An innocent Jeremy = an amazingly brave (and stupid) Julie:

[Steve_uk]

Robin had blood on his hands that were not tested, his fingernails and material under them were destroyed instead of tested and he had marks on his hands that either were injuries during a struggle with others or marks from loading the weapon. The blood stained sweater would have fit him but was too small for David and was not owned by David.  He touched that blood stained sweater when he went to wash it. That is the only blood that was on him- blood from transfer.  No spatter was found.

You are allowing your own presuppositions of who would commit the crime dictate how you view the evidence.  I view it form a clean slate looking at where it leads and it doesn't establish anything close to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Reasonable doubt abounds.

Have you only read counterspin or have you actually looked at the evidence presented in court during his acquittal and the Binnie report??

Of course I have read all those and SOCO frequently make mistakes. But it's quite clear to me that David Bain shot all his family under the subterfuge of a paper round alibi so he could make a new start elsewhere. Robin's prints were not on the gun,the angle at which he would have to shoot himself is incredible,but supports the idea that his son was hiding behind the curtain knowing his father would enter the room at his regular time to pray. The suicide note was a joke. David's bloodied opera gloves were found under Stephen's bed. There are so many more pointers which can only explained by David Bain being guilty I really don't know where to start. https://youtu.be/8FR2yCzl2eM

[Steve_uk]

Here's more on Justice Binnie from CK Stead:

Predisposed as he is, Justice Binnie is able to wave away David's brother's blood on his clothes; the broken glasses at the murder scene which were of use to David but not to Robin; David's fingerprints on the murder weapon and his handprint on the washing machine; David's admission that he heard his sister gurgling and that he alone knew where the trigger key to the rifle was hidden; the blood on David's gloves - and many other finer strands in that rope of circumstantial evidence. Instead of David Bain as the killer, Justice Binnie offers us (since there is no third alternative) a murder by the father, Robin, who must have worn gloves (why?) while killing his wife and children, then changed his clothes and put the blood-stained ones in the washing basket (again, why?) before killing himself, still with a silencer on the rifle (why?) and having first turned on the computer to write his confession rather than writing it by hand. Justice Binnie dispenses, it seems to me almost casually, with each of these elements, as with David's strange behaviour after the murders.

Signs of extreme stress would be expected; but what state of mind was David in that he made detailed plans for the victims' funeral; specified what lingerie his deceased sister Arawa would be dressed in; wanted the pop song Who wants to live forever? to be played for Laniet; told his aunt she was not to wear black at the funeral "because we see death as a celebration"; wanted to hold a posthumous party for Arawa on the Sunday after the murders; and spoke of "black hands" taking his family away? To me all this suggests a state of disconnection from the reality - a state of mind in which the crime itself might have been committed - as if the one who had taken responsibility for that (by every report) disastrously dysfunctional family was now ready to tidy it all away with a tasteful funeral.

[scipio_usmc]

Here's more on Justice Binnie from CK Stead:

Predisposed as he is, Justice Binnie is able to wave away David's brother's blood on his clothes; the broken glasses at the murder scene which were of use to David but not to Robin; David's fingerprints on the murder weapon and his handprint on the washing machine; David's admission that he heard his sister gurgling and that he alone knew where the trigger key to the rifle was hidden; the blood on David's gloves - and many other finer strands in that rope of circumstantial evidence. Instead of David Bain as the killer, Justice Binnie offers us (since there is no third alternative) a murder by the father, Robin, who must have worn gloves (why?) while killing his wife and children, then changed his clothes and put the blood-stained ones in the washing basket (again, why?) before killing himself, still with a silencer on the rifle (why?) and having first turned on the computer to write his confession rather than writing it by hand. Justice Binnie dispenses, it seems to me almost casually, with each of these elements, as with David's strange behaviour after the murders.

