David Bain vs The Crown - game over

[Banditbandit]

Bandit bandit Asserting that the blood was not human is merely believing one expert over another.

That's true - the blood was never tested (another police fuck up)

The prosecution also say that:
A) Stephen's room was covered in blood and the murderer's gloves would have been absolutely soaked in it.
B) the David's fingerprints on the gun in blood prove he was the killer

Well sorry, if the killer wore gloves then the bloody fingerprints were not the murderer's.

Hunters get blood on weapons after a kill - it's hard not to unless you have a very clean kill and don't clean it up on the spot. So, if the killer owroe gloves then David's fingerprints in blood on the gun were not put there during the killings - and would be animal blood from a hunting expidition.

[oldrider]

Five people dead by shooting is a massacre, an outrage, why doesn't anybody in this country seem to care about that?

All everyone seems to care about is blaming the police and paying out compensation to the only living suspect who is free on the shakiest of grounds!

I think sometimes this country spends too much time standing on it's head. The five murdered victims deserve better than that, surely!

[Banditbandit]

Yes, you are right.

If David Bain did not commit the murderous rampage (and I beleive he did not) then he has become a living victim of this outrage.

[Hinny]

Five people dead by shooting is a massacre, an outrage, why doesn't anybody in this country seem to care about that?

All everyone seems to care about is blaming the police and paying out compensation to the only living suspect who is free on the shakiest of grounds!

I think sometimes this country spends too much time standing on it's head. The five murdered victims deserve better than that, surely!

People have become very blase about killing other humans.
There have been 65 wars since the end of WW2.
It seems most video games feature killing others as the main goal.
We have a Prime Minister who professes to love battle scenes in movies and obviously wants to be a player in the War of Terror.
The terrorists in Libya were being paid $150 a month.
How many people would have been killed with the money John Key gave to them? Our tax money.
And not a word is spoken.
Kill five people and it is an outrage. Kill millions and it is ignored.

[Hinny]

That's true - the blood was never tested (another police fuck up)

The prosecution also say that:
A) Stephen's room was covered in blood and the murderer's gloves would have been absolutely soaked in it.
B) the David's fingerprints on the gun in blood prove he was the killer

Well sorry, if the killer wore gloves then the bloody fingerprints were not the murderer's.

Hunters get blood on weapons after a kill - it's hard not to unless you have a very clean kill and don't clean it up on the spot. So, if the killer owroe gloves then David's fingerprints in blood on the gun were not put there during the killings - and would be animal blood from a hunting expidition.

A.'Absolutely soaked in blood.' Why not just the amount of blood that was on Davids bloody gloves found in Stephen's room?

B David's fingerprints on the gun don't prove he was the killer by themselves. Just adds to the case.

'Hunters get blood on weapons after a kill.' That is a ridiculous assertion. Like saying they get food on their clothing after eating.
Why the hell would you pick up a dead rabbit by the part of the animal that has got blood on it? That would just be dumb.

Your deduction re the gloves is also flawed.
After the first shot to Stephen's head, ( which Joe Karam contends left a 25mm deep furrow across his head!) the gun jambed.
It may well have been at this point David took off a glove to unjam it. or they could have come off in the fight. One could imagine a few possible scenarios.

Back to the 1 inch deep furrow across the top of Stephen's head.
He must have had a really fat head. I sure don't think I have 25mm above my skull to where my hair used to be.

It doesn't take much rational or logical thought to pick holes in every 'point' that Joe Karam makes.

[Katman]

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.



Your the one who wrote "Or just as easily blah blah blah"
Now its "what is so staged"

Make up your mind!!

You're the one calling the positioning of the magazine "staged".

What is "staged" about placing a magazine on the floor before you shoot yourself?

[Katman]

Your the one who wrote "Or just as easily blah blah blah"
Now its "what is so staged"

Make up your mind!!

Read the three quotes below.

Now imagine that the third quote has the words 'placed there' before the words 'by Robin'.

Understand now?

It didn't necessarily 'fall' there - it could just have easily (and more likely) been 'placed' there.

Exactly, by David staging the scene after he'd shot his father.

Or just as easily by Robin before he shot himself.

[scumdog]

What is "staged" about placing a magazine on the floor before you shoot yourself?

Placing it up on edge like that on a carpetted floor is something I cannot recall doing - ever.

Or seeing somebody else doing.

So whoever put it there must have taken the time to balance it on its edge - or 'somebody' else moved it there like that.

And I tried dropping a mag many times to see if it could land on edge (Not saying it COULDN'T happen) - but you would have better odds on tossing a coin and it landing heads-up ten times in a row...

