What do you think?
Rate this book
Trial by Ambush: The Prosecutions of David Bain
A fresh look at the trials of David Bain, presenting a fair and objective appraisal of the facts that led to his release from prison in 2009. At 7.09 a.m. on 20 June 1994, David Bain called emergency services and reported finding his entire family of five dead. A year later he was convicted of having murdered them in cold blood, with determination and cunning. He was sentenced to life in prison. However, after 12 years of public controversy, inquiries and appeals, on 10 May 2007 the Privy Council concluded that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and accordingly quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial. For the first time the background to this historic decision is laid bare. this compelling new book explores why the miscarriage happened, just how substantial it actually was and why it took 12 years to right this dreadful wrong. When the evidence heard by both juries is on the table and assimilated in logical fashion as Joe Karam has done in this detailed narrative, the so-called controversy posed by the judge in his summing up - 'Who did it? David Bain? Robin Bain?' - will be put to rest once and for all.
448 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2012
About the author
Joe Karam
3 booksKaram was born in Taumarunui to a Lebanese father and an Irish mother. He grew up on the family farm near Raurimu and attended St. Patrick's College, Silverstream.
He is a New Zealand former representative rugby footballer who played for the All Blacks. After retiring from rugby, he became a businessman. However, he is most notable for waging a successful 15-year campaign to have David Bain's convictions for murder overturned, and a subsequent campaign seeking compensation for him.
He has written four books about the Bain Case.
abridged from Wikipedia.
He is a New Zealand former representative rugby footballer who played for the All Blacks. After retiring from rugby, he became a businessman. However, he is most notable for waging a successful 15-year campaign to have David Bain's convictions for murder overturned, and a subsequent campaign seeking compensation for him.
He has written four books about the Bain Case.
abridged from Wikipedia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 16, 2021
Having recently read Martin van Beynen's ‘Black Hands – Inside the Bain Family Murders’ - I made a further effort to finish Joe Karam’s ‘Trial by Ambush – The Prosecutions of David Bain’, having read the author’s previous books 'David and Goliath', 'Bain and Beyond' and 'Innocent – Seven Critical Flaws in the Conviction of David Bain'. I have also read ‘Mask of Sanity’ by James McNeish.
First of all it’s perhaps unfortunate that the title of this latest book by Karam shares that with an excellent one by Pat Booth on Arthur Allan Thomas’s conviction of the murder of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe in the 1970’s. The two cases bear no resemblance, the circumstances are totally different and the conviction in that case was secured largely on the back of planted evidence by Police – nothing of the sort happened in the Bain Family murders despite unproven and some would say desperate claims to the contrary promulgated by Joe Karam in his first book David and Goliath.
Based on this book it is hard to tell whether the ‘trial by ambush’ Karam is claiming could apply any more to the first trial than the second and rather than taking an objective account of the circumstances and the claims made from either side this gives every appearance of quickly becoming very selective in its summarising accounts and court quotes to support the case for David Bain and dismissing out of hand anything that may point to his culpability with the murders and conversly does not implicate his father Robin – ironically the very sort of selective approach Karam accuses the Police throughout. As early as page 13 of the book Karam claims “... life had been busy and normal for David Bain ... a member of a loving if disorganised family ...”, which sets the scene somewhat for David and Karam is generally very critical of anyone who he thinks has a contrary view from thereon in.
But what is important here is that Robin Bain was not the one on trial and yet much of what is recounted in this book supports only those claims and alleged evidence against Robin. Even the court case by virtue of the very quotes in this book follow a course as if Robin Bain was on trial and not David. Furthermore the trial judge at the first trial commenced his summing up by saying “David Bain or Robin Bain” which was prejudicial to Robin bearing in mind he was not charged nor was he on trial and additionally had no formal defense, so it was simply a matter – and as much should have been said – that that the jury’s task was simply to determine whether David was guilty beyond reasonable doubt and emphasised that it is not Robin who was on trial.
