Brian Edwards Media

Mr Michael Reed QC on ‘Close Up’ – A Commentary

[On the documentary’s conclusions]

Mr Reed:  Well, I think its unadulterated rubbish. I think the programme is utterly irresponsible. And we are seriously considering a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority against TV1 for misleading the public, causing great concern to Mr Young.

Mr Reed seems to take the position that if you call something ‘rubbish’ often enough, you will have made your case.

It’s unlikely that the BSA would uphold such a complaint. The programme presented a hypothesis or theory about a crime. Viewers are left to make up their own minds about the rightness or wrongness of that theory.

Mr Reed: If people have been watching TV3 tonight, you’d have seen Mr Young explain the whole position and he’s an utterly truthful witness.

Mr Young does not ‘explain the whole position’ in the TV3 news item. On the contrary, his answers seem rather uncertain and confused:

Mr Young: I possibly went earlier [than he had said in court] and it was a separate sales call altogether and a separate sale. There’s been two visits. You know, I did a visit in ‘91. Ian Arthur [his employee] most likely did one in ‘93. Given my experience in ‘91 with Robin Bain, I probably wasn’t that keen to go back. The reality is that there’s been two calls, two separate sales calls, and it’s been mixed up as one.  

In his court testimony, Young claimed to have visited Robin Bain three times around 1992 or 1993. He now claims that he first visited Robin in 1991,  then says that he ‘probably wasn’t that keen to go back’, apparently to explain why it was Ian Arthur who went back on 2 July 1993.

So Mr Young’s explanation of ‘the whole position’ seems to be that he ‘possibly’ made a call in 1991 and that Ian Arthur ‘most likely’ made a call in 1993 when the contract was signed, and that the two have got mixed up. So we’re missing all three calls to Robin Bain which Mr Young told the court  he made around 1992 or 1993. 

Mr Reed: And there is no basis whatsoever for the main part of the promos for the programme saying they’d got new evidence. It’s rubbish. There is no new evidence.

It’s correct that the main part of the promos promised there would be new evidence.  But it was certainly not the main part of the documentary. That  revolved around the improbability of there being almost no blood on Robin’s clothes and none of his fingerprints on the rifle with which he is supposed to have slaughtered four members of his family and shot himself in the head.

Mr Reed: It’s not hearsay evidence when you observe someone getting out of  a van.

No, but in the case of Mr Young, it’s entirely uncorroborated evidence. No-one else was there.

Mr Reed: Despite what the family are saying there were lots of witnesses called, respectable people, school teachers, school principals, psychologists, to show that he was a dirty, smelly old man. He might once have been a charming man, but in the time leading up to the murders he was badly depressed, he was separated, he was dirty, he was living in a van in a paddock for three years without a toilet or a washbasin. He stank when he went to school.

What is the relevance of this to what happened on June 20 1994? Are these the known precursors to murdering one’s family, then committing suicide?

 [Sainsbury returns to Bruce’s criticism of Young’s evidence.]

Mr Reed: Well, I’ve just said to you it’s absolute rubbish, it’s been proved to be wrong and that’s the whole basis of the programme, this new super-evidence, which is rubbish.

It was not  ‘the whole basis of the programme’. It was an element in the programme. The main basis was the near total absence of blood on Robin’s clothes, hands and feet and the total absence of his fingerprints on the rifle with which the defence claimed he had shot four people and himself.

Mr Reed: Mr Young did do what he says and he was corroborated by other employees at the time, corroborated by other witnesses at the trial. The family are talking rubbish when they suggest there was nothing wrong with Robin Bain.

It makes absolutely no difference if Mr Young told other colleagues what he told the court he had seen at the camping ground. It is merely a repetition of the uncorroborated evidence. There was no one at the scene to corroborate Mr Young’s evidence.

And even if there were, what relevance would the scene have had to Robin’s guilt or innocence? Here is part of Young’s evidence at the trial:

Young: I heard voices

Reed: Would you be able to tell what sex the voices were?

Young: Ah, no. I just naturally assumed it was a female voice.

Scarcely the basis for assuming that Robin was having sex with his daughter in the van!

[An exchange follows about Bruce’s and Robin’s siblings’ suggestion that David should be prepared to respond to the claims made in the programme.]

Mr Reed: And you ask me what would David say. David could only say that he got home and found his family dead. There’s nothing more he can say. He’s already said it all. He’s already answered all these questions. He was cross-examined in the first trial by a very experienced prosecutor. He was interviewed by the police on four different occasions. He has said everything he can conceivably say. He has said he is not guilty. What does the family want him to say, other than to repeat what he’s already said time and time again?

I agree. There is no onus on David to say anything further. It is, however, worth noting that, after giving evidence in the first trial he was found guilty of murder. The jury did not believe him. In the second trial, presumably on the advice of counsel, he declined to take the stand. He was perfectly entitled to do so. He was found not guilty. That second jury had no opportunity to form a judgement on his credibility as a witness.

On Close Up Mr Reed challenges Bryan Bruce to publicly debate his claims with him or Joe Karam. Reed says that Bruce will only agree to this challenge if David is present and, I presume, is willing to talk. Bruce must know that that is never going to happen, so his agreement to appear with Reed or Karam under those conditions is largely meaningless. I see that as a serious  weakness in Bruce’s position. But no more serious than Mr Reed’s failure to make any mention whatsoever of the total lack of scientific evidence connecting Robin Bain to the murders, apparently preferring to concentrate on what may be the least relevant part of the documentary, Bruce’s critique of Young’s evidence.

Close Up Programme

TV3 Interview with Young

Bruce Documentary

,

75 Comments:

  1. It sounds like the programme had some good points…but the problem I have with the whole sorry mess is similar to the problem Gareth Morgan has with our health system…the articulate and pushy few get the most attention.

    Our justice system is littered with these kind of cases…doubtful verdicts, victims left to rot inside and outside jail.

    The nation/media gets itself tied in knots over the middle-class, white and “normal” fighting the establishment…but are happy with a justice system that picks on “the usual suspects” with glee – throwing maori, poor and inarticulate to the dogs of a soon-to-be profit-driven justice system. Why?…well there’s only one answer really…

  2. plus I think he got a mixed up about who the real ‘flat-earthers’ are!

  3. Good points. I was disappointed that Mark Sainsbury did not take a tougher stance with Michael Reed QC. He let him get away with again insulting Robin Bain (“a dirty, smelly man” etc) when, as Sainsbury should have pointed out, if anyone had the temerity to insult David Bain in such a manner, Reed Karam and co. would have been apoplectic with outrage.

    He also let Reed get away with the “rubbish-rubbish-rubbish” approach, rather than challenge him to come up with more intelligent responses than simply blanket trashing of the documentary. This was disappointing, as I *have* seen Mark Sainsbury (occasionally) get tough with interviewees…but not this one. Was he perhaps intimidated by the initials “QC”?

  4. Mr. Reed: Well, I think its unadulterated rubbish. I think the programme is utterly irresponsible. And we are seriously considering a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority against TV1 for misleading the public, causing great concern to Mr Young.

    See? More lawyer bluster-and-bullying from the “esteemed” Michael Reed QC; threatening BSA action against TV1, who had the cheek to air a programme that pricked at his vanity. But, we expected nothing less; so, in that regard, he doesn’t disappoint.

    Reed, places much credence as to the reliability of Daryl Young’s testimony. But, listening to this man’s exchange — on the mobile call — with Bryan Bruce, the tenor of his voice is riven with hesitancy, reticence, evasiveness and untruthfulness. No one could be accused of casting aspersions on this particular witness’s candour, when he does it so spectacularly, himself.

    “Unadulterated rubbish”, “a load of old rubbish” and “utterly irresponsible”. The most original turn of phrase, Michael Reed QC, can proffer? Rather ordinary, bordering on the clichéd and hackneyed; right up there with “at the end of the day”. Sadly, I was not overawed by this QC’s putative intellect; I was expecting some incisive eloquence in the course of his — miffed — repudiation of the programme. Something, just a little more compelling, to do “justice” to his moniker. Because, he doesn’t show off his QC countenance by straying dangerously close to simple rationalisations, where even law interns would avoid.

    The real disappointment of it all, is — that, Reed claims he was pitted against one of NZ’s “best” prosecutors. And it was, himself, who prevailed. I’m not sure, if that’s testimony to a brilliant legal mind, or an indictment on the prosecutorial arm of the Justice Department.

  5. I think it fair to suggest that if people actually study the evidence (as opposed to taking emotional viewpoints) they would have no reasonable doubt about david bain”s guilt.
    we ought not to be surprised by mr reed q c and his opinions,however inelegantly expressed.(from a q c ?) He can hardly change his stance now.
    Unfortunately TV one no longer employ serious interviewers, which the amiable,jovial mark sainsbury hardly is.
    anyone know what brian edwards is doing these days?

  6. What makes Reed think that Robin is dirty? The photo of a dead Robin does not support Reed’s vicious description. Robin’s clothes looked clean. He did not look unkempt nor smelly. Elastic waisted pants may not be everyone’s cup of tea but it hardly gives people the right to publically prejudge so harshly.
    If Robin was dirty, why would he care about washing the green cardigan? Dirty people who have ‘lost it’ do not notice filth and gore.

  7. bje, you need to do some research. This family was as disfunctional as it comes. You should have seen the caravan that Robin slept in at Every St, I don’ think unkempt is harsh enough to describe his living conditions. The TV 1, Bryan Bruce doco was biased and one sided. What about the timing of the computer, the empty shells in Robins caravan, who owned the green jersey and why was Laniet shot multiple times. As an FBI witness said- the killer hated her. David and Laniet got along well together, but if Robin wanted to end his incestuous relationship with his daughter, then what better way than show his hatred for what he had been doing.This programme was not balanced.

  8. Rubbish! Rubbish! Absolute Rubbish?

    Robin had a towel around his waist because he was about to bathe?
    Perhaps the bathing regime employed any of the multitude of alcohol based skin cleansers?
    The ‘woman’ in the van was Kim Hill?
    Indeed, he must have been an exhibitionistic middle-aged man to confidently appear in front of a young man, wearing nothing but a towel … as you would?
    And of course, Mr Young had his day in court as a STAR witness … cool!
    Mark Sainsbury did the perfect thing (unwittingly?) – he allowed Michael Reed QC to reveal himself …
    If David Bain were to enter into an open discussion with Bryan Bruce, I am certain Mr Bruce would not employ the vitriolic talents of the Bain defense team (desperate to dismiss any challenge to their apparently preferential hypothesis).
    Surely Mr Bain has nothing to fear from the methodical and calm Mr Bruce … or does he?

  9. ah, no alex. it’s just that i haven’t listened to the unsustantiated gossip and innuendo. research is grittier than what you are accepting as such.
    dysfunctional- a bit of a slide rule in these liberal times.
    incest- do you have photos?
    you have obviously kept a minute by minute diary of robin bain’s life, prior to his death, to know how he lived.
    are you seeing the subject, or just how he has been painted?