Signs of extreme stress would be expected; but what state of mind was David in that he made detailed plans for the victims' funeral; specified what lingerie his deceased sister Arawa would be dressed in; wanted the pop song Who wants to live forever? to be played for Laniet; told his aunt she was not to wear black at the funeral "because we see death as a celebration"; wanted to hold a posthumous party for Arawa on the Sunday after the murders; and spoke of "black hands" taking his family away? To me all this suggests a state of disconnection from the reality - a state of mind in which the crime itself might have been committed - as if the one who had taken responsibility for that (by every report) disastrously dysfunctional family was now ready to tidy it all away with a tasteful funeral.

We already discussed some of the very issues in this section.  Why would you bother quoting from someone who is distorting? 

David's prints were not in animal blood not human blood. The glasses were assessed to not be his and the lens was buried not dropped recently. David got blood on his hand from the sweater he washed (which was not his) and that his not only how he got blood on the washer but on his clothing.  There is no doubt at all that is how the transfer of blood happened.  The prosecution said he changed then washed the clothing and touched it getting the blood on the washer and his new clothing.  The defense   said he didn't change he simply did wash he found.  There is no proof he changed out of the clothes to wash them as opposed to found them and since they were too small for him the evidence suggests he found them simply. It is not true that only he knew where the key was to his trigger guard his father borrowed his weapon in the past.  The prosecution expert admitted his sister could have been gurgling when he arrived.  I can continue but it is pointless because you are demonstrating you are not interested in the actual facts discussed at the trial simply the bogus spin by the website you are citing.

What you are doing is no different than Jeremy supporters who refuse to discuss the actual trial testimony and various governmental reports like the COLP report but rather simply citing the campaign site allegations. 
 

[Steve_uk]

We already discussed some of the very issues in this section.  Why would you bother quoting from someone who is distorting? 

David's prints were not in animal blood not human blood. The glasses were assessed to not be his and the lens was buried not dropped recently. David got blood on his hand from the sweater he washed (which was not his) and that his not only how he got blood on the washer but on his clothing.  There is no doubt at all that is how the transfer of blood happened.  The prosecution said he changed then washed the clothing and touched it getting the blood on the washer and his new clothing.  The defense   said he didn't change he simply did wash he found.  There is no proof he changed out of the clothes to wash them as opposed to found them and since they were too small for him the evidence suggests he found them simply. It is not true that only he knew where the key was to his trigger guard his father borrowed his weapon in the past.  The prosecution expert admitted his sister could have been gurgling when he arrived.  I can continue but it is pointless because you are demonstrating you are not interested in the actual facts discussed at the trial simply the bogus spin by the website you are citing.

What you are doing is no different than Jeremy supporters who refuse to discuss the actual trial testimony and various governmental reports like the COLP report but rather simply citing the campaign site allegations.

I wasn't there at trial so have to rely on second hand reports just as members are doing here with the Jeremy Bamber case. There is no way a Headteacher would kill his daughter who was training to be a teacher,neither would he single out David as the chosen one to remain alive,the fake suicide note symbolic of David's desperation cognizant of the weakness of his cause. The bloodied glove under Stephen's bed was not old,neither were David's bodily injuries,which were consistent with a struggle.

[scipio_usmc]

I wasn't there at trial so have to rely on second hand reports just as members are doing here with the Jeremy Bamber case. There is no way a Headteacher would kill his daughter who was training to be a teacher,neither would he single out David as the chosen one to remain alive,the fake suicide note symbolic of David's desperation cognizant of the weakness of his cause. The bloodied glove under Stephen's bed was not old,neither were David's bodily injuries,which were consistent with a struggle.

There are plenty of articles that go into great detail about the evidence adduced at trial.  Binnie's report is online somewhere I read it quite a while ago. 

David's injuries were not present until after he fainted and hit something when he did so. No officers saw any injury to his head till he fainted then it appeared and they saw it. 

