Latest / Wicked and Grim: A True Crime Podcast / The Bain Family Massacre

Transcript

The Bain Family Massacre · Wicked and Grim: A True Crime Podcast

• 0:07
  Speaker 1: On a cold morning in June of nineteen ninety four,
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: a twenty two year old man called emergency services and
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: he told them he had found his entire family dead
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: inside their home, all of them shot in cold blood.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: What followed, though, was not just a murder investigation, but
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: a case that would split a country, challenge the justice system,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: and leave behind more questions than answers. See, the only
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: people who could have been responsible for those murders were
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: those who lived inside of the home itself, and yet,
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: even decades later, the massacre of the Bain family still
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: remains one of New Zealand's most debated and unresolved cases.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: This is the story of the Bain Family massacre.
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: My name's Ben, I'm Nicole, and are listening to Wicked Ingram, a.
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: True crime podcasting. The following podcast material more audience listeners.
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: I just had my first sip of coffee, like just
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: it was the in between recording that intro. And now
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: I've only had one cup of coffee this morning and
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: it's nine am.
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: So now you feel like you're ready for the day
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: that it's going through your veins, I.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Mean a little bit like I'm not someone who depends
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: on coffee for caffeine. I could probably drink decaf and
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: it wouldn't fucking matter. It's just that that ritual of
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: the hot, earthy drink, you know, it just revitalizes me
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: that alone, like tea does a very good job of
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: it too.
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: Well, how come you don't like macho then it tastes
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: like grass? That's earthy?
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Well it's a little too earthy. Maybe maybe I'm more
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: of a dirt flavored person, not a grass flavored person.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: How's that.
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: I'm very curious the percentage of adults that feel like
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: the need to have a cup of coffee in the
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: morning to kind of like start their day right, like.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Caffeine wise or what yeah, yeah.
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: Caffeine or even just the ritual or whatever.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: I'd imagine it's high.
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: I bet it's at least seventy five percent.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: Probably should I google it right now?
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: I think that you should.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: What percentage of adults need to start their.
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: Day with coffee? Cup of coffee, cup of java?
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: Okay, so Google's little AI thing says approximately sixty six
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: to seventy three percent of Americans drink coffee daily, But
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: it also says about thirty six of adults specifically identify
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: as morning coffee drinkers and that's how they start their day.
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: Okay, so I'm probably a minority, then I'm thinking minority.
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: Oh, you're definitely a minority. Yeah, yeah, but you weren't
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: too far off when you said seventy five percent. It
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: seems like it's like sixty six to seventy three is
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: what it says here.
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: Dang, that's so high. I don't know. That must be.
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: There is obviously a huge market then for coffee, right, Oh,
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: definitely should really tap into that. I guess. Obviously there's
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: like Starbucks and whatever on every corner of the street
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: in some big cities.
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: But artistsan roasters. I mean, I've always wanted to start
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: my own little like coffee roasting and stuff. I should one.
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: Day, Yeah, make your own coffee kind of.
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: Fun wicked coffee or something.
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: But it would probably be such a shame if I
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: don't drink it. Would that make me a coffee drinker?
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: Have to make me a coffee drinker?
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: Maybe it would?
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: That would be what did it? Eh?
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: Maybe? Although I do have to bring up Macha here though,
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: because I saw a joke the other day this girl
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: was like showing off her Macha or whatever. And then
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: she had like the tin of all the stuff and
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: she went to like lift it up to the camera
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: for this reel, and she showed the camera what it was,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: and then the lid blew open and then Macha went everywhere,
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: spilling on her. And then some dude reacted to the
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: video and with like the best joke ever, and he's like,
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: h looks like your shirt, Macha's your drink.
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: Oh my god.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: I laughed way too hard. It was so good.
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: I do admit, Macha can make a huge mess. Really.
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: The powder is kind of annoying and obnoxious.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah, fair, but I don't know.
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: It's like pretty too.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: But soaking ground coffee. You'd spill that gets everywhere, honestly.
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: If you it, I guess. But it matches more like
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: a loose powder, right, Yeah.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah, It's definitely got that fluffiness, the fine greenness to it.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: I think enough talking about these drinks this morning. Are
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: you ready for this case?
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: Let's talk about murder instead?
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Talk about murder. This is definitely murder. I will tell
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: you that. I don't go into too many graphic details,
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: but it is an unsolved case and it is quite
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: the story.
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: I'll tell you nineties, you said, I think right, yes.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: From the nineties. I'll tell you right now, once you
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: figure it out, you might want to stick around and
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: wait more to really develop your opinion. If you have
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: your opinion figured out, you're probably going to change it,
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: and then you're probably going to change it back, and
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: then you might even change it again. That's how this
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: case is going to go.
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: Okay, were ready hear it?
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Okay? So, on the morning of June twentieth, nineteen ninety four,
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: at approximately seven nine am, emergency services in Duneda, New Zealand,
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: received a call from twenty two year old David Bain. Now.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: The call was urgent right from the start, with David
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: immediately telling operators that something was seriously wrong inside his home.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: On every street, not every street. This name was every street. Okay,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: So it's not on every single street. It's on this
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: street that is named every street.
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: That's kind that would bring up some confusion when you're
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: telling people that your address.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah. When as operators tried to understand the situation, David
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: stated very clearly, quote they're all dead, my family, they're
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: all dead end. Quote. Throughout the call, David's voice was
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: strained and emotional, but he was still able to respond
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: to the operator's questions. He provided his name and confirmed
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: his address, allowing emergency services to identify the location rather
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: quickly despite the confusing street name. Now, the operator also
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: attempted to gather more specific information about what had happened
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: inside the home, including whether anyone was still alive or
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: required immediate medical attention or what. However, David did not
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: provide a detailed explanation of the situation inside the home.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: His responses remained focused on the fact that his entire
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: family was deceased, rather than describing individual victims or explaining
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: how he'd come to find him in that state that
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: they were in. Now, the call itself was relatively brief
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: and ultimately did not contain a full account of events,
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: with no explanation of what David had seen or done
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: prior to contacting you Know nine one one. Instead, the
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: call served primarily as an alert that something catastrophic had
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: occurred inside the home, didn't tell the story of how, why,
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: or anything outside of that. Now, based on the information provided,
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: police and paramedics were sent immediately to the address, preparing
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: for a situation that could involve multiple fatalities and potentially
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: even still an ongoing threat, because that fact alone was
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: still unclear. So when emergency services arrived at the Bain
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: family home on every street within minutes of the call,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: it was approximately seven twenty am, with the conditions outside
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: being cold and dim with limited natural light. Officers approached
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: to property with very little confirmed information. All they knew
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: was that a caller inside the home had reported multiple
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: deaths and no indication if there were still an active
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: situation unfolding that had caused these deaths, and because of
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: that uncertainty, police did not immediate treat the scene as secure. See,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: there was a real possibility that whoever was responsible could
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: still be inside the house, so officers approached very cautiously,
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: aware they could be walking into a potentially very dangerous situation. Now,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: this initial hesitation shaped how they entered the home, as
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: they had to balance the urgency with personal safety as well.