  10. Your article was helpful analysis, Mr Edwards. It’s a shame you were not doing the interview.

    I suspect the Bruce documentary is less significant because it may have changed minds, or altered the course of public debate, than that it represents a shift in public opinion about the Bain case that has been occurring since last year’s trial, and the revelations of suppressed evidence combined with questionable juror conduct.

    Of course the Bain case is not really about David – or even Robin – Bain. It is about Joe Karam and his view of the world, and has been so since the first trial. Bain is merely symbolic of that perspective, which Karam and his present mouthpiece Michael Reed are requiring us to accept. We never hear from the innocent man.

    I doubt whether anyone is much convinced by the Bain team’s bluster and outrage – these are less tactics, one feels, than a demonstration of growing impotence in the face of, ironically, increased public scepticism about the verdict since Bain’s acquittal.

    I liked Reed’s protest at the temerity of a person who didn’t attend the trial seeking to undermine the verdict. Quite. How dare Mr Karam have dared to challenge the verdict of the 1995 trial, that he did not attend.

  11. “Mr Reed: It’s not hearsay evidence when you observe someone getting out of a van.”

    Exactly! It proves he was in the van immediately prior to getting out of it! All this at a campground! A CAMPGROUND! (Which Robin wasn’t known to stay at; correct me if I’m wrong, but he stayed at the school house didn’t he?)

    “Reed: Would you be able to tell what sex the voices were?
    Young: Ah, no. I just naturally assumed it was a female voice.”

    He couldn’t tell which sex the voice belonged to, but made the assumption it was a female voice? On what grounds? As alluded to above, could it not have been the radio? If it was an earlier sale, then there’s probably a sales receipt for that as well (the documentary didn’t make it clear where the receipt shown was sourced from). That should clear everything up.

    It’s all irrelevant really as it concerns motive, which is not for the court to decide. The forensic evidence paints a clear picture of what happened that morning.

  12. “A demonstration of growing impotence in the face of, ironically, increased public scepticism about the verdict since Bain’s acquittal.”

    I agree completely and have consoled myself with this fact rather than getting terribly outraged by the second trial. It may have been better for David to do his time and emerge an “innocent man, done in by the system”, rather than have the hard forensic evidence brought back to public attention. This sad and extraordinary case will not go away, and the more it is talked about, the worse it gets for the DCB camp.

  13. “The real disappointment of it all, is — that, Reed claims he was pitted against one of NZ’s “best” prosecutors. And it was, himself, who prevailed. I’m not sure, if that’s testimony to a brilliant legal mind, or an indictment on the prosecutorial arm of the Justice Department.”

    I think he was referring to David’s cross-examination at the first trial by an “experienced prosecutor”. The first jury made up their minds on that one.

  14. The Bain family, the Kahui twins…we are building up a sad list of cases where the killers are walking free. I have an over-whelming sense of sadness for the victims, and shame that we could not do them justice.

  15. I am afraid to say a man who lived the way Robin Bain did in a van, parked anywhere, was obviously very unstable. I would wonder about his cleanliness and his state of mind.

  16. Apparently, Ludwig von Beethoven refused to bathe, Mao Tse-Tung wouldn’t brush his teeth, Marilyn Monroe rarely bathed. All geniuses. Mao may have had a few killed.

  17. Dianne: I would wonder about his cleanliness and his state of mind.

    That’s true. But in the same breath, you can say, he wouldn’t have washed himself of all the blood, and changed his clothes after the shootings, to meet his Maker. It doesn’t follow.

  18. This was disappointing, as I *have* seen Mark Sainsbury (occasionally) get tough with interviewees…but not this one. Was he perhaps intimidated by the initials “QC”?

    This is the same Mark Sainsbury whom we saw fawning all over “David! David” when the retrial was ordered. So, no surprises there.

  19. Daliwoo, I hear you. I was talking about Robin Bains state of mind. But if one was listening to Brian Bruce, he said whoever struggled with Stephen Bain, would of had to be covered in blood. Well David wasn’t covered in blood either. The other person who can’t speak is Laniet. Bruce said she was a liar, and couldn’t or wouldn’t believe that Robin had been having an incestuous realtionship with her.Bruce was basing his views on the Bain family telling him Robin wouldn’t do that. He didn’t know Robin personally. Nah, I still believe anyone who could live like Robin did, could well be capable of doing anything.There is reasonable doubt that David didn’t commit the murders,hence a Not Gulity verdict. Bruce said Robin was villified, well what about Laniet and David.

  20. BONE!
    Exactly! It proves he was in the van immediately prior to getting out of it! All this at a campground! A CAMPGROUND! (Which Robin wasn’t known to stay at; correct me if I’m wrong, but he stayed at the school house didn’t he?)

    Robin parked his van anywhere. It appears he had no real place of abode. Dam strange way to live, and how could a wife allow her husband to live like this.

  21. @Alex: actually, there were several witnesses who stated that Laniet was quite scared of David, and that is the reason why she shifted down to the Taieri.

    Dianne: A good friend of Laniet’s has told me personally that Laniet was well known to telling porkies. Also, I have have it on her authority that when Laniet was supposed to be having an incestuous interlude with Robin, (as implied by Dr Marjolein Copland’s evidence) that she was in fact having a threesome with her boyfriend and boyfriend’s friend, who she ended up having a relationship with. Remember the boyfriend gave evidence about Robin? Or perhaps you don’t? You are making a judgement call about a man who actually stayed with his wife and family, despite the circumstances. You are right about it being a damn strange way to live, but more people live in much worse conditions. Robin was also known to hand over all of his wages to his wife? But he didn’t own a rifle, threaten his siblings with it, nor was he known to use a target with 5 circles on it either. Robin might not have lived in such salubrious circumstances as you and I, but he was known as a kind and generous man, and I know someone who was a pupil with him and doesn’t have a bad word for him? Who do you know that knows him so well? Most of the people who back David have only known him since he began University, or since the trial. Most people who knew him before the murders have other opinions. Further about Laniet: most of those who vilified Laniet were defence witnesses. And also about Laniet, there is a pathology report which apparently shows that her pelvis never bore a child. There is no doubt that Laniet told porkies, including some as serious as saying that she had a child, twice, some people she told she had a black baby, and others she told that she had a white baby. And still others she told she had had an abortion. So why is the hearsay evidence about her having had incest taken so seriously? She obviously told porkies to one and all, and her friends tell me that. She was still a nice person, and prostitution has never been illegal. That was her chosen field. I certainly don’t hold that against her. Do you? Robin was vilified in the court and yet none of the evidence stacks up.

    The most important part of the documentary as far I was concerned is the fact that Mr Young was allowed to provide uncorroborated evidence that can clearly be discredited by two very reliable witnesses, who can actually provide dates and documents to prove their story. And there is and was no Camping Ground at the Taieri Mouth. Therefore his evidence is completely untrue, and highly unreliable. And what has the year 1991, which he now claims was the year, have to do with the year of the murders? Everything that he said can be shown to be either fabricated or at least highly doubtful. Unlike Brian Edwards, I think that was the most important part of the documentary. It shows that the defence team were clutching at straws for their evidence. Almost all the people who knew Robin well say nothing but good things about him, and those who knew him either in passing or met him briefly seem to be the ones who made negative claims about him. I find it odd that David is unwilling to debate the matter himself. Most of those who claim innocence seem to have no problem about speaking publicly. Some even write books in their defence, and don’t rely on others to do it for them.

    Finally, it is not one’s appearance that makes one a murderer or a psychopath. Check out these two fresh faced young boys.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold

    Also, only 1.8% of murders are committed by males over the age of 50 and 35% are committed by males aged 17 to 24 and a in total, and another 35% by the two groups 14 to 17 and 35 to 40. So, let’s not go on appearances. Let us examine the hard evidence.

    Also, regarding the cartridges in the caravan. Do you think that on the days that Robin was away, that David might not have sneaked into the caravan on occasion, away from the family? And also, remember that the trigger lock key was found in Robin’s jacket pocket, in his van. So why would he not have used that key, and not gone searching for a key that Robin, according to David’s testimony, didn’t know about?

  22. @Dianne, actually Dianne, there was blood found on David, on the crotch of his knickers. Also there was evidence that someone did wash themselves in the bathroom. There was a lot of blood there. However, we know that Robin didn’t wash his hands? Why? Due to the fact that Robin still had dirt in the creases of his hand (no blood though) and under his finger nails. And the blood on the door jamb in Stephen’s room was at the same height as David’s shoulder. So, what did Robin do? Jump just to leave an impression there? Tsk, tsk, Dianne, you are obviously not very good at analysis are you? You are basing your judgement on the fact that Robin looked bad. Golly gosh, we’re all criminals by that standard.

  23. Just to clarify: blood on the knickers he was wearing when found by the police ;)

  24. Alex: There are many people who I know who knew David personally who could give you most unflattering descriptions of him. I would suggest that you really don’t know his history well at all.

  25. Remember that when David was first interviewed he stated that he hadn’t been in Stephen’s room. Yet, when faced by the information that he had some of Stephen’s blood on him, he then gave evidence that he had been in Stephen’s room. Also, his statement was that he had only seen his parents, and yet his 111 call states that “They’re all dead”. What does that mean? Does it mean that the parents are all dead. Again, he stated to the police that he had only seen his parents, and had not seen the rest of the family. If I found both of my parents dead (which they have been for many years) and I knew that my siblings were in the house, I would most certainly have searched the rest of the house to ensure that they were all ok, as I’m sure that you would. And to clarify, it is in the state of great shock that most people remember things very, very clearly. Things become very ingrained in their memory. I’m sure that if interviewed, independently, David would be able to recall every single movement he made that fateful morning, yet he contradicted himself several times, which is not in itself illegal, but doesn’t demonstrate great reliability as a witness. But good on David, at least he called the police. We know that as there are several reliable witnesses to corroborate the story.

  26. Gavin, you don’t have to justify your so called analytical mind to me. Your analysis of Laniet is as most of what you have said heresay.I am not talking about her having a baby. I am referring to her saying her father had an incestuous relationship with her. Her actions and mind are very much in tune with a girl who in all probability had been messed about with, and in her case turned to prostitution.The fact that she may have told some stories, does not eliminate Robins possible involvment with her.
    I am not saying anything about Robin with regards to the murders. I am saying a man who could live the way he was, could well be capable of anything.
    Tsk, tsk back to you. You weren’t there on that fateful morning, you are going on purely what you have read. Jumping on the band wagon of Brian Bruce’s analysis of Mr Young,your saying that he has lied, purely on the other blokes story.Your stating he is very reliable, how do you know. Nah sorry Brian Bruce made up his mind years ago who he considered to of commited these murders.
    I also love people who quote I know someone who new in your case Laniet.So they must be right.
    Actually I know someone also who is very close to family who said no way David, but you know what I have never based my thoughts or made a judgement on who committed these murders. I have my own ideas about this, but I won’t discuss them here.
    All I will say now, is this family were very disfunctional and I agree wholeheartdly with Alex.

  27. @Dianne,

    You continue to base your case on how the man looked. There are many who don’t look the best, but they don’t murder people. Don’t let your prejudices cloud your vision. And I never said I knew just one person who knew the family. I know students from the school, people who knew the family in Papua New Guinea and others who were friends of the family. So, let me see, not just one or two, I know people who knew the family in many different ways.

