Murder on Every Street

Murder on Every Street

1

-45.892309, 170.536601

. .

.

.

.

.

.

_____________ _ _ _______ _ _ _

2

. .

.

.

.

.

.

Murder on Every Street

________ _____________ _ _ _______ _

3

Son returns to discover his slain family Otago Daily Times 21 Jun 1994 : p. 2

Five murdered on Every Street The Dominion 21 Jun 1994 : p. 5

Paper boy delivers death to family The Press 21 Jun 1994 : p. 1

Murder - suicide investigation in Dunedin home Herald on Sunday 21 Jun 1994 : p. 1

But the story does not end there. David Bain has always maintained his innocence; the gaps in the evidence used in court as well as new evidence that has since come to light, was able to support his claim. Yet David remained imprisoned for a crime he claims he did not commit.

The second trial that commenced on 6th March 2009 presents both sides of the controversial and still unsolved crime mystery as to who murdered the Bain family.

THE MURDER

It was a story that shocked New Zealand.

In the early hours of 20th June 1994, five members of the Bain family were shot dead in their Dunedin home. Four days later, David, the sole surviving member of the Bain family, was arrested and charged with their murder. A year later, David was found guilty and was sentenced to life time imprisonment.

THE FAMILY EVIDENCE

The Bain family 58 Robin, father 50 Margaret, mother 22 David, eldest son 20 Arawa, eldest daughter 17 Laniet, daughter 14 Stephen, youngest son

An operator in Dunedin received a 111 emergency call at 7:10 am on Monday, 20th June, 1994.

The caller was David Bain, a 22-year-old paper delivery boy.

It was apparent that David was in a very agitated state and could not express which emergency service he required.

The operator connected him to the Ambulance service, to whom David said that‌

THE DAY EVIDENCE

all his family were dead.

An operator in Dunedin received a 111 emergency call at 7:10 am on Monday, 20th June, 1994.

The caller was David Bain, a 22-year-old paper delivery boy.

It was apparent that David was in a very agitated state and could not express which emergency service he required.

The operator connected him to the Ambulance service, to whom David said that‌ 10

THE DAY EVIDENCE

all his family were dead.

11

An operator in Dunedin received a 111 emergency call at 7:10 am on Monday, 20th June, 1994.

The caller was David Bain, a 22-year-old paper delivery boy.

It was apparent that David was in a very agitated state and could not express which emergency service he required.

The operator connected him to the Ambulance service, to whom David said that‌ 12

THE DAY EVIDENCE

all his family were dead.

13

On the Monday, 20th June, 1994, New Zealanders awoke horrified to the news of the Bain family murders.

Five people had been shot as they lay sleeping at 65 Every Street, Dunedin.

The news bulletins said one family member had survived and as of yet, no one had been charged.

THE DAY

From the outset there was strong speculation that the father Robin Bain had killed his family, then himself, sparing only his eldest son David.

Four days later, New Zealand got their second biggest shock that week. Police arrested 22-year-old David Bain and charged him with the murder of his five family members; his father Robin, his mother Margaret, his sisters Arawa and Laniet and his younger brother Stephen.

15

New evidence shows Robin Bain suicide possible

David Bain failed to explain blood, says detective

The Dominion, 12 May 1995 : p. 3

The Press, 19 Apr 1997 : p. 3

Police tell of signs of struggle in youngest Bain’s room

Six areas of doubt in the Bain family murders

The Dominion, 13 May 1995 : p. 3

Sunday Star-Times 27 Apr 1997 : p. 5

David Bain’s bloody prints on rifle, court told

Bain’s uncle finally breaks the silence

Otago Daily Times 16 May 1995 p. 4

Otago Daily Times 23 Jun 1997 : p. 3

Thousands of bullets found in David Bain’s bedroom

Bain defence awaits forensic results

The Dominion, 19 May 1995 : p. 3

Otago Daily Times 29 Jul 1997 : p. 5

Bain felt ‘something horrible’ might happen

Did David Bain do it? Or was it Robin Bain’s dirty secret?

Otago Daily Times 20 May 1995 : p. 19

The Press 28 Nov 1997 : p. 1

David Bain knew mother was dead; eyes were open

David Bain found guilty on all five charges of murder

Otago Daily Times 26 May 1995 : p. 7

The Press 28 Jun 1997 : p. 16

David Bain has contemplated suicide he tells the jury

DNA link to accused: Brother’s blood found on Bain’s clothing,

Otago Daily Times 30 May 1995 : p. 1

Otago Daily Times 2 July 1997 : p. 2

David Bain found guilty; collapses in the courtroom

Who pulled the trigger?

David or Robin Bain?

