Lack of evidence pointing to Robin Bain.

What also must be regarded as evidence against David Bain is the almost complete lack of evidence pointing to Robin Bain in the murders of his family members. Both prosecution and defence agreed it could only be either Robin Bain or David Bain, bearing this in mind there is only one evidence item that was presented by the defence that they said connects Robin to the murders, this one disputed item was the bloody sock prints http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/bloody-sock-prints-in-the-hallway-0 which were found leading away from the bloody murder scene of Stephen Bain, but as the evidence showed Robin Bain had blood free socks on when found by police, and the only other blood found on him proved to be his own, the defence said he changed his socks along with his other clothes putting the bloody ones in the washing basket which David admitted washing. David admitted to the police that a pair of socks and tracksuit pants and top found in the wash were his. Because there was just one item of highly disputed evidence against Robin the defence mainly concentrated on trying to show Robin committed suicide and defaming and besmirching his good reputation.

David said in statements to police that Robin was wearing the clothes (tracksuit) he had been wearing the previous night.Robin wore a little woollen beanie at night to keep his balding head warm. If you are to believe the Bain Defence scenario, he would have also had that on while fighting Stephen and yet somehow it remained on his head, blood-splatter free and wasn’t pulled off in the struggle or lost in the chaos.  It was still on him when he was found.

I agree with what you have written about the sock and footprint evidence.

Binnie's highly selective approach to the circumstantial evidence is hard to fathom. How he can disregard the evidence relating to the glasses, gurgling and blood stains on David is beyond me.

Since Binnie has placed so much emphasis on the footprint size, lets take a look at it:  One footprint was measured at 280mm. Another at around 200mm. (RB foot size 270mm, DB 300mm).  That suggests to me that it must be possible to make a footprint less than your foot size.  Is it possible to make a footprint larger than your foot size?  Who knows - a slight dragging of the foot would do so.  All that this indicates to me is that the footprint evidence is highly unreliable but if anything is to be taken from it, the fact that a print was accurately measured at 280mm incriminates David - not his dad.  If you study the defence footprint "trials" with pig blood as outlined by the crown and Karam, the whole exercise enters the realm of absurdity.

When I read Karam's first book (David and Goliath) many years ago, I was prepared to accept his arguments until I came to the final chapter "What do I think happened".  His proposed scenario of RB killing his family and then showering and changing clothes before shooting himself seemed unbelievably bizarre.   I could not take it seriously.

Seriously ---  the killer walked in blood. His socks were heavily blood stained. We know DB could not have made these footprints AFTER the paper run as the socks he was wearing when the police arrived were not heavily blood stained. My guess is that David made the footprints all right - but before the paper run.    If Robin made them, then he had to change his socks and according to DB's evidence, DB washed these socks.  Robin then showered, changed into fresh socks AND SHOES and proceeded to shoot himself.

Now -- could any rational person accept this nonsense. I know Karam and Co do but their history of attempting to provide fantastic explanations in support of DB renders any of their suggestions suspect.  But how could a rational, intelligent man like Binnie take this scenario seriously?  

How could any rational person look at the sum total of ALL the circumstantial evidence and come to any conclusion other than David is guilty and/or Robin is innocent.

In justice Binnies revised report RE the glasses he accepted that his lawyer was told by David that he was wearing the glasses that weekend, he even accepted that the Aunt was told by David that he had been wearing the glasses, but Binnie said as therewas no proof David was wearing the glasses on the Monday Morning he concluded that the glasses evidence did not incriminate David even though David obviously lied to the court about wearing the glasses as well as having no explanation for the glasses being broken and in his room on the Monday morning, but admitting they were not there on the Sunday night. I don't think Binnie would find Hitler guilty either

In justice Binnies revised report RE the glasses he accepted that his lawyer was told by David that he was wearing the glasses that weekend, he even accepted that the Aunt was told by David that he had been wearing the glasses, but Binnie said as therewas no proof David was wearing the glasses on the Monday Morning he concluded that the glasses evidence did not incriminate David even though David obviously lied to the court about wearing the glasses as well as having no explanation for the glasses being broken and in his room on the Monday morning, but admitting they were not there on the Sunday night. I don't think Binnie would find Hitler guilty either

Your comment raises a very interesting point which I will outline as follows:

  1. Whoever killed Stephen wore the green jersey and based on the blood splatter in his room the jersey must have been covered in blood.
  2. Whoever left the sockprints in the hallway was the killer.  ie the killer wore socks (makes less noise when walking round the house).  The socks were clearly covered in blood.
  3. David Bain put both the green jersey and the socks in the wash (there were no bloody socks found in the crime scene and socks were found in the wash)
  4. How could David Bain have missed seeing blood on the jersey and the socks if he was not the killer?