    Actually, I have been following the case since 1994, and I have am an admin of the Justice for Robin Bain (formerly David Bain is Guilty) Facebook group for over a year. I have read a huge amount and researched a huge amount on this case. For example, I have read the Privy Counsel’s decision document on the case: Have you? I have read quite a lot more of the evidence than the average person and I would think that I understand the case just a little bit better than many people. I certainly don’t judge people by their appearances. I have seen many pictures of Robin, in quite a variety of clothes. I just wonder how his brain matter managed to be splattered on a curtain some 4 meters from where his head lay? Can you explain this?

    I know people who knew the family directly. I read and followed the case every day last year, and I have personally investigated many of the claims made by both the prosecution and defence. And certainly, the family was dysfunctional. There are many in New Zealand that are. However, not all dysfunctional families end up dead. David fits the profile of a murderer much more closely than his father. As I said Dianne, just go and check out Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. They were the two young nice boys who murdered all of their school mates at Columbine High. They were from otherwise perfectly normal families. You only know about the hearsay (note the spelling) that has been put about by a certain gentleman, who has his own agenda. I am only interested in looking at the evidence. Remember the nice Mr Mark Lundy? He killed his wife and two children. Murderers are marked not by their looks, but by their actions. David was a killer of small animals, had a target of his family in his room and was known to intimidate his family with the rifle. He also was told off for shooting possums in a built up area (in the trees next to his house). He was known for his violent temper and strange behaviour. Robin, on the other hand was known as a quiet, mild-mannered man. Who do you think fits the profile, Dianne? Come and talk to me further at the Justice for Robin Bain Facebook group. There are people who have a combined knowledge of the case better than the average person in New Zealand. People who knew the family, the children and the parents, and knew their attitudes and behaviours. There are also people who took up the case of Robin Bain after following the case last year, and there are many who have followed the case for a very long time. Your attitude to Robin seems completely based on your how he looks.

    Regarding Alex’s comments. He is right, someone obviously did hate Laniet, and I would assume that whoever shot her did so in a fit of rage, and quite probably went back to finish her off, when he heard her gurgling.

    The programme was certainly more balanced than some of the writings by certain people. Bryan Bruce asked for David’s input, but David did not want to respond, and also he phoned Daryl Young and asked for his input, which is clear from the conversation on the programme. Both declined. Daryl had the same chance to put his story as everybody else in the programme and so did David. Also, there has been any amount of coverage of other points of view. Unbalanced? Hmm, not really. Brian Edward’s analysis is quite apt.

    Also, I ask you to check out this guy. Roger Keith Coleman. He had tens of thousands of supporters who thought that he couldn’t possibly have committed the crime, calling out always that he was framed and that he was innocent. Subsequent DNA testing showed that he was completely guilty.

  28. David wore funny jerseys, was spacing out before the killings and talked about “black hands” coming to get them. He could well be capable of anything.

  29. Bone: All that and more. By the way, someone pointed out to me last night (she had some of the extended Bain family members staying with her during the re-trial) that the Bain murders are a very interesting case. In most murder cases, the family of the accused usually support the accused during the trial. Almost without exception,the extended Bain family think that David committed the deeds. Isn’t that interesting? Also, I now have someone who did some work for Robin in the week before the murders. He tells me the following:

    “For some time before the killings he was living in the School House ( a 3 bedroom House adjoining the school grounds, with a bathroom!) Mon – Fri and traveling home to stay in the caravan to be with his kids in the weekends. The ERO Auditor testified to Robin’s state in 1993, when I saw him the week before the killings he was animated and positive ( and planning school activities on the computer i was fixing – from memory this was Wednesday or Thursday night before the tragic weekend.)

    So **at the time he died** he was not “a dirty smelly old man” and Michael Reed QC, in my opinion, owes Robin a public apology for saying so.”

    @Dianne: So, you’re completely wrong in your assertions, Dianne.

  30. There is hard unanswerable evidence that Robin Bain had the fight with Stephen The notes of Detective Mark Lodge list what blood was on Robins body and Clothes. He also describes the clothing that Robin was wearing.
    First The blood )Heavy stain on the front of the hood.
    Heavy stain on the back of the hood
    Stain on right shoulder.
    Stain on right elbow.
    Spots of blood on trackpants below the knees and on the thighs.
    Blood on ball of left thumb and little finger.
    Small spot of high impact blood on fingernail.
    Most of this is shown in photos published in Joe Karams book, “A Question of Justice”.
    Det Lodge goes on to describe Robins clothing.
    A Blue hooded sweat shirt.
    A brown woollen jumper under the sweat shirt.
    A Green Hat lodged in the hood of the sweat shirt.
    Blue Track pants.
    Other garments were also listed but the above are the ones that incriminate Robin.
    (1) All of these garments are visible in the photo of Robin Bain shown in Karams book.
    (2) If you look at the photo you will observe that the Green beanie that is trapped in the hood of the Blue seat shirt covers the heavy blood stain on the front of the hood.
    (3)The hood itself is draped back over Robins back in such a position that the heavy blood stain on the back of the hood is lying against Robins spine.
    (4) The blood stain on the right shoulder is behind the top seam of the garment which means it is behind the shoulder in such a position that any blood which may have sprayed from the wound in the left temple could not possibly have got there.
    (5)There is a small spray of blood on the bean bag near Robins left elbow which indicates that there was still a little bit of pressure left in the head. ( This confirms that it was a contact wound as there was a small pressure spray on the curtain which must have come from the initial shot)
    (6)There is no blood on the front or left hand side of Robins Blue sweat shirt which indicates that it is highly unlikely which indicates that any blood spraying out of the wound in Robins Left temple could have landed on his clothes.
    (7)If you look at the blood trail on Robins fore head You will note that it trails form the wound on the left side of his fore head and travels accros the fore head to the right side where it drops onto the carpet six to eight inches from Robins Right shoulder. The most importent part of this bit of evidence is the fact that the blood trails on the fore head are UNSMUDGED. They are pristine. This establishes that the Green beanie could not have been on Robins head when he was shot in the temple and the blood from the temple could not have got onto the front of the hood or the back of the hood or behind the shoulder of the right hand side of the hood or on the elbow of the right arm.
    (8)It is barely possible for some of the spots on Robins track pants that are below the knee to have come from the head wound but there are some spots on the pants that are behind the inner seam of the right leg of the track pants. It would be impossible for blood to have got there from the wound as these are behind the leg. ( See Photos in Karams book)
    (9)There is a video clip of Dr Hentschell giving evidence during the trial. He is asked by Mr Raftery, the prosecutor, “What did you find in the scrapings you took from under Stephen Bains fingernails.” Dr Hentschell replied. “GREEN WOOL FIBRES and BROWN WOOL FIBRES. ( This is available on replay TV one) Mr Raftery went on ” Did you find any correspondence with these fibres with other evidence you were shown” The Doctor replied.
    “They were similar in colour and appearence to the fibres from the green jersey that was in the laundry”……This was scientific evidence from a forensic scientist given to a jury?.
    (10) Later, blood scrapings were taken from under Robin Bains fingernails and given to Dr Hentschell who stated that they looked like blood but were too small to analyse The senior officer in charge of the case later on destroyed these samples.
    All of the foregoing establishes quite clearly that Robin was the person who had the fight with Stephen. During the fight blood from Stephens wounds got on the front and back of the hood. It got onto the green beanie. The hood and the beanie were knocked back from Robins head and the beanie remained trapped in the hood of the jacket where it covered up the blood stain on the front of the hood. Robin had been wearing the white opera gloves that belonged to David, not to hide fingerprints but because it was freezing cold and the metal of the rifle and the magazines would have been hard to handle.The gloves were soaked in blood so that explains how Robin got the blood under his fingernails ( How could blood get there from the wound in his head?)
    (11)There is a lot more logical explanations for what happened that day but one last point before I close. There was blood on a white gondalier T shirt that was found in the laundry. The police said David Bain had worn this while doing the killings but there is not the slightest evidence to back this up. The police also said that David had tried to sponge off the blood. What is more logical is that Robin used the white T shirt to clean himself up after shooting Arawa. Quite likely Arawa had been woken up by the noise of the fight with Stephen and had got out of bed and was starting to pull on the green jersey when Robin shot her. Perhaps Robin picked up the green jersey and tried to wipe the rifle with it. Wool is not very good for this task so he went on in to the laundry and through it on the wash pile.(Where later on when David came home from his paper round and did his usual chore of the washing,David picked it up to put into the wash and got that small splotch on the crotch of his shorts.) Robin then used the white gondalier T shirt as a flannel wiped the rifle with it and wiped his hands and face. But he did not do a very good job of cleaning himself as he left a short trail of blood over his right eyebrow. This does not connect to any of the blood trails that come from Robins head wound so the only explanation of how it got there is the fight with Stephen. Wipeing the rifle with the white shirt also explain why the bullet which was the final shot fired into Laniets head split up into three bits before entering her head. A piece of white cotton material was found in that head wound and the police tried to say that the shooter had fired that last shot through a pad of white cloth and this caused the bullet to split up. Well I challenge the police to demonstrate this. I would bet you could fire a thousand shots through a pad of white cotton cloth of whatever thickness you like and the bullet would remain intact
    Thats all for now Ron

  31. I did not make clear the part about the white cotton found in Laniets head wound. The point I was trying to make was,while wiping the rifle a bit of white cotton tore off the white T shirt or a bit of white cotton pilling from other washing dropped into the silencer and lodged on the baffles. When the bullet was fired it would have been diflected by the cotton onto the baffles and this would have caused the bullet to disintegrate Ron

  32. Bryan Bruce was allowed to go to air with a documentary on the Bain case, less than a week prior to David Collins the Solicitor General deciding to retry David Bain. The Doco was highly biased towards the opinion Bruce has that David Bain was the killer. He actualy said as much at the end of the show. I was so incensed by this that I contacted the producer of the show and offered to send him a video I had put together which establishes clearly that Robin was the perpetrater.
    I received a reply thanking me for my offer but because it was likely that the Solicitor General was going to retry David it would be subjudice.
    (I have copies of this correspondence) What this amounted to was …It was OK for Bryan Bruce to highly detrimental comment which could have been seen by any potential juror but not OK for any one else to rebut it)