Otago Daily Times 6 Nov 1995 : p. 5

Otago Daily Times, 26 Nov 1997 : p. 3

Access to Bain computer in doubt following report

Five-year fight to free David Bain

Otago Daily Times 11 Nov 1996 : p. 27

Otago Daily Times 20 Dec 2000 : p. 6

16

Witnesses describe David Bain’s ‘fit’ on floor

Otago Daily Times 23 Dec 2000 : p. 3

Otago Daily Times 13 Mar 2009 : p. 2

Pathologist rejects possibility of Robin Bain suicide

Laniet Bain told of sex with father

Otago Daily Times 17 Oct 2002 : p. 3

Otago Daily Times 13 May 2009 : p. 2

Bain case is going back to court once again

Robin Bain’s exposure of dark secret regarding Laniet

Otago Daily Times 21 Dec 2002 : p. 1

Otago Daily Times 16 May 2009 : p. 5

David Bain is ready to break the silence

New evidence found against Robin Bain

Herald on Sunday 8 May 2005 : p. 1

Otago Daily Times 18 May 2009 : p. 5

David Bain granted a fresh hearing

Robin Bain’s suicide ‘possible’ says expert

Otago Daily Times 8 Jun 2006 : p. 3

Otago Daily Times 9 June 2009 : p. 2

Bain seeks ‘normality’ after court quashes charges

Was Robin keeping a secret?

The Bain murder mystery

Otago Daily Times 16 May 2007 : p. 5

Otago Daily Times 12 Feb 2010 : p. 11

Bain retrial start delayed after new evidence was found

Evidence said to be ‘unreliable’ after 13 years

Otago Daily Times 25 Feb 2009 : p. 1

Otago Daily Times 14 Feb 2010 : p. 7

David Bain’s emergency call unique says expert

Public feels that the Bain murder case is still unsolved

Otago Daily Times 18 Mar 2009 : p. 2

The Press 23 Mar 2010 : p. 12

Bain family had lots of problems-witness

New Zealand’s most notorious and vicious crimes

Otago Daily Times 12 Mar 2009 : p. 3

Herald on Sunday 17 June 2010 : p. 2

TIMELINE EVIDENCE

The Bain murders: a psychological mystery?

17

The police and ambulance arrived at David’s address just after 7:35 am.

They entered the house by the front door and found David still talking to the Telecom operator. David said to the police that his mother and father were dead.

18

.

. . .

.

. . .

TIMELINE

20TH JUNE 1994 07:35AM

The police then searched the house and discovered five bodies, all shot in the head. David’s father Robin was found on the front lounge room floor. David’s mother Margaret and younger sister Laniet were found in their beds and his other sister Arawa and brother Stephen were found on the floor of their bedrooms. Stephen had marks and bruises which indicated he had been in a struggle, a fight for his life.

11:55AM

David could not explain to the police why he told the 111 operator that his whole family were dead when he had said to the police he had only seen his mother and father's bodies.

The police then began their investigations on what exactly had occurred in the early hours of that cold Monday morning.

12:05PM

The police soon discovered what appeared to be a suicide note typed on a computer which was in a small alcove through some curtains off the front lounge where Robin Bain was found. The assumed suicide note read ‘Sorry you are the only one who deserved to stay’. After discovering a 22 caliber rifle next to David’s father’s body, the police likely assumed that David’s father had shot the rest of the family and then committed suicide; leaving his remaining son David alive for some inexplicable reason, as the note stated on the computer.

19

22ND JUNE 1994

. .

.

. . .

.

. . .

.

. . .

However, in the pursuing days of police investigations, inconsistencies in David’s story arose. The fact that David’s clothes had blood on them, along with many other damming pieces of evidence, told the police that this was no murder-suicide. When in fact, David had shot the family and staged the scene to try and fool the police into thinking his father had typed the note on the computer and then shot himself.

24TH JUNE 1994 As a result of the large amount of circumstantial evidence against David Bain, the police arrested him on a charge of murdering all the members of his immediate family, four days after they were found dead.

20

TIMELINE

6TH MARCH 2009 The appellant, David Cullen Bain, was convicted in 1995 of the 1994 murders of five members of his family.

David was imprisoned for 13 years before his convictions were eventually quashed in 2007 by the Privy Council, which ordered a new trial to begin on the 6th March 2009.

This is the start of one of New Zealand’s most complex and controversial murder investigations. Carefully read the evidence of the second trial and form your own opinion on who murdered all five members of the Bain family.

21

. .

.

.

.

.

.

AMMUNITION

. . . .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

22

ROBIN BAIN

_ _______ _ _ _

________ _____________ _ _ _______ _

EVIDENCE

. .

.

.

.

.

.

BALLISTIC EVIDENCE

MURDER WEAPON RIFLE

23

EVIDENCE A

Judge: The rifle and ammunition were David’s and the key to the trigger lock was suspiciously in an unusual place where David had hidden it.

24

BALLISTIC EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

David’s necklace with the other key on it, that unlocked the trigger on the rifle (which he usually places beside his bedside table before going to bed) was located in Robin Bain’s old van, on the afternoon of Friday, 24th June, 1994.

The fact that the rifle and ammunition were David’s, does not advance the case against David if other people had access to it. It was in David’s wardrobe where Robin Bain also kept some of his clothes. The key was in a trinket box on David’s desk in his room; hardly an unusual place. There were twenty spent cartridge shells in Robin’s caravan, proved to have been fired by the 22 caliber rifle – a strong indication that Robin had access to it.

