A couple of the other chickens are getting all clucky, one of them reckons her name is Mike Stockdale whose photo is on a book and wants me to ask for her autograph. Chickens can be strange company at times, what with clucking and laying eggs all the time you'd think they'd find something else to do.
I've never really closely studied chickens before I was hanging out in this coop, but I wish they could stop pooping everywhere. They even poop on the eggs. That chicken, mike stockdale nz, reckons she use to be a car sales man, and that if I look at her dirty book I'll get a discount on a brand new 38 Dodge with one of them big back seats, how clucky is that?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Jeeve's (Ralph) having a go for the Moron's title.
And this early in the week, he's very desperate for that title. How's this?
Much has been made of the Blood in the barrel and I can't find a reference for it on google except it was mentioned by the Defence in their summing up.But where did they get their information from. It has to be one of the Crown's expert witnesses either Dr Ferris,Dr Thompson,Dr Elliot or Henschell etc.?Or was it Dr Manlove ?Anyhow it is pretty academic given that David's rifle was fired at point blank range at Laniet leaving a "gaping hole" that alone must of left lot's of blood in the barrel.
Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 3:10 pm, Tue 31 Aug #23554
Now this from a man who is more than willing to call people perjurers, the Jury corrupt, single out Karam for abuse all to persecute David Bain. Some part of me thinks that it is very important to be sure of what you decide your position on, for example not on anti or pro Police bias, or anti or pro lawyer bias, race or colour, a person's looks, or gut feelings, perceived omniscience. You need the facts and even when you have them and are satisfied that they give you the true picture, one would then need to ask what do I do with my position? Am I justified in persecuting somebody for example, does the world benefit by my persecuting somebody even when they are 'apparently' evil or bad or some other thing we might not approve of. So there perhaps are two hurdles, or restraints I imagine, before climbing on the persecution bandwagon, being sure, weighing the alleged benefit from your act of persecution - and finally probably a third thing: common sense before you plaid the proverbial hang man's noose.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2471577/Bain-jury-told-to-ignore-emotion
Where the Judge in summary of the defence says,
-'There was blood spatter inside the rifle barrel indicating a close-range final shot'
So we see two things a close-range final shot evidenced by the blood spatter and something else, - the clear indication of what anybody who wasn't a moron would know, that the rifle barel was effectively cleaned after each shot, hence the words close-rang final shot. So Jeeves, known on the hate-sites as Ralph, displays for once and all that he has been a mindless persecutor for over a year, never having been able to pass the first hurdle, ie being informed and sure of the facts. When he has 'heard' of the blood spatter he suspects it is a lie, then qualifies that if it isn't that DNA can exist in a rifle after the previous 'cleaning out' shot. The guy is a raging idiot, from a hate-site of frothing at the mouth raging idiots. I think he's got next week's award covered. Though he should get another, one for having no shame in being totally wrong about something, of not researching and jumping to conclusions, to only know a small sample of the evidence but take great leaps of supposition all to support something already decided overwhich he pretends to be an expert. Yes.
Oh I see some late patronising comment from Jeevo the devo.
Am sorry ro but all I am doing is presenting facts which you choose to react and be blind to.Learn to be a person not an emotional reaction.No one is responsible for the way you feel.Only you are.And I am not on weak ground!
Edited by jeeves-50 at 3:15 pm, Tue 31 Aug
Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 3:14 pm, Tue 31 Aug #23555
Much has been made of the Blood in the barrel and I can't find a reference for it on google except it was mentioned by the Defence in their summing up.But where did they get their information from. It has to be one of the Crown's expert witnesses either Dr Ferris,Dr Thompson,Dr Elliot or Henschell etc.?Or was it Dr Manlove ?Anyhow it is pretty academic given that David's rifle was fired at point blank range at Laniet leaving a "gaping hole" that alone must of left lot's of blood in the barrel.
Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 3:10 pm, Tue 31 Aug #23554
Now this from a man who is more than willing to call people perjurers, the Jury corrupt, single out Karam for abuse all to persecute David Bain. Some part of me thinks that it is very important to be sure of what you decide your position on, for example not on anti or pro Police bias, or anti or pro lawyer bias, race or colour, a person's looks, or gut feelings, perceived omniscience. You need the facts and even when you have them and are satisfied that they give you the true picture, one would then need to ask what do I do with my position? Am I justified in persecuting somebody for example, does the world benefit by my persecuting somebody even when they are 'apparently' evil or bad or some other thing we might not approve of. So there perhaps are two hurdles, or restraints I imagine, before climbing on the persecution bandwagon, being sure, weighing the alleged benefit from your act of persecution - and finally probably a third thing: common sense before you plaid the proverbial hang man's noose.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2471577/Bain-jury-told-to-ignore-emotion
Where the Judge in summary of the defence says,
-'There was blood spatter inside the rifle barrel indicating a close-range final shot'
So we see two things a close-range final shot evidenced by the blood spatter and something else, - the clear indication of what anybody who wasn't a moron would know, that the rifle barel was effectively cleaned after each shot, hence the words close-rang final shot. So Jeeves, known on the hate-sites as Ralph, displays for once and all that he has been a mindless persecutor for over a year, never having been able to pass the first hurdle, ie being informed and sure of the facts. When he has 'heard' of the blood spatter he suspects it is a lie, then qualifies that if it isn't that DNA can exist in a rifle after the previous 'cleaning out' shot. The guy is a raging idiot, from a hate-site of frothing at the mouth raging idiots. I think he's got next week's award covered. Though he should get another, one for having no shame in being totally wrong about something, of not researching and jumping to conclusions, to only know a small sample of the evidence but take great leaps of supposition all to support something already decided overwhich he pretends to be an expert. Yes.
Oh I see some late patronising comment from Jeevo the devo.
Am sorry ro but all I am doing is presenting facts which you choose to react and be blind to.Learn to be a person not an emotional reaction.No one is responsible for the way you feel.Only you are.And I am not on weak ground!
Edited by jeeves-50 at 3:15 pm, Tue 31 Aug
Quotejeeves-50 (3 ) 3:14 pm, Tue 31 Aug #23555
Mike Stockdale, a blatant liar?
First this,
Submitted by Mike Stockdale on Fri, 27/08/2010 - 9:57am. New
Thanks,Kent
Yes,it is important that you don't make assumptions so far as anything to do with Karam is concerned.But I have sort of been treating counterspin a bit like the the topics on JFRB Facebook,where we all discussed what we thought might have happened.I remember asking Milton once about a couple of my theories,and the first thing he said was "Mike,only David Bain knows",and he then said that the theories I put to him had all been discussed,in fact he said he would be very surprised if anyone came up with any theory about anything that the Police hadn't already thought about.
I mean,David Bain going inside and coming back out,yes ,that had been discussed.David Bain waiting at the gate for a couple of minutes,yes that had been discussed,etc.,etc.Even David Bain using his gloves to wipe the blood off the rifle,been there,discussed that.
Then a few days later, this:
I can assure you project,that I am not a friend of Weir's,I have never met the man.I would like to,like to shake his hand.
What a pity he is not still in the Police force.So far as Police matters were concerned ,he was an excellent copper,and even Mike Guest admitted that.He said he was "pure as driven snow".
And I do go out on the streets each day,for my daily walk.Suggest you do likewise.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:11 am, Mon 30 Aug #23237
Submitted by Mike Stockdale on Fri, 27/08/2010 - 9:57am. New
Thanks,Kent
Yes,it is important that you don't make assumptions so far as anything to do with Karam is concerned.But I have sort of been treating counterspin a bit like the the topics on JFRB Facebook,where we all discussed what we thought might have happened.I remember asking Milton once about a couple of my theories,and the first thing he said was "Mike,only David Bain knows",and he then said that the theories I put to him had all been discussed,in fact he said he would be very surprised if anyone came up with any theory about anything that the Police hadn't already thought about.
I mean,David Bain going inside and coming back out,yes ,that had been discussed.David Bain waiting at the gate for a couple of minutes,yes that had been discussed,etc.,etc.Even David Bain using his gloves to wipe the blood off the rifle,been there,discussed that.
Then a few days later, this:
I can assure you project,that I am not a friend of Weir's,I have never met the man.I would like to,like to shake his hand.
What a pity he is not still in the Police force.So far as Police matters were concerned ,he was an excellent copper,and even Mike Guest admitted that.He said he was "pure as driven snow".
And I do go out on the streets each day,for my daily walk.Suggest you do likewise.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:11 am, Mon 30 Aug #23237
Coincidence... Kalnovitch and goldnkiwi?
Others might recall the topic here below 'Dumb and dumber' with reference to the known stalker Kalnovitch desperately seeking the TM poster goldnkiwi, who now for the second time since joining guiltyfreeforums is stalking and menacing another poster with 'outing' their alleged true identity. This is how hate-siters work, threatening and trying to harass people into silence. Coincidence? I don't think so.
urbanhymns wrote:
Who is she? we know that you are using you husbands TM account and are in fact a she, but who is the other she you constantly refer to?
Is Sue making a come back? She was a she!!!I miss Sue, so insightful, so experienced and knowledgable, happy to share that knowledge with all, and modest with it. Sue without the legal connotation lol.
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 9:55 pm, Mon 30 Aug #23446
urbanhymns wrote:
Who is she? we know that you are using you husbands TM account and are in fact a she, but who is the other she you constantly refer to?
Is Sue making a come back? She was a she!!!I miss Sue, so insightful, so experienced and knowledgable, happy to share that knowledge with all, and modest with it. Sue without the legal connotation lol.
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 9:55 pm, Mon 30 Aug #23446
Great position by NZ Police.
After a somewhat sensationalised buildup the previous night on TV1 concerning the views of the NSW police of New Zealand Police being 'unarmed,' it was good to see the The NZ Police hierarchy able to respond with facts and figures regarding the training and access to weapons for NZ Police in a measured and thoughtful way on the TV1 news last night. According to the officer interviewed, NZ Police receive more training than their NSW counterparts, have sufficient and adequate access to firearms, would be generally uncomfortable in being seen to being armed, and that the particular recent tragedies which have given rise to public concern for the safety of Police would not have been avoided if Police officers were routinely armed.
The ar..wipe: luckytrader part (2)
The Poster 'luckytrader.'
Hi >snip<,
Saying that anybody is a criminal, a murderer or perjurer,
without proof of a conviction is defamatory. To say or imply that David Bain
is a murderer is obviously defamatory because he was acquitted on all
charges, to say that criminal(s) served on the Jury is obviously defamatory,
to say that witnesses (who were all named apart from one or two) perjured
themselves is also defamatory. None of these things can be classed as
'opinion' because they have no lawful status, to say an individual or a
group (as is the case with the jury and witnesses) are criminal(s) and
perjurers can't be sustained on fact. If you have any doubts about this
contact the Ministry of Justice or the Minister's office, in the meantime,
ban this poster and remove all his deluded rantings. If you have any doubt,
because of your lack of experience as to what defamation, inciting hatred
and harassment is, err on the side of caution. If you do not want to contact
the Minister's office or will not ban this poster, I will send all the
information along on your behalf and the issue can become one between Trade
Me as publisher and the Ministry of Justice.
There is currently a lot of opinion abroad that Trade Me are supportive or
unmoved by the ongoing use of it's boards by members of three particular
hate-sites, Justice(sic)For Robin Bain, Counterspin, Guilty.Freeforums. The
Trade Me member 'luckytrader' is a member of all 3 of those sites. As you
know Trade Me already face many charges of defamation. You might also know that as recently as last weekend there is comment from the Attorney General
in discussing Contempt of Court where he says of Contempt of Court it is
'more about preserving the fundamental confidence in the rule of law, and
smooth functioning of justice without interference from third parties or
outside factors.' Clearly, 'preserving the fundamental confidence in the
rule of law' is not to print or promote the unfounded utter tripe posted by
'luckytrader.' The hate-sites are deliberately attacking the Justice System,
The Judiciary, Witnesses, Counsel and a particular Jury their comments (
those of the hate-sites and those of luckytrader in particular which I have
brought to your attention) are clearly in Contempt of Court as defined by
the Attorney General.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours
etc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trade Me Support"
To: >snip<
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:59 PM
Subject: Your Trade Me Enquiry ID# 000-523-700
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear >snip<,
I have looked into this for you, and cannot ascertain exactly what is
defamatory in the statement that the member 'lucky_trader' has posted.
If you could provide more information as to how his posting is defamatory, I
am happy to look into this further for you, but at this stage I cannot see
how this post is defamatory - as opposed to expressing an opinion.
Regards,
>snip<
Trade Me Support
http://www.trademe.co.nz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi >snip<,
Saying that anybody is a criminal, a murderer or perjurer,
without proof of a conviction is defamatory. To say or imply that David Bain
is a murderer is obviously defamatory because he was acquitted on all
charges, to say that criminal(s) served on the Jury is obviously defamatory,
to say that witnesses (who were all named apart from one or two) perjured
themselves is also defamatory. None of these things can be classed as
'opinion' because they have no lawful status, to say an individual or a
group (as is the case with the jury and witnesses) are criminal(s) and
perjurers can't be sustained on fact. If you have any doubts about this
contact the Ministry of Justice or the Minister's office, in the meantime,
ban this poster and remove all his deluded rantings. If you have any doubt,
because of your lack of experience as to what defamation, inciting hatred
and harassment is, err on the side of caution. If you do not want to contact
the Minister's office or will not ban this poster, I will send all the
information along on your behalf and the issue can become one between Trade
Me as publisher and the Ministry of Justice.
There is currently a lot of opinion abroad that Trade Me are supportive or
unmoved by the ongoing use of it's boards by members of three particular
hate-sites, Justice(sic)For Robin Bain, Counterspin, Guilty.Freeforums. The
Trade Me member 'luckytrader' is a member of all 3 of those sites. As you
know Trade Me already face many charges of defamation. You might also know that as recently as last weekend there is comment from the Attorney General
in discussing Contempt of Court where he says of Contempt of Court it is
'more about preserving the fundamental confidence in the rule of law, and
smooth functioning of justice without interference from third parties or
outside factors.' Clearly, 'preserving the fundamental confidence in the
rule of law' is not to print or promote the unfounded utter tripe posted by
'luckytrader.' The hate-sites are deliberately attacking the Justice System,
The Judiciary, Witnesses, Counsel and a particular Jury their comments (
those of the hate-sites and those of luckytrader in particular which I have
brought to your attention) are clearly in Contempt of Court as defined by
the Attorney General.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours
etc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trade Me Support"
To: >snip<
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:59 PM
Subject: Your Trade Me Enquiry ID# 000-523-700
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear >snip<,
I have looked into this for you, and cannot ascertain exactly what is
defamatory in the statement that the member 'lucky_trader' has posted.
If you could provide more information as to how his posting is defamatory, I
am happy to look into this further for you, but at this stage I cannot see
how this post is defamatory - as opposed to expressing an opinion.
Regards,
>snip<
Trade Me Support
http://www.trademe.co.nz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, August 30, 2010
The deluded ar..wipe, luckytrader.
The Trade Me Moderators.
Defamatory, offensive, hate post.
I am compiling a long list of defamatory, offensive posts by the poster luckytrader that he has consistently made since returning to the boards after being banned for stalking.
However, the following post alone, provides all the evidence necessary to ban this stalker who is a member of 2 hate-sites. He states that David Bain is a convicted murderer when he is not. He says that criminals served on the Jury and states that witnesses perjured themselves at the trial. This man is crazy. His unhinged state of mind should be banned from exposure on TM. The man is nuts, his comments, are defamatory, designed to incite hatred, bring the Justice system into contempt and undermine the rule of law, and very clearly are in Contempt of Court in a country in which he was not born. If this deranged man has anything that would minutely support his outrageous lies and delusions a public message board is not the place for it. Ban this serial stalker and defamer.
Yours
etc
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=468&topic=7
When a perpetrator of one of this nations worst mass murders wants his murder weapon back, shows no remorse, blames a man he knows to be innocent, and wants millions of dollars for doing what he did, it is only very selfish and shallow people who move on as if nothing has happened. The jury system is not perfect, clearly, and needs improvement. Stopping criminals serving would be a good first move. Acting decisively against perjurers would be a good second step. Capping legal aid at a sensible amount - nowhere near the amount that had to be spent freeing a guilty party - would be a good third move.
Edited by lucky_trader at 7:05 pm, Mon 30 Aug
Quote
lucky_trader (1138 ) 7:01 pm, Mon 30 Aug #23357
Defamatory, offensive, hate post.
I am compiling a long list of defamatory, offensive posts by the poster luckytrader that he has consistently made since returning to the boards after being banned for stalking.
However, the following post alone, provides all the evidence necessary to ban this stalker who is a member of 2 hate-sites. He states that David Bain is a convicted murderer when he is not. He says that criminals served on the Jury and states that witnesses perjured themselves at the trial. This man is crazy. His unhinged state of mind should be banned from exposure on TM. The man is nuts, his comments, are defamatory, designed to incite hatred, bring the Justice system into contempt and undermine the rule of law, and very clearly are in Contempt of Court in a country in which he was not born. If this deranged man has anything that would minutely support his outrageous lies and delusions a public message board is not the place for it. Ban this serial stalker and defamer.
Yours
etc
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=468&topic=7
When a perpetrator of one of this nations worst mass murders wants his murder weapon back, shows no remorse, blames a man he knows to be innocent, and wants millions of dollars for doing what he did, it is only very selfish and shallow people who move on as if nothing has happened. The jury system is not perfect, clearly, and needs improvement. Stopping criminals serving would be a good first move. Acting decisively against perjurers would be a good second step. Capping legal aid at a sensible amount - nowhere near the amount that had to be spent freeing a guilty party - would be a good third move.
Edited by lucky_trader at 7:05 pm, Mon 30 Aug
Quote
lucky_trader (1138 ) 7:01 pm, Mon 30 Aug #23357
Moron alert, Moron of the Week.
A recyled poster, a zero hero, whose real identity will emerge, has taken Moron of the Week. It was a close run thing because any posts from therafter there after, even a single one show dedicated moronship of the highest order. Sorry therafter, the rafter, it is beginning to be too easy for you to take the award, you'll need to lift your game. I suggest splitting up your 'moron for sure' posts with some that are more reasoned just to disguise your efforts, be subtle.
Anyway the recyled poster vic gets the moron award. Congratulations vic on your Moron Award, camp mother will be so proud of you for infiltrating TM with your lies and deception. Good work old son or sonnette, sonet even. The twisted sisters having had the conclusive forensic proof that dear Robin shot himself in the head are stuck with explaining the blood on Robin's right shoe and the spatter on the alcove curtain. vic solved the problem with this:
>snip<
The blood on the curtain? Simple really. It could easily of already been on the rifle from the fight with Stephen or got there during the murders and when he carried it through into the alcove brushed against the curtains.>snip<.
Quotevic53 (0 ) 10:41 pm, Sun 29 Aug #23195
Yes, real simple if you are a simpleton like Vic. I think we all know the difference between spray (spatter) which in this case was falling and therefore recognizable by the plume spreading downward from the contact point. Any contact of the type this person tries to suggest would be wipe or rub marks, not spray as was found on the curtains. The silly sisters can't or won't get the heads around the clear forensic evidence that shows Robin was the killer, so they need to make things up, as above, and presume that people are so stupid they will believe it without question - like the sisters do as long as it's not about dear departed daddy.
Stalker alert: Maryanne Newton and Christine Williams
Maryanne Newton of Christchurch (dustproof) and Christine Williams of Auckland (misspw and millie231,) both members of the hate-site Justice (sic) For Robin Bain are stalking the TM boards again having recently returned from being banned for the same activities, in particular stalking and threatening my wife and children. Lovely folks, hand-picked by camp mother.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
There must have been a twister happening
in Every Street that morning. Because beside the tempestuousness of Robin's killing spree somehow the arterial spray from his suicide shot to his left temple changed course after leaving the hole in his head, curving in space not only to the right but also forward and landing on his right shoe while at the same time depositing directly onto the alcove curtain, but nobody could figure that out except forensic experts and a Christchurch Jury. What a twister for the sisters.
I'd like to express special thanks to nina_s, goobergolf, dogpalkal, rodney osook and all the departed moronic counterfeit explanations of themselves. Jolly good, spot on and all that. Farewell, it's been good to know you. One thing that has become apparent is that a general solution for the sisters main problem, fat butts and loneliness, could well be relieved by localised starvation of their fat bottoms. How about bottom suction into an enormous empty reservoir the size of Lake Taupo? Bottoms up and all that. Cheerio.
I'd like to express special thanks to nina_s, goobergolf, dogpalkal, rodney osook and all the departed moronic counterfeit explanations of themselves. Jolly good, spot on and all that. Farewell, it's been good to know you. One thing that has become apparent is that a general solution for the sisters main problem, fat butts and loneliness, could well be relieved by localised starvation of their fat bottoms. How about bottom suction into an enormous empty reservoir the size of Lake Taupo? Bottoms up and all that. Cheerio.
Unaccustomed as I am Nos..
I bet you never thought I'd come up with that one. Unaccustomed as you are to providing fair remuneration for a fair remuneration of one's task, I think you might have realised by now that you're a blinking robber. I no longer care for your pleadings about Aunty Racheal's pet rosella breeding programme. I must be paid even if it's just a few crackers and an old bottle top. How cold your heart must be leaving me pecking around in the chicken coop with my feathers all ruffled thinking about Adeline S Desperate while the bl..dy rooster was crowing and carrying on about the power bill.
See Nos, I never caught anything. Ya pussycat. Meow.
GNG FAN said...
Dear GNG
Unaccustomed as I am to pleading correspondence, I'm writing to urge you to reconsider your resignation.
Your efforts and bravery has not gone unnoticed. Those of us that have followed your epic journeys into the vast unknown and dangerous environment of the JFRB Camp, appreciate your dedication to the cause.
It can't have been easy for you. One can only imagine what sort of microphobias and organisims you've been exposed to over there. But I want you to know, there is no research that indicates paranoia and delusional thinking are contagious.
To put your mind at rest, despite your exposure, you will not become like 'them'.
We need men like you. Men that are willing to stand their ground, even when threatened with the entire contents of Camp Mother's handbag, you did not flinch.
You could never be replaced, you've looked in the face of the devil, and held your dignity. Don't let a little pussy like NOS get to you! He's nothing compared to what you've been dealing with!
August 29, 2010 5:17 PM
See Nos, I didn't catch any delusions by looking in Campmother's eyes and I'm not going to do crazy things either and start braiding nooses and frothing at the mouth while screaming profanities about Joe Karam. I never caught anything and they weren't even suspicious about my chicken suit, how thick are they? Kent Parker's 42 hour long dissertation of how he was going to change the Justice System once he was voted Queen Fairy Camp Mother Of New Zealand has not effected my mental stability and my long term prognosis for episodes of sheer hatred and bitterness is zero. I won't die lonely either. Furthermore, I looked into the face of a devil and survived! I survived Nos and I'm not mad after all the perils you put me through paying me a pittance. I deserve a promotion and a pay increase. A bl..dy big one.
Your old impoverished pal,
Goodnewsguy.
Dear GNG
Unaccustomed as I am to pleading correspondence, I'm writing to urge you to reconsider your resignation.
Your efforts and bravery has not gone unnoticed. Those of us that have followed your epic journeys into the vast unknown and dangerous environment of the JFRB Camp, appreciate your dedication to the cause.
It can't have been easy for you. One can only imagine what sort of microphobias and organisims you've been exposed to over there. But I want you to know, there is no research that indicates paranoia and delusional thinking are contagious.
To put your mind at rest, despite your exposure, you will not become like 'them'.
We need men like you. Men that are willing to stand their ground, even when threatened with the entire contents of Camp Mother's handbag, you did not flinch.
You could never be replaced, you've looked in the face of the devil, and held your dignity. Don't let a little pussy like NOS get to you! He's nothing compared to what you've been dealing with!
August 29, 2010 5:17 PM
See Nos, I didn't catch any delusions by looking in Campmother's eyes and I'm not going to do crazy things either and start braiding nooses and frothing at the mouth while screaming profanities about Joe Karam. I never caught anything and they weren't even suspicious about my chicken suit, how thick are they? Kent Parker's 42 hour long dissertation of how he was going to change the Justice System once he was voted Queen Fairy Camp Mother Of New Zealand has not effected my mental stability and my long term prognosis for episodes of sheer hatred and bitterness is zero. I won't die lonely either. Furthermore, I looked into the face of a devil and survived! I survived Nos and I'm not mad after all the perils you put me through paying me a pittance. I deserve a promotion and a pay increase. A bl..dy big one.
Your old impoverished pal,
Goodnewsguy.
The end of one road.
from The Omoroa Cup....
It’s not hard for me to imagine anything but sometimes I get stuck with big numbers, the thought of which could seem to fill the whole universe except I don’t know where the edges are, where it stops. Maybe that’s why I like to keep track of my money so I don’t fall off the universe. I can travel a long, seemingly endless road, imagining things all the way and if there’s someone to listen I might spin them a yarn about what I’ve seen. Even when there is no one to listen I can tell a story to myself and have a universe inside my heard so that I’m safe to go inside there just in case I ever reach the edge of the real one. So before I complete this story, or finish the yarn, or what ever cack-eyed name you put on it - I’ll put you right on what I’ve already said so that you can decide on whether this has been one big lie or a real story with the odd bit added on to disguise the use of real identities. I finally got to thinking that Ricky had all those scars because he was carrying something that might not have been his. And that had something to do with the way his head drooped, but I don’t know why he couldn’t speak except for that his tongue was cut out. Don’t ask why a man would carry something that wasn’t his and wasn’t doing him any good or even how a man would figure out why to do that. I know I’ve used some bad words to describe Ricky but I’m taking them back by telling you that I didn’t understand in the beginning that just because he was worse off than me, never talked, that I got a ahead of myself in where I thought he fitted in this world and what he deserved, even though I know he only ever treated me with kindness.
It’s not hard for me to imagine anything but sometimes I get stuck with big numbers, the thought of which could seem to fill the whole universe except I don’t know where the edges are, where it stops. Maybe that’s why I like to keep track of my money so I don’t fall off the universe. I can travel a long, seemingly endless road, imagining things all the way and if there’s someone to listen I might spin them a yarn about what I’ve seen. Even when there is no one to listen I can tell a story to myself and have a universe inside my heard so that I’m safe to go inside there just in case I ever reach the edge of the real one. So before I complete this story, or finish the yarn, or what ever cack-eyed name you put on it - I’ll put you right on what I’ve already said so that you can decide on whether this has been one big lie or a real story with the odd bit added on to disguise the use of real identities. I finally got to thinking that Ricky had all those scars because he was carrying something that might not have been his. And that had something to do with the way his head drooped, but I don’t know why he couldn’t speak except for that his tongue was cut out. Don’t ask why a man would carry something that wasn’t his and wasn’t doing him any good or even how a man would figure out why to do that. I know I’ve used some bad words to describe Ricky but I’m taking them back by telling you that I didn’t understand in the beginning that just because he was worse off than me, never talked, that I got a ahead of myself in where I thought he fitted in this world and what he deserved, even though I know he only ever treated me with kindness.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
That's it Nos, I'm fired: by Goodnewsguy.
I've had a gutsful, that's it, I'm out of here. Well, not quite out because I'm staying in the chicken coop for now, just until the weather breaks. I've got something official to say Nos, and I won't be put off a minute longer.
I'm fired, that's it. I'm sick of waiting for you to fire me. I'm firing myself, absolutely that's it. You can take your 'you can't fire me, I can fire you' ticket and reflect upon the fact that while you've been doing all your high-faluting namby pamby stuff I don't even have a photo or anything of Adeline S Desperate even though I've been thinking about her at 3 am most mornings before the rooster gets up and goes to work.
You can put my holiday pay and 15 years of unpaid sick leave toward the damage to your car after I drove over it in the tractor. If there is 10 bucks left over I would like to write a eulogy on a simple card to our deceased female forebears for the resolute currency they passed on of being fighters, and my regrets that I am probably not the same, instead, dressing up in a chicken suit while Adeline S Desperate drooled over my big beak and feather wig. What's happened to my life Nos?
I'm fired, that's it. I'm sick of waiting for you to fire me. I'm firing myself, absolutely that's it. You can take your 'you can't fire me, I can fire you' ticket and reflect upon the fact that while you've been doing all your high-faluting namby pamby stuff I don't even have a photo or anything of Adeline S Desperate even though I've been thinking about her at 3 am most mornings before the rooster gets up and goes to work.
You can put my holiday pay and 15 years of unpaid sick leave toward the damage to your car after I drove over it in the tractor. If there is 10 bucks left over I would like to write a eulogy on a simple card to our deceased female forebears for the resolute currency they passed on of being fighters, and my regrets that I am probably not the same, instead, dressing up in a chicken suit while Adeline S Desperate drooled over my big beak and feather wig. What's happened to my life Nos?
Millie Weir's book.
I'm looking forward to reading Millie's book. I'm looking forward to the answers to obvious questions. Like what the circumstances where by which he 'found' a lens in a room that had already been searched and which he was searching 'after hours.' I'm looking forward to Millie's book and reading the answers to all the questions I have for him. I reckon that it is great that Millie is going to write a book explaining how he misled the Court. Good boy Millie. Go Millie. I've got a few more questions for ya. Yahoo, millyvanilly, I bet you can't wait. But you'll need to wait Milton, because I don't want to plant obvious signs for you in the beginning, I want to string it out like that hangman's thing you had going on.
Racheal from Otorohanga: goldnkiwi pal of kal pal.
Cinderalla from disneyland, Racheal goldnkiwi, is scenting out a trail set by her bosom buddy Glenda O Brien (Kalnovitch.) They're stalking mates from way back and belong to the same country music and lonely hearts club. They're planning a stamp swap, a dog swap and a little stalking on the side all of which culminates in the sad (for them) realisation that David Bain is innocent. One day they'll get over it.
Kalnovitch: dumb and dumber?
A question on an auction that goldnkiwi had . It shows up in her feedback.
the forum we speak of, if you emai me kalnovitch at >snip< Ican send you the link please dont answer this or trademe will se it kalnovitch (406 ) 1:05 am, Sat 31 Jul
Despite kalpal the cowpatter not being aware that what she was sending to goldnkiwi was already going to be on TM from the time she posted it, she asked for it not be answered or else TM would know. Very bright deduction. Of course the meeting was 'successful' because they are both now members of the same hate-site. In another apparently clandestine 'achievement' their membership is on record.
the forum we speak of, if you emai me kalnovitch at >snip< Ican send you the link please dont answer this or trademe will se it kalnovitch (406 ) 1:05 am, Sat 31 Jul
Despite kalpal the cowpatter not being aware that what she was sending to goldnkiwi was already going to be on TM from the time she posted it, she asked for it not be answered or else TM would know. Very bright deduction. Of course the meeting was 'successful' because they are both now members of the same hate-site. In another apparently clandestine 'achievement' their membership is on record.
Kent Parker - melting down?
Two interesting things here.
by Ralph on Sat, 28/08/2010 - 12:58pm.
An important detail!
Getting back to the blood on Robin's hands Vic made ,i believe, an important point on JFRB re Mark Lodge's evidence.This was that if Robin had been holding David's rifle in the contorted manner the defence suggests with his left hand on the trigger and right hand on the barrel or silencer then a quantity of the ejection of blood and arterial spray from his head wound would surely of hit his right hand .Kent if need be could you do some basic calculations here re physics on this.A detail like this could clinch things and the defence forced to search for other explanations.
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Sat, 28/08/2010 - 2:41pm.
Ralph, I see no point in
Ralph, I see no point in revisiting evidence like this. I'm only interested in where JK has represented facts about the case in a way which is questionable.
reply
The first, Ralph thinks he has a 'breakthrough' from the evidence in that Robin's hands, having denied elsewhere that wasn't any blood on Robin's hands, he now submits, dutifully, to campmother that a 'quantity of the ejection of blood and arterial spray' from his head wound would surely of hit his right hand (and therefore less on the left which readers might recall included a spatter going in the wrong direction, ie toward Robin rather than away.) Ralph is quite excited by all this, but rather than show anything new about the evidence it simply shows that Ralph and his fellows are only looking for evidence that fits their dis proven scenario. Interestingly enough, that blood spatter on the left hand incriminates Robin as do the smears on his palms. Clearly the smears could not have got there after his death and were not part of the suicide, the spatter on the other hand shows that Robin shot at least one of the victims without wearing gloves because the spatter was coming back toward him and away (naturally) from the victim. The spatter was also on the leading hand, ie is the foremost left hand holding the rifle. What Ralph has discovered is evidence known already against Robin.
Kent Parker by turn is not interested. He's only interested in his sorry arse and anything that can prove the 'truth' of the defamation against Joe Karam. But he is misguided there of course (genius's being somewhat thick these days - perhaps they need guide dogs to help them find the obvious,) because the defamation comment is not only not truthful, but it is intended to lower the opinion of the plaintiff in the eyes of reasonable people. Kent is vainly searching for material that might convince a Jury that it is perfectly acceptable to publish comments that Joe Karam was only in it for the money, that he made evidence up, told witnesses what to say and so forth - Kent doesn't get the obvious that he has no realistic defence and never will. He isn't some sort of freedom fighter, he's involved in spreading hate and trying to subvert the Law and it's becoming more plainly obvious by the day. I guess this is part of kent's melt down, he has no idea of what he is to defend. I imagine there could be some fireworks on the first day of the proceedings, because (quite naturally for him - a narcissist) Kent will not only want to run the trial but will want to sit in the Judge's chair.
But consider the overall situation revealed in the two brief exchanges above, two people (Ralphie and Kentybaby) working together and heading in opposite directions - yes well.
by Ralph on Sat, 28/08/2010 - 12:58pm.
An important detail!
Getting back to the blood on Robin's hands Vic made ,i believe, an important point on JFRB re Mark Lodge's evidence.This was that if Robin had been holding David's rifle in the contorted manner the defence suggests with his left hand on the trigger and right hand on the barrel or silencer then a quantity of the ejection of blood and arterial spray from his head wound would surely of hit his right hand .Kent if need be could you do some basic calculations here re physics on this.A detail like this could clinch things and the defence forced to search for other explanations.
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Sat, 28/08/2010 - 2:41pm.