  33. In my first missive I numbered several points (1) like that. At Point Number (6) in the first sentence I used the phrase ” Which indicates” Twice. To make the sentence make sense please delete the second usage the phrase.
    Also, the whole point of the letter was to prove that the blood on Robin could not have come from his own head wound. How could blood get on the back of the hood which is up against Robins back for example? There is not the slightest evidence that Robin changed his clothes or took off his boots. The bloody footprints in the hall had to have been made by David Bain. He was the only one who had blood on his socks. 17 police and ambulance officers marched up and down that hall, plus a dog and a cat before any plastic sheeting was laid down by the police. The prints would totally unreliable and could have been overprinted by any of the foregoing. The fact that David made those prints actuly indicate that David was innocent, for this reason.The killers first attempt to kill Stephen failed and a noisy fight took place which must have gone on for some time (This also indicates that it was Robin.David was a fit young man whoi ran marathons and had a job delivering papers round the hills of Dunedin He would have had no trouble overcoming Stephen whereas the fight exhausted Robin and he staggered down the hall after eventualy killing Stephen.)The killer whether it was David or Robin would have known that the noise of the fight would have woken Arawa. It would have taken more time for the killer to clear the jammed round and inflict the final shot into Stephens head. The killer would not have wasted time coming out of Margarets room and then going into Laniets room as the bloody footprints indicate. No, he would have gone straight down the stairs to deal with Arawa before she could possibly leave the house and go for help Arawa had been awakened by the noise and was out of bed when she was shot. She was probably about to put on the green jersey when Robin shot her and perhaps that explains how blood could possibly have got on the jersey. Maybe Robin tried to wipe the rifle with it and then took it into the laundry and threw it on the wash pile. David May have got the blood on his shorts when he picked it up to put into the machine. Robin wanted to dispose of every one who had heard Laniets accusation of incest which is why David was spared. David was asleep when the altercation started so he knew nothing about it.
    The bloody footprints coming out of Margarets room and turning into Laniets room therefore indicate that they were made by David as he went round the house after finding his mother and brother dead. Laniet received the final shot through the top of her head after Robin had finished shooting Arawa and after he had cleaned himself up a bit using the white gondalier T shirt. When Robin reached the top of the stairs, he heard Laniet gurgling and went in and gave her the final shot which disintegrated the bullet. Joe Karam, in his book David and Goliath, printed the notes of Detective Mark Lodge and correctly analysed it as incontrevertible proof that Robin was the killer. A few pages further on however he puts forwards the theory that Robin Bain took of his boots and changed his clothes basing this argument during the trial on the lenghts of footprints which as I pointed out earlier, were highly suspect as evidence. There is not the slightest evidence that stands up to scrutiny that Robin Bain took off his boots or changed his clothes. There is a direct connection between Robin and the fight with Stephen from Dr Hentschells evidence regarding the GREEN WOOL FIBRES AND THE BROWN WOOL FIBRES found under Stephens fingernails. Robin was wearing garments that contained both those fibres. There is not the slightest evidence that David Bain wore the Green jersey that had been through the washing machine or that he had worn the white gondalier T shirt that morning. David certainly had nothing containing BROWN WOOL FIBRES that week end whereas Robin was actualy wearing both those materials. If anyone can counter any of my arguments I will be interested to see how they can do this Ron Davis

  34. Ron, shame that none of the blood found on Robin Bain matched anybody else but him. And you forget that Robin’s body was moved, and not by the police. Therefore there was every opportunity of it being his own blood and having dripped there. Also, none of the blood found on Robin was anybody’s but his own. So, Ron, how could the blood in the hood and beanie be Stephen’s? Iw was Robin’s blood. Oh, deary me. No wonder everybody is so confused about this trial. Also, I would point out that there are over 100 known inaccuracies in Joe Karam’s first book, so I really wouldn’t take that seriously.:) Nothing was found under Robin’s fingernails except dirt. And also, he hadn’t washed his hands, as there was dirt in the creases. I will review your statements again later, but sorry, you’ve haven’t begun well. Your first mistake is to take Joe Karam’s book as accurate. Also, the footprints in the hallway were almost certainly David’s. The measurement of the footprints was taken from the point of greatest pressure, so not at the tip of the toe, and not at the end of the heel, but rather the point somewhat in from there. Your explanation of how David came to have blood on his crotch is pretty incredible really. If the jersey was covered in blood then there would certainly have been rather more blood and David would have had a lot more blood on him, which would have coated his legs. He claims not to have seen any blood whilst washing them. Really? The amount of blood on the jersey would have literally coated him with it. And once again, Robin never washed his hands, so how is it that he managed to still have dirt in the creases? And tell me please, how is it the blood on the door jamb was the height of David’s shoulder? And the green fibres were tested to be the ones from the green jersey. Is there any evidence that David wasn’t wearing a brown woollen garment that morning? David changed out of his clothes that morning. We know that. He states it himself. And the fight in Stephen’s room means that whoever was involved in the fight would have had to have had Stephen’s blood on him. David did, and Robin didn’t. Also, why were David’s fingerprints clearly impressed in Stephen’s blood on the rifle. And I say Stephen’s blood and not someone else’s blood, nor was it in an animal’s blood, or in gun oil. Here is why. Blood after a time will begin to flake. The last known instance when there could have been animal fresh animal blood on the rifle was February. That would almost certainly have begun to degrade by the time of the murders. As well, we can discount gun oil. Why? Because finger prints in gun oil begin to degrade very quickly, so that they would not have been clear at all by the time the finger prints were photographed. Also, the blood sample was taken from very near them, and there was no evidence that there were two types of blood there. Also, you mention the white t-shirt. Equally well, it could have been David that wiped the rifle with the t-shirt. Remember all of the other finger prints were smudged. Were the fibres cross-matched? I don’t know. However, you might be right about them being the reason that they were present. Blood supposedly present in the barrel of the rifle? Easy. After David shot Robin, he moved Robin’s body, thus contaminating the whole scene. The most telling point against your whole thesis though, is the fact that all of the blood on Robin’s body was his own. And hence, he must have changed his clothes. But he didn’t, as he was wearing the same clothes as he had been in the day before, and he hadn’t washed. Whereas he must have had blood on his hands, which would have leaked through the gloves. None found that matched Stephen. And yet you continue to believe that Robin had Stephen’s blood on him. Hence, the two parts of your story contradict each other. Either he fought Stephen, and got lots of blood on him and then changed out of the clothes found in the washing machine, or he must have had Stephen’s blood on him, but none was found. You are simply grasping at straws if you state that some of the drops of blood were Stephen’s. Everything large enough to be analysed was, and none of it was Stephen’s, including the blood on the hood and shoulder. You can’t seriously believe that there would be small spots of blood on Robin from a fight with Stephen. Robin’s body being moved by David would certainly explain his blood being on the hood, and the shoulder as described.

    Regarding Arawa: She was known to have been at a party the night before, and so was probably very tired, so would not necessarily have woken to the commotion. You make an assumption that the fight took a long time. I’m sure that it didn’t take long to make the mess that it did. I remember having fights with my very much larger brother in my teens. I would have fought like fury, and we would have moved all over the room. In the Bain murder scenario, that would have involved lots of blood everywhere, in quick split time. And I also know that if I had to fight my elderly father, I would most certainly have escaped, because, despite his strength, he was no where near as agile as I.

    In summary, you can go through the evidence piece by piece and find an interpretation that fits the scenario that Robin murdered his family, however, the whole story then falls apart when you try and logically sequence the events and you investigate the minutiae. And tell me Ron, why would Robin use the spare trigger lock key when he had in his possession the normal trigger lock key, found in his jacket, in his van? Why was it there? Because David had given it to him the day before. There is a very good reason why David would use the spare key though: he didn’t know where Robin had placed the usual key and would have been forced to use the spare key.

  35. Ron: the sentence “Robin never washed his hands, as he still had dirt in the creases.”

  36. Gavin I suggest that you view the documentary on the David Docherty Rape case. This was researched pretty carefully By Donna Chisholm a journalist who is now connected with the North and South magazine. The ESR DNA evidence in that case was proven to be incorrect. During the trial the scientist admited that her original evidence that the semen on the girls underware was David Dochertys was not true. But she went on to say that based on her profesional experience she could not exclude Davids semen because she thought it might be there.Given the foregoing how on earth can we be sure that the ESR witness is not mistaken in this case. Those garments were not tested properly in the first trial only 4 spots were tested. The Doctor who did the testing also tested the smears on the hall and the blood on the rifle His name was Dr Cropp. He could not differentiate those bloodstains between M<argaret, Laniet, David or Stephen. This evidence is still available if you go to TVNZ on demand But he states without equivocation that the 4 spots that he tested from Robins track pants were Robins. The 4 spots might have been Robins, but the blood behind the right leg, behind the right shoulder, on the left elbow on the front of the hood, on the Green beanie and behind the hood and around the periphery of his finger nails and under his finger nails. Please explain to me how all this blood could have come from a small head wound in his left temple. If blood sprays out from an orifice it does not come back and land on your body. A simple experiment is hold a garden hose and turn it on. The water will flow away from your body on some distance away from you slowly turn off the tap and you will observe that the spray comes towards you but it still will not land on your body until it actualy stops and then you might get one or two drips. You certainly could not get the amount of blood that is on Robins Clothes
    How do you explain the Green and Brown Fibres that Hentschell found under Stephens finger nails
    He tried to connect David to the green fibres by saying that they were SIMILAR in colour to the fibres from a green jersey that was found in the wash. Well,SIMILAR does not sound like a scientific term to me. How SIMILAR were they to the green fibres from Robins green woolen hat?
    Also there is not the slightest evidence that the green jersey was worn by either David or Robin
    If there is I would be delighted if you could direct me to it. Where are the BROWN WOOL FIBRES that connect David to the fight with Stephen?
    I did not say that Robin washed his hands I said that he wiped his face and hands and the rifle with the white gondalier T shirt and he still had blood under his finger nails. This was identified by Dr Hentschell as looking like blood but he said that it was too small a sample to identify Det Robinson whose Rank escapes me but he was the head of the investigation corroborated this but then said that after he came back from Australia. He destroyed the slides, Are we supposed to ignore all of this?
    Robin obviously had access to the rifle how else to explain the 20 or so bullet cases found in his caravan? You ask "Is there any evidence to prove that David was not wearing Brown wool garments that morning?" Of course not you are asking to prove a negative Regarding the fight with Stephen. If David was the fit young man who had the fight with Stephen, why did he become so exhausted that he staggered down the hall bumping into things and leaving blood stains that match the height of the bloodstained green beanie and the bloody hood draped over the back of Robin Bain? That Argument of yours does not wash

  37. Regarding the spare key for the trigger lock. The key that was used was the key that was in a jar on Davids dresser. The other key that David normally wore round his neck was in Davids coat that he had left in Robins caravan. Whether Robin knew that the key was in his caravan we have no means of knowing but it was still in the caravan in Davids coat after the murders. It seems obvious the Robin used the key from the jar. Given that there were about 20 empty cartridge cases in Robins caravan, it is a reasonable assumption that Robin knew where the jar key was and had used it to obtain the rifle and practise with it. This suggest premedtitation. Why would Robin pick up the empty cases and take them back to his caravan? Perhaps so that no one would come across them and ask questions?

