Joe Karam wins against the hate-sites.

The word hate-sites continues to grate with some who observe that the JFRB groups and Counterspin were established to get 'Justice' for Robin Bain.  The subject of Justice for Robin is emotive at the very least, such calls overlook the fact that something in excess of 15 million dollars has been spent defending Robin on the basis that David was guilty. It is the Prosecuting authorities in the Bain case who have represented Robin and failed to produce a case in his defence by proving to the satisfaction of a Jury that it was David, not Robin, who was guilty of the deaths of the Bain family beyond a reasonable doubt. This 'cry' for Justice was misguided from the outset because New Zealand Law had functioned as it should, the person The Crown considered was guilty was tried and The Crown insisted that the killer of the family could only be Robin or David.

Even before David's retrial the internet was ablaze with all sorts of unsubstantiated claims of David's guilt, that he had received psychiatric care, that he was lazy and unhappy with his life, it was even claimed that he was guilty of incest. In short what would never come out in Court because it wasn't true would be spread through the internet by the disciples of hate in order that the real 'truth' go out, and hopefully to any prospective Jurors long before the trial. One person who I have named before had even 'seen' photos of scratches to David's chest that 'must have' resulted from a fight with Stephen, his younger deceased brother. Of course the photos were never produced, indeed the Doctor who examined David found no such marks on his chest. When I first noticed this stuff on Trade Me I was surprised. New to the internet I was somewhat shocked that such allegations could be posted without sanction. When I happened along I was at first greeted by the sisters (as I later named them) as someone who could be influenced to their cause. However after reading the Privy Council decision I was far from convinced and anything I questioned resulted in unsatisfactory answers that didn't ring true or resonant as realistic. I asked about both (David and Robin's) hands and was told the lie that Robin's were clean of blood and had no damage. Soon the mood turned against me, I guess I became the enemy because I wouldn't accept that which made no sense.

Some of the rest of that story is history. I started to complain to TM after the re-trial that the sisters continued to freely call David a murderer despite that he had been found guilty. I knew full well that in the print media rules applied to such comments and they wouldn't be allowed. Eventually I was banned and then a campaign was started against myself and my family the tail of which continues to be mopped up. It was in this background that I felt I had to resist. A common theme was 'free speech.' The sisters demanded that their hate spiel be viewed as free speech while all the time doing everything possible to silence their critics to the point of threats and stalking. Rather than further that conversation I should revert to the context of the sisters position it was to do harm to David Bain, Joe Karam and anybody who stood in their way. This wasn't a matter of debate or truth,

Rather it was evil at work mostly perpetuated by older folk keen to avenge being unhappy or lonely it seems - in much the same way Robin was late in his lfe. In such an environment they were accepted, comments they made too bizarre to be true were accepted without question. None sanction others as they set about 'investigating' and denigrating the Jury, witnesses or simply those that disagreed with them and their motives. None challenged those that stalked or threatened families, particularly children as though they were collateral and not real beings or simply those that should be protected from a vitriolic hatred. There were major 'leaks,' in fact a whole web site was made accessible by it's owner through google ads and copied. The contents showed the inner workings of the minds of these individuals as they plotted to claim David had confessed and other such rubbish, not least who their targets were and how they would be dealt with. All of this of course in the name of 'Justice for Robin Bain.' It appears none were able to connect that Justice for anybody is not achieved by the proliferation of lies and threats against others.

Joe Karam of course stood against this, and in the right way - he took his case to the Courts. One after another the big respondents settled, Fairfax, NZ Herald, Trade Me etc it was only the bewildered Kent Parker who 'defended' himself after his co-defendant having proved his sincerity to the cause of Justice for Robin Bain by fleeing. Interesting to note here that much of what populates Kent Parker's mind and that of his followers was projected onto Karam, David Bain and other supporters of the two. For example the allegations of incest against Robin were spread to David. As was the fact Kent Parker himself detained as a mental health patient became an allegation that David had spent time in psychiatric care in Australia. Even the reports of a young Arawa Bain telling a friend of her father placing his fingers inside her were described as a matter of fact, common event of fathers to daughters by a Palmerston North man who posts bitterly against anyone not accepting that Robin is innocent - such projection tells more of the man himself than answering the allegation made against Robin. This, the same man who wrote to police for details of David's strip search and 'released' the details, which however did not match what was contained in released documentation obtained under the Official Information Act, The same man who expressed some petulance at not being allowed to be involved in the Compensation Claim by David and who offered to 'review' Binnie's report. Of course this was all denied, as is everything denied by the sisters and even when the paperwork is referred to they switch to another subject of the case. Parker's fragile mind is an interesting point, I was able to pick by reading his correspondence, being reasonable at times then switching to a polar opposite view in a heartbeat. But more interest is those that surrounded him, it says more about their judgement and character that they either could not discern Kent's mental health struggles, or chose to ignore them without cautionary warnings as to where associating with his crusade might lead. The answer to that is fairly simple, they're all as mad as one another - the reason why the numbers of hate-site members continued to fall as though some emerged from an intoxicating belief that they were right and everyone that didn't agree with them was wrong.

