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