June 19, 2024 • 25 mins
30 years ago, five members of the Bain family in Dunedin were found dead in their family home.
The one surviving family member, David, was later convicted of murdering his parents and three siblings.
He served 13 years in prison before the Privy Council quashed his convictions, and he was subsequently found not guilty on all charges at a retrial in 2009.
Despite this, for three decades, this case has joined a gallery of notorious murders that have fascinated New Zealanders across the years.
Today on The Front Page, long-time David Bain advocate Joe Karam reflects on his three decades linked to the case in an exclusive interview for the 30th anniversay.
And later, we discuss our fixation with this and other cases with AUT University Professor of Pop Culture, Dr Lorna Piatti-Farnell.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer: Paddy Fox
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kilda.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Thirty years ago,
five members of the Bain family in Dunedin were found
dead in their family home. The one surviving family member, David,
(00:28):
was later convicted of murdering his parents and three siblings.
He served thirteen years in prison before the Privy Council
quashed his convictions and he was subsequently found not guilty
on all charges at a retrial in two thousand and nine.
Despite this, for three decades, this case has joined a
(00:50):
gallery of notorious murders that have fascinated New Zealanders across
the years. Later, on the Front Page, we discuss our
fixation with this and other cases with Professor of POLP Culture,
doctor Lorna Piazzi. Far now but first longtime David Bain
advocate Joe Karen reflects on his three decades linked to
(01:12):
the case.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
I think thirty years.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Since the killings at Every Street. You're a former All Black,
a successful businessman but also known as a longtime David
Bain advocate. What first got you interested in this case?
Speaker 3 (01:29):
I was reading the New Zealand Herald one morning early
in January of nineteen ninety six, and there was a
little article in the Herald. Was a picture of five
or six people in the Octagon and the Meeden the
Treshoor table selling jams and pickles to raise money, with
a sign on the front which said David Dane was innocent.
(01:51):
And the story said that one of the people was
an elderly woman who was David Bain's music teacher, and
the other ones were friend that is from university and
drama society belonged to. And the story just grabbed me. Actually,
I'd been a close follower of the Arthur Allen Thomas case.
Funnily enough, I had broken my leg and was implaster
(02:13):
sitting at home doing nothing in nineteen seventy when the
crew murders happened, and that because I was stuck with
here was nowhere to go for nothing to do. I
sort of read and listened to everything that happened. Anyway,
what struck me about this article It wasn't like his
parents or family. These were people who were just friends
who to go out in the street and do this.
(02:34):
And I had a visit with my lawyer on some
other business A few days later, and I said to
do you know who the lawyer for the David Bain was,
And he gave me his name and address or phone number,
and I contacted him and put my finger in the
water and there we go. Twenty years later, I still
at it.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Yeah, I've seen people say that they would never have
been a retrial without your support of Bain. Would you
agree with that?
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Oh? Well, I'd go without not being boastful, but just
I think all the lawyers that I engaged over the
years would say exactly the same thing. Not only would
they not have been a retrial, there would David Dane
would still be in prison now. When they ordered the retrial,
Michael Reid, who was David Baine's QC, Michael REQC, he said, Joe,
(03:20):
you have to come down there. We can't do this
without You're the one with all the knowledge and everything else.
I said, well, you know, I'm not a lawyer. You
don't need the trial, and he said, no, You've got
to be there. So I was there right through the
whole thing, and I made over the years, I made
some very very important and crucial decisions for the legal team.
(03:41):
And I think it's fair to say that David Baine
instead of being happily married now two lovely children and
the gordous wife would still be writing away in the prison.
And it was the will of the police and the
various government officials that's what they would have liked to
have happened.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Well, you were kind of the face of the campaign, hey,
and you really took on that role. And to say
this case was divisive is an understatement. What was it
like heading the campaign for so long? What kind of
things did you experience?
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Well, it's hard for anybody who wasn't close to me
over those years to understand is just how vicious the
assault on me personally was. I brought a different perspective
in the sense that you know, as a well known person,
being a formal all black, and that made the police
and the Justice department officials see me as more of
(04:34):
a threat, I suppose to a normal person who might
be fighting against an injustice. Right from the very beginning.
It was amazing when my name first became public as
being working for David, the number of police cars that
would be driving past our house. We lived in the country,
myself and a life and three children. At that stage.
(04:56):
I separated from my life soon after one night, not
long long after we'd separated, she'd been shopping in the evening.
It was in the winter time, and she went to
get in the car and her eyes approached her. And
they were both private investigators to follow me around and
try and dig up as much dirt on me as
they could, and they thought that the children wife might
(05:17):
be a great source of information for them. They sort
of did all they could to persuade her to spill
as much dirt on me as what she could, but
she didn't. She rang me up and told me what happened. Then,
of course, after I wrote the first book, which really
is what started the major controversy, the police sued me
for defamation. And I think that I can say fairly
(05:40):
accurately that I'm the only person that the police have
ever sued the defamation in New Zealand's history. Joe Karen,
why are you doing this?
