David Bain
-
Finally finished the podcasts and I must admit that a very good summation for the prosecution is made in the last episode. I agree with the very end point reached even if I have issue with how the writer makes some leaps to get there e.g. dismissing quickly the possibility that the story could be different if police had not made errors collecting evidence but then using that very same lack of evidence as reasoning behind why Robin could not be the killer.
Some very arguable pieces of evidence portrayed dramatically for effect as fact as well.
I don't agree that the second jury should be blamed though. They don't get the option of declaring someone guilty because they where 'more likely' to be the offender. They are instructed to have no reasonable doubt.
I totally get that the weight of evidence leans heavily toward David but weight of evidence alone when other factors muddy the thinking is not their remit in the system.
I think the circumstances of the family only serve to help confuse the case. A dysfunctional group of people provide way too much noise around the circumstances.
Remember though, that although David can continue to pretend to himself and others that he is not a murderer, he did also spent a very long time in prison and certainly must have the repressed knowledge eating away at him. He hasn't got away scot free.The best part of the series IMO was the interview tapes with Justice Binnie. It's the first time I have heard David speak in detail and been able to judge his sincerity. The second trial didn't even get that.
Binnie is far from the flunkie Judith Collins painted him as. He is very astute and picks up on very small detail to put pressure on. David comes across to my ear as being very well rehearsed rather than candid and although Binnie can well see this he will also be putting that down to so many years re-hashing things over and over.
Binnie wasn't there to prove guilt or innocence though, he was there to decide whether Bain should be compensated for the first trial outcome. From the parts on the podcast that we get to listen to I am very surprised that he came to the conclusions he did. -
As further reading I have found Binnies full decision/analysis. It makes for interesting reading especially when combined with listening to the interview tapes to hear the lines of questioning used.
There are still many points/arguments that confuse the hell out of me.
Much is made of Robin's full bladder but the argument holds both ways IMO. eg if David shot Robin then Robin has woken, dressed, walked through the garden, past the bathroom, up the stairs and settled into the lounge for a prayer over a 15-20 minute period without taking a slash so why is it so important to think that he wouldn't kill everyone without pissing?
The police initially had the theory that maybe David came back from his paper round and then shot everyone in the 25 minutes he couldn't account for. They changed this to the 4+1 theory supposedly because the timeframe was too short. 25 minutes is quite a long time. Go and walk around your house for 25 minutes and see how much time you have to do things.
One of the biggest failures of the police was not prioritising establishing time of death for the bodies. Knowing whether there was a gap, or clues to the order of killing would have helped create a far closer theory to base the evidence around.
Just like the Lundy murders I don't think the prosecution have the story anywhere near correct and that opens up so much room for conjecture. So much of the theory toward David relies on him making carefully calculated plans but then also making huge errors within those very same plans. It just doesn't add up. I would be pretty confident that the 4+1 theory is not what went down.
Wasn't the story that David had told someone how he had this clever plan around being seen at the right times on his paper round at various places to create an alibi but sneaking off to do something between those times and completing the round later? maybe when he was seen at the house gate with his paper bag he was not coming back but going back out? -
Have just started listening. Finished Ep 1 and haleat through Ep 2.
I'll admit my bias - although desparately trying to rwmain open. I reckon David did it. So my bias may be confirmed given what I think is the bent von Beynen is putting in the story.
But the 111 call played at the beginning does not help David. Sounds awfully affected
-
@booboo said in David Bain no compensation:
Have just started listening. Finished Ep 1 and haleat through Ep 2.
I'll admit my bias - although desparately trying to rwmain open. I reckon David did it. So my bias may be confirmed given what I think is the bent von Beynen is putting in the story.
But the 111 call played at the beginning does not help David. Sounds awfully affected
I think it is also important to understand that Van Beynan nailed his colours to the mast years ago before much of the evidence even came to light. He says he is being open minded in his later reviews but was so scathing earlier that there must be an element of trying to back himself up.
Using that phone call to hammer home one point is a bit overdramatic IMO.
-
I used to sit next to David in a psychology tutorial at Otago uni. Never forget those jerseys and also he wore one of those german army disposable coats that were cheap and popular for scarfies in 1990.
But it was strange all those years ago putting a face to the name. I remember noticing his acne, height, skinniness and clothing, but apart from that nothing he said or behaved indicated much apart from my immature diagnosis of "nerd" and knowing he was a local Dunedin student.
That's it. That's my input to this thread. However due to his "unremarkableness" I've always tended on the innocent side for him - not that that holds any water (nor does my input to this thread - it's a hell of a mystery though)
-
I've just got the concluding episode of the series to go. I have always been pro-Robin / David is guilty, and this only strengthens it. I was a student when the Karam and James McNeish books came out so got right into it then. My memories of the key facts had faded somewhat, so this has been a really enjoyable listen.
Well played van Beynen.
-
Once you have finished the podcast I really do suggest a reading of Binnie's Report as linked previously. I have been going through it sporadically and have not completed it but there is some very good stuff in there.
If van Beynan's stuff provides a great argument for the prosecution, Binnie's provides a good one as a summing up from a judge with the benefit of hindsight and direct interviews with the accused.
I have been trying to ignore the dramatics of the podcast, the supposition and the heresay around how others reacted to David's behaviour and focus only on known facts to see what ties together and what creates problems. By page 59 in Binnie's Report he also looks at 10 key pieces of evidence in the same manner. -
@Crucial said in David Bain no compensation:
Once you have finished the podcast I really do suggest a reading of Binnie's Report as linked previously. I have been going through it sporadically and have not completed it but there is some very good stuff in there.
Yep. His crime, as a judge, was basically to judge, and he came to an un-palatable conclusion.
Van Beynan stuck his colours to the mast long ago, and won't budge.
I'm pretty well of the opinion that it's more likely that David did it, but that the police probably destroyed, cocked up or missed enough evidence to actually convict him. On that basis, he should probably not get sent down.
Also, there's some really dodgy shit going on with retrials in general. Bain at Trial 1: You killed all of them at once, and then at Trial 2: you did 4, headed off on your round, and then came home and offed Robin.
Lundy Trial 1: you did the Lundy five hundy, and we found a 0.5mm square piece of brain! ... becoming you snuck off in the middle of the night and did it- and we got the time of death wrong, oops, sorry about that. Getting convictions and then changing your mind on how shit went down when challenged doesn't fill you with confidence.
-
... and for clarity, I strongly urge people to read the Binnie report. Good judges set things out very clearly and deal with conflicting data. He does this, and (as I said above) judges the information and comes down on a conclusion a lot of people don't like.
-
@nzzp said in David Bain no compensation:
... and for clarity, I strongly urge people to read the Binnie report. Good judges set things out very clearly and deal with conflicting data. He does this, and (as I said above) judges the information and comes down on a conclusion a lot of people don't like.
I do agree with some of the reasons his report was dismissed though.
What I was getting at was that it is a good counterpoint to VanBeynan's analysis.
The same reasoning for dismissing Binnie can be aimed at Van Beynan.
It is just intriguing to see two sides. -
So if we're accepting of Binnie's opinion as a judge what do we think of Callinan's? Because he is a judge too.
In my opinion I think David did it, but there was enough evidence, doubt about evidence or possible alternatives that "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is probably the correct outcome.
Balance of probabilities? If two Supreme Court judges disagree then who are we to make up our minds based on a podcast.
-
@booboo said in David Bain no compensation:
So if we're accepting of Binnie's opinion as a judge what do we think of Callinan's? Because he is a judge too.
Not telling people to accept it - just that it is a well reasoned judgement. Judges put different weights on evidence - and that is a judgment call (literally), and that is how they arrive at their conclusions.
Not Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is probably the right call given the information provided.
-
@nzzp said in David Bain no compensation:
@booboo said in David Bain no compensation:
So if we're accepting of Binnie's opinion as a judge what do we think of Callinan's? Because he is a judge too.
Not telling people to accept it - just that it is a well reasoned judgement. Judges put different weights on evidence - and that is a judgment call (literally), and that is how they arrive at their conclusions.
Not Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is probably the right call given the information provided.
But then Binnie saying David should get compensation (which means Robin is clearly the killer, given the different standard of proof required), I just can't fathom. Sure you can argue that a whole lot of things just happened to coincide, such that there is a reasonable doubt about David's guilt, but I can see no situation where you can reasonably argue that Robin is clearly the killer.
