David Bain
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="602678" data-time="1470186313"><p>
some are extremely clear in<strong> their</strong> minds though about what they are doing (based on reports leading upto and investigating the circumstances I have had to read) and plan it carefully</p></blockquote>
U<br>
Agree, but to do something like that, planned or not, something needs to be misfiring inside the head. -
<p>yeah it is odd as it shows they (particulalrly if the theories of Robin are true that he killed his family then himself) are wired completely wrong, but doesn't mean they haven't thought the scenario through and planned for something going wrong, which one I came across did....</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="602536" data-time="1470136419">
<div>
<p>As an aside, in the early 1990's, who would write a typed suicide note? Surely you pick up a pen and paper...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah - I've written that here before. If Robin takes a pen and paper and writes his, "Sorry, you're the only one who deserves to stay" note, it's case closed - so it's pretty inconvenient (or convenient) for David that he didn't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If he's pulling a murder suicide, why does he put on (David's) gloves to do it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Why does he shoot himself left handed - pulling a Dan Carter?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How does he fight with Stephen and get no bruises - and win?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Might need to re-read some stuff with an open mind, but there's too much circumstantial stuff that points to David to me.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="602413" data-time="1470120766">
<div>
<p>On the happenings themselves I strongly suspect that Bain has convinced himself he did nothing (and may have even convinced himself very early on). There is some psych term for it that I can't remember but it is to do with extreme stress. I don't think the crown version of events is entirely correct either and that Robin played a part. The whole thing looks way more complicated an event than either party attests to.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm more inclined to think that either David is innocent or he's a dangerous psychopath.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If he did it, he's gone to some pretty significant lengths to try to pin it on Robin.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="602911" data-time="1470273295">
<div>
<p>Yeah - I've written that here before. If Robin takes a pen and paper and writes his, "Sorry, you're the only one who deserves to stay" note, it's case closed - so it's pretty inconvenient (or convenient) for David that he didn't.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If he's pulling a murder suicide, why does he put on (David's) gloves to do it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Why does he shoot himself left handed - pulling a Dan Carter?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How does he fight with Stephen and get no bruises - and win?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Might need to re-read some stuff with an open mind, but there's too much circumstantial stuff that points to David to me.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yep, and if the alleged bad blood between Robin and David was true - why would David be the only one who 'deserved to stay'?</p> -
<p>maybe that was Robins plan, that everything would be pinned on David, the son he never wanted....</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="602949" data-time="1470279131"><p>
maybe that was Robins plan, that everything would be pinned on David, the son he never wanted....</p></blockquote>
<br>
And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling ex All Black. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="602608" data-time="1470170552">
<div>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://admin.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Ian Callinan Report.pdf'>https://admin.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Ian Callinan Report.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Took me about 2 hours to get through it. Fairly engrossing. Well-written.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's much harder to conclude it was Robin than David IMHO...and that's what the judge thought too.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah - that's long, but well worth reading. If you want the short version - I guess starting at para 326 where he lists key facts and then the two counterfactuals gives a reasonable overview.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mainly it seems to add up that David did it and tried to pin it on Robin, but there's definitely a few things that don't add up - e.g. why he would say he was the only one who knew where the key to the trigger-lock was and not washing his socks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If David is innocent, then you'd pretty much have to conclude that Robin almost vindictively set out to frame him - by using his gloves and typing the suicide note among others - and there was a hell of a lot of bad luck on David's behalf - washing the green jersey, blacking out and not recalling that he'd been in Arawa, Laniet and Stephen's rooms until after they found traces of all of their blood on his clothes. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm pretty doubtful about the initial prosecution case - that he shot everyone except Robin - went off and did his paper round - and then came back and shot Robin. That would be a very stupid way to proceed if you were intent on framing Robin. What if he got up early while you were away doing the papers and found the bodies?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="602407" data-time="1470119565">
<div>
