It's easy to slander a dead man. No-one's been campaigning to clear Robin's name for 10 years. Ironically, it turned out that the Crown could never get a fair trial in New Zealand. The fawning media seemed to equate reasonable doubt with innocence, and the jury didn't seem to understand that if David didn't do it, then it had to be plausible for Robin to have done it, which it isn't.

I have to confess that having heard the verdict I made a coscious effort to avoid the news on TV and radio and for the first time in living memory did not buy a newspaper over the weekend. Neither did I read any opinion on the Internet.

I had anticipated this hystercal reaction - that is the modern media for you. And Bill, had you still been in charge of news at current affairs at TVNZ are you saying you would have stopped it? Would you have said to your staff, "Now look guys, lets play this straight; no hysteria. Just report the verdict, a quick glimpse of tears from David and then we move on and talk about important things like the impact of the rising dollar on exports." Sorry, Bill, I suspect you too would have milked this for all it was worth given the chance.

Bill, your point is valid, but subsidiary to and a consequence of the real problem which is that it is far too difficult to have miscarriages of justice overturned in this country.

Justice Thorpe's recommendation that a special body should be created to review and manage such cases as happens now in the UK is overdue for action. By solving the real issue it would also remove the one you highlight.

I agree with Rick its easy to say the father did it as hes not around to say that he didn't do it. All the so called evidence against the father was what they call hear-say and how was he to say that it was incorrect as he, his wife and three children are died and only David is the only one alive. I wonder why no one asked if the father was going to kill his family why was David left alive, why not wait and kill him too before killing himself. Why???

@ Rick #1: it's just as implausible for David to have done it. I think if the defence proved anything, it was that it was INDEED plausible for Robin to have been the killer, thus planting the reasonable doubt upon which this case hinged.

Bill, while I agree that certainly the media has, over the years, given itself over to more and more emotional - and in many cases, biased - reporting, I think that in this case it is worth noting that there are always exceptions and in terms of NZ's criminal justice history, this surely is one of them. One can hardly blame the media for buying into and exacerbating the high levels of emotion surrounding this case. People are giving Wendy Petrie stick - why? She's allowed an opinion just like everyone else and she didn't know she was still on the air.

But I digress. I think it's important to take into account the extraordinary circumstances, both present and historical, surrounding David Bain, his supporters, his trial and his detractors, when assessing coverage of recent events.

Based on the Defence teams version of events: 1. The cat rolled around in Stephens blood including covering Stephens entire bedroom floor in blood from its fur, David Bain then proceeded to roll around on the floor (so he could explain why he was covered in blood), THEN David Bain proceeded to stumble around the house and bang into walls (whilst avoiding the cat) to explain him being covered in bruises, cuts and had broken glasses. BUT - WHERE IS THE CAT???? I was surprised that it was not sub-peoned by the Defence!!!!

@ Jocelyn #4 - Just because Robin's not around doesn't mean he didn't do it. That is flawed logic; Hitler wasn't around when the Nazis went on trial but we know he did it. David Gray was killed by police but we know he did it. And it's not "easy" at all to say that Robin did it - try telling that to David Bain, Joe Karam and Michael Reed, for whom it has taken 13 years to even get people to consider the possibility that Robin did it!

I think you need to carefully consider that if Robin was the perpetrator, for all the reasons the defence put forward, then you are not tracking a rational mind. I actually have every confidence that had David been asleep in his bed instead of on his paper run, he too would have been killed. I believe that while waiting for David to return, Robin's anguish overcame him, realising the enormity of what he had done, and decided to end it then and there, with only that one cryptic message remaining.

There will forever be questions relating to what was, in fact, a "not proven beyond reasonable doubt" verdict. The most significant one is this; How could a man in his 50's described by everyone as a "cadaver of a man", frail and gentle, overpower a 15 year-old, determinedly fighting for his life, and emerge without a spot of blood on him? This is not a victory for Joe Karam. It is a verdict against the police procedures of the time versus the higher standards expected today.

Thank you Bill. At last someone is questioning the collective media's persistent challenge to a jury based justice system that has sustained our society for a long, long time. I too did my best to avoid all post verdict coverage. The result has been particularly personal and painful as, if certain other high profile convictions are challenged in the same way, I will end up returning to court to have my evidence cross examined along with the rest of 100s of witnesses whose peaceful lives were turned inside out. Unfortunatley the victims do the sentences as well and each time the media do the work up we remember.

Jocelyn, the evidence about Robin's state of mind (and body) was not hearsay. It was direct observation by several independent witnesses.

Likewise the statements Laniet made to other witnesses were not hearsay either. Whether what she said was true or not the significant element was that she said them, and that was what the witnesses were testifying to from their direct experience.

As far as your question goes, the trial was full of such unanswerable and unanswered questions including what possible motive David had.