As is his habit Taylor searches in the past, invariably pre-trial to find information helpful to his persecuting cause and to attempt to 'free' the name of Robin Bain from the cloak of child molester that shall inevitably follow while any memory of him remains.
This rehashed nonsense from Taylor...
I wanted to have a look at the notion promoted by Cyber,te,project etc that the police investigation at the very start on the morning of the 20th of June 1994 set about as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to "stitch" or frame David Bain. I will focus on the "planted" lens theory:
"
Since Karam is insistent about his lens theory, it's worth noting
what would have had to happen for Weir to plant it;
Weir would have needed to know Bain habitually wore
glasses. (He wore none when police arrived; his own were being
repaired.)
Weir also had to know that the damaged glasses in
Bain's room we re either his, or useful to him, when he arrived at ,
Every Street, some hours after his colleagues did .
Knowing this in advance, Weir would have had to discover
the damaged lens, which was missing from the glasses frame, and
then secretly plant it - though the first thing he did when he
took control of the scene was have photos and video recordings
taken.
What's more, Weir had to have made up his mind by the time
he arrived - he'd have no chance to move the lens later, when
the visual record had been made - that (DAVID)Bain was the guilty man.
But police admit Robin Bain was their suspect for the first two
days.
Karam overlooks the fact the policeman who stayed with Bain
from the moment police arrived saw the damaged glasses then,
minus their lens. (in david's room)
Bain himself offers no satisfactory explanation for any of this,and Karam offers
no explanation as to why Weir might have wanted to set Bain up."
I am indebted to the North and South article by Rosemary Mcleod on Joe Karam and the Bain murders.As he offers no satisfactory explanation maybe cyber would like to try.I know the Ian Wishart article will probably come up but that in itself cannot explain the police actions on the morning of the 20th. Certainly a fertile and happy hunting ground for Holocaust,9/11,moon landing deniers and theorists etc.

Edited by jeeves-50 at 10:05 am, Fri 19 Nov
Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 10:02 am, Fri 19 Nov #30449
He returns to the 'vaunted' opinion of Rosemary McLeod's discredited piece that she settled a defamation suit over fully knowledgeable of the fact that her 'opinion' was nothing more than one sided nonsense. Worth looking at again for those missing structures to bridge the gap between truth and the motivation of those that seek to hide it.
Of course Weir need not have known on his arrival at Every Street that David Bain wore glasses, in fact by sequence of events he need not have known for several more hours or even days before he found the 'golden bullet' piece of evidence. This 'find' despite that other officers, tasked with the job, had already searched the room. McLeod rehashes the now disproved theory that dear daddy was being treated as the suspect yet we know that it was his son, David, that was strip searched and had intimate samples taken. In the garbled mind of McLeod or Taylor clearly witnesses or potential witnesses, indeed victims are strip searched and samples taken from them for forensic testing to determine if they may have recently had sex with any of the victims, while the suspect is 'excused' the formality.
Stupid ass McLeod presents the idea that Weir couldn't have planted the lens because he had the scene photographed.... 'though the first thing he did when he
took control of the scene was have photos and video recordings
taken.
What's more, Weir had to have made up his mind by the time
he arrived - he'd have no chance to move the lens later, when
the visual record had been made - that (DAVID)Bain was the guilty man.'... When of course the lens was not shown in the photographs, but was recorded on Weir's job sheet (and remember his search was 'after hours' and beyond his role as OIC of the scene) as being found under a ski boot. Later of course Weir did identify the lens (also said to be a trick of light) from a photo and, in absolute contrast to his own notes, it was out in the open on the floor. It's common knowledge that Weir admitted misleading the Court about the location of the lens and this formed part of the Actual Miscarriage of Justice that the Privy Council found.
This entire idea that Weir was somehow estopped from realising the significance of what a 'suddenly' found lens (remember officers searching the room for many days had not found it) was is absolute nonsense, rudimentary, unmitigated claptrap - a manufactured myth that defies common sense or logic. This all or nothing approach taken by McLeod is critically flawed and it is no wonder she surrendered the point once brought to task.
And you Taylor, fiddler, are being brought to task. Your time of persecution and covering up fiddling is coming to an end. I note your sudden silence on Daddy's blood filling the barrel and on the blood of one of his victims being found on his right shoe, and of David being stripped searched and no scratches found on his chest. Speaking of chest, why don't you come clean and tell the world why you need to hide the fact that daddy was a fiddler, have you made some pledge to some organisation to do so? Get it off your chest man, you are a true dog - you lie, day in and day out, when proved to be a liar you simply move on to the next lie or piece of propaganda but now you are getting hauled in Taylor.
No comments:
Post a Comment