Comments on: David Bain, the Privy Council and capital punishment

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 06:04:43 +0000

Donna asks “Why did Robin bring in the morning paper”
There is a simple and logical explanation for that. Robin wanted to make sure that David had left on his paper round. It was freezing cold that morning ,so he wasn’t going to wait out side . He waited until about 5-45 and then went up to the front gate to see if David had picked up his papers for delivery. His own paper had arrived, so out of habit Robin picked it up and took it back into the house and put it on the hall stand Ron

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:51:34 +0000

Another serious question arises also and that is the ease with which the Police can apparently dispose of evidence at will. They threw away the bullets from the Crewes heads in The Arthur Allen Thomas case. They allowed the house to be burnt down in the Bain case BEFORE the defence had time to get their own experts to look at the scene. Det Robinson destroyed what today would have been vital evidence which would have established beyond any doubt who was the killer. The blood slides from Robins finger and thumb. Peter Doone was going to have all the evidence destroyed if Karam had not taken legal steps to stop him, The Bain Family seemed to have a lot of pull with the authorities in Dunedin. I understand that it was at their initiative that the house was destroyed and they wasted no time getting it ready for sale did they?
When that House was burnt down it was still owned by David as he was at that stage awaiting trial and was not found guilty until a year later. Ron

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:38:10 +0000

Robin had NO blood on him? Karams book David and Goliath is readily available now in second hand book shops. Spend a couple of dollars and buy one . Do what I did, cut out the photographic plates,scan them into a printer,blow them up to A 4 size. Then use your eyes. You will see that Robin Bain was COVERED in blood.You will also see that most of the blood stains are in positions on his clothing and hands where it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the blood to have got there from his own head wound.If the blood on Robin could not have got there from his own head wound, then it must have come from the fight with Stephen and it must be Stephens blood.
This raises serious questions because the ESR scientists stated that they found that the blood on Robin Bain was all his own blood.
Can the ESR scientists can give a logical and intelligent explanation as to how blood got behind Robins right knee? Behind his right shoulder?
Behind the hood of his blue jacket? Behind his right elbow? Round the periphery of the fingernail shown in the photo? Under the fingernails that were scraped by Dr Hentschell? and the most puzzling of the blood on Robin bain. The single trail of blood above Robins right eyebrow? This does not connect with the pristine trails of blood that come from the wound in the left temple and flow clear and unsmudged over his fore head onto the carpet. The only logical explanation for this short trail is that it came from the fight with Stephen.
If the tests done by the ESR show that the blood on Robin Bain is all Robins,and the evidence of the photos shows that it cannot possibly be. Then we are faced with the following scenarios.
(1) The ERS tests were unable to differentiate between Robins blood and Stephens blood ( Dr Cropp Apparently was unable to match various blood stains round the house with either Margaret,Stephen Laniet or Arawa or David)
(2) During the many years that the clothing was stored (How and by whom?)It became contaminated somehow.
(3) Someone deliberately smeared Robins blood over the existing blood stains
(4) As in the David Docherty case the ESR got it wrong.

If Robin was wearing the beanie and the hoodie up over his head when he came in the house, as he must have been at some stage otherwise how could blood get on the front and the back of the hood?
Why, then, No bullet hole in the hood or the beanie. If David was supposed to have shot him when he came in and knelt down to say his prayers, let us assume that he had the hood up over his head. David shoots him at that impossible angle for anyone else to inflict.
(1) No bullet hole.
(2) The beanie would have prevented the blood trail over the fore head.
(3) Blood could possibly have got onto the front of the beanie, but onto the back??
(4) If the hood was over the beanie, how did blood get onto the beanie??
(5) At what stage was the hood and the beanie pushed back off of Robins head trapping the beanie in the hood??
(6) In the photo showing the head of Robin with the beanie trapped in the hood. The beanie covers up the heavy blood stain on the front of the hood. So, if an alternative scenario is postulated:ie,that Robin came in to get shot by David with the hood over his back and the beanie trapped in the hood. How, in that case could the blood get past the beanie and onto the hood??
These are simple straight forward questions that should have been asked by the defence lawyers in both trials. The guilt or innocence of Robin is clearly established by this blood evidene.
I discussed this many years ago with Joe Karam over the telephone. Joe told me that Dr Dempster the pathologist had pushed the hood and the beanie back off of Robins head when he came in to examine the body. I accepted this at the time but since examining the evidence many times since then, I suggest that if the hoody and the beanie had been left over Robins head for 4 or 5 hours ( Which was how long it took before the Police let Dempster in) The the blood trails on the fore head would not have been clear and pristine. They would have been absorbed by the wool and they would have been smudged when the beanie was removed.
There is contributing evidence that Robin was the killer which came from a Crown witness;Dr Hentschell. He stated in evidence when asked by Mr Raftery The prosecutor,’What did you find in the scrapings from under Stephens fingernails/” Hentschell answered. “Green Wool Fibres and Brown Wool Fibres “.
He went on to try and connect the green fibres with a green jersey that had been through the wash. He apparently was unaware that the other potential killer in the house, Robin Bain, was actually wearing A GREEN WOOLEN HAT AND A BROWN WOOLEN JUMPER.
The beanie is Green Wool and the Brown jumper is shown pulled out at the waist and visible at the neck in the photo of Robin in the lounge. Ron

