Van Beynen Complaint

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/8075386/Compensation-for-Bain-would-be-a-travesty

The linked article might be Van Beynen's idea of opinion and balance but it isn't mine. I've asked his Editor to review it as below.

To the Editor.

Hi Andrew.

Assuming you are still editor.

The following is a formal complaint about a specific article.

In accordance with the Press Council requirements, I write on what I see as clearly unbalanced piece by Van Beynan titled “Compensation for Bain would be a travesty.'”

I must note that Van Beynan has an obsessive type interest in the Bain case which has resulted in not presenting both sides of the evidence for and against David Bain over a long period of time. Further to that, he has publicly displayed his bias at least twice. The first resulting in a warning from the Justice Department to stay away from Jurors of the retrial after one complained that he had harassed her. The second instance followed the International Justice Conference where at question time he inquired as to why David hated his father, deliberately misquoting evidence where David had said that ‘if’ his father had killed the family he would hate him.

Other points to note. I am unaware that Van Beynan has ever reported that Robin Bain died with blood smears on his palms, additionally, he has never reported in his many attacks on David Bain that Robin Bain’s DNA was found inside the rifle. Both significant evidence of his guilt.

In his opinion piece, Van Beynen lists the following as evidence against David Bain.

1/ His fingerprints on the rifle. Yet he does not refer to trial evidence that fingerprints can last for many years on such surfaces and could simply have been there in a ‘carrying position’ rather than a ‘firing position’ for some time before the killings. There was evidence to this effect during the trial which Van Beynan would have mentioned should his intention have been to provide balance.

2/ The lens ‘that were useful to him but not his father were found in his bedroom.’ Van Beynen cannot possibly be unaware of the controversy surrounding the lens yet he mentions none of it – not least the fact that a police officer admitted to the Jury to giving misleading evidence on the lens, nor that the police officer had sued Joe Karam over a matter related to the lens and lost.

3/ He says inconsistencies with David’s various accounts but mentions none of them or what responses there were regarding them.

4/ ‘His brother’s blood on his clothes.’ Here he gives no details of the blood, some of which was aged and none of which was spattered as would have been expected in Stephen’s room by the amount of spatter on the walls and floor.

5/ ‘A 20 to 25-minute delay’ in ringing the police. Again he gives absolutely no details of the defense raised against this and the evidence that David may have blacked out, or would obviously have been in shock.

He goes onto raise reasons why Robin wasn't the killer in his ‘opinion’ and each of his reasons is flawed compared to the evidence and certainly not balanced.

1/ He asked how the ‘cadaverous’ Robin fought of Stephen and sustained no injuries. The evidence showed there were injuries to Robin’s hands consistent with punching. Of course, Robin also held a rifle and Stephen had been largely incapacitated by a skelp wound. Evidence was given that Robin was 17 kilos heavier than his son, a considerable weight advantage. The use of the word ‘cadaverous’ was taken from evidence known to Van Beynen, the word was used not to describe Robin’s physical condition, but rather that ‘he was dead behind the eyes.’ Something else Van Beynan twists to his favour of bias.

2/ He asks why Robin put on gloves. However, that is not a question for David Bain to answer. The fact Robin wore gloves is supported by the blood smears on his palms which Van Beynan has deliberately held silent on.

3/ He asks why Robin changed clothes. That also is not a question for David Bain. But any brief research by Van Beynen would reveal that people committing suicide do sometimes change clothes, putting on something that was a favourite for them to wear or which reminded them of a favourite time. Van Beynen mentions none of this, again underpinning his bias and focus at being one-sided.

4/ He asks why none of Robin’s fingerprints were on the rifle. Yet he ignores various records, including testimony offered at the trial, that the fingerprints of a user are often not found on firearms because of the nature of the surface, oil, and other reasons. One of which would be obvious that Robin is alleged to have worn gloves. He entirely ignores that there were many prints lifted from the rifle that couldn’t be identified or excluded as having been Robin’s, or that those fingerprints were destroyed despite that they might have been able to exclude as being David’s or Robins.

5/ He asks why did Robin wait for David ‘to be just about bouncing through the door’ before writing the suicide note. Again David Bain can not be expected to offer an explanation for something he doesn’t know about. On this point, however, Van Beynen could have expanded his one-eyed piece to include the fact that the Crown eventually conceded the very important fact – that David wasn’t home when the computer was turned on. But no, he chooses only to show complete imbalance and bias in his piece in order to mislead the public.

6/ He asks another inane question if Robin had cleaned up why did he still have spots of blood on his hand. The answer is obvious: from his suicide, as is the answer for the blood smears on his palms partially washed off – the murder of his family.

7/ He returns to an old ‘favourite’ the full bladder of Robin Bain. Yet the evidence regarding the bladders of older men indicated that his bladder may not have been full and that the amount of urine retained was not ‘remarkable’ for someone Robin’s age.

8/In his next question relates to why Robin set his alarm and collect the paper if he was so disturbed he had decided to kill his family. I’m unaware of any conclusive evidence that indicates that he did either of those things, but they’re insignificant compared to issues such as the injuries to Robin’s hands, his blood on the laundry towel, blood smears on his hands, recorded spatter from his wound excluding anybody else being present in the room at the time he shot himself and so on.

9/ He asks how come David was scaring the family which was contested evidence. He might have also asked why Robin had been threatening children at his school allegedly striking one. He might even have gone into the reasons for Robin’s alleged motive.

I look forward to your response to this. I hope that you treat this matter seriously. Van Beynen has been a vocal critic of Peter Ellis as he is now of David Bain, in both situations he forwarded on one side of the story as he has done here. This piece is deliberately one-sided, in particular, because Van Beynan knows the other side to all the allegations he makes. I believe this piece has been intended to be destructive against David Bain, the reason for Van Beynen only giving a one-sided argument.

Yours faithfully