Wednesday, 7 July 2010

Robin Bain

I didn’t see last night’s doco on Robin Bain—the one that has David Bain’s lawyer “absolutely disgusted”—so I can’t really comment about what was said, but if you did see it what did you think?

The only comment I’d make is that the Bain murders are a rare example of a “binary” case, one in which the guilty party can only be one of either Party X or Party Y, and therefore proving the guilt or innocence of one has a reciprocal impact on the other.


  1. Despite Karam's claim the doco was "unadulterated rubbish", the case presented was practically open and shut. The evidence (or lack there of) was presented in roughly two halves, dismantling first the forensic evidence, then the alleged motive. While the later could hardly be considered a robust cross examination, it did a good job of dismissing the incest charges as flimsy and contradictory hearsay. The forensic case, however, was as clearcut as it gets: there's no way Robin had anything to do with the murders, with the single most compelling piece of evidence begging the question: how does a dead man wipe his fingerprints off the murder weapon?

  2. I thought Bryan Bruce over-played some of his arguments, there were weaknesses with several of them. For example, he didn't discuss the possibility that Robin washed his hands, which is why there were no bloodstained fingerprints on the gun.

    ~Which doesn't exaplain the total absence of fingerprints by Robin~

    Bruce's doco had a very good point: a dead person can, effectively, be put on trial, with no one to defend their reputation. Why didn't the Crown do more to defend Robin? Well, the defence did not have to disclose their arguments or evidence in advance, which would have constrained their ability to follow up the slurs against Robin. But they must have known that "David didn't do it, Robin did" was going to be the main attack of the defence team?

  3. I thought it was biased rubbish. I still don't know who did it, and this did not help.


  4. It would be nice if Karam could point out which part of the array of blood evidence is rubbish.

    I was impressed by the blood evidence, but I don't think the new evidence concerning the photocopier salesman's testimony was at all compelling. A footnote on a sidebar.

    It would also be nice if the public were free to comment on the case without Bain's lawyers threatening a lawsuit. Very, very poor show by his lawyers in my opinion.

  5. I thought the evidence was very strong. The killer had a huge fight with Stephen - blood everywhere, even on the doorposts from when he walked by, and yet there was none of Stephen's blood on Robin - on his person, clothes, or watch. We are meant to believe that Robin killed all the members of his family, took off all his bloodstained clothes (which have never been found, apart from the green jersey which was put in the wash) and put on a whole set of new clothes without getting any of the victims' blood on him.

    And the fingerprints, of course. As Jameson points out above, Karam can claim that the docu is "unadulterated rubbish" in the Herald this morning, but he doesn't say why.

  6. Bryan Bruces doco confirmed that the forensic evidence poroves David Bain is the murderer. But thats always been patently obvious.Bruce should have left it at that. Getting involved in motive blurs the issue. The fact is that the jury in the second trial freed a mass murderer.

  7. I can't remember the details now. Was Stephen's blood found anywhere on David?

  8. @ Martin: "Getting involved in motive blurs the issue."

    Bruce was affording Robin Bain the fair hearing he didn't get at the trials. Prior to this doco I thought Robin had, at the very least, had sex with his underage daughter and possibly gotten her pregnant. Now I'm certain he was neither a murderer nor a rapist.

    He deserves to have his name cleared.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.