The jury retired at 4.30pm to consider its verdicts after a 5-1/2 hour summing up by Justice Graham Panckhurst today.
The jury was then called back into the High Court at Christchurch for a short time to clarify some of the points the judge had made earlier.
It retired for the night at 5.15pm and will returnto the court at 9am tomorrow to hear the answers to two questions it has asked.
The jury would stay together overnight at a hotel near the High Court for however many days its deliberations take, the judge decided.
The trial has heard evidence from 184 witnesses since it began in early March.
Bain denies murdering his father and mother, Robin and Margaret Bain, sisters Arawa and Laniet and brother Stephen at the fam
He thanked the jury for bearing with the court over the past few long days.
The jury retired at 4.28pm.
4.20pm: During his summing up, Justice Panckhurst said the defence had stated the lens had either been sitting where it was found a long time, or was planted there by police officer Milton Weir, who found it.
Several people had given evidence that David had not worn contact lens for sometime before the murders.
Mr Reed had asked why, if he was wearing them, there was no biological matter on them at all.
David's injuries were minor and could have got there any time, even when he fell off the bed while police were there and was dragged back on to the bed.
If David was the killer, Stephen's body should have been colder than the others because he was undressed and lying in the open.
The washing machine was a non-issue because of the timings the cycle wouldhave been over, it was a red-herring, Mr Reed had said.
As for the gurgling, a body of evidence pointed to the top of the head wound being inflicted first, and there was evidence such a serious injury could have been survived.
In any event, it was possible David had heard something else and attributed it to Laniet's gurgling.
What's more, there was evidence from three reliable witnesses that bodies could gurgle.
Mr Reed had argued it was simply unsafe to act on the gurgling as a reliable reason for David being the murder.
The defence did not dispute the prints on the gun were David's - it was his gun.
Despite repeated testing there was no conclusive evidence the prints were in blood.
As to the palm print, the defence argued that too was not significant.
David was putting the wash on that morning. The defence argued he picked up Robin's bloody jersey to put it in the machine, and must have got some on his hand and brushed it against the side of the machine.
Testing had not proved the palm-print was in blood, only that it was a protein.
Robin, the computer guru, must have typed the message on the computer, because of its syntax, Mr Reed had said.
In conclusion, Mr Reed had said doubt existed everywhere you looked and the Crown had not proven beyond reasonable doubt David was the killer.
David Bain's behaviour before and after the murders - supposed trances, blackouts, fits and the mention of black hands - was another factor to consider, Justice Panckhurst told the jury today during the retrial of David Bain.
For the Crown, Kieran Raftery had said the prints were a major circumstantial factor.
The fingerprints had a red pigment, leading a fingerprint expert to believe they were in blood.
Conclusions the defence arrived at that the fingerprints were not in blood, because they did not appear in photos as dark ridges, were rejected by the Crown witness, who showed blood could appear as white ridges when photographed.
Mr Raftery had said the scene in the front room comprised a set up scenario, not one of a suicide - the unspent bullet ( a red herring, the Crown said), the juxtaposition of the gun from the body, the magazine on its side.
The suicide note was described as a "very curious note of its kind".
He said it was a get out of jail card free for David.
Justice Panckhurst said the paper run was put forward by the Crown as an alibi for David Bain,, because David was so clear about who would have seen him while he was doing it.
The washing machine was not on, David Bain's palm print was on the washing machine in what appeared to be blood, and tested with amino black gave a consistent result for protein (which blood is), so must have been blood.
David had told the 111 operator they were all dead, but he told police he only saw his mother and father.
Mr Raftery had asked how David could he possibly know all were dead unless he had been in all the rooms to murder them.
Why was Robin's body noticeably warmer than the other victims? Mr Raftery had suggested that was because in order to make the murder-suicide scenario David had to wait until Robin came inside, otherwise the plan would not work, so he killed the others before his paper round.
Several witnesses had given evidence David's chest injuries were consistent with being in a fight, but more importantly David was asked how he got the injuries and there was no response.
Counsel submitted this spoke volumes, Justice Panckhurst said.
Mr Raftery had urged jurors to assess the 17 main points in combination, and that was essential in a case of this kind, he said.
This, in the crown's submission, is a pattern of incidents, not a series of implausible coincidences.