Ralph, I see no point in
Ralph, I see no point in revisiting evidence like this. I'm only interested in where JK has represented facts about the case in a way which is questionable.
reply
The first, Ralph thinks he has a 'breakthrough' from the evidence in that Robin's hands, having denied elsewhere that wasn't any blood on Robin's hands, he now submits, dutifully, to campmother that a 'quantity of the ejection of blood and arterial spray' from his head wound would surely of hit his right hand (and therefore less on the left which readers might recall included a spatter going in the wrong direction, ie toward Robin rather than away.) Ralph is quite excited by all this, but rather than show anything new about the evidence it simply shows that Ralph and his fellows are only looking for evidence that fits their dis proven scenario. Interestingly enough, that blood spatter on the left hand incriminates Robin as do the smears on his palms. Clearly the smears could not have got there after his death and were not part of the suicide, the spatter on the other hand shows that Robin shot at least one of the victims without wearing gloves because the spatter was coming back toward him and away (naturally) from the victim. The spatter was also on the leading hand, ie is the foremost left hand holding the rifle. What Ralph has discovered is evidence known already against Robin.
Kent Parker by turn is not interested. He's only interested in his sorry arse and anything that can prove the 'truth' of the defamation against Joe Karam. But he is misguided there of course (genius's being somewhat thick these days - perhaps they need guide dogs to help them find the obvious,) because the defamation comment is not only not truthful, but it is intended to lower the opinion of the plaintiff in the eyes of reasonable people. Kent is vainly searching for material that might convince a Jury that it is perfectly acceptable to publish comments that Joe Karam was only in it for the money, that he made evidence up, told witnesses what to say and so forth - Kent doesn't get the obvious that he has no realistic defence and never will. He isn't some sort of freedom fighter, he's involved in spreading hate and trying to subvert the Law and it's becoming more plainly obvious by the day. I guess this is part of kent's melt down, he has no idea of what he is to defend. I imagine there could be some fireworks on the first day of the proceedings, because (quite naturally for him - a narcissist) Kent will not only want to run the trial but will want to sit in the Judge's chair.
But consider the overall situation revealed in the two brief exchanges above, two people (Ralphie and Kentybaby) working together and heading in opposite directions - yes well.
Kent Parker - defeated and signing off?
Is the following, which I shall analyse, Kent Parker throwing the towel in having realise he's beaten on all fronts?
------------------------------------------
Kent Parker I've decided that we should make our submission to the Ministry of Justice in mid September, so if people would like to make more suggestions please do: draft-submission-to-ministry-of-justice
Draft Submission to Ministry of Justice | davidbain: CounterSpin
davidbain.counterspin.co.nz
Sign the petition to help prevent David Bain getting compensation. Don't believe Joe Karam's propaganda. Read the other side of the story
9 minutes ago ·
------------------------------------
then this
-----------------------------------------
Draft Submission to Ministry of Justice
I would like to open public discussions on a submission which we can forward to the Ministry of Justice so that we can walk away from this satisfied that we have taken the required steps to put forward our concerns about things in the justice system that might have contributed to what happened in 2009 surrounding the bain retrial. The following is just a draft of suggestions to make to the Ministry. If you have edit permission to this document then feel free to add bits.
Of course the words 'walk away' may be the most poignant as Kent prepares to either try and settle the defamation case against him or indeed to try and fight it.
Sub Judice
Members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group are concerned that rules regarding publication of material about the Bain case were broken in 2007 when the book David and Goliath was reprinted. In 2007 the Solicitor General gave a directive which included the following: "Guilt or innocence of an accused person is not decided by the media or public opinion polls. Those who attempt to usurp or try to influence the trial process risk facing a charge of contempt of court." Reports of jury behaviour following the Bain trial and the short deliberation period of the jury suggest that publication of this book may have caused the kind of influence which sub judice rules were developed to prevent. The public needs to have some confidence that the trial process cannot be usurped by such media events.
The above is a wrap up of the tired arguments that Joe Karam's book was somehow instrumental in a properly instructed Jury reaching a verdict, when we all know the Jury were warned at the outset and conclusion of the Trial to disregard anything they may have heard or read in the media or any other source regarding the case. More than anything the 'submission' is a convenient hook on which the hate-siters having failed to subvert the Course of Justice - hang their hat as a type of surrender and shift of blame. The directive quoted from the Solicitor General related to this warning given to the Jury in a broader sense. The MOJ will be unmoved by attacks on the Jury or suggestions that there is anything improper that they were able to come to a decision quickly on a very straight forward case of murder/suicide. The Public do have confidence, it's the purpose of Kent Parker and the hate-siters to undermine that confidence.
Hearsay
An amendment to the Court rules should compel any accused running a defence, which includes the suggestion that another did the crime, to give evidence and face cross-examination at their trial. Failing that, where the accused has run such a defence and not given evidence, the trial judge ought to be permitted to instruct a jury that they can take any inference from the accused's failure to give evidence that they so wish. The original purpose of the privilege against self incrimination or the right to silence was to prevent the extraction of confessions under torture.
Here the dear fellow is wanting to change centuries old law in an effort that would be seen to mitigate his, and his fellows, failure to understand a basic case that should never have gone to Court, and which was taken to Court based on mantra and misapprehensions put abroad to bolster a weak case. The association between the right of silence and David Bain does not apply as any moment of time in the history of the tenet, because David Bain was not silent, he made statements to the police which were read to the Court and he gave evidence for many hours in the first Trial and was cross-examined. Clearly there can be no suggestion that the Privy Council took from any of those statements, evidence in chief or cross examination, that David had in anyway confessed or made a damning statement that must have proved his guilt. Also clearly, the Christchurch Jury, agreed with the Privy Council on that point, have also heard, all that evidence.
Length of Trial
The Bain retrial has highlighted how the length of a trial can have a number of effects which limit the efficacy of a criminal trial as follows:
It limits the potential pool of jurors to those who have large amounts of time to spare or who are able to live on a reduced income for a period of months.
It increases the cost.
It can produce a familiarization effect with a defendant similar to the Stockholm Effect.
Members of the legal profession might argue that a trial should be whatever length is required in order to show all the evidence, however this seems a weak argument given the number of rules that exist for suppressing what evidence can be used in a trial. In the Bain retrial the Privy Council ordered that the jury get to see all evidence, but it was revealed immediately after the trial that some potentially crucial bits of evidence were suppressed because they were deemed prejudicial to the defendant or on the basis of some other rule. If such rules exist then it seems prudent given the three items above, that rules are also put in place to limit the duration of the trial and discipline both parties to put forward concise arguments taken from the best of their evidence.
One uncommonly long trial is not cause for concern. It was handled very well by all concerned. Trying to control what parties say or don't say is also unnecessary because Judge's do not tolerate digression. The fact that Kent suggests they do again shows his Contempt of Court. I think Kent, if he fails to settle his case, will be getting a sharp lesson, that defendants are not in Court to advocate for change or offer criticism of the Justice system but rather to defend the allegations brought against them in a logical way supported by evidence. The man is a dreamer. His hate-filled rantings in cyberspace will not permitted in the High Court and are actually the reason why he is due in Court. Keep up Kenty boy.
It is understandable that in a criminal case where the defendant is a wealthy individual that a trial might go on for months and the cost be astronomical but there seems little justification for the same to apply where the defence is paid for out of legal aid.
Ditto above.
Lay Advocates
The Bain trial has also brought to light the prospect that advocates with no formal qualifications and an obvious bias towards a defendant can claim fees through legal aid to the level of $95 an hour. This seems anomalous on two counts:
this is basically an unskilled worker getting an hourly rate that very few skilled workers can attract
the advocate in this case was known to be very biased in his judgment of the case and the defendant's role in it
For the sake of efficacy in terms of cost and in terms of producing a just outcome it would seem that Legal Aid should review whatever practice led to this occurrence. As taxpayers this appears to be a loophole that needs to be filled.
We propose that Lay Advocates who are to receive legal aid for legal services should go through a more formal process of appointment such as be required to undertake e.g a Certificate in Legal Practice. There need to be more controls over what she or he may or not do. It seemed unusual that the Lay Advocate in the Bain case was allowed such a prominent position in the court and was even allowed to help in the demonstration of a key item of evidence.
This is a thinly veiled criticism and jealousy of Joe Karam. What nonsense, those that heard the recent debate they will be aware (to the hate-siters displeasure) Joe Karam's absolute knowledge of the case. While others will certainly be aware of the respect given that knowledge by the Judiciary, as it rightly should. Kent seems to think the Judiciary should say, 'we don't see you have a role Mr Karam, despite your exhaustive and comprehensive knowledge of the case which is second to none, and we don't see our role as needing to be fully informed - and besides that old Kenty doesn't like you.' Right.
Just a tip for Kent and his deadbeats on this Karam was not a 'lay advocate' at the Trial, I know of no occasion when he might have acted as a 'lay advocate.' Once again, Kent misunderstands the process he endeavours to reconstruct. Oh boy.
The Jury System
The jury system has been in use for over a millennia and well overdue for revision. Modern science has made court room evidence a lot more complicated and difficult to comprehend for lay jury members. When a case involves complex evidential matters we support the following suggestions for improvement:
Appointing judges or experts to work alongside the jury to help determine complex matters of evidence.
Moving towards an inquisitorial system
More nonsense here from Campmother, any fair system would have had no problem determining Robin Bain as the killer, he left all the clues in the world. But Kent, desperate so desperate he be, finds fault everywhere because he could and can't understand a simple murder suicide and because he doesn't like a dead man to be talked about in any other than an approving way. Kent made a decision and worked backwards, the route of a fool.
------------------------------------------
Kent Parker I've decided that we should make our submission to the Ministry of Justice in mid September, so if people would like to make more suggestions please do: draft-submission-to-ministry-of-justice
Draft Submission to Ministry of Justice | davidbain: CounterSpin
davidbain.counterspin.co.nz
Sign the petition to help prevent David Bain getting compensation. Don't believe Joe Karam's propaganda. Read the other side of the story
9 minutes ago ·
------------------------------------
then this
-----------------------------------------
Draft Submission to Ministry of Justice
I would like to open public discussions on a submission which we can forward to the Ministry of Justice so that we can walk away from this satisfied that we have taken the required steps to put forward our concerns about things in the justice system that might have contributed to what happened in 2009 surrounding the bain retrial. The following is just a draft of suggestions to make to the Ministry. If you have edit permission to this document then feel free to add bits.
Of course the words 'walk away' may be the most poignant as Kent prepares to either try and settle the defamation case against him or indeed to try and fight it.
Sub Judice
Members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group are concerned that rules regarding publication of material about the Bain case were broken in 2007 when the book David and Goliath was reprinted. In 2007 the Solicitor General gave a directive which included the following: "Guilt or innocence of an accused person is not decided by the media or public opinion polls. Those who attempt to usurp or try to influence the trial process risk facing a charge of contempt of court." Reports of jury behaviour following the Bain trial and the short deliberation period of the jury suggest that publication of this book may have caused the kind of influence which sub judice rules were developed to prevent. The public needs to have some confidence that the trial process cannot be usurped by such media events.
The above is a wrap up of the tired arguments that Joe Karam's book was somehow instrumental in a properly instructed Jury reaching a verdict, when we all know the Jury were warned at the outset and conclusion of the Trial to disregard anything they may have heard or read in the media or any other source regarding the case. More than anything the 'submission' is a convenient hook on which the hate-siters having failed to subvert the Course of Justice - hang their hat as a type of surrender and shift of blame. The directive quoted from the Solicitor General related to this warning given to the Jury in a broader sense. The MOJ will be unmoved by attacks on the Jury or suggestions that there is anything improper that they were able to come to a decision quickly on a very straight forward case of murder/suicide. The Public do have confidence, it's the purpose of Kent Parker and the hate-siters to undermine that confidence.
Hearsay
An amendment to the Court rules should compel any accused running a defence, which includes the suggestion that another did the crime, to give evidence and face cross-examination at their trial. Failing that, where the accused has run such a defence and not given evidence, the trial judge ought to be permitted to instruct a jury that they can take any inference from the accused's failure to give evidence that they so wish. The original purpose of the privilege against self incrimination or the right to silence was to prevent the extraction of confessions under torture.
Here the dear fellow is wanting to change centuries old law in an effort that would be seen to mitigate his, and his fellows, failure to understand a basic case that should never have gone to Court, and which was taken to Court based on mantra and misapprehensions put abroad to bolster a weak case. The association between the right of silence and David Bain does not apply as any moment of time in the history of the tenet, because David Bain was not silent, he made statements to the police which were read to the Court and he gave evidence for many hours in the first Trial and was cross-examined. Clearly there can be no suggestion that the Privy Council took from any of those statements, evidence in chief or cross examination, that David had in anyway confessed or made a damning statement that must have proved his guilt. Also clearly, the Christchurch Jury, agreed with the Privy Council on that point, have also heard, all that evidence.
Length of Trial
The Bain retrial has highlighted how the length of a trial can have a number of effects which limit the efficacy of a criminal trial as follows:
It limits the potential pool of jurors to those who have large amounts of time to spare or who are able to live on a reduced income for a period of months.
It increases the cost.
It can produce a familiarization effect with a defendant similar to the Stockholm Effect.
Members of the legal profession might argue that a trial should be whatever length is required in order to show all the evidence, however this seems a weak argument given the number of rules that exist for suppressing what evidence can be used in a trial. In the Bain retrial the Privy Council ordered that the jury get to see all evidence, but it was revealed immediately after the trial that some potentially crucial bits of evidence were suppressed because they were deemed prejudicial to the defendant or on the basis of some other rule. If such rules exist then it seems prudent given the three items above, that rules are also put in place to limit the duration of the trial and discipline both parties to put forward concise arguments taken from the best of their evidence.
One uncommonly long trial is not cause for concern. It was handled very well by all concerned. Trying to control what parties say or don't say is also unnecessary because Judge's do not tolerate digression. The fact that Kent suggests they do again shows his Contempt of Court. I think Kent, if he fails to settle his case, will be getting a sharp lesson, that defendants are not in Court to advocate for change or offer criticism of the Justice system but rather to defend the allegations brought against them in a logical way supported by evidence. The man is a dreamer. His hate-filled rantings in cyberspace will not permitted in the High Court and are actually the reason why he is due in Court. Keep up Kenty boy.
It is understandable that in a criminal case where the defendant is a wealthy individual that a trial might go on for months and the cost be astronomical but there seems little justification for the same to apply where the defence is paid for out of legal aid.
Ditto above.
Lay Advocates
The Bain trial has also brought to light the prospect that advocates with no formal qualifications and an obvious bias towards a defendant can claim fees through legal aid to the level of $95 an hour. This seems anomalous on two counts:
this is basically an unskilled worker getting an hourly rate that very few skilled workers can attract
the advocate in this case was known to be very biased in his judgment of the case and the defendant's role in it
For the sake of efficacy in terms of cost and in terms of producing a just outcome it would seem that Legal Aid should review whatever practice led to this occurrence. As taxpayers this appears to be a loophole that needs to be filled.
We propose that Lay Advocates who are to receive legal aid for legal services should go through a more formal process of appointment such as be required to undertake e.g a Certificate in Legal Practice. There need to be more controls over what she or he may or not do. It seemed unusual that the Lay Advocate in the Bain case was allowed such a prominent position in the court and was even allowed to help in the demonstration of a key item of evidence.
This is a thinly veiled criticism and jealousy of Joe Karam. What nonsense, those that heard the recent debate they will be aware (to the hate-siters displeasure) Joe Karam's absolute knowledge of the case. While others will certainly be aware of the respect given that knowledge by the Judiciary, as it rightly should. Kent seems to think the Judiciary should say, 'we don't see you have a role Mr Karam, despite your exhaustive and comprehensive knowledge of the case which is second to none, and we don't see our role as needing to be fully informed - and besides that old Kenty doesn't like you.' Right.
Just a tip for Kent and his deadbeats on this Karam was not a 'lay advocate' at the Trial, I know of no occasion when he might have acted as a 'lay advocate.' Once again, Kent misunderstands the process he endeavours to reconstruct. Oh boy.
The Jury System
The jury system has been in use for over a millennia and well overdue for revision. Modern science has made court room evidence a lot more complicated and difficult to comprehend for lay jury members. When a case involves complex evidential matters we support the following suggestions for improvement:
Appointing judges or experts to work alongside the jury to help determine complex matters of evidence.
Moving towards an inquisitorial system
More nonsense here from Campmother, any fair system would have had no problem determining Robin Bain as the killer, he left all the clues in the world. But Kent, desperate so desperate he be, finds fault everywhere because he could and can't understand a simple murder suicide and because he doesn't like a dead man to be talked about in any other than an approving way. Kent made a decision and worked backwards, the route of a fool.
Christine gains a fan...
Anonymous said...
Hasn't she worked out that attacking people in this way only strengthens their resolve to speak out? Obviously not, otherwise she would have stopped. Nothing worse than an old woman stalking, harassing and wanting lynching at torchlight. What a pathetic loser!
August 28, 2010 8:14 AM
Thanks for that anonymous, and no she clearly hasn't worked it out.
I find it disturbing the inference that the Police are involved and that therefore the attacks and stalking against others are 'justified.' I freely acknowledge I can understand the Police will have an interest in the organisations to which Christine Williams is involved but only because of their criminal activities and stalking. I have a record of the verbose and indiscreet Mike Stockdale claiming contact with the ex police officer Milton Weir which is of course an entirely different matter. On the other hand this woman has no idea of the harm she causes and no idea, yet, that she will not prevail. But as always, threats must be taken seriously.
Hasn't she worked out that attacking people in this way only strengthens their resolve to speak out? Obviously not, otherwise she would have stopped. Nothing worse than an old woman stalking, harassing and wanting lynching at torchlight. What a pathetic loser!
August 28, 2010 8:14 AM
Thanks for that anonymous, and no she clearly hasn't worked it out.
