Karam Provides the Answers

Karam Provides the Answers

Karam cracked it!!!

One piece of evidence which has always bothered me is the smear of Stephens blood on the left hand alcove curtain.

We knew from early on that there was a bit of blood on the edge of the right hand curtain.But when Detective Anderson had to rehang the curtains for measurement purposes, a similar smear of blood was discovered on the left-hand curtain.I couldnt figure out for sure how or when that blood got there,though I assumed before David left on his paper route he put the gun in the alcove for later use.He left the blood on the curtains when sweeping them aside to enter the room.

But thanks to Joe we now have the answer,and he has implicated his golden boy all by himself.

Karam said in the debate that for David to match the bullet trajectory into Robin's head, he would have to have been lying on the floor.A rifle barrel covered in Stephens blood and poked upward through the curtains from a lying position in the alcove left the tell-tale smears;The spent shell was found under the chair in the alcove because the rifle was discharged from inside the room.Thanks for that,Joe!

I think we make the mistake to think Robin was sitting or kneeling when the fatal shot was fired.This is of course was the Crowns original scenario but I have said it before this was only a supposition.We simply can't say for sure.But an alternative scenario and a reasonable one at that is that on noting a disturbance from the alcove his attention was alerted and got up.Another one is that " I shot the prick" suggest David was in an angry mood and in fact confronted Robin forcing  Robin to stand up .Any how we are talking about a small 5-8 degree angle according to Dr Dempster which the defence have exaggerated to 45 degrees.

Yes,Ralph,there is so much we don't know.Of course we have discussed all this before on JFRB.I have never believed that there was a confrontation.If there was ,wouldn't David Bain had shot his father in the forehead,where a suicide shot would be much more easily accepted?But whether Robin Bain was sitting,kneeling,or standing,who knows,only David.

I think sitting matches up with the forensic evidence the best, Robin did have a speck of blood on the top of one of his shoes according to the defence so that would mean that he was not kneeling, also in the pic of him in the lounge his butt is still in contact with the bean bag it definitely looks as though he was sitting, was then shot and then rolled off to the left, leaving his butt still in contact with the been bag.

Permalink

"One piece of evidence which has always bothered me is the smear of Stephens blood on the left hand alcove curtain.

We knew from early on that there was a bit of blood on the edge of the right hand curtain.But when Detective Anderson had to rehang the curtains for measurement purposes, a similar smear of blood was discovered on the left-hand curtain.I couldnt figure out for sure how or when that blood got there"

 

You people worry me. If the police had conducted a thourough investigation in the first place without mistakes they WOULD have found the blood on the left hand side of the curtain before it was removed. You DON'T know when and how that blood got there but in your twisted mind the mistake now suits your particular agenda. If that blood was not there at the time the blood on the right hand curtain was discovered then it was never there. My opinion is that police made a mistake when they put the blood on the right hand curtain because they had forgotten that David was left handed. Your opinion is completely and utterly flawed because you are relying on fabricated evidence.

The police did conduct a thorough investigation.  They had no foreknowledge that their work would be picked to pieces by a fastidious ex-allblack, whom Paul Holmes describes as "obsessed", for the next 14 years.  How would you like it if a week of your life's work was unceremoniously, repeatedly and intricately pulled apart and analysed and made public over a 14 year period?

There was sufficient evidence to get a conviction in 1995.  Regardless of the efficiency or otherwise of the original investigation, evidence deteriorates over time.  Karam has certainly taken items of evidence and made them "suit his particular agenda".  We all do that, you included.  As for fabricated evidence, you only have to consider the evidence of Daryl Young.

This is ridiculous!

"The police did conduct a thorough investigation.  They had no foreknowledge that their work would be picked to pieces by a fastidious ex-allblack, whom Paul Holmes describes as "obsessed", for the next 14 years.  How would you like it if a week of your life's work was unceremoniously, repeatedly and intricately pulled apart and analysed and made public over a 14 year period?"

What you are suggesting here is had the police known in advance that Joe Karam was going to pick over thier investigation they would have done better.

You have missed my point however but thats the norm with you people isn't it?

My point is this. As soon as the police walked on to that property they (we are lead to believe) knew nothing about the Bain's or what had happened in that house. They took for granted that David was telling the truth and that it was his father Robin who had killed the family. You wouldn't have to be that bright to work out that five dead required five bullets at least. To test David's explanation the obvious thing to do was check for GSR. A test for GSR as soon as possible and while Robin was still lying where they found him would have solved two problems for the police. 1. If Robin had fired the gun at least seven times (it turns out) he would have had residue on himself and not only where he had administered his own fatal shot. 2. The police today would be able to say YES we conducted a thorough investigation.

Today they CANNOT say they conducted a thorough investigation because they botched it at the outset and as a result the investigation was a shambles throughout.

Joe Karam is justified in claiminmg that the investigation was a complete and utter shambles and I agree.

 

Joe Karam is justified in claiminmg,how does one claiminmg anything,I wonder.We all know why the GSR test wasn't carried out.Milton Weir made that decision after consultation with a fellow officer.But I wish that he had decided to at least have Robin Bain's hands bagged,as that would have proved that he had no gunshot residue on them.So far as David Bain is concerned,well we know he washed his hands once,and probably twice,so that would have greatly diminished any chances of finding GSR on him.

And,by the way,Rossco,14 years work is not a life's work.Besides ,Karam had many things on the go,he was by no means spending all his time on David Bain.So could I suggest you cut out the bullshit.

On what basis do you justify your conclusion of "ridiculous".  That kind of comment to me suggests that you just want to damn any opponents to your ideas without really going into any details.  In order to make a comment about the conduct of the investigation you really need to have some experience in police work, which I know Karam never did and I suspect that you don't either.  On the other hand the people who wrote the PCA report do in fact have experience and if you read the report you will see that they did in fact conduct GSR tests on the clothing (section 78 o).