25

EVIDENCE A

Judge: The rifle and ammunition were David’s and the key to the trigger lock was suspiciously in an unusual place where David had hidden it.

26

BALLISTIC EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

David’s necklace with the other key on it, that unlocked the trigger on the rifle (which he usually places beside his bedside table before going to bed) was located in Robin Bain’s old van, on the afternoon of Friday, 24th June, 1994.

The fact that the rifle and ammunition were David’s, does not advance the case against David if other people had access to it. It was in David’s wardrobe where Robin Bain also kept some of his clothes. The key was in a trinket box on David’s desk in his room; hardly an unusual place. There were twenty spent cartridge shells in Robin’s caravan, proved to have been fired by the 22 caliber rifle – a strong indication that Robin had access to it.

27

EVIDENCE A

Judge: The rifle and ammunition were David’s and the key to the trigger lock was suspiciously in an unusual place where David had hidden it.

28

BALLISTIC EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

David’s necklace with the other key on it, that unlocked the trigger on the rifle (which he usually places beside his bedside table before going to bed) was located in Robin Bain’s old van, on the afternoon of Friday, 24th June, 1994.

The fact that the rifle and ammunition were David’s, does not advance the case against David if other people had access to it. It was in David’s wardrobe where Robin Bain also kept some of his clothes. The key was in a trinket box on David’s desk in his room; hardly an unusual place. There were twenty spent cartridge shells in Robin’s caravan, proved to have been fired by the 22 caliber rifle – a strong indication that Robin had access to it.

29

EVIDENCE B

Judge: The expert pathologist says it is unfeasible Robin Bain shot himself because of the angle of the gunshot wound.

Robin Bain could have not killed the others because no gunpowder traces were found on his hands or body. Leaving only David as the main suspect as only he could have shot his father and leave no gunpowder traces on Robin’s body.

30

BALLISTIC EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

This is a disgraceful submission by the Crown, who used the sloppiness and incompetence of the police investigation to their own advantage. The Crown made a play of the fact that there was no gunpowder residue on the hands of Robin Bain, yet none was found on David Bain either.

31

.

.

.

.

.

DROPLETS OF BLOOD

. .

.

.

.

.

.

_____________ _ _ _______ _ _ _

BLOODIED FINGERPRINTS

.

32

DAVID BAIN

. .

.

.

.

.

.

IMPRESSION EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE

________ _____________ _ _ _______ _

33

EVIDENCE C

Judge: David’s fingerprints, in blood, were found on the murder weapon – the rifle.

In his statements David lied by denying that he touched the rifle at all that day.

34

IMPRESSION EVIDENCE

____ _____________ _ _ _______ _ _ _ Defence Argument

These fingerprints that the police found were not in a firing hold position, rather in a pick-up place. With the rifle lying upon or beside Robin, David could have likely placed his fingerprints anywhere on the rifle. David could have easily gotten blood on his fingers in the process of finding the dead bodies, including his father’s.

Incidentally, the file does not reveal whose blood it was that David implanted on the gun, where his fingerprints were detected.

35

EVIDENCE D

Judge: Droplets of blood were found on David’s socks, as well as blood which had caused the luminol testing to show up partial sock prints throughout other parts of the house.

36

By testing the carpet the police found bloody footprints which appeared to have been made by a sock-clad foot going into and out of Laniet’s bedroom. This was caused when David went to shoot Laniet and had to come back to finish her off after strangling Stephen in the downstairs bedroom. These bloody footprints showed up with the use of Luminol testing.

David had been wearing white socks with faint traces of blood on the soles when police arrived. The size of the footprints found matched David’s feet exactly; the white socks he had been wearing had droplets of blood on the soles.

IMPRESSION EVIDENCE

There were two spots of blood on the soles of David’s socks, The Crown tried to suggest they were droplets of blood.

Defence Argument

Police records and forensic photographs clearly indicate that blood spots and smears were all over the floor of Stephen’s room. When David went into Stephen’s room in his socks, he was bound to have gotten blood on the soles of them. There would have been spots or smears from the blood on the floor that he would have walked on.

But there is a more illuminating aspect to the blood on David’s socks. The running shoes that David used that day were quite new. The police alleged that David got the blood spots and smears on his socks when he killed and struggled with Stephen. He is then supposed to have put on his running shoes and completed his paper round.

The police fitted all of this together for two reasons: one, that it would be quieter creeping around the house in his socks than his running shoes while murdering everyone before his paper run; and two, there was no blood found on any of his shoes. Despite having been thoroughly tested, no blood was found on the inside of David’s running shoes.

It seems highly unlikely that fresh blood would not leave any stains on the inside of a newish pair of running shoes.

This lends credence to David’s version, that he came home, took his shoes off and got blood on his socks in the process of finding the other members of his slain family.