Speaker 1 (05:52):
He is guilty as the police can't be wrong and
the government of cues can't all be wrong.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Surely, I don't know how well film you are. But
the jury did not hear all of the evidence. Much
of the evidence they did here was wrong. The detective
in fact, who sued me admitted it under oath during
my trial that his evidence on a most crucial matter
was wrong. The other detective be sued me under cross
examination made the statement that if he'd been asked, he
(06:20):
would have told the whole truth.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
You've mentioned before it had been tough, and I liked
this quote. You sometimes represented as being a raving redneck
who had lost the plot, and it seems like you've
been on the receiving end, especially a lot of public
backlash over the years. What kind of toll has that
taken on you thirty years down the track.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Well, I wouldn't say it's the toll lives with me now.
I mean, if I look at the case now in retrospect,
I have a great personal satisfaction and the feeling of triumph.
But as I said before David Dane, which will probably
be writing in jail instead of being happy married, it
gives me a great deal of bride and satisfaction that
(07:04):
my stick ability and all the work I did and
ef it I put into it a result than that.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
You've said the campaign costs you millions over the years.
Were you surprised going in how much it actually cost
to challenge the legal system, Because first cab off. The
rank was getting someone over to the Privy Council way
and you donated what like twelve grand.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
The initial thing was with Michael Guest, David's original lawyer,
and I didn't think you get to the Privy Council
in London for twelve thousand dollars. I was recently well
off at that time and the case he was bringing
seemed to be quite powerful to me. In fact, that's
when my association with the case just became public. What
I discovered on that visit and soon after was that
(07:48):
Michael Guest, David's original lawyer did a terrible job. And
so one of the first major decisions I made was
to sack him, and I arranged for Colin Wisner, QC
and Dunedin to work with me to investigate whether or
not he thought there'd been a miscarriage of justice that
was challengeable through the proper channels, and that after working
(08:12):
with me for twelve months, he agreed that there was,
and we lodged the petition to the Governor General.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Would you do it all again?
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I would definitely do it all again, and I wouldn't
change I wouldn't be able to change anything because if
I didn't be as feisty and determined and out spoken
and voice things publicly as I did, I'd be just
like the Watson case now, struggling on twenty three years later,
hoping for the best and expecting the worst. So the
(08:39):
only thing I did wrong was have a faith in
the powers that be that they would take my concerns seriously.
That they didn't, And so when they treated me the
way they did, I treated them the same way back.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Over the last fifteen years. How much of your time
is still spent protecting David and I guess his new
family now as well.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
David actually said to me after the two thousand and
three decision of the Court of Appeal, and I was
sitting with him in prison. I think I might have
been shedding it through tears, and I was looking in
the eye and saying, I just can't believe this, and
they right have. I got this all wrong, David, and
you've been bullshitting me all along. And David looked at
me and said, Joe, you're doing tougher lag than me.
(09:34):
He said, I am innocent, and I'll never ever admit
enough fight on somehow, but you need to get on
your life glowing away, And as I said, I wrote
a letter of the Court of Appeal and told them
that they were wrong, and I go to the Privy
Council and that's what I did. But in terms of
protecting David, the biggest thing was since the retrial, that
is the biggest thing for me, was to get him
(09:56):
some compensation. And so after Benny report was staring out
in twenty and twelve, I then had to fight on
for another four years to finally get him about a
million dollars in two thy and sixteen, which gave him
the opportunity of creating And he was married by then
and he had one child by then, which gave him
(10:17):
his wife at least the opportunity of creating a life
for themselves and some privacy. But since that time and
David and I agreed it well at his wife that
it was their life and they would live at how
they wished to where they wished to, and to make
decisions for themselves. I offered that anytime they even needed
(10:38):
to meet a help them, I would, but that they
would basically get on with their life in their own way,
which is what I've done.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
And they're doing well. Do they manage to kind of
avoid being bothered.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Well, they have done extremely well. I mean, this is
another thing about all the nonsense that's been written by
so many people. I must say that most of it
has come out of the christ Church priest with Martin
I'm leading the charge. As you know, Van Dayana wrote
the story which New Zealand just went along with that
naturally enough, that David Dane had sort of scarped off
(11:10):
to Australia with his wife and that's where he was living.
That was totally untrue. David never went to Australia to live.
He had one short holiday there on the Gold Coast
with his wife, but he never contemplated living there and
never went there at all, and eventually they shifted to
where they now live. His wife has a very very
(11:30):
good job, is highly respected, and they bought a great
life for themselves. They've got two children who are doing
exceptionally well and as as far as they've got great support,
need work in the community where they are. And whether
or not what's happening now with this anniversary and the
scrutiny on things will change that, I don't know, but
(11:51):
I'm sure David will hold him.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
If anything does that and have you spoken to him recently?
