Robin Bain finger marks

By Anna Sandiford 27/06/2013 41


Many people may have seen 3rd Degree on Wednesday night about the marks on Robin Bain’s thumb and forefinger as recorded in two crime scene photographs. Earlier this year I spent a morning with Police and ESR staff and some of the defence team during the testing of the murder weapon by Robbie Tiffen and Richard Munt; my thumb is shown in three of the images that appeared in the NZHerald yesterday.

As this matter is still in progress there is not too much that I am able to say about it. However, I note from the Herald Online this evening the following photographs.  The one on the left is Robin Bain’s hand at the scene; the one on the right is apparently his digit print taken during the autopsy:

Many people will use the above two images to draw conclusions.   I would advise caution in this regard:

1.  The orientation of the print taken at autopsy (at right) is not the same orientation as the hand at the scene (at left).

2.  There is an absence of information in the Herald article regarding the print so the assumption will generally be made that the print from autopsy is presented the correct way round but this has not been confirmed: N.B.  when prints are taken, they are a mirror image of how they appear on the digit’s actual surface.

3.  Prints collected at autopsy are not always as good in terms of detail as they would have been when the subject was alive.

 


41 Responses to “Robin Bain finger marks”

  • Exactly – but there is an issue with perspective. With that in mind this is new ‘evidence’ is crazy stuff! Having it proven is another issue again. Methinks DB’s defence team are just being very industrious!

  • You thumbs had their 15 seconds of fame? 🙂

    But, seriously now, if people are to consider the two approximately parallel cuts/abrasions/whatever on the thumb, won’t they also have to consider the larger one at a different angle further back on the thumb and the small one on the tip of the finger and consider them all at the same time? To my viewing he looks to also have a minor abrasion on the side of his thumb, too.

    Not that I know I thing about forensic work! (Or much about the case either.)

  • Anna, you are quite corect about mirror images and thing possibly being the other way around…

    Maybe this is one example of the ease of the ‘mirror image’ mix-up. “The one on the right is Robin Bain’s hand at the scene; the one on the left is apparently his digit print taken during the autopsy:” 🙂

    That said, it’s been interesting watching the cops try and defend their integrity.

  • It’s a pity your team did not also test the propensity for fingerprints to be left on the gun after handling by the testers. From the video, gloves were not used, so would have been very easy to do. But, then, that may not have been in the defence team’s best interest?

  • There are three observations that strike me from the photograph of Robin’s hand and the magazine:
    1. One of the marks on Robin’s hand seems to be more red than grey (which tends to agree with the Police’s claim that it was a small cut).
    2. The magazine is sitting on its edge rather than lying flat (which is what one would reasonably expect if it had fallen out of Robin’s hand – especially onto carpet) This strongly suggests that the magazine was planted there by someone, who was trying to frame Robin as being the killer !!!
    3. Is this new claim by David’s supporters really such a “slam-dunk”? If David was the schemer that other testimony has suggested, and was familiar with the marks left on his own thumb when had used his own rifle in the past, could he not have pressed the magazine onto Robin’s thumb as part of his elaborate scheme to frame him, which included a suicide note typed on a computer? (Using a computer for a suicide note would have been totally outside the square for someone of Robin’s generation.)

  • I am just about to approve all the comments that I received for this post (except the spam).

    I am not an advocate for either side so I release all comments regardless. However, any comments that are offensive or personal will not be released – this is about scientific investigation, not irrational, illogical arguments that people try to bolster with abuse.

  • Graeme, Robin Bain was the principal of Taieri Mouth Primary School… computers were commonplace in schools then.

  • Ron – I said nothing about—your words—“the powder mark”.

    (My point was simply that focusing on selected subsets of data without the context of the remainder of the data can be misleading.)

