Answering anonymous....

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Those glasses that nobody (apart from a few hate-s...":

Nos you say above "" the blood of a family member on Robin's right shoe"" can you tell us which family members blood was on Robins shoe and if you could supply a link to where you obtained this damning evidence thanks. 


I have obviously no idea who anonymous is, but there have been others who have asked the same question. Each time I point to the evidence of Manlove below 3392-2.

A.           This is a bloodstain of airborne origin and again it's tending slightly towards that exclamation mark pattern that I described earlier, so you will see by its slightly smaller leading edge, if you like, that it is travelling in that particular direction.  Now to orientate it on the shoe itself from exhibit L1 if I may.

Q.          Yes that would be helpful.

A.           The stain is travelling from what we call the inner aspect of the shoe, which is the side of the shoe that touches the other when you place your feet together, towards the outer aspect, slightly at an angle.

Q.          So if you can just locate it for us on that shoe, just show us where it is, yes.  And the direction is going from the middle of the shoe to the outer edge, to the right, is that correct?

A.           That’s correct, yes.

Q.          Can I just take you back to your reference to airborne, can you just describe what you mean by this mark being airborne?

A.           Well the mark itself isn't airborne, it's indica – the bloodspot that is on the item is characteristic of a drop of blood that has travelled through the air and impacted the item, it leaves a characteristic stain that indicates it has originated from the air.  The blood to begin travelling in an airborne manner, a force needs to be applied to it in the first place as blood pretty much likes to stay as it is, unless it is disturbed.

Q.          So from your examination of this, was it your conclusion this was from an airborne position, that it dropped onto the shoe, is that what I am understanding?

A.           That’s my conclusion, yes.

Q.          Just in relation to scene A, and if I can take you back to what we saw in scene A, perhaps if we could go to photograph A5.  What can you say about the stains that you have observed on the shoes being consistent with the position of Robin Bain, namely whether before the shot or at the time of the shot, whether he was kneeling, sitting, standing, what can you say?

A.           If these stains originated at the time of the shot then the shoe would not have been occluded from the source of the blood.  By kneeling you would tend to occlude the upper surface of a shoe, and therefore these spots couldn’t have originated as they did at the time of the shot.

The evidence on this is more extensive but the final sentence is my source, supported by the description in lines 1, 2, and 10 in particular. Before I look at that, there was no identification of dna, but in evidence elsewhere it was determined as blood all of which is probably too extensive to place here. So it isn't proven on the face of it to be a family members blood, but to a high test in must be for the following reasons.

1/ It's description of having been air borne and therefore having 'changed shape' from pressure applied to it. Apart from pressure from head wound shots I don't know of any other pressure that would have changed the shape of air borne blood that morning, so it must have come from someone shot that morning.

2/ It didn't come from Robin's own wound, Manlove contends that in the final sentence having first built the reason for this as him having already determined the direction of the blood as from the inner to the outer aspect of the shoe.

3/ Robin's wound was to his left temple, spatter and air borne blood came from the wound as the exit point which was also the entry point. The absolute maximum angle downward from that wound could have only been vertical (under extreme difficult and probably 20 to 30 degrees less from 90 degrees favouring to the left, or across the floor could only possibly have been from right to left in a half arc toward that direction.

4/ Manlove in the evidence above was discounting a 'crude drawing' proposal produced by the Crown to show how Robin 'might' have been kneeling if shot by another party. In effect he was able to scientifically disprove the Crown's theory on how Robin might have been shot by another, he did this with the spatter and air borne blood patterns. The spatter was also on the curtain to the alcove on Robin's left and had no 'shielded' area where a gunman would have shielded part of the spatter range by his own body - just in the way of a person standing in front of the wall and being hosed by water will shield part of the wall behind them because of their body mass coming between the wall and the water spray.

5/ Most who have followed the trial or read 'Trial by Ambush' will know that the Crown virtually abandoned the lounge scene after 14 years of saying it held the answer to Robin's murder, when in fact it had held the proof of Robin's suicide. The blood from his wound can't have moved left to right from his left temple, it is an impossibility.

In terms of 4 others killed that morning, all suffering head wounds where blood was exited and had it's 'shape changed' changed under pressure, it means that blood on Robin's shoe can only from one of the victims that morning, arriving there under pressure, if there was another source I challenge anybody to prove it.

Robin's blood and the blood on his shoe told investigators everything they needed to know. Pity they weren't listening.

First this to confirm the type of spatter found on Robin's shoe travelling in the wrong direction to have been from his own wound. The forensic evidence against Robin Bain is overwhelming.

Low Velocity - This type of spatter is usually caused by an impact to the blood source at a rate of 5 feet per second and is usually about 4 millimeters in diameter.

Medium Velocity - This type of spatter is usually caused by an impact to the blood source at a rate of 5-25 feet per second. Stains caused by this type of force are usually 1-3 millimeters in diameter, but may be larger or smaller.

High Velocity - This type of spatter is usually caused by an impact to the blood source in excess of 100 feet per second and is usually less than 1 millimeter in diameter, although it can be larger or smaller.

When blood hits a surface at an angle other than 90 degrees, the direction of it's path will be able to be viewed, interpreted and measured, which allows investigators to reconstruct what and how something occurred.
Although the picture to the left is is computer generated and not very realistic in appearance, it was made to look the way it is to exemplify how the direction of the path of blood can be indicated by "tail" of the stain. In this example, the blood traveled from the lower left to upper right. If an investigator was attempting to determine where the source of the blood was when the stain was made, an equation can be used, which will give an accurate location.

