Who should be buying Truth this week?

David Cullen Bain and Joe Karam should be and explaining to the population why they are keeping evidence about the glasses hidden and why he lied about them in the first trial.

Truth has exclusive new details.

TRUTH_Page_1_Jan3

  • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

    Why does “half sucked Throatie” come to mind?

    • Bunswalla

      As in “David Bain has a face like a….”

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

        That must have been it.

  • NZatlarge

    How has NZ been conned by Joe Karam in to think that David Bain is innocent? Maybe because he doesn’t look “scary”? Or maybe if you just say something enough on television the message (no matter how untrue) will get through the skulls of the (generally) feeble minded viewers?

    Now people are actually feeling sorry for the man, and believe our tax dollars should be used to compensate him. He needs to prove he is innocent, not just not guilty.

    • thor42

      I agree. There is a *mountain* of evidence that he is guilty.

      The ONLY reason that he isn’t behind bars now is because Karam is an unmatched PR guy – not because David Bain is innocent.

      • Kimbo

        Yep. Which is why, as much as I disagree with him, I would sure as hell love Joe Karam as my friend if I ever really needed one.

        Plus why Karam deserves a knighthood.

        • Travis Poulson

          He doesn’t deserve a knighthood for getting a murderer out of prison. Michael Cullen got a knighthood for screwing over the taxpayer as well…

          • Kimbo

            No, not for getting a murderer out of prison (even though he did).

            But for services to New Zealand matesmanship.

            Hey, I have friends who have been badly burned and expolited by Paul Holmes when they were in vulnerable and weak positions, and they were useful fodder for his TV programme. But Holmes still got a gong. Probably rightly.

            Say what you like about Karam’s lack of judgement (and when it comes to David Bain, I think it is utterly appalling). One thing, however, you can’t doubt about Karam is his essential integrity and selflessness in helping out his mate.

          • Travis Poulson

            “essential integrity and selflessness in helping out his mate.”

            But there in lies my problem, were they mates before? And is he really being selfless…sensing a pay day at the end of it? I’d agree with you if he refused to take a % of the payout (if he gets it), that would truly be selfless.

          • Kimbo

            Don’t see the relevance of whether they were mates before (they weren’t).

            No, I don’t think Karam went into it for a pay day. The chances of success were so unlikely. Say what you like about Karam, but he is an astute businessman. Look at the background of how he switched to rugby league in 1976 to look after his jewellery business, when administrators were dangling the sentimental carrot of an All Black tour to South Africa at the time. The guy is not a sentimental sap. He has the smarts to get results, and make money on ventures far more promising and profitable than the Bain case.

            Put it this way, Travis. Who, other than a fool, or someone deeply and genuinely committed would still be trying for compo from Judith Collins? Con artists would have realised the futility, and moved on to more productive fields. And Karam may be a lot of things, but other than on the matter of David Bain’s innocence (admittedly a catastrophic failure of judgement on his part!), Karam is no fool.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jake.mate.5 Jake Mate

            Can you put the words ‘Powerplate’ and ‘astute businessman’ in the same sentence?

          • Kimbo

            Yes, because ‘astute’ doesn’t mean ‘perfect’, or ‘right all the time’. In fact some of the most astute businesspeople are those who take a punt, get it wrong, learn the lessons, then try again.

            Is the esssence of capitalism – and last time I looked, one of the things I love about this blog is its clear editorial stance championing the overall and superior benefits of capitalism to the socialist alternative.

            Just saying…

          • http://www.facebook.com/tracy.scarrott Tracy Scarrott

            what about the book sales and the up coming books he has already penned waiting for release? dont tell me hes not in it for the money what a load of tripe hes a business man

          • Travis Poulson

            You’re telling the wrong person

          • Kimbo

            “what about the book sales and the up coming books he has already penned waiting for release?”

            As I posted elsewhere, in NZ you make about 5% royalties on book sales once the publishers have gouged their cut. No one makes a lucrative living selling books in NZ.

            And Karam has been in one form of business or another since the mid-1970s. Turned his back on his All Black career on a matter of principle because of it.

