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.

Van Beynan - Why the silence.

Nobody could ever say that Martin Van Beynan has ever held back in anyway on the Bain case. He is the foremost media person to have written extensively on the case. All of his writing has large characterised his unfailing view of David guilt, much like vb earlier unfailing view of the guilt of Peter Ellis for which I understand he later apologised.

vb has asked the public to accept his opinion that the Christchurch Jury got it wrong but that the earlier Jury in Dunedin who had much evidence hidden from them got it right. vb has been extravagant his use of metaphors that could turn minor or aged blood smears to clothing to being 'covered in blood.' He has written 'vivid' reports on the manner and conduct of the Christchurch Jury alleging misconduct and worse but never explained why he never brought such conduct to the attention of the Court or how nobody else in NZ appears to have noticed the conduct including a High Court Judge presiding over the trial.

It appears that vb is a law graduate, following which he became a Court reporter presumably able to use his training to bring clarity to a day's Court proceedings or some complexity of evidence. But in the Bain case he appears to have done neither. As an example I am still unaware that the man who deemed himself the person 'that sat through almost the entire trial' has ever written about the blood smears found on Robin's hands, never reported that David had no scratches on his chest when strip searched by police Doctor Pryder the morning on the killings - yet he has never seen fit to point this out or contradict that 'David had fresh injuries from the fight with Stephen.' As far as I can tell vb has never written about the preposterous assertion that 'David had used his paper run as an alibi.' He has never look closely at the comparisons between the condition of David's undamaged hands and Robin's damaged hands on the morning of the murders. Some things he has entirely missed out while exaggerating others that have been at the least unbalanced reported, and possibility at its worst biased reporter. Without fail any biased reporting as always been against David.

A law graduate would know not to stalk a Jury. But a law graduate that did stalk a Jury, or Juror, and was only warned to desist by police would give a public impression that he held a confidence that for some reason he was above the law. I'm struck now by the silence from vb, he must know, as surely do most of the country, that it his highly likely that a specially appointed Commissioner has found that David, a target of vb's for over a decade, has been deemed on the test of the balance of probabilities. vb got it wrong. His one sided reporting was therefore wrong, his insulting question at the Perth International Justice Conference was also wrong. The impression he gave of being completely one-sided against David and Karam is shown vividly now as a failure at his feet.

A number of commentators, including lawyers, in this past  week have reconciled their previous views on the Bain case to alignment with the recommendation purportedly made by Ian Binnie the retired Judge and Commissioner to the Crown on this matter. But I wonder why vb hasn't, particularly with his track work against David Bain. One could assume that if the impression of bias was only presumption we would have heard an apology or some kind of recognition of Binnie's report from Martin. Yet on the other hand, reading the hate-sites one sees, that some members continue to send discredited material to vb in a way that suggests that he has been a champion of their cause and they look for leadership.

I'm very interested in this. I see the 'finding' of the lens 'after hours,' the 'lost' electronic diary belonging to Laniet, the partial and corrected evidence of Mrs Laney and Mr Sanderson, no less sinister that the thought that there has been media manipulation against David every bit as significant as the rest of the formula that resulted in the Miscarriage of Justice administered against him by our own authorities.

Martin Van Beynan - preaching.

I've noted at least twice when writing about the Bain case mvb has heading his pieces as 'OPINION.' I assume that is to avoid expressing an opinion based on facts. On the 14 the of March 2012 mvb released an opinion piece titled 'Bain charms audience with keynote sermon.'

This related to David's decision to speak publicly about his experiences as a person who has experienced at actual miscarriage of Justice which resulted in him wrongfully spending 13 years in prison. Mvb has pointedly led an opposition to the notion that David is not guilty, even after a finding of not guilty verdicts against David for the deaths of 5 of his immediate family. In various ways mvb has focused on 'evidence' against David which has been disproved or fully answered in such a way that suggests the mvb has an understanding of the evidence in a more critical way than the Jury, or the Crown, or the Defence, and that therefore he is right and they are wrong. He's even been warned by the Justice Department not to continue harassing jurors.

