There are two things that strike me as odd about the case. Firstly, the motive. While David's father might have had a motive, why would he have killed all his family apart from David? Surely there was no reason to kill his younger son, Stephen, nor his older daughter, Aroha, if his concerns were about his relationship with his other daughter, Laniet. To go round destroying all the family seems an insanity.
Even more unlikely is any motive in David's case. Here was a mild, quiet young man, a bit immature perhaps, but certainly not one who appeared to be greatly troubled by his dysfunctional family, if his behaviour in the world outside was anything to go by. Unlike other mass murderers, there was no hint of withdrawal from society, or underlying anger, or hatred
of the world. Compare David to the young man who killed the students in Kansas. The two personalities are light years apart. And look at Bain when he came out of prison. Here was a man full of light and life. Certainly his pleasure at being released was huge, but wouldn't you think there'd be something else, a certain something you couldn't put your finger on? No sign of it. David Bain is either a very good actor, or he's innocent.The other strange thing about this case is the fact that the police acquiesced in the burning down of the Bain house. This was done within a month of the murders. Apparently this was at the instigation of the Bain relatives. Doesn't this strike you as odd? There are two reasons why it's odd. Why would the police allow a major crime scene to be destroyed so early in the piece, and how come the family had the power to persuade them to do it? Note that the family have once again had a strong say in what should happen to David: he's not to be allowed to stay in the South Island. Says who?
It's crazy, but I have a suspicion there's someone else out there who knows a whole lot more about these murders. Someone who has sat in hiding for all these years, and has the guilt of five deaths on his or her head. Someone who doesn't appear to have a motive because there's never been enough investigation for motive beyond the father and the son. That might make some sense of the puzzle.
5 comments:
David Bain did it. Ask anyone who sat through the trial. James McNeish did and his book is very comprehensively researched. David lived two very different lives and he couldn't equate the two, so he destroyed the one that didn't fit with his 'new' lifestyle. Children who murder their family are not as uncommon as people like to think. People who say 'David' didn't do it' are frightened by their own dark side and the fact that given the right circumstances they could and would do exactly the same.
I think McNeish's book has long since been discredited as being biased. As for people being frightened of their own dark side, I think this is a fairly simplistic way of saying David must have done it.
I have family who knew David Bain, went to school with his brothers and sisters. He must have been an extremely capable schizophrenic to have fooled so many people for so long.
Which I don't believe he was.
McNeish sat through the trial and with the reporters covering the trial. At least his book wasn't akin to criticising a restaurant by reading the menu as was Karam's. David was a very capable amateur actor and yes, he has had people fooled people for a long time, like many before and after him. He doesn't seem to have fooled his relatives though, they've remained, perhaps not unremarkably, silent. It isn't odd that the police allowed the house to be burned down, it was a health risk apart from anything else.
It is odd that the police allowed the house to be burnt down. This was a crime scene, and any further evidence that might have been garnered was destroyed as a result.
As for David being a capable amateur actor; he was involved in singing groups mostly, some of whom performed musical theatre: not normally the place in which great acting takes place.
So apart from McNeish's book, what other evidence do you have for your convictions about David Bain?
The police have been pilloried unnecessarily for a variety of issues related to the Bain case. It was only four years or so prior to the Bain murders that they were dealing with Aramoana, also unprecedented. In that case the Gray (?)house was burnt down unlawfully. Far better then to burn the Bain house down in controlled circumstances before it was done by some nutter or ghoul. Nothing sinister in that and the place was a tip in any case. I'm glad you agree David was a capable amateur actor, he thought so himself, but not enough so as to be able to fool the police. Unlike many who have leapt to Bain's defence, and I also knew the family but only in passing, I have discussed the case with many professional, knowledgeable people (including those intimately involved) and read widely. Of course David is happy, he's hoping he can start life afresh without his immediate family to bother him.
Post a Comment