A mixture of things below. None helpful to the daddy didn't do it crew. In fact most unhelpful seen here from the trial transcript..You'll see I've highlighted things that I always thought the basics of this case. The hand blood smears. The no physical injuries to David despite the chorus that he had injuries consistent with having had a fight. The comparison of bloody and injured hands of Robin, to the clean undamaged hands of David.
Also the young detective looking for a motive in the normal fashion (in this case domestic), but Doyle, ostensibly in charge, not bothering to check motives for Robin.
The truth about the beanie, or suicidee's raising or lifting clothes in order to suicide.
The reality that the police model of suicide was deliberating portrayed as hard, although not the defence model on which Dr Dempster agreed.
Also from Robinson, an aspect I have either overlooked in the past or forgotten - the red material under Robin's fingernails. We heard even recently that it was David that had material under his nails, but indeed we see it was the father. We even heard most recently from hate-site panic - Melanie White an absolute lie that Stephen had David's dna under his nail. But as always the truth comes out to haunt the liars.
Doyle on the blood smears from Robin's hands, the ones according to the hate-siters which never existed.
Q [The record states:] “2 smear and slide of traces on blood on left hand.” What is that
actually? Is it a slide or what is it? A It would be a slide with a blood smear in it.
Q Right. Well it wouldn’t be hard to retain that, would it? A Well, with hindsight no.
Q But you see the importance, Mr Doyle? You were an experienced Detective Senior
Sergeant. That skin sample that was kept for 13 or 14 years proved when it was tested
that it did not come from David Bain. You see the significance of it? A Correct.
From Doyle again - for those that claim David was never a suspect.
Q You have told David and others that it was either Robin or David. That was the view
from the police. There was no-one else suspected, was there? A Correct.
Q So it is a contest. Is it Robin or is it David? Correct? A That is the question?
And of course that Doyle ignored not only testing the smears but was unable to connect them to the deaths;
Q Your case has always been that Robin innocently came into the house, knelt in front of
the curtain [for morning prayer] and was shot by David Bain. That’s been your case
hasn’t it? A That’s the Crown case, yes.
Q And that requires that Robin Bain is not involved in any way in these murders. Right?
A Correct.
Detective Superintendent Robinson
Q But fingernail scrapings in a homicide case, where the fingernail scrapings showed a
red substance, might alert a detective mightn’t it to the fact that it ought to be tested for
blood….? A Yes it could.
Q Yes. Well why wasn’t that done? A I don’t know?
Q And then we had blood from the hand of Robin Bain that’s unexplained. Wouldn’t it
have been wise to test that blood to see whose it was? A In hindsight yes.
The above followed on from evidence from Doyle about blood samples from the hands of Robin not being sufficient for diagnosis in NZ. But which could be diagnosed in Australia. The samples from Robin's hands were not taken to Australia although samples from some other of deceased were.
Below in evidence Ambulance Officer Raymond Anderson in attempting to describe his belief that David hadn't fainted - describes finding no physical injuries. Exactly the opposite of what is claimed by the hate-siters.
Q Now, did you check the patient for any visible signs of trauma? A Yes I did a quick
once-over and then good look all around, because of course we weren’t quite sure what
we were being presented with. But I couldn’t find any sign of physical injury or signs that
medical intervention was required.
From police interview with David; the very basic question of hand damage after an episode of violence.
Q Did you have any cuts on your hands on Monday? A No.
Another basice police question: searching for a motive. David was asked..
Q Do you know of any extra-marital relationships? A No, Mum didn’t have any. I don’t
know about Dad. I knew very little about what Dad thought or did.
Compare the above evidence with that of Doyle who was not interested in investigating motives Robin may have had, unlike his junior officer following normal practice.
Q Why was it not appropriate to find out whether there was a strong motive for these five
homicides? How could you possibly say that Mr Doyle? A Our focus was on the
investigation into the killings.
Q Yes, and you have agreed that, in a circumstantial case, it is important to establish
motive? The trial judge said that himself didn’t he, in his summing up? A On the second
day of the inquiry it was still not clear whether it was a homicide per se or homicides per
se or homicide-suicide.
Just showing critical importance of Robin not being shot through his beanie, and the other answer to the giggling hate-siters how suicidees open clothes, or lift hats when killing themselves. No bullet hole through Robin's beanie.
From Dempster.
If Robin Bain inflicted this wound on himself, one would have to say
that it would be unusual for him to be wearing head gear in my experience. It is unusual
for people to [do so]. I have never come across anybody who shot themselves in the head
who was wearing head gear at the time, and I think it is a pretty uncommon event.