  • Hi Ron, Robin’s level of computer literacy is not the issue. My point is that someone of Robin’s generation is highly unlikely to have left an unsigned suicide note on a computer – when all his models for suicide notes (from books, dramas, news articles, etc.) would have been written on paper in the person’s own hand-writing and signed (both important to prove its authenticity).
    It is interesting that this new claim by the DB team makes use of (and raises interest again) in this photo that seems to show that the magazine was planted. I wonder whether TV3 would (in the interests of truth and objectivity) be willing to sponsor equivalent tests to ascertain the probability of a dropped or tumbling magazine finishing up on its edge like that – especially on carpet. (Or does TV3 have agendas that are not answerable to balance, truth and objectivity?)

  • Graeme said, “when all his models for suicide notes (from books, dramas, news articles, etc.) would have been written on paper in the person’s own hand-writing and signed (both important to prove its authenticity).”

    An interesting point… I’m nearing retirement and have never seen a suicide note so I wouldn’t have any ‘models for suicide notes.’ Have never read a book about suicide… have never seen a drama about suicide (that I can recall). I wouldn’t know if they were normally signed or not. Are they? Do you know?

    I think the most important point in this whole sorry saga is that, regardless of whether DB shot the family and/or RG, the incompetence of the police prevented him from being able to present a solid evidence-based defense. Has anyone asked the question as to whether the police picked the magazine up and placed it down when they first arrived?

  • True, Grant. I was commenting on your comment re, ‘cuts/abrasions/whatever on the thumb, won’t they also have to consider … the small one on the tip of the finger.

    I was just noting they’d addressed the finger mark in the TV programme. If you look closely their are [near] parallel marks on the forefinger too.

    see this pic

    http://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/campbell-live-david-bain-asst-police-commissioner-malcolm-burgess-new-evidence-gunpowder-residue-fingerprints.png

  • Hi Grant. Can you please explain what these excuses are? What is there about my response that is silly?

  • Hi Ron, I also am approaching retiring age. Like you, I also have not personally sighted a suicide note. And like you, I have not read many “who done it” books, and none that involved a suicide note. But I have seen a few “who done it” dramas on TV (including “Ironside” in our much younger years) that have involved suicide notes, and in a several of those the authenticity (or forgery) of the handwriting was key to solving the case. I am glad for your sake that you obviously haven’t squandered as much tiime as me in front of “the box”.

    However, over the years that you and I have shared, there have been a number of suicides and murder-suicides involving suicide notes, that were covered in the newspapers, and radio / TV news, and I am surprised that you had no interest in them at the time or have since completely forgotten them.

    All indications are that Robin was reasonably informed and a thinking man. I find it very hard to believe that he would have left a suicide note in a manner that had such questionable authenticity as to implicate the only one of his children that he deemed worthy of living. 🙂

  • Graeme, one aspect of the recent Boston bombings is that CSI was shown to be a total myth. And of course, you’re right, Ironside was good entertainment, but was it based on fact? My time spent in front of the box wasn’t squandered at all… 🙂

    I guess if your comment about RB holds (and I’m not saying it doesn’t, then it would apply equally to a computer literate DB wouldn’t it?

  • Hi Ron, I don’t think that you can draw a very strong correlation between computer literacy and broad interest / knowledge, life skills, and smarts as to how other people perceive things. (I should know as I have my own IT company.) Do you and I have “equal” understanding as to the meaning of “apply equally”? 🙂

  • Hi Ron, I had hoped that someone else would have replied to your earlier statement: “I think the most important point in this whole sorry saga is that, … the incompetence of the police prevented him from being able to present a solid evidence-based defense. Has anyone asked the question as to whether the police picked the magazine up and placed it down when they first arrived?”

    The DB camp are really the only ones who accuse the police of systematic incompetence and unprofessionalism. This seems to stem from Joe Karam’s starting assumption that projected the “Arthur Allan Thomas” debacle onto this case, and concluded (without seeing any of the evidence) that the police Goliath had wrongly pinned the blame on “that poor boy”. I don’t know if Joe has ever revisited his starting assumption objectively, but he has certainly come too far to do so now. So every “inconvenient” (to David’s cause) action or statement by the police, seems to be seen (and trumpeted) by the DB camp as “incompetence”, and they have gone as far as vilifying key personnel in the investigation, and are now using the courts in an attempt to muzzle key players that actively present the “DB did it” view.

    Sure, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and the police (being human) didn’t second guess the need for minute details that would have shown up every fanciful scenario invented by the DB camp for what it probably is. But I suggest that all indications (to an impartial observer at least) are that the police conducted themselves with professional integrity and competence and to a depth and level of detail that seemed appropriate at the time, and made all reasonable effort to identify and present the truth in the case they brought to court.

    Your suggestion that the police might have deliberately (or mindlessly) picked up vital evidence such as the magazine and put it down again in a different orientation runs contrary to the most basic elements of (and training in) crime scene protection. But it is quite typical of a number of insinuations that have come out of the DB camp, that seem to show stark disregard for truth. Could it be that the reason the DB camp were unable to “present a solid evidence-based defence”, was that the hard objective evidence told a different story?

    Ron, I get the impression from a number of your posts that you may have read one or more of Joe Karam’s books, without having balanced this with reading from “the other side”. If this is the case then a good starting point for you might be something like the “CounterSpin.co.nz” website.

  • While I agree it is valid to challenge the evidence and that anything may have caused these markings, but we need to ask the question, what are the odds that they could have occurred by random chance. Lets send a million men out to work on their roof/spouting. What percentage would come back and by random chance end up with markings that have to very precisely match the width of the magazine, on the thumb area of the right hand that is used to load bullets (I assume Robin was right handed), and near perpendicular to the thumb, which just happens to be the natural angle by which the thumb loads bullets into a magazine. What are the odds??? I would guess that winning the big prize in lotto would have better odds. In considering evidence like this you would have to give enormous weight to such a massive statistical improbability, and few people seem capable of comprehending this.

  • Hi Graeme, you say, “Your suggestion that the police might have deliberately (or mindlessly) picked up vital evidence such as the magazine and put it down again in a different orientation runs contrary to the most basic elements of (and training in) crime scene protection. But it is quite typical of a number of insinuations that have come out of the DB camp, that seem to show stark disregard for truth.”

    The cops admitted, under cross examination, that they mindlessly didn’t secure vital evidence, so that in and of itself “runs contrary to the most basic elements of (and training in) crime scene protection.”

    I thought it odd, even before DB was arrested, when I read that the pathologist wasn’t able to get into the scene for some time after the cops were called… things like body temperature were basic tests for determining how long someone had died back then.

    And no, I haven’t read any of Joe Karam’s books, nor any counterspin. I’m not a fan of Rodney Hide, but this article seems to be pretty close to the truth regarding police competence.
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/twelve-reasons-worry-about-bain-case-lf-134942

    You don’t have to stick you head in the dunny to know that it stinks.

    Personally I’m not a fan of NZ’s adversarial legal system. I prefer the Scottish inquisitorial system.

    That said, given NZ’s adversarial system, it is the role of the defense to prove wrong, discredit, undermine, or cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. DBs lawyers have done that.

    The Privy Council ruled that DB had been denied a fair trial, not DBs defense team.

    You refer to a stark disregard for truth. Who’s truth? What is truth? What is truth ‘beyond reasonable doubt?’

  • Graeme said, ” I don’t think that you can draw a very strong correlation between computer literacy and broad interest / knowledge, life skills, and smarts as to how other people perceive things. (I should know as I have my own IT company.)”

    Previously he had said this very thing, “(Using a computer for a suicide note would have been totally outside the square for someone of Robin’s generation.)”

    Don’t get me wrong. My point is that if the police had undertaken a competent crime scene investigation I doubt we’d be having this discussion. The case would have been decided one way or the other a couple of decades ago.

  • For the record, can anyone see any marks on the cops fingerprint aligning with the parallel lines claimed to be from the magazine?