  38. I think that the green beanie trapped in the hood of Robins blue sweat shirt is the key to the whole case. Think about it. David is supposed to have shot all the members of his family prior to going on his paper round. He did the killings wearing just his socks and shorts and is supposed to have put on a green jumper which he later washed
    This to account for no blood being found on the upper part of his body. David then pulls on his running shoes, still wearing the blood stained socks. No blood is found in the shoes however although David still has blood stained socks on when the police arrive. David returns from his round and goes straight into the computer alcove, types the message ( You are the only one who deserves to stay. Or deserved I forget which but it could have been a typo the D and The S are next to each other.) And then waits in the alcove for Robin to come in and say his prayers in front of the curtain to the computer room.
    Robin was dressed in a Blue hooded Sweat Shirt that morning and for blood to have got onto the Blue hood front and back and also onto the green beanie he must have been wearing the green beanie and also had the hood pulled up over the beanie. How else could blood have got onto those garments unless they were in such a position that blood could get onto those garments. If you look at the police photo of Robin lying in the lounge after he had been shot, you can see that the green beanie is trapped in the hood of his Blue shirt in such a position that the frontal blood stain on the hood is covered by the beanie and the hood is laid back so that the blood stain on the back of the hood is now obscured by both the front part of the hood and the beanie.
    Now , if Robin came into the lounge wearing the beanie with the hood up over it and was then shot by David at an angle of 45 degrees to the centerline of the head and almost a horizontal plane if he was standing up staring straight ahead. ( This is almost an impossible shot for some one else to make. If Robin was kneeling down saying his prayers, his head would be bowed, in order to bring some bare posiblity into the story the police story was that David crouched behind the curtain and poked the gun through. David was 6 ft 4 ins tall. Why would he crouch? He would be in a vunerable position if Robin had happened to notice that the computer was switched on and walked into the alcove (And why didn’t Robin notice the computer was switched on?) Of course, if David was standing up then the only shot he could make would be down through the top of Robins head.
    In spite of the evidence of the Experts Dr Thompson and Prof Ferris, the wound had to have been a contact wound. Dr Dempster and Det Mark Lodge both thought it was a contact wound and they actualy saw the body and did not have to go
    from Photographs. The fact that the wound sprayed blood some distance over the curtain and over the bean bag as Robin fell back past it is clear evidence that high pressure gas as well as the bullet entered Robins head.
    On the evidence, it is more likely that Robin was standing up when he was shot. For a second or so the pressurised contents of his head sprayed blood over the curtain and the bean bag as he fell back, and then bled out over his fore head to his right hand side onto the carpet.
    At what stage is Robins blood supposed to have got onto the BACK of the hood. The FRONT of the hood. On the BEANIE. Behind the right shoulder.Behind the right elbow. Behind the right leg. Under his finger nails. Around the periphery oh his nails. On the ball of his thumb and on the little finger.
    If he was wearing the beanie and had the hood up over it when he was shot.
    (1)The blood that sprayed over the curtain could not have got on Robins clothes ( See the example of the water hose in an earlier post)
    (2)As he fell back and passed the bean bag, the wound was still spraying with sufficient force to pass over his left hand side and land on the bean bag.
    (3) The spray onto the bean bag was the finish of the pressurised spray from the wound, from then on the wound bled out from residual blood pressure left in his head.
    (4) If Robin was still wearing the green beanie with the hood up when he was shot how come that there are no blood stains on the inside of the hood or on the front of his blue shirt. Indeed, even from the temple wound there is no sign of any blood draining down the left hand side of Robins head.
    (5) If Robin was shot by David, at what stage was the beanie and the hood knocked back off of his head after getting his own blood on them,
    There have been some suggestions that Robin was shot near the curtain and then moved back to where he was found by David .In order to simulate suicide??. Well, with all due respect, the blood spray on the curtain and then on the bean bag put paid to that theory. The pressure spray from the wound would only have lasted for one or two seconds. If the Crown scenario that Robin was shot kneeling, then the impact of the bullet would have knocked Robin back towards his right and the blood spray should have gone over his shirt. It would have stopped by the time Robin was dragged round to where he was found. And why would anyone do any thing so ridiculous. Why would moving his body from in font of the curtain to where he was found indicate suicide. I am begining to think I have some how arrived on another planet.. Ron

  39. @Ron: impact from a .22 with special low noise bullets fired through a silencer would not knock a full-grown man over backwards. Au contraire, a person who has no muscular control, i.e. in a faint or fatal shot to the head, almost invariably falls forward.

    Well, Ron, the body was moved, as his head was far too far away from the curtains for the blood and brain matter to have hit it otherwise.

    “Why would moving his body from in font of the curtain to where he was found indicate suicide.”

    And in answer to why it would indicate suicide:
    You’re right, it wouldn’t, it would indicate murder. He could hardly have moved there under his own steam, after a fatal shot to the head, now could he?

    Dr Dempster gave evidence that the wound did not suicide, despite the fact that he thought it was at close range. To concur, Dr Robert Chapman, the defence witness, under cross-examination, agreed that the person in the best position to determine whether or not it was suicide was the examining pathologist. He also made a point of mentioning how variable in quality the photographs were. Yet he also based his evidence on these photographs.

  40. Gavin July 20th, 2010 at 21:06
    “‘
    @Ron: impact from a .22 with special low noise bullets fired through a silencer would not knock a full-grown man over backwards. Au contraire, a person who has no muscular control, i.e. in a faint or fatal shot to the head, almost invariably falls forward. ”
    Ron
    The impact of the bullet knocked Arawa back onto her back from a kneeling position. If Robin was supposed to be kneeling why would that not happen to him?.
    Anyway the kinetic energy in a moving body. ie; a bullet. Is half the mass multiplied by the velocity squared. Even with a bullet that only weighs a few grains that is still quite an impact
    Ron Davis

  41. To Gavin.

    Most of the case against David Bain was based on photographs and Video footage shot by the police, plus the evidence of forensic experts.
    I have followed the case ever since I read Karams book “David & Goliath ” and the book by McNiesh,
    ” The Mask of Sanity ” I also downloaded the full transcript of the NZ Court of Appeal decision on the application for a Royal Pardon and The Privy Council Transcript of their case. I have copies of a lot of the News paper reports of the Trials and DVD’s of various programs shown on TV and Tv on demand. The only photos that I have had access to are those in Karams book and McNeishes book.
    Plus a few I have taken from the TV by pausing the action and photographing the screen.
    Going back to my discussion about Arawa, It ocured to me that the position of the body of Arawa, would be similar (There is that word again) to the position that Robins body would have assumed if he had in fact been kneeling when he was shot through the temple. That being the case,any photo of Arawa showing the blood trails and splashes, if any from the wound in her forehead and whether or not it was a Non Contact wound or a Contact wound, (The Pathologist who did the autopsie on her should have had an opinion regarding this.)Then this should give us a few clues as to how the blood stains and trails on Robin should or should not have been. I wonder if photos of Arawa were shown during the second trial. They were both supposed to be kneeling and obviously Arawa has NOT been moved so where did the blood go on Arawa ?

  42. Gavin July 12th, 2010 at 13:13

    “@Dianne, actually Dianne, there was blood found on David, on the crotch of his knickers. Also there was evidence that someone did wash themselves in the bathroom. There was a lot of blood there. However, we know that Robin didn’t wash his hands? Why? Due to the fact that Robin still had dirt in the creases of his hand (no blood though) and under his finger nails. And the blood on the door jamb in Stephen’s room was at the same height as David’s shoulder. So, what did Robin do? Jump just to leave an impression there? Tsk, tsk, Dianne, you are obviously not very good at analysis are you? You are basing your judgement on the fact that Robin looked bad. Golly gosh, we’re all criminals by that standard.”
    Ron,
    Robin did not wash his hands,he wiped them cursorily with the white T shirt. Robin was 5ft10ins tall and David was 6ft 4ins tall so to argue that the blood stains on the doorposts and the walls could only have been made by David because of the difference in height is not valid for this reason. You are claiming that the bloodstains came from the height of Davids shoulder. Well, the height of the bloodstained green beanie and the height of the bloodstained hood which Robin is actually still wearing when he was photographed by the police would be aproximatly the same height as Davids shoulder,also it was loose and could have flailed around. The back of Robin neck is the same height as Davids shoulder and the green beanie is an open weave garment as noted by the scientist. There was no blood found on the green jersey, this was a story made up by the Crown lawyer, There is NO evidence that David wore the green jersey. Robin also had blood on the shoulder of his blue shirt and on the elbow of his blue shirt.These could have made the lower blood stains on the door post.
    The green beanie and the brown jumper that Robin was wearing also tie in with the green and brown wool fibres found under Stephens finger nails. The evidence against Robin is really overwhelming. Explain away the above if you can.
    Ron Davis

  43. Ron: no blood on his hands except spots. Surely there would have been lots of blood on his hands from the bloodied gloves. Therefore a cursory wiping of the hands would still have left lots of blood. However, only spots were found. That is the point made by Bryan Bruce. And nothing that you can say will alter that fact. That alone clears Robin, as he still had dirt on his hands. Also, we don’t know what David wore that morning, except that we do know he did change his clothes at least once, by his own admission. So, he could have been wearing clothing that included brown wool, pink wool or magenta. Whereas it clearly appears that Robin was wearing exactly the clothes he was seen in the day before, and there is no evidence of him having washed. Blood on his beanie and the hood of his jacket? You’re saying that somehow he got blood there from fighting Stephen but no where else on his clothes? Oh, deary me. There would have been blood all over him. A scalp wound produces huge amounts of blood. He would simply have to have changed, but he didn’t wash, so how could that be?

  44. If the Crown had found the slightest trace of anything with brown wool fibres on or in it they would have presented it as evidence because that really would have been the clincher that it was David. Instead, the Crown drew an extremly long bow and introduced the green jersey. All that can be said about the green jersey is that it was found in the washing machine after having been through the wash.
    As far as the blood on Robins hands. There was only one spot and that was on a finger nail that had at one stage been covered in blood but then had been wiped and a ring of congeald blood was left around the periphery of the nail. This small spot was high impact blood and was on then left hand so it probably came from the last shot that Robin fired into Laniets head, after he finished wiping his hands in the laundry.
    One further thing Gavin, regarding the blood on Robin Bains forehead. If you look at the photo of Robin in Karams book David And Goliath, the blood trail comes out of the wound and travlels in three distinct trails over his fore head and off onto the carpet by his right ear. now if as you say, Robin had been moved after having been shot. Then surely his head must have swung around as he was being moved and the blood trails would have gone every which way. Instead they are a steady stream showing no signs of disturbence whatsoever.
    So far Gavin you have failed to destroy any one of my arguments
    Ron Davis

  45. The smears of blood on Robins left hand probably came from the leather strap of the rifle which still had blood on it. After Robin shot himself and fell backwards towards the bean bag, his hand must have slid through the strap as the rifle fell and left the smear on his little finger and on the ball of his thumb. This must have been Stephens blood and if the police had done their job properly and had it properly tested, that alone would have solved the case.Incidentaly. Why would the Detective in charge of the investigation destroy this evidence. A couple of slides would not have taken up much storage space would they . When Robinson was asked that question he answered “I don’t know”
    Ron Davis

  46. what formal qualifications do you have, ron, that put you above experienced police, education review staff,scientists and ballistics experts?
    you treat verbal offerings made at trial by david as evidence.
    if the forensics don’t suit your theory you say the professionals have it wrong.
    you turn yourself inside out ron, to create your scene as you wish it.
    i challenge you to have an open mind and go through the what if it wasn’t robin path.

