Robin Bain: If the sock print fits.

For years the Crown held what they claimed was an ace card in the false prosecution of David Bain  that he had killed his entire family: bloody footprints throughout the murder scene which were said to be David's but which were ultimately proven to belong to his father Robin. The 'ace' proved to be a major reason for the 'house of cards' Crown case which collapsed against David at his retrial. Suddenly, what had been described as 'full prints' at the murder scene in the first trial needed to be made bigger at the retrial because they plainly were not David's. Additionally, the very basic fact that a 'walking' print was larger (as opposed to smaller) than a stationary print completely removed the possibility of any of the prints being found in the scene belonging to anyone but Robin.

Ordinarily that would be enough, but because the Crown and supporters of the memory of the late Robin Bain are nothing if not desperate to show that despite all the odds, and a hefty majority of polled public opinion accepting David's innocence, not only do they need argue that the prints that once were complete are in fact not complete, they also need to claim that the tests applied to prints made by David in a laboratory situation were manipulated because the scientist, Dr Anna Sandiford, conducting the tests thought that David was a 'nice boy' after meeting him. Whilst those Robin supporters, Ralph Taylor a veteran hate-siter from Counterspin (the site found to have defamed Joe Karam and others), and a second supporter Dennis Horne (best known for crash landing his plane twice in a short time, the second time when unable to appreciate that water is not dry land and certainly not a surface that a plane can use as a runway) have obviously convinced themselves that proving Robin's innocence is simply a matter of singing mantras and accusing scientists, Judges, Lawyers and specialist investigators as either corrupt, crazy or plain dumb.

How does one combat absolute nutters prepared to say anything, who started with the over powering belief (to their minds) that 'right thinking' New Zealanders knew that David was guilty and Robin was innocent.  Those who denied that Robin's dna was found deep inside the rifle, vacuumed in by atmospheric pressure from an upward contact suicide shot rebalancing the barrel to atmospheric pressure after the bullet discharge, who also denied that David had been strip searched before caving in to over whelming evidence otherwise and 'adjusting' the story to David being the subject of a 'medical examination' noting every part of his body but from behind a blanket, a preposterous stretch of reality to anyone but the bewildered Robin supporters. I recall describing  that claim as the 'dance of the seven blankets' to the hate-siters who clearly seem aroused by the idea of strip searches, naked men and animals.

Well there is no way to combat the nutters because they will merely fabricate something as stupid as above where I pointed out that Horne and Taylor 'negated' scientific evidence as being the work of someone who thought David was a 'nice boy.' However, and of course, the task ahead of David Bain is far less reliant on needing to overcome the bizarre rants of some very twisted sisters who inhabit the twilight world of the hate-sites, but rather to build upon the general acceptance that David Bain is innocent, found not guilty by a Jury, later supported by an independent audit of the case by Ian Binnie QC who confirmed the Jury's finding on the balance of probabilities - which included the footprint evidence of Dr Sandiford but which however was unable to take into account the endorsement for Sandiford's findings shown in the photos above.

The print to the left is a laboratory print from the foot of David Bain, the other is print lifted from the murder scene. Both prints have been brought to scale, that is to a common size in order to observe if in fact they were made by the same foot. Look at the 2 for differences which to my untrained eye are extremely obvious, I will come back to this later because the door before any reader at this point must be identified.

The Crown case against David Bain has been disassembled. In my opinion it began with Joe Karam questioning the finding of a lens in the room of Stephen Bain by a now ex police officer Milton Weir who wasn't tasked with the job, he 'found' the lens 'after hours' despite the room having been methodically searched by other officers previously. This was the same Milton Weir who knew the lens didn't come from the glasses of David Bain but who was 'happy' for evidence to be given at the trial that the lens was David's. False evidence which impacted upon the credibility of  David who was forced to tell the Jury that it was not a lens from his glasses against a false claim by the Crown that they were. Since then there have been further discoveries - that 'scratch' said to be on David's chest and therefore proof of his being in a fight with Stephen was not noted in the strip search conducted by the Police Doctor hours after the murders,  because it wasn't there. Also significantly, previously ignored by Martin van Beynen, a reporter self described as an 'expert' on the Bain case, along with the strip search was that Robin's dna was found in the rifle clearly indicating by accepted scientific research an upward contact shot to Robin's head indicating by a massive scientific probability of over 90% that it was a suicide shot. These were things which the public did not know and which only began to come to light after the Privy Council hearing which found that David's conviction was an actual miscarriage of Justice.

