David Bain trial: Incest no motive for murder, court told

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

Police did not follow-up allegations that Robin Bain could have been having an incestuous relationship with his daughter, the High Court at Christchurch heard today.

David Bain's lawyer Michael Reed, QC, asked the officer who was second in charge in the Bain murder investigation why that line of inquiry was not followed up by police, after hearing the allegations from two different sources in the days immediately following the murders.

"You weren't prepared and didn't want to investigate Robin," Mr Reed said.

James George Doyle told the court that he was aware of one of the sources. He said a statement was taken from him.

Earlier, Mr Reed asked if a motive was important to the murder investigation.

"It is a factor," Mr Doyle answered. But he did not see the possible incestuous relationship as a motive.

David Bain has denied five charges of killing his family members.

Mr Doyle had previously told the court how blood on the hands of David Bain's father could have implicated him in the murders of four other family members.

Mr Reed questioned Mr Doyle on why blood found on Robin Bain's hands wasn't tested.

Mr Reed referred Mr Doyle to detective's job sheets that he saw as the officer second in charge of the Bain murder case.

The job sheets filled out by Detective Mark Lodge noted the blood on Robin Bain's hands. Another by the same Detective noted small injuries on Robin Bain's body.

Mr Doyle told Mr Reed that it would have been examined by ESR scientists.

Mr Reed asked: "If the blood had been Stephen's, you would have to work out how that blood got on Robin?"

Mr Doyle confirmed that if the blood was Stephen's, it could implicate Robin Bain in the murders but he also said someone else could have put it there.

No photographs were taken of the blood on Robin Bain's hands but a detective had drawn a diagram of them.

Mr Reed said "we will never know and can never know whether that was Stephen's or Laniet's blood, so cannot prove David's innocence now."

Earlier, the court heard how evidence including finger nail scrapings and smears of blood from Robin Bain's hands was destroyed following David Bain's first trial.

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.

Mr Reed questioned Mr Doyle 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 in 1996 to have evidence saved was in vain because the evidence had already been destroyed.

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

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.

The court also 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 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.