Similarly, if they shoot themselves in the chest, normally they seem to bear the skin.
Q But? A there is also the possibility that he could have rested the rifle say on the chair in
from a standing position. The rifle would still be in the same relative position to his head
of course.
Q Yes, if he rests it somewhere else, it will not alleviate your concern about site of entry
at the moment, but it would obviously be easier to hold the gun? A Yes.
Q And what I am suggesting to you, Doctor, is that yesterday, that demonstration of
holding the gun up to your head and your arm waving around, is just really unhelpful as a
demonstration? Because it’s just totally unrealistic that anyone would ever do that,
Doctor? A I cannot say that it didn’t happen that way. I am perfectly happy to accept that
the rifle may have been rested on a point such as a chair, that’s certainly been something
that I have considered in the past and I think discussed at the last trial.
Q Yes. But the point is that you spent a long time yesterday, through your counsel,
holding that gun up with it waving around and showing how difficult it is to reach the trigger. And what I am putting to you is that no-one, rationally, would ever suggest that
Robin would have done that? Its just ridiculous Doctor? A I cannot comment whether it
is ridiculous or not, I think it is a possibility, I would say it still possible, equally difficult
to reach the trigger even if it is rested on an object. It’s at close to the limit of one’s arm
stretch, depending of course on the length of one’s arm, but it is an awkward position.
Q Yes. But that is not what I am putting to you. I am saying to you, if you are giving a
fair demonstration to the jury, why would you give a demonstration that really is just
totally unrealistic? Why would you do that? A Because I was not asked to step down and
show it in other positions.
Q Right, that it is perfectly feasible to have an entry wound to the head matching the
exact direction of travel of the bullet in Robin’s head? Would you disagree with that? A
Well I wouldn’t disagree because if the rifle is applied to the temple in the way it has
been demonstrated in your photographs, the bullet is going to transit the head in that
direction. But, in my experience, it is extremely unusual for suicidally-inflicted gunshot
wounds to transit the brain in that direction. Robin Bain has chosen, if he has killed
himself, an unusual way of applying the rifle to his head.
Q Isn’t it fair to tell the jury that, if Robin Bain was going to commit suicide with that
gun, it is much more likely he would adopt one of the positions, I have shown in those
photographs than it would with your demonstration yesterday? Is that a fair question? A
Well it is. One has to consider what a person in this situation would do and there’s no
certainty that an individual would follow a particular course.
I can predict one thing Ian Binnie will have noted all this and will not have asked Bill Rodie, Parker, White or others for the real story of what they heard from reporters or important people. No wonder it is so obvious that David is innocent.
It seems to me the more the prosecution witnesses said, the more stupid and incompetent they made themselves look, including the ambulance officer.
ReplyDeleteYes he did much better reporting what he saw, no injuries to David than when trying to diagnose something beyond the status of his professional standing. In the end he seemed to be somebody trying to shore up the prosecution case - handyman, painter, plasterer type, trying to cover over the cracks in the Crown evidence. I wonder why he did that.
DeleteWell, he did say in their training they were given stimuli to use, but he had found his own that worked better. Incredible! Please someone, if I ever need an ambulance, don't send him.
ReplyDeleteReporters and people, important or not, were in the Dunedin Court in May 1995.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know then that everyone in that courtroom apparently accepted that an object, claimed to be a lens, was photographed on 20 June 1994, on a floor measuring 2.1 meters, east to west, x 2.0 meters, north to south, but that the object, claimed to be a lens, wasn't found until ~84 hours later, even though the object was claimed to be openly exposed, on that tiny floor area.
If a camera saw that object, in the open, on a tiny floor, can any of the 1995 reporters, or any people, important or not, who were present in that 1995 Dunedin courtroom, explain why they accepted that the object was photographed ~midday on 20 June 1994, but wasn't found until after sunset on 23 June 1994?
Yes, Lee, that's easy. They accepted it because the Crown prosecutor told them it was so. According to the transcript in McNeish's book, Bill Wright in his melodramatic and imaginative closing said:
Delete"During the struggle [with Stephen] the accused's glasses were dislodged, so was the plastic cover belonging to the telescopic sight. A lens belonging to the glasses was found in the room three days later."
He also said
"Don't fall into the trap of taking the evidence piece by piece and examining each little bit individually, it's not that. Sometimes pieces of evidence by themselves carry no great weight but put them all together side by side and the result can be overwhelming. It's the totality of the evidence - the overall picture - that counts."
