The time it would take for the Bain computer to boot up, load word and the message be typed

People still forget, the PC in the bain house was around 10-15 years old at the time in 1994.

Phillips P3105. One that needed a boot disk and all I would suspect. Definately an old early 80's computer.

http://home.iae.nl/users/pb0aia/cm/garage.html   Find the computer along with photo at the bottom of this page.

*Info gained from the PCO computer analysis report.

Anyway, the computer TURN ON time was a great focus at the trial.

But of course, thats not when the message is actually typed.

I know the issue is a red hearing, but if we could get some solid background on how long the computer takes to boot, then load up the word proccessor, that would be handy.

When you consider the computer being turned on, loading up, the Word programe being loaded, the user thinking of and typing the message, then assuming he did nothing else, moving on to kill himself, figuring out you cant do it the conventional way, contriving how to do it, geeing yourself up to, and then killing yourself, it doesnt look likely for Robin to have enough time before David gets home.

If the turning on of the computer, booting, loading up, and then typing of the message took 3 mintues (quite a minimal estimate), then a turn on time of any later than 6.41 is very unfavourable to David Bain. If David was at the gate at 6.45, hes in the house by 6.46 at the latest, and Robin cant have killed himself after he got home, he would have heard the shot or Robin falling and the gun hitting the ground.

So really, virtually all of the turn on times are very unfavourable to DB if he got home when he said he did. In reality he probably got home no later than 6.44 or 6.45.

The turn on time is about 5 seconds after you press the switch, after the clock engages. Factoring in the boot time, loading Word (already an old laggy computer), thinking of and settling on/typing the message, leaving the booth, going through the rigmorole of killing yourself (assuming you did nothing else), settling on the angle etc..

Basically, unless you go with the earlies possible time of a 6.39 turn on, theres not enough time for Robin to do everything before he kills himself.

The issues a red hearing to an extent in that Robin can still have switched on the PC and David be the murderer, however if you have the computer being turned on at any later than about 6.41, then by Davids story, Robin cant be the killer, as it's unlikely hes dead before David gets in the front door.

Comments

Okay so the PCO report says

Okay so the PCO report says 45 seconds from power on to Word processor being opened.

Still, you got to type the message and finalise it.

Still, I think its resonable to add on a few minutes for the computer and the actual suicide, and Robins gotta be dead before David opens that door, but really, before hes in the driveway.

So at the most, Davids only got a few minutes to play with from 6.39.

Karam made a big deal over

Karam made a big deal over the fact that DB arrived home a couple of minutes after the computer was turned on. Therefore he could not be the killer.  I remember owning a late 1980's computer and it took at least 3 minutes from switching on until it was ready to type messages. I had not considered this fact but what you have written above makes perfect sense.  Giving Karam the benefit of any doubt, DB would have walked through the front door at 6.45 am at the latest.  Robin would have had to turn on the computer at 6.40 am, waited at least three minutes for the warm up and then type in his message, shoot himself and achieve all this before DB entered the house. Impossible.  Yet another nail in the DB coffin.

I was chatting to an old ex DUnedin bloke at the weekend. He was a very intelligent, articulate chap and was convinced of DB's innocence. As is often the case with these folk, he was not particularly au fait with the evidence. However he was implacably opposed to any notion that DB was guilty of murdering his family. In the end, in the interests of harmony, we agreed to disagree. The final question I put to him was:    "If Justice Binnie finds there is insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to award compensation to DB, will that alter your opinion?"   He answered - "No, it will simply indicate that the cops made such a mess of collecting the evidence that there is insufficient reliable evidence to prove DB's guilt or innocence".  

So perhaps that will be the end result. DB will continue on with half the country believing he has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Half the country?

I don't know about half the country believing David Bain is innocent. And many of those that do don't know all that much about the evidence that points to David Bain as being the killer. If I was having an argument with someone who thought Bain was innocent the first thing I would do is ask them to explain how those glasses came to be in his room.
I would have a distinct advantage if the person I was speaking to was not au fait with the evidence. And even if they were.
Those pro David Bainers who have read all the evidence have never been able to come up with a plausible reason as to why those damaged glasses were in David Bain's room. I believe that most of them[I don't know about Karam] accept that Bain was wearing a pair of his mother's glasses that weekend. I think they now accept that his aunt was telling the truth. The best they can come up with now is that David Bain was wearing a different pair of his mother's glasses that weekend. How implausible is that?

Mike..... Like you, I believe

Mike..... Like you, I believe the glasses are the strongest single piece of evidence incriminating DB.  I discussed this with my pro David Bain friend and he did not agree with me.  He hammered away with "Milton Weir planted the lens in Stephen's room" and said DB could easily have damaged his glasses as he staggered around the house in a delirious, frantic state after discovering the bodies. This also explains his facial bruising!!.

I don't know how one argues against such blatant nonsense. As I said, he and I eventually had to agree to disagree and move on to discussing the weather!   Karam knew the glasses were the single piece of evidence that damned DB and that is why he made such a fuss about the possibility of Milton Weir planting the lens. It may be a desperate and far fetched ploy but it gives the pro David Bainers a hook to hang their hat on.

Glasses,facial bruising.

Well it was Karam who said that David Bain may have gotten those facial bruises by banging into things while running round the house and finding his family dead. It was only at the retrial that the defence said he might have gotten them being manhandled by a policeman after he had fainted. I guess that was because it was David himself who suggested he may have gotten them when he fainted after hearing that Arawa was dead. In fact Karam is still sugggesting Bain might have fainted and banged his head when he came home and found his family dead.He said that in the Karam/Laws debate.
But Karam has never suggested those glasses were damaged for that reason. He could hardly do that seeing as Bain denied knowing how those glasses came to be in his room that morning. He said he hadn't seen them for over a year.
I don't know if your friend is aware of that. But if he is,then he is virtually accepting that Bain lied under oath.

What time did David Bain arrive home?

Bain first said he arrived home at about twenty to seven. He said later that he looked at his watch after just passing through Heath Street and it read 6.40 exactly. A witness saw him crossing Heath Street and she said she arrived at work[about a minute and a half away] no later than 6.41. We know it would have taken Bain no longer than two and a half minutes to get home,unless something delayed him,and he never said anything did. So that puts him in the door at around 6.42/6.42.30. Maybe he waited at the gate for a couple of minutes before going inside,but he never said he did that. Maybe he went inside, turned on the computer while his father was praying,shot him,then went down to the street again. He never said he did that ,either.

It does sound suspicious that

It does sound suspicious that he would forget the whole 1/2 hour of events when he got home. But then remember the time he passed Heath St exactly to the minute.

Memory ok until he found his parents.

David Bain said his memory was ok until he found his mother and father dead and then he lost it and had to go to a shrink to get him to help him recover it.
Of course that begs the question.
How come he told the 111 operator that all his family was dead?

Re: the 111 call

It was the first thing Davd told the operator:"They're all dead" in a singing tone,which I found odd until I realized that he was a member of a choir. Had David practised singing these words before the murders as he went about his business? As for the piece of the call allegedly stating "I shot the prick" why did the Defence argue for the tape to be doctored before it was put before the jury if they were sure there was nothing in it..

The 111 call

The very first time I heard the 111 call I was immediately struck by the gross over acting. Then it emerged that not only was he in a choir group but he was a member of the local drama group.