Thanks for your cheque which finally arrived on a trailer towed by an Giant African Snail. Unfortunately the bank has told me that your signature marked by an X is of the same worthless value as a name on a petition signed, by a half-wit hate-siter, fifteen times in a row.
Please be so kind to forward on by express Giant African Snail Post a fresh cheque bearing XOXOXO because I love you too. I also love mummy and the cat which is currently being eaten by the bloody big snail in the driveway.
Your old pal,
goodygoody gumdrops.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
This from a fat-arsed jury stalker called Tony....
I think an expert witness can state facts within their area of expertise, of course with the qualifications appropriate to any assertion of 'fact', but not 'facts' about the 'ultimate question', i.e. guilt or innocence.
Any ideas about what's holding up the compo case? Do you think all the relevant information is yet in the public domain? I don't. This is a chch thing, so there are aftershocks to come. Everyone is advised to have their legal emergency survival kit on hand.
Quoteobook (165 ) 9:43 pm, Thu 30 Sep #27964
This fat-butted, moon face from Dunedin, now hiding in West Auckland, defamed the Jury and Joe Karam at length. He thinks he has got away with it. This fat-butted wanted to be 'boxer' reckoned that defaming people on the internet was nothing less than a 'chat in the pub.' Two weeks ago Judge Harvey said that it was nothing of the sort and that it fitted the form of a common publication (of any description) in a vast network controlled by the laws of defamation and stalking.
Make sure your own 'legal emergency survival kit' is on hand sausage head. Good luck with that, take some tissues with you, and a wailing kit. You're making progress on the Moron of the Week ticket.
Any ideas about what's holding up the compo case? Do you think all the relevant information is yet in the public domain? I don't. This is a chch thing, so there are aftershocks to come. Everyone is advised to have their legal emergency survival kit on hand.
Quoteobook (165 ) 9:43 pm, Thu 30 Sep #27964
This fat-butted, moon face from Dunedin, now hiding in West Auckland, defamed the Jury and Joe Karam at length. He thinks he has got away with it. This fat-butted wanted to be 'boxer' reckoned that defaming people on the internet was nothing less than a 'chat in the pub.' Two weeks ago Judge Harvey said that it was nothing of the sort and that it fitted the form of a common publication (of any description) in a vast network controlled by the laws of defamation and stalking.
Make sure your own 'legal emergency survival kit' is on hand sausage head. Good luck with that, take some tissues with you, and a wailing kit. You're making progress on the Moron of the Week ticket.
So many morons, so little time.....
One for the morons. The morons believe a GSR test was of no benefit to the investigation because David had washed his hands. The morons believe that David was telling the truth and it was a cunning plan that the police would swallow without question and avoid taking the tests on the only live suspect, a sensitive move even -despite that they took intimate swabs. That's what morons believe, and that what they want other morons to believe so they can join the hate-sites run by morons.
The morons can't see that it's very tricky for potential morons or moron recruits, to absorb that when David said anything it was a lie if it didn't incriminate him in some way, but the truth if it did, by whatever extension of insane logic - that's very tricky moronship for moron apprentices.
I can see I'm going to have to herd all the morons into a little corner and confiscate their dunce's hats they've have since 1963. But don't worry moron-dunces I'll clip your little cloven hooves and trim off your trailing dags so that you'll be dag-free dunces without your hats. Oh goody.
The morons can't see that it's very tricky for potential morons or moron recruits, to absorb that when David said anything it was a lie if it didn't incriminate him in some way, but the truth if it did, by whatever extension of insane logic - that's very tricky moronship for moron apprentices.
I can see I'm going to have to herd all the morons into a little corner and confiscate their dunce's hats they've have since 1963. But don't worry moron-dunces I'll clip your little cloven hooves and trim off your trailing dags so that you'll be dag-free dunces without your hats. Oh goody.
It's sort of nice to be missed even if its only by stalkers and pedo supporters.
Thanks folks for all kind words.
Here's an interesting one from nutbrow...
I agree. The blogs are however very interesting to one particular organization now so we don't need to bother to monitor them any more.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 1:19 pm, Fri 24 Sep #27631
And I see she or he wants me to write a book in the vain hope that he or she will have the chance to sue me. Well misspw, I know you have dribble and toiletry problems but of course there will be social agencies to help out with that. As far as being a half-wit I don't think there is any cure for you, Ralph and the other pedo supporters. The patriotic fervour you invoke doesn't cut the mustard because persecution is a hate crime and most folks don't agree with that, or with fiddling. Of course if you weren't a halfwit stalker you'd realise that naming you publicly Christine Williams as a stalker is provable from your very own words spoken in your foul breath.
Here's an interesting one from nutbrow...
I agree. The blogs are however very interesting to one particular organization now so we don't need to bother to monitor them any more.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 1:19 pm, Fri 24 Sep #27631
And I see she or he wants me to write a book in the vain hope that he or she will have the chance to sue me. Well misspw, I know you have dribble and toiletry problems but of course there will be social agencies to help out with that. As far as being a half-wit I don't think there is any cure for you, Ralph and the other pedo supporters. The patriotic fervour you invoke doesn't cut the mustard because persecution is a hate crime and most folks don't agree with that, or with fiddling. Of course if you weren't a halfwit stalker you'd realise that naming you publicly Christine Williams as a stalker is provable from your very own words spoken in your foul breath.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
It's fun watching...
The hangbainers try to place Laniet's dna inside the rifle when it was examined after the last shot. By denying that it was Robin's dna (the last to die,) they admit that he was the killer of his family.
This is the problem they cannot solve, the proof that it was daddy.
This is the problem they cannot solve, the proof that it was daddy.
linz4me, old misery guts woe for is me....
Anonymous, thank you for those details about linz4me which I have decided not to publish. He hardly needs my assistance to defeat himself and I need to mindful of his wandering mind, hallucinations and resource of self-doubt.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Maryanne Newton - dustproof
I wish it was available to who ever wanted it!! It has certainly shut the pro-bainers up for good now they know people have access to the truth and can expose all their lies.
Quotedustproof (45 ) 7:01 pm, Tue 21 Sep #27542
Well, nothing has been exposed so far except for the fact that you and your mate Christine Williams are still stalkers. In fact, things have reversed because, the holy grail for you (Trial Transcript) hasn't assisted you. Rather it has embarrassed you because you now know that Daddy's blood was in the silencer and barrel and that all his victims were shot with a downward trajectory. You also know that David wasn't home when Daddy shot himself and that Daddy as alleged, was a fiddler, but not of musical instruments.
Quotedustproof (45 ) 7:01 pm, Tue 21 Sep #27542
Well, nothing has been exposed so far except for the fact that you and your mate Christine Williams are still stalkers. In fact, things have reversed because, the holy grail for you (Trial Transcript) hasn't assisted you. Rather it has embarrassed you because you now know that Daddy's blood was in the silencer and barrel and that all his victims were shot with a downward trajectory. You also know that David wasn't home when Daddy shot himself and that Daddy as alleged, was a fiddler, but not of musical instruments.
Oh dear, the strain is telling on Christine Williams and Lindsay Kennard.
Christine has succumbed to the strain of being a famous 2 time winner of The Moron of Week title and has reverted to type - a stalker, with her old pal Lindsay Kennard the drunk pill popper. I guess it's one way to lose an argument Christine. But I admit you've shown a fairly reasonable period of almost sanity, but maybe talking to linzo binzo got you depressed and you thought there was no way out save for stalking, again. At least, to this point you haven't stalked my family again, but I guess that will come.
I see you referred to a letter I wrote Christine to kalnovitch, you know the one you bsed about again, and kalnovitch bsed about, it's in a post here (My Letter to Kalnovitch), not quite the letter you claimed Christine. But I suppose it goes in for a penny in for a pound, if one stalks one might as well lie. Don't let the pressure get to you Christine, breath, count to ten, think of drowning kittens and drinking soup made from bat's wings. The classic touch of the original stalkers whose hate-site you belong to, Annette Curran and Glenda OBrien.
I see you referred to a letter I wrote Christine to kalnovitch, you know the one you bsed about again, and kalnovitch bsed about, it's in a post here (My Letter to Kalnovitch), not quite the letter you claimed Christine. But I suppose it goes in for a penny in for a pound, if one stalks one might as well lie. Don't let the pressure get to you Christine, breath, count to ten, think of drowning kittens and drinking soup made from bat's wings. The classic touch of the original stalkers whose hate-site you belong to, Annette Curran and Glenda OBrien.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Mike Stockdale, a blatant liar.
As has been shown below Mike Stockdale is a blatant and self-exposed liar. In the earlier post 'Mike Stockdale, a blatant liar?' he first of all alludes to a conversation with Milton Weir, giving details of the actual conversation. Then on another day, claims not to know him.
But in his true role as a hypocrite he almost daily announces David as a liar because of David's testimony being contradicted by his Aunt. This needs to be looked at a little further, David's aunt was also to become a beneficiary of the estate should David have been convicted. Much was made by the prosecution that David was lying about who the glasses belong to. David said they weren't his, at that time the Crown had clear evidence they weren't his but withheld it. So David was clearly telling the truth. His aunt's account is unsupported apart from a claim (not evidence) by Micheal Guest that David was going to 'admit' that he had been wearing the glasses that weekend. Mr Guest, we know, was David's lawyer at the time and he was later struck off for amongst other things lying to a client. So at best, Stockdale's claim is based on two different people giving conflicting accounts, evidence from one them David, claimed to have been lies by the Crown but which in fact was absolutely true. If David was telling the truth about whose glasses they were (and he was) then on the balance of things he was telling the truth about not wearing them - remembering that not one witness gave evidence of having seen him wear those glasses in the day's before the murders/suicide. 'Supporting' evidence that David had asked for the (his)glasses was later offered by a police officer who had held silent on the matter for 13 years. I find it absolutely nonsense that David would ask for glasses that were broken and therefore of no use to him that morning, more so because he is 'supposed' to have realised or known they were 'linked' to Stephen's room by a lens not yet found, and not found for many further days and only then in the most extremely odd of situations.
So Stockdale you are entitled to say that David's evidence conflicted with that of his aunt, or that indeed her account conflicted with his. You can't call him a liar. However, I can call you a liar, a stalker, a persecutor and a member and patron of hate-sites that are currently being sued in the Auckland High Court because that is true, and the truth of all of that has been provided by you. Thanks for that.
But in his true role as a hypocrite he almost daily announces David as a liar because of David's testimony being contradicted by his Aunt. This needs to be looked at a little further, David's aunt was also to become a beneficiary of the estate should David have been convicted. Much was made by the prosecution that David was lying about who the glasses belong to. David said they weren't his, at that time the Crown had clear evidence they weren't his but withheld it. So David was clearly telling the truth. His aunt's account is unsupported apart from a claim (not evidence) by Micheal Guest that David was going to 'admit' that he had been wearing the glasses that weekend. Mr Guest, we know, was David's lawyer at the time and he was later struck off for amongst other things lying to a client. So at best, Stockdale's claim is based on two different people giving conflicting accounts, evidence from one them David, claimed to have been lies by the Crown but which in fact was absolutely true. If David was telling the truth about whose glasses they were (and he was) then on the balance of things he was telling the truth about not wearing them - remembering that not one witness gave evidence of having seen him wear those glasses in the day's before the murders/suicide. 'Supporting' evidence that David had asked for the (his)glasses was later offered by a police officer who had held silent on the matter for 13 years. I find it absolutely nonsense that David would ask for glasses that were broken and therefore of no use to him that morning, more so because he is 'supposed' to have realised or known they were 'linked' to Stephen's room by a lens not yet found, and not found for many further days and only then in the most extremely odd of situations.
So Stockdale you are entitled to say that David's evidence conflicted with that of his aunt, or that indeed her account conflicted with his. You can't call him a liar. However, I can call you a liar, a stalker, a persecutor and a member and patron of hate-sites that are currently being sued in the Auckland High Court because that is true, and the truth of all of that has been provided by you. Thanks for that.
Needle in a haystack.
Borrowed from anonymous quoting on the post 'All I want,' by Gamefisher shown below.
