Juan Ignacio Blanco  


  MALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

  FEMALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z




Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.




David Cullen BAIN





Classification: Mass murderer ?
Characteristics: Miscarriage of justice
Number of victims: 5 ?
Date of murders: June 20, 1994
Date of arrest: 4 days after
Date of birth: March 27, 1972
Victims profile: Robin Bain, 59, his wife Margaret, 50, their daughters Arawa, 19, Laniet, 18, and son Stephen, 14 (his parents and siblings)
Method of murder: Shooting (.22 rifle)
Location: Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand
Status: Sentenced to life in prison on June 21, 1995. Found not guilty when retried on the same charges 14 years later, on June 5, 2009

photo gallery


The Supreme Court of New Zealand

david cullen bain v. the queen - 11 june 2009
david cullen bain v. the queen - 6 march 2009

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand

the queen v. david cullen bain - 30 january 2009
the queen v. david cullen bain - 24 december 2008
privy council appeal - 10 may 2007

On the morning of 20 June 1994, five members of the Bain family were shot dead. Four days after the murders, David Bain (22) was charged by the police with the murder of his family.

The dead were: Robin Bain (59), his wife Margaret (50), their daughters Arawa (19), Laniet (18) and son Stephen (14).


The day of the murders

Prosecution Theory

The following is quoted text from

David wakes around 5 am, gets dressed and goes to his wardrobe and pulls out his .22 rifle. He unlocks the trigger guard, attaches the silencer and loads the ten -round magazine. He takes a pair of white gloves from a drawer, and puts them on. He wears a pair of his mother's glasses because his are being repaired.

He goes into his sister Laniet's room (the study), where he shoots her twice in the head as she lies sleeping. He goes to his mother's room and shoots her in the forehead. In the room off his mother's, he finds Stephen asleep. He puts the rifle to his head, but Stephen wakes and pushes it away as it goes off. There is a struggle with Stephen bleeding from a scalp wound as he fights for his life. David twists Stephen's T-shirt to strangle him and as he lies on the floor gasping, David finishes him off with a bullet to the head.

During the struggle, David’s glasses have fallen off. He turns on the light and picks them up leaving one of the lenses on the floor and carries them back to his bedroom and places them on his chair.

He goes downstairs where his sister Arawa has heard the shots and is praying for help. She is kneeling as David enters the room and he shoots but misses as he cannot see without his glasses, he shoots again and this time the bullet penetrates Arawa’s forehead, killing her. He goes back upstairs where he hears Laniet gurgling and he shoots her again in the top of the head.

David throws his bloodied clothing into the washing machine and turns it on. David's father Robin is still asleep in the caravan. David puts on a fresh set of clothes and goes out with his dog Casey, to do his Otago Daily Times paper run.

Returning home, he goes into the lounge and turns the computer on. He types in the suicide message ostensibly from his father to him saying 'sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay'. David hides behind the curtain with the rifle and waits for his father to come in to pray, a daily morning routine.

Robin enters the room and kneels on the other side of the curtains. David shoots his father in the head and leaving the rifle beside his body, David dials 111.

Alternative Theory

If it was accepted that David Bain did not kill his family that June 1994 morning, then who did? There seems only one other possibility - and one favoured at least during the earliest stages of the investigation - that Robin Bain murdered his wife Margaret, then his daughters Laniet and Arawa, then his son Stephen before shooting himself. A message was left on the computer, allegedly from him for David saying, ‘sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay.’ Theorists point to what they say are compelling facts to substantiate this scenario:

They say Laniet returned home that weekend to confront her parents with her father’s alleged incest with her over several years. Bain could have been looking at serious criminal charges if this had been true and had it been reported to the authorities, giving him a motive.

They say Robin's marriage to Margaret was essentially over, with Robin living in a schoolhouse at Taieri Beach during the week and a shabby caravan outside the family home at weekends.

Not all bloodstains on Robin's clothes were analysed before the trial and supporters say there is the possibility some could have come from other family members. If so, this would have severely damaged the prosecution case and strengthened the evidence against Robin.

