Should David Bain get compensation?

Samson

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
12,733
Justice Minister Amy Adams says she is "one of the few people in New Zealand" who does not have a personal view on David Bain's guilt or innocence, and she will bring a fresh set of eyes to his long fight for compensation.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11365090

This strange case has New Zealanders split 50/50 whether it is a quintuple homicide or a qadruple murder suicide.
Clever sceptics will help solve this with online material.
 
Rats. I thought it was David Blaine, in which case the answer would have been, "Hell no!"
 
Looking at the evidence, he still looks pretty guilty.

All the last trial did was for the defense to portray Robin as the killer and cast that element of doubt into the jury, hence the not guilty verdict (not innocent).
 
Davo said:
Looking at the evidence, he still looks pretty guilty.

All the last trial did was for the defense to portray Robin as the killer and cast that element of doubt into the jury, hence the not guilty verdict (not innocent).
Click to expand...
Disclosure of interest.
Until recently I thought there were impossible hurdles to David Bain's innocence. He walked into the house at about 7 45 am after his paper delivery round, and the computer showed a suicide note saying
"You were the only one that deserved to stay" that means the father typed that then shot himself in that critical minute.

However, there is no precedent for multiple matricide siblicide that I am aware of. The father was estranged, lived in a caravan behind the house, and was allegedly having incest with his daughter who was a prostitute, and threatening to expose the case.

What was the motive for a callow 17 year old youth to kill his family?

And how can forensic examination of the scene leave in doubt the perpetrator?
Five dead bodies.

Recently was shown a photograph of the father's post mortem thumb that shows a close match to the cartridge that needed ramming into the shotgun before alleged self delivery.
 
Last edited:
We know there was a big struggle with the killer and Davids brother.

David got covered in blood and washed his clothing and had bruises to his face.

Robin had no blood on his clothing, no bruises or signs of a fight.

That alone points to David as the most likely killer.

The defenses suggestion that Robin could have taken a shower and changed his clothes (before killing himself) sounds unrealistic.
 
Davo said:
We know there was a big struggle with the killer and Davids brother.

David got covered in blood and washed his clothing and had bruises to his face.

Robin had no blood on his clothing, no bruises or signs of a fight.

That alone points to David as the most likely killer.

The defenses suggestion that Robin could have taken a shower and changed his clothes (before killing himself) sounds unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is why I hope old hands here help solve it. I met Joe Karam a few times, and he is persuasive, but I totally struggle with the timelines, David walks in just as the father starts the computer, types in the message and shoots himself.
In other words, there is no plausible perpetrator between the two of them. :confused:
 
Samson said:
Disclosure of interest.
Until recently I thought there were impossible hurdles to David Bain's innocence. He walked into the house at about 7 45 am after his paper delivery round, and the computer showed a suicide note saying
"You were the only one that deserved to stay" that means the father typed that then shot himself in that critical minute.

However, there is no precedent for multiple matricide siblicide that I am aware of. The father was estranged, lived in a caravan behind the house, and was allegedly having incest with his daughter who was a prostitute, and threatening to expose the case.

What was the motive for a callow 17 year old youth to kill his family?

And how can forensic examination of the scene leave in doubt the perpetrator?
Five dead bodies.

Recently was shown a photograph of the father's post mortem thumb that shows a close match to the cartridge that needed ramming into the shotgun before alleged self delivery.
Click to expand...
Take a look at Jeremy Bamber who supposedly murdered his adoptive parents and sister and her two children in an Essex farmhouse in 1985. There are many who think this case is a wrongful conviction and that the sister did it before turning the gun on herself.
 
anglolawyer said:
Take a look at Jeremy Bamber who supposedly murdered his adoptive parents and sister and her two children in an Essex farmhouse in 1985. There are many who think this case is a wrongful conviction and that the sister did it before turning the gun on herself.
Click to expand...

Including me. This was an awful case, and a terrible miscarriage.
 
Is there any reason it couldn't have been more than one person? Say, with a suicide pact that the final survivor didn't stick to?
 
marplots said:
Is there any reason it couldn't have been more than one person? Say, with a suicide pact that the final survivor didn't stick to?
Click to expand...

Are we back on Bain family here?
No, because that is a conspiracy theory and conspiracy theories are always wrong!
No worm holes to a better universe.
 
anglolawyer said:
Take a look at Jeremy Bamber who supposedly murdered his adoptive parents and sister and her two children in an Essex farmhouse in 1985. There are many who think this case is a wrongful conviction and that the sister did it before turning the gun on herself.
Click to expand...
Pretty good. My first thoughts are that he is probably innocent.
Those have become my automatic thoughts since Perugia.
You have better information, so if you cut to the chase, is he innocent?
I mention Kaosium because he declares Sarah Scazzi innocent, while Machiavelli says she is guilty.
How is it that these contentious cases should divide along"party" lines? This is what interests me alongside the ethical questions of incarcerating innocent because it accords the greatest good to the greatest number.
 