The absence of blood on the inside of the running shoes lead to the conclusion that he did not have the blood on his socks before he did his paper run. So if he did not commit the murders before his paper run and could not commit them afterwards, when is it that he is supposed to have killed his family?

37

EVIDENCE D

Judge: Droplets of blood were found on David’s socks, as well as blood which had caused the luminol testing to show up partial sock prints throughout other parts of the house.

38

By testing the carpet the police found bloody footprints which appeared to have been made by a sock-clad foot going into and out of Laniet’s bedroom. This was caused when David went to shoot Laniet and had to come back to finish her off after strangling Stephen in the downstairs bedroom. These bloody footprints showed up with the use of Luminol testing.

David had been wearing white socks with faint traces of blood on the soles when police arrived. The size of the footprints found matched David’s feet exactly; the white socks he had been wearing had droplets of blood on the soles.

IMPRESSION EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

There were two spots of blood on the soles of David’s socks, The Crown tried to suggest they were droplets of blood.

Defence Argument

Police records and forensic photographs clearly indicate that blood spots and smears were all over the floor of Stephen’s room. When David went into Stephen’s room in his socks, he was bound to have gotten blood on the soles of them. There would have been spots or smears from the blood on the floor that he would have walked on.

But there is a more illuminating aspect to the blood on David’s socks. The running shoes that David used that day were quite new. The police alleged that David got the blood spots and smears on his socks when he killed and struggled with Stephen. He is then supposed to have put on his running shoes and completed his paper round.

The police fitted all of this together for two reasons: one, that it would be quieter creeping around the house in his socks than his running shoes while murdering everyone before his paper run; and two, there was no blood found on any of his shoes. Despite having been thoroughly tested, no blood was found on the inside of David’s running shoes.

It seems highly unlikely that fresh blood would not leave any stains on the inside of a newish pair of running shoes.

This lends credence to David’s version, that he came home, took his shoes off and got blood on his socks in the process of finding the other members of his slain family.

The absence of blood on the inside of the running shoes lead to the conclusion that he did not have the blood on his socks before he did his paper run. So if he did not commit the murders before his paper run and could not commit them afterwards, when is it that he is supposed to have killed his family?

39

EVIDENCE E

Judge: David’s bloody palm print was found on top of the washing machine, blood was also found on the powder container, porcelain basin and various light switches.

40

David’s palm print was found on the washing machine and proved to be his with forensic testing. The police told David that the bloody palm print found, was proved to be his. David could not explain how it got there.

IMPRESSION EVIDENCE

Why must it have come from David? No evidence whatsoever was called to even suggest that. The only way that conclusion could be reached is if one assumes that he was the murderer and that he must have put it there himself.

In fact, according to the blood chart produced by the Crown, this blood was not even proved to be human blood.

.

.

.

Defence Argument

41

INJURIES

42

. .

.

.

.

.

.

_____________ _ _ _______ _ _ _

GLOVES COVERED IN

BLOOD

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

EVIDENCE

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

___ _ _

. ________

. .__________

. _

. _______

.

STEPHEN BAIN 43

EVIDENCE F

Judge: David had fresh injuries to his forehead, knee and bruising to his hands.

There was no explanation for them and the nature of them indicates that it was he who had the fight with Stephen.

44

On David’s right forehead, there was a small bruise he was unable to explain and a graze to his knee which he could not explain either. These bruises match the recollection of events of David and Stephen’s struggle.

Stephen had heard David coming down the stairs and tried to fight back. The struggle that occurred in Stephen’s room is evident in the bloody mess that was left behind; there was blood splatters all over Stephen’s bedsheets, carpet and the furniture.

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

David would have stumbled panic-stricken and incoherent from room to room to check on other members of the family.

Defence Argument

Imagine yourself, at 22 years of age, after having been absent from your home for an hour, in the early morning, finding the bloody body of your mother shot dead in her bed. You, much like David, would display absolutely no rational thought pattern or behaviour. Instantaneous, subconscious, instinctive bodily and mental functions would take over. This could include extreme shock, extreme disbelief, self - preservation disorientation, terror and fear.

David would have grabbed, shaken, cuddled his family and even tried to talk to them. David would have been very likely to faint at some point upon coming across each one, more gruesome and bloody than the last. David’s house was old, with steep and narrow stairs; it was untidy and littered with boxes and furniture. David would have tripped, fallen, stumbled and banged his way around. A little graze on the knee and a bump to his right forehead and eye would have gone unnoticed.

David told the doctor at his medical examination and subsequently the police in a later statement, that he could not account for these injuries. He did know for certain that they were not there when he went on his paper run.

45

EVIDENCE F

Judge: David had fresh injuries to his forehead, knee and bruising to his hands.

There was no explanation for them and the nature of them indicates that it was he who had the fight with Stephen.

46

On David’s right forehead, there was a small bruise he was unable to explain and a graze to his knee which he could not explain either. These bruises match the recollection of events of David and Stephen’s struggle.

Stephen had heard David coming down the stairs and tried to fight back. The struggle that occurred in Stephen’s room is evident in the bloody mess that was left behind; there was blood splatters all over Stephen’s bedsheets, carpet and the furniture.

