any where else that David Bain was given oral swabs and not intimate swabs during his strip search on the day of the deaths of his family?
I'm asking because the only link I've been able to track down as the originating source is to a hate-site member Lindsay Kennard. All help appreciated and treated in confidence.
It's a matter of commonsense, why would they take oral swabs from David Bain? If they were testing for alcohol or drug evidence, then a blood sample would be required. If they wanted to test what he had eaten, again, blood or stool tests would have solved the question.
ReplyDeleteAre we to now believe they were testing his saliva for what? Maybe Linz thought there was vampire activity and they were testing for blood, because that is about as credible as his suggestion is.
It is possible his saliva could have been taken for DNA testing, but for what reason, were they trying to establish if Robin was indeed the father, and if so, why so early in the investigation? Again, if this was the case, then David Bain, as a adult would have had to sign a release for such a test. The rules regarding DNA testing are very exact and the reason for the test would have been explained, even in a forensic investigation.
These people talk about the balance of probabilities, but can't recognise simple commonsense. The swabs taken were intimate because such testing is standard when there are multiple deaths in such circumstances.
Intimate swabs would have also been taken from all victims.
No, they wouldn't take oral tests on the basis of what you say and there has never to me been a common sense reason why they would. But that is what Gurnard claimed and what Stockdale feasted upon. If there is no public record of that information, and I'll see if there is an official record of it as well, I'll hook Gurnard into the net.
ReplyDeleteWhat it shows is the extension of the misinformation that began with the claim of a 'paper run alibi.' A miscarriage of Justice sold on dramatic statements that had no basis in truth, a predjucial prosecution short on good policing and facts. Another, Doyle saying they had a murder to 'solve' so didn't investigate the obvious motive raised against Robin Bain. Everything should have been turned over and investigated, that's the Police's job, not searching for that which assists them and ignoring that which does not. This all forms the picture for which David Bain should be compensated.
I have for some time been interested in the intimate swabs taken from the dead, particularly Robin, if indeed they were taken from him.
I've collected the media reports on this case for years, and it's not in any of them. It's another of the suggestions that originated on the TM boards and then became absorbed into the Counterspin mythology. There are a LOT of them. I have come to the conclusion that those people on the hate sites are incapable of distinguishing between facts and rumours, or between guesswork and deduction, or between common sense and self-serving nonsense. Or, for that matter, between right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteI've never seen it myself either. Like you I've collected a certain amount of stuff about the case and continue to. The originating source seems to be Lindsay Kennard (Gurnard)and I have his original post on the matter which (as would be expected) has no confirmation details. Stockdale has claimed he found it in the ODT. If it is not there I've got the pri.ks. I have them anyway, but showing that their efforts to persecute rely on fabrications in this form will knock the stuffing out of any denials by them. The 'scratches' have been one of Stockdale's foremost reliances on spreading his filth and they don't exist, never have.
ReplyDeleteHaving checked the archives of the Otago Daily Times thoroughly, I can find no reference to Oral Swabs being taken from David Bain at any time. Maybe Linz4me read some special edition that was published solely for him.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that.
ReplyDeleteGoing to be bloody difficult to raise a defence that doesn't exist. But overall, a clear picture and good example of their harassment and deceit. In a broader sample Stockdale has been very generous in his role of hate-site administrator in providing a clear model of how they work.
There is someone else in the woodpile, I re-read van beynan's 'opinion' piece not only did he exclude the blood found in the rifle barrel but he used the non-existant 'scratches' as evidence against David in his 'opinion.'
The 'cauldron of hate' is spilling its contents on those that stir the lies.
Van Beynen excluded rather a lot. It's interesting to compare his reports with others and with the actual trial on a day-by-day basis. I thought that court reporting was supposed to be accurate and unbiased? This seemed to become 'trial by media' with van Beynan as main prosecutor.
ReplyDeleteVan Beynen saw what he wanted to see, and reported on that. When he couldn't find what he wanted for a good story, he felt obliged to hassel a jury member to try and get what he needed. The man has shown what he is.
ReplyDelete