David Bain: the dusty glasses.

The dusty glasses. The Bain prosecution if filled with irrelevancies. Among the many are the old pair of glasses belonging to Margaret Bain found in the house after the murders. Totally insignificant as to proving any guilt against David, they do however show the very real construction of the Miscarriage of Justice perpetuated by the Crown against David Bain and how it continues.

It's an irresistible conclusion that the 'glasses' themselves point to have not being used by the killer the morning that 4 members of the Bain family were slain. I say this because the glasses were misused by the Crown in an effort to tie David to the killing of his brother Stephen, if of course he had killed Stephen he was guilty of the murders also of his 2 sisters, and mother. Without giving an exhausting history of the glasses the basics are that after careful searches by 2 detectives in Stephen's room they were not found. Later, the Detective in charge of exhibits, claims to have found the lens in the room when 'searching' after hours - obviously doing a job that he was not tasked with. This was ex detective Milton Weir, a most controversial witness in the Bain trial who admitted misleading the Jury.

Years later it would be Joe Karam who, when looking through scene photos who was able to say the lens was not in the position in those photos were Weir claimed to have found it. Eventually, Karam dismantled the entire framing of David Bain having made this discovery. It would soon become apparent to Karam that Weir had not only claimed to have made the discovery that tied David to the killings but that had decided to hide the fact that lens were not from David's glasses at all, but rather from an old pair of his mothers. It was on this basis David Bain faced his first trial and was found guilty. There had even been a question from the Jury concerning the ownership of the glasses and it was repeated to them that the glasses belonged to David, this despite the ophthalmologist having realised his mistake in saying that the lens was Margaret's rather than David's - something the Jury were never told. For what ever reason The Crown continued on, happy to allow the Jury to think the critical evidence was that a lens from 'David's' glasses were found in Stephens room thus allowing the Crown to say that were dislodged in the bloody fight that had taken place during Stephen's murder.

Weir has said that he was hounded out of the police by other police who called him a planter. I'm not sure if he was looking for sympathy but even if he had nothing to do with the lens arriving in Stephen's room, it was he who found them after hours, doing a job which was not his and making a discovery that would 'stitch' David into a scene that misled the 1st Jury and threw David's credibility into doubt when he said, truthfully to the Jury, that the glasses were not his. Weir, at least was happy to see that happen, at the same time breaking his undertaking to the ophthalmologist to correct the record that the lens was not from David's glasses but rather from an old pair of Margaret's.

With that setback to the Crown case of Karam discoveries about the glasses they persevered to resurrect the non existence evidence against David with a claim by one of David's aunts that David told her had been wearing them, and another by a detective saying, that he hadn't wanted to be criticised for handling an exhibit, so withheld evidence in which he had claimed that David had asked the detective to pass 'his' glasses to him - meaning the broken glasses of his mother said to have been in his room the morning of the killings. In a case where everything had been done to place the lens and therefore the glasses in Stephen's room, the detective, Anderson, had kept quite about David asking for 'his' glasses. A lot of people were keeping 'quiet' about the glasses, Weir as to whom they belonged to and Anderson about allegedly putting them in the hands of David Bain who the Crown were desperate to claim had been wearing them. None of it washes, other than to indicate the 'lens' in the Bain case is like the 'bullet casing' in the Thomas case.

But lets look further into the lens. The opthamologist on examining the lens was able to say it was dusty. The Crown of course, said the room was dusty when it was found. The room being dusty unfortunately is of no moment because for the lens to have had any significance it has to be shown to have been used in the murders, that was the whole issue of the lens, the importance of them to their failed case. What the Crown had was the history of misleading the 1st Jury as to whom the lens belonged, the discovery of that, before more bites at the cherry by Anderson and David's aunt - belated evidence that made no sense. Well, not enough sense to show why David would wear glasses that were of a different prescription to his own, 'ask' a detective to pass them to him the morning of murders when they were broken and with, according to the Crown's case, a lens missing. Stupid logic really as is mostly the case when mice and men conspire to defeat the truth.

