Broken Spectacles were found in David's Room which David admitted to his lawyer he had been wearing.

Broken Spectacles were found in David's Room which David is likely to have Worn

First trial testimony from David

Q: Were the glasses in your room, the frame and the lens, in your room on Sunday night? [David]No.

Q: Can you account for their presence as found in your room by the Police on the Monday morning? [David] No I cannot account for that.]

When police entered David’s room on the morning of the murders detective Constable Terry van Turnhout observed a pair of metal rimmed glasses with a damaged frame and a single lens lying out of its frame alongside. The other missing glass lens was found in Stephen's room underneath a skate boot approximately 6 inches from the bloody hand of David’s brother Stephen.

The questions police needed the answer to were.

[A] If as stated by David the glasses were not in his room on the Sunday night how did they come to be there in a broken state on the Monday morning?

[b] How did the missing lens from the glasses come to be in Stephens’s room just six inches from David’s murdered brothers bloody hand?

These glasses were an old pair of David’s mother which David admitted in the first trial that he wore sometimes. An optometrist at that trial said this pair of glasses would give David about 90% visibility. David was severely short sighted with astigmatism, which is a distortion in the shape of the cornea, and objects over one foot are blurred. Without glasses David's eyesight is considerably impaired and without them he would have needed to get very close to his victims if he was to shoot them for fear of missing. At the time of the murders his glasses were away being repaired.

Katharine Bridgman: optometry evidence:

[131] Ms Bridgman is a Dunedin optometrist. On 9 October 1992 she examined David Bain. Her recollection of the examination is based upon business records, rather than her personal recollection. Her witness statement contains observations concerning his eye-sight as at that time and describes the glasses which she prescribed. [David Bain] told me he was wearing his mother’s prescription at present. By prescription he meant glasses. On the occasion of the consultation in 1992 the accused had broken his glasses.

Joe Karam stated this misinformation in his book “David’s Mothers glasses were of No Use To David”

On page 114 in Joe Karam's book David and Goliath there is this misinformation! [Quote] David was prematurely arrested, imagine the difference in police positioning had they already known on the Friday morning that these glasses were previously David's mothers and "OF NO USE TO HIM" [end quote]

This is completely contrary to what Optometrist Katherine Bridgman said, and David himself admitted, that he used the old pair of his Mother’s glasses when his were not available for going to lectures and watching TV, and David admitted watching a video on the Sunday Night!

 

David's Auntie and Uncle Confirm David Bain was wearing the glasses in the days before the murders.

Jan and Bob Clark, both gave evidence that David had told them he was wearing his mother's glasses in the days before the murders. Below Jan Clark answeres questions asked by Mr Bates for the prosecution at trial in 2009

 

Q. At some stage around this time was there a discussion about glasses?

A. Yes, later, after David got up and had some breakfast we were then sitting in the lounge, David, Heidi and myself and David sort of rubbed 10 his eyes like that, you know, and I said, “Oh are your eyes troubling you dear?”

Q. When you say rubbing his eyes, you're –

A. Yes it was a sort of a movement like that, just as though his eyes were troubling him. And I said, “Are your eyes troubling you dear?” And he 15 said, “Yes they are a bit I really need my glasses.” And I went to get up to go and get them saying you know, “Where are they?” And he explained that his own glasses had been broken the previous Thursday when he was leaving his music lesson and I asked him how he had been managing in the meantime and he said he had been wearing an old pair of Margaret’s glasses.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On the Sunday night immediately prior to the killings he watched TV and drove Laniet in the car, both activities for which he would have needed glasses. On the morning of the killings David told a policeman that he needed his glasses. This prompted the police to look for and to find the pair of glasses on the chair in his room.

Lens found in Stephens’s room. Sergeant Trevor Thomson told the court a lens was found on June 23 about 8.49pm in Stephen's blood-stained room. The lens was underneath a skate boot, he said. As exhibits officer he had noted both items. The lens was also photographed in the position it was found. Both Detective Sergeant Milton Weir and Detective Constable Jacques Legros were also present in the room. News item HERE

The location of one lens and the condition of the glasses are consistent with having been broken during the struggle with Stephen and if you believe that Robin did the murders then you have to ask how these glasses came to be in such a state in such a place. There is no connection whatsoever between the glasses and Robin Bain.

David could not enlighten the police why the glasses were in his room and broken. In the ensuing legal actions the following scenarios became relevant:

1. The glasses broke during a struggle between David and Stephen and one lens fell to the floor near to Stephen's body and David neither had the eyesight or presence of mind to retrieve it. David continued killing family members with the aid of one lens and then when he finished, discarded the glasses in his room.

