The Problem with Darryl Young

The Bain defence has a problem:

  1. Mr Young said he sold the photocopier to Robin Bain, when Bryan Bruce was able to locate the original papers and interview the salesperson whose signature is on the sales documents. This salesperson is not able to corroborate the story that Mr Young told to the court.
  2. He said he went to the school on a particular day and spoke to the only person who was there, a female.  Bryan Bruce located this person, the other school teacher who worked with Robin and the only other person who worked at the school and she denies ever seeing Mr Young on that day.
  3. He said he saw Robin Bain get out of the back of the vain, when Bryan Bruce was able to show evidence that the back of the van was closed off from some time in the 1980's to the time of the murders.

I don't know much about the law, but this problem could become a bit sticky for Michael Reed, because here was a witness, slipped in at the last minute, whose testimony appears to have not been properly tested.  Given the huge amounts of money some lawyers are paid, they are required to use some ethics and so this might come back to bite him.


For me the most damning item was ,of course, Young describing how Robin exited his Van from the rear which as we know would of been impossible as it had been modified much earlier.Also of major significance  was the testimony of Robin's teaching colleague who completely contradicted Young's account of what happened.

But it raises the whole issue of the manner in which the defense went out of their way to to smear and dishonhour  Robin's good name very much apart from the incest allegations .Portrayed, as a dirty old man,smelly,dirty,alcohol , sex deviate etc etc .This is what Young and others have said and needs to be challenged.I would like to see a blog item developed on Counterspin that specifically looks at these allegations. For example Robin stayed with members of his family the Trenwiths in Hamilton in January 93.They are totally aghast at the portrait painted by the defense.Totally alien to their and all the other families experiences.

I think the best people to supply testimony about Robin are the people themselves who knew him.  I was expecting the Bryan Bruce documentary to have some of this in it but it didn't. Time constraints and the essential purpose of the documentary meant that we got none of the kinds of stories we really need in order to clear his name.  There does still exist a need for that and one would hope that members of the extended family would step forward now and provide that.  Maybe I should approach them, I don't know, but I don't think counterspin is a very good medium.  I would say that they are negotiating with a mag like North and South as we speak to tell their story.

This so called incident was alleged to have happend July 2 1993  just 10 days after the shortest day of the year  Taeiri Mouth is on the South East Coast of Otago about  30 km South of Dunedin.   Sunrise would be around  8.30am  sunset around 4.40pm  There is nothing but nothing between the little village and the northern most limit of the winter sea ice  a little over 1200 miles to the south. This yoket is expecting us, well me to expect Robin to be sleeing in the nude in the back of a commer van  and ketting out wearing only a towel through a cosed off back door into temperatures that may well still have ben sub zero or even snow as it does snow to sea level south of Dunedin.   Pigs might fly too. 

I hope they do get to tell of  what must have been traumatic in the extreme as karam and the reed  assassinated the charater of Robin all so karam could win, it ceased being about David last century.  Well he might have won but his integrity is just so dead that any speaking tours that he is planning (and he is having already approached Keith Hunter who refused to tour with him) will hopefully  draw no one except to boo and hiss him.  

In reply to by linz4me


I think the problem with Michael Reed is that he is just that-truthful,modest and guileless. Commendable qualities we can all agree but the family need to come out and be assertive.They might unlike Jk not enjoy the limelight but they need to put their line in the sand. Difficult i suppose when you are dealing with   ego maniacs , an  imperious and arrogant defense team.

In reply to by Ralph


over Robin's alleged activities with his daughter, the manner of his living etc - on shaky foundations - which those thinking nz'rs among us were always well aware of anyway.  But Reed's subsequent behaviour during Sainsbury's TV interview, with the family members watching, was just despicable.   He may be a defence lawyer and has to adopt that position, but it could have been done more tastefully.  Tongues were going flat out at work the morning after that interview and not one single voice had any sympathy for the pro-Bain camp - which is a change to what it was when the Privy Council ruling was giving in 2007.  In my world, i.e. work colleagues, neighbours all manner of other regualr contacts in my daily life - there has been a huge groundswell building against JK.    

I was quite surprised at QC Reed's comments regarding Robin Bain during the interview as they were essentially marketing spin and not balanced at all. His comments that evidence produced in the document was absolute rubbish and that Robin Bain was dirty old man etc . It made me wonder about the quality of his character and his ability to analyse information and distingish fact from fiction. Has anyone meet or seen him in action in the in the courts or worked with him? I surprised that someone can get to the level of QC in the legal community and not be able to distingish between hard and soft evidence.

