The Rifle Magazine Appeared to be Planted next to Robin Bain's Body

Bain rifle magazine find unusual. A former police officer said at court in 2009 that he thought it ''unusual'' a rifle magazine near the dead body of Robin Bain was sitting on its edge.

It ''stuck in my mind'', Kim Stephenson told the Christchurch jury hearing the retrial of David Bain in the High Court in Christchurch in 2009.

Mr. Stephenson, one of the first four officers to enter the house said he recalled shining his torch into the right hand front room and seeing the body of a man on the floor. There was blood around the head, some blood seepage and a rifle on the floor away from the body. Also on the floor was a live round and the rifle magazine sitting on its edge.

At the Privy Council appeal Dr Collins told the hearing that, based on forensic experiments conducted after the killings, there was "a 0 per cent chance" that the magazine from the gun used in the killing could have ended up balanced in the position that it was found in, next to Robin's body, if he had been holding the gun himself.  More in depth reading found HERE

Talking to an 18 year old yesterday who is very use to weapons round the house (Coromandel!!) and mentioned the mag on its edge. He said "Why was the mag removed?" which got me thinking.

I believe db was safety minded when it came to the rifle.

A good father would of taught him the safety aspects of firearms.

eg: After returning home from rabbit shooting db would take the rifle into his room.

1) Remove the bolt 2) remove the mag 3) insert the trigger lock and put the key where only he knew where it was.

So perhaps after his father had been shot the mag was removed and placed without remembering he didnt have to be safety minded that morning. Removed by habit?

In reply to by Vic Pur


Hullo Vic.Joe here.Robin Bain was safety minded also,that is why he removed the magazine and placed it on the floor,before he shot himself.He was worried about the only one who deserved to live.

Of course!!! Why didnt I think of that? Lucky Robin didnt fall on it and knock it over.

But bit naughty of Robin to put it on its edge like that!! The one that deserved to stay could of tripped over it and got bruises on his face.

The rifle magazine is possibly a piece of evidence that is overlooked in favour of more glamorous pieces of evidence, I have given it a little more thought, and now see it as a significant piece of evidence, I have decided that if this magazine was not planted, then it is a perplexing mystery how it came to be where it was found.

Black Hands Bob? They have been blamed for everything else. What are those Black Hands? Ive read about them being blamed in another murder, that being the Amityville case where the guy (or his sister) murdered the whole family. I know the movie turned the Amityville case into a load of BS but the actual case makes inteasting reading. Coincidence Black Hands like being involved with family murders. Dont forget, if db is to be believed, he had Black Hands everyday after his paper round.

Anyone sussed out where the "changed to meet his maker" tale originated? Was it jk or another fiction writer?

There was an intersting debate by posters on Brian Edwards blog in the aftermath of the Investigator documentary.It concerned whether there was a misfire/misfeed that the defence argued happened in the Alcove.The nosie of this would of attracted Robin's attention and therefore precluded David from firing his gun.They even went to the trouble ,I believe, to get the previous owner to say that it was prone to jamming.But the police testing the gun  stated this was not the case from their tests.

Now the 10 shot magazine had two shots left (one in the breeech and one in the mgazine) in it before the magazines were swopped.Mike I beieve there were no spent shells etc  scattered all over the place. as far as am aware.Margaret suffered one fatal shot,Laniet three,Arawa,two,Stepen two.thus the two shots left in the magazine.

Now why would Robin change magazines.?Wasn't two enough?Again there was no evidence of a bullet jamming in the breech.The police found the gun was working normally as far as I am aware. But if it jammed then Robin has to go through a complicated procedure in expelling the bullet,settle himself in that contorted position again.Another key issue is that a gun shop owner I spoke to recently told be that a spent shell form a .22 semi automatic will travel a max of 1 meter (there are variables here) as a general rule. How is  it able to travel   well over a meter into  the alcove and through the narrow opening in the curtains.Remember only one shot was fired in the alcove/lounge area.I would like to know more ,especailly about the condition of the breech when examined by the police and whether the 5 shot magazine was still loaded.