I stand to be corrected, but I have not once read anything from mvb which attempts to refute the strong body of forensic evidence against Robin Bain, David's father - a man who suicided inside a house which contained 4 dead bodies all shot with the same rifle that Robin used to despatched himself to the hereafter. There were concessions by the Crown, and some of its foremost witnesses, in the retrial that David may not have been home at the time a computer was turned on and which was found a suicide note. There was general avoidance by the Crown or it's witnesses to tackle the fact that Robin, the dead father, had blood wash or smears on the inside of his hands which arrived there before his death, that there was a misfired cartridge near his dead body that meant that the rifle had been reloaded in the process of his death. There is a lot more, a quite exhaustive list, which however mvb has never dealt with such has been his apparent obsession to chortle out headlines and statements not derived from sustained facts.

In his 'normal' form in reporting on David's presentation mvb reverts to 'opinion' as though in this form he is able to convince a reader without hard facts, similarly as it prevails, he has done with his 'direct reporting' supported by an absence of facts or balance to the 2 sides of the argument concerning the Bain familicide. He disputes that the police investigation was not a good one, saying it was compared to many others aired at the conference. Of course he makes no explanation why the dead father was never investigated for incest, why David was charged before forensic tests had been completed and the results considered, why David was asked leading questions that he couldn't possibly know the answers for and which left with the weight of not knowing the explanation for evidence against him - proving somehow that he was therefore guilty. Mvb never touched upon the fact that the primary evidence before David's arrest was that his 'fingerprints were found on blood in blood on the rifle' something ultimately proved as completely false, and perhaps even deliberately used against him with the knowledge that it was false. Certainly mvb reported this 'evidence' at length even after it was refuted. Not once did mvb show reasons for him to conclude that there had been 'shoddier' investigations revealed at the conference in comparison to the Bain investigation. He merely expected the reader, despite a wealth of information to the contrary, to accept the Bain inquiry had been a 'textbook investigation.' This despite police officers under oath at the trial testifying otherwise.

Of the fanciful weaving by mvb he relied on the fact that David and his mother were planning to build a new house and to exclude David, a direct lie when compared to evidence where David had said that his hope was for his parents to reconcile. So is it the evidence that lies from the pages of the trial transcript or is it mvb? Does he propose that the  genuine evidence is ignored in favour of discredited theories that resulted in one mis- trial followed by a trial where 5 not guilty verdicts were returned. I'm sure he does, because that has been his modus operandi for many years, spreading untruths about the Bain case and therefore feeding the persecution against David.

So mvb had warmed up without touching on any realities of the case that should give him, or anyone, pause before advertising his 'opinion.' Then we have the opinion that David's speech came across 'like a speech from a charismatic preacher' and the delegates (excluding mvb of course with his deep insights and experience of the case) found him (David) 'impressive and charming.' Of course mvb had rendered his opinion in such a way that he wasn't 'taken in' but that the less informed may very well have been. Quite why David needed to sermonise wasn't pointed out by mvb, and so was left hanging in such a way that David had 'conned' the conference but not the 'enlightened' van beynan.

Mvb finished by another sideways swipe at David's advocate Joe Karam, describing him as being emotional as though being moved, as had a vast part of the audience, according to mvb's own description, was somehow odd or perhaps even conniving. Mvb rounded off with some direct reporting of what David said in his presentation as though forgetting for a moment his role as offering an opinion compared to direct reporting. It should be noted that mvb has been adopted in some sense by the hate-sites who greedily accept what ever he says that is negative about Joe or David. To this point mvb has never put the public perception right because he is yet delve deeply into the Bain case, and in particular the evidence against Robin, until, or if he does, there will be many that see mvb as linked to persuading the public of the views of the hate-sites. Opinion? possibly, fair and objective reporting - not by any stretch.