          • pukakidon

            And a great writer of fiction and comedy

          • dotcom

            Bad taste from every angle

          • Kimbo

            hmm.

            How so?

            Because of Karam, or Holmes (present illness)?

          • dotcom

            To discredit a prosecution witness, David Bain personally told Justice Binnie that the witness had been seen fucking a goat (or words to this effect). Till David Bain has proven that the witness actually was a goat fucker, I say that the Binnie report ought to be regarded as having been made on a specious claim. Until this bestiality specific is proven beyond the standard of balance of probabilities, I say the compo claim should wait in abeyance. In other words, hoist David Bain by his own lying petard.

          • Hazards001

            Not often i disagree with your sentiments Kimbo but on this I do. Karams actions have nothing to do with matemanship.I’m pretty sure he didn’t even know Baine before the murders. All Karam has done is profited like the bloodsucking leech he is from this whole thing. It’s kept him in the public eye and in the money for years. Whether he takes a cut of any payout or not is immaterial as there shouldn’t be one.

          • Kimbo

            No, he didn’t know Bain before the murders. So what?

            I don’t deny that Karam has been a media whore – but then that is the nature of things if you want to create a groundswell of emotional support, hence NZatlarge’s lament, “How has NZ been conned by Joe Karam in to think that David Bain is innocent?”.

            But honestly, a possibility of a small percentage cut of $1.5million after some 15 years?! And you make bugger all selling books in NZ, especially once the publishing companies take their cut (usually about 95%). Karam has business skills that could have earned him many millions over that time period far more likely and promising than the seemingly hopeless Bain case he was asked to look into by some scarfies.

          • Hazards001

            You stated in your original post karam deserves a knighthood for his selfless acts in defending a murdering cunt. My words not yours. So my point would be that I disagree and feel Karam deserves fuck all. That’s my only point.

          • Kimbo

            Fair enough – although I didn’t say Karam deserved a knighthood for his selfless acts in defending a murdering cunt, but for defending a mate (who, incidentally, and as you rightly point out is a murdering cunt).

            I’m separating and compartmentalising the two, because I realise that lots of people (wrongly!) think Bain is innocent. Bain’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant to why I think Karam should get an honour.

            But fair enough you don’t think Karam deserves a gong. Just one question, though, and it’s the same one I asked LesleyNZ (and feel free to ignore it, or tell me to f*&% off for pressing the point):

            Your sad arse is in prison, or your back is to the wall, and you need someone to fight for you.

            Joe Karam calls.

            Do you say, “YES”…

            or tell him to bugger off?

            I always though Javed Miandad was one of the nastiest, sneakiest pieces of work who ever walked on a cricket field, and his attitude to sport, and his captaincy contributed no end to the lowering of behavioural standards in sport.

            But here’s the thing: If I had to pick a guy to play for my life, Javed would be the first guy I’d pick.

            For that reason, and no other, I’d also want Karam.

          • Hazards001

            OK I’ll answer..my sad arse HAS been in prison in the past (not in NZ)…occupational hazard so to speak in my younger years (location and occupation and I’m not prepared to discuss it here or in any other forum, read some of my early posts and take a guess if you like). I’d never need Joe Karam in my corner because I’m not a murdering bastard and would never be the MSM darling of newspaper sales. None of that changes my original reason for replying to your post..which is: As far as I am concerned Joe Karam has tarred himself with the brush of David Baine and is NOT a candidate for a knighthood. That’s it…nothing more!

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

            And he got paid more than $400,000 in legal aid to help his “mate”

          • Kimbo

            Doesn’t seem an unreasonable amount, given that Karam seems to have devoted himself for some 15 years to the task of legally self-educating himself so he could represent Bain in a case that went all the way to the Privy Council, and then to a second trial, and now for a compo process.

            You can argue the merits of the case (and I repeat: I think David Bain did it!), and whether there should be such a thing as legal aid, and whether legal representation costs too much. However, Karam didn’t make the rules, and neither did I. I’m just reporting them.

            You may be right, but $400k for 15 years worth of work, when there was all the expenses, not to mention the opportunity costs of other business ventures Karam could have been pursuing?

