Why was the Pathologist kept from the house?

I know the police have stated that they wanted to preserve the scene, thus being the reason for keeping The Crown Pathologist, Dempster, waiting outside Every Street for several hours. However, this man was the foremost expert to visit the scene that day, it was critical that it should be him examining the bodies at the first opportunity. To suggest he was somehow inept at not containing samples or collecting evidence stretches credibility. Particularly, when we have seen (on video) the general abandon with which the officers on the scene gathered critical evidence - the gathering off the floor off clothing and such like to be carted away in a blanket. I think we all understand that blood for example (or any other dna) would be transferred from one item to another in this way. Just as we all understand that core temperatures of the bodies were left unattended through many hours when the possibility of determining the times of death were lost.

During this period when Dempster was left outside the house the police experimented with tomato sauce spray to assist in determining features of the deaths, something which is as bizarre as it sounds. Could some of the police have had misgivings about surrendering the scene to the expert too soon? I recall a Detective giving evidence that he asked senior staff about the Gunshot Residue Tests early in the morning. Obviously this man had no inhibitions about what correct procedure was. Unfortunately compounding the 'mistakes' made in these first few hours of the investigations is anectodal evidence of some of the inquiry staff being aware of Laniet's role in prostitution, and even the exploitation of some officers of this situation Laniet have become involved in.

We also know that an electronic diary that Laniet owned eventually disappeared while in police hands, as also we know that the record of calls to and from her mobile phone were never recovered. Certainly within days police were made aware of allegations that Laniet had been the subject of abuse from her father, these claims however were not investigated because as one officer put it 'they had a murder case to solve.' A fairly novel statement when even armchair critics understand that motive can, and often does, lead to the murderer.

Without touching on the suggestions of incest in any great detail here, I'll mention two points that the hate-sites labour. Firstly, a victim of incest may not necessarily have an ongoing 'relationship' with their abuser. The fact that Laniet met her father at the school is neither here nor there in terms of whether any abuse had taken place. She was of course older, 'use' to the situation if it were true, and may have some control over Robin about her favours for him.

Secondly, while Laniet is rounded upon at length by Robin defenders and anything she is alleged to have said to a vast range of people who gave evidence to that effect at the trial - assumes that Laniet was simply providing an alibi for David in preparation for her own death. That, like many things in the Bain case, doesn't wash.