David's Fingerprints in Blood were found on the Murder Rifle

Fingerprints in blood were found on the rifle that killed the Bain family. There was no doubt that these were David Bain's prints.  There were no signs of Robin Bain's prints on the gun.

The Defence disputed the presence of human blood and argued that the prints were from a hunting trip several months prior and may have been rabbit blood or not blood at all.  This assertion goes against the findings of the investigation done in 1994 while the fingerprints were fresh, and were determined to be in blood.  Sure, in 2009, 15 years later it is probably impossible to determine what the fingerprints are formed from, but that doesn't mean that the original conclusion is not valid.  In addition to this, the activity on the morning of the killings with and without the white gloves on would have removed or damaged any old prints and certainly put them into the background.  

The Defence produced expert witnesses who state that often fingerprints are not left on murder weapons after they have been used, but in the David Bain case there were fingerprints on the murder weapon, so this situation simply does not apply here.  In addition to David's fingerprints on the butt there were prints on the silencer belonging to Stephen that are consistent with him trying to fend off an attack.  Were these left from a previous hunting trip too?  In the case of the fingerprints, Karam has really sought to pull the wool down over the eyes of the jury.

We can accept the expert testimony that it is possible for a person to use a rifle and leave no fingerprints, however in the Bain case there were fingerprints so it simply doesn't apply.  No expert got up to testify that it is possible for someone to shoot 4 people including having a life and death struggle with one of them and all the while leave old fingerprints intact.  One expert for the Prosecution said words to that effect but in general this gaping hole in the Defence argument wasn't seen by the jury.

The defence can't have it both ways:
1.  A person can leave no fingerprints on a rifle after using it
2.  A person can use a rifle to shoot 4 people and leave previous fingerprints fully intact

The original examination in 1994

Kim Jones, a fingerprint technician with the Christchurch police, said he examined the rifle on 21 June 1994 and discovered "sharp, definitive and recent'' fingerprints belonging to David Bain. The fingerprints were deposited by fingers covered in blood which when tested returned characteristics consistent with human blood.

Earlier he said after a visual examination of the rifle on June 21, 1994, he had put the rifle under an intense light called a polilight that enhanced fingerprint images and found that "the rifle was covered in its entirety - itself, the stock, the strap, the scope and the silencer, '' with blood.

Fingerprints in blood were located on the right hand side of the fore-end of the stock as though someone had put a hand over the top of the rifle's stock from above.  These matched David Bain's fingerprints from four fingers of his left hand, Jones said. The prints had been placed by fingers covered in blood on a clear surface and were "sharp and very definitive''.  The fingerprints had been placed with such pressure and were so clear he was left in no doubt they were of recent origin. Over time fingerprints degraded but these were very clear, he said.

The defense argued the actual bloodied fingerprints were never sampled and were old fingerprints deposited by David with rabbit blood on his fingers.  Kim Jones the police fingerprint technician said if prints were put on the rifle during a hunting trip before the murders, they would have been destroyed with subsequent handling.  He said he believed the prints were recent because the hemoglobin in the blood had not oxidized and the blood had therefore not turned dark brown in color.  Such prints would have “dramatically destroyed or smudged’’ during the activity on the morning of the murders, he said.

Another scientist, Dr Cropp, said he was given five plastic tubes with blood samples scraped from the rifle.  His testing confirmed the five samples were human blood and four of them were of one particular type. The blood could have come from David, Stephen or Laniet, but not from the rest of the family. There was a huge amount of blood in Stephen's room. The killers gloves were literally dripping with blood, without doubt there would have been plenty of blood deposited on the rifle.

The 2009 Retrial

The Defence called in British fingerprint expert Carl Lloyd as a witness and he claimed that the fingerprints were not in human blood and may not in fact be in blood at all.  He was no doubt aided in this by the fact that by now the prints were 15 years old and had deteriorated so much that nobody could be certain of their composition sufficiently to be able to successfully contest these claims.

