Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share THE BAIN FAMILY MURDERS PART 2
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
THE BAIN FAMILY MURDERS PART 2
"He didn't confess. He didn't break. He walked out of the courtroom a free man—but New Zealand will never agree on whether justice was served."
In June 2009, after a three-month retrial and less than six hours of deliberation, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all five counts of murder. David Bain—the only surviving member of the family—walked free.
But the controversy didn't end there.
The Crown's case at retrial mirrored 1995: David was the killer who staged the scene to frame his father. But new evidence—ballistics, pathology, computer analysis—cast doubt on the original conviction. The Privy Council had quashed the verdicts in 2007, citing fresh evidence that was "not available at trial" and ordering a retrial over the Crown's objections.
At the retrial, the defence painted Robin Bain as a depressed, disintegrating man—estranged from his wife, living in a caravan, facing imminent exposure of an alleged incestuous relationship with his daughter Laniet [citation:3]. His classroom was "a shambles," his hygiene neglected, his behavior erratic. On the Friday before the murders, Laniet told a friend she was "going home to tell the family everything."
The Crown countered that there was "not the slightest shred of forensic evidence" linking Robin to the killings [citation:9]. The bloody fingerprints on the rifle were David's. Stephen's blood was on David's shirt. The "suicide note"—"Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay"—was more about David than Robin [citation:1].
Forensic experts clashed over the fatal wound. One UK pathologist said Robin's injury was "consistent with suicide" [citation:7]; Crown experts said the angle and distance made it impossible.
In 2012, Joe Karam—Bain's champion—published Trial By Ambush, arguing "more than 95%" of familicides are committed by fathers, not sons, and that David's psychological profile showed "no psychopathic tendencies" [citation:3]. But some commentators remain convinced the jury got it wrong.
To this day, the question haunts New Zealand: Robin, or David? Two suspects. Five victims. Zero witnesses. A nation divided—forever.
Listener discretion advised. Press play for Part 2 of the case that refuses to be solved.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/red-tree-crime--6847553/support.
In June 2009, after a three-month retrial and less than six hours of deliberation, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all five counts of murder. David Bain—the only surviving member of the family—walked free.
But the controversy didn't end there.
The Crown's case at retrial mirrored 1995: David was the killer who staged the scene to frame his father. But new evidence—ballistics, pathology, computer analysis—cast doubt on the original conviction. The Privy Council had quashed the verdicts in 2007, citing fresh evidence that was "not available at trial" and ordering a retrial over the Crown's objections.
At the retrial, the defence painted Robin Bain as a depressed, disintegrating man—estranged from his wife, living in a caravan, facing imminent exposure of an alleged incestuous relationship with his daughter Laniet [citation:3]. His classroom was "a shambles," his hygiene neglected, his behavior erratic. On the Friday before the murders, Laniet told a friend she was "going home to tell the family everything."
The Crown countered that there was "not the slightest shred of forensic evidence" linking Robin to the killings [citation:9]. The bloody fingerprints on the rifle were David's. Stephen's blood was on David's shirt. The "suicide note"—"Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay"—was more about David than Robin [citation:1].
Forensic experts clashed over the fatal wound. One UK pathologist said Robin's injury was "consistent with suicide" [citation:7]; Crown experts said the angle and distance made it impossible.
In 2012, Joe Karam—Bain's champion—published Trial By Ambush, arguing "more than 95%" of familicides are committed by fathers, not sons, and that David's psychological profile showed "no psychopathic tendencies" [citation:3]. But some commentators remain convinced the jury got it wrong.
To this day, the question haunts New Zealand: Robin, or David? Two suspects. Five victims. Zero witnesses. A nation divided—forever.
Listener discretion advised. Press play for Part 2 of the case that refuses to be solved.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/red-tree-crime--6847553/support.
View all episodes
By Red Tree Crime"He didn't confess. He didn't break. He walked out of the courtroom a free man—but New Zealand will never agree on whether justice was served."
In June 2009, after a three-month retrial and less than six hours of deliberation, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all five counts of murder. David Bain—the only surviving member of the family—walked free.
But the controversy didn't end there.
The Crown's case at retrial mirrored 1995: David was the killer who staged the scene to frame his father. But new evidence—ballistics, pathology, computer analysis—cast doubt on the original conviction. The Privy Council had quashed the verdicts in 2007, citing fresh evidence that was "not available at trial" and ordering a retrial over the Crown's objections.
At the retrial, the defence painted Robin Bain as a depressed, disintegrating man—estranged from his wife, living in a caravan, facing imminent exposure of an alleged incestuous relationship with his daughter Laniet [citation:3]. His classroom was "a shambles," his hygiene neglected, his behavior erratic. On the Friday before the murders, Laniet told a friend she was "going home to tell the family everything."
The Crown countered that there was "not the slightest shred of forensic evidence" linking Robin to the killings [citation:9]. The bloody fingerprints on the rifle were David's. Stephen's blood was on David's shirt. The "suicide note"—"Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay"—was more about David than Robin [citation:1].
Forensic experts clashed over the fatal wound. One UK pathologist said Robin's injury was "consistent with suicide" [citation:7]; Crown experts said the angle and distance made it impossible.
In 2012, Joe Karam—Bain's champion—published Trial By Ambush, arguing "more than 95%" of familicides are committed by fathers, not sons, and that David's psychological profile showed "no psychopathic tendencies" [citation:3]. But some commentators remain convinced the jury got it wrong.
To this day, the question haunts New Zealand: Robin, or David? Two suspects. Five victims. Zero witnesses. A nation divided—forever.
Listener discretion advised. Press play for Part 2 of the case that refuses to be solved.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/red-tree-crime--6847553/support.
In June 2009, after a three-month retrial and less than six hours of deliberation, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all five counts of murder. David Bain—the only surviving member of the family—walked free.
But the controversy didn't end there.
The Crown's case at retrial mirrored 1995: David was the killer who staged the scene to frame his father. But new evidence—ballistics, pathology, computer analysis—cast doubt on the original conviction. The Privy Council had quashed the verdicts in 2007, citing fresh evidence that was "not available at trial" and ordering a retrial over the Crown's objections.
At the retrial, the defence painted Robin Bain as a depressed, disintegrating man—estranged from his wife, living in a caravan, facing imminent exposure of an alleged incestuous relationship with his daughter Laniet [citation:3]. His classroom was "a shambles," his hygiene neglected, his behavior erratic. On the Friday before the murders, Laniet told a friend she was "going home to tell the family everything."
The Crown countered that there was "not the slightest shred of forensic evidence" linking Robin to the killings [citation:9]. The bloody fingerprints on the rifle were David's. Stephen's blood was on David's shirt. The "suicide note"—"Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay"—was more about David than Robin [citation:1].
Forensic experts clashed over the fatal wound. One UK pathologist said Robin's injury was "consistent with suicide" [citation:7]; Crown experts said the angle and distance made it impossible.
In 2012, Joe Karam—Bain's champion—published Trial By Ambush, arguing "more than 95%" of familicides are committed by fathers, not sons, and that David's psychological profile showed "no psychopathic tendencies" [citation:3]. But some commentators remain convinced the jury got it wrong.
To this day, the question haunts New Zealand: Robin, or David? Two suspects. Five victims. Zero witnesses. A nation divided—forever.
Listener discretion advised. Press play for Part 2 of the case that refuses to be solved.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/red-tree-crime--6847553/support.