Part of the following was posted by me somewhere else. A few changes made for in the interests of clarity: I should also point out that in his book 'Trial by Ambush' Karam makes it clear that the Prosecution had been unaware of several critical aspects of omissions in the Crown case, and no doubt the concession was in recognition of those omissions and further pointed evidence that showed that with the omissions concluded the Crown case against David failed.
So when the Crown capitulated and conceded that Robin could have turned the computer on, they were accepting he was the killer unless they were advancing the theory that Robin walked about the house with all the dead present before David returned. I say 'walked about the house because of the evidence of Robin's footprints, with a presumed start of leaving Stephen's room, by the far the bloodiest. In reality the footprints weren't needed to prove the case against Robin, other evidence did that, the computer turn on time, Mrs Laney seeing David at the gate, but more importantly the forensic evidence of suicide. After the concession as to that Robin could have turned the computer on, the Crown never advanced that theory that Robin 'walked among the dead innocent of their deaths' because they would have looked sillier than they already did, wholly let down by the investigative staff.
That concession was that David had an alibi supported by his sighting at the gate and the computer turn on time up to 5 minutes earlier. What they were also conceding but, like Robin walking among the dead, never said as much was that the police had deliberated ‘persuaded’ witnesses to the idea that their papers had been delivered early, in other words that David had fabricated a false alibi of being earlier rather than on time. When the police thought of this extraordinary ‘false alibi’ with which to accuse David, it apparently never troubled them, the first Jury and presumably the lawyers in the first trial, the fact of the papers in the box actually proved their delivery and if David needed a ‘false alibi’ it was to delay his return home rather than shorten his return time. That’s what happens in mojs, fantastic, nonsensical, scenarios are occupied to mislead the Court.
The police were successful in this subterfuge in the 1st trial because they hid the information that officer Anderson’s watch was 2 minutes fast when he recorded Cox’s determination of the computer turn on time, and additionally by hiding the fact that Denise Laney told the police that her car clock was five minutes fast and the police had confirmed that, so 7.40 at the gate was actually 7.45.
In related evidence, Anderson said that if he had been asked he would have admitted that his watch was fast. While kleitjnes brought into bolster, or ‘cloud’ the true time of the computer turn on, admitted that his opinion evidence, based on two time points which were bisected to give an estimated turn on time, relied on one extreme that was an impossibility, a bit like the whole case.
I don't expect that Justice Binnie can effectively deal with the above, along with the specific evidence of suicide by any satisfactory means helpful to the Robin cult.