The firearms discharge residue test, which indicates the presence of gunpowder on people who have recently fired a gun, was not carried out on Robin until five hours after the police arrived. This may have made the test inconclusive, as residue can disappear within hours of a shooting. In addition, instead of the tests being done at the scene, they were carried out at the mortuary, after the body had been moved without the hands being protected.

Robin had six recent injuries to his hands.

There were 20 empty cartridge shells in Robin’s caravan, indicating that Robin had access to, and had used David's rifle on previous occasions.

Note: Some of these issues were addressed and discounted by police investigating the original investigation. They were also rejected by the Court of Appeal.


5:30am David Bain's alarm clock set to activate

6:30am The caravan alarm clock is set to activate

Opposing times of the computer being switched on

6:45am David seen at the front gate of 65 Every Street

7:00am Neighbour awakened by a barking dog

7:09am 111 call made, referred to St John's ambulance

15-20 mins later, referred to police (time not validated)

7:33am Police arrive at 65 Every Street, no reply - they make their entry


David Cullen Bain (born 27 March 1972) is a New Zealander who featured in one of the country's most notable murder cases. He was convicted in May 1995 of the murders of his parents and siblings in Dunedin on 20 June the previous year, then was found not guilty when retried on the same charges 14 years later.

Bain served 13 years of a life sentence before successfully appealing his original convictions to the Privy Council in May 2007. Finding there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice, the Privy Council quashed his convictions and ordered a retrial

After several attempts by David Bain's lawyers to obtain a stay in proceedings failed, he was bailed pending the retrial which began in Christchurch on 6 March 2009 and ended 5 June 2009 with his acquittal on all charges.

This has been one of New Zealand's most complex and controversial murder cases. Aside from the debate about who murdered the rest of Bain's immediate family, questions have been raised about the police investigation, juror conduct, court decisions about the admissibility of evidence, and decisions by the New Zealand Court of Appeal.

Early life

David was the first child of Margaret Arawa and Robin Irving Bain. Soon after he was born, the family moved to outback Papua New Guinea where Robin worked as a missionary teacher. It was 15 years before they returned to New Zealand in 1988 when Margaret and Robin were having relationship problems.

Once back, they returned to their home at 65 Every Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin. It took David a year to settle back into school, but he joined the school choir and in the seventh form his marks improved and he went to university, encouraged by his parents. He dropped out of university and was on the unemployment benefit and working at Opera Alive for a period before returning to university to study classical music and professional voice training lessons.

The Killings

On the morning of 20 June 1994, five members of the Bain family were shot dead. The dead were Robin Bain (58), his wife Margaret (50), their daughters Arawa (19), Laniet (18) and son Stephen (14). David called 111 at 7:09 am, seeming very distressed. He had completed his paper round; what else happened that morning has been disputed.

Four days after the murders, David Bain (then aged 22) was charged by the Police with the murder of his family.

The house at 65 Every Street was burnt down on 5 July 1994 by the New Zealand Fire Service, at the request of the trustees of the Bain family trust, and with David Bain's consent.

1995 trial

The three week trial took place at the Dunedin High Court in May 1995 and was presided over by the late Justice Neil Williamson.

The Prosecution's case was, in brief, as follows. David got up by 5 am on the morning of 20 June. After getting dressed, he took his rifle and some ammunition from the wardrobe and unlocked the trigger lock using the spare key. The spare key, which he kept in a jar on his desk, was used because he had left the usual key in the pocket of a raincoat in his father's caravan. David then shot all his family members except his father, who was out in the caravan. He fought violently with Stephen, losing a lens from his glasses in the struggle. There was much blood. He put his blood-stained clothes in the washing machine, started it, washed himself and changed into clean clothes, leaving marks in the laundry/bathroom in the process. He went on his paper run as usual at roughly 5:45 am, hurrying to arrive home slightly earlier than usual at about 6:42 am. David then went upstairs, switching on the computer at 6:44 am, where he typed in a message (then or later): "SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY". He waited for his father to come in from the caravan to pray, as was his habit around 7 am. When Robin knelt to pray in the lounge, David shot him in the head from very close range. He rearranged the scene to seem like a suicide, then called 111 to report the killings, pretending to be very agitated.

