TRIAL BY AMBUSH
by Hayley Locke • July 20, 2012 • Features, Massive, Volume 1 Issue 5
On 5 June 2009 a jury in the High Court at Christchurch found David Bain not guilty in his second trial of murdering five members of his family in Dunedin in 1994. But as he walked free it would be the turn of his champion, Joe Karam, to go on trial – in the court of public opinion. Hayley Locke reports
NO ONE CAN ARGUE that Joe Karam hasn’t been an ardent and committed advocate of David Bain’s innocence since he became involved in his case after Bain’s first trial saw him sentenced to life imprisonment in 1995. While Karam is admirable in his passion and tenacity, he can hardly claim to be unbiased after he has defended the cause so publicly.
It is for this reason that it seems unlikely that his latest book, Trial by Ambush, will be effective in altering any reader’s opinion on Bain’s innocence. Karam sings the same tune as he has in his previous book and media appearances, making it unreasonable to expect that anyone who believes Bain is guilty of the murders, even after his acquittal, would be willing to give Trial by Ambush a chance. But books make money. Especially books about famous murder cases where public opinion is so divided. Though Karam provides an engaging discussion of the forensic evidence, especially regarding the new technologies that have become available since the first trial, his arguments are polemic more than objective, and his obvious bias is painstakingly clear throughout all of the conclusions drawn.
Trial by Ambush would have served as a much more convincing text had it been written by an impartial party, which Karam could never be, considering how open he has been on his pro-Bain standpoint, and had the court findings been presented by commenting only on fact, avoiding unsubstantiated speculation which would there avoid the drawing of biased conclusions.
+
TRIAL BY AMBUSH GOES INTO MUCH DETAIL of the Bain family’s circumstances in the lead-up to the murders. While three of the six family members, Arawa, Stephen, and David, appeared to be functioning normally – attending school and university and generally succeeding in their ambitions, the other half of the family was in disarray. Margaret and Robin’s marriage had failed. No longer sharing a bedroom with his wife, Robin split his time between a decrepit caravan at the back of the Bain property (where he had slept the night before he died) and a house owned by Taieri Beach School, the primary school of which he was principal. Having had an enjoyable, challenging job working at a teachers’ refresher college in Papua New Guinea, where the family had lived for 15 years during the 1970s and 1980s, Robin struggled to find work that matched his qualifications and experience once he returned to New Zealand. Seemingly in reaction to her estranged marriage, Margaret had taken up New Age religious practices which were a departure from the traditional Christian values she had once held. Seventeen-year-old Laniet, the youngest daughter, had a past that was shrouded with mystery, with many witness making claims about her which can no longer be proven due her being dead. It is known that she was a prostitute, and there are claims that she had told friends that she had given birth to a baby while in Papua New Guinea. There are no legal or medical records of her ever being pregnant. Most relevantly, it is alleged she had revealed to friends an incestuous relationship between her and Robin. Karam suggests that the unravelling of Robin’s marriage and family, the degradation of his professional career, and his fear of the consequences of his relationship with Laniet (who, according to a witness, was planning to reveal the affair to her family on the weekend of the murders) is what ultimately led him to allegedly commit the murders.
‘Trial by Ambush would have served as a much more convincing text had it been written by an impartial party, which Karam could never be…’
Karam’s arguments rest on the idea that Robin’s alleged act of familicide, the act of killing one’s own family, was committed because he was suffering from mental illness and was depressed. He points out that while only about 1 per cent of familicides are committed by a child of the family, 95 percent are committed by the father. He makes a very strong point when he notes that if David was the murderer he would have to be the only recorded perpetrator of familicide who, as an adult son, was not abused, mentally deranged, psychopathic, and who did not commit suicide after the murders took place. Karam lists pages of references at the conclusion of the chapter on familicide. He has obviously done his homework, thus it’s reasonable to believe that if David was the murderer, he would be the first of his kind. Additionally, he says that the way he perceived Robin’s personality fits perfectly with one of two types of fathers who commit familicide. Rather than the controlling, destructive, ‘angry’ type of familicide-committing father, Robin is classified as being typical of the ‘despairing’ type. Such types usually attempt to conceal their misery, meaning they often have no history of violence or abuse, and from the outside may not be perceived as being mentally unwell. Karam explains that the reports from family and friends that Robin appeared to be as happy as he ever was consistent with many of those who commit familicide, because they internalise their personal sufferings in an attempt to maintain a front of successfulness.
+
IN ORDER TO GAIN A WELL-ROUNDED VIEW of the opinions surrounding the case, MASSIVE magazine interviewed Michael Bain, the brother of Robin, to understand his sibling as he knew him, rather than as the incestuous psychopath he has been portrayed as in the media.
Michael welcomed MASSIVE’s editor, Matt Shand, and me into his home – the same home that he and Robin grew up in as children. The house is very much a family home. It is impeccably tidy and comfortable. There is old, sturdy, and practical furniture and the wall space is carefully adorned with pictures of grandchildren.
‘Karam’s arguments rest on the idea that Robin’s alleged act of familicide, the act of killing one’s own family, was committed because he was suffering from mental illness and was depressed.’
The interview began with Michael giving us an outline of the person he knew Robin to be, an account which was in stark contrast with the one given in Trial by Ambush. Micheal described Robin as “a very kind, caring, generous person who loved his family very much”. While he notes that he was unaware of any personal family troubles Robin may have been experiencing, he says that in all of their interactions he found Robin to be “a steady, responsible, caring, kind person and unchanged in all that he’d ever been”. They had been on a family holiday together just six months before the murders. Michael described that as being “a lovely, happy time”. He had kept in contact while Robin and the family lived in Papua New Guinea, with Robin flying back to New Zealand regularly to visit his family.
When asked if he had spoken to Karam about the contents of Trial by Ambush or the case in general, Michael replied: “No, not at all. No point. He’s on a crusade, and I’m sure he won’t be persuaded from it.”
As the interview progressed it became clear that Michael’s argument for Robin’s innocence had evolved into something much more substantial than it being simply a case of a man who didn’t like to think that his brother may have murdered his family. Of chief concern to Michael is the addition of hearsay evidence being permitted at David’s second trial. A major part of his concern comes from an affidavit written by Dean Cottle, which was read by the judge to the jury during David’s second trial in 2009, at the end of which he was acquitted of the murders. Cottle, an associate of David’s sister Laniet, presented an affidavit to the court alleging an incestuous relationship Laniet allegedly told him she and Robin were perpetrating. In Cottle’s statement he claimed that Laniet was allegedly planning to come clean to the rest of the family during the weekend of the killings, and he assumed that it was in relationship to the allegation of incest (though that is unable to be proven). Though he was summoned to testify as a witness for the defence for the second trial, Cottle failed to appear in court, having been in Australia at the time, and therefore couldn’t be cross-examined. It was on the basis of him being out of the country that the judge decided to read his statement. Michael takes issue both with the actualaffidavit , he doesn’t believe Robin and Laniet’s relationship was ever more than what would be normal between a father and daughter, but also with the fact that it was even allowed in court at all. As the evidence was hearsay and speculation, and was unable to be proven one way or the other given Laniet and Robin were both dead and were not able to explain, clarify or rebut the affidavit or to defend themselves, Michael feels it should have been treated as inadmissible to the court. During our interview, Michael described his views by saying “I feel, and my family agrees, that it’s unfair that hearsay evidence can be allowed when it cannot be substantiated, explained or rebutted because the persons against whom it submitted are deceased.”
‘When asked if he had spoken to Karam about the contents of Trial by Ambush or the case in general, Michael replied: “No, not at all. No point. He’s on a crusade, and I’m sure he won’t be persuaded from it.”’
