other posters in a rational and thought provoking manner.

    I do not whitewash or minimise the presence of forensic evidence to fit my theory. I do not claim evidence does not exist when it does and is clearly avilable and reported in the court transcripts. I do not make claim to anything other than in a concise and rational way.

    It would be a huge benefit to this debate/discussion and indeed all involved (if you do indeed wish to be taken seriously), offered up the same courtesy of doing likewise.

    I may indeed respond in depth to your several posts but it may be easier to respond as they would do in the legal fraternity. Your claim that:

    “There is no evidence at all that David ever threatened his family or anyone else with a gun, or anything else.”

    I think you will find that in Kirsten Kochs written statement included “She [Arawa] said the family was scared because David was intimidating them with the gun,” said Ms Koch.

    Therefore if you are wrong about this, I would suggest you could be infact wrong in all of the comments you make. Making it pointless for me to repond to posts or comments that contain so little authority or value.

  134. peter e- i don’t believe the murderer to be insane. i don’t believe the murderer ‘lost it’. i believe the murderer felt justified in their mind to kill and planned it carefully, going over it in their mind many, many times before executing the plan. it’s not rocket science, peter. you may be reading peoples’ posts peter, but you are not showing comprehension, sorry.

  135. 135

    Excellently put, really great article. Would love to hear from David Bain himself and ask him a few questions.

  136. Well done Mr Edwards, the idea that a man can shoot himself without leaving fingerprints is bizarre. I have always found the reaction of the aunts and uncles telling. They knew the family better than anyone when they were alive (unlike Joe Karam, who only ever met David). The family would be understandably devastated after the murders and if they had thought there was any possibility of Robin’s guilt, would feel very angry and sorry for their nephew having lost his whole family due to his father’s actions. They would be relieved that David was spared. They would want to look after him and support him. Yet from what I read, they all believe David did it. I think the family are in a very good position to judge the characters of both David and Robin, and I feel their opinion of who is responsible is very valid.

  137. I have just posted a long explanation as to how there is unanswerable proof that Robin Bain was the killer.It is on the page headed Micheal Reed QC a Commentary. However I have just landed on this page and read B.Es Comments and I cannot let them go unanswered. B.E comments at the end of the third paragraph ” Despite this blood bath,his hands, his clothes and footwear were almost entirely free of blood,what blood there was did not come from any member of his family and his fingerprints were not found anywhere on the rifle. I suggest that you look at the photographs shown in Joe Karams book “David and Goliath” There are three photos that establish that Robin Bain was the killer. (1) There is a photo of Robin lying dead in the lounge. It shows a spray of blood on the bean bag next to Robins left elbow. It shows the Green woollen beanie that Robin had been wearing, trapped in the hood of his Blue sweat shirt. Note that the beanie covers up a fairly large blood stain on the front of the hood and also that the hood is doubled back over Robins shoulder so that another large blood stain on the back of the hood is completly obscured by the hood and the beanie. Detective Mark Lodge was in charge of Robins body and he made copious notes as to what he saw. These notes are also printed in Karams book. As well as the blood stains noted above, there is blood on his right elbow. There is blood behind his right shoulder ,this is behind the shoulder but in another photo in Karams book ,The Blue T shirt which is stained with all this blood is shown in a rather strange manner in a police photo that was shown to the jury in the first trial. ( I am not sure what was shown to the jury in the second trial)If you look at this photo you can see that the right shoulder has been rucked forwards so that what is really behind the shoulder appears to be on the front. Similar trickery was used by the prosecution on another photo which shows the light blue track pants which also have blood spots on them. In this photo, The garment has also been rucked around so that what is really behind the right leg appears to be on the front of the leg.In both these cases it is made to appear that blood stains which are really in a position where they could not possibly have to from the head wound in Robins left temple. I had a discusion with Joe Karam over this when I first learned of the defence proposition that Robin changed his clothes.I pointed out to Joe that The Green beanie was trapped in the hood covering up blood stains on the hood which made them immposible to have got there from the head wound and the brown jersey was pulled out of the waist band of Robins trousers indicating that Robin had been in a fight with Stephen. Karam dismissed my comments and said that he believed that Dr Dempster the Pathologist had removed the beanie while he examined the body and that he had pulled out the brown jersey to take body temperatures.At the time I accepted this. ( It Was during the Court of Appeal hearings when Colin Withnal acted for Bain) When this last trial started however and I heard Doctor Hentschell give his evidence about finding GREEN WOOL FIBRES AND BROWN WOOL FIBRES under Stephen Bains fingernails, I took another look at those photos. It is blindingly obvious that Robin Bain was NOT wearing the Green Beanie when he was shot. If you look at the trails of blood running down his forehead from the wound in his left temple. The blood trails are clear and pristine, they show no signs of smudging. The beanie and the hood do not have bullet holes in them. If they had been on Robins head and worn normaly as everybody else does in Dunedin on a freezing cold morning then ,if he was shot by some other person,the bullet should have gone through both those garments. The fact that the trails are unsmudged means Robin was not wearing the Beanie otherwise the wool would have soaked up the blood and probably stopped it spraying on the curtain and the bean bag and it would have left smears of blood on Robins forehead not clear trails. This establishes that the beanie and the hoodie are covering up blood stains that were made BEFORE ROBIN WAS SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD and the fact that they are covering up blood stains, means that the blood cannot have come from Robins head wound.It is pretty clear that the blood stains got on the beanie and the hood during the fight with Stephen and the beanie got knocked off his head along with the hood. How else could the beanie and the hood have got to where they were by David shooting Robin? As far as the lack of fingerprints is concerned, Robin used the white gondalier T shirt to clean himself up a bit after he shot Arawa. It had been wetted as the Police said they though David had tried to sponge blood off of it. More likely Robin used it as a sponge. He wiped his face and hands off with it cursorily. He left traces of blood round his fingernails ( See Karams book) and he left a short trail of blood above his right eyebrow. This is completly separate from the main blood trails over his forehead. The only logical explanation for all this is that Robin had the fight with Stephen.Finger prints are only left if there is blood on the fingers or blood or oil or jam or some other substance on the rifle. Robin wiped his hands and the rifle before he went up stairs and heard Laniet gurgling and then went in and shot her. B.E make a further statement that has no facts to back it up Quote. “Based partly on the discovery in the downstairs washing machine of a GREEN JERSEY KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN WORN BY STEPHENS KILLER. Perhaps B.E can explain to me how it is known that the green jersey was worn by the killer. There is not the slightest evidence that the green jersey was worn by either Robin or David. Hentschell is discredited by his own evidence that he found GREEN FIBRES AND BROWN WOOL FIBRES UNDER STEPHENS FINGERNAILS If there ever was blood on the green jersey, then more likely Arawa was about to put it on after being woken up by the fight with Stephen and Robin picked it up after shooting Arawa and used it to wipe the blood off of the rifle. Wool is not too good for that sort of job so Robin threw it on the wash pile ( Where later on David picked it up to put into the washing machine and got some blood on his crotch from it) Robin then used the white gondalier T shirt to clean himself and the rifle. It was Davids defence who put forwards the theory that Robin Bain changed his clothes and took his boots off. Apparently, they believed the evidence of the ESR scientists that all the blood on Robin was his own blood. What I have just shown you is that it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE BLOOD ON ROBIN BAIN TO HAVE GOT THERE FROM HIS OWN HEAD WOUND, THERE FORE IT MUST HAVE COME FROM STEPHENS HAND AND HEAD WOUND AND THEREFORE ROBIN BAIN WAS THE KILLER OF THE WHOLE FAMILY . To repeat, The only blood on Robin Bain that was his own is the Pristine trails of blood over his fore head, The only blood in the room that is Robins are the small spray over the curtain and another small spray over the bean bag next to Robins left elbow Q.E.D. Ron