On Joe Karam I think he has so much ego and money committed to the case that he cannot reverse course even if David admitted to him that he killed the family.



You will remember in his Sumation, Reed went on appealling for the sympathy of the jury about how long David, "the poor boy" had been in prison and that they should "send him home" etc etc.  As an admitted barrister, I was appalled and I put it on my to do list to perhaps lay a complaint to the Law Society.  I was relieved and decided not to go ahead with a complaint, when Justice Pankhurst in unequivocal language made it quite clear that he was not all impressed by Reed's performance on this point.  Pankhurst said "it had no place in a Court of Law" and I agree.

Bryan Bruce has raised the issue of what checks the Defense made into the veracity of its witnesses and I think he is right on the button.  The Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors say, specifically in relation to Defense Counsel:

Counsel May not wantonly or recklessly attribute to another person the crime or offence with which the client is charged, provided that if facts or circumstances arising out of the evidence or reasonable inferences drawn from them, raise a reasonable suspicion that the crime or offence may have been committed by another person, such a line of defence may be proper.

A Commentary attached to this rule continues:

Although Counsel may present a technical defence available to the client, counsel must not invent or participate in the invention of facts, which will assist in advancing the client's case.  (AND) Whatever the view of Counsel about the guilt or innocence of the client or of some third person, the clear duty of counsel is not to mislead the Court by allegations not supported by evidence.

Another Rule to Counsel in general (including Prosecution) reads:

In the interests of the administration of justice, the overriding duty of a practitioner acting in litigation is to the court or the tribunal concerned.  Subject to this, the practitioner has a duty to act in the best interests of the client.

The Commentary to this rule continues:

A practitioner must never deceive or mislead the court or tribunal.

Finally there is a rule which reads:

A practitioner must not attack a person's reputation without good cause.  In my opinion the natural reading of this rule has to include deceased persons.  I would go further and suggest that a practitioner is not permitted to run a defence on the instructions of a client on the basis that another person committed the crime unless counsel himself is convinced that this is the truth.  A "Technical defence" is a suggestion to a jury a hypothetical alternative and I am convinced these rules in their plain interpretation do not allow a Barrister to run a defence that he himself is convinced is untrue. I think the commentary to this last rule makes this abundantly clear:

A practitioner should not be a party to the filing of a pleading or other court document containing an allegation of fraud, dishonesty, undue influence, duress or other reprehensible conduct (eg Incest) unless the practitioner  has first satisfied himself or herself that such allegation can be properly justified on the facts of the case.  For a practitioner to allow such an allegation to be made, without the fullest investigation could be an abuse of the protection which the law affords to the practitioner in the drawing and filing of pleadings and other court documents.  

 I have not checked but, based upon news reports, I suspect that breaches of these rules in his filing an appeal, could be behind Chris Comesky's recent conviction.  As a critic of my own profession, I am convinced that Mr Comesky's errors represent the mere tip of the iceberg.  In my opinion there is an increasing tendency for mere lip service to be paid in actual practice to these very strict rules by a growing number of Criminal Defense Barristers and Civil Litigation Lawyers in NZ as the point of the exercise becomes to WIN the GAME and not to advance justice.  This is only my personal opinion, but it is founded upon my own anecdotal experience as well as my hunches in the Bain case, and reported remarks by Michael Guest seem to infer that he did not believe the incest but was prepared to run the defence.

This is why, I would support a full judicial inquiry into the entire history of the Bain trials and what did or didn't go wrong to the Crown's interest and also to the accused interest and how our law should be reformed.  Karam could not possibly object since in his books and pamphlets he expresses an intent to pursue such loftier aims than merely getting Bain off and compensated. 

(Finally.  Some people have questioned my spelling of Defense/defence.  You will note that I use both spellings.  There is a good reason.   At law school I was taught that the Defense runs a defence.  The above quotes from the Rules of Professional conduct follow that convention.)  However, I could be wrong!


Good post, bushy.  Regarding the spelling of 'defence'.  I always thought 'defense' was American and 'defence' was British: (search for defence).

The problem we have these days is that most spell checkers are US English by default and people see the 'defence' spelling as an error.  Answer: reset your spell checker to en (UK) or forget everything your English teacher drummed into you!


Whilst that may be true I think a pecularity of legal spelling has the two for diffent things.  A Legal team is the Defense.  The work they do in court is a defence.  There are similar conventions around judgement and judgment.  Whilst some people have better judgement than others judges deliver a judgment without a "e". 