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

David would have stumbled panic-stricken and incoherent from room to room to check on other members of the family.

Imagine yourself, at 22 years of age, after having been absent from your home for an hour, in the early morning, finding the bloody body of your mother shot dead in her bed. You, much like David, would display absolutely no rational thought pattern or behaviour. Instantaneous, subconscious, instinctive bodily and mental functions would take over. This could include extreme shock, extreme disbelief, self - preservation disorientation, terror and fear.

David would have grabbed, shaken, cuddled his family and even tried to talk to them. David would have been very likely to faint at some point upon coming across each one, more gruesome and bloody than the last. David’s house was old, with steep and narrow stairs; it was untidy and littered with boxes and furniture. David would have tripped, fallen, stumbled and banged his way around. A little graze on the knee and a bump to his right forehead and eye would have gone unnoticed.

David told the doctor at his medical examination and subsequently the police in a later statement, that he could not account for these injuries. He did know for certain that they were not there when he went on his paper run.

47

EVIDENCE G

Judge: Robin Bain did not shoot himself, nor the rest of his family members as there was no blood found on his body that was his own or anybody else’s blood. Robin’s own fingerprints were not even on the rifle.

48

No one else’s blood was found on Robin.

There was no blood at all of any type on his socks or shoes. Robin’s fingerprints were not on the rifle, although, if he had shot himself he would have been the last person to have gripped it firmly. If he had been the wearer of blood stained clothing and was intent on suicide, why would he have bothered to change and be in completely blood free clothes when he shot himself?

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

Detective Mark Lodge was assigned to be in charge of the deceased body of Robin Bain. The police investigation apparently disregarded Lodge’s findings; a grave omission.

Smear of blood on heel of thumb inside left hand, smear of blood on left little finger, no blood on right hand, what appears to be contact gunshot wound to left side of forehead. Minor abrasion on back of right hand surrounded by a circular bruise, tiny abrasion on knuckles of second right finger, splash of blood on nail of second right finger, abrasion on upper portion of left first finger. Very small abrasion on base knuckle of left hand, left and right foot from heel to tip of big toe 27 cms, spots of blood on the blue tracksuit pants about the thigh and knee regions and smears of blood on the tracksuit pants on the lower left leg.

The incredible fact is that none of the blood itemised by Lodge on Robin Bain’s hands or clothing was tested by the police for blood grouping.

When the rifle was first examined, a fingerprint was noted as being beside the trigger guard as well as David’s prints at the other end of the rifle. There is no mention of what result was obtained from this print. Presumably, it did not give a clear identifiable print as the rifle was riddled with so many anomalies.

49

EVIDENCE H

Judge: David’s white gloves, covered in blood were found in Stephen’s bedroom.

50

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Nothing links David to the gloves except that they were his.

Defence Argument

There was no evidence whatsoever that David was the wearer of these gloves on that particular day or any other.

They were readily available to any other person who looked in David’s drawer. If David was trying to frame Robin, as the police suggest and was cold blooded and calculating, why would he leave his own gloves in Stephen’s room?

Bearing in mind that he was supposed to have killed Stephen prior to doing his paper run. Why did he not wash and dispose of the gloves, burn them or at least remove them from the scene?

51

EVIDENCE H

Judge: David’s white gloves, covered in blood were found in Stephen’s bedroom.

52

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Nothing links David to the gloves except that they were his.

Defence Argument

There was no evidence whatsoever that David was the wearer of these gloves on that particular day or any other.

They were readily available to any other person who looked in David’s drawer. If David was trying to frame Robin, as the police suggest and was cold blooded and calculating, why would he leave his own gloves in Stephen’s room?

Bearing in mind that he was supposed to have killed Stephen prior to doing his paper run. Why did he not wash and dispose of the gloves, burn them or at least remove them from the scene?

53

EVIDENCE I

Judge: Blood-stained clothing, including the green jersey with matching fibers to those found under Stephen’s fingernails, was washed by David. David’s ‘Gondoliers’ sweatshirt with blood on the shoulder had been sponged.

54

On Wednesday, 22nd June, 1994, the stains of blood on David’s black shorts (that he was wearing on his paper run) were found by police to have come from Stephen’s blood.

David washed his coloured clothes and hung them up on the washing line; the remaining clothes that were blood stained were found in the washing basket where David had tried to dispose of them before shooting his father.

.

.. .. . .

.

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

There was no proof that any blood-stained clothing was washed by David. The fibers under Stephen’s fingernails were not proved to have come from the green jersey in the wash.

In fact, the detective who recorded the finding of the fibers under Stephen’s fingernails noted them as ‘black’ fibers.

The scientific evidence said that the fibers were inconsistent with the green jersey. The evidence went no further than that.

The ‘Gondoliers’ sweatshirt belonged to David and was not washed but was on the floor in the laundry. It was the scientists opinion that it may have been sponged. There is not one scrap of evidence that David ever touched the green jersey or the Gondoliers sweatshirt on that day.