The man who sold the rifle to David Bain said it misfired occasionally and that he carried a knife to clear jammed bullets.

Cull said that five misfired rounds were found around the house.

Apparently,according to the Privy Council report,a live round found besides the rifle showed signs of having been misfed.

But a Crown witness said it was not a misfeed bullet,it had just simply fallen out of the magazine.

Was there two bullets left over?If so,what happened in Stephen's room.It is the Crown's contention that David Bain may have removed his gloves to clear a jammed bullet.

But there again he could have just simply removed them because they were covered in blood.

Certainly that extra magazine plus that bullet in the lounge confuses the issue.

You have to believe the magazine was placed in that position,but who by?

We all say it had to be David,but as it says in the Privy Council report,para 118,there is no compelling reason why it could not have been Robin.

And if that bullet in the lounge was a misfeed,then what was it doing there?Most of us reckon Robin Bain was shot from the alcove.

Why did David Bain leave that 5 shot magazine in the lounge?And it appears it was wiped down,as it had no fingerprints on it,apparently.

I believe that Robin Bain was shot by David from the alcove,and I also believe Robin Bain was probably sitting on his beanbag,as per that sketch.But some have suggested that there was a confrontation.But I can't see Robin Bain capitulating,and anyway surely David would have shot him in a way that made it look more like a suicide shot.

But I believe donaldbob may have given us the answer as above.David Bain simply carried out a safe unloading procedure.


I think we need to explore and examine some more details such as how many bulets were actually fired,was there a live bullet in the breech when the police first examined the rifle.Other than a possible misfeed why would Robin swap magazines.

But as we know counting against Robin unjamming the rifle are these factors,

1 The empty casing was found in the alcove and it would be impossible to have travelled via the 4" opening in the curtain as well as the distance,over 1 meter.

2.Someone confirm this but also if Robin had suicided in the manner demonstrated by Boyce then the empty casing would of ejected form the breech away from the alcove to the right and ending up in the lounge itself

3.If the gun had jammed then as  donaldbod suggests Robin would have spent an awkward and very tense moment(David arriving home,coming up the road) fixing the misfeed and having another go.Surely then he would of left indeniable fingerprints on the gun with as well blood on the strap rubbing against his clothes.

4.Then there is the mystery of the up turned magazine which i believe was the 10 shot one.It is a reminder no matter how caefully  and cleverly planned the killer doesn't necessarily get it 100% right.

Yes,the magazine on the floor was the 10 shot magazine.Maybe David Bain ejected the second to last bullet in it.Maybe he couldn't remember how many he had fired.

It would be interesting to know how many bullets were left in that magazine.Just one,I would have thought.

My understanding there were two bullets,one in the breech and one in the magazine.Again the Defence claimed the misfire/misfeed would of  occoured in the alcove.If that happened then Robin would of been alerted to the noise/disturbance if David had the gun.But there were no signs of a misfeed/misfire(jamming) there (re spent bullet case).I would again like to know  for sure if the police found a live bullet in the breech.I beieve that they did.

A live round was found close to Robin Bain's body.Karam said is was a misfeed,but there is no proof that it was.

A cartridge case was found in the alcove.

I reckon that David Bain checked the rifle when he had the 10 shot magazine in it because he wasn't sure how many bullets he had left in that magazine.One bullet ejected on to the floor and this would have left one bullet in the magazine.

But I don't know how many bullets were left in that 10 shot magazine.

If there were two, then my theory does not work.

So I go for another theory.David Bain wasn't sure how many bullets he had left in the 10 shot magazine ,so he changed magazines.Then he tested the 5 shot magazine and one bullet ejected.

So the 5 shot magazine should have had three bullets in it,for this theory to work.