I mean just checking in with them. I guess I'm
given it thirty years.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
We speak to each other, not every day or every
week or anything, but sort of once a month or
two months. We've never got old and wag on the
phone and talk about how things are going, and he
talks about his family and what he's doing for work
and so on. And I've talked to him recently about
the immedia scrutiny that's been going on, and he said, look,
(12:19):
we're living a happy life. We've got a good support
network around us, and I just wanted to sort of
just keep my head down and be tap with my
family and close friends. So that's what you're doing.
Speaker 5 (12:33):
How are you feeling?
Speaker 3 (12:33):
What was it like to hear that phrase not guilty
repeated five times today?
Speaker 6 (12:37):
That was a huge release for me, to be honest,
I just in some respects it took a huge weights
off my shoulders. But it's also shown me that the
love of all these people and this fantastic man here
has got me through and it's just it's all coming
(12:57):
at once.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Do you think New Zealand needs to move on?
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Well? I think what needs to happen was Black Hans
and Baine and thing is what it did. It had
an enormous effect. I mean it turns. I mean younger
people tend to listen to podcasts. I know that's changed now,
lots of people do. But all of the people who
were too young to follow the case and know about
the case, there are only reference about the case is
not only the podcast, but then New Zealand on Air
(13:25):
granted five million dollars to Warner Brothers to do that
television three part doco drama on the thing. What I
think needs to happen and answer your question, somebody should
put up five million dollars to have an investigation into
what went wrong, who did what, when did they do
(13:46):
it and why and get some accountability. Not for the
purpose of vengeance on all the people who did do things,
rather as I don't think David or me want to
see any of them get locked up, even though they
deserve it, but to make sure or put things in
place to try to ensure that something like this never
happens again.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
You're saying, instead of giving money to the likes of
a three part docco.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Series which was a pointless it was pointless a proud
and not think it added nothing to the story, and
in fact it wasn't even very didn't get very good ratings,
but that it creates controversy and unnecessary.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
And I suppose retraumatizers as well. I mean, this is
probably a period of David's life that he doesn't really
want to reflect on too.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Much exactly, but not only in I mean, I know
his extended family have ditched him and taken a side
of the police, but I don't think they want all
the stuff regurgitated over and over and over again, because
you know, as much as I think they were wrong
in the way they behaved, each tended family that is
in not supporting David. However, of course it was their
(14:53):
brother and sister and nieces and nephews and cousins who
also lost their lives and say they've been through a
great de la trauma as well. And the regurgitating of
what happened is no help to anybody. But what would
be a help would be to try to ensure that
these practices are well and truly in the past and
(15:14):
put things in place to make sure they don't happen again.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Is it time for New Zealand to leave David and
his family alone.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Well, it would be much easier for them to leave
him alone if the facts of the case were properly
put on the table and his innocence was acknowledged instead
of trying to portray him, as we've talked about with
the various podcasts and so on, as a killer living
amongst us. It's pretty obvious what happened, and the only
(15:43):
valuable thing that can be done for the case is
to learn from the mistakes that were made by the police,
by the Crown Law Office and Wellington, by the judges
at the Court of Appeal, and by politicians. He could
have all put a stop to this way back in
nineteen ninety seven when I went and told them, I mean,
what happened in the retrial is exactly what I told
(16:03):
them would happen if there was a retrial and I
was proven right thirteen years later. You know, I'd never
had any experience in law or criminal cases, and if
I could see how clearly what the case was by myself,
then all these people could have seen it if it
wasn't for their institutional bias which they brought to play
(16:24):
on the case. An answer your question, yes, leave it alone.
Or if you're going to touch it, at least acknowledge
the shortcomings and all of the authorities. When I went
to see the police, originally, it never would have been
all this controversy if they'd sat down with me and
discussed and worked out the way forward. I didn't want
(16:45):
to write books about the case. I didn't want to
have all this controversy and have David writing a land
prison for thirty more years. But instead of that, their
response was to try and destroy all the evidence. The
controversy is at the feet of the authorities.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Thanks for joining us, Joe, David Bain, Scott Watson, Race Mulane,
Heavenly Creatures, the Crew Murders. Some cases have captured Kiwi's
(17:22):
imagination and focus over the years more than others, So
why do we care about some cases rather than others.
To discuss this further, we're joined now on the front
page by aut University's professor of Popular Culture, doctor Lorna
Piatti Farnell.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Lorna.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Whether it's podcasts, articles, documentaries, TV adaptations, we all seem
to love true crime, don't we. What drives that fascination?
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Well, the fascination with true crime likely comes from many causes,
and there are probably many reasons as to white people
enjoy true crime stories so much. Now. Generally speaking, I
would say that the interest in true crime likely stems
first of all from the curiosity the people have about
these highly confronting stories. People want to know more and
(18:12):
find out the motivations of these killers. Above all, the
exploration of what we could not imagine doing, and the
focus on what it's perceived as different, deviant and simply
just not fitting in our society. Now, I think there
is a desire to try and discover some form of
(18:32):
blueprint over what caused the murderers to do what they did,
and perhaps even to avoid it happening again in the future. Unfortunately,
no matter how many true crime stories we might watch,
this is not simply a journey of causality and correlation
that applies to every single case, so it doesn't quite
work like that. But still we try and true crime
(18:53):
stories for the fans they will know this are often
very very visceral and get into very gory detail, so
there's probably a certain strange foeuristic side to the fascination.