  • Hi Ron, Thanks for the link to Rodney Hide’s article which I had not previously read. It now goes into the mix with other things (from both sides) that I HAVE read (and watched) on this case, that shape my thinking on it. I would comment on something you said in that same post: there is a huge difference between “securing” every last piece of evidence and “fiddling” with glaringly significant items of evidence. I still stand by most of what I have said in previous posts, including that writing a suicide note on a computer would have been so far “outside the square” for Robin that it would not even have entered his mind. (And I readily acknowledge that this is merely an opinion, formed from my own life experience, that I have projected onto this case, and you (and the DB camp) are free to disagree with it.)

    I have enjoyed the discussion with you. But now I need to get on with mundane responsibilities like running a business and feeding the mouths that are dependent on it.

    Best wishes, Graeme

  • If the lines on his thumb shown in the photo are from the magazine then it means he has loaded it the hardest and most uncommon way because they go against the length of the thumb, not with it, meaning he held the magazine sideways to his thumb as he slid the rounds in which, from experience, is a much harder way to do it.
    If he had done it the easiest and most common way the lines should have been travelling straight up and down ‘with’ the direction of the thumb, from pushing the round in ‘straight on’ with the opening of the magazine, not sideways which makes entry less smoother and makes the round more likely to flick out and fall.
    Anyone thought about David Bain possiblly rubbing his fathers thumb on the magazine to make it look like he handled it. It could be an obvious thing to do to someone who has fired rifles before.

  • A very interesting documentary on the first David Bain murder trial on TV3 in which Michael Guest his original lawyer is unable to say whether he considers Bain innocent or guilty. Since then Michael Guest stated in an email to Judith Collins that David Bain specifically lied about wearing his mother’s glasses the night before the murder – the glasses minus a lens were found in David Bain’s room, while the missing lens of those glasses was found in the room of his murdered brother. According to Michael Guest David told him that he had worn the glasses the night before but lied about it in evidence stating he hadn’t worn them for a year. That to me is the smoking gun.

  • Also as regards the marks on the thumbs, I too think one line looks distinctly red and like a cut – also if the marks are looked at in relation to the whole of Robin Bain’s hand, rather than just the thumb in isolation, there are similar marks all over Robin’s hand. If Robin Bain was put on trial, the evidence against him is what …? Eventually with all this pushing by Joe Karam the truth will come out – if I was him I’d quite while I was ahead because the public are starting to really look at the hard evidence.

  • If David had run Robin’s fingers over the magazine to implicate him, why didn’t he bring the marks to someone’s attention over the past 20 years? The cops argument about cuts etc have been challengd based on the earlier prints revealed last week. Technically, the early prints may not have been complete, but for the purpose of discounting the cops cuts theory they appear to be more than adequate. One thing for sure, the cops are taking their time to respond this time.

  • From the most recent coverage of this issue, it seems that the Police’s immediate reaction that these marks were cuts is incorrect because the white areas were an artefact only present in the later prints. That leaves us with the marks on the thumb.
    The documentary and the work of the experts demonstrated that loading the magazine on that rifle causes marks of the same size and approximate orientation. So, on Robin Bain’s hand there are marks which are not cuts and which are either from loading the rifle or from some unknown other cause which will produce similar marks – of the same size, orientation and quality of being easily and quickly lost.
    As it was 19 years ago with the luminol footprints, the proper question to ask is ‘what is more likely?’. In the case of the footprints, it should have been ‘what is more likely, that the prints were made by the person who is an exact match in terms of average prints, or the person who could have made the prints only if one makes unfounded assumptions about inaccurate meanings, inaccurate measurements and the only two complete prints being aberrations in terms of the average print that person makes?’
    With the marks on the thumb, it is ‘what is more likely, that the marks matching marks from loading a magazine on the thumb of a man who died in a way that is indicative of suicide were caused by him loading the magazine, or that the marks coincidentally occurred from some unrelated cause?’
    The answers to both questions are obvious. Occam’s razor requires the simplest possible explanation that accommodates the facts. For both the footprints and the marks on the thumb, the simplest explanation is that Robin Bain made them. To infer anything else requires fantasizing about imaginary causes and complications. The only reason for doing that would be if there was substantive evidence that Robin Bain did not make them – and there is none.
    If people want to persist with a belief-based interpretation, then they need to adjust their theory of Robin’s innocence to accommodate both the footprints and the thumb-marks. The problem with that approach is that then one is retrofitting evidence to theory, rather than theorising from evidence. And that is just not science!