The Defence also claimed that it is possible for a killer to leave no prints on a rifle after using it.  This claim, while true, stems from the fact that often the gun is wiped down to remove fingerprints after it is used.  If either David or Robin had done this on this particular occasion then David's fingerprints would not have been so clearly evident on the rifle and if Robin had done the shooting then his fingerprints would be on the rifle.  There was no sign whatsoever of any of Robin's prints on the rifle.


The fingerprints on the gun are undisputably David's and are in human blood therefore they connect David closely to the crime.  The Defence argument about animal blood on the gun is weak because the activity on the morning of the murders would have destroyed them, and also, when shooting small animals, only negligent amounts of blood are ever transferred to the hands, if at all, when picking them up (that is if they are picked up and not just left lying in the field). The gun, as described was covered in blood.

More in depth reading on this subject can be found here and here



Karam seems to have made

Karam seems to have made another error in his book Trial by Ambush he writes on page 347 [Quote] There is not one scrap of evidence that these fingerprints were made in blood. Repeated DNA testing by the Crown over the following 14 years did not detect any human DNA, let alone blood, in the area where those fingerprints were found [End quote]


This above statement from Karam flies in the face of what the truth is as demonstrated by what ESR scientist Dr Cropp says below.


 [207. The fingerprint sample, in contrast, yielded a very faint precipitant band. According to Dr Cropp, this result was “indefinite”; that is, it was unclear, from the precipitation that had formed, whether the Ouchterlony test had resulted in a positive reading for the presence of human blood proteins. He therefore washed and then stained the precipitation, to enhance the results of the test. After staining a clear band was visible. This indicated, in Dr Cropp’s opinion, the presence of human material in the fingerprint sample.

We are going over old ground here.

First of all the "fingerprint" sample was not taken from under David Bains fimgerprints but was taken from adjacent to those prints.
Judith on kiwiblog mentioned only yesterday that there was no blood under those fingerprints.
I replied that just because no blood was found three years later that did not mean there was no blood under those prints.
I also made the point that in the Bain/ Binnie interview Bain's best notion was that it was animal blood from the summer.
So here we have Karam and co saying there was no blood and David Bain saying it was animal blood.

The only reason I mentioned

The only reason I mentioned it Mike was because Karam said [in the area where those fingerprints were found] which of course means around the prints as well, its so ironic that if they took a big scrape from under the prints they probably would have got some DNA but by doing good police work and trying to keep the integrity of the prints they have come under fire from Karam, you can just imagine if what the master media manipulater would have made of things if they disturbed the prints themselves.

Sample was taken from bloody print

Q.         We have heard from a Mr Hentschel that he took a blood sample from that – somewhere in that area and other areas on the rifle, were you there when he did that?


A.         It was carried out on the 22nd of June 1994 when I went down to Dunedin to do a scene examination, and prior to that scene examination, Dr Peter Hentschel and I examined the rifle together and collectively we worked out where he should take the sample of blood from that fingerprint.


Q.         What were you considering when you were actually deciding where that sample should be taken from?


A.         Point A, I wanted to retain the integrity of the fingerprint but ensure he took a sample of the finger belonging to that fingerprint to ensure that the blood was one and the same.


Q.         Did you choose one finger in particular, one fingerprint impression in particular, to address that issue to?


A.         I did sir, the finger adjacent to the left fore.

Sample wasn't taken from bloody print

Kim Jones says that he instructed Peter Hentschel to take a sample from under the left middle finger but Hentschel said he did not take a sample from there. He confirmed in a letter to the Ministry of Justice dated 23 August 1999 that he deliberately did not remove material from the fingerprints themselves.This was to ensure the fingerprints were in the best possible condition for Police fingerprint analysis.
So there appears to have been some misunderstanding between Jones and Hentschel. But it was Hentschel who actually took the sample,so he should know where he took it from. Jones did not see where Hentschel took the sample from.
And Hentschel told me that both he and Jones agreed not to take a sample from under the fingerprints.