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: They had to look out for themselves. Now. The house
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: itself appeared run down and poorly maintained, consistent with reports
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: that the Bain family home had fallen into a state
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: of disrepair. When officers stepped up to the front door,
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: they didn't receive an immediate response when they knocked, despite
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: the emergency call having just been made from inside the.
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: Home, which is super eerie.
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: Exactly so this only added to the uncertainty intention of
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: the situation building. But eventually police made the decision that
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: they needed to force their entry in the home to
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: gain access and assess what was going on, and when
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: they did, officers quickly located David Bain. He was found
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: on the floor. He was in deep distress and repeatedly
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: stating that his family was dead. His behavior was described
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: as deeply emotional and extremely overwhelmed.
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: Okay, but he wasn't hurt himself. It was just he
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: was in shock and agony because his family was dead.
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: Correct, he just found all of them dead, which.
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: Ooh, I couldn't imagine. That would just be the most
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: brutal thing ever.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, as officers began moving through the home, the
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: inside of the house was heavily cluttered, with belongings scattered
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: throughout the rooms, and it appeared to be disorganized and
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: again very poorly maintained. The layout itself was somewhat confusing too,
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: with narrow spaces, partially obstructed hallways and areas separated by
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: makeshift divisions rather than clearly defined rooms, but this made
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: movement through the house a lot slower as officers worked
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: methodically to check and clear each and every space. The
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: first body they found was located in the living room.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: It was that of Robin Bain, the father. He was
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: found on floor in a pool of blood with a
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: gunshot wound to his head, and there was a twenty
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: two caliber semi automatic rifle that was lying nearby the
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: position of the body and the presence of the weapon
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: suggested a possible self inflicted gunshot, but this had not
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: been confirmed yet. Officers continued through the house to determine
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: whether anyone else was present or whether medical assistants could
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: still provide anything to someone else who might still be
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: clinging to life. In a nearby bedroom, they discovered eighteen
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: year old Lynette Baine lying in a bed. She was
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: David's younger sister, and she had been shot in multiple
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: times at close range, and the injuries were concentrated to
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: the upper body area, including her head and torso. Moving
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: further through the house, officers located Margaret Bain that was
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: the mother of the family, and she was also in
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: a bedroom, and she too had been shot multiple times.
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: The injuries were concentrated again to her upper body, including
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: the head, torso and chest area. In another room, they
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: found eighteen year old Arwa Bain, another one of David's
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: younger sisters. Unlike the others, though she was not positioned
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: in bed in a typical resting posture, which suggested that
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: she may have been awake at the time of the attack,
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: but she too had been shot, with her injuries involving
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: the head and upper body torso area, and her fatal
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: shot being to the head like the others. The final
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: discovery came when officers located fourteen year old Stephen Bain.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: He was David's younger brother and was the youngest member
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: of the family. He was in a separate room and
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: was not immediately visible. Now his injuries were different. They
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: showed very clear signs of a struggle, which indicated that
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: he had not been killed instantly when he was first
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: shot and attempted to defend himself. There were indications that
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: the shot had initially failed to incapacitate him, and it
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: was followed by a physical confrontation with his attacker before
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: it was ultimately well a killing shot by the gun
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: that would take them down.
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: Holy shit, So this is what two adults and.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: Three kits, five members of the family shot and killed.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. Well, I mean it does kind of
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: make sense that not all of them were, you know,
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: taken by surprise, right.
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, the thing though, is twenty two caliber rifle.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, it is. It's still a gun shot,
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: but twenty two calibers are relatively quiet. Just for clarification,
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: the bullets are rather small. We've talked about this in
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: the show before. It's a It was a very popular
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: choice by you know, the mafia and gang members way
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: back in the day because a bullet will enter a
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: brain cavity, not exit the skull, rattle around, scramble the brains,
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: so you have less of a mess, but also a
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: quieter shot to help, you know, keep things a little
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: a little more stealthy.
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: But even if the gun is quiet, there could be
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: noise made from like the other family members and stuff too, right,
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: one hundred percent.
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that the gun is quiet enough
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: to not be heard. It's just a lot quieter, quiet
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: enough that you can maybe shake it off as something else.
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: You know, or that a neighbor would maybe not necessarily
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: be like, that's a gun shot.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: For sure. Maybe the first shot or two might not
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: wake someone up if they're sleeping, even but that it's
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: still a gun going off in a home. It's going
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: to wake people up. And perhaps that's how this played out,
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: you know what. A couple of them were sleeping, then
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: the other one was maybe awake in bed but not sleeping,
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: and then the final one being the youngest son, well
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: maybe he came face to face with the attacker as
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: he was entering the bedroom, right.
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he was like, no, like, I'm going to try
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: to well fight for my life.
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Now across the house, the pattern of the killings
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: began to emerge. Most the victims appeared to have been
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: shot in or near their beds just as we were talking,
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: suggesting that they had been attacked while they were sleeping
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: or shortly after waking up. Stephen's case, of course, stood
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: out due to the evidence of resistance, making it clear
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: that at least part of the attack involved direct physical conflict. Now,
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: at this point, officers had confirmed that all five members
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: of the Bain family were dead inside the home, outside
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: of course David, who was the one who found them. Now,
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: with the rifle located near Robin Bain's body, and the
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: distribution of the victims through at the home, the initial
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: impression began to take shape. Based on what they were seeing,
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: it appeared very possible that Robin Bain had shot his
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: family before turning the gun on himself and self deleting.
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: Now police soon secured the scene and began documenting what
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: they had found, and another detail was found that reinforced
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: this theory. See, there was a message found on the
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: family's computer. On the screen were the words that said,
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: quote sorry, you're the only one who deserved to.
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: Stay end quote poor Okay.
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems like this is like some sort of
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: explanation or maybe a farewell, But it was interpreted by
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: early investigators as a possible suicide note left behind by
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: the killer, who was assumed to be Robin, the father
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: of the family.
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: And the explanation for why David was still alive exactly.
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: So, if Robin had written it, it could have been
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: read maybe even as an apology directed towards David specifically.
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: I mean, it does say sorry, right, seems to be
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: talking about him, who was the only surviving member. Now,
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: at this stage, there was no clear sign of forced
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: entry and no immediate indication that an outside attacker had
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: been involved. Now, David's presence in the home, combined with
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: his emergency call, placed him as the sole surviving witness.
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: Now soon officers began talking to him as the investigation
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: began to unravel, and he soon told them that he
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: was out completing his paper route during the early hour mornings,
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: and he had come home to find the murder scene
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: at the house. Now, based on those early observations and
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: evidence of the murder's suicide theory, it formed that way
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: very quickly. But to understand how investigators approached this case,
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: it is important to look at the Bain family itself
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: and the environment inside the home leading up to that
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: fateful night, because there's a lot more than David being
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: out on a paper route and an explosion of murder
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: happening while he's gone. Now, to most, the family might
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: have appeared relatively ordinary, but internally there were signs of tension, division,
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: and instability that had been building over time. Robin Bain,
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: the father, was a school teacher and had spent a
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: significant portion of his career working overseas as a missionary educator.
