Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Cambridgecutie on January 24, 2026, 11:59:AM
-
Pat Brown is a woman from the US who claims to be a criminal profiler. On her website she claims to have a master's degree in criminal justice from Boston University. Her wiki page states she holds a MA in Criminal Justice. Currently Boston University offers a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice:
https://www.patbrownprofiling.com/patbio.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Brown_(criminal_profiler)
https://www.bu.edu/academics/met/programs/criminal-justice/bs/
I personally think the woman is an armchair sleuth. Nothing wrong with this but I object to someone professing to have professional qualifications relevant to the subject under discussion if they do not.
I first came across Pat Brown when I was on the so-called Red forum on the Madeleine McCann board. I did not pay any particular attention to her input. At the time and up until the last few days I assumed, wrongly imo, that she was a bona fide criminal profiler with relevant qualifications. Her name popped up on the MM board here a few days ago and I idly googled her to check out her credentials. The alarm bells started ringing.
Handyman mentioned she had also covered JB's case which I have since found on YouTube. I find it difficult to watch as she lacks the sort of circumspection and gravitas you would expect from a criminal profiler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfIypw4wqM
-
Pat Brown is a woman from the US who claims to be a criminal profiler. On her website she claims to have a master's degree in criminal justice from Boston University. Her wiki page states she holds a MA in Criminal Justice. Currently Boston University offers a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice:
https://www.patbrownprofiling.com/patbio.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Brown_(criminal_profiler)
https://www.bu.edu/academics/met/programs/criminal-justice/bs/
I personally think the woman is an armchair sleuth. Nothing wrong with this but I object to someone professing to have professional qualifications relevant to the subject under discussion if they do not.
I first came across Pat Brown when I was on the so-called Red forum on the Madeleine McCann board. I did not pay any particular attention to her input. At the time and up until the last few days I assumed, wrongly imo, that she was a bona fide criminal profiler with relevant qualifications. Her name popped up on the MM board here a few days ago and I idly googled her to check out her credentials. The alarm bells started ringing.
Handyman mentioned she had also covered JB's case which I have since found on YouTube. I find it difficult to watch as she lacks the sort of circumspection and gravitas you would expect from a criminal profiler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfIypw4wqM
Do you mean you're a bit of a snob..
-
Roger Wilkes wrote that there was an "eminent psychiatrist" who worked for Bamber's defence who said "if ever there was a psychopath it's Jeremy Bamber". If there is such a report I hope Jeremy will one day let us read it.
-
Roger Wilkes wrote that there was an "eminent psychiatrist" who worked for Bamber's defence who said "if ever there was a psychopath it's Jeremy Bamber". If there is such a report I hope Jeremy will one day let us read it.
If the cap fits:
A psychopath is an individual with a personality construct characterized by a profound lack of empathy, remorse, and emotional depth, often masked by superficial charm. They frequently exhibit antisocial, impulsive, manipulative, and egocentric behavior, often disregarding social norms and the rights of others. While not an official diagnosis in the DSM-5, it is considered a severe form of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)
-
I assume Pat Brown thinks JB is guilty. There is also a lot more to David Bain's case than meets the eye. Pedophile networks etc in Dunedin at the time.
At the moment the weather here (in NZ) is pretty bad, so maybe I'll try and watch it today.
-
Roger Wilkes wrote that there was an "eminent psychiatrist" who worked for Bamber's defence who said "if ever there was a psychopath it's Jeremy Bamber". If there is such a report I hope Jeremy will one day let us read it.
Remember, Jonathan, not all psychopaths are killers!
Although JB has never been diagnosed with a personality disorder since incarcerated anyway we are told!
-
Managed to listen to Pat Brown's take on Bamber & Bain.
She seems to glaze over a lot of the details particularly the silencer & 911 calls in the Bamber case.
Interestingly she said there was more evidence against Bain than Bamber, mainly because of the blood forensic evidence from his brother Stephen.
This tells me there was no forensic evidence found to speak of against Bamber. Yet Bamber probably had the bigger motive than David Bain.
This being primarily a forum about Jeremy Bamber, I can see that people in the guilty camp could be polarised into believing Pat Brown's take of her other opinions e.g. Maddie McCann etc.
-
Remember, Jonathan, not all psychopaths are killers!
Although JB has never been diagnosed with a personality disorder since incarcerated anyway we are told!
you don't have to be a psychopath to be a murderer. but it helps!
-
Remember, Jonathan, not all psychopaths are killers!
Although JB has never been diagnosed with a personality disorder since incarcerated anyway we are told!
Exactly how do you think such information would be given out -not that it's the public's business, anyway? Such knowledge would hardly do him any favours re getting his conviction overturned, ergo, it's perfectly possible that he may have been.
-
Exactly how do you think such information would be given out -not that it's the public's business, anyway? Such knowledge would hardly do him any favours re getting his conviction overturned, ergo, it's perfectly possible that he may have been.
AFAIK Bamber has never published full reports - anything released has been passed through the filter of himself and his CT
-
Exactly how do you think such information would be given out -not that it's the public's business, anyway? Such knowledge would hardly do him any favours re getting his conviction overturned, ergo, it's perfectly possible that he may have been.
Well most of the docs usually have a psychologist taking part and giving their opinion as if it proves something, Jane!
-
Well most of the docs usually have a psychologist taking part and giving their opinion as if it proves something, Jane!
But they're not going to say, publicly, that they consider him a psychopath, are they. because the bottom line is why is it important? The prison authorities don't care. He's in prison because he was convicted of murdering his entire family. That rather confirms his status, I imagine. I don't see the same interest directed towards other mass murderers.
-
But they're not going to say, publicly, that they consider him a psychopath, are they. because the bottom line is why is it important? The prison authorities don't care. He's in prison because he was convicted of murdering his entire family. That rather confirms his status, I imagine. I don't see the same interest directed towards other mass murderers.
No, but the interest will only be concentrated on those who maintain their innocence, Jane!
-
Managed to listen to Pat Brown's take on Bamber & Bain.
She seems to glaze over a lot of the details particularly the silencer & 911 calls in the Bamber case.
Interestingly she said there was more evidence against Bain than Bamber, mainly because of the blood forensic evidence from his brother Stephen.
This tells me there was no forensic evidence found to speak of against Bamber. Yet Bamber probably had the bigger motive than David Bain.
This being primarily a forum about Jeremy Bamber, I can see that people in the guilty camp could be polarised into believing Pat Brown's take of her other opinions e.g. Maddie McCann etc.
I tried to watch this a while ago but like you thought she was glazing over a lot of detail. I stopped watching it after 20 minutes or so.
-
I tried to watch this a while ago but like you thought she was glazing over a lot of detail. I stopped watching it after 20 minutes or so.
She picked out the salient points: the murder weapon being left on the settle and not locked away, Neville would telephone police himself if injured, not leave it to a proxy, Sheila's appearance made it unlikely she was involved in a fight with her father, Jeremy embellished a story about Nicholas and Daniel being taken away from their mother, when it was Colin who had charge anyway.
Robin was supposed to be wearing gloves when there was no point if he were bent on suicide, the ridiculous typewritten part-ungrammatical sentence left on the computer, when it was Arawa who was the star of the family, the marks on David's person in contrast to the tiny scratch on Robin.
-
She picked out the salient points: the murder weapon being left on the settle and not locked away, Neville would telephone police himself if injured, not leave it to a proxy, Sheila's appearance made it unlikely she was involved in a fight with her father, Jeremy embellished a story about Nicholas and Daniel being taken away from their mother, when it was Colin who had charge anyway.
Robin was supposed to be wearing gloves when there was no point if he were bent on suicide, the ridiculous typewritten part-ungrammatical sentence left on the computer, when it was Arawa who was the star of the family, the marks on David's person in contrast to the tiny scratch on Robin.
I did not think she had studied the case in any depth Steve so stopped watching.
-
I tried to watch this a while ago but like you thought she was glazing over a lot of detail. I stopped watching it after 20 minutes or so.
I thought she picked out the salient points very succinctly. She made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, how easy it is to pull out individual points as -allegedly!- denoting innocence, but it's only the evidence as a whole which is pertinent.
I'd previously known nothing at all about the David Bain case. I really can't believe that a second jury found him innocent.
-
I thought she picked out the salient points very succinctly. She made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, how easy it is to pull out individual points as -allegedly!- denoting innocence, but it's only the evidence as a whole which is pertinent.
I'd previously known nothing at all about the David Bain case. I really can't believe that a second jury found him innocent.
A few paragraphs here give reasons: https://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bain-david.htm
-
I thought she picked out the salient points very succinctly. She made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, how easy it is to pull out individual points as -allegedly!- denoting innocence, but it's only the evidence as a whole which is pertinent.
I'd previously known nothing at all about the David Bain case. I really can't believe that a second jury found him innocent.
I knew about the David Blain case but have not looked at it in detail so not fair to comment.
Evidence as a whole? what does that mean?
There should be tons of damming circumstantial evidence from Julie but there is nothing.
-
I knew about the David Blain case but have not looked at it in detail so not fair to comment.
Evidence as a whole? what does that mean?
There should be tons of damming circumstantial evidence from Julie but there is nothing.
He brazenly admitted to police he could enter property whether secure or insecure windows. The murder weapon was in his charge and no evidence Sheila ever discussed killing via rifle. Evidence from several witnesses that he disliked, even hated his parents. No alibi as such.
Julie's evidence corroborated what the relatives suspected.
-
I knew about the David Blain case but have not looked at it in detail so not fair to comment.
Evidence as a whole? what does that mean?
There should be tons of damming circumstantial evidence from Julie but there is nothing.
I don't believe she thought Julie's evidence as being necessary! It was the alleged call from Nevill which waved the first red flag for her.
-
I don't believe she thought Julie's evidence as being necessary! It was the alleged call from Nevill which waved the first red flag for her.
She's unique in her insights. I rate her higher than Kerry Danes, Emma Kenny. Professor David Wilson is good too.
-
She's unique in her insights. I rate her higher than Kerry Danes, Emma Kenny. Professor David Wilson is good too.
Has prof Wilson ever covered JB, Steve?
-
I don't believe she thought Julie's evidence as being necessary! It was the alleged call from Nevill which waved the first red flag for her.
You miss my point it's the lack of evidence from Julie I find alarming.
-
Has prof Wilson ever covered JB, Steve?
I don't think he has Snow66! I do like In the Footsteps of Killers.
-
You miss my point it's the lack of evidence from Julie I find alarming.
She's a criminal profiler, so she looks at the murder scene primarily, though she did at the beginning classify crimes into various types as regards characteristics, thus she titles this video as family annihilators.
-
You miss my point it's the lack of evidence from Julie I find alarming.
Well, it does rather put paid to supporters' claim that he wouldn't have been convicted if Julie hadn't spoken. Interesting that she also dismisses the relatives' evidence.
-
Well, it does rather put paid to supporters' claim that he wouldn't have been convicted if Julie hadn't spoken. Interesting that she also dismisses the relatives' evidence.
I would have thought the Jeremy supporters would have been pleased Pat Brown didn't dwell on them, which she probably dismissed as hearsay.
-
I would have thought the Jeremy supporters would have been pleased Pat Brown didn't dwell on them, which she probably dismissed as hearsay.
Should have clarified that such is my belief! She has totally disregarded, as irrelevant, the two information sources so frequently attacked by supporters.
-
Well, it does rather put paid to supporters' claim that he wouldn't have been convicted if Julie hadn't spoken. Interesting that she also dismisses the relatives' evidence.
Perhaps I should watch it all? Without Julie I don't see how you can get the case to court even?
