Why does Joe Karam mislead so much?

Joe Karam went on Radio NZ yesterday and basically showed what a nasty, vicious little man he is.

Her refers to Amy Adams by title and her full name, same with Simon Power, but in all his comments about Judith Collins he just calls her “Collins” or worse.

In a report released in late 2012, a former Canadian Supreme Court judge, Ian Binnie, concluded that Mr Bain was innocent and suggested he should receive compensation.

However, Ms Collins then sought a review of that report, which criticised the findings as legally flawed.

Mr Bain’s legal team sought a judicial review, arguing that Ms Collins had pre-determined the claim and could not distinguish between her role as Justice Minister and her previous role as Police Minister.

Ms Collins resigned as a minister during the election campaign last year, after an email surfaced suggesting she had been part of efforts to undermine the head of the Serious Fraud Office in 2011. An inquiry later found no evidence to support that.

Mr Bain’s chief supporter Joe Karam told Checkpoint it was now up to Ms Adams to have the claim considered by Cabinet ministers.

“We have no reason to believe that she won’t do a proper just job, as Simon Power did. The only thing that’s gone wrong is the pugnacious minister that we had in between times.”

He misled Radio New Zealand and basically the whole of New Zealand public with his comments…but he is used to doing that.

Remember his bollocks over the so-called parallel lines on Robin Bain’s thumb and finger that was laughed at by every firearms expert in New Zealand?

He is currying not favour with Amy Adams, and slamming Judith Collins. I would suggest that Amy Adams will be his next target if she decides along the same lines as Judith Collins. She is no push over that is for sure.

He misled directly when he said that there were no delays from his side of the debate.

This is demonstrably false.

As soon as Joe Karam decided to institute a judicial review forced the government to park the whole case. It was Karam who initiated the judicial review and therefore any delays were at his hand. For him to say that any delays are not as a result of him and the legal team supporting David Bain is a misrepresentation of facts, and with his personal attacks on Judith Collins is probably sailing very close to being on the recieving end of a defamation action.

I note too that we are still to hear word from David Bain about any of this…it seems that Joe Karam speaks for him at all times.

But there is one thing that Joe Karam won’t do and that is answer any questions about what is in it for him if compensation is paid.

He says he is looking forward to a resolution I can well imagine the wailings he will utter if Amy Adams recommends to cabinet that no compensation be paid.


– Radio NZ


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • peterwn

    I would grudgingly accept a million or two compo being paid to make the matter go away. However if any compo were to be paid, it should be paid to a trust who can then pay things out as need be, and set up in a way as to keep extraneous fingers out of it.

    • HSV325

      This will end up like most PG’s do, just pay some $ to make it go away so nobody has to waste anymore time on it and actually concentrate on business and things that matter. He shouldn’t get a cent and if he is paid anything it should come with a string of conditions and no apology what so ever.

      • stephen2d

        No money and no apologies. Retrial only and put him (Bain) to testify In court. After all, what else better has he got to do with his job in construction in chc near cbd?

        • sandalwood789

          “…put him (Bain) to testify In court.”

          “You want money, you front up. End of story.”

    • Cadwallader

      Look out Lundy is lurching over the Judicial horizon!

  • Bain Murders 101:
    1) Only David Or Robin Bain could have been the murderer
    2) It wasn’t Robin Bain
    3) Read 2 again …..

    • Cadwallader

      Once David Bain has been given taxpayers’ $$$$ he’d be perfectly suited for a position on a party list.

      • Vaughan

        Labour or the Greens? With those jerseys surely he could lead the Greens.

        • Harriet Bond

          Hell no, we Greens wouldn’t want him ;-)

  • john Doe

    There is only one person alive who knows who “did it” and he aint talking.

  • stephen2d

    I seem to remember an interview with Karam quite a few years ago that he had spent a lot of money on Bain and that he was nearly broke. As far as I can recollect, he seems to have said that any eventual compo and a portion would go to him to recoup some of the money. If my memory is correct and to keep his lawyers at bay.

