David Bain's retrial for the murder of five of his family in Dunedin in 1994 continues in Christchurch today. Hit refresh throughout the day for the latest updates. Or you can follow us on Twitter
5.25pm: A former police officer has confirmed that only a first statement by a neighbour which placed a person, later believed to be David Bain, outside his house at a key time was read to the jury.
However a second statement made by the same neighbour made to police shortly before the first trial was not read out to the jury.
Mr Reed said Bain's former lawyers were not aware of the second statement.
Mr Reed then asked why Mr Doyle, the officer second in charge of the Bain investigation, sat by and listened to the neighbour's evidence when he knew a second statement had been taken.
"You sat quietly still and never confirmed [the neighbour's] evidence," Mr Reed said.
Mr Doyle said he didn't know if he was in the court at the time that evidence was given.
But Mr Reed said the first jury asked for the evidence to be re-read and still Mr Doyle sat by and let the jury only hear the first statement.
The matter will be looked at tomorrow to give Mr Doyle time to look at the statements made by the neighbour and the court transcripts.
The court has adjourned for the day.
4.50pm: Mr Reed has asked about other evidence that the defence says implicates Robin Bain in the murders.
He asked if Mr Doyle knew about Laniet returning that weekend to "tell all" about an incestuous relationship she was having with her father, Robin Bain.
Mr Doyle said he did not agree with Mr Reed's interpretation of that evidence.
Mr Reed also asked if police did not think it strange that Margaret and Laniet had gone into Dunedin at about 11.30pm in winter and withdrawn money from the shared account and put it into another account.
Mr Doyle said: "I don't think that's unusual but I don't know what happened in the house earlier."
Mr Reed said the defence also had evidence that the footprints found in the Bain home belonged to Robin, not David.
Mr Doyle said: "The thrust of the enquiry moved away from Robin and towards David".
Mr Reed agreed and replied that the police never investigated Robin while the "evidence was starring you in the face but you never followed it up".
4.07pm: In the days following the murders, police did not follow-up allegations that Robin Bain could have been having an incestuous relationship with his daughter.
Bain's lawyer Michael Reed has asked the officer who was second in charge in the Bain murder investigation why that line of inquiry was not followed up by police, despite hearing the allegations from two different sources.
"You weren't prepared and didn't want to investigate Robin," Mr Reed said.
James 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.
"It is a factor," Mr Doyle answered. But he did not see the possible incestuous relationship as a motive.
3.48pm: Mr Reed has told the court that much of the evidence concerning Robin Bain and any possible part he played in the murders was either "thrown away, lost or destroyed".
"Why is it with Robin, you just didn't bother?" Mr Reed asked Mr Doyle.
"What's happened is we've had a one sided investigation. David: Yes, Robin: No."
"I believe we did investigate Robin thoroughly," Mr Doyle said.
3.29pm: David Bain was strip searched and police took "swabs of intimate body parts" on the day of the murders but he was not tested for gunshot residue, the court has heard.
The officer who was second in charge of the Bain murder investigation, James Doyle, said carrying out a test would have been insensitive.
He told the court that as far as police were concerned on the morning of June 20, 1994, David Bain had arrived home from a paper round to find his family murdered.
However, Bain's lawyer Michael Reed told the court that Bain had been subjected to a strip search and had swabs taken from "intimate body parts".
He said such a test could have shown Bain to be innocent if he had had no gunshot residue on him.
3.15pm: Mr Reed has read to the court a statement by the Detective Sergeant put in charge of the scene in which he criticised police about the number of people who were allowed to enter the scene.
The statement from former Detective Sergeant Weir read: "By the time I got to the scene at 9.45am, ten people had been inside. The scene was not original by the time I got in."
Mr Doyle, second in charge of the Bain murder case, told the court the criticisms were not justified and that emergency services had to enter the house.
Mr Reed then asked Mr Doyle why Robin Bain's hands and arms were not covered with plastic to preserve any gunshot residue before his body was moved.
He said it would have been "helpful" but he was not at the scene that morning and was not an expert in gunshot residue.
"One of the junior officers raised it, a Mr Van Turnhout, someone even went and rang the ESR to see what should and shouldn't be done," Mr Reed said.
Mr Doyle confirmed that Mr Weir wanted plastic sheeting laid down but said that arrived later.
Mr Reed asked whether plastic protective shoe coverings should have been used.
"That is normal practice now but not 15 years ago," Mr Doyle said.
3.04pm: Mr Reed has put it to Mr Doyle that 16 police officers went through the crime scene where five of the Bain family members were found murdered on June 20, 1994.
Mr Doyle denied that a large number of police were let through the house.
He said officers did come through the front gate but not through the murder scenes.
"We went to the edge of those scenes but not all of them," Mr Doyle told the court.
He said not all 16 people went into the actual scene, including himself.
2.33pm: Mr Reed has referred Mr Doyle to 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 and small injuries on Robin Bain's body.
When asked why that blood wasn't tested, Mr Doyle told Mr Reed 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.
1.18pm: Mr Doyle confirmed that it was important to keep exhibits and information on a trial until after the appeal process.
"But when did you order [exhibits] to be destroyed?" Mr Reed asked.
"December [1995]," Mr Doyle replied.
Mr Reed pointed out that the Privy Council made its final ruling on an appeal in April 1996.
He said one phone call to Crown law or Bain's lawyers at the time would have informed Mr Doyle of this.
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," he 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 has adjourned for lunch.
