Bain verdict: What the public are saying

David Bain and Joe Karam: polarised opinions.

For the 12 people who sat in a Christchurch court room for the last three months listening to testimony, it was clearcut - David Bain was 'not guilty' on all five counts of murder against him in his much publicised retrial.

However, some readers of nzherald.co.nz are not so convinced.

While the jury needed nothing more than clarification of the rule regarding "reasonable doubt" to reach their conclusion in around five hours, contributors to our website were sharply divided on the issue.

In our front page Readers Poll, conducted over the weekend, almost 6000 votes came in with a remarkably small margin between them, when asked the question "who do you think killed the Bain family?"

52 per cent went for David as the culprit, and 48 percent thought Robin was responsible for a murder-suicide on that grim day in 1994.

Currently they are being asked whether David Bain should be paid part of the Bain family inheritance. Early voting is an emphatic "Yes" - to the tune of 77 per cent of people.

The internet messaging site Twitter is proving to be a medium for all sorts of theories, expressed in 140 characters or less. One user this morning suggested "Our David Bain theory: Robin killed the family and David shot Robin when he got back home and saw what his father had done."

As with all tragedies, it doesn't take time for an element of black humour to emerge out of the issue.

Also on Twitter today, Radio New Zealand's Morning Report drew people's attention to an issue which has arisen since the verdict, in this trailer: "Some of David Bain's jurors hugged him and attended his celebrations. Is that proper? Listen after 8am."

His supporters are actively using every vehicle - including, unsurprisingly, Twitter - to advocate Bain's cause: "Donate to the David Bain Fund. Half his life in jail as an innocent man. http://www.davidbainfund.co.nz. Demand compensation for him."

On Facebook the group "David Bain is innocent" had member numbers in three figures - and just to prove the democracy of the internet, its counter-group "David Bain is guilty" boasted similar numbers.

On our platform at nzherald.co.nz for public discussion, Your Views, our moderators could hardly keep apace with the volume of opinions that flooded in, in answer to our question, "Did the jury get the Bain verdict right?"

Silenced in the media for so long due to sub judice laws, many people couldn't wait to vent their pent-up feelings about this most tragic event, which has captured the public imagination as no other criminal case has since that of Arthur Allan Thomas.

A common vein of argument has been criticism of the police's handling of the case:

"It was up to the Crown to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he was guilty, and they couldn't, so he had to be found not guilty. From the evidence I can't say if he is innocent or guilty of the crime, simply because the evidence was not strong enough either way.

"The police, and I believe one officer in particular, made an absolute botchup of collecting the evidence in the very first place and, like in the Scott Watson case, it was easy to try and make the evidence fit someone - in this case David." (CBD of Auckland)

One reader said his take was that David Bain wasn't the one on trial - the police who handled the original Every St crime scene investigation were on trial. "And the clever defence lawyers made a good job of discrediting them," one wrote.

Frances Copland of Wanaka was one who was unimpressed by the jury's much publicised post-trial activity. Her entry summed up the disillusionment felt by several others:

"I understand that the jury could not conclusively say guilty so sadly had to return a not guilty verdict. On reading that some jurors attended the celebrations afterwards and hugged David Bain I am sickened as this to me seems very unethical. A sad day for justice and the members of the murdered family. A good day for silver-tongued lawyers."

Whilst the jury came in for a stream of insults - "incompetent", "IQ test needed", "should be ashamed of themselves", etc - others were perfectly happy to accept their verdict. Their point was that criticism of them, based purely on titbits of information from the trial in the media, and widespread general speculation, is unjustified.

"The jury had access to information not made available to the public, they were educated and I am sure more than capable of reaching the verdict", said Dezma McGregor of New Lynn.

One reader listed the arguments supporting the scenario of Robin killing his family them himself, with more than a subtle touch of sarcasm.

"If Robin did it - in about 15 minutes he had to get dressed, go inside, take off his slippers, find the trigger lock key, load the gun, find David's gloves, shoot his wife, fight and kill his youngest son, and then kill the girls. He then apparently had to go and take off his bloodstained clothes, presumably in the laundry because no blood was found in his caravan, walk back to his caravan in the cold, and put on clean clothes from there, put on slippers. Then he types a note and shoots himself. Amazing. All without peeing from nerves or cold."

And, from Hoodat: "So we're to believe Robin Bain got out of bed, and before he relieved the pressure on his bladder he murdered most of his family, took his socks off and washed them, then contorted himself to commit suicide? Yeah, right."

Damian of Glen Eden saw it this way: "The defence team did a great character assassination of Robin, painting him, wholly on hearsay, as an incestuous paedophile and David as the happy choir boy."

Correspondent Huia Gold Coast had no doubt about the accused's innocence.

"The police got this one wrong and whether he was fitted up because he was a convenient scapegoat at the time who knows? Only the Police can determine that.

"The jury this time got it right. Joe Karam is a great guy and deserves to be knighted for sure. Not many people would have done what he did.
Under stress people do all sorts of strange things and who knows how you would react if it happened to your family. Those who still insist on his guilt, all I can say is get a life."

And AJ of Invercargill spent a contented weekend, pleased at the outcome: "A long overdue verdict of not guilty,the investigation of the crime scene the procedure into the investigation a travesty of justice that has curtailed a young man's life, at long last the true and only verdict that could be reached. Justice is now seen to be done."

Joe Karam's involvement polarised many. There were those, like Huia, who considered his contribution as "selfless" and deserving of a mention in the next Honours list. Others viewed the former All Black's motives more cynically.

"Karam's involvement has only done harm. Yesterday upon leaving the Court he declared (I'm paraphrasing) "I couldn't have continued in this fight without David". For Karam, this is a person crusade and David is almost secondary to it. It is about his credibility, his legitimacy. Why didn't he let David speak yesterday?"

"From the way Joe Karam has been talking and acting, one couldn't help but think he was the one on trial in this case," - bubble wrap of Auckland.

"Well, now we know that New Zealanders would rather trust a washed-up All Black than a forensic scientist. Why am I not surprised?", wrote Bemused of Warkworth.

Let's leave the final comment to one whose personal belief system leads them to the conclusion that ultimately David's fate will be decided not by those 12 Canterbury jurors, but by the other powers:

"David Bain will have his day - when he meets his maker."