Martin Van Beynan the common denominator in injustice and now panic.

Martin Van Beynan of The Press heralded himself as an 'expert' on the Bain case because he sat through 'nearly' every minute of the re-trial. This according to his own script allowed him to have an 'opinion' even though as a Court reporter his 'job' was to deliver balanced reporting. Why VB needed to include with his role as reporter 'expert' opinion needs to be looked at. For example what is his motivation, is he prepared to cross the line and has he, .as Milton Weir told the Binnie review, a position on the guilt or innocence of David Bain compatible with Crown Law. On the face of it he has. Where did VB depart being a reporter to one with a 'position' on David Bain, was it before the Bain trial to the point that he 'left' out from his reporting much evidence supporting David's innocence and was that for the purpose of a view or 'position' he accepted to the benefit of The Crown?

Let's have a look. Has VB played it straight, for example when he elevated his position as a self-confessed expert on the Bain case did he disclose that his brother was a senior police officer. No he didn't and why not. Why not be frank about an involvement with the police, surely there is nothing wrong with that which would prevent him from being straight and direct about it. One can assume he is conscious that negative conclusions could be drawn between that and his 'position' on the case. More later on how far reaching that negative conclusion might now be reached, but in the meantime what other indicators are there. The main things to my mind would be what VB left out of his impartial reporting. For example why did he never report the strip search of David Bain where it was found there were no scratches on David's chest on the day of the murders but still however reported 'injuries' consistent with a fight. He knew there were none but never recorded that, in fact did the opposite. He never told the country that Robin's dna was found deep inside the rifle indicating suicide, nor did he report fully, if at all, that Robin Bain had bleed profusely on the morning of the killings before his death and his body was found to have had blood smears on his hands. An objective reporter would understand the importance of blood smears on a murder suspects hands, but VB ignored that.

Instead he was 'inventive, he claimed that David had said he hated his father, when in fact David had said that he would hate his father if it prevailed that he was the killer. He even took that 'message' to the Perth Justice Conference and asked the question from the floor. Objective, or just pure malicious? Has VB ever publicly commented on why he was warned by Christchurch police to stop harassing a Bain juror. No, nor why he acted as though the juror was obliged to answer his questions - I guess he is too impartial to do that. Though it could simply be that in his objective was biased and pro Crown from the start and that's the way it looks. He appears never to have been interested in the truth because there is no other reason why he would misrepresent the truth or just completely omit it so that his 'opinion sketches' would form an on going persecution against David Bain, just as he had done earlier with Peter Ellis.

It should be no surprise to wry watchers that VB appears to have been 'hand fed' information from Collins office in order to maintain a 'position' helpful to the Crown and it's under fire minister. He published on the day of the release of the Binnie report showing by the publishing dead line he had access to the copy of the report even before the defence team. How can it be in a democracy that an applicant to an Exercise of Executive Power is denied information which the press have already been holding for weeks - the answer to that is that is a tool of persecution that weaves a thread through the entire relationship of MVB and the Bain case. It is his job to 'sell' bad press on the Bain case and omit helpful facts, harass and bully Jury members and supply information and dialogue with Kent Parker and his hate-sites.

And how the 'scope' of that job has changed. Since last Wednesday, and the news of the discovery of David Giles, the publicity 'rescue team' has been in full swing with VB at the helm, apparently more pushed there in the panic of commentators and officials alike who need to defend their position against a strong argument that is forensic photographic proof of Robin Bain as killer. Not that there wasn't already a volume of that but in a 'losing team in denial' a siege mentality takes hold, a hold, in this case not secure against the pointed, simple truth from David Giles that points to Robin being the killer and David the victim of on going injustice.

Yet how they panic, to the point when somebody who sat through 'nearly all the trial' is suddenly the spokesman for a failed case. Clearly, sitting through a trial is not a qualification to judgement, particularly for a person who has shown poor judgement of not being forthright in a number of areas and also having a 'history' of persecuting a man who went to prison for a crime that never happened. Our Justice system is under siege by deliberate manipulation by parts of the media and a Minister who is a stranger to impartiality, due process and the spirit of Justice and Fairness - this week VB is her 'man' next he may well be discarded as many wait and watch for the truth.