            Good on you for catching Bain and Karam telling lies, but “Joe’s only in it for money” doesn’t seem like a credible story, or at least not the info to date.

          • http://www.facebook.com/tracy.scarrott Tracy Scarrott

            would love to see the private contracts between the 2 DB and JK

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

            Pay me $400,000 and I’ll be his friend as well. I’m flexible like that.

          • fozzie2

            $400,000 for 12 years work – you’d hardly give up your day job for that!

            You are on the wrong side of history – Bain has been adjudicated not guilty -75% NZ say he should get compensation – get over it !

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

            Woody? Meet Irony.

          • http://twitter.com/Inventory2 Inventory2

            75% NZ say he should get compensation

            Actually fozzie2; it was 74 percent; of 500 New Zealanders. The other 4,099,500 of us were not consulted.

          • Travis Poulson

            74% of the total Herald subscribers?

          • dotcom

            The poll question was dated and wrong at law. The result should never have been published as factual news.

          • Bunswalla

            Bullshit – 74% said that if a retired left-wing social justice crusader with preconceived ideas on the case decided that Bain should get compensation (an opinion on which he was specifically told not to offer), then he should be given it.

            In other words, before the report (which has subsequently been thoroughly debunked by someone with actual knowledge of the law and the ability to read and follow instructions) even came out, people were essentially asked “Will you disagree with a judge’s report”?

            Regardless of the topic, and especially prior to discovering what an appalling job Binnie actually did, I’m astonished that only 74% of respondents offered the view that they would agree with him.

          • dotcom

            Guilty or not, David Bain is a killer of 5 human beings. And killers of 5 human being are not deserving of one of my taxpayer dollars.

          • Kimbo

            Amen!

            We find something we agree on 100%!

          • pukakidon

            Let those twits pay the compensation then!!!!

          • LesleyNZ

            LOL – “essential integrity and selflessness in helping out his mate.” Yeah right!

          • Kimbo

            …that’s funny. I thought it was only on The Standard that you get the plot-theory brigade.

            Simple question, LesleyNZ. Your sad arse is in prison, or your back is to the wall, and you need someone to fight for you.

            Joe Karam calls.

            Do you say, “YES”…

            or tell him to bugger off.

            Yeah, right!

          • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

            Don’t you love your train set though?

          • Travis Poulson

            Yea, it’s great thanks. Raking in the bucks.

        • pukakidon

          Karam is a dishonest leech. He could care less about honesty and what is right. The guy has done all this for self gratification. It goes to show the level of intelligence of many in this country that they only research they do is watching complete and utter shite on TV.

          The legal system is broke when Idiots are allowed to sway justice. It is well known that one of the lead jury members lied about previous criminal convictions to get her way on to the Jury.

          • Kimbo

            “The guy has done all this for self gratification”.

            Hmm. I’m skeptical about ‘self-gratification’ on the financial front, but I can entertain the notion that Karam has got a moral crusader’s sense of importance and purpose out of fighting for Bain.

            But 15 years of keeping all that effort up for something he knows and believes in his heart of hearts is a lie?! Deceived? Yes. Self-deceived? Maybe. But KNOWING it is an out and out lie?

            Seems unlikely – not that I disagree with your assessment of the second jury.

      • dotcom

        That he killed, yes, but please stop talking about guilt and innocence. The question of guilt and innocence is over for once and for all.

        • Kimbo

          …actually to be a pedant, the matter of ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’ is over.

          ‘Innocence’, which Joe Karam would erroneously have you believe is the same as ‘not guilty’ is what the on-going compensation claim is about.

          Personally, I don’t think Bain is innocent, so no compensation.

          • dotcom

            I defer to your pedantry, good sir; you are precisely correct, and I thank you sincerely for the precision.

          • Bunswalla

            “precisely correct” is a tautology; it appears you have much to learn about pedantry.

          • dotcom

            My thanks cancelled. Your commentary is is more befitting of Kiwiblog, where IQ is measured by quality of insults.