My spell checker is set to English New Zealand - there is that option. The problem is that when one is following an exception to general spelling as in the two legal conventions I have suggested, allowing the spell checker total rein is likely to lose you marks in an assignment at Law School.  You have to override it in these cases.

In reply to by Bushlawyer


I have long since given up on which is which . Bushlawyer I had wondered about the comment you raise in your first post, Iam not a lawyer but have studying a little as it applies to business etc. and was confused  by a comment I read some were the in the court the most important person is the Accused

I can understand that to a degree but was confused  as the writer appeared to be saying that the duty to the client over rode the Lawyer duty to the Court as an officer of the High Court.  One of our lecturers  was Justice Christine French and she was at pains to emphasis the duty of the lawyer to the court came ahead of the duty to the Client The lawyer was to plead to his upmost BUT he must without exception stay within the rules. 

I have read the Prosecutors Guidelines and they are clear as to the limits on his advocacy.  But the Criminal Law has been some thing I have looked at closely because of my involvement in the struggle to get a pardon for Scott Watson or failling that a retrial.  That has involved looking at the performance of the prosecuters and the manner they can distort evidence by the omission of words from a witness statement. For instance. in the crown opening Nicola Crutchley  in refering to the shirt Scott Watson was wearing and the shirt the unidentified man was wearing  ommitted the colours of the shirts and simply referred to denim shirts. No witness in statements simply refurerred to a denim shirt  they referred to the man as wearing a green of khahi Levi Shirt and the photo of Watson police had which had been taken NYE at 9.30pm clearly shows him wearing a light blue denim shirt of a white teeshirt and the witness who had actually seen Watson ashore  all described him as wear a light blue shirt  removing the colour changed to complely different shirts into one shirt.

It's just words but omitting them can completely alter an incident.  Paul Davison QC is a master of the misstatement.  I was amused to read in the story by Joanne Black For the Listener  reporting him as saying he does not go into court to lose he hated losing  I could not find the as being listed as acceptable in the Procecuter Guidelines. 

In fact in R V Bain I felt Mr Rafferty was not forceful as he is allowed to be in the guidelines and tended to let points slip away. whether that was a strategy I would not know by I felt at times his cross examinations lacked purpose.

But my first interest is in memory and its fragility mallebility and ease with which it can be manipulated by any one with a few minutes study. The defence witnesses who remembered conversation  from 14 years before  word perfect  is just a crock.

As humans we are very poor at remembering conversation as it is not important in the scheme of things what is more important is the subject of the conversation and we remember that but only a bare outline. in 10 minutes a Speaker has forgotten his part in a conversation specifically and can only remember the subject but not the words.  Recognition memory we are very good at as it is critical for our survival we will remember a face many years later but often don't know the name or circumstances in which we remembered and stored the face.

I digress Memory is a completly different field but one in which New Zealand police are particularly  poorly skilled in their train in this vital area seems none existant yet memory and false positive identification it a factor in 80 % of DNA exonerations  overseas  and Dougherty is a classic example and our police are about 15-20 years out of date with the method legislated into the Evidence Act 2006. in fact the who Act is a crock.

Thank you for the informative post on defenders obligations and food for thought in the running of a defamation campaign again a man who could not speak in his defence. 

As Bryan Bruce said David Bain got a fair trial  I would go a little further and say a trial where the Judge was falling over himself to be fair.  Robin Bain got tried and found guilty by the defense  and the crown  were constrained in providing a defence as that is not their function      



In reply to by Bushlawyer


and oh boy I wish my proof reading skills were better they failed me in exams too.

1) Christine French is absolutely right and the plonker you read is wrong:  As I already stated the rules are unequivocal and read: "The OVERRIDING DUTY of a practitioner acting in litigation IS TO THE COURT or the tribunal concerned.  SUBJECT TO THIS, the practitioner has a duty to act in the best interests of the client.  The classic explanation given in Law School of how this works is the scenario where the lawyer interviews his client in the cells and his client explains that he did kill the victim but still insists that he will plead "not guilty" and instructs the lawyer to defend him.  from that time forward the lawyer is entitled to continue to defend the client but he must run a "limited defence".  He cannot allow the defence to include any suggestion of Alibi because the client has admitted being present and committing the killing.  Neither can he suggest mistaken identity on the part of any witnesses.  To do either would mean to "mislead the Court".  In all other respects, however, he is entitled to "fully test" the Crown's evidence to ensure that the Crown discharges its onus to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.  Such defences are common and a regular case observer with knowledge of the rules can usually recognise them because the Defense either calls no witnesses or very few witnesses.  The defense's case is very heavily based upon rigorous cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses.  Where there has been a confession to the Defense, it is still and possible and lawful for the defense to argue that the homicide was manslaughter or that the client is insane (if there is such evidence) but an outright denial of the actus rheus (the action eg  -homicide) is out of the question.  