If you do some quick internet research: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html you will find that experts have found that "A rifle or shotgun may not deposit GSR on hands." In this case we are dealing with a rifle so clothing residue tests are sufficient.  The police knew that DB had washed his hands and therefore there was nothing to be gained by testing him.  An experienced officer may have all this knowledge already at hand when organizing activity in the crime scene.  Bear in mind that this was actually five crime scenes, they had a lot of area to cover and a lot of impediments, including a very bad smell in the house and considerable clutter of household objects which may or may not be hiding evidential items.

I can excuse your comments on the basis that you are not an ex-police officer with 25 years of experience.

Your supposed 'point' involves making gross assumptions about what the police knew and took for granted so it really doesn't mean much.  My point about the police investigation re. Joe Karam is that he has taken the investigation and meticulously picked it to pieces.  I would suggest to you that if I was able to record a working week in your life then I too would be able to pick it to pieces and find it at fault on 100's of areas of your competence.  If I was then to publicize it and promote it widely then you too, like Milton Weir might be resigned to chuck in your job.

The FOR samples from David and Robin were forwarded to the ESR on
25.06.94121 and examined on 12.10.94. Robin's clothing and shoes
were forwarded on 25.06.94122 and 21.09.94123 and examined between
114 Dempster Trial p272 L33
115 Photograph 31
116 Photograph 35
117 Stephenson Review Stmt Ref.21 003 & Ref.21 003a
118 Refer: 'Failure to Adequately Establish That Robin Did Not Shoot Himself' - p91
119 pl25
120 Trial p334 L5
121 Pol 143 Doc.10453
122 ibid
123 Pol 143 Doc.10608
26.09.94 and 19.10.94. David's clothing was forwarded on 25.06.94124
and examined between 4.08.94 and 19.10.94. There were continuing
communications between the Police and the ESR from the time exhibits
were submitted and final production at trial.

What section 78 o tells us IS samples were sent for testing five days after the police entered onto the property. It does NOT tell us when those samples were taken. In the case of Robin GSR samples were only taken after he had been moved to the morgue.

"We all know why the GSR test wasn't carried out.Milton Weir made that decision after consultation with a fellow officer.But I wish that he had decided to at least have Robin Bain's hands bagged,as that would have proved that he had no gunshot residue on them." Mr Stockdale.

Mr Kent you forget that a rifle is normally held with two hands and therefore Robins arms or sleaves should have been swabbed. Being right handed his left arm would have been along side the bolt area or the opposite for a left handed person.

But my point is Weir with all his experience DID NOT test for GSR as soon as possible AND before Robin was moved.

Twenty five years in the police force amounts to nothing with me if you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

GSR is just one of many items of evidence that an investigator uses to determine cause.  Even if a GSR test was carried out immediately it could have been inconclusive.  The fact is that GSR was still carried out on the clothing, and residue will remain in the clothing for weeks afterwards so in that respect the duration is of no consequence.  Not carrying out GSR on Robin's hands immediately does not the investigation a shambles make. 

The problem with your approach, Rossco, is that you focus on the evidence that is NOT there.  There is no GSR.  There would have been no GSR if DB had been tested (because his hands were thoroughly washed - and his clothes).  This is a very good way to distract attention from the evidence that IS there and which we have laid out for your convenience in the evidence section of this site.  I suggest you take to it with a balanced rather than a skewed outlook and see what you come up with.

Given the amount of evidence that the police did produce and clearly document and record, the police investigation was good.  This is supported by the PCA Report.  End of Story.

Cheers.

Good post Kent,not much I can add to it.But I will say again,that if Milton Weir had bagged Robin Bain's hands,I am sure they would not have tested positive for GSR.But a person who is shot by someone else can get gunshot residue on their clothing ,obviously.But,not on their hands,unless they are holding onto the barrel as they are shot,which Robin Bain obviously wasn't doing.No,what am I saying,he could have been holding on to the barrel,or even the silencer,and we wouldn't know,because he had the sort of fingers that didn't leave any prints.

Yes, I agree, not doing GSR was an omission, but as I said, there were plenty of other items of evidence.  Judging on the PCA Report I would give the investigation a C+.  It wasn't exemplary police work but it certainly wasn't a complete and utter shambles.

"I will say again,that if Milton Weir had bagged Robin Bain's hands,I am sure they would not have tested positive for GSR".

I am not being deliberately abusive or insulting but this remark suggest to me you have tunnel vision or you like the police came to a decision and worked backwards to achieve the result they were aiming for.

If Robin had fired all eight shots I beleive it would have been highly likely he would have had GSR on him and not only where he applied his own fatal shot.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html 

Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues.

If the police could say yes we tested Robin where he lay and before he was moved and there was no residue on him other than his head wound then I wouldn't be so sceptical but they CANNOT.

How many more mistakes of this magnitude did they make. Obviously many which allowed "their work would be picked to pieces by a fastidious ex-allblack,"

Rossco you accuse Weir of making mistakes, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black you keep saying there were 8 shots fired there were 9. Weir had nothing against David he had no reason in the world to plant evidence, the cops overall did a great job they had a stunning amount of good evidence against David which was convincing enough to secure a conviction.

It was a hell of a scene, and most unusual too on a cold Monday morning in 1994 to have the job of investigating 5 murders in a filthy and extremely untidy house, at that time it would have been extremely difficult to get the required experts at the scene in time to do the tests you talk about, and in a way I am glad they did not do a gsr on Robin Bain in the required 3 hour time frame because it would be just his luck that some would have been found on him which would have put him at a severe disadvantage compared to David who of course had washed his hands to get rid of printers ink "YEA RIGHT" the only reason he washed his hands was to get rid of the blood on them, there would have been copious amounts of blood on the killers clothes, and if Robin put the clothes in the basket David for sure would have noticed the blood on them, his eyesight at close range without glasses is fine according to him, he put blood stains on the machine and on the soap packet, but has he ever mentioned that he saw that blood, "no he hasn't" Wake Up And Smell The coffee Rossco.