Q Why was the owner of the unidentified finger print on the gun never identified?
Clue To identify it would have shown clearly that crucial evidence had been tampered with prior to photographs being taken. It has been suggested by linz4me that finding the owner would have been like finding a needle in a hay stack. supersleuth wrote: One thing that does puzzle me is that there was apparently one identifiable print on that rifle that did not belong to any member of the Bain family.
by linz4me Yes so I understand but trying to find a match would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Sorry linz the needle was on site that day and would not have been so hard to find.
I think anonymous clearly sets out the answer here. The police must have been able to find the owner of the unidentified print one would assume, because the choices were narrowed by whose it wasn't. Further, the police would have been able to compare the print with all those that had been in contact with the firearm that morning and any known to have been in contact with the firearm in the previous months. Some one might be aware of any evidence that excluded people on hand that morning, to this point I don't know of any and would welcome any information about this. If personnel on hand that morning weren't excluded then weight it given to anonymous contention.
linz4me's claim that it would be looking for a needle in a haystack is sheer nonsense, because the possibilities were severely narrowed.
Q Why was the owner of the unidentified finger print on the gun never identified?
Clue To identify it would have shown clearly that crucial evidence had been tampered with prior to photographs being taken. It has been suggested by linz4me that finding the owner would have been like finding a needle in a hay stack. supersleuth wrote: One thing that does puzzle me is that there was apparently one identifiable print on that rifle that did not belong to any member of the Bain family.
by linz4me Yes so I understand but trying to find a match would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Sorry linz the needle was on site that day and would not have been so hard to find.
I think anonymous clearly sets out the answer here. The police must have been able to find the owner of the unidentified print one would assume, because the choices were narrowed by whose it wasn't. Further, the police would have been able to compare the print with all those that had been in contact with the firearm that morning and any known to have been in contact with the firearm in the previous months. Some one might be aware of any evidence that excluded people on hand that morning, to this point I don't know of any and would welcome any information about this. If personnel on hand that morning weren't excluded then weight it given to anonymous contention.
linz4me's claim that it would be looking for a needle in a haystack is sheer nonsense, because the possibilities were severely narrowed.
Moron of the week and its.......
This decision has been the hardest of all to date. The level of competition is increasing each week.
Supergoof was always in the running. Begining with his claim that Erebus disaster was pilot error and his late week effort should have got him over the line in any other circumstances where the competition was less worthy. He made a complete moron of himself regarding the unidentified print on the rifle and that alone on another, less competitive week would have got him the title.
The latest 'recruit' soma2 made a wonderful effort trying to convince the world that what proved David's 'guilt' (sic) was that the killings were all Papuan New Guinean ritualistic, downward skull shots. Yes, and such a contention shows very experienced moronship from the newcomer to expect that readers don't know that dear daddy was really Chief daddy, the Papua New Guinean ritualist.
Many of the old faithful morons got a look in as well, but it has to go to Christine Williams, making her the first ever repeat winner, yes a repeat winner folks. Christine Williams Moron of The Week for advertising on Trade Me that she is in Contempt of Court, for bragging about having the Trial Transcript, claiming to have read it in a single day, and despite all the dribble coming from her parched lips, not able to produce a single piece of evidence to convince anyone that the Jury did not make the right decision - exactly the opposite of what a hate-siter should do. Christine, you are a superb example of a Moron.
CHRISTINE WILLIAMS CONSECUTIVE WINNER OF MORON OF THE WEEK
SHE'S A WINNER!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
All I want by gamefisher...
All I want is David to face the news media and answer honest questions with honest answers without Karam and Co within earshot nor cellphone coverage but that is not not something that is likely in our lifetime.
Quotegamefisher (692 ) 8:40 pm, Sun 19 Sep #27464
You have no entitlement over David gamefisher. I think you are very offensive to exclaim what you want. You are a very offensive person. David owes you nothing, but you owe the world the favour of returning to the silence of your own dim, dark mind.
Quotegamefisher (692 ) 8:40 pm, Sun 19 Sep #27464
You have no entitlement over David gamefisher. I think you are very offensive to exclaim what you want. You are a very offensive person. David owes you nothing, but you owe the world the favour of returning to the silence of your own dim, dark mind.
Superdoof making a late run for moron of the week..
Apparently there were shells in David Bain's room because when he saw them[and the rifle gone]he ran into his mother's room to ask her what was going on.Then,on finding her dead,he ran into the lounge,looking for his father.You have to wonder why he thought his father would be in the lounge,and not still in the caravan.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:59 pm, Sun 19 Sep #27456
Does the man even know where Dunedin is?
Yes, if you were a moron you would have to wonder why David thought his father would be in the lounge as it only been his habit for several years to go to the lounge and pray.
There's another moron called urbanhymns making a late run as well, asking how many spent shells were in the caravan and about Robin's experience with firearms. Oh dear, and yet another cowboyjoe or somebody asking questions even though, like the others, they're experts on everything. You'd think the second generation of hangbainers couldn't possibly be any thicker that kalpal, goobergooch, nina_concertina and rodney osook - but they are. It's a bloody miracle. Meanwhile misspew is talking to a psychiatrist about the sensation she feels of having wetas crawling over her bottom. She wants to show the psychiatrist her bottom, but he doesn't want to know about it and is making excuses about a weak heart and no medical insurance. Everything is normal in the pedo's camp.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:59 pm, Sun 19 Sep #27456
Does the man even know where Dunedin is?
Yes, if you were a moron you would have to wonder why David thought his father would be in the lounge as it only been his habit for several years to go to the lounge and pray.
There's another moron called urbanhymns making a late run as well, asking how many spent shells were in the caravan and about Robin's experience with firearms. Oh dear, and yet another cowboyjoe or somebody asking questions even though, like the others, they're experts on everything. You'd think the second generation of hangbainers couldn't possibly be any thicker that kalpal, goobergooch, nina_concertina and rodney osook - but they are. It's a bloody miracle. Meanwhile misspew is talking to a psychiatrist about the sensation she feels of having wetas crawling over her bottom. She wants to show the psychiatrist her bottom, but he doesn't want to know about it and is making excuses about a weak heart and no medical insurance. Everything is normal in the pedo's camp.
Someone does see.....
Laughing at them said...
It appears the JFRBers believe they have a reputation worth shredding. I dispute that. My belief is that any good reputation exists only in their own minds.
Mike Stockdale OK,py,I guess I have copped it a couple of times,you can't win them all.
I see there are still some who want to keep the thread going,so I might still be making the odd post or two.But as there is no longer any opposition,I won't have to worry about getting"smashed".
Pythinia Gamble Oh but there is opposition ask Ralph - he will tell you. Reputations are being shredded.
13 hours ago on Facebook, JFRB group.
September 19, 2010 10:27 AM
Interesting to note that someone does see what is happening, but even after being warned others take no notice. I would have thought Stockdale would be acutely aware that he for example, Ralph and others are being named for what they are doing when they stalk, disseminate propaganda and break the Law. I as an example, for writing that, would be responsible for having defamed them if it wasn't true. I think in part is to do with impatience, bravado, excitement, taking a dare - when in reality what awaits them from their own creation has all the time in the world to unfold, and their continued contributions are gratefully accepted. Toreador was one of the first to warn them on Trade Me, but they got rid of him and perhaps thought somehow that removed the unpleasant reminder that they would be taken to account for what they say and do. Then it unfolded again with defamation charges, then more charges, but still some can not help but dance close to the fire when drunk with malice and arrogance. How weak minded they have shown themselves to be, and how weak they present as cowards and stalkers still not knowing that it is themselves they catch, given now all the room they need by Trade Me to be enjoined and made liable.
It appears the JFRBers believe they have a reputation worth shredding. I dispute that. My belief is that any good reputation exists only in their own minds.
Mike Stockdale OK,py,I guess I have copped it a couple of times,you can't win them all.
I see there are still some who want to keep the thread going,so I might still be making the odd post or two.But as there is no longer any opposition,I won't have to worry about getting"smashed".
Pythinia Gamble Oh but there is opposition ask Ralph - he will tell you. Reputations are being shredded.
13 hours ago on Facebook, JFRB group.
September 19, 2010 10:27 AM
Interesting to note that someone does see what is happening, but even after being warned others take no notice. I would have thought Stockdale would be acutely aware that he for example, Ralph and others are being named for what they are doing when they stalk, disseminate propaganda and break the Law. I as an example, for writing that, would be responsible for having defamed them if it wasn't true. I think in part is to do with impatience, bravado, excitement, taking a dare - when in reality what awaits them from their own creation has all the time in the world to unfold, and their continued contributions are gratefully accepted. Toreador was one of the first to warn them on Trade Me, but they got rid of him and perhaps thought somehow that removed the unpleasant reminder that they would be taken to account for what they say and do. Then it unfolded again with defamation charges, then more charges, but still some can not help but dance close to the fire when drunk with malice and arrogance. How weak minded they have shown themselves to be, and how weak they present as cowards and stalkers still not knowing that it is themselves they catch, given now all the room they need by Trade Me to be enjoined and made liable.
An accumulation of madness...
Anonymous said...
This thread appears to be coming to an end. I thought it might be appropriate to finish off with one of Robin Bain's little jokes. supersleuth (0 ) 10:45 am, Sat 18 Sep #27428.........THE JOKE IS COUNTERSPIN.......nowhere else would there be such a raft of argument on the nuts and bolts, goldnkiwi (608 ) 2:03 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27429........THEY HAVE GOT THE NUTS BIT RIGHT....... It isn't only the information itself and the debate it is the links that are valuable and googling key phrases often brings up the votemenot reference. Quote misspw (65 ) 2:38 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27430........THEY POST ON TM AND REFER TO THEMSELVES ON VOTEMENOT, BRILLIANT....... cybernana wrote: cowgirljo (179 ) 6:08 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27436 …..........A CRY FOR HELP...................Please thread continue, thanks. Quote
mercury14 (157 ) 8:27 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27437.......ANOTHER PLEA FOR HELP................I think everyone is busily digesting the retrial transcript. Those that have it. I must say I am pretty appalled at the inadequacy of the prosecution and the treatment of the police witnesses. What do you think?
Quote
misspw (65 ) 9:34 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27438........CLUTCHING AT STRAWS...........Considering Mander is Deputy Solicitor General (prosecutions) and Raftery has been a prosecutor in Auckland for a number of years and was part of the Prosecution Team in R v Watson, one has to say there is an appearance of not really worrying about securing a conviction as a not guilty verdict could be cheaper than keeping DB in prison.
Quote
linz4me (276 ) 12:19 am, Sun 19 Sep #27440........................FRIGGIN MADNESS HAS SET IN COMPLETELY........................ cybernana wrote: obook (165 ) 12:27 am, Sun 19 Sep #27441.................SCREAMING OUT FOR HELP.................THE ONLY CONTACT THESE PEOPLE HAVE HAD WITH THE REAL WORLD WAS ON THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER, THEY ARE SELF DESTRUCTING AND ITS THE FUNNIEST THING I'VE WITNESSED FOR QUITE SOME CONSIDERABLE TIME.
September 19, 2010 7:19 AM
I don't want to be too kind to them, but one has to recognise without persecution there is little else left in their lives. Persecuting David gives these people the pleasure a sane person might get from gardening or watching rugby. The pedo supporters are more the blood sports types like dear daddy was, a hanging, a bit of torture or slapping children around is more to their taste and because none of them are in anyway disapproving of one another they've slipped into a fantasy that they are actually sane and caring people. Now that is odd, worshipping a dead man who killed his family and thus having 'licence' to persecute a live man who was falsely imprisoned for half a generation.
The fact that they can't see (as you've pointed out) that they are displaying chronic loneliness and symptoms of withdrawal because no one bothers to argue with them further displays what inadequate individuals they are. But further, they don't have the ability to comprehend why they might have been left to it on Trade Me. They seem to have no sense that fate unfolds around them in the present and rather that question why they stick with the single track that dominates their minds - that they are right and that they have the 'right' to persecute, defame, stalk and be in Contempt of Court.
I may make them a little surprise today, just for fun.
This thread appears to be coming to an end. I thought it might be appropriate to finish off with one of Robin Bain's little jokes. supersleuth (0 ) 10:45 am, Sat 18 Sep #27428.........THE JOKE IS COUNTERSPIN.......nowhere else would there be such a raft of argument on the nuts and bolts, goldnkiwi (608 ) 2:03 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27429........THEY HAVE GOT THE NUTS BIT RIGHT....... It isn't only the information itself and the debate it is the links that are valuable and googling key phrases often brings up the votemenot reference. Quote misspw (65 ) 2:38 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27430........THEY POST ON TM AND REFER TO THEMSELVES ON VOTEMENOT, BRILLIANT....... cybernana wrote: cowgirljo (179 ) 6:08 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27436 …..........A CRY FOR HELP...................Please thread continue, thanks. Quote
mercury14 (157 ) 8:27 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27437.......ANOTHER PLEA FOR HELP................I think everyone is busily digesting the retrial transcript. Those that have it. I must say I am pretty appalled at the inadequacy of the prosecution and the treatment of the police witnesses. What do you think?
Quote
misspw (65 ) 9:34 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27438........CLUTCHING AT STRAWS...........Considering Mander is Deputy Solicitor General (prosecutions) and Raftery has been a prosecutor in Auckland for a number of years and was part of the Prosecution Team in R v Watson, one has to say there is an appearance of not really worrying about securing a conviction as a not guilty verdict could be cheaper than keeping DB in prison.
Quote
linz4me (276 ) 12:19 am, Sun 19 Sep #27440........................FRIGGIN MADNESS HAS SET IN COMPLETELY........................ cybernana wrote: obook (165 ) 12:27 am, Sun 19 Sep #27441.................SCREAMING OUT FOR HELP.................THE ONLY CONTACT THESE PEOPLE HAVE HAD WITH THE REAL WORLD WAS ON THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER, THEY ARE SELF DESTRUCTING AND ITS THE FUNNIEST THING I'VE WITNESSED FOR QUITE SOME CONSIDERABLE TIME.
September 19, 2010 7:19 AM
I don't want to be too kind to them, but one has to recognise without persecution there is little else left in their lives. Persecuting David gives these people the pleasure a sane person might get from gardening or watching rugby. The pedo supporters are more the blood sports types like dear daddy was, a hanging, a bit of torture or slapping children around is more to their taste and because none of them are in anyway disapproving of one another they've slipped into a fantasy that they are actually sane and caring people. Now that is odd, worshipping a dead man who killed his family and thus having 'licence' to persecute a live man who was falsely imprisoned for half a generation.
The fact that they can't see (as you've pointed out) that they are displaying chronic loneliness and symptoms of withdrawal because no one bothers to argue with them further displays what inadequate individuals they are. But further, they don't have the ability to comprehend why they might have been left to it on Trade Me. They seem to have no sense that fate unfolds around them in the present and rather that question why they stick with the single track that dominates their minds - that they are right and that they have the 'right' to persecute, defame, stalk and be in Contempt of Court.
I may make them a little surprise today, just for fun.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Christine Williams, misspew, lardscape.
I think everyone is busily digesting the retrial transcript. Those that have it. I must say I am pretty appalled at the inadequacy of the prosecution and the treatment of the police witnesses. What do you think?
Quotemisspw (65 ) 9:34 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27438
To answer your question Christine, I think your are a lardscape with wetas crawling over your nethery bits trying to escape.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 9:34 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27438
To answer your question Christine, I think your are a lardscape with wetas crawling over your nethery bits trying to escape.
There, there misspew. Trout spout.
All your 'recovered memory' proves is that you've always been a bser able to convince yourself of anything.
But don't worry Christine Saturday night is upon us, isn't it time for a meltdown, time for one of barely disguised psycho personalities to emerge again. You know the ones, were you start stalking, threatening and fantasise about torchlight.
I had a recovered memory once. My father and I were carting things out of the garage and into the yard. It was very vivid and very real. I remembered every detail, even the clothes I was wearing and I knew exactly how old I was. Five. Everything was fine until my parents pointed out that the garage wasn't built until I was seven.
I would even have sworn to it being the truth on the Bible.
I have never trusted recovered memories since then and fake ones even less.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 3:44 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27433
I like that touch about the Bible, certainly shows how far you'll go to try and convince people with your lies! 'Very vivid and very real' I'm sure it was, just like all your other episodes.
Had any visits from officials about your Contempt of Court? You remember, when you were frothing at the mouth over getting an illegal copy of the Trial transcript. What a fizzer for you, when you finally realised that the Jury got it right and that you really are a moron after all. The big breakthrough - the Trial transcript that you managed to read in a single day sitting in your lonely outhouse with the wetas, it wasn't worth it, was it Christine? You were better off not knowing the truth. Chins up, old trout spout.
But don't worry Christine Saturday night is upon us, isn't it time for a meltdown, time for one of barely disguised psycho personalities to emerge again. You know the ones, were you start stalking, threatening and fantasise about torchlight.
I had a recovered memory once. My father and I were carting things out of the garage and into the yard. It was very vivid and very real. I remembered every detail, even the clothes I was wearing and I knew exactly how old I was. Five. Everything was fine until my parents pointed out that the garage wasn't built until I was seven.
I would even have sworn to it being the truth on the Bible.
I have never trusted recovered memories since then and fake ones even less.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 3:44 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27433
I like that touch about the Bible, certainly shows how far you'll go to try and convince people with your lies! 'Very vivid and very real' I'm sure it was, just like all your other episodes.
Had any visits from officials about your Contempt of Court? You remember, when you were frothing at the mouth over getting an illegal copy of the Trial transcript. What a fizzer for you, when you finally realised that the Jury got it right and that you really are a moron after all. The big breakthrough - the Trial transcript that you managed to read in a single day sitting in your lonely outhouse with the wetas, it wasn't worth it, was it Christine? You were better off not knowing the truth. Chins up, old trout spout.
Congratulations jeeves50 you can now be named.
Esteemed hate-siter Ralph Taylor can now have his name revealed on this site. This most fortunate situation has come about because Ralphie has now revealed himself as a stalker on Trade Me as per my post below 'Stalkers are go.' Good work Ralph, great to see you complicit in all the activities of your hate-sites, something else to alert the world to your evil, twisted ways.
Kenty baby, the carpet layer - still spitting tacks.
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.
On top of creating the most discredited book in NZ History, David and Goliath (what other book has resulted in a 100 page Police Complaints Report outlining all its shortcomings?), Joe Karam can now take the trophy for most discredited retrial verdict. Since the retrial we have had Bryan Bruce's documentary The Case Against Robin Bain and the Laws-Karam debate, not to mention the Justice for Robin Bain group and the counterspin site.
Dear oh dear Kent are you so one eyed that you can't recognise that the PCA report is obsolete, and that Joe's book has resulted in part in seeing one of NZ's greatest travesties of Justice corrected?
While I am not one to question the merit of the retrial verdict, Joe Karam would be the first one to admit that sometimes juries get it wrong, and in this case there are a number of high profile people prepared to voice opinions that would seem to support this scenario. So far the score in the Bain case is 1-1; one guilty verdict and one not guilty verdict. While in law only one counts, it would seem that the best of three might be a fairer contest. Next time round maybe the pro-Robin Bain supporters might be inclined to break sub judice rules and publish their side of the case to even up the media contest so that it isn't all one sided as it was in the years running up to the retrial.
Sorry Kent the score as you put it is 1 to 0 because a Miscarriage of Justice doesn't count as a trial. Please don't pretend that you are not one to question the merit of a retrial verdict because that is all you've done for over a year. Get a life and get over yourself. You were wrong, simply you are a loser despite all your sub-judice efforts and deciet.
Just as Karam was allowed to question the initial trial verdict, so are people allowed to question the retrial verdict and they have and they will continue to do so. Just as the first verdict did not stop Karam from promoting his belief that the verdict was wrong, then the second verdict is not going to miraculously stop people from promoting their belief that the retrial verdict was wrong. Karam cannot expect people to shut up simply because of a verdict in a court of law. He didn't do that and nor will other people. Similarly Karam cannot expect an automatic handout from us, the taxpayer, because he believes that the not guilty verdict is tantamount to proving innocence. He knows that not to be true as does everyone else with any knowledge of the legal system.
Yes Kent you are right. People are entitled to question any verdict. But what they are not entitled to do is (as you have promoted) to stalk Jurors, witnesses, people who don't agree with you, fabricate lies and propaganda, attack incessantly the Justice System, threaten people, distribute the Trial MS and also Act In Contempt of Court in a number of other ways. You're a hate-siter Kent, you may have fooled some people in the beginning but you are simply a hate-siter, and, unfortunately for you, one that faces hundreds of charges of Defamation in the Auckland High Court and somebody who is under investigation on more serious matters. Face reality Kent.
As I write this post, the compensation process is stewing slowly along. Karam should understand that the outcome is pretty much predetermined but he continues with what most consider to be a futile pursuit. He does so probably because he has previously succeeded where others have said he wouldn't. The only reason he has succeeded is because of public opinion. Public opinion is a fickle beast. Karam would be much better positioned if he had truth rather than public opinion on his side. He himself has said many times that ultimately truth has its day, the only mistake he makes there is his judgment of when that day arrives. It will be interesting to see his reaction should the day ever arrive in which truth and public opinion coincide.
Kent, you have no idea of what is happening with the compensation process, the only think stewing along slowly is your torpid half-sized brain. You have no idea of what Karam should know because he is so much smarter than you and doesn't promote hate or injustice. You're a sick puppy Kent, a pedo supporter.
But you are right about public opinion being a 'fickle beast.' You had your opportunity to promote your position with logic and reason, because you chose not to public opinion has turned against you forever.
Speaking of watching reactions, I'm looking forward to watching yours when you stand in the dock at the Auckland High Court, noted for all time as a defamer, bigot, liar and persecutor. That'll be fun Kenty, that will really be fun.
»
Kent Parker's blog
Login or register to post comments
On top of creating the most discredited book in NZ History, David and Goliath (what other book has resulted in a 100 page Police Complaints Report outlining all its shortcomings?), Joe Karam can now take the trophy for most discredited retrial verdict. Since the retrial we have had Bryan Bruce's documentary The Case Against Robin Bain and the Laws-Karam debate, not to mention the Justice for Robin Bain group and the counterspin site.
Dear oh dear Kent are you so one eyed that you can't recognise that the PCA report is obsolete, and that Joe's book has resulted in part in seeing one of NZ's greatest travesties of Justice corrected?
While I am not one to question the merit of the retrial verdict, Joe Karam would be the first one to admit that sometimes juries get it wrong, and in this case there are a number of high profile people prepared to voice opinions that would seem to support this scenario. So far the score in the Bain case is 1-1; one guilty verdict and one not guilty verdict. While in law only one counts, it would seem that the best of three might be a fairer contest. Next time round maybe the pro-Robin Bain supporters might be inclined to break sub judice rules and publish their side of the case to even up the media contest so that it isn't all one sided as it was in the years running up to the retrial.
Sorry Kent the score as you put it is 1 to 0 because a Miscarriage of Justice doesn't count as a trial. Please don't pretend that you are not one to question the merit of a retrial verdict because that is all you've done for over a year. Get a life and get over yourself. You were wrong, simply you are a loser despite all your sub-judice efforts and deciet.
Just as Karam was allowed to question the initial trial verdict, so are people allowed to question the retrial verdict and they have and they will continue to do so. Just as the first verdict did not stop Karam from promoting his belief that the verdict was wrong, then the second verdict is not going to miraculously stop people from promoting their belief that the retrial verdict was wrong. Karam cannot expect people to shut up simply because of a verdict in a court of law. He didn't do that and nor will other people. Similarly Karam cannot expect an automatic handout from us, the taxpayer, because he believes that the not guilty verdict is tantamount to proving innocence. He knows that not to be true as does everyone else with any knowledge of the legal system.