If  van beynen ever publicly discloses why he left out significant information and other critical information pointing to David's evidence from his 'court reports' he may also tell the public why he was involved with the hate-siters in a campaign against jurors from David's successful retrial which resulted in he, van beynen, being ordered to stop harassing a jury member at a time when the hate-siters were 'tracking down' jurors in order to expose them as having corrupted the not guilty verdict in someway. So here describes the door, that which leads to stage 2 of the Bain case, the point where those whose evidence and findings supporting David's innocence have entered following the rejection of a past Minister of Justice of an independent inquiry seeking to Judge David's innocence on the balance of probabilities.

When the evidence of Anna Sandiford, David Giles (who located in a photograph evidence of a mark on Robin's thumb that match the lips of  the rifle's magazine, distinct because of a curve - showing that Robin had highly probably loaded the rifle which was used in his death), and others including the report's author an international Jurist of high standing there was only going to be one reaction, that was this was the new doorway leading to the triumph of science over the black arts of rumour, secrecy and deceit. Binnie's report had been observed in a further report by David Fisher QC (called into help an irate Minister of Justice demonstrating that her bias was all consuming) to likely have been benefitted from a Bayesian test of key evidence - something Binnie had already clearly done, but which has since been achieved in an international peer reviewed published paper that indicates, having used the Bayesian method indicating a probability of above 97% that Robin Bain suicided. These are professional people, experts in their fields who had been rebuffed by a non practising lawyer who aspired by public opinion and 'tough' image to be Prime Minister of the Country, someone who may have felt it important to curry favour with Crown Law and the police. The ex Minister Judith Collins had misjudged the fight, this was not a skirmish where might is right, this was a test of the truth and those I loosely call the scientists and professionals were more than up to the task shorn of political ambition or the hope of winning favour.

Whilst a new application is underway by the Bain team for compensation for David having spent nearly 15 years in prison on fabricated and hidden evidence the public can indeed look forward to an even clearer picture emerging as to the innocence of David Bain, ironically, one could say, that relies on photos and other evidence formally overlooked or left unconnected to the importance of the truth. One such photo is on the right above, I understand never put into evidence, and much like the photos discovered in an audit by the Crown Pathologist Doctor Dempster before the retrial that showed Robin Bain died with smears of blood on his palms. What the photo shows when compared to the photo of the left of David's footprint is that it is not made by the same foot. Going back to the question for both of David's juries 'was it Robin or was it David,' the photo tells us that indeed it was Robin who left bloody footprints throughout the murder scene.

Some readers will have already seen that the 'shape' of the two feet is characteristically different, in fact when brought to scale Robin's print is unable to be kept within the two yellow lines drawn parallel to the print of David's foot. I would argue this evidence alone proves David's innocence, the bloody prints were not made by him, the shape of a foot does not change, while it will extend through walking through a shift of weight th ankle does not somehow disconnect allowing the feet bones to form into a fresh shape only to then 'return' to it's original shape. If anyone wants to reconfigure the heel of Robin's foot print back between the yellow lines they will find, that the 'realignment' causes the toes outside the yellow lines. A foot simply has no significant sideways flexibility, that movement is relied upon by the flexibility of the ankle, the foot itself does not change shape, of course neither do the shape of prints.

Whether this aspect of the 'bloody' footprints is further analysed in the new bid for compensation remains to be seen but one thing it clearly shows if it is produced it will be rebuffed by the Crown in some way, scorned by the sisters as the work of someone who 'liked' David, or other similar, unscientific nonsense. Such reactions to this type of new evidence in the Bain case - show that the Crown are sudden 'experts' on evidence they were not capable of finding in 2 decades and underlines the reason why miscarriages of Justice occur in NZ, it's one thing to be wrong but apparently an impossibility to admit being so. Millions and millions of dollars later, and another photo from the Crown's own files that show they were wrong, absolutely wrong and won't admit it.

