Kent Parker - a message from on high.

Thanks for the following from Kent at Counterspin.
I'll take the opportunity to post comment about campmother's claims.
I do this with the full knowledge that Kent can't ban me, how sad for him. He hates free speech.


It's official. The police investigation into the Bain murders was good. It wasn't excellent. The Police Complaints Authority found that one or two agents for the police made errors and there was a problem with supply of material which led to the pathologist making a late entry but overall it was a good investigation. Any assertions that the investigation was a "complete and utter shambles" can only be considered "unmitigated rubbish".

A good investigation doesn't result in an 'actual miscarriage of justice.' The PCA finding was prior to the Privy Council ruling that states by inference that the investigation wasn't 'good,' the second verdict confirms that. The argument is pointless anyway, Kent's intent on holding onto an untenable position in anyway he can - this is a further display of that.


But none of this matters if you are on a mission to denigrate and defame the investigation for your own purposes and use your celebrity status to press the message home in books and booklets using powerful and uncompromising language. If you do it forcefully enough, eventually you will even get your detractors to accept the idea that the investigation was a shambles. Propaganda is an insidious and pervasive phenomenon. If we were to analyse the average person's average working day then we would have no trouble in "poking it full of holes". We are none of us perfect but also there are hundreds of ways of carrying out even the simplest tasks and another person can easily argue that their way is better. Propaganda also involves repeating the ideas at every available opportunity, like with a TV commercial, slipping it craftily in between other statements, so that it becomes fully embedded in the listener's psyche.


Unfortunately, Kent betrays too easily his jealousy of Joe Karam here and that overshadows what little he has to say. Attaching the words propaganda is propaganda itself. Kent's arguments are shallow, much like his fractured personality and need for elevation at the expense of others. The 'fear' of propaganda readily applies to people that Kent nurtures with the idea that his language and claims are not propaganda. I suppose it is fairly classic, but unfortunately for me (and others) too transparent.

In a similar vein, assertions that Robin Bain was suffering depression and was on a downward spiral that could trigger into violence at any moment, are groundless. For every report of Robin the teacher overseeing a writing exercise about a violent family incident, or hitting one of his children there is also a report about how Robin would never hurt a fly, was always courteous and good humoured and was a very good teacher. The reasonable person would balance these up, but another person, seeking to denigrate and defame would ignore all the positive stories and focus and magnify all the negative stories to their advantage. Further to this, Robin had never sought psychological treatment, that we know of, and was working full time at the time of the murders, so in pure clinical terms there is no grounds for the assertion of depression. We understand though, that there was testimony from a psychologist who thought that Robin suffered from depression but this was purely anecdotal and not based on any proper investigation. We can accept that it is possible that Robin could have had a raging suppressed condition that unleashed itself suddenly on that morning in June 1994 but there is no evidence for it. In such a case Robin would not have bothered with wearing gloves and would most certainly have left a very clear physical trail.

This is very petty and shows Kent cannot fathom what the adversial system is about. The defence were not tasked with Kent's fanatical idolisation of the fallen Robin Bain. Just as the Crown were not tasked with selling the virtues of David. The defence's task was to ensure that David was acquitted for a crime that he did not commit, not to build some monument to Kent's fallen hero. In more fundamental terms, men generally, avoid talking about depression even to their doctors. He talks about a 'raging suppressed condition' and that there was no evidence of it before the murders, if he was more read on the subject he would realise that raging suppressed condition is a common event in familicides. He totally ignores evidence that Robin had displayed anger, weakening Kent's argument further. He then falls back on the gloves as being incomprehensible that Robin would wear them. He, foolish person that he is, assumes too much. We don't know what Robin's first intentions might have been on that morning, we only know how his 'raging suppressed condition' culminated.

However, if it suits your cause, and in view of the fact that you can freely defame the dead, then it is a good plan to also slip in 30 second advertisements of the Robin-Bain-was-psychotically-depressed-kind in between your other sentences as well. Eventually you will so indoctrinate your audience that it becomes universally accepted that he was indeed psychotically depressed. But, hello, there is no clear evidence for it. This is evidence that doesn't exist. He just as equally may not have been psychotically depressed. Again, a reasonable person would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Here Kent relies on the anguish felt by his followers that Robin is defamed in death. He uses the hysteria of his fellows to sell Robin as the victim. He suggests that the public generally are incapable of making their own decisions and need his interpretations otherwise they will be 'indoctrinate(d).' With this type of language he 'exerts' control over the thinking processes of his devotees that they not be 'indoctrinated' but rather be free-thinking and hold the same views as his own. He wants Robin to be given the benefit of the doubt, but just as Robin wasn't on trial there can be no benefit of the doubt afforded him, rather the circumstances of his 'condition' as set out by witnesses be considered dispassionately. Robin, or the memory of him, must be content with what witnesses who met him, preceding the murders and his suicide, recalled - that's call evidence and is the basis of our system of Justice. The jury were tasked with making reasonable decisions on our behalf, and did so.



A reasonable person would have to say that the police investigation was good and that there is no evidence that Robin Bain was psychotically depressed. These are ideas that have been promoted and continue to be promoted in an attempt to force onto the public a particular point of view. At the present time, these ideas continue to be promoted publicly, while in the background an attempt is being made to gain further taxpayer money in the form of compensation. The public need to have awareness of the very one sided nature of the campaign that surrounds the dissemination of these ideas and given the opportunity to have that imbalance redressed. That is the purpose of CounterSpin.

Here Kent closes with the mantra of 'a reasonable person.' Unfortunately, as his own activities have shown he has little idea of what is reasonable and what is not. I believe it is unreasonable to stalk and harass people with different opinions, to stalk and harass their family members on the basis of their family relationships. I believe it is unreasonable to deliberate stalk a Juror, and to spread misinformation and hate. Kent Parker is not a reasonable man and his blog once again shows that.

»
Kent Parker's blog