Mike to be fair to Kim Jones

Mike to be fair to Kim Jones I think you should have another read of his testimony from 2009 below, you will notice that at no time when being questioned did he say that he instructed Hentschel to take the sample from directly beneath any of the fingerprints, in fact he said below "I wanted to retain the integrity of the fingerprint but ensure he took a sample of the finger belonging to that fingerprint to ensure that the blood was one and the same." he went on to say when asked where the sample was taken " the finger adjacent to the left fore"  Adjacent Mike that’s directly beside and Hentschel said himself that he took the sample about 5mm from the print so as Jones said the blood would be one and the same. So to me they were more or less saying the same thing. 

I think a lot of the problem with the questioning from Read at trial is that he was constantly trying to get disagreement between different prosecution witnesses’ a lot of the time he was answering questions himself pretty arrogant really.


Q.         We have heard from a Mr Hentschel that he took a blood sample from that – somewhere in that area and other areas on the rifle, were you there when he did that?


A.         It was carried out on the 22nd of June 1994 when I went down to Dunedin to do a scene examination, and prior to that scene examination, Dr Peter Hentschel and I examined the rifle together and collectively we worked out where he should take the sample of blood from that fingerprint.


Q.         What were you considering when you were actually deciding where that sample should be taken from?


A.         Point A, I wanted to retain the integrity of the fingerprint but ensure he took a sample of the finger belonging to that fingerprint to ensure that the blood was one and the same.


Q.         Did you choose one finger in particular, one fingerprint impression in particular, to address that issue to?


A.         I did sir, the finger adjacent to the left fore.

Adjacent to the left fore.

Bill.what Kim Jones is saying is that he asked Hentschel to take a sample from the finger adjacent to the left forefinger,in other words the middle finger.
Another point. Hentschel did not take those samples until August 4. He did not take those samples on June 22nd.
Look,I am sure there was human blood under those fingerprints and even Karam accepts there could have been.
And I am also pretty sure that David Bain had blood on his fingers when he left those fingerprints on the rifle. But no-one can prove that. And even if human blood had been found under those fingerprints no-one would be able to prove whether Bain had blood in his fingers when he placed them on the rifle or whether he placed them in blood that was on the rifle.
But it doesn't help the prosecution case when you get Jones and Hentschel saying different things. But I put that down to the fact that the retrial was 14 years after the trial. Jones didn't take notes. Hentschel did.

Mike how the heck can you

Mike how the heck can you take a sample from under a print and "retain the integrity of the fingerprint" as Jones said, unless you take the sample directley ajacent to that print so as to make sure as Jones said that the blood was one and the same as the print??

Below is more testimony from Jones in court 2009 proving that the blood came from the fingers but not from the prints themselves, and he did take notes.

Mr Jones.  I think you have got the notes of your examinations and that sort there with you is that correct Mr Jones?

A.            It is sir.


A.            As a result of my examination, my preliminary examination of the firearm, I located four fingerprints in what appeared to be blood. 


Q.           So did you direct Mr Hentschel where he should go or did he direct you where he was going to go?

A.            To maintain the integrity of the print I directed where he should take the sample.

Q.           So where do you remember him taking the sample from?

A.            From the right-hand side, bottom corner, where you can see a smear or a mark, as I have indicated here.  I believe that was close enough to the fingerprint but still from the finger to be able to categorically say that blood was one and the same.


Q.           You were asked at the beginning of your cross-examination a lot about Mr Hentschel’s examination and what he saw on the – what he said he’d done on the 4th of August.  I'm just going to get you to look at that entry on the 4th of August from Mr Hentschel’s notes.  This is on page 2 in relation to our exhibit 14, item number 14 which is the rifle in this case, and it says, “4th of August blood removed and given to PLC for grouping,” you see that?

