Putting the new "evidence" in perspective

Opinion: Someone has noticed marks on Robin's thumb which are consistent with loading the magazine on the rifle.  If we  hypothesise that these marks are not innocent and instead indicate that Robin loaded the rifle and therefore is responsible for the Bain murders, then we also have to interpret other items of evidence in the same incriminating manner.  Some examples:

  1. The broken glasses which David is known to have worn when his own were unavailable create evidence that is consistent with David fighting with Stephen and the glasses being broken during what was clearly a violent struggle, indicating that David was the murderer.
  2. The bruise on David's head is consistent with a blow to the head which would have dislodged the glasses further supporting David's culpability.
  3. The blood on David's clothes is consistent with him having been involved in the fight with Stephen, then changing his clothes and putting blood soaked items in the washing machine.  Marks in blood on the washing machine and other locations support this.
  4. David's gloves were found bloodied and on the floor of Stephen's room, consistent with having been thrown off during the violent struggle.  David had a need to hide his fingerprints on the rifle and Robin had his own gloves, had no need to wear any and didn't need David's.  This interpretation of the gloves evidence incriminates David.
  5. The testimony that David used to walk round the house threatening family members with his gun can be interpreted as an early indicator of what David was about to do and not an innocent act of childishness.
  6. The murder weapon belonged to David and he had control over access to it via the trigger lock key.  We can interpret this as limiting opportunity for anyone else such as Robin using it, therefore making David the prime suspect.
  7. David repeatedly told the 111 operator that all his family members were dead.  All the bedroom lights bar Margaret's were out, which is consistent with David being the murderer.  A person finding the murders would turn lights on in the rooms in order to ascertain death and maybe move bodies in an attempt to revive.
  8. David's fingerprints were on the rifle and not Robin's which is consistent with David being the murderer and not Robin.

If we are to interpret the marks on Robin's thumb as incriminating Robin, then we have to interpret all the circumstantial evidence against David as being incriminating too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

This creates a quandary for the Bain defence.  The manner in which this evidence has been interpreted by the Bain team actually opens up the whole Pandora's box of evidence against David, because, for the sake of balance, we now have the right to interpret all of it in the manner in which the police originally did.  If not, then the prosecution has the right to write off this evidence in much the same way that Karam wrote off all the evidence against David, because there is nothing actually tangible about this new observation.  It just consists of a couple of marks on Robin's thumb.  We do not really know what the marks consist of.  They will no doubt be analyzed now on a thousand different renditions of the original photograph and pulled apart until there is nothing left.

However, Joe Karam, being on such a single minded path of persuasion has mentally blocked out all of the evidence against David because in his mind it is "destroyed".  His followers, such as the person who noticed this "evidence" and Melanie Reid, who has always been a supporter, are equally blinded by a belief system that appears to know no respite, especially in relation to the compensation bid which is yet to be resolved.  If a judge is going to interpret the thumb marks as being incriminating against Robin then they need to interpret all the above as being incriminating against David, and the result of that process is a conclusion that David is more likely to have been the murderer than his father.

Up till now, there has really been no circumstantial evidence against Robin, the case against him having been based on speculation about motive.  The Bain defence team are excited because this is a first.  They have a lot more circumstantial "evidence" to find in order to balance out the circumstantial evidence incriminating David.


For someone who is reloading in a hurry, and is in the process of killing his family these lines are very slight and straight. Would he not be shaking as surely his adrenaline is pumping. Maybe he only loaded one round? However if he has had to reload more than one round I would have thought from my own experience that there would have been more smudging and a lot more residue. The other marks in the other pictures are much more pronounced than Robin's and these were done in a controlled environment without the same pressure and without the same adrenaline pumping through their bodies. Picture yourself being nervous or in a rush while you load rounds into a magazine what is the likelihood that every round you load makes a mark in the exact position every time. I am still not convinced it was Robin but can understand why others would be more convinced. Remember this is only one part of the evidence!


Subject: Re: Robin Bain back in the gun...

Newsgroups: nz.general


On Thursday, 27 June 2013 06:31:34 UTC+12, David  wrote:

> Okay... I already made up my mind who did it.