  138. Well at least there is no question about who just murdered our Grecian friend Paragraphos.

  139. The washing machine, the rape alibi, the lens in the brother’s room – there are so many points that make it inconceivable to me that Robin was the killer. Perhaps the jury decided 99.999999999% wasn’t enough. The points used to besmirch Robin are so stretched it’s ridiculous.

    And Reed makes me cringe.

    [Potentially dangerous remark in this case has bee deleted.]

  140. ron davis – with a heading -‘conclusive evidence’ and marked on a scale of 1 to 10. (better point out to you 10 is most conclusive)your offerings rate a minus.
    it’s like you’re writing a script to support a chosen stand. get real.

  141. The Michael Reed…

  142. I am sorry I don’t use paragraphs. I am 82 and arthritic and I don’t profess to be a typist but I used to be a Diesel Mechanic and you need logic to be any good at that game. Machinery cannot talk to you and tell you what is wrong so one has to gather all the facts one can before making a diagnoses. Incidentaly, Doug Zee, 70 odd years ago my father said to me ” Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ” but that is by the by. If anyone can explain to me in a logical and intelligent manner how one can get blood from a wound in the left temple, which, for a short time sprayed over a curtain and later over a bean bag and none of this blood landed on the front of Robins shirt. please explain how this blood could get BEHIND THE HOOD of Robins blue sweat shirt and UNDER HIS FINGER NAILS.
    Regarding the ejected cartridge case found in the computer alcove. If one goes back to the previous shot that was fired prior to the fatal shot that killed Robin. This was the final shot through the top of Laniets head and it hit a bit of cotton material on its way through the silencer and deflected onto the baffles of the silencer and split into several pieces. This caused the rifle to missfeed. The police gave evidence that the magazine found on it’s edge in the lounge next to Robins right hand showed signs of a missfeed. So Robin must have found the jam when he tried to shoot himself, sat down on the bean bag and changed the magazine, by chance putting it down on it’s edge under the edge of the table. Also by chance, Robin landed there when he fell back after shooting himself. I do not agree with the theory put forward by the defence that the rifle was placed on a chair.
    I have experimented with a rifle adjusted so that the distance from the trigger to the end of the muzzle was the same as the rifle used by Robin. It is very simple to shoot ones self though the left temple at an angle of 45 degrees to the centerline of the head and within 8 degrees of parralel to the ground if standing up staight and looking straight ahead. All one has to do is swing the rifle up against a door post with the left hand at the trigger position and the right hand just short of the silencer, press forwards with both hands to lock the rifle against the door post, line it up with your temple. (It lines up perfectly almost automaticaly) This covers the situation as shown by the photos of the scene. The rifle has landed on the floor at the angle Robin would have been holding it, He would have been close enough to the curtain to spray blood onto it. There are two photos supplied by the police, one shows the curtain to the alcove hanging down straight. The other shows the curtain draped over the chair. More than likely the latter was the position when the police arrived but hey failed to keep a time line on the photo evidence so we will never know for sure. So ,if the curtain was over the chair and Robin swung the rifle up against the right hand door of the computer alcove, then the rifle ,which ejects from the righthand side would have been in the correct position to eject the empty shell into the computer alcove. Where it was found.
    This also points towards Davids innocence. Had David been the killer, he would not have known that the rifle had jammed after killing Laniet, until the next time he tried to shoot it. Which would have been when, According to the Crown case, he went to shoot Robin. Obviously the scene in the lounge then would have been entirely different as the rifle would not have fired and a fight would have developed Ron Davis