The jersey was produced as an exhibit. The Crown asked David to put it on before the jury and it was patently far too small for him in all dimensions.

55

EVIDENCE I

Judge: Blood-stained clothing, including the green jersey with matching fibers to those found under Stephen’s fingernails, was washed by David. David’s ‘Gondoliers’ sweatshirt with blood on the shoulder had been sponged.

56

On Wednesday, 22nd June, 1994, the stains of blood on David’s black shorts (that he was wearing on his paper run) were found by police to have come from Stephen’s blood.

David washed his coloured clothes and hung them up on the washing line; the remaining clothes that were blood stained were found in the washing basket where David had tried to dispose of them before shooting his father.

.

.. .. . .

.

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

There was no proof that any blood-stained clothing was washed by David. The fibers under Stephen’s fingernails were not proved to have come from the green jersey in the wash.

In fact, the detective who recorded the finding of the fibers under Stephen’s fingernails noted them as ‘black’ fibers.

The scientific evidence said that the fibers were inconsistent with the green jersey. The evidence went no further than that.

The ‘Gondoliers’ sweatshirt belonged to David and was not washed but was on the floor in the laundry. It was the scientists opinion that it may have been sponged. There is not one scrap of evidence that David ever touched the green jersey or the Gondoliers sweatshirt on that day.

The jersey was produced as an exhibit. The Crown asked David to put it on before the jury and it was patently far too small for him in all dimensions.

57

EVIDENCE I

Judge: Blood-stained clothing, including the green jersey with matching fibers to those found under Stephen’s fingernails, was washed by David. David’s ‘Gondoliers’ sweatshirt with blood on the shoulder had been sponged.

58

On Wednesday, 22nd June, 1994, the stains of blood on David’s black shorts (that he was wearing on his paper run) were found by police to have come from Stephen’s blood.

David washed his coloured clothes and hung them up on the washing line; the remaining clothes that were blood stained were found in the washing basket where David had tried to dispose of them before shooting his father.

.

.. .. . .

.

BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

There was no proof that any blood-stained clothing was washed by David. The fibers under Stephen’s fingernails were not proved to have come from the green jersey in the wash.

In fact, the detective who recorded the finding of the fibers under Stephen’s fingernails noted them as ‘black’ fibers.

The scientific evidence said that the fibers were inconsistent with the green jersey. The evidence went no further than that.

The ‘Gondoliers’ sweatshirt belonged to David and was not washed but was on the floor in the laundry. It was the scientists opinion that it may have been sponged. There is not one scrap of evidence that David ever touched the green jersey or the Gondoliers sweatshirt on that day.

The jersey was produced as an exhibit. The Crown asked David to put it on before the jury and it was patently far too small for him in all dimensions.

59

60

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

LENS

MARGERET BAIN

. .

.

.

.

.

.

__ _____________ _ _ _______ _

EVIDENCE

OBJECTS RETRIEVED

. .

.

. .

GLASSES

____ _____________ _ _ _______ _ 61

EVIDENCE J

Judge: The glasses – with a missing lens – and fitting David’s general glass prescription were found on a chair near where he was in his room when the police arrived. Significantly, the left side of the frame was damaged and the missing lens was found in Stephen’s room near his body on Thursday, 23rd June, 1994 at 8:46 pm. This is the lens that came off during the struggle when David strangled his brother before shooting him.

62

OBJECTS RETRIEVED

Defence Argument

There was no blood, hairs, prints, tissues or fibers on the lenses that link to David or the struggle with Stephen.

The glasses did not fit David’s general prescription, a visit to an appropriate optometrist would have confirmed that.

The judge said the frame was ‘significantly damaged on the left side’. If you remember, the very minor bruise to David’s forehead was found on the right side of his head.

It is a ridiculous proposition that David would go about his daily life for three days without spectacles, then seek out his mother’s glasses to commit these shootings at point blank range in the dark. The police’s assumption of David being killer was ludicrous. The spectacles were dislodged in the struggle with Stephen and somehow later found in two different places; the chair and Stephen’s bedroom. If David was the killer, why would he take one lens and the frame and put them neatly on the chair in his room if he was attempting to deceive the police?

63

EVIDENCE J

Judge: The glasses – with a missing lens – and fitting David’s general glass prescription were found on a chair near where he was in his room when the police arrived. Significantly, the left side of the frame was damaged and the missing lens was found in Stephen’s room near his body on Thursday, 23rd June, 1994 at 8:46 pm. This is the lens that came off during the struggle when David strangled his brother before shooting him.

64

OBJECTS RETRIEVED EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

There was no blood, hairs, prints, tissues or fibers on the lenses that link to David or the struggle with Stephen.

The glasses did not fit David’s general prescription, a visit to an appropriate optometrist would have confirmed that.

The judge said the frame was ‘significantly damaged on the left side’. If you remember, the very minor bruise to David’s forehead was found on the right side of his head.