Samson said:
Pretty good. My first thoughts are that he is probably innocent.
Those have become my automatic thoughts since Perugia.
You have better information, so if you cut to the chase, is he innocent?
I mention Kaosium because he declares Sarah Scazzi innocent, while Machiavelli says she is guilty.
How is it that these contentious cases should divide along"party" lines? This is what interests me alongside the ethical questions of incarcerating innocent because it accords the greatest good to the greatest number.
Click to expand...

Bamber is very, very murky. I don't have a concluded view and would need to immerse myself to a far greater extent than I have to form one. I didn't know Machiavelli was pro-guilt on Scazzi. I also don't know much about that one but everything I have seen points to a wrongful conviction of the truly nutty kind that seems to be an Italian speciality.
 
anglolawyer said:
Bamber is very, very murky. I don't have a concluded view and would need to immerse myself to a far greater extent than I have to form one. I didn't know Machiavelli was pro-guilt on Scazzi. I also don't know much about that one but everything I have seen points to a wrongful conviction of the truly nutty kind that seems to be an Italian speciality.
Click to expand...
Actually I pm'd Kaosium on that one, and he responded that it was categorically a wrongful conviction and incarceration. The appeal is current and IIP are staying on track.
I see two distinct categories.
1. Convicted proclaims innocence but there are no other suspects.
2. Convicted proclaims innocence and there are excellently qualified alternative suspects.

These are the interesting cases.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Bamber is very, very murky. I don't have a concluded view and would need to immerse myself to a far greater extent than I have to form one.
Click to expand...

It's been a few years since I looked at the case, but I came to the conclusion that while he's clearly a bit of a twat, there was more evidence that the sister was responsible, not least because she probably didn't shoot herself until after the exterior of the property was swarming with police, and Bamber himself was outside with them.
 
Last edited:
Information Analyst said:
It's been a few years since I looked at the case, but I came to the conclusion that while he's clearly a bit of a twat, there was more evidence that the sister was responsible, not least because she probably didn't shoot herself until after the exterior of the property was swarming with police, and Bamber himself was outside with them.
Click to expand...
Everything is simultaneously possible and improbable.
The computer idea that you leave an exculpatory note when you could scrawl a hand written one is ridiculous.
But why would a kid kill when his life is ascending?
Why would a dad not kill when his life is descending?

Over to you Information analyst.
 
Information Analyst said:
It's been a few years since I looked at the case, but I came to the conclusion that while he's clearly a bit of a twat, there was more evidence that the sister was responsible, not least because she probably didn't shoot herself until after the exterior of the property was swarming with police, and Bamber himself was outside with them.
Click to expand...

One of many dodgy aspects of the case was indeed whether she was seen by a first responder still wandering about inside while Bamber was outside with a cop. There had also been some fiddling with the father's trousers or pyjamas after he was dead and somebody had neatly folded another pair and put it beside him. Someone who was not mentally all there, such as the sister perhaps. Then there is some basis for believing the father called the police before he called Bamber and then there is the mysterious discovery of crucial evidence by the relatives weeks after the place had been searched by the cops. Very rum. I stopped looking into it once I realised how much work it would be to understand it.
 
When he can prove he didn't do it in a court of law then he deserves compensation.

Disclaimer: I think the bloke is guilty as
 
cullennz said:
When he can prove he didn't do it in a court of law then he deserves compensation.

Disclaimer: I think the bloke is guilty as
Click to expand...
Some people changed their minds when they saw the photograph of Robin Bain's thumb showing a pressure groove and stain that matched the cartridge case.
 
Until now, I had never heard of this case so I don't know anything about it or have any pre-conceived notions about it, but I am finding this (pdf file) an interesting read so far. Ian Binnie, who is a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, is certainly no slouch, so I am interested in reading his take on the matter. (I'm only up to page 61 of 193 so far.)
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Until now, I had never heard of this case so I don't know anything about it or have any pre-conceived notions about it, but I am finding this (pdf file) an interesting read so far. Ian Binnie, who is a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, is certainly no slouch, so I am interested in reading his take on the matter. (I'm only up to page 61 of 193 so far.)
Click to expand...
I shoud read it too. Irrespective of the facts it is remarkable the arrogance of the then justice minister Judith Collins to ignore his report, 400k to the taxpayer.
The strange thumb photographic evidence emerged after his report. He personally interviewed David Bain for a day as part of his research, which I would have thought is pretty unusual.
 
