The David Bain trial started yesterday with Bain denying five charges of murdering his family in Dunedin in 1994. Below we look at the man in the dock and outline the prosecution and defence cases.
Click here to read how day one in court unfolded
As high drama swirled around David Bain on day one of his much-anticipated retrial, somehow he managed to look unruffled.
From having to navigate his way through the frantic media throng to the High Court at Christchurch, to facing a tense courtroom again 15 years after first going on trial for killing his family, Bain, 36, seemed able to maintain remarkable poise.
Dressed in a neat black suit, black chequered tie and crisp white shirt, he chewed on gum and rarely diverted his gaze from the front of the court.
There was only the occasional flicker of emotion as he locked eyes with supporters.
Placed into the dock in one courtroom to commence the day's proceedings, he responded in a strong, clear voice with arms rigid at his sides as each of the five murder charges were read to him: "Not Guilty."
He only briefly studied the potential jurors as they filed past him to learn if they would take their place.
Thrust into another packed courtroom to begin hearing the case against him, Bain was flanked by a prison officer and lawyer Matthew Karam, the son of his chief supporter, and sat with his hands clasped in his lap, staring straight ahead throughout the day's proceedings.
Earlier, a pack of more than 30 media representatives had gathered outside from 7am, awaiting Bain's arrival.
As reporters, photographers and cameramen scurried about at the slightest hint of Bain's arrival, his tall, lean figure suddenly emerged from a side street, striding purposefully alongside his lawyers and Joe Karam.
Bain stared straight ahead with a fixed smile as Karam cleared the way through the media pack.
He refused to be drawn in as reporters hurled their questions.
As Bain followed his lawyers to the court reception desk, a supporter walked up to greet and embrace him. "You braved all that, did you?" Bain said in reference to the media barrage.
Not even a lone reporter who followed Bain deep in the court building, determined to speak to him, was enough to throw him off. Day one was about to begin in earnest.
PROSECUTION CASE
All the evidence points to David Cullen Bain having killed five members of his family at their Dunedin home in 1994, the High Court at Christchurch has heard.
Crown prosecutor Robin Bates detailed the case against Bain, 36, charged with murdering his parents and three siblings in Every St, Andersons Bay.
He said the evidence was circumstantial but strong.
Bain, then a student aged 22, phoned 111 about 7.10am on June 20, 1994, saying his father was dead.
Police arrived at 7.30am to find him hysterical and wailing "they are all dead" in his bedroom.
They found the body of Robin Bain, shot through the head, with a .22 rifle nearby.
They also found Margaret Bain, 50, killed by a single shot in the head, and daughters Laniet and Arawa, also killed by head wounds.
It was clear from the scene that there had been a significant struggle by Bain's brother Stephen, 14, who suffered a wound that grazed his scalp and bled profusely.
He was then incapacitated by being strangled with a T-shirt and killed by a second shot.
Mr Bates told the court Bain had injuries consistent with the struggle in Stephen's room, and had Stephen's blood on his clothing.
Bain told police he had heard Laniet gurgling. This meant he had to have been present between the time she was shot through the cheek - causing her incapacitation - and shot in the head.
The scene in the laundry was consistent with Bain trying to destroy evidence by washing his clothing - particularly a green jersey which the Crown said he was wearing during the killings, Mr Bates said.
The Crown also said a lens from spectacles Bain was wearing was found in Stephen's room. The frame and other lens were found in Bain's room.
The murders were done with Bain's rifle, for which he had the trigger lock keys, and his bloody gloves were found in Stephen's bedroom.
Mr Bates said Bain tried to use his paper round as an alibi and had made sure he was seen along the route.
He said evidence would be given of Bain having an intense conversation with a friend six days before the killings about feeling "something horrible" was going to happen. Later he told her the murders were what he was talking about.
-NZPA
DEFENCE CASE
Incest has been put forward as a motive for Robin Bain to kill himself and his family, rather than David Bain being the culprit.
On the first day of David Bain's retrial, his lawyer Michael Reed, QC, said there was no strong reason for David to have killed his family.
Yet motives had emerged to point to Robin shooting the four family members before turning the .22 rifle on himself.
"The defence case is that, as it always has been, that David did not kill anyone," Mr Reed said in his opening address to the jury.
The case that David Bain had shot four of his family, then went off and did his paper round - leaving his father to possibly find the bodies - and then returned to hide in an alcove and shoot his father was absurd.
"Isn't it common sense that to have an horrific event would require a motive or a reason that was extraordinary?"
The best reasoning the prosecution had put forward was disagreements such as one between David and his father over a chainsaw.
"Well, if that's a motive for killing your family, there's an awful lot of people at risk of being murdered tonight who have had an argument with their family."
A motive for Robin was staring police in the face, Mr Reed said.
"You haven't heard a word of the allegations against the father, Robin, of incest ... Laniet was going around telling a number of people about this incest. The mere fact that she was telling anyone about it, and Robin getting to hear about it, would be a trigger."
As a religious man, missionary and school principal, Robin faced a fall from grace and possibly jail, Mr Reed said. Robin had also been suffering from depression and was living in a caravan outside his family home after becoming estranged from his wife.
"He had a mental illness. It's horrible for David to hear this, but his father was dirty, he had a bad body odour, he was gaunt, he was doing strange things, his marriage was in ruins."
While much of the evidence that could have cleared David had been lost, Mr Reed said the defence could counter every piece of evidence the prosecution would put forward.
The defence would show David could have heard Laniet gurgling even after she was killed, while a green jersey the prosecution said he wore in the killings and then washed, in fact belonged to Robin.
- Jarrod Booker
