A new book has been written on the Bain killings, the title is The Bain Killings Whodunnit, the author is Michael Sharp.
There are chapters on the glasses , the luminol sockprints, the blood on David's clothes, the Binnie /Bain interview, the Binnie report, etc.,etc.
If you would like a copy please use the contact form on this site to request a copy.
Much has been written about the glasses that were found in David Bain's room.
These are the facts of the matter.
On the Monday morning a pair of glasses were found on a chair in David Bain's room. The frame was damaged and one lens was missing. The other lens was on the chair with the frame. The missing lens was later found in Stephen's room.
It was later established that those glasses belonged to David's mother.
Why would a pair of glasses belonging to Margaret Bain be in David's room?
David Bain testified that he wore those glasses when his were unavailable.
Were his glasses unavailable?
Yes, they were, because he had damaged his the previous Thursday when leaving his music teachers house and he had taken them in to the optician on the following day to be repaired.
What did he use his mothers glasses for?
He said he used them when he went to lectures or for watching TV.
Did he go to lectures on the Friday?
He said he believed he did, but no-one has ever been able to confirm that they say him at lectures on the Friday.
Did he watch TV that weekend?
Yes, he testified that he watched a video that weekend.
What is more he told his lawyer and co-counsel that he had been wearing the glasses that were found in his room to watch TV on the Sunday night prior.
He also told an aunt that he was staying with after the killings that he had been wearing a pair of his mother's glasses while his were in being repaired. He said they weren't perfect but they got him by.
The defence team have put forward a number of theories re those glasses.
They have said the lenses had dust on them. Glass attracts dust and there was a great deal of dust in the Bain residence. In fact the police officers carrying out the scene examination in Stephen's room had to wear dust masks.
There was no blood on the frame or lenses say the defence team. Why would there necessarily be blood on the frame? It may not even have fallen on to the floor in Stephen's room. As for the lenses , well so far as the lens in Stephen's room is concerned, it probably fell on a blood free section of the carpet. The other lens may not have fallen out of the frame until it was placed on that chair.
There can be no doubt that David Bain had been wearing the glasses that were found in his room and that he had been wearing them less than 12 hours before they were found . The questions he needs to answer are
[i] How did the frame of those glasses come to be damaged and
[ii] How did a lens from those glasses come to be in Stephen's room?
It is worth going and having a look, there is a surprising amount of disinformation being propogated.
The site was set up 22 January and there were a few 'donations' in February, then everything ramped up a few days ago with what appears to be seed money of 2 and 5 k. i think the same donor was responsible for those sums as the number of donations and donors is different by one.
What I find interesting is that clearly even those who set it up didn't contribute originally, or if they did, it wasn't much, usually friends and family kick it off.
The person who set set it up originally had a goal of a million dollars, but on the 16th Sept 2016 amended that to an open goal.
Givealittle has removed many negative comments of which there has been many.
Commentators and questioners have questioned the motives of the man who set it up as it links to information on himself, not just David Bain.
One commentor said that he thought having to pay 1$ to be able to comment was worth it. Another hoped that their 5$ would help. There have been donations in the $100's though but it is hard to know whether they are to give momentum.
Not counting the two large sums and donors 62 people have donated $3,530.00 mostly since the 15th/16th Sept.
Amended on 16th August, actually.
I wonder who those two guest donors were that started the ball rolling ?
Could Joe Karam have been one of them?
The donations seemed to have virtually dried up. Just shows that most people now know who the perpetrator was and there is no way they will donate a brass razoo to a multiple murderer.
No mention of who the third trustee is either, although Roger says that it isn't him.