Samson said:
The computer idea that you leave an exculpatory note when you could scrawl a hand written one is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
He must have figured that trying to forge his father's handwriting was too risky, so typing it on the computer was the only way. But then as you say, why would dad type a suicide note on the computer he could just hand-write it? The only logical conclusion is that he didn't, and that the murderer must have typed it.

But what kind of idiot would think they could get away with such an obvious ruse? When you are the only one left alive you know that you will be the prime suspect, and creating dodgy evidence in the hope that it will deflect attention away from you is just plain stupid. OTOH, doing it to attract attention to a scapegoat might help to keep the real killer off the radar. So either David Bain is an idiot, or... he was framed!
 
Roger Ramjets said:
So either David Bain is an idiot, or... he was framed!
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I suspect the second. I think that Robin waited for David to return to shoot him as well, then changed his mind and decided to frame him instead.

It's a tricky case really, there is evidence on both sides and a lot of misinformation has been given. Sadly it was a case that could have been determined very easily, but the cops screwed up the scene. They didn't test Robin for GSR, they failed to test blood on Robin that could not have gotten there from the wound to his head, and they allowed the family to have the scene destroyed before the trial meaning that they couldn't even go back and recheck it. All around they did a bad job. I think that they initially assumed that Robin did it and so didn't bother treating it as a homicide investigation, and then when they focused onto David it was too late.
 
Samson said:
He personally interviewed David Bain for a day as part of his research, which I would have thought is pretty unusual.
Click to expand...


Agreed. He also personally interviewed Det. Sr. Sgt Doyle, which is also pretty unusual.

(ETA: I'm up to page 154 now.)
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
I have to admit that I suspect the second. I think that Robin waited for David to return to shoot him as well, then changed his mind and decided to frame him instead.

It's a tricky case really, there is evidence on both sides and a lot of misinformation has been given. Sadly it was a case that could have been determined very easily, but the cops screwed up the scene. They didn't test Robin for GSR, they failed to test blood on Robin that could not have gotten there from the wound to his head, and they allowed the family to have the scene destroyed before the trial meaning that they couldn't even go back and recheck it. All around they did a bad job. I think that they initially assumed that Robin did it and so didn't bother treating it as a homicide investigation, and then when they focused onto David it was too late.
Click to expand...

I think David was framed, but framed by the police. They decided from the get-go that David was guilty, and directed their entire investigation in that direction, irrespective of the evidence.
 
Samson said:
I shoud read it too. Irrespective of the facts it is remarkable the arrogance of the then justice minister Judith Collins to ignore his report, 400k to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

She didn't ignore his report. She didn't like the conclusion so she found someone who would "peer review" it and find it at fault.
 
gumboot said:
She didn't ignore his report. She didn't like the conclusion so she found someone who would "peer review" it and find it at fault.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just someone, she asked the prosecutor to "peer-review" it.
 
gumboot said:
I think David was framed, but framed by the police. They decided from the get-go that David was guilty, and directed their entire investigation in that direction, irrespective of the evidence.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think that it was incompetence from the police. I think initially they thought it was Robin, but then as they focused on David they hadn't done the job right to exclude Robin, so they ignored anything that pointed at him, and added all the stuff they could to point at David, even if it wasn't water tight (fingerprints in rabbit blood on the gun, and possible blood/Bleach fingerprints on the washing machine, wrong sided footprints, glasses lens, etc.)
 
LashL said:
Agreed. He also personally interviewed Det. Sr. Sgt Doyle, which is also pretty unusual.

(ETA: I'm up to page 154 now.)
Click to expand...
I will read it. Joe Karam ex all black is the expert. He has answers for everything and "knows" Bain is innocent. Plenty of books have been written of course.
Incidentally control freak Collins was regarded as next National party leader after John Key, but flew too close to the sun. :rolleyes:
 
LashL said:
Those links do not appear to show the photographic evidence to which you've alluded, though. I would like to see the actual evidence if it's available.
Click to expand...
Ok I will see what I can find, may take time, someone else may beat me to it, like Phantom?
 
I have some concern that starting at ~about page 157, suddenly there is the introduction of qualifiers such as "Comment" or "Comments" in advance of various bits and pieces in the midst of Binnie's report. These do not appear to be Binnie's words, and it looks like someone else has interjected them. It is not clear to me whether this is the case or whose "comments" may have been interjected. :confused:
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Well, that's reasonably compelling on that particular point, indeed (and I watched the whole 38 minutes of it.)
Click to expand...

Not to the Police, they claim it was just some coincidental scratches Robin got while working on the guttering a few days before.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Not to the Police, they claim it was just some coincidental scratches Robin got while working on the guttering a few days before.
Click to expand...
Aha, now cooking with gas.
No sceptic ever heard of the polis defending their work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom