The case against Bain

In an earlier thread on David Bain, a commenter called Dave made a superb comment on why he thought Bain was guilty. It is worth of a wider audience and the relevant parts are repeated here.

The evidence of David Bain’s guilt is so compelling the case is open and shut. There is no room for doubt. The Privy Council decision does not question this, it simply says a jury should also have had before it all the various red herrings Karam has thrown in over the years.

In no particular order:

– Stephen put up a strong fight with his killer, who shot him through the hand and tried to throttle him before inflicting the fatal shot. Many fibres from David’s jersey were under Stephen’s fingernails. David had unexplainable bruises and scratches consistent with being in a fight. Robin did not and no fibres from Robin’s clothes were under Stephen’s fingernails.

– It is inconceivable that Robin could have killed his wife and three of his children, getting into a prolonged fight with Stephen in the process, without emptying a full overnight bladder first (or in the fight). Also Robin was a frail, sick elderly man unlikely to be able to overcome the strapping Stephen in a fierce fight. Also, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen died a couple of hours before Robin, yet Karam expects us to believe he did not go to the toilet between killing them around 5am and himself around 7pm.

– David’s bloody fingerprints were on light switches and walls, and his bloody handprint was on the side of the washing machine where his bloody clothes were washed, as well as on the detergent packet. Robin’s bloody prints were nowhere.

– David’s gloves were used by the killer, presumably to mask the killer’s prints. Soaked in blood, the gloves were found in the debris
of the fight in Stephen’s room. Why would Robin use David’s gloves when he had his own and why would he use gloves anyway if he intended to kill himself?

– Bloody footprints made by a sock found in the washing machine were found throughout the house. While these could have been made by either Robin or David, if either were the killer, Robin had no blood anywhere on him (other than his fatal head wound) or his clothes or socks, nor was the room-to-room pattern of the prints consistent with how Robin would have entered the house from the caravan he slept in outside, but it was consistent with the killer having come from inside the house.

– While Robin had no blood on him (other than the fatal headwound) or his clothes, David’s clothes were soaked in blood consistent with the blood that would have gushed from the victims when being shot at close range. He also had their blood on his skin under his clothes, and on his under-wear, which had soaked through the outer clothes before he took them off to wash and which he did not notice.

– Robin was shot in the top of the head as he kneeled, consistent with him having just come into the house from the caravan to pray as he normally did at 7am. While it is theoretically possible to have held the rifle up at an awkward angle to commit suicide by shooting it into the top of one’s head with the trigger finger hand far outstretched, there are much easier and more definite ways to do it, eg put the barrel into one’s mouth aimed at the roof of the mouth. Robin’s fatal wound is consistent with being shot by David standing over him and not with suicide.

– Robin’s prints were not on the gun at all, meaning he could not have used it to kill himself.

– David’s prints were on the gun in a position consistent with where he would have held it while the killer wiped it clean of prints in the blood splattered all over it by the killings (fine wiped fresh blood was all over the gun). Karam claims David’s prints on the gun came from a hunting expedition. Even if that were so, Robin could not have wiped the gun clean after the killings because he was dead. I think this is the most compelling evidence of all.

Many other pieces of evidence also point to David being the killer but the above, all put before the jury, are incontrovertible. One also has to ask why, if Robin left a computer message saying David was the only one who deserved to live, that he went out of his way to frame David for the murders.

The Privy Council says that the Court of Appeal was wrong to decide that the subsequent “evidence” put forward by Karam about Robin’s mental state, his alleged incest with Laniet, etc, etc, would not have altered the jury’s verdict. The Privy Council says it should be for juries to decide all the evidence, not judges on appeal. The law lords
expressely made no findings of guilt or innocence when ordering a retrial, saying that was for a jury.

I’ve also always wondered why Robin Bain would do a suicide note on a computer! This was the early 1990s and Robin Bain was over 60 years old. Did he even use the computer himself normally? As Dave said if Robin thought David Bain was the only one who deserved to live, why did he so go out of his way to frame him?

Oh and Juha has further proof on his blog!