The first trial, in 1995, did not allow Cottle’s evidence to be presented due to its speculative nature. However, the Evidence Act 2006 allowed hearsay evidence, provided it was deemed relevant, to be put before the jury in time for David’s second trial. Iin the intervening period, books and newspaper and magazine articles were published, and television programmes aired, leading to intense speculation, and giving nearly every New Zealander the chance to form an opinion. There is little doubt that this amounted to nothing short of an unfortunate ‘trial by media’ that would help add fuel to the calls for David’s eventual retrial. Additionally, the defence introduced witnesses in the form of colleagues and friends of Robin’s, all of whom felt they had noticed a change in his psychological state.
+
TRIAL BY AMBUSH EXTRAPOLATES ON THESE witness statements, painting a picture of Robin being a depressed, forlorn man who had been pushed out of his family home. Karam then goes on to explain how the impression that he formed of Robin’s character fits with the stereotypical model of men who commit familicide.
Though Karam’s insights into familicide are thoroughly researched, it must be noted that he has picked and chosen witnesses accounts where they have suited his theory, rather than basing his views on the overall findings of the witnesses who commented on Robin’s psychological state at trial. Many of those witnesses said they had found Robin to be every bit the “wise, gentle, kind, generous, steady person” Michael knew him to be. Karam acknowledges this, and also mentions that these witnesses felt that what the defence witnesses had observed in Robin’s behaviour was merely his personal mannerisms and idiosyncrasies, and nothing to be alarmed about. Karam summarises these witness views together, rather than individually referencing them as he did the many witnesses who felt Robin had been experiencing mental distress. To make Trial by Ambush a balanced text, Karam needed to treat these positive witness statements with the same seriousness as he did the negative statements, in order to prove he wasn’t trying to fit the evidence with his own beliefs and theories.
Michael argues that Karam’s exploration of Robin’s psychological state is bordering on defamation, saying “I think that the fact that a deceased person can be defamed without the opportunity to defend themselves is totally unfair. A dead person should have the same rights as a living person to have their names and reputation protected. We feel very sad for Robin’s reputation that it continues to be unfairly impugned based on hearsay and supposition”. Therein lies the problem of Trial by Ambush, which uses its discussion of Robin’s alleged mental state as a major draw-card for readers. While what Karam has to say is very interesting to read, he appears to be pushing his point too far. Robin has not been proven as the killer, as the trials have focussed on David’s guilt or innocence instead. This makes Karam’s claims about Robin’s psychological state appear to be a personal attack on Robin, which seems especially unfair given Karam never met him. Trial by Ambush’s psychological evidence is based on hearsay and speculation which, even though it was permissible in a court of law, still undermines Karam’s credibility. If Robin were alive Karam would not be making this claim, or if he did he would very quickly be the subject a law suit – unless he had proof. He does himself no favours by pointing his finger elsewhere. Instead, it points to the weakness in his argument.
“I think that the fact that a deceased person can be defamed is totally unfair. I believe a deceased person should have the same rights as a living person to have their names and reputation protected.”
– Micheal Bain
Though we have stated the clear bias that Karam has exhibited after all he has invested into David’s case, it is also obvious that Michael has a natural vested interest in Robin To balance this, MASSIVE spoke to Bryan Bruce, the award-winning journalist and documentary-maker who created a documentary on the murders, A Question of Justice for TV One’s The Investigator. Bruce began his investigations in a neutral state, as a journalist working on an assignment. However, as time progressed he began to feel more and more that Robin was not the killer.
In our interview, he shared his dissatisfaction with Karam’s interpretation of both psychological and forensic evidence that Karam feels proves Robin to be guilty. One of his key arguments is that he feels it is unfair to speculate on Robin’s possible motive for murdering his family before forensic evidence has been able to prove that he definitely was the killer. Doing so is unfair speculation that is unable to be proven, and, as stated above, defamation. This obvious attempt to redirect attention merely highlights the weakness in his case. Michael echoes this view, saying “At the first trial, the judgment of the jury was based on forensic evidence that had been presented by the prosecution and had not been adequately countered by the defence, leading them to arrive at a guilty verdict”. But when it came to the second trial, Michael feels “there was lots of hearsay evidence that was allowed to be considered [at the second trial]. And it was on that hearsay evidence that I believe the jury found David to be not guilty”.