I find it disturbing the inference that the Police are involved and that therefore the attacks and stalking against others are 'justified.' I freely acknowledge I can understand the Police will have an interest in the organisations to which Christine Williams is involved but only because of their criminal activities and stalking. I have a record of the verbose and indiscreet Mike Stockdale claiming contact with the ex police officer Milton Weir which is of course an entirely different matter. On the other hand this woman has no idea of the harm she causes and no idea, yet, that she will not prevail. But as always, threats must be taken seriously.
Christine Williams, misspw/millie 231 - The 'reasoned' threats.
Nostalgia_nz. You are a multiple poster and a liar. You also have a lovely wife and children. That makes you a huge creep in my opinion. When you go down this time you will go down hard. People are working on it. Enjoy your present freedom. It will be short lived. See ya..
Quotemillie231 (155 ) 10:13 pm, Fri 27 Aug #23047
Then reflective wisdom and 'compassion' as the blood lust subsides:
Life is not about who is the most clever. it is about who learns the most and who is willing to change themselves. I have no idea of your background but you have sure as hell had a hard time either because you deserved it or not. I don't know. As a human being I feel compassion for you. I know that that will make me a few enemies. Sorry. I trust that those I talk to understand me and trust me anyhow.
Quotemillie231 (155 ) 10:23 pm, Fri 27 Aug #23052
Oh dear, schizophrenics these days.
Sure, I trust you millie, misspw, Christine - you seem perfectly normal for a stalking psychopath. I'm sure it happens all the time.
Quotemillie231 (155 ) 10:13 pm, Fri 27 Aug #23047
Then reflective wisdom and 'compassion' as the blood lust subsides:
Life is not about who is the most clever. it is about who learns the most and who is willing to change themselves. I have no idea of your background but you have sure as hell had a hard time either because you deserved it or not. I don't know. As a human being I feel compassion for you. I know that that will make me a few enemies. Sorry. I trust that those I talk to understand me and trust me anyhow.
Quotemillie231 (155 ) 10:23 pm, Fri 27 Aug #23052
Oh dear, schizophrenics these days.
Sure, I trust you millie, misspw, Christine - you seem perfectly normal for a stalking psychopath. I'm sure it happens all the time.
Robin's bruised and bloodied hands.
This week we've already had the opportunity to read a 'speech' by Kent Parker running down Joe Karam and calling him a liar for information Joe provided from the trail manuscript on the recent radio debate. And of course we've seen the brief of evidence from urologist that showed that Joe was telling the truth from evidence that campmother didn't know about despite holding himself up as more of an expert than Joe Karam on the Bain case.
So lets look at another fallacy perpetuated by the hangbainers. When I first started reading about the Bain case, approaching 2 years ago, and when I was treated as is any other new entrant, with the 'truth' from the hangbainers in order to convince me to join the 'team' I was told that Robin had no bruises or injuries to his hands and no blood. Shortly after, Lee H, my old mate, posted photos showing marks and cuts to Robin's hands along with blood spatter. I was always interested in the hands of the father and of the son because I couldn't imagine the killer's hand would be without damage of some sort. Immediately from the hate-siters the 'damage' became scratches that had 'happened' when Robin had been cleaning out the gutters of the house the day before. Nobody saw the damage happen then of course, but that was no discouragement because it was a 'fact' known by the hangbainers. Another 'fact' was that the injuries were over 24 hours old and the blood, by assumption, was the product of Robin being shot in the head. All this information was available on line and in the truth forums of the hate-siters. Whoopi!
But of course we were to find out that the injuries according to the attending pathologists were minutes to 24 hours old, not to forget here that foremost expert at the scene that morning, the pathologist, a man with vast experience, was kept from the scene for many hours while items were moved and photographed and the scene carefully 'preserved.' Then looking at the photo produced in Court it was able to be seen that the blood spray on Robin's fingernail was going the 'wrong' way (taking into account that spatter fans out from point of contact and widens in the direction it has taken) and therefore could have been spatter from one of his victims.
But newer information was that just prior to the trial Joe Karam was given photos and scene notes that showed Robin had blood 'smears' on the palms of his hands meaning of course that he had contact blood wipe on his hands before he shot himself. Contact blood wipe alone, and despite all the other evidence showing he was the killer, proves that Robin killed his family and then suicided. Additionally, his blood was found not only inside the rifle silencer but also inside the barrel. I think most people know that each time a rifle is fired the barell is 'cleaned' by the discharge and also the pressure inside Robin's head when he shot himself was caused by the velocity of the bullet and discharge out of the wound and into the barrel that he had rested his head against. All of Robin's victims were shot with a downward, killer dominant trajectory, his own passive death was a rising shot into his brain. These are things that can never be changed however much the hate-siters want to re-explain them or attempt to dilute the impact, but perhaps the simplest of all was the killers bruised and bloody hands told the story a desperate few wish to deny.
So lets look at another fallacy perpetuated by the hangbainers. When I first started reading about the Bain case, approaching 2 years ago, and when I was treated as is any other new entrant, with the 'truth' from the hangbainers in order to convince me to join the 'team' I was told that Robin had no bruises or injuries to his hands and no blood. Shortly after, Lee H, my old mate, posted photos showing marks and cuts to Robin's hands along with blood spatter. I was always interested in the hands of the father and of the son because I couldn't imagine the killer's hand would be without damage of some sort. Immediately from the hate-siters the 'damage' became scratches that had 'happened' when Robin had been cleaning out the gutters of the house the day before. Nobody saw the damage happen then of course, but that was no discouragement because it was a 'fact' known by the hangbainers. Another 'fact' was that the injuries were over 24 hours old and the blood, by assumption, was the product of Robin being shot in the head. All this information was available on line and in the truth forums of the hate-siters. Whoopi!
But of course we were to find out that the injuries according to the attending pathologists were minutes to 24 hours old, not to forget here that foremost expert at the scene that morning, the pathologist, a man with vast experience, was kept from the scene for many hours while items were moved and photographed and the scene carefully 'preserved.' Then looking at the photo produced in Court it was able to be seen that the blood spray on Robin's fingernail was going the 'wrong' way (taking into account that spatter fans out from point of contact and widens in the direction it has taken) and therefore could have been spatter from one of his victims.
But newer information was that just prior to the trial Joe Karam was given photos and scene notes that showed Robin had blood 'smears' on the palms of his hands meaning of course that he had contact blood wipe on his hands before he shot himself. Contact blood wipe alone, and despite all the other evidence showing he was the killer, proves that Robin killed his family and then suicided. Additionally, his blood was found not only inside the rifle silencer but also inside the barrel. I think most people know that each time a rifle is fired the barell is 'cleaned' by the discharge and also the pressure inside Robin's head when he shot himself was caused by the velocity of the bullet and discharge out of the wound and into the barrel that he had rested his head against. All of Robin's victims were shot with a downward, killer dominant trajectory, his own passive death was a rising shot into his brain. These are things that can never be changed however much the hate-siters want to re-explain them or attempt to dilute the impact, but perhaps the simplest of all was the killers bruised and bloody hands told the story a desperate few wish to deny.
kulkkulbelle, tools of a persecutor.
gamefisher wrote:
Link to a pathologist report not an urban myth thank you.
Quite
Quotekulkkulbelle (328 ) 1:45 pm, Fri 27 Aug #22998
Readers might recall that kulkkulbelle some time ago claimed to have a copy of a pathologists report that showed Laniet (the youngest Bain child, said to be a victim of incest from her father Robin) had never given birth or been pregnant. This of course is to perpetuate the assertion that she was a liar and to explain away what other witnesses at the trial said were birth marks on her stomach. As I've written previously, the hangbainers, in order to 'protect' the victims attack several of them - Laniet in particular. This situation, perhaps foremost with a few others, exposes that the hangbainers are unable to progress past incriminating evidence against the father (Robin) and need to neutralise it in what ever fashion available.
In the case of kulkkulbelle, she simply chooses to lie and rely on evidence that she can't produce and that therefore can't be considered. Kookybelle 'makes' evidence with lies to protect the dead killer Robin. I suppose that is very reasonable to her because of her 'gift' of knowing things that other mere mortals can't discern. So lofty is she with her deep insight into things that don't exist she makes the comment 'quite' above approving of another poster who asks for quotes from The Pathologists report - this despite that over a year has passed since she, kookybelle, was invited to link the pathologists report to which she refers.
Of course kookybelle makes no connection, that another more reasonable person might make, that she is in fact lying about the pathologists report in order to justify her persecution of a man already found not guilty of a crime for which he was falsely imprisoned for 13 years. These are the tools of the persecutors, in this case one often used by the stalker kalnovitch.
Link to a pathologist report not an urban myth thank you.
Quite
Quotekulkkulbelle (328 ) 1:45 pm, Fri 27 Aug #22998
Readers might recall that kulkkulbelle some time ago claimed to have a copy of a pathologists report that showed Laniet (the youngest Bain child, said to be a victim of incest from her father Robin) had never given birth or been pregnant. This of course is to perpetuate the assertion that she was a liar and to explain away what other witnesses at the trial said were birth marks on her stomach. As I've written previously, the hangbainers, in order to 'protect' the victims attack several of them - Laniet in particular. This situation, perhaps foremost with a few others, exposes that the hangbainers are unable to progress past incriminating evidence against the father (Robin) and need to neutralise it in what ever fashion available.
In the case of kulkkulbelle, she simply chooses to lie and rely on evidence that she can't produce and that therefore can't be considered. Kookybelle 'makes' evidence with lies to protect the dead killer Robin. I suppose that is very reasonable to her because of her 'gift' of knowing things that other mere mortals can't discern. So lofty is she with her deep insight into things that don't exist she makes the comment 'quite' above approving of another poster who asks for quotes from The Pathologists report - this despite that over a year has passed since she, kookybelle, was invited to link the pathologists report to which she refers.
Of course kookybelle makes no connection, that another more reasonable person might make, that she is in fact lying about the pathologists report in order to justify her persecution of a man already found not guilty of a crime for which he was falsely imprisoned for 13 years. These are the tools of the persecutors, in this case one often used by the stalker kalnovitch.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Christine Williams: misspw, millie231
Thank you for your kind words and the continued impotent attacks. It's sort of flattering. I know it's hard for you to know that I have my own family and life when you're so lonely. I guess it helps you out that you can stalk my wife and children, and threaten us as you are wont to do. I'm surprised that it has not dawned upon you that we are strong and unbowed. You don't like that do you Chrissy, you like to work in the dark and attempt to strike in silence. It's so funny, and sad really, you, being an 'educator' working like that.
Of course you don't frighten me Chris Williams as you realise already, although I expect you think you've made a good try. Perhaps you might soon realise the problems you have and the distortions wrought upon your life that have made you a stalker and harasser. There is help for you Christine. The first step might be to accept that you can't change the world into darkness so as to fulfill your fantasy of watching people being lynched while you play a torchlight over their quivering deaths, and enjoy, as you must do, such things.
Well anyway, I guess you will see soon, that you can't silence me, even with your girlfriends luckytrader and tony rodney osook. You guys are such chickens you could start an international feather duster factory and take over the world with a full time cleaning contract of mental asylums.
Cheers and all that,
xxx
PS hasn't rodney's bottom ballooned out again. It's ginormous and matches her mouth.
Of course you don't frighten me Chris Williams as you realise already, although I expect you think you've made a good try. Perhaps you might soon realise the problems you have and the distortions wrought upon your life that have made you a stalker and harasser. There is help for you Christine. The first step might be to accept that you can't change the world into darkness so as to fulfill your fantasy of watching people being lynched while you play a torchlight over their quivering deaths, and enjoy, as you must do, such things.
Well anyway, I guess you will see soon, that you can't silence me, even with your girlfriends luckytrader and tony rodney osook. You guys are such chickens you could start an international feather duster factory and take over the world with a full time cleaning contract of mental asylums.
Cheers and all that,
xxx
PS hasn't rodney's bottom ballooned out again. It's ginormous and matches her mouth.
Excuse me please, what's this?
Anonymous said...
Hi newsguy,
I feel so sorry for you and the situations that you get in. I know it's not your fault, you're a good chicken with a heart of gold - I can just tell.
You'll remember that night we met at Counterspin, I didn't mean to hiss at you because I was, well, well overcome by seeing such a tender thigh over the top of your gumboots. Real men these days, what's happened to them newsguy? I feel sad when I think about the old days when a bloke would just cop a quick feel without thinking about it. I haven't had that feeling for years, but when I saw you in your gumboots and chicken suit something stirred in me newsguy. I was all overcome and crinkly in my crinkly bits. It was such fun to have those feelings.
If I might be so forward to say, I've thought about you a lot since that night, and followed your adventures with interest. But I'd be lying if I didn't say you lit a fire in my heart, a quenching desire to touch your big beak and stroke your feather wig. I don't know what I'll do if you reject me for another, I quiver at the thought - barely able to keep my false teeth in place.
I do hope to hear from you soon, even if it's just to hear you cluck goodbye.
Yours, so very truly
Adeline S Desperate.
August 27, 2010 8:35 AM
Hi newsguy,
I feel so sorry for you and the situations that you get in. I know it's not your fault, you're a good chicken with a heart of gold - I can just tell.
You'll remember that night we met at Counterspin, I didn't mean to hiss at you because I was, well, well overcome by seeing such a tender thigh over the top of your gumboots. Real men these days, what's happened to them newsguy? I feel sad when I think about the old days when a bloke would just cop a quick feel without thinking about it. I haven't had that feeling for years, but when I saw you in your gumboots and chicken suit something stirred in me newsguy. I was all overcome and crinkly in my crinkly bits. It was such fun to have those feelings.
If I might be so forward to say, I've thought about you a lot since that night, and followed your adventures with interest. But I'd be lying if I didn't say you lit a fire in my heart, a quenching desire to touch your big beak and stroke your feather wig. I don't know what I'll do if you reject me for another, I quiver at the thought - barely able to keep my false teeth in place.
I do hope to hear from you soon, even if it's just to hear you cluck goodbye.
Yours, so very truly
Adeline S Desperate.
August 27, 2010 8:35 AM
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The metaphorical plume.
The GSR plume, of which anonymous reported, as coming from all openings of a longarm firearm when discharging, and gathering most notably in the cocked arm holding the rifle against the shoulder, escaped the Bain investigators. It was their mistake for not searching for the heavy chemicals contained in the settled plume before Robin's body was moved, and for keeping the pathologist outside the house for many precious hours while the scene was contaminated. It was the investigators 'mistake' to falsely identify the whereabouts of a lens fallen under a ski boot and to later say it was somewhere else anyway. It was the investigators mistake not to investigate the allegations of incest against Robin, or to search fully his history leading to the murders and his own death, and another mistake to rely on a 'confession' that would surely be made to Uncle Mike - a benefactor of the will of the deceased parents.
The mistakes were coming thick and fast, there was the 'mountain' of evidence against David, the withheld evidence about David's mother's glasses, about the time of his arrival home, there was the mistake of burning the house and not testing all the forensic traces, there was the mistake in the dishonesty of Milton Weir in not ensuring that witnesses statements were amended at their request, there was the mistake in not realising David's honesty when he admitted his belief that only he had access to the rifle and that the special treatment that Robin gave his daughter Lanient was simply 'money and rides.' And the special treatment that our Appeal Court gave the disintegration of the case against David by slamming the door on it, by being conservative, short-sighted and lost in their own divinity.
The things lost for David Bain, all those things that the plume of injustice covered, the spreading from the rifle of the ignored Gunshot residue and the spread of the fine mist of injustice settling over one terrible morning in Dunedin. Then settled over a Nation as we watched a man stolen of his life by those that would not speak up their mistakes or prejudices, those that would not question the unsettling series of mistakes or the culmination of those and let an innocent man go free from the attention of his persecutors.
The mistakes were coming thick and fast, there was the 'mountain' of evidence against David, the withheld evidence about David's mother's glasses, about the time of his arrival home, there was the mistake of burning the house and not testing all the forensic traces, there was the mistake in the dishonesty of Milton Weir in not ensuring that witnesses statements were amended at their request, there was the mistake in not realising David's honesty when he admitted his belief that only he had access to the rifle and that the special treatment that Robin gave his daughter Lanient was simply 'money and rides.' And the special treatment that our Appeal Court gave the disintegration of the case against David by slamming the door on it, by being conservative, short-sighted and lost in their own divinity.
The things lost for David Bain, all those things that the plume of injustice covered, the spreading from the rifle of the ignored Gunshot residue and the spread of the fine mist of injustice settling over one terrible morning in Dunedin. Then settled over a Nation as we watched a man stolen of his life by those that would not speak up their mistakes or prejudices, those that would not question the unsettling series of mistakes or the culmination of those and let an innocent man go free from the attention of his persecutors.
Thanks for this reader:
Reader said...
This is an example of something that has puzzled me over the ongoing smear campaign against David Bain and Joe Karam, and anyone else who supports David Bain. The sheer ignorant arrogance of the people involved is extraordinary: they seem to think that from the limited sources they are using, they can formulate and promulgate an extremely unpleasant and unfounded stance, intentionally damaging people's reputations in the process.
August 26, 2010 11:46 AM
I totally agree, and that it comes from the founder of a hate-site devalues any credibility that Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain (sic) have. The reputation of Kent Parker and others, now lives and dies by this stand they have taken that Justice is to be decided away from The Courts and on the basis of rumour and prejudice. Away with the rumour mongers, away with their lies and deceit.