-
Perhaps I should watch it all? Without Julie I don't see how you can get the case to court even?
To be honest, I didn't expect to enjoy it, but she took it right back to basics, cutting through the 'frills' which came later, and dismissing 'stuff' claimed by both sides. She added a strong dose of what I'd call common sense.
-
To be honest, I didn't expect to enjoy it, but she took it right back to basics, cutting through the 'frills' which came later, and dismissing 'stuff' claimed by both sides. She added a strong dose of what I'd call common sense.
Do you think she is a bona fide Criminal Profiler with a degree from Boston Uni in Criminal Justice?
-
I do not believe Pat Brown is a bona fide criminal profiler with a degree in criminal justice from Boston Uni. I find it quite remarkable that members here seem unable/unwilling to discern between a fake and a reliable source of info/expert witness.
As a contrast, and wow what a contrast, the following appear to be bona fide profilers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Richards_(advocate)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrvWPGRnUwk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helin%C3%A4_H%C3%A4kk%C3%A4nen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dppQW714hU
-
Do you mean you're a bit of a snob..
Snob? How am I being a 'snob' by calling out a fake?
-
Managed to listen to Pat Brown's take on Bamber & Bain.
She seems to glaze over a lot of the details particularly the silencer & 911 calls in the Bamber case.
Interestingly she said there was more evidence against Bain than Bamber, mainly because of the blood forensic evidence from his brother Stephen.
This tells me there was no forensic evidence found to speak of against Bamber. Yet Bamber probably had the bigger motive than David Bain.
This being primarily a forum about Jeremy Bamber, I can see that people in the guilty camp could be polarised into believing Pat Brown's take of her other opinions e.g. Maddie McCann etc.
When I listen to her, which is painful to say the least, all that screams out is F-A-K-E!
-
I tried to watch this a while ago but like you thought she was glazing over a lot of detail. I stopped watching it after 20 minutes or so.
I really would not waste your time. She rambles on for 2 hours and is no more a criminal profiler than I am the Virgin Mary!
-
She picked out the salient points: the murder weapon being left on the settle and not locked away, Neville would telephone police himself if injured, not leave it to a proxy, Sheila's appearance made it unlikely she was involved in a fight with her father, Jeremy embellished a story about Nicholas and Daniel being taken away from their mother, when it was Colin who had charge anyway.
Robin was supposed to be wearing gloves when there was no point if he were bent on suicide, the ridiculous typewritten part-ungrammatical sentence left on the computer, when it was Arawa who was the star of the family, the marks on David's person in contrast to the tiny scratch on Robin.
She did not refer to the weapon being left on the settle. She referred to it being left in the kitchen which is wrong. She was absolutely clueless about the case. I will highlight one other point because I simply cannot be bothered to go through it all. She said no one else except JB made ref to the fostering. This is simply wrong. Colin's mother made ref to this in her wit stat. But the point I wish to make here is that she trailed off telling viewers that had she been incapable of looking after her own children her family, or that of her ex-husband's, would have stepped up, or words to this effect. A professional criminal profiler would not bring their own family into it. The woman is a crank.
-
She picked out the salient points: the murder weapon being left on the settle and not locked away, Neville would telephone police himself if injured, not leave it to a proxy, Sheila's appearance made it unlikely she was involved in a fight with her father, Jeremy embellished a story about Nicholas and Daniel being taken away from their mother, when it was Colin who had charge anyway.
Robin was supposed to be wearing gloves when there was no point if he were bent on suicide, the ridiculous typewritten part-ungrammatical sentence left on the computer, when it was Arawa who was the star of the family, the marks on David's person in contrast to the tiny scratch on Robin.
Re Bain she also dismissed the gurgling sounds DB said he heard coming from Laniet Bain and yet a pathologist said he could not rule this out:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/laniet-bains-gurgling-explainable-pathologist/J2TSQHE2MCRDS2EFDZBLRMDE3Q/
No wonder she is your go to source Steve.
-
I thought she picked out the salient points very succinctly. She made it perfectly clear, on several occasions, how easy it is to pull out individual points as -allegedly!- denoting innocence, but it's only the evidence as a whole which is pertinent.
I'd previously known nothing at all about the David Bain case.I really can't believe that a second jury found him innocent.
And you still don't if Pat Brown is your only source!
I really can't believe you find this woman remotely credible.
And you still don't if your only source is Pat Brown!
-
And at the end of her 2 hour ramble she had the audacity to say she thinks civil juries (assume she means lay juries) are not good as they are incapable of understanding the evidence! Oh and she dislikes defence lawyers as they attempt to defend too much!
I feel for anyone who takes this woman seriously. Total fake.
-
Do you think she is a bona fide Criminal Profiler with a degree from Boston Uni in Criminal Justice?
Yes. Maybe you're a tad jealous. Did you gain a degree Cambridgecutie?
-
Snob? How am I being a 'snob' by calling out a fake?
..because she doesn't conform to your idea of what a criminal profiler should be.
-
I really would not waste your time. She rambles on for 2 hours and is no more a criminal profiler than I am the Virgin Mary!
..or Naughty Nun.
-
She did not refer to the weapon being left on the settle. She referred to it being left in the kitchen which is wrong. She was absolutely clueless about the case. I will highlight one other point because I simply cannot be bothered to go through it all. She said no one else except JB made ref to the fostering. This is simply wrong. Colin's mother made ref to this in her wit stat. But the point I wish to make here is that she trailed off telling viewers that had she been incapable of looking after her own children her family, or that of her ex-husband's, would have stepped up, or words to this effect. A professional criminal profiler would not bring their own family into it. The woman is a crank.
We only have Jeremy's word that the fostering conversation took place that last evening. Pat discusses it at the 46:00 point.
-
Perhaps I should watch it all? Without Julie I don't see how you can get the case to court even?
Julie is mentioned briefly around the 1:00:18 mark.
-
Yes. Maybe you're a tad jealous. Did you gain a degree Cambridgecutie?
A tad jealous :o Do me a favour. She looks and sounds ridiculous. If you can't see her for what she is I can!
I called Paul Harrison out as a fake long before it became an established fact. People seem to have short memories and never learn. You can read my posts here from 2015 about PH under the username Holly Goodhead :)
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6384.0
https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/23847427.carlisle-authors-bogus-claims-feature-bbc-programme/
-
..because she doesn't conform to your idea of what a criminal profiler should be.
A criminal profiler is someone who is appropriately qualified and experienced; everything PB isn't!
-
We only have Jeremy's word that the fostering conversation took place that last evening. Pat discusses it at the 46:00 point.
Of course we only have JB's word that the fostering conversation took place that last evening because those who undoutedly heard it and took part in it did not survive. But that's not what PB said. She said no one ever heard anyone talk about fostering at any time and that is simply not true. CC's mother, Mrs Brencher, refers to a telephone conversation she had with June where June shares her concerns that the twins might be placed in foster care. This has been pointed out to you time and time again. I can only conclude you simply dismiss out of hand anything that does not fit your narrative:
I remember just after Sheila's second illness I spoke to June Bamber on the phone. She conveyed to me then of her concern that through Sheila's illness, the boys might be put into foster homes. She was obviously against this idea. I told her with a good family like ours I didn't think that the authorities would allow it.
-
Of course we only have JB's word that the fostering conversation took place that last evening because those who undoutedly heard it and took part in it did not survive. But that's not what PB said. She said no one ever heard anyone talk about fostering at any time and that is simply not true. CC's mother, Mrs Brencher, refers to a telephone conversation she had with June where June shares her concerns that the twins might be placed in foster care. This has been pointed out to you time and time again. I can only conclude you simply dismiss out of hand anything that does not fit your narrative:
I remember just after Sheila's second illness I spoke to June Bamber on the phone. She conveyed to me then of her concern that through Sheila's illness, the boys might be put into foster homes. She was obviously against this idea. I told her with a good family like ours I didn't think that the authorities would allow it.
For goodness' sake. June was only expressing her worries as to the fate of Nicholas and Daniel, over which as a grandparent she would have no legal control (this was codified in the Children Act 1989). That's quite different from what you and Jeremy Bamber are insinuating, namely that June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control, which as Pat Brown points out is a nonsense because the boys had been living with Colin since Sheila's second breakdown in March 1985.
-
For goodness' sake. June was only expressing her worries as to the fate of Nicholas and Daniel, over which as a grandparent she would have no legal control (this was codified in the Children Act 1989). That's quite different from what you and Jeremy Bamber are insinuating, namely that June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control, which as Pat Brown points out is a nonsense because the boys had been living with Colin since Sheila's second breakdown in March 1985.
Your interpretation is irrelevant. The fact remains that independent evidence exists to support JB's claims that fostering was under discussion which is a far cry from PB's claims. Neither JB or myself have ever said June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control. This is what JB actually said in his wit stat of 7th Aug '85:
There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems.
At best you are being disingenuous which is not a good look for someone who claims to be a Christian!
-
I'm guessing you don't like Pat Brown? A glance at the first few lines of your first post about her made that quite clear. I didn't read any further and I didn't click on the link.
It was a post on a FB page which led me to listen to what she had to say. It interested me. She held my interest. As such, frankly, her qualifications -or, as you claim, lack of- meant nothing. There was no nit-picking, in either case. She didn't wait for the stories to unfold before passing her opinion. So a phone call, in both cases, was a red flag. How many times has it been said here that the alleged phone call, and the subsequent response to it, didn't ring true? I believe I likened it to the first cold read-through of a play before the actors had time to get to know their character?
She made it abundantly clear that supporters latch on to tiny pieces of information, which, in their opinion, denote innocence. She looks at the whole piece. She didn't even bring in the star players, yet you choose to pull in bit players, ie Colin's mother. I think this backs up what she says about tiny pieces of information. I've also claimed, ad nauseum, that, from the time the kitchen door was closed to potential observers, JB was the only one who walked out alive, ergo, the narrative was his, and his alone. He was centre stage. She said exactly the same thing, but it's hardly rocket science, is it? The question is, do we believe it?
Over the duration of your posts last evening, I read you becoming more and more angry. Almost as if you felt she had no right to her opinion. Was it her easy style? A qualified expert mentioning family?!! How dreadfully unprofessional! But she wasn't giving a lecture to academics. She was reaching out to a public, most of whom probably won't have academic qualifications, in a way they could understand. I have no problem with that. And when I think about those names here, all with the required qualifications, and how their views/opinions are criticized as being worthless, by those who disagree with their findings, I can only think this is your reason for such intense dislike. Or might it ben that her views are reaching places that yours aren't? Might Steve have a point?
-
Your interpretation is irrelevant. The fact remains that independent evidence exists to support JB's claims that fostering was under discussion which is a far cry from PB's claims. Neither JB or myself have ever said June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control. This is what JB actually said in his wit stat of 7th Aug '85:
There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems.
At best you are being disingenuous which is not a good look for someone who claims to be a Christian!
Sheila's control? She couldn't control a tin of beans.
The twins were with Colin & his partner. They had been long term.
-
I'm guessing you don't like Pat Brown? A glance at the first few lines of your first post about her made that quite clear. I didn't read any further and I didn't click on the link.
It was a post on a FB page which led me to listen to what she had to say. It interested me. She held my interest. As such, frankly, her qualifications -or, as you claim, lack of- meant nothing. There was no nit-picking, in either case. She didn't wait for the stories to unfold before passing her opinion. So a phone call, in both cases, was a red flag. How many times has it been said here that the alleged phone call, and the subsequent response to it, didn't ring true? I believe I likened it to the first cold read-through of a play before the actors had time to get to know their character?