Another point I would like to make.If you look at where the two chairs are in the lounge and you look at that photo of the defence demonstrating how they believed Robin could have shot himself,you will note how far away from those chairs his body is.

By rights he should have just collapsed over the chair he was kneeling on.

You have to wonder why David Bain placed that magazine the way he did.One would have to say it was quite a clever touch if he really did it to make the scene look more like a suicide.

So I guess his thinking might have been "If I place the magazine upright that will make it look as if my father placed it there as he was about to change magazines".

When you think about it,why would Robin Bain have changed magazines,anyway?In the stae of mind he was supposed to have been in he wouldn't have been counting how many shots he had fired.

I understand there were two bullets left with the 10 shot magazine,one in the magzazine and one in the breech.Again I believe the live bullet found near the body was the one ejected from the breach when the 5 x shot magazine was exchanged.Now why would Robin do that knowing he had two bullets by which he could top himself?. Remember only one spent bullet was found and that was in the alcove.Be interested to know whatt the transcripts come up with.The Defence had to come up with something to explain the existence of the shell in the alcove.

I am not sure how many bullets were left in the 10 shot magazine,but if there were no misfeeds there would have been two.

There was one bullet found on the floor of the lounge.I don't think it was ejected from the breach,it may have just fallen out of the magazine when it was placed on the floor.Boyce said it had the markings of a misfeed bullet,but under cross-examination he said the bullet in the breach also looked like a misfeed,which of course it could not have been.

I am beginning to like Mander,some of his cross-examination is pretty good.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


Just on the subject of  the magazines,obviously they would have been tested for fingerprints,yet none were found on them.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


Mike do the transcripts discuss issues about recoil from the murder weapon.?As we might be aware the recoil from a .22 semi automatic is minimal but I believe the Defence tried to advance this to explain how Robin's body got where it was,by  the Beanie chair  That is nonsense.He would of fallen where he had suicided and that creates  difficulties especially in regard  Boyce's  and the defence's scenario and demos.Incidently Mr Justice Prankhurst bailed up Boyce  on a couple of occasions regarding his demo and theories.

In reply to by Ralph


Ok,I think what I will do is post what I consider to be items of interest as I come across them,which will mean I will need to go back a bit.

Anyway,here is my first one.Professor Ferris is Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia.

He has carried out almost 10000 post mortems[he is now retired],and between 700/800 were on death by gunshot,and he attended another 700 or so examinations that were death by gunshot.

He has never seen a silencer used in a  suicide by gunshot.

It was Ferris who also said he thought those marks on Robin Bain's hands were made post mortem.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


This piece of evidence is not of any great importance in the scheme of things,but I was very interested in it because I spent considerable time and effort reconstructing how long it would have taken Bain to get home from when he looked at his watch after just passing through Heath Street on his way up Every Street.If anyone wants to refresh their memory my reconstruction is on JFRB Facebook website under the heading "The last 240m to 65 Every Street".In actual fact I see I was confused as to who actually timed themselves over that last 240m,I had it down to Constable Peeters,but he was timed over the paper run,it was Dectective Thomson who timed himself over the last 240m.That was to check his time against the estimate given by Bain,2/3 minutes.

At the retrial[and at the first trial]Thomson said he walked the distance at a moderate walk ,and he walked it twice.Once in 2m15s and once in 2m16s.At the retrial a constable Purdon said he walked from the last paper drop[26 Every Street]to 65 Every Street in 3m15.The defence were at pains to point out the one minute difference. Thomson[or one of the crown prosecutors]should have made the point that the last paper drop is some distance before one gets to Heath Street.

I notice the defence also tried to make out Kaycee the dog was struggling.One witness said that he was under the impression that the dog was dawdling or struggling some distance behind David Bain.That led the defence to ask the question "So it was an old dog?".

"I don't know what age the dog was"said the witness.

This was all to do with the defence trying to find some reason why David Bain might have taken longer to get home than he estimated.

They wanted Bain home later than 6.42/6.43.

