Social 🦹 Crime.

So why did they do that before all evidence had been taken and the police were all done with the house? I get that they wouldn't want David to get anything, but they just put all sorts of "but because the house has been destroyed" questions to the jury and the outside world...
The Police had done their forensics before it was destroyed
 
The fact the father couldn't of shot himself was the big thing for me and I still believe young Bane did It! Not to say the old man wasn't guilty of some old fashioned incest!
They certainly were a bit of an unorthodox family that's for sure.
 
Lots of murder houses get burnt. The thing I cannot get past is his bloody fingerprints on the gun. he did his time.
 
Lots of murder houses get burnt. The thing I cannot get past is his bloody fingerprints on the gun. he did his time.

It’s not hard to believe he’s held it before the crime and those are old fingerprints ?? Old man probably taught him how to shoot
 
Total pivot here; I was binge watching 'Motorway Patrol' on the weekend.

Fuck I miss the days when we used to laugh at drunk idiots wandering up the motorway.

Now it's all serious and everyone wants to kill each other. How times have changed.
 
Just read the judge summing up the Crowns points.
Page 5 /6
Point 13. 1 - 13 e

Tried to copy and paste and couldn't

Hmm.. what’s the counter argument to this ? Unless the evidence was tampered / incorrect

1719455759975.jpeg
 
Just read the judge summing up the Crowns points.
Page 5 /6
Point 13. 1 - 13 e

Tried to copy and paste and couldn't
The judges summing up the Crowns case is based on a botched police case and forensic examination. The Police were inept dealing with the crime scene and then had to stretch every bit of evidence they could muster to point at David Bain. Does this sound familiar?
Also, from memory, didn't David Bain have a very poor lawyer?
 
The judges summing up the Crowns case is based on a botched police case and forensic examination. The Police were inept dealing with the crime scene and then had to stretch every bit of evidence they could muster to point at David Bain. Does this sound familiar?
Also, from memory, didn't David Bain have a very poor lawyer?
I understand the police botched the case with a poor investigation, however I believe the evidence is pretty compelling. It was either David or the Dad.

Bain was acquitted in the retrial when found "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt" which is quite a different legal stand point than "innocent on the balance of probabilities"

I guess it's something we'll actually never know.
 
I understand the police botched the case with a poor investigation, however I believe the evidence is pretty compelling. It was either David or the Dad.

Bain was acquitted in the retrial when found "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt" which is quite a different legal stand point than "innocent on the balance of probabilities"

I guess it's something we'll actually never know.
Or both guilty in some form
 
I mean I'm open to looking into it if theres any evidence - but wiping out a whole family and framing a paper boy who wears unusual knit wear does seem a bit far fetched.
I'm not brave enough to open that can of worms. Might get Assanged, or David Bain'd.
 
Back
Top