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.

Getting the 3rd Degree

TV3's current affairs show 3rd Degree went large on the David Bain case last night with apparent "slam-dunk" evidence. The intent was to "prove" that Robin Bain was the killer, and to pressure Cabinet into giving David Bain compensation.

Less than 24 hours on, it is all unravelling. The NZ Police have put out this media release:

Police response to latest Bain theory (plus image)

June 27, 2013, 5:30 pm
The latest story advanced through the media by representatives of David Bain is an interesting theory but is not new evidence says Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess.
"It is an interesting idea when taken in isolation, but is no more than a theory when taken out of context of all the other evidence which has been presented to several courts.
"Marks on a photograph can always be open to several interpretations by experts, and the significance or relevance of these marks have not been tested in court.
"Examination of the original photograph does not give any definitive indication of what the marks could be. There are other possibilities, including that they are minor cuts.
"We know for example that Robin Bain was doing work to the roof and spouting of his Every Street home in the days leading up to the killings - any Kiwi handyman knows the sort of damage this can do to the hands. Post mortem examination of Robin Bain's hands shows a number of minor abrasions and marks you would expect to find with someone familiar with manual work.
"Indeed, police have today conducted a preliminary examination of fingerprints taken from Robin Bain after his death. These prints show an absence of fingerprint markings in the same place on his right thumb as the dark marks appearing in the photograph. Our fingerprint experts advise that this is consistent with someone sustaining cuts or damage to the fingers prior to prints being taken, which would then affect the print image.
Had these been powder marks or smudges as claimed, we would expect to see a complete fingerprint image.
"I also reiterate the evidence put forward in court that the only identifiable fingerprints found on the firearm belonged to David and Stephen Bain.
"Police will continue to look at this issue to gain a better understanding of what this photograph may show. 

But wait, as they say in the advertorials; there's more. He comes the bit that really hits at the 3rd Degree team's motives (the emphasis is ours):

"However, I am mindful that this theory has been put forward through a programme whose makers chose not to seek comment from police prior to broadcast, and who also refused to provide details about their story when approached by police on Tuesday.
"Had they done so then we would have pointed out that fingerprints had been presented in evidence and have always been available through the court to help them decide if their story stacked up."
END

Oh dear. The Police asked 3rd Degree for a right of reply, and were refused. What possible motive could there be for that, other than to present a completely one-sided theory. Where is the balance, fairness and objectivity in that?

But wait; there's STILL more! Cameron Slater picked up the time stamp of  Herald story on the 3rd Degree "revelation"; check this out:

Is is REALLY feasible that David Fisher watched the whole programme, wrote a story, submitted it to the Herald webmasters and had it published at EXACTLY the time that the 3rd Degree documentary ended? No; we don't think so either. A PR machine was clearly driving this whole issue

Robin Bain is an easy target, because he is dead, and he can't defend himself. But with what has emerged over the last 21 hours, David Bain's case for compensation may have actually been done more harm than good.


FOOTNOTE: It's not just us unconvinced by last night's 3rd Degree "slam dunk"; check out this post from photographer and blogger Rob Suisted.