If this were the hand of David Bain instead of his father, Robin.

http://i.imgur.com/2CPr9Hi.jpg

 

Click on the above for a photo of the deceased Robin Bain's hand. If you look at the enlarged copy you will see what is most likely blood wash in the large creases of his palm. This material to my knowledge was never tested, said to have been too small amount. Of course we can go elsewhere for confirmation - the fresh blood found on a towel in the laundry the morning of the Bain family murders. Blood which for many years was assumed (how dreadfully tragic that in a murder case, assumptions are made on items which are capable of being sources of hard evidence) to have been David's blood but which finally on being tested was found to belong to his father Robin. The blood was fresh and the laundry in the household was done daily. Even putting aside the possibility of Robin's nose bleed the morning of the murders and the cuts to his hands there was blood found on the laundry towel, fair assessment that the red material found under Robin's nails by the forensic team and that shown as visible in the creases of his hands was as the result of him having washed or wiped his hands either directly following the killings or before turning the computer on. I am unaware if, and how finely examined, the computer key board and switches were examined, they may not have been more that superficially screened because by then the focus was on the message left on the computer. Would there be any surprise that the computer had not been tested for blood or observed closely for a colour matching that found on Robin's palms. The answer is no when we reflect on police failing to test the towel in the laundry for over a decade and in fact throwing out blood samples taken from Robin's trousers but keeping the trousers.

 

However, what is clear is that Robin washed or wiped his hands before his death. As any fisherman or fisherwoman knows blood is hard to remove even without the pressure of pending discovery. With all other factors taken into account, including of course other blood found on Robin's hands in particular, it is safe to say that the creases more than likely held blood wash - significant by any degree. But what the photo also shows, rather dramatically in fact, just above the forefinger, is on the BOP gunshot residue. Again this was never tested. Followers of the case know that Robin's hands were not 'bagged' in order to be later tested for GSR. Many will also know that GSR unlike blood is entirely fragile and deteriorating from its form soon after in conception.

 

Going back to the towel and the blood wash found on Robin's palms (let's be generous for a moment and call that blood wash dirt - as the sisters so often plaintively cry, to do this we have to ignore is colour and corroborating evidence in order to bring the gsr to its most simple helpful exposure,) after Robin had washed his hands, or simply wiped them on a towel leaving creases of blood (or dirt) something fragile and which would disappear in hours presents itself in this photo. If it was gsr it would soon be gone, if it was dirt or grease of some other durable material it would have been seen and hopefully recorded in notes even hours after the crime discovery when Dr Dempster was 'allowed' to examine the crime scene, having been kept outside for hours police despite being the most experienced forensic examiner in Dunedin. But it was in fact gone or left undiscovered until I understand quite recently in photos taken on the day of the murders. Some readers will also recall that Dr Dempster when reviewing the file prior to the retrial found photos that showed further blood wash on Robin's palms and released them to both the Crown and the defence. Plainly, this is Robin's right hand, that which would have been used in loading the rifle or removing the magazine with the jammed round stuck above the spring lift.

 

I imagine this photo along with others, and possibly that indicating Robin had a nose bleed that morning exhibited by a red substance showing in his moustache and a blood trail across his chin that did not appear possible to have come from his temple, will form a valuable part of the reconstituted petition by David Bain for compensation for false imprisonment. As the Bain case has continued the evidence against Robin has continued to grow, even though it could be argued that the above photo was enough to prove he was the perpetrator. In the continued search for hard evidence against David before his retrial there were something like 27 detectives employed full time to find that hard evidence and failed. What they needed was evidence such as this photo but of course this photo is of the hand of the real culprit, the man who fired the gun and not the son. 

Robin Bain case: so much for the fingerprints.

 

 

 

Among the hysterics than inundated the Bain case were arguments regarding fingerprints on the murder weapon, David Bain's rifle. No argument that the rifle was used but a simple question as to whom used the rifle was made complex by first a desperate prosecution and then, in turn, by the largely defunct hate-siters who sprang up to support the 'memory' of the late Robin Bain. One of the hate-sites particular area of anguish was that 'nobody spoke for Robin Bain.' I have written about that here earlier, making it clear that it was the prosecution that took up Robin's case, against much evidence that pointed to Robin but which resulted in first a conviction against his son David - that was later deemed an actual Miscarriage of Justice, then finally with the Crown case shredded, resulting in the full acquittal of David at a retrial. The Crown decided to have the retrial rather than accept the evidence had always been that Robin was guilty of killing his wife, 2 daughters, younger son,  and in so doing: leaving clear evidence of his own suicide which the police interpreted, in some mind boggling fashion, as proof that Robin's eldest son, David, had killed not only Robin but the rest of the family.

 

This prosecution despite, that Robin's blood was found deep inside the rifle - indicating a close contact shot with an upward trajectory. In fact complete evidence which has now been independently analysed, and peer reviewed internationally, revealing that Robin's death was 98% probable suicide. How did a police force get it so wrong?

 

Firstly, they overlooked the obvious - blood and injuries to Robin's hands. Simple common sense dictates that a murder victim does not have signs of having been in a fight after which he or she is passively accepting being killed by lying his or her temple against the firearm by which they were despatched. It doesn't happen. But with a willingness to overlook the obvious David Bain was subsequently sent to prison, serving 13 years before his conviction was quashed by the Privy Council along with less than subtle advice that he should not be tried again. David Bain had no injuries to his hands despite that his younger brother Stephen had fought for his life, as it now prevails - resulting in the injuries to Robin's hands, probably a nose bleed to Robin all of which was presented as highly visible to investigators who for some reason kept the most experienced forensic pathologist away from the scene for hours, to protect the evidence, while in fact allowing a veritable horde of inexperienced investigators to trample through the house gathering evidence - literally by throwing potential evidence in blankets and carting it away to the police station.

 

When the Pathologist, Dr Dempster, was finally 'permitted' entry, much evidence had been moved and tampered with. Critically, a magazine from the rifle had been moved to allow it to be photographed in different positions without it's original position being noted. Police had even moved the body of Robin Bain in what clearly looked liked a suicide scene. Dempster considered it to be probably suicide in his preliminary work. By then however, Police had decided that it was David. Yes before the scene had been properly examined, potential evidence tested, in fact within hours of arrival to a slaughterhouse where one person was dead beside a rifle with an upward shot having entered his brain, David was being stripped searched for evidence of being involved in the deaths of his family. This strip search was conducted by a police surgeon Dr Pryde who filled out the prescribed form for such procedures and who was careful to warn David that any evidence found during the search, despite that David had not been charged, and would not be charged for several more days, could be used as evidence against him. It was important later for the police to claim that no such strip search had taken place and it would only be years later that ex Detective Sergeant Doyle would admit to the searches and their intrusive nature. Of course the point the police tried to make in vain, was that David was never suspected, therefore he was not strip searched. Following the claim that he was not 'suspected' was to lend weight to the claim that evidence against Robin had been carefully scrutinised.

 

The careful scrutiny would be exposed as a sham when photos were revealed from Dempster's file of blood wash on Robin's palms. Yes Robin had been washing or diluting blood off his hands before his death. He also had blood spatter on  one of his shoes 'occluded' from having come from his temple wound. In a few more years a Waikato farmer David Giles would examined a photo inadvertently supplied by one of the hate-siters which showed imprints on Robin's thumb exactly matching the lips of the magazine that the police had moved around the morning of killings. Robin had loaded the gun which had killed him. The 'Bain case' is far more expansive than which can be discussed here. In fact in the interests of keeping it simple and not launching into the convoluted mire of the Crown case I've simply spoken about some of the forensic evidence that proved beyond doubt Robin's guilt and David's innocence. Included in this of course is evidence key to the final death scene. Part of that evidence was 'non evidence.'

 

The 'non evidence' was the 'lack' of prints from Robin on the rifle. When this not existing evidence was presented by the police or hate-siters it was said to 'prove' David's guilt. In fact for decades the misapprehension by the public generally about prints on guns has been well known to investigators, and, in the Bain case, used to confused a Jury while convincing public opinion that 'non evidence' was in fact evidence against David. The paper clipping at the outset makes a lie of the police proposal about evidence that didn't exist - the best that could be said is that there were no identifiable prints belonging to Robin on the rifle, though there were unidentifiable prints and partial prints of both of his sons one of whom owned the rifle. This was touched upon in the unsuccessful Crown retrial. Prints can exist in pristine condition for years, moreover prints that the police destroyed could under current technology exclude known suspects. Not that Robin could ever be excluded from having killed his family, but the destroyed prints, despite their smudging may not have excluded him from having handled the rifle, for which Gile's evidence shows, Robin loaded the magazine, and which an International Forensic Science paper reveals 98% positive that Robin Bain also used to kill himself.

 

The Bain case will continue in the new year in a fashion little to do with the fact it is reconciled, scientifically, that Robin Bain killed himself after killing 4 of his family - but more to do with keeping the NZ public, and international interest from the truth. Much the same way Dunedin's most experienced forensic investigator was left in the cold the morning Robin shot himself when police first began the attempt of putting a square peg in a round hole.



Walsh and Police support the Giles evidence?

Has been a dramatic week in the New Zealand Justice arena since Monday. It seems likely that the release of the report into the claims of gunshot residue being on the hands of the late Robin Bain was timed to coincide with the release of the Privy Council decision in another controversial case - that of Mark Lundy which I shall blog about later.