The defence had argued Mr Reed had accused the Crown of doing a major u-turn in shifting the focus to Stephen's room because the evidence relating to Laniet's room and the like had all become too difficult.
The blood on David's shirt was insignificant and had not come through a jersey, the defence had argued. It was not on the t-shirt at the neck where the v-neck jersey would have exposed the shirt.
Such blood as there was was consistent with David's evidence, that he had gone to Stephen's room in a distressed state and brushed against blood in there.
There was evidence implicating Robin in untested bloodstains around the thumb and on the fingernail spots.
The defence had said the condition of Robin's hands was consistent with having been in a recent fight, and the scrapings from his nail contained possible traces of blood, which were subsequently destroyed.
What if, Mr Reed said, it was tested and it proved to be Stephen's blood.
Injuries on Robin's hand had marks that could have come from using the hand to deliver an uppercut to teeth.
Robin, at 72kg, was physically able to fight Stephen, a young, lighter man suffering significant blood loss.
Robin would have been aided by adrenalin at that stage too, the defence had argued.
David had no motive.
References to black hands could have been the onset of a migraine.
The defence had argued David's behaviour the day before the murders was normal and happy and asked when, in his busy day, he had time to conceive his cunning plan.
David had his life and his career ahead of him, and he had a new girlfriend. His father, on the other hand, was a sad, depressed man who was afflicted with a motive that made him flip.
The defence had argued Robin Bain was depressed and acting out of character, Justice Panckhurst said.
Many witnesses had provided evidence of things such as strange behaviourat his school in the months before the deaths, the dissolution of his marriage and exclusion from plans to build a new family house.
Incest provided a motive and Robin had flipped.
He had been planning it for some time, which could explain why he wanted a final meter reading at the school house, paid a final tab at the dairy, and got in touch with a relieving teacher.
Even if there was no incest, the allegation of incest alone was enough to be totally devastating, Mr Reed had said
4.10pm: Changing his clothes seemed at first light a bit odd, but people were not considering the event from the mind of an irrational person, the defence had argued.
It was understandable he would want to change in to clean clothes before he went to meet his maker.
Things found in Robin's caravan were significant. The ammunition and live cartridges showed he knew about the guns.
Finding the trigger-lock key would have been easy because it was hardly a state secret where it was kept.
The scene in the front room was consistent with suicide, because the magazine found near Robin was used in the four murders.
The defence contended David had arrived home more precisely a minute either side of 6.41am and 50 seconds, when Robin would already have been in the house and could not have hidden and killed Robin, because he would have had to go around Robin.
Mr Reed had said it make sense for Robin to use his left hand to pull the trigger and his dominant right hand to hold the heavy rifle while he was shooting himself.
Blood spots and spatter around Robin's body were also consistent with the suicide.
David's behaviour after the murders was not inappropriate; he was acting in a distressed state.
The funeral director thought David was in deep shock the first time he saw it, and in greater shock a day or so later.
Also there was the evidence of David's psychiatrist who said there were symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Bloodstains on the door frames were consistent with coming from a shorter person, not someone as tall as David.
He had not set out to be noticed on his paper run, he would have been noticed anyway.
2.45pm: The question of why Robin Bain would wear gloves if he was to murder his family and then kill himself was "highly relevant", the jury in the Bain retrial has been told by Justice Panckhurst.
He pointed out in his summing up this afternoon that Crown lawyer Kieran Raftery had said Robin's early morning conduct was unusual if he was going to murder four people and kill himself.
Mr Raftery suggested Robin rose at the usual time and turned on his radio, brought the paper in, put it on the hall table and went in to the front room totally oblivious to the fate he was about to suffer.
Mr Raftery then asked why would Robin change his clothes?
He was in an almighty fight with his son, his clothes must be very bloody, yet to entertain the notion of suicide Robin had to change out of his bloody clothes and put them in the wash.
Why would a man about to commit suicide change his clothes? Mr Raftery had asked.
He also asked why Robin wore gloves, which he had to find first, because what did it matter if his prints were all over the weapon and even if they were it would be preferable because a situation could never arise that his oldest son would be a suspect.
There was no sensible explanation for the gloves, no evidence of motive,depression, and most importantly no forensic evidence to link him to the scenes in the bedroom, Mr Raftery had said.
The question of why wear gloves was highly relevant to the jury's decision, Justice Panckhurst said.