2) In dealing with Scott Watson we are perhaps raising matters beyond the purpose of this site and might upset some people.  However, I have to admit that I am concerned about a number of elements of the Watson case.  That surprises some people who think that because I have resisted the Bain/Karam arguments I am somehow a toady for the establishment in the form of the Crown.  If they knew that when I first picked up David & Goliath, I was open-minded and quite prepared to consider that injustice had occurred.  I had supported Arthur Thomas and got myself in difficulties with angry Australians for arguing for Lindy Chamberlain.  i am prepared to consider wrongful convictions but I will not accept these when the evidence simply isn't there and as far as I am concerned the Karam books were nonsense.  Regarding Crutchley, there is another rule of professional conduct which precludes a lawyer from acting and being a witness in the same case.  Unfortunately, i think there is a sneaky tendency of some practitioners to actually "testify" in their opening and closing addresses and that is what I feel Crutchley did in the Watson case.  She made statements of fact in her opening address which the Prosecution then failed to introduce through witnesses in the trial.  Your citing is an example.  An opening address should only set out the case that the practitioner intends to present and then they must make certain that they scrupulously do present that case fully as outlined.  Otherwise they have acted as a witness.  I have another concern in the Watson case that is even more serious.  I have reason to believe that two exhibits gathered from two locations, Amelia's house and Watson's yacht were for several days together at the same police station before being passed on to forensics in two different deliveries.  Now I cannot say that anything untoward happened but I can say that there appears to be a strong possibility that there was a potential for something untoward to have happened whilst both exhibits were at the police station.  This is particularly true because one of these exhibits was placed in an unauthodox container at its collection point.  As far as Davison's desire to win cases is concerned he is not unusual in this respect - it applies to all practitioners Prosecutors and Defense and it also applies to detectives especially ones who lost their last big case - need I say more.

3) returning to Bain, I was also dissappointed with Rafferty.  To be fair I think even Justice Pankhurst was a little flaky in his instructions to the jury - I did not like his clarification of "reasonable doubt" - I think he weakenned the law.  I think everyone was a little SHELL SHOCKED.  They thought they had given Bain a fair trial back at the beginning.  The Court of Appeal agreed and so did the PC to begin with and also he was denied a pardon, but now after all this time the PC had ordered a retrial.  And then the witness who was the basis of that retrial failed to materialise.  If they allowed that to abort the retrial or if Bain was re-convicted, then there was the danger Mr Karam would start it all again, COA and PC and another retrial on the basis that Pankhurst would not read the absent Cottle's evidence. and this had resulted in another miscarriage of justice.  That is what could have happened.  So Pankhurst read the evidence.  I was absolutely shocked by that and I totally agree with Mr Michael Bain that Pankhurst reading of that evidence could well have given more weight and gravitas to that evidence than it should have deserved in the Jury's eyes especially as they heard it from the very man who was later to deliver them their final instructions.  That made no sense - if it had to be read surely a Court Clerk should have read it.  This is why I think the whole sorry affair ought now  to be subjected to a Royal Commission of inquiry so that we can decide how such hiccups are to properly dealt with in the future.  Regarding Rafferty, if you have read Muddied Waters, you will have seen that I suggest that there were perhaps lost opportunities to discredit two prostitute witnesses by establishing a possible connection between these two and the two prostitutes implicated in the retraction of a magazine story described by Mr Karam in Bain & Beyond.

4) Memory - not all police are ignorant of the problems with memory.  some years back I participated in an exercise where off-duty police made sudden armed robbery simulations of the conference room were were in.  We were all to describe what we saw.  With a few moments this simulation demonstrated how recollections could be totally wrong and how we could influence each others recollections.  This is my problem with the prostitutes evidence - they only came out with their stories after the incest allegations and the Cottle Story had aired in TV documentaries.  I am amazed that when I meet with my siblings and we recall incidents from our childhood how our recollections conflict and differ.        