  143. Andy, The washing machine evidence by the police is badly flawed.They told the jury that the house was silent when they entered. They had to smash a window to get in. There was a dog in the house. In McNeishes book ‘The Mask of Sanity” He states that a woman who lived at 59 Every St, gave evidence at a depositions hearing that she was woken up at 7-0’clock by Casey the dog barking. “It went on and on.” she said, “I have never heard Casey bark like that before.” I have owned dogs, I do not believe that the police could break into that house without the dog barking. There fore the evidence that the police told the jury, that the house was silent and they could not hear the washing machine was not exactly accurate was it?.
    Robins hands were covered in scratches. This is an indication that he had a fight with a female or females. It is quite on the cards that during this fight he knocked off Margarets glasses and broke them He was able to find the broken frame and one lens after the fight cooled down,but the other lens had bounced under Stephens bed, Robin then put the broken glasses in his pocket and apologised to his wife telling her that he would get them fixed Later on when he had decided to carry out the murders. He goes to put one of the loaded magazines in that pocket and finds the glasses so he puts them on the chair in Davids room so that he has unimpeded access to the magazine. If David Had been the killer, he would not have wasted time looking for broken glasses in that shambles of Stephens room. He would have been aware that the noise of the fight with Stephen would have woken Arawa and he would have gone down below as fast as he could. I will admit that all this sort of discussion is conjecture but so is the Police case. The hard evidence is Dr Hentschell stateing that he found GREEN WOOL FIBRES AND BROWN WOOL FIBRES under Stephen Bains finger nails Ther is no evidence that David or for that matter Robin, wore the green jersey that was found in the laundry, there may or may not have been blood on it but it had been through the wash and the blood could not be identified. Robin was wearing a GREEN WOOL BEANIE and a BROWN WOOL JERSEY. that is a direct link between the fight with Stephen and Robin Bain. Why didn’t Dr Hentschell compare these garments with the fibres found under Stephen Bains finger nails??

  144. Back to Laniet.
    She had told people she was going home to tell the family about her relationship with Robin. However, it would appear that Laniet never actually made the incest allegations to her family on the weekend prior to the murders. David, the only survivor, has never said she did. So with his secret still safe, why did Robin see it necessary to murder his entire family.

  145. what was the forensic evidence on the blood, ron?
    that is. who’s blood was it on robin’s beanie? – as forensically tested.

    read steve’s take on the use of the gun way back.

    remember there was copious amounts of blood from the poor young steven and from david’s gloves – yet whatever was found under robin’s fingernails was even considered not to be blood, as it was tiny and indecipherable. robin was tested as not having washed his hands. he had no blood of stevens on his person.with all due respect ron, you are writing a script based on your desired outcome and that’s not fair either. i personally feel that the police were there and you can join the club of ridiculing them as it lends itself to further damaging hard evidence. the police had to physically examine a scene of horror. some would have kids of these ages. they were thorough, they used methods of the time which still stack up today – and they were there.1st hand.

  146. Uriah July 16th, 2010 at 15:52
    Back to Laniet.
    She had told people she was going home to tell the family about her relationship with Robin. However, it would appear that Laniet never actually made the incest allegations to her family on the weekend prior to the murders. David, the only survivor, has never said she did. So with his secret still safe, why did Robin see it necessary to murder his entire family.
    Ron Davis
    Did you not read all the evidence available in this case Uriah ? David Bain gave evidence during the first trial, that he went to bed at 9-30 on the Sunday evening ( He had a paper round next morning early.) He stated that he was awakened around midnight by a violent altercation going on out side his bedroom between his father Robin and members of his family. David did not get up and intervene in this altercation and it died down and he went back to sleep. The fact that Robin had nicks and scratches on his hands ,that according to the Pathologist who examined Robins body, had occured 6 or 7 hours prior to his death. This backs up Davids testimony because it indicates that Robin had a fight with female members of his family in order for him to have got those scratches. ( They would not have come from the fight with Stephen because Robin kept the white gloves on during that fight until he had overcome Stephen and only then did he take off the gloves in order to clear the jammed bullet from the rifle.)If Laniet had carried out her threat to tell her mother about the alleged incest, then that would surely be a motive for the fight. Also Margaret and Laniet went to the Bank after midnight and withdrew all the money in Robins Bank account. What would any of this had anything to do with David Bain??

  147. BJE.
    This is what Steve had to say about the rifle and bullets.
    “A round would have to be successfully fired or the action cycled manually for any misfeed of the following shell to occur.

    As only one shot was fired in that room(only one spent cartridge found)it can only either mean that if Robin was the shooter the misfed cartridge would still be jammed in the action or it was a misfeed from a previous shot elsewhere in the house or it was misfed by someone manually cycling the action in the computer alcove where the cartridge in question was found.

