Thread: The bain retrial ....... (pt2)

yup they sure are.....

anyway here is what the privvy council came up with that was reason to order the re-trial.

1. Robin Bain's mental state The jury did not know that Robin (the father) was "quite seriously disturbed", had reportedly hit a student at the school where he was principal, and had published brutal and sadistic children's stories in the school's newsletter, one of which involved the serial murder of members of a family.[7]

2. Motive Laniet had apparently told a friend just before the killings that she was planning to confront her parents that weekend about an incestuous relationship between her and her father Robin, but the trial judge had ruled the friend's evidence inadmissible because he saw it as unreliable. The jury therefore never heard about this possible motive for Robin.[8]
(The exclusion of this evidence was the principal question in the first appeal.)[9] Since then, two other people had come forward stating that Laniet had told them about the incest, and another two had given supporting statements.[10]


3. Size of bloody sock prints Prints from a right sock impregnated with blood were detected using luminol in Margaret's room, going in and out of Laniet's room, and in the hallway outside Margaret's room. They all seemed to be from the same foot, measured at 280 mm in length. These were in places where Robin would not have gone under the Crown's theory of events. It was accepted during the trial that the prints were David's, and the prosecutor summed up saying they were too big to be Robin's. The jury were not told Robin's feet were measured to be 270 mm in length. Later measurements showed David's feet to be 300 mm in length. According to the Privy Council report, the new evidence "throws real doubt" on the assumption during the trial that the prints could not have been Robin's.[11]


4. Time the computer was switched on The jury was told and later reminded by the judge that the computer was turned on at precisely 6:44 am, just after David had returned home. However the exact time was not precisely recorded. A computer advisor employed by the University of Otago determined the time that the computer was switched by identifying how long it had been going, and what the current time of day was. However he was not wearing a watch himself and relied on the watch of an accompanying constable, DC Anderson. The constable's watch had no seconds hand and only five minute interval divisions, and later upon examination appeared to be two minutes fast. During the Privy Council appeal both sides agreed that the computer could have been turned on as early as 6:39:49 am.[12]


5. Time David returned home Someone was seen by a passing motorist entering the gate at 65 Every St at 6:45 am. The reliability of this time was left more doubtful than necessary in the minds of the jury, because they were not told that the police had checked the car's clock. Nor were they (or the defence) told of a second statement made by the motorist, in which she mentioned that she saw the yellow paper bag over his left shoulder. After retiring, the jury asked to read the motorist's statement, regarding when David arrived home; the judge then re-read her (first) statement.[13]


6. Ownership of glasses The jury heard a statement from an optometrist that glasses found in David's room were David's, conflicting with David's testimony that they were his mother's. David was then cross-examined about this in a way that raised doubt over his credibility. The optometrist had in fact changed his mind shortly before testifying, and believed his statement had been changed to say they were the mother's, but this had not happened. The jury asked a question about this issue after retiring, and were reminded of the conflicting testimony by the judge. The Privy Council concluded that while the ownership of the glasses was not a vital matter in itself, the conflicting evidence may have detracted from David's credibility in the eyes of the jury.[14]


7. Left-hand lens The left-hand lens of these glasses was found in Stephen's room. During the trial, Detective Weir testified that it was found there in the open. This was more consistent with the Crown's case that it become dislodged during the struggle there than what is now accepted, that it was found under a skate boot under a jacket, and was covered in dust. This may have misled the jury.[15]


8. David's bloody fingerprints on rifle David's fingerprints were found on the rifle, impressed there by bloody fingers. During the trial it was assumed that this was human blood. (Other blood on the rifle was definitely human.) A test of the fingerprint blood afterwards did not test positive for human DNA, and the prints may have resulted from possum or rabbit shooting months beforehand.[16]


9. Laniet's gurgling noise The jury was told that only the murderer could have heard Laniet gurgling. The second Court of Appeal heard some contradictory evidence and concluded it was not so clear-cut. The third Court of Appeal decided that it was, but was criticised by the Privy Council for having stepped outside its reviewing role here.[

Sounds good enough for compensation to me.

Originally Posted by tysonzane

I've been on the fence for this one but i'm now leaning towards David killing them. What about the fact that the gun that was used if held in close range (ie against your head in suicide) would have left gun powder marks all over the fathers face and sizzled most of his hair.

Yeah, all the armchair ballistic technicians mention that, while conviniently forgetting the rifle had a suppressor fitted to it, and ignoring the length of barrel required to get full powder burn out of the round used in a killing.

F. Scott Fitzgerald has an indispensable quote: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at once and still retain the ability to function." Or as I like to call it, "David killed his family and the Police fucked up the investigation".

(Shamelessly adapted from a Bill Maher book)

Originally Posted by Baxter

I was originally 90/10 he did it, but I'm closer to 60/40 after the recent trial; ie now we actually got to hear evidence of a potential serious motive for the father and that people had noticed the father was going a bit mental in the time leading to the event.

The Herald had a good article about it being an evidential case against David vs a motivational case against Robin. Obviously the motivational case was strong enough to provide reasonable doubt.

Well apart from the fact his family was fucked, David had no motive.

If he was a highly religious man I could belive he would do it to send them all to a better place....But really the guy is Joe Bloggs......He drives and audi 80 and was asking me about putting some mag wheels on it !!!

What we have here is a guy that lost the best years of his life through injustice.

And after seeing him speak on tv tonight, he's either a very good liar or indeed innocent.

A guy that so often is wrong here so well speaks the truth.......

this guy maintained his innocence so long and for some bizzare reason has the backing of an ex all black/squillionare.....I cant belive so many people still think he did it !!

Originally Posted by DrRubber

Well apart from the fact his family was fucked, David had no motive.

Fits in quite nicely with what the Herald article/commentary was saying.

Originally Posted by Joe Roughan in the NZHerald

Motive is a persuasive factor in the minds of most people but it is not nearly as persuasive in criminal law. In fact it can be a hindrance to a proper investigation; the obvious explanation is often not the truth.

Police do not have to establish a motive to press a successful prosecution, physical evidence connecting the person to the crime is considered more reliable proof.

All this is explained to juries at a trial but jurors are not lawyers. My guess is that, like the rest of us, they spend more time discussing possible motives than blood stains and other forensic detail.

John Roughan: Silent Bain the only one who knows - National - NZ Herald News

Originally Posted by M3_Power

4. I thought the prosecution was idiotic for focusing on the bloody foot print issue ... it reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial 'if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" ...

The most retarded thing was the prosecution putting up three pathologists who all disagreed with each other. There's reasonable doubt before the defense said anything.

He has just done a bit of an OE as he was robbed of that oppourtunity when he wasyoung.

Marc, he must be guilty cos the internets sez so eh .......