It is a ridiculous proposition that David would go about his daily life for three days without spectacles, then seek out his mother’s glasses to commit these shootings at point blank range in the dark. The police’s assumption of David being killer was ludicrous. The spectacles were dislodged in the struggle with Stephen and somehow later found in two different places; the chair and Stephen’s bedroom. If David was the killer, why would he take one lens and the frame and put them neatly on the chair in his room if he was attempting to deceive the police?

65

EVIDENCE J

Judge: The glasses – with a missing lens – and fitting David’s general glass prescription were found on a chair near where he was in his room when the police arrived. Significantly, the left side of the frame was damaged and the missing lens was found in Stephen’s room near his body on Thursday, 23rd June, 1994 at 8:46 pm. This is the lens that came off during the struggle when David strangled his brother before shooting him.

66

OBJECTS RETRIEVED EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

There was no blood, hairs, prints, tissues or fibers on the lenses that link to David or the struggle with Stephen.

The glasses did not fit David’s general prescription, a visit to an appropriate optometrist would have confirmed that.

The judge said the frame was ‘significantly damaged on the left side’. If you remember, the very minor bruise to David’s forehead was found on the right side of his head.

It is a ridiculous proposition that David would go about his daily life for three days without spectacles, then seek out his mother’s glasses to commit these shootings at point blank range in the dark. The police’s assumption of David being killer was ludicrous. The spectacles were dislodged in the struggle with Stephen and somehow later found in two different places; the chair and Stephen’s bedroom. If David was the killer, why would he take one lens and the frame and put them neatly on the chair in his room if he was attempting to deceive the police?

67

6:42AM

SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY

. .

.

.

.

. .

68

. . . . . . .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

_____________ _ _ _______ _ _ _

6:40:07AM

EVIDENCE

COMPUTER AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE

6:44AM

________ _____________ _ _ _______ _ 69

EVIDENCE K

Judge: The computer was switched on at 6:44 am, and that you would conclude on all of the evidence that this time was after David returned home from the paper run. David was at the nearby corner at 6:40 am and it would only take him 2 – 3 minutes to reach 65 Every Street. Enough time to type the suicidal message and then shoot his father.

70

COMPUTER AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

It is appropriate to declare that the computer was not switched on at 6:44 am. Had the police told the truth or conversely, had Guest done his homework, the court would have heard that the computer was turned on at some time between 6:40 am and 6:42 am. All of the evidence, including David’s and Tania Clarke’s, demonstrate that it was impossible for David to have been home. Further, when David said that it would have taken ‘two or three minutes to get home’, he was not speaking literally or definitively; rather he was meaning ‘it’s just a few minutes away’. Even if it was a literal interpretation, he still could not have been inside the house at 6:42 am.

Colin Withnall’s analysis of the computer again later in 1996, led him to the conclusion that the computer was switched on between 6:40:07am and 6:42:05am on Monday, 20th June, 1994. During which time it was not possible for David to have been at home.

71

EVIDENCE K

Judge: The computer was switched on at 6:44 am, and that you would conclude on all of the evidence that this time was after David returned home from the paper run. David was at the nearby corner at 6:40 am and it would only take him 2 – 3 minutes to reach 65 Every Street. Enough time to type the suicidal message and then shoot his father.

72

COMPUTER AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

It is appropriate to declare that the computer was not switched on at 6:44 am. Had the police told the truth or conversely, had Guest done his homework, the court would have heard that the computer was turned on at some time between 6:40 am and 6:42 am. All of the evidence, including David’s and Tania Clarke’s, demonstrate that it was impossible for David to have been home. Further, when David said that it would have taken ‘two or three minutes to get home’, he was not speaking literally or definitively; rather he was meaning ‘it’s just a few minutes away’. Even if it was a literal interpretation, he still could not have been inside the house at 6:42 am.

Colin Withnall’s analysis of the computer again later in 1996, led him to the conclusion that the computer was switched on between 6:40:07am and 6:42:05am on Monday, 20th June, 1994. During which time it was not possible for David to have been at home.

73

EVIDENCE K

Judge: The computer was switched on at 6:44 am, and that you would conclude on all of the evidence that this time was after David returned home from the paper run. David was at the nearby corner at 6:40 am and it would only take him 2 – 3 minutes to reach 65 Every Street. Enough time to type the suicidal message and then shoot his father.

74

COMPUTER AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

It is appropriate to declare that the computer was not switched on at 6:44 am. Had the police told the truth or conversely, had Guest done his homework, the court would have heard that the computer was turned on at some time between 6:40 am and 6:42 am. All of the evidence, including David’s and Tania Clarke’s, demonstrate that it was impossible for David to have been home. Further, when David said that it would have taken ‘two or three minutes to get home’, he was not speaking literally or definitively; rather he was meaning ‘it’s just a few minutes away’. Even if it was a literal interpretation, he still could not have been inside the house at 6:42 am.

Colin Withnall’s analysis of the computer again later in 1996, led him to the conclusion that the computer was switched on between 6:40:07am and 6:42:05am on Monday, 20th June, 1994. During which time it was not possible for David to have been at home.

