Which values did he use to shoot them?

David Bain is ramping up his “cry me a river of tears” routine:

David Bain says he was able to cope with the conviction for killing his entire family because his parents had raised him to be courageous and strong.

He makes the comment in his interview with TV3’s 60 Minutes show, which airs tonight. Asked how he coped with the loss of his family, Bain says, “Thinking back over a lot of the circumstances I don’t know how I got through them. I can only thank my upbringing, my family, my Mum and Dad [who] helped us with our education, with our upbringing, with university studies and helped us become the people we are. And somewhere in there I guess was the learned strength and courage that they both had.”

I wonder if he also used those same values to kill them all in cold blood after he finished his paper run?

Was it also his parents values of blaming a dead man for something he did? Not taking responsibility?

David Bain is on my list of people I’d rather not hear from, along with Gareth Bloody Morgan.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

Tagged:
  • thor42

    Agreed.
    I remember the judge in the first trial saying (in his summing-up) that there was not a single bit of evidence that Robin Bain committed the murders.
    ( On the other hand, there was a *shitload* of evidence that David did them. )
    The jury in the second trial got it wrong. David Bain is as guilty as sin. 

    • Hakim of phut

      Well the police wouldnt put evidence  like that forward would they ?
      In the second trial there was a Shitload of evidence of their stuffups and along with destruction of evidence since the first trial- a habit of theirs as well. Thomas didnt live at the same address as the Crewes so they had to plant something of his there . With the ramshackle state of the Bain house it was easy to ‘discard’ items

      • thor42

         If you pop over to kiwiblog, there is a very revealing post there about Bain –
        I quote – 
        Edward Rooney in HoS reports:

        David Bain says he was able to cope with the
        conviction for killing his entire family because his parents had raised
        him to be courageous and strong. 

        However – this completely contradicts his statement in the trial –  Hmmn so David now speaking so well of his father. Recall the trial, as reported by NZ Herald:

        David Bain said he hated his father, a court has heard. 

        This is the lying weasel that you are defending, HoP. 

      • Hakim of phut

        Well we do  know some police evidence  in the first trial was lies !

         They admitted it in the second trial, other lies couldnt be exposed since crucial evidence was destroyed …like the Crewes…lucky that

    • GPT

      Pankhurst J effectively said the same thing in the second trial but the jury ignored it.

  • Peter Wilson

    Except that it doesn’t matter what any of us think. Those of us that believe in the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers, and other quaint notions that have founded our society, have moved on.

    Why not focus on unresolved cases? David Tamihere springs to mind. There were so many gaps in the police case, this one stands out as the police picking the most likely suspect and going after him, til they got their man. Of course, Tamihere has previous convictions, is Maori, and should have been behind bars anyway.

    • Michael

      12 citizens, good and true, having sworn (or affirmed) to listen to the facts presented by the Crown and rebutted by Tamihere’s representative, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 

      It strikes me as an incredible co-incidence that a man fitting his description was seen in the company of a woman fitting Heidi Paakkonen in the bush of the Coromandel, and that days later Tamihere was caught driving a car that belonged to Hoglin and Paakkonen.

      • Hakim of phut

        Eye witness evidence  is notoriusly unreliable and easy for the police to ‘encourage’ the witness in the way they like, and ignore other witnesses who  dont agree and the court never hears from.

        Funny how the UK Privy Council ordered a retrial, a rarity for a criminal case even in the UK

      • Peter Wilson

        Yes, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. As was David Bain found NOT guilty.

        Tamihere admitted stealing their car I believe and the rest is purely circumstantial. The watch he was accused of taking was actually found on the body of the victim and was found some 30km from where the police said it was.

        I think it was a classic case of a jury saying, well, there might not be the evidence there, but it’s more likely he did it, so lets convict him.

      • GPT

        Eye witness evidence is absolute pies.  It is the worst kind of evidence that there is.

      • Tom

        When did Bain get found not guilty? News to me Peter…

    • Steve P

      “Except that it doesn’t matter what any of us think.”But the thing is, it does. The purpose of the criminal justice system is not to determine what actually happened in some scientific sense (that’s irrelevant, and sometimes impossible), it is to convince the public at large that justice has been served. The jury  is supposed to be representative of that public at large, which is why it is the *arbitrarily fixed number* of twelve of your peers instead of *however many would be required* number of relevant experts.

