Who dunnit? Who knows? Who Cares?

Justice matters.

There was a mistrial the first time David Bain was charged with the murder of his family.

The Privy Council which ruled that, didn’t rule on his guilt or innocence.

All of which makes a strong case for a retrial.

But without deliberately reading, watching or listening to any reports on the trial, I have learned far more than I wished to know about what appears to have been a very dysfunctional family; I’ve heard far too many people who can have no idea of what happened pontificating on the case; and I’ve seen far too many reporters breathlessly imparting not very much.

There is only one person alive who was in the house on the morning of the murders and he’s in the dock. The mind can do strange things so it’s possible he killed his family but believes he didn’t.

I don’t envy the jury their job and realise the importance of them doing it carefully and thoroughly, so that whatever the verdict, the case is closed.

I hope they do it quickly because if this was a soap opera I’d have changed the channel weeks ago.

But this isn’t a show, put on for our entertainment. These were real people who were killed, this is a real man who is charged with their murders and I don’t like the way it’s been turned into a circus.

4 Responses to Who dunnit? Who knows? Who Cares?

  1. Adolf Fiinkensein says:

    It’s my bet there will be a not guilty verdict on the grounds that there is reasonable doubt.


  2. Allan says:

    If there is a not guilty verdict it will be a miscarriage of justice. David is as guilty as sin and the entire defense case was just an attempt to cloud the issue. They did not come up with one positive thing that proved definitely that David was not the killer. The whole retrial was a farce and a waste of taxpayers money. As for the QC who defended David what an arrogant SOB he was. He should have been strongly censored by the Judge quite a few times for the abusive way he questioned some of the Crown Witnesses.


  3. Inventory2 says:

    It will be interesting to see how much reliance the jury places on the evidence of the pathologist who dissected the Princess of Wales, who gave his expert opinion based on photographs.


  4. Adolf Fiinkensein says:

    I was right.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: