5 May 2009

Bain's evidence from first trial read in court

9:24 pm on 5 May 2009

A transcript of the evidence David Bain gave at his first trial has been read to the jury as he is retried for the murder of his 5 immediate family members.

The presiding judge is reading the 40-page document, which is part of the Crown case against Mr Bain.

When he gave evidence in his 1995 trial, the public queued for hours to get a seat to hear him.

A transcript of that testimony is now being entered into the formal record of his retrial, read by Justice Panckhurst.

It revealed new information for the jury about why Mr Bain was able to tell the 111 operators that he had found his enitre family dead, even though he told the police he had only seen the bodies of his dead parents.

In that evidence given 14 years ago, Mr Bain told the court under oath that he was not the killer.

On Wednesday, Justice Panckhurst will read the transcript of the cross examination of Mr Bain.

Reincarnation claims

A woman who knew the Bain family in Papua New Guinea has told the High Court in Christchurch she was concerned to hear Margaret Bain say she believed she had been reincarnated.

Barbara Short gave evidence at the retrial of David Bain via a video link from Sydney, about a discussion she and Margaret Bain had in 1988.

"Margaret felt that in her previous lives she was related to Churchill and to the emperors in Egypt," she told the court on Tuesday.

Ms Short also said Margaret Bain had visited a spiritual adviser during 1988 because she believed she was possessed and wanted help.

The Crown says David Bain, 37, killed his parents Robin and Margaret and siblings Arawa, Laniet and Stephen at the family's house in Dunedin on 20 June 1994.

The defence contends Robin Bain killed them before shooting himself.

Meanwhile, a police fingerprint expert has returned to the witness box.

On Tuesday, the defence began its cross examination of Kim Jones, who previously gave evidence two weeks ago.

Michael Reed QC challenged various aspects of the evidence, including the date Mr Jones did the tests, the position from where finger print tests were taken.

He asked Mr Jones why he gave "false evidence" in the first trial with regard to the way tests of blood showed up.

Mr Jones said he had nothing to say to that accusation. On the other challenges to his accuracy he said he stood by his own notes and memory of what he did in 1994.