David Bain
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="604276" data-time="1470716923">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>There's something in that, but - if David did it - he's attempted a carefully planned and cold blooded execution of his family, which he's tried to frame his father for. If you work from the assumption that he did it - he deserves the electric chair.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I don't really give a fuck about the money - the government would only have wasted it on something almost equally useless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If David is actually innocent, then he's been treated horrifically and deserves much more...but, I suspect he's not.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604236" data-time="1470705044">
<div>
<p>if David actually did it </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>In this case, (for me) whether he did it or not isn't that relevant to the compensation. He got sent away with the police presenting a ropey and one sided case, and was then overturned at the privy council. Makes you wonder how you get justice in NZ though, as all the NZ appeal courts confirmed his conviction. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given he was then acquitted, it would seem to me to be a good case for compensation. He may well have done it, but then there is still a reasonable chance that Robin did it too. The reality is we just don't know.<br><br>
Callinan applied the test that he couldn't prove he didn't do it on balance of probabilites, so therefore recommended no compensation. I would be interested if you could make a case that Robin Bain didn't do it on balance of probablities - because there is just so much missing or discredited evidence. The computer turn on time can't even be confirmed because of (frankly) poor police work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Summary:</p>
<p>He might have done it</p>
<p>He probably can't prove to balance of probabilities that he didn't do it</p>
<p>There's probably not enough reliable evidence to do that for either person</p>
<p>Bottom line the police dropped their bundle on this one, but continue to deny it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now we should get started on Peter Ellis...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604295" data-time="1470723526">
<div>
<p>There's something in that, but - if David did it - he's attempted a carefully planned and cold blooded execution of his family, which he's tried to frame his father for. If you work from the assumption that he did it - he deserves the electric chair.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I don't really give a fuck about the money - the government would only have wasted it on something almost equally useless.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If David is actually innocent, then he's been treated horrifically and deserves much more...but, I suspect he's not.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I seem to remember at the time of the trial one of his friends recounted a conversation she had with David in which he outlined how he might kill his family using his paper round as an alibi.....</p> -
<p>arent they supposed to be looking at the legislation around compensation following this case? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>While I am in the 'he done did it' camp, the fact he spent that time away on shonky evidence and they have not proved he did in fact do it, is enough for me to say he should get compo, even though the part of me that says he did it so doesnt deserve squat.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="604310" data-time="1470729020">
<div>
<p>I seem to remember at the time of the trial one of his friends recounted a conversation she had with David in which he outlined how he might kill his family using his paper round as an alibi.....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the conversation was that he could rape a female jogger and use the paper round as an alibi - I think David had even worked it out in a notebook.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Male friend though.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="604306" data-time="1470728746">
<div>
<p>I would be interested if you could make a case that Robin Bain didn't do it on balance of probablities - because there is just so much missing or discredited evidence. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That's the thing - there's bugger all evidence that points to Robin apart from that he was found dead with the gun beside him. And that David says "it wasn't me".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's no-one else's blood on him, he's got no bruising from the apparently violent struggle with Stephen, his fingerprints aren't on the gun - for some unknown reason he's worn David's white dress gloves while committing the murders and then hidden them when they got blood soaked fighting Stephen - and then he's come downstairs, had a good wash, possibly a shower (but not a piss), put all the murder clothes in the laundry basket, changed into fresh clothes - gone into the living room, turned on the computer to write a computer message exonerating David - and then shot himself. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604396" data-time="1470742004">
<div>
<p>That's the thing - there's bugger all evidence that points to Robin apart from that he was found dead with the gun beside him. And that David says "it wasn't me".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's no-one else's blood on him, he's got no bruising from the apparently violent struggle with Stephen, his fingerprints aren't on the gun - for some unknown reason he's worn David's white dress gloves while committing the murders and then hidden them when they got blood soaked fighting Stephen - and then he's come downstairs, had a good wash, possibly a shower (but not a piss), put all the murder clothes in the laundry basket, changed into fresh clothes - gone into the living room, turned on the computer to write a computer message exonerating David - and then shot himself. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You have to wonder if the cops thought it was an open and shut case and thats why they were pretty sloppy in their work .</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="604398" data-time="1470742230"><p>You have to wonder if the cops thought it was an open and shut case and thats why they were pretty sloppy in their work .</p></blockquote>I think that was definitely a factor. Apparently the forensic evidence was overwhelming so they thought it was a slam dunk