    • Kimbo

      “How has NZ been conned by Joe Karam in to think that David Bain is innocent”

      I have been doing some thinking on that (and sorry if you meant it as a rhetorical question): -

      The MSM runs a particular play-book on crime stories. When the trial happens, it is “paint the accused as the villain/repulsive threat to humanity” – e.g, Scott Watson, Peter Ellis, Ewen MacDonald, Mark Lundy.

      However, if and when they are convicted, that is when it gets really interesting, because you can endlessly milk the “innocent man wrongly punished” story. The template for that story goes back to media causes célèbres like the Sacco and Vanzetti, Bruno Richard Hauptmann *Lindbergh baby kidnapping), Caryl Chessman, and Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter – guys who were all almost certainly guilty, but if there is money to be made out shilling the soap opera of their supposed innocence, who cares?

      Joe Karam knew how to package and provide what the media wanted. Good luck to him, and especially for David Bain.

      • NZatlarge

        The NZ Herald *cough* actually had an article in the period where his re-trial was going on, where they listed the police/crowns evidence against the defence explanation for how it had occurred. Any rational person, regardless of how closely they had or had not followed the case, would have to agree how completely absurd the defence was/is.

        Without going into detail there is also some incredibly incriminating evidence (mainly in the form of confessions) that was inadmissible in court, so the public by in large never heard about it.

        • Kimbo

          Yep.

          I can assure you that when it comes to telling me that David Bain did it, you are preaching to the choir.

          However, once you get the “free and compensate the innocent man” crusade going, eventually a lot of folks succumb, and sacrifice their usually good judgement.

          Here’s an example of a guy whose opinion I usually respect who did precisely that in regards to David Bain:

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10845366

          Now Bob Jones always carries with him two biases. Firstly, due to his libertarian position he has a natural antipathy towards the police, whom he (often rightly) perceives as bungling interfering bureaucrats. Second, Jones has a great deal of confidence in the value of his own opinions and judgements. Fair enough, and that doesn’t necesarily dismiss what he has to say – indeed it often makes his thoughts amusing and valuable, because it is so different from the natural default setting of most Kiwis.

          However, look at how he finished this article: -

          “So why do I care about the Bain case and, on a different tack, always maintain an open-minded scepticism about guilt in criminal cases without
          very clear proof?

          The answer lies in something that happened nearly half a century ago when seemingly overwhelming evidence that any jury would have convicted on, had me guilty of arson. I won’t bore you with the details but the circumstantial evidence against me for six reasons was clear-cut.

          But having decided to arrest me, the officer in charge of the inquiry, as he subsequently told me, was instructed to first go through the motions of knocking on a few nearby doors in case he was asked by my lawyer whether he had done such checks. So he did, and by an incredible chance, an old fellow said he couldn’t sleep so at an early hour had gone out to see if his newspaper had arrived, and seen a bloke in the street.

          Down to the police station and shown a book of photos he immediately
          picked out the fellow he’d seen who, surprise, surprise, was an arsonist
          only just released from prison and who, when confronted, confessed.

          I sometimes reflect on how different my life would have been had it not been for that old chap’s insomnia.

          None of this means that everyone charged with crimes are innocent for infact 99 per cent are not. But sometimes cases arise, such as with Bain, where all of the face value evidence doesn’t stand deeper investigation. Sadly, for that to occur requires a miracle to arise.
          Bain’s life has been blighted by horrendous events but he was enormously lucky for his miracle did appear in the form of Karam; a remarkable human being. Yet, despite all the trials and some of the world’s best legal brains clearing Bain, he continues to suffer while our politicians with an eye on the polls, trifle with justice”.

          Let me translate what teh usually astute Bob Jones, caught up by the personal influence of Michael Reed and Joe Karam in effect wrote:

          In the Bain case let’s overlook that the facts indicate David Bain was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” (and the jury got him wrong). Just pay him, in spite of the facts, because MAYBE, just maybe, in spite of all those facts, HE MAY BE INNOCENT.

          And if we were do adopt Jones’ approach, our entire criminal justice system would crumble.

          • dotcom

            Never mind “may be innocent” (with all the legal niceties of “innocent”). Did David Bain kill or not? Damned right he killed.