  • Karma

    As those of us with siblings know, when growing up, if you were accused of something you most certainly didn’t do, YOU PROTESTED YOUR INNOCENCE to all and sundry, quite often with tears and tantrum.

    Has David Bain publicly and vigorously protested his innocence HIMSELF? To the best of my knowledge, no. Joe Karam is doing the protesting. The only interviews Bain has given talks about missing his family and how wonderful his father was.

    Even Peter Ellis protested his own innocence.

  • Ilovelife

    I seem to remember he was involved in something shady in his past. Something to do with a shop in K Rd. I’ve never trusted him since.

  • Huia

    Karam wasn’t there when the murders were committed, his version of events is just that…his version, they become more ridiculous years later and are still evolving.
    I believe as time goes on the people swept up in the hype and media manipulation by Karam at the time, have come to see things more clearly and are now questioning his ever evolving version.
    Hindsight is a great thing, suing and shutting down any opposition to his thinking has not worked in his favour with the public.
    It was fashionable at the time of the last trial to raise opposition to made the legal system because of the Arthur Allen Thomas and David Doughty cases, because two mistakes had been made, all and sundry wanted to believe a third was made too, so many people climbed onto that bandwagon putting their faith in a ex All Black and his version.
    He was in our lounge every night and had media saturation even to getting the likes of Paul Holmes on his side, later Paul changed his mind after doing more reading and learning more about the case. You couldn’t turn on the tv without seeing Karam holding the floor.
    When the facts are laid out to read one by one, Karams version of events is ludicrous it turned that last trial into an absolute fiasco and made a mockery of our Court system.
    The highlight for me was seeing that poor policeman wearing the hat to hold the gun in place and still not being able to do so without Karam coming forward and helping him. What a joke.
    If any compensation is going to be paid I would like to see Peter Ellis receive it.

    • Wheninrome

      New Zealand people hate to believe someone could possibly commit crimes of this nature, they hate to put an actual face to a crime, they are scared they might be committing the wrong person.
      Actually people do horrible things, even people you know.

  • Harriet Bond

    so Joe Karam, why don’t you front up and tell the nation; why didn’t Dean Cottle appear at the 2009 retrial to answer questions about his 1994-5 statements made about Robin and Laniet? Was he in fact resiling from those statements at that time? Why did J.Panckhurst read those statements out, knowing full well that Dean was resiling from those statements.? Had Dean Cottle turned ‘Hostile Witness’? Why do you never mention Dean Cottle these days?

    • Murray Smith

      I knew Dean Cottle many years ago. Likeable but very much the loose cannon in my humble opinion.

  • Iera

    Just as an inquiry was held and dismissed any wrong doing on the part of Judith Collins regarding the “DIRTY POLITICS” email, is the Government not obliged to ensure the Bain claim in the High Court, seeking a review of Collins’ actions, be formally withdrawn – not just “discontinued” – and an apology made, to uphold that while in the office of Justice Minister, the Hon Judith Collins did not breach natural justice and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, nor “acted in bad faith, abused her power, and acted in a biased, unreasonable and predetermined manner”, as that may reflect on other issues while Hon Judith Collins was Justice Minister?

  • sandalwood789

    I remember seeing a summation of the facts after the first trial and being utterly convinced that no sane jury could find DB not guilty.
    As we know, that was indeed the case in the first trial but not (unfortunately) in the second.
    I myself am 100% certain that he did it.

    • Wheninrome

      He put the washing machine on first, I think, before he called.

      • Second time around

        and separated the coloureds from the whites. Normally he would do the woolens on a slow spin cycle, and even insisted that this be done when he was on remand- but something special the day of the murders meant that he forgot and the green murderer’s jersey got the works.

      • Rick H

        Didn’t he put the washing machine on prior to finding his family dead?

  • nudgy

    The compensation that Karam and Bain are seeking is only granted where someone has been wrongfully imprisoned. Dougherty proved that he was wrongfully imprisoned through a DNA test. Karam can only prove Bain was wrongfully imprisoned if he can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that someone else was the killer. In this regard Karam has failed miserably and his last ditch strategy to blame Judith Collins for his failure is just pathetic.