Robin wasn't in great shape his wife forced him to sleep in a trailer and his daughter accused him of raping her.  His world was in a shambles.  It is possible he did decide to kill them saying no way would he do that is just your opinion as if you know him though you don't. He could have decided to to kill everyone then run away but afterwards simply decided to kill himself rather than bother running. 

You developed preconceived notions that he would not have killed anyone and that David did it and then seek out anything that supports such ignoring anything that doesn't support your preferred theory including that the computer was turned on before witnesses said they saw David arrive home, that the bloody sweater was too small for David to have worn it and so forth.   All of such combined amounts to reasonable doubt the prosecution filled miserably to meet its burden of establishing David did it.

Some of David's supporters are just as bad such as claiming he wrote fantasies about family murder though it was his students who did such.  I'm concerned purely with what the evidence demonstrated and at trial it was demonstrated Robin may have done it there was no way to say David did it beyond a reasonable doubt.  There happens to be evidence that suggests they can't have died before he went on his route they died closer to the time he arrived home.  This and other evidence not only amounts to reasonable doubt it makes me think he is innocent.  If the police didn't stop the pathologist from taking their core temperature we would have an even better idea of their time of death.

[Steve_uk]

There are plenty of articles that go into great detail about the evidence adduced at trial.  Binnie's report is online somewhere I read it quite a while ago. 

David's injuries were not present until after he fainted and hit something when he did so. No officers saw any injury to his head till he fainted then it appeared and they saw it. 

Robin wasn't in great shape his wife forced him to sleep in a trailer and his daughter accused him of raping her.  His world was in a shambles.  It is possible he did decide to kill them saying no way would he do that is just your opinion as if you know him though you don't. He could have decided to to kill everyone then run away but afterwards simply decided to kill himself rather than bother running. 

You developed preconceived notions that he would not have killed anyone and that David did it and then seek out anything that supports such ignoring anything that doesn't support your preferred theory including that the computer was turned on before witnesses said they saw David arrive home, that the bloody sweater was too small for David to have worn it and so forth.   All of such combined amounts to reasonable doubt the prosecution filled miserably to meet its burden of establishing David did it.

Some of David's supporters are just as bad such as claiming he wrote fantasies about family murder though it was his students who did such.  I'm concerned purely with what the evidence demonstrated and at trial it was demonstrated Robin may have done it there was no way to say David did it beyond a reasonable doubt.  There happens to be evidence that suggests they can't have died before he went on his route they died closer to the time he arrived home.  This and other evidence not only amounts to reasonable doubt it makes me think he is innocent.  If the police didn't stop the pathologist from taking their core temperature we would have an even better idea of their time of death.

The computer turn on time proves nothing: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-computer-turn-on-time-was-a-red-herring

David got his injuries whilst struggling with his brother Stephen,who was fighting for his life. The idea that his syncope (or whatever you wish to call that charade)  caused them is a complete misnomer,from a man who has shown no remorse whatsoever at any time for the loss of his family. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-davids-clothes-belonged-to-stephen

[scipio_usmc]

The computer turn on time proves nothing: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-computer-turn-on-time-was-a-red-herring

It seems you know nothing about this case yourself you have no ability to discuss the facts in your won words you have to rely on propaganda links for everything.

In the broader context is stands in the way of what the people you fancy so much allege.  They claim David got home and turned the computer on in order to type up a fake suicide note before Robin went inside.  Obviously that didn't happen.  The allegation is Robin went there to pray so why would he turn the computer on?  It wasn't used beyond for the suicide note. He turned it on for the sake of it just?  In the meantime he didn't notice anything amiss supposedly but David should have immediately noticed.

The notion David killed everyone before he left risking Robin finding them and calling police is not credible at all.   

David got his injuries whilst struggling with his brother Stephen,who was fighting for his life. The idea that his syncope (or whatever you wish to call that charade)  caused them is a complete misnomer,from a man who has shown no remorse whatsoever at any time for the loss of his family. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-davids-clothes-belonged-to-stephen

The blood didn't get on his clothing while fighting with Stephen it was not spatter. It got there from touching the sweater that had Stephen's blood on it- a sweater too small for David to wear.  It was among the laundry David touched.