This continued spin of the facts redefines the passage and borders of this case now and into the future. I say that because this aftermath is unprecedented and unwelcome, it was bad enough that it was occurring before and during the trial but that it continues now is irreconcilable in a law-abiding democracy. I see this intentional damage to others by way of lies or sheer ignorance forming a new frontier for the safety and sanctity of the Justice System into the future. I align it with the other unresolved issue as to why a victim of a miscarriage of Justice is reduced by Executive Powers to have to make out his or her case again under the civil law to gain remedy for being falsely imprisoned. Justice must prevail above hate-campaigns and lies and Justice must be seen to be done, not waiting idly when it has been led astray, but firming and aligning itself with Justice for all men and women whatever might have befallen them and whatever their situation in life might have been before injustice was meted out to them.
This is an example of something that has puzzled me over the ongoing smear campaign against David Bain and Joe Karam, and anyone else who supports David Bain. The sheer ignorant arrogance of the people involved is extraordinary: they seem to think that from the limited sources they are using, they can formulate and promulgate an extremely unpleasant and unfounded stance, intentionally damaging people's reputations in the process.
August 26, 2010 11:46 AM
I totally agree, and that it comes from the founder of a hate-site devalues any credibility that Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain (sic) have. The reputation of Kent Parker and others, now lives and dies by this stand they have taken that Justice is to be decided away from The Courts and on the basis of rumour and prejudice. Away with the rumour mongers, away with their lies and deceit.
This continued spin of the facts redefines the passage and borders of this case now and into the future. I say that because this aftermath is unprecedented and unwelcome, it was bad enough that it was occurring before and during the trial but that it continues now is irreconcilable in a law-abiding democracy. I see this intentional damage to others by way of lies or sheer ignorance forming a new frontier for the safety and sanctity of the Justice System into the future. I align it with the other unresolved issue as to why a victim of a miscarriage of Justice is reduced by Executive Powers to have to make out his or her case again under the civil law to gain remedy for being falsely imprisoned. Justice must prevail above hate-campaigns and lies and Justice must be seen to be done, not waiting idly when it has been led astray, but firming and aligning itself with Justice for all men and women whatever might have befallen them and whatever their situation in life might have been before injustice was meted out to them.
Kent Parker - taking the piss:
While not the most appealing subject for a blog post, the matter of the bladder has come up again as a result of the Laws-Karam debate. Attached is the part of the debate where this was discussed (just click on the file bladder2.mp3 and it will load in a player). Karam denies that 400 ml is a full bladder and he attains that you can carry around that much without even noticing. Apparently there was a urologist at the retrial who attested that a person can hold up to 3-4 liters of urine. Now I am not a urologist but this is a very simple matter of fact and I know how to read reference books and they are probably the same reference books read by urologists. Nowhere in any reference book can I find mention of a full bladder being any more than 1 liter and most cite 600-800 as being a suitable maximum. Depending on the source, the amount necessary to elicit the desire to pee is 200-400 ml. If Robin had 400 ml then he would most certainly have been aware of it and ready to relieve himself at any time.
I would like to know what this urologist said at the retrial, if there was one, and whether it bears any resemblance to what JK said in the debate.
I found this report in the ODT
Another Wellington specialist, consultant urologist Grant Russell was asked to consider the significance of Robin Bain having 400ml of urine in his bladder when he was shot.
The Crown says that meant it was unlikely Robin could be the murderer, given the lengthy struggle with Stephen and the time he would have spent cleaning up, that he would have needed to go to the toilet.
But Mr Russell said an ageing male was likely to have a slightly enlarged prostate gland which would cause some obstruction of the bladder opening, inhibiting the squeezing out of urine and increasing its retention in the bladder.
He could not draw any conclusions as to whether someone with 400ml of urine in their bladder could get up and murder someone without having to empty their bladder.
To Mr Bates, the witness agreed 400ml could be the normal overnight collection of urine in a man's bladder.
And while a man would normally want to empty his bladder when he got up, that desire could decrease with age.
Mr Russell agreed it would not necessarily be normal to wait for an hour or two before going to the toilet, but it could be normal for a man of Robin Bain's age to get the paper, perhaps say a quick prayer, then go downstairs to cook breakfast and, if the toilet was in the downstairs area, go to the toilet then.
That could be normal "as could a lot of other scenarios", Mr Russell said.
There's no mention there of 3-4 liters and I am sure that if that was said on the stand then this would have been reported because from what I can see it is incorrect and it would have been seriously questioned. What this witness is saying is that under normal circumstances a person Robin's age would not have felt much compunction to pee with 400ml in his bladder. Note that this scenario of a 'normal' morning does not include the intense activity of killing 5 people taking place between getting up and arriving at the toilet.
I can only conclude that JK's mention of 3-4 liters is an irresponsible and gross misrepresentation of the facts or of what JK must have been told, because no competent urologist would have told him that a person can hold 3-4 liters at any one time. Such a condition is likely either fatal or chronic and in need of immediate medical attention. It is possible that JK heard someone say that the average human produces up to 3 liters of urine every 24 hours and that information may have transmutated in his mind. Given the amount of time that JK spends on the subject of Bain he needs to get his facts right. The audience that would have been listening to the debate would not have been informed enough to understand that those facts are quite incorrect and would have been taken in. I suspect that is part of his strategy. While Laws refuted what he said, sensibly, understanding that 400 ml was a considerable amount of urine, he isn't a health professional and didn't have the reference material on hand to question the validity of JK's claim regarding the 3-4 liters. Should JK ever be brought to task on this by someone who does know what they are talking about, no doubt he would profess that it was an honest mistake. I think I will finish there.
PS: Next time you go to the kitchen check out your measuring jug. A liter of water is a lot of liquid. One liter of water weighs about the equivalent of 1kg so 3-4 litres weights 3-4 kg which is the same as the average new born baby. Having 3-4 liters of urine in the bladder would make you look like you were pregnant!
Kent's long-winded blog shows how he can't balance out the evidence or use common sense. It's got to be his way or the highway, of course Justice as always is a measure of conflicting stories. The following is helpful in showing how the 'hangbainers' only want to examine one side of the argument and not the other.
Some quotes from the actual evidence from Russell:
# 400mls in an ageing male with an enlarging prostate may well be tolerated and may not cause any urgency at all.
# In public practice it is not uncommon to admit ageing men with 2, 3, 4, 5 litres of urine sitting in the bladder which they are not even aware of.
# 400mls may well be tolerated by many men
and: a) adrenaline will slow urine production and interfere with the urge to urinate, and b) the antidepressants in use at that time would also interfere with urination.
So we see again Parker's attempt to discredit Joe Karam on the basis of actual evidence are again dissolved by real testimony. Parker is going to have to lift his game by a significant amount to survive even having his defence wiped in the High Court let alone to make any progress against the charges he is facing. Somehow, I think Kent Parker, in his own delusional way, feels he will be feted and celebrated for his wisdom once he reaches the High Court but the reality is that where will impatience with him and probably advice from the Bench long before the Trial that he should reach settlement with the man he (kent) has made his Nemisis.
When Kent asks his question above 'I would like to know what this urologist said at the retrial, if there was one, and whether it bears any resemblance to what JK said in the debate' he displays the liklihood that in The High Court he will be given a very rude awakening - that he should as is here shown, have been sure of his facts before he defamed Karam and allowed Karam to be defamed on the hate-sites. It's very fundamental and is why Kent is in so much hotwater, and why the administrators and posters on his sites remain personally liable should Trade Me decide to attempt to transfer liability by enjoining the hate-sites adminstrators and specific posters who have made defamatory comment. Interesting times ahead. The fickle comforting idea of apparent safety from litigation is only an order away in the High Court, no time to be counting chickens yet.
Kent smugly points out: 'I can only conclude that JK's mention of 3-4 liters is an irresponsible and gross misrepresentation of the facts.' In fact he is irresponsible and grossly misrepresenting the facts - that's why he has been sued, primarily because he didn't acquaint himself with the facts before engaging his attack.
I would like to know what this urologist said at the retrial, if there was one, and whether it bears any resemblance to what JK said in the debate.
I found this report in the ODT
Another Wellington specialist, consultant urologist Grant Russell was asked to consider the significance of Robin Bain having 400ml of urine in his bladder when he was shot.
The Crown says that meant it was unlikely Robin could be the murderer, given the lengthy struggle with Stephen and the time he would have spent cleaning up, that he would have needed to go to the toilet.
But Mr Russell said an ageing male was likely to have a slightly enlarged prostate gland which would cause some obstruction of the bladder opening, inhibiting the squeezing out of urine and increasing its retention in the bladder.
He could not draw any conclusions as to whether someone with 400ml of urine in their bladder could get up and murder someone without having to empty their bladder.
To Mr Bates, the witness agreed 400ml could be the normal overnight collection of urine in a man's bladder.
And while a man would normally want to empty his bladder when he got up, that desire could decrease with age.
Mr Russell agreed it would not necessarily be normal to wait for an hour or two before going to the toilet, but it could be normal for a man of Robin Bain's age to get the paper, perhaps say a quick prayer, then go downstairs to cook breakfast and, if the toilet was in the downstairs area, go to the toilet then.
That could be normal "as could a lot of other scenarios", Mr Russell said.
There's no mention there of 3-4 liters and I am sure that if that was said on the stand then this would have been reported because from what I can see it is incorrect and it would have been seriously questioned. What this witness is saying is that under normal circumstances a person Robin's age would not have felt much compunction to pee with 400ml in his bladder. Note that this scenario of a 'normal' morning does not include the intense activity of killing 5 people taking place between getting up and arriving at the toilet.
I can only conclude that JK's mention of 3-4 liters is an irresponsible and gross misrepresentation of the facts or of what JK must have been told, because no competent urologist would have told him that a person can hold 3-4 liters at any one time. Such a condition is likely either fatal or chronic and in need of immediate medical attention. It is possible that JK heard someone say that the average human produces up to 3 liters of urine every 24 hours and that information may have transmutated in his mind. Given the amount of time that JK spends on the subject of Bain he needs to get his facts right. The audience that would have been listening to the debate would not have been informed enough to understand that those facts are quite incorrect and would have been taken in. I suspect that is part of his strategy. While Laws refuted what he said, sensibly, understanding that 400 ml was a considerable amount of urine, he isn't a health professional and didn't have the reference material on hand to question the validity of JK's claim regarding the 3-4 liters. Should JK ever be brought to task on this by someone who does know what they are talking about, no doubt he would profess that it was an honest mistake. I think I will finish there.
PS: Next time you go to the kitchen check out your measuring jug. A liter of water is a lot of liquid. One liter of water weighs about the equivalent of 1kg so 3-4 litres weights 3-4 kg which is the same as the average new born baby. Having 3-4 liters of urine in the bladder would make you look like you were pregnant!
Kent's long-winded blog shows how he can't balance out the evidence or use common sense. It's got to be his way or the highway, of course Justice as always is a measure of conflicting stories. The following is helpful in showing how the 'hangbainers' only want to examine one side of the argument and not the other.
Some quotes from the actual evidence from Russell:
# 400mls in an ageing male with an enlarging prostate may well be tolerated and may not cause any urgency at all.
# In public practice it is not uncommon to admit ageing men with 2, 3, 4, 5 litres of urine sitting in the bladder which they are not even aware of.
# 400mls may well be tolerated by many men
and: a) adrenaline will slow urine production and interfere with the urge to urinate, and b) the antidepressants in use at that time would also interfere with urination.
So we see again Parker's attempt to discredit Joe Karam on the basis of actual evidence are again dissolved by real testimony. Parker is going to have to lift his game by a significant amount to survive even having his defence wiped in the High Court let alone to make any progress against the charges he is facing. Somehow, I think Kent Parker, in his own delusional way, feels he will be feted and celebrated for his wisdom once he reaches the High Court but the reality is that where will impatience with him and probably advice from the Bench long before the Trial that he should reach settlement with the man he (kent) has made his Nemisis.
When Kent asks his question above 'I would like to know what this urologist said at the retrial, if there was one, and whether it bears any resemblance to what JK said in the debate' he displays the liklihood that in The High Court he will be given a very rude awakening - that he should as is here shown, have been sure of his facts before he defamed Karam and allowed Karam to be defamed on the hate-sites. It's very fundamental and is why Kent is in so much hotwater, and why the administrators and posters on his sites remain personally liable should Trade Me decide to attempt to transfer liability by enjoining the hate-sites adminstrators and specific posters who have made defamatory comment. Interesting times ahead. The fickle comforting idea of apparent safety from litigation is only an order away in the High Court, no time to be counting chickens yet.
Kent smugly points out: 'I can only conclude that JK's mention of 3-4 liters is an irresponsible and gross misrepresentation of the facts.' In fact he is irresponsible and grossly misrepresenting the facts - that's why he has been sued, primarily because he didn't acquaint himself with the facts before engaging his attack.
Lindsay Kennard the stalker:
Lindsay R. Kennard Size 20 it shows in her photo on the site where she outed herself and her children a few years ago. Once its online it goes feral.
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Here the woeful insomniac kennard trys to reinvent the past. I'll explain it for him although I accept he might be drug addled or drunk at this time or anytime of the day.
If a person joins Trade Me or any other organisation that runs a message board and chooses to post under a pseudonym a contract is formed between the publisher and poster about the poster's identity. Above, where Kennard refers to person having a profile beyond Trade Me, the contract is in no way effected for the simple reason that the pseudonym cannot be connected to the profile. That's very obvious I'm sure to most people, but kennard tries to suggest there is some link that one makes the other obvious or known. The real situation, and what kennard is trying to hide, is that an anonymous poster was identified by Annette Curran and others from the hate-sites, then subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment as well as having the 'until then' anonymous persons photo distributed. Kennard was and is part of this stalking. As was kalnovitch who named the posters children and dcameron and others who denied Kalnovitch's actions and demanded proof supporting it, of course to republish Kalnovitch's naming of the children on TM again would have repeated the stalking and victimisation. But that's how stalkers work folks, that's how they work as the hate-sites administrators watch in support.
linzobimbo expects now to reinvent the situation but of course it is too late, and of course most people, I'm sure, are readily able to see through his dishonesty and corruptness. His crys of 'wolf' and plaintive overtures for sympathy fall on deaf ears.
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Here the woeful insomniac kennard trys to reinvent the past. I'll explain it for him although I accept he might be drug addled or drunk at this time or anytime of the day.
If a person joins Trade Me or any other organisation that runs a message board and chooses to post under a pseudonym a contract is formed between the publisher and poster about the poster's identity. Above, where Kennard refers to person having a profile beyond Trade Me, the contract is in no way effected for the simple reason that the pseudonym cannot be connected to the profile. That's very obvious I'm sure to most people, but kennard tries to suggest there is some link that one makes the other obvious or known. The real situation, and what kennard is trying to hide, is that an anonymous poster was identified by Annette Curran and others from the hate-sites, then subjected to a campaign of stalking and harassment as well as having the 'until then' anonymous persons photo distributed. Kennard was and is part of this stalking. As was kalnovitch who named the posters children and dcameron and others who denied Kalnovitch's actions and demanded proof supporting it, of course to republish Kalnovitch's naming of the children on TM again would have repeated the stalking and victimisation. But that's how stalkers work folks, that's how they work as the hate-sites administrators watch in support.
linzobimbo expects now to reinvent the situation but of course it is too late, and of course most people, I'm sure, are readily able to see through his dishonesty and corruptness. His crys of 'wolf' and plaintive overtures for sympathy fall on deaf ears.
Kent Parker - displays of intolerance
Anonymous said...
Thanks for your frankness I appreciate it. During the course of my conversation with Parker and Stockdale, Parker criticised me for not stating my position as eloquently as he does. This comment highlighted for me Parker's extreme intolerance of others. This extreme intolerance coupled with his hatred of Joe Karam and the mesmerizing affect the his own intelligence obviously has on himself has clouded his judgement.
An idiot is still an idiot no matter how you care phrase it and Parker and his trusty off-sider Stockdale are idiots.
Stockdale and Parker are obsessed. This obsession of theirs has been generated by their hatred of Joe Karam nothing more nothing less.
I would like to send them a great big K(eep) I(t) S(imple) S(tupid) to comfort them through these troubled times and a little bit of advice.
Get over yourselves you are not that important.
August 26, 2010 8:13 AM
Thanks for this. I had similar experiences. From when I began posting it was obvious that all were watching to determine my motives, and more importantly whether I was of the same views of the hate-siters. A most unusual experience, like walking in darkness and being bumped or nudged suddenly, from no where. The intolerance and suspicion of outsiders was palpable, reminded me more of a cloistered gang environment or mentality. I think we can all have different views and that is to be welcomed in a progressive society, it's a freedom as is speech and being able to express views in a non-defamatory way.
Nonetheless it makes an interesting study, in particular the descent of some, who've obviously led blemish free lives, to becoming stalkers and propagandists. The surrender those people, at least some of them, have made into a world dominated by attacking those that are not 'right,' those that don't understand and who are somehow 'lesser' and 'inferior' is significant, as is their unwillingness or inability to take stock and see how the Bain case, and their own misapprehensions, have overtaken them. In one breath I can feel sympathy for them but in another only contempt for the harm they cause. In the end, even if they were right for all the right reasons (something I obviously wouldn't agree,) what they have done and continued to do, is not justified for they want to break down the law and reform it for their own 'righteous' purpose - something which must be defended against.
