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

First trial testimony from David [ Were the glasses in your room, the frame and the lens, in your room on Sunday night?[David]No .

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 Jenepher Glover observed a pair of metal rimmed glasses with damaged frames and a single lens lying out of its frame alongside. Another glass lens was found in Stephen's room near Stephen's body.

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 own glasses.

Karam said 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.

Two witnesses, Jan and Bob Clark, both gave evidence that David had told them he was wearing his mother'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.

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 about 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 Read 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 Read had no evidence whatsoever to back up this desperate suggestion, 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.

Mr. Wright, the crown prosecutor from the 1995 trial, said, on the Brian Bruce documentary “A Question of Justice” that David’s lawyer Michael Quest indicated that there would be no dispute that David had been wearing these glasses over the weekend when his were being repaired, but at trial in 1995 David said he hadn’t used the glasses for at least a year. David told Mr. Guest one thing and then when it came to the trial told another story.

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.

[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 furor 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.

See photos attached

Images: 

Images: