I’ve always found it odd that David would kill evryone bar his father, leave the house to do his usual paper round, and then return trusting that his father wouldn’t have heard the gunshots and come into the house a few minutes earlier than usual.

The father had a set routine every morning and the gun had a silencer. Robin got up at a set time to go to work, came inside and knelt to pray just beside the curtains every morning.

So, according to the prosecution, Bain shot the family, did the paper round to establish an alibi, getting back just before the father normally gets into the house.

That could possibly be untrue but for Binnie to claim it is untrue the basis that David kept to his usual schedule is just bizarre.

And according to the prosecution it all unravelled because the killer got into an unexpected fight with Steven, thereby throwing the plan into some chaos. Lost gloves, blood on clothes etc.

The Crown has in fact waged an anti-Bain campaign for the past two decades. It’s why all the cases are R v Bain or Bain v R.

And as a leftie, Roger is correct in saying I find it objectionable when folks like Andrew R assume we should all ‘fall into line’ and assume David is innocent. I read the Privy council’s findings, and could see where Karam was coming from, and how it could be argued they knocked out a lot of the crown evidence. But that still left a lot of evidence pointing straight at David. Which is what ODT journo Martin van Beynen said, and he did sit through the whole trial.

And picking up what NeilM said in #22 – whoever killed the family DID change out of David’s clothing which they were wearing, and tried washing it in the machine downstairs. But David still had some bloodstains on what he was wearing when found by cops. Question is – why would Robin wear David’s clothes to kill everyone, if not to incriminate David? Given that, why then change out of David’s clothes and try wash the blood away after killing the rest?

Oh, and it seems J Fisher is implying J Binnie thought he was getting a well paid holiday in the South Pacific. Then panicked when he realised his report was a duffer on a highly controversial case, and he had been hornswaggled by Joe Karam’s superb spin.

Binnie wrote a report, the answer wasn’t liked, so that cowardly Collins attacked it.

David Bain’s version of what he did on the morning of June 20 was inherently likely because it conformed to a long standing paper route routine to which there were independent witnesses. The Crown’s alternative theory that he left the house unattended for over an hour with Robin due to walk in anytime was not. The fact he didn’t change his bloody clothes was inherently unlikely “subsequent behaviour” if he was guilty.

There’s a fair amount odd here but what stands out for me is his claim as “fact” that he didn’t change his clothes.

Surely this can only be a deduction. There was blood on some of his clothes therefore none of the clothes were changed.

The alternative deduction Is that he didn’t change all his clothes – just the items with obvious blood. What was found were just small smudges.

And the reasoning that David Bain’s version of events was more likely because he stuck to his usual paper round routine completely misses the point.