Yes Kent you are right. People are entitled to question any verdict. But what they are not entitled to do is (as you have promoted) to stalk Jurors, witnesses, people who don't agree with you, fabricate lies and propaganda, attack incessantly the Justice System, threaten people, distribute the Trial MS and also Act In Contempt of Court in a number of other ways. You're a hate-siter Kent, you may have fooled some people in the beginning but you are simply a hate-siter, and, unfortunately for you, one that faces hundreds of charges of Defamation in the Auckland High Court and somebody who is under investigation on more serious matters. Face reality Kent.
As I write this post, the compensation process is stewing slowly along. Karam should understand that the outcome is pretty much predetermined but he continues with what most consider to be a futile pursuit. He does so probably because he has previously succeeded where others have said he wouldn't. The only reason he has succeeded is because of public opinion. Public opinion is a fickle beast. Karam would be much better positioned if he had truth rather than public opinion on his side. He himself has said many times that ultimately truth has its day, the only mistake he makes there is his judgment of when that day arrives. It will be interesting to see his reaction should the day ever arrive in which truth and public opinion coincide.
Kent, you have no idea of what is happening with the compensation process, the only think stewing along slowly is your torpid half-sized brain. You have no idea of what Karam should know because he is so much smarter than you and doesn't promote hate or injustice. You're a sick puppy Kent, a pedo supporter.
But you are right about public opinion being a 'fickle beast.' You had your opportunity to promote your position with logic and reason, because you chose not to public opinion has turned against you forever.
Speaking of watching reactions, I'm looking forward to watching yours when you stand in the dock at the Auckland High Court, noted for all time as a defamer, bigot, liar and persecutor. That'll be fun Kenty, that will really be fun.
»
Kent Parker's blog
Login or register to post comments
For the hate-siters :The finding of innocence.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/david-bain-case/news/article.cfm?c_id=1500919&objectid=10447122
Solicitor - General
"I want to emphasise, that under our system of justice, it is a jury, which determines guilt or innocence in a case such as this. The jury reaches its conclusion after it has considered all of the evidence and after receiving directions on the law from the trial Judge. Guilt or innocence of an accused person is not decided by the media or public opinion polls. Those who attempt to usurp or otherwise influence the trial process risk facing a charge of contempt of Court"
The Solicitor General defines what the Law is before David's trial, so why are we now left with this nonsense, or qualification of some other test of innocence? Any other test is unconstitutional and unlawful and will not be accepted unless accompanied by compensation for unlawful imprisonment.
The Solicitor General in his definition above of Contempt of Court had clearly not anticipated that his warning ought also have extended to stalking and defaming Jurors and witnesses, also distributing and reprinting the Trial MS without the Judges permission, or a steady flow of misinformation to undermine confidence in the Justice system. - but he knows now hate-siters, he knows now.
Hear that Lucky, Stockdale and others? He knows now.
Solicitor - General
"I want to emphasise, that under our system of justice, it is a jury, which determines guilt or innocence in a case such as this. The jury reaches its conclusion after it has considered all of the evidence and after receiving directions on the law from the trial Judge. Guilt or innocence of an accused person is not decided by the media or public opinion polls. Those who attempt to usurp or otherwise influence the trial process risk facing a charge of contempt of Court"
The Solicitor General defines what the Law is before David's trial, so why are we now left with this nonsense, or qualification of some other test of innocence? Any other test is unconstitutional and unlawful and will not be accepted unless accompanied by compensation for unlawful imprisonment.
The Solicitor General in his definition above of Contempt of Court had clearly not anticipated that his warning ought also have extended to stalking and defaming Jurors and witnesses, also distributing and reprinting the Trial MS without the Judges permission, or a steady flow of misinformation to undermine confidence in the Justice system. - but he knows now hate-siters, he knows now.
Hear that Lucky, Stockdale and others? He knows now.
Garth McVicar, the ends justifies the means...?
When Garth McVicar plotted with Hide and David Garrett to gain political influence and a voice in Parliament McVicar must have thought that dealing with a couple of convicts was the ends to justify the means. How heroic, that he should be able to put aside all his 'values' for the greater good. What tremendous bravery to enter into duplicity and deceit to further his cause, what a hero. And even more heroic that he should hide when the balloon went up and be so willing to throw the convict, his erstwhile mate, to the wolves. Very understandable Garth, that you should be the first to flee because you work with deceit and shadows, you work with emotions and pain not your own to twist and heighten anguish, your roadshow of grief that clearly brings you such pleasure is far more important than honesty, compassion or being able to forgive - so why would you forgive Garrett for doing your dirty work, why wouldn't you abandon him and flee to live and fight another day so that you might again offer you fake solace to strangers and enjoy the outpouring of their grief to you?
Daddy dearest, pedo and thug.
What the pedo worshippers want you to forget.........
Christchurch, May 11 NZPA - Two children at Dunedin's Taieri Beach School where Robin Bain was principal complained that he had struck them, a grief counsellor told the High Court in Christchurch today.
Cyril Wilden, a senior psychologist for the Department of Education, said that when he spoke to school pupils after Mr Bain's death two of them told him Mr Bain had lost his cool and hit them.
Mr Wilden said he knew Mr Bain had been under severe stress.
When he had asked him if he had been to get medical help, he said yes, but he was very defensive.
Mr Wilden was giving evidence on the 42nd day of the trial of David Bain on charges of murdering his father Robin, mother Margaret, and his two sisters and a brother in the family's Dunedin home in June 1994.
The defence which opened on Friday claims that Robin Bain murdered his wife and three of his four children and then turned the gun on himself.
Mr Wilden said Robin Bain was struggling to cope. He could be completely flat and lifeless, morose and non-communicative.
Then he would be full of life and talk about his computers, maths, music and the secret garden he was planning at the school.
Mr Wilden felt that in 1993-94 Mr Bain "was on a spiral of downward coping".
He needed more assistance and guidance, he said.
Mr Wilden said he met Margaret Bain a few weeks before her death. She talked to him about having given away her belief in God and having found a better way.
She had "new age" ideas, and used divinity with a pendulum to guide her when she made decisions.
She was a very strong willed person, and he had no chance to get a word in edgewise during the 30 minutes he spoke with her.
He felt she was not in a rational state of mind and became anxious about the emotional stress and pressure at home for her husband.
Mary-Anne Pease, a psychologist, accompanied Mr Wilden to Taieri Beach School to offer post trauma event counselling and support.
She worked with the junior class children but said she was shocked when she saw the senior classroom.
There was no work proudly displayed, everything was very disordered and it was difficult to know where the children were up to with their studies.
Earlier today Kevin McKenzie, who was the president of the Taieri Principals' Association, said that in March 1994, Mr Bain seemed to be more negative and down.
He knew Mr Bain had unsuccessfully applied for positions and he knew the Tomorrow's Schools plan was causing him a lot of stress and strain.
The association was so concerned about Mr Bain that it set up a course to help him and other principals through the stress. If he was down, maybe others were too, he said.
In 2000 he was shown stories that Mr Bain's schoolchildren had written, and which had been published in the school newsletter.
Three of the stories were particularly disturbing and contained warnings that some topics may disturb adult readers.
He said that in 1994 teachers would motivate the children in their stories with discussions, pictures, experiences, and questions.
"Any teacher I know would be concerned by the content of these stories," he said. "The whole thing is weird and disturbing."
If children in his school had written the stories, he would have got assistance for them.
NZPA WGT cla dj gt
Christchurch, May 11 NZPA - Two children at Dunedin's Taieri Beach School where Robin Bain was principal complained that he had struck them, a grief counsellor told the High Court in Christchurch today.
Cyril Wilden, a senior psychologist for the Department of Education, said that when he spoke to school pupils after Mr Bain's death two of them told him Mr Bain had lost his cool and hit them.
Mr Wilden said he knew Mr Bain had been under severe stress.
When he had asked him if he had been to get medical help, he said yes, but he was very defensive.
Mr Wilden was giving evidence on the 42nd day of the trial of David Bain on charges of murdering his father Robin, mother Margaret, and his two sisters and a brother in the family's Dunedin home in June 1994.
The defence which opened on Friday claims that Robin Bain murdered his wife and three of his four children and then turned the gun on himself.
Mr Wilden said Robin Bain was struggling to cope. He could be completely flat and lifeless, morose and non-communicative.
Then he would be full of life and talk about his computers, maths, music and the secret garden he was planning at the school.
Mr Wilden felt that in 1993-94 Mr Bain "was on a spiral of downward coping".
He needed more assistance and guidance, he said.
Mr Wilden said he met Margaret Bain a few weeks before her death. She talked to him about having given away her belief in God and having found a better way.
She had "new age" ideas, and used divinity with a pendulum to guide her when she made decisions.
She was a very strong willed person, and he had no chance to get a word in edgewise during the 30 minutes he spoke with her.
He felt she was not in a rational state of mind and became anxious about the emotional stress and pressure at home for her husband.
Mary-Anne Pease, a psychologist, accompanied Mr Wilden to Taieri Beach School to offer post trauma event counselling and support.
She worked with the junior class children but said she was shocked when she saw the senior classroom.
There was no work proudly displayed, everything was very disordered and it was difficult to know where the children were up to with their studies.
Earlier today Kevin McKenzie, who was the president of the Taieri Principals' Association, said that in March 1994, Mr Bain seemed to be more negative and down.
He knew Mr Bain had unsuccessfully applied for positions and he knew the Tomorrow's Schools plan was causing him a lot of stress and strain.
The association was so concerned about Mr Bain that it set up a course to help him and other principals through the stress. If he was down, maybe others were too, he said.
In 2000 he was shown stories that Mr Bain's schoolchildren had written, and which had been published in the school newsletter.
Three of the stories were particularly disturbing and contained warnings that some topics may disturb adult readers.
He said that in 1994 teachers would motivate the children in their stories with discussions, pictures, experiences, and questions.
"Any teacher I know would be concerned by the content of these stories," he said. "The whole thing is weird and disturbing."
If children in his school had written the stories, he would have got assistance for them.
NZPA WGT cla dj gt
Friday, September 17, 2010
Dear Rodney Hide,
I've got home now, but it hasn't made any difference. I can't rest. I'm disturbed, I keep thinking that you've been trying to whack it up me to save your own skin. Not only that, but save McVicar's tannery old bum as well.
Besides all this, I'm suspicious about these pills you've said I should take because on the label it says 'Swallow until Dead.' I don't know what to think Rodney, I trusted you after mummy died and you took over my teddy bear. But now people are saying things. They don't understand my pranks Rodney even though you said they would.
your bestess ever friend,
yours sincerely, from your own special..
Davy
Besides all this, I'm suspicious about these pills you've said I should take because on the label it says 'Swallow until Dead.' I don't know what to think Rodney, I trusted you after mummy died and you took over my teddy bear. But now people are saying things. They don't understand my pranks Rodney even though you said they would.
your bestess ever friend,
yours sincerely, from your own special..
Davy
Stalkers are go...
Trade Me Support
Some of your pet stalkers are at it again:
Some of your favourite stalkers are at it again, stalking and outing the identity of other posters. Does anybody at Trade Me have any idea of TM's rules? Is anybody at Trade Me aware that when you reveal the identity of a poster on your own boards, you are in breach of your own rules, Privacy Law and in breach of your agreement with posters to be able to remain anonymous. See below.
Message Board stalking Re: thread http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=549&topic=7 The repeat stalkers whom TradeMe have failed to take effective action with are now going after another poster. This time it is user frank_m They have revealed his actual identity and are posting information about him. See posts as below #27418 (urbanhymns) #27417 (supersleuth) #27416 (supersleuth) #27410 (supersleuth #27408 (therafter) #27397 (urbanhymns) #27395 (jeeves-50) #27394 (supersleuth).
I'll just help with a list, giving an individual line for each criminal stalker to make it easier for you to read.
urbanhyms
supersleuth
therafter
jeeves-50
The above named are all members of hate-sites that support paedophilia, a nice bunch of folk you have breaking the law on your boards.
Yours etc
Some of your pet stalkers are at it again:
Some of your favourite stalkers are at it again, stalking and outing the identity of other posters. Does anybody at Trade Me have any idea of TM's rules? Is anybody at Trade Me aware that when you reveal the identity of a poster on your own boards, you are in breach of your own rules, Privacy Law and in breach of your agreement with posters to be able to remain anonymous. See below.
