Bain debate: Karam takes on Laws

07 Aug 2010 05:49a.m.

Jan.. wrote:

Beyond reasonble dou't David Bain was not in prison but was based at one of the Psyactric Home's while the mentally ill that locked up in the prison cells for 8-9 month under the wrong confusing bad influence of the Remand Prison's Corrections Judges and the Probation officers and they were too personal and very confused in putting words across the floor in the Remand Prison Court Room..
I do have witness to above mentioned and have had written letters to the MP's nearby..

07 Aug 2010 12:51a.m.

Thomas wrote:

I hung on every word from start to finish during this debate, & there is no doubt in my mind that Michael ran rings around Joe, Michael's verbal skills & his ability to articulate his views & opinions were so much more superior to Joe's who seemed to be floundering around much of the time, but not surpising as unlike Michael he had bugger all to offer in the way of credible evidence anyway.

06 Aug 2010 07:17p.m.

Cheryl wrote:

A disgraceful farce from Michael Law. Normally in a debate you listen and counter, not just throw out your own opinion oposing expert evidence.

06 Aug 2010 05:15p.m.

watching NZ wrote:

NZ s got more important issues out there,that need major attention,not this crap, The NZ taxpayer bleets and moans about their money,being wasted...

06 Aug 2010 05:08p.m.

ridley wrote:

Not usually a fan of Michael Laws.However i am fully behind him on this one.Strange how Bain a so called innocent man cannot speak up for himself.Anyone truly innocent would have no trouble.He and his attention seeking champion.Will in time come to realize that the majority of Newzealanders are not stupid, and have their own free thinking point of view.

06 Aug 2010 02:54p.m.

go laws!!!! wrote:

lawsy was the winner it is clearly obvious who killed the family !!1

06 Aug 2010 02:51p.m.

Johnny wrote:

Are you joking> Michael Laws demonstrated why it couldn't have been Robin ... he was brilliant!

06 Aug 2010 02:48p.m.

Excellent Debate! wrote:

The debate was compelling and I did not get much work done today! Well done to both Jo and Michael for presenting both sides. Both men were articulate and passionate in their views and this can understandably lead to overspeaking one another at times. Before this debate I was undecided. However since seeing the recent documentary on Robin Bain and listening to this debate I have now formed my opinion. Based on there not being adequate evidence, David is a free man. However, this still does not convince me that he is innocent. I work as a health professional and I know for a fact that "experts" do not always get things right. Michael Laws won the debate in my view. If I was innocent in all this it would have been ME on the radio vs Jo arguing with Micheal and fighting for my innocence. Jo has invested a lot of time and money in this case. He has had an enormous amount of coverage, made money from the books he wrote and possibly secured additional work from this case. He has too much to lose both personally and professionally to change his views.

I think more debates like this would be worthwhile. It helps Jo Public like myself to consider both sides of a case. Remember it is Jo Public that become Jurers after all. How about reviewing the Kahui twin murders next?! Maybe it might rattle enough opinions to help the police find the real murderer.

This sort of debate also highlights to police how important their job is to get their facts and evidence right in a crime scene. Improvements are made through error and learning from mistakes. Lets hope they get it right for the next horror that no doubt will come again in this crazy world.

06 Aug 2010 02:42p.m.

Dan wrote:

I'm not surprised Karam would have won the debate. 1) Karam was part of the trial and would have heard all the arguments presented by both parties. He would have the necessary rebuttals at his fingertips 2) Laws is out of his depth. He's just not that intelligent However, I guarantee Mr. Karam has no chance of proving David Bain's innocence and neither would Bain's lawyer. He can use all the obfuscatory and semantic tactics he likes but there are simply no facts to prove David Bain's innocence on the balance of probabilities. The best he can do is muddy the waters with the possibility of Robin Bain's guilt to derive reasonable doubt that David murdered the family. In the criminal retrial that was sufficient. The jury being unable to be certain of David Bain's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt had to find him not guilty in law despite the huge probability that he was guilty in fact. Such is life in a system of procedural justice and I personally wouldn't have it any other way.

06 Aug 2010 01:42p.m.

Hmmm wrote:

No clear winner? Karam wiped the floor with that fool Laws.