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:47:16 +0000

Incest claims made by daughters against their fathers have been found to be false 10$ of the time.
Only 40% of prostitutes have NOT been victims of sexual abuse.
Therefore, the statistical probability that Laniet’s claims about Robin were not true is
4% and, the probability that Laniet’s claims were true is 96%.
Consider that 96%, with the 500 to 1 probability that Robin’s death was by suicide, and the balance of guilt probability rolls precipitously toward Robin.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:37:40 +0000

Homicide Stats with Longarms: research study by
Grandmaison et al, Forensic Science International 2008
41% Contact/Near Contact fatalities are homicides.
Fatalities with Front to Back component to Trajectory: 26% are homicides.
Fatalities with Left to right component to trajectory: 17% are homicides.
Fatalities with upward component to trajectory: 14% are homicides.
Therefore, the probability of homicide using a rifle in a contact or near contact execution, in which the bullet has a front to back, left to right, upward trajectory is approximately 0.2%, which is exactly 1 chance out of 500 for Robin’s death to have been by homicide.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:07:57 +0000

Oh! such a breath of fresh air to to read what Donna has written here…such a logical & rational thinker is she.
There most definitely was supressed & inadmissable evidence against David Bain that the jury did not hear…can’t be bothered to type it all out now, but quite easy for any party with such interest to google it….it relates to his planned rape etc etc.
Now point (1) in Jane’s last letter is rediculous…to say that David is innocent legally & factually based on overwhelming probablilities….Oh! I don’t really know what to say on that??..it defies me….sounds more like Robin to me.

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:05:35 +0000

1. no, but this man is innocent, legally and factually, based on overwhelming probabilities, as I’ve typed above(ludicrous improbability of Robin’s homicide, and very high probability of past crimes committed by Robin, against Laniet.
2.
a) his legal counsel prevented his testimony, but he had testified as a younger man
b) he did ‘front’ the NZ public, clearly and strongly stating “not guilty”, 5 clearly spoken times, and after the verdicts, on 05 June 2009
c) interviews would detract from future book revenues
3. My 1st morning chore is making coffee, but if peeing was Robin’s overwhelming priority, why had he NOT peed before (hypothetically) walking from his caravan, PAST the toilet, PAST many, deserving outside bushes, and to the (hypothetical) morning newspaper, and then into the lounge/alcove? Was Robin planning to pee into the lounge, or into the alcove, or did he really not need to pee at all, at that time?
4. Robin was only 58, and he did have a rifle, and 4 SLEEPING victims, so it wasn’t difficult.
5. If DB did a “lie detector” test, you wouldn’t believe the results anyway…and, yes, it certainly look like “HIS FATHER DID IT.”

And I don’t blame the police for loss of the 2-year old, primary responsibility for whom was her mother. I do blame the spinners for later claiming a “good job” done, because that also wasn’t true.

By: Donna

Donna — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:04:16 +0000

It seems that you have a grudge to bear about the NZ Police. I guess you think everyone is innocent then? If DB has nothing to hide, why did he not give evidence in his own defence, why has he not fronted the New Zealand public, why has he not given even 1 interview? I ask every person when the subject of DB comes up….what is the first thing you do when you get up in the morning…what do you do Jane? The answer I receive…they use the toilet. So how did Robin at his age manage to plan and kill his family and also have a struggle with his young son and kill himself with out passing a drop! Defies nature if you ask me! DB did commit this crime…why not do a lie detector test is he has nothing to hide, because those with any sense know that he planned and killed his family and tried to make it look like his father did it.

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:35:04 +0000

The Crown didn’t have a theory for why the rifle was partially underneath the bloodstained west curtain, nor did the Crown even admit that blood as evidence in the first trial. But the police video cameraman did focus on the CHAIR.
Even the cameraman understood that the chair was the focal point, between the curtain and beanbag.
There were ‘bumps’, but no ‘facial cuts’ on either suspect. The suspect known to be at home ALL of the time in question, who didn’t leave the property, does have, on his right hand, a mark which resembles a letter from the Greek alphabet.
That mark resulted when Stephen bit Robin’s hand.
‘Evidence’ that wasn’t admitted wasn’t evidence, but the police could be creating new ‘evidence’ even now. They could plant two blond hairs in a plastic bag, and go for conviction on new charges.
It’s the miracle of creation.
And police spinners will be spinning this for thousands of years, just as they were spinning the yarn that they were doing “a good job”, leaving a two-year old down a drain, while they excitedly(and stupidly) chased a phantom abduction.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:55:18 +0000

I would like to know what the crown’s theory or reasoning was as to why that rifle was partially underneath the west bloodstained curtain?…just as I’d like to know the defence’s response as to how those facial cuts might have got on Davids face or forehead….wouldn’t have been as a result of a violent struggle by any chance would it?
But having said these things, one could go on forever isolating this piece & that piece of evidence, but it is the collective weight of all the evidence that mostly influences people one way or the other.
In the Bain case the mass weight & volume of evidence against David far outweighed any evidence against Robin, & what’s more the police apparently had bucket loads more evidence that could have been used in court if needed…then of course there was that inadmissible evidence against David that the jury did not & was not allowed to hear.