David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[scissorhands]

I have loaded thousands of rounds in numerous different weapons and never ended up with marks on my thumb.

Th 'experts' were in actuality gun smiths and top shooters. As well the journalist loaded a similar magazine and all agreed on the mag marks.

The 3rd degree camera clearly showed mag marks after reload on similar .22 rifles used in the murder

[Maha]

How do you know he didn't?

Why only the two choices? Because those are the two choices the prosecution pushed? What about the extended family that were likely embarrassed by David's family AND stood to claim all the money if they could frame David, quite a nice nest egg as David's family had put aside enough to build a new house and there was the sale of the property. too many Aggie novels

I don't know if he did or did not..but David was found not guilty of killing Robin suggesting only, that he shot himself?
Last night 3rd degree programme showed compelling evidence that Robin did in fact, fire the rifle that was used to kill his family.

Were the FBI in NZ at the time?. maybe there is slight chance that the photo's tell a different story than what actually happened?

[BoristheBiter]

Th 'experts' were in actuality gun smiths and top shooters. As well the journalist loaded a similar magazine and all agreed on the mag marks.

The 3rd degree camera clearly showed mag marks after reload on similar .22 rifles used in the murder

The experts, don't make me laugh, they are just people with opinion just like here, none of it would stand up in court as you would find just as many saying it means nothing.

I don't know if he did or did not..but David was found not guilty of killing Robin suggesting only, that he shot himself?
Last night 3rd degree programme showed compelling evidence that Robin did in fact, fire the rifle that was used to kill his family.

Were the FBI in NZ at the time?. maybe there is slight chance that the photo's tell a different story than what actually happened?

And Davids fingerprints where all over the gun, so that must mean he fired the gun. Maybe it was a murder suicide packed.

[Maha]

The experts, don't make me laugh, they are just people with opinion just like here, none of it would stand up in court as you would find just as many saying it means nothing.



And Davids fingerprints where all over the gun, so that must mean he fired the gun. Maybe it was a murder suicide packed.

I don't think there was ever any doubt that David (had at some stage) held the rifle. The same could be said about your bike, your fingerprints would be found on it somewhere? does that mean if it was used as a get away vehicle in a robbery for instance, you were the rider?

[oneofsix]

The experts, don't make me laugh, they are just people with opinion just like here, none of it would stand up in court as you would find just as many saying it means nothing.

Are you still fishing with that same tied old bait? Just because you know nothing.

And Davids fingerprints where all over the gun, so that must mean he fired the gun. Maybe it was a murder suicide packed.

Well as it was his gun yeah I guess you are right for once, he did fire it at some time. Now if memory serves I think that was a day or two before whilst rabbit hunting. Still leaves reasonable doubt.

Just another case of out being over trained to hand out traffic tickets but unable to do their real job and gather evidence according to their own book. If the had bagged Robin's hands, if they had kept the carpet, if they had used a real watch instead of a fashion piece, if they had listened to the nurse (well they probably did but were trying to see if there was a traffic offence in what she said as she was driving when she saw David), if then there would have been evidence but again they failed.

Now there is a bait trail for you.

[BoristheBiter]

I don't think there was ever any doubt that David (had at some stage) held the rifle. The same could be said about your bike, your fingerprints would be found on it somewhere? does that mean if it was used as a get away vehicle in a robbery for instance, you were the rider?

So was Robin shooting with him? did he get these marks then? this just opens more questions and puts more doubt into the public arena so TPTB will give him compensation so his legal team can get paid.

Are you still fishing with that same tied old bait? Just because you know nothing.



Well as it was his gun yeah I guess you are right for once, he did fire it at some time. Now if memory serves I think that was a day or two before whilst rabbit hunting. Still leaves reasonable doubt.

Just another case of out being over trained to hand out traffic tickets but unable to do their real job and gather evidence according to their own book. If the had bagged Robin's hands, if they had kept the carpet, if they had used a real watch instead of a fashion piece, if they had listened to the nurse (well they probably did but were trying to see if there was a traffic offence in what she said as she was driving when she saw David), if then there would have been evidence but again they failed.

Now there is a bait trail for you.

That's a worse attempt than mine.

[oneofsix]

So was Robin shooting with him? did he get these marks then? this just opens more questions and puts more doubt into the public arena so TPTB will give him compensation so his legal team can get paid.




That's a worse attempt than mine.

Nah, mine much better because it is based on established facts that do raise questions. Your attempts, including this, have already been answered in the programme.

[MisterD]

The biggest pile of far-fetched bollocks I've heard in all my born days.

David Bain is a murderer and should be happy he got away with it.

[oneofsix]

The biggest pile of far-fetched bollocks I've heard in all my born days.

