Bain, what's the answer going to be?

**short-circuit** · 4th June 2009, 22:41

Originally Posted by Number One

Thank you MR Pedant Sir. I was carefully drinking wine and editing my post to come across more CLEARLY for people like yours benefit

note the change above

Yes well being too loose with the facts was what got us all here in the first place innit?

**Number One** · 4th June 2009, 22:42

Originally Posted by riffer

David came home, found them all and have a massive fight with Stephen in his room, and ended up killing Stephen.

whaddaya reckon?

I think that is plausible for sure

**Number One** · 4th June 2009, 22:46

Originally Posted by short-circuit

Yes well being too loose with the facts was what got us all here in the first place innit?

Being TOO loose with the facts?

Geeze man - don't you know??!!

Never let the facts get in the way of a good thread I mean story

**Brownstoo** · 4th June 2009, 22:55

There's too many holes, he's gonna walk

**Skyryder** · 4th June 2009, 23:01

Originally Posted by pete376403

Marks on Robin Bains hand that apparently matched Stevens teeth.

Not good enough.

Mr Adams said the marks could have been caused if Robin Bain had struck Stephen Bain with an upper cut to the teeth.

But in cross-examination he conceded the marks could have been caused by something other than teeth.

And where is the blood if Steven and Robin fought??

There is not any.............because they did not.

Skyryder

**woodybee** · 4th June 2009, 23:08

Originally Posted by DEATH_INC.

No-one will ever know. Let it rest, it was long ago, he was a different person then anyway.

All this mother fucker has done, is gone to the school of crime, and thought himself innocent, and you can convince yourself of anything.

yeah sure the evidence from back then was a little obscure, but why the fuck would the Dad have done the whole family and left Little Davey alive, there is no way he would have, Father and Son loathed each other, and David would have been the first one to have got a bullet, but as he didn't then it proves to me that Dad was the first one that got the bullet and then David lost it completely he was aware the family saw what he had done, he panicked and fryed the lot of them, if only one of them had survived.

Then that lone family member, could have cast the stone at David and shown im for the cold caculating murderer he is.

He is the guiltiest fucker I have ever seen, I have followed the case closely, Defence solicitors always glorify with making the evidence look abit shabby and then the judge says it has to go beyond reasonable doubt. The defence solicitors are as fucking guilty as those who they represent.,

Having been a cop in England for 14 years, I wouldnt trust a defence solicitor as far as I could throw him, they have got new defence solicitors in on this case not the old ones, but they get the old cops in that are shaky on their memory, its all unfair.

Defence Solicitors are a law to themselves and got folk off for the most horrendous things, as they have cruel mischievious minds and are borne from the same mould as these murdering evil fuckers. They know the truth and twist it to get the bad guys off. You can thank them for these horrible folk walking the earth again....a lot of them go onto reoffend too.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but how the hell can Bain live with himself, and too all those Defence solicitors how the fuck can you sleep at night, knowing that you are defending someone who has done a henious crime.

A leopard will never change his spots and all this rehabilitation bollocks, never works crims have evil and calculating minds, they do wrong knowingly. They do not deserve to walk the earth with good mortals..........

Here endeth the lesson..............Woo nothing like letting off steam on bad guys.................Roar......................... ...Didnt even have enough time to put any smiley bits in.

Tatty Bye

Woodybee. And don't nobody give me a bad reputation for this one, otherwise I will hunt you do gooders and ever so lovely....give the bad guys a chance, and let you know my thoughts....................Ta Dar.......

**RIPOFF** · 5th June 2009, 08:34

What you wrote is a reality,crimes get away with heavie shit all the time in NZ,im no red neck but one things for sure eye for eye.

**Mikkel** · 5th June 2009, 08:49

Originally Posted by woodybee

He is the guiltiest fucker I have ever seen, I have followed the case closely, Defence solicitors always glorify with making the evidence look abit shabby and then the judge says it has to go beyond reasonable doubt. The defence solicitors are as fucking guilty as those who they represent.,

Having been a cop in England for 14 years, I wouldnt trust a defence solicitor as far as I could throw him, they have got new defence solicitors in on this case not the old ones, but they get the old cops in that are shaky on their memory, its all unfair.

Defence Solicitors are a law to themselves and got folk off for the most horrendous things, as they have cruel mischievious minds and are borne from the same mould as these murdering evil fuckers. They know the truth and twist it to get the bad guys off. You can thank them for these horrible folk walking the earth again....a lot of them go onto reoffend too.

Gee, you certainly come across openminded and objective on this whole subject. I hope not too many working cops share that attitude, if so we are in deeper shit than I could have imagined...

Between the 29th clause of the Magna Carta (and what follows from it) and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" the legal system is, generally speaking, put together so that there's a greater risk of acquitting the guilty than condemning the innocent.
Would any of us really have it any other way? If so, there's plenty of places around the world where they don't fuck around - Saudia Arabia anyone? - that doesn't lead to less violent or criminal societies though.

If the evidence doesn't hold up, the prosecution fails and he walks - whether he did it or not - just like he should.

**ynot slow** · 5th June 2009, 09:12

This cops and robbers(lawyers are legal robbers)stuff is just that.
Is almost like who can spin the best yarn,and make it believable to 12 normal people get the result.

Hope the jury can get a result,the scary part is beyond doubt,thus the crux reasonable doubt,and for what has been proffered there is doubt.

Have thought he was guilty,but with nagging doubts about Karams thinking on evidence.The other thing is Bain has to admit innocence as he will lose his major backer and friend in Karam.You'd think if he said yep I did it down the raod Karam would be up for murder.

**Swoop** · 5th June 2009, 11:06

Originally Posted by Maha

Has the crown given any idea as to what the motive was, that David Bain killed his family?

If there has been no motive, then they are saying he is a psychopthic killer (which he clearly is not)

The judge has basically said "forget motive, just tell us who did it" in the summing up.

Originally Posted by Maha

There is a third senario.

The butler did it.

**oldrider** · 5th June 2009, 11:40

Originally Posted by Swoop

The judge has basically said "forget motive, just tell us who did it" in the summing up.

The butler did it.

The butler!

Was he a relative?

Did no other family members have a motive, if it wasn't David or Robin?

Well I bet a few "uncles etc" have lost some sweat lately and may be relieved when it's all over. (for a while anyway)

jg33 · 5th June 2009, 12:16

r0bin killed the familly , david got home and killed robin, case should only be one charge of manslauter................david already don 12yrs ' STOP WASTING OUR TAXS ON B>>>S>>. thats my 2 cents worth

**Crazy Steve** · 5th June 2009, 12:21

Jury will be out by the end of the day...

The Verdict.....Not Guilty ! ! !

Case closed..

Crazy Steve..

**jim.cox** · 5th June 2009, 12:30

Originally Posted by jg33

r0bin killed the familly , david got home and killed robin

#define ! NOT

nice theory !

how ya gonna make the evidence fit that one?

**DougieNZ** · 5th June 2009, 12:48

Hmm there is one other point here. If David is innocent why did he not take the stand and let the jury see the "whites of his eyes". I know he doesn't have to but I would love to see him answer the following simple questions:

1. When you got home you said you saw your mother and father dead and could hear Laniet "gurgling". So why wait 20-25 minutes before calling 111?

2. When you did call 111, why did you say "they're all dead" when you said later that you only saw your mother and father?

3. Bearing in mind the above, how did you get your brother's blood on the back of your shirt?

4. Why did you turn the washing machine on before dialling 111?

I don't believe that this was a case of multiple murderers. In this case, David would have the perfect self defence case... so why not just simply tell police what happened?