WOBH gives an updfated version of DPFs list of things that have to hold in order for Robin to have done it, on http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/06/not-one-cent-new-evidence-proves-nothing/


It was a lucky guess when David Bain told 111 ambulance officer they are all dead, despite later saying he only saw two bodies


Again a lucky guess when DB told police officer they are all dead


The 25 minute gap between DB finding his family dead and calling 111 is in no way connected with trying to wash clothes and removed blood.


The bruise on David’s head and scratches on his chest and graze on his knee – none of which he could explain, were just a coincidence


The lens from his glasses found in Stephen’s room happened weeks ago and he never noticed OR someone else had borrowed the glasses


The lack of fresh injuries on Robin despite the massive struggle with Stephen is just the product of healthy living


David’s finger prints on the gun are from a previous time


David telling a friend he had premonition something bad was going to happen was a genuine psychic experience


Stephen’s blood on David’s clothing was nothing to do with the struggle – OR someone else borrowed his clothes


The lock and key to the rifle being found in David’s room is not relevant as they were obviously placed there


Robin decided to wash David’s green jersey to remove blood and the fibres from jersey found under Steven’s finger nails


David’s bloody palm print on the washing machine was from him checking the bodies


The Ambulance officer was wrong when he said in his opinion Bain was pretending to have a fit


Robin Bain would logically wear gloves to prevent fingerprints despite it being a murder-suicide


Robin Bain didn’t wear gloves as he loaded the magazine…then put on gloves to kill his family, then took them off without smudging the “magazine marks”.


That Robin Bain would type a message on a computer for David telling him he is the only one who deserves to live, instead of writing a note. A hand written note incidentally would have cleared David.


Also that having just shot his family, and knowing David was due home, that Robin would wait 44 seconds for the computer to boot up to leave a message


Robin would decide David deserved to live, but go out of his way to frame him for murder


Robin Bain placed fibres from Davids jersey under Stephen’s finger nails


Robin would finish shooting his family, remove the magazine, place it on the ground carefully on standing upright on its side, then shoot himself so that when his body fell his hand was right beside the magazine which remained standing on its side.


Robin Bain would shoot himself with a gun in the most awkward way possible?


That Robin Bain changed jerseys after he had killed his family and in particular Stephen Bain, washed the jersey, hung it on the line and then change into a brown jersey before killing himself?


That there is a logical reason that David Bain can not account for the injuries on his face, the bruise or the scraped knee, yet knows he did not have them during his paper run.


That Robin Bain put blood on the inside of David’s duvet and on his light switch


That there is an innocent explanation for why David says he put on washing before he discovered the bodies, yet there is a blood print on the washing machine.


That Laniet was being paranoid when she told friends she was scared of David


That the “family meeting” David called the previous night and insisted everyone attended was not a way to make sure everyone would be at home to kill.


That Robin Bain would wear a hat while shooting himself in the head.


That even though David told a relative he hated his father, his father did not know this and deliberately decided David was the only one who deserved to live


That David either imagined hearing Laniet gurgling or she gurgled 20 minutes after death


That Laniet allegations of incent with Robin was true, as was her claims she had given birth three times by the age of 12 and a half.


That Robin Bain managed to kill four family members without a single trace of his blood, skin, or DNA being left at the scene.


That it is a coincidence that on the morning of the murders Bain took his dog onto a property, ensuring he would be noticed to give him an alibi.


That the magazine found balanced on an edge next to Robin was not placed there by David but fell onto its edge from Robin’s arms.


That a sickly Robin Bain managed to overpower his teenage son who put up a furious fight


That Robin Bain went and got the newspaper from outside, despite planning to shoot himself


That Robin Bain did all of the above without taking a piss.

Just watched the police Commissioner, Malcolm Burgess, interviewed on Campbell Live.

He showed a finger print of Robin's right thumb which shows the exact parallel marks.  This means that the marks were cuts rather than residue.  Pretty conclusive and that convinces me.  Gunpowder residue doesn't leave finger print marks!!

Phew!! Thank goodness for that explanation.  I couldn't explain these marks and now I have a perfectly feasible answer.

Pity TV3 didn't give the police a chance to be part of the 3rd degree programme.

It's ok, found it.  According to the police:

"These prints show an absence of fingerprint markings in the same place on his right thumb as the dark marks appearing in the photograph. Our fingerprint experts advise that this is consistent with someone sustaining cuts or damage to the fingers prior to prints being taken, which would then affect the print image."