David Bain’s sister Arawa was such a nice young woman. I met her once, in 1993, the year before she died. I was living in Dunedin, and one day Arawa was having a cup of tea in my kitchen, with my flatmate with whom she was friends, and I was introduced. It was a brief encounter.
After she was murdered in 1994, I spoke to my flatmate again. There was no doubt in her mind who the killer was. And there is no doubt in the minds of the extended Bain family who was responsible for the gruesome carnage that took place at 65 Every Street, Dunedin, on the morning of 20 June 1994.
Within days, the police had arrested David Bain, the sole survivor of the slaughter, on suspicion of murder. The following year, after a 3 week trial, David Bain was convicted of the murder of his five family members and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 16 year non-parole period. I figured the police had got the right man, and thought no more of it.
But then there were the appeals. I can’t remember when – I think it was at the time of the second Court of Appeal decision in September 2003 – that I had a sudden, horrifying thought. What if David Bain was actually innocent? What a horrible fate, to return from one’s morning paper round to find that one’s own father had shot dead one’s entire family and then turned the gun on himself – and then to be wrongly convicted on five counts of murder!
Was David Bain just another lying, murdering psychopath or was he the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice? I had to form my own opinion, and so, with no preconceived opinion, I set about EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE for myself. As I sifted through the evidence, two things happened. I was sickened to my stomach. And the more I read, the more obvious it became that David, not his father Robin, was the perpetrator of this horrendous crime. Quite simply, the mass of evidence points overwhelmingly to David’s guilt.
What I now struggle to understand is how so many people remain convinced of David’s innocence. Someone close to me, whom I will not name, is convinced that David Bain is innocent, seemingly on the sole grounds that David is “such a nice young man”.
32 thoughts on “Such a nice young woman”
Good call Richard – you’re right on the money.
An ex office mate.
What’s the compelling evidence?
What’s the compelling evidence for David’s guilt?
Reed, there is no compelling evidence. Certainly no single piece of evidence that clinches it. But in terms of probabilities, the evidence points overwhelmingly to David’s guilt. And the “balance of probabilities” is what’s important now.
What is the overwhelming evidence for David’s guilt?
1. David was known by all the victims. Statistical fact (oxymoron) – most murders are committed by someone known by the victim.
2. David owned the murder weapon. Statistical fact – most murders are committed by the owner of the murder weapon.
3. David was at the murder scene around the time of the murders… 🙂
4. Robin Bain’s fingerprints were not on the murder weapon.
5. David making himself conspicuous during his paper round that morning (to assist with an abili) and that paper run being earlier than usual.
6. The computer being turned-on after David was seen finishing his paper run.
7. David’s behaviour after the murder such as faking fits and “black hands” comments.
8. The fact the murder victims (except Robin) were all clearly killed before David did his paper run. And that if Robin somehow murdered them; David would’ve literally got up not long after their murders (with him somehow being amiss of the murders) and walked past the murder scenes and down the stairs with his load of washing.
9. The fact that David even put those clothes (which were his) in the washing machine and washed them, which included a woollen jersey that would shrink under such a cycle (and which it consequently did).
And the fact that the Stephen Bain scene was clearly very bloody and that the murderer got bloody too (the sock prints and the doorframe smudges).
David Bain never denied the clothes were his nor that he put them in the wash.
10. Margaret Bain’s (now damaged and bloody) spectacles being found freshly placed in David’s room. But a lens from them found in Stephen’s room!
And the fact that the killer went back and shot Laniet again, this second time turning the light on.
And then the fact that the first shot at Arawa downstairs missed, suggesting that the shooter was visually impaired.
I could go beyond the 10.
And then there’s the evidence against it being Robin.
Just grow up and face reality. Yes as a matter of fact; geeky-looking men are no less savage than anyone else.
I apologise to Richard if you ever read this, the last sentence was directed toward “reed”….
All good, Been. Thanks for your comments.
From the Binnie Report…
So according to Justice Binnie: The lack of Robin Bain’s fingerprints on the weapon is to be overlooked because (according to him) it is “common” (*cough*) for people not to leave prints all over the weapon when they commit murder (*cough*).
Therefore: All forensic evidence on the weapon is to be overlooked.
Oh how convenient. So we also overlook the copious amounts of bloodied fingerprints of David Bain on the murder weapon. You know: The sort anyone would expect after the brutal fashion in which was required to murder Stephen Bain.
Yes. “No evidence” indeed…
Yes you are dead right – David was the culprit definitely.
Bin the Binnie report. It’s disingenuous dreck.
How common is “quite common”?
Did the defence expert also testify that it is “quite common” in cases of gunshot suicide subsequent to a bloody homicidal rampage not to find fingerprints of the individual who killed himself? Because that’s the actual scenario.
What “other” evidence pointing to Robin as the killer? Binnie thinks that absence of Robin’s fingerprints on the rifle is evidence pointing to Robin as the killer? FFS! There is no evidence pointing to Robin as the killer.
More common than rare and definitely more common than impossible.
I think you misunderstand Binnie here… other evidence points to Robin being the killer – that’s not to say that the absence of an identifiable print from Robin is evidence against Robin.