Similarly during the second trial many of the questions by counsel for the defense were as if Robin was on trial and if this questioning was to be permitted then Robin – particularly in his absence – should arguably have had equal representation to David in some form; perhaps being represented by a barrister who was able to question and challenge the witnesses called by the defense when implicating Robin if it was to be a contest between David and Robin. In other words where was Robin’s representation? Unfortunately in Karam’s book the Crown witnesses’ answers on Robin are also often glossed over and in some cases only dismissive reference is made to the questions and response from the Crown.
In fact much of the tone of the questioning by defense counsel if Karam’s book is anything to go by sounds cringingly like an amateurish school production – and we see this often on television news items as well of court cases in NZ – designed to catch out witnesses rather than make a genuine and reasonable attempt to get to the crux of the matter and provide something that can genuinely help the jury. What one can conclude is that the adversarial approach of the court process when it comes across in this fashion is seriously flawed and the jury is somehow expected to pick up the pieces and arrive at a clear and accurate verdict.
And herein lies perhaps the problem illustrated clearly by Karam. If ever there was a case of paralysis by analysis this is a classic example and how one can expect a jury of “peers” to correctly interpret all the contrary evidence by experts in their various fields and arrive at some intelligent understanding is to have faith in the jury system which in the modern age of forensics, expert opinions and counter opinions is fraught with complications. Whose opinions do you accept and whose do you don’t – and on what basis do you make this decision? Even Karam himself in two examples in this book – one on witnesses relating to the paper run and secondly regarding blood on the rifle – has taken the word of one witness over two others and if viewed objectively arguably either could be right, so how is a jury supposed to decide?
And on top of this, as mentioned above, the jury has not been able to listen to any specific defense with regard to claims made against Robin so these have not been challenged to the same degree as the alleged evidence against David, so what they have in choosing between the two is radically compromised. If the first trial was a debacle, then the coroner in deciding who is responsible for the family’s deaths after this more recent debacle can surely only say at best after all this “not established”.
Karam goes one step further in this book by effectively putting Robin Bain on trial in a kangaroo court of his own in the final chapters by giving an array of statistics on familiacide in an attempt to reinforce his own opinion (once again unable to be defended of course), followed up by witnesses accounts of Robin under a chapter titled psychological “evidence”. Here opinions are given by people who sort of new him or met him sometimes only once (including a meter reader at the school and a photocopier technician no less), none of whom presented any qualifications or psychological training, and quite extraordinarily there is one account of a former friend of Margaret Bain explaining what Margaret had said some years earlier – one thing we know for sure is the Margaret thought her husband was Beelzebub.
By contrast the chapter on the psychological evidence of David has the benefit of various experts with all sorts of impressive qualifications giving in selected terms a favourable account of David – generally saying things like “very likeable and approachable”, being a “very impressive singer with a very good voice” and “a high level of social and interpersonal skills”. Joe Karam himself eventually and perhaps tellingly states that “most people realise that David is innocent almost instantaneously on meeting”. Of course none of these experts or Joe Karam himself had never met Robin Bain let alone done or had refernce to any psychological assessment so once again Robin’s situation is totally compromised.
I must admit I was looking for a silver bullet here but what I found was plenty of selective evidence and dismissive comments when it came to any alleged evidence that did not favour David. What I did find was a lot a repetition together with personal comments, with the objective of the book a little unclear given that the outcome of the Court trial is now known and the transcripts are available to anyone who wants to delve further into this, but with this he has given the opportunity for the debate to continue, as it has with the more recent book by Martin van Beynen.
All that can be concluded from this and contrary accounts is that only David knows what happened that June morning in Dunedin in 1994; to the rest of us the events of that morning and weekend leading up to this remain unclear, parts of the police investigation and Crown case were indeed flawed, our judicial system clearly in cases such as this is not up to the task, our adversarial system and its ability to attack someone who is not even represented is also in itself a failing, we have a system that is based too much on winning rather than finding out the clear and unquailifed truth, and if I had a case like this where I knew I was innocent I wouldn’t go anywhere near a jury.
