"The evidence was not wholly dependent on the accounts given and recorded or delivered at the time by your father, although they were compelling. There was also a long history of aggression and assault by you upon him, which the jury were entitled to take into account. There was also direct eyewitness evidence of your presence just outside the scene at the critical time. Hence the 'circumstantial' evidence was extremely strong. There is no necessity for there to be forensic or scientific evidence before there can be an entirely proper conviction. The fact that the agreed facts were not agreed by you personally is also irrelevant. Your counsel agreed the facts, quite properly. In any event none of the agreed facts would have been disturbed by any other evidence, and I note you chose to give no evidence (as was your right). None of the agreed facts was the immediate reason for the conviction. I also note you did not seek to waive privilege and you have not criticised your counsel. I should not be misunderstood: I see no basis for criticising your counsel. The medical evidence did not specify you as the perpetrator, merely the nature of the injuries and the mechanism of death. That body of evidence was perfectly proper, and properly admitted. Whether or not you were aware your bail conditions had been extended is irrelevant. Nor was the evidence concerning you as your father's legatee: had that been admitted it is likely it would have made things worse for you. It is also irrelevant that you were on remand 'longer than you should have been'. You would still have been tried on the same evidence. The fact that this was a majority verdict is also irrelevant. The proper conditions for a majority verdict were in place and the judge's direction was also properly given."