What is the truth about those glasses? All parties now agree they were Margaret's. The Crown have no convincing explanation of David wearing them or how they got in Stephen's room in such a fashion that they were not found by police officers tasked with searching for them, but rather by the officer in charge of exhibits who was quite happy to ensure that the 1st Jury never knew that they were not David's glasses. The truth is that glasses were broken and of no use to anybody, unwearable in fact. If they had been worn by a killer with sight issues, unless David had the same optical problems of his mother they were of no use to him, in fact presented greater sight difficulties that had he not been wearing them.

All this talk about the lens and their 'use' in the murders, but what does science and common sense tell us apart from the fantastic tale of how the lens appeared in a place that had already been searched. Science tells us that there is no forensic link between the 'lens' and the killings. Science tells us that no blood spatter which reached high up the walls in Stephens room found it's way onto the lens either when Stephen was killed or later when it apparently had fallen to the floor. It was however, dust covered and therefore consistent with not having been used even in a 'dusty' room. So as to the frames, when Anderson the detective who didn't want to 'criticised' for 'handling'  the broken glasses frame with the missing lens, and who obviously thinks it is quite consistent that a person would ask for 'his' glasses that actually belonged to someone else and which were broken - yeah right on that, he gave evidence that is helpful long term to David's innocence. He helped prove the efforts to mislead the Courts about the glasses, either hiding the truth about ownership, or the alleged handling of the glasses post the murders of 4 of David's family. But what he couldn't explain and neither could the Crown is how David Bain, having allegedly worn gloves that were soaked through with blood, managed to handle the glasses without any of that blood being trapped upon them, or indeed upon the dusty lens.

So a man whose hands must have been soaked in blood according to the Crown was able to handle glasses, that is adjust them, take them off, place them on a chair without the most tiniest amount of blood transfer. In short it didn't happen. Neither the lens, the glasses, the bloody gloves, have a single ounce of forensic proof of being handled that morning by David, only claims by police and an aunt, in 2 of those cases emerging 'later' when it could be said the Crown case needed a major credibility boost but only got used band aids.

Thinking about the lens and the Crown case in particular I have to wonder how much longer the Crown will persist with such a dishonest case against David Bain. Other failed cases have shown the Crown's tendency to carry on regardless for decades denying fault as has happened in the Thomas case, as happened with Pora until recently, and as it looks to have continued with Lundy, Watson and Hall. The difference in the case of David Bain is the credibility the Crown sought to wrongfully destroy over the ownership and 'finding' of the glasses has now become its own credibility. There is no sustainable forensic proof that the lens was linked to the murders in the Bain case but there is substantial proof of the Crown manufacturing and hiding evidence relating to the lens and the glasses which fits in with a bigger picture of how David Bain was framed. It wasn't accidental it was deliberate as the glasses and much more evidence now shows.

The further difference is that there is now almost totally conclusive proof that Robin suicided. Not just by the Crown in conceding that he turned on the computer on which was found a suicide note, but from a international examination of all the evidence relevant to whether or not Robin did take his own life, concluding a probability of around 98% that he did. That peer reviewed study probably only didn't score at 100% because of the possibility to reach such a score could have required not only the forensic proof pointing toward suicide but perhaps also a witness or witnesses. The Crown should see the wisdom in taking the opportunity to accept the new evidence proving David's innocence, taking advantage by saying that it was not known or understood at the time. While not satisfying all the misgivings the Crown and his agents will have generated for the public, it will at least show that the Crown has the ability to admit it was wrong in this case when science finally found the way matched by common sense.

It is the Crown that wore 'dusty glasses' in the Bain case and it is the Crown that should now take them off, accept the truth, accept that their predecessors sought to manipulate the truth, accept that a ragtag bunch of misfits have continued to deteriorate the Crown's status in the Bain case further with lies and by trying to prop up that which has already fallen down to irrelevancy - and learn, as the public has seen that hiding and planting evidence in modern times is hazardous. Time has moved on, people are more critical of what the will believe, they want to understand things and see how they stand in isolation or in the 'continuity' of a narrative. The Crown needs to accept that anybody will wonder why a person would ask for broken glasses, with a bent frame and no lens, and won't accept any old dusty explanation.