The High Court in Christchurch has agreed to release a copy of a 111 call made by David Bain which was not played to the jury in his retrial.
David Bain, 37, was acquitted on 5 June of the murder of his father Robin, mother Margaret, brother Stephen and sisters Arawa and Laniet in their Dunedin home in 1994.
The Supreme Court on Thursday lifted suppression on part of Mr Bain's 111 phone call, which contained audible breath sounds that the Crown claimed were Mr Bain uttering the words "I shot the prick".
In addition, the Court of Appeal lifted suppression on an allegation that Mr Bain was planning a sexual attack on a female jogger and had intended to use his newspaper run as an alibi.
David Bain's key supporter Joe Karam said the suppressed part of the 111 call was a joke and the words did not exist. There was no confession, there were no words and he rejected any suggestion they existed.
TV3 broadcast
David Bain's lawyers have asked the Solicitor-General to investigate whether TV3 was in contempt of court for broadcasting the segment of the phone call on Thursday night, before the suppression order was lifted.
In releasing the tape on Friday, Justice Chisholm said Mr Bain's lawyer was "outraged" it had been broadcast prematurely.
However, TV3 Head of News Mark Jennings says he does not think contempt of court charges will be brought.
Media lawyer Steven Price believes the television company was within its rights to air the tape, because it had obtained the copy independently.
Linguistics expert disputes Crown theory
A linguistics specialist from the Australian National University, who analysed the 111 call on behalf of the defence, says it was important the jury in the David Bain trial was not played the suppressed section nor told the Crown's hypothesis.
Senior lecturer Dr Philip Rose told Morning Report he hears the word "can't" rather than "shot" in the tape, and believes that by measuring the speech acoustics, other scientists should come up with the same results.
But Dr Rose says the jury would have heard what it was prompted to hear.
"It's quite possible to give the same degraded speech to different groups of people and prime them in different ways and they will hear what you suggest to them to hear."
'Suppression justified'
Auckland University law professor Warren Brookbanks and criminal barrister Greg King agree that the segment of the 111 call and the alleged alibi evidence should not have been put before the jury.
Mr King says the role of the court is not to address speculation, but to look at evidence which is reliable and relevant to the case.
Warren Brookbanks says the 111 segment alone was highly debatable and suppression was entirely appropriate.
He says speculation about the evidence now is irrelevant as the jury verdict has been reached.
