Sightings of Bain on paper round 'inconsistent': Defence

ESR forensic scientist Kevan Walsh calculated the rifle was a distance from the head of Robin Bain (inset) when he was shot. Photo / Pool

The daily paper round done by David Bain has come under scrutiny in the High Court at Christchurch, with his lawyers pointing out inconsistencies in witness sightings.

David Bain, 37, is on trial for the murder of his parents and three siblings in his Dunedin home on June 20, 1994. His defence team say his father Robin, 58, shot dead the family before turning the .22 rifle on himself.

The timings in which he completed the paper round on the day of the killings are considered crucial to whether David or Robin was responsible. The prosecution says David used the paper round to try to create an alibi for the murders he committed.

The defence say he arrived home after it to find his family dead. They say the timings mean he could not have turned on the computer in the house and written the message: "Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay".

Bain told police he left on the paper run that day about 5.45am. He initially said he arrived home at 6.40am but then told police it might have taken two or three minutes longer.

Dunedin man Stuart Warrington told the court today he used to see Bain doing his paper round when he left for work about 6.10am every morning.

He knew Robin Bain from serving on the same school committee, and said he knew of David. He confirmed he saw David delivering the papers on the morning of June 20.

Asked by defence lawyer Michael Reed QC, if he saw David doing the round with a dog, he said he did not.

Mr Reed said two other witnesses would say they saw him with his dog.

Mr Warrington: "I definitely did not see him with the dog."

Deborah Rackley, now deceased, lived on David's paper route and told police she was having trouble sleeping on the morning of June 20, 1994, and she woke at 5.40am and thought it would be too early to go and get her newspaper.

At 6am, she said she went out and was surprised to see her paper had been delivered at the time, because she wasn't expecting it to be there.

Alister McConnell, managing director of distribution for the Otago Daily Times at the time, but now deceased, told police he would drop off bundles of papers for David to deliver, but sometimes had to wake him up when he didn't turn up to do his run.

Sometimes Robin Bain or David's sister Laniet would do the round for him, Mr McConnell said.

David had been doing the run for about six years.

Laurence Peeters, a police constable in Dunedin at the time of the killings, told the court how he jogged the route of the paper round done by David Bain about two or three times under instruction from a detective. He touched letterboxes and pausing at certain times as directed

He recalled it took about an hour to complete the route and its "very hilly terrain".

Questioned by Bain's lawyer, Helen Cull QC, Mr Peeters agreed he did not have an old dog with him like David would have had, or a paper bag over his shoulder. He said the exercise was not intended as a simulation, but more as a guide.

"I can say whoever did the run would be very fit."

Earlier defence lawyer Michael Reed QC highlighted "complete disagreement" between prosecution experts on the fatal wound suffered by Robin Bain.

One expert, pathologist Alexander Dempster, found the rifle was virtually up against Robin's head when fired, which the defence says is about the position when Robin committed suicide.

But ESR forensic scientist Kevan Walsh, like other previous experts, has found the rifle was a distance away from Robin's head. Mr Walsh calculated the rifle was most likely more than 20cm from Robin's head when fired.

He agreed today with Mr Reed he would place "significant weight" on the findings of the original pathologist in the case, Dr Dempster.

"I think a lot of weight has to be given to the pathologist who did the original examination."

Mr Walsh said a close contact wound, as suggested by the defence, was possible.

The court also heard that Robin Bain's foot would have left a print about the size of bloody sockprints found in his home after the killing of his family.

The court was hearing more evidence about who could have left the bloody sockprints considered important to the murder retrial of David Bain.

The defence says if Robin left the bloody sockprints in the house, then David could not be the murderer. A senior police in investigator in the case has agreed the killer likely left the prints.

A complete bloody sockprint found in the house using luminol, a chemical that reacts with blood and glows, was measured at 280mm by a forensic scientist.

Last week, ESR forensic scientist Kevan Walsh gave the results of testing, using people with feet about the size of David, 300mm, and Robin, 270mm, and wearing socks coated in pig blood to make prints on carpet.

Today, under questioning Mr Reed QC, Mr Walsh agreed that his conclusion was that someone with a foot the size of Robin's, walking on carpet, and observed under luminol testing, would leave a bloody sockprint of approximately 280mm.

His average print for the series of tests of a foot the size of Robin's was 282mm.

For testing of a foot the size of David, Mr Walsh used his own foot which he measured at 298mm. The average sockprint size for this testing was 297mm.

Mr Reed put to him that his own expert did the same testing, but using a foot exactly matching the size of David's at 300mm, and found someone with a foot this size would leave an average bloody sockprint of 306mm.

None of these test results achieved by the defence expert were less than the size of David's foot, he said.