Did David Bain do it? That's one question. The other one is this: did he get a fair trial? I was gonna write two versions of this. One for Team David. One for Team He Did It.
Short version for Team David: he shoulda got more money, and it shoulda been called compensation. Two reasons: Privy Council. Binnie report. There you go. Miscarriage of justice, unfair trial, 13 years, do the sums.
How suspicious is it, after a conviction's been set aside by the Privy Council, to commission a report from a retired overseas judge - and then, when you don't like the result, to get another? How many builders' reports does this property need?
If (as Team-He-Soooo-Did-It believe) - this was slam-dunk, platinum rewards, here's the video from two angles, guilty-plus-plus - then it's not asking much for the prosecution to show up with iron-clad evidence, is it? Dot the i on the DNA. To require David Bain to come up with evidence 20 years later to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt - when evidence has been destroyed in the meantime - doesn't seem fair. It's up to the speed camera to provide the photo. Not for you to provide a stream of photos of you doing the speed limit.
Is it fair to judge a 1990s trial by 21st century standards? We've seen decades of Law and Order. And CSI. It's not the days of Columbo any more, where the cop just smokes a cigar through the crime scene, picking up clues without gloves, and the obvious baddie confesses. It's tougher to be police now. In America, police have to cope with video of them shooting people. Maybe just be grateful for the good old days when it was your word versus the corpse.