And of course true crime is based generally speaking on
real historical events. It actually happened. So there is also
(19:14):
a layer of unspoken mixture of fear and excitement that
goes with the experience as well the thrill of delving
into the crime and all his details.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Shall we say, yeah, And looking at David Baine as
an example, it's been thirty years and he's gone through
two trials now, but we can't seem to leave it alone.
What do you think motivates people to keep talking about Bain?
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Now? What a case like that of Bain and several
others in a similar category, there is I think, in
equal parts fascination and repulsion over the fact that the
perpetrators of the crime of the murders did not kill strangers,
as it is often the case with a lot of
true crime stories that we see, but they killed members
of their family, or allegedly killed members of their family
(20:00):
as the trial went. Now the people that they should
have loved the most and cherished the most and cared about,
and that truly has a certain, should we say, unimaginable
quality to it. Truly is the call of the unthinkable,
And of course murder is thankfully unthinkable from the majority
of people. But when we encounter cases when it does
(20:22):
happen within family circles. There is a challenge to our
sense of safety, the pushing of boundaries of our comfort zone,
which is likely why these particular cases get so much attention.
And also we should not underestimate the idea that someone
may have actually been wrongfully convicted of a crime and
spent time in prison, as that is certainly something that
(20:45):
resonates with people.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Yeah, we were talking about Scott Watson on the podcast
the other week and one of our guests noted how
the name has been Smart and Olivia Hope. The fact
that that we both young, white, blonde made that case
stand out more.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Perhaps, you know.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
A couple of really attractive kids doing what a lot
of kids of that age did, which is their first
holidays with their friends, not their family, not to mention
their surnames, Hope and Smart. You know, they were the
perfect set of white middle class kids, beautiful, intelligent, their
whole lives ahead of them. And I think that's what
capitivated the country who because I think if it was
(21:25):
you know, as some different people in a small town,
for example, there wouldn't have been such a huge kind
of interest.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Does race and class play into which cases Garner our
attention over others, do you think.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
I see? Unfortunately, if we look at all the research
that has been conducted in this particular area and on
this particular topic in several fields, from criminal psychology to
gender and race studies to cultural and media studies, there
is definitely ample evidence to suggest that unfortunately, race, gender,
and class do play central parts in victim and perpetrator definition,
(22:04):
in the creation of sympathy or lack of sympathy, and
the attention that the case may actually get in the news.
There is a lot of stereotyping that happens, and most
often than not, this can reflect negatively on the victims
or on the perpetrator. It is regrettable, and it is
essential that we maintain a continuous awareness of this, especially
(22:28):
when presented with criminal acts in both real life and
fictionalized accounts.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Yeah, it's also seventy years since the Polling Parker and
Juliet Home murders in what's known as the Heavenly Creature's case.
So this isn't really a modern phenomenon, is it.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Well, I'm assuming you mean the news and cultural hype
of a murder rather than wealth as the latter has
been around. I think for as long as humans have
been around. Certainly, the narrative, shall we say, constructions of
a murder, the storytelling a murder, and what part do
news outlets and media play in generally that is not
(23:06):
a contemporary occurrence. Certainly from the late nineteenth entry onwards
with you know, famous cases like that of Jack the Ripper,
there has been a fascination with the idea of crime
that has been fueled by storytelling, and this has been
transported from the news or other forms of media such
as film and television and more recently you know, podcasts
(23:28):
and the like very popular with listeners. And then sensationalization
of murder has really been occurring ever since news and
later media audiences have been a thing. So absolutely it's
not really a new phenomenon.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
How much does news media drive interest in these cases
and should there be I guess more consideration from journalists
in what cases they spotlight?
Speaker 1 (23:51):
I suppose yes, that is a good question. And news
media have historically been central to drawing public attention to
particular cases, especially in building you know, speculation and fascination
around particular crimes, especially murders. Now, the serial killer phenomenon,
as it's often called more than the murder themselves, and
(24:14):
then the public attention around it has been intrinsically connected
with media attention. Sometimes historical facts and popular views can merge,
they can blend and merge and become one, and some
ideas of facts become very cemented into people's minds and
difficult to shake, whether they actually happen or not. So
(24:35):
it is always important to maintain vigilance over what information
is shared and circulated about these cases and in our
contemporary era, not only in official media outlets, but also
on user generated content platforms, and there are certainly quite
a lot of those around, so vigilance is definitely the key.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Thanks for joining us, Lona. That's it for this episode
of the Front Page. You can read more about today's
stories and extensive news coverage at enzed Herald dot co
dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Siles
with sound engineer Patty Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to
(25:19):
the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Kilda.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Thirty years ago,
five members of the Bain family in Dunedin were found
dead in their family home. The one surviving family member, David,
(00:28):
was later convicted of murdering his parents and three siblings.