Look Van Beynan still can't get over himself!

The famous crime and investigative reporter is still beside himself with jealousy, but to his credit his not so thinly disguising his animosity toward Joe Karam. In fact one good say he is displaying being a 'good' sore loser, rather than just a sore loser in his attempt to continue to influence public opinion against an innocent man.

Yes, he has written an 'opinion' piece titled 'Bain defence still less than convincing' in part a review of Joe Karam's book 'Trial by Ambush'

He prefaces his position that he has written about the Bain case since 1997, what is immediately interesting from that is his apparent failure to recognise in himself, something which he criticises Karam for. That he, Van Beynan's, long association with the case also 'has a tremendous stake in convincing the public he has not wasted his time' - Van Beynan's assertion against Karam which Van Beynan obviously doesn't consider that many will think the same about hiim.

He goes onto say something which is completely untrue 'Trial by Ambush is simply the defence case for David Bain written by a man with a visceral interest in being right.' While I agree those comments even apply to Van Beynan's visceral interest in 'being right' about a case which for now has gone beyond the Courts to be considered for compensation, and therefore remains unpalatable to him as an investigative journalist who got things horribly wrong - the book is not 'simply' the defence case, the first quarter of the book deals with the prosecution case and reveals in detail the shortcomings and bias of the evidence against Bain - how that could be described as the 'defence case' is in the realms of fantasy.

Quite soon in Van Beynan's piece we are in the old ground of attacking the deceased common to those with a 'hang bainer' veiw of the more extreme type of the hate-sites. There is no suggestion that Van Beynan is associated directly with any of those sites, but there is comments which show there have been contact between the parties. Van Beynan is critical of the comments  regarding  David having 'a budding career as a clasical singer and surrounded by a loving an organised family' quite why Van Beynan needs to attack the family is unclear, what is clear however that people did give evidence of David's ability and career prospects something which Van Beynan ignores in order to decimate good opinion against the family. For example he doesn't reveal that both the daughters were working part time or that Arawa was doing very well at school.

We go from that to the ridiculous. He says how Margaret was going to be able to demolish her and build a mansion is a 'mystery.' He points out that Robin, in the normal event of a divorce it seems, was entitled to half the property, without Van Beynan apparently being able to absorb than even half of an estate valued in the 100s of thousands in the mid-nineties was enough to build a substantial home. He pays her another insult by saying 'The plans for the new house were being drawn up by Margaret who had no building or architecture qualifications.' He needs to get out more 100s of thousands of nzers plan their new homes in this way, ultimately in conjunction with an architect once the basic plan has been envisaged. Why he needs to ridicule Margaret in this way is a mystery. He victimises her again in a very offensive way. He goes onto say 'she was not employed, she clearly did little around the house, she often did not get out of bed and she made her shopping decisions with the use of a pendulum.' Well so what, are we meant to hate her for that, feel some sympathy for Robin for that reason, not for example wonder what happened to make the formerly happy and out going woman retire to such a place. Perhaps an investigative journalist would be mindful of the accusations against Robin by his daughters and contemplate if that had added to Margaret's condition. Poor form by Van Beynan, coloured by self-interest that time has proven him wrong and Karam right.

He goes further down this track with 'How many normal families, even disorganised ones, have Dad - whom Mum referred to in all seriousness as the Devil - sleeping in a cold, run down caravan, while she sleeps in the warmth of a waterbed inside.' Rather that take a position that things were unproven against Robin, Van Beynan should consider they were proven and at least in the mind of his wife and his daughters he could easily be seen 'as the Devil' who needed to be kept outside and away from the womenfolk.

Van Beynan goes onto cite unsubstantiated claims by some of David's former associates of a 'plan to rape' a jogger. Van Beynan, as an investigative reporter, one could assume, would know that unsubstantiated claims rejected as evidence don't play a part in a trial. Then we have the 'resounding' fact that Dempster the Pathologist called the angle of shot to the head as 'extremely unusual' but forgets to add he also said it was quite feasible, and in fact demonstrated using the skull cap Dempster made.

Van Beynan goes deeper into the old ground, making me wonder if he actually did read 'Trial by Ambush.' He transerves what is in fact become critical evidence in favour of David, the socks. He goes on about foot measurements, test in pig blood and so forth which were unhelpful to Robin anyway, and which showed he had been walking about the murder scene contemporaneously with the killings. What Van Beynan, doesn't touch on because of it's damage to his 'cause' is that none of the blood on David's socks had arrived there by being airborne, a fact alone that shows his innocence.

He labours on about 20 points of evidence damaging to David but which he doesn't apparently dare to transverse apart from the gurgling of Laniet - an indicator alone that simply shows that David did hear her gurgling as he reliably  reported he had done, hardly the admission of a killer. The fingerprints of the rifle, which he omits to point out where in a 'carrying postion' and also fails to mention the Police's own expert revealed that fingerprints #82 'can last an awfully long time.' Van Beynan writes about the insignificant amount of blood on David's clothes and fails totally to reveal that #92 that blood on David's T shirt might have 'relatively old.' He says that the bruises on David's face are formidable but gives no detail that they were not observed by the St Johns officer who looked thoroughly over David early that morning, or David's fall which police observed. Perhaps to his credit Vay Beynan avoid the 'scratches' on David's chest, finally admitting one would hope that they were not observed by the police Doctor Pryde at the relevant time - a few hours after the deaths.

Then however, Van Beynan is full cry with absurdities claiming the 'bizzare if not ludicrous' behaviour of Robin putting his bloody clothes into the wash. This assertion quite frankly is pathetic, particular so from a person claiming to be long time expert of some sort on the Bain case. Karam nor David are not responsible for explaining the behaviour of a perpetrator of familicide. If Van Beynan read a little more he might recall the Ratima familicide where the father, also like the in the Bain case - the killer, put bibles on the chests of his young children after he had killed them. He also has never considered the case of Charlie Lawson -  another case of familicide with striking similarities to the Bain case. Charlie Lawson brought his family knew clothes before he killed them the following day in a case that also involved incest.

Predictably for a man defensive of his own forensic capacity or indeed appreciation of the law, Van Beynan mentions the findings of the Victorian armourer who made the qualified statement that 'Robin Bain's death was most likely not suicide.' In pursuit of being totally one sided in his 'opinion' piece he fails to reveal that the armourer's 'evidence' was rejected by the NZ Courts for being corrupted by the actions of a nz police officer who implied he had a Court order to uplift the evidence, when in fact he did not. But even this goes further Van Beynan totally fails to acknowledge that  Forensic Scientists (somewhat up the ladder in experience from armourers) testified as to the likely hood of Robin's suicide using a number of points, none less that one important one Van Beynan purposely ignores the consistency of the splatter from Robin's wound with suicide. Or indeed the even more damaging fact that Robin Bain had spatter found on him which was occluded as being from his own wound. Van Beynan can only ignore these telling points because they show his lack of objectivity on this case which he has either deliberately ignore or perhaps understands proves Robin's guilt.

Before finishing on critical evidence I should mention that like in his previous article, Van Beynan avoids like the plague offering even an acknowledgement of Robin's spatter being found in the rifle. Objective, I don't think so. Informed, certainly not. Van Beynan continues to 'bleat' about Karam not being able to spell correctly the Judges name. If Van Beynan thinks this is relevant to anything but his own jealousy he has failed to show so. Also fails to understand the printing and editing processes of books, poor chap. Toward the end of his miserable piece he reverts to type and attempts to condemn Arawa as a 'story teller' another effort to ignore that this case was familicide with a core of incest that many wish to ignore.

We could yet hear more about this article.

Some more of the new evidence Martin Vanbeynan didn't publish.

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