David Bain vs The Crown - game over

**Mushu** · 7th July 2013, 15:25

Originally Posted by Edbear

Sounds like you alright. Speculation is all you are capable of seeing.

Anybody else want to repost the evidence? If I do he will only ignore it.

Here's your 'evidence' for you Ed (post 622)

Originally Posted by Edbear

The evidence that is conclusive is that no blood from any of the victims was on Robin or his clothing. Not possible in the circumstances if he was the killer. No gunpowder residue was on him, also not possible were he the killer. No evidence of any kind to allow him to have been in any of the victims rooms. Not possible were he the killer. His prints were not on the rifle. If he was the last person to have used it, the number of shots fired and the variety of angles and holds would have left clear prints in several areas of the weapon and the magazines. These are facts that specifically clear Robin Bain and prove his innocence, ergo, it is a fact that Robin did not do it.

No other evidence is even required and there is no evidence of any kind pointing to him. The above automatically negates any speculation and conjecture, which is all the defence had anyway.

I think you mean vain...

And my reply from back then. (post 627)

Originally Posted by Mushu

The clothes worn during the murders were in the wash. Which poses the question if it were David why would he have blood on him later and why did he not clean up the blood in the laundry

GSR tests were not done at the scene and residue was not found on David either

There were fingerprints on the rifle not up to the standard to be tested, and we can be pretty sure Robin had had his hands on that gun at some stage whether he did it or not (20 rounds in his caravan). Also bloody gloves in Stephens room suggest that whoever did it wore gloves until that point.

Hardly incontrovertible proof there Ed.

**testastretta** · 7th July 2013, 15:31

I wonder how many murder/suicide cases there have been where the perpetrator leaves a suicide note (and goes to the trouble of using a computer to do so) but leaves no information to their reason other than to say that one person deserves to stay?

Of course a narcissist like David could be well expected to leave a note like the one that was left.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 7th July 2013, 15:32

Originally Posted by Edbear

And you're boring. Who cares about your opinion of me?

Pot-Kettle. And you obviously. Else you'd simply ignore me. But you can't help yourself. But nothing else works with you. You really do think you're a step above other people Ed. It's funny but a little sad at the same time. You need to go have a good long hard look in a mirror. Ask yourself some really serious questions. See how you like the answers. If you can be honest with yourself. Which I doubt.

**Mushu** · 7th July 2013, 15:33

Originally Posted by testastretta

I wonder how many murder/suicide cases there have been where the perpetrator leaves a suicide note (and goes to the trouble of using a computer to do so) but leaves no information to their reason other than to say that one person deserves to stay?

Of course a narcissist like David could be well expected to leave a note like the one that was left.

What makes you think Davids a narcissist?

Killing your entire family points to an abnormal thought process, no way if knowing what was going on in the killers head.

**Drew** · 7th July 2013, 15:42

Originally Posted by Mushu

What makes you think Davids a narcissist?

Killing your entire family points to an abnormal thought process, no way if knowing what was going on in the killers head.

It's an autistic thing I heard.

I have to admit, after reading even more of that shit that went to the appeals court, I'm kinda swaying toward the "didn't do it" camp.

**scumdog** · 7th July 2013, 17:10

Originally Posted by Mushu

David had no input as to what evidence was collected, and was probably pressured by the police to agree to the burning down of the house. Thus not his fault.

Probably????

Right up there with 'it is thought'

Or 'it is likely'

Or 'maybe'

Very positive and convincing I don't think...

**Katman** · 7th July 2013, 17:25

Originally Posted by scumdog

Probably????

Right up there with 'it is thought'

Or 'it is likely'

Or 'maybe'

Very positive and convincing I don't think...

David might just as easily have had no input at all into the decision to burn the house down.

In his application for compensation he states that it was his uncle's decision.

**Mushu** · 7th July 2013, 18:04

Originally Posted by scumdog

Probably????

Right up there with 'it is thought'

Or 'it is likely'

Or 'maybe'

Very positive and convincing I don't think...

I had heard that he agreed to it but the police use all sorts of tactics to get what they want out of a suspect to the point that it's not unheard of for a suspect to be pressured into a false confession. Try being on the other side if the law, intimidation is the most common tool used by the police.

**scumdog** · 7th July 2013, 18:07

Originally Posted by Mushu

I had heard that he agreed to it but the police use all sorts of tactics to get what they want out of a suspect to the point that it's not unheard of for a suspect to be pressured into a false confession. Try being on the other side if the law, intimidation is the most common tool used by the police.

Well I must give intimidation a shot - dunno what the suspects lawyer will say about it though...probably jump to his feet and tell me to stop (at least!)

**Katman** · 7th July 2013, 18:12

Originally Posted by scumdog

Well I must give intimidation a shot - dunno what the suspects lawyer will say about it though...probably jump to his feet and tell me to stop (at least!)

And then you have the likes of Teina Pora who was questioned by police for 14 hours without a lawyer.

**Drew** · 7th July 2013, 18:16

Originally Posted by Katman

And then you have the likes of Teina Pora who was questioned by police for 14 hours without a lawyer.

Was the person under arrest?

If so, they were told they were entitled to a lawyer, and didn't have to say anything.

Just saying.

**Katman** · 7th July 2013, 18:18

Originally Posted by Drew

Was the person under arrest?

If so, they were told they were entitled to a lawyer, and didn't have to say anything.

Just saying.

Are you sure of that?

He has been described as having low intelligence and I very much doubt he could have afforded a lawyer anyway.

**Drew** · 7th July 2013, 18:20

Originally Posted by Katman

Are you sure of that?

I very much doubt he could have afforded a lawyer anyway.

One will be appointed.

"Do you understand these rights, as I have read them to you"?

Five oh get in a bit of shit for missing that step, every time a lawyer finds they ahven't done it. It doesn't get missed before processing.