Bain trial: Officer made mistake in analysing photo, court told

David Bain's defence argues that his father Robin (pictured) shot dead his family and himself. Photo / Supplied

What a senior policeman thought was a spectacle lens was only a reflection, the Bain murder trial has been told.

Photographic analyst Peter Durrant told the High Court at Christchurch today that a photograph he analysed contained a "specular illusion" that could be mistaken for a lens.

The photograph was taken by police in the bedroom of Stephen Bain, 14, after five members of the Bain family were shot dead on June 20, 1994.

The court has heard that a spectacle lens was later found by police under a skate boot during a search of Stephen's bedroom.

The prosecution says the lens fell from glasses David Bain was wearing when he got into a violent struggle with his brother Stephen. But Bain's defence team say the lens was planted by then Detective Sergeant Milton Weir.

Following the lens discovery, Mr Weir viewed the photograph taken in Stephen's bedroom in which he said he could see the lens at the end of the skate boot.

He gave evidence on this to David Bain's first murder trial in 1995.

Mr Weir has since conceded that he was mistaken about seeing the lens in the photograph, and it was an optical illusion. He said this mistake led him to inadvertently mislead the jury in the 1995 trial, in which Bain was found guilty of murder.

However a prosecution witness, police forensic photographer Simon Schollum, has told the current trial that Mr Weir was not mistaken, and what he saw was the lens. It could have shifted before being discovered in a different location, Mr Schollum said.

Mr Durrant said today his conclusion from viewing the photograph is that it definitely was not a lens. It was a sheet of plastic over several pieces of paper, creating a reflection which Mr Weir had mistakenly identified as a lens.

A piece of plastic created a "specular reflection".

"It is an effect. It is an effect of light and dark, and it gives the appearance of a shape that could be misconstrued as a lens."

Viewing video footage taken in that area had not changed his opinion.

Mr Durrant was "100 per cent" confident he was correct. Mr Schollum was mistaken, he said.

Mr Durrant was invited in 1997 by the Police Complaints Authority to take part in a review of the Bain case. He was asked to review photographs and video footage taken by police, including the photograph taken in Stephen's bedroom.

Asked about the police evidence presented to him , Mr Durrant said: "To put it mildly, it was an absolute shambles."

Negatives were out of order, which was unusual as photographers did not usually work like that.

Earlier, an expert has told the High Court David Bain could not have made important bloody sockprints left in his home.

David Bain, 37, is on trial for the murder of his parents and three siblings. His defence team say his father, Robin, 58, shot dead the family before turning the rifle on himself.

Forensic science consultant Dr Anna Sandiford told the Bain murder trial that she carried out tests to try to mimic the process of the prints being left on the carpet in the Bain house, based on feet the length of David Bain (300mm) and his father, Robin Bain (270mm).

The prints were found in the bedroom of David Bain's mother Margaret and the hallway of the Bains' Dunedin home after five of the family were shot dead on June 20, 1994.

They were discovered by scientist Peter Hentschel using luminol, a chemical which glows when in contact with blood. A complete print that showed up in luminol was measured at 280mm long.

Dr Hentschel said the foot that left this print would have been larger than 280mm, but Dr Sandiford said today this was illogical. Her findings were that the print would have been left by a foot smaller than 280mm.

Dr Sandiford used cow's blood on socks to make prints on carpet, which she then sprayed with luminol and measured.

Based on a 300mm foot, she found the luminol mark left was on average 306mm long. The range of prints left was 300mm to 315mm, and never less than the actual foot length.

Dr Sandiford said David Bain himself wore bloodied socks in her testing in order to produce exactly the prints he might have left.

Defence lawyer Helen Cull QC asked Dr Sandiford what her conclusion was about whether a 300mm foot could have made the prints in the house.

Dr Sandiford said that, based on the results of her tests, David Bain's right foot could not have made the prints recorded in the house.

Dr Sandiford is giving evidence for the defence of David Bain, 37, who is on trial for the murder of his parents and three siblings. His defence team say his father, Robin, 58, shot dead the family before turning the rifle on himself.

United Kingdom firearms expert Philip Boyce yesterday gave evidence that Robin Bain more likely than not committed suicide, and could have done so with ease.

He also said suicide could occur with the rifle up to 18-22cm away from Robin's head, but today he had to revise his figures.

An experiment was carried out to test the issue of distance from the head using a model with an arm span of 188cm. Robin Bain's estimated arm span was 185 to 190cm.

Mr Boyce said the result of the experiment was that the furthest the gun could be from Robin's head, and the trigger still be reached, was 12cm.

Many variables existed in this testing, Mr Boyce said.

A relief teacher earlier told the court Robin Bain asked her to fill in for him from the day he and his family were killed.

Christine Rout told the High Court today she had relieved several times from 1991 to 1993 at Taieri Beach School, where Robin worked as principal and teacher.

Ms Rout said she relieved for him over a period in 1993 when Robin was unwell, and an education review was scheduled at the school.

"He looked ill. He had lost weight. He looked gaunt."

She said Robin phoned her a number of times in 1994 to ask her to relieve but she was always booked up. The last time she spoke to him was the week before Robin and four members of his family were shot dead in their Dunedin home.

She said Robin rang her home asking her to relieve for the following weeks.

Ms Rout said her daughter took a message and she phoned Robin back that evening or the next day. She told him she could not do the relieving because of other commitments.

Her understanding was that Robin was asking her to relieve at the school from the week of June 20, 1994. This is the day of the murders.

Questioned by prosecutor Cameron Mander, Ms Rout agreed she did not know if she had been asked to relieve in Robin's class or the other class at the school.

Jeannine Basquin, formerly from the United States but now living in Dunedin, had children at Taieri Beach School and was a member of the school's board of trustees from 1997 until 2004.

Ms Basquin said a change of education guidelines had prompted school principal Wayne Facer to suggest a clean-up at the school in 2001, which she and the secretary of the board carried out.

As she was going through files she found a document signed by Robin asking to be relieved from his duties as principal because of stress.

She recalled the period of leave sought was approximately within months of the killings. She thought it may be April, 1994.

Asked by defence lawyer Michael Reed QC what had happened to the document, she said that was a good question. It may have been filed again, but it was not thrown out.

"I don't know what we did with it."

In August, 2007, a detective went to Ms Basquin's work and wanted to talk to her about a letter from Robin.

Initially said she didn't recall anything, but the detective "kept prodding me". When the detective mentioned Mr Facer she remembered it.

Questioned by Mr Mander, Ms Basquin said she was not certain if the document was typed or handwritten.

Another witness told the court today of seeing the slogan "Hang David Bain", alongside a picture of a "little hangman" on the Dunedin home of former policeman Milton Weir.

The witness, whose name is suppressed, said her parents lived in Dunedin near the home of Mr Weir, who was in charge of the crime scene after the deaths of the Bain family.

Mr Weir, a detective sergeant in 1994, has been accused by the defence of planting evidence in the Bain house that pointed to David Bain being the killer.

The witness told the court that in December, 2003, after a party at the Weir house coinciding with a Court of Appeal decision in the Bain case, she got a phone call from her mother telling her about the slogan.

She visited her parents' home later that month and saw the slogan and picture painted or spray-painted on a barge board on the house, which was being extensively redeveloped at the time.

Mr Weir has told the court the slogan was inappropriate.