Lucklesstrader came up with good evidence against Robin.

Luckydipster, quoted an interesting Canadian case in which the defendant, Kenneth Parks was acquitted because it was held he was asleep and acting in state similar to 'automatism' as defined under our law - a rarely successful defence.. However, because luckydip is such a moron, in fact a joint winner of the coveted award 'Moron of the Week,' he didn't realise the significance of his own quote of Kenneth Parks when he voluntarily attended the police station 'I think I have killed some people...my hands.' His hands were carrying injuries from the knife attacks on the deceased and those of a the survivors. Fast forward to Robin and David, David hands totally unblemished, no blood or marks, but Daddy's bruised and battered with probable teeth marks from Steven, wiped blood on the palms, dna spatter going in the opposite direction it should have from his own self-inflicted wound. Robin's hands always told the story, Robin's hands were testament from minute one of the inquiry as to who the killer was - the Jury understood that, the police failed to and never recovered from what should have been a basic police procedure looking for hand damage of the two potential subjects. Thanks luckydipster, I admit your stupidity does have some apparent reward toward finding the truth.

Needle in a haystack.

Borrowed from anonymous quoting on the post 'All I want,' by Gamefisher shown below.


Q Why was the owner of the unidentified finger print on the gun never identified?

Clue To identify it would have shown clearly that crucial evidence had been tampered with prior to photographs being taken. It has been suggested by linz4me that finding the owner would have been like finding a needle in a hay stack. supersleuth wrote: One thing that does puzzle me is that there was apparently one identifiable print on that rifle that did not belong to any member of the Bain family.
by linz4me Yes so I understand but trying to find a match would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Sorry linz the needle was on site that day and would not have been so hard to find.

I think anonymous clearly sets out the answer here. The police must have been able to find the owner of the unidentified print one would assume, because the choices were narrowed by whose it wasn't. Further, the police would have been able to compare the print with all those that had been in contact with the firearm that morning and any known to have been in contact with the firearm in the previous months. Some one might be aware of any evidence that excluded people on hand that morning, to this point I don't know of any and would welcome any information about this. If personnel on hand that morning weren't excluded then weight it given to anonymous contention.
linz4me's claim that it would be looking for a needle in a haystack is sheer nonsense, because the possibilities were severely narrowed.

the Martin van beynan link?

Anonymous said...
I think you will find a certain writer from the Press may have been involved with them gaining the trial transcript. There has been stalking of the jury and also witnesses and there is a definite link between supersleuth and others with a certain reporter from the Press.

September 13, 2010 7:42 PM


That writer of course, we can tell from the public record, could well be van beynan. I expect if it isn't he will go on record and say so, and to explain any contact with Parker, Purkiss, Stockdale and others. He might also explain his conduct that caused a Juror to complain of harassment from him. That could be interesting.

Who knows, it's possible that old kenty baby and vic superlips were merely conduits, seduced by the idea of recognition and importance, to do the dirty work.

Robin's bruised and bloodied hands.

This week we've already had the opportunity to read a 'speech' by Kent Parker running down Joe Karam and calling him a liar for information Joe provided from the trail manuscript on the recent radio debate. And of course we've seen the brief of evidence from urologist that showed that Joe was telling the truth from evidence that campmother didn't know about despite holding himself up as more of an expert than Joe Karam on the Bain case.

So lets look at another fallacy perpetuated by the hangbainers. When I first started reading about the Bain case, approaching 2 years ago, and when I was treated as is any other new entrant, with the 'truth' from the hangbainers in order to convince me to join the 'team' I was told that Robin had no bruises or injuries to his hands and no blood. Shortly after, Lee H, my old mate, posted photos showing marks and cuts to Robin's hands along with blood spatter. I was always interested in the hands of the father and of the son because I couldn't imagine the killer's hand would be without damage of some sort. Immediately from the hate-siters the 'damage' became scratches that had 'happened' when Robin had been cleaning out the gutters of the house the day before. Nobody saw the damage happen then of course, but that was no discouragement because it was a 'fact' known by the hangbainers. Another 'fact' was that the injuries were over 24 hours old and the blood, by assumption, was the product of Robin being shot in the head. All this information was available on line and in the truth forums of the hate-siters. Whoopi!

But of course we were to find out that the injuries according to the attending pathologists were minutes to 24 hours old, not to forget here that foremost expert at the scene that morning, the pathologist, a man with vast experience, was kept from the scene for many hours while items were moved and photographed and the scene carefully 'preserved.' Then looking at the photo produced in Court it was able to be seen that the blood spray on Robin's fingernail was going the 'wrong' way (taking into account that spatter fans out from point of contact and widens in the direction it has taken) and therefore could have been spatter from one of his victims.

But newer information was that just prior to the trial Joe Karam was given photos and scene notes that showed Robin had blood 'smears' on the palms of his hands meaning of course that he had contact blood wipe on his hands before he shot himself. Contact blood wipe alone, and despite all the other evidence showing he was the killer, proves that Robin killed his family and then suicided. Additionally, his blood was found not only inside the rifle silencer but also inside the barrel. I think most people know that each time a rifle is fired the barell is 'cleaned' by the discharge and also the pressure inside Robin's head when he shot himself was caused by the velocity of the bullet and discharge out of the wound and into the barrel that he had rested his head against. All of Robin's victims were shot with a downward, killer dominant trajectory, his own passive death was a rising shot into his brain. These are things that can never be changed however much the hate-siters want to re-explain them or attempt to dilute the impact, but perhaps the simplest of all was the killers bruised and bloody hands told the story a desperate few wish to deny.

Justice Thorp - deliberately myopic?

Quote: Sir Thomas Murray Thorp - In His Police Complaints Authority review of the Bain case.

That the glasses which were in working order the previous day but were subsequently found damaged, as to the damaged frame and one lens in the petitioner’s room and as the other lens in Stephens Room, could have been damaged in some fashion unrelated to the struggle between Stephen and his killer. And whereas it would have been normal for the short-sighted petitioner to have worn glasses when operating his firearm, since he had only half a metre of clear vision without them, it would be contrary to all common sense for his long-sighted father to wear glasses which would only have impaired his vision.
In my opinion they do not adequately recognise the significance or Mr Guest’s advice that he had been told by the petitioner that he had been wearing the glasses the day before the murders.

I bet Sir Tom was a good bloke, I bet he did all he could to present as a good and fair bloke. But I don't know of any evidence that said that Margaret's old glasses were in working order the day before the Bain murders. Anybody that knows of such evidence might wish to email me.
In the meantime Sir Tom seems to be in error as to what David would have been able to see without his glasses. In Sir Tom's view David couldn't see more than half a metre without them, but that's not what witnesses at the trial said. He concludes on this point that it would be 'contrary to all common sense' for his (David's) long-sighted father to wear glasses which would have only impaired his vision. Well, I would have thought it was 'contrary to all common sense' to answer a proposal that was never forwarded. I don't think anybody, apart from Old Tom, has ever said that Robin was wearing Margaret's glasses when he shot his family. I appreciate that Tom Tom was trying to tidy up an unlawful conviction that had resulted from an actual Miscarriage of Justice, but I think he was adding to the miscarriage by making assertions that were 'contrary to all common sense' when in fact nobody had made them. To use imaginary assertions to compliment the Crown who, as time has shown, had perpetrated an actual MOJ makes old Tom look like silly Tom.
After this startling answer to a claim that had never been made, Tom Tom really got wound up. He stated that he felt more emphasis should have been given to the 'never given on oath evidence' from Michael Guest that David was going to admit wearing the glasses belonging to his mother. It is apparent that Tom Tom thought that David was going to do the 'decent' thing and link himself to a glass lens that had been found in the most mysterious circumstances in the deceased Stephen Bain's room. That would have been a great help in perpetuating the MOJ and dispelled any questions as to why the lens was under clothing, dust covered and not bearing any DNA from the scene that had seen blood scattered throughout.
I guess by then Tommy Tom had got on a roll by then and may have been unaware at the time (I can't recall the sequence of events at the moment) that the herald of this message was a disbarred member of the Bar who among other things has been disbarred for lying.

Why was the Pathologist kept from the house?

I know the police have stated that they wanted to preserve the scene, thus being the reason for keeping The Crown Pathologist, Dempster, waiting outside Every Street for several hours. However, this man was the foremost expert to visit the scene that day, it was critical that it should be him examining the bodies at the first opportunity. To suggest he was somehow inept at not containing samples or collecting evidence stretches credibility. Particularly, when we have seen (on video) the general abandon with which the officers on the scene gathered critical evidence - the gathering off the floor off clothing and such like to be carted away in a blanket. I think we all understand that blood for example (or any other dna) would be transferred from one item to another in this way. Just as we all understand that core temperatures of the bodies were left unattended through many hours when the possibility of determining the times of death were lost.

During this period when Dempster was left outside the house the police experimented with tomato sauce spray to assist in determining features of the deaths, something which is as bizarre as it sounds. Could some of the police have had misgivings about surrendering the scene to the expert too soon? I recall a Detective giving evidence that he asked senior staff about the Gunshot Residue Tests early in the morning. Obviously this man had no inhibitions about what correct procedure was. Unfortunately compounding the 'mistakes' made in these first few hours of the investigations is anectodal evidence of some of the inquiry staff being aware of Laniet's role in prostitution, and even the exploitation of some officers of this situation Laniet have become involved in.

We also know that an electronic diary that Laniet owned eventually disappeared while in police hands, as also we know that the record of calls to and from her mobile phone were never recovered. Certainly within days police were made aware of allegations that Laniet had been the subject of abuse from her father, these claims however were not investigated because as one officer put it 'they had a murder case to solve.' A fairly novel statement when even armchair critics understand that motive can, and often does, lead to the murderer.

Without touching on the suggestions of incest in any great detail here, I'll mention two points that the hate-sites labour. Firstly, a victim of incest may not necessarily have an ongoing 'relationship' with their abuser. The fact that Laniet met her father at the school is neither here nor there in terms of whether any abuse had taken place. She was of course older, 'use' to the situation if it were true, and may have some control over Robin about her favours for him.

Secondly, while Laniet is rounded upon at length by Robin defenders and anything she is alleged to have said to a vast range of people who gave evidence to that effect at the trial - assumes that Laniet was simply providing an alibi for David in preparation for her own death. That, like many things in the Bain case, doesn't wash.