Finally, it is unfortunate that the foreword to this book is provided by Julian Miles QC in which he calls the book remarkable, but most telling is his comment as to how institutions can fail to meet their obligations to ensure a fair and dispassionate trial. Some may argue that at the top of that list if the two Bain trials are anything to go by is our current legal and judiciary system, of which Julian Miles is a part, and as a consequence we still do not know who received justice in this case and who didn’t … except the rest of the Bain family - they certainly didn’t.
First of all it’s perhaps unfortunate that the title of this latest book by Karam shares that with an excellent one by Pat Booth on Arthur Allan Thomas’s conviction of the murder of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe in the 1970’s. The two cases bear no resemblance, the circumstances are totally different and the conviction in that case was secured largely on the back of planted evidence by Police – nothing of the sort happened in the Bain Family murders despite unproven and some would say desperate claims to the contrary promulgated by Joe Karam in his first book David and Goliath.
Based on this book it is hard to tell whether the ‘trial by ambush’ Karam is claiming could apply any more to the first trial than the second and rather than taking an objective account of the circumstances and the claims made from either side this gives every appearance of quickly becoming very selective in its summarising accounts and court quotes to support the case for David Bain and dismissing out of hand anything that may point to his culpability with the murders and conversly does not implicate his father Robin – ironically the very sort of selective approach Karam accuses the Police throughout. As early as page 13 of the book Karam claims “... life had been busy and normal for David Bain ... a member of a loving if disorganised family ...”, which sets the scene somewhat for David and Karam is generally very critical of anyone who he thinks has a contrary view from thereon in.
But what is important here is that Robin Bain was not the one on trial and yet much of what is recounted in this book supports only those claims and alleged evidence against Robin. Even the court case by virtue of the very quotes in this book follow a course as if Robin Bain was on trial and not David. Furthermore the trial judge at the first trial commenced his summing up by saying “David Bain or Robin Bain” which was prejudicial to Robin bearing in mind he was not charged nor was he on trial and additionally had no formal defense, so it was simply a matter – and as much should have been said – that that the jury’s task was simply to determine whether David was guilty beyond reasonable doubt and emphasised that it is not Robin who was on trial.
Similarly during the second trial many of the questions by counsel for the defense were as if Robin was on trial and if this questioning was to be permitted then Robin – particularly in his absence – should arguably have had equal representation to David in some form; perhaps being represented by a barrister who was able to question and challenge the witnesses called by the defense when implicating Robin if it was to be a contest between David and Robin. In other words where was Robin’s representation? Unfortunately in Karam’s book the Crown witnesses’ answers on Robin are also often glossed over and in some cases only dismissive reference is made to the questions and response from the Crown.
In fact much of the tone of the questioning by defense counsel if Karam’s book is anything to go by sounds cringingly like an amateurish school production – and we see this often on television news items as well of court cases in NZ – designed to catch out witnesses rather than make a genuine and reasonable attempt to get to the crux of the matter and provide something that can genuinely help the jury. What one can conclude is that the adversarial approach of the court process when it comes across in this fashion is seriously flawed and the jury is somehow expected to pick up the pieces and arrive at a clear and accurate verdict.
And herein lies perhaps the problem illustrated clearly by Karam. If ever there was a case of paralysis by analysis this is a classic example and how one can expect a jury of “peers” to correctly interpret all the contrary evidence by experts in their various fields and arrive at some intelligent understanding is to have faith in the jury system which in the modern age of forensics, expert opinions and counter opinions is fraught with complications. Whose opinions do you accept and whose do you don’t – and on what basis do you make this decision? Even Karam himself in two examples in this book – one on witnesses relating to the paper run and secondly regarding blood on the rifle – has taken the word of one witness over two others and if viewed objectively arguably either could be right, so how is a jury supposed to decide?
