In his 'award' winning reporting on the 2nd Bain Trial vanbeynan left out a torrent of new evidence which showed David innocent and the father guilty.
Here is just a little more that he didn't include in his 'balanced' report from the trial he claims to have sat through almost in its entirety. Why did van beynan leave this and other critical material out? Was it because he had some links to the prosecuting police and the hate-sites? You decide.
9 points from among others –
New evidence:
Evidence that Laniet was shot through something, to which even the Crown experts agreed
Photographs of blood on Robin Bain’s hands
Photographs of numerous injuries to Robin Bain’s hands
The time discrepancy that dispelled the relevancy of the bruising to David’s face
Evidence that David did not have a bruise when first examined
David’s fingerprints on the gun were not in blood
Milton Weir acknowledged that he had misled the first jury about the whereabouts of the lens
The shot to Robin Bain was close contact
Robin Bain was showing signs of stress and depression sufficient for interventions to be put in place
This was also posted on Trade Me. And Kent Parker responded, showing his ignorance or lack of understanding of the evidence.
ReplyDeleteHis response to the first point was "so what does this prove?" - well, duh!
To the second, that it was spatter. No, Kent, smears and residual blood are NOT spatter.
To the fingerprints: he said that it was because the blood deteriorated over time! That's enough on its own to show how little Kent knows or understands the evidence.
But has he the insight or intelligence to recognise that and inform himself? It seems not. He continues with his personal vendetta against Joe Karam and David Bain. Continues viciously and spitefully.