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: His wife, Margaret Bain had developed a very different set
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: of beliefs over the years too. See while Robin maintained
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: a more traditional religious outlook, Margaret became increasingly interested in
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: spiritual philosophy, astrology and alternative practices, including seances and the
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: idea of communicating with spirits. Now these differences were not
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: minor disagreements, they had grown into a very deep divide
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: within the house household, contributing to many ongoing conflicts between
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: the two. The family had spent approximately fifteen years living
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: in Papua New Guinea before returning to New Zealand in
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: nineteen eighty eight, and during their time overseas, the children
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: had been largely homeschooled and a lifestyle was described as
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: pretty unstructured, to say the least. When they returned to
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: the city Dunedin in New Zealand, the transition was it
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: was very difficult for several members of the family, particularly David,
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: who was around sixteen at the time sea, adjusting to
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: a more conventional school environment and social structure. It proved
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: extremely challenging after years of more un isolated upbringing. Now,
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: by the time the murders had occurred, the Baine household
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: was no longer functioning as a unified family home. The
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: relationship between Robin and Margaret had broken down significantly, and
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: Robin had effectively been pushed out of the main home
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: and was living separately, often staying in a caravan or vehicle,
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: while still maintaining some sort of connection to the home
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: and his kids. Now. Despite this physical separation, though, he
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: continued to provide financial support, which added another layer of
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: tension to a very strained already situation. Now inside the home,
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: there were also divisions amongst the children. David, being the
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: oldest at twenty two, was still living at home and
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: working a paper route while also pursuing interests in music
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: and performance. He was widely described as being very close
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: to his mother and aligned with her on her ongoing
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: conflict with the father, so he kind of sided with
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: his mom now. Arowa, one of his younger sisters, was
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: seen as responsible and academically successful, while Lanaiette, one of
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: the other sisters, had been living away from the home
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: and had her own separate challenges and personal issues. But
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: I digress on that now. Stephen, the youngest at fourteen,
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: was still a teenager and was largely caught in the
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: middle of the family dynamic, and when it came to
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: the house itself, it reflected the state the family was in,
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: being described as cluttered, poorly maintained, and invisible decline. The
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: physical environment, combined with the emotional and psychological divisions within
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: the home, created a setting where tension had become a
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: constant presence rather than an occasional occurrence, and so by
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: June of nineteen ninety four, the Bain family was no
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: longer operating as a stable unit. While none of this
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: explained what had happened on the morning of June twentieth,
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: it at least provided important context for investigators and as
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: they tried to understand how something so violent could occur
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: inside a family home now on June nineteenth, nineteen ninety four,
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: the night before the murders took place, This also became
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: an important point of focus for investigators as they tried
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: to understand the following morning. See that evening, multiple members
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: of the Bain family were present at the house on
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: every street. Lanniette Bain, who had not been living at
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: the home full time time, was present that night, so
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: her return placed all of the family members under that
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: same roof. In the hours leading up to the killings. Now, allegedly,
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: there may have been plans for a family discussion or
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: confrontation involving Lenniette that night too. It was later reported
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: that she had intended to address certain personal matters with
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: the family, although the exact nature of what she had
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: planned to say and how that conversation might have unfolded
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: was never fully confirmed. What is clear, though, is that
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: her presence that night introduced an additional layer of the
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: unknown of uncertainty into an already unstable environment.
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: Okay, so she didn't live there full time, but they
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: were having a good old family meeting potentially those are
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: always awesome, and she was there for that and then
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: stay the night or something correct, is what they're thinking.
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: Yes, so the family doesn't all live in the same home.
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: She was the one who lived away and she's back.
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: She had intents of bringing something up with the family.
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: There's a lot of tensions already going on, and before
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: that could happen, these murders occurred. Okay, which is very
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: like murder mystery scenario kind of situation.
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: I was literally just thinking that that this could be
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: a freaking murder mystery game.
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: But unfortunately, though this isn't the game. Yeah, it's real life.
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: This was people's lives that they lost because of this.
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, and I do have to just say, it
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: would be very difficult to have a household that has
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: two different religions or beliefs, right like that systems. Yeah,
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: that would be very something hard to navigate through and
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: definitely cause a lot of tension.
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: One hundred percent, because beliefs are the foundation for certain
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: individuals entire lives, how they live, how they react, what
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: they believe, what they do all this, and if you
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: have two contrasting situations, how can you correlate certain lives
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: and have them connect together. I'm not saying it's impossible.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I possible, but it's just very difficult for sure.
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: In fact, I think I advocate for people being able
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: to do that, you know, having compassion and living with
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: someone who disagrees with you. I think that's great, but
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: it's not going to be easy.
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, but it is. I mean I know of
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: some families that make it work. It's kind of you know,
• 22:29
  Speaker 2: neat that you can respect someone to believe what they
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: want to believe and then still kind of have your
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: family unions.
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: Exactly like for us for example, I believe coffee's amazing.
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: You don't. We still get along relatively well.
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: Because apparently coffee is a damn religion. At this point,
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: am I've seventy five people, seventy five percent of people
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: into it.
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think at this point you can probably say
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: it is now. Despite the tensions between everyone, there was
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: nothing at the time that clearly pointed to an imminent
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: act of violence that was going to occur. The family
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: went through the evening as they normally would, with no
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: indication that the following morning they would all be dead.
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: From the beginning, investigators took this information and worked to
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: build a timeline based on physical evidence, witness sightings, and
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: David's own account right being unfortunately the only witness to
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: finding the bodies and what had happened maybe in the
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: home that day, David said, as I mentioned earlier, he
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: delivered newspapers and he typically began his route each day early. Now,
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: according to his account, he woke sometime around five thirty am,
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: then he got dressed, left the house at approximately five
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: forty five am, and began his paper run. Now, he
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: was known to complete much of the route on foot,
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: often running between deliveries and he took pride in finishing
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: his route quite quickly. Now, at the same time, it
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: was believed that Robin followed his own routine, which involved
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: waking a little later in the morning than David did,
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: often around six thirty am, and beginning his day with
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: prayers in the lounge or you know, living room. Now,
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: this routine would later become a key detail in how
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: both the prosecution and defense tried to reconstruct the sequence
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: of events. Witness sightings and delivery records placed David on
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: his route during the early hour mornings, and it was
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: generally accepted that he completed the run and returned home
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: at approximately six forty two to six forty five am. Now,
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: this return time became very critical, as it marked the
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: point in which his version of events began to overlap
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: with the estimated timeframe of the killings. See. At the
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: same time, an analysis of the family's computer showed that
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: it had been switched on sometime within a window between
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: roughly six point thirty nine and six forty four am. Now,
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: the exact moment could not be pinpointed down with certainty,
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: but this range introduced a key element because depending on
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: when the computer had been activated, it could suggest that
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: it had been turned on before or after David got home,
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: and the computer was where the note was written.
• 25:07
  Speaker 2: Correct, right, right?
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: Okay, Now, according to what he told police, shortly after
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: returning home, he made a discovery, you know, with his
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: family being dead, and then made the call to nine
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: one one at seven h nine am, and that alone
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: created a gap of roughly twenty to twenty five minutes
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: between his return home and his call placed to.
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: Nine one one, which is a long time.