Firstly to that report. In essence ESIR scientist Walh hasn't been able to discount that Robin Bain's thumb was photographed with gsr at the murder scene. He has confirmed the method of transfer shown on the show 3 Degrees is possible, though his opinion that it was unlikely in this case. By any estimation that falls into the category of reasonable doubt that David was not the killer but rather that it was Robin Bain. Unfortunately, and I don't know the reason why, but there was no mention of the corroborating evidence of Robin being the user of the firearm that morning, also discovered by David Giles and mentioned below in other blogs along with photographs of the same. I know that information was sent to the Minister, it is strange it wasn't covered in the report released last Monday. The public need to know how Walsh has or will evaluate that evidence. It seems likely that the 'coincidences' of the marks on Robin's hands from what seems to be handling the rifle will make a conclusion that he was the killer highly probable.

As to the police response. It seems Deputy Commissioner Burgess has 'out smarted' himself. He sticks with the tried and 'true' marks from home handy man 'work.' However, he has no support for that from the police Pathologist in the case Dr Alex Dempster who has said, unequivocally, that he did not see or record the marks in the mortuary when further examining the body of Robin Bain after a preliminary examination at the scene. In fact by the time Dempster was allowed to examine the scene the gsr may have already degenerated and no longer been visible, or simply been 'wiped off' as the detectives moved the body, rifle and magazine about the scene of Robin's death. But what Burgess has 'agreed' is that at some point there were marks on Robin's thumb, hardly a concession by virtue that many in New Zealand have also now seen them. Burgess has hung his hat on the fact there were marks but they were from injuries, of course those 'injuries' were unable to be seen by Dempster in the morgue and unable to be photographed by either Dempster's staff or police. How odd that Burgess did not explain that.

It's safe to agree that the allegation of marks of gsr on Robin's hands has not gone away. It has further support because Walsh has agreed they could have transferred there from the magazine and Burgess that they were present in the morgue but are not 'revealed' in photographs. It's steady as she goes, two Crown specialists on side that there might have been gsr and to this point no apparent report on associated marks on Robin's hands likely corroborating one another.

Think of the theory's already dismissed, that the marks were wrinkles, from playing a guitar, that they didn't exist to now agreement, even from police, that they did exist but somehow disappeared to the eye and weren't revealed in morgue photographs. Photographs, many will remember that showed recent cuts, bruises and blood on the hands of Robin Bain. As I say above the gsr hasn't gone away it has come closer.

Robin Bain's blood.

Followers of the Bain case will be familiar with the questions put to David about blood found on a towel in the laundry on the morning his family were killed.  David was asked how the blood got onto the towel, an important question in context of the murder inquiry but the presumption that David should know how the blood arrived there tells us exactly what the mindset of the officer was. The detective had already decided that David was guilty and therefore knew how the blood got that onto the towel or was somehow at least responsible for an explanation.

Leaving that for a moment to look at another significant piece of evidence the computer turn on time. This was heralded as being critical by police because it proved David wrote the suicide note. It was so critical that Detective Anderson timing the tracing of the computer turn on time with an expert gave the expert a time 2 minutes earlier than the actual time. He would later explain this situation as one he would have 'cleared up,' or words to that effect, had he been asked. The reality is the significance of the computer message was a foundation of the case against David yet first of all police would mislead the technician about the actual time of the test, then bury that information thus giving weight to the Crown's false assertion that David was indeed home when the computer was turned on. This went further though,  a police computer 'expert' that calculated the turn on time for the Crown would later admit that his opinion evidence on the computer turn on time was an impossibility. Somewhere along the line a police officer gives a false time to a technician allowing another impossibility that David was home before the computer was turned on, later an expert calculates that time using a mid point between 2 stated times, one of which was an impossibility but which however gives the 'right' result to support the claim that David was home, turned the computer on and wrote the suicide note. Some readers will recall that the Crown toward the end of their case conceded that Robin had most likely turned on the computer as they would drop that infamous, and wrong, claim that Robin's fingerprints should have been found on the rifle. If they knew that the computer can't have been turned on when David was home why did they say the opposite for so many years, why did Anderson keep mum about the truth of the time, or Kleintjes manufacture a false and impossible relative time point to 'prove' David was home. More to the point would be the question as to why the Crown ever let such material into evidence when they knew it was false, if they didn't know it was false they would never have made concessions in relation to it during trial number 2.

