My letter to the hate-site messiah.

Kent,

You'll recall we've discussed defamation before on Counterspin, rather one-sided argument. Because I didn't agree with your interpretation of what defamation is, you as big boss of Counterspin kicked me off the boards. I wonder how you feel about the subject now? I feel a little vindicated.

As you'd imagine I'm not writing to pass the time but to move onto something else you perhaps don't realise about being a publisher. What ever you publish on your boards may well be judged as a release of material into the mainstream media additionally to any other point where it is published. Currently defamatory material is being released from your site into the mainstream cyber space. My suggestion that because you have a number of issues on your plate already is that you don't disregard the harm this material going into cyber-space is causing. In some ways you're granny Herald Kent, whatever you display on your sites (I use the plural) similarly to any printed matter in the Herald, you are responsible for. The printed matter being released from Counterspin could be moving beyond defamation.

Using a strictly pragmatic view you could well be advised to shutup shop with your sites to stop further damage, and using that opportunity settle the matters you already have at hand. You were always a biased publisher Kent, which I'm sure you'd at least generally agree with. But I don't think you appreciated that being a publisher without rules, changing poster's posts and leaving them on line and ridiculing them on the board after they'd been banned for not agreeing with you, holding silent when people made threats against others on your board, or hatched plans to persecute or stalk others was all your own decision, some things happening with your consent and most often with your input. Anyway, that's how I see it Kent and I might well be wrong.

All the best with sorting things out in the best interests of everyone.

yours etc

I'm unaware if Kent was able to attribute the nature of the letter to his decision to publish an anonymous confession that he had earlier held in the not so secret vaults of his not so secret hate-sites. I won't republish the 'confession' suffice to say it was a load of rot eagerly consumed by camp mother and his boy friends. Before I got onto explain why the particular publication constituted defamatory harassment I'll mention the other card up the sleeve for the hate-siters.

This was of course untested 'evidence' that was ruled inadmissible and which now the hate-sites have seized upon to show how truly crazy they are. Of course a reasonable person understands that evidence is only that which is given on oath and which may be tested by cross examination for it's veracity. 'Evidence' that doesn't reach that threshhold is therefore not evidence at all. A distinction which may yet trouble the Minister of Justice should his advisors begin to look at rumour and gossip before making any recommendations on a remedy for David Bain.

Kent decided to call the 'confession' hearsay when it doesn't qualify to be so termed. To this point it is pure fantasy, made my anonymous person who crosses from being a friend of Laniet's to being a teenaged psychologist dealing in recovered memories and auto suggestion. When most people lie they invariably betray themselves and the poor attempt at having been confessed to by this particular anonymous person would even have a soap opera enthusiast made sceptical.

But the real point is that is publication betrays the man. He is completely witless, even having been sued he does not understand what is defamatory and what is not, nor indeed under the role of publisher. Kent thought he was playing marbles, obviously having lost more than a few over the years, and while all of that might be quite harmless, he chose a destrutive path for those he defamed. Kent Parker, we must assume, has at least the intelligence to understand that his 'faithful' followers are generally naive, easily led and up for any entertainment where they can act righteously and attack others. That is Kent's greatest shortcoming, not caring who is hurt, having no capacity to comprehend the damage he has caused.

The publication of the confession into cybermedia given to an 'anonymous' person is defamatory harassment of a type I've described earlier. In this case, as it is directed against David Bain, David would merely need to present the evidence to a Court for findings to show it was defamatory harassment. Kent Parker would be unable to defend it. Kent Parker continues on his not so merry way with no comprehension of the depth of trouble he is in. He may yet realise that he is increasingly presenting as dopey clown admiring himself in a mirror that has already shattered.

Footnote. I must add here that the alleged 'confession' made to this anonymous person was accepted by the 'hangbainers' despite never being presented in Court, while a half dozen or so confessions by Laniet in regards sexual misconduct by her father, to witnesses who gave evidence tested in Court was rejected for a number of reasons, not least that the deceased Laniet was judged by the 'hangbainers' to be unreliable. This is of course by those that 'speak' for the dead family who cannot 'speak' for themselves. I suppose when one is bitter and twisted one can imagine anything.

PS for any readers outside New Zealand, please do not be discouraged into the view that all New Zealanders (kiwis) use brooms for transport and have large warts on their noses. It's fairly uncommon.