Message Board stalking Re: thread http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=549&topic=7 The repeat stalkers whom TradeMe have failed to take effective action with are now going after another poster. This time it is user frank_m They have revealed his actual identity and are posting information about him. See posts as below #27418 (urbanhymns) #27417 (supersleuth) #27416 (supersleuth) #27410 (supersleuth #27408 (therafter) #27397 (urbanhymns) #27395 (jeeves-50) #27394 (supersleuth).
I'll just help with a list, giving an individual line for each criminal stalker to make it easier for you to read.
urbanhyms
supersleuth
therafter
jeeves-50
The above named are all members of hate-sites that support paedophilia, a nice bunch of folk you have breaking the law on your boards.
Yours etc
'What do you think Garth?' asked Rodney.
'Get rid of the prick before we all go down.'
'Now the situation has become untenable, it's every man for himself David. Don't worry about jumping,' said Rodney. 'I'll give you a push. Tallyho, bottoms up, good chap.'
'But what's the difference between today and yesterday, you've known all this for years.'
'The difference old son, is that I'm sprung as well and I'm more important than you.'
'How's that?'
'Well, I'm shorter and fatter for a start. Besides that I'm the party leader not the Captain of a ship.'
'Shouldn't we blame Garth? It was his idea.'
'Listen David, Garth's an important man. I'm an important man and you're a crook. I don't know why I ever trusted you.'
'Now the situation has become untenable, it's every man for himself David. Don't worry about jumping,' said Rodney. 'I'll give you a push. Tallyho, bottoms up, good chap.'
'But what's the difference between today and yesterday, you've known all this for years.'
'The difference old son, is that I'm sprung as well and I'm more important than you.'
'How's that?'
'Well, I'm shorter and fatter for a start. Besides that I'm the party leader not the Captain of a ship.'
'Shouldn't we blame Garth? It was his idea.'
'Listen David, Garth's an important man. I'm an important man and you're a crook. I don't know why I ever trusted you.'
Rushing Rodney..
Who is he trying to fool, 'rushing back' to solve a 'problem,' suddenly urgent and which he has known about for over 4 years at least. Rodney wasn't concerned about the identity theft when he, McVicar and Garrett constructed a platform to enter Parliament by being tough on crime, so why is he worried now?
Richard Nixon said he wasn't a crook, maybe Rodney could use a variation ...'I'm not a crook, I'm just a convict.'
Richard Nixon said he wasn't a crook, maybe Rodney could use a variation ...'I'm not a crook, I'm just a convict.'
Whose worse, Garth McVicar, Rodney Hide or David Garrett?
What an inspiring trio, conspirators to gain a Parliamentary voice, black sheep in conference wearing halos in public, whipping the masses into hysteria, demanding to be heard but bearing silence that two of them, at least, were convicted men, convicts by another term, spouting for justice, using victims for their own cause, frightening the public, damning the damned, shouting no second chance, cursing the children not yet born, wanting the freedom to smack children, compiling lists and documents but leaving off themselves, prying everywhere like peeping toms, men of mist, who is worse, not one but three.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
'It may spread virally'
These words from Judge Harvey, 'it may spread virally' were talking about the way suppression orders may dissolve on the Internet. When I wrote to Kent Parker about such spread I called it leaking when reminding him he was still responsible. At the moment Kent's sites still leak, the eager twisted Christine Williams, sopheir, and Maryanne Newton citing from a copy of a Trial Transcript, happily in Contempt of Court.
Way back in March Kent Parker teaching his disciples to cheat..
Posted on the JFRB facebook page.
Kent Parker It appears you can multiple vote. If I was the ministry and 30% were saying 'no compensation' then that would still count.
March 26 at 12:36pm ·
Theo Volz you can vote multiple times? Wouldn't that render the poll useless?
March 26 at 12:52pm ·
Kent Parker pretty much
March 26 at 12:55pm ·
Vivienne Lewis Believe me, the pro-Bainers won't be playing fair, and will vote as often as they can.
It does appear that you have to restart your browser / Stuff session to get your second (3rd, 4th...) vote registered.
March 26 at 1:49pm
Kent Parker It appears you can multiple vote. If I was the ministry and 30% were saying 'no compensation' then that would still count.
March 26 at 12:36pm ·
Theo Volz you can vote multiple times? Wouldn't that render the poll useless?
March 26 at 12:52pm ·
Kent Parker pretty much
March 26 at 12:55pm ·
Vivienne Lewis Believe me, the pro-Bainers won't be playing fair, and will vote as often as they can.
It does appear that you have to restart your browser / Stuff session to get your second (3rd, 4th...) vote registered.
March 26 at 1:49pm
Poirot's question of who are they.
As providence should intervene, it was fortunate that I did not answer Poirot's question this morning, having reflected upon it today and following some wise counsel from some friends I will not reveal the details which I have received, and which I believe answers Poirots question of: who are they? (the hate-siters.)
So taking some generally held information, from particular people mostly from Trade Me, but also many months ago from Counterspin when I provided some of the details of Jury stalking that was on their boards earlier. Of course it was Vic Purkiss providing a 'trust me' it's true about the alleged Juror's letter to The Press. I use the word 'alleged' deliberately because the letter hasn't been authenticated to any official degree and of course one must hold reservations about anything claimed by The Press in terms of the Bain trial because of the van beynan, 'opinion' piece and his harassment of at least one juror. But on the face of it I believe Purkiss was being truthful with his 'trust me,' it appears he clearly knows a Juror. A relationship which Counterspin would be keen to cultivate if it assisted their lost cause in anyway. Apart from that Counterspin, hate-siters and a few associates have treated the Christchurch Jury in a way which I believe is provable Contempt of Court. Those words, 'Contempt of Court' apply equally to the current distribution of the MS. As I believe these matters are, or will be, investigated I will leave them alone in any detail apart from taking from this part of the answer to Poirot's question.
'These people' as we see are lawbreakers, self justified by their interpretation of defeating evil in the World, willing to ignore Court orders, to stalk Jurors, in fact probably willing to do anything. But I also think they may be quite a diverse bunch in terms of having some 'members' who truely believe that there has been a Miscarriage of Justice of some sort and while generally being unwilling to be law breakers 'go along with' others who may have different agendas, self protection or revenge for example. I think we must face it that some Police or ex Police have taken the whole Bain case personally. We've had reports on TM from the indiscreet supersleuth of conversations with Milton Weir and discussion about Milton Weir's impending book, and other information that supersleuth is so willing to swallow.
Then we must go deeper again, some of 'these people' are highly offended by evidence that Robin Bain was a paedophile, offended to the point that they are unable to realise that evidence is simply material, exhibits, testimony that tells a story and that the telling of that story is not to be reacted against emotionally it is to be assessed nothing more. Those that hold this hand of cards will most likely also be diverse among themselves, some are clearly paedophile supporters or apologists (we have had Stockdale and Newton recorded here from TM) explaining the most bizarre sexual activity in a nonchalant way. Some are probably even paedophiles.
Before continuing I should also say that many probably genuine people are among the ranks because it is clear that with the amount of evidence of stalking and threatening that has taken place some of those genuine people have dropped off, I'd suggest having had the good sense to see the beast that the hate-sites have become. People who might have had reservations about some evidence, or some gossip or something that didn't make sense - but who of course would immediately become ripe pickings for the misinformists, liars and propagandists that also populate the ranks of the hate-sites.
I think also there is a distortion of religion used by some of the hate-siters to justify their persecution and hate, real zealots and fanatics as has been shown by some of the more bizarre posts of Christine Williams all hellfire and brimstone, righteous soldiers on the way to slay the disbelievers and their families. Simply put very, very nutty.
I think we have also seen the egoists in competition, Stockdale and Kent Parker, moment of fame, full of bs and bravado and no thought for the fact (as has been displayed graphically in the last week) that they never had any comprehension of the evidence before 'deciding' David's guilt. Too thick in many ways to understand very basic evidence, too thick to be dispassionate and not look for things to suit their ends rather that to coolly look at what they know, become more informed, and perhaps make a decision that could be qualified with argument not mantra or lies.
So there are a number of types I suggest, some quite sick, other misguided, some looking for revenge and it goes on. But that is not to disregard that some may be a mixture of types, and to recognise that the hate-sites change individuals, subject them to new 'freedom's of thought, new frontiers of reality and what is right. That is the nature of hate-sites and that is what they breed from - no distinction, the simple belief (in this case that David is guilty) and you're in however unacceptable you may feel in other forums or walks of life. Some might view this as an exaggeration, but we've seen in places (even on reports to this blog) visitors to the site and how they were treated should they not 'conform.' I have had the experiences myself.
My view is that they are coming undone, dramatically and by their own hand. I hope that those that have been 'picked up and carried' along by the 'euphoria' of peddling hate and suddenly realised so, will pull out, abandon ship, and those that realise things are over their heads take the precaution of contacting me here or someone else able to help them.
So I haven't answered Poirot's question as fully as I could have, but I hope I have answered it with some reason.
So taking some generally held information, from particular people mostly from Trade Me, but also many months ago from Counterspin when I provided some of the details of Jury stalking that was on their boards earlier. Of course it was Vic Purkiss providing a 'trust me' it's true about the alleged Juror's letter to The Press. I use the word 'alleged' deliberately because the letter hasn't been authenticated to any official degree and of course one must hold reservations about anything claimed by The Press in terms of the Bain trial because of the van beynan, 'opinion' piece and his harassment of at least one juror. But on the face of it I believe Purkiss was being truthful with his 'trust me,' it appears he clearly knows a Juror. A relationship which Counterspin would be keen to cultivate if it assisted their lost cause in anyway. Apart from that Counterspin, hate-siters and a few associates have treated the Christchurch Jury in a way which I believe is provable Contempt of Court. Those words, 'Contempt of Court' apply equally to the current distribution of the MS. As I believe these matters are, or will be, investigated I will leave them alone in any detail apart from taking from this part of the answer to Poirot's question.
'These people' as we see are lawbreakers, self justified by their interpretation of defeating evil in the World, willing to ignore Court orders, to stalk Jurors, in fact probably willing to do anything. But I also think they may be quite a diverse bunch in terms of having some 'members' who truely believe that there has been a Miscarriage of Justice of some sort and while generally being unwilling to be law breakers 'go along with' others who may have different agendas, self protection or revenge for example. I think we must face it that some Police or ex Police have taken the whole Bain case personally. We've had reports on TM from the indiscreet supersleuth of conversations with Milton Weir and discussion about Milton Weir's impending book, and other information that supersleuth is so willing to swallow.
Then we must go deeper again, some of 'these people' are highly offended by evidence that Robin Bain was a paedophile, offended to the point that they are unable to realise that evidence is simply material, exhibits, testimony that tells a story and that the telling of that story is not to be reacted against emotionally it is to be assessed nothing more. Those that hold this hand of cards will most likely also be diverse among themselves, some are clearly paedophile supporters or apologists (we have had Stockdale and Newton recorded here from TM) explaining the most bizarre sexual activity in a nonchalant way. Some are probably even paedophiles.
Before continuing I should also say that many probably genuine people are among the ranks because it is clear that with the amount of evidence of stalking and threatening that has taken place some of those genuine people have dropped off, I'd suggest having had the good sense to see the beast that the hate-sites have become. People who might have had reservations about some evidence, or some gossip or something that didn't make sense - but who of course would immediately become ripe pickings for the misinformists, liars and propagandists that also populate the ranks of the hate-sites.
I think also there is a distortion of religion used by some of the hate-siters to justify their persecution and hate, real zealots and fanatics as has been shown by some of the more bizarre posts of Christine Williams all hellfire and brimstone, righteous soldiers on the way to slay the disbelievers and their families. Simply put very, very nutty.
I think we have also seen the egoists in competition, Stockdale and Kent Parker, moment of fame, full of bs and bravado and no thought for the fact (as has been displayed graphically in the last week) that they never had any comprehension of the evidence before 'deciding' David's guilt. Too thick in many ways to understand very basic evidence, too thick to be dispassionate and not look for things to suit their ends rather that to coolly look at what they know, become more informed, and perhaps make a decision that could be qualified with argument not mantra or lies.
