Opinion: Someone has noticed marks on Robin's thumb which are consistent with loading the magazine on the rifle. If we hypothesise that these marks are not innocent and instead indicate that Robin loaded the rifle and therefore is responsible for the Bain murders, then we also have to interpret other items of evidence in the same incriminating manner. Some examples:
- The broken glasses which David is known to have worn when his own were unavailable create evidence that is consistent with David fighting with Stephen and the glasses being broken during what was clearly a violent struggle, indicating that David was the murderer.
- The bruise on David's head is consistent with a blow to the head which would have dislodged the glasses further supporting David's culpability.
- The blood on David's clothes is consistent with him having been involved in the fight with Stephen, then changing his clothes and putting blood soaked items in the washing machine. Marks in blood on the washing machine and other locations support this.
- David's gloves were found bloodied and on the floor of Stephen's room, consistent with having been thrown off during the violent struggle. David had a need to hide his fingerprints on the rifle and Robin had his own gloves, had no need to wear any and didn't need David's. This interpretation of the gloves evidence incriminates David.
- The testimony that David used to walk round the house threatening family members with his gun can be interpreted as an early indicator of what David was about to do and not an innocent act of childishness.
- The murder weapon belonged to David and he had control over access to it via the trigger lock key. We can interpret this as limiting opportunity for anyone else such as Robin using it, therefore making David the prime suspect.
- David repeatedly told the 111 operator that all his family members were dead. All the bedroom lights bar Margaret's were out, which is consistent with David being the murderer. A person finding the murders would turn lights on in the rooms in order to ascertain death and maybe move bodies in an attempt to revive.
- David's fingerprints were on the rifle and not Robin's which is consistent with David being the murderer and not Robin.
If we are to interpret the marks on Robin's thumb as incriminating Robin, then we have to interpret all the circumstantial evidence against David as being incriminating too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
This creates a quandary for the Bain defence. The manner in which this evidence has been interpreted by the Bain team actually opens up the whole Pandora's box of evidence against David, because, for the sake of balance, we now have the right to interpret all of it in the manner in which the police originally did. If not, then the prosecution has the right to write off this evidence in much the same way that Karam wrote off all the evidence against David, because there is nothing actually tangible about this new observation. It just consists of a couple of marks on Robin's thumb. We do not really know what the marks consist of. They will no doubt be analyzed now on a thousand different renditions of the original photograph and pulled apart until there is nothing left.
However, Joe Karam, being on such a single minded path of persuasion has mentally blocked out all of the evidence against David because in his mind it is "destroyed". His followers, such as the person who noticed this "evidence" and Melanie Reid, who has always been a supporter, are equally blinded by a belief system that appears to know no respite, especially in relation to the compensation bid which is yet to be resolved. If a judge is going to interpret the thumb marks as being incriminating against Robin then they need to interpret all the above as being incriminating against David, and the result of that process is a conclusion that David is more likely to have been the murderer than his father.
Up till now, there has really been no circumstantial evidence against Robin, the case against him having been based on speculation about motive. The Bain defence team are excited because this is a first. They have a lot more circumstantial "evidence" to find in order to balance out the circumstantial evidence incriminating David.