2.Michael Reed for the defence at trial in 2009 suggested that Detective Milton Weir planted the lens near where David’s brother Stephen's body was found, in his bedroom. Michael Reed had no evidence whatsoever to back up this devious suggestion, "it makes no sense whatsoever" as the lens was missing when police first entered the Bain residence as testified by several police officers and evidence photographs.  Why at this stage just a day or so after the killings would the police frame David the only member of the family left alive? It would have been far easier to leave it as a murder suicide and put the blame on Robin, the fact that another police officer Constable Jenepher Glover discovered on the very day of the murders the broken glasses with one lens on a chair in David’s room gives testimony to the fact of the other missing lens. David could give no explanation why these glasses that he admitted to wearing on occasion were broken and on the chair in his room on the Monday morning even though he said they were not there the evening before.

Strong evidence from David's own lawyer that David was wearing the glasses.

Crown prosecutor Bill Wright from the first trial in 1995 said in 2005 that David's lawyer Michael Guest approached the crown and indicated that there would be no dispute that David had been wearing the glasses over the weekend before the murders when his glasses were being repaired. It was therefore with some surprise that David asserted on the stand at trial in 1995 that he hadn't been wearing the said glasses, it was certainly contrary to the information we were given by his then lawyer Michael Guest.

Further evidence David was using the glasses: At trial in 2009 Constable Terry Van Turnhout gave evidence that he had been sent into Bain's bedroom to "observe, note, and record any of David Bain’s words", David asked for his glasses which were on a chair. Constable Van Turnhout picked them up but then realized he was in a crime scene and replaced them. He told Bain they would get his glasses later. The glasses had no lenses in the frame, but one lens was on the chair.

This is what the Privy Council had to say about the lens in 2007: The Crown’s thesis that David Bain was wearing the glasses when engaged in a struggle with Stephen, before shooting him, is certainly a tenable one on the evidence. Indeed, in the absence of any other explanation for the lens being found in Stephen’s bedroom, where he was killed, and the Crown’s thesis is a strong one. The issue for us, however, is whether it is reasonably possible the lens could have got into the vicinity of Stephen’s dead body in a manner or at a time which was unrelated to the murders. That could be so only if the lens was there prior to the time when the murderer entered the room to shoot Stephen. There is no direct evidence suggesting how or why a lens from a pair of glasses Stephen never wore, and had no need to wear, was already on the floor in his bedroom, prior to his being shot.

One further point should be noted at this stage. According to written and oral submissions made by both Mr Guest David's lawyer at the 1995 trial and Prosecutor Mr Wright to officials, Mr Guest told Mr Wright that the glasses were Mrs Bain's but David would admit wearing them during the weekend immediately prior to the murders. In his evidence-in-chief at trial, however, David denied that he had been wearing the spectacles, either in the weekend prior to the murders or for a year previously:

In my room was found a pair of lenses frames, one lens beside them. They were not my glasses. They were my mother's older glasses that she used on occasion. I know of the evidence of the optometrist there is a dispute with my evidence as to whether those glasses were mine or someone else's. I have no doubt they were my mother's glasses, yes. On occasions in the past I have worn my mother's glasses if my glasses were not available, but only for watching TV programs, basically that is it or going to lectures. I couldn't wear them for extended periods. She had astigmatism so it was a strain to wear those glasses. I don't know how those glasses came to be in my room. I accept the description of police officers that the house at Every St was very untidy. As to how those glasses might have got into my room, I have no explanation. I hadn't used them or seen them that weekend or at least a year previous.

"New evidence"

In late December 2012 under the official information act, a letter from Bain’s first lawyer “Michael Guest” to Justice Minister Judith Collins was obtained. In the letter Guest said David Bain “specifically lied” about wearing the all “important glasses” on the night before the murders. In the letter to Justice minister Judith Collins Guest said David Bain “at pre-trial discussions” told himself and his Co-Council Jonelle Williams that he had been wearing his Mothers glasses on the Sunday evening before the murders "in the early hours of the following Monday morning". Michael Guest immediately notified crown prosecutor Bill Wright of this startling admission from David Bain, but David stood up in court and lied under oath and said he had not worn the glasses for a year before the murders.

[Summing up]

If you believe that David is the killer then bloody marks on the door frame to Stephen's room are consistent with a now sight-impaired David leaving the room awkwardly, as are similar marks on the door frame of Arawa’s room who was killed next. Notably the first shot fired at Arawa missed. Also, without his glasses David would not have been able to see the blood spots on the clothes that he was wearing when the police arrived and be less inclined to notice the bloody prints he left on the washing machine.

