David Bain, time to look at the bigger picture.

When arguments become tired because of the repeating or reconfiguring, when tempers fray because of personal investment threatening to pay a dividend of being wrong it is probably time to step back, time to put away misconceptions, things misunderstood, personal likes and dislikes, theories, evidence which no longer holds water or which has been rendered irrelevant or of little consequence - lets give it a try with the Bain case, put forward what was 'known' and what it might have turned out to be that gave many the conviction that David Bain was guilty and his father an innocent victim.

I'll try to keep it in chronological order so preferred by the professionals and list the original myths that pointed to David and which cleared Robin. If you bother to read on forgive me my layman's pedigree, fractured in places memory and basic approach.

Paper boy uses paper round as alibi. This was a biggie, fostered by police and consumed by some of the press. Personally, I had to think about this one for only a short time before I was able to discount it. It is impossible to imagine that a determined killer trying to get away with a crime would interrupt his killing spree to do a paper round. The obvious reason because of the apparent risk factor, all that was needed was Robin to come into the house, find the bodies and the game was up - the police would be at the house before David got home. Then when considering that the police searched for witnesses who could say that their papers were delivered early, or that David made a point of being seen, didn't make sense either. The 'early' bit was soon quashed because those that claimed their paper was delivered early were unable to distinguish the time it was delivered at normally, and therefore were unable to say it was late, early or on time. The next part was too simple to be true, David would not have needed to be seen delivering the papers, because the proof of their delivery was when customers took them from their letter boxes, to believe otherwise was to assume a 'mystery' person had delivered the papers and David needed to be seen to show that it was really he delivering them that morning - logic failure there and on the whole 'concept' of an alibi.

The hands of the 2 suspects David and Robin. Having spent part of my life brawling and being otherwise engaged in the 'dark arts' of street fighting I know a little about broken bones in the hands and wrists, severed ligaments, knuckles misshaped and so on. Accordingly, in the early days of the Bain 'debates' on Trade Me it seemed common sense to me that the hands of the 2 men were important, I also knew that police would look for that as a matter of routine - in much the same way the crime shows on TV look for gunshot residue and so on. The hands tell a story. When I posed the question on TM, the sisters said Robin's hands were clean, no blood, no damage whilst also claiming that David was 'covered in blood.' At the time, Lee Hinkleman the weatherman and fly fisherman, was around as more or less a 'one man band' against the mad hatters. He told a different story, quoting from evidence which showed Robin's hands were damaged, had blood on them while conversely David's hand had neither blood or injury. First lesson for me, don't trust the sisters because they lie. It was at the re-trial that it emerged photos found by pathologist Dempster in preparation for the re-trial showed that the first Jury had not been aware of the blood smears on Robin's palms - smears which in itself show guilt, a guilt strengthened by 'bruised and battered hands' as I later called them to 'cheer up' the sisters. The 'covered in blood' would result in actually being an aged 'spot' of blood not contemporaneous with the murders, and a 'smear' that could have resulted from brushing against a door jamb in the Every Street house that morning following the horror of discovering his family dead.

The computer turn on time. This was another biggie, almost able to get the 'girls' widdling in their knickers, it meant that David had turned on the computer and compiled the suicide note. Well no it didn't. The Crown conceded at the retrial that the computer may have been turned on before David got home from the 'alibi' round. Additionally, it was revealed that Robin was the frequent user of the computer and the text 'copied' from the computer by police was wrong in tense compared to the notes taken by Dempster.

Why didn't Robin removed the silencer when killing himself because it would have been 'easier' for him. The short answer is he didn't need to remove the silencer, he was well able to reach the trigger. Independent proof of him killing himself in that manner is blood going in two directions onm his trousers above and below his knee, entirely consistent with he having raised a leg on the chair in the manner shown to the Jury. Not only consistent with the knee being raised but the 'uninterrupted' spatter that spread from Robin's wound which had no 'shielding' where a gunman would have needed to have stood to execute an upward trajectory shot on Robin who by some 'miracle' would have been fully co-operating in his own death by leaning his head on the rifle, waiting while it was reloaded after a mis feed, and other factors now known to the wider public. But the 'easier' part is kind of humorous in  a 'black' way. It suggests that Robin was calm and ordered and concerned with what was easiest for him when killing himself.

Robin's DNA inside the rifle. This was a well kept 'secret' particularly by the foremost 'expert' on the case Van Beynan. He appears not to have wanted the public to know that Robin's dna was found deep inside the rifle because it meant a 'close contact' shot killed Robin. But it was discovered by the public (being in working notes of one of the investigating specialists)  and any 'hopeful' evidence that it might have belonged to somebody else was dismissed at the re-trial by the evidence that the lead of a bullet is 'oversized' to make a 'snug' fit in the rifle barrel in order not to have gas and therefore energy escape around it during the firing. In short the barrel is 'cleaned' of any dna on each firing, so the last shot left Robin's dna in the rifle, proof again of his suicide.

David's blood on the laundry towel. Actually no. Robin's blood on the laundry towel it was discovered many years after the assumption that it had was David's, tests proved it was Robins. So Robin had been bleeding that morning before he died, he had injuries to his hands and blood on his palms, he was a passive entrant into his own death and had 'helped' out further by writing a suicide note - too easy to follow?

David had injuries consistent with being in a fight with his younger brother Stephen. No again. The injuries to David's head were not noted by the medic staff first attending him or by the police officer assigned to stay with him. They only became apparent after David fainted, falling between his bed and the wall. Similarly, the 'scratches' on David's chest were not noted when David was fully strip searched by the Police Doctor Pryde. As the sisters need conspiracies to believe in, then that is one for them, that Dr Pryde hid the evidence of  scratches to help David out and 'wreck' the Crown case.

Much of what is discussed above had previously been included in the 'mountain of evidence' against David which now has the similarity to a deep trench. All this before David Giles arrives on the scene.

Before looking again at what David Giles discovered, it should be noted that David Bain is clearly innocent because of the 'collapse' of the 'mountain' of evidence against him, replaced by an actual 'mountain' of evidence against Robin shown in part above. The 'Giles' evidence is not new evidence at all, more newly discovered in a manner that is probably of some embarrassment to others involved in the Bain case, but which is however most welcome because it supports and strengthens the case against the real killer Robin Bain. GSR, or most likely gsr was discovered shown in a police photo, replicated recently in tests using the actual murder weapon and something which one might naively assume would be welcomed by all sides. It is probably disappointing for many New Zealanders following the case to see the police, as in the Thomas case and others, holding on to a false 'conviction' at all costs. If there is any good to come of it the beginnings are already begun to be seen; the Minister of Justice taken to Court for denying David Bain due process  and natural Justice in his application for Judicial Review.

'Stepping back' as I indicated in para 1 has become important now. Stepping back shows a mountain to have 'disappeared.' Stepping back has also shown a clear and vivid trail of forensic proof which individually and in total shows Robin as the killer of his family and himself. Emphasis shifts from a lack of evidence against David to a 'mountain' against Robin, clear and present proof against him. It is now The Crown asking for 'reasonable doubt' to be exercised on the evidence against 'their' man. The 'system' has effectively reversed, the accuser (the titular head anyway) is now in the box and seen to be 'defending' the man to whom all (well, a significant and insurmountable amount) forensic evidence is accumulated against and, as said above, for whom the 'plea' has become reasonable doubt. David Bain sits in the front row, watching the almost 'dramatic' circle that has seen him accused, imprisoned, freed and found not guilty only to be plotted against by the 'titular' head representing those that falsely accused and imprisoned him.