Laniet-Robin Incest cannot be Substantiated

The allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Laniet and Robin Bain cannot be substantiated.  They are based on hearsay.  The testimony was initially provided by a Dean Cottle whom the judge in the first trial deemed to be unreliable.  Dean Cottle was subpoenaed to turn up at both the original trial and the retrial and both times failed to turn up.  In the end his affidavit was read out by the judge in the retrial, an occurrence that has been questioned on two fronts a) since the witness did not turn up his testimony could not be tested and b) the judge reading it gave it more weight than it might otherwise had if read out by a court clerk.

The testimony was further corroborated by a prostitute and a dairy owner, both who made similar statements in the retrial of 2009.  Many have argued that Laniet was disturbed and was also telling stories about becoming pregnant and having babies, both of which have not been substantiated.  In light of that, Laniet can be considered an unreliable witness herself and may have been saying things just to attract attention.  It is well known from McNeish's account of the Bain family that Robin and Margaret had rather overt sexual behaviour in their earlier years which might have contributed to a certain openness about sexual matters from the children and certainly greater awareness of it than the norm.  If Robin was conducting illicit affairs with his daughter it seems unusual that she should choose to give up her independent flatting arrangement to go and live with her father at the schoolhouse prior to the murders.  The other person who lived with them, Kyle Cunningham boarded for up to four months with the pair. According to a report in the herald:

Under cross-examination by Crown prosecutor Cameron Mander, Mr Cunningham said Robin "seemed as normal as Robin Bain was any day of the week" on the Friday before the killings.

He said Robin and Laniet appeared to have a normal father and daughter relationship.

Mr Cunningham also confirmed that Robin helped him move into the Taieri Beach School house.

This testimony counters any idea that there was incest happening.  Laniet was 17 at the time and at that age is very unlikely to voluntarily live with an abuser when there were other alternatives.  On the contrary, for every story suggesting incest, there is another story suggesting that Laniet was scared of David Bain and he was the reason that she left school and then left home.  This includes stories of David threatening family members with his gun and planning to commit an criminal act while using the paper run as an alibi.


Again a superb post Kent that exposes succinctly  the dubiousness of the heresay allegations.Now am not sure it is now wheter it is  an urban myth but i did read i,was it "the Mask of Sanity"? ,that Cottle always believed that David committed the murders .

Kent, I notice that you dismiss allegations about Robin's relationship with his daughter as hearsay and then you turn around and do exactly the same about alleged threats made by David. All hearsay.

Here is some decisive evidence.

1. The prosecution was asking us to believe that the bloodied footprints were David's. Too small.

2. Blood in the silencer crossed the room from Robin's temple

3. The jersey the killer allegedly wore fitted David. It did not.

4. Only David had access to the firearm safe. Wrong. David's nylon parka with the key inside had been in Robin's sleepout since the midwinter swim a week before.

5. David's dog acted normally on the paper delivery after five killings. Ludicrous.

6. Robin had motives. David did not.

7. In general sons do not kill their mothers but disffected husbands often do.

8. Sexual impropiety is not uncommon in religious housholds.

9. We are asked to believe that David would deliver his papers knowing his father could come down to the house at any time and discover the shootings.

I don't think so!

My first response to this is to read the scenario found here.  This was written by someone with very close ties to the retrial.

Then in response to your points as follows;

1. There was never any doubt that the prints were David's

3.  All of the clothes implicated in the murder were over-sized and fitted David rather than Robin, who was rather slight in comparison.

5. Sacha, David’s dog, had to be put down following complaints due to aggressive behaviour.

6.  David's motives included money owed in relation to a motorcycle he crashed, in relation to inheritance money and in relation to keeping hidden his behaviour toward other members of the family from being revealed.

7.  The most violent people statistically are men of the age that David Bain was at the time of the murders.  Men of Robin Bain's age statistically are not inclined to violence.

8.  Read the testimony that came in after the retrial

9.  David Bain knew his father's routine well.  There is an unaccounted 20 minutes between the time of David Bain's arrival at his home and his 11 call.  This probably accounts for the margin of error he needed to ensure that he came home before his father awoke and came into the living room to pray.

In reply to by Stuart Mathieson



Schmoepooh If you were to spend a little more time reading some of the evidence files on Counterspin and elsewhere you would have a better grip on the evidence as a whole, for instance the only forensic expert to see and measure the bloody footprints concluded that they were a fit for David not Robin, how on earth could other experts 15 years later even begin to guess how much blood to apply to socks to try and match prints that they have never seen. Point number 2. The shot to Robins head was administered at close range and the fact that some of his blood was in the barrel or silencer means that he was indeed shot at close range. 3.David was able to put on the jersey at the first trial admittedly it was a tight fit but so what we all know our favourite woollen jerseys shrink. 4. There was no firearm safe!! this shows how little you have read about this case, the key David usually used to unlock the trigger lock for his rifle was in the parker in the caravan, but as admitted by David there was a spare key that only he knew about, and it was that key found still in the trigger lock on David's bedroom floor, David said he kept that hidden spare key in a pottery trinket box on a desk in his room.5. There were only 4 killings when David was doing the alibi paper round, and I am sure David would not have had the dog with him when he was shooting. 6. David had motives and Laniet freely decided to stay with her father proving she did not fear him, but she was a troubled teen and did tell many conflicting stories to her teachers etc. 7. killers can be fathers and sons 8. religious and non religious can be found to be guilty of sexual impropriety. 9. David knew exactly what time his father came into pray in the front room and he was there waiting after he established his alibi by doing his paper round. You have come to the right place all you have to do is read a lot more so you know the evidence inside out.