          • Kimbo

            Don’t disagree.

            But then I find lots of what those who earn knighthoods did to be wrong too. Like Holmes. Others may admire him, but due to some personal circumstances I know about, I find him a repulsive individual (although I wouldn’t wish his illness or drug addiction of his step-daughter on anyone).

            Nevertheless, I can see why he deserves a gong.

            Same with Karam, irrespective of whether David Bain didn’t, or (most certainly!) did.

            And seeing as it was Karam, who like a good mate, selflessly, and untiringly navigated the incredible obstacle course of the “legal niceties” (as you put it) set before him, that is why I’d give him a gong.

            But it’s just my opinion. And just like my opinion on David Bain’s innocence doesn’t really count (not when it comes to his continued imprisonment at least), neither should you be offended by it.

    • dotcom

      Please stop talking about guilt or innocence. The question of guilt or innocence is done and dusted and can never be revisited again. If you think David killed, say David is a killer. If not, say that Robin was a killer. And I’m telling you that Robin Bain was no killer.

      • NZatlarge

        Wow, you’ve done really well here not to take your own advice.

        ‘If you think David killed, say David is a killer. If not, say that Robin was a killer. And I’m telling you that Robin Bain was no killer.’ so David = killer. Why didn’t you just say that??

        If you prefer the word killer, murderer or what ever, that’s your choice but don’t expect others to phrase it to suit you.

        • dotcom

          Correct. My bad. David = Killer.

    • dotcom

      I mean, leaving aside the not insignificant question of David having killed 5 human beings, to me it is repugnant that David Bain can willy-nilly base his million dollar compensation claim in a fiction that one of the prosecution witnesses fucked a goat (or words to this effect). I mean, if David can say this with impunity in his compensation claim, and score $2 million from it, there is something dreadfully wrong in the state of Denmark. The poor prick who’s now publicly humiliated. What happened to his rights to deny the goat-fucking, and hence to deny David Bain’s right to the millions. Where is his right to compensation? Something stinks in this form of injustice.

  • Ross

    There is a huge amount of evidence that Karam and Reed didn’t want the jury to see or hear. They fought long and hard to keep it secret. In regards to the evidence of Kirsten Koch, Gareth and Greer Taylor, and Mark Buckley, they succeeded. It’s quite ironic when you consider Karam whinged and whined that Dean Cottle’s evidence and ALL evidence should have been put before the jury.

  • Ross

    Cameron

    David also lied to Justice Binnie when he denied having worn the glasses on the weekend of the murders. He told an aunt days after the murders that he had worn them. Janis Clark testified that David had told her that he’d worn his mother’s glasses after his own had been broken the Thursday before the murders. However, David told Binnie: “I don’t think I would have said that to her”.

    Hmmm. He “doesn’t think” he would have told Clark that he wore his mother’s glasses on the weekend of the murders. Surely, if he did not wear the glasses that weekend – and he is adamant he did not – he would have been more assertive. He could have been expected to say “I could not have made the comment attributed to me because I did not wear those glasses”. He prevaricated with Binnie, something a guilty person might do but I don’t think an innocent person would.

    • NZatlarge

      All the evidence in the case pointed to David (and still does), and it’s hard to blame the police who thought they had a slam dunk.

      If you actually state the defences case out loud it sounds completely absurd.

      I would be interested to see how many suicide notes in the early 90′s were written on computers?

      • Sarrs

        I struggle with your statement that ‘it’s hard to blame the police’
        So they thought they had a slam dunk and just half arsed the rest of the investigation because they were assured a guilty verdict? To me, that just smacks of police arrogance.

        • NZatlarge

          You’ve never been complacent about anything? It’s human nature, and therefore very difficult to avoid, even by professionals who know better.

          What evidence is there that it was a ‘half arsed’ investigation? That sounds like a gross over statement to me

          • Sarrs

            I’m complacent about getting the dishes done, not about investigating multiple murders

  • LesleyNZ

    Well well well……………………. the Truth coming out at last.