  47. bje July 22nd, 2010 at 07:40

    what formal qualifications do you have, ron, that put you above experienced police, education review staff,scientists and ballistics experts?
    you treat verbal offerings made at trial by david as evidence.
    if the forensics don’t suit your theory you say the professionals have it wrong.
    you turn yourself inside out ron, to create your scene as you wish it.
    i challenge you to have an open mind and go through the what if it wasn’t robin path.
    Ron.
    As a matter of fact I do have quite a few qualifications and certificates to hang on my wall but I don’t see why I have to justify myself to you. All the points in this case are readily available in print or video form. I suggest that YOU look at it with an open mind.
    I get the impression that most of you people who are so dogmatic that Robin Bain was an innocent party unjustifiably accused of incest with his daughter Laniet are Christians of one sort or another. Well, in recent times some horrifying facts have emmerged as to the manner in which some Christians have used their positions of power over young children to sexualy debauch them. Here are a few.
    Dr Graham Cappill. Innumerable Catholic Priests.
    A lay preacher at the Royal Oak Baptist Church.
    The Christian Brothers community in Australia.
    Did you see the film The Magdalene Sisters. About the Catholic Laundry in Dublin. Any young girl who was unfortunate enough to get pregnant, was dumped into this place and made to work, then delivered of her child which was then taken away for adoption and then they were kept in this place some times for 15 or 20 years. I visited Dublin a few years ago and was shown around this place(It is now closed down)by a guide who also told us the same story. So the fact that Robin Bain may or may not have been a paedophile, does not surprise me.
    The photos three photos in Karams book ( which are police photos with police notes attached to them) plus the notes of Detective Mark Lodge, are unanswerable proof that Robin was the killer.
    These are (1) the photo showing the blood trail over Robins forehead and the spray of blood over the bean bag.
    (2) The photo of the blue track pants showing the blood spots to the REAR of the inside seam of the right leg. Which means that the spots are behind the knee.
    (3) The photo of the Blue hooded sweat shirt. This shows a heavy blood stain on the front of the hood. A smaller blood stain which is behind the right shoulder (The photo shows this to appear to be on the front of the garment, but the material has been rucked forwards to make it seem that it is on the front)
    All this is hard evidence plus we have Detective Lodges notes.
    Heavy blood stain on the back of the hood of the blue sweat shirt GREEN WOOL BEANIE caught in the hood. BROWN WOOL JERSEY under the blue sweat shirt.
    Then we have Dr Hentschell, GREEN AND BROWN WOOL FIBRES UNDER STEPHENS FINGER NAILS.
    Now tell me what is the HARD evidence against David? Ron Davis

  48. immediately wrong judgement ron. i don’t subscribe to any particular religious/spiritual following. this is about seeking truth, based on evidence.
    you demonstrate that you are letting your prejudices get in the way of things, methinks.

  49. bje July 22nd, 2010 at 13:24

    immediately wrong judgement ron. i don’t subscribe to any particular religious/spiritual following. this is about seeking truth, based on evidence.
    you demonstrate that you are letting your prejudices get in the way of things, methinks.

    Ron.
    No different to your jumping to the conclusion that I have no qualifications. I could be a retired Superintendent from Scotland Yard for all you know. As far as evidence goes, please explain to me how all that blood on Robin Bain got where it was from the small wound in the left temple.
    If you can do that in an intelligent manner. Then I will withdraw every thing I have written
    Ron

  50. @Ron: Your memory might be going. I’m not sure, but here is a quote that you made early on:

    “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”

    So, unless you were telling porkies then, you are in fact, a retired diesel mechanic.

    And you are quite wrong about me, that is for certain. I’m an atheist of very long standing. I don’t believe in conjecture.

    A small wound in the left temple? It would have bled profusely. And you are stating that you can somehow quantify the amount of blood on the hood from a photo? Better you than I.

  51. Ron: Spent cartridge in the alcove? Any ideas on that one?

  52. you are not offending me ron, so write what you like (just down expect me to have to believe it)and i’m not putting you down by asking if you are formally and appropriately qualified to make comments over riding what experienced specialists have said. i certainly wasn’t jumping to a conclusion by asking an open question.i feel it’s a pertinent question in light of your posts, though.you sound like an interesting, passionate kind of guy – but i am not in ageement with you on this issue, based on a raft of reasons.

  53. One thing Gavin You are good for a laugh. There are many things you can be and many places to have lived and worked in 82 years Just a few——
    Santos Brazil: Pango Pango American Samoa:
    Rarotonga Cook islands: Mt Hagen Papua New Guina:
    Nandi Fiji: London England:
    Some for a minimum of 6 months some for as long as 8 years. All kinds of different occupations. All of them well paid
    Ron

  54. Gavin July 22nd, 2010 at 16:30

    Ron: Spent cartridge in the alcove? Any ideas on that one?
    Ron.
    Well, for one thing, it sort of shoots down the theory put forwards by the Crown that Robin was shot by David. David was supposed to have been waiting in the computer room crouched behind the curtain for Robin to come in and kneel down in front of the curtain to say his prayers. (where on earth did they dream that one up ?)
    Of course, the problem for the Crown with that idea is the rifle ejects from the right hand side. It was a semi automatic and it ejects instantly the cartridge in the breech is fired.
    If David pushed the rifle through the curtain and lined up Robins head at an angle of 45 degrees and within 8 degrees of horizontal and shot him, then the ejected spent case would have landed in the lounge somewhere. Probably over by the bean bag. Not behind him near the computer where it was found by Det Andersen. Whereas if Robin had used the right hand door post of the computer room to support the rifle while he lined it up for the shot Then the ejected case would have landed by the computer because the rifle would have been reversed and the right hand side would have faced the computer room
    Ron

  55. GAVIN

    And you are quite wrong about me, that is for certain. I’m an atheist of very long standing. I don’t believe in conjecture.”

    A small wound in the left temple? It would have bled profusely. And you are stating that you can somehow quantify the amount of blood on the hood from a photo? Better you than I.”

    RON.
    (1) Name any major part of the Crown case that isn’t conjecture or assumption.
    (2) Again, Much of the Crown case was based on experts basing their testimony on photographs.
    Especialy Dr Thompson and Professor Ferris.
    Ferris even went so far as to account for the blood stains on the curtain being caused by David SHAKING Robins head near the curtain. Wow! thats a scientific analysis of the facts ain’t it.
    The blood trails over Robins fore head certainly show signs of being shaken don’t they.? Whoops, There, now I’ve gone and broke my Daddys rule about sarcasm.
    Ron

  56. @Ron: He would have just had the barrel through the curtains, not the whole rifle! Therefore the spent cartridge would have ejected into the alcove. Your idea isn’t possible, as the butt of the rifle would have had to have been through the curtains, a gap only a few centimetres wide. Yes, regarding some of the crown witnesses, you are right. However, better that than some of the nonsense on the defence side. More on that later. However, facts: David seen wearing mother’s glasses during the weekend. Glasses broken by Monday morning. Broken glasses in David’s room, where David was found. He asked for the glasses. They didn’t know at that point that David actually needed glasses to do almost everything. Other lens found in Stephen’s room. So, David knew about the glasses being in his room, or else why would he have asked for them. Robin’s glasses were in the caravan. He couldn’t have seen what he was doing regarding using a rifle, inserting the trigger lock key, finding the trigger lock key. David would have worn the glasses on his paper round. Robin’s alarm clock was set to 6.30am, David’s was set to a time earlier than he claims he normally awoke. So, Robin would have had to wait until David left before embarking on a murderous spree. Mmm, more likely David arose early, went in a murdered the family and then did his paper-run after having already put the clothes in the wash. Is this conjecture, partly, but a much more likely scenario than Robin rushing around madly. And there is evidence that David was out on his paper run earlier that usual. Immediately, one suspects that the person who has changed his habits is the more likely suspect, in order to get the extra deeds done. And murderers are much more likely to be young males, by well over a factor of 10 times more likely. As well, whilst familicides are often committed by the father, the median age is 34. And whilst Robin had scarring on his hands, the idea that they were teeth marks was shown to be quite silly. David had bruises on his face, and yes they might have been from bumping around the house, but that was because his were broken. And why was that? Oh, in a fight.

    Anyway, Ron, at least your comments are intelligent and thought out. I’m not excluding conjecture at all. However, David will never get compensation, because he was rightly tried, and couldn’t explain his actions on the morning of the crime, couldn’t account for the time, and changed his story in many details.

    Cheers

    Gavin

  57. Gavin.
    He would have had the barrel through the curtain not the whole rifle.

    Ron.
    Well that assumes that Robin was so close to the curtain that David would Not have had to push the rifle through very far. That does not seem normal to me. Like every other animal humans need their own personal space. I don’t believe Robin would have knelt down to say his prayers with his face so close to the curtain, if indeed that is what he did. This was a story made up by Bill White ? was that his name?. The Crown Prosecutor in the first trial. if you care to really think about it, for an assasin to shoot someone else through the temple, at an angle of 45 degrees to the center line of the body and within 8 degrees of horizontal if the victim was looking straight ahead, is, for a start very difficult to do.
    He would have to hold the rifle higher than his shoulder to get the horizontal angle required. He would have to have the victim close enough to the curtain for the pressurised wound to spray blood onto the curtain. (By the way, it had to be a contact wound for it to be pressurised. Laniets wounds to the side of her head were not pressurised and they did not spray blood. It was her normal remaining body pressure that created the blood trails down the side of her head.)
    The prosecutor was well aware of this problem so he made up the ridiculous story of Robin kneeling down to say his prayers and David waiting for Robin to come in to say them. In order for the horizontal shot to be possible, the Prosecutor also had David CROUCHED BEHIND THE CURTAIN. Now there is not the slightest evidence for any of this. Who told them that Robin came in to the house to say his prayers. Why on earth would he choose such a cluttered place as in front of the curtain.The computer must have been on when Robin was shot for the Crown scenario to wash. Why didn’t Robin notice this and check it?. They said the David switched it on as soon as he came in and then waited behind the curtain.
    Why wasn’t Robin wearing the beanie when he was shot.? He was supposed to have come in from his caravan on a freezing cold morning .He would surely have been wearing the beanie on his head and probably also have had the hood up too.
    The police photo of Robin lying in the lounge, shows the beanie trapped in the hood of his Blue sweat shirt. So please explain to me how and when this happened.
    If Robin was wearing the beanie when he was shot, then the bullet should have gone through the beanie. Robin was bald and he had big ears.I can show you a thousand photos of Dunedinites wearing beanies and they are all pulled down over their fore heads and ears. but the bullet did NOT go through it. So how did it get knocked off and trapped in the hood of the jacket. There are only three possible scenarios.
    (1) Robin was wearing the beanie and the hood when he came in and knelt down (Ignoring the computer light.)
    (2) Robin wore only the beanie and the hood was draped over his back.
    (3) Robin came in with the beanie caught in the hood of his jacket with both garments hanging over his back.

