Scipio you are wrong on this one and I urge you to study the counterspin.nz site again and get back to me. http://www.marzuka.x10.mx/bain/id=1174441/David%20Bain%20why%20he%20is%20most%20prob%28id=1174441%29.html
Their site is no better than the Bamber site it is full of distortions. Despite their efforts they do not dent the Binnie Report which establishes reasonable doubt for sure exists and in fact goes further to say he is innocent. This was before they even found the evidence regarding the loading marks on Robin's fingers.
That issue is treated dishonestly as well. The defense doesn't have to prove the marks were loading marks beyond a reasonable doubt merely to establish it was reasonably plausible they were. The prosecution needs to prove it is reasonably likely they are not. The police experts admitted they could not do that. Because of the way the police took the photos there was no way to be able to accurately establish the truth. Their failure to analyze his hands for soot and GSR before taking him to the morgue and cleaning his body is mindboggling. Nor did they analyze the blood on his clothing to see if any of it belonged to the other victims. That makes it impossible to say their blood wasn't present.
They misrepresented the size of the rifle as longer and used that fiction as proof that Robin could have shot himself. On retrial they changed gears saying it wasn't a contact wound though the coroner said it was and said it was fired too far away for it to have been fired by Robin. Clearly the shot was in fact a contact wound his blood was in the moderator. Naturally David could have shot Robin at contact range but so could Robin have done so. Establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on this issue requires proving it is not reasonably likely Robin could have shot himself.
The site still refers to the glasses as David's though the prosecution's own expert said they were his mother's. This was on of the prosecution's misconduct issues. Their own expert changed his mid but they failed to note such and used his original assessment that they were David's. Moreover, the missing lens had been buried and covered in dust it wasn't in the open like claimed. Distortions were used by the prosecution.
This is a prime example of that site's antics:
"It’s completely irrelevant whether you believe David or Robin took in the newspaper on the Monday morning of the murders, the facts are that David said he “did not” and he also said “he could not remember” if the paper was in the box, therefore Ian Binnie has made another shocking error in his failed report by stating that Robin “had already collected the paper before David was home”.
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/disgraceful-errors-in-ian-binnie%E2%80%99s-discredited-report-help-to-find-robin-bain-guiltyThey don't have anything valid to hit the significant conclusions in the Binnie report with so set out to attack minor things that don't matter and then say this calls into question whether he made other errors on important issues.
Who took the paper inside is irrelevant. We don't know it it had been delivered before Robin went inside or not. We don't know whether Robin would have bothered taking it in with him or not. David said he took it in but later said he wasn't positive it was a minor issue so he could no remember. Binnie chose to believe his initial statement that he took it in. That he did so bears no significance at all since the issue doesn't matter. This doesn't establish he ignored evidence about anything important.
I care about the main issues not nonsense like this. On those main issues the evidence establishes reasonable doubt.
The second trial featured vastly different evidence than the first. For instance the first featured evidence that David's prints were found in the victims' blood on the rifle. The blood though was unable to be established to be human blood and was most likely animal blood. The prosecution could thus not prove it was most likely the blood of the victims let alone that it got there during the killings beyond a reasonable doubt. In the original trial the experts insisted this was the victim's blood.
One of the pieces of evidence in the original trial concerned bloody footprints made while wearing socks. The jury was told the size matched David in fact David's feet were almost an inch larger it was closer to Robin's size.
David had no injuries till he fainted. The evidence suggests his injuries resulted from hitting something when he fainted not from a struggle.
The blood on his clothing was not spatter it was transfer meaning he came into contact with blood which there was plenty of in the house. The notion he washed some of him bloody clothing but not all his clothing makes no sense at all.
Witnesses place him arriving home after the computer was turned on to write the confession not before.
The temperature of the bodies seems more consistent with them being killed after he left to do his route not before but the police prevented the taking of core temperatures which would have provided the best information. The police in so doing ruined their chance of establishing the deaths occurred prior to him leaving.
The notion he killed 4 of them and then left to do his route risking Robin finding the bodies and calling police is absurd. He would have made sure Robin was dead as well. That would be like Jeremy killing all except Sheila shortly before she would wake up then leaving and planning to return later to kill her risking her finding the bodies and calling police.
Whether you choose to believe him innocent or not makes no difference at all the fact is that there is nothing to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That site fails miserably in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and doesn't honestly discuss the issues. It is just like the Bamber site only it propagandizes in favor of guilt instead of innocence.