The footprint evidence did not exonerate David, Mr Raftery had said and questioned the validity of tests undertaken by defence experts.
It was one thing dealing with a controlled experience and another being are a forensic scientist in the house.
2:25pm: Whoever killed the Bain family must have had 'physical confidence' when carrying out the shootings, Justice Panckhurst said when resuming his summing up at the Bain retrial today.
He said whoever it was must have been confident in relation to the task that was about to be undertaken.
"It required the ability to sequentially go from room to room and take a number of lives.
"That must have required the gunman to have confidence in the weapon and in the silencer, because with Stephen and Margaret sleeping so close to each other anything could have happened.
"The assailant must have had physical confidence in his physical capacity to deal with whatever happened."
Justice Pankhurst said Crown counsel Mr Raftery, in his closing argument for the Crown, emphasised the conversation one witness had with David where they both agreed Laniet's baby story was "absolute rubbish", so he questioned whether the baby evidence was credible.
The judge then turned to Robin Bain's alleged depression.
2:10pm: Mr Raftery said there were many views that he was depressed, but no-one treated him for depression, nor was he diagnosed as having it, not were any of the defence witnesses competent to diagnose depression, he said.
Crown witnesses painted a picture inconsistent with what the defence witnesses said.
Why would Robin want David to stay?, Mr Raftery had asked.
The evidence showed him as a man proud of all of his children.
Mr Raftery argued there was not a shred of evidence linking Robin Bain, no blood, no items of his used in the murders or found subsequent to the killings, Justice Panckhurst said.
12.55pm: The alleged incest between Robin Bain and his daughter Laniet was the focus of the final part of Justice Pankhurst's summing up before the court broke for lunch.
The Bain retrial had heard a lot of evidence on the incest allegations from, on his count, eight crown witnesses and 10 defence witnesses, Justice Panckhurst said.
One Crown witness said Laniet had been a prostitute and moved to live with her father to "clean up her act".
One said Laniet became "introspective and dark" in 1993, but had not heard anything of the incest.
David was reported by another witness to have said Laniet had stuck up for Robin,which made it difficult for her to be at home in Every St.
Another witness said Laniet had told him she had had a baby, but he had questioned the truth of what she said.
Another witness said David Bain agreed with her that Laniet's story of having a baby in Papua New Guinea was "absolute rubbish".
She told two dairy owners and fellow prostitutes she was being abused by her father and had had a baby by him in Papua New Guinea.
The boarder who lived with her and her father at Taieri Mouth said there was nothing odd happening.
She told a flatmate her father touched her inappropriately and she was terrified of him and would not go near the house.
A friend of David's spoke with Laniet who said she wanted to ask David if she could move back to Every St, because she was terrified of her father.
She told one woman she had a baby when she was 10 and her father was the baby's father and that she was going home to "blow the whistle" on her sex work and the incest.
She told her GP she felt she would find it difficult to abstain from sex for four days because she was going out to stay with her father.
There was also Dean Cottle's evidence that she was going to tell her parents everything, the judge said.
"Did she have a baby, black or white? Was the father of any baby a family friend, somebody who raped her or her father? Are her accounts credible? Is there a pattern to them? Was she inclined to tell them to people she knew less well, and people who didn't know her as well?"
The court will resume at 2pm.
12:55pm: There were three points of conflict over David Bain's fingerprints on the murder weapon, as to whether they were in blood or not, Justice Panckhurst has told the jury in his summing up at the David Bain retrial.
Crown witnesses themselves disagreed over when and from where a sample scraping was taken from the fingerprint area on the murder weapon.
Both said it was taken from near the fingerprint, not in it, but they disagreed on the exact location.
Secondly, tests found DNA in the samples but only on the silencer and the stock by the trigger.
The DNA was from Laniet, Stephen or David Bain.
A different test indicated the presence of blood under the prints, but could not prove it was human blood - it could have been rabbit, possum or even saliva.
Later tests got no DNA from the fingerprints whatsoever.
Thirdly, fingerprint experts disagreed on whether photos of the fingerprints assessed under a bright white light indicated the presence of blood.
The Crown witness say the fingerprint ridges were clearly in blood,while the Defence witness said they were "absolutely not" in blood.
12:20pm: Justice Pankhurst has outlined to jurors the conflicting theories stemming from the 'gurgling' sound David Bain heard coming from his sister Laniet.
