van Beynen on the Bain "documentary"

Martin van Beynen is a Christchurch journalist. He sat through every minute of David Bain's second trial for murder, and heard every word of evidence. And after Bain's acquittal, he wrote a lengthy piece analysing the evidence as he heard it, suggesting that the jury got it wrong. So right from the outset, he is no neutral as far as this case is concerned.

van Beynan watched Wednesday night's 3rd Degree "slam-dunk" with a critical eye. He has written another lengthy piece; take some time to read it, as it is well worth it. But we're going to skip straight to his conclusion which is quite telling:

I would have a lot more faith in the TV3 programme if it had tried to be at least a little independent. The photographic expert the programme consulted was Christchurch-based Peter Durrant, a scientific and technical photographer who in 1985 developed a new photographic technique for analysing the visual effects of wear on the pile of carpets.
He is not a forensic scientist and has no expertise about firearms and residues on bodies. He also gave evidence as a defence expert for Bain in the second trial and was largely discredited, in my view, when it turned out the photographs he had produced to support a defence theory were out of the sequence in which they were taken.
An ESR scientist was at the test firing featured in the programme. Was he asked for his view?
As viewers, we also need to ask why an independent forensic scientist was not consulted before reporter Melanie Reid concluded emotively, the "game changer" had been found. TV3 bought the defence line on the evidence and did a one-sided job presenting it.
The programme, and the media coverage of the Bain case in general, also raises a wider issue.
Everyone would have noticed the new information was released first to Bain-friendly media. TV3 had the exclusive and The Herald had the first newspaper story. (TV3 also got the first patsy television interview with David Bain.)
Fairfax Media did not get a look in and neither did TVNZ. Both have published and broadcast material unfavourable to the Bain camp.
You also have to ask, if the information was so crucial, why wasn't it shown to the Minister of Justice first so she could get Crown experts to investigate.
It would be naive to suggest the media doesn't play games and doesn't get played itself. But the Bain case seems to be driving the media into throwing independence to the wind so it curries favour with one camp. The TV3 programme was in my view, a sad and painful night for New Zealand journalism.
I don't claim to be independent on the Bain case either, given I have nailed my colours to the mast. But at least it is out in the open.
The media is being played as part of the Bain camp's attempt to put pressure on the Government to pay compensation. So marks on a thumb, a game changer? Only if you ignore everything else.

The issues that van Beynen raises are both interesting and serious. This case should not be being played out in the media at a time when the Government is considering Bain's application for compensation.

That Joe Karam has immediately taken this new "revelation" to a media outlet which he knew would given him an opportunity to present only one side of the story is telling. If Karam was so certain that the evidence was of sufficient value, why did he not submit it for independent scrutiny by the relevant authorities. Instead, a compliant news media outlet tells his story for him in a very one-sided manner.

Public opinion is not what will decide whether or not David Bain gets compensation, nor should reality television. If there is any merit to the claims made on the 3rd Degree programme on Wednesday night, they must be submitted to a robust, independent investigation, and only then should they form a part of the Crown's decision on compensation for Bain the Younger.