Gosh ,I see the mistake re "Reed". .Sorry folks!.As to defence vs defense am afraid have been a bit lazy and do prefer the UK spelling.My browser doesn't appear to offer a choice,US vs UK but will look at it more closely.Most interesting point linz .Cottle's  original testimony was actually the rock  foundation of the defence's case in the retrial.No more ,no less..A shaky and muddy foundation built on quicksand it seems

I too was very disappointed that the Crown completely ignored a couple of good opportunities in the final rebuttals (if that's the term- I'm not a lawyer) they could have, for one thing, used the original autopsy report opinion that laniet had never been pregnant- and they didn't!. They could have left the jury with the  final impression of Laniet as a fantasist. I can't remember the other lost opportunity. They seemed to have  given up, or to just be leaving it all in the lap of the Gods.

Robin Bates did such a great job on cross-examining Weatherston; imagine if he'd gone head to head with Bain.!

for your answer to my post  I am very grateful I have read though muddied waters, at times i think the  defence case was more slightly dampened soil rather than muddy water but a very cogent critique.  

In reply to by linz4me


I wonder what is happening re Darryl Young.However,I do hope nothing will come back to bite Bryan Bruce on the buttocks.

I noticed a couple of weeks ago that a Deb Wilson had posted a message on the JFRB Facebook wall which mentioned that Robin Bain used to ride a motor-bike and that he had two vans.She was at Taieri School for a few years,until her family left to go to Australia in 1994.I have messaged her,and she tells me that Robin Bain had two Commer vans,one light blue and one light green.She seems to think he used them both to take the schoolchildren on field trips.They used to get in the vans via the side door,as you would expect.

She also remembers the new photocopier,as Robin Bain showed some of the pupils how to use it.She said there was a photocopier at the school prior to the new one arriving,but she doesn't know how long it had been there.

Now I am sure Young has made up some of his story,and I think we would have heard by now if he had some way to back it up.But I do think it interesting re the two vans.Young implied he heard what he thought was a female voice inside the van.But if he sold the school a copier back in 1991,that voice wouldn't have been Laniet's as she was still at school back then.And of course we all know Robin Bain would not have been smelling of booze,as he was teetotal,apparently.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


I am at a loss to actually work out what the Darryl Young evidence was said to prove actually.  Even if there was a woman in the van with Robin, without identification of that woman, what does that mean? Robin was having an affair, so he was as human as Bill Clinton, that doesn't make him a family killer.  As you say if it was as early as 1991, Laniet would have been in school and Daryl said he heard a woman's not a girl's voice.  

I guess it was just another attempt to paint Robin Bain in a bad light.He hadn't turned up at school,he was in his van with a woman[some might have thought Laniet]he smelt of liquor,not a good look.The anti-Robin posters on Trade Me are always on about how poor a father Robin Bain was,they denigrate him day in and day out,one way or another.So to have him in his van with a woman,and smelling of booze,when he should have been at school would have been a major coup for them.

Exactly Mike, Karam and Read had no evidence that implicated Robin Bain in the killings so their next best strategy was to attack his character with as much denigrating misinformation as possible, with David sitting back and letting them blacken his fathers name with information he knew was false in order for him to get off, despicable action by a person who said that he loved his father, but this despicable action by the defence worked well on the dim witted jury members, success at any cost was the defences aim, and they achieved that aim.

It would be a useful exercise to find out just  what the weather was like on the day in question.Sure it was in the middle of winter but if it can be demonstrated that it was in fact say 4-7 degrees that would add a little more salt to the defences wound.If it was snowing or frost then boy that would be something!.Probably need to go into the ODT archives to establish this.

Do remember the detail from BBs doco that when Robin had came out of the sliding doors on the side of the van then that would of given Daryl Young an opportunity to look directly into the van ,and Lol!

In reply to by Ralph


What puzzles me about Young's story is why he would have made it all up.I can understand him embellishing the details,but I do feel that there might be some truth in it.As I understand it Robin Bain could not have opened the back door of the van,as I think Young said he did.But that was one van.I have now been in touch with a Wendy Scott,and she confirms there were two vans.She thinks one was for spares,and I think I may have read that somewhere.She confirms that a Martin[Marty ]Jones bought them both [as Deb Wilson said]and she is going to try to find out more about the second van.

I believe Karam is now saying that Young made a mistake when he said he saw the van at the camping ground,and that he actually saw it in a paddock.The plot thickens.