12.56pm: Mr Reed has asked why samples weren't kept for modern DNA testing which could have proved Bain's innocence if it was later found that Robin Bain had the blood of his children literally on his hands.
He pointed out that a skin sample found in Stephen Bain's room was kept for 13 or 14 years and was tested and found not to be David Bain's.
"It shows you samples could easily be kept," Mr Reed said.
Mr Doyle said that sample was not kept in Dunedin but Australia and police did not like "bodily samples kept around a police station".
Mr Reed asked why a smear of blood from Robin Bain's hand was never kept.
"It wouldn't be hard to retain that would it?" Mr Reed asked.
"On hindsight, no," Mr Doyle answered.
Mr Reed asked if the blood samples taken from Robin Bain's hands came from Laniet or Stephen Bain, whether that would exonerate David Bain.
Mr Doyle said that was not necessarily true.
Mr Reed then pointed out that two samples of blood from Robin Bain's hands were never tested.
Mr Doyle replied that they would have been examined by ESR scientists.
12.45pm: The court has heard from James George Doyle who was a Detective Senior Sergeant and second in charge of the Bain murder investigation.
He was questioned by Mr Reed, QC, about exhibits that have since been destroyed.
Mr Doyle wrote to police asking them to release a container load of property to the Bain estate in December 1995. The property had not been used as exhibits during the first trial.
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.
The court then heard 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.
"It's quite a heavy letter, isn't it?" Mr Reed asked.
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 the efforts of Bain's lawyers to have evidence saved were 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.
Mr Reed asked Mr Doyle why he had mislead Bain's previous lawyers about exhibits not being destroyed.
Mr Doyle said he had not mislead anyone.
12.18pm: Mr McCone has 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.
He said he was not aware what the staining was.
Under cross examination by Bain's lawyer Michael Reed, QC, Mr McCone confirmed he could not "firmly state" what had caused the stains.
"There were various markings, whether they were the same substance or various substances, I didn't know," Mr McCone said.
Mr McCone told the court he was present when a polly-light - which shows up various degrees of colouring and light - was run over the gun.
The former police officer confirmed he was at various police inspections of the rifle.
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 Panckhurst agreed that that was not appropriate.
11.41am: The court has heard from David Ernest McCone who was a Detective Constable in the Dunedin CIB and transported evidence to be finger-printed.
Mr McCone told the court some of the evidence, including the .22 rifle, was transported to Wellington by plane.
Mr McCone said he placed the items in the plane and saw the storage compartment locked in Dunedin and unlocked after he landed in Wellington.
He also drove exhibits to Christchurch to be fingerprinted.
During cross-examination by Bain's lawyer, Michael Reed, QC, Mr McCone was asked if he had seen "markings or stainings" on the barrel and the stock of the .22 rifle.
Mr McGone said he could not recall.
Mr Reed said Mr McGone had given an earlier interview in which said he had and asked the judge to adjourn the court to give Mr McGone a chance to read that interview.
Court has been adjourned for 15 minutes.
11.23am: Justice Graham Panckhurst has told TV3 it cannot continue to stream coverage from the trial.
In a decision released today Justice Panckhurst said minutes from his previous ruling showed the application for streaming by TV3 "was not pursued".
Lawyers for both sides spoke out after audio was broadcast of a discussion which occurred after the jury had been cleared from the courtroom.
Justice Panckhurst stressed websites were limited to "conventional news coverage" with content edited before being aired.
11.09am: Under cross examination, Bain's lawyer Helen Cull, QC, asked Mr Checketts if he could identify the time and date when certain photographs were taken.
She showed Mr Checketts the photographs that she questioned former police photographer Trevor Gardener over yesterday, which showed that items within the Bain household had been moved between police photo shoots.
Mr Checketts confirmed that any cataloguing done earlier was of no help to him when trying to put the images into a chronological order.
Asked if he could identify the time and date of the photographs taken at the scene, Mr Checketts said: "I don't think you could to any 'nth degree, no."
10.57am: Mr Checketts told the court he noticed soon after beginning his work that evidence inside the house had been moved between police photo shoots.
He said although it wasn't his task to put the images in chronological order, he did try.
Mr Checketts said he used the police video to try and work out which photographs were taken first.
He told Crown Prosecutor Robin Bates that he understood the video was one of the first instances of graphic evidence gathering at the scene.
10.48am: David Alexander Checketts, a detective in the Dunedin CIB has taken the witness stand.
He was brought into the case in 2007 to assemble all the photographs and digitise and catalogue them.
Mr Checketts told the court there were 1882 photographs, 750 from the Bain family home at Every St in Dunedin.
He said he gathered other photos from ESR, re-photographed some exhibits and some Bain family photographs.
Mr Checketts said some of the negatives were missing, about 30 of which were taken inside the Every St house.
He said he went back to the court documents and scanned the photographs.
Mr Checketts told the court the negatives had been catalogued at some stage because there are letters on the negative envelopes but said he never found out who had done the cataloguing or the method they used.
10.23am: Reece Halkett Coleman Gardner, a surveyor, is continuing to give evidence in the Christchurch High Court this morning.
He is being cross-examined by David Bain's lawyer Helen Cull, QC.
She has questioned why doors to a cupboard and a toilet were left off the plans of the Bain family laundry.
Mr Gardner said he did not include items that he did not measure.
"The purpose of these plans are to give the jury orientation or perspective to frame the photographs," Mr Gardner said.
He said the plans allow the jury to navigate around the house with reference to police photographs.
