Thursday, March 15, 2012

More stuff the cultists don't want the public to know.

The following was first published elsewhere to an audience that have some cultists vainly trying to avoid the details that show the high probability/certainty of Robin Bain's suicide. In order to do so they congratulate one another of nonsense, accuse anyone opposing them of lying, demand proof and when they get proof start writing about something else such as, what David 'said' in Perth, or that Robin was a 'lovely' man. He might have been in fact, and certainly was before his wife went cold on him and those consistent stories started surfacing about his daughter intending to go to the police to complain.

  • Something more for the cultists. Details of the suicidee’s hands, with blood smears on the palms. Heading into several weeks now and no explanation from the cultists about the smears, explanations for every bit of inconceivable nonsense that could be imagined but nothing to get the dead father away from his suicide. The cultists know all of this because they have a specially developed website that has ‘all’ the evidence but you won’t find this there, I wonder why. Two cultists wouldn't take a bet that David was strip searched and found not to have any scratches on his body, they wouldn't take a bet that Robins dna was found inside of the barrel. Note Doyle admitting destroying evidence without testing it. That was around day 3 of the trial and the Crown never recovered, ultimately capitulated trying to move away from the final death scene and admitting that Robin could have turned the computer on.

  • A. Q. I’d like you to look please at a job sheet of Detective Lodge and you’ll see this is a job sheet of Detective Lodge of the 20th of June 1994, do you see that?

  • A. A. Yes

  • A. Q. And if you turn over please to the third page under a heading of “Move body and further examining” –

  • A. A. Yes.

  • A. Q. – you will see at 1505, 3.05 hours, he records, “Smear of blood on heel of thumb inside left hand, also a smear on left little finger, no blood on right hand.” Do you see that?

  • A. Correct.

  • ——————————————————————————–
    Reed to Doyle:
    Q. We have blood on the heel of the thumb, no photograph taken, no sample tested, do you 
    understand that, do you want to disagree?
    A. No, no.
    Q. That went to the grave with Robin Bain. Now we know that this blood was on the hands of 
    Robin Bain because one of your detectives, Detective Lodge, did a diagram showing where 
    this blood was.  I would like you to look at this please?
    Q. This is a diagram I want to put to you, done by Detective Lodge, do you remember 
    Detective Lodge?
    A. Yes I do.
    Q. Now this shows of course only the tops of the hands, it doesn’t show the blood 
    underneath the hand, but if you look to the right-hand side of the diagram you will see a 
    marking, “Blood smear by little finger”?
    A. Correct
    Q. See that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. That is exhibit 97, which is the one I have referred you to already, which is, “Two smear on 
    slide of traces of blood on left hand of Robin” see that?
    A. Correct?
    Q. That was never tested, but destroyed by you – by your orders wasn’t it?
    A. That’s correct

    1. I see the cult members have managed to upset yet another website with their Harrasment and defamation of other posters. How many sites is that now where they have been warned or banned for the same sort of stuff. They are like a swarm of blow flies, leaving flyblow everywhere they go.

    2. Van Beynen has won significant journalism awards in New Zealand. In 2010, as well as other awards, he won a Qanta Media Award for "Story of the Year" for a feature after the trial and acquittal of David Bain.[9][10] He was also announced "Fairfax Media Journalist of the Year 2010-2011"

      1. Well the 'story' of the year was most notable for the forensic evidence against Robin it left out, and for the false impression of the failed case against David. mvb didn't move the script along from 'highlights' against David that had been disproved or explained.