Friday, February 17, 2012

The brothers Bain, Michael and Robin.

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.

9 comments:

  1. When interviewed on Newstalk ZB about his tribute' videos, Brian Bruce denied any connection with Counterspin, 'the people being sued by Joe Karam'. He said the idea resulted from talking with Michael Bain. Yet on Counterspin, they are promoting an interview they are supposedly doing next week; which, they say, is part of the backlash to the publication of Joe Karam's book and includes those tributes by Bryan Bruce. Someone is lying. There are connections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are porkies about alright. I saw a hate-site administrator bragging on Trade Me today of being going to ring Michael for confirmation on something or other. I hope that has been copied!
      I must see if I can listen to that interview, it's a very odd phenomenon - paying tribute to a family that the hate-sites have in fact maligned, particularly Margaret and Laniet. Very odd that the Uncle could on the one hand be claiming to paying tribute to the family, why at the same time rejecting their very essence and the horror they revealed they had endured.
      Oh well, I guess he needed to say something even if it's weird.

      Delete
  2. Excellent blog. What Michael Bain did to David was digusting. There can be no other motive but greed. No wonder the man protests so much. Guilt will do that to people.

    Big big shame on Uncle Mike. Protesting his love for a brother he never visited in his own home. Never made the trip to Dunedin to visit, but happily arrived the minute there was some money on offer.

    His brother's crime was a result of psychological torment, what excuse does this man have for his crime against decency?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe that Michael was at all motivated by money or anything other than trauma and responsibility to his family when he made that dreadful trip. Something which hasn't survived the full scrutiny of the law influenced him, though I fully accept that it would be of no moment to him - I do have sympathy for him and I don't think it can be ignored what was visited upon him by this tragedy. I just don't agree that there is not a more suitable way of settling it as best can be. I don't think we should forget the example David has shown through all of this, a lesser man might have been driven to a public outburst, offering recriminations but the only thing we can see is from his writing of how he was also hurt and bewildered by his abandonment.

      Delete
  3. Superpoop and others have posted about talking to Michael Bain, so he must be in contact with the group.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think he rest of their hate group know how he is letting all of their cats out of the bag? His propensity for nosiness, gossip and name dropping has obviously gotten the better of him.

      Delete
    2. They're a lurching, sinking, ship, despite that their feet might be wet and all hope gone, in the moments waves are not crashing over them - they likely consider they're saved and back on track.

      Delete
  4. Is it legal for a will's executor to exclude an heir who's been accused of a crime, or charged with a crime, but not convicted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so.
      This appears to have been an arbitrary decision to 'protect' Robin's good name. If that was the purpose it has clearly failed, and continues to fail. It seems to have shown a depth of lack of understanding which has ultimately proven that Michael deemed guilty the innocent man and took sides with the killer.
      This is one of the few covers of darkness that the hate-siters have left, they cite 'the family' when of course Michael has no knowledge greater than what was before the Courts. The hate-siters also attack Margaret and Laniet in the course of protecting Robin's 'good' name. It's some kind of sick. Unfortunately I think there will be more that is revealed about Robin and it won't be any better than what we know now.

      Delete