Michael Laws, Joe Karam - the full debate - Audio

Too confusing for me,I'm gonna stick to the movie who-done-it's,.
It does appear that all that time & all those cops & people were wrong in blaming David,they should be arrested & locked up.
Compensation should be 1 billion dollas,& free ice cream for everyone.

Bruises to David Bain's face.Dr Pryde said he would have received them before 5am.
Washing machine cycle.It took an hour.Repairman only said it sometimes missed a cycle.Never said it took less than an hour.Mrs Laney saw Bain at 6.45am,her clock was checked,so washing machine wouldn't have been started until around 6.50 am,yet police were in the laundry area at 7.29.am,39 minutes later.Even David Bain said the washing took between 45 minutes and an hour.Stephen Bain's blood on David Bain's shorts and T-shirt,how did it get there?It wasn't the cat or dog,no paw prints were found in the blood on the floor.
Why did David Bain say he had not been wearing his mother's glasses when he took the stand,when he had already told his lawyer he was going to admit to wearing them that weekend?And he had also told an Aunt and Uncle that he was staying with before he was arrested that he had been wearing his mother's glasses.
Why did David Bain change his story as to who owned the green jersey worn by the killer?He first said it was Arawa's ,and he confirmed that later.But when he took the stand,he changed his story,he said it was his father's and also said his father had been wearing it that weekend.The police showed him a photo montage and asked him to pick out photos showing his father wearing that jersey.He picked out three photos"There"he said,"there and there".Only problem was,those photos showed his father wearing a different jersey to the one worn by the killer.
Re those luminol footprints.Nothing conclusive there.One expert said they were too large to be Robin's,another expert said they were too small to be David's.
And why were there none of Robin Bain's fingerprints on the rifle,if he committed suicide?After all there were a very clear set of David Bain's prints on the rifle.
And why had David Bain sponged down the shoulder of the Gondolier T shirt he admitted to wearing on the Sunday?
And he heard Laniet gurgling,he should have been on the phone straightaway.

I was very interested in listening to this debate as I was quite confused and unsure whether Robin or David had committed the crime. I have to say I was rather annoyed at Joe Karem's constant interruptions during the debate this made it a little difficult to follow the evidence. Furthermore his unwillingness to discuss the issues in a calm fashion made him sound to me like a man more concerned with saving face than examining the issues and the evidence of the case. As a result of this I was left feeling a little jaded after two hours, and still not really any closer to a definitive answer to the big question. The preponderance of the evidence put forward that I did manage to hear certainly identified David as the most likely perpetrator of this crime. However at the end of the debate I still felt that I could not completely rule out Robin as a possible suspect, although from the evidence presented over the two hours his involvement does now seem to be extremely unlikely to me.

And one more thing before I crawl back under my stone. You ask me, Somedude, whether I have found things "curious". I'm more into facts really, but I'll ask you the same. Don't you find it "curious", as Dave has mentioned in an earlier blog, that a book describing the killings of an entire family by a father, is found opened and obviously being read, in Robin Bains caravan? If that's not "curious", I don't know what is.

4. Bruises. Your really stretching here. Could possibly from the rifle, could even be from stumbling around in a state of shock after finding your family dead and bumping into things like corners, doorways, door handles, pretty much anything you can think of that's in a house. What about resting his face against the chair in his room while on the phonetic the ambulance. Yes, your theory is plausible but hardly conclusive. 5. There is no conclusive prove the body of Robins has moved. Whether it has or hasn't does not prove David killed him. If your theory is right, it means the body may have been moved post mortem which I have already "blogged" a reasonable and plausible theory for. And yes, this forum is a form of blogging. 5. "Sponged" is a very descriptive word. It's not been proved that the blood on David's T shirt was sponged. It appears to have been diluted somewhat. David could picked this up stumbling through the house. Let's talk conclusive prove. Footprints. Prosecution says must be killers. Proved they could not have been left by David. Lens. Proved to have been found in a position not possibly placed during the evening. Computer message. Prosecution says the killer turned on machine. Proved David wasn't in the house when computer was switched on. These three facts, not theories, alone prove he didn't do it.

4. Bruises. Your really stretching here. Could possibly from the rifle, could even be from stumbling around in a state of shock after finding your family dead and bumping into things like corners, doorways, door handles, pretty much anything you can think of that's in a house. What about resting his face against the chair in his room while on the phonetic the ambulance. Yes, your theory is plausible but hardly conclusive. 5. There is no conclusive prove the body of Robins has moved. Whether it has or hasn't does not prove David killed him. If your theory is right, it means the body may have been moved post mortem which I have already "blogged" a reasonable and plausible theory for. And yes, this forum is a form of blogging. 5. "Sponged" is a very descriptive word. It's not been proved that the blood on David's T shirt was sponged. It appears to have been diluted somewhat. David could picked this up stumbling through the house. Let's talk conclusive prove. Footprints. Prosecution says must be killers. Proved they could not have been left by David. Lens. Proved to have been found in a position not possibly placed during the evening. Computer message. Prosecution says the killer turned on machine. Proved David wasn't in the house when computer was switched on. These three facts, not theories, alone prove he didn't do it.

Somedude, read the following, and try to keep up. 1. David wore glasses. He had his own at the opticians. Have you compared his with the indentations? Makes little difference as all glades leave a similar mark. 2. David has admitted to wearing those glasses, just not recently. They were an old pair of Margarets that she no longer used. 3. The glasses are now irrelevant as the lens found in Stephens room was actually found under an ice skate boot, under a pile of folded washing. This little bit of info was not shared with the original jury, but proves that the lens could not possibly have been left there during the night. But maybe in your mind, after killing Stephen, David stopped to do a spot of ironing.

Howdy Harry,


The Glasses:

In your opinion is there a mark on david's nose?

Given David subsequently said he didn't wear his mother's glasses and didn't have his own to wear, why does he have a indentation on his nose consistent with some one wearing glasses?

You say glasses leave similar marks, but size and angle of nose rest does vary such that when scouting for generic shots of nose rests off the net I found essentially none aligned consistently with mark on david's nose. However when I a found picture of Margaret's eye and scaled to correct size was a perfect match!

Do you agree alignement and shape are a good match?


Allledged Suicide:

Is it part of the defense's case that David shook his Dad?
Do you agree that the defense's suicide scenario is physically implausible if we accept David didn't move body?


What blog are you refering to, I don't seem to recall having one lol?