Bob's blog from Counterspin.

With the Bain case at the first trial the judge said "well was it Robin or David", and in the second trial the judge asked the same question, so we have two possible murderers, but to identify who the killer was between these two, completely different methods were used, which is really quite unusual I believe. With David a normal method was able to be used ie: a thorough examination of the murder scenes was done, many forensic tests were carried out, statements were taken, testimony from David at court was compared to those earlier statements etc, and at the end a substantial amount of evidence against David was compiled.

Poor Bob is a plot loser. He talks about two completely different methods of investigation. Of course there should have been solely one investigation, nothing prejudged and no decision made on charges before the results of the forensic tests were known. He aptly describes what appears to be the fatal flaw of the murder/suicide investigation - that decisions were being made before the gathering of evidence was concluded, before test results were returned, before the incest allegations were investigated. The inquiry became one-sided very early on, from the point the attention focused on David, before the final death scene was comprehended, before assessments were made as to Robin's mental health. So although Bob doesn't realise it, the investigation was one-sided in Robin's favour for many years until the actual miscarriage of justice was unpicked. I think we all understand that background checks on Robin were focused in a particular way, whilst those concerning David in another.

With Robin, the other person mentioned by the judge as a possible killer, a completely different investigation was done. That investigation focused almost entirely, and still does today by David Bain supporters on whether Robin had committed suicide. The reason this was done, of course, was because there was hardly a shred of evidence connecting him to the murder scenes. As far as I know all of the independent experts from the first trial, after looking at the evidence, said in their opinion Robin Bain did not shoot himself. There were many reasons for them arriving at their conclusions, one of them being the near impossibility of the bullet magazine landing on its thin edge, another was the empty shell casing found in the computer alcove, and then there was the fact that only Robin's blood from his head wound was found on all of Robin's clothes. So the chance of it being suicide is extremely unlikely, add that to the fact there is almost zero evidence of any value connecting Robin to the murders, then look at the vast amount of good circumstantial evidence against David and the extremely unlikely scenario of Robin shooting himself and you can not possibly consider that David is innocent.

Here Bob labours the same point as earlier, and demonstrates again (without apparently realising) how the original investigation was biased against David. Bob runs out the old 'favourites' like the magazine being on its edge, but unfortunately is unable to point to any evidence that shows Robin didn't place it there before dispatching himself, or that the magazine, like other corrupted exhibits in the scene (remembering that the police team gave evidence of 'moving' exhibits between photo shots) was not placed in that position by someone other than either of the 2 men. He labours the shell casing landing in the alcove without acknowledging that a police witness said it was possible to have discharged there, and again not discounting the corrupted evidence scene that any juror would have had misgivings about. Bob then reverts to a lie about the blood, he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. Most with an interest in the case know that blood samples cut from Robin's trousers were never tested, they were however thrown out because the police didn't like 'body samples' being held at the police station. Amazingly, they threw away the samples but kept the clothes. It goes a little further on this point of the blood samples, the samples that were 'disposed' of were at the time being sought by the defence for testing, they were preparing a motion to the Court for their preservation and the police knew about that. Bob forgets that for some reason - in his 'reasoned' argument. He sums up with a few sweeping cliches that could bear no critical analysis, he wants only to reach the point of being able to confirm his belief based on his flawed study.

David Bain supporters like Joe Karam spend 99% of their time arguing that Robin Bain committed suicide, and unfortunately Robin Bain supporters quite often, Laws included, fall into the trap of arguing back. This is a murder case and the emphasis and focus should be almost solely fixed on the evidence for murder, of which there is ample, and it only points to one of the persons mentioned by the judges. This in my opinion is mostly why the wrong verdict was arrived at at trial in 2009. The jury possibly became confused with all the irrelevant information they were subjected to. The evidence for murder is what it should have been all about.

Bob sums up with generalities as to 'Bain supporters' do according to him, he then chucks about some more cliches, but no firm evidence, to support the reasons why he and his site persecute a innocent man. Bobs reasoning doesn't reach any critical standard, which is one of the problems of being a member of a hate-site, mediocrity rules, the scenario is set and everything is ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented. He completely ignores the blood found in the rifle, the unscreened blood spray, that the first four killings were killer dominant, downward trajectory, and the last, passive upward shot with the head touching the rifle.

»
Bob's blog