So there are a number of types I suggest, some quite sick, other misguided, some looking for revenge and it goes on. But that is not to disregard that some may be a mixture of types, and to recognise that the hate-sites change individuals, subject them to new 'freedom's of thought, new frontiers of reality and what is right. That is the nature of hate-sites and that is what they breed from - no distinction, the simple belief (in this case that David is guilty) and you're in however unacceptable you may feel in other forums or walks of life. Some might view this as an exaggeration, but we've seen in places (even on reports to this blog) visitors to the site and how they were treated should they not 'conform.' I have had the experiences myself.
My view is that they are coming undone, dramatically and by their own hand. I hope that those that have been 'picked up and carried' along by the 'euphoria' of peddling hate and suddenly realised so, will pull out, abandon ship, and those that realise things are over their heads take the precaution of contacting me here or someone else able to help them.
So I haven't answered Poirot's question as fully as I could have, but I hope I have answered it with some reason.
A question for later.
Poirot said...
You say here:
"The most they can lose is their job, they are anonymous people largely, and the harm they have facilitated is apparently of little or no concern to them."
This raises a question: there has been much discussion of WHO is doing WHAT when it comes to the stalking and harassment. But not so much of WHY. So what is behind it? What is the motivation? Who are these people, and who, exactly, is pulling their strings? Who has to gain from it, and what is it they have to gain? What are the connections?
September 16, 2010 1:15 AM
Some interesting information coming in overnight, that gives an answer to Poirot's question. I am leaving with GNG for the day, heading into the farmlands - so I will post the material tonight that implies an answer in the words of one of the defendants from the hate-sites - somebody suffering from very loose lips. The can of words opens wider.
You say here:
"The most they can lose is their job, they are anonymous people largely, and the harm they have facilitated is apparently of little or no concern to them."
This raises a question: there has been much discussion of WHO is doing WHAT when it comes to the stalking and harassment. But not so much of WHY. So what is behind it? What is the motivation? Who are these people, and who, exactly, is pulling their strings? Who has to gain from it, and what is it they have to gain? What are the connections?
September 16, 2010 1:15 AM
Some interesting information coming in overnight, that gives an answer to Poirot's question. I am leaving with GNG for the day, heading into the farmlands - so I will post the material tonight that implies an answer in the words of one of the defendants from the hate-sites - somebody suffering from very loose lips. The can of words opens wider.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Double jeopardy for the nutters?
First of all Kenty girl has been told that what leaks from his hate-site is his responsibility, indeed whether the leak is in Contempt of Court or defamatory. But how is this, 2 whizz bang nuts, soppylips and dustforbrains, are citing the arrival of court restrained information into their care. Just for the drrh brains, Contempt is criminal, like stalking that dustproof, superidiot and spewpoo have undertaken, defamation is civil - these guys, thanks to campmother have got all the bases covered.
BeTrayedMe
beTrayedMe said...
I feel a psychic episode descending upon me...
*wafts incense*
What do I see? I see a room... yes, an office. An office full of young people in casual clothes. Through the open door I can see a pool table and an inflatable green alien among tables with computers...a space redolent with earnest frivolity.
But in the room there is no frivolity. There are frowns and worried looks. An analyst recites from Judge Harvey's ruling. Pens scribble furiously on paper. There is no laughter. Someone says quietly: "Oh shit!".
September 15, 2010 1:02 AM
Post a Comment
Interesting use of words but I don't see that the impact of the damage Trade Me have proliferated is of much concern to individual staff members? The most they can lose is their job, they are anonymous people largely, and the harm they have facilitated is apparently of little or no concern to them. They don't get it, because they're not in the firing line. Everything for them is distant and anonymous, there will be jokes abroad among them as to various contentious issues for which they must pretend concern, but nothing to take home with them, nothing of the nature of the harm they have caused David or Joe and others.
But I think it helps give a clearer construct of the overall picture, although it is still uncertain why TM continue to allow defamation when the law (made clear in the whaleoil case) shows their responsibility. I now think that perhaps they've employed the head in the sand tactic to their disadvantage, because all the Law, according to Judge Harvey, links their responsibility, day by day Trade Me add to the harm, having already received complaints, been sued, and then having had additionally citations brought against them. Even the obvious enjoinment of posters such as nina_s, rodney osook, cannot mitigate the larger destruction of their position, that they didn't act, when obviously, very very obviously,they, along with the individual posters, are liable.
I feel a psychic episode descending upon me...
*wafts incense*
What do I see? I see a room... yes, an office. An office full of young people in casual clothes. Through the open door I can see a pool table and an inflatable green alien among tables with computers...a space redolent with earnest frivolity.
But in the room there is no frivolity. There are frowns and worried looks. An analyst recites from Judge Harvey's ruling. Pens scribble furiously on paper. There is no laughter. Someone says quietly: "Oh shit!".
September 15, 2010 1:02 AM
Post a Comment
Interesting use of words but I don't see that the impact of the damage Trade Me have proliferated is of much concern to individual staff members? The most they can lose is their job, they are anonymous people largely, and the harm they have facilitated is apparently of little or no concern to them. They don't get it, because they're not in the firing line. Everything for them is distant and anonymous, there will be jokes abroad among them as to various contentious issues for which they must pretend concern, but nothing to take home with them, nothing of the nature of the harm they have caused David or Joe and others.
But I think it helps give a clearer construct of the overall picture, although it is still uncertain why TM continue to allow defamation when the law (made clear in the whaleoil case) shows their responsibility. I now think that perhaps they've employed the head in the sand tactic to their disadvantage, because all the Law, according to Judge Harvey, links their responsibility, day by day Trade Me add to the harm, having already received complaints, been sued, and then having had additionally citations brought against them. Even the obvious enjoinment of posters such as nina_s, rodney osook, cannot mitigate the larger destruction of their position, that they didn't act, when obviously, very very obviously,they, along with the individual posters, are liable.
Message from Christine Williams the stalker....
Thankyou for your warning misspew, millie 231, or whatever other name you use. But just like the simple murder/suicide you can't understand that the feted whaleoil decision doesn't apply to my honest comments about you. You are not protected by a suppression order, you are not defamed by being called a stalker and a persecutor, or having it revealed that you are in Contempt of Court. Might I suggest you suck a kumara Christine and reflect upon your moronic ways. Good luck.
I see that the judge has made a ruling on blogs today. Get nervous nos. Get very very nervous.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 9:14 pm, Tue 14 Sep #27317
I see that the judge has made a ruling on blogs today. Get nervous nos. Get very very nervous.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 9:14 pm, Tue 14 Sep #27317
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
lard arse osook, nina_concertina, goobergoof,
cowpatkal, spewbucket, dusthead, unluckyrunner and those other such odd folk, good news for you today. So pleased that you finally found out that defamatory harassment is illegal, that your bitter twisted ways, and your defence of a dead pedo now bite your rotten, over sized, arses. Oh joy is me. If but toreador would speak about your forsaken souls when you ignored his caution, a caution you brushed aside with the arrogance you may now wish had been sharp attention of the peril that awaited you. Good luck with your torment.
Yours faithfully and lots of love,
Goodnewsguy, old pal of old pal.
Yours faithfully and lots of love,
Goodnewsguy, old pal of old pal.
Suddenly, the door is closed.
The recognition of the responsibility of cyber media is upon us.
What we print, or allow to be printed, is clearly now definitive. Cyber defamation, or stalking, defamatory harassment on message boards or on blogs is now recognised as the responsibility, of the author, the publisher or re publisher. The net result of 'I didn't say it', or that 'I thought someone else was responsible' for what someone publishes is now officially on the dung heap. What you say and what you have said is the millstone around your neck, particularly if you thought you could defame and harass others in cyberspace because it was like a 'chat in the pub' as the lard arse osook once presented.
From Judge Harvey's decision today, making judgement on whaleoil the over blown cyber ghost, we now see the damage to an individual or the breach of an order of law is not somehow forgiven by 'I didn't know' or 'I copied from somewhere else' or 'it's what I believed as free speech' is abreast of the times. The rights of an individual and due process regain their foothold. The wild west of cyberspace is corralled. One step at a time of course, but the ramifications are clear - the speaker, or writer, or re printer is responsible for their own words, just the way it should be.
I bet the sisters are pleased.
What we print, or allow to be printed, is clearly now definitive. Cyber defamation, or stalking, defamatory harassment on message boards or on blogs is now recognised as the responsibility, of the author, the publisher or re publisher. The net result of 'I didn't say it', or that 'I thought someone else was responsible' for what someone publishes is now officially on the dung heap. What you say and what you have said is the millstone around your neck, particularly if you thought you could defame and harass others in cyberspace because it was like a 'chat in the pub' as the lard arse osook once presented.
From Judge Harvey's decision today, making judgement on whaleoil the over blown cyber ghost, we now see the damage to an individual or the breach of an order of law is not somehow forgiven by 'I didn't know' or 'I copied from somewhere else' or 'it's what I believed as free speech' is abreast of the times. The rights of an individual and due process regain their foothold. The wild west of cyberspace is corralled. One step at a time of course, but the ramifications are clear - the speaker, or writer, or re printer is responsible for their own words, just the way it should be.
I bet the sisters are pleased.
Christine Williams trying to explain why she's not guilty.
I agree with you vic and the transcript doesn't have any of the statements that were read out nor the reason for most of the objections so it looks to me as though it is already cleaned up.
When I buy a book nobody says I can't lend it to someone to read. If I buy a DVD I can't show it to large groups but I am allowed to watch it with a friend. The objections were to having the information as well as using it. With so many people having access to it now it would be easy to give a reference without even using the person's name, just a generic reference of how they fit into the picture and what the evidence is. The first transcript has been around for years and used on various sites. Far better that we have the facts than to be inaccurate because we are unable to access them. A lot of the trial was televised and reported on anyhow. I'm sure it would come under the freedom of information act as anything that they don't want you to know has already been removed.
Edited by misspw at 10:41 pm, Mon 13 Sep
Quotemisspw (65 ) 10:39 pm, Mon 13 Sep #27283
Try explaining this Christine Williams, then when you recover explain what 'the freedom of information act' you talk about is. Face it Christine Williams, you are in Contempt of Court. You don't have permission to copy, or reproduce the Court File.
3.7 General right of access to formal court record and certain
applications under Administration Act 1969
“(1) Subject to rule 3.12, every person has the right to access the
formal court record kept in a registry of the court.
“(2) Subject to rule 3.12, every person has the right to access any
document or court file that relates to an application or action
for a grant of administration under the Administration Act
1969 or to a proceeding for the recall of any such grant.
“(3) Despite subclause (1) or (2), a Judge may direct that judgments
or orders, or documents or files of the kind described in subclause
(2), not be accessed without the permission of the court.
This part of the same act may also be pertinent.
“3.8 Right of parties to access court file or documents
“(1) The parties to a proceeding, and their counsel, may (whether
during or after the completion of the proceeding), under the
supervision of an officer of the court,—
“(a) search and inspect the court file or any document relating
to the proceeding, without payment of a fee; and
“(b) copy any part or parts of the court file or any document
relating to the proceeding on payment of any prescribed
fee.
“(2) Despite subclause (1), a record of court proceedings in electronic
form may be copied only with the permission of the
court.
“(3) Despite subclause (1), a Judge may direct that the court file
or any document relating to the proceeding not be accessed by
the parties or their counsel without the permission of the court.
When I buy a book nobody says I can't lend it to someone to read. If I buy a DVD I can't show it to large groups but I am allowed to watch it with a friend. The objections were to having the information as well as using it. With so many people having access to it now it would be easy to give a reference without even using the person's name, just a generic reference of how they fit into the picture and what the evidence is. The first transcript has been around for years and used on various sites. Far better that we have the facts than to be inaccurate because we are unable to access them. A lot of the trial was televised and reported on anyhow. I'm sure it would come under the freedom of information act as anything that they don't want you to know has already been removed.