Justice Pankhurst, in his summing up at the David Bain retrial today, reminded jurors that David Bain said he heard a sound, like water running, coming from Laniet, so turned on the light and saw her in her bed.
Laniet had been shot three times, across the top of head, above her ear and through her cheek.
Experts for the Crown said it was unlikely Laniet would have survived the head wounds and so she could have only gurgled after the cheek shot, which must have then come first if she was to be heard gurgling.
They said only the killer could have heard the gurgle, because she was then shot in the head twice.
However, pathologist Alec Dempster did say he had experienced a case where a person whose head was bi-sected continued to live and groan for some time after the trauma.
The defence presented five witnesses on the matter who said variously that the head wound was straight across the top of her head so she must have been sitting up when it occurred, so it must have been the first wound inflicted and that people who suffered significant trauma could live and make noise for some minutes after the wound was inflicted.
The Crown thought the chances of surviving the wounds on top of the head was so unlikely that the better view was the cheek shot occurred first, at which point she sat up and then was shot through the head, but the likelihood ofthat was something the jury would have to consider.
The defence experts gave greater emphasis to the scene evidence and concurred it was the top of head shot occurred first and she could have survived that for some time.
The defence also noted the noise may not have came from Laniet at all. It sounded familiar to a washing machine working, Justice Panckhurst said.
11:55am: Summing up in the David Bain retrial has recommenced on the matter of the turn-on time of the computer and David Bain's return time to his Every St home on the morning his family was murdered in 1994.
One witness said she saw David Bain about 6.40am or 6.41am.
Mrs Laney said she saw the paper-boy squeezing through the hedge at Every St about 6.45am or 6.46am.
Justice Panckhurst told the jury the usefulness of evidence from police officers who ran the round was doubtful, and the most useful evidence was probably from the officer who walked the round.
In David Bain's own evidence he first said he left the house at 5.45am and returned about 6.40am.
Then he said at 6.40 exactly he was just past Heath St.
He later said he was at Heath St at 6.40am and that it would take him two or three minutes to get home.
The issue of when the computer in the Bain house was turned on was his next topic, on which he was confused. "My apologies."
The task for the jury was to compare the turn on time assessed by police computer experts against the time they judge Bain was likely to have returned home based on what was witnessed and noted.
"How precise are we as ordinary people in noting events and putting a time to them? I ask you what time did we start back after the break?"
11:15am: Justice Pankhurst has this morning warned the jury in the Bain retrial about the pitfalls of being "mesmerised by experts".
The jury was not entitled to conduct experiments of their own, but had to rely on what they heard as evidence in court, he said in his summing up.
That was why he earlier declined a request from the jury to have the murder weapon with them in the jury room.
There was a significant focus in this case on evidence that was missing.
For example, what if the blood on Robin Bain's fingernail had been preserved and proved sufficient for DNA analysis and what if it had proved to be Stephen's blood? But that was speculation and speculation was not admissible in this case.
The jury must approach contentions of this kind in a balanced and fair way.
On the subject of expert evidence, experts were allowed to give opinion because they were trained, experienced and qualified in their field.
This jury had a problem because there were many experts in this case and many of them were in conflict.
"How are you to approach evidence when the experts themselves can't agree? Jurors should pay heed to experts, but not be mesmerised by their opinions.
Expert evidence was also limited by the experts' role to give the jurors the benefit of their opinion on the area that was the narrow focus of their expertise.
It seemed other experts had strayed further than their area of expertise in this case and drawn conclusions that only jurors could draw.
"You and only you in this community and this country have the whole picture before you, you and you alone are best placed to evaluate the ultimate issues.
"Proof of a motive was not essential because of the reality the motive might be buried and incapable of proof."A large number of witnesses had spoken of their assessment of David Bain as a person.
He was described in many different ways.
Evidence of that kind served two purposes.
It might be relevant to considering his denial of the crimes, or relevant to whether he was sort of person who could have done acts such as these.
The weight put on that sort of evidence was up to the jury.
He said much of what the Bain family said prior to their deaths was "hearsay evidence" introduced in the trial.
Hearsay of that nature was only allowed where the trail judge allowed it, once admitted the weight given to hear say evidence was a matter for the jury.
"Obviously it is different and requires some care; you've not heard it from the horse's mouth."
