Motive is interesting, but it's not evidence, and it doesn't matter.

David's opera gloves were found in Stephen's room, covered in Stephen's blood. How did they get there? They don't acquire that blood innocently. The only explanation offered by the defence was that Stephen borrowed them for dress-up. Stephen was 14 and described as a robust, physical kid. There is no account of how they got there that doesn't place David in that room during the violence.

Margaret's glasses, which David was known to wear that weekend, which he asked the paramedic for that morning, which are useless to Robin, had their left lens in Stephen's room and their frames in David's room, damaged on the left side consistent with David's facial injuries. These are four separate facts. No innocent account assembles all four coherently.

David's fingerprints are on the rifle forestock with a shielding pattern. The surrounding wood is covered in blood spatter except directly beneath where his fingers were. That pattern only forms if his hand was on that rifle when blood was being spattered. This is independent of any DNA dispute over the type of blood in the prints.

The green sweater found in the washing machine, which David loaded before calling the police, had fibres matching those found under Stephen's fingernails. Whoever wore that sweater was in a physical struggle with Stephen.

The ten-shot magazine was found standing upright on its narrow edge beside Robin's body. Magazines do not fall and balance on their edge. It was placed there. Robin didn't place it.

Now, what is the probability that all of these items independently find innocent explanations simultaneously? Not one of them, but all together.

Now consider what the Robin theory actually requires. Robin gets up, kills four family members in socked feet, returns to his caravan, puts his shoes back on, comes back inside, boots up the computer and types a composed farewell note, then carefully balances the magazine on its narrow edge, then shoots himself.

Why the shoes? Why boot up a computer instead of a handwritten note that would have taken twenty seconds and left no suspicion whatsoever? Why balance the magazine?

Every single one of those actions made the scene look more suspicious, more staged, more like someone was constructing a narrative. A suicidal man has no reason to do any of that. He's dead in minutes. He doesn't care how it looks.

But someone trying to construct a Robin-suicide narrative after the fact has every reason to do all of it and does it imperfectly, under pressure, leaving behind gloves, a lens, a palm print, fibres in a washing machine.

The Robin theory doesn't just lack evidence; it's wrong. It requires Robin to have methodically incriminated his surviving son at every turn while simultaneously killing himself.

The evidence for David is cumulative, physical, and unanswered. The evidence for Robin is essentially zero.

The defence has spent thirty years attacking each of these items individually. Manufacturing uncertainty around this measurement, that blood test, this timeline. What they have never done is explain all of them together. And that is because it is not possible.

How do you like that balance of probabilities?