David supposedly
1) Killed everyone but Robin
2) changed his clothes and washed the laundry
3) went to work
4) returned form work
5) killed Robin

Stephen's blood was found on the clothing David was wearing.  He supposedly changed after killing Stephen.  So that means it is alleged he was wearing other clothing when he killed Stephen.  That makes the allegation he got the blood on the clothing he was wearing when police arrived when he killed Stephen totally contradictory.

None of the BS on counterspin helps establish reasonable doubt.  In fact the more they distort the more David looks to be innocent.

[Steve_uk]

It seems you know nothing about this case yourself you have no ability to discuss the facts in your won words you have to rely on propaganda links for everything.

In the broader context is stands in the way of what the people you fancy so much allege.  They claim David got home and turned the computer on in order to type up a fake suicide note before Robin went inside.  Obviously that didn't happen.  The allegation is Robin went there to pray so why would he turn the computer on?  It wasn't used beyond for the suicide note. He turned it on for the sake of it just?  In the meantime he didn't notice anything amiss supposedly but David should have immediately noticed.

The notion David killed everyone before he left risking Robin finding them and calling police is not credible at all.   


The blood didn't get on his clothing while fighting with Stephen it was not spatter. It got there from touching the sweater that had Stephen's blood on it- a sweater too small for David to wear.  It was among the laundry David touched.

David supposedly
1) Killed everyone but Robin
2) changed his clothes and washed the laundry
3) went to work
4) returned form work
5) killed Robin

Stephen's blood was found on the clothing David was wearing.  He supposedly changed after killing Stephen.  So that means it is alleged he was wearing other clothing when he killed Stephen.  That makes the allegation he got the blood on the clothing he was wearing when police arrived when he killed Stephen totally contradictory.

None of the BS on counterspin helps establish reasonable doubt.  In fact the more they distort the more David looks to be innocent.

David Bain knew his father's routine. David had the whole main house to himself in which to commit the murders. If his father came in unannounced he would just have shot him dead there and then and proceeded with his plan of the paper round alibi. As it was David hid behind a curtain and took Robin by surprise as he came into the lounge and sat on the bean bag.

Robin and David had had an argument over a chainsaw,which is how Robin Bain got the marks on his thumb. He would not have typed that silly note because he just did not feel that way about his son. It was Arawa who was the success,not David. The note is confirmation that David was the culprit.

I post links which put the murders in context. I do not post them to obviate the need for debate. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-two-marks-on-robins-thumb-are-not-likely-to-be-caused-by-gun-residue

[scipio_usmc]

David Bain knew his father's routine. David had the whole main house to himself in which to commit the murders. If his father came in unannounced he would just have shot him dead there and then and proceeded with his plan of the paper round alibi. As it was David hid behind a curtain and took Robin by surprise as he came into the lounge and sat on the bean bag.

Robin and David had had an argument over a chainsaw,which is how Robin Bain got the marks on his thumb. He would not have typed that silly note because he just did not feel that way about his son. It was Arawa who was the success,not David. The note is confirmation that David was the culprit.

I post links which put the murders in context. I do not post them to obviate the need for debate. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-two-marks-on-robins-thumb-are-not-likely-to-be-caused-by-gun-residue

Robin's supposed routine was made up.  There was no evidence of a routine.  The whole story about him praying daily at 7AM was fictional someone observed such once years earlier and it was distorted as a routine.

The evidence shows he was shot while he was standing up that is how blood got on his foot.