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, So what happened during that period, Well, according to David,
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: that gap in time was spent moving through the house,
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: discovering the bodies of his family members, and attempting to
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: process what he was seeing before finally calling for help.
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: It created a lot of suspicion around David, even though
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: from the beginning he maintained a very consistent account of
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: what he said happened on that morning.
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: See.
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: According to him, he returned home again approximately six forty
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: two to six forty five am, and when he arrived
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: he didn't immediately realize anything was wrong in the home,
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: he said. He entered the house as he normally would.
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: He went to his room, where he dropped off his
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: items from his newspaper run, including his delivery bag and
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: other personal belongings. From there, he moved through his routine,
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: still unaware of what had happened inside the house. David
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: said he then went downstairs to the laundry area to
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: deal with washing up after work, particularly because his hands
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: would often be stained with ink rubbering off from the newspapers. Right,
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: he said, he washed his hands and began organizing laundry,
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: eventually turning on the washing machine, and then after that
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: he returned upstairs and was during this time that he
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: began to notice things were out of place. See when
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: he got back to his room, he noticed rifle components
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: such as a trigger lock and an ammunition on the
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: floor of his room, which isn't normal. The rifle is
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: usually stored in his room, but these items are typically
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: put away and stored properly with the rifle itself, but
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: it seemed the rifle was gone, so after noticing this,
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: he went into his mother's margaret room, where he found
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: her body and the bloody scene where she was shot
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: and killed. From there, panic took over. He moved through
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: the house looking and checking on other family members, and
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: as he continued, he discovered each and every one of them,
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: and they were all dead. He described the experience as
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: overwhelming and disorienting, saying that he struggled to process what
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: he was seeing as he moved from room to room,
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: seeing them slumped over, lifeless and pools of their own blood,
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: and David eventually called nine point one emergency services at
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: seven o nine am. He described his delay as a
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: result of, you know, getting home from work, not noticing
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: right away, then shock, confusion, and the time to grasp
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: a situation. He did not claim to have a precise
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: memory of every single moment that morning, and in some
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: instances even stated that parts of it were unclear to him.
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: I mean, put yourself in his shoes, if you discovered that, right,
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: it would all feel like a nightmare, a blur, something
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: just out of a dream.
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: Well, and even too, when he first gets home from work,
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: he's just kind of going through motions exactly, you know,
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: like that he's not even going to retain or remember, right.
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: Maybe he's tiptoeing through the house, assuming his family's still sleeping,
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: which I'm sure they often were.
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: Now, taken on its own, David's version of events present
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: a sequence that is not impossible a person returning home
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: going through the routine gradually realizing something's wrong, than discovering
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: a series of very traumatic events. It could explain a delay,
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: it could explain fragmented recollection, no problem. In fact, I
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: would expect that's probably how it would unfold. However, as
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: investigators would soon begin to examine the evidence inside the home,
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: they would start to compare this version of events against
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: what had actually been found at the scene, and one
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: of the first major points of concern was the presence
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: of blood that they found on David's clothes. When police
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: examined what he had been wearing, they identified blood stains
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: that were later matched to his younger brother, Stephen, and
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: this immediately became very significant because if you remember, Stephen's
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: injuries had shown clear sign of a struggle, and that
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: implication meant that whoever had been in close contact with
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: Stephen during that struggle would likely have transferred blood onto
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: their clothing.
• 29:22
  Speaker 2: But he's also running around too and checking on his family,
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: so there is potential reason for him to have some
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: blood on him.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: You're right, So this at least, at the very least
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: put some in physical proximity with one of the most
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: physical parts of the attack, but it proves nothing now.
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: The laundry area also became a key focus too. Investigators
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: found that the washing machine had been recently used, and
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: David even said he did laundry that morning right. There were, also, however,
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: traces of blood presents present in the area around the
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: washing machine. Not only that clothing had been washing hung
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: to dry, including items believed to have been worn during
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: the time of the killings. Shit, there were also visible
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: smears of blood in the room, including a partial handprint,
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: which ultimately was identified to belong to David. So this
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: raised a huge immediate question. If David had only just
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: returned home and was unaware of what happened, how had
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: blood ended up in the laundry, Why were his clothes
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: being washed so soon after the estimated time of the murder.
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: He said he had no idea everyone was dead by
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: the time he was washing his clothes. That happened first,
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: then the discovery of the murders happened second. So theoretically
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: there should be no blood in his clothes or the
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: washing area.
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, no, they're shitting in't at all.
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: Another important piece of evidence was discovered, and it was
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: a pair of gloves in Stephen's room. These gloves belonged
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: to David and were found in close proximity to where
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: Stephen had been killed, and they were heavily stained with blood,
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: and their location suggested they were present during the struggle
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: that had taken place in the room. It seemed like
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: the attacker had worn the gloves during the shootings and
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: removed them at some point during the confrontation with Stephen.
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: And I'll talk about a little bit later onto why
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: the gloves were removed, but for now, let's just leave
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: it at that. Then there was an issue with glasses
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: that it also began to draw attention. See a pair
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: of glasses belonging to Margaret, the mother of the family,
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: was found damaged with one lens missing, and that lens
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: was later located in Stephen's room near his body. Now
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: here's the thing. David needed glasses. He was shortsighted with astigmatism,
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: and at the time of the murders his own glasses
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: were being repaired. He even admitted that he would sometimes
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: borrow his mother's glasses. Now, the Crown would later argue
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: that the glasses had been worn by the attacker. The
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: lens was dislodged during the struggle and that's how it
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: ended up in Stephen's room.
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: Okay, that does make sense.
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: In addition to this, investigators also noted injuries on David himself.
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: These included scratches and marks that could be consistent with
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: some form of physical contact or struggle, and while these
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: injuries were not immediately conclusive on their own, they became
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: more significant when considered alongside the other evidence found in
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: the house. And in the days immediately following the murders,
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: investigators continued working under the initial assumption that Robin Baine
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: may have been responsible for the killings. However, as more
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: evidence was collected and analyzed, that position became increasingly difficult
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: to maintain, and the accumulation of all the physical evidence
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: inside the home began to point away from a clear
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: murder suicide scenario. Questions were raised about whether Robin would
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: have taken the time to change his clothes place him
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: in the wash machine before ending his own life and
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: after killing his family. Now, remember the clothes that were
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: washed and hung out to dry. They assume it was
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: the same clothes from the murder. Whoever killed had worn
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: those clothes, but they don't know who was wearing those
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: clothes is part of the problem. Okay, whether it was
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: Robin or whether it was David, and they're questioning, did
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: Robin really kill his family then wash his clothes hanging
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: out to dry, and then write a suicide note and
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: kill himself. That doesn't quite really add up. Now, As
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: these concerns developed, the initial investigation began to shift its direction. David,
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: who had been treated as the sole surviving witness of
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: a family tragedy, was no longer being viewed in that role. Instead,
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: he became a person of interest, and then he became
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: the primary suspect.
• 33:39
  Speaker 2: David being the primary suspect, though, isn't really a rarity.
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: People that are like closest to you and if there's
• 33:45
  Speaker 2: something bad that happens are often the ones that are
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: looked at first.