      So in the Bain case the criminal justice system has failed, because the public at large is not convinced either way and therefore faith in the system has been undermined.

      • Peter Wilson

        Isn’t that because the public have a mob mentality, and simply refuse to accept a decision rendered under due process?

        As an aside, wouldn’t it great to have a jury system in place for the Higher Salary Commission determinations?

      • Steve P

        Well gee I dunno. This public “mob mentality” is apparently a perfectly acceptable way of deciding who gets to run the country.

        Speaking of which, and as for the (rather presumptively named, imo) Higher Salaries Commission…if we can’t trust our Ministers enough to set their own salaries then why the f*** do we trust them to run the country?

    • Kimbo

      “Why not focus on unresolved cases?”

      Because Reed, Karam and Bain are continuing the propaganda campaign for
      tax-payer funded compensation. The TV interview tonight is part of the
      on-going offensive – in the same way Karam got to “influence” the public
      for years in a way the Crown couldn’t. For example, ask any average
      Kiwi about Robin Bain, and they accept, almost as a matter of fact, “Oh
      yes, he was molesting his daughter”.

      Don’t dispute Bain was tried a second time and found “not guilty”. I
      disagree with the verdict, but we just have to accept that juries, made
      up of people, aren’t infallible. Good luck to Bain. A greater judge
      awaits him. And even though I disagree with him, I have no doubt Karam
      genuinely believes Bain is innocent. I’d love to have Karam as a friend if I
      was in trouble. He deserves a knighthood.

      The Tamihere case isn’t “unsolved”. As with the Bain case, people forget that the
      Crown didn’t have to give a water-tight exact reconstruction of how the
      murders were carried out – just a plausible scenario from the
      circumstantial evidence. Tamihere’s jury didn’t know he was a convicted
      man slaughterer on the run while on bail because he was charged with rape. It
      wasn’t the watch that convicted him, and neither was it the prison
      confession (which any reasonable jury would ignore as reliable evidence,
      and move on to other evidence almost instantaneously). Put all
      the other stuff together – Tamihere just happened to steal the car of a
      couple who just happened to go missing – an unlucky coincidence – yeah,
      right! Same with David Bain and all the incredible coincidences taht
      point away from Robin and towards him.

      Like the prosecutor said in the first Bain trial: “If it walks like a
      duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck…”(it ain’t necessarily
      Trevor Mallard!)

      • Peter Wilson

        “Tamihere just happened to steal the car of a couple who went missing…”  and that makes him guilty? I would have thought circumstancial evidence would have to be overwhelming before being accepted.

        The thing about Bain, is I’m sure he is guilty, but so what. He’s been found innocent, and was in jail for over 10 years, and needs to be compensated for that. You can’t pick and choose when it comes to justice. Being found innocent means what it says.

      • Steve P

        Peter Wilson: “..He’s been found innocent, and was in jail for over 10 years, and needs to be compensated for that. You can’t pick and choose when it comes to justice. Being found innocent means what it says.”

        No, Bain was not found innocent, he was found not guilty – not the same thing at all.

      • Peter Wilson

        “No, Bain was not found innocent, he was found not guilty – not the same thing at all.”

        That’s just semantics isn’t it? What about “Innocent until Proven guilty” Not proven guilty…..therefore equals….innocent.

      • Hakim of phut

        Why did the policeman say he saw the watch, while in Tamiheres house ?
        As we  found out later, it was found on  UH body in the bush.What other lies did that cop say. 
        Of course it was police culture to tell lies  when they think they have the right guy but the evidence isnt enough

      • Steve P

        “That’s just semantics isn’t it?”
        Nonono. Presumption of innocence does not mean the accused is innocent if not found guilty, it means the accused is not guilty unless and until a guilty verdict is returned; it is a principle of the rights of the accused. Innocent people are not remanded in custody to Mt Eden.

        Regarding Bain, from wiki (yes I know I know):”Otago University’s Dean of Law Mark Henaghan… pointed out that Bain would also have to show it was more likely he was innocent than not.[53] It is not enough to be found not guilty, as this does not mean that the accused person is innocent—it is not the same as the exoneration that DNA evidence may provide, for instance…”

      • Kimbo

         @ Peter Wilson

        “”Tamihere just happened to steal the car of a couple who went missing…”  and that makes him guilty?”

