Opinion: The media is suddenly exploding with the news of new evidence in the Bain case. This is not really new evidence but an observation made about old evidence. There are two marks on Robin's thumb that are similar in appearance to marks left when loading bullets into the magazine for the rifle used in the murders and it is known that at least one of the magazines would need to have been reloaded during the course of the bloody rampage. A forensic expert has agreed that the marks could indeed indicate that Robin loaded the magazine.
This alleged evidence may have an innocent explanation. Karam would debunk evidence like this by explaining that the marks were never analyzed and so we do not know for sure if the marks are residue or were merely the result of the work that Robin did on the guttering the day before. The backs of Robin's hands were covered with such marks. Anyone who has ever gotten near a corrugated iron roof to clean the gutters or, in Robin's case, replace gutters, the inevitable consequence are skin breaks and other marks all over the hands. Alternatively, the marks may have some other explanation.
It needs to be noted that there are dozens of items of incriminating evidence against David that Karam gives innocent explanations to. Here are some:
- The broken glasses. Because there is no blood or forensic evidence on these, then they do not connect to the murder scene, even though they were found broken and sitting on David's chair with the lens found in Stephen's room and David admitted to wearing them when his own were not available, which was the case that weekend.
- David's gloves were bloodied and found in Stephen's room. Karam ignores the police argument that David used them in order to avoid fingerprints on the gun, and instead explains that, either Robin used David's gloves (rather than use his own gloves which were in his caravan) or Stephen borrowed the gloves and they somehow got bloodied by simply being in the room at the time.
- There was testimony that Arawa said that David would walk round the house threatening members of the family with his gun. Karam argues that this was just teenage hijinks.
- David's rifle was used in the murders and he had control of it. Karam argues that any member of the household had access to it, despite it having a trigger lock and David controlled the key.
- David had Stephen's blood on his clothes, indicating that he must have visited his room. The police argue that the blood was there because David killed Stephen, while Karam claims that the blood got their via innocent transfer from David visiting the body or the cat or dog walking over him. The blood was on the crotch of his shorts and the front and back of his t-shirt.
- David told the Police that he visited only his mother and father's bodies which contradicted what he told the 111 operator which was that "they're all dead". Karam explains this as resulting from the shock that David experienced immediately upon finding the bodies impacting on his memory.
- David's fingerprints on the rifle. Karam explains that these were caused by a previous hunting expedition and had nothing to do with the murders.
- The bruise on David's head, which was consistent with a blow to the head which might have dislodged the glasses. This was explained away as being caused by fainting and hitting his head against a piece of furniture after the police arrived and put him under surveillance.
On the basis of the above innocent explanations and many others, Karam claims that there is no forensic evidence linking David to the murders. He fails to admit that there is no forensic evidence linking Robin to the murders either. Such as:
- No items belonging to Robin were found in the middle of the murder scene, apart from himself.
- The only blood on Robin's clothes belonged to him
- Despite the killer clearly having fought with Stephen in a bloody struggle, no blood belonging to Stephen was found on Robin.
- Robin's fingerprints were not identified on the gun.
While this new revelation creates a circumstantial link between Robin and the murder weapon, it still has to be balanced up against the mountain of evidence that still exists that points to David. The problem is that no one is getting out there to persuade the public. Science and the truth should never be conducted as a spin and marketing exercise which is what the Bain case has become.