There was some hearsay evidence the jury had to handle with particular care, for example, the evidence of Dean Cottle, who did not turn up to court and about whom there was a suggestion from another witness he was blackmailing Laniet.
Dealing with something that happened 15 years ago was inherently tricky, because people recalled more, or changed their statements.
Having completed his directions to the jury, the court broke for a 15mintue break.
10:45am: The jurors in the David Bain retrial must look at each proposition in the series of circumstances and come to a logical, safe decision totally divorced from speculation, Justice Panckhurst has said in his summing up this morning.
The ultimate issues in the case were: Who did it? and was the assailant Robin Bain or was it David Bain?.
"Those issues must be proved by evidence you find compelling, beyond reasonable doubt," Justice Panckhurst said.
David Bain denies murdering his father and mother, Robin and Margaret Bain, sisters Arawa and Laniet and younger brother Stephen at the family home in Every St, Dunedin, on June 20, 1994.
Justice Panckhurst said proof of all five charges was the responsibility of the Crown - there was no onus on the accused to prove or disprove anything.
"It is not enough to say he is probably guilty or even he is very likely guilty, you've got to be sure."
It was virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty, but the Crown must bring the jury to a point where they were sure, he said.
David Bain started from a point of presumed innocence - the previous verdict was gone.
References to the first trial were raised during the trial, which was normal and useful, but the jury was not here to re-examine the course of the first trial, and it would be a "mistake and distraction" to do so.<--pagebreak->
There have also been numerous references to Bain supporter Joe Karam and his efforts in the aftermath of the first trial and to what the police "did not do", but it was not the jury's responsibility to make a judgement based on those efforts.
He then explained that the Privy Council's decision a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred was based on the fact that the jury in that trial had not had the chance to hear certain evidence.
But the Privy Council also emphasised that its decision included no view on the proper outcome of a retrial, and nothing in their judgement should influence the verdict in any way.
The jury must base their decision on what they have heard at this trial and nothing else. Iit was a new trial and a different trial.
10.25am: The jurors must assess the case in a dispassionate manner and set aside any feelings of sympathy or prejudice, Justice Panckhurst has said in his summing up at the David Bain retrial this morning.
There was no place for emotion when it came to bringing in verdicts on five charges of murder.
The spectre of five bodies and five murders was capable of raising emotional prejudice, and so, "you might think", was the plight of David Bain as the sole survivor 15 years on.
The purpose of defence lawyer Michael Reed's references in his closing address to David Bain's plight was unclear, and if intended to evoke sympathy, they should not.
The jury's job was to be cool, calm and dispassionate.
"You have to be fair and wise in your judgements and uninfluenced by any emotional considerations."
He urged the jury to reach a conclusion based on facts established by the direct evidence, rather than speculation or guess work.
Inferences must be based on facts of which there is direct evidence.
The Crown case was entirely dependent on inference because there was not direct evidence from any witness who saw the killings, but that was not unusual in a criminal case and in most cases the prosecution was dependent on inference to establish who the killer was.
Therefore the Crown relies on a body of circumstantial evidence, which can be in some cases compelling, especially when it comes from a multitude of sources.
10:10am: Justice Graham Panckhurst has started his summing up of the David Bain murder trial at 10am this morning.
When he concludes, the jury will be sent out of the courtroom to deliberate on their verdict.
David Bain walked in to the Christchurch High Court amid a small group oflong-time supporters, who wished him good luck.
He will be held in custody when the jury is sent out and will stay in custody until a verdict is delivered.
Justice Panckhurst said his predecessor Justice Williamson's question "Who did it? Was it David Bain or Robin Bain?" could be refined further to had the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that David Bain had killed all five members of his family including Robin Bain?
And had it been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Robin Bain had not killed himself?
He continued outlining the jury's duty in making a decision.
The question of why Robin Bain would wear gloves if he was to murder his family and then kill himself was "highly relevant", the jury in the Bain retrial has been told by Justice Panckhurst.
He pointed out in his summing up this afternoon that Crown lawyer Kieran Raftery had said Robin's early morning conduct was unusual if he was going to murder four people and kill himself.
Mr Raftery suggested Robin rose at the usual time and turned on his radio, brought the paper in, put it on the hall table and went in to the front room totally oblivious to the fate he was about to suffer.
Mr Raftery then asked why would Robin change his clothes?