  • Well said Sara. I would just add that there is no way the lines could be cuts or abrasions and be missed by the pathologist who was scruplulous in every detail.

    Not all evidence has equal weight, which is why I am skeptical of our jury system, as few people know how to assign weight to evidence. Here we have a physical piece of evidence attached to a massive statistical improbability. If you want to pass these lines off as random chance, you would have to convince me that it often occurs naturally at the right place and the right dimensions to the mm. Good luck with that one.

    It has also been brought to my attention that Robin had a bruise and abrasion on his right fist, sustained hours before his death. At the very least we can say that it doesn’t fit the theory that Robin was sound asleep until 6:30am when his alarm was supposed to have gone off.

  • Of course one issue that I can’t determine is any mention of whether the police checked the bullets/cartridges for Robin’s finger/thumb prints. One might expect that if Robin was indeed loading into the magazine, he might have left a print. He would have needed to apply a reasonable amount of downward pressure which you would expect might leave a print on at least one of the cartridges and/or misfired bullets. I’m not sure how stable prints are and whether or not something like that could be still checked after many years, assuming they haven’t been checked already. But if Robin’s prints were identified on any of the cartridges/bullets that would put the matter firmly to rest. It is also possible that they checked and that the quality was poor and inconclusive.

  • I really wonder about the intelligence level of people. Hasn’t ANYONE thought to measure the spacing of the top front of the magazine, and compare it to the spacing of the marks on Robin Bains thumb? OK – I have. Guess what – they’re identical. Check in the photo above. I used vernier calipers. Measure the straight bits at the front, not the ‘rolled over’ rear part. BTW – I just measured the marks (there ARE two – the rear one is a bit smudged, but there – and THEY are narrower – which also matches with the ‘rolled over’ rear part of the magazine.

    @Paul – I have an identical (well, at least the top of it is – don’t know about the capacity) magazine – and I load it by sliding the rounds in sideways – with my thumb. With my forefinger on the rear of the mag. I use both hands – holding the mag in my right, placing the round into the top with my left, and sliding it into position with my thumb.

    @RonL – If the magazine the cop was ‘demo-ing’ was the same one shown on TV1 tonight (7/10), then it was a totally different (other than being a .22) shape and design magazine to the Bain one.

    Some further comments – the marks may well have NOT been gunpowder residue, but oil. If David (it was his gun?) was at all conscientious about it, he would have cleaned and oiled it after he used it – particularly oiling it if he used it in poor weather at all. Oil leaves those colour marks. Particularly from contact with parts of an older weapon – which his was.

    Also, when testing with MY magazine, I got the marks more consistently when UNloading a round from the mag – which you have to do if you haven’t loaded it in correctly to start with… Easy enough to do – I’ve had to do it myself in the past. BTW – my gun experience runs to around 36 years – and the .22 (I have several) my mag is from is a Philippines made Stirling model 110. I have no idea what model/brand the Bain rifle is.

  • Interesting observations Steve, but its hard to know what the crown experts have and haven’t considered without seeing their full reports. Oil tends to diffuse and/or drip slightly, unless it is a viscous oil or grease. But residue also falls off easily. I expect that by the time Robin was examined at the mortuary, the marks would have disappeared.

    Other questions which I think need to be answered.