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: For sure, spouse's family members, that sort of thing. So
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: definitely not him being a primary suspect is probably something
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: that would happen right out of the gate.
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: He had, I mean, the most access to these people
• 34:00
  Speaker 2: out of anyone.
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: For sure. However, there's evidence that it's actually starting to
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: add up and point towards him that's also making him
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: that primary suspect. True, it is not just a suspect. Oh,
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: because he's family.
• 34:12
  Speaker 2: It's also there's some shit pointing to you, buddy.
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: Exactly now. On June twenty fourth, nineteen ninety four, four
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: days after the bodies were discovered, police formally arrested David
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: and charged him with the murders of his family. This
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: marked a complete reversal from the original working theory and
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: set the course work for what would come in the
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: most controversial crime case in New Zealand's history. When the
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: case went to trial in nineteen ninety five, on May
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: eighth in the High Court at Dunedin, nearly a full
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: year had passed since the death of his family, and
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: the prosecution presented a detailed reconstruction of the events that
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: placed David at the center of these murders. Now, this
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: version of events relied on physical evidence gathered from the house,
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: combined with the timeline established by his paper route and
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: and return home. Now, while the Crown was not able
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: to present a clear and compelling motive, they at least
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: argued that the sequence of actions itself pointed strongly towards
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: David as the person responsible. According to the prosecution, David
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: woke earlier than he had claimed. He did. It was
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: some time around five am. They say that he got
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: out of bed before beginning his paper route, but instead
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: of leaving the house immediately to go to his job,
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: they alleged to use that extra time that he had
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: and retrieved the twenty two caliber Semiotic rifle from his room.
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: He unlocked it using the spare key hidden on his desk,
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: and prepared it for use. They further suggested that he
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: wore gloves during the initial stage of the attack, which
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: would explain why gloves belonging to him were later found
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: in Stephen's room. The Crown's reconstruction of the killings began
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: with the family members who were most vulnerable. They argued
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: that David moved to the house, entering bedrooms where his
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: family members were either asleep or unprepared. Laniette and Margaret
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: were shot in their beds, while Auwa was shot after
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: being disturbed by the noise and attempting to respond. The
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: attack on Stephen, though, was described a bit different based
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: on the physical evidence found in his room. According to
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: the prosecution, Stephen woke during the initial shot, which either
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: missed or failed to incapacitate him, leading to a physical
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: struggle between him and the attacker. Now, during this struggle,
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: it was alleged that David removed his gloves to deal
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: with the problem with the rifle. Potentially he tried to
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: shoot Stephen, it jammed, thus having him remove his gloves
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: trying to unjam it, giving Stephen an opportunity to lunge
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: and try and take the gun away or attack Stephen. Okay, However,
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: he failed and ultimately David delivered a fatal shot. Now,
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: following the killings, the prosecution argued that David removed his
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: bloodstained clothes placed them in the washing machine in an
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: attempt to eliminate evidence. They pointed to the blood found
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: in the laundry area and recely washed clothes and the
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: presence of his fingerprints in blood on the machine as
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: support of this claim. Now, after this, they said, he
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: left the house at approximately five forty five am and
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: carried out his paper route as per normal, using it
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: as a way to establish an alibi. Now, according to
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: this version of events, David then returned home at approximately
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: six forty two a m. At which point he turned
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: on the family computer typed out the message that was
• 37:24
  Speaker 1: later found on the screen. Sorry you were the only
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: one who deserved to stay. And then the Crown suggested
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: that this message was intended to make it appear as
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: if his father had been the one responsible for the killings,
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: and further removing himself as the murderer. They argued, David
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: waited for Robin, his father, to then wake up and
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: come into the living room, following his usual routine of
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: mourning prayer, and when Robin entered the room and knelt down,
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: the prosecution alleged that David shot him in the head,
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: killing him. The positioning of the rifle near Robin's body
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: was in his version of events, part of his stage
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: scene design to support the appearance of a murder suicide.
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: And I want you to note remember Robin also didn't
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: live in this house. Often he lived in a van.
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: He slept somewhere else, right, so he would not have
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: heard any of these shots. He would have just come
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: in the home as per usual, started his prayer and
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: that's when he was killed.
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: Oh okay, okay, that makes sense. It was kind of
• 38:23
  Speaker 2: like what David described as himself. He just wandered back
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: from his paper.
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: Route and exactly, and finally, the Crown argued that after
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: completing these actions, David then made the emergency call at
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: seven nine am, presenting himself as the surviving family member
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: who just discovered the massacre. Now, despite the lack of
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: clearly defined motive within this claim, the prosecution maintained that
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: the totality the evidence supported this version of events beyond
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt. In contrast to the Crown's reconstruction, the
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: defense presented a very different explanation of what had happened
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: in side the home that day. Rather than attempting to
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: prove exactly how every moment unfolded, the defense focused on
• 39:07
  Speaker 1: creating reasonable doubt within the prosecution's version of events and
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: offering an alternative explanation that could account for the same evidence.
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: At the center of the defense case was the argument
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: that Robin, not David, had carried out the killing, and
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: this theory relied heavily on Robin's personal circumstances. In a
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: month's leading up to the murder, evidence was presented suggesting
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: that Robin had been struggling both professionally and personally. He'd
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: been living separately from the rest of the family, often
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: staying in a vehicle or something, and there were concerns
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: raised about his mental state, including signs of depression and
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: increasing disorganization in his work in daily life. The defense
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: also pointed to the broader breakdown of the family structure.
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: The marriage between Robin and Margaret had deteriorated significantly and
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: the house was divided along clear lines. In this context,
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: the defense argued that Robin was isolated, under pressure, and
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: potentially facing situations he felt unable to resolve. This environment,
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: they suggested, could have contributed to a mental state in
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: which a violent and irrational act became possible. And a
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: key aspect of the defens's theory involved Laniette Bain. It
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: was alleged that she was planning to confront the family,
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: remember they were having that family meeting, and allegedly this
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: was involving serious personal matters, including claims of long term
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: sexual assault involving her father upon herself.
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: Holy shit. What.
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: According to this argument, the possibility of these allegations becoming
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: public could have acted as a trigger for Robin, pushing
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: him into his state of crisis.
• 40:47
  Speaker 2: Gosh, okay, I just imagine though, If that dad didn't
• 40:51
  Speaker 2: do this, his name is just being freakin' drug through
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: the goddamn mud. Yeah, he murdered his family and now
• 40:59
  Speaker 2: he's sexual assaulted his frickin daughter and can't defend himself.
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: I know, holy shit now. Under this version of events,
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: via the defense, Robin woke that morning, armed himself with
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: the rifle and moved through the house, shooting each member
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: of the family. After carrying out the killings, the defense
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: argued that Robin went to the computer typed out the
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: message found on the screen, which they interpreted as a
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: form of an apology or suicide note or explanation directed
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: towards David, however you want to say it. But they
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: suggested that Robin then returned to the living room or
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: the lounge and followed his usual routine, knelt to pray,
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: and then shot himself in the head with the twenty
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: two rifle. Throughout the trial, the jury had to weigh
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: both of these stories as it was laid out. They
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: were presented with detailed explanations of blood patterns and the
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: positioning of objects within the home, and the timing of
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: events and the behavior of David both before and after
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: the killings. And after eighteen days of proceedings, the jury
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: returned with a verdict on May twenty nine, nineteen ninety five,
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: and they found David Bain guilty on all five counts
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: of murder, and then several weeks later, on June twenty first,
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: a minimum non parole period of sixteen years.