He was in an almighty fight with his son, his clothes must be very bloody, yet to entertain the notion of suicide Robin had to change out of his bloody clothes and put them in the wash.
Why would a man about to commit suicide change his clothes? Mr Raftery had asked.
He also asked why Robin wore gloves, which he had to find first, because what did it matter if his prints were all over the weapon and even if they were it would be preferable because a situation could never arise that his oldest son would be a suspect.
There was no sensible explanation for the gloves, no evidence of motive,depression, and most importantly no forensic evidence to link him to the scenes in the bedroom, Mr Raftery had said.
The question of why wear gloves was highly relevant to the jury's decision, Justice Panckhurst said.
The footprint evidence did not exonerate David, Mr Raftery had said and questioned the validity of tests undertaken by defence experts.
It was one thing dealing with a controlled experience and another being are a forensic scientist in the house.
2:25pm: Whoever killed the Bain family must have had 'physical confidence' when carrying out the shootings, Justice Panckhurst said when resuming his summing up at the Bain retrial today.
He said whoever it was must have been confident in relation to the task that was about to be undertaken.
"It required the ability to sequentially go from room to room and take a number of lives.
"That must have required the gunman to have confidence in the weapon and in the silencer, because with Stephen and Margaret sleeping so close to each other anything could have happened.
"The assailant must have had physical confidence in his physical capacity to deal with whatever happened."
Justice Pankhurst said Crown counsel Mr Raftery, in his closing argument for the Crown, emphasised the conversation one witness had with David where they both agreed Laniet's baby story was "absolute rubbish", so he questioned whether the baby evidence was credible.
The judge then turned to Robin Bain's alleged depression.
2:10pm: Mr Raftery said there were many views that he was depressed, but no-one treated him for depression, nor was he diagnosed as having it, not were any of the defence witnesses competent to diagnose depression, he said.
Crown witnesses painted a picture inconsistent with what the defence witnesses said.
Why would Robin want David to stay?, Mr Raftery had asked.
The evidence showed him as a man proud of all of his children.
Mr Raftery argued there was not a shred of evidence linking Robin Bain, no blood, no items of his used in the murders or found subsequent to the killings, Justice Panckhurst said.
12.55pm: The alleged incest between Robin Bain and his daughter Laniet was the focus of the final part of Justice Pankhurst's summing up before the court broke for lunch.
The Bain retrial had heard a lot of evidence on the incest allegations from, on his count, eight crown witnesses and 10 defence witnesses, Justice Panckhurst said.
One Crown witness said Laniet had been a prostitute and moved to live with her father to "clean up her act".
One said Laniet became "introspective and dark" in 1993, but had not heard anything of the incest.
David was reported by another witness to have said Laniet had stuck up for Robin,which made it difficult for her to be at home in Every St.
Another witness said Laniet had told him she had had a baby, but he had questioned the truth of what she said.
Another witness said David Bain agreed with her that Laniet's story of having a baby in Papua New Guinea was "absolute rubbish".
She told two dairy owners and fellow prostitutes she was being abused by her father and had had a baby by him in Papua New Guinea.
The boarder who lived with her and her father at Taieri Mouth said there was nothing odd happening.
She told a flatmate her father touched her inappropriately and she was terrified of him and would not go near the house.
A friend of David's spoke with Laniet who said she wanted to ask David if she could move back to Every St, because she was terrified of her father.
She told one woman she had a baby when she was 10 and her father was the baby's father and that she was going home to "blow the whistle" on her sex work and the incest.
She told her GP she felt she would find it difficult to abstain from sex for four days because she was going out to stay with her father.
There was also Dean Cottle's evidence that she was going to tell her parents everything, the judge said.
"Did she have a baby, black or white? Was the father of any baby a family friend, somebody who raped her or her father? Are her accounts credible? Is there a pattern to them? Was she inclined to tell them to people she knew less well, and people who didn't know her as well?"
The court will resume at 2pm.
12:55pm: There were three points of conflict over David Bain's fingerprints on the murder weapon, as to whether they were in blood or not, Justice Panckhurst has told the jury in his summing up at the David Bain retrial.
Crown witnesses themselves disagreed over when and from where a sample scraping was taken from the fingerprint area on the murder weapon.
Both said it was taken from near the fingerprint, not in it, but they disagreed on the exact location.
Secondly, tests found DNA in the samples but only on the silencer and the stock by the trigger.
