Sent: Monday, 10 September 2012 8:43 a.m.
To: Judith Collins
Subject: David Bain
My name is Michael Guest and I was the senior defence Counsel for David Bain at his first trial. I am concerned to read in the press this morning that Justice Binnie's recommendation to Cabinet will be that Mr Bain is innocent.
My concern is that neither myself nor my co-Counsel were interviewed by the Canadian Judge despite the Bain team suspending privilege for the purposes of the Police Complaints Authority Investigation in 1997. I told that Investigation (relieved from the obligation of privilege) that Mr Bain has informed both myself and my co-Counsel that he had been wearing the all-important glasses on the Sunday evening before the 6.30 am murders the next morning.
That was a devastating admission and we took all possible steps within our ethical duties to minimise the possibility of that information coming out at trial. However, in response to a question from the Crown, Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings and the ethics of my profession required me to disclose that lie to the prosecution which I immediately did. Mr W.J. Wright, for the Crown, decided that due to the fact that we were in the closing three days of an almost three week trial, we would simply let matters lie and proceed.
Justice Thorp, in his 1998 Review of the Police Complaint's Authority Report, refers to this evidence as significant and gives it the clear stamp of credibility because the Crown Prosecutor confirmed what I had told him at trial months before Mr Karam fomented a trail of half and quarter truths up and down the country. Your Ministry will have easy access to Justice Thorp's Report.
The importance of this admission of wearing the glasses the night before is, quite simply, a damning admission because the police found the bent frame and one lens in David's bedroom and the other lens in his murdered brolher's bedroom.
The press slatement now suggests an opinion of "innocence" by Justice Binnie, when this evidence was available to be read, and Mr Bain's first Counsel were not interviewed. I find that incredible.
Maybe there is something in the Judge's Report that sheds some different view on this evidence but, in my opinion, it shatters any suggestion of innocence.
That Mr Bain spent 13 years in prison and then was acquilted at a second trial might be seen as an "exceptional circumstance" but a finding that he is innocent is not a correct conclusion.
I can be contacted by any person you wish to nominate at this email address, or .....
Yours faithfully, Michael Guest
Whether or not Guest was in breach of the rules of professional privilege. the proverbial Cat is out of the bag and we now know the truth without question. Not that I ever had any doubt. The Guest email proves that three lawyers knew at the time of the first trial that David's testimony regarding his mother's glasses was perjury and that he had been wearing them on the fateful weekend. This only adds to the inevitable logical conclusion I make upon David's request to a policeman in his bedroom for "his" glasses. The only glasses that he could have been referring to were the ones there in the room, the damaged frames with the missing lens. These were his mothers but he called them "his" because he was currently the person using them. Following the execution of his brother, Bain still puffing and shaken by the unplanned for fight his brother had put up, collected his glasses and overlooking the missing lens took them with him as he continued on his rampage, later placing them on the chair in his room. A damning mistake he was later to regret and then knew he had to lie about. Or perhaps he did notice the missing lens but couldn't find it given that it had inconveniently slid under some other object as it landed on the floor or was kicked there by either David or his brother's feet in the scuffle. And if David did wear those glasses there can be no doubt - HE IS THE KILLER!
Naturally, the part of the email that takes my attention the most is the phrase: "Mr Karam fomented a trail of half and quarter truths up and down the country". Oh, really? Is that what happened? I thought it was just the evidence making itself known.
Guest needs to be careful. that sort of language can get a body sued.
This morning (just before 7.30) I heard Joe Karam on Radiolive talking to Wallace Chapman He was talking about the Michael Guest letter. He referred to Guest as a "liar and a crook". It never ceasesto amaze me how quick Joe karam is to use the sort of immoderate language to describe others which if it was used about him he would sue at a snap. He also said that although Guest was a "liar and a crook" what he has written will have to be "dealt with" I take it that he means that it will have to be given the Joe karam "spin".
Opinion: Joe Karam likes to keep well in with certain media as he has a need to get his spin across, but the making of an enemy of Michael Guest years ago is now starting to bite him on his bum. Guest has been diplomatic about his accused ex client and seemed to accept the result of the trial in 2009 but no doubt the thought of David Bain now receiving 2 million in blood money was a bridge to far for him, so he has come to the party and now declared that in his opinion there is no way Bain can be innocent.
Perhaps the police should charge David Bain with perjury for lying about his mother's glasses at the first trial.