-
@Siam said in David Bain no compensation:
I used to sit next to David in a psychology tutorial at Otago uni. Never forget those jerseys and also he wore one of those german army disposable coats that were cheap and popular for scarfies in 1990.
But it was strange all those years ago putting a face to the name. I remember noticing his acne, height, skinniness and clothing, but apart from that nothing he said or behaved indicated much apart from my immature diagnosis of "nerd" and knowing he was a local Dunedin student.
That's it. That's my input to this thread. However due to his "unremarkableness" I've always tended on the innocent side for him - not that that holds any water (nor does my input to this thread - it's a hell of a mystery though)
-
@Virgil said in David Bain no compensation:
Finished listening to the podcast series
How the fuck is this guy not rotting in a jail cell?
Always thought it was obvious he was the killer listening to this just reinforces it.
Karam and co should hang their heads in shameI think this post after listening to the podcasts shows just how biased the series is.
I agree that it make a very persuasive case for the prosecution but explore a bit deeper and there are aspects that are dismissed purely because Van Beynan applies his own behaviour to the situation, ignores the doubt surrounding the David' case due to missing evidence in the 'Robin' case and has clearly set out (despite his claims to the contrary) to justify his own strongly held views.
I'm not claiming David is innocent, just that even with detailed hindsight views unencumbered by the courtroom it is fascinating to see how totally different pictures can be argued from the same set of evidence.
Read Binnie, read Callinan. You may still come to the same conclusion but without Van Beynan's dramatics.
One of the most puzzling aspects of the case is that the 'David did it' camp paint him as a psychotic weirdo with all sorts of issues yet there is no clinical evidence that backs this up. Only lay persons opinions. All professional opinion is to the contrary.
There are simply massive holes in the evidence for both sides.
Another interesting difference is the method of viewing evidence used by Van Beynan compared to Binnie.
VB describes it as strands of a rope which for the rope to fail nearly all of the strands must fail. A 'perfect storm' of evidence pointing toward David for which it would be massively coincidental for all pieces to be wrong at the same time.
Binnie describes the similar 'rope' situation but takes the view that if one strand fails the rope becomes weaker and he will only count strands that are proven. -
But David lied to Binnie, his story keeps changing.
He can't account (truthfully) for the missing 25 mins from when he came home to ringing 111.
Apart from this bloody sock print thing there's no physical evidence linking the dad to the murders. He even had a full bladder ffs. I'm only 44 but there's a shit show chance I can last an hour when I get up without taking a piss. -
@Virgil said in David Bain no compensation:
But David lied to Binnie, his story keeps changing.
He can't account (truthfully) for the missing 25 mins from when he came home to ringing 111.
Apart from this bloody sock print thing there's no physical evidence linking the dad to the murders. He even had a full bladder ffs. I'm only 44 but there's a shit show chance I can last an hour when I get up without taking a piss.Binnie doesn't think David lied to him and he was face to face with him. VB says David lied based on his interpretation then sells that.
The 25 minutes is a bit of a red herring IMO. Yes, David can't account for it but what is he alleged to have done in that 25 minutes? He certainly didn't take time to check through the scene and make sure there was no evidence he left behind. His gloves were in his brothers room and his father had no visible signs of blood.
According to the police he didn't kill everyone in the 25 minute spell (although I'm not sure why that is.
The bladder thing is also a non issue. For starters it wasn't an hour, we don't even know when Robin got out of bed but he obviously didn't feel the need for a piss straight away because even if he was innocent he still walked through the garden, walked past the toilet and up the stairs, went out to the letterbox (which wasn't close) and went back inside to read the paper. He quite obviously either didn't need a piss or he had one and still had urine in his bladder.
Thing is that none of it makes sense in the way described. David had no traces of blood in or on the shoes he wore on the paper run for example.
There is no evidence against Robin, but then hardly any was looked for or it was not taken or fucked up later. A lack of evidence can't be used against David just as it can't be used against Robin.I'd love to work this one out and while I agree that everything there is makes it more likely to be David Im not certain that if I was on a jury and had VB as prosecution and Binnie as defence I would convict.
Can't blame the jury when there is so much confusion around the story presented.