David's own story was that he got up at the usual time, put on his running shoes and the yellow newspaper bag, and went on his paper run with the dog. He arrived back about 6:42 – 6:43 am, entering by the front door, and went to his room. He took off the newspaper bag and his shoes there, then went downstairs to the bathroom where he washed his hands, black from the newsprint. He put some coloured clothes in the machine, including the sweatshirt worn on his paper run over the last week, and set it going. He went back upstairs to his room, turning on the light. He then noticed bullets and the trigger lock on the floor. He went to his mother's room, finding her dead, then visited the other rooms where he heard Laniet gurgling, and found his father dead in the lounge. He was devastated and rang the emergency number in great distress.

The Defence proposed that Robin killed the other family members, before switching on the computer, typing the message and then shooting himself.

Conviction and sentencing

On 29 May 1995, after a three week trial, David Bain was convicted by the jury on five counts of murder. On 21 June 1995, Justice Neil Williamson sentenced him to life imprisonment with a 16 year non-parole period.

Appeals against conviction

Bain has maintained his innocence, and his supporters conducted a lengthy campaign to have his case reheard. An initial appeal to the New Zealand Court of Appeal was dismissed in 1995, and the Privy Council declined to hear his appeal in 1996. The Police Complaints Authority reviewed the Police investigation into the Bain family murders in 1997 and issued a 123-page report supporting its conduct. After Bain petitioned the Governor-General for a pardon, the Ministry of Justice held a further inquiry from 1998 to 2000 which found no miscarriage of justice. However the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, advised the Governor-General to seek the Court of Appeal's view on four items of evidence. The Court of Appeal found there was sufficient cause to reconsider the case, which they did in 2003, again dismissing Bain's appeal. Bain then appealed to the Privy Council for a second time.

2007 Privy Council appeal

In 2006, the Privy Council agreed to hear Bain's appeal against the verdict of the Court of Appeal, and this hearing took place over five days in March 2007. On Thursday, May 10, 2007 the Privy Council quashed David Bain's murder convictions, concluding that "a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred." while noting "nothing in this judgement should influence the verdict in any way." They recommended a retrial, which the Solicitor-General of New Zealand later confirmed would take place.

Privy Council findings

The emergence of much new evidence after the trial led to the later appeals and the eventual overturn of Bain's convictions, pending a retrial. Nine of the most important items were reviewed in the Privy Council findings:

1. Robin Bain's mental state

The jury did not know that he was "quite seriously disturbed", had reportedly hit a student at the school where he was principal, and had published brutal and sadistic children's stories in the school's newsletter, one of which involved the serial murder of members of a family.

2. Motive

Laniet had apparently told a friend just before the killings that she was planning to confront her parents that weekend about an incestuous relationship between her and her father Robin, but the trial judge had ruled the friend's evidence inadmissable because he saw it as unreliable. The jury therefore never heard about this possible motive for Robin. (The exclusion of this evidence was the principal question in the first appeal.) Since then, two other people had come forward stating that Laniet had told them about the incest, and another two had given supporting statements.

3. Size of bloody sock prints

Prints from a right sock impregnated with blood were detected using luminol in Margaret's room, going in and out of Laniet's room, and in the hallway outside Margaret's room. They all seemed to be from the same foot, measured at 280 mm in length. These were in places where Robin would not have gone under the Crown's theory of events. It was accepted during the trial that the prints were David's, and the prosecutor summed up saying they were too big to be Robin's. The jury were not told Robin's feet were measured to be 270 mm in length. Later measurements showed David's feet to be 300 mm in length. According to the Privy Council report, the new evidence "throws real doubt" on the assumption during the trial that the prints could not have been Robin's.

4. Time the computer was switched on

The jury was told and later reminded by the judge that the computer was turned on at precisely 6:44 am, just after David had returned home. However the exact time was not precisely recorded. A computer advisor employed by Otago University determined the time that the computer was switched by identifying how long it had been going, and what the current time of day was. However he was not wearing a watch himself and relied on the watch of an accompanying constable, DC Anderson. The constable's watch had no seconds hand and only five minute interval divisions, and later upon examination appeared to be two minutes fast. During the Privy Council appeal both sides agreed that the computer could have been turned on as early as 6:39:49 am.