She made it abundantly clear that supporters latch on to tiny pieces of information, which, in their opinion, denote innocence. She looks at the whole piece. She didn't even bring in the star players, yet you choose to pull in bit players, ie Colin's mother. I think this backs up what she says about tiny pieces of information. I've also claimed, ad nauseum, that, from the time the kitchen door was closed to potential observers, JB was the only one who walked out alive, ergo, the narrative was his, and his alone. He was centre stage. She said exactly the same thing, but it's hardly rocket science, is it? The question is, do we believe it?
Over the duration of your posts last evening, I read you becoming more and more angry. Almost as if you felt she had no right to her opinion. Was it her easy style? A qualified expert mentioning family?!! How dreadfully unprofessional! But she wasn't giving a lecture to academics. She was reaching out to a public, most of whom probably won't have academic qualifications, in a way they could understand. I have no problem with that. And when I think about those names here, all with the required qualifications, and how their views/opinions are criticized as being worthless, by those who disagree with their findings, I can only think this is your reason for such intense dislike. Or might it ben that her views are reaching places that yours aren't? Might Steve have a point?
I have often wondered about the sort of people that get scammed and I now realise that its more than likely the likes of yourself and Steve.
-
Re Bain she also dismissed the gurgling sounds DB said he heard coming from Laniet Bain and yet a pathologist said he could not rule this out:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/laniet-bains-gurgling-explainable-pathologist/J2TSQHE2MCRDS2EFDZBLRMDE3Q/
No wonder she is your go to source Steve.
But that's one case, and you transpose it onto Laniet Bain. How many more victims do you know shot three times ( in the left cheek, above the left ear and on the top of the head) and are able to gurgle fifteen minutes later?
-
And you still don't if Pat Brown is your only source!
I really can't believe you find this woman remotely credible.
And you still don't if your only source is Pat Brown!
You're in good company: ngb1066 and lookout both don't rate her. David1819 thinks Robin was the killer.
-
And at the end of her 2 hour ramble she had the audacity to say she thinks civil juries (assume she means lay juries) are not good as they are incapable of understanding the evidence! Oh and she dislikes defence lawyers as they attempt to defend too much!
I feel for anyone who takes this woman seriously. Total fake.
Her argument was the defence sometimes concocts a scenario which both lawyer and defendant know to be fabricated.
-
Your interpretation is irrelevant. The fact remains that independent evidence exists to support JB's claims that fostering was under discussion which is a far cry from PB's claims. Neither JB or myself have ever said June and Nevill were threatening to remove the twins from Sheila's control. This is what JB actually said in his wit stat of 7th Aug '85:
There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems.
At best you are being disingenuous which is not a good look for someone who claims to be a Christian!
Julie states it was Jeremy who broached the subject of fostering to sow discord amongst the family unit.
-
I'm guessing you don't like Pat Brown? A glance at the first few lines of your first post about her made that quite clear. I didn't read any further and I didn't click on the link.
It was a post on a FB page which led me to listen to what she had to say. It interested me. She held my interest. As such, frankly, her qualifications -or, as you claim, lack of- meant nothing. There was no nit-picking, in either case. She didn't wait for the stories to unfold before passing her opinion. So a phone call, in both cases, was a red flag. How many times has it been said here that the alleged phone call, and the subsequent response to it, didn't ring true? I believe I likened it to the first cold read-through of a play before the actors had time to get to know their character?
She made it abundantly clear that supporters latch on to tiny pieces of information, which, in their opinion, denote innocence. She looks at the whole piece. She didn't even bring in the star players, yet you choose to pull in bit players, ie Colin's mother. I think this backs up what she says about tiny pieces of information. I've also claimed, ad nauseum, that, from the time the kitchen door was closed to potential observers, JB was the only one who walked out alive, ergo, the narrative was his, and his alone. He was centre stage. She said exactly the same thing, but it's hardly rocket science, is it? The question is, do we believe it?
Over the duration of your posts last evening, I read you becoming more and more angry. Almost as if you felt she had no right to her opinion. Was it her easy style? A qualified expert mentioning family?!! How dreadfully unprofessional! But she wasn't giving a lecture to academics. She was reaching out to a public, most of whom probably won't have academic qualifications, in a way they could understand. I have no problem with that. And when I think about those names here, all with the required qualifications, and how their views/opinions are criticized as being worthless, by those who disagree with their findings, I can only think this is your reason for such intense dislike. Or might it ben that her views are reaching places that yours aren't? Might Steve have a point?
Absolutely, Jane. It matters not one jot what her qualifications are. She would have been rumbled by now anyhow, as even if she did an online course there would have to be tutors, who would have called her out by now had she been a fraud.
-
I have often wondered about the sort of people that get scammed and I now realise that its more than likely the likes of yourself and Steve.
You can take her point of view or leave it. Pat Brown is not a monopoly source.
-
You can take her point of view or leave it. Pat Brown is not a monopoly source.
She is entitled to her point of view Steve but if she is going to slate someone who has be acquitted on line she should at least study the case in great detail. I don't think she has?
-
She is entitled to her point of view Steve but if she is going to slate someone who has be acquitted on line she should at least study the case in great detail. I don't think she has?
Have you done enough of an in depth case study to be certain she hasn't?
-
Have you done enough of an in depth case study to be certain she hasn't?
Yes for example the "gurgling"
-
Yes for example the "gurgling"
So the whole of your assumption is based on "gurgling"? I believe it's been claimed, by an 'expert' that bodies/corpses can "make noises". I suppose said expert would have witnessed such or they wouldn't have made the claim? It may have been a one off/one time only but I'll bet it was leaped upon by an ambitious defence lawyer.
-
She is entitled to her point of view Steve but if she is going to slate someone who has be acquitted on line she should at least study the case in great detail. I don't think she has?
Each case deserved a couple of hours, rather than lumping them together. I think she suspected David Bain of being a copycat killer: both sons wanted a fresh start, both had access to a .22 weapon, both used a scapegoat to conceal their crimes, both were family annihilators.
-
If David Bain's premeditated plan was to blame it all on Robin, why would he mention Laniet's gurgling.
-
Pat Brown is a woman from the US who claims to be a criminal profiler. On her website she claims to have a master's degree in criminal justice from Boston University. Her wiki page states she holds a MA in Criminal Justice. Currently Boston University offers a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice:
https://www.patbrownprofiling.com/patbio.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Brown_(criminal_profiler)
https://www.bu.edu/academics/met/programs/criminal-justice/bs/
I personally think the woman is an armchair sleuth. Nothing wrong with this but I object to someone professing to have professional qualifications relevant to the subject under discussion if they do not.
I first came across Pat Brown when I was on the so-called Red forum on the Madeleine McCann board. I did not pay any particular attention to her input. At the time and up until the last few days I assumed, wrongly imo, that she was a bona fide criminal profiler with relevant qualifications. Her name popped up on the MM board here a few days ago and I idly googled her to check out her credentials. The alarm bells started ringing.
Handyman mentioned she had also covered JB's case which I have since found on YouTube. I find it difficult to watch as she lacks the sort of circumspection and gravitas you would expect from a criminal profiler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfIypw4wqM
https://www.bu.edu/academics/met/programs/criminal-justice/mcj/
-
So the whole of your assumption is based on "gurgling"? I believe it's been claimed, by an 'expert' that bodies/corpses can "make noises". I suppose said expert would have witnessed such or they wouldn't have made the claim? It may have been a one off/one time only but I'll bet it was leaped upon by an ambitious defence lawyer.
No I said for example did I not?
-
But that's one case, and you transpose it onto Laniet Bain. How many more victims do you know shot three times ( in the left cheek, above the left ear and on the top of the head) and are able to gurgle fifteen minutes later?
It isn't one case. Its your know it all attitude and ignorance. You are unable or unwilling to take on board any objective data that does not fit with your narrative. Someone technically deceased can make all sorts of noises and movements for some time afterwards:
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+sort+of+noises+does+the+body+make+after+death&rlz=1CARGFB_enGB953GB953&oq=what+sort+of+noises+does+the+body+make+after+death&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRifBdIBCjExMzQ5ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBXLdU175WA4b8QVy3VNe-VgOGw&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:e537e7f4,vid:nIkZflVieUI,st:0
-
Her argument was the defence sometimes concocts a scenario which both lawyer and defendant know to be fabricated.
Please provide an example.
-
Julie states it was Jeremy who broached the subject of fostering to sow discord amongst the family unit.
Well another witness by way of CC's mother, Mrs Brencher, claims in her wit stat that June was in fact discussing foster care. Please bear in mind both June and SC were receiving psychiatric treatment from Dr Ferguson ie both women were mentally ill.
-
Absolutely, Jane. It matters not one jot what her qualifications are. She would have been rumbled by now anyhow, as even if she did an online course there would have to be tutors, who would have called her out by now had she been a fraud.
I have asked you several times who would call her out? I know logic and reason are not your strong points but:
- In her YouTube vids she claims to have an ex-husband. Is the surname she goes under, 'Brown', her maiden name, married name or some other name?
- She goes under the first name of 'Pat' is this her full first name or an abbreviation for some other name and if so what?
- The woman's wiki page shows she was born in 1955 and is 71 years of age.
- The population of US currently stands at 349,035,494
- Based on Boston Uni data for 2024/25 it currently has some 38,000 students from 140 plus countries
For anyone to check out her credentials with BU it would be necessary to confirm her full name and years attended. Any guesses?
Afaik she has never claimed to be employed by anyone as a criminal profiler. On this basis no employer has carried out background checks.
Is there any evidence she has ever been paid by anyone for anything connected to 'criminal profiling'?
Afaik the only income she has ever earned from 'criminal profiling' is through her books. In many instances the books receive terrible reviews calling her out as a fake. I haven't read any of her books but reviewers state she claims to be self-taught which is different to what is stated on her webpage and wiki.
What would be the incentive for anyone to spend time and money calling out a woman who is clearly a fake?
-
You can take her point of view or leave it. Pat Brown is not a monopoly source.
Thanks. I'll leave it. :)
-
She is entitled to her point of view Steve but if she is going to slate someone who has be acquitted on line she should at least study the case in great detail. I don't think she has?
Imo she comes over as a stereotypical American: loud and obnoxious!
-
So the whole of your assumption is based on "gurgling"? I believe it's been claimed, by an 'expert' that bodies/corpses can "make noises". I suppose said expert would have witnessed such or they wouldn't have made the claim? It may have been a one off/one time only but I'll bet it was leaped upon by an ambitious defence lawyer.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+sort+of+noises+does+the+body+make+after+death&rlz=1CARGFB_enGB953GB953&oq=what+sort+of+noises+does+the+body+make+after+death&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRifBdIBCjExMzQ5ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBXLdU175WA4b8QVy3VNe-VgOGw&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:e537e7f4,vid:nIkZflVieUI,st:0
-
Each case deserved a couple of hours, rather than lumping them together. I think she suspected David Bain of being a copycat killer: both sons wanted a fresh start, both had access to a .22 weapon, both used a scapegoat to conceal their crimes, both were family annihilators.
More flawed logic and reason:
- If she suspected DB of being a copycat killer who was he attempting to copy? If you are suggesting JB why would he choose to copy someone who ended up behind bars? ::)
- Both RB and SC may also have wanted a fresh start. Both believers in an afterlife.
