Robin's suicide note, a pattern of deceit?

Anybody familiar with the Bain case knows something about the suicide note, particularly the words 'deserved to stay,' giving rise to endless arguments from the twisted sisters with the claim that Robin wouldn't have used the word 'deserved' but rather 'deserves' - tense apparently being all important. Personally the words on the suicide note means little to me because it doesn't overcome evidence against Robin in the lounge scene, whether it was either word doesn't exonerate Robin from all the evidence still emerging about him. But was the word even used?...

Cox, initial statement to the police: The message on the computer read "Sorry you are the only one who deserves to stay”.

Cox, evidence in chief first trial:  It showed a message on the screen of the computer. That read: SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.

Kevin Wayne Anderson, Evidence in chief, first trial: I then entered the alcove itself, I looked through the gap in the curtains and I could see a message that was recorded on the computer and it was displayed on the screen. The message read: SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.

Milton Weir, evidence in chief, first trial: During the examination of Robin Bain, as to the alcove shown in room A on the southern side, the pathologist Mr Dempster actually looked into the alcove first; as a result of what he said I looked in there and noticed a message on the computer. I have recorded in my notebook SORRY, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO DESERVED TO STAY.

Dempster, evidence in chief, first trial: I recollect the message on the screen. That ws the message "sorry you are the only who deserves to stay”

We can see from above that Cox gives two versions, the initial one using the word 'deserves' and the second after he was prevailed upon or 'corrected?' it becomes 'deserved.'

The old partnership Weir and Anderson unanimous on the word 'deserved' throughout. Of course Weir admitted misleading the first Jury and Anderson gave evidence in the second trial, but not the first, that David had asked for 'his' glasses to be passed to him on the morning of the tragedy. So 15 years for that to  come out, right smack on cue when the Crown were most desperate to tie Margaret Bain's old glasses to the killings. This despite there being no evidence that they were used in anyway that morning, in fact when they were said to be mysteriously found by Weir, after hours, in a room that had already been thoroughly searched by officers assigned to the job - they were dust covered. Interestingly enough the Crown contended the glasses had been used by David on a killing spree and were broken when Steven 'fought back.' The Crown said that the glasses corresponded to 'injuries' found on David's face which only became visible after he had collapsed beside his bed and the wall later in the morning, except that the 'injuries' were to the opposite side of David's face than that from which the lens had been dislodged.

Anderson told the second Jury he had never raised the evidence before (David asking for 'his' glasses) because he didn't want to be 'criticised' for moving evidence that morning when he was assigned to 'watch' David. So he clearly omitted the 'fact,' and his duty, according to his own account, despite that it could be argued that it was critical to the Crown's case and only emerged at time when the Crown case was in terminal collapse. But the glasses 'controversy' doesn't finished there because Weir had been told the true ownership of the glasses before the first trial. 'Some how' that evidence got buried and the result was damaging to David's credibility because he was in conflict with the entered 'by consent' evidence of Sanderson whose first unaltered statement was that they were David's glasses. Later he was to discover that he was mistaken and that the glasses were in fact an on old pair of Margaret's. He told Weir of this and naively anticipated that his evidence would be altered as Weir confirmed. Clearly, Sanderson didn't know then 'evidence' couldn't be simply altered he had to re-sworn. Sanderson would have had no reason not to believe Weir on that day, but I'm fairly positive he would never take his word again at anything more than face value.

Some readers will know that the 'evidence' of the ownership of the glasses was among the considerations of the Privy Council when they determined that David's first trial was an Actual Miscarriage Of Justice. So when Anderson 'admitted' handling the glasses on the morning of the killings but keeping quiet about it for over a decade it continued on as being one of the more controversial issues of the handling and gathering of evidence in the Bain case. So much so that I can't believe the evidence of Anderson about handing the glasses to David, not just because of the length of time it took him to 'admit' what he claimed happened, not only because of the mystery finding of the lens in Steven's room after hours, and by an officer not tasked with the job, but because, most firmly at the very least, that the glasses were broken and had no lens at all in them. So to take Anderson seriously David was not only asking for and claiming ownership of glasses but he was asking for a pair that had no lens at all in them and could have only been a prop in a Marx Brother's movie and not in a Crown case for murder.

Lastly above, we have the account of Dr Dempster. He was the Crown Pathologist that urged the Crown before the retrial to consider if they should go ahead, by then he was familiar with the PC Judgement and also had experience of a body gurgling after death. Of course he appeared to be on the outer after that, with the Crown even finding other pathologists to contradict Dempster's evidence as to the close/contact shot in a bizarre exhibition of demonstrating the savaging of their own case. Some will know that those two pathologists put pressure on Dempster to 'review' his evidence. So for my money when Dempster says the word was 'deserves' I'd go for it. As for Weir and Anderson, partners in opportunistic silence, from which part of a MOJ is formed, thumbs down to their 'recollections.'

Just more to digest for those that don't think that there wasn't and isn't a concerted effort to continue to persecute David Bain, lies at every turn - even now, and joined in by a Minister of Justice.