 

"I am glad they did not do a gsr on Robin Bain in the required 3 hour time frame because it would be just his luck that some would have been found on him which would have put him at a severe disadvantage".

I would have thought that any one defending Robin would expect there to be no GSR on him with the exception of the head wound. When all said and done he did not use that gun at all that day did he?

Once again you miss my point. "The problem with your approach, Rossco, is that you focus on the evidence that is NOT there."

I am not interested in the GRS evidence.

I am more interested in the fact that a vital part of the investigation proceedure was overlooked or missed or due to incompetence or negligence forgotten.

It has little to do with the results of GSR testing more that swabs were NOT taken at the appropriate time.

This momumental blunder was made at the outset and leads me to believe that it was not the only blunder the police made.

But you see what you want to see.

Tell me are you an ex-cop?

No, I'm not an ex-cop, Rossco and nor is Karam but I am trained in science.

"I am more interested in the fact that a vital part of the investigation proceedure was overlooked or missed or due to incompetence or negligence forgotten."

And you are saying that on the basis of your vast experience in police investigative work?

As I said, GSR does not always produce conclusive results.  Any investigation is the sum total of all evidence.  This applies as much to the examination of paleontological remains as it does to Air Crash Investigations as it does to forensic science.  To rely on any single item, or to place undue importance on any single item is not good procedure and this is something that Karam has done repeatedly and you appear to be doing the same.  In order to make a jugdment about the investigation you need to look at all the evidential items removed from the scene.  This includes fingerprints on the gun, the glasses, DB's testimony, wound analysis, pathology tests, luminol tests and more.  There were hundreds of tests done on dozens of items of evidence.

 

Detection of Gunshot Residue

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html

For these methods, samples must be obtained from the skin surfaces of a victim at the scene. Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues.

"I am more interested in the fact that a vital part of the investigation proceedure was overlooked or missed or due to incompetence or negligence forgotten."

And you are saying that on the basis of your vast experience in police investigative work?

Condescending! You do yourself no favours.

The link above the provided by you now do you see where the police failed in particular regarding Robin.

Once again I have to repeat myself you have missed my point and that is the police cannot claim that their investigation was thorough.

"As I said, GSR does not always produce conclusive results."

But testing at the appropiate time would have resulted in the police being able to say today YES we tested at the appropiate time and these are the results regardless of the tests results.

Well, whatever you want to say about the GSR, that does not make the investigation a complete and utter shambles.  I am saying that the investigation was good.  I'm not saying that it was exhaustively thorough or deserves an A+.  We have a few mistakes taking place but overall it was good and we have the PCA report to back that up.

And, as I said before, the clothing was tested and, given the nature of the clothing any residue there would have remained for some time.  Given the contortions that Robin was supposed to have gone through to shoot himself, if it was him then the gun would have been in close proximity to his clothing and so if there was any residue to get onto his hands as a result of using the firearm, then likely it would have got onto his clothing as well.

"We have a few mistakes taking place but overall it was good and we have the PCA report to back that up."

The PCA report was done along with a police review of the investigation, you don't take the PCA seriously do you?

When all said and done we had police reviewing police and Judge Neville Jaine involved and of course Peter Doone was Commissioner of Police.

Not a good look is it?

Rossco,perhaps you would like to answer these questions,instead of prattling on about gunshot residue,and how poor,in your tunnelled visioned eyes,the Police examination was.

[1]Why did David Bain lie about those  glasses when he took the stand?He had already told his lawyer he was going to admit to wearing them,and he had also told an Aunt and Uncle that he was wearing them.

[2]Why did he change his story about who that green jersey,the one that we know the killer wore,when he took the stand?Before the trial he twice said it was Arawa's,but when he took the stand he said it was his father's,and that his father was wearing it that weekend.But when he was asked to look at some photos and point out those that showed his father wearing that jersey,he pointed to three photos,but they all showed his father wearing a different jersey.

[3]He said he did the washing when he came home from his paper round.The Police checked both washing machine cycles and both took around an hour.Even allowing for a difference in water pressure the cycle would have taken 50 minutes.But the earliest Bain could have started the washing machine would have been around 6.45am.Yet the machine wasn't going 45 minutes later when the Police were in the vicinity.And if you accept Mrs Laney's sighting at 6.45am as being correct,then Bain wouldn't have started the machine until around 6.50.

[4]David Bain was never able to explain why he had Stephen's blood on his shorts and T-shirt.

[5]David Bain was never able to explain why it took him 20 minutes to phone 111.

[6]David Bain said he heard his sister Laniet gurgling,so why did he not immediatly phone 111?

[7]David Bain was never able to explain why there was a well defined set of his fingerprints on the rifle.

[8]David Bain was never able to explain why his Gondolier T-shirt ,the one he admitted to wearing the day before the murders,had been sponged on one shoulder.

[9]David Bain was never able to explain those bruises and other abrasions on his face.He said that he didn't have them when he was on his paper round,but the Doctor who examined him  said he must have had them earlier than that.

Now,once you have satisfactorily answered those questions,Rossco,I will no doubt find a few more for you to reply to,if you think you are up to it.

I sorry Mike but I couldn't answer any of your questions and this is why.

"Now,once you have satisfactorily answered those questions,Rossco,".

I would have to answer them to your satisfaction and nothing less.

Take question [1].

[1]Why did David Bain lie about those  glasses when he took the stand?

David Bain did not take the stand.

 

Rossco,David Bain took the stand at the first trial,and he lied on oath about those glasses.Why do you think he was not allowed to say a word at the retrial?