5. Time David returned home

Someone was seen by a passing motorist entering the gate at 65 Every St at 6:45 am. The reliability of this time was left more doubtful than necessary in the minds of the jury, because they were not told that the police had checked the car's clock. Nor were they (or the defence) told of a second statement made by the motorist, in which she mentioned that she saw the yellow paper bag over his left shoulder. After retiring, the jury asked to read the motorist's statement, regarding when David arrived home; the judge then re-read her (first) statement.

6. Ownership of glasses

The jury heard a statement from an optometrist that glasses found in David's room were David's, conflicting with David's testimony that they were his mother's. David was then cross-examined about this in a way that raised doubt over his credibility. The optometrist had in fact changed his mind shortly before testifying, and believed his statement had been changed to say they were the mother's, but this had not happened. The jury asked a question about this issue after retiring, and were reminded of the conflicting testimony by the judge. The Privy Council concluded that while the ownership of the glasses was not a vital matter in itself, the conflicting evidence may have detracted from David's credibility in the eyes of the jury.

7. Left-hand lens

The left-hand lens of these glasses was found in Stephen's room. During the trial, Detective Weir testified that it was found there in the open. This was more consistent with the Crown's case that it become dislodged during the struggle there than what is now accepted, that it was found under a skate boot under a jacket, and was covered in dust. This may have misled the jury.

8. David's bloody fingerprints on rifle

David's fingerprints were found on the rifle, impressed there by bloody fingers. During the trial it was assumed that this was human blood. (Other blood on the rifle was definitely human.) A test of the fingerprint blood afterwards did not test positive for human DNA, and the prints may have resulted from possum or rabbit shooting months beforehand.

9. Laniet's gurgling noise

The jury was told that only the murderer could have heard Laniet gurgling. The second Court of Appeal heard some contradictory evidence and concluded it was not so clear-cut. The third Court of Appeal decided that it was, but was criticised by the Privy Council for having stepped outside its reviewing role here.

The Privy Council ruled that the third Court of Appeal had exceeded its role as a reviewing body in deciding the implications of all this new evidence. The Council also addressed three points which the third Court of Appeal had relied on in confirming David's guilt:

  • Knowledge of spare key to rifle

  • Bloody rifle clearer around David's fingerprints

  • Spare magazine standing upright

They found that the implications of the first point were contentious, while the other two should have been decided by a jury instead of an appellate court. They felt they did not need to consider in detail several other contentious points that the third appeal court saw as pointing towards David's guilt, including blood on David’s opera gloves, Stephen’s blood being found on David’s black shorts, the timing of the washing machine cycle, David’s head injuries, and Robin’s full bladder.


Although the Privy Council said Bain should be kept in custody, he was released on bail on 15 May 2007 following a hearing at the Christchurch High Court. More than 100 people attended, with the gallery erupting in cheers following the judge's decision. It was ruled that Bain posed no threat of offending if released. He was bailed to live with one of his longest supporters, former All Black Joe Karam, but later moved to west Auckland.


The retrial was announced on 21 June 2007 by Solicitor-General David Collins. The decision to conduct a retrial was based on a series of factors including the seriousness of the crimes, the time Bain had spent in prison and the availability of witnesses and exhibits. The Solicitor-General also declared that any further public discussion of the evidence or other matters that might influence a jury could be considered contempt of court. Various appeals and applications have since been made to the courts about the conduct of the retrial.

Appeals and court applications

Following an application to the High Court, Justice Panckhurst decided the retrial would be held in Christchurch instead of Dunedin. In February 2009, Justice Panckhurst and Chief High Court Judge Tony Randerson heard four days of arguments over whether to stay the retrial, but dismissed the application for a stay on 2 March 2009.

An earlier application for a stay was made to the Privy Council in 2008 on the grounds that several witnesses have died since the 1994 trial, many of the exhibits have been lost or destroyed, and new evidence had arisen. The Privy Council referred the application back to the New Zealand courts, after the Solicitor-General assured them that the New Zealand courts would consider the points raised before them. Details of the New Zealand hearings have been suppressed by the Solicitor-General.

