Nos you say above "" the blood of a family member on Robin's right shoe"" can you tell us which family members blood was on Robins shoe and if you could supply a link to where you obtained this damning evidence thanks.
I have obviously no idea who anonymous is, but there have been others who have asked the same question. Each time I point to the evidence of Manlove below 3392-2.
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.
The evidence on this is more extensive but the final sentence is my source, supported by the description in lines 1, 2, and 10 in particular. Before I look at that, there was no identification of dna, but in evidence elsewhere it was determined as blood all of which is probably too extensive to place here. So it isn't proven on the face of it to be a family members blood, but to a high test in must be for the following reasons.
1/ It's description of having been air borne and therefore having 'changed shape' from pressure applied to it. Apart from pressure from head wound shots I don't know of any other pressure that would have changed the shape of air borne blood that morning, so it must have come from someone shot that morning.
2/ It didn't come from Robin's own wound, Manlove contends that in the final sentence having first built the reason for this as him having already determined the direction of the blood as from the inner to the outer aspect of the shoe.
3/ Robin's wound was to his left temple, spatter and air borne blood came from the wound as the exit point which was also the entry point. The absolute maximum angle downward from that wound could have only been vertical (under extreme difficult and probably 20 to 30 degrees less from 90 degrees favouring to the left, or across the floor could only possibly have been from right to left in a half arc toward that direction.
4/ Manlove in the evidence above was discounting a 'crude drawing' proposal produced by the Crown to show how Robin 'might' have been kneeling if shot by another party. In effect he was able to scientifically disprove the Crown's theory on how Robin might have been shot by another, he did this with the spatter and air borne blood patterns. The spatter was also on the curtain to the alcove on Robin's left and had no 'shielded' area where a gunman would have shielded part of the spatter range by his own body - just in the way of a person standing in front of the wall and being hosed by water will shield part of the wall behind them because of their body mass coming between the wall and the water spray.
5/ Most who have followed the trial or read 'Trial by Ambush' will know that the Crown virtually abandoned the lounge scene after 14 years of saying it held the answer to Robin's murder, when in fact it had held the proof of Robin's suicide. The blood from his wound can't have moved left to right from his left temple, it is an impossibility.
In terms of 4 others killed that morning, all suffering head wounds where blood was exited and had it's 'shape changed' changed under pressure, it means that blood on Robin's shoe can only from one of the victims that morning, arriving there under pressure, if there was another source I challenge anybody to prove it.
Amazing that after 18 months, someone is trolling through your old posts and picks up on that one. Obviously Kent doesn't have any recording studios vying for his attention, so he's reading your blog for the 50,000th time, or one of the other few are doing it for him.
ReplyDeleteActually I'm aware that beside some regular viewers there are a number of people looking through here - generally to find a way out for those that have trapped themselves. Interestingly, some it has fallen into a bracket of 'but look what he's done,' when actually the hate-siters in particular caused all their own problems. The pity is that they used other sites to do their dirty work and those sites have paid a price for not being diligent to what is now recognised as a genuine, if defeated hate group.
ReplyDelete