If you believe that Robin is the killer then you have to wonder why the Defence made such a furore over the glasses and accused the police of tampering with evidence. You have to ask yourself, why is this at all relevant to the case when this pair of glasses were of no use to Robin? The answer is simply that the Defence knew how incriminating the glasses are against David.

Conclusion::

There is only one obvious explanation for the appearance of the spectacle frame and the one lens found in David's room and the other missing lens just six inches from Stephens bloody hand in his room. And that explanation is “because David Bain was wearing those glasses on the morning of the murders when he fought with his brother Stephen”. David could not bring himself to tell the truth at trial in 1995 even after he had already told two independent witnesses including his then lawyer Michael Guest and his Auntie that he had been wearing the glasses in the days immediately preceding the murders, he decided to change his story instead to try and save himself from a long prison sentence.

See photos below and video of Prosecutor Bill Wright speaking about David wearing the glasses  .HERE.

Images: 

 

Images: 

Comments

Michael Guest email

From:Michael Guest

Sent: Monday, 10 September 2012 8:43 a.m.

To: Judith Collins

Subject: David Bain

Dear Minister,

My name is Michael Guest and I was the senior defence Counsel for David Bain at his first trial. I am concerned to read in the press this morning that Justice Binnie's recommendation to Cabinet will be that Mr Bain is innocent.

My concern is that neither myself nor my co-Counsel were interviewed by the Canadian Judge despite the Bain team suspending privilege for the purposes of the Police Complaints Authority Investigation in 1997. I told that Investigation (relieved from the obligation of privilege) that Mr Bain has informed both myself and my co-Counsel that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening before the 6.30 am murders the next morning.

That was a devastating admission and we took all possible steps within our ethical duties to minimise the possibility of that information coming out at trial. However, in response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did. Mr W.J. Wright, for the Crown, decided that due to the fact that we were in the closing three days of an almost three week trial, we would simply let matters lie and proceed.

Justice Thorp, in his 1998 Review of the Police Complaint's Authority Report, refers to this evidence as significant and gives it the clear stamp of credibility because the Crown Prosecutor confirmed what I had told him at trial months before Mr Karam fomented a trail of half and quarter truths up and down the country. Your Ministry will have easy access to Justice Thorp's Report.

The importance of this admission of wearing the glasses the night before is, quite simply, a damning admission because the police found the bent frame and one lens in David's bedroom and the other lens in his murdered brolher's bedroom.

The press slatement now suggests an opinion of "innocence" by Justice Binnie, when this evidence was available to be read, and Mr Bain's first Counsel were not interviewed. I find that incredible.

Maybe there is something in the Judge's Report that sheds some different view on this evidence but, in my opinion, it shatters any suggestion of innocence.

That Mr Bain spent 13 years in prison and then was acquilted at a second trial might be seen as an "exceptional circumstance" but a finding that he is innocent is not a correct conclusion.

I can be contacted by any person you wish to nominate at this email address, or .....

Yours faithfully, Michael Guest

Michael Guest follow up letter

Michael Guest LLB EMPLOYMENT REPRESENTATIVE & ADVOCATE
The Minister of JusticeParliament BuildingsWELLINGTON
Friday 21 December 2012
Dear Minister, I refer our previous correspondence. I have subsequently had referred to me the response from Justice Binnie to your discussions with him about the glasses evidence which I raised in my letter to you dated 10 September. I am most grateful for the circumspect way in which you raised that matter with the Judge.But the Judge’s self-defensive reply is most disturbing, almost as if it is designed to blind you to the relevance of that evidence. My e mail to you was dated 10 September, your discussion with the Judge was on 13 September and his reply was dated 25 September. He chooses to go on the attack raising issues of my own character and credibility and thus obfuscating the intense relevance of the very matter you raised with him. The detail he hasprovided raises the question as to who gave him all of the Law Society material. How is it relevant? I have been judged and found wanting but those issues do not alter the incontrovertible facts of the matters I have raised.However much of a scoundrel Justice Binnie wishes to paint me, the salient facts are these.
1. Trenchant and continual criticism of me by the Bain team surely waived privilegefrom the early stages. There is common law authority to that effect.
2. Mr Bain informed both myself and my co-Counsel, Miss Jonelle Williams, that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening before the 6.30 am murders the next morning.
3. In response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did.
4. The Crown Solicitor therefore knew this fact at trial.
5. Justice Thorp gives my evidence to the PCA the clear stamp of credibility because theCrown Prosecutor confirmed to him what I had told him at trial.