Something else Kent Parker and the hate-siters got wrong.

From a correspondent with my comments to follow:

Hi.

You know how Kent and his mob made big play of how Robin couldn’t have suicide because he didn’t remove his hat, and suicides don't remove clothing and ‘bare’ the target?

Well, needless to say they got that wrong too. There is a new study looking at that stuff, and it founds that where clothing is removed, it tends to be suicide, but that the converse (that if it’s suicide clothing is not removed) is definitely NOT true.

Shooting Through Clothing in Firearm Suicides

1. Petr Hejna M.D., Ph.D.,
2. Miroslav Šafr M.D.

Article first published online: 25 FEB 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01326.x

Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume 55, Issue 3, pages 652–654, May 2010

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01326.x/abstract

Abstract:  There is a longstanding empirical rule that people who commit suicide rarely shoot through their clothing, but rather put it aside to expose the nude skin. Signs of shots through clothing have always been considered suspicious, raising presumptions of the presence of an abettor. Our report, based on a retrospective study of fatal suicidal firearm injuries from the years 1980 to 2007, points out that suicide victims only rarely remove clothing from the site of the future entry wound. The report covered 43 cases with fatal gunshot wounds in the area of the thorax, with only four persons (9%) removing the clothing present in the area of the subsequent self-inflicted wound. Defects present on the clothing of a victim cannot, therefore, be understood as an absolute criterion for disproving the possibility of suicide, and nor do they necessarily indicate an unfortunate accident or homicide. If, however, the suicide victim removes the clothing from the area of the future wound, then this is almost always an indication of suicide.

First of there is plenty of other material available which distinguish between murders and suicide that indicate a person committing suicide will remove clothing, a hat, open a shirt and so on, but that a suspected suicide is not one where the suicide has shot him or herself through clothing. Another extreme of this is the suicide by knife by the Japanese, the knives are certainly sharp enough to slice through flimsy clothing but it is still removed. I think I may have entered some such material a couple of years ago on here, if not I certainly read about it around that time.

Robin 'lifting his beanie' to shoot himself struck as a great difficulty for my contemporary, the venerable weatherman, fly maker and fly fisherman Lee Hinkleman. I use the word contemporary with licence of course because Lee was deeply versed with understanding about the Bain case from the outset and admit my only contemporary status with Lee was that we both teased the heck out of the googly eyed hate-siters. Lee often recalled that when he heard on the radio that a paper boy had allegedly used his paper run as an alibi for a murder he thought it was an enormous joke. Likewise he considered that Robin 'lifting his beanie' so that David might shoot him without damaging the hat was equally absurd. Obviously investigating police didn't, then again they thought incest was irrelevant to the inquiry as was investigating Robin as a suspect. Likewise with the same short-sightedness of the police, along with an enormous blood lust the hate-siters,  they clearly thought it was perfectly reasonable for Robin to have co-operated in his own death, or that David when despatching him to the here-after was mindful not to get a hole in Robin's hat. Very considerate - if you're enough of a moron to believe it.

I never accepted anything that Lee Hinkleman or any one else said about the Bain case without having a good think about. This was particularly so because when the hate-siters saw that I was an un-decided in the beginning, and therefore might join their hate-campaign, they told me 'facts' which later proved to be lies. Common sense presumes that somebody with facts isn't a liar, has researched or has good proof of what they say. But I have to repeat that Robin raising his beanie to co-operate in this way didn't move me an inch toward thinking his death wasn't suicide. As well I realised that the paper run alibi concept was totally flawed. No one goes on a paper run, delivering papers in all the paper boxes as required but indulges in doing things he wouldn't normally do on the round to bring attention to himself - when the papers in the box were absolute proof that they had been delivered. I've written about this before, it's a very common aspect of Miscarriages of Justice, police offer an explanation that makes no sense, David seeking to be seen on his paper round made no sense and showed how either thick the investigating police were or how gullible they thought the public of New Zealand are.

The same applies to the beanie hat, it's inconceivable that any legitimate inquiry into Robin's alleged murder could hold water with the fact that he had to have co-operated in his own death. The hat simply proves his suicide and all the surrounding evidence supports that. Looking also at the convenience factor, we need to remember that Laniet was also co-operating in her own murder and the escape from punishment of her killer because she was giving David  an alibi (her allegations of incest - causing suspicion upon Robin) years before her own death. So again we see how much the police expected a gullible public to swallow.

Thinking about writing this I recalled observation in Joe Karam's 2012 book Trial by Ambush, where is disclosed that Dr Dempster's (the man whose first reaction  as the pathologist for police was that Robin's death was suicide) boss, Dr Dwynne, was troubled for years that the young man, David Bain, had been able to commit the perfect murder that so readily implicated his father by the appearance of the suicide being perfectly matched to the evidence. Of course now we know why he was so troubled, and Dempster too who later put his concerns in writing. Those were only some of the aspects of the case that were troubling, all of which were overlooked by police when charging David and fighting him tooth and nail for over a decade for his rightful freedom.

The sea chest is replete with proof of David's innocence and with the facts that he should never have been charged, showing that he had his words twisted by bent cops and rotten hate-siters, proving he should never have been asked to answer questions he couldn't possibly know the answers and leave them hanging over his head as though proving guilt. On the other hand the war chest of the police, Crown and hate-siters echoes from emptiness - even the writing of the major media campaigner against  David, van Beynan, has no words left to grab headlines in order that his reputation might be recovered or that some last arrows of hate might fall in the final pages of the persecution of David Bain.

Leaving this for now, I'm reminded of how odd life can be, how fate can be created by ignorance and hate, how but lone voices such as Lee Hinkleman who scoffed at the paper run alibi and the lifted beanie, others who supported David because they knew him and loved him can't be suppressed under all the weight of evil. I'll tip my hat to that.