        No, I didn’t say that. I don’t have the time, space, or inclination to detail here all the circumstantial evidence against Tamihere – just the most damning piece of evidence. On its own, it could mean Tamihere was the very unluck victim of a bad coincidence (and I won’t repeat the 6 or 7 or so that happened in the case of David Bain that I’ve outlined on previous threads whenever the topic has arisen – don’t want to be accused of being a Bainiac!).

        The point I’m making is that the discovery of the watch on the body in a place where the Crown suggested (nb: not “insisted”) the murder took place, and the retracted testimony of a prison confession, do not “unravel” the convictions as Tamihere’s supporters and cheer leaders insist. They were always minor, disputable, and peripheral matters (yes – even the watch) compared to the cumulative (i.e., take it all togther and don’t try and exclusively atomise it when you analyse it, as Karam successfully managed to do with the evidence against David Bain) weight of other circumstantial evidence. Tamihere had the right of appeal, he did, and he lost. Did he go as high as the Privy Council. If not, the option is still open to him (murders took place before appeal to that court was abolished). In the absence of any other evidence, Tamihere is whistling in the wind.

      • Kimbo

         @ Peter Wilson

        “”No, Bain was not found innocent, he was found not guilty – not the same thing at all.”

        That’s just semantics isn’t it? What about “Innocent until Proven guilty” Not proven guilty…..therefore equals….innocent”.”

        Stop being fatuous and playing the semantic shell-game.

        Contrary to the nonsense Karam spun about ‘David and Goliath’, David Bain always had a massive advantage over the Crown – they had to prove his guilt. He never had to prove his innocence. That second jury may very well have believed he (David) probably did it, he may even have almost definitely did it. But just enough reasonable doubt, and they had to acquit. And unlike Karam and Bain, now that the Crown has lost, they don’t get to appeal again, and again, and again to various courts, not to mention the highly suggestable and malleable court of public opinion, peopled by the slow and imprecise of thinking and factually challenged like yourself, Peter Wilson. Once David Bain is found “not gulity”, that is the end of any legal criminal proceedings .

        However, when it comes to applying a test for compensation for the imprisonment we rightly apply a different legal test – the onus is on Bain to prove he didn’t do it – i.e., he is “innocent”, not just merely “not guilty”. Hah!

        The dead Bain family, and Robin especially did not, in my opinion, get justice at the second David Bain trial. Unless David can prove his innocence, why should yet another injustice be visited upon their memory and legacy?!

      • Steve P

        “…Tamihere’s jury didn’t know he was a convicted 
        man slaughterer on the run while on bail because he was charged with rape…”
        The rule that a defendant’s criminal history must not be raised in court is an aspect of the law that I am not too happy about, as many others are I’m sure.
        How can it be “not relevant”?

      • GPT

        Good point on the molestation.  Somehow large swathes of the public have, at best, an “open mind” (this generally means they think Bain didn’t do it but don’t want their lack of knowledge exposed by arguing with anyone who knows what they are talking about) over whether it was David or Robin notwithstanding the compelling evidence that it was David.  They are prepared to overlook the fact that Robin somehow had a fight with his son (no defensive wounds), left a note in such a way that would do little to assist David, shot himself at a funny angle, some how trapsed through the blood without getting any on himself and put the washing on with a full bladder but one person says they heard the daughter say Robin touched her up and that’s gospel.  Madness.

      • Steve P

        Hakim of phut: “Of course it was police culture to tell lies  when they think they have the right guy but the evidence isnt enough”
        Part of the reason for the presumption of innocence thing is that the court *presumes* that the police are incompetent or corrupt.

      • Peter Wilson

        “Unless David can prove his innocence, why should yet another injustice be visited upon their memory and legacy?!”

        I know I’m a little slow here, but why should he have to prove his innocence?  Does he have a criminal record now?

        The court system has run it’s course, and I’m picking if Bain was found guilty, he’d have no more appeals either. The end result is the court has effectively said, “David, you’re are innocent of the crimes you are accused of, and free to go, and you shouldn’t have been in jail all these years.”

        Hello compensation.

        And on another matter, who got the proceeds from the family inheritance, this should rightfully go back to David now, and should have been held in trust all this time anyway.

