Reddington denies murdering Gill and blames his older brother Tipene.
The Crown’s case is that Gill died as a result of a fight at the property at which he was cut and beaten before being strangled and then dragged down the property’s driveway. He was then dumped in a paddock, face down in a ditch and left to suffocate. Pieces of his ears were also missing.
Today forensic scientist Nicholas Curnow analysed the results of samples taken at the scene by his colleagues from the ESR (Institute of Environmental Science and Research), including three flesh samples taken from the driveway.
Curnow, who gave evidence by AVL, said the samples contained DNA but it was unable to be identified. But Reddington’s DNA was found on a piece of flesh which was identified as coming from the top of Gill’s ear, he said.
Under cross-examination from defence lawyer Ian Hard, Curnow conceded saliva could stay on skin for up to four days.
Hard referred to an altercation between Gill and Reddington at least a day before Gill was found deceased, where they’d had close contact. He asked if saliva could have stayed on the body for that length of time. Curnow said it was possible.
Hard also asked if it was possible to leave saliva on the top of the ear, as a result of whispering in a person’s ear. Again, Curnow agreed it was.
Curnow also told the court that Gill’s DNA was found in the shower, specifically a mud sample on the back wall of the shower, that contained DNA that could have come from Reddington and Gill.
Reddington and Tipene lived at the rural property with their mother Isobel Anderson. Gill was a friend of Reddington’s and had come to stay in the days before his death.
Hard suggested to Curnow that Gill’s DNA may have been left there when he’d used the shower, as it was the only one in the house. Curnow agreed that was possible, depending on how often the shower was used.
In her re-examination Crown prosecutor Stephanie Bishop asked what impact cleaning would have on DNA. Earlier Anderson told the court she cleaned the shower every day with detergent, usually after she’d showered.
Curnow said he didn’t know specifically what impact the detergent would have, but the action of wiping down the shower could impact DNA.
Curnow also told the court Tipene’s DNA wasn’t present in any of the samples he’d tested and he was told he wasn’t considered a person of interest by police in this case.
He also explained that it was possible to have a number of samples that weren’t suitable for comparison simply because the samples contained complex mixes or low levels of DNA.
The trial before Justice Jason McHerron resumes on Monday.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media advisor at the Ministry of Justice.