The people who argue for David's guilt, and cite unreliable evidence like the lens (and wasn't that one a convenient beauty for Weir?), are doing as Bill Wright told the jury. They are ignoring anomalies, inconsistencies and lies that undermine or negate individual pieces of evidence, but they are still including that evidence in their 'big picture'
Painting that 'big picture' uses the evidence as paint. It's like a paint by numbers kit, where each piece of evidence is a numbered colour. In painting that picture, unreliable or negated evidence should be left out, and the 'picture' that should be looked at is what is left. Bill Wright's 'big picture' was virtually blank. Of Wright's 10 points of what he described as 'hard, factual evidence', when the unsustainable evidence is set to one side, we are left with:
1) David owned the gun.
8) David said that he was the only person who knew where the trigger lock was.
While on the other hand, of the evidence available to the jury at the retrial, but not at the first trial, we have
1) Robin had blood on his hands - residual blood, photographed.
2) Robin's feet were a perfect match for the luminol footprints
3) Robin's death was of a contact shot - independently verifiable as substantially more likely to be suicide than homicide (95% suicide, 5% homicide)
4) taking the blood spatter evidence into account, there was NO position in which someone other than Robin could have fired that fatal shot
4) David was conclusively identified entering his house at 6.45 (time confirmed)
5) David could not have turned on the computer.
This produces a rather different 'big picture'.
To borrow from Van Beynen: for someone who sat through the retrial and heard all the evidence, it really wasn't that hard.
'They are ignoring anomalies, inconsistencies and lies that undermine or negate individual pieces of evidence, but they are still including that evidence in their 'big picture''
DeleteYes a picture that didn't exist in any detail as 5 murders. A big picture that needed to overlook an obvious suicide.
Dump all the clutter you want, and place a real eyeglass lens, exposed as claimed for the camera, on a tiny area.
DeleteWasn't the 1995 court told the 2 times, separated by ~ 3 1/2 days?
I still don't understand why reporters didn't report it(until Joe reported it).
Not only that, but in the time in between, the cops and photographers had been over that area VERY closely, placing little arrows to mark every tiny blood drop. But they wouldn't have noticed the lens because it wasn't there, as we know.
DeleteMilton Weir isn't completely stupid. He knew it wasn't there in that photo: his verbal descriptions of finding the lens talks about items being removed first to reveal it. He claims it was a mistake.
When Weir perfed out of the police, part of the reason was that other cops were taunting him about planting evidence. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. Either way his colleagues had obviously decided he was not to be trusted.
As for reporters not reporting it in 1995 - well, by all accounts Millie has a nasty temper.
Very disappointing that the Court allowed Weir's evidence in or any evidence to do with the 'red herring' glasses. Conversely, that evidence along with Doyle's probably helped underpin the not guilty verdict because it displayed the travesty that was called a 'copy book' inquiry. Comic book more like.
DeleteThe Crown insisting on the retrial is also something to have a mixed view about. I don't think one should have happened, the case was shredded - on the other hand the public got to see what had gone wrong. Whatever view the Crown might have held about 'public interest' we saw and will see the 'public interest' fixed more firmly on the police and Crown corruption that resulted in David's convictions.
Some of those important people might have been thinking about the way they looked, be making sure that they looked important and smart. If they showed any surprise about evidence that was photographed before it was even found some people might think they didn't already know that and they wouldn't look so important.
ReplyDeleteI suppose to an important person appearances are a priority, so keeping an interested look on their face that didn't register shock at something so obvious made them appear intelligent and informed.
After all important people can't be expected to be concerned about planted evidence while they're quietly giggling about a story they made up about a paperboy using his paper run as an alibi. Besides that some of them might have had a hang over or didn't want to rock the boat. A couple of them might even have been thinking about an award they might earn for keeping quiet about a lens that was there before it wasn't there and which reappeared later. They wouldn't be concerned about a late night search by someone not tasked with the job finding what 2 other men and a photographer couldn't find - even after a grid search.
congratulations Nostalgia for reaching 50,000 views.
ReplyDeleteIs it too late to file a complaint to the Broadcast Complaints Authority for the reporting we saw for ~16 nights in May 1995?
ReplyDeleteIf reporters failed to tell us that an exposed object, claimed to be an eyeglass lens, was photographed, 3 1/2 days before it was reported 'found', in an area the size of my kitchen floor, I think those reporters deserve a complaint.
If we can't complain about them, can we at least put all of their full names on a webpage, to remain readable for 2 or 3 hundred years?
Are their names available from court records, or from their employers?