Blood on David's clothes belonged to Stephen

Blood stains on clothing David Bain wore the day his family were killed contained the DNA of his brother Stephen, the court heard in 2009.

When Dr Harbison examined samples from bloodstains on David's sock, she found three samples matched Stephen's DNA. Stephen's DNA was also in samples from blood on the front left, upper back and lower back of David's white T-shirt, and in a sample taken from a bloodstain on David's black shorts. [Herald news article Here ] TV ONE Video HERE There was also blood stains on Davids Gondolier shirt he was wearing the day before the murders information found HERE

Evidence shows that Stephen had a fight for his life with whoever killed him, resulting in transfer of his blood to the killer.

It could be argued that he got maybe some blood on him while kneeling over to check his brother was dead, but then there was blood stains on the back and the front of his T shirt and on the crutch of his pants which makes that scenario unlikely, the fact that David had Stephen’s blood in a place on his shorts which was hardly consistent with accidental contact must be regarded as a significant piece of circumstantial evidence against him., however Robin did not have any of Stephen's blood on his clothes and it is certain that the killer must have transferred some blood from Stephen as a result of the struggle.  The Defence made the following argument:

That Robin changed his clothes and left the blood soaked ones in the laundry so that he could meet his maker in clean attire

You have to ask yourself how likely this is, especially given:

  • The extra time that it would take to do that and risk still being alive when David returned from the paper run.
  • The general state of hygiene in the house and the eyewitness accounts of Robin's poor state of self-maintenance at the time.
  • If Robin is following religious principals so fastidiously then he wouldn't have committed the murders in the first place because as we all know Christianity forbids murder. There is a direct contradiction here in religious belief.  What is there to achieve in the eyes of your Maker by changing your clothes when you have just committed quadruple murder?
  • The clothes that Robin wore when he died were not especially smart and were what he put on to wear most mornings.

This explanation is ridiculous and there is absolutely no basis for it in any eyewitness testimony or evidential statements.  It is another example of the Defence inventing stories to provide plausible explanations for their version of events.

The Defence response to any questions regarding Robin's actions in this scenario are met with the response that he was acting irrationally and so it cannot be fully explained so we are asked to suspend reason and accept just about any sequence of events is possible.  If so, why attempt to put forward an explanation in the first place?

If you are to believe that David got the blood on his clothes as a result of kneeling over Stephen then why wasn't there blood from the other victims on David's clothes?  Is it just coincidence that he kneeled over and inspected the only victim who put up a bloodied fight to the finish?

The Defence explanation regarding the clothes is ridiculous and highly unlikely.

I seem to remember that the defence said that the blood on David Bains shorts could have got there from David kneeling over Stephen,I would have liked to have seen someone demonstrate that.But what about the blood on David Bain's T-shirt?

 

Re the blood on David Bain's T-shirt.DNA tests carried out after the trial proved that this was Stephen's blood.The scientist that carried out the test said it appeared to be old blood.  The point I have always made is that it is highly unlikely that David Bain would have been wearing a T-shirt with old blood on it.

Re the green jersey.At the retrial Mr Doyle,who now works for the police in a civilian capacity,agreed with Reed,when cross-examined,that David Bain had always said that jersey belonged to his father.Apparently he was not aware that Bain had twice said,prior to the trial ,that the green jersey belonged to Arawa.He is not the only person who would have made the same mistake,as I have just found out. Reed was counting on that when he cross-examined Doyle.  In other words, he took a punt. 

Please note Mike the evidence in the first trial when David misidentified the jersey belonging to Robin.He stated the green v knecked jersey on display in the court belonged to his father.He was then asked to match it to a montage of photos of Robin with  wearing a green jesey.He agreed they were the same jerseys.Alas for David the green jersey worn by Robin  in the photo montage was round necked. (Re Mask of SAnity pgs 120-121)

Yes,I know David Bain pointed to three photos that he said showed his father wearing that jersey,but it was a different jersey.

But even Milton Weir would have agreed with Reed.He had forgotten that Bain had twice said early in the piece that the jersey belonged to Arawa. To be fair,he wasn't the one who interviewed Bain,and nor was Doyle. Reed took a punt on Doyle not knowing that Bain had twice said that jersey belonged to Arawa.

 

Permalink

It is also worth noting that a deeply religious man would never commit suicide as that is also a mortal sin in Christianity.

 

The blood on his clothes would be the least of Robin's worries when he "met his Maker"!