Now this to explain what spatter can reveal about a crime/suicide scene.


High-velocity spatters are usually caused by gunshot wounds, although they can be caused by other weapons if the assailant exerts an extreme amount of force. They travel more than 100 feet per second and usually look like a fine spray of tiny droplets, less than one millimeter in diameter. Bullet wounds are unique because they can have both back and front spatters, or just back spatters. This depends on whether the bullet stopped after entering the victim's body or traveled through it. In most cases, the back spatter is much smaller than the front spatter because the spatter travels in the direction of the bullet.


The Way of the Gun

If a gunshot occured at close range, the victim might have stippling, or burns on his skin from gunpowder. Shots fired at very close range can also cause internal muzzle staining. When this happens, the victim's blood is sucked back into the gun's muzzle by the cooling of the explosive gases that are released when a short is fired. Testing the gun's muzzle for blood can provide an additional clue to solve a case.
Analysts always look for voids, or empty places in the spatters that indicate that something (or someone) caught the spatter instead of the surrounding surfaces. In the case of a high-density spatter, this may mean that the assailant got some of the victim's blood on himself or herself. Sometimes, a blood spatter can look like it was high velocity when it was actually a medium- or low-velocity spatter. Cast-off droplets can fall from larger drops of blood. A savvy analyst looks for larger drops of blood among the many tiny drops to see if they are castoffs. These types of droplets are also found often on places like ceilings when the rest of the spatters are concentrated elsewhere.

Blood spatters can also overlap each other, which can show which gunshot or stab wound took place first.


Size and the force of impact are only two aspects of determining information about blood spatters. Next, we'll look at the shapes of spatters and how analysts use strings, trigonometric functions and computer programs to map out a blood-spattered crime scene.

I've abridged the above because it makes the necessary points about the size of spatter and how that is indicative of velocity. The spatter on Robin's shoes was high velocity by that description which was echoed by defence evidence. That evidence also attested to the direction of the spatter indicating that the spatter on Robin's shoe came from one of his victims because his wound was left temple while the spatter found on the shoe was going left to right, that's affirmative - left to right.

The second quote above repeats in some detail the first, or confirms the common knowledge of what spatter is. However, the second goes onto speak about shielding, ie areas shielded from blood spatter. We know there was no indicative shielded that allowed a gun man to be in the room with Robin, we also clearly know the hard contact necessary for the vacuum effect - there is more on that in the trial transcript with clearly defines the type of contact wound Robin had by not only the characteristics of the wound but also the vacuum effect of drawing spatter inside the rifle.

Interestingly, the second quote moves onto mention 'look at the shapes of spatters and how analysts use strings, trigonometric functions and computer programs to map out a blood-spattered crime scene.' This analysis opportunity was available to the Bain Police team, if not locally then certainly internationally, we all know now they didn't take that opportunity and that if they had David would have been exculpated as a suspect. This is the unnecessary haste that I've written about earlier, the Police should have exhausted the forensic evidence of the lounge at least, but they had already charged David before they had even the basic results. Unfortunately, they never turned back, no one resisted the haste of 'gut feelings' or 'suspicion' and looked quietly at the evidence to reconstruct Robin's obvious suicide, instead obvious things were given sinister meaning - the magazine on it's edge, the body close to the rifle, all guess work and no science, then all effort to cover the guess work with language such as 'paper run alibi' even to the point that the innocence of David Bain admitting the rifle was his and that no one else had access to it became 'proof' and things that he said that did not fit were 'lies.'

Right now, somebody in NZ or overseas could be using a computer programme to reconstruct Robin's death, that was the job of the NZ Police, but at some point the truth became something those particular Dunedin officers didn't want to know.

More of the scientific evidence against Robin.

Pg 3392 -93

A. The stain is travelling from what we call the inner aspect of the shoe, which is the side of the shoe that touches the other when you place your feet together, towards the outer aspect, slightly at an angle.
Q. So if you can just locate it for us on that shoe, just show us where it is, yes. And the direction is going from the middle of the shoe to the outer edge, to the right, is that correct?
A. That’s correct, yes.

So the airborne blood was travelling in the wrong direction to have come from Robin's left temple, proving the spray travelling from left to right on Robin's right shoe came from one of his victims.

No wonder Stockdale and Taylor so vehemently denied there was any blood on Robin's shoe, Stockdale going to the extreme of saying Joe Karam lied about it on the Laws show though he wouldn't take the bet here when challenged. Just as he and Ralph wouldn't take the bet about extensive blood being found inside the barrel. Of course it is the hangbainers that lie, proven so time and again, just as the blood travelling in the wrong direction across Robin's right foot proves he was the killer. Had all this evidence been carefully gathered and scrutinised, without haste, David Bain would never have been charged. There was no need for haste, neither David or Robin were going anywhere, but in that unwarranted haste and inability to turn back when it became apparent the evidence didn't support the Crown case a miscarriage of justice occurred from which many, with a vested interest, lacked the courage to admit or deal with. But MOJs don't go away until remedied. And it will always remain unacceptable that the police didn't investigate the incest allegations with full vigour from the day it came to their attention or turn their minds to the easily solved scientific question of how Robin's blood found its way into the barrel - he shot himself with a hard contact of the silencer, slightly raised on one edge against his left temple.