They did not exit in style however. Those that had promised Kent financial help abandoned the idea and only a few such as the Palmerston North child abuse apologist had thick enough skin to imagine that his relationship with Kent was sustained despite the apologist not fronting with the promised money. On the same man, and if it's to his credit (surely something must be) agree to give written testimony in support of Kent only to have it rejected as irrelevant. Another example of how a million words, promises or questions have been unable to cut to the question of Robin's blood stained hands in relation to the deaths of his family, or in fact the allegations against Karam of being corrupt or only after money. Justice Courtney has dismissed those allegations now without a word needed from the gas bag from Palmerston North, a man who interestingly enough was found to have made a third person published statement that defamed Karam. Where that may lead is interesting because on the face of it he is liable because a High Court Judgement has declared his statement defamatory.

I've read a number of comments about disappointment with the Courtney Judgement in that she didn't take a 'global' view of the individual accusations of defamation, but looked at them singularly. That criticism isn't correct to my mind, because Courtney referred to 'ill will.' Those words encompass a 'global view' in the way that my previous post criticised the Court of Appeal for not being able to see that there was 'ill will' at work in the Bryan Bruce documentary where he discussed the emotive subject of 'defamation' of Robin Bain along side suggestions that Daryl Young had not been truthful on a peripheral matter in evidence given at the trial. Those peripherals are the forte of Bruce and the 'crime reporter' Van Beynan, who after years of writing on the Bain case are yet to explain why they didn't make it clear that David had no scratches on his chest when examined by the police doctor hours after the murder, or how Robin Bain came to have blood smears on the palms of his hands, a towel soaked with his own blood in the laundry, and his dna discovered deep inside the rifle highly likely proving the suction effect of suicide by gunshot wound to the head. They were more interested in who was on the Jury, such is the standard of the analysis given the Bain case and the popular fuel feed to the hate-sites as a result. It could be argued that the hate-sites might never have fostered members if Van Beynan for example had been truthful about the condition of Robin's hands and his blood in the laundry and in the rifle barrel - even the slower members of the community of the hate-siters group could not have lied about facets of the case had they been reported faithfully, and by literal importance by Van Beynan. That the hate-sites claimed having the confidence of Van Beynan and supported him in Jury hunt for which he was warned by the Justice Department shows how fundamental Van Beynan was to the attacks on Karam.

The role of Van Beynan and Bruce give a full scope picture of  the mentality of the hate-siters. Examples of this are that when Bruce claimed that the door on a certain van was in a different place that what Daryl Young had said - the hate-sites immediately stretched that to meaning David was guilty. It never would occur to them that the position of a door on a van didn't explain why Robin had marks likely to have been from loading the magazine on his hands, an example of pointless evidence from the extreme edge overcoming (at least in the mind of the deluded) hard forensic evidence against Robin. That Van Beynan appears to have overlooked publishing such critical evidence, appears to show an effort to foster public opinion against Karam and David Bain. Briefly returning to the 'projection' mentioned above, when Parker gave a description of Karam as an insight into his character it now prevails that it was close to the psychiatric picture mirrored by Parkers own need for psychiatric care. So too the propagandist claim of Karam as being Nazi like is revealed by Parker himself under cross examination to have been exactly his own tactics and not Karams.

Another unfortunate 'common' characteristic of the hate-siters is how many of them are or were members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. This was shown by the 'leaked' website hosted by Annette Curran who has incidentally changed her name and looks to be heading her life in another more fruitful and less hateful direction. Because the SST has been declared an agency over which one Act of Parliament applies, and with the likelihood of a 2nd Act also applying there is sure to be more official investigation into those links and any law breaking which may have followed.

In the meantime congratulations to Karam and Michael Reed for the unfortunate but ultimately role they were cast into defending against liars and charlatans. It seems to me that the Courtney Judgement is a fundamental finding that indeed favors free speech and sets a lawful chart into the waters of the internet. More on that later.

Joe Karam: The cost of winning.