The DNA was from Laniet, Stephen or David Bain.
A different test indicated the presence of blood under the prints, but could not prove it was human blood - it could have been rabbit, possum or even saliva.
Later tests got no DNA from the fingerprints whatsoever.
Thirdly, fingerprint experts disagreed on whether photos of the fingerprints assessed under a bright white light indicated the presence of blood.
The Crown witness say the fingerprint ridges were clearly in blood,while the Defence witness said they were "absolutely not" in blood.
12:20pm: Justice Pankhurst has outlined to jurors the conflicting theories stemming from the 'gurgling' sound David Bain heard coming from his sister Laniet.
Justice Pankhurst, in his summing up at the David Bain retrial today, reminded jurors that David Bain said he heard a sound, like water running, coming from Laniet, so turned on the light and saw her in her bed.
Laniet had been shot three times, across the top of head, above her ear and through her cheek.
Experts for the Crown said it was unlikely Laniet would have survived the head wounds and so she could have only gurgled after the cheek shot, which must have then come first if she was to be heard gurgling.
They said only the killer could have heard the gurgle, because she was then shot in the head twice.
However, pathologist Alec Dempster did say he had experienced a case where a person whose head was bi-sected continued to live and groan for some time after the trauma.
The defence presented five witnesses on the matter who said variously that the head wound was straight across the top of her head so she must have been sitting up when it occurred, so it must have been the first wound inflicted and that people who suffered significant trauma could live and make noise for some minutes after the wound was inflicted.
The Crown thought the chances of surviving the wounds on top of the head was so unlikely that the better view was the cheek shot occurred first, at which point she sat up and then was shot through the head, but the likelihood ofthat was something the jury would have to consider.
The defence experts gave greater emphasis to the scene evidence and concurred it was the top of head shot occurred first and she could have survived that for some time.
The defence also noted the noise may not have came from Laniet at all. It sounded familiar to a washing machine working, Justice Panckhurst said.
11:55am: Summing up in the David Bain retrial has recommenced on the matter of the turn-on time of the computer and David Bain's return time to his Every St home on the morning his family was murdered in 1994.
One witness said she saw David Bain about 6.40am or 6.41am.
Mrs Laney said she saw the paper-boy squeezing through the hedge at Every St about 6.45am or 6.46am.
Justice Panckhurst told the jury the usefulness of evidence from police officers who ran the round was doubtful, and the most useful evidence was probably from the officer who walked the round.
In David Bain's own evidence he first said he left the house at 5.45am and returned about 6.40am.
Then he said at 6.40 exactly he was just past Heath St.
He later said he was at Heath St at 6.40am and that it would take him two or three minutes to get home.
The issue of when the computer in the Bain house was turned on was his next topic, on which he was confused. "My apologies."
The task for the jury was to compare the turn on time assessed by police computer experts against the time they judge Bain was likely to have returned home based on what was witnessed and noted.
"How precise are we as ordinary people in noting events and putting a time to them? I ask you what time did we start back after the break?"
11:15am: Justice Pankhurst has this morning warned the jury in the Bain retrial about the pitfalls of being "mesmerised by experts".
The jury was not entitled to conduct experiments of their own, but had to rely on what they heard as evidence in court, he said in his summing up.
That was why he earlier declined a request from the jury to have the murder weapon with them in the jury room.
There was a significant focus in this case on evidence that was missing.
For example, what if the blood on Robin Bain's fingernail had been preserved and proved sufficient for DNA analysis and what if it had proved to be Stephen's blood? But that was speculation and speculation was not admissible in this case.
The jury must approach contentions of this kind in a balanced and fair way.
On the subject of expert evidence, experts were allowed to give opinion because they were trained, experienced and qualified in their field.
This jury had a problem because there were many experts in this case and many of them were in conflict.
"How are you to approach evidence when the experts themselves can't agree? Jurors should pay heed to experts, but not be mesmerised by their opinions.
Expert evidence was also limited by the experts' role to give the jurors the benefit of their opinion on the area that was the narrow focus of their expertise.
It seemed other experts had strayed further than their area of expertise in this case and drawn conclusions that only jurors could draw.
"You and only you in this community and this country have the whole picture before you, you and you alone are best placed to evaluate the ultimate issues.
"Proof of a motive was not essential because of the reality the motive might be buried and incapable of proof."A large number of witnesses had spoken of their assessment of David Bain as a person.