A.            I do.

Q.           That’s the bit you were asked about from his notes.  But if we just go back to the front page where he's dated the examination the 21st of June, see at the beginning there it talks about the rifle been examined by him in Dunedin and then taken to fingerprint section in Wellington.  That would be you the fingerprint section in Wellington at that time?

A.            It would be.

Q.           And then does it go on to say, “When they found fingerprints the rifle came back to Dunedin.”

A.            Correct.

Q.           And we heard that from Detective McCone, he brought it back.  And then it says, “And after discussion with Kim Jones blood was removed from selected areas.”

A.            It was.

Q.           Is that the examination that you're referring to?

A.            Absolutely which took place on the 22nd of June 1994.


Mike I am sticking with Jones story, he was the one who directed Hentschel to take the samples after both of them looked at the blood prints with the polilight Jones found those blood prints on the 22nd June why the heck would you wait a month and a half to take blood samples?? I think Hentschel is mistaken. Possibly the 4th of August was the date he then handed the samples to Cropp for testing.

Blood samples

Bill,I cant tell you why Hentschel said he took those blood samples on August 4th.and I am not going to phone him and ask him.
He said he took those samples on August 4th and Cropp said he received them on August 4th. He says he wasn't in Dunedin on June 22. He dated the examination June 21,so that was probably the day he and Kim Jones examined the rifle. I would suggest that those samples were taken at the laboratory because Hentschel didn't have the right equipment with him to take them at the Police Station.
Hentschel said he saw the rifle in the front room at Every Street,then later he saw it again at the Police Station. He said on that day Kim Jones showed him where the fingerprints were,the main purpose for that was so that he would not remove them to enable Kim Jones to carry out other tests if he needed to.
Then later Hentschel was asked
Q. Did you take any samples from the area of the actual fingerprints?
A. No.
Q. How close to the fingerprints did you take a sample?
A. Between 5 and 10 mm.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what day those samples were taken. The main thing is that Hentschel said he did not take a sample from under the fingerprints,and if he did not take a sample from under those fingerprints then there is no conclusive proof there was blood under those fingerprints.
Kim Jones may say that that sample was taken close enough to that fingerprint to say the blood from under the fingerprint would have been the same,and I believe him. But he can't prove it.

Ok Mike we will leave it at

Ok Mike we will leave it at that but at least we have established that Hentschell and Jones both agreed that the blood sample was not taken from the prints but was taken from a finger, the next time I cut myself shaving I will be making some bloody fingerprints just to see how much blood smearing there would be around the print and still one and the same as the print blood. I think the whole exersize about this was just splitting hairs something Read for the defence was an expert at, I will be giving him a call if I am ever arested for murder.

Ok ,Bill.

Look,we both agree that there would have been blood under those fingerprints . And we both agree that it would have been Stephen's blood.
Of course Reed was splitting hairs. But he would only have had one hair to split so far as those fingerprints were concerned,if a sample had been taken from under those prints[and proved to be human blood].
He would have had to have come up with the same reason as Guest did at the first trial. There would have been none of this nonsence about there being no blood there,or that it could have been mammalian blood.

Can't argue with any of that

I think it was unfortunate that at the retrial Kim Jones said that Peter Hentschel took a sample from under the fingerprints.

Hentschel is adamant that he did not.He said both he and Jones made a decision that David Bain's fingerprints should be kept in pristine condition,so it was decided that a sample be taken from as close to them as was possible without causing any damage to them.

Apparently ,back in 1994 ,to have taken a sample from under the prints would have caused considerable damage to them.

But this decision gave rise to the rabbits blood/no blood theories.

And the defense were to say that because the prints were not in a position where the rifle would have got a lot of handling,then they could have been there for some time.

But the rifle was extensively smeared in blood ,giving the appearance of it having been wiped down.

I don't believe the rifle would have been "covered " in blood originally.

I don't know what was used to wipe the rifle down,but I believe the gloves in the first instance,and something else later on.

The lesson in this case is don't spam

[spam deleted]

I think SPAM should be removed.

Unless we want to provide a forum for advertisers, this Roebe spam about rifles and a link to a related online sales site, should be removed quickly and the author banned. (Unless they contribute significantly to the campaign for justice - but that's unlikely as it's against the 'Spammers Code' to pay for advertising).

Kent in basic language how do

Kent in basic language how do you make a one word link instead of having the whole address.  Thanks 

Bob, use the chain icon. 

Bob, use the chain icon.  Highlight the word then click on the chain link, a popup will appear and you enter the url and click on insert.  Voila!

Thanks for that Kent another

Thanks for that Kent another pc trick learned.  By the way just looking at the pic if the rifle it looks similar to a rifle I once owned, it is semi auto, when a shot is fired the shell is ejected out to the right automatically, the empty shell was found by a leg of the chair in front of the computer, the chair is on the right of someone shooting through the gap of the curtains. Funny how the prosecution's case can nearly always be backed up by the evidence.

What happened to Robin's fingerprints?

There was a letter in the Dompost on April 1 which was accompanied by a photo showing a person from the defence holding that rifle demonstrating how Robin Bain could have shot himself.[I would like to see that photo here.I would have tried to copy it but unfortunately letters over Easter never appeared on the Dompost Stuff co site.]

Anyway,I was intrigued by the way in which the person in the photo was holding the rifle and I wondered how he could have done so without leaving any fingerprints on it.I was also taken by the headgear he was wearing,and the person standing right behind him was a Joe Karam lookalike.

Yet it would appear that there are some people that do believe that Robin Bain could have handled that rifle without leaving any fingerprints on it.

No fingerprints



David Bain left a good set,but they are old one's,'cos he hadn't touched that rifle for months.Yeah,right!

So what they are saying Mike

So what they are saying Mike is that db's prints stayed on the rifle for months,yet Robins were not, even though, according to Team david, he had handled the rifle very recently? In fact at the same time Stephen handled it to try to save his life yet his were.Strange that.Freaky really!! Or invented BS!!

Can anyone tel me if db is left or right handed?



I think what could have happened was that as Robin Bain was falling to the ground after shooting himself he somehow managed to wipe all his fingerprints off the rifle,but missed an old set left by the" one who deserved to stay",now known as "the penniless one".Apparently quite a few people who commit suicide by shooting themselves manage to do so without leaving their fingerprints on the weapon,it's a well known fact.Ask JK,he will confirm this.

Another reason why Robin Bain may not have left any fingerprints on the rifle is that he had old,dry skin,and dry skin does not leave prints.

So far as David's prints go,well at the first trial the fingerprint expert said they were in human blood.But a couple of years later along came a Dr Geursen and said that it could be mammalian blood,perhaps from David shooting rabbits or possums some months earlier.Dr Geursen did not seem to be aware of the fact that rabbits and possums do not "bleed"when shot,unlike humans.However,the Privy Council felt that a jury should have heard what Dr Geursen had to say.

We all believe the rifle was

We all believe the rifle was wiped down apart from this area ,yes?

Could it of been wiped with a favorite t shirt?

David Bain's fingerprints

David Bain's fingerprints were found on the top of the stock adjacent to the barrel.  This is not a normal place to find fingerprints.  In the trial the Prosecution witness suggested that the fingerprints could have been put there when placing the rifle however Bryan Bruce had a more plausible suggestion in A Question of Justice, in that the fingerprints got there in the heat of the shooting when David used the top to grip with while shooting downwards. This would have happened after his struggle with Stephen when he became covered in blood.  By the time David came to setting up the scene in order to frame his father he could well have forgotten where he had handled the gun during the frenzied shooting spree and simply not wiped that part of the gun.

