Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

Painting : Napoleon at Fontainbleau

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

The adage has been widely attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte. It is also known as Hanlon’s razor.

When it comes to the Bain murders, there are many who are in blatant violation of this adage, including some for whom I have inordinate fondness, admiration and respect. For example

This Travisty of Justice … the conviction of Daivid Bain… is what happens when you convict some one on circumstantial evidence and a bogus police fabricated account of events.


the Police [had] been trying to make the evidence point to David.

I now think the most plausible explanation is that the Police staged this photo.

Apparently, the evidence that convicted David Bain in 1995 was “fabricated”. David Bain was the victim of a “witch hunt”. To which I say (loudly, clearly and in capital letters) BULLSHIT!

I have it on good authority (i.e., hearsay) that the police were merely incompetent. After David Bain’s badly acted 111 call, a friend of a friend of a friend was one of the first police officers on the scene. He reported that the scene was so blatantly obviously a “son kills family” scene and lame attempt at a cover-up that they thought it would be the easiest open and shut case in history … seems they were just too damn blasé about the forensics. 🙁

Here’s Rodders to give them some harsh words. Twelve reasons to worry about the Bain case.

13 thoughts on “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”

  1. Malice? No.

    Binnie contorts throughout his report avoiding attributing intent to the action of Police and others… it’s all just incompetence. But that is an unrealistic perspective. Binnie can’t make any accusation of deliberate obstruction because he would have to prove it.

    In the Arthur Alan Thomas case the evidence was planted with good intent – they knew he was guilty and thought he would get away with it.

    The biblical standard for finding guilt is not “beyond reasonable doubt” it is “by two or three witnesses” (which I think covers circumstantial witnesses too.) In the Bain case I’m not aware of even one witness. All of the evidence is consistent with David’s account (not that he had to prove his innocence.) Your friend’s friend’s friend can’t know – they are a dangerous person spreading rumours.

  2. In the Bain case I’m not aware of even one witness.

    That’s because “they’re all dead, they’re all dead.” David killed them all. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

  3. Reed, Robin’s fingerprints are NOT on the murder weapon. After he went on a killing spree. And had a bloody and fearsome struggle with his younger son. And then did a contortionist act to shoot himself in the head. And he left no prints? Must have wiped the rifle clean of prints after he killed himself. Yeah right. C’mon, it just doesn’t stack up. ALL the evidence points clearly to David. I’m genuinely baffled that you and Tim can’t see this.

  4. There are lots of unrecognisable partial prints – didn’t we discuss this already?
    The gun can’t have been wiped clean.
    Are David prints found in incriminating locations e.g in a standard gun grip as evidence he was the person last to hold the gun?

    Have you ever watched an infomercial when the person demonstrates how hard it is to use you existing product (vacuum cleaner or whatever) – when I saw on the news the Prosecution demonstrating how difficult it would have been for Robin to shoot himself I thought it was the same actor.

  5. David Bain in an interview said…

    … at some point during the first few weeks, um, [the aunts and uncles] were convinced by the Police that I was the killer and they all turned against me and the – from then on I was interrogated not only by the, um, by my lawyer by the, um, ah, psychiatrists and experts that came to view me but also by my family who would come in and ask extremely leading and open and hurtful questions and then apparently go and relate it straight back, straight to Police officer after walking out of the prison and seeing me so totally, you know, misusing their relationship with me to the point where I actually – you know, it became so hurtful I stopped actually allowing them to see me.

    You know how my friend has had trouble clearing his name – I’m quite sure the reason everyone (40 or more people) has been so obstructive is that the Police are telling them, confidentially, what a bad bugger he is.

    At one point the Privacy Commission said something that showed the Police had misled them so we asked for the correspondence between the Police and the Privacy Commission. The Privacy Commission refused to provide this even though they were sharing our correspondence with the Police.

    There is a corrupt culture in the Police and your friend’s friend’s friend is part of it – no malice required only arrogance.

  6. Reed.

    People who have experienced police corruption in their own lives see police corruption in the Bain case.

    People who have experienced child molestation in their own lives see child molestation in the Bain case.

    It’s that simple.

    Though seeing, they do not see;
    though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

    In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

  7. People who have experienced police corruption in their own lives see police corruption in the Bain case.

    It took Johan a while to recognise the corruption that he was encountering.

    To begin with his bias was to trust the Police and expect that everyone was dealing with him in good faith.

    A person can have a denial bias if they haven’t experienced something. Though seeing, they do not see…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *