Pat Brown's Take On JB's Case (and David Bain's)

[Cambridgecutie]

David had killed four and then proceeded with his paper round. Mrs. Rattray and Malcolm Parker got their newspapers delivered earlier than usual. David returned home and saw the Bain's newspaper still in the box uncollected by Robin (the newspaper was delivered by another boy), so he knew his father was still in the caravan. Dad collected the newspaper some time after 7:00am and put it on the hall table. Normality.

This is the period of the missing twenty minutes. David concealed himself behind the green curtain in the alcove, the lamp being knocked over either deliberately because he couldn't risk the light being on and Robin seeing his location or accidentally through losing the glasses in the fight with Stephen.

First responders felt the bodies of the four, which were cold to the touch, whereas Robin was warm. One can see in the photograph Robin slumped back on the bean bag, no blood anywhere on his person apart from the tiny blood spot on his thumbnail, invisible to the naked eye, proving David was the killer.

If it was invisible to the naked eye how was it identified?  It was not invisible to the naked eye.  At the time it was deemed too small for testing.  Had the fingernail been removed and preserved it would undoubtedly prove DB's innocence. 

Robin Bain murdered his 3 yougest children and wife because the evening before his youngest daughter accused him of sexually abusing her in the presence of her family with the exception of David. David was not present as he had already retired to his bed/bedroom in preparation for an early rise to complete his paper round.  Hence he was spared because he was the only one not party to the revelation. 

Robin Bain claimed to be a man of 'faith' and was a school teacher.  June and Nevill Bamber were people of 'faith'.  Julie Mugford was/is a school teacher.  You claim to be a person of 'faith' and a school teacher.  David Bain and Jeremy Bamber were unremarkable, regular guys.  In my view this shapes your perception of events and you allow it to cloud your judgement.   

[Cambridgecutie]

This is a rather pointless topic.

It isn't mandatory to join in so what may I ask is your point? 

[Cambridgecutie]

As stated previously, it is not my intention to delve into every detail of the Jeremy Bamber case. It would be conjecture to claim to know whether Nevill ran upstairs and back down again, whether he managed to reach a telephone, whether he laid by the Aga for hours, what movements were made by his wife and daughter in the early hours. Suffice to say: five individuals were dead when the Raid Team entered, with a .22 Anschütz rifle lying beside her. Jeremy was outside, feeding a narrative to unsuspecting police officers, a narrative which when analysed contained some downright lies.

Members might be asking themselves: the motive for Jeremy Bamber to commit the crimes is staring at one in the face, namely the inheritance factor. But what about David Bain? Why on earth would he want to kill his entire family?

Of course, the Prosecution does not need to supply a motive, only to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. But what was going through David's mind that morning: was this a planned or impromptu crime?

To answer that question it is necessary to go right back to the time in the Waigani compound in Papua New Guinea. Robin, as a teacher trainer of two hundred students had status, his wife as memsahib also carried status and they were financially secure. Thus, they felt able to procreate a large family by today's standards: David born in 1972, Arawa, born 1974, Laniet, born 1976, and Stephen, born 1980.

Sadly, David didn't settle into school life. He was bullied remorselessly by the other boys for his stuck out ears, he wasn't academically inclined, he was awkward around people in general and retreated into his own little world as a result. Margaret made the decision to withdraw him from school at age 11 and home tutor him along with the other three children.

It isn't conjecture at all.  The fact you are unable/unwilling to focus solely on the objective data makes it impossible for you.  But this does not apply to experts in soc reconstruction. 

[Cambridgecutie]

They are not micro details.

The defence can't go to trial and say 'we don't know'.

The defence said Sheila shot Nevill in bed. Nevill ran downstairs to phone Jeremy.

The objective physical evidence shows NB was on the phone to JB when SC was upstairs and opened fire on June who was lying in bed.  This is irrefutable based on the objective physical evidence at the soc.  The fact Ed Lawson QC accepted Malcolm Fletcher's version of events that the adult victims did not sustain any of their upstairs gunshot wounds outside the bedroom is wrong. 

[Steve_uk]

If it was invisible to the naked eye how was it identified?  It was not invisible to the naked eye.  At the time it was deemed too small for testing.  Had the fingernail been removed and preserved it would undoubtedly prove DB's innocence. 

Robin Bain murdered his 3 yougest children and wife because the evening before his youngest daughter accused him of sexually abusing her in the presence of her family with the exception of David. David was not present as he had already retired to his bed/bedroom in preparation for an early rise to complete his paper round.  Hence he was spared because he was the only one not party to the revelation. 

Robin Bain claimed to be a man of 'faith' and was a school teacher.  June and Nevill Bamber were people of 'faith'.  Julie Mugford was/is a school teacher.  You claim to be a person of 'faith' and a school teacher.  David Bain and Jeremy Bamber were unremarkable, regular guys.  In my view this shapes your perception of events and you allow it to cloud your judgement.

I stand corrected that the blood speck was invisible to the naked eye. How did it get there?

Laniet was a fantasist. Psychologists who have studied the case assign to her a histrionic personality. The claim of incest is her story and remains uncorroborated. Other claims she made during her short life include giving birth to a baby in Papua New Guinea and slitting her wrists in a suicide attempt, rebutted by the pathologist at post-mortem.

I claim to be a teacher? Yes, I'm a qualified teacher, which when I look back took me two years' O Level study, two years' A Level study, a four-year degree, a one-year PGCE course followed by a one-year probationary year in a school in Inner London in the 1980s. I think I've earned the right to comment on this website, don't you?