      • Steve P

        Peter Wilson: “…The end result is the court has effectively said, “David, you’re are innocent of the crimes you are accused of, and free to go, and you shouldn’t have been in jail all these years…”

        No, the court has not said Bain is innocent – that he didn’t do it. It has said that it cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did do it – that it cannot meet the burden of proof in a criminal trial. That he spent all that time in jail only to be acquitted is the price that we all as a society (not just Bain) have to pay for our criminal justice system. Bain arguably should consider himself lucky; In earlier times he might have been executed.

        The most famous example of this is O.J Simpson. He was acquitted – found not guilty – of murder in criminal court as the court could not meet the burden of proof (“beyond reasonable doubt”), but he was found liable for wrongful death in civil court, which has a lower burden of proof (“on the preponderance of evidence”). So, did he do it or not?

        Now, if Bain is subsequently exonerated, that is a different matter.That would suggest that the criminal justice system f***ed up severely, or was corrupt, or in some way failed to meet the standards that society expects of it, in which case Bain might be able to sue the courts for its failure, that is, to seek compensation.

      • Kimbo

         @ Peter Wilson

        Yes you are slow. “Innocent” is not the “effectively the court” saying
        “not guilty”. They are legal terms, with precise delineated and often
        exclusive meanings. Last time I looked, the Bain case was a legal
        matter!

        But even if we accept your scenario, have a look again at the Privy
        Council decision that overturned the first verdict. They were quite
        clear that the jury concerned had no reached an incorrect decision. The
        conviction was over-turned on other matters subsequent to the
        conviction, but even the Privy Council made no decision on whether Bain
        was “guilty”, “not guilty”, “innocent”, “unlike or likely to have done
        it on the balance of probabilities”, none of that.

        Also, the same system that Bain successfully used to appeal and
        over-turn his conviction, and then stand trial again with a successful
        acquittal is also the same system that rightly sets a different standard
        for compensation for wrongful conviction (which, I repeat, the Privy
        Council didn’t do!). Bain got the massive generosity of the benefit of
        reasonable doubt whether he was guilty or not guilty. Now we the
        taxpayers get the balance of the benefit of doubt.

        Bain’s conviction and imprisonment were not a miscarriage of justice, no
        matter what the second jury decided – unless he can decisively prove he
        didn’t do it (whereas you admit he likely did). Over to you, David
        Bain, and Joe Karam, and Michael Reed. And “decisive proof” ain’t the
        same as carefully choreographed TV interviews, no doubt answering
        pre-arranged and vetted puff-ball answers to smash about the court.

        Hell, the guy, as was his right, didn’t even take the stand and subject
        himself to cross-examination at the 2nd trial! OK, Bain used that to
        help secure a “not guilty” verdict – good luck to him. But if he and you want
        my tax-payer dollars for compensation, I expect him to front up to that
        sort of scrutiny.

      • Steve P

        Kimbo: “…Bain got the massive generosity of the benefit of 

        reasonable doubt whether he was guilty or not guilty. Now we the 
        taxpayers get the balance of the benefit of doubt.”
        Well stated Kimbo, excellent post.

    • GPT

      I believe in all of those things Peter and this one still pisses me off.  The jury system is hugely important and in my view the best way of deciding on a verdict but what on earth those twelve were smoking is beyond me. 

      • Nate Griffin

        i noticed one of the jurors was wearing ugg boots which is usually worn by liberally minded women aged 18 – 25.  the other thing i remember is some of of the jurors hugged David afterwards and two attempted to attend a party for David later that night but were asked to leave because it waouldn’t be a good look.

    • Nate Griffin

      “Those of us that believe in the rule of law…” 

      Some of us are more concerned with what is right and wrong.

  • Scanner

     I see Bain is starting a new career as a photographer, seemingly he will specialize in family shots.

    • Travdog

      next he’ll be asking for his glasses and glove back.

      • Steve P

        Did he get his rifle back?

      • Travdog

        I doubt it, wasn’t his to use in the first place. I doubt he asked Robin to borrow it.

      • Steve P
      • Travdog

        heh, nice bit of digging Steve, never saw that article. And here was me joking about it….

      • Steve P

        It was a lucky find. Actually I hardly know anything about the Bain case, I’ve been bluffing my way through the whole thing -thanks Google! 

