The following contains evidence of jury stalking on hate-sites, it is fairly straight forward. I will make some comment at the end, also linking in some continued stalking on Trade Me as recently as this morning by Kalnovitch, cookingwithgas and dcameron. There are three main reasons I have decided to publish the following, the 1st being that it is in the interests of justice and in particular the ChCh jury who are clearly at risk from these people, 2nd it will allow others outside the hate-sites to read it without running the risk of going to the hate-sites and thereby having their IPN's tracked by Kent Parker, and thirdly to expose that which any hate-siter stalker absolutely hopes to avoid - being exposed doing their dirty work.
Home
Bain Retrial Juror speaks out
Submitted by Kent Parker on Sun, 20/06/2010 - 9:56am
A member of the jury in the 2009 retrial that found David Bain Not Guilty of the murders of his 5 family members has written a letter to the Christchurch Press complaining about how the verdict has been interpreted in the media. The letter points out how Paul Holmes in his herald.co.nz article paints a clear picture of Robin Bain's guilt when he was not the defendant in the retrial. The jury member is right, of course, a Not Guilty verdict simply means that there is insufficient evidence to convict. It does not mean that the defendant, in this case, David Bain, has been found innocent. Innocence, in the David Bain case is only measured through an investigation on the balance of probabilities which is what will happen if the Bain application for compensation goes ahead.
The jury member's name was withheld. The letter is not available online.
»
Add new comment
Subscribe to: This post
Subscribe to: Posts by Kent Parker
Submitted by Bob on Mon, 21/06/2010 - 9:57am.
How do we know that this
How do we know that this letter is actually from a jury member.
reply
Submitted by Vic Pur on Mon, 21/06/2010 - 10:12am.
Trust me Bob. It is.
Trust me Bob. It is.
reply
Submitted by Bob on Mon, 21/06/2010 - 10:33am.
I completely trust you Vic
I completely trust you Vic but if this is just a letter to the editor how do we know for sure. Sorry to be a pain but checking out the facts to get them as right as possible is what its all about, I will understand if there is something confidential you cannot reveal.
reply
Submitted by Ralph on Mon, 21/06/2010 - 12:01pm.
Jury member
"skating on thin ice", again JK?
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Mon, 21/06/2010 - 11:58am.
Bob, you can be sure that the
Bob, you can be sure that the Press checked this person out thoroughly and made sure that they were in fact a jury member before posting the news item.
reply
Submitted by Bob on Mon, 21/06/2010 - 12:04pm.
OK yes that makes sense if it
OK yes that makes sense if it was a news item.
reply
Submitted by Vic Pur on Tue, 22/06/2010 - 9:03pm.
To date I think we have all
To date I think we have all been very restrained regarding the jury.
But this letter seems to of created a bit of of a stir as far as they are concerned and Im sure some of our members will now start examining their role more closely in this fiasco!! Im SURE some very inteasting facts will come to light but we should be careful regarding these. The whole system could be at stake due to their actions .
eg: A book signing while the trial was in progress has been suggested which to me suggests someone had their mind made up very early on.
Submitted by Kent Parker on Thu, 08/07/2010 - 9:38am
A complaint has been lodged with the solicitor general regarding a jury member from the Bain trial. As yet the nature of the complaint is not known but the jury member has been found to have had a previous conviction.
»
Add new comment
Subscribe to: This post
Subscribe to: Posts by Kent Parker
Submitted by Vic Pur on Mon, 12/07/2010 - 2:24pm.
So we now have 4 members of
So we now have 4 members of the jury!!
One with a criminal record that has had 3 different names,One a lawyer whose influence is being talked about,one writting to the press and one that got his wife to autograph a copy of jk's book!! I hope no more come into the frame.
reply
Submitted by Bushlawyer on Wed, 14/07/2010 - 8:28pm.
a lawyer on the jury? Tell me more Vic.
Tell me more Vic? Was this a practicing barrister/solicitor? They are not allowed on juries. Also like to hear about autograph.
reply
Submitted by jurgy on Tue, 13/07/2010 - 10:28pm.
Why is that then??
Why is that then??
reply
Submitted by Vic Pur on Tue, 13/07/2010 - 10:51pm.