Of course from my enquiries I found out the dog was around 5 years old,quite young in fact.

And that walk was also tested by others.A harrier walked it in 2m20s,and there was a Charlie Davey reported in that he walked it in 2m35s at age 57,and I walked the same distance at the same gradient in 3m15s at age 74.

I was pleased to see I came up with the same gradient as the defence did,although strictly speaking their gradient was not quite correct,the first 60m from Heath Street is a 1/9 gradient,then it steepens to a 1/6.


In 2008 a Dr Manlove,of  John Manlove Laboratories in the UK[Boyce,who gave those demonstrations with the rifle works there also]Dr Manlove found three spots of blood on Robin Bain's right shoe.He also found some smears,but he was not sure whether they were blood smears or not.This was actually reported and confused some of us,because we thought it was the bloodspots Manlove was not sure about,but in actual fact it was those smears.

In the Laws/Karam debate Karam said those spots were high pressure blood splatter.He had seen them with his own eyes.Yet nowhere in the transcript are those spots actually desribed as high pressure blood splatter.

On top of that,if they were high pressure blood splatter,then there is no way that three of the four scenarios showing how Robin Bain could have committed suicide would have worked,because those blood spots were on the uppers of the right shoe,and those scenarios show Boyce kneeling with his right leg on the chair,with his right foot out of sight.

But at the end of the day,Manlove agreed that there was no way to age those blood spots.

So they could have been 14 years old when he found them,or they could have been a lot older.

I was interested to read that a number of witnesses said that Bain was wearing shorts on his paper round.I sort of went by what Tania Clark said,that he was wearing dark coloured long trousers.But it would seem that he was wearing shorts.Bain himself said he was wearing shorts,and I seem to remember that Bryan Bruce had him wearing shorts in that first documentary.

Yes I am aware of the conflict between the two witnesses.Of course it is possible that when Denise Laney saw David at the gate he may of already dashed inside,changed and came out to the vicinity of the gate to further establish his alibi. Remember he had been doing the paper run for some time so he may well of been ware of the routines and tiimings  of certain vehicles coming and goings including Denis Laney's .Did he not start his run rather earlier than usual that day?

Denise Laney could not see whether Bain was wearing shorts or trousers.Tania Clark said he was wearing dark coloured long trousers.Other witnesses said he was wearing shorts.I now tend to go for the shorts.There was a pair of track pants in the wash,and it was suggested that Bain may have put these in the wash when he got home.But I now believe the washing machine was not still running when he arrived home,so that would have meant those track pants were put in the machine earlier.

There is no evidence he started his paper run earlier than usual.He certainly finished it earlier than usual,but only by a few minutes.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


This is my favourite piece of evidence,because it shows,without a doubt,that David Bain lied on oath.It so upsets the pro David Bainers that they resort to implying that Janis Clark was lying,because she was a beneficiary of the will.And they also say that Guest was a disbarred lawyer,but of course he wasn't at the time of the first trial.

This is the evidence in chief  from the first trial.

David Bain:In my room was found a pair of glasses,one lens beside them.They were not my glasses.I have no doubt they were my mother's glasses.On occasions in the past I have worn my mother's glasses if my glasses were not available,but only for watching tv programs,or going to lectures I couldn't wear them for extended periods.I don't know how those glasses came to be in my room.I accept the description of police officers that the house in Every Street was very untidy.As to how those glasses might have got into my room,I have no explanation.I hadn't seen them or used them that weekend or at least a year previous.I hadn't needed them.So unless my mother put them in my room because she had obviously-no,I don't know.

Janis Clark,an aunt of David's,David was staying at the Clark's after the murders.This is her evidence at the retrial.

Q.At some time there was a discussion about the glasses?

A.Yes,later after David got up and had some breakfast we were sitting in the lounge,David,Heidi and myself and David sort of rubbed his eyes like that,you know,and I said "Oh,are your eyes troubling you dear?".

Q.When you say rubbing his eyes you're-

A.Yes,it was sort of a movement like that,just as though his eyes were troubling him.And I said "Are your eyes troubling you dear?"and he said "Yes,they are a bit,I really need my glasses".and I went to get up and go and get them saying,you know,"Where are they?" and he explained his own glasses had been broken the previous Thursday when he was having his music lesson and I asked how he had been managing in the meantime and he said he had been wearing an old pair of Margaret's glasses.

Q.Just on that,did he indicate how much assistance or lack of assistance they gave?.

A.Yes,he said well they weren't perfect,but they got him by.And then he said his own glasses would be ready at the opticians on the Thursday and could we perhaps organise to have them collected,and I called Bob [Jan Clark's husband]in.

Bob Clark,giving evidence.

I was called into the lounge where my wife had been talking to David and was informed that would I go and pick the glasses up on the Thursday,which I did.

Q.Was anything said about the accused's glasses,apart from that,or his eyes,on the Tuesday?.

A.He had been talking to my wife and my wife repeated to me that his glasses had been broken and that he had been wearing a pair of his mother's glasses,which he said were not 100%,but were sufficient for him to get by.

Further to this,it came out at one of the Court of Appeals that David Bain had told his lawyer before the trial that he would be attesting to wearing his mother's glasses.But when he took the stand he did not do this.This is part of the cross-examination by the Crown prosecutor.

Q.Were those glasses of assistance to you?

A.Yes,for watching tv ,or going to lectures,but I could not wear them for extended periods.

Q.You have referred in your evidence to watching a video on tv over the weekend.

A.That is correct,yes.

Q.Did you use those glasses for that purpose?.

A.No ,I hadn't even thought of using them.

Q.Where were those glasses kept ,to your knowledge?

A.In Mum's room.In one of her drawers I suppose.I don't know exactly where.

It should also be pointed out that Sanderson,the optometrist,said in evidence at the retrial that David Bain could see up to a third of a metre in front of him without his glasses.Just over a foot,at the old measurement.So imagine Bain watching that video on tv,if you will.Hunched up a just a few inches away from the screen.As if.Even if he had forgotten about his mother's glasses she would have definitely reminded him about them.And there is also evidence that David Bain probably drove the family car that weekend.Imagine him driving without glasses.

The issue of the amount of urine in Robin Bain's bladder has never been a major one for me,though I would agree with those that say that if Robin Bain was going to set out and kill his family then he would have had a nervous one first.

But here is what Grant Russell,a consultant urologist, had to say at the retrial.

Q.And with an ageing male with prostrate enlargement what can be the functioning level of the bladder before you have the urge to urinate?

A.That's an interesting question and certainly in public practice where it's not uncommon to admit ageing men with two,three,four,five litres of urine sitting in the bladder that they are not even aware of.They may present with kidney failure,in other words back pressure of urine on the kidneys and they are totally unaware of that huge amount of urine sitting in the bladder and the only symptom many of them will complain of is a need to let their belt out because the lower abdomen has distended and the other symptom they sometimes get is a leakage in bed overnight.

Q.Can you,for instance in a male as you have described,wake up in the morning, urinate,and still be left with 400mls for instance?

A.Absolutely,and this is a phenomenon of chronic retention which is a huge men's health issue.

I was pleased to see the Crown have a win ,of sorts.

Raftery was cross-examining Lloyd,the ex Scotland Yard detective about the blood on the rifle.

Q.So they were not fingerprints in a contaminant of any scource and placed on that rifle.

A.I am not saying that at all.I am saying they are not fingerprints in blood.Any other contaminant I will consider.

Q.So just as we understand the terminology,fingerprints in a contaminant is when the contaminant is on the hand and then placed on the rfle.


Q.So looking at the photograph,you say they are not in blood.Have you turned your mind to at all as to whether there could be any other contaminant involved.

A.There are other contaminants that could be involved ,such as gun oil.

