7 thoughts on “What’s the plausible explanation? (Part 2)”
From the Binnie Report…
372. As to David Bain’s “whack” on the head, the evidence relied upon by the Crown Law Office is that while being attended to by the ambulance men and Police officers at the scene, David Bain complained about a pain on the right side of his forehead. None of the Police officers present noticed any head injury until 8.47 am, when an officer observed what appeared to be a grey greenish bruise about the size of a 50 cent piece in that area. When questioned on 20 June by the Police, David Bain said immediately “I can’t remember anything that would’ve done it except when I blacked out [he had fainted in his bedroom after the Police arrived]. I don’t know how I got the skin off my left knee either.”
As to David Bain’s “whack” on the head, the evidence relied upon by the Crown Law Office is that while being attended to by the ambulance men and Police officers at the scene, David Bain complained about a pain on the right side of his forehead.
I don’t believe this. I think Binnie is lying.
Reed, have you examined any of the evidence other than the Binnie report?
Tim, have you examined any of the evidence at all?
Dr Pryde, the Police surgeon, noted a small bruise on David Bain’s forehead, but it was on the right side of his head – opposite to that part of the forehead that would likely have been in contact with the frame when, on the prosecution’s theory, the glasses were dislodged in a fight with Stephen.
Reed, have you examined any of the evidence other than the Binnie report?
No. But no one (except you) has questioned the reports summary of facts – the criticism of his report was the methodology – which I can judge for myself by reading the report.
My conclusions in relation to the Binnie Report are as follows:
(a) The report is well organised, comprehensive and thorough. It is a valuable collation of the evidence currently available in relation to this claim.
If Fisher could have found fault with Binnie’s collation of the evidence he would have.
From the Binnie Report…
The plausible explanation is that he sustained his multiple bruises, grazes, scratches, etc. during a violent struggle with his younger brother.
(Note also that the bruises are on the same side as the missing lens from the glasses David was wearing.)
I don’t believe this. I think Binnie is lying.
Reed, have you examined any of the evidence other than the Binnie report?
Tim, have you examined any of the evidence at all?
No. But no one (except you) has questioned the reports summary of facts – the criticism of his report was the methodology – which I can judge for myself by reading the report.
From the Fisher report…
If Fisher could have found fault with Binnie’s collation of the evidence he would have.