Bain trial: Jury faces 'awesome responsibility', defence says in closing

David Bain. Pool photo

A 15 year journey in what is "undoubtedly the most extraordinary case in New Zealand's history" is now nearing an end, Bain's lawyers have said.

Michael Reed, QC, has finished summing up the case for the defence of David Bain, accused of murdering his mother, father, two sisters and brother.

Mr Reed told the jury that they have an "awesome responsibility" when they begin deliberating.

"You decide whether David goes home after tomorrow, home means penniless but free," Mr Reed said.

He said the alternative is to send him back to prison where he has been "rotting" for 15 years.

"He is 37 years of age, a really nice guy with a lovely smile and a nice way about him. He's not a murderer," Mr Reed said.

David Bain's defence lawyers argue that it was his father, Robin, who "flipped" and committed the murders, before turning the gun on himself.

He said the Crown had not proven their case against Bain beyond reasonable doubt.

"Have they proved that it was definitely not suicide? They ask you to choose between experts," Mr Reed said.

He said tomorrow, the jury will hear from the judge and his summing up.

"The facts of this case are not for him, they are for you, ladies and gentleman - twelve of you," Mr Reed said.

He thanked the jury for their attention during the three months of evidence and asked them to return not guilty verdicts on all five counts of murder.

Earlier, Mr Reed said David Bain's palm print on the washing machine can be explained because he put a load of washing on, on the morning that five of his family members were found dead in their home.

He said the palm print may not have been made in blood.

But even if it was made in blood, Bain could have picked that up from the green jersey that was in the pile of washing, Mr Reed said.

He said David had sorted the whites from colours, as was his routine, and not the actions of someone who had just murdered their family.

"If the green jersey was covered in blood, you would expect David to get a bit of blood on his hand," Mr Reed said.

However, who was wearing that green jersey is contested by both sides.

"If there's a bit of blood, who cares? It's come from the green jersey. That's all a nonsense," Mr Reed said, referring to the importance placed on the palm print by the Crown.

Mr Reed had earlier told the jury that the defence believes Robin Bain put his bloodied clothes in the wash and changed into fresh clothes to "meet his maker".

Mr Reed questioned why Bain would not have also washed the bloodied gloves found in Stephen's room, had he been the murderer.

Mr Reed also discredited the importance of Bain's fingerprints being found on his rifle.

"It's David's gun, you would expect to find his fingerprints on it," he said.

But Mr Reed said where the defence differ from the prosecution is that they say there is no blood underneath the fingerprints.

Yesterday, Crown prosecutor Kieran Raftery said there was a substance with a red pigment found under the fingerprints.

Mr Reed said there is a difference in opinion about where a sample of the blood found on the gun was taken from.

He said the defence maintain that the blood was taken some distance from the fingerprints but the exact position is not known.

Mr Reed also addressed the psychiatric state that his client was in on June 20, 1994.

He said Bain would have had to have turned into a "homicidal maniac" for a brief time before reverting to normal if he was the murderer but instead Bain was a "friendly jovial 22 year-old with a new girlfriend and a dog".

Mr Reed said the prosecution case was the "don't knows case".

He said Mr Raftery told the jury yesterday that the forensic evidence has "something in it for everyone".

"What an extraordinary phrase to use. What is it, a quiz game?" Mr Reed asked.

Setting out his case, Mr Reed said there was very little blood on Bain, which shows he did check on his family members but did not shoot them when he returned from his paper run.

He also repeated evidence from a forensic scientist that showed a bruise on Robin Bain's hand was less than 12-hours old.

"It didn't happen after he was having fish and chips and doing nothing," Mr Reed said, referring to the night before the murders.

He told the jury that they can draw an inference from the bruise to suggest that Robin was involved in the murders and had had a violent bloody fight with his son, Stephen Bain.

He told the jury that there was "extensive blood on Robin's hands".

He said only one blood sample was tested and then destroyed by police before the Privy Council appeal.

"If one of those samples on Robin turns out to be any of the children, particularly Stephen, then the Crown has no explanation of how the blood of Stephen got onto Robin," Mr Reed said.

He said Robin Bain "cleaned himself up to meet his maker" before shooting himself.

Mr Reed said Robin was "mentally depressed and irrational" and had shown signs of depression since the late 1970s.

Yesterday, Crown prosecutor Kieran Raftery said Robin would have to have gone back to the caravan after murdering his family, changed his clothes and put them in the laundry before killing himself.

Mr Raftery said no blood positively identified as belonging to someone else was found on the clothing that Robin was wearing when he died.

"Why on earth?" Mr Raftery asked.

But today, Mr Reed said: "You cannot subscribe a rational act to what Robin did." He said mentally deranged people do "odd things".

"We don't know what was in his mind, that deranged mind, we have no idea," Mr Reed said.

Tomorrow Justice Graham Panckhurst will begin his summing up before the jury begins deliberating.