Q.And when you are talking about blood,you are talking about blood of any sort,is that right.

A.I am talking about blood,fullstop.

Q.Whether it's human or whether it's animal.

A.Absolutely right.

Q.Do you realise that the defence in this case has been for years that those prints were made in animal blood and put there some time before the killings.

A.No,I was not made aware.

Q.Well ,that's been the defence case.So I take it in your view that's nonsense as well ,is that right.

A.Look ,they are not in blood.

Q.All right.So we have had a lot of cross-examination in the course of this case about possum blood or rabbit blood,is that all irrelevant in your view.

A.As far as blood is concerned,it is.I mean I would have to look up what a possum was.

Q.Animal and nasty.So if you are right we should forget all that.


But I thought a witness stated that his/her newspaper was delivered unusually earlier that morning,about 10-15 minutes.

In reply to by Ralph


There were a couple of witnesses who said they got their paper early.But one,a Mrs Rattray wasn't too sure,because she was usually asleep when her paper arrived.The other was Malcolm Parker,a traffic officer.He said he got his at 6.38,when usually he got it at 6.45.But the defence took him apart.He said he was a creature of habit,usually got up at around 6.45,yet on that Monday morning he was up 10 minutes earlier than usual,he couldn't explain why.But I believe that he did receive his paper at around 6.38,but I don't believe the 6.45.His house was pretty close to the end of the round.Tania Clark said she saw David Bain around where she usually saw him.Denise Laney said she saw him further back down the road.And he probably arrived home 2/3 minutes before Mrs Laney saw him,so he was probably up to 5 minutes earlier than usual.Not that you could set your clock by him.But it seems he was usually home no later than 6.50.


In reply to by Mike Stockdale


Mike do the transcripts discuss issues about recoil from the murder weapon.?As we might be aware the recoil from a .22 semi automatic is minimal but I believe the Defence tried to advance this to explain how Robin's body got where it was,by  the Beanie chair  That is nonsense.He would of fallen where he had suicided and that creates  difficulties especially in regard  Boyce's  and the defence's scenario and demos.Incidently Mr Justice Prankhurst bailed up Boyce  on a couple of occasions regarding his demo and theories.

Vic you said "Anyone sussed out where the "changed to meet his maker" tale originated? Was it jk or another fiction writer?"

It was probably invented by some smart arse lawyer Vic, Karam of course said in his book he was sure if the blood on Robins clothes was tested it would have been from his dead family members, after that idea was completely debunked by the forensic people, a new story had to be invented to explain the lack of anyone else's blood on Robin, take your pick! it could have been Karam or Read, more likely Read I would think, shame the dim witted jury couldn't see through this stupid story.

If there is one thing to be learned from this sorry saga it is that all the evidence should be kept.The police kept those skin samples found in Stephen's room,to no avail,as it happened,as they turned out to be from him.Had they kept all those other samples,even though they were of no use at the time,with the improvements in testing DNA etc.,that blood on Robin Bain's hands and clothes would have proved to be his own.

Another major mistake was that Dr Pryde apparently did not follow the correct procedure when he checked David I understand it he should have strip searched him.I am almost certain he did not do this,possibly because he felt David Bain was a victim and was showing him some compassion.Had he done this he would have seen those scratches,they must have been there.

But apparently the rule is that a person involved in a homicide inquiry should be strip-searched.Pryde was in a bind.Later on when he was asked he did not mention strip searching David Bain.If he had said he hadn't,then that would have meant he signed a form that said he had followed police procedure when he had not.The defence would have made a meal of that.So Karam is quite entitled to say those scratches were not there on the morning of the murders,even though we all know they would have been.

As for the jury.I know we are all disappointed with the verdict,but having read much of the transript one can understand that some of them could have thought there was reasonable doubt.But even so,a few of them should have been able to see through all the smoke and mirrors and at least come up with a hung jury.We have all seen that juror's letter to the paper.I have it on very good authority that at least one other jury was certain Bain was guilty,but because he knew that some jurors were never going to agree with a guilty verdict he decided to go along with a not guilty verdict just to get out of the place.

