On the surface one could be influenced by that. The very thought that a dead man was unable to defend himself, was a situation that appealed to the less-practical minded and those unsatisfied by anything other than conflict. However, nothing could be further from the truth. An entire police force spoke for Robin, Crown Law and associated offices spoke for Robin as well with their decision that it was either Robin or David that had killed the Bain family, Margaret, Arawa, Lanient and Stephen. It could be even argued that the Courts spoke for Robin, I don't mean by the Appeal Court Decision that was overturned, but by the conduct of trials and appeals that combined to facilitate the effort to prove it was David, not Robin.
The cost of speaking for Robin has been over $20 million at this point, and continues to rise. From the time the Privy Council quashed David's conviction there was a full time team of detectives working on the case numbering in the mid twenties, they did that for two years, there were all the forensic costs added to that, plus advice and specialist opinions - it appears there was no restraint on the costs of shoring up the already failed case against David. Even the decision to hold a retrial, at a cost of $10 million is distinctly questionable once the forensic evidence produced at the retrial is examined. It needs to be asked why the Crown continued on promoting Robin's innocence when his hands showed all the signs of his being involved in the killings and analysis of the blood spatter confirmed his suicide. I've spoken before about the Crown Pathologists Dempster only discovering before the retrial that his staff's photos of the blood smears on Robin's hands had not been used, instead replaced by others that did not show the blood. The letter Dempster wrote had a strong subtext that one could assume was an implied suggestion that the evidence of the blood smears, and the newer awareness for Dempster that body's could gurgle long after death made a trial unnecessary.
If Dempster had some misgivings, and taking into account that he conceded at the trial that suicide 'was quite feasible' it's plain that evidence or lack of evidence wasn't diverting the Crown from the speaking for Robin. It was a poor decision to proceed and something akin to the Civil law of discovery under Judicial advice perhaps might have helped, but it seems from the applications made to dismiss the proceedings the Courts were too influenced by 'public interest' that time has prove was in part generated by those associated with or sympathetic to the prosecuting process.
Taken to a conclusion, everything that could possibly done to speak for Robin as not committing familicide was done, some evidence which didn't speak for him was hidden. Speaking for Robin has cost the country over 20 million with more to add, it's cost David Bain is an almost immeasurable amount that will be difficult to fairly assess. But no person, unless corrupted by hate, could ever not acknowledge that Robin was spoken for, and very loudly, so loud at times that Justice wasn't heard.