      • Travdog

        With bluffing skills like that, who needs knowledge!

      • Steve P

        That’s my motto!

  • Pencarian

    Butcher Bain is guilty. The Police may have manipulated the evidence, however there is rather alot to prove his guilt. This is a case of trial by media.

    • Hakim of phut

      At least in the Kahui twins case, the fitted up evidence from the police was so obvious that the jury found him not guilty, the other  possible perp the mother was a bit smarter and conned the police. I wonder what she is doing these days ?

      • Bunswalla

        Yes well it was a bit hard to get any evidence in the Kahui twins case, wasn’t it, since everybody that knew what went on clammed up and refused to speak to the police.

        Nobody says the police are perfect, far from it, but it shows how little the family cared about justice and how much they just wanted to cover their scummy arses. It surprise me not a bit that a bottom-dweller like you immediately picks on the police and not the scum that killed two innocent babies.

      • MrV

        Are there any convicted criminals who you believe to be guilty?
        The way you carry on with every possible conspiracy on the books is a sight to behold.

  • captain Kidd

    I would concede that David Bain is the most likely killer,even after reading Joe Karams books.
    However one person who I believe is almost certainly not guilty of murder is Scott Watson.The book Trial by Trickery i think is damming of police setting out to get their man at any costs.Even one of the victims father says he does not believe Watson did it.

    • ChrisH4

      I was waiting for someone to raise that question, as I too believe it was a fit up to put Scott Watson away – rumour was that the Government agreed as well and were looking into it around the time of the election??

      So what’s happened there?

  • Bunswalla

    Dad did it while I was on my paper round….

    Yeah, right!

    • Hakim of phut

      Your motive is ?

      • Pukakidon

         It could have only been the father or paper boy Bain.    Fathers finger prints not on gun that he suposedly shot him self with, only Paper boys.    How did this happen?

        Where is your proof that father did it?

      • Kimbo

        @ Pukakidon

        “Where is your proof that father did it?”

        Yep! A very good and simple question. Occams’ Razor. The simplest explanation is to be preferred.

        Brian Bruce, for all his failings as a documentary maker did a good job when he analysed the Bain case by asking that very simple question. Reed and Karam went ape-shit over it, for the very simple reason all the physical evidence (i.e., leave out trying to muddy the waters with unprovable suggestions/innuendo about incest and Robin’s alleged state of mind, and stick to what was actually there in the house that morning) points EXCLUSIVELY in one direction alone – towards David.

        And just remember – next time Joe Karam says, “well, a lot of the physical evidence that could have exonerated David was destroyed when the police allowed the villa to be burned a few weeks after the deaths” – David Bain and his lawyer of the time, when invited to give a preference as to what should happen to the house, gave no objection to its destruction.

        So now Joe Karam gets to play the “argument from silence” gambit on the gullible public to his hearts content – a tactic he would be screaming blue murder about if the Crown had ever been allowed to try it!

        Not a penny of my tax-payer dollars for the family-less orphan who engineered that situation!

      • Pukakidon

         @eed0381f891f283275a2e97adda0b6c7:disqus
        The reason they had to burn the house down in a controlled manner is that after  past murder cases the locals did it illegally.   The police and fire brigade wanted to do it in a controlled manner so as no one got injured or the fire got out of control.  That is why it happend not long afterwards.

        Although I have to accept the second court decision because it is the system that we live by.    It was very interesting that it was reported that some of the jurors attended the after match drinks with the defence, and that some of the juriors had not declared criminal convictions during the selection process and may have had preconveived judgements prior to the retrial.  Very very untidy jurdicial system we have, it is another reason the whole system needs to be revamped.

      • Bunswalla

        My motivation is to state my absolute conviction that David Bain murdered his entire family in cold blood and is a multiple killer.

        David’s motive was partially to see if he could get away with it, as he postulated some years befotre to a school-friend when he said he could kill a paper-girl and get away with it, and partly to seize control of the family estate, which he has since attempted to do.

      • Bunswalla

        My motivation is that to state that I’m 100% certain that David Bain is a cold-blooded killer who murdered his entire family and got away with it.

        Bain’s motive was partly to see if the could get away with it (as he confided to a school-friend some years earlier when he spelled out his plan to murder a local paper-girl and manufacture an alibi almost identical to the one he relies on now) and partly to gain control of the family estate as described very rationally in the book The Mask of Sanity – you should read it.

