STORY: "Bain evidence: Police respond," by reporter Kurt Bayer, published by the New Zealand Herald on June 27, 2013.
GIST: "Police have responded to new evidence that suggests Robin Bain murdered his family, saying marks on a photograph "can always be open to interpretation". Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said police today examined Mr Bain's fingerprints that were taken after his death, which showed damage to his thumb they say were caused by cuts to his fingers in the same place as the marks in the photo. Fingerprints do not show through cut marks, but they do show through powder like the powder that would come from a gun, police said. "Our fingerprint experts advise that [the absence of fingerprint markings on the thumb print] is consistent with someone sustaining cuts or damage to the fingers prior to prints being taken, which would then affect the print image,'' Mr Burgess said. "Had these been powder marks or smudges as claimed, we would expect to see a complete fingerprint image.'' Mr Burgess said the theory put forward by 3rd Degree was an interesting idea when taken in isolation, but was no more than a theory when taken out of context of all the other evidence which has been presented to several courts. "Marks on a photograph can always be open to several interpretations by experts, and the significance or relevance of these marks have not been tested in court,'' he said. "Examination of the original photograph does not give any definitive indication of what the marks could be. There are other possibilities, including that they are minor cuts.'' Mr Bain was working on the roof and spouting of his Every Street home in the days leading up to the killings, Mr Burgess said. "Any Kiwi handyman knows the sort of damage this can do to the hands. Post mortem examination of Robin Bain's hands shows a number of minor abrasions and marks you would expect to find with someone familiar with manual work.'' Evidence put forward in court was that the only identifiable fingerprints found on the gun belonged to David and Stephen Bain, Mr Burgess said.""
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893367
See also the following story from the New Zealand Herald on how the compensation for David Bain became derailed: "Documents released to the Herald under the Official Information Act detail the unravelling of the compensation claim - almost from the moment Justice Binnie's report landed with Mrs Collins last year on August 31. Mrs Collins met Justice Binnie two weeks later to tell him she held "serious concerns" and intended to have it peer reviewed. She wrote to retired Justice Robert Fisher, QC, on September 26 asking him to do so. On December 4, Justice Binnie became concerned over delays in dealing with the compensation. He wrote to Mrs Collins saying, "I feel obliged to do something." Mrs Collins' office warned the report was privileged - Justice Binnie rejected the claim. Mrs Collins' office then offered an undertaking to release his report after the Cabinet had made a decision on compensation - if he refrained from doing so himself. On December 11, Mrs Collins moved first. She told Justice Binnie - apparently for the first time - his report had been peer reviewed. She spelled out in a press release the same day her concerns about the report and its "incorrect facts". By January 21, when there was talk of yet another report, questions about the process were being raised by Mr Bain's lawyers. Michael Reed, QC, accused Mrs Collins of running a "secret process" which showed a pre-determined view and "abuse of your powers". Just over a week later, papers were filed in court and the compensation bid halted." The story can be found at:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893241
Comprehensive Wikipedia entry on the Bain case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear reader: Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following developments relating to this case;
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
