First of all the following in blue from a correspondent that highlights the cross examination of Weir in respect to the evidence of Sanderson which got buried and which featured as a supporting beam in the Miscarriage of Justice perpetuated against David Bain.
When you read it there is to me a subtext of language coming across where in fact I think Weir is saying that the evidence wasn't put before the Jury because of a 'stance' of the Crown. The correspondent suggests, rightly that the 'stance' was made by Weir - certainly in the cross examination but I believe it came from some where else. Something which was an instruction to Milton Weir (MW.) I say that because he wasn't in charge. I further say it because the revelation that the glasses were not Davids threw strong doubt on the entire case against David. In fact the Jury asked a question about the glasses in the first trial and we can assume Detective Sergeant Doyle, Weir and others sat back despite knowing that Mr Sanderson had already said that the glasses were not David's but in fact his mothers, and they didn't want the Jury to know that.
The 'stance' to which MW refers and which also the correspondent draws attention to is in fact much larger than the glasses. The stance in my opinion is the mindset, and determination to frame David - the glasses being only one aspect of that. All these aspects of the 'stance' fitted into the MOJ. See here '
that information was passed on to the Crown and the Crown had a stance in relation to the glasses and that was their stance.
Q. Well the stance, if that is the case, must have been taken by the Crown prosecutor Mr Wright?
A. Correct.'Weir effectively putting the blame at the feet of the Crown Prosecutor. Of course that was after the prosecution began. We've read earlier however of the 'stance' taken by DS Doyle. He didn't investigate the allegations of incest against Robin Bain and therefore the likely motive in this tragedy because 'he had murder to solve.' Reflect also on the fact that we've seen no record of Doyle or Robinson being in anyway alarmed when MW 'finds' the lens 'after hours' and in a room already searched by those that were tasked with the job. Not a single word on that, why? Because the 'lens' fitted in with the stance, and the placement of the lens and evidence that it was from the glasses of David (and not his mother's) also fitted with the stance.
Consider also the samples of blood smears taken from Robin's palms but not tested, that also fitted with the stance as did the 'disappearance' of Laniet's electronic diary which was last said to be in the hands of MW and which may have contained contacts of Laniets - some of who might have been police members. On that aspect alone we might also see keeping Dr Dempster out of the house, on the morning of the murders, may have been because of concern by Doyle, Robinson or others about what may have been found rather than preserving the scene. So the stance may have begun even on the morning of the murders. It could have started innocently with the report that the 111 operator or supervisor thought the call may have been a hoax, whatever the reason a 'stance' prevailed long before MW made the admission in 2009.
Someone has commented to me that Detective Inspector Robinson was very much 'hands off.' In this inquiry and I wonder, if like Doyle, Weir and others he was ensuring that the investigation operated according to the 'stance' set by himself or someone higher in the police hierarchy. As I've said before MW wasn't out working as a rogue cop on this case, he was fully supported - that is why nobody questioned his discovery of the lens, the loss of the diary, or the hidden evidence. Also the reasons why he didn't face internal pressure over the 'hidden' lens evidence, because he was told to hide it. In this case he is in fact saying Bill Wright knew of it but it was against the framework of the case.
News footage showed us that while it was said that Dempster was kept outside to ensure that exhibits were safe guarded the reality was that exhibits were thrown in blankets and carted out from the house by officers wearing unprotected shoes. The reality is also that no other investigator had the experience of Dr Dempster and many entering the house that morning before him had no experience at all. I think that tells us enough of when the 'stance' was begun despite seeing others that carried it on rightly criticised, the real criticism and the criminal intent began at the top somewhere. Maybe Robinson or Doyle should tell the public now.