He served thirteen years in prison before the Privy Council
quashed his convictions and he was subsequently found not guilty
on all charges at a retrial in two thousand and nine.
Despite this, for three decades, this case has joined a
(00:50):
gallery of notorious murders that have fascinated New Zealanders across
the years. Later, on the Front Page, we discuss our
fixation with this and other cases with Professor of POLP Culture,
doctor Lorna Piazzi. Far now but first longtime David Bain
advocate Joe Karen reflects on his three decades linked to
(01:12):
the case.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
I think thirty years.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Since the killings at Every Street. You're a former All Black,
a successful businessman but also known as a longtime David
Bain advocate. What first got you interested in this case?
Speaker 3 (01:29):
I was reading the New Zealand Herald one morning early
in January of nineteen ninety six, and there was a
little article in the Herald. Was a picture of five
or six people in the Octagon and the Meeden the
Treshoor table selling jams and pickles to raise money, with
a sign on the front which said David Dane was innocent.
(01:51):
And the story said that one of the people was
an elderly woman who was David Bain's music teacher, and
the other ones were friend that is from university and
drama society belonged to. And the story just grabbed me. Actually,
I'd been a close follower of the Arthur Allen Thomas case.
Funnily enough, I had broken my leg and was implaster
(02:13):
sitting at home doing nothing in nineteen seventy when the
crew murders happened, and that because I was stuck with
here was nowhere to go for nothing to do. I
sort of read and listened to everything that happened. Anyway,
what struck me about this article It wasn't like his
parents or family. These were people who were just friends
who to go out in the street and do this.
(02:34):
And I had a visit with my lawyer on some
other business A few days later, and I said to
do you know who the lawyer for the David Bain was,
And he gave me his name and address or phone number,
and I contacted him and put my finger in the
water and there we go. Twenty years later, I still
at it.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Yeah, I've seen people say that they would never have
been a retrial without your support of Bain. Would you
agree with that?
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Oh? Well, I'd go without not being boastful, but just
I think all the lawyers that I engaged over the
years would say exactly the same thing. Not only would
they not have been a retrial, there would David Dane
would still be in prison now. When they ordered the retrial,
Michael Reid, who was David Baine's QC, Michael REQC, he said, Joe,
(03:20):
you have to come down there. We can't do this
without You're the one with all the knowledge and everything else.
I said, well, you know, I'm not a lawyer. You
don't need the trial, and he said, no, You've got
to be there. So I was there right through the
whole thing, and I made over the years, I made
some very very important and crucial decisions for the legal team.
(03:41):
And I think it's fair to say that David Baine
instead of being happily married now two lovely children and
the gordous wife would still be writing away in the prison.
And it was the will of the police and the
various government officials that's what they would have liked to
have happened.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
Well, you were kind of the face of the campaign, hey,
and you really took on that role. And to say
this case was divisive is an understatement. What was it
like heading the campaign for so long? What kind of
things did you experience?
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Well, it's hard for anybody who wasn't close to me
over those years to understand is just how vicious the
assault on me personally was. I brought a different perspective
in the sense that you know, as a well known person,
being a formal all black, and that made the police
and the Justice department officials see me as more of
(04:34):
a threat, I suppose to a normal person who might
be fighting against an injustice. Right from the very beginning.
It was amazing when my name first became public as
being working for David, the number of police cars that
would be driving past our house. We lived in the country,
myself and a life and three children. At that stage.
(04:56):
I separated from my life soon after one night, not
long long after we'd separated, she'd been shopping in the evening.
It was in the winter time, and she went to
get in the car and her eyes approached her. And
they were both private investigators to follow me around and
try and dig up as much dirt on me as
they could, and they thought that the children wife might
(05:17):
be a great source of information for them. They sort
of did all they could to persuade her to spill
as much dirt on me as what she could, but
she didn't. She rang me up and told me what happened. Then,
of course, after I wrote the first book, which really
is what started the major controversy, the police sued me
for defamation. And I think that I can say fairly
(05:40):
accurately that I'm the only person that the police have
ever sued the defamation in New Zealand's history. Joe Karen,
why are you doing this?
Speaker 1 (05:52):
He is guilty as the police can't be wrong and
the government of cues can't all be wrong.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Surely, I don't know how well film you are. But
the jury did not hear all of the evidence. Much
of the evidence they did here was wrong. The detective
in fact, who sued me admitted it under oath during
my trial that his evidence on a most crucial matter
was wrong. The other detective be sued me under cross
examination made the statement that if he'd been asked, he
(06:20):
would have told the whole truth.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
You've mentioned before it had been tough, and I liked
this quote. You sometimes represented as being a raving redneck
who had lost the plot, and it seems like you've
been on the receiving end, especially a lot of public
backlash over the years. What kind of toll has that
taken on you thirty years down the track.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Well, I wouldn't say it's the toll lives with me now.