And on top of this, as mentioned above, the jury has not been able to listen to any specific defense with regard to claims made against Robin so these have not been challenged to the same degree as the alleged evidence against David, so what they have in choosing between the two is radically compromised. If the first trial was a debacle, then the coroner in deciding who is responsible for the family’s deaths after this more recent debacle can surely only say at best after all this “not established”.
Karam goes one step further in this book by effectively putting Robin Bain on trial in a kangaroo court of his own in the final chapters by giving an array of statistics on familiacide in an attempt to reinforce his own opinion (once again unable to be defended of course), followed up by witnesses accounts of Robin under a chapter titled psychological “evidence”. Here opinions are given by people who sort of new him or met him sometimes only once (including a meter reader at the school and a photocopier technician no less), none of whom presented any qualifications or psychological training, and quite extraordinarily there is one account of a former friend of Margaret Bain explaining what Margaret had said some years earlier – one thing we know for sure is the Margaret thought her husband was Beelzebub.
By contrast the chapter on the psychological evidence of David has the benefit of various experts with all sorts of impressive qualifications giving in selected terms a favourable account of David – generally saying things like “very likeable and approachable”, being a “very impressive singer with a very good voice” and “a high level of social and interpersonal skills”. Joe Karam himself eventually and perhaps tellingly states that “most people realise that David is innocent almost instantaneously on meeting”. Of course none of these experts or Joe Karam himself had never met Robin Bain let alone done or had refernce to any psychological assessment so once again Robin’s situation is totally compromised.
I must admit I was looking for a silver bullet here but what I found was plenty of selective evidence and dismissive comments when it came to any alleged evidence that did not favour David. What I did find was a lot a repetition together with personal comments, with the objective of the book a little unclear given that the outcome of the Court trial is now known and the transcripts are available to anyone who wants to delve further into this, but with this he has given the opportunity for the debate to continue, as it has with the more recent book by Martin van Beynen.
All that can be concluded from this and contrary accounts is that only David knows what happened that June morning in Dunedin in 1994; to the rest of us the events of that morning and weekend leading up to this remain unclear, parts of the police investigation and Crown case were indeed flawed, our judicial system clearly in cases such as this is not up to the task, our adversarial system and its ability to attack someone who is not even represented is also in itself a failing, we have a system that is based too much on winning rather than finding out the clear and unquailifed truth, and if I had a case like this where I knew I was innocent I wouldn’t go anywhere near a jury.
Finally, it is unfortunate that the foreword to this book is provided by Julian Miles QC in which he calls the book remarkable, but most telling is his comment as to how institutions can fail to meet their obligations to ensure a fair and dispassionate trial. Some may argue that at the top of that list if the two Bain trials are anything to go by is our current legal and judiciary system, of which Julian Miles is a part, and as a consequence we still do not know who received justice in this case and who didn’t … except the rest of the Bain family - they certainly didn’t.
June 18, 2012
Very readable, and as I have followed this case over the last few years, fascinating!
How did police fail to collect vital forensic samples? How could they allow the crime scene to be electively burned down without preserving more evidence? Why did they not have all the forensic samples they did collect tested? Why did they conceal or fail to disclose evidence that did not help the prosecution case? Why did they order the samples to be destroyed after only a few years when there were appeals against the verdict being lodged? Why are David Bain's extended family allowed to keep his inheritance now that he has been acquitted?
All in all, not Dunedin police's finest hour.
How did police fail to collect vital forensic samples? How could they allow the crime scene to be electively burned down without preserving more evidence? Why did they not have all the forensic samples they did collect tested? Why did they conceal or fail to disclose evidence that did not help the prosecution case? Why did they order the samples to be destroyed after only a few years when there were appeals against the verdict being lodged? Why are David Bain's extended family allowed to keep his inheritance now that he has been acquitted?
All in all, not Dunedin police's finest hour.
January 17, 2018
I’m officially DNF’ing this after months of trying to finish it, repeatedly borrowing it from the library. Despite my fascination with the subject matter, Karam completely fails to make it interesting, and his clear bias in favor of Bain is everywhere.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews