Bain trial: Bloody sockprints scrutinised

Bloody sockprints in David Bain's home have come under intense scrutiny in the High Court, as Bain's defence team challenges scientific evidence over who could have left them.

Crown prosecutors say David Bain, now 37, left the prints when he shot dead his parents and three siblings on the morning of June 20, 1994. The murder trial heard yesterday about blood found on the socks Bain was wearing.

But the defence argues that the size of the prints means that David cannot have left them, and his father Robin must have when he killed the family, before turning the .22 rifle on himself.

Retired Environmental Science and Research (ESR) forensic scientist Peter Hentschel, who assisted police in the case, was quizzed yesterday about the prints that he found.

Mr Hentschel told the court he used the chemical luminol - which reacts with blood and creates a glow - to detect the sockprints in the bedroom of David's mother, Margaret, and the hallway of the Bain house.

He said he examined David's socks and noticed several spots of blood on them. He then carried out luminol testing on the socks and got a positive reaction on the soles of the socks.

No blood was detected on Robin Bain's shoes, Mr Hentschel said.

But told by Bain's lawyer, Michael Reed QC, that an overseas expert would give evidence that blood was found on Robin's right shoe, Mr Hentschel said: "All I can say is when I examined that shoe I never saw any blood on it."

Mr Hentschel said he measured the only two complete bloody sockprints at 280mm long, but "I have always felt the foot that left that print was larger than 280mm".

He said he had not been aware of a measurement of Robin's foot in the mortuary at 270mm.

Mr Reed put it to Mr Hentschel the foot that left the sockprints could not have been bigger than 280mm, and tests would show this.

Mr Hentschel: "If they show that, then I would be wrong."

Mr Hentschel said he measured socks belonging to Robin at 240mm, and those from David at 270mm.

He told the court testing was done on the hands of both David and Robin Bain for gunshot residue.

"There were no particles present which I could say were gunshot residue particles," Mr Hentschel said.

Robin's hands were not tested until September 29, 1994 and October 12, 1994. Mr Hentschel agreed with Mr Reed that moving a body could cause residue to be lost.

He said he received samples from David's hands on June 25, 1994. They were not tested until October 12, 1994.

Mr Hentschel admitted testing should be done within three hours for a living person.

Mr Reed read to Mr Hentschel a list of items from the Bain house, including several with blood spots, and confirmed with him they were never sent to the ESR for testing, while some were later destroyed.

The trial continues.

Judge denies contact with author

The judge presiding over the High Court murder trial of David Bain says he has no knowledge of any contact with an author who acknowledged him in a book about the Bain case.

In the 1997 book, The Mask of Sanity, by James McNeish, Justice Panckhurst is listed among the names of those acknowledged for their assistance in the book.

After queries by media and the Ministry of Justice, Mr McNeish has stated through his lawyer that he had "no recollection of what contribution Justice Panckhurst, as he is now, made to my research".

"I do not even recall what the man looks like, which suggest to me that we did not meet. It may have been a phone call or something quite minor, otherwise I believe I would remember it."

Mr McNeish said he had accepted the advice of his lawyer not to discuss the matter with anyone.

In the High Court in Christchurch yesterday, Justice Panckhurst said he had no knowledge of any contact with Mr McNeish or any information he could have passed on to him.

Bain's lawyer, Michael Reed, QC, told the court he accepted the judge's explanation "without any reservation whatsoever".

"It's just a pity from David's point of view that it doesn't excuse the possibility that you may have forgotten something, and it's just a matter that McNeish could have resolved it, and said he's made a mistake, there was no communication, end of story.
"Why on earth he won't do that, I don't know."

Justice Panckhurst allowed the media to report the remarks in court.