The Crown alleges that David Bain’s shirt, shorts and socks got bloody before David did his paper run.
Did David do his paper run wearing a bloody shirt, shorts and socks or did he change back into them when he got home from his paper run?
What’s the plausible explanation?
Come on Richard!
You would Ignore the obvious evidence of the Magazine marks on Robins hands and hang an innocent man on such a dubious claim by the Prosecution? (the whole Crown case is made up of this sort of construed nonsense)
The answer to your question is simply that The Blood got on his clothing after the Paper run.
A better question to ask is “Explain why David would want to kill his Family????”
Their is no motive for David to kill his family, and yet a good motive has been provided for why Robin did it!
I think you have allowed yourself to be influenced by your *personal feelings in regard to Arawa.
Richard? I wrote this.
Tim, I agree with you… a plausible explanation that fits the evidence is that the blood got on David’s clothes after the paper run.
Is there a plausible explanation that fits the evidence if the blood got on David’s clothes before the paper run?
people are stupid.
There is no way around this. It is why I no longer have much faith in democracy.
True, Damien. But Tim and Reed are not stupid. There must be some other reason why they mistakenly believe that Robin Bain did it. š
There were no magazine marks on Robin’s hands. Your “obvious evidence” simply does not exist, Tim.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893367
Tim, you’re seeing things that aren’t there and you’re not thinking straight.
What have you been drinking? š
Indentations would also leave voids in the fingerprints.
If Robin were the Police suspect any cuts on his fingers would be evidence of a struggle over the gun with Stephen.
I am sorry Reed, I am only running on three cylinders at the moment and as such don’t have the energy to focus on stuff as I should.
I’m about three weeks behind now.
That’s ok.
I dream of being only 3 weeks behind. š
I was already a year behind when I had my computer stolen – now I have to redo my taxes as well.
Tim, I have no “personal feelings” in regard to Arawa. I met her for all of 20 seconds 20 years ago. Sorry to disappoint.
Yes, I do recall that I thought she was hot. š
But in fact the reason I remember her at all was because of her unusual name—that, and the fact that the following year she was murdered by her older brother. š
C’mon Reed. David stuck his bloodied clothes in the washing machine before he went on his paper run. He overlooked the fact that the blood had soaked through to his undergarments.
Where’s the blood on Robin? There is none, save his own.
Robin was a godly man. David shot him from the alcove while Robin was kneeling in prayer. Sickening.
If it were true that he wore his blood stained clothes underneath when he did his paper run then he would have transferred blood onto the outer garments that he wore.
If Robin did it then he must have had a shower and put his bloody clothes in the laundry. That’s consistent with the evidence.
The David blood evidence is consistent with his innocence and inconsistent with his guilt.
“If it were true that he wore his blood stained clothes underneath when he did his paper run then he would have transferred blood onto the outer garments that he wore.”
Do you have evidence of this or did you just make it up? Here is an alternate theory, the amount of blood that soaked through to the undergarments was not a huge amount (hence David didn’t notice it) and wouldn’t be enough to transfer back to the outer garments worn in the paper round.
“If Robin did it then he must have had a shower and put his bloody clothes in the laundry. Thatās consistent with the evidence.” So Robin had a shower – but still didn’t go to the toilet to relieve his full bladder. All that running water. He put his clothes in the laundry, which David came home and put in the washing machine – carefully sorting (as he always does by his own testimony) out the coloureds from the whites (except this time he didn’t – he put a woolen jersey straight into the wash with everything else). David managed to get blood over himself in the process, and put a clear bloodied palm print on the washing machine. He then goes and washes his hands to “get rid of the newsprint” and doesn’t notice all the blood he is washing off.
How exactly is this evidence inconsistent with David’s guilt?
I just made it up. Although, the defence thought of it first – they had the shoes tested for blood and the only blood found was David’s from a sore toe that he’d had some time prior.
I’m not sure if the sweatshirt was even tested but had Stephen’s blood been on the inside of David’s sweatshirt or shoes this would have been strong evidence for David’s guilt.
I think that fresh blood that is present enough to be seen will almost certainly be transferred to another surface if rubbed against it.
The absence of blood from the inside of David’s shoes (and sweatshirt?) is evidence for David’s innocence. And if David is presumed to have got the blood on these clothes before his paper run, as the prosecution contends, then the absence of blood is strong evidence for David’s innocence.
I had an incorrect understanding of the evidence.
From the Binnie report…
If the police had actually looked and found no blood on Robin inconsistent with suicide then for Robin to be the killer he must have had to wash blood off.
For the explanation to be consistent with the evidence there is no reason to presume Robin showered.