• 42:20
  Speaker 2: Huh okay, okay, holy shit, just a sex sixteen years.
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: Minimum non parole so he could get parole after sixteen years.
• 42:28
  Speaker 2: Yes, okay. Here I was like, okay, like I feel
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: like he's guilty, and then it just sunk in that
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: the sixteen year thing, because that is very low.
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: That is very lenient. He did get life, but parole
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: after sixteen years.
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, So the chance of getting out, if on good
• 42:46
  Speaker 2: behavior or whatever, that's too low.
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: Exactly. Now here's the thing. In many cases we cover,
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: if not majority of the cover or majority of the
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: cases we cover, that's kind of where the story ends.
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: There's things that wrap up. We talk about, you know,
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: family implication on cities or towns, and we kind of
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: wrap up with victims all those sort of things. But however,
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: this story's different. It does not end there. See in
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: the immedia aftermath of the nineteen ninety five conviction, the
• 43:16
  Speaker 1: case appeared to be settled. David was found guilty by
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: a jury, sentenced to life all these sort of things. However,
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: things changed because this case didn't fade from the public
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: attention after the verdict like many do. Instead, questions began
• 43:30
  Speaker 1: to emerge, first quietly and then more persistently over time.
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: One of the earliest and most influential figures who actually
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: started questioning things was someone by the name of Joe Kuram,
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: who was a former professional rugby player who had transitioned
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: into business after his career. Now Joe initially became aware
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: of this case through media coverage and small fundraising efforts
• 43:52
  Speaker 1: being carried out by supporters of David. Supporters of David
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: those who believed he was innocent.
• 43:58
  Speaker 2: Okay, he had some poort out.
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: There, definitely did, and what began as a limited interest
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: developed into a much deeper involvement. As he reviewed the
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: details of the case, it became convinced that David was
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted. Now Joe began visiting David in prison and
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: over time took on more of an active role in
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: advocating on his behalf. He funded legal efforts, coordinated public campaigns,
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: and worked to bring attention to what he believed were
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: serious flaws in the investigation and the trial, and in
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety seven he published a book outlining his perspective
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: on the case, even directly challenging the conclusion reached by
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: police and the courts.
• 44:37
  Speaker 2: Oh, he's really putting himself out there. Were they friends? Sorry?
• 44:40
  Speaker 2: Or did I miss something there?
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: No, he just kind of learned about the case and
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: took a personal interest in it.
• 44:45
  Speaker 2: And really believed David was innocent.
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, as Joe's efforts gained traction, the public's opinion
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: began to divide more and more on this story. Some
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: people accepted the verdict and viewed it as, you know,
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: the conviction being something that justified everything, all the evidence
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: that they found, and that's that right, but others began
• 45:03
  Speaker 1: to question whether all relevant information had actually been considered. Now. Ultimately,
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: legal avenues were also pursued in the years following the conviction.
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: Early appeers were lodged and reviewed, but these were unsuccessful
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: in overturning the verdict. Courts at the time maintained that
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: the original trial had been conducted appropriately and that the
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: evidence supported the jury's decision, but despite these rulings, the
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: case did not settle. Instead, each failed appeal It added
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: to the growing sense among supporters that the system had
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: not fully addressed the underlying questions, and as the years passed,
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: the case began to undergo a more detailed re examination,
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: driven largely by continued advocacy and independent analysis with renewed
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: legal efforts. And importantly, this was not about introducing entirely
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: new evidence. It was about reinterpreting what had already been
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: found and questioning how it had been presented. One of
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: the first areas to come under scrutiny was the computer timing.
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: See at the trial, the jury had been given a
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: relatively precise time when the computer was turned on. We've
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: been talking about a window. So this precise time aligned
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: with the crown's reconstruction of events, saying David returned home,
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: here's the time the computer was turned on, and it
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: was almost factual. However, the later analysis showed that this
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: time was not exact and instead fell in a broader window,
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: which meant it could have been turned on before he
• 46:30
  Speaker 1: even got home, and he created uncertainty around a very
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: key part of the prosecution's timeline. So another issue involved
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: a footprint which was found at the scene. Initially, these
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: were treated as consistent with David's footprint size. They were
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: in the key areas of the house. But later measurements, however,
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: suggested the size of the print did not match his
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: foot size as closely as previously believed. In fact, they
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: were found to be closer in size to Robin's feet.
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: And these were footprints they believed strongly belonged to the
• 47:06
  Speaker 1: killer because they were in certain areas. That sort of
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: thing blood, you know. Then there was the fingerprint evidence
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: on the rifle that also became more complicated over time.
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: See during the trial, the jury had been led to
• 47:17
  Speaker 1: understand that the fingerprints on the rifle were in human blood,
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: which strengthened the connection between David and the use of
• 47:24
  Speaker 1: the weapon during the killings. However, subsequent testing raised the
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: possibility that that substance associated with those prints may not
• 47:31
  Speaker 1: have been human blood at all. This did not eliminate
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: the presence of fingerprints, minu but it altered how they
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: could be interpreted. Then there was the issue with the
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: glasses and the missing lens. It was revisited as well.
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: See at trial, the location of the lens in Stephen's
• 47:46
  Speaker 1: room had been presented in a way that suggested it
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: had been left there during a struggle, just found on
• 47:51
  Speaker 1: the floor sort of thing. However, later examination of the
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: evidence revealed that the lens had actually been found beneath
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: other items rather than laying in open view, which raised
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: the likelihood that it might have been there prior to
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: the incident ever happening okay, rather than being directly linked
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: to the confrontation. There were also issues raised about handling
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: and preservation of the crime scene, including the fact that
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: the house itself was demolished intentionally by a contractor via
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: a fire. So they intentionally burnt the house down after
• 48:27
  Speaker 1: the murders because like, you know, their crime scene clean
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: up whatever. Yeah, they burned the house down seventeen days
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: after the murder had occurred. Oh wow, that is a
• 48:36
  Speaker 1: short window of time. And they argued that that fire
• 48:38
  Speaker 1: could have resulted in the loss of some very serious
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: potential evidence.
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah. You do hear about when something terrible happens in
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: a home that they you know, they do demolish it. Yeah,
• 48:49
  Speaker 2: but you wouldn't think it would be that quickly.
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah. They also argued that other items, such as forensic samples, records,
• 48:56
  Speaker 1: they were also reported to have been lost, mishandled, or
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: not tested in a timely manner, and by the mid
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: two thousands, after years of failed appeals and continued public pressure,
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: David Bain's legal team took the case beyond New Zealand's
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: courts to the Privy Council in London, which at the
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: time served as the highest court of appeal for New Zealand.
