Clear and concise it might be, but it also contains several blunders. The blunders are so severe to render his report largely meaningless. But one example should suffice. He gives David Bain credit for not speaking ill of his father. But David apparently hated his father. (Binnie understands this and draws Bain’s attention to the matter.) In other words, David lied to Binnie, and Binnie gives him credit for lying! How’s that for incompetence.

Binnie certainly thinks so. Of course, the thing about this particular piece of evidence is that Robin, being a dead guy, lacks a wealthy sponsor and extensive support crew willing to do whatever it takes to cast some doubt on it, unlike the substantial pile of evidence pointing to his son. Perhaps if Robin hadn’t been so foolish as to take a bullet to the head, he’d be around to impress Binnie J with his intelligence and courtesy, be declared a credible witness and exempted from the offensive implication that he might have changed his clothes that morning, as David was. Along the same lines, perhaps he’d have attracted his own wealthy sponsor, who could have hired a lawyer to point out to Binnie the rather obvious fact that the footprints aren’t much help unless there’s a way to be sure they came from a sock soaked in blood from the tip of the toes to the end of the heel.

“Binnie dismisses every piece of evidence against David as all having possible innocent causes and with one piece of ambiguous evidence – the luminal foot print – he finds as fact that it is Robin’ not David’s when there is no conclusive evidence either way.”

That’s an interesting comment to make, Neil. Considering that Robin Bain’s foot was 270mm long and David’s 300mm, and a bloodied footprint in the house measured 280mm – it appears that the footprint was closer to matching Robin Bain’s than David’s.

The fact that the bloodied was only 10mm longer than Robin Bain’s is easily explained that a socked foot can appear a wee bit larger than a naked foot.

But how does a 300mm foot leave a SMALLER print – by 20mm (3/4 inch), no less?!

This fact alone gives a fairly clear hint as to who dunnit. The only ones who dismiss this single most important clue are those who choose to ignore certain bits of evidence, and opt for others instead.

Of course Robin Bain’s socks had little blood on them. If he had some bizarre plan to shoot David and pin the murders on him (or a “stranger”), then he would have changed his clothing. It would be interesting to know if there were WASHED socks in the washing machine or basket that morning.

Not being a lawyer, it suggests to me a weighing up or comparison of some sort of sum of probabilities. But there dorsnt sppear to be an indication of how that probability is assessed or assigned.

In this case Binnie has considered a series of events and assigned them individually a probability of probable or improbable and then come to a conclusion that if they are each probable then the series of events is probable.

But in probability theory the probability of a series of independent events is the product of the individual probabilities.

So even if each event is likely it’s not necessarily the case that the series of events is likely.

Fair enough. I can’t really quibble with that analysis.

….all having possible innocent causes but with one piece of ambiguous evidence – the luminal foot print …

I’ve read it, I found the logic odd and circular at times.

Binnie dismisses every piece of evidence against David as all having possible innocent causes and with one piece of ambiguous evidence – the luminal foot print – he finds as fact that it is Robin’ not David’s when there is no conclusive evidence either way.

Yes, the finger print expert could have mistaken old blood from a hunting trip 4 months prior (the last time David says he used the gun) for fresh blood.

Yes the blood on David’s clothes could have come from just the washing.

Yes David’s injuries could have come from something other than a fight with his brother.

Yes there could be explanations for all the evidence. But the likelyhood that all each and every piece of evidence can just happen to accounted for in this manner is a lot less than that for each individual element.

There’s a lot odd about David’s behaviour at the time. He never did anything to ascertain his mother was dead but somehow new shw was. He heard his sister making sounds but never went to her assistance, never touched her see if she was conscious.