Bain failed to explain blood, says detective

The courtroom ordeal takes its toll on David Bain on the 39th day of the retrial. Photo / Pool

David Bain could not explain how his fingerprints got on the rifle used to kill his family, or how blood got on his clothing on the morning of the deaths.

The High Court at Christchurch heard yesterday how Bain had no answers to several questions asked by police in 1994 and a Crown prosecutor in 1995, as the prosecution closed its case in his retrial for murdering his parents and three siblings on June 20, 1994.

The defence says his father, Robin, 58, shot the family before turning the rifle on himself. Yesterday, the defence foreshadowed witnesses who would say Robin was having an incestuous relationship with his daughter Laniet.

Detective Senior Sergeant Kallum Croudis yesterday recounted his interview with Bain on June 24, 1994, before arresting him for murder.

Mr Croudis said he asked Bain why his fingerprints were found in blood on the rifle and he replied, "I don't know."

Bain: "I didn't touch the firearm to my knowledge, I didn't have blood on my hands because I had washed them."

Asked at his 1995 trial about these same prints on the rifle, Bain said: "All I can say is that I must have picked it up at some stage, but I do not recall touching the gun at all, or seeing it."

When Mr Croudis asked why blood was also found on the sole of Bain's sock, Bain said he did not know, "unless I stood in some blood". Bain also could not explain blood on his shorts or on the back of his white shirt.

A forensic scientist told the court last week that DNA from Bain's younger brother, Stephen, was found on Bain's shirt, shorts and sock. Stephen, 14, struggled violently with his killer before being shot.

Mr Croudis asked Bain if a period of 15-20 minutes he could not account for that morning could be an explanation for what happened to his family, and Bain said it was not. Bain had spoken previously of periods where he would be "away with the fairies".

Bain told Mr Croudis he could not explain why his palmprint was in blood on the washing machine, or why bloodstained clothing appeared to have been pushed into the machine.

In other evidence yesterday, the dispute over a crucial spectacle lens took a dramatic new turn.

Milton Weir, a former policeman accused by the defence of planting the lens, has previously told the court he was mistaken about its location in Stephen Bain's bedroom because of an optical illusion in a photograph.

But police forensic photographer Simon Schollum yesterday said his examinations of photographs found that Mr Weir was not mistaken, and what he saw was the lens.

The lens could have shifted before being discovered in a different location, Mr Schollum said.

The prosecution says the lens fell from glasses Bain was wearing when he struggled with his brother.

* Next: The defence

The High Court murder trial of David Bain enters its 40th day today.

The Crown has closed its case after evidence from 130 witnesses.

The jury, at its request, will today get a second view and hearing of certain evidence produced by the prosecution.

After a period of legal argument, the defence will then open its case. The defence is expected to call 40 to 60 witnesses.