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: The appeal to the Privy Council was built around the
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: series of arguments that focused on the reliability of the
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: original conviction, and after reviewing the case and all the
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: new perspectives on the evidence at hand, while the Council
• 49:30
  Speaker 1: concluded that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice. Now,
• 49:36
  Speaker 1: the Council's decision did not declare David innocent, nor did
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: it determine who was responsible for the murders. Instead, it
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: focused on the fairness of the original trial and whether
• 49:47
  Speaker 1: the conviction could be considered safe in light of the
• 49:50
  Speaker 1: issues raised. And so as a result, the Privy Council
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: quashed the convictions, essentially nullifying them, and they ordered a retrial.
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: Okay, I wasn't expecting that for some reason. Yeah, that
• 50:05
  Speaker 2: is huge, that is huge.
• 50:07
  Speaker 1: So this decision effectively reset the case, removing the legal
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: weight from the nineteen ninety five verdict. Sorry, and allowed
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: the evidence to be reconsidered by a new jury.
• 50:18
  Speaker 2: Huh okay, So like, yeah, it has to be like
• 50:22
  Speaker 2: they're taking this very seriously. It has to be a
• 50:24
  Speaker 2: legit new evidence. Well it's not you you, but like
• 50:28
  Speaker 2: you know, okay, there's questions here that don't fully seem answered.
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so they're going over the same evidence. It's the
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: same trial, but with all the new perspectives. So, for example,
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: the glasses, I'll use the glasses, the lens popping out
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: before it was well, the lens popped out. It was
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: there by Steven's deceased body, and we know David often
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: wore those glasses. He even admitted. So therefore, during the
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: struggle the lens probably popped out, fell on the floor.
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: But now it's like, well, whoa that that can't be
• 50:58
  Speaker 1: true because you forgot to say the lens was popped out. Yes,
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: but it was also For argument's sake, I'm going to
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: make up a spot. It was found under a pile
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: of clothes in the right hand corner of the room,
• 51:11
  Speaker 1: which means it was likely not part of the struggle.
• 51:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it had been there previously, yeah.
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: So all these perspectives that they used to paint a
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: certain picture were all incorrect perspectives. So now they're going
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: back and looking at the same evidence with the best
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: perspective they can, you know, which.
• 51:29
  Speaker 2: Is very interesting because sometimes it just seems like something
• 51:33
  Speaker 2: is so obvious, right, so then you're like, no, like
• 51:35
  Speaker 2: this is who did it? And then you don't really
• 51:38
  Speaker 2: necessarily look at things with an open mind, thinking that
• 51:41
  Speaker 2: there is another possibility.
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: Exactly and it's same thing. Well, the computer was turned
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: on at this exact time, so that says David would
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: have been home, he could have turned the computer on
• 51:52
  Speaker 1: and wrote it. Yeah, And you look at all these
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: things and it paints a picture, But as soon as
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: all these things are different, it paints a complete different picture.
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: Sure that computer wasn't turned on at that exact time,
• 52:03
  Speaker 1: there was a larger window. Could have been turned on
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: before he got home, could have been turned on after,
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: we don't know, But all of a sudden, the picture changes. Now.
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: The retrial began in two thousand and nine, nearly fifteen
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: years after the murders, and it represented a complete re
• 52:18
  Speaker 1: examination of that same question of who killed the Baine family.
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: Although much of the physical evidence remained the same, the
• 52:26
  Speaker 1: way it was presented and interpreted had changed significantly. The
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: defense entered the retrial with a far more developed strategy,
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: focusing on the weakness that had been identified in the
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: Crown's case. Rather than simply offering an alternative theory, they
• 52:41
  Speaker 1: worked to show that the original investigation had contained flaws,
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: the key evidence was uncertain, and that conclusions presented in
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety five were overstated the Crown. They maintained that
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: the overall pattern of the evidence still pointed to David.
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: They presented a similar reconstruction of the events, argued that
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: the combination of blood evidence, the washing machine activity, the gloves,
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: the timeline continued to support the conclusion that David had
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: carried out the killings. However, unlike the first trial, they
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: were now required to address the criticisms that had emerged
• 53:18
  Speaker 1: over the years, including the uncertainties surrounding forensic findings and
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: handling of the evidence, and after months of proceedings, the
• 53:26
  Speaker 1: case was finally handed over to the jury and on
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: June fifth, two thousand and nine, the jury returned with
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: a verdict. For the second time. David Bain was found
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: not guilty on all five counts of murder Damm. With
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: that decision, David was acquitted and released, having spent approximately
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: thirteen years in prison following his original conviction. Now legally,
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: the verdict meant that David was no longer considered guilty
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: of the murders. The outcome of the retrial did not
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: bring a clear resolution in a broader sense. Public opinion
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: remained very divided, and the question of what had actually
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: happened inside the home that day continued to be debated.
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: David attempted to rebuild his life in the wake of
• 54:16
  Speaker 1: it all, but he faced challenges that are obviously very
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: common for individuals leaving long term imprisonment, including difficulty finding
• 54:23
  Speaker 1: employment and adjusting to life outside the prison system. The
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: high profile nature of the case also made things more complicated,
• 54:31
  Speaker 1: as he was widely recognized and associated with the events
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: of the nineteen ninety four murder regardless of the court's
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: decision now. Over time, he entered a relationship, he married,
• 54:42
  Speaker 1: and began to establish a more stable personal life, but
• 54:45
  Speaker 1: the case it remained a constant presence in how he
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: was perceived now. One of the most significant developments in
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: the aftermath was David's application for compensation from the New
• 54:56
  Speaker 1: Zealand's government for wrongful imprisonment. However, he needed to demonstrate
• 55:02
  Speaker 1: that he was factually innocent and that exceptional circumstances justified compensation.
• 55:11
  Speaker 1: So he was applying to get compensation for years behind bars.
• 55:15
  Speaker 1: He was proven not guilty, but he needs to now
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: prove innocence to get.
• 55:20
  Speaker 2: Money huh okay.
• 55:23
  Speaker 1: And to assess his claim, the government commissioned a report
• 55:26
  Speaker 1: from a retired Canadian judge who reviewed the case and
• 55:29
  Speaker 1: concluded that David did in fact meet the criteria for compensation,
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: meaning this judge found David legally innocent. However, his conclusion
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: was not accepted without challenge. A second review was conducted
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: by another retired judge who reached a different conclusion, finding
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: that David had not established his innocence to the required standards,
• 55:53
  Speaker 1: meaning this judge believed David was not legally innocent. Now. Ultimately,
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: the government decided not to make a definitive finding on
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: his innocence, and instead a settlement of nine hundred and
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: twenty five thousand New Zealand dollars was reached without formally
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: declaring that he was wrongfully convicted. Now that sum is
• 56:16
  Speaker 1: the equivalent of about roughly five hundred and sixty thousand
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: US dollars or about seven hundred and sixty thousand Canadian dollars,
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: which is.
• 56:24
  Speaker 2: A fair penny. That's a lot of money.