Thanks for your frankness I appreciate it. During the course of my conversation with Parker and Stockdale, Parker criticised me for not stating my position as eloquently as he does. This comment highlighted for me Parker's extreme intolerance of others. This extreme intolerance coupled with his hatred of Joe Karam and the mesmerizing affect the his own intelligence obviously has on himself has clouded his judgement.
An idiot is still an idiot no matter how you care phrase it and Parker and his trusty off-sider Stockdale are idiots.
Stockdale and Parker are obsessed. This obsession of theirs has been generated by their hatred of Joe Karam nothing more nothing less.
I would like to send them a great big K(eep) I(t) S(imple) S(tupid) to comfort them through these troubled times and a little bit of advice.
Get over yourselves you are not that important.
August 26, 2010 8:13 AM
Thanks for this. I had similar experiences. From when I began posting it was obvious that all were watching to determine my motives, and more importantly whether I was of the same views of the hate-siters. A most unusual experience, like walking in darkness and being bumped or nudged suddenly, from no where. The intolerance and suspicion of outsiders was palpable, reminded me more of a cloistered gang environment or mentality. I think we can all have different views and that is to be welcomed in a progressive society, it's a freedom as is speech and being able to express views in a non-defamatory way.
Nonetheless it makes an interesting study, in particular the descent of some, who've obviously led blemish free lives, to becoming stalkers and propagandists. The surrender those people, at least some of them, have made into a world dominated by attacking those that are not 'right,' those that don't understand and who are somehow 'lesser' and 'inferior' is significant, as is their unwillingness or inability to take stock and see how the Bain case, and their own misapprehensions, have overtaken them. In one breath I can feel sympathy for them but in another only contempt for the harm they cause. In the end, even if they were right for all the right reasons (something I obviously wouldn't agree,) what they have done and continued to do, is not justified for they want to break down the law and reform it for their own 'righteous' purpose - something which must be defended against.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Catherine Kennedy - the aphrodisiac fades.
cookingwithgas (Catherine Kennedy)...the aphrodisiac fades.
In the morning you see yourself,
notice now, with makeup gone
the drink of hate has left you bare
of a heart true, or love,
even for yourself -
love has gone, the aphrodisiac fades,
fades now
as the hate sets cold.
In the morning you see yourself,
notice now, with makeup gone
the drink of hate has left you bare
of a heart true, or love,
even for yourself -
love has gone, the aphrodisiac fades,
fades now
as the hate sets cold.
I'm not a chicken, by Goodnewsguy.
Sure, I've got a few feathers, who hasn't these days? Maybe I do like pecking wheat and clucking in tune with the other hens when Nos starts crowing in the middle of night screaming out for eggs. But I'm no chicken, I'll tell you that. I'm prudent and safety conscious. I wear a hazard jacket and hard hat when scratching about in the hen house. It pays to be safety conscious when you know there are stalkers about. What's stalk for the goose is stalk for the gander - or something like that.
The truth is I'm just staying in the hen house for a few days until those nasty stalkers go away. I'm protecting the chickens and not getting paid so I wish Nos would stop yelling out that I'm a chicken and I should come out of the hen house and face up to them stalkers. As far as I'm concerned he can face up to them by himself because I'm busy counting eggs and trying to get use to the smell. I don't get paid danger money and besides that some chickens say interesting things like 'watch out for the fox,' or 'move your big brown butt off my nest.' Things can pretty interesting in the hen house and I'm not coming out until it's safe. So there.
The truth is I'm just staying in the hen house for a few days until those nasty stalkers go away. I'm protecting the chickens and not getting paid so I wish Nos would stop yelling out that I'm a chicken and I should come out of the hen house and face up to them stalkers. As far as I'm concerned he can face up to them by himself because I'm busy counting eggs and trying to get use to the smell. I don't get paid danger money and besides that some chickens say interesting things like 'watch out for the fox,' or 'move your big brown butt off my nest.' Things can pretty interesting in the hen house and I'm not coming out until it's safe. So there.
Kent Parker, a very naughty Campmother.
Corrections from the man who would walk on water:
Submitted by Rossco on Tue, 24/08/2010 - 5:02pm.
Your post pretty much sums it up doesn't it?
Yes, I agree, you are right. I'm sorry I was completely mistaken.
"There could be a number of subsequent discoveries that would create a necessity to hang curtains". That is entirely valid.
A crime scene is a complex and fluid environment whose inner workings are way beyond my skills to understand.
Did you know that the detectives initially thought that it was a murder-suicide but because they were thorough in their examination they tested and interviewed David anyway?
[Note, errors corrected: ed]
As any reader can see Kent Parker needs to correct what he sees as other people's 'errors.' Obviously anybody that doesn't agree with Camp Mother is in error. All this from a 'reasonable' person, somebody who blogs about the symbolic 'reasonable' man. But it is helpful in determining who the real Kent Parker/Campmother is.
He is somebody that runs a hate-site full of stalkers and propagandists. He is somebody that bans any members of his hate-site who don't agree with him. Furthermore, his credibility extends to be willing to alter a text published on his site in good faith - altering something, as we see above, to reflect his own view and the purported 'errors' of the writer. He is the guy that condones his members stalking jurors to find any fault in them that might remedy Kent's failed belief that an innocent man would be convicted, and that he wasn't indicates that some 'proof' lies in the community somewhere to show the Jury's decision was wrong. Probably not just wrong, but indeed corrupt.
Kent as we have seen is very delusional. He has deluded himself into the belief that he would have some public prominence based on his ignorance of the law in general and his misapprehensions about a murder/suicide case he has shown to be incapable, or unwilling, to understand. Perhaps Kent's greatest delusion (that at least we know about) is that our Minister of Justice would accept an unable to be authenticated petition from a hate-site full of nutters and stalkers. What a delusion, people would pay good money to be so deluded, unfortunately of course, and I don't want to be remiss here in my comments about the mentally fragile, Kent's delusion pills last a lifetime and the average punter probably only wants to have a passing delusion and not something permanent.
I see I also forgot to mention old deludo's petition has people's names on it that haven't given their permission for them to be there, something all his administrators obviously consent to. I would just note that old kento was already erratic and delusional even before he got sued shown by the fact that the same thing that happened to rossco above has happened to others. I guess such behaviour is symptomatic of deranged hate-site masters.
Submitted by Rossco on Tue, 24/08/2010 - 5:02pm.
Your post pretty much sums it up doesn't it?
Yes, I agree, you are right. I'm sorry I was completely mistaken.
"There could be a number of subsequent discoveries that would create a necessity to hang curtains". That is entirely valid.
A crime scene is a complex and fluid environment whose inner workings are way beyond my skills to understand.
Did you know that the detectives initially thought that it was a murder-suicide but because they were thorough in their examination they tested and interviewed David anyway?
[Note, errors corrected: ed]
As any reader can see Kent Parker needs to correct what he sees as other people's 'errors.' Obviously anybody that doesn't agree with Camp Mother is in error. All this from a 'reasonable' person, somebody who blogs about the symbolic 'reasonable' man. But it is helpful in determining who the real Kent Parker/Campmother is.
He is somebody that runs a hate-site full of stalkers and propagandists. He is somebody that bans any members of his hate-site who don't agree with him. Furthermore, his credibility extends to be willing to alter a text published on his site in good faith - altering something, as we see above, to reflect his own view and the purported 'errors' of the writer. He is the guy that condones his members stalking jurors to find any fault in them that might remedy Kent's failed belief that an innocent man would be convicted, and that he wasn't indicates that some 'proof' lies in the community somewhere to show the Jury's decision was wrong. Probably not just wrong, but indeed corrupt.
Kent as we have seen is very delusional. He has deluded himself into the belief that he would have some public prominence based on his ignorance of the law in general and his misapprehensions about a murder/suicide case he has shown to be incapable, or unwilling, to understand. Perhaps Kent's greatest delusion (that at least we know about) is that our Minister of Justice would accept an unable to be authenticated petition from a hate-site full of nutters and stalkers. What a delusion, people would pay good money to be so deluded, unfortunately of course, and I don't want to be remiss here in my comments about the mentally fragile, Kent's delusion pills last a lifetime and the average punter probably only wants to have a passing delusion and not something permanent.
I see I also forgot to mention old deludo's petition has people's names on it that haven't given their permission for them to be there, something all his administrators obviously consent to. I would just note that old kento was already erratic and delusional even before he got sued shown by the fact that the same thing that happened to rossco above has happened to others. I guess such behaviour is symptomatic of deranged hate-site masters.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Gamefisher to the rescue...
It defies logic that Robin would have continue using that method after seeing that it took 3 shots to have supposidly kill his daughter then to do it in the most awkard manner with out taking the silencer off. On top of that he has meant to hold the rifle away from his head severly reducing the accuracy of aim. It is also doubful if he ever had a chance to practise that manouver as he had limited access to the rifle. What people should have taken from the Irish expert demo was just how very awkard and difficult it was and not that it was posible and very remotely at that.
Quotegamefisher (687 ) 8:26 pm, Tue 24 Aug #22793
Thanks for that gamefisher. It's great to know that 2 people in the world, you and the equally sad, sad kennard, have explained how Robin missed shooting himself in the head. You say it was because he had no practice, sad linzbo says it was because he (linzbo) talked to other, (un-named)people who also couldn't manage to shoot themselves in the head, for verification. You guys should be so proud, I'm actually thinking of a joint Moron of the Week award for you both. Perhaps, you'd like to forward a photo of yourselves holding hands. It'll be such fun I might even ask for copies of dcameron's private photos as special gift for you both along with the customary choclates and roses.
Quotegamefisher (687 ) 8:26 pm, Tue 24 Aug #22793
Thanks for that gamefisher. It's great to know that 2 people in the world, you and the equally sad, sad kennard, have explained how Robin missed shooting himself in the head. You say it was because he had no practice, sad linzbo says it was because he (linzbo) talked to other, (un-named)people who also couldn't manage to shoot themselves in the head, for verification. You guys should be so proud, I'm actually thinking of a joint Moron of the Week award for you both. Perhaps, you'd like to forward a photo of yourselves holding hands. It'll be such fun I might even ask for copies of dcameron's private photos as special gift for you both along with the customary choclates and roses.
linz4me pushing his barrow
I make few statements of fact in the this as I don't documentation to support.
My stance is based, in the main, on a personal belief that the likelihood of Robin Bain being able to commit suicide in any of the manners demonstrated is only faintly possible. I have some personal experience and have spoke with others that have attempted suicide and from that, can say the methods just fit as males specially tend to use the easiest and most lethal method.
Elaborate preparation is not a consideration ease and positivity of result is the primary consideration.
Quotelinz4me (274 ) 7:41 pm, Tue 24 Aug #22792
I guess old kennard is trying to say he tried to shoot himself in the head but missed. And that therefore he isn't just a sad old kennard but an expert of other similar types (Robin Bain) as well, forgetting for the moment that dear Robin didn't miss. He got himself right where he aimed for, the left temple.
Sad Kennard feels some empathy toward Robin Bain, because sad Kennard claims that someone said he was fiddler as well, but not in an orchestra. He apparently feels a fiddler's unity with dead daddy Robin from what he says above as 'I have some personal experience.'
My stance is based, in the main, on a personal belief that the likelihood of Robin Bain being able to commit suicide in any of the manners demonstrated is only faintly possible. I have some personal experience and have spoke with others that have attempted suicide and from that, can say the methods just fit as males specially tend to use the easiest and most lethal method.
Elaborate preparation is not a consideration ease and positivity of result is the primary consideration.
Quotelinz4me (274 ) 7:41 pm, Tue 24 Aug #22792
I guess old kennard is trying to say he tried to shoot himself in the head but missed. And that therefore he isn't just a sad old kennard but an expert of other similar types (Robin Bain) as well, forgetting for the moment that dear Robin didn't miss. He got himself right where he aimed for, the left temple.
Sad Kennard feels some empathy toward Robin Bain, because sad Kennard claims that someone said he was fiddler as well, but not in an orchestra. He apparently feels a fiddler's unity with dead daddy Robin from what he says above as 'I have some personal experience.'
Mike Stockdale and Vic Purkiss: the Stalkers
Something for stalker Stockdale and Purkiss of Justice for Robin Bain (sic):
TM Moderators
The stalker Mike Stockdale, user name supersleuth
Here is the evidence that the poster supersleuth (Mike Stockdale) is still a stalker.
Letting him post on your boards puts your board members at risk.
Letting him post or be a member of Trade Me, with the knowledge made available to TM here, and earlier, implies complicity or disregard by TM of this member's criminal behaviour.
This man is a criminal stalker as defined under the Harassment Act 1997 S6 (2)a.
This material has been uplifted from the hate-site Justice For Robin Bain of which Stockdale is a administrator and patron.
This material will no doubt be forwarded onto the NZ Police.
From Counterspin, the stalkers at work, Stockdale and Purkiss along with an as yet unnamed accomplice.
Mike Stockdale Well,it does appear that things are quietening down on Trade Me.I wouldn't be surprised to find that JFRB thread will be off the front page of Opinion and Politics tomorrow morning.If it is ,I won't be bumping it.
22 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Mike Stockdale I was wrong about that thread,it is still bubbling along,but the posts are all fairly reasonable,in the main.The main anti Robin poster,>snip<.is hardly posting at the moment.Perhaps she is a bit upset about being "outed " again
Jake Mate Or she could be preparing for her seminar.
2 hours ago · ·
Mike Stockdale Yes,I wondered about that.It is only 6 days away.
about an hour ago · ·
Vic Pur You still going Mike?
46 minutes ago · ·
In summary this poster should be permanently banned and reported by TM to the Police.
Hard copies of all this material are available.
Yours etc
TM Moderators
The stalker Mike Stockdale, user name supersleuth
Here is the evidence that the poster supersleuth (Mike Stockdale) is still a stalker.
Letting him post on your boards puts your board members at risk.
Letting him post or be a member of Trade Me, with the knowledge made available to TM here, and earlier, implies complicity or disregard by TM of this member's criminal behaviour.
This man is a criminal stalker as defined under the Harassment Act 1997 S6 (2)a.
This material has been uplifted from the hate-site Justice For Robin Bain of which Stockdale is a administrator and patron.
This material will no doubt be forwarded onto the NZ Police.
From Counterspin, the stalkers at work, Stockdale and Purkiss along with an as yet unnamed accomplice.
Mike Stockdale Well,it does appear that things are quietening down on Trade Me.I wouldn't be surprised to find that JFRB thread will be off the front page of Opinion and Politics tomorrow morning.If it is ,I won't be bumping it.
22 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Mike Stockdale I was wrong about that thread,it is still bubbling along,but the posts are all fairly reasonable,in the main.The main anti Robin poster,>snip<.is hardly posting at the moment.Perhaps she is a bit upset about being "outed " again
Jake Mate Or she could be preparing for her seminar.
2 hours ago · ·
Mike Stockdale Yes,I wondered about that.It is only 6 days away.
about an hour ago · ·
Vic Pur You still going Mike?
46 minutes ago · ·
In summary this poster should be permanently banned and reported by TM to the Police.
Hard copies of all this material are available.
Yours etc
Mike Stockdale and Vic Purkiss - Stalkers
From Counterspin, the stalkers at work, Stockdale and Purkiss along with an as yet unnamed accomplice.
Mike Stockdale Well,it does appear that things are quietening down on Trade Me.I wouldn't be surprised to find that JFRB thread will be off the front page of Opinion and Politics tomorrow morning.If it is ,I won't be bumping it.
22 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Mike Stockdale I was wrong about that thread,it is still bubbling along,but the posts are all fairly reasonable,in the main.The main anti Robin poster,>snip<.is hardly posting at the moment.Perhaps she is a bit upset about being "outed " again
Jake Mate Or she could be preparing for her seminar.
2 hours ago · ·
Mike Stockdale Yes,I wondered about that.It is only 6 days away.
about an hour ago · ·
Vic Pur You still going Mike?
46 minutes ago · ·
Obviously, the person they're stalking, now fore-armed will go to the police. So if the nancy boys feel disappointed they're welcome to stalk me but I don't think they have the fortitude somehow.
Mike Stockdale Well,it does appear that things are quietening down on Trade Me.I wouldn't be surprised to find that JFRB thread will be off the front page of Opinion and Politics tomorrow morning.If it is ,I won't be bumping it.
22 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Mike Stockdale I was wrong about that thread,it is still bubbling along,but the posts are all fairly reasonable,in the main.The main anti Robin poster,>snip<.is hardly posting at the moment.Perhaps she is a bit upset about being "outed " again
Jake Mate Or she could be preparing for her seminar.
2 hours ago · ·
Mike Stockdale Yes,I wondered about that.It is only 6 days away.
about an hour ago · ·
Vic Pur You still going Mike?
46 minutes ago · ·
Obviously, the person they're stalking, now fore-armed will go to the police. So if the nancy boys feel disappointed they're welcome to stalk me but I don't think they have the fortitude somehow.
The meaning of not guilty:
Thanks to GNG for this quote from the 1998 Law Commission Report...
. . 'as a matter of fundamental policy in the administration of the criminal law it must be accepted by the Crown in a subsequent criminal proceeding that an acquittal is the equivalent to a finding of innocence . . . ..
To reach behind the acquittal, to qualify it, is, in effect, to introduce the verdict of “not proven”, which is not, has never been and should not be a part of our law.'
The term 'to reach behind the acquittal' is recognised (as above) in Canada as not being part of the law and that it should never be so. But the Cabinet rules in NZ, amended and tightened by former Justice Minister Doug Graham, allow for the acquittal to be 'reached behind.' The loudest trumpets objecting to David's situation being remedied compare his MOJ with others such as Thomas, Haig, and Peter Ellis all without regard to the fact that none of these men were acquitted by a Jury.
