Blood stains on clothing David Bain wore the day his family were killed contained the DNA of his brother Stephen, the court heard in 2009.

When Dr Harbison examined samples from bloodstains on David's sock, she found three samples matched Stephen's DNA. Stephen's DNA was also in samples from blood on the front left, upper back and lower back of David's white T-shirt, and in a sample taken from a bloodstain on David's black shorts. [Herald news article Here ] TV ONE Video HERE There was also blood stains on Davids Gondolier shirt he was wearing the day before the murders information found HERE

Evidence shows that Stephen had a fight for his life with whoever killed him, resulting in transfer of his blood to the killer.

It could be argued that he got this blood on him while kneeling over to check his brother was dead, which is possible, but then there were blood stains on the back and the front of his T shirt which makes that scenario unlikely, however Robin did not have any of Stephen's blood on his clothes and it is certain that the killer must have transferred some blood from Stephen as a result of the struggle.  The Defence made the following argument:

that Robin changed his clothes and left the blood soaked ones in the laundry so that he could meet his maker in clean attire. 

You have to ask yourself how likely this is, especially given:

• The extra time that it would take to do that and risk still being alive when David returned from the paper run.
• The general state of hygiene in the house and the eyewitness accounts of Robin's poor state of self-maintenance at the time.
• If Robin is following religious principals so fastidiously then he wouldn't have committed the murders in the first place because as we all know Christianity forbids murder. There is a direct contradiction here in religious belief.  What is there to achieve in the eyes of your Maker by changing your clothes when you have just committed quadruple murder?
• The clothes that Robin wore when he died were not especially smart and were what he put on to wear most mornings.

This explanation is ridiculous and there is absolutely no basis for it in any eyewitness testimony or evidential statements.  It is another example of the Defence inventing stories to provide plausible explanations for their version of events.

The Defence response to any questions regarding Robin's actions in this scenario are met with the response that he was acting irrationally and so it cannot be fully explained so we are asked to suspend reason and accept just about any sequence of events is possible.  If so, why attempt to put forward an explanation in the first place?

If you are to believe that David got the blood on his clothes as a result of kneeling over Stephen then why wasn't there blood from the other victims on David's clothes?  Is it just coincidence that he kneeled over and inspected the only victim who put up a bloodied fight to the finish?

The Defence explanation regarding the clothes is ridiculous and highly unlikely.

Images: