The Recruiter's Blog
by Alan Charman
The Sorry Saga of David Bain.
Update July 2010: Now that the program exonerating Robin Bain has been shown, I think it's appropriate to highlight this piece again:
I have deliberately taken no interest in the David Bain trial, and successfully managed to avoid seeing any television, newspaper or internet reports on any aspect of the trial.
The whole thing is a disgraceful indictment on the New Zealand justice and police systems and I have told everyone who's asked me that I just don't care.
I gave up caring about David Bain when the case went to the Privy Council. When a judicial matter in New Zealand is enforced by 47 old farts in England, I really don't give a shit what the final outcome is. Yes, those old fart law lords may well have the finest legal brains in Britain, but they are an anachronism and New Zealand using them is a farce.
That said, it was an indictment on the ineptitude of New Zealand judiciary, with the original case judge making horrendously idiotic mistakes a three-year old would not have. Procedurally, evidentially and morally, the trial was a wrenching display of how not to carry out a successful prosecution. The evidence was overwhelming that David Bain shot his family, and it's obvious that the police involved realised they had a slam dunk from day one. Too much so, which bred overconfidence and error.
As time went on and things like the paper round alibi, the lack of gun residue on Robin and all of the pieces of incontrovertible evidence stacked up against David, someone, or several someones, did NOT take the time to ensure the case was presentable without flaw.
Anyone believing Robin Bain killed himself was clearly deluded and had not bothered to address the gigantic fallacy - if he wanted to spare David, why kill himself in a way which is only suggestive of murder? And that assumes the unlikely possibility that he could have shot himself as actually happened. The natural place to top oneself with a weapon is to the lower front of the head, and had he done this, there would have been no question that he was guilty and not David. No gun residue was so obvious that it wasn't handled correctly from the day of the killing onwards.
So, why am I writing now?
Because I see that several shysters have come out and claimed that David Bain may be able to sue for defamatory articles about him! Now, that's the kind of thing which pisses me right off. Sure, he has been found not guilty, but he has been by no means found innocent. I cannot claim he's guilty, but since the coroner has not ever closed the case, the verdict on how the Bain family died is open and the evidence shows that David Bain has OJ'd it!
From what bits I have followed up on since the verdict, there are several things of huge concern:
The jury embracing Bain at the after-party. (Update July 2010 - and look where that has gone in the meantime!)
The fact that dead Robin's character was assassinated without answer while David's own behavioural patterns - the paper-round alibi in particular, is suppressed.
The fact that thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money has been spent on bringing "experts" from overseas to raise crazy theories about how David might not have killed his family.
The fact that all of the evidence in the killing of Stephen pointed to David and none at Robin.
The worst thing of all is the trial jury not hearing about Bain's alibi arrangements because it was prejudicial to Bain's defence. Isn't all of the Crown evidence prejudicial to Bain's defence?
Utter bullshit, and the best way to deal with is to keep the Bain jokes coming!