MARTIN VAN BEYEN - DomPost - 18/02/2012
OPINION: I concede
from the outset that I am not exactly open-minded about Joe Karam's new book on
the Bain case, Trial by Ambush (HarperCollins).
To address this individual bias I have strived mightily to look at this book fairly. However, anyone who knows this case will, in my view, spot some shortcomings.
Karam makes no claim to have written an even-handed book on the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution and the defence. But neither is there any effort to explain that he has devoted the last 15 years of his life to free Bain and therefore has a tremendous stake in convincing the public he has not wasted his time.
There is no doubt Karam has produced a persuasive book. It is well written, if somewhat repetitive, and very well edited. But it is only one side of the story and, in my view, an over-hyped one at that. Trial by Ambush is simply the defence case for David Bain written by a man with a visceral interest in being right.
Karam writes in a lawyerly way so that you could be reading the case for Bain's compensation claim, which is currently under consideration by retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie. The outraged personal tone of his first book, David and Goliath (1997), is replaced by a more measured Karam who says things like: "It is irresistible to refrain from the conclusion ..."
This might be because he has lived to regret some of his stronger statements. In David and Goliath, he writes, "I have no doubt that, if the blood staining on Robin's clothing had been analysed for blood grouping, it would have been found to be the blood of the deceased members of his family." The blood was analysed and it was all Robin's blood.
From the book we don't get an idea of what motivated Karam or the personal cost to him and his family. Where does his never-say-die pugnaciousness come from? Neither does the book contain a whisper from David Bain. Surely, aside from giving evidence at the retrial, Truth by Ambush was an opportunity for Bain to have his say and to inject some life into the book.
Another feature is the constant sanitisation of David Bain (who is 40 in March) as he was at the age of 22 in Dunedin. Karam describes him as busy and normal with a budding career as a classical singer and surrounded by a loving if disorganised family.
Full piece at DomPost.
7 comments:
I doubt VanBeynen is capable of providing an objective account of the books and I can' for the life of me see why he bothers. Isn't he the guy that was told to leave the jury members alone because he was hassling them, the same one who turned up at Karam's room in the early hours of the morning? Hardly the tactics of a reputable person.
This is a good & judicious review, and I totally agree with Martin's summation.
I wont bother to buy this latest effort by Joe Karam-
Carol Arden - do you have any evidence of your extremely serious accusations?
These are actually culpable-and I do have a lawyer who is prepared to call you on these-
Everything that Carol Arden states
is true. The first part can be found
on the nzherald site.
For an excellent review of the book from prominent lawyer Dr Don Mathias
go to http://donmathias.wordpress.com/
I have no interest in a review written by someone so biased against the subject.
As I have been mentioned in this discussion, could I perhaps make a comment? I am sorry to be in conflict with Martin van Beynen, of whom I have fond memories from law school and working at CRACCUM at Auckland University. Still, vigorous debate is one of life's pleasures, and need not lead to acrimony. I am always open to persuasion that I am wrong, and if someone can rebut Karam's latest book they should do so.
Much of the prosecution evidence in the case could be interpreted either way, favouring the defence if you want to doubt it, and the prosecution if you want to accept it. Evidence that is reasonably open to interpretation either way has no probative value for either side. I say "evidence" because we have to sort out the boundaries of the debate. Do we include things that people now say that they could or should have said at the trial, or do we just focus on what was the evidence at the retrial?
I think it is fairer to focus only on the evidence at the retrial. This is because that information was subject to scrutiny by each side and by the judge and the jury. Anyone can come along later and claim to have additional information, but how do we decide how much faith to place on it? People can say they were misunderstood at the trial, but that was the time for them to make themselves clear, and if they did not, how do we assess the reliability of what they now say?
One thing Martin finds significant is Robin's alleged change of clothing after what the defence say were his acts of killing. To make that sort of point one would need to know how often people who commit suicide do so in their best (or at least their respectable) clothes. That requires statistical analysis of whatever information is available in reputable studies. It is not sufficient simply to think it unlikely, if there is information that could be unearthed about that likelihood.
I have no idea what the statistical information would reveal. But I remember Philip Roth, one of the great American authors, describing in "The Human Stain" at p 245 (I have it here) how a person who tried to commit suicide recalled shaving her legs, putting on her best skirt and blouse, and saying of the attempt "To me it was ecstatic, getting myself ready. There are times in life worth celebrating. Triumphant times. The occasions for which dressing up was intended." Obviously this is fiction, but no one could doubt that Roth is a great student of human nature. To him, weaving a credible narrative, dressing for suicide was not unlikely.
But my point is not that we should simply take the word of a novelist. It is that when you make a claim that something is unlikely, you are making a claim about probability, and statistics may or may not support you.
Close scrutiny should be given to the scene of the hypothesised suicide: does the defence proposal for the trajectory of the shot line up with the expected path of blood spatter on Robin's trousers, shoes and on the curtain? I thought the splashes of blood on the trousers, going down below the knee and going up above the knee, were consistent with Robin having his right foot on the chair so that his knee was near but slightly behind his head when he pulled the trigger.
Anyway, it is that sort of scrutiny that the case requires, not vague assertions about non-standardised clock readings or washing machine times.
My impression after reading Karam's book is that the onus now rests on those who say Robin's death was not a suicide to prove it.
I don't see how Keri Hulme can agree with Martin's summation about a book she hasn't read. I might have missed something there. As for the review, it's bereft of insight into human nature. Criticising somebody for how they react when shocked seems quite mindless. As does expecting Joe Karam, or David Bain for that matter, to explain why Robin Bain 'would' act in a particular way. The layers of human tragedy of this case are yet to be unpicked. Looking for simple answers to complex questions in order to form an opinion about the way Robin or David acted is divorced from the evidence accepted by the Jury that Robin suicided.
Post a Comment