There's been no shortage of reaction to our stories on the Waikele beating, almost all of it negative.

The allegation that Gerald Pa'akaula, 45, and his 16-year-old son assaulted an Army soldier and his wife in the Waikele Shopping Center parking lot has brought many angry calls and letters to The Advertiser, but not in the volume that hit us after our March 16 article that, for the first time, told the Pa'akaulas' version of events.

The headline ("I pray ... they know we are very sorry") and the story, with a picture of the smiling couple brought a torrent of calls, e-mails, letters to the editor and posts to our Web site. Most of them could never be printed in a family newspaper, but the general tone was that we were wrong to print their side of the story.

We received more than a dozen letters, but only three were able to be published. Most were personal attacks on the Pa'akaulas, and the rest criticized the prominent placement of the story at the top of Page One, noted that the story was too sympathetic to the family or faulted us for using a picture of the couple.

I have come to the conclusion that this is one story where we cannot win. We were criticized for being slow to move on the story when it initially happened. We were faulted for not providing even more details in the seven stories we did write. And we were hammered for printing the Pa'akaula story.

What was perplexing about the reaction to the Pa'akaula piece is that it was the first time that the other side of the story had been told. Until this story appeared, we had to rely on the details of a police affidavit used to support the arrest of Pa'akaula and his son. That's where the inflammatory information surfaced that the son called Andrew Dussell a "f------ haole." Until this story appeared, it could be argued that media coverage unfairly maligned the Pa'akaulas because their side was never told.

It was not for lack of trying. Since the incident was first reported, we have been trying repeatedly to get the Pa'akaulas and the Dussells without luck. Both families have refused comment.

Longtime courts reporter Ken Kobayashi knew it was essential to figure out what had happened, and on the day Pa'akaula was indicted, Kobayashi managed to talk to Pa'akaula's wife, Joreen, in front of her husband. Their lawyer, Todd Eddins, was also present.

"In a high-profile case like this, fairness requires that we make diligent attempts to get all sides of the story, including the Pa'akaulas' viewpoint," Kobayashi said.

In his story, the reporter quoted Joreen as apologizing to the Dussells and praying they would heal quickly. She also admitted her son used the word "haole," Eddins agreed, though he argued that it was taken out of context. Eddins also said Dawn Dussell threw the first blow and repeatedly struck the teenager.

Kobayashi also reported that the prosecutor asked for, and received, a higher bail amount for Pa'akaula because of his 2002 conviction for beating his son. The prosecutor also said Pa'akaula made threatening remarks to witnesses who stayed behind to talk to police after the incident. He allegedly punched Dawn Dussell in the face and slammed her to the ground, where she lost consciousness. He also allegedly punched Andrew Dussell in the face and head and kicked him while he was on the ground, the prosecutor said. Dussell lost consciousness after his body stiffened and he appeared to go into convulsions.

Several readers called Kobayashi or e-mailed him. A couple said they were canceling their subscription or wouldn't be buying the newspaper in the future. I spoke to one woman who said the article was one-sided and that there was no attempt to get the Dussells' side. I told her that we had tried reaching the couple through the prosecutors' office, but they had declined to be interviewed. We also sought them out on the day they testified before the grand jury but were unsuccessful. She still was not satisfied with what she called "irresponsible journalism."

Kobayashi is scrupulously fair, and as he correctly points out, readers do not have a full picture of what happened in Waikele that day.

"There's been no preliminary hearing," Kobayashi said. "No public trial. No sworn written statements by witnesses. Simply an affidavit by police on probable cause. I told callers they are entitled to their opinions, but don't they feel more informed now that they know what Pa'akaula's position is?"

I got the feeling that most of those who complained had already made up their minds about the Pa'akaula family and are uninterested in hearing from them. Some of the calls and e-mails had a racist tinge, such as the man who was asked by Kobayashi why he believed the position of the prosecutors and police over the defendants?

"You know that Hawaiians like to settle disputes by fighting," he said.

I wouldn't judge everyone who complained by this one individual, but it's clear that many weren't looking to give the accused a fair trial. They had already rendered their verdict.