David Bain didn't leave bloody prints on rifle, court hears

David Bain has been on trial since March 6. Photo / Pool

An expert has rejected evidence that David Bain left fingerprints in blood on the rifle used to kill his family.

English fingerprint consultant Carl Lloyd, formerly of Scotland Yard, told the Bain High Court murder retrial today that he had considered the evidence relating to fingerprints on the .22 rifle after five of the Bain family were shot dead on June 20, 1994.

Kim Jones, a police fingerprint officer giving evidence for the prosecution, has stated that fingerprints from David Bain had been placed in blood on the wooden stock of the rifle used in the killings, and were of "recent origin".

Mr Jones said these prints could not have been left by simply picking up the gun to look at it, as considerable force had been applied.

The court has heard that Bain could not explain to police how his fingerprints got there. His defence team say Bain's fingerprints may have been left on the rifle on a hunting trip months before the killings.

Mr Lloyd has been called to give evidence in Bain's defence, and was asked yesterday by lawyer Paul Morten what his view was on Mr Jones' evidence.

Mr Lloyd: "There is nothing to suggest that those marks are in blood. My opinion is that they are not in blood".

A black and white photograph taken of fingerprints on the rifle, under special lighting, showed prints of the opposite colour expected.

The photograph produced to support Mr Jones' evidence was actually a reversal of the original image taken, Mr Lloyd said.

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

There has been no evidence of Robin Bain's fingerprints being found on the rifle.

Earlier, English forensic scientist told the High Court at Christchurch he believed Robin Bain was more likely than not to have been upright when he was shot in the head.

Dr John Manlove, whose past work has included assisting in the prosecution of war crimes in Iraq, said he believed any photograph produced by a defence witness, Philip Boyce, of Robin Bain with a bent right knee being raised would match the blood stain pattern on the track pants he was wearing.

Dr Manlove told the court that blood on the pants worn by Bain's father Robin was consistent with Robin having shot himself.

Blood staining on one leg of Robin's pants was travelling in both upward and downward directions.

This is consistent with a method of suicide, earlier demonstrated to the court by defence firearms expert Philip Boyce, with Robin bending and raising his knee.

This method would explain blood going in different directions, as the blood could impact both above and below the knee.

Dr Manlove said he found what could be blood on Robin's shoe. The blood spots could have come from airborne blood, but could not have originated at the time Robin was shot if he had been kneeling. It has been suggested that Robin may have been kneeling to pray when he was shot.

The defence are trying to show that there was blood on Robin's clothes and body that lined up with him having shot his family.

But Dr Manlove agreed with prosecutor Cameron Mander that the substance on the shoe may not be blood. Peter Hentschel, a scientist who assisted police in the Bain case at the time of the killings, said he found no blood on Robin's shoes.

Dr Manlove said a DNA profile obtained from the shoe matched in the majority to Robin, but there was some trace of another person, which was not unusual given the sensitivity of the testing. The other DNA matched no other members of the Bain family.

Dr Manlove told the High Court he also examined the socks David Bain wore on the day five members of his family were killed.

He said the soles of David Bain's socks likely came from him stepping in blood, rather than blood dropping down onto them.

Blood was detected on the soles of both socks, and the court has heard previously that DNA from Bain's brother Stephen, 14, was detected on one of the socks.

The prosecution says Stephen's blood could have dropped onto Bain's sock during a violent struggle between he and Stephen in Stephen's bedroom. However Bain told police he went into the bedrooms of his dead siblings after arriving home from his paper round, and his defence team will say he could have stepped in blood when he did this.

Forensic scientist, Peter Cropp, has given evidence for the prosecution that the blood on the socks came from blood that had fallen down and soaked through the fabric. However he has agreed with the defence that it could have come from Bain stepping in blood.

Dr Manlove told the court he carried out tests dropping cow's blood onto white socks from a metre high, and with the socks on feet walking in blood.

His conclusion was that the blood on the soles of Bain's socks was "consistent with having walked over blood spots on the ground".

Blood stepped in left stains with a "relatively clear edge" that was not smeared. Blood spots from an airborne origin left stains that were broken up.

Dr Manlove also considered blood in the bedroom of Bain's sister Laniet, 18, who was shot three times while in her bed.

Bain told police he heard Laniet gurgle when he returned home from his paper round. But the prosecution say Bain must have heard Laniet gurgle after she survived the first shot into her cheek.

Dr Manlove said his view, based on the undisturbed blood on Laniet's face, was that the shot to the cheek was not the first.

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