He also believes that “The first trial was based on the proven facts: the forensic evidence. The second trial was based on a lot of unsubstantiated forensic evidence and I don’t, we don’t, believe the hearsay evidence at all.”
+
KARAM EXPLORES FORENSICS HEAVILY IN Trial by Ambush, but both Bryan Bruce and Michael Bain are critical of the way he has interpreted certain findings and placed emphasis on some forensic evidence while downplaying other parts of it. An example of this is the fact that though Stephen’s fingerprints were found on the barrel of the gun – supposedly left there during an altercation with the killer – and David’s fingerprints were found on the stock, no fingerprints of Robin’s were found anywhere on the gun. Karam points out that the fingerprints of killers often do not appear on the gun, but Michael and Bruce both feel that Robin would have had to have held the gun quite firmly in order to position it so he could commit suicide.
Bryan Bruce also spoke about the documentary he created about the murders. He attempted to reconstruct the killings in a way that would allow an actor, playing the role of Robin, to murder four of his family members, dispose of his bloodied clothing, and then kill himself within the amount of time it would have taken David to do his paper run. But he was unable to recreate the scene in a way that was consistent with all of the forensic evidence, and within the time period. This further cemented his view that Robin could not have been the killer.
+
MASSIVE MAGAZINE TRIED REPEATEDLY to secure an interview with Karam. The publishers were very accommodating and even sent an advance copy of the book for this article, but in the end MASSIVE’s editor was told that Karam was interested only in interviews that were positive in nature. At the time of our request the article had not been written, so it we had no way of knowing if it was going to be positive or not. We would have preferred to have included Karam’s reaction to Bryan Bruce and Michael Bain’s comments in this article.
In the end, no amount of dispute can alter the facts of the case. Either Robin or David was the murderer, and, though David was originally convicted, he has now been acquitted by the courts. In that respect, it seems odd that Karam feels the need to argue his point further. David has been freed from prison, and the New Zealand public have long since made up their minds on who they think is guilty. While Karam, through his book, makes the court proceedings more accessible to the public, his bias is blatant enough to deter any reader from taking his interpretations as fact.
You’ve gone completely off track with this piece. A good demonstration is that given by Michael Bain in his description of the first trial, but you and he failed to observe that the first trial was ruled a Miscarriage of Justice by virtue of the evidence with held from the jury. Michael Bain clearly wants trials to be held where no evil can be spoken of the dead. He even argues against hearsay but completely overlooks the hearsay in the case overall, caused by the particular fact that Robin like his children are dead. Equally, and unfortunately for his myopic argument, he raises no concern for the way the Crown portrayed his sister in law and nieces using hearsay.
The record shows that he wasn’t close to his brother and wasn’t involved in Robin’s life. He has no greater insight into the family dynamics than is possible for any other. But of particular curiosity is that your article and ‘interviews’ fail to touch upon the forensic evidence against Robin, let alone in anyway try to neutralise such facts as his blood being deep inside the rifle barrel and the damage to his hands consistent with having been in a fight. You fail the test Hayley I’m afraid, you haven’t been objective, you’ve look at clichés and not at the evidence. Your article reduces you to others that have written about this case with a mind pre-set, you have not dissembled a single point of the evidence raised in Karam’s book. You haven’t got to the heart of the matter. To the back of the class you must go.
And you have every right to comment and hbave all the knowledge in matters like since dont you? after all does being a double murderer gives you rights normal NZers dont have? Inside knowledge maybe?
Excellent review of an incredibly biased book. Karam repeatedly and determinably focuses on evidence and speculation against Robin Bain that does not exist while ignoring massive amounts of evidence against David Bain that does exist. Your definition of his campaign as being Trial by Media is right on the button. It all started when he befriended Paul Holmes and got favourable airtime on his show which resulted in record sales of his first book David and Goliath. Karam’s intention with all his books is to persuade the public of New Zealand of his position. He makes little attempt to be partial and objective, so bent is he on arguing his own prejudiced viewpoint.
Excellent review. In writing Trial by Ambush there is no question that Karam shows his bias.
For example. David’s aunt testified that on the Tuesday morning after the murders there had been a conversation about David’s glasses. [David was living with his aunt and uncle at the time].David said he had broken his glasses the previous Thursday and that they were in being repaired. When asked how he had been managing in the meantime he said he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses. They weren’t perfect ,he said ,but they got him by.
Karam opines that even though David’s aunt is certain that her memory of events is correct, she only came forward five years later,and in the meantime she could have forgotten exactly what was said.
But when it comes to Daryl Young ,who came forward 15 years later ,and testified as to seeing Robin Bain come out of the back door of his van clad only in a towel,Karam does not suggest that Young could have forgotten exactly what transpired. However he does say that that when Young said he saw Robin Bain come out of the back door of the van he really meant to say the side door. [After the retrial documentary maker Bryan Bruce was able to establish that the back door of Robin Bain's van was unable to be opened].
Karam also says that two Crown pathologists testified that the abrasions on Robin Bain’s right hand were 12 hours old. In fact no Crown pathologist testified to that.. One crown pathologist said those abrasions could be anywhere between one and twenty-four hours old,and the other crown pathologist was not even asked to comment on the age of those abrasions.
Just a couple of examples of Karam’s bias. There are many more.
Brian, would you be so good as to enlighten me with details of forensic evidence against Robin Bain and David Bain.
Maxine.
Yes Hayley, public opinion has always been and always will be divided on the guilt or otherwise of David Bain. Unfortunately every time an opinion is published that is contrary to Mr Karam’s, he has swung into action and filed defamation suits left, right and centre, and also just as unfortunately, most everyone has folded in haste and paid him lots of lovely money for daring to express a differing opinion. These law suits have probably been more lucrative than his books. Also at odds with most people is the way Mr Karam refuses to allow David Bain to answer any questions and always steps in to field them himself, including telling the world that “David doesn’t know the trial evidence”. Perhaps Mr Karam can enlighten us. Who was it sitting in the Court during BOTH trials?
Cup of tea,anyone?
In his book Trial by Ambush Karam mentions that David Bain thought he would make his mother a cup of tea when he saw her light on after he arrived home from his paper round. Interestingly enough this was the first time in 18 years that mention has been made of this. One can only presume that something must have jogged David Bain’s memory after all this time.
But Karam is at odds with what David Bain said at that Injustice Conference in Perth. David Bain said he saw his mother’s light on as he was about to go downstairs to do the washing,and he thought he would make her a cup of tea. One would presume he meant he would make that cup of tea after doing the washing,the kitchen being next to the laundry,and then take it upstairs.
But in Karam’s version,Bain does not notice his mother’s light on until he came back upstairs after doing the washing. Quite an important difference. If Bain sees his mother’s light on before going downstairs then he should have made that cup of tea. If he doesn’t see her light on until after he came back upstairs then he wouldn’t have made that cup of tea because he would have found his mother dead after finding the rifle missing from his room and going in to his mother’s room to ask her what was going on.
However, it would appear the Karam version is incorrect. In his evidence in chief at the first trial Bain stated that on arriving home from his paper round he noticed a sliver of light coming from his mother’s bedroom. Furthermore,as his mother’s bedroom was just opposite the stairs there is no doubt he would have seen her light on before going down those stairs.
There was no cup of tea found at the crime scene,so it is obvious one wasn’t made. What I would very much like to know is what made David Bain change his mind about making that cup of tea.
This is a good piece of work, Hayley, congratulations. I hope you move on to work in NZ journalism: we need all the
good journos we can get.
What a brilliant, clearly well researched and written review. It is a pleasure to read, and interesting to note Michael Bain and Bryan Bruce believe Robin is innocent. Why Karam doesn’t give it a rest is hard to understand. He was unbelievably lucky with the 2nd jury – he got his boy out of jail – and, given the forensic evidence, should quit while he’s ahead. I hope he plants a tree to replace the one destroyed making his puff piece.