Why is that then? Because my
Why is that then? Because my faith in the jury system has already been shaken and anymore revelations regarding the jury would shatter it completely!!
Campbell Taylor Regarding the Juror who wrote to The Press a while back about their verdict not proving DB's innocence, I wonder they were aware of Huggy Juror's fraudulent past? Would other juror's have let her "opinion" sway them in their decision makinh if they had known?
July 9 at 11:22am · Comment ·LikeUnlike · View Feedback (7)Hide Feedback (7) · Flag
4 people like this.
Rita Cochrane Would love to know the answer to that one.
July 9 at 12:09pm · LikeUnlike ·
Neil Purkiss No they wasn't aware of her past...
July 9 at 12:24pm · LikeUnlike ·
Alexander Hapuku I know it is stated that Defence wasnt aware of her past, but Im fascinated as to how well JK got to know this person after the triall and if he knew at all perhaps before or after the trail of her past????
July 9 at 12:31pm · LikeUnlike ·
Matthew Feringa likes this.
Rita Cochrane Michael Laws should take a leaf out of BB's book and refuse to discuss the case any further with JK - only with DB. Make them front him up or shut up.
July 8 at 12:19pm · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading... ·
Gavin James Yes, note that it is never David Bain who fronts up and complains, unlike other people who have suffered at the hands of the police and the judiciary. Only his defence "team", consisting of Michael Reed, QC and Joe Karam, legal aid assistant.
July 8 at 2:09pm · LikeUnlike ·
Write
a comment...
Charlie Davey And now it is revealed that the hugging juror has a conviction and has been in contact with JK since the trial. Talk about a house of cards.
Complaint laid over Bain juror - crime - national | Stuff.co.nz
www.stuff.co.nz
A student who was on the David Bain retrial jury despite a serious theft conviction is the subject of a complaint to the solicitor-general.
July 8 at 5:47am · Comment ·LikeUnlike · View Feedback (22)Hide Feedback (22) · Share · Flag
5 people like this.
Sheilagh Mckay I wonder what else will come out of the woodwork - now that the floodgates have been opened!
July 8 at 6:41am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading... ·
Jake Mate If no law prevents people with convictions serving on juries, and the juror was not obliged to tell the court of her past offence, what is the subject of the complaint?
July 8 at 7:25am · LikeUnlike ·
Gavin James Past convictions. That means they have served their penalty. What we should be concerned about is the fact that they hugged the defendant and have been in contact with Joe Karam since the trial.
July 8 at 7:29am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading... ·
Gavin James @Sheilagh - indeed!
July 8 at 7:30am · LikeUnlike ·
Neil Purkiss I wonder if she has been "Hugging" Joe???
July 8 at 8:06am · LikeUnlike · 4 peopleLoading... ·
Kent Parker The important thing here is the nature of the complaint and of course, we don't know what it is, yet.
July 8 at 8:36am · LikeUnlike ·
Mike Stockdale Yeah,the chickens are coming home to roost now.And now it's all come out about that ex pommie lawyer who was on the jury.The president of the law society was asked if all this means the retrial should be declared a mistrial,but off the top of his head he said he didn't think so.
July 8 at 8:37am · LikeUnlike ·
Jenny Sheriff I imagine she'd be a bit anti-police after her own brush with the law. Doesn't make for an impartial, objective mind for serving on a jury. Wonder what the contact with Karam was about?
July 8 at 8:38am · LikeUnlike ·
Neil Purkiss ex pommie lawyer?? Whats all that?
July 8 at 8:45am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading... ·
Jenny Sheriff Yeah - what ex-pommie lawyer? What's the background?
July 8 at 8:51am · LikeUnlike ·
Catherine Kennedy This article which included the story about Daryl Young took up HALF the FRONT PAGE in the Press. Val Boyd, ( Margaret's sister) said, "some jurors' behaviour was disturbing- they weren't listening at times... We never for one minute believed all the rubbish about him, so this is just a start. I think it's time David talked actually. It's criminal Robin'sreputation was ruined by hearsay evidence. We need a system where lawyers sit with jurors to keep them on track."
