Also the defenders of David Bain spent years saying that the blood from the fingerprints was from an animal David had shot six months before the murders, but when there so called expert studied a 15 year old photo of the blood prints he concluded that the prints were not even in blood, on the face of it having a person make a judgment on such a matter as this simply by looking at a photo is clearly a complete waste of time.
That's another point, Bob. I'd like to know what the nature of the recent investigations were. You're saying that it was just done on photographs. Even if they did test blood that had been sitting around for 15 years, it would have degraded to such an extent that, while identifiable as blood, it may not be identifiable as human blood.
There was one expert that was sure the blood he tested from underneath David Bain's fingerprints was human blood.
But,interestingly enough,even the most avid David Bain supporters now agree that it wasn't rabbit or possum blood,or even kangaroo or wombat blood,they say that theory has "gone out the window".