    Did it fall out when Robin dropped the gun. No. A live cartridge was found chambered in the breech when the police arrived which rules this out.”
    RON
    The miss feed occured when Robin fired the final shot into Laniets head. The bullet hit some cotton material and split into three bits before the main bit entered Laniets head. There had been several miss feeds of the rifle during the shooting rampage. In Stephens room for one. Apparently the whisper bullets that were being used did not really generate enough gas pressure to operate the eject and reload system of the rifle and whenever there was some interference to the gas flow (As in Stephen putting his hand over the muzzle and then the bullet going out sideways as in Laniets case )then the rifle jammed.
    From what I read of the case it would appear that the miss feed occured in the magazine prior to Robin going into the lounge to leave his message and shoot himself. This is why the magazine was removed and placed on it’s edge under the corner of the table in the lounge.
    It explains why the magazine was on it’s edge. The Crown made up some ridiculous story that David placed it there to simulate a suicide.
    It was just bad luck on Davids part that Robins body fell back where it did and his hand just happened to finish up close to where he had placed the magazine, by chance,on it’s edge.
    Regarding the blood evidence; The ESR was wrong in their DNA analysis of semen found in the girls underpants in the David Docherty Trial. The ESR, or DSIR as it was then Fabricated evidence in the Arthur Allan Thomas case and commited perjury. Read the book by Peter williams QC “A Passion for Justice” This exposes it well.
    Only 4 spots of blood were tested by a Dr Cropp in the first trial. This same doctor tested the blood on the door posts and the and rifle and stated that this blood could have come from Margaret; Laniet; Stephen; or David. Read the Reports of the trial. Doctor Cropp had no trouble identifying the 4 spots he found on Robin as being Robins.
    No more testing was done on Robins clothing until several years had gone by and who knows how that clothing was stored or who had access to it.
    If you can understand that what I have described mean that it is immposible for most of the blood found on Robins body to have come from his head wound, then this means that the blood had to have come from the fight with Stephen and must be Stephens blood. This means that the evidence of the ESR scientists that it was Robins blood cannot be true. Therefore, The scientists either made an error in their testing, as they did in the David Docherty case,or.They delibertely gave false evidence, or.The bloodstain were accidentaly contaminated with Robins blood while the clothing was stored all those years. or. Someone delibertley smeared Robins blood over the blood stains. Or It is very difficult to differentiate between a fathers blood and the blood of his children. At least it was back in those days when the testing was done.
    Early on in the case when I first became interested in it I contacted the Forensic Dept of Monash University and posed that Question. ” Could you differentiate between A fathers blood and a sons blood,and,If the two were mixed together could the blood still be identified.
    I received an answer from a Dr Bentley Acheson.
    He stated. ” Probably, but it would all depend on the mitochondria of the mother. ”
    So, once again we have a ‘PROBABLY’ just like we got a ‘SIMILAR’From Dr Hentschell Ron

  148. 148

    I was out of the country when the murders happened but so far I have read nothing about powder burns or powder residue. Did Robin Bain have powder burns from his self-inflicted shot ? If he did have powder burns,it could be from either his gun or another gun…but no powder burns would mean it wasn’t self-inflicted.
    Can anyone enlighten me ?

  149. Greg,
    A good question mate, I’m holding my breath for the answer to this one too, powder residue & or burns would be the decider I think.

  150. ….just another thought before someone jumps the gun on me, would these tests be as effective when dealing with a rifle as opposed to a handgun?

  151. Ron Davis
    I thought Margaret and Laniet Bain withdrew $200 from Robin and Margaret’s joint bank account, as this the maximum allowed in 1994. A total of $1100 was found in Margaret’s room following the murders. Therefore it does not follow that the two women withdrew money in some sort of revenge act, following incest allegations made by Laniet.

    In regard to David saying he was awakened by a violent exchanges between Robin and other family members, I always assumed this to be a part of the scenario David was trying to paint of a murder-suicide by Robin.

    And knicks and scratches on the old mans hands from a fight with fired up, female, family members??. On his hands?? Where were the rake marks from fingernails on his cheeks or neck, especially if more than one female having a crack at him? Come on Ron, I think marks from fixing gutters sounds more realistic.

  152. Bone July 9th, 2010 at 16:36

    “you’re right that Robin’s body and clothes had relatively little blood on them. However the defence theory of the case is that after the killings he cleaned himself up and changed some of his clothes.”

    Which is impossible because Robin’s hands had not been washed that morning. The initial police description describes dirt in the creases of his palms and an ESR swipe showed “mostly dirt”. You cannot clean up a murder scene and bloodied clothes without getting blood all over your hands.

    The blood on Robin Bain was tested; a representative sample was taken of the numerous spots of splattered blood, and it was all found to be his own. The blood on his top around the collar had obviously come from his own gunshot wound.

    Get your facts straight before making up stories.
    Ron Davis.
    The facts are these ; In the first trial, Dr Croppp tested 4 spots of blood taken from Robin and that is all. There is no indication from the transcript as to where those spots came from. Dr Cropp stated that the spots were Robins blood.
    The same Dr Cropp also said that he tested blood samples from the rifle, the door ways and the white T shirt. He said in evidence that the blood from these places could have been Margarets, Laniets, Stephens, or Davids. on the basis of this evidence from the first trial, what credence can be given to Dr Cropps evidence that the blood spots on Robin were in fact Robins ? Please read the notes made by Det Mark Lodge. These list vast amounts of blood on Robin in various places where it would have been impossible for that blood to have got there from his own head wound. He did not wash his hands that morning but he did wipe them with the white gondalier T shirt. That is how blood came to be on the T shirt. that is why some blood was left around Robins fingernails and under his fingernails and why, a short trail of blood was left above his right eyebrow which has no connection with any of the blood trails that come out of his head wound . Perhaps Bone can explain to me how blood could have got on the back of Robins Blue hood or behind his right knee from a wound in his left temple which did not bleed very much any way. I think that the defence was sadly mistaken to run that argument that Robin changed his clothes. There is not the slightest evidence that this occured. Ron Davis

  153. Uriah

    And nicks and scratches on the old mans hands from a fight with fired up, female, family members??. On his hands?? Where were the rake marks from fingernails on his cheeks or neck, especially if more than one female having a crack at him? Come on Ron, I think marks from fixing gutters sounds more realistic.
    Ron,
    The pathologist gave evidence in the first trial that the nicks and scratches on Robins hands had occured 6 or 7 hour prior to his death. This ties in with Davids evidence that he heard the altercation around 11 o’ clock -Midnight. This evidence was put forward by the crown because Guest the lawyer suggested that the nicks and scratches were caused by the fight with Stephen.
    They weren’t. because Robin kept the white gloves on until he overcame Stephen and only took them off so that he could clear the jammed bullet and then shoot Stephen. There was an abrasion on his face. Ron Davis

  154. Uriah July 19th, 2010 at 15:41

    Ron Davis
    I thought Margaret and Laniet Bain withdrew $200 from Robin and Margaret’s joint bank account, as this the maximum allowed in 1994. A total of $1100 was found in Margaret’s room following the murders. Therefore it does not follow that the two women withdrew money in some sort of revenge act, following incest allegations made by Laniet.
    Ron Davis
    The Bank withdrawal took place at one Am on the Monday morning. Do you really think that this was a normal act on the part of Margaret and Laniets to make a Bank withdrawal at that time of night ?

    Ron Davis

  155. Greg McCreanor July 19th, 2010 at 01:30

    I was out of the country when the murders happened but so far I have read nothing about powder burns or powder residue. Did Robin Bain have powder burns from his self-inflicted shot ? If he did have powder burns,it could be from either his gun or another gun…but no powder burns would mean it wasn’t self-inflicted.
    Can anyone enlighten me ?

    Ron Davis

    The Pathologist Dr Dempster did the Autopsie on Robin Bain. He was quite definite that the wound was a contact wound. Mark Lodge, the Detective who made the notes regarding the state of Robins body in the lounge also noted it as a contact wound. Both these gentlemen saw the body, they were not working from Photographs. The Crown produced two Expert witnesses to say that they thought that the shot that killed Robin Bain was fired some distance away from Robins head. I cannot recall the exact distance off the top of my head but there were two I think. one was about 27 cent and the other 14 Cent or thereabouts. One of these witnesses was a Professor and the other was a Doctor. Both these men were basing their opinion on Photographs whereas Dr Dempster did the Autopsie. The object of the Two disenting experts was to place doubt on the possiblity that Robin Bain commited suicide. They both appear to have lost sight of the fact that the wound in Robins head sprayed blood over the curtain to the computer alcove and also over the bean bag in the lounge next to Robins elbow. In order for the wound to be pressurised by gas from the cartridge explosion to enter the head it would have to be a contact or near contact wound. Given that the rifle also was fitted with a silencer, powder burns may be a little different from an unsilenced rifle. The silencer is designed to disappate the gas in order to silence it. Dr Dempster was a witness for the Crown. The other two were also witnesses for the Crown. Does that not seem a little odd?
    Ron Davis

  156. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know just how the American ‘CSI’ team would have handled the Bain saga, from the time they had first entered the house & found the bodies, & most especially Robin Bain, I’m sure they would have come to a fairly rapid conclusion as to whether or not it was suicide, what would the ‘CSI’ team have done differently from our local police & detectives?

  157. why do we need a csi team when we’ve got ron. he should have a stint writing for these fictional programmes.
    sadly, because money has been made by this case, it is irreparably contaminated.

  158. @Thomas: The police did a great job in trying circumstances. With today’s technologies, the conclusion would have been rapid and accurate. They are now able to test even a single cell. Also, today, the police simply seal of the scene and the scientists move in, and the only investigation the police do is to examine the wider scene for clues. However, in the Bain enquiry, the police were still required to search the house to ensure that no-one else was still alive and to ensure that no suspects were still on the premises. That still happens today, and there really is no way to avoid that.

    However, it is like the people in the 90s comparing their tools with those of the police in the 70s. Different technologies, different outcomes.

  159. @Ron: Dr Dempster, having examined nearly 1500 gunshot wounds was of the opinion that Robin Bain had not committed suicide. Also, the esteemed Dr Robert Chapman, despite his own opinion being that it was probably suicide, stated under cross-examination that the person in the best position to decide whether Robin Bain committed suicide or not was the examining pathologist, and his opinion was that Robin most likely committed suicide. If Robin didn’t commit suicide, who then killed the family? Well, that’s pretty obvious.

    So, no washed hands, no suicide, no blood on him except his own? Not looking good for David. And David, by his own admission, changed his clothes, so he could have been wearing anything before that.

    Ron, you have obviously read a lot about this trial, and that is to be commended. However, if David was wearing the clothes that were in the washing machine, which were his size, and much too big for Robin, by several sizes, as was obvious to anybody who was at the re-trial, where they were on display, would realise that it seems much more obvious that David would have worn them and not Robin. Robin would have been pretty much all at sea in such clothes. It simply doesn’t make sense that he would wear such oversize clothes to commit the murders. And if he didn’t wear those clothes, then he didn’t commit the murders, because they were absolutely drenched in Stephen’s blood.

  160. David did NOT change his clothes. He took off the red T shirt that he was wearing and his shorts and put them in the wash as was his normal practise.
    The only material in the house that had Stephens blood on it Was the small splotch on Davids crotch and the blood on Davids socks. These are explainable from David going round the house to find out what was going on. (Apart from a lot of the blood that was on Robin which had to be Stephens because the blood from Robins wound could not possibly have got onto Robin onto the places that it was found. You say in earlier posts that Robins blood would have dripped on to those places. Perhaps you can explain how the blood dripped (1) Behind the right elbow.
    (2) Behind the right shoulder.
    (3) Behind the Blue hood.
    (4) On the front of the Blue hood But obscured by the green beanie.
    (5) Behind the right knee ( Robin would have had to be a contortionist to get blood there)
    (6) On the green beanie itself. (It would have been covered by the hood when Robin first entered the house and would only have assumed a position where blood could have gotten on it when Stephen knocked the hood back during the fight. So, the heavy stain got on the front and back of the Blue Hood during the fight,then the beanie was knocked back and got blood on it once it was exposed and finaly it finished up trapped in the hood.
    The white Gondalier T Shirt that was the only material in the house that had Stephens blood on it was used by Robin to wipe the rifle which had been covered with Stephens blood. Robin then used it to clean himself up a little. He had blood all over his hands, around and under the nails which had soaked through the white gloves. (Worn because it was cold, not to hide fingerprints )As well as getting blood on the hood and the beanie, he must also have got some on his face and hair. You can see the short trail of blood over his right eyebrow which has no connection with the main trails of blood from the wound. He missed this bit when he wiped himself and the only explanation as to where it came from, is the fight with Stephen In one of the photos the hair also looks as if blood is smeared in it.
    Ron

  161. Ron: David claimed that he had only changed out of his red t-shirt. As David also claimed originally that he had not been into any other rooms and had only seen just his father and mother. He then changed his story once faced with the evidence that he had blood on his shorts. During the first trial he then admitted to have been in the other rooms, in order to claim that he might have brushed against Stephen. Why did he change his story? So, you’re telling me that he didn’t change his clothes, but in fact he did. What is there to say that he didn’t wear something completely different to what you conjecture?