Oh surely you jest Mike.  Karam wouldn't admit that one of his witnesses made a mistake.  There goes "conclusively demolishing the Crown case" and the rest of his extravagant fluff puffery and palaver, for which he is famous (er infamous).  If one witness made a mistake, what of the others?  Maybe Cottle and the prostitutes made a mistake.  Of course Cottle didn'tt strictly give any evidence in the usual cross examined and therefore tested manner and of couse the prosdtitutes Ruby and Debbie (codenames in Bain & Beyond) have already admitted to Mr Karam that they made mistakes with what they told the Women's Day journalist.  The Thot definitely plickens!

Sadly, of course, if a detective made a slight mistake as to the position of a lens say in a photograph, that's a completely different story that warrants an entire book.

As one of those who post on TM the concerted campaign to blacken Robins Name is obvious and well orgestrated  Sunday for most of the day The pro david groupie were all gone and came back attacking Robin even stronger.

I fail to see what they hope to gain as the lurker who pop up when things are quiet almost invariable see the campaign for what it is.

Friday should prove interesting.  I hope Laws has his tongue well prepared and references handy.  Mr. Karam will try his bamboozle 'em with "science" trick or out shout him. 



I quite agree,linz,the anti Robin posters do seem to be orchestrated.But as I have said before,how many people will be looking at that thread?Very few,I would suggest.So it is all a bit of a waste of time.But for someone like me,that's ok,I don't have any hobbies.And the silly part about it is that the anti Robin posters are keeping the words "Justice for Robin Bain"near the top of the page of Opinion and Politics,which I reckon is a good thing.It is a bit like an advertisement.I doubt many are bothering to read the small print.

It is being carefully orchestrated with designated people gunning for designated posters, well I think so anyway. And the thread is being watched to provide fodder for a certain blog, so I am guessing that the comments and the desire to keep the thread going is a deliberate attempt to keep news alive to sustain the masses.  I think the title of the thread is a complete misnomer as it is obviously not about that at all now. If others choose to read it as it has been kept so prevently in the public eye so be it. It may just enhance public perception of the injustice done to Robin by reading clear concise arguements and the discreditation and personal attacks on posters by others.


Hey folks, I just had my first curious look at the postings over the Bain case on trade me because of what you folks are saying here.  For my money, the average IQs on this site seem to be considerably higher.  This is a comparative Mensa.

In reply to by Bushlawyer


Yes,the average IQ's of the anti Robin Trade Me posters may be lower,but the most prolific poster is ro 42,ie Rowena Cave.She has had some high profile jobs.If you care to google her,you will see that she was in charge of research at the Families Commission.

I don't know if she really thinks that David Bain might be innocent,I think she is just a compulsive poster who likes to try and make out she is smarter than everyone else.She has posted over 100 times a day.and more than once.In some ways I wish you were a Trade Me poster ,bushy,you would give her something to think about.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


The Families Commission is a complete rort, a reinvention of the children's commission.  The United future Christian coalition which had this commission on its wish list never envisaged the liberals who would end up on it, Christine Rankin the only exception since National took power.  All the FC does is regurgitate the work of the Children's commission.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


I thought it was the MoJ  I will Bow to you greater knowledge about her She is a very dangerous person I've noticed that  and has exceptional abilities to see into the future if some ones been banned.  She gets snotty if any mention her prolific postings.

No one that I can remember has actually got a real answer to why she believes none of the evidence points to David and all points to Robin.   

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


Are you sure Cave was in charge of research?  I can find no evidence to back this up on official sites.

Or was she just part of doling out funds to researchers?

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


She knows all about mental disorders.She has a major mental disorder.Ok ,no more on Rowena,promise.

Hey,they are taking bets on Trade Me,Michael Laws or Joe Karam.Laws seems to be outright favourite at the moment.

In reply to by Mike Stockdale


Ro talks herself up - just like Joe Karam.  Lots of people now think Joe is a lawyer and I think it is the same with Rowena.

She doesn't appear to have published any research papers, she doesn't appear to have any high academic qualifications and she doesn't appear to have held any high powered jobs.

So she makes a living out of writing reports or giving workshops on how to write reports.  That's not exactly high powered or special!


Yes, I thought so  - she says she's a research manager.

So she's not a high powered researcher or high powered official.  Just someone who writes reports and guidelines and who organises things for the real researchers.

Nobody high-powered would spend their life on a TradeMe board consorting with the low levels of IQ and perception that her hangers-on exhibit!

