Justice Thorp - deliberately myopic?

Quote: Sir Thomas Murray Thorp - In His Police Complaints Authority review of the Bain case.

That the glasses which were in working order the previous day but were subsequently found damaged, as to the damaged frame and one lens in the petitioner’s room and as the other lens in Stephens Room, could have been damaged in some fashion unrelated to the struggle between Stephen and his killer. And whereas it would have been normal for the short-sighted petitioner to have worn glasses when operating his firearm, since he had only half a metre of clear vision without them, it would be contrary to all common sense for his long-sighted father to wear glasses which would only have impaired his vision.
In my opinion they do not adequately recognise the significance or Mr Guest’s advice that he had been told by the petitioner that he had been wearing the glasses the day before the murders.

I bet Sir Tom was a good bloke, I bet he did all he could to present as a good and fair bloke. But I don't know of any evidence that said that Margaret's old glasses were in working order the day before the Bain murders. Anybody that knows of such evidence might wish to email me.
In the meantime Sir Tom seems to be in error as to what David would have been able to see without his glasses. In Sir Tom's view David couldn't see more than half a metre without them, but that's not what witnesses at the trial said. He concludes on this point that it would be 'contrary to all common sense' for his (David's) long-sighted father to wear glasses which would have only impaired his vision. Well, I would have thought it was 'contrary to all common sense' to answer a proposal that was never forwarded. I don't think anybody, apart from Old Tom, has ever said that Robin was wearing Margaret's glasses when he shot his family. I appreciate that Tom Tom was trying to tidy up an unlawful conviction that had resulted from an actual Miscarriage of Justice, but I think he was adding to the miscarriage by making assertions that were 'contrary to all common sense' when in fact nobody had made them. To use imaginary assertions to compliment the Crown who, as time has shown, had perpetrated an actual MOJ makes old Tom look like silly Tom.
After this startling answer to a claim that had never been made, Tom Tom really got wound up. He stated that he felt more emphasis should have been given to the 'never given on oath evidence' from Michael Guest that David was going to admit wearing the glasses belonging to his mother. It is apparent that Tom Tom thought that David was going to do the 'decent' thing and link himself to a glass lens that had been found in the most mysterious circumstances in the deceased Stephen Bain's room. That would have been a great help in perpetuating the MOJ and dispelled any questions as to why the lens was under clothing, dust covered and not bearing any DNA from the scene that had seen blood scattered throughout.
I guess by then Tommy Tom had got on a roll by then and may have been unaware at the time (I can't recall the sequence of events at the moment) that the herald of this message was a disbarred member of the Bar who among other things has been disbarred for lying.