By diverting to the fingerprints, and the computer turn on time, we have the opportunity to show how the police put their theories into practice, they simply misled on the facts. This wasn't earlier in the inquiry, this was at the point of the 'guilty mindset' being all absorbing. The bloody towel, on the other hand, was in the early days of the inquiry before David had even been charged. On what basis could David have been asked to explain  blood on a towel, that time would show belonged to his father? None, absolutely none. Looking at that question another way was it fair to ask David to explain something that he didn't know about and later use that against him, or was this an example of the police pulling a case based on something they were yet to have evidence to support? Wouldn't normal procedure be to test whose blood it was on the towel and leave the traumatised young man alone until that fact was discovered? Yes it would be normal, but this wasn't a normal investigation because police had already decided David was guilty as evidenced by that question.

Moving to the revelation that it was Robin's blood on the towel, blood soaked as it has been described in a damning way against David. If it had been so important for David to explain how blood got on the towel, then in 2003 when police learnt that it was in fact Robin's blood on the towel, which fitted therefore, with the murder/suicide scenario - why then did the police not re-evaluate their entire position? By then they already had an opinion from their own pathologist that Robin's wound was likely suicide, they knew from their own files that David had not been home when the computer was booted, they knew of Robin's state of mind, that it would also be expected that his fingerprints would not be on the rifle, that Robin's palms had blood on them and that his hands had bleed - a match no doubt for the towel. Instead they kept 'manfully' on, presenting again their discredited case as though there was no alternative such as, for example, conceding that Robin was plainly the killer.

Why would the Crown and police not be disturbed to find that it was Robin's blood on the towel, a towel found contemporaneously with Robin's body with blood on his hands? Wasn't it a reasonable and deduct-able conclusion that towel with Robin's blood on it showed even more clearly that he had killed first his family and then himself? Yes it was. I'm unaware of whether the Crown had any explanation for that blood which previously had been 'evidence' against David, even though his hands were clean, he had no recent wounds that would have produced blood and unlike his father he didn't have red matter found under his nails. I've read that one of Robin's wounds was across a vein on his hand, veins of course bleed profusely but because of the difficulty Robin had cleaning his palms, leaving smear marks, one would expect that he would have had similar trouble with the tops of his hands, particularly because of the abrasions and bruises there that would have been becoming quite sore as he reflected on what he had done whilst he cleaned himself up as well as he could.

Any rugby player or contact sport player knows that besides an artery or a deep cut, a forehead wound etc, a blow to the nose causes profuse blood. The blood on the towel, that on Robin's palms and damaged hands, the evidence of the fight in Stephen's room completed the basic picture of Robin's guilt, not tricky science, not loaded questions, hidden times, and hidden statements but straight forward proof, Robin had been fighting that morning, he had the blood on his hands and on the towel he used, to prove that.

That bloody towel is the towel now around the necks of the Crown, it was the Crown that accepted the 'importance' of the towel when the blood was thought to Stephen's but never tested, washed off  from the hands of David. But when it proved to be Robin's blood, good proof that he was the killer - it was no longer important. Looking back over some notes taken from Joe Karam's Trial By Ambush today I saw that I noted that Detective's Van Turnhout's 'recovered memory' of seeing a lens on the chair in David's room had never been recorded in the 15 years he had forgotten it before his memory burst at the second trial. And on those glasses that the police have so badly discredited themselves over, it has long been recorded that David's vision was 75% normal without glasses.

Every where you look in this case police misconduct has been at work by a few officers, but the greater worry is that the Crown chose to overlook that. I suspect Binnie's report, if it has highlighted these obvious facts sits uncomfortably in the care of the Justice Department, uncomfortable as Robin must have felt wiping his own copious spilt blood on that towel.

I made a mistake.

It took some debate with an analyst but I think I can agree that the blood on Robin's right shoe came from his own wound. There was always the argument that because Robin's footprints were found throughout the familicide scene he wasn't wearing shoes during the time he killed his family. However, I've long thought that Robin went back to finish off the killing of Laniet, and when he did he may have already changed and put on his shoes with his bloody socks and clothes discarded in the wash, 'cleaned up' such is the characteristic and common ritual of familicide. I considered this could have happened and may have explained the shot to the top of her head that was fired through fabric. Robin could have been 'sated' and exhausted by then, perhaps sobered by the reality of what he'd done and unable to 'face' to 'face' that final shot. The blood on Robin's shoe was his with a DNA mix of another, not  a totally insurmountable hurdle for my thought but certainly making it difficult really, but a forensic scientist might have another view of that.