- Both RB and SC had access to a .22 weapon
- The prosecutions successfully argued at trial JB and DB used a scapegoat and were family annihilators. DB later acquitted. 2 down, 1 to go ;)
Consider the case of Colin Howell: not one staged suicide but two! Colin Howell's own confession some 18 years later brought him to justice. According to the Police Ombudsman NI, the police investigation was "deeply flawed":
https://www.policeombudsman.org/investigation-reports/current-investigations/police-investigation-deeply-flawed
-
https://www.bu.edu/academics/met/programs/criminal-justice/mcj/
On her Wiki page she claims to have a MA in Criminal Justice but as you have pointed out Boston Uni only offers a BSc (and MSc) in Criminal Justice. No MA Master in Arts.
-
I have often wondered about the sort of people that get scammed and I now realise that its more than likely the likes of yourself and Steve.
I'm not naive enough to believe any of us are exclusively exempt from being scammed. It's not impossible that you've experienced such? Perhaps without being aware of it? It could be claimed that you've been scammed by JB?
-
On her Wiki page she claims to have a MA in Criminal Justice but as you have pointed out Boston Uni only offers a BSc (and MSc) in Criminal Justice. No MA Master in Arts.
Maybe it used to be an MA
-
On her Wiki page she claims to have a MA in Criminal Justice but as you have pointed out Boston Uni only offers a BSc (and MSc) in Criminal Justice. No MA Master in Arts.
MA and MSc are the same thing. It used to be arts but now it's science. When she did it, it was an MA, now it's a MSc.
-
Maybe it used to be an MA
It did :)
-
Each case deserved a couple of hours, rather than lumping them together. I think she suspected David Bain of being a copycat killer: both sons wanted a fresh start, both had access to a .22 weapon, both used a scapegoat to conceal their crimes, both were family annihilators.
I'd be surprised if at the time (1994) David Bain would have heard of the Jeremy Bamber case.
At the time it happened he would have been 13, after which it would have faded from any news items.
I'd only heard of the JB case back in 2012 when I watched a doco on Sky.
I was in the UK for 2 months May - July 1985.
I can't remember the case making the news in Australia after returning there in late July 1985.
-
Please provide an example.
She was speaking generically, but one example from the David Bain case would be he changed his story about whether he had entered all the rooms, or just his parents' rooms, as in the first trial.
-
She is entitled to her point of view Steve but if she is going to slate someone who has be acquitted on line she should at least study the case in great detail. I don't think she has?
She picks out the salient points, mainly the crime scene evidence. She's not so bothered with the "he said, she said" scenario.
-
If David Bain's premeditated plan was to blame it all on Robin, why would he mention Laniet's gurgling.
Probably a slip.
-
More flawed logic and reason:
- If she suspected DB of being a copycat killer who was he attempting to copy? If you are suggesting JB why would he choose to copy someone who ended up behind bars? ::)
- Both RB and SC may also have wanted a fresh start. Both believers in an afterlife.
- Both RB and SC had access to a .22 weapon
- The prosecutions successfully argued at trial JB and DB used a scapegoat and were family annihilators. DB later acquitted. 2 down, 1 to go ;)
Consider the case of Colin Howell: not one staged suicide but two! Colin Howell's own confession some 18 years later brought him to justice. According to the Police Ombudsman NI, the police investigation was "deeply flawed":
https://www.policeombudsman.org/investigation-reports/current-investigations/police-investigation-deeply-flawed
Probably because he thought he was smarter than Jeremy. He was studying music and classics at Otago University. Both David and Jeremy had delusions of grandeur and considered themselves to have taken over the family unit. Both are on record as having stated they hated their father. Both felt suffocated in the familial environment, and both took the ultimate measure to extricate themselves from it.
-
I'd be surprised if at the time (1994) David Bain would have heard of the Jeremy Bamber case.
At the time it happened he would have been 13, after which it would have faded from any news items.
I'd only heard of the JB case back in 2012 when I watched a doco on Sky.
I was in the UK for 2 months May - July 1985.
I can't remember the case making the news in Australia after returning there in late July 1985.
I'm not sure about that. Martin Bryant's rampage occurred a month after Dunblane. You're also forgetting that Jeremy Bamber had travelled to New Zealand on a previous occasion. I would bet less than 1% of Brits have ever visited the country.
-
Each case deserved a couple of hours, rather than lumping them together. I think she suspected David Bain of being a copycat killer: both sons wanted a fresh start, both had access to a .22 weapon, both used a scapegoat to conceal their crimes, both were family annihilators.
I doubt he was a copycat, who copies the method of someone who got caught?
-
I'm not sure about that. Martin Bryant's rampage occurred a month after Dunblane. You're also forgetting that Jeremy Bamber had travelled to New Zealand on a previous occasion. I would bet less than 1% of Brits have ever visited the country.
I think killing 30 plus random people, would make more news and remain in the memory a lot more than a family bust up resulting in 5 from within the same family being killed.
Martin Bryant had a low IQ.
Dunblane was the mass killing of innocent children so that would have made big international news compared to WHF.
The Bain family murders were 9 years after WHF.
-
I'm not naive enough to believe any of us are exclusively exempt from being scammed. It's not impossible that you've experienced such? Perhaps without being aware of it? It could be claimed that you've been scammed by JB?
No. Although I believe JB to be innocent we do not share the same views on his case. I do not believe most of what he claims eg Aga burns, NB was moved and/or his back burned, the police interefered with the soc, someone made a 999 call from inside WHF, NB called the police etc, etc. I have my own version of events based on my own research.
-
Maybe it used to be an MA
I did say that in an earlier post.
-
MA and MSc are the same thing. It used to be arts but now it's science. When she did it, it was an MA, now it's a MSc.
MA and MSc are very different. How do you know for sure she did it and if she did do it when she did it?
-
It did :)
Where's the evidence for this?
-
She was speaking generically, but one example from the David Bain case would be he changed his story about whether he had entered all the rooms, or just his parents' rooms, as in the first trial.
Did he change his story? I thought he always claimed he arrived home, carried out some chores, went to his room, found his .22 missing, went to the rooms of his siblings, then his mother's, then the computer room and found RB. He then made the emergency call.
-
Probably because he thought he was smarter than Jeremy. He was studying music and classics at Otago University. Both David and Jeremy had delusions of grandeur and considered themselves to have taken over the family unit. Both are on record as having stated they hated their father. Both felt suffocated in the familial environment, and both took the ultimate measure to extricate themselves from it.
What evidence exists that DB was "smarter" than JB? What's your definition of "smarter"? The rest is not evidence based just perceptions.
-
No. Although I believe JB to be innocent we do not share the same views on his case. I do not believe most of what he claims eg Aga burns, NB was moved and/or his back burned, the police interefered with the soc, someone made a 999 call from inside WHF, NB called the police etc, etc. I have my own version of events based on my own research.
I should clarify: I do not believe the police interfered with the soc the way JB calims.
-
MA and MSc are very different. How do you know for sure she did it and if she did do it when she did it?
A degree in Psychology used to be an BA, it's now a BSc - same for a masters. So NO! They aren't different - mine is a BA, if I did it now, it would be a BSc. How do I know she did it? How do you know she didn't? Your reasoning for why she didn't is wrong so just accept it.
-
Where's the evidence for this?
LOOK IT UP the arts changed to a science! Psychology USED to be a BA or an MA, now it's a BSc or an MSc.
https://www.ncl.ac.uk/undergraduate/degrees/c800/
-
Did he change his story? I thought he always claimed he arrived home, carried out some chores, went to his room, found his .22 missing, went to the rooms of his siblings, then his mother's, then the computer room and found RB. He then made the emergency call.
Yes, he changed his story. He told Aunt Janice Clark he "only saw Mum and Dad". Then with the Laniet gurgling mistake he was forced to embellish.
-
What evidence exists that DB was "smarter" than JB? What's your definition of "smarter"? The rest is not evidence based just perceptions.
Not really any evidence, apart from what may be in his own mind. He had failed some subjects a year previously and changed course, whereupon he was being more successful. But he was still trapped within the family unit, heard rumours that the family would disperse, and it was just too much to cope with after sixteen years spent in a compound in Papua New Guinea.
Like Jeremy Bamber, to escape from the prison in which you feel yourself confined you have to kill the prison guards..
-
No. Although I believe JB to be innocent we do not share the same views on his case. I do not believe most of what he claims eg Aga burns, NB was moved and/or his back burned, the police interefered with the soc, someone made a 999 call from inside WHF, NB called the police etc, etc. I have my own version of events based on my own research.
What do you think Sheila was doing that Nevill. Suffiently for him to get out of bed and go downstairs?
-
What do you think Sheila was doing that Nevill. Suffiently for him to get out of bed and go downstairs?
I've no idea. It seems NB did go to bed given his side looks slept in with the covers flapped open to the left. SC had a history of phoning NB during the night in a disturbed state. Maybe she woke both NB and June but it was decided NB would go downstairs with June remaining in bed. Maybe she woke June and June woke NB. June was clearly in bed when she sustained her first gunshot wounds. SC's bed does not look slept in. No one will ever know. We only know what the physical evidence at the soc tells us.
-
I've no idea. It seems NB did go to bed given his side looks slept in with the covers flapped open to the left. SC had a history of phoning NB during the night in a disturbed state. Maybe she woke both NB and June but it was decided NB would go downstairs with June remaining in bed. Maybe she woke June and June woke NB. June was clearly in bed when she sustained her first gunshot wounds. SC's bed does not look slept in. No one will ever know. We only know what the physical evidence at the soc tells us.
Where is the source that Sheila used to phone Nevill in a disturbed state.
Do you think it would have to be very loud to wake Nevill. Which is a surprise if Sheila wanted to shoot everyone while they slept.
-
A degree in Psychology used to be an BA, it's now a BSc - same for a masters. So NO! They aren't different -mine is a BA, if I did it now, it would be a BSc. How do I know she did it? How do you know she didn't? Your reasoning for why she didn't is wrong so just accept it.
I didn't have you down as being daft so think you're having a laugh!? But anyway...
Anyone undertaking a psychology degree at Newcastle today would be on a BSc course because that is what it offers but there are plenty of universities offering BA courses in psychology:
https://www.essex.ac.uk/courses/ug00361/1/ba-psychology
Some universities offer BA's and BSc's in the same subject but the content is different.
From AI:
The main difference between a BA and BSc in Psychology lies in their focus: BA Psychology leans towards humanities, exploring social/cultural aspects with electives in arts, suited for counseling/HR; while BSc Psychology emphasizes natural sciences, demanding more math/stats/lab work, preparing for research, neuroscience, or clinical roles. A BA offers broader theory and human behavior context, whereas a BSc provides deeper scientific and analytical skills for research-intensive paths.
BA (Bachelor of Arts) in Psychology
Focus: Qualitative, social, cultural, and philosophical aspects of human behavior.
Coursework: Social psychology, developmental psychology, personality theory, often with electives in sociology, literature, or anthropology.
Skills: Strong understanding of human interaction, communication, and behavior in social contexts.
Career Paths: Counseling, social work, human resources (HR), education, journalism, advertising.
BSc (Bachelor of Science) in Psychology
Focus: Quantitative, scientific, and biological basis of behavior, with a strong research component.
Coursework: Includes more statistics, research methods, neuroscience, cognitive science, and lab work.
Skills: Analytical, experimental, data-driven, understanding brain function and scientific processes.
Career Paths: Research, neuroscience, data analysis, health tech, preparation for scientific PhDs/MDs.
How to Choose
Choose BA if: You're interested in helping professions, social dynamics, human communication, and a broader understanding of behavior.
Choose BSc if: You enjoy science, math, labs, research, and aim for careers in healthcare, neuroscience, or academia.