I mean, if I look at the case now in retrospect,
I have a great personal satisfaction and the feeling of triumph.
But as I said before David Dane, which will probably
be writing in jail instead of being happy married, it
gives me a great deal of bride and satisfaction that
(07:04):
my stick ability and all the work I did and
ef it I put into it a result than that.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
You've said the campaign costs you millions over the years.
Were you surprised going in how much it actually cost
to challenge the legal system, Because first cab off. The
rank was getting someone over to the Privy Council way
and you donated what like twelve grand.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
The initial thing was with Michael Guest, David's original lawyer,
and I didn't think you get to the Privy Council
in London for twelve thousand dollars. I was recently well
off at that time and the case he was bringing
seemed to be quite powerful to me. In fact, that's
when my association with the case just became public. What
I discovered on that visit and soon after was that
(07:48):
Michael Guest, David's original lawyer did a terrible job. And
so one of the first major decisions I made was
to sack him, and I arranged for Colin Wisner, QC
and Dunedin to work with me to investigate whether or
not he thought there'd been a miscarriage of justice that
was challengeable through the proper channels, and that after working
(08:12):
with me for twelve months, he agreed that there was,
and we lodged the petition to the Governor General.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
Would you do it all again?
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I would definitely do it all again, and I wouldn't
change I wouldn't be able to change anything because if
I didn't be as feisty and determined and out spoken
and voice things publicly as I did, I'd be just
like the Watson case now, struggling on twenty three years later,
hoping for the best and expecting the worst. So the
(08:39):
only thing I did wrong was have a faith in
the powers that be that they would take my concerns seriously.
That they didn't, And so when they treated me the
way they did, I treated them the same way back.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Over the last fifteen years. How much of your time
is still spent protecting David and I guess his new
family now as well.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
David actually said to me after the two thousand and
three decision of the Court of Appeal, and I was
sitting with him in prison. I think I might have
been shedding it through tears, and I was looking in
the eye and saying, I just can't believe this, and
they right have. I got this all wrong, David, and
you've been bullshitting me all along. And David looked at
me and said, Joe, you're doing tougher lag than me.
(09:34):
He said, I am innocent, and I'll never ever admit
enough fight on somehow, but you need to get on
your life glowing away, And as I said, I wrote
a letter of the Court of Appeal and told them
that they were wrong, and I go to the Privy
Council and that's what I did. But in terms of
protecting David, the biggest thing was since the retrial, that
is the biggest thing for me, was to get him
(09:56):
some compensation. And so after Benny report was staring out
in twenty and twelve, I then had to fight on
for another four years to finally get him about a
million dollars in two thy and sixteen, which gave him
the opportunity of creating And he was married by then
and he had one child by then, which gave him
(10:17):
his wife at least the opportunity of creating a life
for themselves and some privacy. But since that time and
David and I agreed it well at his wife that
it was their life and they would live at how
they wished to where they wished to, and to make
decisions for themselves. I offered that anytime they even needed
(10:38):
to meet a help them, I would, but that they
would basically get on with their life in their own way,
which is what I've done.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
And they're doing well. Do they manage to kind of
avoid being bothered.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Well, they have done extremely well. I mean, this is
another thing about all the nonsense that's been written by
so many people. I must say that most of it
has come out of the christ Church priest with Martin
I'm leading the charge. As you know, Van Dayana wrote
the story which New Zealand just went along with that
naturally enough, that David Dane had sort of scarped off
(11:10):
to Australia with his wife and that's where he was living.
That was totally untrue. David never went to Australia to live.
He had one short holiday there on the Gold Coast
with his wife, but he never contemplated living there and
never went there at all, and eventually they shifted to
where they now live. His wife has a very very
(11:30):
good job, is highly respected, and they bought a great
life for themselves. They've got two children who are doing
exceptionally well and as as far as they've got great support,
need work in the community where they are. And whether
or not what's happening now with this anniversary and the
scrutiny on things will change that, I don't know, but
(11:51):
I'm sure David will hold him.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
If anything does that and have you spoken to him recently?
I mean just checking in with them. I guess I'm
given it thirty years.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
We speak to each other, not every day or every
week or anything, but sort of once a month or
two months. We've never got old and wag on the
phone and talk about how things are going, and he
talks about his family and what he's doing for work
and so on. And I've talked to him recently about
the immedia scrutiny that's been going on, and he said, look,
(12:19):
we're living a happy life. We've got a good support
network around us, and I just wanted to sort of
just keep my head down and be tap with my
family and close friends. So that's what you're doing.
Speaker 5 (12:33):
How are you feeling?
Speaker 3 (12:33):
What was it like to hear that phrase not guilty
repeated five times today?