    If it was (1) Then the bullet would have gone through both the hood and the beanie,if you pull up a hood it automaticly assumes a position over ones forehead. The woolen beanie would have absorbed the blood coming out of the temple wound. It would probably have prevented it from spraying as the wool would have closed round the hole. It would have stopped the blood trail over Robins forehead and when it was moved off the head it would have smudged any blood trails.
    If it was (2) Then the same argument as the last paragraph would apply, plus, the hood would be in such a position that no blood could have got on the back of it. Blood could possibly have got on the front of it.
    If it was (3) Then no blood could have got on the hood front or back. It could possibly have got onto the small patch of blood shown on the beanie in the photo of the beanie trapped in the hood but not on other parts of the beanie.
    The only explanation that stands up to logical explanation is (3) That is that Robin had the fight with Stephen, got blood on the back of the hood from Stephens bloody hand wound, got blood on the front of the beanie from the same source. When the hood got knocked back this exposed the beanie and this then got blood on it and finaly was pushed back and the beanie got trapped in the hood.The fight with Stephen also explains how blood got behind Robins right shoulder. On his right elbow. Behind his right knee. Having soaked through the white glove that Robin was wearing ‘cos it was cold blood got under his finger nails and over his finger nails. The blood over his fingernails was partialy wiped off with the White Gondalier T Shirt.
    The glasses have a logical explantion that I dealt with before
    Ron Davis

  58. Gavin.

    Regarding the glasses.

    If David had been wearing his Mothers glasses ( The glasses were his Mothers although the Crown in the first trial allowed the jury to be told that they were Davids glasses) and got them broken in a fight with Stephen then.
    (1) You would expect to find some injury to his nose of some kind if the glasses had been knocked off in a fight. There was none.
    (2)The fight went on for some time, The boy was swung round and round the room spraying blood onto the walls of the room and the periphery. He was banged into furniture which left marks on his body. He probably screamed until he was strangled.
    The noise would have wakened Arawa who slept down below. The killer ,whether it was David or
    Robin would have known that he had awakened her. Even after had overcome Stephen, he still had to take off the gloves, remove the jammed cartridge and fire the fatal shot in to Stephens head. It is highly likely that Arawa called out to her Mother as the noise came from her Mothers room,
    Who ever was the killer would not have sodded around in that shambles of a room of Stephens looking for Broken glasses. Don’t forget Both lens were missing from the frame and one lens had bounced under the bed. So Gavin you would have us believe that David ,having finaly overcome Stephen searches around and finds a broken frame and then one lens. This would have taken some time. Look at the photos of that room.
    Sorry Gavin. The killer would not have wasted time doing this, he would have hotfooted it down the stairs to take care of Arawa in case she went out the house and raised the alarm. It is highly unlikely that the glasses were broken in the fight with Stephen. Much more likely that the glasses were broken earlier in the day like around midnight when Robin had the fight with Margaret and received those nicks and scratches on his hands. (Six or seven hours prior to death according to the pathologist) If you don’t think that is how they were caused How do you account for them?
    If Robin broke those glasses during the fight with Margaret. Then he or they had ample time to look around for the glasses after things had cooled down a bit and Robin probably apologised for breaking them and told her he would get them fixed. He put the frame and the single lens that they had found and put them in his pocket. Later on when he started on the path to slaughter every one in his family who had heard Laniets accusations of incest. ( And that was everyone except David.) He went to put the spare maagzine
    in his that pocket and took out the glasses and put them on the chair so that he had unimpeded access to the magazine.
    Ron Davis

  59. Gavin
    When I got interested in this case many years ago ,now.I purchased Karams book “David and Goliath” and read it through carefully several times.
    I also obtained McNeishes Book “The Mask Of Sanity” ( I was not very impressed with this book it was full of a load of material that really had nothing to do with the case )
    I then purchased a second copy of Karams book and I cut out all the photo plates in the book and scanned them into my printer and blew them up to A4 size. At this enlargement every detail in the photos is chrystal clear. I have a pair of track pants and a hoodie,similar to the clothes that Robin was wearing. Using graph paper I worked out the positions of the blood spots on Robins track pants in relation to the crotch and the cuffs and the seam on the inside of the right leg of the pants and marked off these spots on my own track pants in the same approximate positions.
    Using coloured tape.
    I did the same thing to the hoodie sticking tape to the front of the hood,the back of the hood, behind the right shoulder hood ,and behind the right elbow. I then put this gear on and set up a video camera and video taped myself in all the possible positions Robin could have got into if one followed the Crowns Theory of kneeling in front of the curtain,or my theory of putting the rifle up against door,or Davids defence lawyers theory of putting the rifle on a chair.
    i have been called to breakfast so I will finish this later Ron

  60. Gavin.To Continue.

    If The Robin kneeling in front of the curtain scenario is used then it is blindingly obvious that no matter which way Robin fell, it would be impossible for any blood to have got onto the legs of the track pants AT ALL! Also the wound is in Robins left temple but there is no blood on the left hand curtain at all. I would have thought that if Robin was in that position and fell forwards ,then the blood spray would have hit the left curtain and hit it much lower than the blood spray shown in the photo of the right curtain.
    There are spots of blood on the front of the track pants below the knee on both legs. There are no spots of blood on the front of Robins clothing AT ALL. If Robin fell backwards or sideways from that position, his knees still remain tucked under his thighs.How come no blood on his front?
    To claim that Robin was moved from where he was shot is negated by the clear unmarked pristine blood trails running from the wound in his left temple, over his fore head and onto the carpet.
    If Robin had been dragged round from where he was supposed to have been shot, in front of the curtain, to where he was shown in the police photo of how they found him when they came in. In this case the blood trails on his forehead would have gone in different directions. Also this would have taken a little bit of time to accomplish. David would have had to put down the rifle ,come through the curtain, lift Robins body one way or another .(By the armpits,? by the feet?
    By the arms ? By the time he had dragged the body round to where it was shown, the wound would have stopped spraying and there would be no blood on the bean bag. So there is no evidence that Robin was moved, Rather the evidence indicates that Robin collapsed instantly, fell backwards past the bean bag and finished up as shown in the photo.The ejected case found near the computer also poses a problem for the Crown scenario. As I said in another post the rifle ejects to the right and if David was supposed to have pushed the rifle through the curtain, the the ejected case should have gone out into the lounge,.Gavin put forward the idea that David only pushed the rifle barrel through the curtain and the rifle ejected inside the curtain. Even if this happened,the case would still have ejected to the right of the shooter and would not have finished up by the computer on the other side of the room.

    It was possible for him to have shot himself by putting the butt of the rifle on the chair by the right hand curtain but that would make it difficult for the ejected cartridge case to have finished up near the computer the same as above.
    The wound could certainly have sprayed over the curtain and it was barely possible for blood to have sprayed below his knees. It could not have got behind his knee on the right leg. It could not have got behind the hood of the beanie. It could not have got behind his right shoulder or his right elbow and if the green beanie as shown in the photo was trapped in his hood covering the front of the hood then no blood could have got onto the front of the hood.
    If he shot himself as I think he did, by putting the rifle up against the door post on the right hand side of the computer room that accounts for all the photographic evidence that was available to me . The ejected case could have got where it was found near the computer, Robin could have sprayed blood where it was shown on the curtain and he could have sprayed the remaining pressurised spray over the bean bag as he fell backwards.
    The fight with Stephen would explain how the blood got where it did and there is nothing to say that is not how it happened. It is perfectly possible for any of the blood stains on Robin to have got there from the fight with Stephen.
    Stephens bloody hand could have got behind Robins shoulder. Behind his hood. On front of his hood. As the kid fell down the spots could have sprayed on Robins track pants both behind the right knee and below the knee. t could have knocked off the beanie and got blood on it and the hood could have been knocked off.
    Just out of curiosity, How was the hood and the beanie supposed to have got knocked off if David was the killer and when was it knocked off ?
    Please don’t tell me that it happened while Robin was being dragged around because the blood trails prove that Robin was NOT MOVED
    Ron Davis
    PS Gavin said that Robin was 4 metres away from the curtain. Look at the main photo showing Robin,the rifle and the curtains. The rifle is lying with it’s butt just level with the curtain. It is a little over a metre long ( It is 79 centimetres form the trigger to the end of the silencer it is about 30 centimetres from Robins leg so Robins body is roughly 2 metres from the curtain NOT 4 METRES
    Ron

  61. you use scientific evidence at your own whim, ron, matching only that which suits your theory. to argue about spatial concept, with so many variables is hopeless. think when you drop a pin and cannot find, yet it fell so close to you.
    you constantly refer to the photo of robin’s dead body. well, i firmly believe robin’s face NOT to one that expects to receive a death bullet. his facial expression, in death, matches one who is totally unexpectant of his tragic and violent fate.

  62. bje July 24th, 2010 at 11:30

    you use scientific evidence at your own whim, ron, matching only that which suits your theory. to argue about spatial concept, with so many variables is hopeless. think when you drop a pin and cannot find, yet it fell so close to you.
    you constantly refer to the photo of robin’s dead body. well, i firmly believe robin’s face NOT to one that expects to receive a death bullet. his facial expression, in death, matches one who is totally unexpectant of his tragic and violent fate.

    Ron. I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that dead people keep the expression on their face that was there when they died. I lived through the war in Europe and had the misfortune to see quite a few dead people. Those that still had their faces, quite often looked surprised. I can’t say that any of them looked peaceful.
    Just do for me ONE THING explain to me how just one of the blood stains on Robins body which are in an inaccesible place to have got blood from the temple wound, got that blood on them.

  63. that is exactly right ron – robin did not look surprised, like he was expecting it. yes, that’s what i’m saying. robin did not look surprised.
    i’m sorry it has bought back that memory for you but do you see what i mean?
    with the blood stain you are asking me about- considering the body could have been moved, any smearing of blood could have happened i feel.
    you seem a good guy ron with a wealth of life experience so all health to you – but the evidence clearly points away from robin as killer in many and varied respects.

  64. Ron Davis, having attempted to wade through the innumerable number of posts you have made on this site, that really have nothing to do with the original topic of Mr Reed’s performance on Close-Up, but reflect instead your own peculiar obsession with the Bain case, I can only come to the conclusion that you are afflicted with a terrible malady: you are driven to construct a parallel universe to the one we actually live in by the accumulation of detail upon detail that only has meaning to a mind such as yours, that is set upon its own strangely fixated purpose. You are like a weaver bird that in piling twigs and assorted rubbish together to create its nest is under a misapphrehension that it is building a cathedral. It is of course nonsense, but your labours continue nonetheless.

  65. richard July 25th, 2010 at 03:51

    I can only come to the conclusion that you are afflicted with a terrible malady: you are driven to construct a parallel universe to the one we actually live in by the accumulation of detail upon detail that only has meaning to a mind such as yours, that is set upon its own strangely fixated purpose. You are like a weaver bird that in piling twigs and assorted rubbish together to create its nest is under a misapphrehension that it is building a cathedral. It is of course nonsense, but your labours continue nonetheless.