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy historically was the tool by which convicted men escaped the gallows or imprisonment for a number of reasons most often simply because of overcrowding. Of course in modern times we see it as the vehicle by which the Executive in Council (the Cabinet of the Government of the day) might 'remedy' Miscarriages of Justice, order cases to be sent back to the Court of Appeal or to be inquired into by a suitable qualified person or persons. Historically, The Prerogative of Mercy was never intended to allow the Crown to investigate the status of an acquittal, nor so in contemporary times until the 'Graham decision.' An 'excutive' decision by which our Justice system is put out of kilter. The 'decision' saw powers returned to the King which had been removed by the enactment of the Magna Carta nearly a 1,000 years ago in which judgement upon a subject of the realm was given by a jury of 'ones' peers and not the King. It was recognised all that time ago that justice afforded by the word of the king was easily captured by whim, political nuance or hidden advantage of some type.
Lord Devlin put it this way, Prerogative of Mercy is now perforce being used in circumstances for which it wathe s never designed, not for the exercise of mercy but for the determination of justice. The inquiry into the appropriate sentence which, in accordance with all our traditions, ought to be dealt with in open court and with the right of appeal, has to be conducted in camera and without appeal on facts that may or may not have emerged in evidence and been tested in cross-examination... Traditionally, we have insisted that the subject should be protected by forms of law ; that is what we mean by saying that no man shall be condemned save by due process of law. The law does not achieve that by telling those to whom it has denied justice that they can always sue for mercy7.The Law According to Devlin
As mentioned above the Crown's willingness to look behind a verdict began with the then Minister of Justice, Doug Graham, who rejected paying compensation to David Dougherty, another man who was acquitted at retrial after many years in prison despite dna evidence that exonerated him. Although David Dougherty was eventually paid out Graham's cabinet approved guidelines for compensation remain to this point without challenge. Whatever one's feelings about legal remedy/compensation for David Bain, the erosion of due process, whereby the Government arbitrate Jury verdicts, effects us all. If the Government are seen to be 'looking behind' a Jury verdict or any Judicial decision the independence of the Courts and Judiciary is lost or threatened. A person could ultimately succeed on appeal or by trial for compensation because of loss of land, or value of land or property, loss of productivity or similar only to find that the Government of the day decide to 'look behind' the verdict or the Judicial decision for some reason of its own.
It is interesting to note that Lord Devlin says 'The law does not achieve that (justice) by telling those to whom it has denied justice that they can always sue for mercy7' because of course any decision made by Cabinet can be reviewed by Judicial Review as could be expected if the Government don't settle with David. It goes further however, because the issue might be expanded further to show that any decisions, such as to inquire into a verdict or Judicial decision, breach the NZ Bill of Rights.
See below for more reference material;
NZ Bill of Rights
Right to justice
• (1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.
Magna Carta
One of the most important clauses that was to have the long lasting effect was Article 39:
No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
This meant the King must judge individuals according to the law, and not according to his own will.
Equally important was Article 40:
To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
The importance of these two clauses, the right to be judged by one's peers, is felt in all English speaking countries today.
American Bill of Rights: Derived from the Magna Carta
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
In conclusion, Sir Douglas Graham, the former Minister of Justice who dispensed in part with due process, faces fidiciary charges of some nature regarding a failed finance company or similar, for which he might well face trial by Jury. Presumably, his apparent view that a verdict could be 'looked behind' inferring the Crowns pre-imminence in Justice above the Courts and the tradition that one was entitled to the legal judgment of his peers might be something he may further reflect upon.
In the meantime people such as David Bain and David Dougherty who suffer years of imprisonment for crimes their peers have judged them innocent of run the evident risk that a Government of the day might see their acquittal as something overwhich they are empowered to inquire into. And by doing so delay or reject an application by the injured party, an action, which in itself, subverts due process by placing the onus on a victim of a MOJ to go cap in hand to the perpetrator of his injustice for remedy. And if that victim refuses or declines to honour in anyway the perpetrator of the injustice and decide not to go to The Crown, then The Crown will watch silently the victim of its misadventure. Watch the man (or woman) who having been found not guilty by a jury is then be tasked with proving his innocence - New Zealand be aware that we have fallen many centuries into the past and surrendered freedoms and rights.
. . 'as a matter of fundamental policy in the administration of the criminal law it must be accepted by the Crown in a subsequent criminal proceeding that an acquittal is the equivalent to a finding of innocence . . . ..
To reach behind the acquittal, to qualify it, is, in effect, to introduce the verdict of “not proven”, which is not, has never been and should not be a part of our law.'
The term 'to reach behind the acquittal' is recognised (as above) in Canada as not being part of the law and that it should never be so. But the Cabinet rules in NZ, amended and tightened by former Justice Minister Doug Graham, allow for the acquittal to be 'reached behind.' The loudest trumpets objecting to David's situation being remedied compare his MOJ with others such as Thomas, Haig, and Peter Ellis all without regard to the fact that none of these men were acquitted by a Jury.
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy historically was the tool by which convicted men escaped the gallows or imprisonment for a number of reasons most often simply because of overcrowding. Of course in modern times we see it as the vehicle by which the Executive in Council (the Cabinet of the Government of the day) might 'remedy' Miscarriages of Justice, order cases to be sent back to the Court of Appeal or to be inquired into by a suitable qualified person or persons. Historically, The Prerogative of Mercy was never intended to allow the Crown to investigate the status of an acquittal, nor so in contemporary times until the 'Graham decision.' An 'excutive' decision by which our Justice system is put out of kilter. The 'decision' saw powers returned to the King which had been removed by the enactment of the Magna Carta nearly a 1,000 years ago in which judgement upon a subject of the realm was given by a jury of 'ones' peers and not the King. It was recognised all that time ago that justice afforded by the word of the king was easily captured by whim, political nuance or hidden advantage of some type.
Lord Devlin put it this way, Prerogative of Mercy is now perforce being used in circumstances for which it wathe s never designed, not for the exercise of mercy but for the determination of justice. The inquiry into the appropriate sentence which, in accordance with all our traditions, ought to be dealt with in open court and with the right of appeal, has to be conducted in camera and without appeal on facts that may or may not have emerged in evidence and been tested in cross-examination... Traditionally, we have insisted that the subject should be protected by forms of law ; that is what we mean by saying that no man shall be condemned save by due process of law. The law does not achieve that by telling those to whom it has denied justice that they can always sue for mercy7.The Law According to Devlin
As mentioned above the Crown's willingness to look behind a verdict began with the then Minister of Justice, Doug Graham, who rejected paying compensation to David Dougherty, another man who was acquitted at retrial after many years in prison despite dna evidence that exonerated him. Although David Dougherty was eventually paid out Graham's cabinet approved guidelines for compensation remain to this point without challenge. Whatever one's feelings about legal remedy/compensation for David Bain, the erosion of due process, whereby the Government arbitrate Jury verdicts, effects us all. If the Government are seen to be 'looking behind' a Jury verdict or any Judicial decision the independence of the Courts and Judiciary is lost or threatened. A person could ultimately succeed on appeal or by trial for compensation because of loss of land, or value of land or property, loss of productivity or similar only to find that the Government of the day decide to 'look behind' the verdict or the Judicial decision for some reason of its own.
It is interesting to note that Lord Devlin says 'The law does not achieve that (justice) by telling those to whom it has denied justice that they can always sue for mercy7' because of course any decision made by Cabinet can be reviewed by Judicial Review as could be expected if the Government don't settle with David. It goes further however, because the issue might be expanded further to show that any decisions, such as to inquire into a verdict or Judicial decision, breach the NZ Bill of Rights.
See below for more reference material;
NZ Bill of Rights
Right to justice
• (1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.
Magna Carta
One of the most important clauses that was to have the long lasting effect was Article 39:
No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
This meant the King must judge individuals according to the law, and not according to his own will.
Equally important was Article 40:
To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
The importance of these two clauses, the right to be judged by one's peers, is felt in all English speaking countries today.
American Bill of Rights: Derived from the Magna Carta
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
In conclusion, Sir Douglas Graham, the former Minister of Justice who dispensed in part with due process, faces fidiciary charges of some nature regarding a failed finance company or similar, for which he might well face trial by Jury. Presumably, his apparent view that a verdict could be 'looked behind' inferring the Crowns pre-imminence in Justice above the Courts and the tradition that one was entitled to the legal judgment of his peers might be something he may further reflect upon.
In the meantime people such as David Bain and David Dougherty who suffer years of imprisonment for crimes their peers have judged them innocent of run the evident risk that a Government of the day might see their acquittal as something overwhich they are empowered to inquire into. And by doing so delay or reject an application by the injured party, an action, which in itself, subverts due process by placing the onus on a victim of a MOJ to go cap in hand to the perpetrator of his injustice for remedy. And if that victim refuses or declines to honour in anyway the perpetrator of the injustice and decide not to go to The Crown, then The Crown will watch silently the victim of its misadventure. Watch the man (or woman) who having been found not guilty by a jury is then be tasked with proving his innocence - New Zealand be aware that we have fallen many centuries into the past and surrendered freedoms and rights.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Kent Parker, Mr nice guy.
Submitted by Kent Parker on Mon, 23/08/2010 - 7:12pm.
Psst, Rossco, you are lucky your head wasn't bitten off completely, utterly and mercilessly...
I guess old Kent is feeling the pressure and doesn't know if he's the messiah, a genius or just a straight out thug.
Psst, Rossco, you are lucky your head wasn't bitten off completely, utterly and mercilessly...
I guess old Kent is feeling the pressure and doesn't know if he's the messiah, a genius or just a straight out thug.
Gamefisher, has made a breakthrough.
I see that that blog site is owned by google.
Quotegamefisher (687 ) 6:12 pm, Mon 23 Aug #36
Whoopi di do gamefisher.
On behalf of the many dogs you've dispatched, woof woof - so long it's been good to know ya.
It's odd how you guys are either farming dogs, shooting them or rolling around in cowpats. Very odd. Have you ever considered macrame, or picking your nose when sitting in your lonely outhouse?
Quotegamefisher (687 ) 6:12 pm, Mon 23 Aug #36
Whoopi di do gamefisher.
On behalf of the many dogs you've dispatched, woof woof - so long it's been good to know ya.
It's odd how you guys are either farming dogs, shooting them or rolling around in cowpats. Very odd. Have you ever considered macrame, or picking your nose when sitting in your lonely outhouse?
After such a busy day some Good News by GNG.
Well, it's been very busy. I've hardly had time to answer all the email requests from the sisters for Nos's phone number. It appears he made quite an impression on them and kalpal has said she'll burn her hangman's rope if he pays just one more visit. I suppose it's the fact that spring is arriving, cowpats are drying out, the commercial cleaners have moved in at the council's request and everything just looks hunky dory. The reprobates want to sue someone but they don't know who, things are confused as to who is the hunter and who is the hunted, stalkers have been given a wake up call, the hate-sites are losing confidence and infighting. It's all so much fun I could kiss a rabbit's foot. It's like one big mad hatter's tea party on the hate-sites and here's a little present for them from the Law Commission about the meaning of not guilty and innocence:
"Either the case is proved and the verdict is that of guilty, or the case is not proved and the verdict is that of not guilty. Issues of innocence, suspicion, and likelihood of guilt are not distinguished in the verdict and in a very practical sense the accused is either convicted or cleared. This makes acquittal equivalent, in practical effect, to a finding of innocence, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Grdic v R (1985) 19 DLR (4th) 385, 389–390:
. . . as a matter of fundamental policy in the administration of the criminal law it must be accepted by the Crown in a subsequent criminal proceeding that an acquittal is the equivalent to a finding of innocence . . . ..
To reach behind the acquittal, to qualify it, is, in effect, to introduce the verdict of “not proven”, which is not, has never been and should not be a part of our law. "
From the Law Commission http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/Publications/Publication_48_94_R49.pdf
"Either the case is proved and the verdict is that of guilty, or the case is not proved and the verdict is that of not guilty. Issues of innocence, suspicion, and likelihood of guilt are not distinguished in the verdict and in a very practical sense the accused is either convicted or cleared. This makes acquittal equivalent, in practical effect, to a finding of innocence, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Grdic v R (1985) 19 DLR (4th) 385, 389–390:
. . . as a matter of fundamental policy in the administration of the criminal law it must be accepted by the Crown in a subsequent criminal proceeding that an acquittal is the equivalent to a finding of innocence . . . ..
To reach behind the acquittal, to qualify it, is, in effect, to introduce the verdict of “not proven”, which is not, has never been and should not be a part of our law. "
From the Law Commission http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/Publications/Publication_48_94_R49.pdf
Bob's blog from Counterspin.
With the Bain case at the first trial the judge said "well was it Robin or David", and in the second trial the judge asked the same question, so we have two possible murderers, but to identify who the killer was between these two, completely different methods were used, which is really quite unusual I believe. With David a normal method was able to be used ie: a thorough examination of the murder scenes was done, many forensic tests were carried out, statements were taken, testimony from David at court was compared to those earlier statements etc, and at the end a substantial amount of evidence against David was compiled.
Poor Bob is a plot loser. He talks about two completely different methods of investigation. Of course there should have been solely one investigation, nothing prejudged and no decision made on charges before the results of the forensic tests were known. He aptly describes what appears to be the fatal flaw of the murder/suicide investigation - that decisions were being made before the gathering of evidence was concluded, before test results were returned, before the incest allegations were investigated. The inquiry became one-sided very early on, from the point the attention focused on David, before the final death scene was comprehended, before assessments were made as to Robin's mental health. So although Bob doesn't realise it, the investigation was one-sided in Robin's favour for many years until the actual miscarriage of justice was unpicked. I think we all understand that background checks on Robin were focused in a particular way, whilst those concerning David in another.
With Robin, the other person mentioned by the judge as a possible killer, a completely different investigation was done. That investigation focused almost entirely, and still does today by David Bain supporters on whether Robin had committed suicide. The reason this was done, of course, was because there was hardly a shred of evidence connecting him to the murder scenes. As far as I know all of the independent experts from the first trial, after looking at the evidence, said in their opinion Robin Bain did not shoot himself. There were many reasons for them arriving at their conclusions, one of them being the near impossibility of the bullet magazine landing on its thin edge, another was the empty shell casing found in the computer alcove, and then there was the fact that only Robin's blood from his head wound was found on all of Robin's clothes. So the chance of it being suicide is extremely unlikely, add that to the fact there is almost zero evidence of any value connecting Robin to the murders, then look at the vast amount of good circumstantial evidence against David and the extremely unlikely scenario of Robin shooting himself and you can not possibly consider that David is innocent.
Here Bob labours the same point as earlier, and demonstrates again (without apparently realising) how the original investigation was biased against David. Bob runs out the old 'favourites' like the magazine being on its edge, but unfortunately is unable to point to any evidence that shows Robin didn't place it there before dispatching himself, or that the magazine, like other corrupted exhibits in the scene (remembering that the police team gave evidence of 'moving' exhibits between photo shots) was not placed in that position by someone other than either of the 2 men. He labours the shell casing landing in the alcove without acknowledging that a police witness said it was possible to have discharged there, and again not discounting the corrupted evidence scene that any juror would have had misgivings about. Bob then reverts to a lie about the blood, he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. Most with an interest in the case know that blood samples cut from Robin's trousers were never tested, they were however thrown out because the police didn't like 'body samples' being held at the police station. Amazingly, they threw away the samples but kept the clothes. It goes a little further on this point of the blood samples, the samples that were 'disposed' of were at the time being sought by the defence for testing, they were preparing a motion to the Court for their preservation and the police knew about that. Bob forgets that for some reason - in his 'reasoned' argument. He sums up with a few sweeping cliches that could bear no critical analysis, he wants only to reach the point of being able to confirm his belief based on his flawed study.
David Bain supporters like Joe Karam spend 99% of their time arguing that Robin Bain committed suicide, and unfortunately Robin Bain supporters quite often, Laws included, fall into the trap of arguing back. This is a murder case and the emphasis and focus should be almost solely fixed on the evidence for murder, of which there is ample, and it only points to one of the persons mentioned by the judges. This in my opinion is mostly why the wrong verdict was arrived at at trial in 2009. The jury possibly became confused with all the irrelevant information they were subjected to. The evidence for murder is what it should have been all about.
Bob sums up with generalities as to 'Bain supporters' do according to him, he then chucks about some more cliches, but no firm evidence, to support the reasons why he and his site persecute a innocent man. Bobs reasoning doesn't reach any critical standard, which is one of the problems of being a member of a hate-site, mediocrity rules, the scenario is set and everything is ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented. He completely ignores the blood found in the rifle, the unscreened blood spray, that the first four killings were killer dominant, downward trajectory, and the last, passive upward shot with the head touching the rifle.
»
Bob's blog
Poor Bob is a plot loser. He talks about two completely different methods of investigation. Of course there should have been solely one investigation, nothing prejudged and no decision made on charges before the results of the forensic tests were known. He aptly describes what appears to be the fatal flaw of the murder/suicide investigation - that decisions were being made before the gathering of evidence was concluded, before test results were returned, before the incest allegations were investigated. The inquiry became one-sided very early on, from the point the attention focused on David, before the final death scene was comprehended, before assessments were made as to Robin's mental health. So although Bob doesn't realise it, the investigation was one-sided in Robin's favour for many years until the actual miscarriage of justice was unpicked. I think we all understand that background checks on Robin were focused in a particular way, whilst those concerning David in another.
