Yoda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is a summer special of The Front Page, the NSID Herald's daily news podcast. While the Front Page is on summer break, we're taking a look back at some of the biggest news stories and top rated episodes from the podcast in twenty twenty four. New episodes will return on January thirteenth. June twenty this year marked thirty years since five members of the Bain family in Dunedin were found dead in their family home.
The one survivor, David, would be convicted of murdering his parents and his three siblings. He served thirteen years in prison before the Privy Council quashed his convictions and he was found not guilty on all charges at a retrial in two thousand nine. For the anniversary in June, we spoke to longtime Bane advocate Joe Krum for an exclusive chat reflecting on his three decades linked to the case, as well as exploring our obsession with the case with
aut professor of pop culture doctor Lorna Piante Farnal. It's been thirty years since the killings at Every Street. You're a former All Black, a successful businessman, but also known as longtime David Bain advocate. What first got you interested in this case?
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. And the story said that one of the people was an elderly woman who was David Bean's music teacher, and the other ones were friend that is, from the university
and drama society belonged to. And the story just grabbed me. Actually, I've been a close follower of the Arthur Allen Thomas case. Funnily enough, I had broken my leg and was implaster sitting at home doing nothing in nineteen seventy when the crew murders happened, and that because I was stuck there 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. And I had a visit with my lawyer on some other business a few days later, and I said, Tom, do you know who the lawyer for the David Daine 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 was still at it. Yeah.
Seen people say that they would never have been a retrial without your support of Baine. Would you agree with that?
Oh? Well, I'd go with it. 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, would David Bane would still be in prison now. When they ordered the retrial, Michael Reid, who was David Baine's QC, Michael Red QC, he said, Joe, 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 at 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. And I think it's fair to say that David Bain, instead of being happily married now two lovely children and the gorgeous wife, would still be writing away in the prison. And it was the will of the police and the very government officials.
That's what they would have liked to have happened.
Well, you were kind of like 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?
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 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 a threat, I suppose to the 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. That stage I separated from my wife soon after. One night, not 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 two 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 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 accurately that I'm the only person that the police have ever sued the defamation in New Zealand's history.
Jo Karam, why are you doing this?
He is guilty as.
Can't be wrong, and the government.
Of cries can't all be wrong.
Surely, I don't know how well informed 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 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 would have told the whole truth.
You've mentioned before it had been tough, and I liked this quote. You're 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.
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 trial. But as I said before David Dane, which will probably be writing in jail instead of being happily married, it gives me a great deal of bribe and satisfaction that my stick ability and or work I did and if I put into it a result than that.
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.
The initial thing was with Michael Guest, David's original lawyer, and I didn't think you'd get to the Privy Council in London for twelve thousand dollars. I was recentably 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 Michael Guests, 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 Wisnoll CAC 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
with me for twelve months, he agreed that there was, and we lodged the petition to the Governor General.
Would you do it all again?
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 voiced 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 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.
Over the last fifteen years. How much of your time is still spent protecting David and I guess his new family now as well.
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.
He said, I am innocent, and I'll never ever admit enough fight on somehow that you need to get on with 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 some compensation. And so after Binny's report was throwing out in twenty twelve, I then had to fight on for another four years to finally get him about a million dollars in twenty 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 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 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.
And they're doing well. Do they manage to kind of avoid being bothered?
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 Press, with Martin Van Dyanam leading the charge. As you know, Van Dayna wrote the story which New Zealand just went along with that naturally enough that David Dane had sort of scarped off 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 good job, is highly respected and they've
built 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 I'm sure David will holding me if anything does have.
And have you spoken to him recently, I mean just checking in with him. I guess I'm given it thirty years.
We speak to each other regularly, 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. He talks about his family and what he's doing for work and so on. And I've talked to him recently about thet I media scrutiny that's been going on, and he said, look,
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.
How are you feeling?
What was it like to hear that phrase not guilty repeated five times today?
I 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 I love all these people, and this fantastic man here has gone through and it's just it's all coming at once.
Do you think New Zealand needs to move on.
Well, I think what needs to happen this Black Hands and Bain 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 n Air granted five million dollars to Warner Brothers to do that
television three part doco drama on this thing. What I think needs to happen and answer your question, somebody should put out five million dollars to have an investigation into what went wrong, who did what, when did they do
it and why and get some accountability. Not for the purpose of vengeance on all the people who did do things wrong, 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.
You're saying instead of giving money to the likes of a three part docco.
Series which was a pointless It was pointless, a proved and I think it added nothing to the story, and in fact it wasn't even very didn't get very good ratings. But that you know, it creates controversy and.
Unnecessary 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 much.
Well exactly, but not only in I mean, I know his extended family have ditched him and taken aside 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, and not supporting David. However, of course, it was their brother and sister and and nephews and cousins who also lost their lives and say they've been through a great deal of
trauma as well. And the reurgitating 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 put things in place to make sure they don't happen again.
Is it time for New Zealand to leave David and his family alone?
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 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 in 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 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 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
to write books about the case. I didn't want to have all this controversy and have David writing away prison for thirty more years. But instead of that, their response was to try and destroy all the evidence. The controversy is at the feat of the authorities, not a David to mine.
Thanks for joining us, Joe, David, Bain, Scott Watson, Grace Mulane, Heavenly Creatures, the Crew Murders. Some cases have captured Kiwi's 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. Lorna whether it's podcasts, articles, documentaries, TV, adaptations.
We all seem to love true crime, don't we What drives that fascination?
Well, the fascination which true crime likely comes from many causes, and there are probably many reasons as to why 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 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 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 stories for the fans they will know this are often very very visceral and get into very gory details, so there's probably a certain strange, foreuristic side to the fascination, and of course true crime
is based generally speaking on real historical events it actually happened, So there is also 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.
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?
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
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 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's certainly something that resonates with people.
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 we both young, white, blonde made that case stand out more. Perhaps, you know.
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 sort 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 you know, as some different people in a small town, for example, there wouldn't have been such a huge kind of interest.
Does race and class play into which cases garner our attention over others? Do you think?
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 for evidence to suggest that, unfortunately, race, gender, and class do play central parts in victim and perpetrator definition, 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 when presented with criminal acts in both real life and fictionalized accounts.
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, 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.
The narrative, shall we say, constructions of a murder, the storytelling of a murder, and what part do news outlets and media play in Generally, that is not.
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 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.
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?
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 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 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 arounds of vigilance, definitely the key.
Thanks for joining us, Lorna. That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzeed Herald dot co dot z. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Siles with sound engineer Patti Fox. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts and Tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.