I already discussed the issue of the marks on his hand.  I read the testimony of those at trial as well as the reports of the experts who analyzed the issue including police experts.  They said the photos limit good analysis and there is no way to rule them out as being loading marks.  They conceded that it is possible there were more not seen because the photos don't who all the finger or show well plus when you do multiple loadings some wash off so you get mixed and matched streaks.  You would know this if you actually read all the materials instead of the propaganda on counterspin.

The prosecution never tested them like they didn't test a lot of things including the blood under Robin's nails.  They make the cops in the Bamber case look good.

The defense experts came up with a position in which Robin could kill himself which account for blood staining patterns of blood going in two different directions on the leg of his pants and his foot.  The only prosecution theory to account for such would be if he were sitting on the floor like this (without the book):



The position put by the defense would result in Robin's body landing in the location and position where it was found.

You seem to have tossed the whole concept of reasonable doubt out the window simply because of bias.

[Steve_uk]

Robin's supposed routine was made up.  There was no evidence of a routine.  The whole story about him praying daily at 7AM was fictional someone observed such once years earlier and it was distorted as a routine.

The evidence shows he was shot while he was standing up that is how blood got on his foot.

I already discussed the issue of the marks on his hand.  I read the testimony of those at trial as well as the reports of the experts who analyzed the issue including police experts.  They said the photos limit good analysis and there is no way to rule them out as being loading marks.  They conceded that it is possible there were more not seen because the photos don't who all the finger or show well plus when you do multiple loadings some wash off so you get mixed and matched streaks.  You would know this if you actually read all the materials instead of the propaganda on counterspin.

The prosecution never tested them like they didn't test a lot of things including the blood under Robin's nails.  They make the cops in the Bamber case look good.

The defense experts came up with a position in which Robin could kill himself which account for blood staining patterns of blood going in two different directions on the leg of his pants and his foot.  The only prosecution theory to account for such would be if he were sitting on the floor like this (without the book):



The position put by the defense would result in Robin's body landing in the location and position where it was found.

You seem to have tossed the whole concept of reasonable doubt out the window simply because of bias.

I don't have access to the full trial transcript but that makes me neither stupid nor gullible. It's highly unlikely Robin committed suicide in the way he would have to have done for the theory to be viable.

Two quick links: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david

and someone who actually knew David Bain and what he was like: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/story/as-i-knew-david

[scipio_usmc]

I don't have access to the full trial transcript but that makes me neither stupid nor gullible. It's highly unlikely Robin committed suicide in the way he would have to have done for the theory to be viable.

Two quick links: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence-david

and someone who actually knew David Bain and what he was like: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/story/as-i-knew-david

You are gullible for posting propaganda. 

That site has distortion after distortion posting the same lies about how his fingerprints were found in blood on the rifle etc ignoring all the relevant facts such as that the blood was animal blood.  You don't need access to the court transcript to read the Binnie report or the various articles out there that were published daily to recount the evidence discussed in court.

Those behind counterspin like you decided who they wanted to believe did it then chose anything they could to justify their position regardless of the accuracy.

The evidence put before the jury failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that is why they acquitted him.  The prosecution experts admitted the defense claims were possible. No matter how much spinning is done there is no way to establish reasonable doubt under the facts of the case.

Detractors don't want to face all the problems Robin had but he had plenty and the evidence that his daughter was going to report him for incest is strong. Calling her a liar would not necessarily save his reputation.  I believe Robin decided to kill them and planned to try to find a way to avoid liability but realized he couldn't and simply decided to end his life rather than go to prison.  That certainly is plausible regardless of the babble from people saying his life was so wonderful.

He would have fit in the sweater that had David's blood on it and of which fibers from David had under his nails indicating he was pulling at it. Pulling at a sweater doesn't mean he would injure his killer though.  He was down one hand because his hand had been shot so could not fight competently.

It is not black and white there is lots of gray and that gray amounts to reasonable doubt.

[Steve_uk]

You are gullible for posting propaganda. 