I hope I'm excluded  I shouldn't post but some of the absolute drivel gets so far up my nose, my eyebrows wriggle.  the pro David camp get down and dirty I've been accused of committing incest with my daughter  and complaints to TradeMe are useless as I was told when I complained about the post they had had a phone call and they told me it was my interpretation that was wrong !!!!  Karam has TradeMe running around like chickens minus their heads. only postive posts stay on the board.

I walked away once and have done it again

If anyone does look there is one poster ro42 who is a very prolific poster and has family friend connection to TradeMe and is a Liasion officer or something similar with the ministry of justice and has just been given a contract with them. (source MoJ newsletter)  Must be a good contract as she is online posting nearly 24/7  


Ro42 is very prolific and very posionous. But then again I dont think she has been very clever of late in regards to the petition. I know that she doesnt like me, but I am certainly not bothered by that. The thread is now getting silly and the comments are disgusting. It seems that the comments are posted purposefully to be disgusting and to bait us for blog fodder.  By displaying such lewd tactics the posters actually appear to others as being ridiculous. They are really shooting themselves in the foot for want of a better word.

I believe that particular thread has had it's day.I am surprised ro and co seem to want to keep it going,I wonder how many people bother to look at it now.It is way off topic,has been for a while.But it keeps those words "Justice for Robin Bain "on the first page of opinion and politics,which has to be a plus.I intend to start a new thread on the 20th of August,just trying to figure out what to call it.

"The evidence against David Bain ",or something like that.

Melanie I think Vic might be right.It is just a waste of time posting on TM and in posting you just give the enemy some sought of perverse comfort.

Mike you ask about Young's motivation.Well in the sales industry much like Tv and Advertising there are a lot of  people that feel their egos need massaging.It might be an opportunity for someone like Young to get into the limelight and have a moment of public fame.It also raises the question of just how the defence secured his co operation.? We may never know but I hope the truth does comes out one day. I just happen to be a tad suspicious.

Mike you also have to consider the testimony of Pene Balk-Jarvis and Ian Arthur.Pene was certain that she never saw Young on 02/07/93 and that Robin  was not absent from the classroom with the suggestion the pupils were out of control. Also Young mentions a school office but the country school did not have one.Then there is Ian Arthur himself who again is certain  that he  was present and made the sale, evidenced by the signed invoice.

I understand that Robin never parked his van at the camping ground.If it was a van used by the school to transport pupils on excursions etc then surely it would be parked in the school grounds.Again I understand that Robin in fact had a small dwelling provided by the Education dept and the school to stay in. Where did Laniet,Kylie Cunningham and Robin stay for that that matter.? I just hope the police are exploring and investigating all these angles, including the weather factor tha tall adds to the implausibility  of Young's account.

It would seem that Young came forward of his own accord.But whether he intended to say all he did say is another matter.He does seem to have met Robin Bain at some stage,but not on the day the copier was delivered.I am still trying to find out more about that second van,I now know it had weeds growing up through it at some stage,so it is beginning to look like it wouldn't have been habitable.I am also trying to find out how long the school had had the photocopier that was replaced in 1993.

Robin Bain was offered the schoolhouse to stay in when the School Board found out he was living in the van[up until then they thought he was going home each night].But he turned it down,saying it was more than he needed.However at some point he must have decided to take the schoolhouse,maybe this was in an attempt to get Laniet off her drug habit by having her stay with him.Cunningham boarded there ,also.


Good on Laws for debating with Joe Karam, the online poll is currently running at 86% saying David is the killer, which shows you how ridiculous that Robin was involved in the murders, however Laws is not doing a particular good job he is letting Karam dominate the program with talking about Robin, where the real issue is the evidence of murder which points to David there has been no debate on the glasses no debate on David changing his testimony about the 111 call etc etc 90% of the time has been about possible motives for Robin where the real guts of the matter is the evidence for murder, "it is a murder case afterall"  all the rest is just a side show.


Good points Bob and I agree. However the poll is no surprise. The truth will come out one day for sure

In reply to by hilaryed


I am not knocking Laws but he does not know the evidence that well, at the moment they are debating the blood on "surprise Robin" I would love Laws to mention the presumptions the Karam made in his book that turned to rubbish

Quite remarkable that you can have a debate without one of the most damning pieces of evidence against David even mentioned, that of the glasses, but then there is so much evidence against him.