75

EVIDENCE L

Judge: It is clear that the suicide message had been deliberately planted and calculated for the police to discover and create a lead in a homicide investigation.

76

A cunning plan by David; attempting to advance the appearance that his father was the murderer, who then turned the rifle on himself. David had been seen by Denise Lancy as she headed for work at the nearby rest home at the front of the gate of his home at 6:45 am or 6:46 am. Yet David did not make the 111 call until 7:09 am, which was 24 minutes that are unaccounted.

COMPUTER AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

It was plainly Robin’s suicide message, written to David.

Defence Argument

David’s statement says that he delivered the final papers on Every Street about 350m down the hill from his home at about 6:40 am, according to his watch. This is a very steep hill and with a tired dog and having just done an extensive newspaper round, he says he casuall walked up hill.

77

EVIDENCE L

Judge: It is clear that the suicide message had been deliberately planted and calculated for the police to discover and create a lead in a homicide investigation.

78

A cunning plan by David; attempting to advance the appearance that his father was the murderer, who then turned the rifle on himself. David had been seen by Denise Lancy as she headed for work at the nearby rest home at the front of the gate of his home at 6:45 am or 6:46 am. Yet David did not make the 111 call until 7:09 am, which was 24 minutes that are unaccounted.

COMPUTER AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

It was plainly Robin’s suicide message, written to David.

Defence Argument

David’s statement says that he delivered the final papers on Every Street about 350m down the hill from his home at about 6:40 am, according to his watch. This is a very steep hill and with a tired dog and having just done an extensive newspaper round, he says he casuall walked up hill.

79

. .

.

.

.

.

.

_____________ _ _ _______ _

. . . .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

_ _______ _ _ _ DIRTY SECRET

DEAN COTTLE

80

EVIDENCE

. .

.

.

.

.

.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

LANIET BAIN

81

EVIDENCE M

Judge: Permanent orders for suppression are only made in special circumstances.

The general rule against suppression reflects the public and open nature of the courts. In this case the defence sought during the trial to lead hearsay evidence from a proposed witness, who I, the Judge found to be completely unreliable.

82

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

For Robin, the exposure of his dark secret, hidden for so long, would be the ultimate humiliation and disgrace he could nor bear to face. Cottle told the police, Laniet had told him that she had been having incestuous sex with her father and that this has been going on for years. Laniet was intending to tell her mother and father exactly what she had told Dean Cottle. The father is therefore being exposed for incestuous behaviour which had occurred over a long period of time.

Robin panics overnight and kills the rest of the family and himself while David is on his paper run.

83

EVIDENCE M

Judge: Permanent orders for suppression are only made in special circumstances.

The general rule against suppression reflects the public and open nature of the courts. In this case the defence sought during the trial to lead hearsay evidence from a proposed witness, who I, the Judge found to be completely unreliable.

84

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

For Robin, the exposure of his dark secret, hidden for so long, would be the ultimate humiliation and disgrace he could nor bear to face. Cottle told the police, Laniet had told him that she had been having incestuous sex with her father and that this has been going on for years. Laniet was intending to tell her mother and father exactly what she had told Dean Cottle. The father is therefore being exposed for incestuous behaviour which had occurred over a long period of time.

Robin panics overnight and kills the rest of the family and himself while David is on his paper run.

85

EVIDENCE M

Judge: Permanent orders for suppression are only made in special circumstances.

The general rule against suppression reflects the public and open nature of the courts. In this case the defence sought during the trial to lead hearsay evidence from a proposed witness, who I, the Judge found to be completely unreliable.

86

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

Defence Argument

For Robin, the exposure of his dark secret, hidden for so long, would be the ultimate humiliation and disgrace he could nor bear to face. Cottle told the police, Laniet had told him that she had been having incestuous sex with her father and that this has been going on for years. Laniet was intending to tell her mother and father exactly what she had told Dean Cottle. The father is therefore being exposed for incestuous behaviour which had occurred over a long period of time.

Robin panics overnight and kills the rest of the family and himself while David is on his paper run.

87

88

THE VERDICT EVIDENCE

Madam Foreman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to ask you to retire and consider your verdicts.

89

6TH MARCH 2009 In view of the way in which this trial has been conducted, the only verdicts open to you are ones of guilty or not guilty.

11:45AM

Jury retires.

05:23PM

Jury returns with final four questions.

90

. .

.

. . .

.

. . .

.

. . .

08:45AM

THE VERDICT EVIDENCE

QUESTION A

Why did David leave his bloody clothes in the washing basket?

QUESTION B

Could we hear Denise Laney’s testimony.

QUESTION C

Why was the court not informed of Robin’s incestuous behaviour in the first trial?

QUESTION D

Could we please hear the 111 tape again?

Now that you have all the pieces of evidence, who do you think murdered the Bain family?

91

92

EVIDENCE

Did David Bain do it? Or was it Robin Bain’s dirty secret?

The Press 26 Apr 1997 : p. 1

93