Speaker 6 (12:37):
That was a huge release for me, to be honest,
I just in some respects it took a huge weights
off my shoulders. But it's also shown me that the
love of all these people and this fantastic man here
has got me through and it's just it's all coming
(12:57):
at once.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Do you think New Zealand needs to move on?
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Well? I think what needs to happen was Black Hans
and Baine and thing is what it did. It had
an enormous effect. I mean it turns. I mean younger
people tend to listen to podcasts. I know that's changed now,
lots of people do. But all of the people who
were too young to follow the case and know about
the case, there are only reference about the case is
not only the podcast, but then New Zealand on Air
(13:25):
granted five million dollars to Warner Brothers to do that
television three part doco drama on the thing. What I
think needs to happen and answer your question, somebody should
put up five million dollars to have an investigation into
what went wrong, who did what, when did they do
(13:46):
it and why and get some accountability. Not for the
purpose of vengeance on all the people who did do things,
rather as I don't think David or me want to
see any of them get locked up, even though they
deserve it, but to make sure or put things in
place to try to ensure that something like this never
happens again.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
You're saying, instead of giving money to the likes of
a three part docco.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
Series which was a pointless it was pointless a proud
and not think it added nothing to the story, and
in fact it wasn't even very didn't get very good ratings,
but that it creates controversy and unnecessary.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
And I suppose retraumatizers as well. I mean, this is
probably a period of David's life that he doesn't really
want to reflect on too.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Much exactly, but not only in I mean, I know
his extended family have ditched him and taken a side
of the police, but I don't think they want all
the stuff regurgitated over and over and over again, because
you know, as much as I think they were wrong
in the way they behaved, each tended family that is
in not supporting David. However, of course it was their
(14:53):
brother and sister and nieces and nephews and cousins who
also lost their lives and say they've been through a
great de la trauma as well. And the regurgitating of
what happened is no help to anybody. But what would
be a help would be to try to ensure that
these practices are well and truly in the past and
(15:14):
put things in place to make sure they don't happen again.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Is it time for New Zealand to leave David and
his family alone.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
Well, it would be much easier for them to leave
him alone if the facts of the case were properly
put on the table and his innocence was acknowledged instead
of trying to portray him, as we've talked about with
the various podcasts and so on, as a killer living
amongst us. It's pretty obvious what happened, and the only
(15:43):
valuable thing that can be done for the case is
to learn from the mistakes that were made by the police,
by the Crown Law Office and Wellington, by the judges
at the Court of Appeal, and by politicians. He could
have all put a stop to this way back in
nineteen ninety seven when I went and told them, I mean,
what happened in the retrial is exactly what I told
(16:03):
them would happen if there was a retrial and I
was proven right thirteen years later. You know, I'd never
had any experience in law or criminal cases, and if
I could see how clearly what the case was by myself,
then all these people could have seen it if it
wasn't for their institutional bias which they brought to play
(16:24):
on the case. An answer your question, yes, leave it alone.
Or if you're going to touch it, at least acknowledge
the shortcomings and all of the authorities. When I went
to see the police, originally, it never would have been
all this controversy if they'd sat down with me and
discussed and worked out the way forward. I didn't want
(16:45):
to write books about the case. I didn't want to
have all this controversy and have David writing a land
prison for thirty more years. But instead of that, their
response was to try and destroy all the evidence. The
controversy is at the feet of the authorities.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Thanks for joining us, Joe, David Bain, Scott Watson, Race Mulane,
Heavenly Creatures, the Crew Murders. Some cases have captured Kiwi's
(17:22):
imagination and focus over the years more than others, So
why do we care about some cases rather than others.
To discuss this further, we're joined now on the front
page by aut University's professor of Popular Culture, doctor Lorna
Piatti Farnell.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Lorna.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Whether it's podcasts, articles, documentaries, TV adaptations, we all seem
to love true crime, don't we. What drives that fascination?
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Well, the fascination with true crime likely comes from many causes,
and there are probably many reasons as to white people
enjoy true crime stories so much. Now. Generally speaking, I
would say that the interest in true crime likely stems
first of all from the curiosity the people have about
these highly confronting stories. People want to know more and
(18:12):
find out the motivations of these killers. Above all, the
exploration of what we could not imagine doing, and the
focus on what it's perceived as different, deviant and simply
just not fitting in our society. Now, I think there
is a desire to try and discover some form of
(18:32):
blueprint over what caused the murderers to do what they did,
and perhaps even to avoid it happening again in the future. Unfortunately,
no matter how many true crime stories we might watch,
this is not simply a journey of causality and correlation
that applies to every single case, so it doesn't quite
work like that. But still we try and true crime
(18:53):
stories for the fans they will know this are often
very very visceral and get into very gory detail, so
there's probably a certain strange foeuristic side to the fascination.