With Robin, the other person mentioned by the judge as a possible killer, a completely different investigation was done. That investigation focused almost entirely, and still does today by David Bain supporters on whether Robin had committed suicide. The reason this was done, of course, was because there was hardly a shred of evidence connecting him to the murder scenes. As far as I know all of the independent experts from the first trial, after looking at the evidence, said in their opinion Robin Bain did not shoot himself. There were many reasons for them arriving at their conclusions, one of them being the near impossibility of the bullet magazine landing on its thin edge, another was the empty shell casing found in the computer alcove, and then there was the fact that only Robin's blood from his head wound was found on all of Robin's clothes. So the chance of it being suicide is extremely unlikely, add that to the fact there is almost zero evidence of any value connecting Robin to the murders, then look at the vast amount of good circumstantial evidence against David and the extremely unlikely scenario of Robin shooting himself and you can not possibly consider that David is innocent.
Here Bob labours the same point as earlier, and demonstrates again (without apparently realising) how the original investigation was biased against David. Bob runs out the old 'favourites' like the magazine being on its edge, but unfortunately is unable to point to any evidence that shows Robin didn't place it there before dispatching himself, or that the magazine, like other corrupted exhibits in the scene (remembering that the police team gave evidence of 'moving' exhibits between photo shots) was not placed in that position by someone other than either of the 2 men. He labours the shell casing landing in the alcove without acknowledging that a police witness said it was possible to have discharged there, and again not discounting the corrupted evidence scene that any juror would have had misgivings about. Bob then reverts to a lie about the blood, he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about. Most with an interest in the case know that blood samples cut from Robin's trousers were never tested, they were however thrown out because the police didn't like 'body samples' being held at the police station. Amazingly, they threw away the samples but kept the clothes. It goes a little further on this point of the blood samples, the samples that were 'disposed' of were at the time being sought by the defence for testing, they were preparing a motion to the Court for their preservation and the police knew about that. Bob forgets that for some reason - in his 'reasoned' argument. He sums up with a few sweeping cliches that could bear no critical analysis, he wants only to reach the point of being able to confirm his belief based on his flawed study.
David Bain supporters like Joe Karam spend 99% of their time arguing that Robin Bain committed suicide, and unfortunately Robin Bain supporters quite often, Laws included, fall into the trap of arguing back. This is a murder case and the emphasis and focus should be almost solely fixed on the evidence for murder, of which there is ample, and it only points to one of the persons mentioned by the judges. This in my opinion is mostly why the wrong verdict was arrived at at trial in 2009. The jury possibly became confused with all the irrelevant information they were subjected to. The evidence for murder is what it should have been all about.
Bob sums up with generalities as to 'Bain supporters' do according to him, he then chucks about some more cliches, but no firm evidence, to support the reasons why he and his site persecute a innocent man. Bobs reasoning doesn't reach any critical standard, which is one of the problems of being a member of a hate-site, mediocrity rules, the scenario is set and everything is ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented. He completely ignores the blood found in the rifle, the unscreened blood spray, that the first four killings were killer dominant, downward trajectory, and the last, passive upward shot with the head touching the rifle.
»
Bob's blog
The NZ Hate-Sites.
My goodness the children are very upset this morning. The bomb they were secreting in the sand pit blew up on them and they don't like it.
However, I'm thankful for the following which proves yet again (as if any further proof were needed) that JFRB admin approve of criminal stalking, as that undertaken by dcameron recently.
Follows:
JFRB facebook admins:
Catherine Kennedy
Lynda Dick
Kent Parker
Mike Stockdale
Vic Pur
Gavin James
Blair Paul Mulholland
people who like dcameron's post:
People who like this
No results
Block peoplePrevious
Pythinia Gamble
Add as Friend
Vic Pur
Add as Friend
Catherine Kennedy
Add as Friend
Charlie Davey
Add as Friend
Lynda Dick
Add as Friend
As can be seen by the above at least 3 hate-site administrators approve of the stalking. One actively encouraging it by posting at the same time. It's the sort of evidence that is helpful in establishing the hate-trail that I've written about before. That the hate-siters so readily provide proof, while surprising, is welcome.
Also, consider that the trial that leads to the hate-sites to this point has ended with Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss as being those whom defamation charges have been laid against. Taking into account that TM have a right to enjoin others to the action against them, and while accepting that even Kent Parker has admitted that it is his 'decision' as to whether any of his members are enjoined, TM may simply take their own decision and name the entire admin of JFRB as publishers of the defamatory material. It's a legal decision of course, taken on the advice of lawyers, but it is apparent that eventually (if it hasn't been already) TM's lawyers will decide what might best mitigate their situation and expected liability. Those names above will be looked at very seriously I suggest.
Meanwhile I note the anger of Christine Williams this morning. For the record, I repeat that Christine Williams using at least one of 2 cyber identities stalked my family, citing having looked through electoral roles etc, not only that, she also claimed to be sending 4,000 relatives to my house. She is a criminal stalker and I have the proof, given to me by herself. She is the one that wanted to watch a lynching lit by torchlight. As someone commented overnight, the dog that bites doesn't like to be bitten back.
Mike Stockdale, jury, witness and poster stalker, laments at being named here. Well, I guess he should either of not stalked or had the presence of mind to realise, as they were all warned, that what leaks into cyberspace from their hate-site could be found.
However, I'm thankful for the following which proves yet again (as if any further proof were needed) that JFRB admin approve of criminal stalking, as that undertaken by dcameron recently.
Follows:
JFRB facebook admins:
Catherine Kennedy
Lynda Dick
Kent Parker
Mike Stockdale
Vic Pur
Gavin James
Blair Paul Mulholland
people who like dcameron's post:
People who like this
No results
Block peoplePrevious
Pythinia Gamble
Add as Friend
Vic Pur
Add as Friend
Catherine Kennedy
Add as Friend
Charlie Davey
Add as Friend
Lynda Dick
Add as Friend
As can be seen by the above at least 3 hate-site administrators approve of the stalking. One actively encouraging it by posting at the same time. It's the sort of evidence that is helpful in establishing the hate-trail that I've written about before. That the hate-siters so readily provide proof, while surprising, is welcome.
Also, consider that the trial that leads to the hate-sites to this point has ended with Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss as being those whom defamation charges have been laid against. Taking into account that TM have a right to enjoin others to the action against them, and while accepting that even Kent Parker has admitted that it is his 'decision' as to whether any of his members are enjoined, TM may simply take their own decision and name the entire admin of JFRB as publishers of the defamatory material. It's a legal decision of course, taken on the advice of lawyers, but it is apparent that eventually (if it hasn't been already) TM's lawyers will decide what might best mitigate their situation and expected liability. Those names above will be looked at very seriously I suggest.
Meanwhile I note the anger of Christine Williams this morning. For the record, I repeat that Christine Williams using at least one of 2 cyber identities stalked my family, citing having looked through electoral roles etc, not only that, she also claimed to be sending 4,000 relatives to my house. She is a criminal stalker and I have the proof, given to me by herself. She is the one that wanted to watch a lynching lit by torchlight. As someone commented overnight, the dog that bites doesn't like to be bitten back.
Mike Stockdale, jury, witness and poster stalker, laments at being named here. Well, I guess he should either of not stalked or had the presence of mind to realise, as they were all warned, that what leaks into cyberspace from their hate-site could be found.
Pointing out the obvious;
This is my blog. The only person I share it with is my erstwhile friend Goodnewsguy. Later I may share it with some other cyberspacers such as Scenesetter, Templeton Rose or Toreador if they happen to call over.
The blog speaks for itself, I can't control any body's view of it and don't feel it would be necessary or possible to do so anyway. For what it's worth I don't believe in thought control or shouting out in rhythm to bring others to my views, which are after all only my own views.
Somethings I have written about are painfully real, not so much to me but to others. That is the stalking and harassment by hate-siters, many whom I've named here. It's no secret that other people, some not all, share similar views to my own. So much so that it frightens the disillusioned to the point they have to attack others in an effort to get at me. dcameron, supported by Catherine Kennedy and Christine Williams did that last night. Perhaps they feel they have achieved something by that, however I feel a lot of people see the attacks as rising from the anger and frustration of the attackers at not being able to control other people or control the way they think. Also no doubt, no small dose of jealousy exists for them that can't sell their messages of hate. So symbolically the disheartened need to attack, extract vengeance from any source. They've done it to my family, to posters on TM and their family members as well. We've seen them do it to a Jury and even witnesses.
So I apologise for those hurt by these attacks of 'association.' I hope those people will forgive me for continuing on because, unfortunately it seems, to recoil from hate-siters is sustenance for them - derive from that what you will. I do believe these people from hate-sites have identifiable psychological problems and have some pity for them for that. But until they have the bravery of the Apache I wrote of earlier, or the dignity not to display their lies and hate in public I'll stand unbowed in front of them - blocking their way. I will not be silenced.
The blog speaks for itself, I can't control any body's view of it and don't feel it would be necessary or possible to do so anyway. For what it's worth I don't believe in thought control or shouting out in rhythm to bring others to my views, which are after all only my own views.
Somethings I have written about are painfully real, not so much to me but to others. That is the stalking and harassment by hate-siters, many whom I've named here. It's no secret that other people, some not all, share similar views to my own. So much so that it frightens the disillusioned to the point they have to attack others in an effort to get at me. dcameron, supported by Catherine Kennedy and Christine Williams did that last night. Perhaps they feel they have achieved something by that, however I feel a lot of people see the attacks as rising from the anger and frustration of the attackers at not being able to control other people or control the way they think. Also no doubt, no small dose of jealousy exists for them that can't sell their messages of hate. So symbolically the disheartened need to attack, extract vengeance from any source. They've done it to my family, to posters on TM and their family members as well. We've seen them do it to a Jury and even witnesses.
So I apologise for those hurt by these attacks of 'association.' I hope those people will forgive me for continuing on because, unfortunately it seems, to recoil from hate-siters is sustenance for them - derive from that what you will. I do believe these people from hate-sites have identifiable psychological problems and have some pity for them for that. But until they have the bravery of the Apache I wrote of earlier, or the dignity not to display their lies and hate in public I'll stand unbowed in front of them - blocking their way. I will not be silenced.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Goodgirl Denise, by Goodnewsguy.
Anonymous said...
She's really excelled herself with her little tantrum, hasn't she?
What a shining example for her cause.
Apart from the attentions of the somewhat challenged sisterhood, you could just feel potential JFRB supporters rushing for the exits. There is nothing like a public display of over-emotive bitchyness, to make people think twice about becoming associated with a group.
What probably hasn't dawned on dcameron, is the fact she posted public proof of the stalking she's accused of. But more to the point, demonstrated what she is capable of.
Well done Denise! I take my hat off to you, nothing I could have thought of, would have made the JFRB group look more stupid than you did tonight.
August 22, 2010 9:14 PM
Oddly enough, I have romantic feelings toward Denise tonight. I sort of love her really for letting the cat out of the bag. A cat which I've noticed actually belongs to dustproof, the one that didn't like her and ran away.
I wish Nos would have given some more details about his visit to the twisted sisters harem. Not any erotic details, no, no, no - nothing like that. Why would I be interested? I'm just feeling all frisky thinking about dcameron's secret photos, that's all.
Confidentially, be careful taking your hat off to dcameron because she'll be in like Flynn looking for donations. She's so sweet like that.
She's really excelled herself with her little tantrum, hasn't she?
What a shining example for her cause.
Apart from the attentions of the somewhat challenged sisterhood, you could just feel potential JFRB supporters rushing for the exits. There is nothing like a public display of over-emotive bitchyness, to make people think twice about becoming associated with a group.
What probably hasn't dawned on dcameron, is the fact she posted public proof of the stalking she's accused of. But more to the point, demonstrated what she is capable of.
Well done Denise! I take my hat off to you, nothing I could have thought of, would have made the JFRB group look more stupid than you did tonight.
August 22, 2010 9:14 PM
Oddly enough, I have romantic feelings toward Denise tonight. I sort of love her really for letting the cat out of the bag. A cat which I've noticed actually belongs to dustproof, the one that didn't like her and ran away.
I wish Nos would have given some more details about his visit to the twisted sisters harem. Not any erotic details, no, no, no - nothing like that. Why would I be interested? I'm just feeling all frisky thinking about dcameron's secret photos, that's all.
Confidentially, be careful taking your hat off to dcameron because she'll be in like Flynn looking for donations. She's so sweet like that.
Denise Cameron - the temperature by GNG
Gee, the temperature increased up in this tree tonight.
I guess denise still can't find those photos.
Sometimes I reckon old dcameron, kalpal's mate of thirty years, wasn't really working in the Crown Law Office after all. She might have just been big-noting to help raise funds, or covering up for getting caught out telling porkies for campmother.
I guess denise still can't find those photos.
Sometimes I reckon old dcameron, kalpal's mate of thirty years, wasn't really working in the Crown Law Office after all. She might have just been big-noting to help raise funds, or covering up for getting caught out telling porkies for campmother.
therafter, there after - Moron of the week by GNG
I think this week requires such an award. I hope others will agree. The first of these three posts might have done by itself, here the great therafter, there after, informs the world that prints are positioned 'from memory' as the result of a suggestion by the defence. Apparently it's not an accused person who might place his or her prints on a rifle it's done as a suggestion by the defence. If that's true I can see why some people think that lawyers are crooks, but I bet they never knew what therafter, thereafter does, that they also position prints on rifles.
Don’t be sorry, because I’m not wrong, the position that the identifiable prints were found in is completely and utterly disputable, and from memory the print position has come about as a result of a suggestion from the defence in order to try to explain away the fact that the prints WERE ON THE RIFLE and Robin’s WERE NOT !!!
Quotetherafter1 (13 ) 12:40 pm, Tue 17 Aug #21048
To add icing to the cake therafter, thereafter revealed more of his obsessional behaviour, discussing with what I presume are his clients, a murder/suicide case with 'rational logical questions.' What fun for them! Therafter, thereafter signs off with that one, no doubt fully satisfied with his display of insanity and obsessive behaviour. He's off to work!
My thoughts relate to a general daily consensus amongst people that I meet (and in my line of work I meet many, from all parts of NZ), and unfortunately for you lot (the minority) they all say the same thing, there is the odd dissenter, but a few rational logical questions in regards to the case soon has them wondering.
Enjoy your day paddling against the current, the sun is shining and I have early spring things to do outdoors before I need a silage making contractor to do it for me.
Quotetherafter1 (13 ) 12:01 pm, Sun 22 Aug #107
Hold on, he's back 9 minutes later having presumably made all the silage he needs for the season. He's more or less superman, or maybe supersilage. So happy with having worked down on the farm and taking a trip without leaving the property he decides to inform the uninformed that he hasn't needed to know any evidence about the Bain case, in fact he's not interested. Interestingly though he points out he's working from memory, a tantalising prospect for speculation. Was therafter, there after, there, when casey the dog died - did thereafter, the rafter have a brain transplant....?
My source is my memory, I do not have the trial transcripts and I wouldn't bother trying to obtain them. If I were interested in the trial transcripts tho I would want the transcripts of both trials, not just the transcript that would suit my agenda.
Now I'm off !
Quotetherafter1 (13 ) 12:10 pm, Sun 22 Aug #108
Hard to beat folks, commiserations to footinhismouth supergoose, linzwoe4me who was stalking again, and hymbo the hobo who revealed a new definition of what not guilty means.
Don’t be sorry, because I’m not wrong, the position that the identifiable prints were found in is completely and utterly disputable, and from memory the print position has come about as a result of a suggestion from the defence in order to try to explain away the fact that the prints WERE ON THE RIFLE and Robin’s WERE NOT !!!
Quotetherafter1 (13 ) 12:40 pm, Tue 17 Aug #21048
To add icing to the cake therafter, thereafter revealed more of his obsessional behaviour, discussing with what I presume are his clients, a murder/suicide case with 'rational logical questions.' What fun for them! Therafter, thereafter signs off with that one, no doubt fully satisfied with his display of insanity and obsessive behaviour. He's off to work!
My thoughts relate to a general daily consensus amongst people that I meet (and in my line of work I meet many, from all parts of NZ), and unfortunately for you lot (the minority) they all say the same thing, there is the odd dissenter, but a few rational logical questions in regards to the case soon has them wondering.
Enjoy your day paddling against the current, the sun is shining and I have early spring things to do outdoors before I need a silage making contractor to do it for me.
Quotetherafter1 (13 ) 12:01 pm, Sun 22 Aug #107
Hold on, he's back 9 minutes later having presumably made all the silage he needs for the season. He's more or less superman, or maybe supersilage. So happy with having worked down on the farm and taking a trip without leaving the property he decides to inform the uninformed that he hasn't needed to know any evidence about the Bain case, in fact he's not interested. Interestingly though he points out he's working from memory, a tantalising prospect for speculation. Was therafter, there after, there, when casey the dog died - did thereafter, the rafter have a brain transplant....?
My source is my memory, I do not have the trial transcripts and I wouldn't bother trying to obtain them. If I were interested in the trial transcripts tho I would want the transcripts of both trials, not just the transcript that would suit my agenda.
Now I'm off !
Quotetherafter1 (13 ) 12:10 pm, Sun 22 Aug #108
Hard to beat folks, commiserations to footinhismouth supergoose, linzwoe4me who was stalking again, and hymbo the hobo who revealed a new definition of what not guilty means.