Bain trial: Expert rejects bloody prints 'old' claim

David Bain is on trial for the murders of his parents and three siblings. Photo / Pool

A fingerprint expert has rejected the defence view that David Bain's fingerprints could have been left on a rifle used to kill his family months prior to the deaths.

David Bain, 37, is on trial for murdering his parents and three siblings in their Dunedin home on the morning of June 20, 1994. His defence team say his father Robin, 58, shot dead the family before turning the rifle on himself.

Police fingerprint officer Kim Jones has given evidence to the High Court at Christchurch that he found fingerprints from David Bain in blood on the rifle stock.

His opinion was that these prints were of "recent origin" when the rifle was found in the Bain house on the morning of the death of Bain's parents and three siblings.

Mr Jones said fingerprints could not be dated with accuracy. But in blood, prints would dry out and become "flaky". From appearance and composition of the prints on the rifle stock, he ascertained the prints from Bain were left recently.

The defence says Bain's prints could have been left on the rifle in a hunting trip months before the killings.

But Mr Jones said today that if these prints were left months ago, then subsequent handling of the rifle would have destroyed them.

Asked by prosecutor Kieran Raftery what the effect would have been of the killer carrying the rifle being involved in a violent struggle with Stephen Bain, 14, Mr Jones said: "It would have dramatically destroyed, or certainly smudged, those blood prints on the firearm".

Defence questioning

Asked this morning by defence lawyer Michael Reed QC if he stood by the evidence he had given that there was blood under David Bain's fingerprints on the rifle, Mr Jones said: "I'm saying the fingerprints were in blood".

Mr Reed put it to him that scientists had found no human DNA in the area of these fingerprints on the rifle.

He suggested to Mr Jones that his evidence was therefore totally invalid, and wrong, and contradicted by prosecution and defence scientists.

Asked if he still thought the prints were placed in blood, Mr Jones said: "Absolutely".

Mr Jones said he also stood by his view that the prints on the rifle stock were of "recent origin".

He has given evidence these prints were left by a "precision power grip", rather than by someone simply picking up the rifle to look at it.

Mr Jones viewed photographs of the rifle in court, and questioned by prosecutor Mr Raftery, Mr Jones said the barrel and silencer appeared to be covered in blood.

Mr Jones earlier maintained that he directed fellow prosecution witness, forensic scientist Peter Hentschel, to take a sample from an area of fingerprints on the rifle on June 22, 1994.

This was two days after five members of the Bain family were shot dead, and Mr Jones has stated these fingerprints on the rifle were left by David Bain.

Mr Reed put it to Mr Jones that he was mistaken about when this particular sample was taken, as Mr Hentschel had given evidence the sample was taken on August 4, 1994.

Mr Jones told the court he handed the rifle to a police armourer in July after picking up the rifle from Mr Hentschel.

Asked how he could explain the different version of Mr Hentschel, Mr Jones said: "I'm saying he's mistaken."

Asked about the location of this sample, Mr Jones said he directed where Mr Hentschel should take the sample in relation to fingerprints on the rifle.

Mr Reed put it to Mr Jones that he and Mr Hentschel had noted the sample was taken from different places.

Again Mr Hentschel was mistaken, Mr Jones said.

Mr Reed put to him that in 15 years he had never mentioned that he took a blood sample from the area of fingerprints on the rifle. Mr Jones said he had not mentioned this because he had not been asked about it about in those 15 years.

Mr Jones agreed with Mr Reed that what he told the jury in Bain's 1995 murder trial, about blood fluorescing "black" under a device called a polilight, could not be correct.

Mr Jones said he was trying to put it in terms the jury could understand.

Mr Reed put to him that other evidence he had given in the 1995 trial was also wrong

Mr Jones was cross-examined today after previously giving evidence that David Bain's fingerprints were on the rifle used in the killings and were of "recent origin".

These prints could not have been left by simply picking up the gun to look at it, but showed considerable force was applied, Mr Jones said.

Mr Jones also said a fingerprint belonging to Bain's brother, Stephen, 14, was on the rifle's silencer, while Bain left a palm print in blood on the washing machine in which bloodied clothing was washed.

Mr Reed put to Mr Jones that he gave evidence in the 1995 trial about whether chemicals such as washing detergents would show up under a polilight in the same way as blood, without knowing if it was correct.

This relates to a palm print in blood on the Bains' washing machine, which Mr Jones said was left by Bain.

Mr Reed: "Why would you give false evidence, Mr Jones?"

Mr Jones: "I haven't got a comment to make on that sir".

Asked if people should be convicted on evidence that was wrong, Mr Jones said: "I'm not saying it was wrong".