The show was careful not to say that David had committed the crime of murder, but it painted a very convincing argument for why Robin could simply not have done it.
A couple of the points:
- There was so much blood in Stephens room, but not one drop on Robin
- There were no fingerprints on the murder weapon belonging to Robin
- There was testimony given to support the Defense case, that seems to not only be wrong, but a blatant lie - for your reference the purchase of a photocopy machine.
David Bain's legal team wrote to the producers of the documentary asking them not to show it while David Bain has a case for compensation before the courts...after seeing the documentary, you can see why.
As for my opinion, one thing about the re-trial of David Bain has always confused me. It appears that his conviction was overturned based on the evidence given by the experts organised by the defense team, however none of those experts were at the scene the day that the murder was committed. So for the overturned ruling to be correct, every expert that was at the scene of the murder has to be wrong...and all the experts that were not there, using the evidence gathered by those that were there, would have to be right.
Did David Bain kill his family? No one knows...no one ever will I suspect. But I agree with Award-winning documentary film maker Bryan Bruce, David had his day in court, and that's what the jury has decided, but Robin never has...until now.