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.