Fingerprints on the rifle

When those fingerprints were first found it was said that the fingers were contaminated by blood when being put on the rifle,as opposed to the fingers going down into blood which was already on the gun.There have been a number of arguments about this.At the end of it all the Crown were to say that the only plausible explanation for the fingerprints was that David Bain gripped the forestock of the rifle when he wiped it.So they have gone away from the "fingerprints contaminated by blood" theory.David Bain would not have had blood on his hands when he wiped the rifle down.I go along with what the Crown are saying.Bain wiped the rifle down,but didn't wipe off that last set of prints,which would have been tricky to do,when you think about it.But I think he just forgot to do it when trying to set the scene up to look like his father committed suicide.

Yes, I agree, the Prosecution

Yes, I agree, the Prosecution explanation was not great, because, as you say, if he handled the gun by the top of the stock while wiping the barrel down after shooting his father, then he wouldn not have left blood, because he had cleaned up at that stage.  Bryan Bruce's explanation is much more plausible: he handled the gun in that place during the shooting, and after he'd tackled Stephen.  Then when it came to cleaning the gun he had forgotten about it and only cleaned where he used the gun to shoot his father.

Fingerprints on the rifle

I was editing my last reply,but it did not work,as your post ,Kent ,beat me to the draw.On rereading what the Crown said,I see they still reckoned that David's fingerprints were from his bloodied left hand.But as you say,and as I was going to say in my edit,David Bain's hand would not have been bloody after shooting his father.But he did shoot Laniet and Arawa after shooting Stephen.But I guess he wouldn't have put his hands on the forestock to do this.As with his father.So I guess Bryan Bruce's explanation still fits.Bain cleaned the blood off the rifle after shooting Stephen,but he left a bloodied print on the forestock.Which he did not touch again.Makes sense to me.

The bloody gloves

At the first trial the Crown Prosecutor asked the question as to why David Bain removed his gloves.He suggested that he may have had to remove them so as to insert his little finger in the breech to clear the misfed bullet.I would suggest that he may have used the gloves to clean the blood from the rifle,then he balled them up and threw them in a corner.He must have used something to clean down the rifle.

The question has been asked if David Bain is left-handed.I think it is is fairly safe to assume he is right-handed.I think it would have been mentioned if he was left-handed.I mean you always hear about a golfer being left-handed,you never hear about them being right-handed.

Look at the position of those

Look at the position of those prints.

Now,this is the tricky bit, get your partner to sit on the floor or bed and pretend (please!) you have the weapon in your hands.A broom will do.

Point it at the top of their head as if to shoot them (DONT!) with the rifle vertical.eg.same as 3 of the victims.

Where would your prints be from your left hand if you are right handed?

If your partner wont play a balloon or ball will do!!


Fingerprints on rifle

It would appear that David Bain,being right-handed,held the rifle with his left hand while wiping the blood off with his right hand.

So Mike we are saying that

So Mike we are saying that the butt of the rifle was upward with the trigger facing him when it was wiped down?


The rifle is upside-down in that photo showing the fingerprints.If you look at the previous photos it gives you a better idea.It would appear that David Bain has a very long pinky on his left hand.Ho,ho,ho and a bottle of rum.

Sorry Mike but I cant get my

Sorry Mike but I cant get my prints in that position by holding it and wiping it down.

It would be very awkward and unnatural.

I believe he simply missed wiping that area down and the prints got there during the shooting spree.He didnt do a good job of wiping it down at all as Stephens prints were also found on the silencer.

Notice the strap. Wrap that  around your forearm and over the top of the stock.Now the prints fit.


Vic,I don't have a rifle any more,but I do have a slug gun.Now we are only looking at four fingerprints,I don't what that print furtherest to the right has to do with anything ,so ignore that.Now if I pick up the slug gun with my left hand I can get my four fingers to match ok with Bain's four fingers.My thumb is not actually touching the slug gun,it is just off the end under the barrel.I am not using a really firm grip,if I were to do that my fingers would be slightly higher up towards the barrel and my thumb would touch the barrel.I am sort of using a firm but balancing grip,if you can understand what I mean.If I was using the slug gun for shooting my fingers would be higher up and further back and my thumb [print ]would be on the opposite side.