      • Kimbo

         @ Pukakidon

        “It was very interesting that it was reported that some of the jurors
        attended the after match drinks with the defence, and that some of the
        jurors had not declared criminal convictions during the selection
        process and may have had preconceived judgements prior to the retrial”.

        Yeah, although it is the risk we take with a jury system – one I’m
        prepared to accept at the moment. However, I had a friend who served as a
        jury foreman, and after that experience, he became a fan of licensed
        jurors. Look at our fellow-citizens and look at the dumb decisions and
        judgements they make in life re voting and their finances. And these
        people get to decide on complex matters of fact and law. Putty in the
        hands of manipulators like Karam, Reed, and Bain!

        However, you are right – if the verdict at the second trial had been the
        other way around, Karam would be screaming for, and no doubt getting a
        new trial.

  • Scanner

    the story going around is that on his release he asked Joe “Show me the money” Karam to go straight to Kentucky Fried Chicken as he reckoned he could murder a family pack.

    • Steve P

      Scanner, your jokes are in appallingly bad taste. I’d appreciate it if you kept ’em coming.

      • Travdog

        Agreed. This disgusting behaviour must continue.

  • Swifty

    @eed0381f891f283275a2e97adda0b6c7:disqus 

    You’ve nailed it.

    For me, that’s always been the nub of this matter – the evidence overwhelmingly supports David as the killer.

    I am not aware of any evidence that specifically rules Robin out, as the killer, but when assessed fairly (and parking all the non-provable guesswork around potential motives for them both) the likelihood that David is the killer is highly probable whereas the likelihood that Robin is the killer is highly improbable. 

  • LesleyNZ

    It was “hearsay” evidence that was permitted in the last trial that made the difference. Hearsay evidence should NEVER have been allowed to be used in this trial. Also Robin Bain DID NOT look like a walking “cadaver”. He was NOT dirty and smelly and unkept. He was totally the opposite 3 weeks before he died and photos of him from pre digital age cameras and video DO NOT lie. People lie though. Robin Bain’s good name has been dragged through the muck.  David Bain knew what happened. He is either a good actor or has blocked it all out of mind. 

    • Kimbo

       …even worse was that the hearsay evidence originated from Dean Cottle, who was likely to have been Laniet’s pimp.

      He was so useless he only turned up late at the first trial because a
      subpoena had been issued for his arrest. Years later, same guy, no-show
      at trial.
      And Joe Karam tries to paint him as a victim of police intimidation and
      harassment. And this is the guy who Kiwis rely on for the supposed “fact
      Robin was molesting his daughter?!

      Obviously Joe Karam has no problem accepting versions of events and
      unsworn testimony when it suits him, but has no problem with reliability
      when those accounts or witnesses (David Bain included) are not
      scrutinised under sworn testimony and with cross-examination.

      • Peter Wilson

        Apparently the Privy Council and Jurors in Bain’s final trial had no problems accepting the evidence either. Makes you wonder eh.

      • Kimbo

         @ Peter Wilson

        “Apparently the Privy Council and Jurors in Bain’s final trial had no
        problems accepting the evidence either. Makes you wonder eh”.

        Nice rhetorical sleight-of-hand, Peter Wilson – right out of the Joe
        Karam play-book. I talk about the lack of cross-examination possiblity
        because Cottle didn’t front (in time for the first, and at all for the
        second) in court, and David Bain didn’t take the stand in the second
        trial, and you lift it out of context and then broaden it to cover all
        evidence.

        Put it this way, and let’s put the onus back on to you, seeing as you
        are playing the “20 bullshit question” game: How come hearsay testimony
        beneficial to David but Robin’s reputation was allowed in the second
        trial (i.e., “Laniet told me her old man was molesting her”), yet
        first-hand eye-witness testimony damaging to David’s case (“He told me
        he had planned how to commit a rape and use his paper-round as an alibi
        to get away with it”) wasn’t?!

        Oh, I know – There is no protection in court for maligning or prejudicing the dead.

  • Kimbo

    And having just watched the soft-soap interview on TV3, I note

    1. David Bain, as most who have encountered him makes a very credible and compelling  witness – unless you were one of the ambulance staff attending him that morning when the murders occurred. Those folks attend hundreds, probably thousands of emergencies and know what people look like under real stress. Their considered expert opinion at trial on David Bain’s alleged fainting and distress that morning – he was faking.

