David Bain trial: Blood smear evidence destroyed, court told

David Bain, right, and his lawyer Michael Reed QC. Pool photos

Evidence including finger nail scrapings and smears of blood from Robin Bain's hands was destroyed following David Bain's first trial, the High Court in Christchurch heard today.

The jury was this morning told that Bain's previous lawyers did not want any exhibits destroyed and threatened police with a High Court injunction if they considered destroying any of the evidence.

Defence lawyer for Bain, Michael Reed QC, questioned James George Doyle, a Detective Senior Sergeant and second in charge of the original murder investigation, about the evidence this morning.

Mr Doyle was shown an exhibit audit that was provided by the Crown to defence lawyers last year.

It shows that Mr Doyle authorised the destruction of two skin samples from Robin Bain's hands. The authorisation was given by Mr Doyle on 22 December, 1995 and was carried out on January 26, 1996.

Mr Reed said efforts by Bain's lawyers to have evidence saved was in vain.

The other evidence destroyed, including finger nail scrapings and smears of blood from Robin Bain's hands, were all destroyed on the same date.

Bain denies killing five members of his family, including his father Robin Bain, at their Dunedin home in 1994

Mr Reed asked Mr Doyle why he had "misled" Bain's previous lawyers about exhibits not being destroyed. Mr Doyle said he had not misled anyone.

Mr Reed asked if Mr Doyle recalled also asking that evidence, including exhibits with blood samples, be destroyed by January, 1996.

"No, I don't," Mr Doyle answered.

Mr Reed said the loss of the blood samples from Robin Bain's hands was important to the defence case.

"We will never know and can never know whether that was Stephen's blood or Laniet's blood. We will never know," Mr Reed said.

"We now cannot prove, not that we should have to, David's innocence, can we?" Mr Reed asked.

Mr Doyle replied: "I don't know".

Crown prosecutor Kieran Raftery objected to the question and court adjourned for lunch.

Earlier today, the court heard from David Ernest McCone who was a Detective Constable in the Dunedin CIB and transported evidence to be finger-printed.

He confirmed to the court that he did say in a 1997 interview that he had seen markings and staining on the barrel and stock of the .22 rifle used in the killings.
He said he was not aware what the staining was.

Mr McCone was also questioned about fingerprint expert Kim Jones' theory that David Bain's finger prints were put on the gun and were contaminated with blood.

Crown prosecutor Kieran Raftery objected to Mr Reed asking Mr McCone about what another witness could have believed at the time.
Justice Graham Panckhurst agreed that that was not appropriate.