I can't say I'm an expert on the Bain case, but I've been following the media coverage of the retrial. The thing that's struck me about it is how much of the evidence presented has been little more than innuendo. The retrial has seemed like a macabre soap opera at times, with evidence presented about remoured sexual relationships, mental health problems and personal hygiene of Bain family members.
I guess all this sordid stuff is appearing for two reasons. More directly relevant evidence (ballistics stuff, for example) is inconclusive. And because our justice system is adversarial, David's chief defence is to attack his deceased father. All of this, of course, takes place in the public eye - a crucial tenet of our justice system, but one that has rather unpleasant consequences too. Most people don't have a great deal in common with the Bains I'm guessing, but I'd think that any of us would look odd if the small and private details of our lives were taken out of context and made public.
Perhaps this kind of trial is inevitable; but I have to wonder if whatever justice the retrial serves up will be at the expense of the remaining Bain family's dignity.
8 comments:
There was some really ugly shit yesterday, in which the defence team presented evidence that seemed to show pretty clearly that Robin Bain was suffering from depression - the implication being that this made him likely to kill his family. Fetch a bucket, I'm gonna throw up...
If the price of justice is dignity, I'd say it's pretty cheap at the price.
I was ready to remain neutral, because I thought this would be the chance to bring out the evidence that was neglected in the original trial. Guess that's gone out the door because of evidence lost or destroyed.
Completely agree, Milt - the depression=propensity to kill thing is disturbing. There's also been a lot of attention given to the Bains' housekeeping (or lack thereof) and Margaret's religious beliefs - but neither the prosecution nor defence have tried to show that these are in any way relevant to the charges. It seems to be inviting the jury to draw their conclusion based on how odd the family was.
What's really upsetting me is the coverage of the alleged incest.
One story said "Laniet admitted having sex with her father".
There is just so much wrong with that sentence. If indeed Robin Bain was committing incest then he was raping Laniet. The word 'admits' implies she's not the victim. She is. A teenage girl is not 'having sex' with her father.
The word you are looking for is rape.
And also - why is the media covering that? Shouldn't that information be suppressed. Even though the victim is dead she should still be protected if she was a rape victim.
Laniet was a prostitute- one of the few uncontested facts in this case. If she was having sex with her father it was certainly incest, but unlikely to have been rape. In any case, her word was however totally untrustworthy. More importantly, as a motive for murder it just doesn't add up. Laniet had already told everyone about the incest, so killing the family would be very much slamming the barn door after the horse has bolted. Even more importantly, if all the family had to die, why arbitrarily leave David alive? Murder and suicide never seemed credible to me. But David was mentally unstable, had "space outs" and "premonitions" of the deaths of his family, and effectively confessed afterwards to killing them. A clearer case for conviction could hardly be found.
but unlikely to have been rape
you don't know that. if it happened when she was under 16, it's rape. there's no doubt about it. also, there are various ways pressure could have been put on her to submit, in which case it's rape. if she was "threatening" to tell, it means she didn't like what was happening to her, which means it's rape.
Post a Comment