'Evidence' by omission.....

Now that David's trial is over, and the hangbainers (love Robins - pedo supporters) are slowly realising that the trial went against them they are holding another using 'evidence' by omission. They are capable of holding a full trial with this 'evidence' that was never given at the trial, much of it ruled inadmissible and a fair body of it either made up completely or the result of hopeful deductions.

So how did that lens get in Stephen Bain's room cyber?Did it somehow fly there?David Bain admitted he was wearing those glasses that weekend and they were found damaged in his room with one lens missing.That lens was found in Stephen Bain's room.
Robin Bain flipped out,give us a break.Can't you come up with something better than that?

Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 11:06 am, Fri 10 Sep #26349

Superidiot offers a good example here. Don't bother if you've missed it before as generally he posts about it several times a day. Above he asks cybernana how the lens got in the room when of course he really wants to ask that question of Joe or David, but the point is David in particular has no obligation to explain how various items of evidence 'arrived' in various places. There is no onus on David to explain such questions, in this particular case my feeling is that the lens was planted as it was 'found' after many days of searching the room, by an officer who was not tasked with searching that room but rather was in charge of the scene. By 'chance' he also happened to 'find' it in an unusual circumstances, having returned to the house after hours to make the 'discovery.'

Superidiot also makes the continuous claim that David admitted wearing his mother's glasses that weekend, when in fact he gave no such evidence. Not one word of this (the wearing of the glasses) is true. The 'admissions' that David was alleged to have made were not given under oath by the witnesses that superidiot claims 'prove' that David wore the glasses that weekend. In fact no witness gave evidence that they saw him wear the glasses nor that he said he did. The anecdotal evidence that suggests David did admit wearing the glasses was never given in Court nor tested, so in fact there is no evidence existing other than in superidiot's flimsy brain. I am aware of the two people who made some claims about this but in both cases I believe it was unreliable at best, of course the Crown did not call those potential witnesses so there is no point to made from it anyway - apart from the fact that superidiot can't understand the obvious. David didn't wear the glasses that weekend and that is all there is to it.

For another display of 'evidence' by omission where have some childhood friends of David's that made claims about what could be purportedly a 'similar use' alibi. However the material didn't reach evidence status being rejected by the Supreme Court as inadmissible. So again there is no evidence in support of this false 'alibi' claim that is now used by the disenfranchised morons. Of course that is not evidence at all doesn't stop them using in their continued attacks against David and against our system of Justice.

One of the big problems for the hangers is that they're morons and that every week one of them gets to be moron of the week and that's pretty exciting for them and gives them an excuse to get down and morony at every opportunity. Unfortunately, while they simply see it as an opportunity to gain a coveted title, they don't realise or care about the harm that they do. They in general have continued to perpetrate defamatory harassment against others to protect themselves from what must be for them a fear of the world, afraid to think for themselves or to be exposed in some way. One has even called for statues to be made of dear daddy the perpetrator. But having said that, if one could put up with the lies, the misinformation, the stalking, the idolisation of paedophilia, the smell and funny noises they probably wouldn't be a bad bunch - not that you'd invite any of them home.