Did you watch the Bryan Bruce documentary last night? We did, and we have one BIG question.
To shoot himself in the head as the defence suggested (and we saw footage from the trial of a defence reconstruction to prove its theory), Robin Bain would have had to hold the gun in two places; the trigger and the barrel or the silencer. Why were there none of his fingerprints on the gun?
This documentary has muddied the waters even more, in what will always be the classic whodunnit. We'll say this though; we reckon David Bain's road to compensation just got a whole lot longer, steeper and windier. Perhaps that was the underlying intention of last night's documentary.
17 comments:
Personally, I never thought Robin did it.
That leaves......but he couldn't have done it as he is such a nice fellow.
The whole cult/conspiracy status around his trial just reinforces the mob mentality NZders embrace so eagerly, at any chance. The man has had two trials, found not guilty overall. 10,000 signatures on a petition do not run our justice or compensation system. And thank god for that. It's just a modern version of a lynch mob.
Our justice system allows convictions to be challenged ad infinitum, yet acquitals are final.
"Justice" seems to be a misnomer.
Here is another question. Lets say this case was a crime or incident of much less serious concern. One side of our adversarial system says the defendant didn't do it, the other says, well who else could have done it. That's not the way to the truth. Anyone could have done it. Finding the truth relies on a competent and in depth investigation before the case reaches court. If there are two options and neither add up, wouldn't you look for a third?
If we move back to the Bain context, we now have the same situation, but no one stops to ask, WHOdunnit - as in your original post. It is a WHOdunnit case, not a ROBINdidn'tdunnit, or a WHICHdunnit.
Because of the age and loss of evidence and the history of legal actions, we can't re-examine the possibility. In our anxious need for certainties, we're asked to ignore the obvious. We're asked to pick from two equally flawed alternatives and "justice" will never come from that.
"Our justice system allows convictions to be challenged ad infinitum, yet acquitals are final."
You'd prefer a man to never be found guilty/not guilty? So if the community has bad financial year they collectively go looking for a scapegoat to retry to ease their mood? That's called dysfunction. Very popular in NZ, especially in the media, but I'd rather it didn't run the justice system.
"So if the community has bad financial year they collectively go looking for a scapegoat to retry to ease their mood?"
eh?
@ Anon 8.34am - yes, I was struggling to make a connection there too!
PS - any chance you anonymous posters, as welcome as you are here, might put a name or initials or something at the end of your post? It makes the exchanges so much easier to follow!
FE - I don't have a problem with the approach that the defence took. It really was the only one open too them, and at the end of the day they suceeded in muddying the waters enough to get a verdict.
I do believe however that there is doubt surrounding the facts introduced as evidence by the defence, and perhaps the prosecution may not have challenged the defence's evidence well enough.
I agree with what Alex said.
The Defense claimed Robin got up, killed his family and then himself. The post mortem showed that he had a full bladder. I am a 55 year old male and my response to this is " I dont so" end of story.
The only factor that is clear here, is that police investigations in the early days may have been insufficient based on a wide held belief that David was the culprit. Ongoing public debate cannot resolve what was tested in court and yet at the same time, if systems are flawed, they need to be challenged. It is a tragedy which continues to devastate. Continual public scrutiny and the willingness of some to use public interest for their own agenda, is perpetuating sorrow and precludes healing for those most affected.
hearsay evidence which was not proven if its true or not is ridiculous. its because the person who gave the testimony mr cottle is nowhere to be found. he wasnt even cross examined.. so if robin bain didnt do it. then its the other way around. simple as that.
Hard to argue with that assessment Anon
No forensic evidence against Robin Bain. Use your common sense.
No forensic evidence against Robin Bain. Use your common sense.
David Bain was charged with killing all members of his family: he pleaded not guilty to that charge.
He was eventually found guilty, and the consequences are well known.
A well-discussed alternative scenario was that his father Robin Bain killed the family then committed suicide by shooting himself with the same rifle he was alleged to have used on the family.
As far as I can recall. another alternative was never explored: and that is that Robin Bain, for reasons now known only to himself, killed his family while David was out delivering newspapers. And left a message on the computer, to David.
David returned, wandered all around the house, discovered what had happened, got bloody , panicked, put his clothes in the washer, rang the police, then shot his father for doing such a terrible thing. Or did these things in a different order.
I find this a more credible explanation than the others, the main reason being that if Robin Bain had shot the family then wanted to commit suicide, why did he not remove the silencer from the rifle to make it easier ? He would not have been worried about the noise as he wanted to kill himself. He would not have been pressed for time.
A rifle with a silencer attached is long and unwieldy: plus the fact that a .22 rifle is not always lethal, and for Robin to kill himself with one shot from a self-held silenced .22 would have been very fortuitous.
I would have expected the worst to have happened was to knock himself out with a glancing shot. Having ensured that the family were all dead, why would he have risked not successfully killing himself ?
After all, there is already evidence that some of the victims required more than one shot to kill them, and that was when they were helpless and unresisting.
The whole thing stinks: I think Karam is in it to bolster his ego, and I reckon David Bain is a liar.
And if my alternative is true, then yes: David Bain could quite truthfully have denied shooting all of his family and been innocent of that charge.
I hate to have to admit it, Alex, but when I saw the pictures of David Bain after his release from jail after the privy council ruling, I thought exactly that.
How could someone with such a lovely smile be capable of slaughtering his entire family?
I even voted against him having to go through another trial.
But when I followed the second trial, with the evidence mounting, especially the blood of his little brother on his shorts, it was pretty obvious who the killer was.
SAM
Post a Comment