  • Ross

    Maybe a David Bain supporter would like to answer the following question:
    Why would an innocent person need to lie?

  • Rodger T

    I`m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong , but I am under the impression that to receive compensation,he needs to present proof of his innocence .Of which he is yet to do.
    And I am little surprised that some of the most experienced legal minds in this country and abroad don`t appear to understand this or they have a very low threshold of what represents proof. Cos` Joe sez ,does not seem to cut it in my opinion.

    • NZatlarge

      correct

  • Sarrs

    I don’t question David Bain’s guilt, I believe he did it. My opinion is that the police fucked the job up spectacularly. Bain has won lotto off the back of shitty police work and it just goes to show how much someone can achieve with the backing of a top notch PR team and getting the MSM on side.

    People don’t seem to understand the difference between ‘not guilty’ and ‘innocent’ – the difference, I believe, in this case is poor police work and ineffective prosecution.

  • Rodger T

    A question I would like Joes opinion on is, why does he think the police decided to frame David for this crime after a week of assuming it was a murder-suicide?

    The evidence surely,must of led them to believe David was involved .

    Also of David I would ask ,why according to the “suicide note” was why does he think he was the one considered the one that deserved to live? What things had his siblings done to deserve to die ,in his opinion?

    • Bunswalla

      Good question Rodger, but even more significant was the wording. The two key words in the “note” that David Bain certainly wrote were “deserved” and “stay”. He couldn’t actually bring himself to use the word “live” because it’s the opposite of “die” and would be a painful reminder of what he had just done – murdered his entire family.

      The use of the past tense “deserved” indicated that the killing was complete (as it was in the case of David Bain, having already killed everyone). If it was written by Robin, and he had yet to shoot himself, he would surely have used the word “deserves” in the present tense.

      Quite apart from the fact that, if Robin truly wanted to write a note of both apology (would he have REALLY just used one word – sorry?) and to get David off the hook, why on earth wouldn’t he have just written a note in his own hand? Much quicker than booting up an old computer that took more than 3 minutes to fire up, and writing a cryptic note that IMO immediately fingers David?

      • Rodger T

        I recall Leighton Smith interviewing Joe back in the 90s on why he became involved, Joe apparently was not in NZ when it happened , on seeing a picture after the 1st trial of David standing in a church choir ,he could not believe this young man could commit such a crime,yet the father who was in the same pic ,he believed could.Something to do with Joe being a born-again christian ,I believe.

        It would be interesting if Leighton Smith could recall this interview.

        • LesleyNZ

          Don’t know about Joe but I know that Robin Bain was a born again Christian. Most likely he was reading his Bible or praying when he was murdered. Robin Bain also knew correct grammar – he would never have written a note like the one left on the computer.

  • caseythedog

    If Joe thinks David is innocent why does he micro-manage him? Why does he come up with ridiculous convoluted scenarios eg. animal blood on gun?, flying cat? left marks on lightswitch, Robin changing clothes into cruddy old clothes sans undies, Laniet’s bloody inhalation & exhalation gurgles could have been the washing machine, David had another faint & fell over & bruised himself to explain the bruises on his face etc. ad nauseum.
    Answer- every time David opens his mouth he puts a 300mm foot in it. He is not allowed to speak without a script, and even when he does have one, he stuffs it up.
    Joe’s strategy has been to shut down ant dissenting voices, threaten legal action and manipulate the media. After all, Joe needs to win- he always has had to. Question is ,now he’s only managed to get the crim. out a couple of years early, and no compensation in sight, will he explode in a puff of smoke.

    • Kimbo

      “If Joe thinks David is innocent why…does he come up with ridiculous convoluted scenarios…”

      Because he is doing what we all almost automatically do when we are confronted with an unwelcome piece of data that contradicts and challenges a precious and strongly-held belief, be it religious, political, ideological, or personal.

      He rationalises.

      I don’t make the rules, I just report them.

    • NZatlarge

      Occams Razor

  • Blossom

    Joe’s motivation? Started out anti-police and was fuelled by ego, ego and more ego.

  • Pingback: Guest on Bain | Kiwiblog

82%