Jury shown pictures of David Bain's injuries

David Bain in the High Court at Christchurch. Photo / Supplied

Photographs showing injuries to David Bain - accused of the murder of five members of his family - were put before the jury on the second day of his retrial in the High Court at Christchurch.

Bain has pleaded not guilty to murdering his parents and three siblings at his retrial before Justice Graham Panckhurst.

Daniel Batchelor told of photographing Bain, then aged 22, at the Dunedin Police Station after the bodies were discovered.

A photograph he took of the left side of Bain's face showed a bruised area on his forehead.

Another photograph showed an area of skin missing from his right knee.

Mr Batchelor told of taking post mortem photographs of the other members of the Bain family found dead at their house in Every Street, Dunedin.

The jury was shown a scale plan of the address with overlay sheets detailing various aspects including the position of the bodies, the blood spots found, footprints, spent cartridges, live rounds and lead fragments.

The jury was also shown about 10min of video taken of the crime scene at the house, and still photographs taken over several days at the house were also produced in court.

The jury also saw brief excerpts from a video taken by police on June 20, 1994.

The excerpt showed the body of Robin Bain, during which David Bain lowered his head and turned away.

While being re-examined by Crown prosecutor Robin Bates, former police photographer Trevor Edward Gardener said the video footage was taken before the still photographs.

Mr Gardener earlier told the court police photos of the Bain murder scene showed household items had been moved in-between police photograph shoots.

Mr Gardener revealed under cross-examination that further examples of items in the Bain household were moved between the times that various police photographs were taken.

The revelations came as David Bain's lawyer Helen Cull, QC, cross-examined the police photographer, who took the first photographs inside the house at Every St on June 20.

Ms Cull also compared two photographs from inside David Bain's bedroom.

Mr Gardener confirmed that the two photographs, when viewed together, show that the trigger lock for the .22 rifle was moved, a shoe lace was moved, a packet of live rounds was turned on its side and there appeared to be a different number of bullets.

Ms Cull also asked about two other photographs of clothing.

"Things have moved, haven't they?" she asked.

"Yes, they have," Mr Gardener answered.

He confirmed that items of clothing and a pillow had been moved in another pair of images.

"That's not unusual for a crime scene," he said.

Mr Gardener told the court he had left the police force and has no notebooks from the work that he carried out 15 years ago.

"I left the police approximately one year after the episode, obviously it's been over 14 years and it's been misplaced or whatever," he said.

Mr Gardener confirmed that he was the first photographer through the Bain family house, arriving at about 10am and entering the house somewhere between "late morning or early afternoon".

Ms Cull asked why the date and time mechanism on the police video camera was not switched on.

"Probably a decision I made by myself. I did not deem it necessary at the time to switch it on," Mr Gardener said.

She also asked about a series of photographs taken in the Bain family laundry which showed that a washing machine lid had been moved from the machine, to the sink and then on to a near-by cabinet.

Ms Cull asked him if he took the pictures and if he could say in what order. Mr Gardener could not be sure who took them or in what sequence.

She asked then if the photographs were then not "true, accurate, or in chronological sequence".

Mr Gardener said that without access to the negatives, he could not be sure of the chronological sequence but "it is certainly true and accurate of what the officer wanted at the time".

The trial continues.