July 8 at 9:12am · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading... ·
Lynda Dick What about the juror who asked JK for his autograph ? And I know it was an older person,not that girl
July 8 at 9:14am · LikeUnlike · 1 personVic Pur likes this. ·
Vivienne Lewis
What I find annoying is that Karam insists BB's doco' is "... a programme about the defence case..." but it's not. It's a programme concentrating on Robin, and his defense, whereas JK is all about David. BB was very careful to NOT speculate... about David's role (other than by implication).
So I fail to see why BB should be obliged to talk to DB's defense team.See More
July 8 at 9:27am · LikeUnlike · 4 people4 people like this. ·
Vic Pur Yes Lynda. What was it jk signed on? A napkin,proper autograph book, a photograph or a copy of "david & Golieth" perhaps?
July 8 at 11:19am · LikeUnlike ·
Mike Stockdale Yes,what did Karam sign?And was it for that lawyer juror they were talking about on the news this morning?
July 8 at 11:27am · LikeUnlike ·
Rita Cochrane It just keeps getting more sleazy by the day ...
July 8 at 12:12pm · LikeUnlike ·
Melanie White yes it does . Im sure theres more to come...............
July 8 at 1:26pm · LikeUnlike ·
The foregoing is all fairly straight forward, however, I would like to draw any reader's attention the following.
# The general fever with which the hate-siters embrace the fruits of the stalking of juror members, not one person remonstrates about the propriety or legality of doing so. Not one person, which includes the two that are already facing charges in the Auckland High Court.
# Note that Vic Purkiss and Kent Parker, both endorse the material as being correct. Purkiss giving a 'trust me' confirmation that the material is true, evidently unaware of possible ramifications of his admission. Parker, likewise, extolling the conduct of The Press as all being above board, and by which exposing contact with The Press and therefore by implication the article with which much of the hate-site material and endeavour was launched - the 'opinion' piece by van beynan attacking the jury.
# The 'report' of Stockdale as to how many jurors the hate-siters have 'got.'
# In effect the above comments show as quite likely a conspiracy to defeat the course of justice. This from a group that has criminally stalked message boards and who now, it is exposed, have had similar attention on the Jury from 2009.
NB. The Editor of The Press has written to me claiming that The Press have no contact with any hate-sites (and therefore presumably their members)
Currently on TM, dcameron, kalnovitch (yes, the twice banned stalker) and cookingwithgas (identified above as Catherine Kennedy) are putting abroad an unsubstantiated allegation regarding the Jury and Joe Karam. Showing once again TM's willingness to let its boards be used by hate-siters, or alternatively its complete lack of understanding (or naivety)of the grip these 'organisations' have had on the boards for a long time. This grip, despite written warnings to TM as far back as November 2009.
We are all the poorer for this manipulation of the Jury and indeed the Justice System, I cannot understand why the Justice Department has not acted.
I just hope those who are partaking in this ridiculous occupation of defaming jury members, have the money to cover the costs of 12 defamation cases, taken against them.
ReplyDeleteDefamation
1. The civil law cause of action of defamation may be brought against any one who publishes (either through written or spoken word) a defamatory statement about a person.
2. A statement is published if it is conveyed to a third person.
3.A plaintiff must prove that the statement refers to them (although they do not have to be specifically named).
4. A person will generally be identified if someone who knows them thinks the statement refers to them.
Secondly, a plaintiff must prove that the statement was in fact defamatory.
5.A statement will be defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the opinion of right thinking members of society.
6. A statement may also be defamatory if it exposes a plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or if it tends to make people shun or avoid the plaintiff.
7. A plaintiff does not need actual evidence that the statement in fact caused people to think less of them or that it was believed by those to whom it was published.
Given note number 3, you will see that the person does not have to be mentioned by name. Therefore, simply mention a member of a jury from a particular trial, is sufficient proof for each and every member of that jury, to presume the statement was about them.
Number 4, could include any member of NZ society, who knows about the jury in the Bain trial, and therefore, knows who the statement was referring to. ie any member of that jury.
Number 6 is particularly relevant, because as soon as making the claim about a jury member, the defamers, then go on to encourage other posters to ridicule the jury member. Thus confirming point 6.
It is not often someone is stupid enough to defame 12 people at once, and then go on to provide further evidence of the claim by organising the mass ridicule of the person/people defamed.
To quote Kulkkulbelle ' you've been warned'.