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: Now. From the beginning, there had only ever been two
• 56:30
  Speaker 1: possible explanations for this story. Either David Bain had killed
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: his family or Robin Bain had killed his family. Unlike
• 56:39
  Speaker 1: many criminal cases, there was no unknown suspect or third
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: party to consider, or a break in inner scenario. Nothing
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: like that. The entire case existed within the walls of
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: a single household, and every piece of evidence had to
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: be interpreted through that lens. For those who believe David
• 56:57
  Speaker 1: was responsible, the argument offered often centered on physical evidence
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: found inside the home. The blood and his clothing, the
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: activity in the laundry room and the presence of his
• 57:06
  Speaker 1: gloves in Stephen's room, and the timeline of his movements
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: were seen as too significant to dismiss. For others, the
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: focus was on the weakness of the investigation and the
• 57:16
  Speaker 1: uncertainties that had emerged over time, the reevaluation of forensic evidence,
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: the inconsistencies and how certain details had been presented at trial,
• 57:24
  Speaker 1: and the material related to Robin Bain's mental state all
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: contributed to the view that the original conviction could not
• 57:30
  Speaker 1: be relied upon. In the end, though, what is left
• 57:34
  Speaker 1: is a case where five people were killed inside their
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: own home and the responsibility for those deaths has never
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: been established. And that's the story of the Bain family massacre.
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: Damn, I thought you were going to bring up Okay,
• 57:52
  Speaker 2: I don't even know what to think. I thought you
• 57:54
  Speaker 2: were going to bring up oh, and actually it could
• 57:57
  Speaker 2: actually have been the oldest sister who did all this
• 58:00
  Speaker 2: or something. And I'm just like, holy shit, my brain
• 58:02
  Speaker 2: is just like scrambled eggs because I don't even know
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: what to think.
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: Everyone else in the house had been shot by someone else.
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: David survived, so he wasn't shot, So he is a
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: possible shooter. Correct, Robin either was shot or had shot himself.
• 58:19
  Speaker 1: Can they so those are the only two possible people
• 58:21
  Speaker 1: who could have killed anyone?
• 58:22
  Speaker 2: Can they legitimately not tell for sure if he killed
• 58:26
  Speaker 2: himself or not?
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: I guess not. And that's the thing, mishandling, mishandling of
• 58:31
  Speaker 1: evidence and everything too. Right, did they actually do the
• 58:34
  Speaker 1: proper reconstruction of if he had the angle of the
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: rifle in his own mouth, and the projectile came out
• 58:41
  Speaker 1: this way and the blood splatter that way. I don't
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: know now. Also, this is actually something I didn't consider
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: until just this moment, being a twenty two when he
• 58:49
  Speaker 1: shot himself, did it enter his skull and did it
• 58:53
  Speaker 1: have an exit wound? Because if it did not have
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: an exit wound, good luck trying to prove trajectory or anything, right,
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: I guess you kind of need an exit wom to
• 59:03
  Speaker 1: do that. So if he shot himself in the head
• 59:05
  Speaker 1: with the twenty two and it did not leave his skull,
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: you kind of fuckied to try and prove otherwise.
• 59:12
  Speaker 2: But then I do remember at one point to you
• 59:14
  Speaker 2: saying that David was closer with his mom, Margaret. So
• 59:19
  Speaker 2: that doesn't So, sitting here listening to all this, it
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: doesn't super make sense that the dad would put this
• 59:24
  Speaker 2: letter on the computer saying that that son needs to
• 59:28
  Speaker 2: you know, was chosen to live.
• 59:31
  Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that there's not other circumstances, other reasons. Sure,
• 59:35
  Speaker 1: maybe he was on his mom's side a little bit,
• 59:38
  Speaker 1: but maybe the dad had always favored David, or maybe
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: the dad saw David as how he's working and living
• 59:43
  Speaker 1: at home, maybe trying to provide or do something with
• 59:45
  Speaker 1: his life as far as music. Who knows. Maybe he
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: aspired for his son to do better something and he
• 59:51
  Speaker 1: saw that above his other kids. I don't know. It's
• 59:54
  Speaker 1: all purely speculative, I guess.
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: And either way, like it's such a piss off that
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: this isn't solved, I know, because it should be solved.
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 2: It seems like it should be an easier case to solve.
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: Should be. Yeah, you have two potential people, literally that
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: cannot be anyone else. Two people that's it, and we
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 1: can't figure out which one.
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 2: Mmm. I feel like I'm kind of leaning towards one.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: Way, but I'm leaning towards David. I think David is.
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 2: Responsible well, but it's also like frick, he's out and
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 2: about you want to say.
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 1: That, you know, I like, yeah, I like how you
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: were really reluctant to say your opinion. You like, I
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: believe someone did it. One of these two individuals is responsible,
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 1: that's all I know.
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know, it's I guess it's harder for
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 2: me to believe that the dad did it than it
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: is David. But there is still you know, a little
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: bit of wiggle room in there.
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 1: Well, that's the thing, because you're arguing, well, is why
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 1: would the dad, you know, write this note? And David like, Okay,
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 1: what's David's motives? We have that for the father, we
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: don't have it for David. The dad could have been
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 1: very depressed. He was on the outside of his family.
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 1: He was seeing all this go on, the tensions rising.
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: He has an mo or motive. I guess m o
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 1: is a little different. He has a motive.
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah, But what would David's motive be?
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: We don't know.
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I think there was a lot of
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: shit going inside that house that we don't know too. Write.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: You never know what's going on behind closed doors in
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: a family's home.
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 1: What if the sister's accusation this is what if Devil's
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 1: advocate here? What if the sister's accusations of sexual assault
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: are true? What if David was also sexually abused or assaulted?
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: What if the sister bringing it up made David realize
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: that the father had done it to other people too
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: in the home, and he snapped. He's realizes it wasn't
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: just me.
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 2: I don't think that would that would make him kill everyone.
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 2: I could see that making him kill his dad.
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: Touche right, Yeah that's true.
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 2: Okay, what it is hard to believe the reasoning I
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 2: guess now that I'm thinking about this, why David will
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 2: kill his whole family? Yeah, his siblings.
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 1: But so many people just go kill their whole not
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 1: so many. There's so many stories out there where people
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 1: just kill their whole family for whatever reason.
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Well generally there it's you know, they're struggling mentally
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 2: and stuff. So I don't know if David was struggling mentally.
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 2: Maybe it was that never really came up in.
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 1: This at all. So maybe it was money. Maybe he
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: was hoping to get you know, inheritance payout or something.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 2: It could be as simple as that.
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it could be, but we don't know. But curious
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: is what you guys think? Shoot us a message. I
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 1: want to know. Can we solve this quote unquote murder
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 1: mystery that is actually a real life scenario. I mean,
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: it is still a murder mystery because it is a
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: murder and it is a mystery.
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 2: It's an awful story.
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 1: So do you think it was David or do you
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: think it was Robin? Let us know. Maybe we'll put
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: up a poll on our Instagram today or something and
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: see what you got things.
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 2: Oh yeah, that would be very interesting, wouldn't it.
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: It would be so check out our Instagram if you
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: want to join that poll, we'll put out a little
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: pole and you can let us know if you want
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: to let us know via a message or anything. All
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 1: the links are in the description of this podcast. We're
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: an independent podcast, written, researched, host and all of it
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 1: all on our own, with you guys here to support us,
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 1: and it means the world. So thank you very much
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 1: for being here, and until next time, stay wicked b
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 2: Oh