Both sides appealed to the Court of Appeal against High Court decisions on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence. The Court of Appeal decided that some items should not be presented to the jury, and suppressed any mention of these until after the verdict. This included statements from two high school friends that David told them in 1989 how he could commit a sexual offence against a woman jogger and use his paper round as an alibi, by arriving at the usual time at some houses where he was often seen, but delivering to other houses much earlier. Evidence was also suppressed from a friend of Arawa Bain that David Bain had been intimidating the family with his gun, later to be used in the murders.

Bain's lawyers also appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court decision about new evidence being presented at the retrial. They won their appeal, so the disputed evidence was excluded from the retrial, and was under a suppression order until the week after the verdict, when the evidence and the reasons for its suppression were released. The disputed evidence was about a portion of the recording of David's 111 call in which he was audibly breathing heavily at the time; a detective reviewing it in 2007 in preparation for the retrial believed he heard the words "I shot the prick". Expert witnesses agreed that it was unclear whether the sounds were in fact speech, and if so what Bain may have said. For instance, one expert suggested he might have said "I can't breathe", and another expert gave the analogy of an image glimpsed in the clouds. Given the uncertainty, and the experts' cautions about presenting it to a jury, the Supreme Court decided allowing it as evidence would be unfairly prejudicial.

Opening statements

The jury for the retrial was sworn in on 6 March 2009. David Bain pleaded not guilty to the five murder charges, and the prosecution and defence made their opening statements.

Crown prosecutor Robin Bates told the jury that all the evidence showed David Bain killed his family, describing the evidence as circumstantial but strong. He said the Crown case would show that the father, Robin Bain, was not the killer. He laid out the case against David, describing graphically what the Police found at the scene and how this was consistent with David killing each of his family members in turn. David had called 111 at about 7:10 am. When the police arrived at 7:30 am, they found him hysterical in his room, wailing "they are all dead". His brother Stephen had clearly put up a struggle, while bleeding profusely from an initial glancing scalp wound. Stephen was strangled with a t-shirt, then killed by another gunshot. Bates said David had injuries consistent with this struggle, and had Stephen's blood on his clothes. A lens from glasses David was wearing was found on the floor of Stephen's room, Bates said, and the frame and other lens were found in David's room. David's bloody gloves were found in Stephen's room, and Bates said he must have had to remove them to deal with the rifle misfeeding or jamming on a bullet. According to Bates, Robin would have had no reason to wear gloves if he intended to commit suicide.

David had told police he heard his sister Laniet gurgling, which Bates said meant he was present between her second gunshot wound and the final shot to her head which killed her. His other sister, Arawa, and his mother were both killed by a shot to the head. Robin was found in the lounge, lying on his side between a coffee table and a bean bag, dead from a single shot to the head. Next to him was the .22 calibre rifle, but his fingerprints were not found on it. Both the rifle's trigger lock and its key were found in David's room. Bates said the state of the laundry was consistent with David trying to destroy evidence, especially the green jersey he wore during the killings. Doing his paper round was meant to provide David with an alibi, Bates argued, and he had been sure to be seen along his route. Evidence would also be presented of a conversation David had with a friend six days before the murders, when he told her he had a feeling "something horrible" would happen. After the killings, he told her they were what he had told her about before.

Defence lawyer Michael Reed described the Crown's case as absurd, saying they glossed over the killer's motive and merely pointed to an argument between Robin and David over a chainsaw. He said the defence case would be that Robin killed the other family members, before killing himself. He told the jury that Robin did this because his incestuous relationship with Laniet had come to light, that she was "going around telling everybody" that he molested her, and had come home to tell her mother about the abuse that night. Reed said that Robin, a missionary and school teacher, was depressed, and his life would be ruined by the incest allegations. He said that for three years Robin had been living in a van behind the school and was banished to a caravan behind the house when he came home for the weekend. Laniet had stayed with him in the caravan, Reed said. The defence would call "startling evidence" showing Robin was the killer, including forensic evidence. Reed was scathing about the police investigation. It soon developed a one-track focus on David, he said, and other leads that did not fit this picture were dropped. Reed said some of the evidence was lost, destroyed, or never collected, including blood samples from under Robin's fingernails. He said that despite a neighbour telling Police about the incest allegations, "Laniet's diaries and letters written to her mother were destroyed" although they might have contained allegations of incest from Laniet.


A teacher at Laniet's school testified that Laniet had been very open in conversations with him, in which she said that she gave birth to a black child in Papua New Guinea after being raped. He said she had later changed her story, saying that she had an abortion.


