One of the great leaky planks the hate-siters used with almost hysterical glee was the fact that Robin Bain's prints were not identified on the rifle from the many that were found there. Many of the prints were not of satisfactory enough consistency to be helpful, of these, some of which were later destroyed, tests in more recent times would have been able to be done to exclude the fingerprints from having been Davids. Of course an exclusion is as important as a confirmation in a case that relied on much circumstantial evidence, prejudicial assertions and downright fabrications.
Much was made of the fact David's prints were found on the rifle in a carrying position as opposed to a firing position. In many ways the fact that David's prints may have been on the rifle or may not have been was redundant to proof of anything one way or the other. The rifle after all was his. This sensible conclusion was avoided by Jones the fingerprint 'expert' he was able to determine that the fingerprints were 'fresh.' His evidence on this may one day be assessed in the awarding of compensation to David, additionally he was able to say that David's fresh fingerprints were in blood and that the rifle had been wiped down. Of course at the retrail Jone's evidence was totally discredited along with his extrapolations. The British expert was able to say that under polilight the blood was shown not to be blood at all.
Of course there were already problems with trying to convince a Jury that a rifle that had been wiped down for fingerprints would still have many unidentifiable prints left on in. Jones not to outdone in his 'work' was also about to make the extraordinary claim that prints rather than flatten under pressure, sharpened into clearer definition which for me was probably the most outlandish allegation of the entire case. But what place does this have in the determination of Justice, an 'expert' claiming a rifle was wiped down whilst all the time knowing that prints remained on it. The same 'expert' claiming that prints were in blood, an interpretation that opposed established scientific knowledge to allow yet more 'non' evidence to exist against David where in fact none existed. The same officer anticipating he would be believed that something as soft and with the pliable texture of skin actually sharpened definition under pressure rather that doing the opposite (and normal) thing - flattening.
But just on these points, of liberties taken from evidence that didn't exist, was omitted, or hidden in every case (and there are scores in the final total) the net result worked against David. Everything worked against David, leaving the inevitable conclusion that the case against David Bain was orchestrated at every point. How did this happen just in the last couple of years in a Country where when some things are finally addressed there is always comment that the situation has moved on from there and the same mistakes wouldn't be made again? Why do we see here a repeat of the same old same old and anticipate the obligatory explanations that things have improved. It was less than 2 years ago that Jones repeated his nonsense evidence in a belligerent way that showed he had lost sight of his need to be objective and that his purpose was to serve Justice not to endeavour to manipulate it.
Less that 2 years ago much information became available in various forums, a number of peer-reviewed studies over thousands of suicide deaths by firearms. Although the results varied, the average finding would be around only a 5% chance that any fingerprints of the suicidee are found on the firearm. Or a 95% chance that none would be found on the firearm, this from studies that go back decades, not months or years but decades. But what happened in the case 'against' David?
In the case against David it was offered as 'proof' of his guilt that the 95% chance that his father's fingerprints were not able to be determined as being on the rifle (though may have been among the prints unable to be determined as belonging to Robin - and therefore not David's.) So somehow nothing, a 95% chance of nothing compared to a 5% chance of it being somehow 'evidence' was immediately weighed against David by inference by the Prosecution and by 'proof' from the hate-siters.
Moving onto the behaviour of a couple of the hate-siters in particular, Stockdale, no less than an administrator of a hate-site, repeated 1000s of times that the rifle had been wiped down for prints never offering a satisfactory answer of how the rifle if wiped down still retained prints. He never missed a beat on it, kept repeating the same story.. rifle wiped down, rifle wiped down... until it became a 'cyber fact.' I'll return to Stockdale in a minute but first will address the similar hate-message from one his cohorts Ralph Taylor.
Ralph Taylor liked to make fun of the idea that Robin had shot himself 'got up' and wiped the rifle down after he was dead. This amazing 'fact' culminated all the absurdity that Taylor claimed was part of David's defence. Of course nobody contended that Robin wiped the rifle down, the Crown contended David did but had only opposing proof that he had. Fast forward to Coroner Tim Scott decision delivered in a case where a husband shot his wife and fatherinlaw in Fielding last August. He concluded the differing ranges of the shots pointed to the husband Desmond Winnie as the killer. He also described how there were no fingerprints on the rifle, found between Winnie's legs, a feature he said that was not uncommon.
He went onto say 'It may have been that the offender wore gloves or wiped the firearm clean. I'm satisfied that....finding a firearm without any prints is not necessarily indicative of anything sinister,' he said. 'It may have related to the condition of the firearm or the fact that the firearm had to be handled by the police after the deaths. It may have related to the packaging of the firearm.'
Some remarkable similarities between Mr Scott's finding and aspects of the Bain case, no fingerprints, offender wearing gloves or wiping the rifle clean but which serve the unavoidable concerns of the prosecution of David Bain and the efforts made to re-manufacture evidence or lack of evidence as being some how conclusive in the failed case.
Back to Stockdale in concluding this piece, Stockdale's other pet lies were, that there was no blood found inside the barrel - although he eventually backed off from that, but didn't note the obvious result (note Scott's conclusion about the differing ranges of shots in the Fielding case,) also that David was not stripped searched and so the scratches to his chest were not found or seen by anybody on the morning of the murders but were (according to Stockdale) still there. Stockdale's claims (mimicking the Crowns) that David went out of his way to be 'seen' on the paper run to some how prove that he did the paper run when in fact the papers in the boxes were absolute proof of that - something Stockdale would later put down to his belief David needing to be seen could somehow related to his (David's) acting skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment