Bain defence questions scientist's method

A scientist who assisted police in the murder investigation of David Bain's family has denied giving misleading evidence about blood taken from the murder weapon.

Peter Hentschel, now retired from the ESR, was quizzed today in the High Court in Christchurch by Bain's lawyer, Michael Reed QC, about where he said blood was taken from a .22 rifle in relation to fingerprints found on it.

David Bain, now 37, is on trial for shooting dead his parents and three siblings on June 20, 1994. But Bain's defence team are arguing that his father, Robin, killed the family before turning the rifle on himself. The rifle was found next to Robin's body in a lounge of the family's Dunedin home.

Blood samples were taken from the rifle for testing. Mr Hentschel has stated that blood of human origin was found on the rifle, but agreed today that the presence of rabbit or possum blood on the rifle could not be ruled out.

Four fingerprints on the rifle were pointed out to Mr Hentschel by police fingerprint officer Kim Jones. The court is still to hear from police witnesses about who the fingerprints belonged to.

Mr Reed put it to him that he gave evidence in the first murder trial of David Bain in 1995 that blood samples had been taken from under the fingerprints.

Mr Hentschel maintained that he said only that the blood was taken from the area of the rifle where the fingerprints were found.

"As far as I can recall I have never said I have taken blood samples from the fingerprints," Mr Hentschel said.

Mr Hentschel was asked why he stated he did not see any blood smearing between the fingerprints on the rifle when he examined it, yet two other scientists reported finding smearing there.

"I would have to accept when they examined the rifle there were smears there. But I still maintain that in 1994 when I first saw that firearm, there was no smearing there."

The smearing could have been through handling or testing after he saw the rifle, Mr Hentschel said.

He had given evidence about damage or distortion to the right side of spectacles found in David's room. But Mr Reed put to him that an ophthalmologist would give evidence that the denting was predominantly on the left side of the spectacles.

"I have no knowledge of that," Mr Hentschel said.

He agreed with Mr Reed that there was no human matter or blood that might have been expected on the spectacles if the person wearing it had been in a bloody struggle with David's brother, Stephen, 14.

Mr Hentschel said he could not recall sellotape on the rifle when he examined it in 1994. He agreed with Mr Reed he did not keep diagrams of it.

Mr Reed put to him that his record-keeping was below what is expected of a scientist.

"What I recorded in those days were what the procedure was. Nowadays it would be quite different."

Mr Reed said there would be criticism from other witnesses of his lack of note-taking and plans during his investigations in the Bain house.

Mr Hentschel: "My prime function at the scene was to assist the police in testing certain items and the collection of items. But I left it to the individual officers to record the notes where samples were taken."

Told witnesses would criticise his work as inadequate, Mr Hentschel said: "I believe I have done sufficient. It was of the standards that were carried out in those days"