The retrial lasted three months, with 130 witnesses being called by the Crown and 54 by the defence. The last evidence was presented on 27 May 2009. The jury retired for several hours the following week to consider their verdict after hearing closing statements from the prosecution and defence, and the judge's summing up. They had two questions for the judge the following morning: "What are the rules of reasonable doubt?" and "Can you please clarify your statement 'It must be David to the exclusion of Robin'?" The judge replied, in part, that they must be sure the accused was guilty, after careful consideration of all the evidence, and that the Crown case had excluded Robin as killer. He said that reasonable doubt was an honest and reasonable uncertainty about guilt.

At 4:45pm on the afternoon of 5 June 2009, the jury gave their verdict: they found David Bain not guilty on all five charges.

Jurors' conduct and concerns

After the verdict, one of the jurors was hugged by David Bain outside the court building, and another juror shook Bain's hand. That evening these two jurors briefly joined a party being held by Bain supporters, to which they had been invited by Joe Karam. Reports vary on why and when they left, this being either "after only a few moments" because they then felt it might be inappropriate, or minutes later because they were asked to leave.

These actions have been seen as questionable, and have prompted calls for a review of how jurors are prepared for such cases. Opposition justice spokesperson Lianne Dalziel said the jury should have been debriefed together after giving their verdict.

Journalist Martin Van Beynen noted that the two jurors spent the last three weeks of the trial giggling and writing messages to each other. One juror said that each of the jurors had been approached during the retrial by people who believed David Bain was guilty.

Possible compensation

Bain's lawyer said Bain should receive compensation for spending 13 years in prison. Justice Minister Simon Power said no application for compensation had been received as of 5 June 2009, but any application would be considered on its merits. Otago University's Dean of Law Mark Henaghan said that Bain did not meet one of the four current criteria for compensation, namely that the convictions be quashed with no retrial ordered. While it was possible that the rules could be changed, Henaghan pointed out that Bain would also have to show it was more likely he was innocent than not. It is not enough to be found not guilty, as this does not mean that the accused person is necessarily innocent—it is not the same as the exoneration that DNA evidence may provide, for instance, A 'Justice For Robin Bain group has been founded to work against the David Bain lobby.

A group of Robin Bain supporters has launched a petition, advertised in newspapers nationwide, calling for David Bain to be denied compensation for the years he spent in prison after being convicted of murdering his family.

Bain has asked that his belongings used as evidence at trial, including the rifle that was used to kill his family, be returned to him.


In the aftermath of the final appeal, Michael Bain, brother of Robin Bain, gave an interview to the Listener. He was prompted by troubled feelings about the hearsay evidence brought against Robin and the rest of the murdered family while attention focused on David. He said the wider Bain and Cullen families have also been saddened by the allegations against Robin and believe the police "did a magnificent job."

Joe Karam has responded by claiming Michael was in "denial" and questioning how well he knew Robin. Rosemary McLeod has described the "most salient" point rebutting that claim is the three weeks the Bain brothers spent repainting their mothers house in January 1994, followed by a stay by Robin at Michael's house on the way back to Dunedin. Four months later, Robin was dead.

Coroner's inquests

In 1994, the Dunedin Coroner decided no inquest was needed, as he was satisfied that the evidence shown in court had established the cause of the deaths. After the retrial, New Zealand's Chief Coroner consulted with the local coroner and others to decide whether to conduct inquests into the deaths, as the verdict implied the death certificates may not be accurate. He then announced that an inquest would only be held if one was requested and the High Court or solicitor-general granted the request. A Law Society spokesman said that even if the coroner's findings disagreed with the retrial verdict, this could not lead to any further legal action against David Bain.


Four books have been published about David Bain and the murders:

  • David and Goliath: the BAIN family murders by Joe Karam ISBN 0-7900-0564-6

  • Bain and Beyond by Joe Karam ISBN 0-7900-0747-9

  • In the Grip of Evil: The Bain Murders by Judith Wolfe and Trevor Reeves ISBN 0-908562-64-0

  • The Mask of Sanity: The Bain Murders by James McNeish ISBN 0-908990-46-4.



home last updates contact