Those glasses that nobody (apart from a few hate-site dreamers) saw David wearing

Sanderson's evidence X ex p 2168 - 2169 -

Q. Now regarding eyesight and things, I myself wear split glasses as many people do –
A. Bifocals.
Q. Bifocals are they, right. I think I need your help to adjust mine, but –
A. See me later.
Q. You can see how they fall down, can’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. You’ve explained about driving cars and things with David’s eyesight?
A. Correct.
Q. And of course he like me and others, many of us are meant to wear our glasses when we’re driving correct?
A. Well legally of course and often a licence is endorsed to that effect.
Q. That’s right, but we know of course that a lot of people do cheat and drive without them don’t we?
A. We do.
Q. And of course there will be evidence given that David was seen or was driving his car without glasses even on the day before these murders, it’s quite possible to drive even though you shouldn’t?
A. Well yes I mean, what do you want me to say. It is possible but it’s not a good idea.
Q. Of course it’s not a good idea no, it’s not a good idea when I do it as well but some of us break the law.
A. No, I don’t think you’re quite in the same league as David, with respect.
Q. But in any event also there is evidence on the days before that he was carrying out his normal duties without wearing glasses at all?
A. If you refer to his paper round, I believe that’s the case yes.
Q. But in respect of going to the choir and things like that, again he’s been seen without glasses?
A. Right.
Q. That doesn’t surprise you?
A. Well I – I’m not aware of what would take place at a choir, if he had to for instance see the notes on the screen he would have great difficulty. If he had the notes in front of him, that wouldn’t cause him any trouble at all. I should say the words as well as the notes.

This, like the extensive blood in the barrel, the blood of a family member on Robin's right shoe, that David had no facial bruises when the police arrived, is evidence the hate-sites don't want the public to know about. Instead, they want to attack the Jury who heard all the evidence and say that blood in the barrel is a myth, the strip search of David a myth, and the lack of intimate forensic tests on Robin's body is also a myth. Then they want to say that daddy wasn't a fiddler and to prove so they attack his daughters and his wife. They want you to believe that a badly wounded, and no doubt terrified Stephen put up a 'hell of a fight' against the man and whose blood was most likely that spatter found on the shoe of Robin Bain, the mask wearing, gloved killer, common in familicide where the killer wants to 'exit' his identity in his madness and watch an 'apparent' stranger slay his 'bad' family. To remember the psychologist who gave evidence to say that he felt that Robin was 'like a shell, as if the power had been sucked out of him.'