  • RightofSingapore

    I don’t have much faith in Amy Adams-she seems like a wet Minister so far.

    • Harriet Bond

      luckily it’s all of Cabinet who decide, ultimately. Maggie Barry is a Bainiac though. :(

  • Wallace Westland

    Make no mistake about it, everyone has a line in the sand over something and this is mine.
    If Adams and the National Government approve one cent of compensation for this ………(words fail me and I’m so angry I’m shaking….what ever I type would have me banned).
    One cent Amy and National can kiss my vote goodbye.
    I’d like to think there are many others who feel the same.
    His conviction was overturned on the most technical and flimsiest of excuses by overpaid liberal snivelling pommie judges and has no bearing on his guilt.

    • mommadog

      Yes Wallace there are others who feel as strongly as you. I am one.

    • HR

      With you 100%

  • Benoni

    Karam is a classic lawyer who has no problem with dispensing with the truth. He is not as bad as his family- murdering client but is almost so.

    • Harriet Bond

      Karam is not a Lawyer. He gets paid money from NZ Legal Aid but he has never held legal qualifications

      • sandalwood789

        *That’s* news to me…..

      • Benoni

        He has been paid over $400,000 and at $90 an hour by tour legal system when he is unqualified ! I am astounded. Maybe if he had some practical experience as a lawyer he would find it easier to recognise how easily and convincingly guilty people lie.

        • Huia

          Apparently as an advisor on the Bain case!!!
          We have paid out enough for this joker.

          • mommadog

            Wow – and here I was thinking that he had spend his own money representing Bain. Karam’s on a nice little gravy train as well as being absolutely fanatical over the whole thing. Said it yesterday and will repeat today, for my money Bain is guilty, wont answer questions that need to be answered and will never admit to it now – not even on his death bed.

      • Rachael Membery

        Technically correct as Joe goes but his son is and ‘works’ on the case.

    • Rachael Membery

      Talking about father or son?

      • Harriet Bond

        yes Sorry Rachel I assumed Benoni was talking about JOE Karam. Mathew the son is a lawyer but we never hear from him.

    • Albert Lane

      I thought Joe Karam was the owner of a carpet business. Well, used to be the owner of a carpet business.

  • Geoff

    If anyone deserves compensation for wrongful imprisonment it is Peter Ellis. How has this been ignored for so long.

  • Andrew Gibson

    At the end of the day NZ’s judicial system found Bain not guilty so just pay him compensation and move on; on the assumption that a belief in the rule of law still exists of course.

    • Goldfish

      At the end of the day it isn’t as simple as that – not by any means. The first trial found him guilty. The second trial could not find him guilty – intentional emphasis as that doesn’t equate to innocence. They couldn’t find him guilty as a lot of evidence has been (legally) destroyed after the first trial.

      So due process must be gone through. Otherwise you’ll have every murderer in this country waiting till evidence is destroyed or key witnesses die then launching a bid for a new trial and compensation.

      The evidence conclusively shows that Robin didn’t do it, so who did?

      • Andrew Gibson

        A good point about the timeliness of a new trial…

        But surely the rule of law should stand? By all means work to change the law; for example I think compensation should be automatic, not at the whim of politicians.

        Then of course you’d need to look consistently at other dubious convictions/cases: Scott Watson, David Tamihere.

      • Vaughan


    • LesleyNZ

      David Bain must prove his innocence before any payout in compensation. Amy Adams must make sure this happens before caving into Joe Karam’s media pressure.

      • Albert Lane

        I would like to see David Bain answer some questions. What was the cause of the very extensive bruising on his head? Why did he wash his clothes when he got home? What was his glasses lens doing on the floor next to a body? And that would just be for a start. The fact that he refused to take the stand during his re-trial means that the Crown was not able to ask the difficult questions. He needs to answer these to establish that he was innocent. His current status is that there is not enough evidence to convict him. And if the stories about the goings-on by the jury are even half-true, there needs to be a public enquiry with no exclusions – including that jury.

