At the moment others are looking into any possible comparisons of the nicks in the white opera gloves and the injuries to Robin's hands, also the stain patterns compared to where Robin had blood wash on his hands. Perhaps for the first time, Robin's hands, as they always should have been, are the focus. The following are two photos taken from the show of the 'super sleuth' Bryan Bruce, which unfortunately reveal why he doesn't get a tin badge or even a plastic one.
Excuse the apparent horridness of these photos and others to do with the case which have been put on this blog. However, in as much as the photos are in the public forum now, they never would have been if Mark Lodge, had not only written down in his note book about the blood smears on Robin's palms, but that Peter Robinson, had scratched his head on receipt of the information realising the significance of that blood, and done what he needed to do anyway, investigate Robin's death in isolation. Remembering that puzzled look that Robinson had on his face during his cross examination at the retrial? He may have been considering, as any investigator in the world worth their salt would have done, that a 'murder' victim, shot by stealth, doesn't have blood smears on their palms. To relieve himself of any further confusion, he may inquired in all detail about injuries to Robin's hands, saving the country millions of dollars and David unbearable horror.
One has to be concerned about Robinson, ultimately he is responsible for the investigation. Did it for example never concern him that in the 2nd photo below, where there is no circle drawn around the body of Robin, that there is no magazine in sight! Then looking at the first photo and the entry wound above Robin's eye (and not in his temple - thanks Lee) why didn't Robinson see the very obvious fact that there was no link (blood trial) from that wound to Robin's right cheek where, in other photos, is seen a trace flow across the cheek. Two things on that, the blood flow from the wound is all upward, giving weight to the argument of the blood nose. Secondly if blood from the wound is going upwards, obviously by gravity, how can there be other blood reversing the laws of gravity be present, when it is not from the same wound.
Nobody should be mistaken for a second that if David Bain was found to have injuries to his hands, it would have been said they were consistent with his having been in a fight with Stephen. Similarly, had he had blood wash on his hands, red material under his nails it would have been claimed as proof of murder. Yet in the Bain case the 'suspect' with both blood on his hands and several injuries to them is 'considered' a victim. Contemplate also that if he'd had what was possibly gunshot residue seen on his thumb that 'just happened' to match the ridges of a magazine used in the killings, or a round impression of the same diameter of the hole in the side of magazine, along with an impression consistent with the base of the magazine as would be made by pushing it home into the rifle. All of these things would have been proof of murder, as would the finding of his fresh blood on a towel in the laundry, or indications of blood having been coming from his nose that morning. All of it, evidence against David, yet because this evidence was found to be connected to Robin in every sense - it means he was a victim. A big logic failure there. Are we to assume the police are so incompetent that they are not only unable to see the wood from the trees, but indeed be unable to even see the trees or the forest. There is something ticking in the Bain case and more evidence will continue to emerge against Robin, to the point that the 'mountain' of evidence once said to show David's guilt will not only have completely disappeared but be revealed to have left a mountain of evidence against the man who took the lives of his wife and children.
Footnote; I shall add a picture of the right side of Robin's face taken in the lounge later.
"The court’s third key point is that the spare magazine was found standing upright on its narrow edge almost touching Robin’s outstretched right hand, a position in which it was unlikely to have fallen accidentally." That 'third key point' appears to have been nullified by your 2nd photograph. Many sisters also are spellbound by the standing 10 shot magazine. But with the standing magazine and all of the other 'circumstances', the Sisters memorized and repeated circumstantial stories, without having seen the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteSomeone told them to believe, they believed, and then just kept repeating their twisted beliefs.
Regarding the latest revelations from the Police. It seems the vital point that is being overlooked is this: the marks on Robin's thumb are clearly
ReplyDeleteapparent to even a casual observer. Whether you think they are gunshot residue or scratches is open to debate. What is important is that
Pathologist Dempster never observed any cuts/scratches/marks when
the autopsy was performed. So what happened to the marks between the time of death and autopsy? More importantly, why wasn't Dempster involved in this investigation?
What a difference a reporter makes. Journalist Mike White, who has covered the Lundy case for magazine North & South, says the Privy Council's decision will "shock a lot of people", but the new evidence makes a retrial the right thing to do.
ReplyDelete"The more I looked at it, the more you realise there were just so many grounds that were questionable, so many things that really didn't stack up and were illogical in the Crown case," he said on Firstline this morning.
But then to be fair to van Beynen White hasn't got a brother in police filling him up with shit.