  162. I think there was a third party involved. Neither Robin nor David did the killings. David had a friend who knew where the key to the gun cabinet was hidden! Nobody (to my knowledge) took up this line of enquiry. David may have known who the killer was – hence his interminable silence.
    (I haven’t time to read all the past blogs – perhaps others are of the same opinion?)

  163. Julie,
    This theory has been put forward before but so highly unlikely don’t you think?…& if David had known who the killer was he must have had a hell of a lot of respect for him to be prepared to hold that secret while being locked up in jail for all those years….wouldn’t have been Joe would it, no sorry I might only be joking.

  164. 164

    Ron Davis says that the contact wound may have been fired from 14 to 27 centimetres from Robin Bain’s head. However, the firearms expert who demonstrated the holding of the rifle to his head at the Christchurch trial held the gun directly against his temple. So this question is still open;
    is it possible to hold a rifle with a silencer 14 to 27 centimetres from your head or not?
    Sounds rather dubious.
    After all,Jeremy Bamber in England did exactly the same thing to incriminate his father and got away with it initially.

    And as for the lack of fingerprints,I seem to recall that when the American police investigated a room where Ted Bundy was known to have stayed, they didn’t find a single print.The entire place had been wiped clean. What was it that Holmes said about the dog not barking in the night? That the absence was just as suspicious?
    Maybe the police should have fingerprinted crime books at the Dunedin university or public libraries to see if David’s prints were there!
    But you have to admire the forgiveness of David,he doesn’t seem to bear any bitterness or regret or sadness that his father killed off his entire family…or did I blink and miss that?
    Certainly David’s family were very forgiving. They don’t seem to have minded him starting the washing machine at some ungodly hour of the morning..assuming this wasn’t the first time he’d done this.
    One final thing. Being a taxi driver, I had to drop a man off at the court buildings about two weeks into the Ch.Ch.trial. He was going to see his friend who was on the Bain jury. When I asked him what his friend thought of it all,he told me his friend thought Bain was innocent. So within two weeks of the trial starting,one of the jurors had already decided on Bain’s guilt or innocence.
    Ah juries,couldn’t you just eat them!

  165. Greg,
    I’d like to do worse than eat them!…most especially that one.

  166. This seems to me to be one of those crimes where no sensible motive can be established for either party. It should be remembered that it was Laniet that was originally putting about the incest rumours, not David or his supporters. Whether they are true is irrelevant, the knowledge that she was saying this stuff may have tipped the old man over. I find the family’s attitude to David and his father odd…they seem unable to accept that the father may have killed his family, but comfortable that it may have been the son. it’s rare for sons to kill parents and siblings, but fathers murdering wives and children are more common.
    The cryptic message on the computer is another problem. If I were covering up a crime and deflecting blame I would have left a much more direct message…like, “I did it, love Dad.” This was no normal family, there were five adults and teenagers living in extremely squalid conditions, with Dad living in a crappy old van. All of the family members were old enough to clean things up, nobody did. It could well have been a powder keg, with the extended family oblivious to the true state of things. How normal is it to leave your bedroom and go and kneel in your estranged family’s lounge to pray, with or without a full bladder. If the police had done a less sloppy job at the initial inquiry, and the scientific evidence had been more ,well, scientific, the Dad or David debate would not now be happening. As far as no fingerprints on the gun is concerned, many firearms, my own included, have highly polished stocks which don’t easily hold marks. And why did the scientist at the trial not consider different methods of holding a .22 with a silencer?

  167. There’s a lot been said about David Bains actions when he came home and found his family killed. I don’t think anything much could be read into this, there’s no set rules that I know of for this sort of discovery.

  168. Not enough has been said about David telling two school mates of his idea of raping a female joggger and using his paper run as an alibi. Not enough has been said about his odd behaviour on that last paper round. Not enough is ever said about the use of the computer for leaving a message and a time stamp of the time the machine was turned on. Most necessary if your alibi is based on such a tight time schedule.

  169. Greg McCreanor July 23rd, 2010 at 11:19

    The Crown produced two Expert witnesses to say that they thought that the shot that killed Robin Bain was fired some distance away from Robins head. I cannot recall the exact distance off the top of my head but there were two I think. one was about 27 cent and the other 14 Cent or thereabouts. One of these witnesses was a Professor and the other was a Doctor. Both these men were basing their opinion on Photographs whereas Dr Dempster did the Autopsie. The object of the Two disenting experts was to place doubt on the possiblity that Robin Bain commited suicide. They both appear to have lost sight of the fact that the wound in Robins head sprayed blood over the curtain to the computer alcove and also over the bean bag in the lounge next to Robins elbow. In order for the wound to be pressurised by gas from the cartridge explosion to enter the head it would have to be a contact or near contact wound. Given that the rifle also was fitted with a silencer, powder burns may be a little different from an unsilenced rifle. The silencer is designed to disappate the gas in order to silence it. Dr Dempster was a witness for the Crown. The other two were also witnesses for the Crown. Does that not seem a little odd?
    Ron Davis