That site has distortion after distortion posting the same lies about how his fingerprints were found in blood on the rifle etc ignoring all the relevant facts such as that the blood was animal blood.  You don't need access to the court transcript to read the Binnie report or the various articles out there that were published daily to recount the evidence discussed in court.

Those behind counterspin like you decided who they wanted to believe did it then chose anything they could to justify their position regardless of the accuracy.

The evidence put before the jury failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that is why they acquitted him.  The prosecution experts admitted the defense claims were possible. No matter how much spinning is done there is no way to establish reasonable doubt under the facts of the case.

Detractors don't want to face all the problems Robin had but he had plenty and the evidence that his daughter was going to report him for incest is strong. Calling her a liar would not necessarily save his reputation.  I believe Robin decided to kill them and planned to try to find a way to avoid liability but realized he couldn't and simply decided to end his life rather than go to prison.  That certainly is plausible regardless of the babble from people saying his life was so wonderful.

He would have fit in the sweater that had David's blood on it and of which fibers from David had under his nails indicating he was pulling at it. Pulling at a sweater doesn't mean he would injure his killer though.  He was down one hand because his hand had been shot so could not fight competently.

It is not black and white there is lots of gray and that gray amounts to reasonable doubt.

There's no reason for Robin Bain to kill his family. He just wasn't the bitter type who looked back on his life from the perspective of middle age and wanted to destroy. You overlook the bloodied opera gloves dumped in Stephen's room,the blood on the light switches and on David's socks consistent with Stephen's or Laniet's blood he could not have picked up from the floor. No blood on Robin at all,which is curious if he changes clothes,washes yet is the murderer and doesn't want his son to be implicated in any way.

Here's more evidence the jury didn't hear: http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video

[scipio_usmc]

There's no reason for Robin Bain to kill his family. He just wasn't the bitter type who looked back on his life from the perspective of middle age and wanted to destroy. You overlook the bloodied opera gloves dumped in Stephen's room,the blood on the light switches and on David's socks consistent with Stephen's or Laniet's blood he could not have picked up from the floor. No blood on Robin at all,which is curious if he changes clothes,washes yet is the murderer and doesn't want his son to be implicated in any way.

Here's more evidence the jury didn't hear: http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-june-14-unheard-evidence-2779563/video

You presuming you know anything about his type is absurd.  Even if you knew him well that doesn't mean you coudl judge for sure what he would do under the circumstances of his marriage falling apart and being accused of incest.  Most people close to those who commit murder suicide are shocked by it. We only know he had problems that could have resulted in him doing so.  You don't want to admit it but that is in keeping with your character.  You presume to know so much about the Bambers though we know very little about their true natures.

Nothing you post erases the reasonable doubt you have not looked at the evidence in detail to see whether reasonable doubt exists.  You have decided you believe the propaganda that Bain would not kill himself and thus accept any propaganda they post about the evidence in the case instead of looking in detail at what was testified to in court to see whether they established a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is nothing that indicates Robin can't have done it and therefore someone else must have killed them.  Such evidence does exist int he Bamber case though there is evidence Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't do anything to anyone else.  There was clothing that fit Robin that was changed out of but none in the Bamber case that Sheila could have changed out of.

Had police not done a poor job there would have been other evidence that would have been valuable like core body temperature of the victims to provide a better clue as to how long they were dead and testing Robin for GSR right away instead of after he was washed. We are limited to the TOD evidence they did allow and it tends to support they died after he went to work and is strong enough for sure to help create reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is the standard to convict in part so that people don't jail on the basis of their subjective notions of who they believe is more apt to have done it based on their perception of personality.  Yo keep harping on such instead of the murder evidence and when pushed you cite counterspin propaganda about such evidence instead of looking at such objectively.

More solid evidence needs to be found to try to establish guilt, what exists now doesn't establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and thus is not going to change my mind.  Citing counterspin to me will remain non-productive I want solid evidence so unless something new ifs found my mind is not changing.  If some new evidence comes up in the news you can point it out and discuss it with me but apart form that I see no point in continuing we will have to agree to disagree.

