by Duncan Garner
Straight off the bat, I need to say I have no idea for certain if David Bain murdered his family. But on the balance of probabilities, it’s my opinion that the evidence does rather point to David. What do you think?
The first jury found him guilty and the judge sent him to prison, where he spent the next 13 years. A retrial was eventually ordered and a second jury said not guilty in 2009. That’s nearly seven years ago.
Courts don’t find people innocent – they find them either guilty or not guilty. I have followed the excellent work over the years of Press journalist Martin van Beynen – who sat through every minute of the retrial – and it’s clear that his opinion is that David did it.
That’s really important. He says the police case was sloppy but he thinks the evidence against David was overwhelming. David’s fingerprints are all over the weapon, the .22 rifle – his father Robin Bain’s are not. Not one. Then there’s the bruises and blood on David’s face and torso and the 20-minute delay in ringing police after “finding” the bodies, the list goes on.
Yet the David Bain case has New Zealand truly divided. Polls show half the country think he’s the killer, the other half think he’s been genuinely maligned and is the innocent young boy in the very bad jersey.
Which brings me to the compensation claim. I believe this Government is biased against David Bain. I believe the decision makers believe David Bain killed his family. Like every other New Zealander, these ministers have read and followed the trials for decades. It’s been impossible to ignore.
Read more here:
He has only been found not guilty after originally being found guilty and having served 13 years of a life sentence. Duncan Garner claims the Govt is biased against Bain. If there was evidence out there that Bain was innocent, the Govt would have to approve the payment of compensation. Robin Bain could not have killed his wife and three children because it was impossible for him to have committed suicide. There has never been a suggestion let alone evidence of a third party being involved. Shameful? Not in my book!