I remembered writing earlier about Robins dna found inside the rifle barrel and silencer and thinking the travel of that dna was relevant to it's entry or vacuum into the barrel before the pressure equalised with that outside the barrel. Of course the force of the initial discharge of dna back through his wound would have also had impact on where that dna contacted inside the rifle. Now I think that when Robin's head separated contact with the silencer tip just after he shot himself, and as he and the rifle were falling, that some of the initial discharge deflected off the silencer and toward Robin's right, the bulk however, after the separation spread airborne falling across the floor some also settling on the alcove curtains.

None of this removes any doubt that Robin killed himself but explains, to me at least, a reason why some of the blood went the 'wrong way' across his shoe - a the way a high speed water jet will deflect. As I pointed out in my last blog on this below, the initial finding of the blood destroyed the Crown's theory of Robin kneeling, praying or sitting on the floor when he was shot. Something else, with appropriate care and consideration, the original investigators shouldn't have overlooked and wouldn't have overlooked had they taken the time and not been consumed by impressions of behaviour rather than evidence. This underlines again the stupid haste with which the Dunedin Police convinced themselves of David's guilt, before they knew the evidence or even had lab tests and results. I say 'stupid' but maybe it was deliberate.

When the Crown case against David Bain failed.

Joe Karam says in his recently published book that the trial was essentially all over at the completion of the evidence and cross examination of ex detective Sergeant Doyle early in the trial. Doyle was effectively in charge of the investigation, the hands on man. The man who said they hadn't investigated the motives given by witnesses as to why Robin was the killer because they had a 'murder case to solve.' Clearly his enlightened view was that in the case of 2 likely suspects, one who for all appearances had suicided, there was no point in investigating allegations against the deceased Robin Bain and that accordingly all evidence and possible evidence against Robin should be ignored. Copy book investigation? Hardly.

However, if it wasn't during the cross examination of Doyle and his subsequent revelation of the 15 year old evidence of the deceased police Doctor Pryde, that when David was strip searched and subjected to invasive personal tests - during which no scratches were found on David's chest - then the other likely time of the Trial being seen as having only one possible result was when the Crown conceded that Robin might have turned the computer on which recorded his final communication to the world. That concession had been 15 long years in the making, almost everything possible had been done to avoid the truth, Mrs Laney's evidence not properly presented to the 1st trial that she had seen David entering the gate at 7.45, 5 minutes after it was also finally, truthfully, determined that the computer had been turned on despite the police officer present, DC Anderson,  not reporting to the Court that his watch was 2 minutes slow because 'no one asked him.' Despite also the evidence of the police computer expert, Klientjes that his 'theory' on when the computer had been switched on had no definitive finishing point in time - that it was in other words, guess work dressed up to suit the Crown's case. He was calculating the length of a piece of string that couldn't be proved by fact but only by his imagination. But before looking at that concession by the Crown further it's worth noting two other major events before the trial where the Crown ought to have not continued with the retrial.

The first of those would be the Privy Council decision that dismembered the Judgement of our Appeal Court in a fashion unprecedented in NZ history apart from the analysis of the Thomas case at the Commission of Inquiry and that of Peter Mahon into the cover up of the Erebus plane crash. The second, would be in my opinion, the letter to by the retired Police Pathologist Doctor Dempster who offered his thoughts on why the intention of having a re-trial was questionable. We now know from 'Trial by Ambush' that Dempster's superior Dr Gywnne had been troubled for years by how a kid could achieve the appearance of a suicide so perfectly, something that didn't fit into the expectation of his scientist's mind. We can well imagine the 2 men discussing it with some dismay over the years as David never lay down and 'died' by admitting a 'truth' that may have relieved both men that the conviction of David Bain was indeed not a miscarriage of justice. Both of these events were of course pre-trial and leaving intact Karam's claim that the it was the evidence of Doyle that shook the Crown case to bits.

Pause for a moment and think about Dempster and his boss Dr Gywnne, consider what drove them overall and compare them with for example Klentjies, the police computer expert, who sought to stretch the possible computer turn on time and half it for a mid point, that happened to suit the Crown case that David had turned the computer on. Klentjies used a theory on which to base his calculation which fixed as one of its determinates an impossibility:

Q. No, no Mr Kleintjes, your mid point is based upon one extreme being an impossibility, you've agreed with that? Yes? Can you say yes to that or no?

A. Yes it is.

It could be judged that Drs Dempster and Gywnne were intent on finding the truth and giving the correct evidence, while an observer could easily consider Kleintjes was intent on moving forward the computer time to the extreme of using what engineers and mechanics fooled 1st year apprentices with by sending them to the machine shop or tool store to gather a 'sky' hook.