[Steve_uk]

You presuming you know anything about his type is absurd.  Even if you knew him well that doesn't mean you coudl judge for sure what he would do under the circumstances of his marriage falling apart and being accused of incest.  Most people close to those who commit murder suicide are shocked by it. We only know he had problems that could have resulted in him doing so.  You don't want to admit it but that is in keeping with your character.  You presume to know so much about the Bambers though we know very little about their true natures.

Nothing you post erases the reasonable doubt you have not looked at the evidence in detail to see whether reasonable doubt exists.  You have decided you believe the propaganda that Bain would not kill himself and thus accept any propaganda they post about the evidence in the case instead of looking in detail at what was testified to in court to see whether they established a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is nothing that indicates Robin can't have done it and therefore someone else must have killed them.  Such evidence does exist int he Bamber case though there is evidence Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't do anything to anyone else.  There was clothing that fit Robin that was changed out of but none in the Bamber case that Sheila could have changed out of.

Had police not done a poor job there would have been other evidence that would have been valuable like core body temperature of the victims to provide a better clue as to how long they were dead and testing Robin for GSR right away instead of after he was washed. We are limited to the TOD evidence they did allow and it tends to support they died after he went to work and is strong enough for sure to help create reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is the standard to convict in part so that people don't jail on the basis of their subjective notions of who they believe is more apt to have done it based on their perception of personality.  Yo keep harping on such instead of the murder evidence and when pushed you cite counterspin propaganda about such evidence instead of looking at such objectively.

More solid evidence needs to be found to try to establish guilt, what exists now doesn't establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and thus is not going to change my mind.  Citing counterspin to me will remain non-productive I want solid evidence so unless something new ifs found my mind is not changing.  If some new evidence comes up in the news you can point it out and discuss it with me but apart form that I see no point in continuing we will have to agree to disagree.

The perpetrator was either Robin Bain or his son David. It was David who had marks on his face consistent with a struggle with Stephen and blood on his socks which could not have just come from walking round the house in stocking feet. On the other hand you have Robin Bain who had a meeting that morning,which is why he may have turned on the computer after bringing in the morning paper who was then shot in the head by David,who was hiding behind a curtain in the recess. No blood on Robin,no bloody clothing,no blood anywhere,whilst David was full of it. There's a 20 minute gap unexplained before David eventually called the Police and the call itself is a joke as is his faint. David killed four of the five before the paper round and after killing Robin tried to clear up some of the evidence by starting the washing machine.

I'm sorry,but nothing could be clearer..

[scipio_usmc]

The perpetrator was either Robin Bain or his son David. It was David who had marks on his face consistent with a struggle with Stephen and blood on his socks which could not have just come from walking round the house in stocking feet. On the other hand you have Robin Bain who had a meeting that morning,which is why he may have turned on the computer after bringing in the morning paper who was then shot in the head by David,who was hiding behind a curtain in the recess. No blood on Robin,no bloody clothing,no blood anywhere,whilst David was full of it. There's a 20 minute gap unexplained before David eventually called the Police and the call itself is a joke as is his faint. David killed four of the five before the paper round and after killing Robin tried to clear up some of the evidence by starting the washing machine.

I'm sorry,but nothing could be clearer..

He didn't have marks on his face period let alone consistent with a struggle.  After he fainted then police observed wounds caused by the fall.  What is clear is that you made up your mind in advance of the facts and subscribe to false claims made on counterspin and don't have any real interest in reading about the real evidence and the defense case.   The system has advocates on both side for a reason.  You have to look at what both sides argued at trial and the witnesses testified to at trial.  What is clear is you don't want to ad don't care about reasonable doubt.  You are not a juror so that is fine you don't have to.   I have looked at the trial evidence and it is clear reaosnable doubt existed. As I said we will have to agree to disagree.