The way I read this post Mike is there are two very separate questions here.

"Rossco,David Bain took the stand at the first trial,and he lied on oath about those glasses".

If David lied under oath at the first trial about those glasses it did him no harm because the convictions as a result of his appeal were quashed.

"Why do you think he was not allowed to say a word at the retrial?

David wasn't obligated to say anything at his retrial and as it turned out it was not necessary. We all have that right whether you/we like it or not.

Personally I think we should be venting our anger at the people who prosecuted David. If David lied as you put it his lying had less impact on the final result than the police handling of the whole business.

 

Rossco, the gross miscarriage of injustice that resulted in the retrial was the fact that the Court of Appeal made decisions that should have been made by a jury.  It was not made because of anybody's judgment or not on any items of evidence or the safety of the verdict.  It was purely a technical issue.

Yes,I have read the Privy Council report.The Law Lords also said that David Bain should not be released from prison,and who took any notice of that ,may I ask.

But my questions still remain unanswered.Regardless of the Privy Council decision,David Bain still lied at the first trial.He was still unable to answer many questions put to him at the first trial.And he would not have been able to answer them satisfactorily at the retrial either.

Let's just look at one of the matters the Law Lords based their decision on.

A Mr Sanderson had told Milton Weir that he had seen a photo of Margaret Bain wearing those glasses that were found in David's room,and after first thinking they were David's ,he now realised they were Margaret's.Milton Weir basically agreed with him and said he would change his evidence,but he omitted to do so.The Court of Appeal ruled that this didn't really affect the outcome of the trial because it had been made quite clear to the jury in their opinion,that those glasses did,in fact,belong to Margaret Bain.

But the Privy Council said that a jury should have actually heard Sanderson's correction to his evidence.

Now ,personally,I don't know why they came to this decision,but there you are.I knew the glasses belonged to Margaret Bain.I knew that David Bain wore them when his were not available,and I am not a rocket scientist.You have to wonder at the calibre of some of these jury members.

But what I didn't know,at the time of the first trial,was that David Bain had told Mike Guest before the trial that he would be admitting to wearing his mother's glasses that weekend.I also didn't know that Mrs Jan Clark,an aunt of David's who was at the trial,was very surprised when David said he had forgotten about those glasses,that he hadn't seen them for over a year.

She was surprised,Rossco,because when David Bain was staying with her before he was arrested,he had mentioned to both her and her husband  that he had been wearing his mother's glasses.[He hadn't got his glasses back from the optician at that point].

But Jan Clark did the right thing.She advised the Court of Appeal of this conversation.

Rossco,I don't mind debating any matters with you,but I do get the feeling I am dealing with an unarmed combatant.

Yeah,a few weeks of the water treatment might be the answer for some of these people,specially for that Nostalgia,I don't look at his blog any more but he is defaming me right ,left and centre,according to reports I have received.I am seriously considering asking my lawyer about that blog and him mentioning my name,but the trouble is,I don't like spending money on lawyers if I am not sure I can get a result.And would nostalgia have any money,anyway?

In reply to by Mike Stockdale

Permalink

What is the point really in answering your questions? I have already said that I couldn't to your 'satisfaction'. Not even David Bain could give you a 'satisfactory' answer unless you wrote down for him what you wanted him to say.

My positon is more from the point of view that Weir was a dodgy cop and that he made some monumental blunders and as a result the fabricated evidence produced failed them in the end.

Do you really think that that crime scene was so complicated? When all said and done they had everything at their disposal (and still botched it up). I don't believe it was but the police had a good reason to make it complicated.

 

If you were game enough to call Weir a dodgy cop in a public forum you would need to have deep pockets.Even Guest said that in his opinion,Weir was pure as driven snow.And you are the one making blunders.

I wasn't at the crime scene,but I have seen photos of some of the rooms,and what a mess they were.Just look at the chair that those glasses were on ,and look at the untidy state of everything.The whole family were messy,so far as I could tell.

What did the Police botch up?From reading your posts,I do not think you are the one to talk about botch ups.You wouldn't know a botch up if one leapt up and bit you on the bum.

The reason you won't answer my questions is because you have no answers that will not incriminate David Bain,and you wouldn't want to do that,would you?He is a proven liar,and he was a convicted murderer,and quite rightly so.He was very lucky to have served only 13 years for the murders of 5 members of his family.

Look,if he had served his full term,and was not seeking compensation[though I have my doubts if it is actually him that is seeking it],then I woudn't be sitting here typing this reply to you.

I wouldn't have to write down any questions to ask David Bain,but I have always wondered who he shot first,Laniet or Margaret,so I would probably get that question out of the way,to clear my head of it,as it were.Then I would probably ask him about those glasses,and why he lied on oath about them.And why he changed his story about who that green jersey belonged to.Then I would get down to the nitty gritty.

Rossco,I have already given you an example of what the Law Lords said was a gross miscarriage of justice.They said it was a gross miscarriage of justice that the jury did not hear that Mr Sanderson had changed his evidence and told Milton Weir that those glasses belonged to Margaret Bain.But the jury already knew those glasses belonged to Margaret Bain.So please explain to me how you see that to be a gross miscarriage of justice.

The glasses I am referring to are the ones David Bain lied about not wearing when he took the stand.

Rossco,I don't give a damn how you read my post.David Bain lied on oath at the first trial,and not just about those glasses.

But let's get one thing right.I am not venting my anger on David Bain.I was annoyed about the retrial verdict,sure,but David Bain is out of jail and I accept that,not a problem.I have absolutely no respect for Karam,and one could say I may be just a teeny weeny bit angry with him.I would sure like to have a debate with him on radio or TV.

The Police did a very good job,and I admire their efforts.Taking into account the crime scene I would at least give them an A rating.If it wasn't for them David Bain would have served no time in jail.

And,Rossco,I have no time for people who try to make out David Bain is innocent,because by doing so they are defaming a truly innocent man,a man who is dead and can't sue them.You could say I am pretty angry with them.

David may not of been obligated to say anything at the retrial but that and his continued silence has justifiably raised a lot of comment and speculation and I think you are been very disingenuous when you say ," ..as it turned out it was not necessary".In fact his continued silence and close supervision that  has persisted ever since he met Karam enshrined in that highly unusual document-the power of attorney that Karam got Bain to sign as a condition of his ongoing assistance.

Karam i believe must of noted how his client so easily incriminated himself in the first trial and this certainly influenced the framing of the power of attorney and  the subsequent relationship giving Karam,in my opinion, undue influence over how Bain conducted his affairs.But it  also it became a very useful defence psychological  ploy in the retrial,namely the projection of innocence and guileness which would be easily underminded if he took the stand.It certainly had a powerful effect on the Jury.

Naturally many people have contrasted and compared the relationship of the two with for example Pat Booth and Dr Jim Sprott who battled on behalf of Arthur Alan Thomas without having to continuously chaperone and supervise him nor seek or expect any form of financial recompense. There is a lesson for David Bain and all his supporters to learn from.David has nothing to fear if he shakes himself from any obligations to Karam or anyone for that matter and becomes  his own free agent.Only then will we discover the real truth.

 

 

"There is a lesson for David Bain and all his supporters to learn from.David has nothing to fear if he shakes himself from any obligations to Karam or anyone for that matter and becomes  his own free agent.Only then will we discover the real truth."

There is your answer.In other words David standing up for himself not propped up by his ventriloquist.

 

In reply to by Ralph

Permalink

is sixteen years older than what he was when he was convicted. Do you mean that once he stands on his own two feet he will then be able to tell you what you want to hear?

I dont think so. He didnt do it before and he certainly wont now. He has people rallying around him and telling him everyday that hes a "nice young man" which will reinforce to himself that he is indeed a nice young man. David owes the rest of his family an explanation. Just because he is 16 years older does not mean he has changed or learnt anything.

Ah, Rossco, again, having no argument you go for straight out condemnation.  Has it ever occurred to you that there may be people for whom it does have something to do, as a result of them being either friends or family? No, obviously not.  At this point I would put on your repent-hat and be careful what you say before your lack of consideration overspills the patience of people who use this site.

"He has people rallying around him and telling him everyday that hes a "nice young man" which will reinforce to himself that he is indeed a nice young man".

But on second thoughts I hope you have people around you who tell you that you are a "nice young woman" and of course it reinforces you to believe that you are in fact a nice young woman.

That is not crap Rossco  -if you have seen TV reports and comments in the media, people HAVE rallied around David and said he couldnt possibly do anything wrong, hes such a lovely young man, I just know when I look into his eyes hes innocent, hes such a good singer, he couldnt have done it. That is crap. Tell me , have you met David? Did he control your friend and threaten her with a firearm? Did he get obsessive and start stalking your sister? No - didnt think so. And as for me being a ncie young woman, I am actually. I dont need justification from anybody that I am, as I am secure and confident in my abilities and dont have to stoop to abuse people. Unlike some. I think Kent said all there was to say. Thanks for your input.

Actually in Section 136 of the PCA Report it states that Dr Dempster took samples of Robin's skin for FDR tests the same night as the murders and no residue was found on them.  Residue is only removed through movement.  It doesn't disappear either by chemical breakdown or vaporisation with the air so while not taken straight away, at least it was done the same day.

you are trying to give a false impression.

136. Dr Dempster took skin samples from Robin's hands in the mortuary that night.228
These were later tape lifted and analysed. No residue was detected on them.229
Trace elements were found on both David's and Robin's hands but this was not
given in evidence.

Trace elements were found on David's hands. Trace elements of what? And according to the police they took no samples because they knew David had washed his hands.

The PCA is corrupt.

This justifies Joe Karam's claim that the police were incompetent.

The PCA is corrupt.  Sounds defamatory to me.  You can't argue the content so you argue the messenger.  I suppose you have some similar vilification for me because I don't agree with your opinion too. 

I've said my opinion.  It is my opinion and I am entitled to it. 

You cannot read too much into a report, it being a secondary document, the primary documents being in the possession of the PCA.  A lot of my opinion is based on the very poor investigative methods used by Karam and the many mistakes of assumption and observation that he makes.  I would hold the police and the other officers who contributed to the PCA Report in much higher regard on the basis of things like knowledge, experience and collective judgment.

And as I said previously a GSR examination may not have been conclusive even if it had been obtained.  You are wasting your time worrying about evidence that does not exist.

"It's official.  The police investigation into the Bain murders was good.  It wasn't excellent.  The Police Complaints Authority found that one or two agents for the police made errors and there was a problem with supply of material which led to the pathologist making a late entry but overall it was a good investigation.  Any assertions that the investigation was a "complete and utter shambles" can only be considered "unmitigated rubbish". 

But none of this matters if you are on a mission to denigrate and defame the investigation for your own purposes"--

"You cannot read too much into a report, it being a secondary document",

You should make up your mind Kent because I am confused.

As for this its extremely childish don't you think? "I suppose you have some similar vilification for me because I don't agree with your opinion too."

 

I guess if one asks for vilification then that is what one gets: "it's extremely childish don't you think?"

OK, I'll rewrite what I said" "You cannot read too much DETAIL into a report"  A report is just a report and the detail is too big to be included in the report.  I felt that you were trying to squeeze too much detail out of the report.  I stated that I would tend to lend more weight to the professional opinions of qualified police than the opinion of an ex-allblack.

Your continued personal remarks do not serve your argument well.

Perhaps I should have said "No I do not have any similar vilification for you". But I thought that was obvious I don't think you are corrupt.