        • Andrew Gibson

          Why should he answer any questions; last time I checked NZ was a democratic country with an established judicial system. Do I think he did it? Probably, but so what, he’s been found not guilty.

          Similarly, I don’t think he should have to “prove his innocence” for compensation, but that’s the law.

          It’s all about protecting a citizen against the possible tyranny of the state or politicians.

          • Wendy

            A person claiming compensation for wrongful imprisonment should prove their innocence because the ONLY reason for being wrongfully imprisoned would be if they were totally innocent.

          • Andrew Gibson

            That may be the legal situation. But I’m suggesting anyone having a conviction overturned for any reason SHOULD have an automatic right to compensation; with a set formula for time inside etc.

            For example, it might be a dodgy witness or copper that fesses up years later. Not enough to prove innocence but certainly enough to say the accused shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place.

        • damm good thrashing

          …..and why did he wear that jumper?

        • HR

          1: he fought with Stephen
          2: he had blood on him from the fight with Stephen, and probably from splatter from shooting his victims at close range
          3: he was wearing them and they were lost in the fight with his brother

          Couple of other things; the bloody footprints were far too big to have been made by Robin, there was a blood smear on a door frame that corresponded with the blood found on the shoulder on the jersey David was wearing, marks on David’s hands consistent with a fight etc etc etc.

          Nothing of this kind on Robin.

    • damm good thrashing

      I believe a jury found him guilty. I don’t believe juries can be wrong. We either have a jury system or we don’t. Just because the verdict isn’t one you like doesn’t entitle you to compensation.

      • Nic C

        It only takes three words to completely blow your argument apart, Damn Good Thrashing:

        – ‘Arthur’
        – ‘Allan’
        – ‘Thomas’

        • HR

          Police planted evidence in that case. They followed the theory that Thomas was definitely guilty, and in order to speed things along they drop some “evidence” to get him. There has been no suggestion of any police wrongdoing in Bains case. The investigation was compromised due to the incredibly untidy state of the house, but by and large the investigation was pretty good.
          NZ police have an excellent reputation as non- corrupt. The Thomas case is a very rare aberration, not the general rule as in other countries.

          • Nic C

            HR: Though a little blunt perhaps, my point was more to the ‘two juries can’t be wrong’ statement. Admittedly, I’m more versed in the Thomas case, than Bain’s.
            I take your point with regard ‘the NZ Police have an excellent reputation’ etc… I’d like to fully believe that, but the motivations behind that they did to Thomas was far more sinister than just ‘planting evidence to ensure a conviction the person who was clearly murdered’… they knowingly sent an innocent man to rot in prison. This ‘culture’ was endemic at the time, right throughout the leadership and down.
            As much as I would truly like to agree with your sentiments, unfortunately the statements made to Bruce Hutton’s ‘integrity’ and ‘character’ at his funeral by Mike Bush, say to me that this ‘culture’ clearly still pervades the upper echelons of the force. That’s of real concern.

          • HR

            No disrespect intended Nic. I was pretty disappointed in Mike Bush making those comments myself.

            I can honestly say, in over a decade of service, I never saw anything remotely along the lines of “fitting” someone up. Seen lots of guilty people go free, but I guess that’s the price of justice.

            I am convinced of David Bains guilt. Just as I am convinced of a Scott Watson’s guilt. Arthur Allan Thomas was railroaded, but that was down to a couple of very bad eggs playing a dangerous game, and they got found out. AAT was compensated, and rightly so, but David Bain is guilty, and no matter how much Joe Karam muddies the waters, that is a fact.

            No compensation.

          • Nic C

            HR: I didn’t take, or detect any ‘disrespect’ at all from your comment mate; though I had a sneaking suspicion from the wording that you may have been in the force at some point… and that I do respect Sir.