    2. David Bain still runs the standard “we wuz framed” defence line, insisting the police needed a scalp, and so they had to fit him into the scenario. Complete crap. The cops arrive, there is a dead body with a rifle next to it, and a note on the computer screen. At first, second, and third look it is murder suicide. An easy, open-and-shut case with a minimum amount of paperwork and hassle – with coffee and donuts back at the station for afternoon tea.

    It is only later in the week, as they examine the physical evidence that it becomes clear that ALL the evidence is pointing to David, and NONE to Robin that David is rightly charged. But again, despite that obvious scenario playing out, it is far more exciting and emotionally compelling in hindsight to spin the tale that the cops were incompetent and/or corrupt.

  • Nate Griffin

    I saw the interview and must ask:

    If Bain was innocent, his father the killer, then how could Bain be talking about his father so kindly in this interview?  Trying to paint him in a better light than the trial did, eh?

    Also, did anyone else notice how dim witted the character refernces David has chosen to use appeared to be in this interview?  Easily duped much?

    • Kimbo

       “If Bain was innocent, his father the killer, then how could Bain be
      talking about his father so kindly in this interview?  Trying to paint
      him in a better light than the trial did, eh?”

      Is the same line he ran at the first trial. “Dad was wonderful”, “Our
      family was wonderful”, “Mum was wonderful”, which rather begs the
      question, how did such an awful thing happen?

      Also pious nonsense from David in tonight’s interview: – “I don’t know
      why it happened? I’m not my family’s psychoanalyst”. No, you weren’t,
      but you were closer to them than anyone else, and you sure had a
      shit-load of free time to think about it! And it was rather in your
      interests to find out why – or at least it was until you get Joe Karam
      maligning and attacking the dead, who are unable to defend themselves,
      to his heart’s content.

      And notice the reference to “warning signs I should have seen in
      hindsight”, but no elaboration. Just enough to shift attention away, but
      no specifics that can be cross-checked, verified, or debunked to test
      his credibility.

      Obviously a “human interest piece” interview with carefully negotiated preset questions with the gaffer, Joe Karam beforehand.

  • Tora201jp

    I also watched the doco, and remain convinced of David’s innocence,just as I did back in the day. I also doubt Tamihere killed the two Swedes. Did you see Sunday last night? in both cases, police seem to have been out to close the cases and make convictions as quickly as they could, tampering with, inventing or conveniently losing evidence in order to do so.

  • davewin

    Why do we bother with a trial – just stick the herald report on the Internet and let the woolies decide. When also will you realise that the Prisons are filled to over flowing with innocents.

    A real conspiracy to get your teeth into!

  • parorchestia

    The murdered members of the Bain family (including Robin) are buried alongside each other in an immensely sad part of the Mosgiel cemetery. This speaks volumes for the family’s thoughts on the matter.  And, I believe, they have had nothing to do with David since the murder.
    While I am about it, motive has been a puzzle during the whole affair.  David said his father went crazy (though not crazy enough to stop him typing a note on a computer he never otherwise   used).  There is no evidence of a crazy episode by Robin, however.  But if David did do it what was his motive?  Well, how about this: the family had gathered together that weekend to announce that Mum and Dad were going to build the dream house that they had talked about for so many years, but David was going to be cast out because of his threatening and disturbing behaviour towards his siblings.  Why else were those murdered chosen to be murdered?  Think about it.I suspect that documentary evidence exists to prove this course of events, it’s just that no-one thought to look.  It would also have come out had David been cross examined thoroughly.

  • mihalku

    The Bain matter has been well covered above. I just want to agree with Whaleoil about G B Morgan. Btw, hasn’t the Auckland market really buggered his property values prediction graph!

  • JB

    Bain is very much guilty.  His fingerprints on his rifle in blood, blood from his brother on clothes he was wearing, his story changed from “i only saw Mum & Dad” and “They’re all dead!” to “Um – I recovered my memory that’s how I knew they were all dead”, absence of any blood on Robin Bain, only David knew where the key to rifle lock was hidden etc etc etc.  Justice Binnie will see through all the Karam & media spin and deny compensation.  Bet on it.

32%