I have recently come across the strange and very tragic case of the 1994 Dunedin Bain family shootings which only left one survivor. It happened a long time ago, though I believe there is something to be learned from it.

Its unusual in that there are only two accepted possibilities:

David, the eldest child at 22 did it.

Robin, the father did it.

In the original trial, David was found guilty. In a retrial, David was found not guilty and released after 13 years in prison.

If David did not do it, then the system has been disappointing because an innocent man has been in prison for 13 years.

If David did do it, then the system has been disappointing because a guilty man has been released from prison prematurely and much time and money has been wasted on a retrial etc.

There are a number of trouble with retrials after a long time. Evidence may have become tarnished or lost. Witnesses may have moved on, died or otherwise become unavailable. People's memories might have faded somewhat. The defendant may have matured and feelings of guilt may have been eroded.

This leads to the idea of changing the process. There are a number of possibilities here, but I will just mention one.

"The right to remain silent" has obscure origins in the history of ancient Rome. The Classical (Ancient) Greeks did not think much of it. They didn't have a high opinion of someone who would not verbally defend themselves in a court of law. “Right to remain silent” is not sacred and something worth questioning.

My proposal is to abandon the "right to remain silent" in retrials, such as David Bain's retrial. If the defendant refuses to answer a question satisfactorily, then the judge would have the right to direct the jury to assume the worst.

Allowing the defendant to be examined/cross-examined could greatly speed up the process. It could also deter the "I am guilty but will appeal because I have nothing to lose" brigade.

If a person is truly sincere, they will have the courage to take the stand.