I don't have the same faith in Weir that you obviously do. He evidently had problems with fabricated/ing evidence prior to the Bain case.  Have you ever wondered if there had been any prior contact between Weir and the young girls?

I have heard those stories, yes, and I don't pretend for a minute that the cops are completely without reproach.  That doesn't make the investigation a complete and utter shambles or the PCA corrupt.  It is a completely different issue and as far as I know has not been substantiated.  The problem here is that small issues have been raised into a fever pitch of hysterical allegations of incompetence for a self-serving purpose.  If the Bain case is a mystery, then it is because so much dust has been thrown up by unsupported and exaggerrated allegations.  It is difficult to go back and see things with a clear mind.

Perhaps that maybe you are deflecting away from the main focus of the discussion by throwing in a red herring about Weir and the girls. This is a site to discuss the evidence that has been put forward in a mature reasonable way, something that has appeared to not have been understood correctly. And your proof that Weir fabricated evidence? Assumptions tend to outlive their uselessness.

It is the habit of David Bain supporters,the few there are left of them,to avoid discussing the evidence against David Bain.They won't do it on Trade Me and they won't do it here.They keep coming up with red herrings,which they repeat ad infinitum.Since I have gone back on Trade Me all posts that refer to Robin Bain as being the perpetrator have virtually stopped,because I just reply straight back with reasons why it is David that was the killer.The same as I am doing with Rossco here.Sooner or later they get the message.

David has no convictions against him. I happen to believe that the evidence that was produced against him was to a very large degree fabricated. With respect you and Kent seem to have tunnel vision I have repeated myself several times I am not interested in the fabricated evidence more how the police gathered that evidence and why.

For example I am not concerned that there is no GSR evidence only that the police bungled their opportunity to gather that evidence at the appropriate time ie while Robin (in particular) was where he lay not three or four hours later at the morgue.

Now again tell me not to worry about evidence that is not there.

In reply to by Rossco

Permalink

I have asked you to reply to those nine points I made.You made an idiotic reply to one of them.Please go back to those nine points and try to make an intelligent reply to at least half of them.David Bain lied about those glasses when he took the stand .Why?He changed his story about that green jersey.Why?Those two questions will do for starters.No fabricated evidence there.

In reply to by Rossco

Permalink

Rossco writes:

"David has no convictions against him. I happen to believe that the evidence that was produced against him was to a very large degree fabricated".

This is typical of his ilk.  It all comes down to belief.  No evidence.  So lets come up with some Cock and Bull story about a policeman and the "two girls".  All typical.  The entire Bain defense was based on similar Cock and Bull insinuations against Bain's dead father.  

And even if Weir did have his reasons (which I doubt) why would the entire Dunedin Police force conspire to frame David if a simple quick finding of Murder suicide wasn't the easiest and quickest method of winding up the case?  It beats me!  Karam & co, of course, insist that you must be able to show motive for David to kill and insist (without any evidence) that there is none, yet when they suggest that the police "stitched" David up they provide no motive/reason for them doing this.  Another example of the duplicity and woolly thinking that is a feature of this deluded clique. 

Perhaps I should have written "David has no convictions against him. In my opinion I happen to believe that the evidence that was produced against him was to a very large degree fabricated".

 

It was not meant to be a red herring I was curious to read Kent's reply nothing more nothing less. Don't make the mistake of making up my mind for me please.

I made no such mistake. Please clarify where I have made up your mind. I am not that clever as to have power to control the thougths of others. All I stated was that this site is to discuss evidence and information in a mature way. It is to counteract the propganda that has been put forth. It appears that you are intent on discrediting a formal report and the opinions and knowledge of Kent as well without regard to the statements that you make.

the crime scene was not preserved etc etc etc. He was right. As far as GSR is concerned they dismissed his claim buy stating GSR was collected, but neglected to say that it was far too late to secure an uncontaminated sample. Was it up to Joe Karam to explain this to them also. They are a mickey mouse outfit and let me give you some advice. If you ever find yourself having to complain to them DONT. Engage a solicitor and sue the individual/s you are complaining about.

Forget about the gunshot residue,Rossco,think about the gun,the one with only David Bain's fingerprints on it,the one with Stephen Bain's blood on it,the one David used to kill his family.If Robin Bain's hands had been tested,they would have had no GSR on them.If David Bain had not washed his hands  a couple of times they would have had gunshot residue on them,seeing as it was he that fired the rifle.

Thinking about it i sometimes wonder if David Bain will ever be able to stand up on his own account and act independently from Karam .But it is  his only hope of maintaining even a smidgen of credibility and respect in the eyes of the NZ public.His continued stance casts a pall over the retrial verdict and justifiably is cause for people to just wonder what the hell is going on there .This is in stark contrast to the likes of Dave Dougahty and Arthur Alan Thomas who vigorously and personally protested their innocence.They were duly rewarded for it.Can't see this happening with David Bain.

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE GSR. I am more interested in the fact that the police did not attempt to gather a swab or sample of GSR from where Robin was lying when police arrived at the house.

"Well at least they did it the same day" is not good enough.

 

 

And I am not interested in the GSR either,rossco.What I would be interested to know is why David Bain lied about not knowing how his mother's glasses came to be in his room.Heck,he had already told people he was wearing them that weekend..

What I would be interested to know is why he said that the green jersey that the killer wore[and we all know who that was,well all of us that have done the research]belonged to his father,and ,furthermore,said that his father had been wearing it on the weekend before the murders,when he had already told the Police at least twice that it belonged to Arawa.It looks to me very much like he was desperately trying to incriminate his father,leastways that is how I see it.

I could go on for another hour about I would be interested to know.But I guess I never will know,unless David Bain finds god,or someone,and decides to confess.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale

Permalink

"I am more interested in the fact that the police did not attempt to gather a swab or sample of GSR from where Robin was lying when police arrived at the house".

What are your thoughts on this?

There are two possible reasons for this. 1 The police were so inexperienced or incompetent that they took for granted David's explanation the it was his father that had killed the family and blindly wandered all over that house for the first three hours until someone made up their minds for them.  2 There was a connection between Weir and the young girls and when they eventually discovered the electronic diary decided to charge David and work backwards.

They must have believed David for the first three hours because they made no attempt to preserve Robin's body for testing and it was removed to the morgue before they did.

Where there is smoke there is fire. What was on that note book and why did it go missing?

I know this will sound a bit fanciful to you but if the cops had let the matter drop as a murder/suicide there would have been an inquest to go through. By charging David it effectively put him out of the equation, behind bars.

There is an old saying, "once a cop never an honest man".

I have put it to a number of cops I know that not testing for GSR when they should have was a blunder. All have agreed but all instantly move on to BUT David cannot account for the twenty minutes before he phoned 111.

That twenty minutes gave the police the opportunity to jack evidence up against him.

Does it make sense to you that initially the police thought that the deaths were murder/suicide and that they initially believed David?

How stupid is that I would have thought they would have put David to the test from the moment they entered the house not three or so hours later.

Of course this is only my opinion.

Rossco,I thought you said you weren't interested in GSR.I told you I wasn't.Have you got GSR tattooed on your forehead,so that you can see it every time you look in the mirror?Mind you that would read RSG,short for "really stupid git".No ,I apologise,I promised I would make today my "Be nice to everyone day,rossco included".

The point I am trying to make Rossco,my friend,is that David Bain is obviously guilty.I am not asking you to answer for him,I am just explaining why.So there is no need to worry yourself about GSR,it doesn't matter.I can't answer for Milton Weir,but it does say in the PCA Report that Milton Weir,in consultation with another officer,decided that other matters were more important.With the benefit of hindsight,which is something we would all like to have ,he would probably at least had Robin Bain's hands bagged.But he didn't,and there is nothing we can do or say that will change that.I am not the slightest bit interested about GSR,because David Bain is obviously guilty.

Rossco,you seem to me to be anti-police,and I have to wonder if there is any reason why you are?

Hi Rossco, I have heard jk on several occassions comment regarding the PCA report.Of course he says it has been rebuked.

Could you please show where I can find where as the only place I have read anyting negative about the report is in Bain and Beyond.

I understand your supicious about this report due to it being prepared on the request of the police. But if we are suppose to believe the report to be biased we actually have to believe jk's comments.

I could copy jk's 'new evidence" as he titles these points in his book.

They are not convincing. In almost every point of new evidence on pages 11 to 17 numbered 1 to 17 he states some sort of "expert evidence" or " expert scientific photographer" or "Possible traces of blood" or "compelling new evidence" or "compelling new DNA evidence" or Data from US and Australian experts" or pathologists conclusion" or " now substancial body of expert opinion" or "independant experts from overseas" or "Evidence from eminent forensic psychiatrist" plus he also writes "into the realm of voodoo and witchcraft" when mentioning the target found in db's room!! Well I cant argue about the voodoo and witchcraft statement as Im no expert!!

My point is how can we take this "debunking" of the PCA report seriously when none of these "experts or eminent" people are mentioned by name? Who are they?

Also 17 points he does not agree with from a document that contains a list of 100's of what the PCA report considers errors?

So lets give jk some benefit of the doubt and say the police got 50% even 80% of their findings wrong.

That still means he released that book ,David And Golieth, without correcting one thing!!! Everyone is entitled to make mistakes but its really inexcusable to release this book again without making one correction.

So Ross, If you need to see false impressions I think you know where I would suggest you look.

I only just recently realised that Stephen's blood was on the alcove curtain.To be honest,I was a bit annoyed with myself for not picking this up before,because I believe David Bain wiped the rifle down with his gloves in Stephen's room.

Now that blood on the curtain doesn't make my theory look so good.I believe that blood on the curtain must have come from the rifle,so there must have been some blood on it when David took it into the computer alcove.But I guess I could still say that David wiped the rifle down in Stephen's room,but that there was still some blood on the silencer.And it was this blood that tranferred itself to the alcove curtain.And we do know the silencer wasn't wiped down properly,because it still had a fingerprint from Stephen on it.

Well Rossco, its you who worries me.  What weird logic.  The only thing you continue to prove is your implacable commitment to unsustainable arguments.  How does it follow that because blood on one side of a curtain is not found until later that it had never been there to begin with?  And of course the Police messed it up - according to the Guru Karam that is a fact.  But neither you nor Karam actually know the first thing about crime scenes or investigation.  

Can I perhaps suggest you actually take the trouble to read accounts of crime scenes from one of the most experienced of US crime scene investigators.  Start with the book, DEAD RECKONING by Michael Baden and Marion Roach.  This will show that the perfect crime scene that Mr Karam demands never exists and it is common to discover things in subsequent examination.  Michael Baden also describes the usual conduct of people who discover their recently murdered relatives, as David Bain claims he did, and if David was normal the scenes ought to have been messed up.  David's own accounts describe him as saying "they're all dead" but no explanation of how he knew this.  The ambulance officer established this as a fact some time later.  Baden tells how relatives pick their dead up, slap faces trying to bring them around etc.  All the while crying and shedding their tears all over them but David saved all that "grief" for the telephone call. And David heard Laniet gurgling.  His defense team went to great pains to prove to the jury that dead people gurgle.  But dying people also gurgle.  How did David know which it was?  No explanation from the defense on that.   But Rossco you will never acknowledge the truth.    

the evidence over and over like so many or more precisely so few of you seem to want to do but this blood on the curtain. Imagine you are a crime scene investigator. Imagine yourself standing in front of two curtains hanging side by side. You are in the middle of a crime scene. During the course of your investigating you notice blood on one of the curtains. Is that where it stops. You found blood so you move on.

