Do you agree with the not guilty verdicts in the David Bain retrial?

But that's just it - the jury didn't hear all the evidence. Why weren't they allowed to hear the complete 111 call for instance?

Robin was not wearing gloves when he was found.
If Robin had shot himself then his fingerprints would be all over the rifle. They were not. Unless you can explain that then Robin was not the killer.

There were no gloves on Robins hands when Police arrived.
Furthermore the 400ml of urine in his bladder was a normal overnight urine. Anyone committing murder would have a release of adrenaline. Adrenaline stimulates release of water into the blood which causes the person to urinate frequently. Robin had not had an adrenaline rush.

The jury were not deciding who did it between Robin and David. They were deciding if the prosecution had proved their case. That does not prove guilt or innocence of either.

A person does not leave fingerprints when wearing bloody gloves.

If Robin Bain had killed himself his fingerprints would be all over the rifle. His prints were not on the rifle or the magazine. Hopefully the coroner will hold an inquest and highlight this point

The judge directed the jury that it was a case where either David did it, or Robin. The jury were wrong.

My opinion and that of everyone else's bar the jury is moot. They saw and heard all the available evidence presented by advocates for both sides. They made the decision. The decision stands. This poll is pointless.

I agree it's a no brainer both sides had a good argument. Nobody could prove their case beyond reasonable doubt therefore he should walk as nothing was proven beyond doubt.

Having lost interest in any outcome of the on-going Bain trials saga years ago, I have actually paid more attention to the feeding-frenzy of the media. Was anything really added to the sum of human knowledge by nightly 'in-ya-face' recountings of the most
salacious details of this most unfortunate case as presented ad nauseum by TV-One's News? No doubt this and other channels found the trial to be 'made-for-television' material; what, with all the breathless items of 'breaking news' (a recent example on the midday news having been well and truly aired the previous evening), all the 'exclusives', interviews, etc. It has all been turned into a media farce, which would have not been out-of-place, by any means, in the British Gutter-Press and made me, for one, feel, at times, like an unwilling and disinterested 'voyeur' in my own living-room.
Guilty or innocent, David Bain has substantially 'done-his-time' and should be left in peace to make as much as he is able to out of the remainder of his life. Sadly, unlike Arthur Allan Thomas, he has not been pardoned, but then, 'that' was largely due to the Prime Minister of the day having got out of the 'right' side of the bed in a rare good mood on the morning in question.

The trial is over and the judgement is made. Not Guilty. Although I followed the case, it was not my opinion which mattered it was that of the jury . What perturbs me however is the evidence which was given by way of a read out statement. Because the person who made the statement did not appear in court , his "evidence " was not subjected to the scutiny of cross examination . And was at best only hearsay anyway. The judge told the jury not to hold sway with hearsay . But once heard how could it be unheard ?
The jury were told to put any preknowledge aside and form their opinion based on what they saw and heard in the courtroom . They were also told to decide on not guilty verdict if they were not certain.
My feeling is the jury had to decide not guilty.

Why are the media running these polls - it really makes no difference now. We have a jury system. David Bain was found not guily. He has served 13 years in prison and had two more years of having to face a retrial and then sit through it. It is time to let him move on with his life.

The key to this is "beyond reasonable doubt". Insufficient evidence. Depressed downtrodden older man vs. cheerful young man with no motive. How could the jury have decided otherwise? Definitely a no-brainer.