David Bain vs The Crown - game over

**Banditbandit** · 27th June 2013, 09:42

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opi...-jurys-verdict

IF not David, then who?

Originally Posted by JimO

the one armed man

Originally Posted by scumdog

On the grassy knoll...

With explosives under the cover of an airplane attack ...

**Banditbandit** · 27th June 2013, 09:44

Originally Posted by scissorhands

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

As well as two forensic scientists - one used regularly by the police ...

**Naki Rat** · 27th June 2013, 09:47

For those that missed it, a link to the 3rd Degree program.

**Banditbandit** · 27th June 2013, 09:47

Originally Posted by BoristheBiter

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.

Yes .. this evidence would stand up in court .. and there is a good chance it wil be tested that way as Crusher Collins may well maintain her stance and it will take a court case to find david Innocent.

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

Nine sets of fingerprints were found on the gun ... not one match was found to meet evidential standards ... Robin's and David's prints were probably on the gun, but not up to the standards required to present this evident to a court ...

Originally Posted by BoristheBiter

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.

Mate - you're stretching .. did you actually watch the programme?

**Katman** · 27th June 2013, 09:50

Originally Posted by scumdog

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

And besides, who cares if there's a cover-up, right?

**Banditbandit** · 27th June 2013, 09:52

Originally Posted by MisterD

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.

Do you understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence?

Clearly, marks left from loading a gun magazine are not circumstantial evidence ... this is hard science

**leathel** · 27th June 2013, 09:57

OK so the old boy loads the rifle and leaves it laying out and David grabs it and Blam Blam .....

Just because he may have loaded it doesn't mean he shot it....

**Banditbandit** · 27th June 2013, 10:05

Originally Posted by leathel

OK so the old boy loads the rifle and leaves it laying out and David grabs it and Blam Blam .....

Just because he may have loaded it doesn't mean he shot it....

The mags for the gun hold 10 shots and 5 shots ... possible to fire fifteen shots all up without reloading one mag ...

There were 19 shells found in the house - some fired some not fired .. the gun jams easily (shown last night) and unfired bullets would be ejected ... as they were in the programme

To leave 19 shells at the scene required one mag to be reloaded ... so the shooter had to reload .. the marks indicate that Robin reloaded .. the marks on the hand left by reloading are pretty ephemeral - and unlikely to last more than an hour ... so Robin was the shooter ..

**MisterD** · 27th June 2013, 10:07

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Do you understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence?

Clearly, marks left from loading a gun magazine are not circumstantial evidence ... this is hard science

Yes, and it's pretty clear that you don't, so I'll help you out.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires additional inference to link it to a conclusion of fact, versus direct evidence which requires no such inference.

David's and Stephen's fingerprints on the rifle are also hard, forensic science facts and also circumstantial evidence...which should be weighed against the lack of Robin's prints, but I digress.

Direct evidence would be if CCTV or an eyewitness saw what happened.

**Paul in NZ** · 27th June 2013, 10:07

If we give David Bain some money will he just fuck off some place and not appear in the media any more?

**Scouse** · 27th June 2013, 10:11

I have always thought that David Bain Murdered his Family. But after watching third degree last night I find myself reluctantly thinking that David is innocent of killing his family.

**leathel** · 27th June 2013, 10:14

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

The mags for the gun hold 10 shots and 5 shots ... possible to fire fifteen shots all up without reloading one mag ...

There were 19 shells found in the house - some fired some not fired .. the gun jams easily (shown last night) and unfired bullets would be ejected ... as they were in the programme

To leave 19 shells at the scene required one mag to be reloaded ... so the shooter had to reload .. the marks indicate that Robin reloaded .. the marks on the hand left by reloading are pretty ephemeral - and unlikely to last more than an hour ... so Robin was the shooter ..

So he loaded the 10 shot...then was shot so the marks remained....David loaded the rest and being he wasn't shot the marks are gone.....

**Banditbandit** · 27th June 2013, 10:18

Originally Posted by MisterD

David's and Stephen's fingerprints on the rifle are also hard, forensic science facts and also circumstantial evidence...which should be weighed against the lack of Robin's prints, but I digress.

Direct evidence would be if CCTV or an eyewitness saw what happened.

As far as I know there are nine sets of prints on the gun .. none of them up to evidential standards to present to a court .. Stephen's and David's may well have been there .. and so to might Robin's - but they are not able to prove who all the prints belong to ...

Yes ... there is no direct evidence .. and yes there is circumstantial evidence that does not show conclusively who killed the family ... previously to last night I did not think there was sufficient evidence to convict David or to show that Robin did it .. it was something we would never know ...

Now there is forensic evidence to show that Robin Bain loaded at leass one of the .22 rifle magazines shortly before his death ... i.e. that morning .. and if you watched the programme the gun smiths, the ex-army-ex-UN weapons expert and the police forensic scientists all agree that the marks were left by loading the magazine .. and that anyone with those marks had to be the shooter ...

Stop clutching at straws ... it's not that hard to demonstrate ... I did it last night with a mag from my own .22 rifle ..