    1. Why not get impartial forensic experts to examine the evidence ie. preferably from the USA. I am concerned that the police have decided what answers they want, and will interpret evidence that suits their position.
    2. They didn’t mention the results of finger print analysis using the original prints. Given that the pathologist saw no cuts/abrasions, the only way they could say with confidence that the lines were indeed cuts/abrasions is if they could be seen on the original prints. I didn’t hear any mention of this, but I assume the prints revealed nothing, and if so, there is no evidence to support cuts/abrasions. If cuts/abrasions are ruled out, then it becomes very difficult to explain the markings.
    3. Apparently there are other markings on Robin Bain’s hands that are visible in high resolution photos and may be consistent with him having used the fire arm, but no mention by the police of having followed up those observations.
    4. There was no mention of the marks on Robin’s forefinger. What did the finger prints show?

    The police had months to review the evidence carefully and impartially. I think independent experts from a different country should thoroughly examine the evidence or we will never have closure on this case.

  • Good point re the oil – my wife and I have been discussing that very point – our thoughts are along the lines of “wouldn’t the fingerprint person taking the prints wipe the fingers clean before taking them?” – which sort of makes sense, as they are primarily there to get an accurate copy of the finger prints – not copies of any dirt/oil/blood/etc. that might be on them.

    As for oil diffusing and dripping – that depends on the viscosity – and the amounts of other contaminants in it. Also the quantity. If it’s just a smear, it won’t drip or run – it’ll just sit there until it gets wiped off. Plus – dirt and dust stick to oil, which is consistent with the colour of the marks. A similar effect could be achieved by touching the top of the magazine onto a ink stamp pad, then loading/unloading a round.
    The more I look at that picture – the more certain I am that the thumb marks are consistent with unloading a round from the magazine – which is what one does if it doesn’t locate correctly with the initial load. The marks are on the outer edge of the thumb, and would be made as the thumb went from left to right, rolling slightly as the round was slid out.
    The forefinger mark could well have been made during loading.
    I also measured the marks using the TV3 picture – which showed more of the magazine and hand, directly from the TV screen (MySky HDI paused), and the marks matched the width of the front of the magazine perfectly.

    As for your other questions – couldn’t have put it better myself! Some impartiality is definitely called for here.

  • The cops fingerprint report makes a number of statements of observations and one of opinion.

    5. The marks on Mr Bain’s thumb are not on the flat part of the pad of the thumb where loading marks are typically located. However they are not far removed from the common location and their apparent location nearer to the edge of the thumb may not be significant.
    6. The width of the marks on Mr Bain’s thumb fell within the experimentally determined variation.
    7. If the marks on Mr Bain’s thumb are the result ofloading a cartridge, then the absence of other marks suggest that the loading was done after the marks from previous loadings had been wiped away.
    8. The lack of appropriate scales and the orientation of the thumb in the photographs prevents a definitive conclusion as to whether the marks are the result of loading a magazine. The photographs had not been taken for the purpose of accurate comparison, so the absence of appropriate scales is not unexpected.
    9. In my opinion although there appears to be a pair oflines on Mr Bain’s thumb that could have resulted from loading a cartridge into a magazine, there is lacking an accurate correspondence of the features of the marks. In my opinion there is considerable doubt that the shape, dimensions and colour of the marks on Mr Bain’s thumb are consistent with marks made as a result ofloading a cartridge into a magazine.

    The report certainly doesn’t prove they were magazine marks on Robin’s thumb and certainly do conclude that they could have been. This certainly adds reasonable doubt regarding David Bain’s involvement in the killings.

    Given the Police’s ongoing inability to impassionately critique it’s own work, it is obvious to even a blind man that this issue needs to be reviewed by more than one independent overseas expert. It seems to me that experts can easily be found to support any theory one proposes. That said, proclamations of David’s innocence are certainly on firmer ground now than they were before the discovery of these marks. The police report adds weight to claims of David’s innocence… although not as much as David’s supporters would want, but far more than the Police are spinning.