If one looks at the hard forensic evidence in the case, ie the bloody footprint and Robin’s death scene, then
it is very obvious that Robin is the killer. The problem is that most journos have very little scientific training
in these areas and promote themselves as “experts”. My own scientific background has been invaluable in
assessing the forensics and I know that there are others who share my views.
For a completely different review from criminal lawyer Dr Don Mathias, I would direct readers to
http://donmathias.wordpress.
Those bloody footprints.
At the retrial questions from Justice Panckhurst to Crown witness ESR scientist Kevan Walsh highlighted that no tests were done by first standing on bloodied carpet which would have mimicked the actual footprints to some degree although the amount of blood to apply would be total guesswork.
Another question reminded the jury that the footprints tested at the scene were not visible to the naked eye whereas the footprints in the experiment were clearly visible even before luminol testing.
Justice Panckhurst advised the jury that the footprint evidence was inconclusive. They certainly do not show that Robin Bain was the killer. Nor do they show that David Bain was the killer.
However David Bain had Stephen Bain’s blood on his clothes whereas Robin Bain didn’t.
David Bain’s fingerprints were on the rifle whereas Robin Bain’s were not.
David Bain had scratches on his chest that he could not explain. Robin Bain only had some minor abrasions on his right hand which he may well have received when working on the guttering the previous day.
Blood in barrel of rifle.
A DSR scientist found traces of blood in the barrel of David Bain’s rifle. This blood was never tested. It may well have been Robin Bain’s blood as his was a close contact wound,according to the one pathologist who actually saw that wound,and he would be in the best position to know.
But one shot to Laniet’s head was a hard contact wound,meaning that the rifle was pressed hard against her head. So it is possible that it was her blood that was in the barrel.
However,at the end of the day, whether the blood in the barrel was from Robin Bain or someone else,it does not prove anything. It does not prove that Robin Bain committed suicide,nor does it prove that David Bain shot his father.
In his book Trial by Ambush Karam writes about Robin Bain “making preparations”. He says “The review of research literature found that many men who commit familicide/suicide make preparations,by cancelling appointments,etc. He mentions a relief teacher,a meter reader and a dairy owner.
But he does not mention that Robin Bain phoned an education board official on June 17 1994 and arranged to bring her collated information on some of his pupils the following Monday morning. She said that Robin seemed to be his usual self and that they had a friendly chat.
One further point.. Karam has always maintained that Robin Bain committed familicide/suicide because Laniet came home that weekend and told her family, amongst other things,that her father had been molesting her. So why would Robin Bain have been “making arrangements” prior to that weekend?
Regarding the footprint evidence. It was noted that during experiments, that the blood actually dried out so that
half of the footprints didn’t leave a visible impression on the carpet. They were only visible under luminol and gave
the same result. So to say there is no valid comparison is ridiculous.
The scratches on David’s torso were not observed by Dr Pryde on the Monday, so could not be connected to the
murders.
Robin’s head wound was definitely close contact, as confirmed by Dr Dempster, the only pathologist to view the body.
This was shown by a ring of soot around the wound. It is noted in the literature (Di Maio, 2008), that 95% of contact
wounds to the head were the result of suicide. This study focussed exclusively on rifle wounds, making it relevant to the
Bain case.
Regarding the absence of Robin’s prints on the gun. Studies have indicated that only in approx 10% of firearms deaths are the
killer’s fingerprints found on the rifle. It was noted that on the Bain rifle, there were nine separate prints which could not
be indentified.
Justice Panckhurst made it quite clear to the jury that the footprint evidence was inconclusive because the tests carried out did not mimick the actual footprints. No-one knows how much blood was on the killer’s sock when those footprints were made.
The reason why Dr Pryde did not see those scratches on David Bain’s torso was probably because he did not ask Bain to remove his t-shirt. Dr Pryde never said he strip-searched Bain. He noted those bruises on Bain’s head,he noted that nick on his knee,and he noted that tattoo on Bain’s bicep [which,incidentally Bain lied about the time when he had it done- he said he had it done when his dog died-but his dog died in 1993 and he had that tattoo done a week before the killings]. Dr Pryde could have seen that tattoo without asking Bain to remove his t-shirt.
Furthermore,when he showed those scratches to a female companion on the Wednesday after the killings Bain implied that he might have gotten them in that “missing” twenty minutes on the Monday morning.
Most people who commit suicide by rifle do not shoot themselves in the left temple.,and especially if they are right -handed. Studies show that that the majority of suicides by rifle are by way of the mouth.
There were unidentifiable prints on the rifle. This was probably because blood had been wiped from the rifle,and in doing so the killer removed enough of those prints so as to make them unidentifiable.
But the main point is that there was a clear set of David Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle.
The police fingerprint expert said those prints were positive prints,that means that David Bain must have had Stephen Bain’s blood on his hands when he placed them on the rifle.And in fact,when David Bain was asked about that,he replied that he didn’t have blood on his hands because he had washed them.
If one accepts that Dr Dempster,the only pathologist who saw Robin Bain’s head wound ,is corrrect when he says that wound was close contact, then one must also accept that Kim Jones, the only fingerprint expert who saw those positive prints is also correct.
At the end of the day we still have the evidence of those glasses that were found in David Bain’s room. He told both his lawyer and his aunt that he had been wearing those glasses that weekend. So how did the frame become damaged, and why was the lens that was missing from them found in Stephen Bain’s room? David Bain told his aunt that those glasses weren’t perfect,but they got him by. He didn’t say anything about a missing lens.
In Trial by Ambush Karam writes “There was no blood on the insides of the running shoes David Bain wore that morning”.
But we don’t know what shoes David Bain was wearing. There were two pairs of shoes on the floor of his room. There was a pair of Lasers,which Bain said he was wearing. There was also an odd pair of shoes,which did have blood in them and around the laces.
Bain said he took his shoes off in front of the cupboard. That odd pair of shoes were found in front of the wardrobe. The Lasers were found in front of a set of drawers. I believe that when Bain referred to a cupboard he meant the wardrobe and not the set of drawers.
When writing about those bloody gloves that were found in Stephen’s room Karam says that the Crown advanced the argument that because they were David’s gloves he must have been the wearer of them. Karam says this is no more than speculation. He goes on to say that an impartial observer might think that David planned the killings as alleged he might have worn his father’s gloves rather than his own if he was on a premeditated course to implicate his father.
Bomber believes that an impartial observer would have wondered why Robin Bain would have worn any gloves if he was going to commit suicide.
Bomber believes that an impartial observer might have realised that if those gloves had not become bloody then they would not have been found at the crime scene. The wearer of them would have simply taken them off and returned them to the drawer from whence they came.
Karam writes “Doyle confirmed in his evidence that Dr Pryde strip-searched David. “. Well ,actually,no he didn’t.
Doyle was asked if the procedure a doctor was required to carry out in a homicide investigation included strip-searching and swabs of intimate body parts, He agreed that there were a number of tests and that those two were included. He then went on to say that because Bain wasn’t a suspect there would be no reason for him to take that test.
Because Doyle was not in the room when Dr Pryde carried out his examination of Bain he could not know what tests were carried out.
However there were two other police officers that room and Karam asks why the prosecution did not ask them whether Bain was strip-searched or not.
An interesting question. Bomber can only presume that Dr Pryde may have allowed Bain some privacy when carrying out his examination. So perhaps he examined Bain from behind a curtain,or some sort of partition. If he did so then neither of those police officers who were in the same room would have been able to see if Bain was strip-searched or not,so there would have been no point in them being called by the prosecution.
Bomber believes that only two people know if Dr Pryde strip-searched David Bain. One [Dr Pryde] is dead,so that only leaves David Bain.