            Granted things were very different in the early 70’s… the AAT case was effected as much by political pressures, as it was with corruption and each are equally dangerous and insidious. Hence my disbelief at recent Bush’s comments. Either through arrogance and stupidity, or just plain incompetence, he single-handedly bought the integrity of every cop into question, serving or otherwise and I was surprised there wasn’t more of outcry from within the force for his resignation; he clearly wasn’t/isn’t up to the job.

            I’m with you on the Bain case though… just strange, no matter which way you peel it.

            AAT: Cleared by a Royal Commision of Inquiry (rate this above a jury any day) – Compensation.
            Bain: Verdict set aside on appeal. Never ‘proven’ innocent – No Compensation.

            Seems the most fair and reasonable, IMHO.

        • damm good thrashing

          He was found guilty by a jury too. Should never have received any compensation.

      • Harriet Bond

        One jury found him guilty, and another jury found him not guilty. Both juries can’t be wrong you say? OK

  • LesleyNZ

    Interesting how the nasty ones end up with nastiness lines etched into their faces.

  • Disinfectant

    I think Robin Bain killed his family, and when David Bain came home and saw what had happened, he then killed his father.

    • LesleyNZ

      Well you would never pass the detective exams.

      • Disinfectant

        Tell us what those exams are like, then I can give you an answer.
        Have you ever considered this hypothesis in light of the evidence?

        • LesleyNZ

          Never – the forensic evidence does not point to Robin Bain so your hypothesis is impossible. Suggest you get a copy of Bryan Bruce’s Investigate programme about the Bain murders. He went through ALL the forensic evidence in the court documents from original trial – line by line. Hearsay is not forensic evidence. The exams are very difficult and require many many hours of study.

        • HR

          Lots of people have, and it just doesn’t stack up. The overwhelming evidence is against David Bain. For an unbiased view, read James McNeish’s “Mask of Sanity”. I have read that several times, along with Karams books on the subject. Karam is slanted and doesn’t really attempt to present any balancing facts. A good site to have a read through is http://www.counterspin.co.nz Good information on there, but it is with the view that David Bain is the killer. As am I.

    • kehua

      So you think it is possible for a middle aged guy to run around the house , kill all of his family bar one and then whack himself without having a pee beforehand, as for your scenario he would have killed his wife, 2 daughters and 2 sons then been confronted by David Bain who took the gun off him and then received a fatal shot and still not emptied out his bladder. Yeah right.

      • Disinfectant

        Yes. Robin Bain had a motive as he had been marginalised and was living in the caravan and there was an allegation of sexual impropriety.
        The injuries could have been received on wrestling with David Bain after being confronted.

        • LesleyNZ

          Actually 3 weeks before he was murdered Robin Bain was talking very positively about his family – he certainly did not feel marginalised at all. So what if he was living in a caravan. He was living there so he could see his children in weekends. As for the sexual impropriety rumour – also rubbish.

          • Huia

            The sexual impropriety was there alright, but the question is why Laniette was so afraid of her brother and would rather stay with her father where she felt safe.

          • LesleyNZ

            Exactly. Her father Robin was very concerned about her welfare and she must have felt safe staying with him. I believe Robin had offered her and her boyfriend the opportunity to live with him at the country school where he was teaching at. I remember in one of programmes about the Bain family when a school friend said she stayed overnight in the Bain house and David displayed really weird and strange behaviour and she felt very uncomfortable. Joe Karam has worked so hard to destroy Robin Bain’s good name in an unconscionable manner.

    • Huia

      So why no blood or fingerprints on and from Robin? How did David have his brothers blood on his clothing when he never even went into the room? How did Robin escape any injuries (with a full bladder) when the fight was on with his strapping young son? (David had them and broken glasses), How did David hear his sister ‘gurgling’ when he was supposed to be out of the house? why did David say ‘they are all dead” when he had only seen his mother and father? why did David after supposedly just discover the bodies then go ahead and put his washing on and wait 3/4 hour before calling 111? Have a look at the evidence with a clear head and there is only one possible answer when you look at the facts only.