So after 15 years of diversion it was the Crown's time to concede that the father could have turned on the computer and as in law 'could have' was an exclusion in the Crown case that David had turned on the computer and written the suicide 'note.' But think what else the Crown were conceding, the overall case in fact, but in finer detail: that the gurgling of Laniet, on which the Crown held its false case for so long, must have been occurring before David arrived home while Robin was in the house, hands blood smeared and knowing his life was already gone, his persistence in writing a note to his oldest son, clearing the rifle of a misfeed with nervous hands knowing he must be quick in killing himself to hide his crimes that the police would never examine.

Why was Robin never investigated. The answer from Doyle was a pathetic misrepresentation of the duties of any police force in the world. Why was Dempster kept out of the house for long hours while inexperienced cops trudged through the evidence, why were his early opinions ignored by 'experienced' police officers who had never dealt with such a case before, why was even the training of those officers about offender's hands overlooked, completely overlooked?

Stockdale an idiot in full flight..

Apart from the obvious, I'll comment on the primary difficulty Stockdale is having with that blood on the shoe and a couple of other things......first this,

Yes,as per #15173,Manlove said he obtained a DNA profile the majority of which he said could have come from Robin Bain. There was some confusion due to a media report that said that Manlove said he was not sure whether it was blood on Robin Bain's shoe,but he was talking about some smears,not those three bloodspots. As for those suicide scenarios,three did show Robin Bain's right foot tucked away where no blood spatter from his head wound could have got to.The fourth showed both his feet on the floor,but apparently airborne blood spatter would not have gone the length of his body,it would have dissipated before it reached the floor. So none of those demonstrations fit with those bloodspots on Robin Bain's right shoe.He would have had to have his foot in front of him on the chair,and that would have taken his head to far away for him to have shot himself from close contact. As I said,Bain's supporters realise this,and that is why they are now saying that the blood was from one of the children. If you have seen those photos of Robin Bain's left hand you will be aware all those marks on his hand are pretty minute.And that blood splash on his left hand fingernail would fit perfectly with him praying sitting on his beanbag with his hands resting on his cheeks,as Barbara Neasmith said that he did. I take your point about his right hand be free of marks.Robin Bain was right-handed,so that is the hand one would expect to have marks on it,had he been in a fight.But those marks on his left hand probably came from him repairing the spouting.David Bain's supporters say they happened within 12 hours of him dying,but a close reading of the transcript proves this not to be the case.Those marks could have been 24 hours old,or even older.
Edited by supersleuth at 6:54 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 6:50 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15177


Where Stockdale uses the word 'apparently' (in the same fashion as the idiot twin, Ralph Taylor,) he has no evidence of what he claims. He talks about the a proposed absence of injuries on Robin's right hand if he'd been in a fight, but all right handed riflemen hold the weapon in their right hand as a primary weight, capable and ready to be fired at any second by the firing hand, not the one that balances the barrel.

However, he again says that the blood on Robin's shoe couldn't have come from his death. Which is exactly the point that explains why the father shot himself - because he was the last to die and it was with the blood and brain matter of at least one of his children on his shoe.

Stockdale can't explain the spatter, apart from saying it wasn't from the father. The father cannot have had spatter from the children on his shoe if he were not their killer.

Nor can he have had blood smears on his hands. Once he was dead there was no opportunity for blood smears to somehow appear on his palms. The fact those smears were there, along with blood spatter, contusions to his hands displays that he killed his family. That evidence was not regenerated, it survived from the time of the murders-suicide.

'Apparently' Stockdale you're a complete moron and ..ckhead.

Not only did Robin Bain have the blood spatter

of one of his family on his right shoe, also his own dna deep in the rifle barrel, injured hands but he had blood smears on those damaged hands and fingers as well.

Idiots like Ralph Taylor had much fun over the false claim that the rifle had been wiped clean after Robin had shot himself. Very funny, but like everything that the dimwits do it comes back to bite them on the arse because they can't explain (short of admitting that Robin is the killer) how he managed to have blood smears on his hands and fingers - not spray folks but smears. I wonder why Sergeant Doyle didn't explain those smears in his evidence. There can only be one answer for that, he knew that Robin was the killer because a man shot with a close/hard contact shot to the temple collapses at the knees first - he doesn't in anyway move around making contact with bloody surfaces, only the killer did that and he was the one with smears on his hands before he killed himself.