That hate-siters: the biggest fail so far.

People will recall when the hate-siters were celebrating a petition that was going to reach 20,000 signatures against David Bain being paid compensation, also the congratulatory forecasts that David wouldn't even 'dare' apply for compensation. At around the same time was the praising of an anticipated book by former Detective Weir who knew 'everything' about the case and taunts mocking Joe Karam's failure to write a promised book on the successful retrial.

The idea of the petition has come and gone without any progress being made, David has indeed applied for compensation, Weir's book has been put off so many times, apparently for legal reasons, that we may never see it. While of course 'Trial by Ambush' Karam's book has been published. In the 3 months or so since publication not one issue has been made about the contents of the book, not one commentator or reviewer has been able to sustain any negative aspect about the validity of the book. Yes, there have been some comment but only to do with writing style, and the way the book moves forward and back in time. As to the former, the writing style has been criticised as scholarly or reading like a lawyer was the author. That observation in itself, and I believe Paul Holmes was critical of it in that way and how long it took to write, totally overlooks that Karam is seeped in 'legalise' and has been for nearly two decades. He should in fact be considered for an Honorary Doctorate in Law such has been his contribution to Justice in NZ. Perhaps Joe might have been able to adopt a more casual over the fence type voice but that wouldn't have altered the most important thing - the content of the book that showed David as innocent and Robin as guilty.

I wasn't distracted by the choice of voice at all and any critic would not the subject matter, a familicide,  hardly be discussion at the breakfast table stuff in anyway. As for the time it took to produce, more nonsense, when considering the in depth information canvassed, also the likely reason for the need to transverse forward and  backing with time. Overall, there will likely be other books written about the Bain tragedy and they will without exception use 'Trial by Ambush' as main source material because apart from the extensive trial transcript there is no more comprehensive source of information about the Every Street massacre. But my interest was first to read the book, perhaps looking for flaws in the narrative, but to then wait for criticism as to its factual authenticity and there is none, nor do I think there will ever be that stands scrutiny.

Looking into the hate-sites recently, and this just shows how backward they and their members are, discussion still centres around whether or not David was stripped searched the day of the murders. Yes, approaching 16 years after the fact, and with no evidence to the contrary from the trial transcript, the hate-siters cannot accept that David was strip searched and no scratches were found on his chest - one of aged claims to prove his guilt. I wonder whey it is necessary to disregard the truth when forming an opinion, possibly only because the truth in the Bain case is that a innocent man was falsely imprisoned and when freed became the target of hate-groups. It's boggling to some degree that anybody can hold a view that his not sustained by fact, and then publicly vilify somebody using lies. It's shameful that it happens in NZ, not that people have opinions but that some people (a small few thankfully) use lies and to persecute a victim of injustice. That view is compounded because the hate-siters have had access to the book for 3 months, but none can challenge the truth of it - yet that doesn't turn them away from their cause. I do admit however that it is clear the book has rattled them, right up to their demi-god Martin Van Beynan who is exposed now for what he didn't report to the public in being at the trial 'for almost every minute.'

Before closing, I repeat that I believe ex DC Weir could write a very interesting book on the Bain case. Particularly if he chose to be up front about the truth of the investigation, why Robin wasn't investigated, what happened to Laniet's diary, who might have been seen to have had things to lose if Robin was investigated or the full extent of Laniet's clients were known. The point really now is that is the real hidden story, but not so hidden that it is unknown, but more to the extent that it hasn't been written frankly about by one, or some of those involved. It seems to me that there was a lot of embarrassment saved some members of the Dunedin police by the fact Robin was investigated, and if that's not the case - let's here the truth, before the Bain case drifts off into the land where Arthur Thomas found himself and where his ex wife Vivian arrived and was unable to leave right to the point of her recent death.

As for the title of 'Trial by Ambush,' although it might not have been intended, clearly the 'ambush' of the truth on the unsuspecting police and Crown in the retrial was unprecedented in NZ history. We discovered a veritable horror story, just one example now: the question to David 'can you explain how your fingerprints were found on the rifle in blood.' When the truth is they were never found in blood and an innocent man was being asked to explain something that hadn't happened, only to be criticised for it at a trial where false evidence of blood was offered. That's the story I want to know now, why ex DS Doyle allowed the inquiry to be steered away from Robin completely while David was beset with false evidence and asked to disprove it. The book answered a lot of my question, and while I know there has been a lot evidence suppressed about Robin, which I imagine David, has not sought to have revealed - but I would still like to know if Robin was subjected to the same invasive tests, that were performed on his son, while Robin lay dead on the ground without underwear and what the results of those test were if taken.