PCA Report paragraphs 111, 125 and 126. Title from David and Goliath p134.

111. At the time of the initial investigation, the Police spoke with Denise Laney, a local resident who had seen a person (later described as the paper boy) going past the partially opened gate at 65 Every Street. She said the time on her car clock was then 0650 but the clock was about five minutes fast. Because of uncertainty over the accuracy of the watch of the Police officer who checked the car clock, it was not possible to precisely determine the exact time of the sighting. Like all other sightings and time estimations, it could at best be said the time was around 0645 hours. Mr Karam, however, wishes it to be accepted that this was a positively established, unequivocal and precise time. On that basis he argues David could not have been the one who typed the message on the computer and suggests that should have been an end to the accusation against him. This, of course is very much an over-simplification. Times must be weighed and balanced against other information before firm conclusions are reached. At the trial, Mr Guest put to the jury a similar proposition as Mr Karam now advances in the book. It seems implicit in the verdict that the jury did not accept that proposition.

125. The time of computer switch-on is raised as an important issue in Mr Karam's book and he seeks to establish that David had not yet returned home when the killer set about typing the message. He contends the two minutes were critical to the defence case and that David could not have been in the house at the time the computer was switched on. He claims the failure by Detective Sergeant Anderson to disclose the two minute time difference operated very much to the disadvantage of David Bain. However, it should be mentioned that a copy of Detective Robinson's job sheet clearly noting the time error was forwarded to Mr Guest [with other papers] well in advance of the hearings.

126. In his book, Mr Karam maintains that Colin Withnall was able to calculate that the computer was switched on between 06:40:07 and 06:42:05. That took into account a number of variables, including' Anderson's watch. On the other hand, a documented analysis [copy attached] carried out for us by the Police Electronic Crime Laboratory, Police National Headquarters, determined the computer was turned on between 06:42:47 and 06:48:49 hours. [The most likely time being calculated as 06:44:30]. The word processor was initiated between 06:43:45 and 06:49:47 hours. [The most likely time being 06:45:14].

1. the delay between turning on the computer and the system clock beginning to operate;

2. the delay between starting up of the system clock and creation of the word processing temporary file;

3. the deviation of the system clock over a 31 hour period;

4. the delay between noting the time on Anderson's watch and "saving" the message reading of Anderson's watch;

5. the deviation and the establishment of the deviation of Anderson's watch.

These recently revised calculations confirm David could have been in the house at the time the computer was activated. Because of the importance of this issue a copy of the Electronic Crime Laboratory Report is attached to this report.