trying to explain away the blood on Robin's shoes as being droplets..
And what is the definition of 'fresh' blood, perhaps it was from knocking the scab off his roofing injuries, perhaps it was from after the roofing injuries themselves. Gee if we stretch the credibility of the evidence to all the 'possibles' like are propounded on here in David's defence, was it even human, and oh my god, was it not his own, if it was his own was it mixed with anyone elses blood. No? didn't think so
Quotegoldnkiwi (609 ) 2:01 pm, Tue 23 Nov #30749
Manlove's evidence in chief p 3385 on
"Q. And also two other exhibits from Robin Bain, the socks and shoes of Robin Bain, is that correct?
A. That’s correct, yes.
Q. Now in dealing with the information that you received and the exhibits that you obtained, what techniques were you applying to your examinations? If you could just briefly outline what techniques you used?
A. We visually search items under control conditions and we were looking for blood for example, we would set out an exhibit, describe it, then visually search it first of all with the naked eye and then with the assistance of a light microscope, a low power microscope which we could zoom in a little closer to see if we could find microscopic traces of blood.
Q. Did you also use any DNA profiling and if so, what types?
A. We did, if we found any bloodstaining and it was deemed necessary to test it to attempt to determine its DNA profiling profile, we would remove the stain and submit it to the DNA profiling unit nearby where it would be subjected to a DNA profiling process known as SGM Plus.
Q. And in relation to bloodstain patterns, could you just tell us what the significance is of bloodstain patterns?
A. Bloodstain patterns can assist, I mean basically letting you know whether or not an action may have occurred in relation to an item or nearby to an item. By looking at bloodstain patterns one can typically comment on how they may have arisen. For example, a smear – a so-called contact stain would have arisen from an item wet with blood coming in contact with an item that is not wet with blood.
then (still Manlove) p 3392-3
Q. I would like to take you now to Robin Bain’s shoes, and perhaps if Mr Crier we could have exhibit L1 and L2 made available to the witness.
WITNESS REFERRED TO EXHIBITS L1 AND L2
Q. I understand the Court and members of the jury have copies of these photos. If you could just hold up for the members of the jury, yes exhibit L1. Now can you just describe for us what that was?
A. This is the upper surface of the right shoe of, I think it's item 246, the shoes from Robin Bain. There is some yellow circles on there, we do that to make it a little bit more apparent where there is potentially some scientific findings. On the front of the upper here there were three distinct bloodspots of airborne origin detected, whereas on the remainder of the shoe there were a number of red stains with the appearance of blood but which we couldn’t confirm were blood.
Q. I think in your examination and if you could just now pick up exhibit L2, you have a close up of a bloodstain on the shoe, could you describe what that is?
A. This is a bloodstain of airborne origin and again it's tending slightly towards that exclamation mark pattern that I described earlier, so you will see by its slightly smaller leading edge, if you like, that it is travelling in that particular direction. Now to orientate it on the shoe itself from exhibit L1 if I may.
Q. Yes that would be helpful.
A. The stain is travelling from what we call the inner aspect of the shoe, which is the side of the shoe that touches the other when you place your feet together, towards the outer aspect, slightly at an angle.
Q. So if you can just locate it for us on that shoe, just show us where it is, yes. And the direction is going from the middle of the shoe to the outer edge, to the right, is that correct?
A. That’s correct, yes.
Q. Can I just take you back to your reference to airborne, can you just describe what you mean by this mark being airborne?
A. Well the mark itself isn't airborne, it's indica – the bloodspot that is on the item is characteristic of a drop of blood that has travelled through the air and impacted the item, it leaves a characteristic stain that indicates it has originated from the air. The blood to begin travelling in an airborne manner, a force needs to be applied to it in the first place as blood pretty much likes to stay as it is, unless it is disturbed.
Q. So from your examination of this, was it your conclusion this was from an airborne position, that it dropped onto the shoe, is that what I am understanding?
A. That’s my conclusion, yes.
Q. Just in relation to scene A, and if I can take you back to what we saw in scene A, perhaps if we could go to photograph A5. What can you say about the stains that you have observed on the shoes being consistent with the position of Robin Bain, namely whether before the shot or at the time of the shot, whether he was kneeling, sitting, standing, what can you say?
A. If these stains originated at the time of the shot then the shoe would not have been occluded from the source of the blood. By kneeling you would tend to occlude the upper surface of a shoe, and therefore these spots couldn’t have originated as they did at the time of the shot."
In summary the blood on Robin's shoe was of airborne origin, spatter as indicated by..."the bloodspot that is on the item is characteristic of a drop of blood that has travelled through the air and impacted the item".....it was travelling left to right across the shoe and did not occur at the time of the shot....."If these stains originated at the time of the shot then the shoe would not have been occluded from the source of the blood. By kneeling you would tend to occlude the upper surface of a shoe, and therefore these spots couldn’t have originated as they did at the time of the shot.".....Therefore if the blood didn't find it's way onto daddy's shoe at the time of the last shot, it must have found it's way there earlier (from one of the victims.) It wasn't, as the scumbag law graduate would have you believe, a droplet from above (the unproven 'alleged' injuries from 'fixing' spouting) but rather high impact horizontal and falling as attested by its fore-leading tail to spread. Remembering also for the moment, the undisputed reality, Robin's wound was in his left temple, spatter doesn't do U turns in midair and proceed in the opposite direction left to right, it continues left, either horizontally, upward or downward but always left, ie right to left
Now a fit and proper person who has graduated law school one would assume has not only a inclination toward logic and fact but a duty toward it, so why does scumbag Rachael lie? What empowers her to the belief that she can freely lie about evidence that implicates her pinup idol while at the same time believing she can freely lie to persecute David Bain? Well, in fact she has no enforceable, or rightful entitlement or power to do that nor does anyone, but Rachael lives by a 'higher' standard, a law graduate, a real estate sales person, an aspirant representative of the people no less. Though sifting the material, looking below the pretence and posturing Rachael Membery is a persecuting dog, a mongrel. I hope she does sue me because I'll take all her money off her (if she has any) and donate to a foundation setup to investigate miscarriages of justice and the advent of hate sites, and hate-siters in our society.