Bain, what's the answer going to be?

**sil3nt** · 6th June 2009, 13:19

Originally Posted by Cheshire Cat

yaaaay!!!!!!!!!!!!

your avatar disturbs me.

**Elysium** · 6th June 2009, 13:22

Originally Posted by Cheshire Cat

yaaaay!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yay! Thread merge!

Originally Posted by sil3ntwar

your avatar disturbs me.

Well it is Bjork.....I think.

**Scouse** · 6th June 2009, 15:07

Originally Posted by smoky

Some truth in that sentiment

But I would like to give you another view of David Bain;

He grew up in a very talented musical family, you may know of the Tremworths - Hamilton County Blue Grass band, thats his auntie and cousins, talented people.
His family started to implode while he was a young teenager, mum & dad should of separated but instead they waged a loony war with each other, they were weird all right, each claiming the other was possessed or a witch, using the kids to get at each other.
David rejected these games - he left home, but returned for one reason; to try to help his siblings thru all the crap - hence his close relationship with his sister. We all know where she ended up in life.
David had some good friends from high school, from his operatic society, a few mates who he rode motorbikes with as well. Even a girl friend or two.
He may be tall and gangly, is ears could do with pinning back, very unfortunate choice of jersey to be seen in - but he wasn't the only one to be wearing them back then.

He wasn't weird, he wasn't isolated, he fitted in well in social circles, a lot of people knew what his family life was like, and admired the fact he was strong and held it together for his siblings.

I've been impressed with him since he's been out, at how balanced he still is considering what he's been thru.

If your lucky maybe he will let you root him seein as you care for him so much.

**Maha** · 6th June 2009, 15:09

Originally Posted by Scouse

If your lucky maybe he will let you root him seein as you care for him so much.

Well he does a decent set of ears to hang on to!!

**sinned** · 6th June 2009, 16:19

How long before another book is written? This is not going to go away.

**Boob Johnson** · 6th June 2009, 16:24

Well, she it, knee grow!

I for one have watched this trial from a distance & loosely maintained that he was innocent. Loosely due to not having all the facts based on a care factor of rather low proportions if im honest.

However after reading a multitude of comments on nzherald online & here one has to wonder if he is in fact the sum bitch pile a monkey nuts that done these God awful tings!. Much of the major evidence I had no real idea about. It's pretty hard to not point the (bloody) finger (or socks) at David that's for sure!

He is a good actor & one cold fish!

**Cheshire Cat** · 6th June 2009, 16:58

Originally Posted by sil3ntwar

your avatar disturbs me.

Bjork is awesome!!

**smoky** · 6th June 2009, 17:24

Originally Posted by Murray

And as stated in this mornings hearald he shared with one of them how he could use his paper round as an alibi, and how he wanted to rape a jogger he fancied.

Not allowed to be presented in court though as may prejudice his case???

Not allowed in court because it's not true, unreliable or here-say. There are a lot of people who lie just to get attention.
there was one woman who said she had had a baby to David after he forced himself on her - the Police groomed her for months, until someone pointed out she would've been 10 when it happened, turned out she was never even in Dunedin, never had a baby and needed medication?
But the Police were so keen to prove the point they hadn't done their home work, the media so keen for sensation they hadn't looked into it either.
And if you believe one account in the paper shortly after the murders - you would've believe he had sacrificed a goat in a bizarre religious ceremony in the days after the murders?

But you go ahead and believe everything you read and hear - it's obviously more reliable

**ManDownUnder** · 6th June 2009, 18:55

Originally Posted by Skyryder

I thinkthe Bain threads are becoming the bane of KB.

Skyryder

LOL! Credit where it's due LOLOL!!!!!

Touche!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Skyryder** · 6th June 2009, 22:12

Originally Posted by Anthrax

Who's this Bain?

Bain there done that.

Skyryder

**ynot slow** · 6th June 2009, 22:29

The biggest criminal act there were the QC charging out at $160hour poor we things,sure it has to cover overheads and researchers,but without legal aid $600 hour,who says we don't have a counterfeit operation running in NZ.Legalised money printing.

**candor** · 7th June 2009, 01:59

Or it was mixed as per other posters... Dad did it mostly ie did the females (seems unlikely on forensic evidence tho bar the bloody sockprints), then the son who had been well alerted puts up a struggle as David enters his room joining the fray, seizing the gun off Robin David accidentally kills his brother getting blooded. Then his Dad commands him to assist his suicide and tells him to accept no responsibility for any of it - ever. Men do not like to kill their SONS.

So poor young David then in shock does his laundry, changes Dads socks out of respect (a bit of finicky OCD maybe - remember how pedantic he was re the clothes his dead sisters were laid out in), finally putting that dimwitted message on the computer - then calls Police once all is in order. Conveniently claims memory loss as knows times etc look bad.. Even to the point wouldn't testify at the retrial - despite telling media afterwards - I KNOW what happened. Oh thats interesting - howso and what?

This scenario would answer why he didn't call an ambo for his alive sister - prolly gone by time it was all played out. Telling that his whole family were prosecution witnesses - the ones with the greatest interest in establishing the truth - unlike Joe busybody Karam. I don't know why no shared guilt theory was examined - why the artificial dichotomy? A lot of money would be saved if David and Robin both wore GPS and juries required brains.

**YellowDog** · 7th June 2009, 08:13

The most puzzling thing about all this for me is that DB didn't take the stand to attempt to convince the jury of his innocence. The laundered clothes say "Guilty' and you have to ask why?

Also, with all these supposed fights and struggles; where was the photographic evidence of bruising to DB's body? The prosecution didn't do a thorough job and failed to prove something that should not have been difficult to prove (unless it didn't happen as they claim).

The most strange thing for me is why DB didn't confess after the conviction and say what actually happened. He spent 13 years in jail and would have been out long ago if he had actually told the truth, rather than staying silent.

Both sides played this one very badly and it is the NZ taxpayer who has had to sort out their mess.

**chucky19** · 7th June 2009, 09:51

Originally Posted by YellowDog

The most puzzling thing about all this for me is that DB didn't take the stand to attempt to convince the jury of his innocence. The laundered clothes say "Guilty' and you have to ask why?

Also, with all these supposed fights and struggles; where was the photographic evidence of bruising to DB's body? The prosecution didn't do a thorough job and failed to prove something that should not have been difficult to prove (unless it didn't happen as they claim).

The most strange thing for me is why DB didn't confess after the conviction and say what actually happened. He spent 13 years in jail and would have been out long ago if he had actually told the truth, rather than staying silent.

Both sides played this one very badly and it is the NZ taxpayer who has had to sort out their mess.

Of course he didn't take the stand, he would be too far away for Joe to stick his hand up his arse and move his mouth for him.

No photographs were taken becouse DB lawyered up as soon as he could and refused a full body search. This case was not difficult to prove, what was difficult to combat was the 14 years of media adulation and the cult of personality that Joe was able to create.

That, combined with the defence's permitted refusal to produce either the names or nature of their expert witnesses' testimony, prevented the prosecution from testing and evaluating what was going to be presented by the defence 'experts' as evidence. Some of what they said was absolute crap, either lies or incompetence. Remember DB's lawyers had 14 years of examination of the prosecution case to cast doubt and find 'experts' willing to comment for cash. Some of them didn't agree with Joe and were ignored.

Of course things could have been done better/differently, but to do so you need to have a complete reconstruction of the crime BEFORE you start examining a scene. We don't live in a world of CSI where evidence falls from the sky.

Yes it's been expensive, but it's worth it to ensure that justice prevails.

It sure would have been cheaper if the TRUTH had prevailed, but like CSI, that just don't happen.