    Greg McCreanor July 23rd, 2010 at 11:19

    Ron Davis says that the contact wound may have been fired from 14 to 27 centimetres from Robin Bain’s head. However, the firearms expert who demonstrated the holding of the rifle to his head at the Christchurch trial held the gun directly against his temple. So this question is still open;
    is it possible to hold a rifle with a silencer 14 to 27 centimetres from your head or not?
    Sounds rather dubious.
    Ron Davis

    I did not say that the rifle was fired from any distance away from Robins head. I said that the Crown witnesses said this. Read what I said above

    Ron Davis

  170. The police wanted to talk to Dean Cottle because they found his cell phone in Laniets room. Cottle went into the police station accomanied by his Lawyer and gave the statement about what he said Laniet had told him. Which was, that she was giving up the prostitution game and was going to tell her mother about her father Robin having an incestuous relationship with her .This was basicaly Cottles evidence. Instead of investigating this evidence ( Which Karams private detective did some time after the first trial and found several supporting witnesses for Cottles affidavit.)The police arrested David Bain.
    This was three days after the incident happened and it was before the blood in the case had been analysed. The police were very selective in how they went about collecting evidence. They placed great emphathis on green fibres found under Stephen Bains finger nails but ignored the brown fibres. They made a great fuss about finding the broken glasses in Davids room and then the lens in Stephens room, There is a reasonable explanation for how the glasses were broken and how they came to be in Davids room on the arm of the chair and it does not involve David. They did not find any forensic material under Davids finger nails. They did not investigate properly the forensic scrapings from under Robins finger nails. There are no reports of any scrapings from under Margarets or Laniets or Arawas finger nails. One would have thought that even if nothing was found under their nails it would have been reported. There is a good chance that Robins skin and blood would have been found under one or more of the females given that Robins hands had nicks and scratches that had occured 6 or 7 hours before his death. This evidence would have supported Davids testimony at the firstb trial ,that he heard a violent altercation take place out side his room late on the Sunday night between Robin and other members of his family.
    This was importent evidence that would have backed up Dean Cottles affidavit but the police appear to have ignored it or suppresed it.
    THe behaviour of the police in this case,was similar in parts to the manner in which the police behaved in the Arthur Allan Thomas Case.
    Ignoring the evidence of witnesses that do not suite their case. Destroying what could have been crucial evidence (The slides of the blood from under Robin Bains nails.) The behaviour of the legal profession in the Thomas case raises serious questions. There was hard evidence that the Thomas rifle did not shoot the Crewes and the police and the DSIR as it was known at the time, knew this. What happened should have been blindingly obvious to any one with even a tiny brain. What happened was this.
    After the Crewes bodies were found in the Waikato and recovered. Two .22 bullets were found in their heads. The police then went round the Pukekawa district and picked up all the .22 rifles in that area. Amongst those rifles that were picked up was Arthur Allan Thomas’ rifle. They were given to a Dr Donald Nelson for testing ballisticly to see if the striations on the rifle bullets matched the striations of the bullets found in the Crewes heads. NONE OF THE RIFLES TESTED MATCHED AND DR NELSON MADE NOTES ON WORKSHEETS TO THAT EFFECT ‘NO MATCH’ This included the Thomas rifle and the Thomas rifle was handed back to Thomas.
    A week or so later Hutton, the Det in charge of the investigation repossesed the Thomas rifle and shortly after this the next door neighbors of the Crewes heard two rifle shots fired .When they went out to see what was going on they saw Hutton and his offsider a Det Johnson driving out of the Crewes property. I can’t remember what was said but I Think these people reported the incident.
    Hutton then ordered the flower beds outside the room where the killings had taken place, going by the blood on the chair and the carpet. These beds had already been searched twice and nothing had been found, This time however, two cartridge cases were found and Dr Nelson identified them as coming from The Thomas rifle. Thomas the had a trial at which he was found guilty. A Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal. I think it went to the privy Council at one stage but I am not sure about that. Fresh evidence was produced after a Dr Sprott was brought into the case and found out that the bullets taken from the Crewes heads had a number 8 stamped on the base and after examining thousands of bullets he discovered that the number 8 bullets were never fitted to the type of cartridge cases that had been fired from Thomas’s rifle. A new trial was ordered. During the trial the police set up bus or van out side the Court with radio phones etc and went to enourmous lenghts to try and win the case. They even managed to get a former shipmate of one of the leading Detectives on the case, elected as foreman of the jury. All This worked and Thomas was found guilty again.
    I happened to know one of the members of the jury. He was a member of a club to which I belonged at the time. I had followed the case in the paper and was aware of the evidence of Dr Sprott. I asked this man how come they found Thomas guilty again ,given this new evidence.I will never forget his reply.” Ah ” He said. We could tell he was guilty by his eyes”
    So much for the jury system, but the whole point of this post is this. Nobody, not the Crown prosecuters, not the defence (And Thomas had some top lawyers) Not members of the Appeal Court. No one asked the obvious question
    WHY WAS THOMAS’S RIFLE GIVEN BACK TOO HIM AFTER IT WAS TESTED BY THE DSIR.?
    Following on from that, why didn’t the defence ask for a rexamination of the evidential bullets from the Crewes heads to see if they matched The Thomas rifle.
    Now that last paragraph doesn’t seem like rocket science to me. But had anyone had the basic inteligence to ask what was an obvious question then it would have saved the taxpayer the cost of Two trials two Courts of appeal hearings the fees of half a dozen lawyers and The million that was paid to Thomas as compensation. I cannot remember if it was Pounds or Dollars.
    What is the point of this in relation to the Bain case.? Well obviously do not take every thing the police put forwards as evidence in a trial as gospel And the ESR who did the tests in the Bain case is the same ESR who did the tests in the David Docherty Rape case. Docherty did three years for that crime which he did not committ and would have served eight years had it not been for another scientist not connected to the ESR who proved that the semen found on the Rape victims clothing was not Dochertys.
    Even then the ESR stuck to it’s guns and gave evidence at Dochertys new trial that still tried to incriminate Docherty I have a copy of the documentary that was shown on TV that covers in detail all of that case .So there is another one and don’t forget the one that nearly got away.the Jeanine Law case. The officer in charge of that case thought that a woman with a towel stuffed down her throat. on her bed semi naked with semen in her vagina had died of an Asma attack. It took another three years and an astute constable (Who wrecked his job prospects to come up with the perpetrator Ron

  171. different cases ron. different cases.