Robin’s bloody footprints is an example of evidence against Robin Bain.
And what eividnce would there be pointing to Robin Bain being the killer?
Let’s see. There’s some testimony from people that Laniet told them that she was having an affair with him.
Most of these people are dodgy people.
Laniet herself was a bit dodgy. The poor thing was clearly very deprived of attention from her mother and openly confided (got attention) with people who gave her attention; completely concocted cock-and-bull stories about how she’d attempted suicide, had been raped as an adolescent, how she’d given birth as an adolescent etc.
The only remotely damning thing is that Laniet was a sex worker. Usually (not always); teenaged sex workers are the victims of abuse and that abuse is more often than not sexual abuse.
It ties in with the entire situation of needing to get away from their home environment (being a sex worker was very possibly preferable to living in the Bain household with mad Margaret and domineering David, at least at first), the loss of self-esteem that makes Prostitution viable and the ability to entirely switch off any emotional connection to their sexual partner.
However; it appears that Laniet was not a sex worker for very long and that she really couldn’t hack it, which suggests that she was amongst the minority of teenaged sex workers who have never been sexually abused.
Furthermore, If she was indeed previously a victim of sexual abuse: Who’s to say that Robin had anything to do with it? Looking at the family profile; my first suspect of any sexual abuse of Laniet would be her mother Margaret, and then closely followed by her rape-fantasising brother David.
At the end of the day; this only piece of evidence against Robin is extremely far-fetched and purely based on dodgy testimony from sources far more dodgy than the people who give damming testimony about David’s rape fantasies, Stephen confiding in them David creeping into his room and pointing a gun, etc. It is both incredible and embarrassing that it upheld-up in court.
And the it doesn’t come close to the evidence against it being Robin…
But they’re not Robin’s bloody footprints, they’re David’s. Unless you call in an “independent forensic science consultant” who “used David Bain to do the testing”!
Pull the other one, Reed. It’s got a bloodied sock on it. 🙂
Yes the absence of blood inside David’s running shoes…
…just like the absence of blood inside Robin’s shoes? Or blood anywhere on Robin (and unlike David who had specks of blood all over his clothing).
Of course there was no blood inside David’s running shoes because… …*drumroll*… ….David took the socks he used to creep around the house (and now covered in Stephen’s blood) off and threw them, and other bloody clothing, in the washing machine!
He then went back upstairs to his room put on fresh socks and his running shoes and went off on his paper run.
And before you might ask: It makes no sense for Robin to have done this instead if he was committing a murder suicide, because it would make no difference if he died wearing bloody socks or not. Given how David was supposed to be the “one who deserved to stay”; would it not make the most sense for Robin to not try and cover any evidence whatsoever?
Well said. Robin didn’t need to cover up any evidence if he did it.
What bearing does the absence of blood inside David’s running shoes have on the conclusion that the footprints were probably made by Robin rather than David?
“Probably.” Gee, Binnie’s report is so quantitative. NOT.
What about the blood on David’s socks? And his opera gloves? And his rugby shorts? And his teeshirt? And the duvet and light switch in his bedroom? And the blood on the top of the washing machine with David’s fingerprints?
That’s from the Stuff.co.nz article I linked to above. And this.
The Crown story (to try and make sense of the evidence) is that David first killed everyone except Robin then did his paper run then killed Robin.
There was no blood in his shoes after a long walk/run which indicates that his feet (probably) weren’t bloody at the time of the paper run.
The curious incident of the gunshot residue… no gunshot residue was found on David’s hands.
There was also also little or not ink residue on David’s hands when he was taken away.
Why would that be? Because he comprehensively washed his hands!
(I think) the Crown story is that David put various items of clothing in the washing machine and turned it on before he went on his paper run.
But the point is that there was no blood in David’s shoes and no blood in Robin’s shoes. The fact that there was blood in neither man’s shoes ought not to lead to “the conclusion that the footprints were probably made by Robin rather than David Bain.” But it leads Binnie to this conclusion. And that leads me to the conclusion that Binnie is probably not an impartial judge of the evidence.
Sure, Reed. No gunshot residue on David’s hands. No gunshot residue on Robin’s hands. Which “leads me to the conclusion” that either David washed his own hands after shooting Robin, or David washed Robin’s hands after Robin shot himself.
Richard, you should read the Binnie report – I’m teasing you about the GSR – the Police tested David thoroughly (including taking swabs from his penis) but didn’t test him for GSR (?). Robin was not tested for GSR at the scene and contrary to official police procedure no steps were taken to preserve any GSR that may have been present.
Binnie’s conclusion was a logical conclusion based on the evidence.
You should read the report.
Well from the three quotes you’ve given me; I can immediately spot three strong logical fallacies.
In 2012 and 2013 political leaders in the NZ House of Representatives on Parliament TV channel reported the rapes and murders of the Bain family were filmed and available to the public to buy by credit card at TVNZs Avlon Studios news archives, 41 Percy Cameron Street, Lower Hutt, phone 049145600 but TVNZ has since sold the property.
David was brain-washed by his mother with all her devil speak. They were very close.