  • @RonL

    5. They are correct – however – the marks ARE consistent with using the thumb to extract a round. Robin may well have loaded the rounds (or round – see below) using his finger – as Paul put it earlier.

    6. “The width of the marks fell WITHIN the experimentally determined variation” – or in other words, they match.

    What he’s saying is that they tested, and they got marks with the same measurement – on repeated tests. Of course when you test something like that, there will be some variation – dependent on the pressure applied, the size of the testers thumb, how fat/thin they are, etc. Some will have the marks on their thumb slightly wider, and some slightly closer – but the marks on Robins thumb were WITHIN that variation. That’s a tested match.

    7. I don’t know how many rounds were determined (or actually were fired) to have been fired (or how many the pictured magazine could hold) – but my magazine which is darn near identical (the upper part definitely is), only holds five rounds. There were 5 dead people, so if the mag. was the same as mine, it would have HAD to have been reloaded a second time. It’s quite feasible that he wiped his hands between loading the magazine the first time, and the second time… Even if it was a more than 5 round mag, it’s quite conceivable that he flicked one round out, checking how many were left, and then reloaded it, figuring two were enough for himself – given that from the picture above, it looks a lot like there was only one round left in the magazine (I could be wrong with this – as the picture above isn’t really the clearest in that respect, and I don’t have access to any of the police reports).

    8. “The lack of scales…”? The magazine AND the hand are both resting on the SAME surface. Side by side. They’re NOT separate photographs! No scale required, it’s a direct 1:1 correlation/comparison.

    9. That may be HIS opinion – but what sort of pressures was he under to give that opinion? It’s not like he’s an unbiased expert… And how many other firearms ‘experts’ would have the same opinion? I can’t say I’m an expert – but I am reasonably experienced, and to me, those marks are from a magazine – clear as day.

    As for the rest of your comments – I’m right with you. As you say – “Spin”!
    ‘Nuff said…

  • Hi Steve,

    Your analysis sounds highly plausible. I laughed when they mentioned scale, because you are absolutely right, the thumb and magazine are side by side in the photo, no scaling required.
    Some dubious conclusions to say the least and all the more reason why independent analysis is required.

    Did you see this in the Herald? If so what do you make of it?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11129156

    It will be only a matter of time before they make the Bain murders a Hollywood Blockbuster. The only question is who will they choose as the real killer? Perhaps they could make two versions, one for David Bain supporters, and one for Robin Bain supporters in a historic first.

    It is possible that they may make it a comedy, at the expense of the New Zealand police. If you think about it, the whole investigation was a blundering effort where they went to great lengths not to tamper with crime scene evidence, taking blood samples and blood typing and/or DNA testing them, checking finger prints from everywhere, many thousands of hours of investigation involving numerous detectives and specialist forensic investigators, three trials, millions of dollars of tax payers money spent and despite all that they could only muster a massive heap of inconclusive evidence. All could have been avoided had one person just calmly strolled in implemented standard procedure and done a gun powder residue test at the start probably cost maybe a 100 bucks. The story would have ended right there and then.

  • Looks like David Giles has access to more (and better quality) photos than most – but it doesn’t surprise me that he’s spotted more evidence that has been previously missed by the ‘experts’.

    I totally get your point re the powder residue test, and lack of it. If I recall correctly, they failed to do one on David also? “Yep – he’s guilty – he must be, he’s the only one still standing – we don’t need to mess around with that stuff…”

    A bit like using the time displayed on the computer as being accurate, without actually checking it against any other clocks/time pieces. As an IT person (since 286’s were the ‘hot box’ on the desktop), I’m well aware that PC time displayed (especially on older 286/386 PC’s) is almost never accurate – unless you have it set up to synchronise with a time server (i.e. NIST) – which only works with an internet connection… And the service wasn’t available back then anyway – in ’94 the internet was still text based, and on dial-up connections only – unless you were really wealthy, or were a corporate…