He was described in many different ways.
Evidence of that kind served two purposes.
It might be relevant to considering his denial of the crimes, or relevant to whether he was sort of person who could have done acts such as these.
The weight put on that sort of evidence was up to the jury.
He said much of what the Bain family said prior to their deaths was "hearsay evidence" introduced in the trial.
Hearsay of that nature was only allowed where the trail judge allowed it, once admitted the weight given to hear say evidence was a matter for the jury.
"Obviously it is different and requires some care; you've not heard it from the horse's mouth."
There was some hearsay evidence the jury had to handle with particular care, for example, the evidence of Dean Cottle, who did not turn up to court and about whom there was a suggestion from another witness he was blackmailing Laniet.
Dealing with something that happened 15 years ago was inherently tricky, because people recalled more, or changed their statements.
Having completed his directions to the jury, the court broke for a 15mintue break.
10:45am: The jurors in the David Bain retrial must look at each proposition in the series of circumstances and come to a logical, safe decision totally divorced from speculation, Justice Panckhurst has said in his summing up this morning.
The ultimate issues in the case were: Who did it? and was the assailant Robin Bain or was it David Bain?.
"Those issues must be proved by evidence you find compelling, beyond reasonable doubt," Justice Panckhurst said.
David Bain denies murdering his father and mother, Robin and Margaret Bain, sisters Arawa and Laniet and younger brother Stephen at the family home in Every St, Dunedin, on June 20, 1994.
Justice Panckhurst said proof of all five charges was the responsibility of the Crown - there was no onus on the accused to prove or disprove anything.
"It is not enough to say he is probably guilty or even he is very likely guilty, you've got to be sure."
It was virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty, but the Crown must bring the jury to a point where they were sure, he said.
David Bain started from a point of presumed innocence - the previous verdict was gone.
References to the first trial were raised during the trial, which was normal and useful, but the jury was not here to re-examine the course of the first trial, and it would be a "mistake and distraction" to do so.
There have also been numerous references to Bain supporter Joe Karam and his efforts in the aftermath of the first trial and to what the police "did not do", but it was not the jury's responsibility to make a judgement based on those efforts.
He then explained that the Privy Council's decision a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred was based on the fact that the jury in that trial had not had the chance to hear certain evidence.
But the Privy Council also emphasised that its decision included no view on the proper outcome of a retrial, and nothing in their judgement should influence the verdict in any way.
The jury must base their decision on what they have heard at this trial and nothing else. Iit was a new trial and a different trial.
10.25am: The jurors must assess the case in a dispassionate manner and set aside any feelings of sympathy or prejudice, Justice Panckhurst has said in his summing up at the David Bain retrial this morning.
There was no place for emotion when it came to bringing in verdicts on five charges of murder.
The spectre of five bodies and five murders was capable of raising emotional prejudice, and so, "you might think", was the plight of David Bain as the sole survivor 15 years on.
The purpose of defence lawyer Michael Reed's references in his closing address to David Bain's plight was unclear, and if intended to evoke sympathy, they should not.
The jury's job was to be cool, calm and dispassionate.
"You have to be fair and wise in your judgements and uninfluenced by any emotional considerations."
He urged the jury to reach a conclusion based on facts established by the direct evidence, rather than speculation or guess work.
Inferences must be based on facts of which there is direct evidence.
The Crown case was entirely dependent on inference because there was not direct evidence from any witness who saw the killings, but that was not unusual in a criminal case and in most cases the prosecution was dependent on inference to establish who the killer was.
Therefore the Crown relies on a body of circumstantial evidence, which can be in some cases compelling, especially when it comes from a multitude of sources.
10:10am: Justice Graham Panckhurst has started his summing up of the David Bain murder trial at 10am this morning.
When he concludes, the jury will be sent out of the courtroom to deliberate on their verdict.
David Bain walked in to the Christchurch High Court amid a small group oflong-time supporters, who wished him good luck.
He will be held in custody when the jury is sent out and will stay in custody until a verdict is delivered.
Justice Panckhurst said his predecessor Justice Williamson's question "Who did it? Was it David Bain or Robin Bain?" could be refined further to had the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that David Bain had killed all five members of his family including Robin Bain?
And had it been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Robin Bain had not killed himself?
He continued outlining the jury's duty in making a decision.