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="604398" data-time="1470742230">
<div>
<p>You have to wonder if the cops thought it was an open and shut case and thats why they were pretty sloppy in their work .</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess if you're the cops (and the ambulance people) you're arriving to a pretty chaotic scene and your first instinct isn't necessarily going to be that the guy in the funny jersey did it. You're probably thinking "Jesus - horrible murder-suicide".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, no matter how well trained, things are potentially going to be done differently than if you arrive and think, "this guy's done it and he's attempting a stitch up".</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="604405" data-time="1470742976">
<div>
<p>I guess if you're the cops (and the ambulance people) you're arriving to a pretty chaotic scene and your first instinct isn't necessarily going to be that the guy in the<strong> funny jersey</strong> did it. You're probably thinking "Jesus - horrible murder-suicide".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, no matter how well trained, things are potentially going to be done differently than if you arrive and think, "this guy's done it and he's attempting a stitch up".</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>To be honest the jersey was all the evidence I needed.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="604398" data-time="1470742230">
<div>
<p>You have to wonder if the cops thought it was an open and shut case and thats why they were pretty sloppy in their work .</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>If that's the case, it's a pretty poor indictment. Not testing Robin Bain's hands for gunshot residue is a fatal error. I can understand an argument for not testing Davids immediately, but FFS you test Robin Bain and the case probably just goes away. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, if the case is as clear as all that, why did Binnie recommend compensation? I didn't really follow the case closely, but read his report and it was very clear from an independent assessor. Binnie came highly recommended, but concluded the polar opposite of Callinan. I do have issues with 'judge shopping' from Govt to get the result they want. </p> -
<p>I'm in the David probably did it camp.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hindsight and all that, but the police work done on this particular case was utterly substandard. So many basics you would think (eg in a gun murder, testing for residue etc). It might be seen as cold, doing those sorts of things in what LOOKED like a murder suicide, but surely better five mins of apologies than 20 years plus a million bucks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Didn't they also lose potential evidence or something in a fire? Did the house burn down?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mokey" data-cid="604647" data-time="1470799581">
<div>
<p>I'm in the David probably did it camp.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hindsight and all that, but the police work done on this particular case was utterly substandard. So many basics you would think (eg in a gun murder, testing for residue etc). It might be seen as cold, doing those sorts of things in what LOOKED like a murder suicide, but surely better five mins of apologies than 20 years plus a million bucks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Didn't they also lose potential evidence or something in a fire? Did the house burn down?</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The house was razed on purpose 2 weeks after the crime. Funny how David consented to it being burned down... :idiot2:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/bain-agreed-razing-family-home-court-told'>https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/bain-agreed-razing-family-home-court-told</a></p> -
Re-booting this thread so the Podcasts one doesn't get sidetracked.
I am part way through the podcasts and the thing that strikes me so far is just how fucked up that family was.
The mother was a complete screwball. Robin was by all accounts a decent guy in the outside world but potentially had been abusing his daughter and must have had all sorts of weird emotions going on regarding the dsyfunctional living situation. Both daughters were a mess (one more than the other) from growing up among this weirdness. David was arguably the most screwy.
All except the mother seemed to be living two lives. She was openly nutty and didn't care who knew it.
I suspect that the incest claims are true (the pattern of a young woman going straight to selling her body after being 'sullied' by a family member is all too common) Although see also seems to be a story inventing attention seeker the incest appears to be a constant that only gets said when she opens up to someone. How this matters in 'who shot who' I don't know. It may be relevant, it may not.
I still have a feeling that what went on that morning is more complicated than just David planning it all and framing Robin and that is why the case had so many holes.
What is also strange is how David's personality had a complete change after the event. Was he able to convince many people of his sincerity and innocence because he had 're-booted' his life and exorcised all the demons by wiping out all the bad shit around him? Somehow giving himself a memory wipe. Even psychologists struggled to find any psychopathic traits.
Anyway, I am going to listen through with an open mind even though I think these type of investigations are somewhat hindered by their starting points. They look to prove or disprove the main theories rather than looking at all possibilities. -
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.