Check University Syllabi: Course offerings vary; check specific university programs for core psychology content and available electives.
Anyway back to Pat Brown. She claims to have a BA in liberal arts from New York Uni and a MA in criminal justice from Boston. Boston does not currently offer a MA in criminal justice just a MSc. She does not present as someone with a MA or a MSc in criminal justice. She presents more like a regular poster here ie poring over cases in a haphazard way.
-
Where is the source that Sheila used to phone Nevill in a disturbed state.
For those who don't wish to rely on JB's evidence, SC's neighbour provided evidence.
Do you think it would have to be very loud to wake Nevill. Which is a surprise if Sheila wanted to shoot everyone while they slept.
It would depend on what stage of sleep NB was in whether he would wake easily or not. According to RB June was a light sleeper and NB not. As I said maybe SC woke June and NB but only NB got out of bed.
No one will ever know what SC's intention was leading up to the phone call. The physical evidence shows NB made the call and SC opened fire on June in bed with NB dropping the phone going upstairs and sustaining his gunshot wounds on the landing and stairs. SC then followed NB to the kitchen, beat him with the rifle and shot him another 4 times.
-
Yes, he changed his story. He told Aunt Janice Clark he "only saw Mum and Dad". Then with the Laniet gurgling mistake he was forced to embellish.
He said on the emergency call "They're all dead". How would he know "They're all dead" if he hadn't observed them?
-
For those who don't wish to rely on JB's evidence, SC's neighbour provided evidence.
It would depend on what stage of sleep NB was in whether he would wake easily or not. According to RB June was a light sleeper and NB not. As I said maybe SC woke June and NB but only NB got out of bed.
No one will ever know what SC's intention was leading up to the phone call. The physical evidence shows NB made the call and SC opened fire on June in bed with NB dropping the phone going upstairs and sustaining his gunshot wounds on the landing and stairs. SC then followed NB to the kitchen, beat him with the rifle and shot him another 4 times.
According to this press article and SC's neighbour, Mrs Neva Temple, SC once woke her at 5am with hysterical screams and was shouting loudly. Maybe that is how it all started off at WHF.
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/p/gambling-man-in-life-of-massacre-model.html?m=0
"Mrs Neva Temple, who lives next door said Sheila once woke her at 5am with hysterical screams. 'She was shouting loudly and I went to help. She seemed very distraught.'
-
For those who don't wish to rely on JB's evidence, SC's neighbour provided evidence.
It would depend on what stage of sleep NB was in whether he would wake easily or not. According to RB June was a light sleeper and NB not. As I said maybe SC woke June and NB but only NB got out of bed.
No one will ever know what SC's intention was leading up to the phone call. The physical evidence shows NB made the call and SC opened fire on June in bed with NB dropping the phone going upstairs and sustaining his gunshot wounds on the landing and stairs. SC then followed NB to the kitchen, beat him with the rifle and shot him another 4 times.
But that's slightly different from what you claimed. Nevill was the one person who could calm Sheila down.
-
He said on the emergency call "They're all dead". How would he know "They're all dead" if he hadn't observed them?
Well, you just proved the point that he changed his story. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/aunt-tells-bains-reaction
-
For those who don't wish to rely on JB's evidence, SC's neighbour provided evidence.
It would depend on what stage of sleep NB was in whether he would wake easily or not. According to RB June was a light sleeper and NB not. As I said maybe SC woke June and NB but only NB got out of bed.
No one will ever know what SC's intention was leading up to the phone call. The physical evidence shows NB made the call and SC opened fire on June in bed with NB dropping the phone going upstairs and sustaining his gunshot wounds on the landing and stairs. SC then followed NB to the kitchen, beat him with the rifle and shot him another 4 times.
How would Sheila's neighbour know?
So Sheila went downstairs bare footed.
Nevill woke but we don't know what from.
Nevill went downstairs bare footed.
June stayed in bed.
What happened while they were both in the kitchen that made Nevill call Jeremy?
-
But that's slightly different from what you claimed. Nevill was the one person who could calm Sheila down.
Is it? Please explain.
There is evidence that NB was able to "calm" SC, as you put it, on a previous occasion, but someone suffering a serious mental illness, that according to Dr Ferguson was only ever going to worsen as time went on, is unpredictable. If the mentally ill were predictable we would not see all the tragedies we see where they go on to kill.
-
According to this press article and SC's neighbour, Mrs Neva Temple, SC once woke her at 5am with hysterical screams and was shouting loudly. Maybe that is how it all started off at WHF.
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/p/gambling-man-in-life-of-massacre-model.html?m=0
"Mrs Neva Temple, who lives next door said Sheila once woke her at 5am with hysterical screams. 'She was shouting loudly and I went to help. She seemed very distraught.'
" once woke her "? That's a bit loose, don't you think? To which point in Sheila's life does this refer? Pre diagnosis? Pre first admission to hospital? Medicated but not taking medication? Pre second admission to hospital? Surely not after her second admission when she was hardly able to function and subdued almost out of existence?
-
Well, you just proved the point that he changed his story. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/aunt-tells-bains-reaction
What do you think is more credible: DB's words spoken and recorded during the emergency call in the immediate aftermath or a newspaper article some 15 years after the event quoting what someone else claims DB said?
In any event my interpretation of the newspaper article is DB was suffering some sort of PTSD and if the words spoken are correct he was talking about some sort of vision which was not rooted in reality hence the reference to "black hands" and the aunt saying he appeared to be in a trance like state.
Imo Steve you have a prejudiced mind which I wonder if you are aware of? I wonder if these stories you weave together about the likes of DB and JB feeling constricted by their circumstances and wanting to become kingpin etc say more about you than you perhaps realise? You have said in the past your life has been largely shaped by the church, looking after your parents and teaching.
Prejudice is the reason I believe Colin Howell and Hazel Stewart got away with murder for nearly 2 decades until CH confessed. The pair were able to slip under the radar with the most audacious plan for staged suicides (yes plural!) because of who they were: professional with families and very involved with the church. The latter carrying a lot of weight in a country like NI.
Think about it Steve, all the nonsense you level at DB and JB you would not be able to level at Colin Howell and Hazel Stewart!
-
" once woke her "? That's a bit loose, don't you think? To which point in Sheila's life does this refer? Pre diagnosis? Pre first admission to hospital? Medicated but not taking medication? Pre second admission to hospital? Surely not after her second admission when she was hardly able to function and subdued almost out of existence?
The physical evidence at the soc tells a different story.
-
How would Sheila's neighbour know?
So Sheila went downstairs bare footed.
Nevill woke but we don't know what from.
Nevill went downstairs bare footed.
June stayed in bed.
What happened while they were both in the kitchen that made Nevill call Jeremy?
No one will ever know all the micro details. At a macro level the physical evidence reveals enough to support SC as the killer.
-
" once woke her "? That's a bit loose, don't you think? To which point in Sheila's life does this refer? Pre diagnosis? Pre first admission to hospital? Medicated but not taking medication? Pre second admission to hospital? Surely not after her second admission when she was hardly able to function and subdued almost out of existence?
What happened between Nevill and Sheila that made Nevill call Jerrmy at 3.00am?
After they both mysteriously ended up in the kitchen bare footed while everyone else slept.
Nevill would know Sheila could not function.
-
The physical evidence at the soc tells a different story.
Which was exactly how JB planned it to look!
-
No one will ever know all the micro details. At a macro level the physical evidence reveals enough to support SC as the killer.
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.
-
I didn't have you down as being daft so think you're having a laugh!? But anyway...
Anyone undertaking a psychology degree at Newcastle today would be on a BSc course because that is what it offers but there are plenty of universities offering BA courses in psychology:
https://www.essex.ac.uk/courses/ug00361/1/ba-psychology
Some universities offer BA's and BSc's in the same subject but the content is different.
From AI:
The main difference between a BA and BSc in Psychology lies in their focus: BA Psychology leans towards humanities, exploring social/cultural aspects with electives in arts, suited for counseling/HR; while BSc Psychology emphasizes natural sciences, demanding more math/stats/lab work, preparing for research, neuroscience, or clinical roles. A BA offers broader theory and human behavior context, whereas a BSc provides deeper scientific and analytical skills for research-intensive paths.
BA (Bachelor of Arts) in Psychology
Focus: Qualitative, social, cultural, and philosophical aspects of human behavior.
Coursework: Social psychology, developmental psychology, personality theory, often with electives in sociology, literature, or anthropology.
Skills: Strong understanding of human interaction, communication, and behavior in social contexts.
Career Paths: Counseling, social work, human resources (HR), education, journalism, advertising.
BSc (Bachelor of Science) in Psychology
Focus: Quantitative, scientific, and biological basis of behavior, with a strong research component.
Coursework: Includes more statistics, research methods, neuroscience, cognitive science, and lab work.
Skills: Analytical, experimental, data-driven, understanding brain function and scientific processes.
Career Paths: Research, neuroscience, data analysis, health tech, preparation for scientific PhDs/MDs.
How to Choose
Choose BA if: You're interested in helping professions, social dynamics, human communication, and a broader understanding of behavior.
Choose BSc if: You enjoy science, math, labs, research, and aim for careers in healthcare, neuroscience, or academia.
Check University Syllabi: Course offerings vary; check specific university programs for core psychology content and available electives.
Anyway back to Pat Brown. She claims to have a BA in liberal arts from New York Uni and a MA in criminal justice from Boston. Boston does not currently offer a MA in criminal justice just a MSc. She does not present as someone with a MA or a MSc in criminal justice. She presents more like a regular poster here ie poring over cases in a haphazard way.
I'm not arguing with you - it's the same course and I don't give a stuff what AI says. She clearly did the course years ago when the subject she took was considered an 'Arts' Masters - the same course (although it may have differed somewhat when she did it), is now an MSc. Arguing for the sake of it, doesn't make you right or her any less qualified.
-
What do you think is more credible: DB's words spoken and recorded during the emergency call in the immediate aftermath or a newspaper article some 15 years after the event quoting what someone else claims DB said?
In any event my interpretation of the newspaper article is DB was suffering some sort of PTSD and if the words spoken are correct he was talking about some sort of vision which was not rooted in reality hence the reference to "black hands" and the aunt saying he appeared to be in a trance like state.
Imo Steve you have a prejudiced mind which I wonder if you are aware of? I wonder if these stories you weave together about the likes of DB and JB feeling constricted by their circumstances and wanting to become kingpin etc say more about you than you perhaps realise? You have said in the past your life has been largely shaped by the church, looking after your parents and teaching.
Prejudice is the reason I believe Colin Howell and Hazel Stewart got away with murder for nearly 2 decades until CH confessed. The pair were able to slip under the radar with the most audacious plan for staged suicides (yes plural!) because of who they were: professional with families and very involved with the church. The latter carrying a lot of weight in a country like NI.
Think about it Steve, all the nonsense you level at DB and JB you would not be able to level at Colin Howell and Hazel Stewart!
David Bain was faking, he was faking throughout and has kept up the pretence. He learned the art of trancing from his mother, Margaret. Janice Clark was under oath at trial. Why would she lie?
It's quite evident to me both David Bain and Jeremy Bamber wanted to be kingpins (I have never had such an aspiration-sorry to disappoint.) The typed message written on the computer says it all really, and could have been devised by Jeremy himself.
The Church has its rotten apples like any other organization. But I stick with it because it's predominantly a force for good.
-
John wayne Gacy drama starting!
-
John wayne Gacy drama starting!
One of the worst serial killers, along with Gary Ridgway.
-
One of the worst serial killers, along with Gary Ridgway.
Did you watch part 1 Steve?