David Bain is a murderer and should be happy he got away with it.

Entrenched view with no argument given. Judith Collins would be pleased with you.

[MisterD]

Entrenched view with no argument given. Judith Collins would be pleased with you.

Prior to last night we had screeds of circumstantial evidence pointing to David as the killer, and the Karamalites had a bunch of vague smoke about Robin's possible motives and incredibly spurious explanations for the evidence against David.

Now, the Karamalites have one (count it!) one! piece of circumstantial evidence against Robin. Chuck it on the Robin side of the scales, and they don't move a nanometer.

David did it.

[meteor]

Did anyone ever expect the journo to present a balanced unbiased story? How naive.
I've got a novel idea, why not let the jury hear (and the press report) ALL the evidence... Any of the keyboard experts know how much was excluded? I don't.
And remembering this is real life and not CSI with CCTV and Horatio isn't interviewing for admissions, there will be gaps BUT despite all the legal protections the defence could claim, was it still proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt...

This was posted elsewhere from the few facts the press reported... make up your own mind

It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies

Again a lucky guess hen DB told police officer they are all dead

The 25 minute gap between DB finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and removed blood.

The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee – none of which he could explain, were just a coincidence

The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses

The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living

David’s finger prints on gun are from a previous time

David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience

Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle – OR someone else borrowed his clothes

Robin managed to execute his family on a full bladder

The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there

Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood and the fibres from jersey found under Steven’s finger nails

David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies

The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit

Robin Bain would logically wear gloves to prevent fingerprints despite it being a murder-suicide

That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.

Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message

Robin would decide David deserved to live, but go out of his way to frame him for murder

Robin Bain placed fibres from Davids jersey under Stephen’s finger nails

Robin Bain would shoot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible?

That Robin Bain changed jerseys after he had killed his family and in particular Stephen Bain, washed the jersey, hung it on the line and then change into a brown jersey before killing himself?

That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.

That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch

That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.

That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David

That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.

That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.

That even though David told a relative he hated his father, his father did not know this and deliberately decided David was the only one who deserved to live

That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death

That Laniet allegations of incent with Robin was true, as was her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.

That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene.

That it is a coincidence that on the morning of the murders Bain took his dog onto a property, ensuring he would be noticed to give him an alibi.

That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.

That a sickly Robin Bain managed to overpower his teenaged son who put up a furious fight

That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper from outside, despite planning to shoot himself


David bain has been found not guilty as a result of a concerted effort to create doubt in the mind of the public and jurors. Oh yeah the jurors, none of whom will not have heard of the case prior to the trial. 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 fried 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..........

AND...

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?

Above all else, you have to remember that the jury can only make an interpretation on the evidence put to it. that evidence is what is left after being picked over, argued about and excluded. The jury will not get ALL the evidence.
also, when a jury acquits a person... that is a finding that the jury could not find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence they were 'allowed' to see. Acquital is not a finding of innocence.

[oneofsix]

Prior to last night we had screeds of circumstantial evidence pointing to David as the killer, and the Karamalites had a bunch of vague smoke about Robin's possible motives and incredibly spurious explanations for the evidence against David.

Now, the Karamalites have one (count it!) one! piece of circumstantial evidence against Robin. Chuck it on the Robin side of the scales, and they don't move a nanometer.

David did it.

Actually your count is a bit screwed on the Robin side, he was picked as the alternative in the beginning because of the weight of circumstantial evidence against him. The only real in count difference was David was alive. A third party was never looked into and AFAIK never totally ruled out, just never investigated.

[Banditbandit]

I would need to look again - but they looked like physical scratches rather than dirty marks from touching the mag lips.

See .. like I suspect many Kiwi's did - I pulled out my .22 mag and reloaded it .. guess what ??? There were the marks on me - exactly as was described ... ansd exactly as in the photos shown ...

These marks disappeared as soon as I sat down and touched the arms on my chair ...

I have loaded thousands of rounds in numerous different weapons and never ended up with marks on my thumb.

Me too ... but then I usually load my magazines in a different way to that shown on the programme - as soon as I used the method the gun smiths and other firearms users did then I got the marks ... and these gun smiths and firearms users say this is a normal way they load ...

David has been proven innocent ...

[Naki Rat]

Looks more like the marks I get on my hands from gardening and such too little too late for any pay out.

Beyond all reasonable doubt works both ways I reckon.

That's not the way innocent until proven guilty works and is a dangerous path to go down

[BigAl]

The main point of this thread is that here is real important, possibly case breaking evidence, that the police investigators missed and it required a member of the public to identify and investigate.

Incompentance or what?