Edited by misspw at 10:41 pm, Mon 13 Sep
Quotemisspw (65 ) 10:39 pm, Mon 13 Sep #27283
Try explaining this Christine Williams, then when you recover explain what 'the freedom of information act' you talk about is. Face it Christine Williams, you are in Contempt of Court. You don't have permission to copy, or reproduce the Court File.
3.7 General right of access to formal court record and certain
applications under Administration Act 1969
“(1) Subject to rule 3.12, every person has the right to access the
formal court record kept in a registry of the court.
“(2) Subject to rule 3.12, every person has the right to access any
document or court file that relates to an application or action
for a grant of administration under the Administration Act
1969 or to a proceeding for the recall of any such grant.
“(3) Despite subclause (1) or (2), a Judge may direct that judgments
or orders, or documents or files of the kind described in subclause
(2), not be accessed without the permission of the court.
This part of the same act may also be pertinent.
“3.8 Right of parties to access court file or documents
“(1) The parties to a proceeding, and their counsel, may (whether
during or after the completion of the proceeding), under the
supervision of an officer of the court,—
“(a) search and inspect the court file or any document relating
to the proceeding, without payment of a fee; and
“(b) copy any part or parts of the court file or any document
relating to the proceeding on payment of any prescribed
fee.
“(2) Despite subclause (1), a record of court proceedings in electronic
form may be copied only with the permission of the
court.
“(3) Despite subclause (1), a Judge may direct that the court file
or any document relating to the proceeding not be accessed by
the parties or their counsel without the permission of the court.
Bit of a difference Maryanne Newton?
Bit of a difference between putting on a sex show for their mostly grown up children at Christmas in Dunedin and having sex in front of them in PNG when they were much younger. It was actually a common enough thing in those days - some people found it perfectly normal to do so.
Quotedustproof (44 ) 2:07 pm, Mon 13 Sep #27239
Pray tell what the difference is. That your inhibitions slipped and you displayed your support for paedophilia? That you now acknowledge that you reached a decision about the verdict without knowing the evidence, that you wanted to protect and defend the actions of a paedophile so pronounced blame on his son. When you were primarily only a stalker one could possibly understand your criminal behaviour, but this - no way. You like Stockdale and the others are truly sick - a coven of deviants protecting one another with ignorance.
Quotedustproof (44 ) 2:07 pm, Mon 13 Sep #27239
Pray tell what the difference is. That your inhibitions slipped and you displayed your support for paedophilia? That you now acknowledge that you reached a decision about the verdict without knowing the evidence, that you wanted to protect and defend the actions of a paedophile so pronounced blame on his son. When you were primarily only a stalker one could possibly understand your criminal behaviour, but this - no way. You like Stockdale and the others are truly sick - a coven of deviants protecting one another with ignorance.
Mad Mike having 2 conversations at once? Who is he talking to? The rafter thereafter or urbandims.
therafter1 wrote:
I think you may need to swot up on that disaster Sleuthy, Mahon was correct and there was an ‘orchestrated litany of lies” ... the pilot was flying to the coordinates/flight plan that he had been provided with by Air NZ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901[/quo
te]
thereafter,please do not presume anything about me.I see that linz is more up to date than I am,but I had "swotted up" on the Erebus disaster.I wonder if you have actually read Chippindale's full report,as I have.
Also,a few days ago I was asking why David Bain would be wearing a shepherds whistle.I still don't know why.But from that,and correct me if I am wrong,you presumed I was a "townie".
Now I didn't want to argue the toss,dissent in the ranks and all that.
But now that ro and co have gone I will.
For the first 22 years of my life,urban ,I lived on a farm.In fact for well over half my life rainwater has been the source of my drinking water,which means for all those years I lived outside town supply.
There was a time when I was thinking of becoming a farm manager,but I decided to become a clerical worker instead.
In my school holidays[secondary school that is],I worked on a farm.
Most of the farms where I lived were sheep farms,there were a couple of stud farms.The farms were fairly small,ranged between 400 and 800 acres,and I don't believe any farmer carried a shepherds whistle.I remember one farmer used the fingers in the mouth trick.Another farmer,when he was changing the stock from one paddock to another used to just open the gate and call out to the sheep.They came running from all corners ,eager to get to the fresh pasture.
I had the use of a horse,but I didn't have any dogs.
I went to secondary school in town,that meant a 12 km bike ride twice a day,six days a week ,come rain hail or shine.For four years.
Even when I started working in an office I still biked to work for the first couple of years.That was a 10km bike ride both ways.[School was at the other end of town,hence the difference in the kilometres.]
I hope you don't mind me making this point ,urban.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 8:56 pm, Mon 13 Sep #27274
I think you may need to swot up on that disaster Sleuthy, Mahon was correct and there was an ‘orchestrated litany of lies” ... the pilot was flying to the coordinates/flight plan that he had been provided with by Air NZ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901[/quo
te]
thereafter,please do not presume anything about me.I see that linz is more up to date than I am,but I had "swotted up" on the Erebus disaster.I wonder if you have actually read Chippindale's full report,as I have.
Also,a few days ago I was asking why David Bain would be wearing a shepherds whistle.I still don't know why.But from that,and correct me if I am wrong,you presumed I was a "townie".
Now I didn't want to argue the toss,dissent in the ranks and all that.
But now that ro and co have gone I will.
For the first 22 years of my life,urban ,I lived on a farm.In fact for well over half my life rainwater has been the source of my drinking water,which means for all those years I lived outside town supply.
There was a time when I was thinking of becoming a farm manager,but I decided to become a clerical worker instead.
In my school holidays[secondary school that is],I worked on a farm.
Most of the farms where I lived were sheep farms,there were a couple of stud farms.The farms were fairly small,ranged between 400 and 800 acres,and I don't believe any farmer carried a shepherds whistle.I remember one farmer used the fingers in the mouth trick.Another farmer,when he was changing the stock from one paddock to another used to just open the gate and call out to the sheep.They came running from all corners ,eager to get to the fresh pasture.
I had the use of a horse,but I didn't have any dogs.
I went to secondary school in town,that meant a 12 km bike ride twice a day,six days a week ,come rain hail or shine.For four years.
Even when I started working in an office I still biked to work for the first couple of years.That was a 10km bike ride both ways.[School was at the other end of town,hence the difference in the kilometres.]
I hope you don't mind me making this point ,urban.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 8:56 pm, Mon 13 Sep #27274
Monday, September 13, 2010
Christine's moment....
onlooker said...
misspw read the entire trial transcripts in one day? Maybe she was skimming it for proof of David's guilt? That would take a very short time as there is none.
September 13, 2010 8:47 PM
I think to be fair to her, we have to accept her total moronness, proved in the harshest conditions and competition between her and the other mad hatters, desperate, so desperate to get their hands on something, or to finally arrive somewhere to show they're not as stupid as they look, but in fact far stupidier.
I think Christine should be able to enjoy this highlight in her life, this recognition, and warm and fuzzy feeling in her regions, just this once, alone celebrating what might have been had she been truly recognised as Moronette of The Week when she was in prime, all those lonely years ago. It's kind of sweet.
misspw read the entire trial transcripts in one day? Maybe she was skimming it for proof of David's guilt? That would take a very short time as there is none.
September 13, 2010 8:47 PM
I think to be fair to her, we have to accept her total moronness, proved in the harshest conditions and competition between her and the other mad hatters, desperate, so desperate to get their hands on something, or to finally arrive somewhere to show they're not as stupid as they look, but in fact far stupidier.
I think Christine should be able to enjoy this highlight in her life, this recognition, and warm and fuzzy feeling in her regions, just this once, alone celebrating what might have been had she been truly recognised as Moronette of The Week when she was in prime, all those lonely years ago. It's kind of sweet.
the Martin van beynan link?
Anonymous said...
I think you will find a certain writer from the Press may have been involved with them gaining the trial transcript. There has been stalking of the jury and also witnesses and there is a definite link between supersleuth and others with a certain reporter from the Press.
September 13, 2010 7:42 PM
That writer of course, we can tell from the public record, could well be van beynan. I expect if it isn't he will go on record and say so, and to explain any contact with Parker, Purkiss, Stockdale and others. He might also explain his conduct that caused a Juror to complain of harassment from him. That could be interesting.
Who knows, it's possible that old kenty baby and vic superlips were merely conduits, seduced by the idea of recognition and importance, to do the dirty work.
I think you will find a certain writer from the Press may have been involved with them gaining the trial transcript. There has been stalking of the jury and also witnesses and there is a definite link between supersleuth and others with a certain reporter from the Press.
September 13, 2010 7:42 PM
That writer of course, we can tell from the public record, could well be van beynan. I expect if it isn't he will go on record and say so, and to explain any contact with Parker, Purkiss, Stockdale and others. He might also explain his conduct that caused a Juror to complain of harassment from him. That could be interesting.
Who knows, it's possible that old kenty baby and vic superlips were merely conduits, seduced by the idea of recognition and importance, to do the dirty work.
The concept of Free Speech...
The following was sent to me by a correspondent. It reminded me of someone I once knew who building up with bitterness would often explain that they were a person that spoke with an 'open mind.' For that particular person, speaking with an open mind was in fact similar to letting inhibitions and good sense go, to be consumed with anger, self 'righteous' in belief, anger. I think the following displays, that being angry or consumed with a self belief in righteousness or a noble cause is the best time to slow down, to think things through in a way that seems demonstrably impossible for the persecutors. Persecution, defamatory harassment by way of ignorance, fear or anger is not free speech by any measure.
THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
So often this right is used by Counterspinners to justify their persecution of David Bain and Joe Karam and anyone that supports him.
They have even proclaimed it’s part of our Human Rights for them to criticise and abuse anyone that doesn’t agree with them.
It may come as a surprise to them that freedom of speech is not a Human Right, or any other sort of right in New Zealand. We have no positive law or statute that recognises and protects freedom of speech.
The principle, according to Bruce Cameron B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, “is that anyone may say and publish what he chooses without prior licence or approval (film censorship affords an exception), but he is liable to be punished if he infringes the law”. This is something I’m sure the Counterspinners are likely to find out, if they continue along their present course.
“Freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, exists in this country simply because the exceptions to it are limited”. Limited, but that doesn’t mean nonexistent. There are legal restrictions to free speech in many areas of law, including indecency, defamation, contempt of Court and breach of peace.
The Counterspinners would do well to note that libel and slander are criminal offences. Slander, being so, if it is spoken within the hearing of 12 or more persons at a public meeting OR if it is broadcasted (such as on a public website). As Bruce Cameron states, “ unlike civil cases, truth is not always a defence to criminal defamation”. The defendant must show the matter was true, and that the publication was for the public benefit. Sadly, defending the reputation of a dead man, is unlikely to be regarded as a ‘public benefit’.
As Bruce Cameron reminds us “the converse of freedom of speech is freedom to be silent, something almost as important in a free society”. He refers to this as a privilege against self-incrimination. Clearly a concept the Counterspinners have never heard or thought of, considering the events of the past week.
To continue to demonstrate their careless regard for the law, by saying whatever they want, regardless of who their hate speech hurts, is foolhardy. This group would do well to remember, ignorance, is no defence.
THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
So often this right is used by Counterspinners to justify their persecution of David Bain and Joe Karam and anyone that supports him.
They have even proclaimed it’s part of our Human Rights for them to criticise and abuse anyone that doesn’t agree with them.
It may come as a surprise to them that freedom of speech is not a Human Right, or any other sort of right in New Zealand. We have no positive law or statute that recognises and protects freedom of speech.
The principle, according to Bruce Cameron B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, “is that anyone may say and publish what he chooses without prior licence or approval (film censorship affords an exception), but he is liable to be punished if he infringes the law”. This is something I’m sure the Counterspinners are likely to find out, if they continue along their present course.
“Freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, exists in this country simply because the exceptions to it are limited”. Limited, but that doesn’t mean nonexistent. There are legal restrictions to free speech in many areas of law, including indecency, defamation, contempt of Court and breach of peace.