<p>Can anyone with extensive legal knowledge explain the reason for the "stalemate" which MajorRage mentions above ?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Criminal cases have a burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" which is a necessarily high standard. Reasonable is whatever the jury think it is, but think 99.9% certain (or higher). In this case, the Privy Council ruled that there had been sufficient new evidence to throw doubt on the original conviction, and therefore that it should be put to another jury, the outcome of which was an acquittal.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Civil cases, on the other hand, use the lower standard of "balance of probabilities", which was also the standard for compensation claims. This just means more likely than not i.e. more than 50% chance. This is not the same standard as criminal cases, so you can have situations which fall between the two as here - the report's conclusion is that David is more likely than Robin to have committed the murders, but as per the retrial verdict, the case for Robin is plausible enough to be reasonable doubt, even if it is unlikely e.g. if someone is (say) 95% sure it was David, that would not meet the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt" but would meet the threshold of "on the balance of probabilities".</p> -
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">I've always thought the loser did it on his own with no involvement of his father, this guy has been involved with the case since he beginning and he does a good summary here. <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/08/david-bain-familicide/#more-265569'>http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/08/david-bain-familicide/#more-265569</a></span></p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="603094" data-time="1470313587"><p>
Civil cases, on the other hand, use the lower standard of "balance of probabilities", which was also the standard for compensation claims. This just means more likely than not i.e. more than 50% chance. This is not the same standard as criminal cases, so you can have situations which fall between the two as here - the report's conclusion is that David is more likely than Robin to have committed the murders, but as per the retrial verdict, the case for Robin is plausible enough to be reasonable doubt, even if it is unlikely e.g. if someone is (say) 95% sure it was David, that would not meet the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt" but would meet the threshold of "on the balance of probabilities".</p></blockquote>
<br>
Because asset forfeiture is dealt with in the civil court, this is how the Crown screw drug dealers and take their assets anyway after they've been acquitted in court because of insufficient evidence. On the balance of probabilities the flash cars, houses and bikes haven't been legitimately earned given the guy is a gang member who has never held a job, so that get seized and sold, even though they aren't guilty beyond reasonable doubt of any criminal act. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="aucklandwarlord" data-cid="603834" data-time="1470571512">
<div>
<p>Because asset forfeiture is dealt with in the civil court, this is how the Crown screw drug dealers and take their assets anyway after they've been acquitted in court because of insufficient evidence. On the balance of probabilities the flash cars, houses and bikes haven't been legitimately earned given the guy is a gang member who has never held a job, so that get seized and sold, even though they aren't guilty beyond reasonable doubt of any criminal act.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The old "no visible means of support" test...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>At least NZ police are not douchebags like the Yanks, who take cash and other stuff as proceeds of crime, but even if they don't bother with criminal charges, don't return the assets...</p> -
<p>I still can't get my pea brain around the old "a principle of NZ justice is innocent until proven guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So on the day of the murders the system says "David, at the moment you are innocent but, as the system allows, we are going to charge you and find you guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>13 odd years later the system says "you are not guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"but"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"you're not innocent either - we changed the rules and the principle the system upholds :hi: "</p>
<p> </p>
<p> :idiot2: I don't get it and feel a bit for him on the compo issue. The system put him through the procedure and left him in limbo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well it's better than being locked up shouldn't be an explanation for the fate of NZ citizen who has been through the gamut of the judicial system</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A principle of NZ justice is you can be a little bit guilty????</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's all a bit of a cop out and doesn't make me proud of our system (regardless if I think he did it or not)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="603603" data-time="1470518358">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">I've always thought the loser did it on his own with no involvement of his father, this guy has been involved with the case since he beginning and he does a good summary here. <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/08/david-bain-familicide/#more-265569'>http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/08/david-bain-familicide/#more-265569</a></span></p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That theory starts off well but ends up so contradictory and unbelievable that I wouldn't convict on it if it was put to me on a jury. He is accrediting David with being calculated and cunning yet and the same time incredibly stupid. Making all sorts of moves and plans to conceal his identity then leaving obvious bloodied handprints on the washing machine? Wearing a swimming cap (why?) then when it is covered in blood throwing on top of a cupboard? </p>
<p>I think it is quite obvious that David did something that morning that he won't or can't explain. Whether he finished off something his father started or did it all by himself I don't know but while the circumstantial evidence all points at him, the inability to explain supposed events in the prosecution case also casts doubt.</p>