No one would ever legitimately accuse Joe Karam of not walking his own path. He demonstrated that during his sports career, leaving behind his All Black jumper to etch out an opportunity in professional league. A situation at the time that was unorthodox at the least, breaking all the considered rules of the old war between the popularity of rugby and league, courting outrage that an All Black would 'cross over' for money. In that respect he was a trend setter, years before his time, years before rugby would become the professional sport it is today. In a country were rugby is the national sport Karam's desertion was seen by some as a treachery of the codes, a retreat from everything that rugby was to be measured in terms of national pride.

Something lingers in the nz psyche that rejects walking away, not seeing a job through, hanging in there with your mates no matter the cost. Could it be the barbarism of survival in the lonely isles, relying on one another even without communication, but most of all having others know they can rely on you when the chips are well and truly down. Did Karam display to the nation, where All Blacks are all dominant heroes, that he couldn't be trusted, that he would walk away when the pressure was on. However Joe Karam is judged now, it will never be as someone that will walk away. He has admitted in his writing of being a bit of a 'red neck', conservative in other words and of the 'lock em up and throw away the key mentality.' That was who he was before the Bain case engulfed him, pro authority, possibly even subservient to the belief that Justice in New Zealand is what is fair and right. A person comforted by the safety of our own society, by its laws and administration of the law.

He has written about his surprise that the police didn't simply accept the faults Karam observed in the Crown case against David Bain, that they effectively shut up shop on him ex Al Black or not, they closed ranks. More than anything else Karam's efforts on behalf of David Bain showed the public that there is something amiss inside the 'system' a total aversion to acknowledging fault, an unwillingness to consider fault in anyway and a historical defence of 'shutting up shop' rather than observing a problem - simply denying that there is one. Eventually, if the point is pushed, attacking the inquirer.

There are many ironies in the Bain case that will ensure it will be studied for decades to come. One obvious feature is that a man without legal qualification unpicked a deliberate miscarriage of justice, found one or two things that didn't make sense or add up and followed them until the things that made no logical sense outweighed the few that did. But there are far more subtle points of interest for students of the case horrified that Robin Bain was never investigated, all evidence which pointed to him, or which may have pointed to him had it been investigated, was ignored. A main suspect in a murder case was ignored, along with evidence which showed he was the killer. That brings me to one of the bizarre features not much in the public mind: when the police association laid charges of defamation against Joe Karam on behalf of 2 officers they set about investigating Karam. Investigating everything they could about his personal and business life, by my message Joe Karam was the 2nd most investigated person in the Bain case and he wasn't even a suspect. But what he did wrong was not walking away when it was made clear to him which way the wind was blowing and it wasn't blowing toward getting to the truth of the Bain murders/suicide, it was getting Karam to be a 'good chap' and shut up.

When thinking about the police reaction to Karam ask yourself a question, how do you react to the suggestion that you are wrong or might be wrong? With anger, with denial, or by considering your position on the thing that you may be wrong about? A reasonable person does the later. A police officer must do the later because that his duty, to the truth, not to denial. By then of course the police were performing what some might consider Karam didn't do with his All Black career, they were closing things down and sticking together, edging forward in the ruck, maintaining position. But of course a man falsely held in prison is no game of rugby, no game at all. Worse thing for police might be was that Karam wouldn't fold, that he wasn't some nosey reporter, or determined lawyer working for a bad guy, as much as anything he was Joe Public with the heart not to walk away when pressured.

From records of the case in and out of Court we can assume the relationship between Karam and the police was down hill from when he wouldn't back off. Now, that isn't the function of the police to become partisan at any point, the police don't have a 'them and us' role with the public, they are servants of the public, sworn to uphold the law by oath. But what we saw demonstrated was the very thing to be most fearful of in a free society, a system capable of being blind to the truth on the basis of loyalty to itself, rather than those to whom it is sworn to protect who ever, the person. or persons might be.

I titled this 'The cost of winning.' I say the cost is ours, we share the cost with Joe Karam whether we like him or not, consider him to a good guy or a pain in the arse, his concerns should be our concerns. His venture into the system is by proxy our venture into the system, his effort to find the truth is the obligation of us all. I've read people say that if you were falsely convicted you'd love to have the help of a Joe Karam, that might be true but isn't the true message we want to see is that the system will react without self-protection, act by way of its duty. What Joe thought might be sorted out in a few hours by showing the results of his investigations to senior police is surely where the public expect these things to be sorted, not a decade or 2 later. Look at the stick with your mates cliché, look closely at it and think about sticking with the truth and who you would most want in the hour of need, the truth or the man sworn to uphold it looking away. That is the lesson here and all other cases of miscarriages of justice.