It would be a better test if I had the real thing,but I think the slug gun is close enough,just slighty shorter and perhaps a little lighter.I realise I was wrong about the pinky,it is to the right on that photo,the index finger is on the left.So no bottle of rum.If you go back one photo you can see the rifle the right way up.[No doubt you have done that.]

No Mike. Im still having a

No Mike. Im still having a problem here.

The print nearest the silencer is his little finger. Correct?

The same as the top picture? If so thats a very awkward way to hold the rifle while wiping it down.

Although it does fit if that is where his hand was as he placed it on the floor.

Think I get it now. db had wiped all the prints off and then (stupid dickhead that he is) picked it up again to position it.

I could not find something that looked like a rifle in my comp room so I used a roled up poster!!! Then I looked at the poster and its a copy of the Magna Carta I got at the World Expo in Brisbane a few years ago!! Very apt!!


The print nearest the barrel is Bain's index finger.It would seem he managed to wipe that last print off ok when he placed the rifle on the floor.His hands would have been clean then,but bloody when he was in Stephen's room.Hence the bloody prints on the rifle.Which he probably wiped off with his glove[s].

But Mike!! The top picture

But Mike!! The second picture in the court room demostrates its his little finger from his left hand.

His hands may of been clean Mike but the gun was covered in blood as all wiping would of done is smudged the blood all over the surface.Like a paint roller.

Now Im wondering what it was wiped with? Im still thinking maybe a favorite t shirt?


Vic,what number picture are you looking at?I should have said that Bain's index finger was the finger nearest the silencer end.

I think picture No.4 gives you the best idea,but Bain's left hand would have been nearer the barrel.

Mike I can only see the 3

Mike I can only see the 3 pictures on this page and the guy in the court has his little finger nearest the silencer.


Vic,I pasted two links,the best link is the second link.But you can still see the relevant photos by using the first link and clicking on photos with Peter Hentschel.It will all become clear to you .

As you are aware,there has been some conjecture about those fingerprints.But I still think that the Police fingerprint expert,Detective Jones, was correct when he said that the fingers were contaminated with blood when they were placed on the rifle and that they were very recent prints.There was some uncertainty as to when those fingerprints were placed on the rifle.There was a suggestion that they may have been placed there after David Bain shot his father.But I believe Bryan Bruce's suggestion that they were placed on the rifle when David Bain was cleaning the blood off after his struggle with Stephen is probably correct.And I reckon David Bain used his gloves to clean the blood off,that is why they were so bloody when they were found,tossed in a corner in Stephen's room.It all makes sense to me.

And David Bain would not have had any blood on his hands when he shot his father,he would have washed his hands at least twice by then,probably,once before he went on his paper round to remove the blood[he quite probably had a shower],and again when he returned from his paper round to wash off the printer's ink.

I agree with you Mike but

I agree with you Mike but where are the links? Here or FB? Its bugging me now!!!

Mike.I still think its his little finger print nearest the silencer!!!



Vic,I have just scrolled back to the start of this link and have found that post that Bob made a few months back.That photo he has shown is probably the best one I have seen so far as the fingerprints on the rifle are concerned.I must admit I had forgotten about that post.Anyway,on looking at that post I would have to agree with you that it IS the little finger that is closest to the silencer.I have tested out that grip and I find I can hold my slug gun that way,with my thumb in the air,as it were,though I find it much easier to hold the gun in an "underhand"grip,with the index figure nearest  to where the silencer would be.But I have to say that if I had blood all over my slug gun I could clear more of it off if I used the grip as used by the penniless one.

My links to Peter Hentschel are in a post further down on this topic.He has his left hand "under" the rifle,with his index finger closest to the silencer,and I guess this is what confused me.

Anyway,Vic,if you can get hold of a rifle,see if you can get the penniless one to come down and show you exactly how he held it when he was cleaning it down.Maybe give him a pair of gloves as well.

PS.Don't forget to make sure there is no bullet in the rifle!

Thanks Mike.I thought I was

Thanks Mike.I thought I was going mad!!!


Yeah,Vic,you had me going for a while there as well.Seems we were looking at different photos.But this all came about because you didn't think that David Bain could have held the rifle in that position to clean it down.I take it you now accept that he could have,and, in fact, probably did,in Stephen's room ,using his gloves to wipe it with.

I do Mike. I definatly do!!!

I do Mike. I definatly do!!! What a silly "boy" he is.

Ive often heard people make the comment about how clever he is but I do not agree with that statement one bit.I think with a little bit more thought he could of gotten away with this but simple little things went right over his head. "clever"? No!! Just  stupid !!


Yes,David Bain did make some elementary mistakes,but of course he was not expecting anything to upset his plan.You can imagine what sort of a whirl his mind was in after that struggle with Stephen.

It so happens I am writing a chapter now on the fingerprints on the rifle.Needless to say I am not mentioning individual fingers!

Fingerprints in blood

There has always been a debate as to whether David Bain's fingers had blood on them when he placed them on the rifle.No blood sample was taken from "under" the fingerprints,but one was taken from virtually right next to the fingerprints.

Then when Harbison tried to find some blood to sample from under the fingerprints in 1997,she had no success,although Dr Guersen said he found mammalian blood under the fingerprints.Then along came Lloyd and he said there was no blood of any kind under the fingerprints.

Hentschel and Jones both agreed that no sample be taken from under the fingerprints,they wanted a pristine set of prints.But Jones had no doubt that David Bain had blood on his fingers when he placed them on the rifle.

Bryan Bruce's fingerprints.

A thought has occoured to me from one of your earlier posts ,Mike and  permit me to quote,

"Another reason why Robin Bain may not have left any fingerprints on the rifle is that he had old,dry skin,and dry skin does not leave prints.", according to Karam.

Was this remark made by the defence in the retrial or was it what I call some of Karams ad hoc remarks during the Radio Live show.?What was his source for this?

Robin Bain was 58 when he was murdered.Bryan Bruce was born in 1948 so the time of the Investigator special he would be 62.If we follow Karam's reasoning then Bryce's "old ,dry skin" would of not left fingerprints.As we know he left copious identifiable fingerprints..Thoughts please.

Lack of prints

Ralph,I don't think I said that Karam said old dry skin may have been a reason why Robin Bain did not leave any prints on the rifle,if he used it to commit suicide.But I did read that someone somewhere gave that as a possible reason.

I think the main thrust of my argument was that Robin Bain would surely have left some prints on the rifle given that he would have handled it a great deal if he had murdered four members of his family and then committed suicide.And apparently there were no fingerprints on either of the magazines.And he would have had to have touched the silencer,surely.Bryan Bruce touched the silencer in that demonstration,and Karam mentioned that,inferring that Bruce would not have made any prints on the actual rifle.

Karam has said that there have been many instances of people committing suicide by gunshot without leaving any fingerprints on the weapon,and some of us will have just read about that murder/suicide case in Feilding last year where the murderer left no fingerprints on the rifle,so obviously it can happen,for whatever reason.

In my opinion it is more that David's prints were on the rifle that points to David as being the killer.When Kim Jones examined the rifle with a polylight he said the prints were well defined and it looked to him the fingers had blood on them when they were placed on the rifle.And we know Stephen's blood was on the rifle,and we know one sample was taken from right next to those prints.

But the defence raised a number of arguments,as we know.

Talking about the rifle,I was looking at the transcript this morning and I noticed that David Bain said he purchased the rifle when he was 19,but then later said he purchased it around August 1993.

But the actual receipt from G S Taylor was dated 6/2/93.

So David was all over the place,which is what can happen when one lies.And he must have been 20 or 21 when he purchased it.

He said the rifle was sighted in around October 1993,and he also said his father drew rabbit's ears on the target which he said was exhibit 212,that target that was found in his room.What happened to the rabbit's ears,I wonder?.