    Ron Davis
    Instead of attempting to to refute my arguments by presenting a logical reply, you resort to a personal attack on me. Well your diatribe is nothing to write home about. You contribute nothing to the debate. As far as the length of my posts I will admit that they are a trifle long but so are Gavins. if I had access to a TV production company like Bryan Bruce then I could show all the points that I have been making together with the photos and videos that I have retained over the years in 15 minuets. Just what did Bryan Bruces program contribute to the debate as to whether or not Robin Bain was the perpetrator. All that Bruce showed was that Mr Young may or may not have a very good memory. The crucial evidence in the case was Dean Cottles and sundry other witnesses who supported Dean Cottles affidavit. Incidentaly,What was it about Dean Cottles affidavit ,which was made in front of his solicitor that the Judge in the first trial found so unreliable. There are reports available that Cottle was subjected to Police harrasment during the year prior to the first trial and laid a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority. He was awarded $500 dollars I believe for a broken arm. Is this why Cottle was so terrified that he fled the country rather than give evidence?

  66. Ron Davis,

    On this subject you demonstrate there is no “debate”; there is only private obsession. Debate presupposes a meaningful exchange of views – even the possibility that views might change. That cannot happen when an argument becomes a deluge, from which the only sensible recourse is to get out of the way. Your opinions are presented as an unassailable torrent – no sane man would wish to contend with them in such horrendous volume. You convert no-one when your purpose is nothing more than your own private religion, as for you the Bain case has clearly become.

  67. Obsessed I may be. But I don’t think you or any body else who has commented on this case has proffered any answers to the questions that I have posed. This is the last time that I will comment on this web site. It is like arguing with a tin of treacle. I’ll run through the main points one last time. I know no one has given me a coherent answer so far but you never know, there may be some one out there who has a glimmer of intelligence.

    Here goes.
    (1) There is blood round the periphery and under Robins finger nails
    How did it get there from his head wound?.

    (2) There are blood spots on his track pants behind the right knee.
    How did they get there from his head wound?.

    (3) There is blood behind his right shoulder.
    How did it get there from his head wound?.

    (4) There is blood behind his right elbow.
    How did it get there from his head wound?.

    (5) There is blood on the ball of his left thumb and on the little finger of that hand.
    How did that get there from his head wound?.

    (6) There are heavy bloodstains on the front of the hood of his jacket, on the back of the hood of his jacket and on the beanie that is trapped in the hood of his jacket.
    How did they get there and how or when did they get knocked off if David was the killer?.

    ALL OF THE FOREGOING IS LOGICALY EXPLAINED BY THE BLOOD GETTING ON ROBINS CLOTHING DURING THE FIGHT HE HAD WITH STEPHEN.
    THERE IS NO POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR ANY OF THAT BLOOD GETTING THERE FROM HAVING BEEN SHOT BY DAVID.

    I am sorry to bore you with horrendous volumes of argument. This may have taken you 15 or 20 mins to read. David Bain spent 12 or 13 years behind bars for a crime that he did not commit. No doubt he got bored for some of the time during that period. You should step back and breath through your nose as Holyoake used to say, and think about that for a moment.

    I have no more to say on the matter Ron Davis

  68. Ron Davis,

    Your last post deserves a response. According to forensic evidence presented at trial there were a few tiny specks of blood on Robin. None of it was identified as Stephen’s. Indeed, an observation anonymously made by a juror after the first trial was how could Robin have shown virtually no signs that he had been in the mayhem of Stephen’s room, if he had been the killer. Meanwhile on David there were unexplained bruises, marks and abrasions.

    Stehen was a fit and healthy young teenage boy. I would have no doubt that in fighting for his life adrenalin would have more than doubled his strength. Do you really think that frail old man would have been capable of physically subduing and strangling his son – even if he had been motivated to do so, which I also very much doubt?

    I am a fit and healthy late middle-aged man who plays sport against young men, including teenage boys. I am sorry, but physically even a 14 year old, as Stephen was, has more than an edge in that department. At 58, Robin – small and barely able to lift firewood, according to a witness – couldn’t have done it. Only one person was clearly stronger than Stephen and that was the person the first jury found it easy to convict of this terrible crime – his 6’4” older brother. As the juror I referred to above said, “it wasn’t difficult, in the end everything led back to David” – and this was also in an acknowledgment of Karam’s much-publicised fantasisings.

    Do you really think that a father intent on annihilating his family, so hated one son that he would strangle him, and shoot him (after executing his wife and daughters) and then leave a fatuous and childish message on a computer saying why he spared the other? Do you think that Robin hated Stephen and loved David? – and only David! Could that really have been Robin Bain? No one who knew him (his family and old friends) believes that – but they do believe Stephen’s brother David was capable. I think they are right – and not just for the reasons above but the totality of credible (and some wasn’t) evidence presented in two courtrooms.

    That the second jury apparently bought Karam’s nonsensical postulations (although one juror now says publically their verdict was not an assertion of David’s “innocence”) shows in the end how some people will convince themselves, with a little help, of what they wish to believe(no matter how contorted the reasoning process)and remain deaf to what the facts would suggest.

    David Bain’s “innocence” has acquired for some the status of a religious cause, of belief sustained against reason; but, ultimately, that still doesn’t lift it out of the realm of pure superstition.

  69. To Richard

    Ron Davis,

    Your last post deserves a response. According to forensic evidence presented at trial there were a few tiny specks of blood on Robin. None of it was identified as Stephen’s. Indeed, an observation anonymously made by a juror after the first trial was how could Robin have shown virtually no signs that he had been in the mayhem of Stephen’s room, if he had been the killer. Meanwhile on David there were unexplained bruises, marks and abrasions.

    The fact that the blood stains on Robins clothing was not commented on by his lawyer, is a measure of his lawyers competence. You get what you pay for when it comes to lawyers.
    The Judge in the first trial even told the jury in one of the twelve points that he made in his summing up. “There was no blood on Robin Bain.”
    Well Richard, read the post that I made on July 26th @ 11-32. Obtain a copy of Karams book if you do not already possess one. Look at the police photos of Robins clothing ,read Det Mark Lodge’s notes. Now tell me
    there are is only a few tiny specks of blood on Robin. Do you have a visual problem.?
    The 4 spots that were actualy analysed ,were tested by Dr Cropp. This would be the same Dr Cropp that could not tell if the blood on the door posts came from Laniet, Stephen, Margaret, or David. Thats reliable evidence from a forensic scientist ain’t ?

  70. To Richard

    Stehen was a fit and healthy young teenage boy. I would have no doubt that in fighting for his life adrenalin would have more than doubled his strength. Do you really think that frail old man would have been capable of physically subduing and strangling his son – even if he had been motivated to do so, which I also very much doubt?

    Stephen was a fit healthy young man who had been shot through the palm of his hand and dazed by the bullet creasiing his scalp. He did put up quite a fight against his father but if his protagonist had been David, it would have been no contest. David was a trained athlete who ran marathons and delivered paper for 5 years round the hills of Dunedin. Also David would not have been so exhausted that he staggered down the hall leaving blood stains on door posts.

  71. To Richard

    Do you really think that a father intent on annihilating his family, so hated one son that he would strangle him, and shoot him (after executing his wife and daughters) and then leave a fatuous and childish message on a computer saying why he spared the other? Do you think that Robin hated Stephen and loved David? – and only David! Could that really have been Robin Bain? No one who knew him (his family and old friends) believes that – but they do believe Stephen’s brother David was capable. I think they are right – and not just for the reasons above but the totality of credible (and some wasn’t) evidence presented in two courtrooms.

    Ron. I think that Robin executed every one who was present during the altercation with his family when Laniet exposed him as a sexual pervert.The only person who was NOT PRESESENT during that altercation, was David. Robin was quite happy die being thought of as a lunatic but he did not want anyone to know that he had perverted his young daughter. The nicks and scratches on his hands made 6 or 7 hours beforte his death. (See Pathologist report) support Davids evidence of hearing the altercation. The evidence of Margaret and Laniet driving to the Bank and withdrawing money from Robins account at one o clock in the morning (Which was verified by CCTV footage.) Surely indicates even to the most obtuse person that something very heavy had gone down that morning
    Ron

  72. Ron Davis,

    1. You are quite right. It was “no contest” – although David did come away with a few souvenirs of their struggle in marks, cuts and abrasions.

    2. Nothing Joe Karam asserts about the case is based in credible fact.

    3, So, moving on, do you really imagine Robin hated Stephen and loved David – and only David? Remember, this is David, who said he hated his father.

    Ron, in its totality the forensic evidence against David Bain as far more compelling than any evidence against Robin Bain. There is none against Robin, except in the strange mind of Joe Karam.

    The fallacy in believing that Robin was the killer is in requiring prosaic motivations (the unsubstantiated incest allegations) for monstrous acts, motivations that were also not identifiable in Robin’s character by anyone who knew him.

    These acts were well planned, and carried out as an execution – even if the plan went awry in Stephen’s room. The killer must have hated his family – his entire family. This more likely suggests a form of psychopathy – no motive that you or I might understand – and an extravagant narcissism. These are acts of rage, not practical purpose. I suggest you read James McNeish’s excellent book if you want to understand that better – it seems you have digested enough Karam to last you more than a lifetime.

  73. To Richard

    Of all the things that went on during the Bain case, what really tees me off is the incredible evidence of some of the so called experts. Both Professor Ferris and Dr Thompson went to some lengths to try and establish that Robin could not have commited suicide, because the wound in his temple was not a contact wound. They both gave varying distances as to how far away the rifle was from Robins head. There was evidence that it was a contact wound. The wound was pressurised momentarily for it to have sprayed over the curtain to the computer alcove and for it to have continued spraying over the bean bag in the lounge next to Robins left elbow. That was the finish of the spray and from then on the wound drained out over Robins fore head to his right, in clear precise trails.
    If you look at the photo of Laniet in Karams book. It is obvious that the shots were fired from some distance away . There is no spray from these wounds, the left hand shoulder where spray should have gone IF the shot had been a contact shot, is perfectly clean.
    The proposition of Professor Ferris that Robins head was shaken by David as David was supposed to have dragged Robin round to the position in which he was found, and during this movement blood was shaken onto the curtain, is patently ridiculous.
    If this had happened,the pristine blood trails over Robins fore head would have been all over the place. Some blood would surely have got onto the front of Robins blue hoodie. There was no blood on the upper clothing on the front of Robin except behind the right shoulder and behind the right elbow. on the front of the hood and on the back of the hood. One clown that I conversed with told me that all this blood in different positions had dripped there from the wound. REALLY. Ron

  74. modern justice, one hopes, is not to be delivered by axe grinders, witch hunters, whisperers and disciples of charismatic profiteers.
    let it be delivered, ultimately, by expert specialists, experienced professionals, reputable character referees providing evidential proof.

  75. bje July 28th, 2010 at 21:28

    modern justice, one hopes, is not to be delivered by axe grinders, witch hunters, whisperers and disciples of charismatic profiteers.
    let it be delivered, ultimately, by expert specialists, experienced professionals, reputable character referees providing evidential proof.

    Ron.
    The experts were WRONG in the David Docherty case, The Arthur Allan Thomas Case The JesaninLaw case. The John Haigh case. The Lindsy Chamberlain case. The Guilford Four. The Peter Ellis case
    I could go on for another couple of pages. Please don’t talk to me about experts.
    There is an old adage that goes,”An expert is a person who learns more and more about less and less until eventualy they know every thing about nothing. Ron