The history of Michael Bain has become well known in recent years, due in part to Joe Karam's books. Also because of Michaels public statements, and by the general public knowledge that Michael was 1 of the 2 executors of Robin and Margaret's will, who had decided within days of the Bain deaths that David would be excluded funds from his inheritance that could have been available for David's defence. As it transpires in the long term, possibly helping David from ever being falsely convicted.
Michael's decision was made in rather odd circumstances that mirrored the decision of police to charge David before the investigation into the deaths had been completed, weeks before even blood samples from the house had been sent on for testing. Karam has made the point that as Michael was distant from the children and had essentially had no close contact with even Robin for over a dozen years. Showing to me the obvious, that Michael's affinity with David was paled by the fact that he hardly knew him, and in terms of being a young adult by the time of the killings didn't know him at all as a young man. Generally speaking a person's relationship with his siblings are the most enduring by time, longer than with parents or children by reason of the proximity of age grouping of siblings compared to parents or children.
We've never heard from Michael, as is his entitlement, the reason for his relative haste in abandoning his nephew before any charges were ever proven against him, or even now when no charges or blame is proven against him and will never be. It's fairly well known that Michael Bain has no apparent intention to ensure David's inheritance is returned to him in compliance with the late Robin and Margeret's wishes, despite the fact he has now, for a number of years, stood innocent of any crime what so ever. We have heard of Michael's animosity toward David for not 'defending' the family name or that of Robin. That position can only be construed now, when David innocence is all present, that animosity is because David didn't take the blame for Robin. Interesting hardly describes such logic, but it does seem apparent, very apparent and probably not something that would withstand the test of law.
As some of the 'heat' comes out of the controversy of the false imprisonment of David Bain, with attention now turned toward compensation for the lost years of his life, the probability that indeed Robin committed familicide will never be diminished. The extent to which Robin's life was in disorder and the pressure over the accusations of his daughters against him ultimately show that he was a man driven and unable to resolve things within his family without killing them. He chose to destroy them before destroying himself, selfish yes, understandable no - not to the sane.
So the two brothers Michael and Robin. By comparison. Robin, no doubt unwell and lost in the pressure, sacrificed his wife and 3 of his children. In the same week, his somewhat distant brother, when considering the large sum of money under his and anothers control as executors, sacrificed the opportunity for David to have a well financed defence, rather than deferring that decision or compromising on it in someway he and the other executor 'shut the door' on David's guilt before it was ever proved, effectively making a judgement that might well have contributed to David spending the next dozen years in prison for a crime he didn't committ.
Because David is innocent as time has proven, the decision not to help him was in the final analysis a 'judgement' that perhaps helped send him to a 'dry' death, infamy to some extent, and what most would see as a unendurable torture that followed the annihilation of his family. Judgement by 2 brothers in what week, Robin might have considered he made some 'amends' for his decision. Whilst on the other hand all these years later Michael seems not to recognise that his nephew has proven to be innocent and is condemned for it. Brothers eh.
Footnote for the bewildered:
In NZ we don't have a law that somebody is guilty despite being found not guilty. We also don't have laws for nzers to treat others in an unsatisfactory or unlawful way or deprive them of their rights because of what people might feel about them or 'feel' they might have done. Nor do we have a tenet that allows hate-sites, and hate-siters to malign Margaret Bain and her children at length at the same time chortling for laws to be changed to hide the guilt of Robin Bain - well not as far I know.