[scumdog]

B David's fingerprints on the gun don't prove he was the killer by themselves. Just adds to the case.

'Hunters get blood on weapons after a kill.' That is a ridiculous assertion. Like saying they get food on their clothing after eating.
Why the hell would you pick up a dead rabbit by the part of the animal that has got blood on it? That would just be dumb.

I gut rabbits and hares (and everything else I shoot) almost straight away - less weight to carry for a start.

And while I try to wipe all the blood off on the grass there is always some that gets onto the rifle.

[Katman]

And I tried dropping a mag many times to see if it could land on edge (Not saying it COULDN'T happen) - but you would have better odds on tossing a coin and it landing heads-up ten times in a row...

I would say it's quite clear that the magazine wasn't 'dropped' there.

It could just as easily have been placed there by Robin Bain though.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Hinny]

I would say it's quite clear that the magazine wasn't 'dropped' there.

It could just as easily have been placed there by Robin Bain though.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

Before or after he shot himself and dragged his body across the floor?

[Hinny]

That's true - the blood was never tested (another police fuck up)

Where did you get that idea from?
You may give credence to the defence argument if you believe this is true. The fact is that it is not true.

Kim Jones, a fingerprint technician with the Christchurch police, said he examined the rifle on 21 June 1994 and discovered "sharp, definitive and recent'' fingerprints belonging to David Bain. The fingerprints were deposited by fingers covered in blood which when tested returned characteristics consistent with human blood.
These matched David Bain's fingerprints from four fingers of his left hand, Jones said. The prints had been placed by fingers covered in blood on a clear surface and were "sharp and very definitive''. The fingerprints had been placed with such pressure and were so clear he was left in no doubt they were of recent origin.
He said " if prints were put on the rifle during a hunting trip before the murders, they would have been destroyed with subsequent handling. He said he believed the prints were recent because the hemoglobin in the blood had not oxidized and the blood had therefore not turned dark brown in color."
He found that "the rifle was covered in its entirety - itself, the stock, the strap, the scope and the silencer, '' with blood.
Another scientist, Dr Cropp, said he was given five plastic tubes with blood samples scraped from the rifle. His testing confirmed the five samples were human blood and four of them were of one particular type. The blood could have come from David, Stephen or Laniet, but not from the rest of the family.
The Defence called in British fingerprint expert Carl Lloyd as a witness and he claimed that the fingerprints were not in human blood and may not in fact be in blood at all.His testimony is not worth anything though as the blood had deteriorated so much that nobody could show what it was. The defence couldn't contest the claim because of this and that may have swayed the jury - or you.
My take is that it is another 'expert' called by the defence that fits the definition of an expert - X being an unknown quantity and spurt - a drip under pressure.
He is unbelievable.

The fingerprints on the gun are indisputably David's and are in human blood therefore they connect David closely to the crime.
The Defence argument about animal blood on the gun is weak because the activity on the morning of the murders would have destroyed them, and also, when shooting small animals, only negligent amounts of blood are ever transferred to the hands, if at all, when picking them up.
The gun was covered in fresh blood from David, Stephen or Laniet.

[Hinny]

But look at the print of Stephens. Across the middle is a couple of parallel lines which would indicate that he loaded a magazine.
The plot thickens.....

[oldrider]

The performance of New Zealand Police, lawyers, Judges and justice generally is being placed in question now almost every day and seems to be getting worse!

Taking a leaf out of defence councils book perhaps we should be outsourcing these services to countries that have the required level of expertise!

This might get better results and save a lot of taxpayers money!

Defence councils outsource these services by constantly referring and demanding that we use the British Privy Council to usurp the NZ services for better legal interpretations!

NZ Police could then focus entirely on general policing duties and traffic duties which they seem more suited and trained for therefore solving the recruiting shortages at the same time!

[Madness]

NZ Police could then focus entirely on general policing duties and traffic duties which they seem more suited and trained for therefore solving the recruiting shortages at the same time!

Last time I appeared in the District Court (on a bullshit charge) I was surprised to see that the prosecutor was a civvy. I got the impression that the outsourcing of prosecution services was mainstream practice already.

Maybe this had something to do with the outcome of my case, which would have been more acceptable if my expenses had been reimbursed (Tui?) on top of the charge being dropped once we showed them through a transcript of Police communications what a complete lack of proof they had.

My Missus comes from North America and held the Police in the utmost of respect, right up until that case. Me, I always knew they NZ popo are dodgy, I'd just never been arse fucked by them personally until then. Cunts.