Actually I think ML did pretty well and yes he might of focussed more on the evidence against David and the damning detail about the glasses.A pity ML should of viewed BBs doco  again more closely to get the bit about the defences silly interpretation of the alleged smear of blood on the heel of Robin's thumb.But at least Michael was front on and not afraid or cowered one bit by Karam. I hugely admired the way he defended Robin against JKs onslaught ,with now allegations of incest against Arawa.A new low there, but not supriising.

You are quite right bob,Laws let Karam get away from discussing the evidence against David Bain.And when Karam mentioned that the wound to Robin Bain's head was close contact[and I think that is debatable],I couldn't help thinking of your "mock -up" photo.If it had have been you or I Karam was debating with we would have been all over him like a rash on that one.What Mike Laws needed to have done was to have spent a few days looking at the Trade Me threads,then he would have had a better idea as to how to cope with misinformation.


I have sent Kent my own droll analysis of the Poll.  The results swung towards Robin doing it slightly once the one Bainaholic had got out of bed worked out how to use a computer found Radiolive online discovered the poll worked out how to register a vote and then registered around 2000 votes in 2 hours.


The debate was the debacle that I expected however with Karam up to his usual beligerant domineering conduct.  It is pretty pointless trying to have intelligent debates with people like Joe. I took the opportunity to post plenty of pointed comments on Radio Live however.

Peter Williams QC's comments after midday were pathetically pointless.  Peter is past it and should stick to boating.  He has never been a patch on Bungay anyway.

In reply to by Bushlawyer


I don't think Joe Karam did himself much of a favour in this debate.  Not to mention David ...  Mind you, as Clayton Weatherston once told me, Hey, life isn't a popularity contest.   

In reply to by Bushlawyer


Agree it was pointless and I felt the adjudicator got lost a bit at times and had a tendency to allow JJoe answer the question hewanted asked and not the question Laws had been interrupted asking  And the inch deep laceration on Steven's scalp, where did that come from? And the extra blood in Robin's hands shades of  DC Pope  if the blood does not exist  make it up. The PCA report I actually thought it was well written and cogent in that it covered shortcomings in the police investigation where warranted.   




Families Commission, and MENZ! explains a **lot.**

if Rowena Cave works at the MOJ it also explains why she so smugly keeps hinting she has inside info about the Compo claim!

Heaven forbid that she will have any influence on its progress!??

In reply to by ANTeater


It would do no harm sending a letter to Simon Power raising some concerns about this ,Ant eater.


I totally agree with Katie that Karam neither did himself or David Bain any favour by this debate.  In fact I was listening to Radiolive when Karam agreed to do the debate and I thought that he had just got carried away in the heat of the moment and I was fully expecting him to cancel.  I am surprised Read didn't get him to cancel because it carried a huge risk.  In my opinion, the debate only went ahead because Karam would be unable to back down without a loss of face and he couldn't do that.  I actually prophesy that eventually Karam is going to do or say something which will bring the whole house of cards crashing down.  I am sure that if David Bain's minders were allowing him to speak publicly this would have already happened.  We have not heard a peep from David Bain apart from when he was released on Bail and acquitted and if you look at the footage from then it is easy to see why.  I wish I had kept the footage at his release from bail because one of his answers to a question put to him was completely wrong coming from someone who knew he was innocent.  If someone has that footage, I would like to see it again.

I recorded the Karam v Laws bout except that I missed a bit in the middle when I was late restarting the pause button.   

IMO there were several untruths spoken by Karam in the debate one of them being that the 2 guys that Bain went to school with who spoke about the alibi Jogger evidence did not come forward till 2007, this is untrue Gareth Taylor spoke to the police before the first trial. As for the smears of blood on Robin Bain they were just tiny specks, I would hate to take Joe out fishing he's the type of guy that would soon turn a 3lb snapper into a 20 pounder very quickly.

The police must have felt they had enough evidence at the first trial without the hearsay evidence of Koch and Taylor.What someone should do is make a list of all the lies/errors/assumptions that Karam made in that debate and list them.I do not have audio,so I am not volunteering.Besides,I wouldn't have picked them all up.Apparently there was a live bullet near Robin Bain's body,Karam said he had a misfeed before he shot himself,did he not?.

through mask of sanity again Mike, and that bullet found by Robin, was, as evidence by one of the scene cops, was the bullet taken from the gun to make sure it wasnt loaded by the police themselves

someone should tell joe......


Yes Bob. I noticed that Karam tried to make that point but of course the two prostitutes only came forward after the Cottle evidence was made public in a TV3 documentary (I believe it was).