Seems in the seventies the cops swore with every sentence!
-
Did you watch part 1 Steve?
Seems in the seventies the cops swore with every sentence!
I watched a film on YouTube starring Brian Dennehy.
-
I watched a film on YouTube starring Brian Dennehy.
Oh, i've never seen that one, I will check it out, Steve! Thanks!
-
Oh, i've never seen that one, I will check it out, Steve! Thanks!
Viewer discretion is advised.
-
It has befallen me to elucidate a few points on the two cases and members will already know where I stand: the defendants are guilty as charged.
The copycat nature of the crimes cannot really be gainsaid: five victims in each case, a .22 rifle as the murder weapon with silencer, a perpetrator damaged (to what degree is moot) and harbouring a sense of entitlement within the family unit, an alibi concocted which doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, and a convenient scapegoat with which to exculpate and allow the assassin to start afresh and gain sympathy along the way.
I'll be briefer dealing with Jeremy Bamber, as the site is named eponymously and the material here far more extensive than that involving David Bain. A plan was devised in his mind, which may well have remained theoretical to this day, to extirpate his immediate family in order to gain a £436,000 inheritance at 1985 values along with a two-bedroom flat in a fashionable area of London. His sister, Sheila, was living there mostly alone at the time of the tragedy, with her twin sons visiting at weekends.
Colin Caffell, the father of the twins, was due to take them to Norway to visit his sister following the White House Farm visit, so it was really a courtesy call on the grandparents before that trip. Sheila, who suffered from schizophrenia and was taking medication for the condition, was not fully aware of events at the best of times, and the Haloperidol made her drowsy and uncoordinated, though she liked to keep up appearances and even on occasion hold court, as evidenced by a conversation a few weeks previously with a distant cousin, Helen Grimster, during which suicide was mentioned.
It's important to lay all the facts on the table, or as many of them as possible which can be established as facts. Therefore, when considering Robin Bain's culpability, it would be wise to acknowledge that he was going through a bad patch: he had been banished from the family home on Every Street, Dunedin, to a caravan in the garden, where he had resided for the past three years, during the week he slept in another dilapidated camper van on the school grounds in Taieri Beach, often reeking of body odour by the end of the week. He had published some inappropriate stories from pupils in the school magazine. A wad of correspondence from the Local Authority remained unopened on his desk in the office.
It is these circumstances which the two defendants took advantage of. David had been poisoned by his mother's vitriol towards her husband, describing him as Belial, synonymous with the Devil in the epistles of Paul. The four children had been running wild in the compound in Papua New Guinea, Margaret unable to cope and relying on the firstborn to take charge, as Margaret herself in her turn had been put upon by her mother, being the eldest of four daughters.
The mother, to her credit, knew there was a problem. She enlisted the assistance of psychologist Wendy Maitland, who interviewed the family in 1987. She states:
"I was worried by the magnitude of the problem. David was then 15, but all the children were affected. It's like a tragedy that is perpetuated through the generations. I didn't foresee a tragedy of this kind, but it was clear to me that if they didn't seek help the children would become mentally ill. There would be psychological damage, havoc."
-
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.
-
If we now jump several years to 1988, when the Bain family returned to New Zealand. It's often been said that 65 Every Street, Anderson's Bay, Dunedin was run down, dilapidated and in need of repair. All that is true, but one has to remember the house had been tenanted for years and it had been neglected by them. However, there is some truth that the residence was dirty, hygiene standards and tidiness were lacking, the mother, Margaret having taken to her bed and apparently giving orders to the rest of the family from there.
More importantly, upon return to the mother country Robin found himself unemployed, David, whose education had been most damaged by the years spent in Papua New Guinea was also unemployed, whilst as the clock ticked on to the tragic events of 1994 it seemed that Arawa, Laniet and Stephen were gradually beginning to shake off the worst remnants of Waigani and make a life for themselves.
-
The justification for the crimes in the eyes of Jeremy and David? I'm quite sure Jeremy envied Sheila's lifestyle in Maida Vale, not understanding her illness apart from the superficiality, though deceiving himself that he would put his old and increasingly frail-looking father out of his misery, along with his mad mother and sister. The twins, sharing her mother's mentally-ill genes would grow up damaged, so had to be despatched. In his horribly perverted mind were mercy killings: the inheritance an afterthought.
With David it was more difficult to discern. There was talk by Margaret, who still imagined herself as matriarch even under greatly reduced circumstances, that she and Stephen would live together in a unit in town. Not, the reader may note, mother and firstborn. I thought of that when I considered the typewritten message on the computer: "Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay."
Note: stay, not live. Was David thinking that he would be the only one left in that dilapidated dwelling, following Laniet's departure to find fortune, Arawa was the success story enrolling at teacher training college and taking digs there, whilst Robin as mentioned had already been banished from the house years previously.
It was just too much for David to countenance: a solitary existence after all he had done for his mother, his father too much of a hands-off parent to instil any discipline, the simple row over a chain saw enough to send David over the edge. The money that the parents had set aside for the new house David alone was entitled to: he was the only one who deserved to stay.
https://youtu.be/K8CvHwZK9-c
-
This is a rather pointless topic.
-
This is a rather pointless topic.
Well, David1819, if you have more information it might persuade you to change your mind, since you consider both defendants innocent.
-
Well, David1819, if you have more information it might persuade you to change your mind, since you consider both defendants innocent.
I think it is grossly unfair Steve to smear someone without a deep study of the case.
With respect but your view seems so highly biased I don't know what to say.
There was strong evidence that Robin had handled a rifle/magazine that day but this amongst other things was withheld from the jury.
Using a expert witness to give evidence on highly subjective matters as fact to a jury is also a major problem.
-
I think it is grossly unfair Steve to smear someone without a deep study of the case.
With respect but your view seems so highly biased I don't know what to say.
There was strong evidence that Robin had handled a rifle/magazine that day but this amongst other things was withheld from the jury.
Using a expert witness to give evidence on highly subjective matters as fact to a jury is also a major problem.
No, he was tidying the garden with a chainsaw, which made the marks on his finger and thumb. Speaking of thumb, there was a tiny speck of blood on Robin's nail invisible to the naked eye: back spatter from when David killed him from the alcove. The back spatter evidence was not adduced in court.
-
No, he was tidying the garden with a chainsaw, which made the marks on his finger and thumb. Speaking of thumb, there was a tiny speck of blood on Robin's nail invisible to the naked eye: back spatter from when David killed him from the alcove. The back spatter evidence was not adduced in court.
Well he must have been up very early Steve because the police were call at 7.09 which was after DB had finished his paper round.
-
Well he must have been up very early Steve because the police were call at 7.09 which was after DB had finished his paper round.
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.
-
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.
-
This is a rather pointless topic.
It isn't mandatory to join in so what may I ask is your point?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
Getting up out of bed and waiting for your son to get out of the house to carry out his usual paper round, is hardly spying.
Like I've already said I'm not convinced it was either David or Robin. Just more likely it was Robin and not David.
-
Here's a more pleasant story for Kiwis handyman: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/watch-schoolboy-smashes-world-record-for-fastest-mile-by-junior-athlete/ar-AA1VqN5T?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6980cec9b31e470bb7cab779d6f5e742&ei=18&cvpid=6980cf855e5f42178d65597f61a3fbb4
-
Getting up out of bed and waiting for your son to get out of the house to carry out his usual paper round, is hardly spying.
Like I've already said I'm not convinced it was either David or Robin. Just more likely it was Robin and not David.
Someone was seen leaving the house around the time of the tragedy not David or Robin.
I am perplexed that Steve simply disregards evidence because he thinks he has got his man? You can convict anyone on that basis how can any jury come to a fair decision if certain evidence is withheld?
-
I stand corrected that the blood speck was invisible to the naked eye. How did it get there?
Either the struggle with SB or when he committed suicide.
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 would hope you would be a little more circumspect about a young women claiming she was being sexually abused by her father given all the recent history and not least in the CoE:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63144354
You appear to want to victim blame LB and DB.
Laws were not passed in NZ until 2014 to protect children from abuse ie safeguarding, background checks etc:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0040/57.0/DLM5501618.html
Paedophiles often gravitate to organised religion and education where they have access to children. It is well documented that Papua New Guinea was/is rife with child abuse.
Where is the evidence the pathologist rebutted any claims she made?
How can a psychologist provide a reliable opinion about an individual they have never met? This is analogous to a pathologist carrying out a post mortem on a body they have never seen ::)
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?
Based on your comments above I doubt you have undertaken any training in safeguarding?
NB. I celebrated Candlemas this morning at church. Sundays always set me up for the week.
Well take a look around the congregation and just remember there might well be a Colin Howell and Hazel Stewart amongst you!
Do you honestly believe all this stuff: a virgin giving birth? ::) I can understand how people bought into all this hundreds of years ago but most of us are a little more enlightened today :)
-
Someone was seen leaving the house around the time of the tragedy not David or Robin.
I am perplexed that Steve simply disregards evidence because he thinks he has got his man? You can convict anyone on that basis how can any jury come to a fair decision if certain evidence is withheld?
You always get claims of "someone was seen". I think it is a striaghtforward murder/suicide with RB the perp. It was unusual for the Bain family to be together. The night before the murders/suicide the entire family were at 65 Every St. It is documented that LB intended to blow the whistle on her father sexually abusing her. David went to bed early to get up early to carry out his paper round. When he was in his bedroom he said he heard raised voices downstairs. My view is that he was spared because he was the only one not party to the revelations. RB would know that had DB heard he would have made himself known. The family was dysfunctional. The parents and the home, if you can call it that, looked dire hence the place was burned to the ground. Today there would be intervention by social services or the like. The problem is when you have parents that are considered middle class and attend a church etc they get away with more than a lower socio-economic family would.
I have always believed it to be a case like WHF where the defence and prosecution agreed it was either RB or DB?
Best to keep it simple Rob. Life is complicated enough without "someone was seen"!
-
Getting up out of bed and waiting for your son to get out of the house to carry out his usual paper round, is hardly spying.
Like I've already said I'm not convinced it was either David or Robin. Just more likely it was Robin and not David.
If it wasn't RB, and the evidence shows it was not DB, what possible reason could someone have to want to murder the family and spare DB?
I thought the defence and prosecution have always agreed it was either RB or DB?
-
Either the struggle with SB or when he committed suicide.
I would hope you would be a little more circumspect about a young women claiming she was being sexually abused by her father given all the recent history and not least in the CoE:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63144354
You appear to want to victim blame LB and DB.
Laws were not passed in NZ until 2014 to protect children from abuse ie safeguarding, background checks etc:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0040/57.0/DLM5501618.html
Paedophiles often gravitate to organised religion and education where they have access to children. It is well documented that Papua New Guinea was/is rife with child abuse.
Where is the evidence the pathologist rebutted any claims she made?
How can a psychologist provide a reliable opinion about an individual they have never met? This is analogous to a pathologist carrying out a post mortem on a body they have never seen ::)
Based on your comments above I doubt you have undertaken any training in safeguarding?
Well take a look around the congregation and just remember there might well be a Colin Howell and Hazel Stewart amongst you!
Do you honestly believe all this stuff: a virgin giving birth? ::) I can understand how people bought into all this hundreds of years ago but most of us are a little more enlightened today :)
I take exception to the comments you have made about my person. I could retaliate but the gentleman in me advises restraint.
