Key Points:

Oh dear, Deborah Coddington. What has got your knickers in such a twist that your pen is so bitter?

It is one thing to have an opinion; it is another to back it up with reasoned argument and facts.

Has it just dawned on you that five people died a tragic, gruesome death at Every St, Dunedin? We all have known this for 13 years. The horrible details no doubt do haunt the extended family just as they have haunted David Bain during his 13 years of unjust incarceration. You seem to forget, in your vitriolic bitterness, that the reason for the media frenzy of the past few weeks is that David has spent 13 years in prison because of a "substantial miscarriage of justice".

I did not conduct a public relations exercise. This very paper will confirm that after David's release, I actually did all I could to avoid publicity so that both David and I could get on with our lives. It was not I who conducted the poll showing that 60 per cent of people believe David is innocent.

You say it is wrong for me to claim that David's support has grown because the public now see the real person that David is as opposed to the portrayal of him in handcuffs at the time of his arrest.

Although that is not the only reason for such overwhelming support, I am sure that the shining light of dignity and humility displayed by David has had an effect on the New Zealand public.

The main reason, however, is that people are not stupid. The public know a duck when they see one. They also can tell the difference between a live duck and a dead one. In this case the duck is the original case against David, built on false and concealed evidence as it was. What's left of it is a dead duck.

Which brings me to your next criticism that only David's arguments have been reported. In fact, what has been reported for the most part is the summary written by the Privy Council where they list nine pieces of evidence which constituted the miscarriage of justice and explain why the Crown's three best points against David are not compelling at all. In the face of this, it does seem odd that you would trudge your way through the 164 pages of Crown submissions that are discredited. Were you hoping for a silver bullet? If so, those you cite are most unfortunate.

For if the Crown says that David was wearing the broken glasses until two days before the murders, then that is wrong. David was not wearing glasses on the Friday, Saturday or Sunday before the murders after his were broken on the Thursday evening.

The rifle had unidentifiable fingerprints all over it, proving it was not wiped and it was I who discovered that the bullet that fatally killed Laniet had passed through a white cotton cloth. The fact the police did not notice the cloth is hardly surprising in light of the general incompetence of the investigation.

The new discovery of Stephen's blood on the curtains is perfectly compatible with Robin's suicide, as he was within about 50cm of the curtains when shot and would have brushed the curtains with the rifle.

As to why you think Robin is innocent, the entire description is wrong. He shot himself, not hiding and kneeling behind the curtain, but standing in front of it. The shot did not go sideways through his head but diagonally from front to back. Fresh submissions that the wound is not a contact wound contradict all other experts and simply demonstrate how desperate the Crown case is. Who says Robin woke at the usual time of 6.30am? It is not known who fetched the paper. He shot four members of his family, not five. He was not wearing his schoolteaching clothes when found dead. There is no evidence anyone disposed of a white cloth. If, in fact, he had not urinated that morning then that is due to the fact that he was not following his normal routine! If he was busting for a pee, then he would hardly walk from the caravan to the house past the toilet with the intention of going to pray for 30 minutes without doing so! He also had an enlarged prostate.

My main reason for having no further trial, which you don't mention, is that the totality of the evidence makes a conviction so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.

May I suggest you restrict yourself to commenting on issues within the compass of your knowledge or maybe better still, pop by Rosemary McLeod's some time. I'm sure you will hit it off nicely.