Milton Weir: Police speak?

There's no doubt that ex Detective Sergeant Milton Weir was a fiercely loyal police officer before being effectively shoved out the door by police. The study between he and controversial evidence in the Bain case is unique in that in terms of such evidence it is probably he that features the most. The lens being the foremost issue, the 'lost' electronic diary another, along with Mr Sanderson's request to have his statement to be read to the Court corrected, being others.

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.

 

While on the subject of Bill Wright misleading the jury at the first trial,  Weir  at the retrial had an interesting euphemism  for bullshitting  to a jury. See if you can find it in the following exchange between Weir & Mr Reed….

 

 

Q.          All right well that’s a movement on from before, let's investigate that.  So now you are admitting that Mr Sanderson was right when he asked for his evidence to be changed?

 

A.           No I'm not, when I showed Mr Sanderson the glasses that Margaret Bain was wearing, that information was given to the Crown and the Crown had a stance in relation to it.

Q.          Mr Sanderson says that he came to you and asked for his evidence to be changed and you agreed you’d take it up and do something about it, that’s his evidence in my words.

A.           Right.

Q.          You’ve said that you had no present recollection of that yesterday?

A.           And that is the case.

Q.          Now are you saying that you do have some recollection that he might have said that, is that what you're saying?

A.           No I'm not.  What I'm saying –

Q.          Well you were saying  that you took it up with –

A.           – what I'm saying was, in relation to when he was shown the glasses that Margaret Bain was wearing in the photograph, 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.

Q.          David Bain at that trial was asked questions as to the ownership of the glasses.

A.           I believe so yes.

A.           objection:  MR RAFTERY

 

 

Did you see it? Yes thought so, it’s hard to miss isn’t it?  Bill Wright “HAD A STANCE”

Now  when I went  through school I thought  stance  was a particular position one took when standing, you know, like Robin did when he shot himself.Or maybe it could mean taking a particular line of argument.

However I had  absolutely no idea it could also mean withholding vital  evidence from a jury  causing a miscarriage of justice.

So there you have it-a useful new euphemism thanks to Weir.Next time I  screw up , I can  just say … “ yes but I had a stance on it, end of story ” or  “hey it’s not my fault , it’s just that I had a stance on it”  & of course if the twisted sisters hook up with the silly old men I sure they will  put on some of Kents nice music &  “stance”   the night away.

Isn’t that just wonderful?