So far as the lawyers are concerned,while I was critical of the Crown at first,that was more of a knee jerk reaction.Having read the transcript I reckon they were just as good as Cull and Reed.Maybe a couple of points they missed,but overall I reckon they did a pretty good job.But then again,what do I know,I am only a layman.

In reply to by Vic Pur



Hi Guys


I owned a .22 semi-automatic rifle likes Davids and used semi-automatic and automatic rifles in the Territorial Army. I taught small-bore rifle shooting and firearms safety to Army Cadets in Dunedin for five years and was Range Safety Officer on at least 10 indoor smallbore range practices. The cadet rifle at the time was a single-shot bolt-action .22 rifle.


You cannot remove the bolt from semi-automatic rifles without disassembling the whole rifle. For a safe unloading you:

(a)    engage the safety catch

(b)   remove the magazine

(c)    pull the cocking handle back (thus pulling the bolt back) and check that the chamber *** is clear.



If there is still a round in the chamber, this will be ejected at stage (c) of the safety check.


During the Police search, they found a live round on the floor and the curved magazine, lying on its edge, still containing ammunition.


If Robin had shot himself after removing the magazine, then you would expect to find one empty cartridge somewhere, and no live or spent round in the chamber.


If he had changed clothes to meet his Maker, then there should not have been any loose rounds lying around in his other clothes.


Because there will still rounds in the magazine, the following can be concluded. If some else had shot Robin and unloaded the rifle, then stage three of the safety procedure above would have resulted in a live round being ejected.


Was that ejected live round a mis-feed? (mis-feed rounds usually have damage to the lead bullet)


Was that ejected live round a mis-fire? (With a mis-fire, the round is seated properly in the chamber but does not fire when you pull the trigger. You can see an indent near the base of the cartridge that is created by the firing pin, but the bullet/cartridge combination remains in pristine condition)


With either a mis-feed or a mis-fire, it would be necessary to pull back the cocking handle to find out what went wrong..


If Robin had experienced a mis-feed or a mis-fire then, he would have needed to unwound himself from the alleged contorted left-hand shooting position, cleared the mis-feed/mis-fire, re-engaged the alleged contorted left-hand shooting position, and then tried again. (without getting any prints during the trouble-shooting)


Did the Police find the .22 semi-automatic rifle in a completely unloaded state? (EG magazine out AND chamber clear)


Did the police find markings on the live round on the floor that indicated mis-feed or mis-fire?



*** How a .22 semi-automatic works

The chamber holds the cartridge/bullet combination in the entrance to the rifle barrel, the head of the bolt holds the cartridge/bullet combination in place in the chamber. When you fire the trigger on a .22 semi-automatic, the firing pin in the bolt head strikes the cartridge and the powder in the cartridge explodes. The explosion pushes the bullet down the barrel. The explosion also pushes the empty cartridge back against the bolt-head, the back force pushes the bolt back to its rear limit, ejecting the empty cartridge. When the bolt reaches its rear limit, a spring pushes the bolt forward again. If there are still rounds in the magazine the bolt picks up the top round and pushes it into the chamber.


Great post donaldob.All I know is that Karam said it was a misfeed,apparently there was some damage to the bullet.

I don't know what the police said about that bullet.There were bullets lying all over the place,apparently.

Maybe David Bain tested the rifle first.Perhaps he knew that if there was a mis-feed,then the next time he fired the rifle there wouldn't be one.

The misfeed could have occurred AFTER the shot was fired that killed Robin.

Because there was still ammunition in the magazine, that means that the Rifle would have re-loaded itself after the fatal shot was fired.



Where did this magazine come from?

Was it the magazine used during the killings?

How did it become released from the rifle?

Dead men cant take it out and they definalty wouldnt put it such a strange position anyway.