David Bain - The Verdict

This afternoon the summing up from Judge Pankhurst will finish and the jury will be sent to huddle together with their sandwiches and suitcases to deliberate the fate of David Bain.
The crown was the prosecution in the three month retrial at the High Court in Christchurch, of the charge that David murdered 5 of his immediate family.. his two sisters, Laniet, & Arawa, brother Stephen, and father and mother Robin and Margaret. The defense says that David is innocent, and his father Robin committed 4 murders, and then turned the gun on himself.
Innocent or Guilty?
What will the jury decide. In Davids first trial he was found guilty of the five murders and sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non parole period of 16 years. Bain supporter Joe karam championed Davids plea of innocence and has worked for his release for the last twelve years, with numerous appeals, release on bail, and finally the full retrial. This is one of the most historical murder cases in NZ history. There are 4,000 pages of evidence from this retrial.

My Opinion: Guilty - what do you think?
- Robins' body had absolutely no trace of forensic evidence linking him to the murders.
- Stephens blood was found on David's tshirt, shorts and socks.
- No fingerprints of Robin on the gun, especially considering how hard it would have been to make the shot (right handed shot left temple with silencer would have had to use tumb to pull trigger). Only Stephens blood & fingerprints and Davids fingerprints were found on the gun.
- Robin's body was still warm, and the other four were much colder, indicating that the first four had been killed much earlier in the morning. If Robin had committed the murders they would have all died within the 40 minutes that david was on his paper round (Robin would also have had to have washed himself up, changed his clothes, powered up the computer, left the note and shot himself in this 40 minute time frame)
- David admitted to putting on the washing the morning. Stephen had fibres from the green jersey in the wash under his fingernails.
- Robins' hands had at least a day's worth of grime and dirt on them, which if he had worn bloodied gloves and handled the washing machine, and bloodied shower cap and towells in the bathroom, he would have had to have some water contact or washed his hands.
- Robin had a full bladder with overnight accumilation and was found in the clothes in which he had slept. he also had the mornings' paper next to him on the coffee table which he had bought in. The light in lounge was off.
- The lack of fresh injuries on Robin but the presence of the fresh injuries to David.
- David describing Laniet as "gurgling" . Only the murderer could have heard that despite what the defence say.
- The blood stained opera gloves. No way would Robin have donned gloves to commit crimes he supposedly coughed to on the infamous computer message. Why would you need to hide your fingerprints if you were going to write a message incriminating yourself afterwards?
- The family he was staying with immediately after the murders, the Clark's, decided during this time that he had done it. And he was not the primary suspect at this time either.

- David never took the stand as a witness. Which to me smacks of guilt, in the first trial he took the stand, and said too many incriminating things (like hearing laniet gurgling), that the defense was scared he'd blow the whole trial if cross examined again.

At the outset of this retrial Reed promised damning evidence to counter all the Crown's major pieces of evidence. He has failed to deliver.

Not surf related, but I have been following this case since the beginning.. and its my blog.
Opinions anyone??