There was absolutely no forensic evidence against Robin Bain, and heaps against David Bain. That is why police charged David with five counts of murder, and remain confident they got their man. Defence arguments lacked substance and were stretched beyond credibility, demonstrating what a well funded campaign can do, in my opinion. David’s friends said he developed a paper round alibi to commit serious offences; a Victorian Armorer concluded Robin did not commit suicide; victim support concluded David “was not a victim”; and ambulance officers found David was faking fainting. David cannot explain the bruises on his body, his brothers blood on his clothing, the glasses he was wearing being broken with one lens in his brothers room, why he washed the killers clothes before calling police, why he didn’t help his sister when he heard her gurgling, why he waited 20 minutes before calling 111. The defense fought hard to keep much evidence suppressed from the jury as it was too incriminating. The American policy of full disclosure of the facts may have produced a very different result for David in the retrial; and ability to cross-examine David would have assisted the jury get to the truth of the case. The retrial had a very good result for David – but, not so good for justice as too many questions remain unanswered. There has been no justice for Robin, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet, or Stephen whose lives were cut short. The question most would ask David is “Why?”.
Having read Trial by Ambush I can’t remember Karam saying anything about that family meeting that David Bain had called for that Sunday night. I might have missed it.
Laniet told a number of people that David had called a family meeting for that Sunday night. In fact she told two acquaintances who she met up with when going to work on the Sunday afternoon that she didn’t want to go to that meeting because she was afraid of David,she said that he was “freaky”.
And after the killings an aunt questioned David as to why Laniet was at home ,because she thought she was living at the schoolhouse at Taiera Beach and David had told her that Laniet was at home that night because he had asked her to come home.
David Bain,in his evidence-in-chief,at the first trial,never mentioned anything about a family meeting. Those acquaintances of Laniet’s only testified at the retrial. Because David Bain did not take the stand the prosecution were unable to ask him why he had called that meeting,and why he had never mentioned it at the first trial.
In Trial by Ambush Karam says that part of the Crown case was that David Bain shot his father from close range without the benefit of glasses even though he couldn’t see clearly beyond 30cm. But David Bain said he drove the family car to go down to get some fish and chips. I wonder how Karam thinks he managed to do that when he couldn’t see clearly beyond 30cm?
Re Bomber’s previous message. David Bain said he wasn’t wearing any glasses when he drove the car, but we only have his word for that. No-one has come forward that can confirm that. The only person that could have told us if he was wearing glasses or not was his sister Laniet,who David said was in the car with him when he went to get those fish and chips.
Bomber believes Bain may well have been wearing that pair of his mother’s glasses that were found in his room. When he damaged his own glasses at his singing teacher’s residence he had to get her husband to drive him home as he wasn’t prepared to drive without glasses.
In Trial by Ambush Karam mentions that green towel that was found in the laundry. He writes
“That towel was said to be heavily bloodstained. This was put to David on the day of his arrest as an incriminating piece of evidence against him. DNA testing was carried out in 2003 and it was found that towel contained Robin Bain’s DNA. It is no wonder David could not provide an explanation”.
Bomber wonders how blood containing Robin Bain’s DNA came to be on that towel. The only injury of note on Robin was that wound on his head. Bomber wonders if some of the blood from that wound ended up on Robin Bain’s hands. Bomber wonders if some of the blood from that wound ended up on David’s hands and he wiped that blood off on that towel before he washed his hands. Bomber reckons that David Bain might have been able to provide an explanation but chose not to.
Bomber makes excellent points. What surprises me, though, is why the book was written and why anyone would consider reading it, in my honest opinion. From reviews to date, it appears to be a puff piece rehash of previous books. Paul Holmes described it as “unreadable”, and he is a personal friend of the author. The boy is very lucky to be out, and should be thankful for this. There are no new facts to show his “innocence”, for obvious reasons. However, Robin Bain and the Bain extended family deserve a huge apology.
Hayley, you are an amazing journalist. You have always had a gift for literacy and I think it is fantastic that you are basing your career on your obvious love of writing.