The comments about Laniet being a fantasist and exhibiting histrionic personality disorder I have from a source I'm not going to divulge. There was another site where I got information, which was in the public domain for years, but was closed down when Joe Karam sued them. I recall several allegations regarding David Bain, which were extremely damaging to his cause. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/loser-karam-defamation-case-files-bankruptcy
There are men who are particularly vulnerable to allegations of a sexual nature, which is one of the reasons I maintain my anonymity on this site. I doubt with your extreme feminism you are able to put yourself in any man's shoes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61737406
-
If it wasn't RB, and the evidence shows it was not DB, what possible reason could someone have to want to murder the family and spare DB?
I thought the defence and prosecution have always agreed it was either RB or DB?
You didn't read #142 or you wouldn't have written that.
-
If it wasn't RB, and the evidence shows it was not DB, what possible reason could someone have to want to murder the family and spare DB?
I thought the defence and prosecution have always agreed it was either RB or DB?
Was DB spared? Even now people still think he did it.
If RB did it then his final act of cruelty was to frame his son who he did not get on with.
-
Was DB spared? Even now people still think he did it.
If RB did it then his final act of cruelty was to frame his son who he did not get on with.
I don't know how David Bain can live with himself. He must be insane, however one defines that word.
-
Was DB spared? Even now people still think he did it.
Of course there will people out there that still think he did it. Much the same way there are people that still think the earth is flat.
If RB did it then his final act of cruelty was to frame his son who he did not get on with.
No I don't believe so. It is well documented that RB was a computer enthusiast. He would never think in his wildest dreams that DB would take the blame.
-
I don't know how David Bain can live with himself. He must be insane, however one defines that word.
He doesn't live with himself. He is married with a family of his own. :)
He was assessed by psychiatrist, Dr Brinded, and found to be not suffering from any mental illness or personality disorder and 'normal'.
-
Here's a more pleasant story for Kiwis handyman: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/watch-schoolboy-smashes-world-record-for-fastest-mile-by-junior-athlete/ar-AA1VqN5T?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6980cec9b31e470bb7cab779d6f5e742&ei=18&cvpid=6980cf855e5f42178d65597f61a3fbb4
Yes, I saw that on the news the other day. NZ has a rich history of producing world-class middle-distance runners John Walker & Peter Snell with his 3 Olympic Gold Medals.
-
If it wasn't RB, and the evidence shows it was not DB, what possible reason could someone have to want to murder the family and spare DB?
I thought the defence and prosecution have always agreed it was either RB or DB?
At the time of the Bain murders there was a high-level pedophile network operating in Dunedin.
With some connections to the Presbyterian Church in which Robin & Margaret Bain were involved with.
There is info out there but a major published work about it all is now difficult to find, because it keeps on being taken down from the internet.
The Police seemed over keen to make it an open & shut case, culminating in the burning down of the Bains house.
Pat Brown herself made a big deal about the rifle being fired by someone wearing gloves.
I'll post any decent links that I can find about it.
Edit : Here's a link giving a broad outline.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/dunedin-church-appoints-kc-to-investigate-paedophile-ring/
-
I take exception to the comments you have made about my person. I could retaliate but the gentleman in me advises restraint.
The comments about Laniet being a fantasist and exhibiting histrionic personality disorder I have from a source I'm not going to divulge. There was another site where I got information, which was in the public domain for years, but was closed down when Joe Karam sued them. I recall several allegations regarding David Bain, which were extremely damaging to his cause. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/loser-karam-defamation-case-files-bankruptcy
There are men who are particularly vulnerable to allegations of a sexual nature, which is one of the reasons I maintain my anonymity on this site. I doubt with your extreme feminism you are able to put yourself in any man's shoes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61737406
There are men and *women who prey on children. The statistics show men far outweigh women.
For anyone to formally diagnose LB suffering from a personality disorder they would need to be properly qualified and meet with her to undertake an assessment and since this didn't happen your sources are meaningless.
Consider the Jeffrey Epstein case. Even when he was convicted of child sex offending, serial rape and human trafficking, the so-called great and the good were happy to turn a blind eye and continue to fawn all over him for all sorts of favours.
When have I ever displayed any "extreme feminism"? I believe RB murdered his family and committed suicide because LB revealed he had been sexually abusing her. DB was spared because he was not party to the revelation having gone to bed early in preparation for his early start. That's my belief based on my perception of the evidence. That's not feminism.
*https://www.rosebudpodcast.co.uk/archive/charles-spencer
-
There are men and *women who prey on children. The statistics show men far outweigh women.
For anyone to formally diagnose LB suffering from a personality disorder they would need to be properly qualified and meet with her to undertake an assessment and since this didn't happen your sources are meaningless.
Consider the Jeffrey Epstein case. Even when he was convicted of child sex offending, serial rape and human trafficking, the so-called great and the good were happy to turn a blind eye and continue to fawn all over him for all sorts of favours.
When have I ever displayed any "extreme feminism"? I believe RB murdered his family and committed suicide because LB revealed he had been sexually abusing her. DB was spared because he was not party to the revelation having gone to bed early in preparation for his early start. That's my belief based on my perception of the evidence. That's not feminism.
*https://www.rosebudpodcast.co.uk/archive/charles-spencer
Let me spell it out for you: David Bain was the most damaged by the years in the Waigani compound in Papua New Guinea. He found it difficult to adjust upon return to Dunedin, which must have seemed like a different planet to him. Affected by the constant poison dripped into his ears by his mother, Margaret regarding Robin he took over as nominal head of the household. He would enter his siblings' rooms at will with a gun and pretend to shoot on more than one occasion. In his own bedroom he had a card on which he had drawn five circles, which he used as target practice. The circles correspond roughly to the rooms where the victims died. Note: five circles, none for where David's room might be located.
On the counterspin.nz website, which has now been removed, there are allegations that David told a couple of his mates that a paper round would be a good pretext on which to rape a girl. He told his girlfriend at the time that he feared something bad was going to happen, a portent of doom only days before the tragedy.
Margaret was making plans to leave the house and move into a unit with Stephen in town. Arawa, who was the star of the family, had become Head Girl at school and was at teacher training college would not have stayed in that filthy house ( note it was Arawa who was the success story and Robin would never have killed her, let alone written a message which had David as preference over her). As for Laniet, she had tried her hand at prostitution, with Dean Cottle as her pimp. It turned out she wasn't up to the job, but she had moved out of the house at the time of the killing and it was David who forced her back that weekend under the pretext of bible study and family gathering. David, like Jeremy Bamber before him, seized the opportunity whilst the family was under one roof.
David had crashed a powerful Kawasaki motorbike he was test driving six weeks before the murder. When the insurance was paid it left him $2000 in debt, which his parents refused to cover. This may have been the trigger, just as Jeremy Bamber had had an accident involving his Vauxhall Astra and was in hock to Nevill for a similar amount.
David killed his mother with one shot outright. He proceeded to his brother's room, where Stephen had awoken and managed to deflect the first shot with his hand, where the bullet shot from the silencer hit. There was masses of blood. David, enraged, strangled Stephen with his own T-shirt, then fired a second bullet into the top of his head. Between the first and second shot a bullet got stuck in the breech and David had to remove his opera gloves to dislodge with his finger. Stephen had managed to scratch the assailant's face and grasp a few of David's green jersey fibres before death.
David moved to Laniet's room. He shot her once, thinking that was sufficient, then proceeded to Arawa's room. She may have heard the commotion with Stephen and was awake. The first shot missed her from outside the bead curtain and lodged into the wall. By that stage Arawa knew she was going to die, and knelt in a prayer position begging for her life. David shot her once in the head.
In the corridor he heard Laniet gurgling and moved back into her room. He finished her off with his trademark shot to the top of the head.
He then proceeded to put the bloodied clothing in the washing machine, before undertaking the paper round.
He waited behind the alcove for Robin, who was a creature of habit. This is the missing twenty minutes, the computer switched on a 06:44am, yet police not called until 07:10am.
A friend of Robin post-mortem said due to his religious leanings had he committed the murders he would have written a note of biblical proportions, not one solitary line. He would have put pen to paper, not typed a message, but of course, the authorship of the words belonged not to the father, but to the son.
David knows deep down he is guilty. He told a supporter in a letter after the first trial: "The judge was very kind to me during the trial...seeming to see the pain I was going through." Whilst not a confession, it is an admission, given that upon sentencing the judge told him he had "acted with a significant degree of cunning and premeditation." It indicates David Bain thought he had been given a fair trial.
Of course, once Joe Karam stuck his nose in David was going to take full advantage.
-
Let me spell it out for you: David Bain was the most damaged by the years in the Waigani compound in Papua New Guinea. He found it difficult to adjust upon return to Dunedin, which must have seemed like a different planet to him. Affected by the constant poison dripped into his ears by his mother, Margaret regarding Robin he took over as nominal head of the household. He would enter his siblings' rooms at will with a gun and pretend to shoot on more than one occasion. In his own bedroom he had a card on which he had drawn five circles, which he used as target practice. The circles correspond roughly to the rooms where the victims died. Note: five circles, none for where David's room might be located.
On the counterspin.nz website, which has now been removed, there are allegations that David told a couple of his mates that a paper round would be a good pretext on which to rape a girl. He told his girlfriend at the time that he feared something bad was going to happen, a portent of doom only days before the tragedy.
Margaret was making plans to leave the house and move into a unit with Stephen in town. Arawa, who was the star of the family, had become Head Girl at school and was at teacher training college would not have stayed in that filthy house ( note it was Arawa who was the success story and Robin would never have killed her, let alone written a message which had David as preference over her). As for Laniet, she had tried her hand at prostitution, with Dean Cottle as her pimp. It turned out she wasn't up to the job, but she had moved out of the house at the time of the killing and it was David who forced her back that weekend under the pretext of bible study and family gathering. David, like Jeremy Bamber before him, seized the opportunity whilst the family was under one roof.
David had crashed a powerful Kawasaki motorbike he was test driving six weeks before the murder. When the insurance was paid it left him $2000 in debt, which his parents refused to cover. This may have been the trigger, just as Jeremy Bamber had had an accident involving his Vauxhall Astra and was in hock to Nevill for a similar amount.
David killed his mother with one shot outright. He proceeded to his brother's room, where Stephen had awoken and managed to deflect the first shot with his hand, where the bullet shot from the silencer hit. There was masses of blood. David, enraged, strangled Stephen with his own T-shirt, then fired a second bullet into the top of his head. Between the first and second shot a bullet got stuck in the breech and David had to remove his opera gloves to dislodge with his finger. Stephen had managed to scratch the assailant's face and grasp a few of David's green jersey fibres before death.
David moved to Laniet's room. He shot her once, thinking that was sufficient, then proceeded to Arawa's room. She may have heard the commotion with Stephen and was awake. The first shot missed her from outside the bead curtain and lodged into the wall. By that stage Arawa knew she was going to die, and knelt in a prayer position begging for her life. David shot her once in the head.
In the corridor he heard Laniet gurgling and moved back into her room. He finished her off with his trademark shot to the top of the head.
He then proceeded to put the bloodied clothing in the washing machine, before undertaking the paper round.
He waited behind the alcove for Robin, who was a creature of habit. This is the missing twenty minutes, the computer switched on a 06:44am, yet police not called until 07:10am.
A friend of Robin post-mortem said due to his religious leanings had he committed the murders he would have written a note of biblical proportions, not one solitary line. He would have put pen to paper, not typed a message, but of course, the authorship of the words belonged not to the father, but to the son.
David knows deep down he is guilty. He told a supporter in a letter after the first trial: "The judge was very kind to me during the trial...seeming to see the pain I was going through." Whilst not a confession, it is an admission, given that upon sentencing the judge told him he had "acted with a significant degree of cunning and premeditation." It indicates David Bain thought he had been given a fair trial.
Of course, once Joe Karam stuck his nose in David was going to take full advantage.
And you accuse LB of being a "fantasist" ::)
You are either unable or unwilling to study the evidence DB was convicted on at his first trial and contrast it to the evidence presented at his retrial where he was rightfully acquitted.
You are more concerned with maintaining the status quo by attempting to protect the patriach, who in reality was a pathetic individual in every respect, and upholding Christianity by attemtping to cover up child sex abuse and suicide both of which are against the teachings of the bible.
Judges are human. They will have their own personal views and interpretation of the trial. Judges' sentencing remarks reflect verdicts returned by jurors not their own personal views. The police and lawyers always say they never know how it is going to go until a verdict is reached. Why would it be any different for judges? The judge may well have been shocked by the verdict and expected an acquittal hence your quote above.
May I ask what you teach and to which age range? My guess is that it will be the humanities, possibly religious education, to an age range where you are not going to be particularly challenged.
-
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.
There is physical evidence NB was on the phone to JB. The fact you and others are unable/unwilling to reconstruct a mountain of physcial evidence to support this does not mean that soc reconstruction experts are unable to do so and put together a very compelling case that supports JB's claim of a tel call from NB.
As it stands the court at trial was told by Malcolm Fletcher that the adult victims sustained all their upstairs gunshot wounds in the bedroom. This was accpeted by Ed Lawson QC when it needed to be challenged based on all the physcial evidence. NB did not sustain his upstairs gunshot wounds in the bedroom. He sustained them on the landing and stairs whilst the perp, SC, was already in the bedroom having shot June before shooting out onto the landing at NB. This has been explained over and over again.
-
At the time of the Bain murders there was a high-level pedophile network operating in Dunedin.
With some connections to the Presbyterian Church in which Robin & Margaret Bain were involved with.
There is info out there but a major published work about it all is now difficult to find, because it keeps on being taken down from the internet.
The Police seemed over keen to make it an open & shut case, culminating in the burning down of the Bains house.
Pat Brown herself made a big deal about the rifle being fired by someone wearing gloves.
I'll post any decent links that I can find about it.
Edit : Here's a link giving a broad outline.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/dunedin-church-appoints-kc-to-investigate-paedophile-ring/
I've managed to dig this up. I remember now that it was Ian Wishart from investigate magazine who broke the story about the Bain murders conveniently covering up a Dunedin paedophile network.
Scroll down about halfway to pick up the quoted text below.
https://theoutdoorphonestore.com/13956/to-serve-protect-june-07/#:~:text=In%20fact%20even%20in%20the,book%20%5BCover%2Dups%20%26%20Cop%2Douts%5D%20I&text=The%20officer%20in%20charge%20of,Bain%20murders%20was%20Milton%20Weir.
Which brings us to yet another twist in this increasingly serious story: in late 1993, perhaps early 1994, Bayfield High School dropout Laniet Bain began working part time at the Reflections massage parlour. She would have been aged just 17. It is extremely likely that part of her “initiation” involved being forced to have sex with Dunedin police officers. And one of those officers was quite likely Detective Sergeant Milton Weir – the man who later controversially spearheaded the Bain family murder investigation and allegedly planted evidence to implicate David Bain.
In a statement dictated to Colin Withnall QC in his presence but left unsigned amid fears for her life, Dunedin woman Susan Sutton recounts a conversation where one of her friends told her about Milton Weir’s behaviour.
“Joyce has also told me about what Milton used to do when he was in the squad that was in charge of the Dunedin massage parlours. She said he would insist on having sex with the new young girls at the parlours as a perk of the job, and that Jack and Winnie Ingersoll would arrange it for him.
“Also, some of the girls who were under age or had a drug conviction and accordingly weren’t allowed to work in the parlour would be allowed to work in parlours provided that they gave Weir free sex, not only for him but for his mates.”
Let that sink in for a moment. Susan Sutton’s statement confirms what Investigate had already heard from Megan. But there’s even more corroboration – Megan doesn’t know either Sutton or her friend Joyce Conwell (aka Joyce Blondell); she’d already quit the parlours to work as a private escort before their time there.
Were senior Dunedin police officers sexual clients of underage prostitute Laniet Bain? Did that have a bearing on how the police conducted their investigation into the Bain homicides of June 20, 1994?
-
I've managed to dig this up. I remember now that it was Ian Wishart from investigate magazine who broke the story about the Bain murders conveniently covering up a Dunedin paedophile network.
Scroll down about halfway to pick up the quoted text below.
https://theoutdoorphonestore.com/13956/to-serve-protect-june-07/#:~:text=In%20fact%20even%20in%20the,book%20%5BCover%2Dups%20%26%20Cop%2Douts%5D%20I&text=The%20officer%20in%20charge%20of,Bain%20murders%20was%20Milton%20Weir.
Thanks. But exactly how would this result in the murder/suicide of RB, MB, AB, LB and SB?
I think in these cases you always get fanciful conspiracies/theories about individuals/organisations. In the Bamber case its the intelligence sevices connected to NB's days as a fighter pilot in WW2. In reality both cases are simple:
June Bamber was a totally unsuitable adoptive mother due to her own long history of mental illness before either SC or JB were conceived. Despite this she was approved to adopt; a recipe for disaster. Around 2 years after adopting SC, June required in-patient psychiatric care due to severe depression caused by her decision to adopt. Modern day neuroscience shows how damanging is it for babies/toddlers to be in the care of 'primary caregivers' who are suffering from depression let alone severe depression resulting in in-patient psychiatric care. The June/SC relationship was highly dysfunctional culminating in SC first shooting June before turning the rifle on NB, the twins and herself.
The Bain family was also highly dysfunctional. RB turned into a pathetic individual: living in a filthy caravan, unable to maintain even personal hygiene and manage a low level teaching position at elementary level. But much worse than this he started to sexually abuse his youngest daughter. On the night of the murders LB revealed to her family what had been going on. The only member not around was DB as he had retired to his bed/room for an early start due to his paper round hence he was spared.
The wider family, police, judiciary, media etc are unaware of the level of dysfunction so alternative motives are looked for ergo DB and JB end up carrying the can. Bear in mind DB was convicted in 1995 and JB 1986. The world was a very different place then with bias shown towards the patriarch and matriarch especially when the parents are perceived to be law abiding, middle class, pillars of the community and God-fearing. Today we, or most of us, are far more enlightened. We hear pretty much on a daily basis about these type of people being anything but what they claim to be. Here's a classic example: a married vet, teacher and summer camp leader who used the "cloak of Christianity" to carry out the most abhorrent crimes imaginable:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0n5162dv8o
-
The Bain family was also highly dysfunctional. RB turned into a pathetic individual: living in a filthy caravan, unable to maintain even personal hygiene and manage a low level teaching position at elementary level. But much worse than this he started to sexually abuse his youngest daughter. On the night of the murders LB revealed to her family what had been going on. The only member not around was DB as he had retired to his bed/room for an early start due to his paper round hence he was spared.
The above is about as good an analysis that there is based on the scene of the crime.
It was some time after DB's conviction that stories started to circulate about Robin abusing LB.
The police investigating for whatever reason decided to not investigate any motive for RB, which makes me think a decision was made to cover it up because of the wider implications about what was going on between RB & LB.
DB ends up getting convicted because he's portrayed as being a bit weird a 22yr. old doing a paper round who likes wearing loud colourful pullovers, along with whoever fired the rifle was wearing gloves.
There is a long history in NZ of covering up serious sexual offending from Police Officers. Theres the recent case of the Deputy Commissioner losing his job for sexual harassment and viewing kiddy porn, that was also covered up for a while.
-
The above is about as good an analysis that there is based on the scene of the crime.
It was some time after DB's conviction that stories started to circulate about Robin abusing LB.
The police investigating for whatever reason decided to not investigate any motive for RB, which makes me think a decision was made to cover it up because of the wider implications about what was going on between RB & LB.
DB ends up getting convicted because he's portrayed as being a bit weird a 22yr. old doing a paper round who likes wearing loud colourful pullovers,along with whoever fired the rifle was wearing gloves.
There is a long history in NZ of covering up serious sexual offending from Police Officers. Theres the recent case of the Deputy Commissioner losing his job for sexual harassment and viewing kiddy porn, that was also covered up for a while.
I did look into the Bain case in some detail years ago on the so-called Red forum aka UK Justice Forum:
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8397.0
I think there was also another thread which was archived.
The Bamber case features a similar aspect regarding fingerprints/gloves. Many years ago I was in communication with an expert in fingerprints:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bond_(physicist)
I learned from him that some surfaces are very difficult to recover latent fingerprints from, firearms being one such surface. The reason for this is due to the coating on firearms and the uneven surfaces. It then comes down to statistics ie the more a firearm is handled by someone the greater the chance of leaving indelible fingerprints. In the case of JB and DB there would be a much greater chance of finding a fingerprint than from the perpertrators, SC and RB, because they were handling the firearm regularly for legitimate reasons.
In JB's case one fingerprint was found from him and one from SC. You would expect to find one fingerprint from JB given the legitimate extent of handling but statistically you would not expect to find one from SC unless she handled the rifle extensively which of course she did when she fired at least 25 shots to kill her family and take her own life.
In DB's case far fewer shots were fired, around 9 if I remember correctly, than in JB's case (25 shots) meaning SC handled the rifle far more extensively than RB.
Only the uninformed would suggest the lack of fingerprints on the rifle holds any signficance.
-
I did look into the Bain case in some detail years ago on the so-called Red forum aka UK Justice Forum:
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8397.0
Some interesting links there. I'm trying to work out where Pat Brown got her theory from, about the killer wearing gloves. Maybe old-fashioned policing find a suspect first then collect any evidence that fits LOL.
Back in the day there was another theory going around that DB had a violent confrontation with RB when he returned home, angry at Robin for carrying out the killings.
-
Some interesting links there. I'm trying to work out where Pat Brown got her theory from, about the killer wearing gloves. Maybe old-fashioned policing find a suspect first then collect any evidence that fits LOL.
Back in the day there was another theory going around that DB had a violent confrontation with RB when he returned home, angry at Robin for carrying out the killings.
I think the 80/20 rule probably applies: 80% bs and 20% fact
Pat Brown is a complete non-entity as far as I am concerned. Fair enough if she was just putting herself out there as a true crime buff but the fact she attempts to deceive on the basis she's some sort of professional with relevant qualifications I find irritating. To my mind she is so obviously a fake. I don't understand how anyone can take her seriously. Just a stereotypical American: loud! She epitomises all the reasons I wouldn't try a cruise holiday for fear of being surrounded by people like her and unable to escape!
-
It looks as though the Counterspin team are taking a renewed interest in the Bain family murders.
At the 15-minute mark the book titled "Coverups & Copouts" gets a plug.
Then at the end at the 2 hour and 2-minute mark mention is made about the mysterious burning down of the Bain family home.
It's a difficult watch for none NZers (and some would say for NZers too)
https://rumble.com/v75vzoi-s5e3-raw-unfiltered-and-uncut.html
-
It looks as though the Counterspin team are taking a renewed interest in the Bain family murders.
At the 15-minute mark the book titled "Coverups & Copouts" gets a plug.
Then at the end at the 2 hour and 2-minute mark mention is made about the mysterious burning down of the Bain family home.
It's a difficult watch for none NZers (and some would say for NZers too)
https://rumble.com/v75vzoi-s5e3-raw-unfiltered-and-uncut.html
I don't see how the book Coverups & copouts has any bearing on David Bain's innocence or guilt.