Culture

Before we start, I have a question for you. Do you want a book review, or an opinion? I find it amazing how often people want a book that affirms their beliefs, rather than a book that challenges them. Joe Karam’s fourth book on the David Bain saga, Trial By Ambush, will no doubt challenge some beliefs, both in Dunedin and in New Zealand generally, as we remain divided over how to deal with an exonerated murderer. In truth, the mysterious and subjective behavior of our justice system really is a bitch, and I sympathize. As you have most likely already made up your mind about the case, or at least know the bullet points of the drama, it would be pointless to rehash what happened that “fateful day”, or to give you a play-by-play of the retrial; you can find that information in the book, if you dare to open it. And I think you should.

What you need to understand is that nothing in this book is value-free. There is always a slant, always an edge, or a truth that any narrative will try to convey. Karam is a master of constructing a logical progression of facts. His painstaking attention to detail makes up for the fact that there is nothing exceptionally stunning about his prose. Knowing who the writer was, I approached the book skeptically. There were stylistic clichés and several trite statements that left me unimpressed at the start. However, what I couldn’t shake was that after reading the first section – a laborious 182-page reconstruction of the first trial – and almost threw the book into the rubbish, the following sections unveiled a truly gripping structure of counter evidence, cast in the shape of a formidable wrecking ball.

Karam’s systematic thrashing of the prosecution’s case against David Bain was convincing, not because of the destruction of one or two aspects of the prosecution’s evidence, but the obliteration of every one of the CIB’s theories prescribed to the evidence collected. Karam’s harsh treatment of the CIB is probably fair, considering how he presents the miscarriage of justice against Bain. Yet that is just it: no matter what packaging Karam chose to put his knowledge of the case in, no matter how many facts, truths and bricks of evidence thrown to the skeptic, there will always be the argument that “Joe Karam wrote it, so objectivity is impossible.” Time to look in the mirror.