That appears to be what happened.

According to you people those same curtains are rehung for measuring purposes some time later and blood is found on the other curtain.

For goodness sake you have to ask youself WHY wasn't measuring done at the time the blood was found on the curtains in the first place.

If blood was discovered on the second curtain at the time of rehanging for measuring surely you can see that if the investigator had done his job properly in the first place that blood would have been found then.

REHANGING for measuring? What were they measuring for? New replacement curtains?

I suppose we have to take the word of the bungling investigator that the curtains were rehung in precisely the same position that they were in before they were taken down.

Without trying to deliberately upset you what happened here in my opinion amounts to bungling incompetence.

 

 

Here is a question for you,rossco.In the Laws/Karam interview Karam said that the w/m repairman said that the cycle would take less than the 59.54s and the 61.11s that the Police found it took when they had both the normal and special cycles checked.Now correct me if I am wrong,but I cannot find where the repairman said any such thing.What he did say was that was that the Bain machine took 14/15 minutes to fill,whereas the norm was 5/7 minutes.He suspected that the longer time was due to corrosion in the pipes between the washing machine and the street connection,rather than fluctuating water pressure that Karam had suggested might have been the case.

But lets say Karam was correct[and that is stretching a pretty long bow,one would have to say].Let's say the machine took 8 minutes longer to fill than normal when the Police tested it.So that makes the cycle around 52 minutes at best.

Now Bain was sighted by Denise Laney at the gate of 65 Every Street at around 6.45.She glanced at her car clock and it read 6.50,and she said the clock was 5 minutes fast.The Police checked it the following week and is was still 5 minutes fast.So allowng for David Bain to go into the house,take off and hang up his paper bag,go downstairs,wash his hand to remove the printers ink,sort the wash into coloureds and whites and put it in the machine,I reckon that would have taken him around 5 minutes.So he starts the machine at around 6.50am.

Now the Police were in the laundry area at 7.29,or 39 minutes after Bain started the machine,and it wasn't going.But the quickest the cycle would have taken , with the best possible water pressure, was 52 minutes.So the machine should have going for another 13 minutes after the Police arrived in the laundry area.

So I would suggest that the only reason the machine wasn't going when the Police were in the laundry area was because David Bain was lying when he said he did the washing when he came home fron his paper round.You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work that out.Specially as we know David Bain is an accomplished liar.

For what it is worth[and it ain't worth much]Bain himself said the washing machine cycle took betweeen 45minutes and an hour.

No,I  don't know what make of washing machine it was,and it doesn't matter what make of washing machine it was.Somebody else may know.I know it was in a pretty poor state,perhaps David should have put a bullet through it as well.

I wouldn't imagine being a crime scene investigator Ross.  Fortunately for the rest of us, you are unlikely to get the chance, because we don't think you have the talent for it.  There could be a number of subsequent discoveries that would vreate a necessity to hang curtains and measure to a stain from the floor.  It could be that a forensic specialist, not present at the scene, but consulted by police suggested this.  Investigations are not linear as you and Karam seem to think.

Yes, I agree, you are right.  I'm sorry I was completely mistaken.

"There could be a number of subsequent discoveries that would create a necessity to hang curtains". That is entirely valid.

A crime scene is a complex and fluid environment whose inner workings are way beyond my skills to understand.

Did you know that the detectives initially thought that it was a murder-suicide but because they were thorough in their examination they tested and interviewed David anyway?

[Note, errors corrected: ed]

 

Certainly not in the early stages of the investigation.Fact, but then a lot of Karam's theories are based on  a conspiracy, the proposition being that they from day one  the police were out to nail David without the slightest bit of evidence to support it.But it is essential to the conspiracy as the lens allegedly must of been planted at least on either of the first two days.A problem there for Karam as always!

The only "nothing" being achieved here is discussing with you, Rossco.  You ought to look at the calibre of person that has been taken in by JK's misrepresentations and look at yourself and then decide which camp you want to be in.

We don't have to discuss with you if you are intent on just writing stuff off as 'crap' or 'corrupt' or 'pure unadulterated' when we all know very well that you do not know what you are talking about because you are just a random poster with no experience or qualifications in this area.  Your discussion techniques are rapidly wearing out the patience of other posters on this site and it is my job to stop these threads from becoming flame wars. 

If you want people to respect what you have to say then do it in a manner which engenders respect.  We have attempted to respect your point of view but you have made no attempt whatsoever to do the same in return.  You have your opinion.  Well done.  We have ours.  This is a democratic country.  There is no need to get angry and abusive because some people hold an opinion different from yours.

Chill.

In reply to by Bruce Griffiths

Permalink

What's the point 'debating' with this identity. Surely, we have better things, more productive, to do with our time?  There are several reason's I suspect this is another reincarnation of nos.

In reply to by ANTeater

Permalink

You would have noticed that each time I post someone replies almost immediately. Perhaps there is nothing else in their lives?

[Currently I am moderating each post on the site for reasons which you should be able to work out for yourself. Due to your complete disrespect for people on this site, who happen to be decent average Kiwis doing what they feel is right, I am simply going to block your login: ed]

[PS: FYI I work full time on the internet and and read each email I get when I get it whether it is from a client or from a website service]

Yes, Rosco, most of us pretty much know that the initial impression was that it was a murder suicide.  Pretty much the entire country decided that as the morning news broke.  But of course the police had to interview David Bain, he was the only survivor at the scene. Surely you are not seriously suggesting they shouldn't?  And what he said was so contradictory and the forensic evidence they were finding was such that they pretty much recognised it as a murder of five people.  But Mr Karam thinks that they should have stayed with their first impression no matter how the evidence was pointing. The idea defies logic.