NB. I celebrated Candlemas this morning at church. Sundays always set me up for the week.



 

[Steve_uk]

The objective physical evidence shows NB was on the phone to JB when SC was upstairs and opened fire on June who was lying in bed.  This is irrefutable based on the objective physical evidence at the soc.  The fact Ed Lawson QC accepted Malcolm Fletcher's version of events that the adult victims did not sustain any of their upstairs gunshot wounds outside the bedroom is wrong.

Please explain this for members.

[Adam]

Please explain this for members.

CAL's scenario is June was shot in bed 5 times by Bamber. This woke Nevill who fell out of bed as Bamber started shooting him.

Believe her scenario is EP's.

[Steve_uk]

For those who believe David Bain innocent please explain:

1) the prints on the murder weapon.

2) the bloodied gloves found in Stephen's room.

3) the lens from the damaged glasses found in Stephen's room

4) the green jersey with fibres matching those found under Stephen's nails.

5) the fresh injuries to the accused's face and knee.

6) droplets of blood on the accused's socks.

7) the computer switched on at 06:44am.

  the key to the rifle trigger-lock secreted in a place known only to the accused.

9) a diluted bloodstain on the shoulder of a long-sleeved T-shirt worn under the jersey which had apparently been sponged.

10) the washing machine cycle started after the four killings and before the paper run, the machine silent and still when the police entered at 7:28am.

[Steve_uk]

CAL's scenario is June was shot in bed 5 times by Bamber. This woke Nevill who fell out of bed as Bamber started shooting him.

Believe her scenario is EP's.

There's no physical evidence that Nevill was on the phone. What does she mean? I recall bloodied fingerprints on the blue and white chequered worktop, but no blood on the telephone itself.

[Adam]

Supporters say there would have been a confrontation upstairs if Nevill & June were shot in/by the bed.

The evidence is there wasn't.

Nevill was running from being shot at. Bamber was on June's side of the bed and out of bullets. He would want to avoid a physical confrontation. This gave Nevill the opportunity to exit the bedroom door.

[Adam]

ILB says Bamber shot Nevill first 4 times. Then let him run downstairs and outside while he shot June.

This does not match the crime scene evidence of Nevill being found inside.

[Rob_]

For those who believe David Bain innocent please explain:

1) the prints on the murder weapon.

2) the bloodied gloves found in Stephen's room.

3) the lens from the damaged glasses found in Stephen's room

4) the green jersey with fibres matching matching those found under Stephen's nails.

5) the fresh injuries to the accused's face and knee.

6) droplets of blood on the accused's socks.

7) the computer switched on at 06:44am.

  the key to the rifle trigger-lock secreted in a place known only to the accused.

9) a diluted bloodstain on the shoulder of a long-sleeved T-shirt worn under the jersey which had apparently been sponged.

10) the washing machine cycle started after the four killings and before the paper run, the machine silent and still when the police entered at 7:28am.

I have not studied the case Steve but this is what happens when you cherry pick bits and pieces that suit your point of view.

Why do you not mention the bloody footprints in the house? these matched Robins size of feet not DB's. Tests were done using cow's blood with DB wearing socks etc.

The lens from a pair of glasses was a exact match for the glasses DB's mother wore.

The blooded fingerprints belonging to DB on the rifle were assumed at the first trial to be human blood but when tested three years latter no human DNA could be detected. DB shoot rabbits and other animals and probably had not cleaned the gun.

Pathologists latter found that Robin did have injuries to his hands: abrasion and bruises etc.

I won't go on   

[handymanz]

I have not studied the case Steve but this is what happens when you cherry pick bits and pieces that suit your point of view.

Why do you not mention the bloody footprints in the house? these matched Robins size of feet not DB's. Tests were done using cow's blood with DB wearing socks etc.

The lens from a pair of glasses was a exact match for the glasses DB's mother wore.

The blooded fingerprints belonging to DB on the rifle were assumed at the first trial to be human blood but when tested three years latter no human DNA could be detected. DB shoot rabbits and other animals and probably had not cleaned the gun.

Pathologists latter found that Robin did have injuries to his hands: abrasion and bruises etc.

I won't go on   

Whoever it was that carried out the Bain murders would have likely planned for it to happen when David was out of the house, being the person most capable of thwarting any plan.

[Steve_uk]

Whoever it was that carried out the Bain murders would have likely planned for it to happen when David was out of the house, being the person most capable of thwarting any plan.

You would have to imagine a scenario where Robin was spying on his son, checking his movements that morning. I don't think it's likely.

[Steve_uk]

I have not studied the case Steve but this is what happens when you cherry pick bits and pieces that suit your point of view.

Why do you not mention the bloody footprints in the house? these matched Robins size of feet not DB's. Tests were done using cow's blood with DB wearing socks etc.

The lens from a pair of glasses was a exact match for the glasses DB's mother wore.

The blooded fingerprints belonging to DB on the rifle were assumed at the first trial to be human blood but when tested three years latter no human DNA could be detected. DB shoot rabbits and other animals and probably had not cleaned the gun.

Pathologists latter found that Robin did have injuries to his hands: abrasion and bruises etc.

I won't go on   

But the injuries to his hands were consistent with everyday garden activities, using a chainsaw, etc.

If you consider the bloodied footprints to be Robin's he would then have to change his socks, wash his feet and then put shoes on, then proceed to shoot himself at an awkward angle.

Why risk implicating the person who was the only one who deserved to stay? https://youtu.be/q5Mp3G4cMYA