  172. I agree that they are different cases, the point was that there is a mind set among some police officers to make a case against some one in order to obtain a conviction by either supressing evidence or adding some of their own. They also use trickery to obtain Convictions as in the David Tamahere where he was paraded past witnesses who were brought in to identify him and months after Tamahere was convicted the male Swedes body was found 60 miles away from where he was supposed to have been killed
    Peter Ellis in the Christ church creche case. That whole case was a load of rubbish but Ellis has never been compensated. Thomas, Haigh, Barlow Watson, All extremely dubious cases.

  173. Ron Davis.
    Oh! so the Peter Ellis creche case was a load of rubbish was it, well what would you say if I told you that the police had receipts to prove that Ellis had taken some of the kids from the creche to a certain motel on a certain day?..but however Ellis is not the focus of this discussion, but just something for you to think about though.

  174. It’s likely that a silencer would have an effect on powder burns at point blank range. it effectively adds 3 to 4 centimeters to the distance from the barrel and would hold extra powder. it’s perfectly feasible and comfortable to get into a similar position as Robin would have been in if he shot himself. I can do it with a long barreled 22 plus silencer (with the bolt and magazine removed) and I’m a little under five foot three. It’s amazing that Robin’s arm length was never measured and footprints on carpets not kept. And that evidence was destroyed after the case. The police should expect numbers of their murder investigations to be challenged as long as people remember the Arthur Allen Thomas case – that’s a self inflicted wound, and they still won’t man up about that. It’s unfortunate that a dead man can’t defend himself, but surely that goes with any murder/suicide.

  175. thats your summary? that was terrible!!! in making a summary i would have bullet points including, -robin had bad vision and yet didnt put on his glasses, -robin brought in the papaer.
    – the cartridge that left the gun after he “shot himself” landed in the room with the computer (a perfect hidding place for david to hide and wait his father) and there are other problems with the case on robin… why do you not include all of them clearly!?!

  176. Forget it Sam! Some people seem to fancy themselves as forensic detectives specialising in firearms. All other evidence would derail them from their obsession.

  177. WAS IT DAVID -OR- ROBIN

    Evidence pointing to David -VS- Evidence pointing to Robin

    1. David’s fingerprints in blood
    on murder weapon.
    2. The glasses implicate David, his lawyer said David
    would not dispute that he was wearing them
    on the weekend of the murders.
    3. Brothers blood on David’s
    clothes.
    4. Opera Otago Gondoliers sweatshirt
    was worn by David over weekend,
    had blood stains on right shoulder
    no explanation from David.
    5. David’s gloves were found drenched
    with blood kicked under dead brothers
    bed.
    6. David Changed his Testimony
    regarding rooms he visited
    after ringing 111.
    7. David heard Laniet “his words”
    groaning an gurgling.
    8. 3 separate witnesses said David
    organized family meeting.
    9. David had a Shooting Board
    Consisting of Five Targets in his Room.
    10.David told the police twice that the
    green jersey was Arawa’s
    but at trial he said for the first time
    that it was Robins and also for the first
    time, that Robin was wearing it over
    the weekend .
    11. Too very credible witness said David a few years
    before planned to use the paper run as
    an alibi to assault a female jogger.
    12.A friend of Arawa’s said David not Robin was
    intimidating the family with the rifle.
    13.David washed all the killers blood soaked
    clothes.
    14. Blood was found on David’s duvet cover
    and light switch in his room.
    15.David had 3 unexplained separate
    bruises on his head.
    16.Dr Pryde who examined David said these
    bruises were made in the early hours
    of the Monday morning.
    17. David told of a premonition where something
    terrible was to happen.
    18. The rifle mag was found on its thin edge
    experiments showed that it was 100%
    more likely that it was planted.
    19. The timing of when David arrived home
    easily puts him in the house when
    the final shot that killed Robin was fired.
    20.A girlfriend of David’s and a prison guard said David
    had unexplained scratches going from his
    shoulder down his chest.
    21. Davids palm print in blood was found
    on the washing machine.

    The one and only piece of evidence with experiments done by forensic people that pointed to Robin as the maker of the bloody sock prints, was criticized by the trial judge, neither experiments done by both sides at trial mimicked the way the prints would have been made. Mr. Hentschel from the ESR was the first man to measure the luminal footprints in the Bain house. His testimony was that he measured the prints with the biggest print 280mm long. Mr. Hentschel measured the prints only from the toe “area” to the heel “area”, and therefore the full print could have been larger. He said that it was a complete print in that it comprised of the toes and the heel however he said that it was not the”complete toe and heal” he also said he measured the area of strongest luminance.

    BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES = 99% DAVID BAIN GUILTY!!

  178. Bob,
    I agree 100% with all you have set out here, you are a very logical & switched on man…this is the sort of evidence I’m hoping Michael Laws challenges Joe Karam with when they debate whodunit on radio live soon, scheduled for the morning of August 6th I think it is….that’s if Joe can make it then.