<p>PS: the whole Robin had a full bladder thing is rubbish IMO. Even if he didn't kill anyone he still walked from his caravan, fetched the paper and went to say his prayers without being desperate to have a slash so why is it inconceivable that he added a few shootings into the timeframe as well?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="604077" data-time="1470653277">
<div>
<p>I still can't get my pea brain around the old "a principle of NZ justice is innocent until proven guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So on the day of the murders the system says "David, at the moment you are innocent but, as the system allows, we are going to charge you and find you guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>13 odd years later the system says "you are not guilty"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"but"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"you're not innocent either - we changed the rules and the principle the system upholds :hi: "</p>
<p> </p>
<p> :idiot2: I don't get it and feel a bit for him on the compo issue. The system put him through the procedure and left him in limbo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well it's better than being locked up shouldn't be an explanation for the fate of NZ citizen who has been through the gamut of the judicial system</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A principle of NZ justice is you can be a little bit guilty????</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's all a bit of a cop out and doesn't make me proud of our system (regardless if I think he did it or not)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>In the NZ system you are found "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Standard of proof in the murder trial is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Standard of proof for compensation is "Balance of Probabilities".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Overall, the finding basically amounts to "David probably did it, but we can't say for certain" - and the government has given him a million bucks to go away.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's about the opposite of the OJ Simpson case, where they found OJ not guilty in his murder trial, but slapped him with making a $33 million compensation payment to his victim's families in the "balance of probabilities civil suit - and then the government nailed him with a 33 year sentence for what seemed like a 2 year robbery crime.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only part of David's story I have a problem with is the government paying him to go away. Might be financially pragmatic, but I'm inclined to think we've given him a million bucks for killing his family. Better policing work (and, judging by an old North and South article about Milton Haig, better police) would have nailed David, I think.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604225" data-time="1470702567">
<div>
<p>In the NZ system you are found "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Standard of proof in the murder trial is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Standard of proof for compensation is "Balance of Probabilities".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Overall, the finding basically amounts to "David probably did it, but we can't say for certain" - and the government has given him a million bucks to go away.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's about the opposite of the OJ Simpson case, where they found OJ not guilty in his murder trial, but slapped him with making a $33 million compensation payment to his victim's families in the "balance of probabilities civil suit - and then the government nailed him with a 33 year sentence for what seemed like a 2 year robbery crime.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only part of David's story I have a problem with is the government paying him to go away. Might be financially pragmatic, but I'm inclined to think we've given him a million bucks for killing his family. <strong>Better policing work</strong> (and, judging by an old North and South article about Milton Haig, better police) would have nailed David, I think.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That seems to be the crux of what aucklandwarlord mentions a couple of pages back.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I mean would it have been too much of a hassle to think "hmmmmm this young bloke is the sole survivor, I know it's traumatic but we have to test him to rule it out...."</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604225" data-time="1470702567">
<div>
<p>Only part of David's story I have a problem with is the government paying him to go away. Might be financially pragmatic, but I'm inclined to think we've given him a million bucks for killing his family. Better policing work (and, judging by an old North and South article about Milton Haig, better police) would have nailed David, I think.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think there is a strong case for compensation simply because of the sheer incompetence of the police. Turned what should have been an open/shut case into a long running saga</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="604235" data-time="1470704270">
<div>
<p>I think there is a strong case for compensation simply because of the sheer incompetence of the police. Turned what should have been an open/shut case into a long running saga</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>On the other hand, if David actually did it - and in my opinion he did - then he is a psychopathic little fucker who makes Clayton Weatherston look like a nice guy.</p> -
<p>add me to the pay him list. taking away years of someone's life, then saying, 'sorry, but you know what, we weren't really sure about that' just isn't good enough.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>innocent until proven guilty is important. giving money to a possible/probable murderer is fucking shit, but it is what should happen in this situation, and the responsibility for that falls at the feet of those who fucked it up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>i</p>