And of course true crime is based generally speaking on
real historical events. It actually happened. So there is also
(19:14):
a layer of unspoken mixture of fear and excitement that
goes with the experience as well the thrill of delving
into the crime and all his details.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Shall we say, yeah, And looking at David Baine as
an example, it's been thirty years and he's gone through
two trials now, but we can't seem to leave it alone.
What do you think motivates people to keep talking about Bain?
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Now? What a case like that of Bain and several
others in a similar category, there is I think, in
equal parts fascination and repulsion over the fact that the
perpetrators of the crime of the murders did not kill strangers,
as it is often the case with a lot of
true crime stories that we see, but they killed members
of their family, or allegedly killed members of their family
(20:00):
as the trial went. Now the people that they should
have loved the most and cherished the most and cared about,
and that truly has a certain, should we say, unimaginable
quality to it. Truly is the call of the unthinkable,
And of course murder is thankfully unthinkable from the majority
of people. But when we encounter cases when it does
(20:22):
happen within family circles. There is a challenge to our
sense of safety, the pushing of boundaries of our comfort zone,
which is likely why these particular cases get so much attention.
And also we should not underestimate the idea that someone
may have actually been wrongfully convicted of a crime and
spent time in prison, as that is certainly something that
(20:45):
resonates with people.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Yeah, we were talking about Scott Watson on the podcast
the other week and one of our guests noted how
the name has been Smart and Olivia Hope. The fact
that that we both young, white, blonde made that case
stand out more.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Perhaps, you know.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
A couple of really attractive kids doing what a lot
of kids of that age did, which is their first
holidays with their friends, not their family, not to mention
their surnames, Hope and Smart. You know, they were the
perfect set of white middle class kids, beautiful, intelligent, their
whole lives ahead of them. And I think that's what
capitivated the country who because I think if it was
(21:25):
you know, as some different people in a small town,
for example, there wouldn't have been such a huge kind
of interest.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Does race and class play into which cases Garner our
attention over others, do you think.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
I see? Unfortunately, if we look at all the research
that has been conducted in this particular area and on
this particular topic in several fields, from criminal psychology to
gender and race studies to cultural and media studies, there
is definitely ample evidence to suggest that unfortunately, race, gender,
and class do play central parts in victim and perpetrator definition,
(22:04):
in the creation of sympathy or lack of sympathy, and
the attention that the case may actually get in the news.
There is a lot of stereotyping that happens, and most
often than not, this can reflect negatively on the victims
or on the perpetrator. It is regrettable, and it is
essential that we maintain a continuous awareness of this, especially
(22:28):
when presented with criminal acts in both real life and
fictionalized accounts.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
Yeah, it's also seventy years since the Polling Parker and
Juliet Home murders in what's known as the Heavenly Creature's case.
So this isn't really a modern phenomenon, is it.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Well, I'm assuming you mean the news and cultural hype
of a murder rather than wealth as the latter has
been around. I think for as long as humans have
been around. Certainly, the narrative, shall we say, constructions of
a murder, the storytelling a murder, and what part do
news outlets and media play in generally that is not
(23:06):
a contemporary occurrence. Certainly from the late nineteenth entry onwards
with you know, famous cases like that of Jack the Ripper,
there has been a fascination with the idea of crime
that has been fueled by storytelling, and this has been
transported from the news or other forms of media such
as film and television and more recently you know, podcasts
(23:28):
and the like very popular with listeners. And then sensationalization
of murder has really been occurring ever since news and
later media audiences have been a thing. So absolutely it's
not really a new phenomenon.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
How much does news media drive interest in these cases
and should there be I guess more consideration from journalists
in what cases they spotlight?
Speaker 1 (23:51):
I suppose yes, that is a good question. And news
media have historically been central to drawing public attention to
particular cases, especially in building you know, speculation and fascination
around particular crimes, especially murders. Now, the serial killer phenomenon,
as it's often called more than the murder themselves, and
(24:14):
then the public attention around it has been intrinsically connected
with media attention. Sometimes historical facts and popular views can merge,
they can blend and merge and become one, and some
ideas of facts become very cemented into people's minds and
difficult to shake, whether they actually happen or not. So
(24:35):
it is always important to maintain vigilance over what information
is shared and circulated about these cases and in our
contemporary era, not only in official media outlets, but also
on user generated content platforms, and there are certainly quite
a lot of those around, so vigilance is definitely the key.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Thanks for joining us, Lona. That's it for this episode
of the Front Page. You can read more about today's
stories and extensive news coverage at enzed Herald dot co
dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Siles
with sound engineer Patty Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to
(25:19):
the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,
and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Intentionally Disturbing
Join me on this podcast as I navigate the murky waters of human behavior, current events, and personal anecdotes through in-depth interviews with incredible people—all served with a generous helping of sarcasm and satire. After years as a forensic and clinical psychologist, I offer a unique interview style and a low tolerance for bullshit, quickly steering conversations toward depth and darkness. I honor the seriousness while also appreciating wit. I’m your guide through the twisted labyrinth of the human psyche, armed with dark humor and biting wit.