The Counterspinners would do well to note that libel and slander are criminal offences. Slander, being so, if it is spoken within the hearing of 12 or more persons at a public meeting OR if it is broadcasted (such as on a public website). As Bruce Cameron states, “ unlike civil cases, truth is not always a defence to criminal defamation”. The defendant must show the matter was true, and that the publication was for the public benefit. Sadly, defending the reputation of a dead man, is unlikely to be regarded as a ‘public benefit’.
As Bruce Cameron reminds us “the converse of freedom of speech is freedom to be silent, something almost as important in a free society”. He refers to this as a privilege against self-incrimination. Clearly a concept the Counterspinners have never heard or thought of, considering the events of the past week.
To continue to demonstrate their careless regard for the law, by saying whatever they want, regardless of who their hate speech hurts, is foolhardy. This group would do well to remember, ignorance, is no defence.
the stalking duo, Christine Williams and Maryanne Newton
The old duo have teamed up again, looks like they'll both be explaining to the a Judge where they got the transcript from. Gee, that will be fun. Great watching them struggle with the evidence and try to reinvent the wheel. Pity they didn't have the presence of mind to heed the following which was published on TM over a month ago, but then again what can one expect sicko, thickos.
Not at all my dear. But as you have failed to pick it up, I'll tell you. IF you had the transcripts, you'd know why they can't be quoted on here or any public place without certain permissions, and I'm not about to break that, just for you.
Why do you think no one else on here quotes exactly from them?
Edited by project_hr at 9:16 pm, Wed 4 Aug
Quote
project_hr (2208 ) 9:15 pm, Wed 4 Aug #16956
Maryanne Newton is busy supporting the proposition of having sex in front of children while Christine Williams is sniffing around a pair of daddy's old trousers with a stain on them. They're having such fun, they'll probably do a bit of stalking later before having a cup of cocoa and a biscuit. But what will they wear to Court, maybe convicts suits with little arrows on them, just to set the tone. Convict suits will look very good, setting off a very nice contrast with their blue hair and scowly looks. I can just imagine them telling the Judge that it was kalpalcowpat and goobergolf that done made them do it. Watch out for a locust style swarm of flying tacks from dear goobergoon and cowpatkal when they realise their number is up and they was welshed on by their ex pardners, spewwybutt and dustybrains.
Not at all my dear. But as you have failed to pick it up, I'll tell you. IF you had the transcripts, you'd know why they can't be quoted on here or any public place without certain permissions, and I'm not about to break that, just for you.
Why do you think no one else on here quotes exactly from them?
Edited by project_hr at 9:16 pm, Wed 4 Aug
Quote
project_hr (2208 ) 9:15 pm, Wed 4 Aug #16956
Maryanne Newton is busy supporting the proposition of having sex in front of children while Christine Williams is sniffing around a pair of daddy's old trousers with a stain on them. They're having such fun, they'll probably do a bit of stalking later before having a cup of cocoa and a biscuit. But what will they wear to Court, maybe convicts suits with little arrows on them, just to set the tone. Convict suits will look very good, setting off a very nice contrast with their blue hair and scowly looks. I can just imagine them telling the Judge that it was kalpalcowpat and goobergolf that done made them do it. Watch out for a locust style swarm of flying tacks from dear goobergoon and cowpatkal when they realise their number is up and they was welshed on by their ex pardners, spewwybutt and dustybrains.
Judicial Collusion.....continued..
Anonymous said...
It is sad but ironic, that on September 11, the floors of their pathetic campaign started to collapse upon them.
First weakened by confessions of vandalism by Vic, criminal harassment and stalking of another poster by Superdoof, they followed with support for paedophilia. Then jeeves and vic decided to weaken their integrity by displaying their inaccurate mathematical skills and ability to understand simple evidence.
But they weren't happy with all of that, then they thought they'd throw in their unauthorised and illegal copying of the transcripts, and when that wasn't enough, they decided to go for contempt of court by indicating the Judge was dishonest.
Just to make sure the foundations of their campaign is weakened further, now they want to mess with the Erubus disaster, and promote sexual intercourse in front of children.
Kentybaby must be really proud of them.
I can't wait for the day Investigate does a doco on the people behind counterspin. I wonder if they'll start with Mike or Christine, either should have star billing.
September 13, 2010 5:03 PM
What I thought was interesting was the comments about their excitement that it was now a level 'playing field.' Nothing could be more of an admission of the value of their opinions at the outset, ergo - that they never understood for a minute what they based their prejudicial opinions on in deciding guilt or innocence. Many of them, it is becoming apparent, were more concerned, probably solely concerned in defending a dead paedophile - that was all that mattered to them.
I was having a cup of tea with Goodnewsguy and Toreador this afternoon, Toreador was quiet and somewhat menacing as usual and old goodguy was going on about having no money and working for peanuts - that sort of thing, when Toreador gave him a steely look, and said, 'what about the transcript, they've got it now.' GNG held steady, I'll give him that, if there was any sign of fear showing in his eyes it wasn't present when he took a dive for the last piece of fruit cake, but I beat him to it as always. He said, without missing a beat 'well, that'll make something else for them not to be able to understand. I'll go you halves.'
It is sad but ironic, that on September 11, the floors of their pathetic campaign started to collapse upon them.
First weakened by confessions of vandalism by Vic, criminal harassment and stalking of another poster by Superdoof, they followed with support for paedophilia. Then jeeves and vic decided to weaken their integrity by displaying their inaccurate mathematical skills and ability to understand simple evidence.
But they weren't happy with all of that, then they thought they'd throw in their unauthorised and illegal copying of the transcripts, and when that wasn't enough, they decided to go for contempt of court by indicating the Judge was dishonest.
Just to make sure the foundations of their campaign is weakened further, now they want to mess with the Erubus disaster, and promote sexual intercourse in front of children.
Kentybaby must be really proud of them.
I can't wait for the day Investigate does a doco on the people behind counterspin. I wonder if they'll start with Mike or Christine, either should have star billing.
September 13, 2010 5:03 PM
What I thought was interesting was the comments about their excitement that it was now a level 'playing field.' Nothing could be more of an admission of the value of their opinions at the outset, ergo - that they never understood for a minute what they based their prejudicial opinions on in deciding guilt or innocence. Many of them, it is becoming apparent, were more concerned, probably solely concerned in defending a dead paedophile - that was all that mattered to them.
I was having a cup of tea with Goodnewsguy and Toreador this afternoon, Toreador was quiet and somewhat menacing as usual and old goodguy was going on about having no money and working for peanuts - that sort of thing, when Toreador gave him a steely look, and said, 'what about the transcript, they've got it now.' GNG held steady, I'll give him that, if there was any sign of fear showing in his eyes it wasn't present when he took a dive for the last piece of fruit cake, but I beat him to it as always. He said, without missing a beat 'well, that'll make something else for them not to be able to understand. I'll go you halves.'
Further support for Christine misspw moronette award...
LAUGHING AT YOU said...
Moronic doesn't come close to describing this unfortunate woman.
She reminds me of a bank robber who writes his name and phone number on the bottom of his demand note.
"I've got the second trial transcripts" - Christine Williams.
Great Christine, now explain who gave them to you, so the Court's know who to contact.
September 13, 2010 4:22 PM
That's the interesting question, who she got them from. I hope this might eventually lead to uncovering some further information, I suspect it might be linked to the Jury stalking and a connection to the media. Let's face it the Crown Law Office or the Defence didn't leak this material.
From what I understand Christine Williams, and others can be brought before a Judge and made to disclose her sources because she is in Contempt of Court. Odd as it may sound, I suspect she is secretly trying to help Joe Karam by exposing the illegal activities the defendants have been up to. I don't imagine she is the type remain strong under fire and a couple of minutes in the cells for reflection could have her spilling the beans for a month.
I see in an earlier comment misspw trying to link the same behaviour to projecthr when it is in fact entirely different. If they weren't so up themselves they would have heeded what project wrote about the transcript in the beginning. Unfortunately, and true to the purest moron form, they couldn't wait and had an urgent appointment to catapult themselves off the nearest cliff.
Moronic doesn't come close to describing this unfortunate woman.
She reminds me of a bank robber who writes his name and phone number on the bottom of his demand note.
"I've got the second trial transcripts" - Christine Williams.
Great Christine, now explain who gave them to you, so the Court's know who to contact.
September 13, 2010 4:22 PM
That's the interesting question, who she got them from. I hope this might eventually lead to uncovering some further information, I suspect it might be linked to the Jury stalking and a connection to the media. Let's face it the Crown Law Office or the Defence didn't leak this material.
From what I understand Christine Williams, and others can be brought before a Judge and made to disclose her sources because she is in Contempt of Court. Odd as it may sound, I suspect she is secretly trying to help Joe Karam by exposing the illegal activities the defendants have been up to. I don't imagine she is the type remain strong under fire and a couple of minutes in the cells for reflection could have her spilling the beans for a month.
I see in an earlier comment misspw trying to link the same behaviour to projecthr when it is in fact entirely different. If they weren't so up themselves they would have heeded what project wrote about the transcript in the beginning. Unfortunately, and true to the purest moron form, they couldn't wait and had an urgent appointment to catapult themselves off the nearest cliff.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Moronette of the week: Christine Williams, misspw
Another hard fought competition between the twisted sisters. But Christine (misspw, millie231) gets it for showing her/his ongoing committment to bsing. Christine says she has a copy of the trial transcript. She zeroes in on this humdinger from her, barren for lust, imagination...
But they were in the other rooms as well. Each of the police that was in charge of a room seemed to be reporting bullets at every turn. It was incredible. Sometimes it is important to look at the big picture rather than the details, to not just look at the evidence from one witness but put the whole picture together. It was creepy. The girls didn't handle guns, Margaret didn't, Stephen may have when David let him because it wasn't his gun and Robin wasn't there or that interested in using one. No, the gun fanatic was David and that was born out in the evidence from witnesses.
Edited by misspw at 7:03 pm, Sun 12 Sep
Quotemisspw (65 ) 7:02 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27199
...in fact the rifle expert (or fanatic as the stalker refers) was Robin Bain, dear daddy. She says, 'It was incredible. Sometimes it is important to look at the big picture rather than the details, to not just look at the evidence from one witness but put the whole picture together.' How true, pity she in her twisted ways is unable to apply being able to look at 'the whole picture together' because she would have seen that Robin was a long time hunter and conversant with the use of firearms for the greater part of his life, he was a regular user of firearms and in the days leading to the murders had been trying to procure a rifle, that having failed - he took his son's rifle from his son's room shortly after the young man had left to deliver papers, then he killed his remaining family before shooting himself. His daughter, Laniet, about whom evidence was given that she was a victim of sexual abuse from her father, died more slowly than the others. It appears she was deliberately wounded before probably being finished off later. Witnesses gave evidence that Laniet was about to reveal more broadly the abuse from her father. Other witnesses revealed Robin's hunting prowess, and the number of spent cartridges (22) in his caravan, there was one live cartridge found among those but by then he was already dead. So Christine, and her multiple identities, gets the moron's award for assuming that she should be believed despite being revealed many times over as a liar. Congratulations Christine, you are the moron of the week.
Letter to the Chief Justice
The Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias
The following is a published comment that is clearly in contempt of Court. It suggests collusion between a High Court Judge and members of the hate-sites, Justice For Robin Bain, Counterspin and guiltyfreeforums. The particular sites currently have members who are defendants in proceedings in the Auckland High Court for Defamation.
The Publisher is this instance is Trade Me, and the publication is on it's community board, sub-titled 'Opinions.' Trade Me are also a defendant in the proceedings in the Auckland High Court.
The particular group involved in the Contempt of Court and misuse of documents have also been involved in other illicit activity including stalking the Christchurch Jury which served on the Bain case. There is a large body of evidence establishing this stalking and indeed breaches of The Harassment Act 1997.
I have written to Trade Me about their publication claiming collusion between members of the hate-site and Judge Pankhurst who presided over the David Bain trial.
I am concerned about the source of the transcript and it's distribution and publication without legal authority. Inquiries from the appropriate authority would be able to determine the source that has allowed the transcript to find it's way into the hands of the hate-sites and subsequently freely into cyberspace.
The following is the url and republiciation of the claim of collusion. Also included are the urls and republication of posts by 2 hate-siters (although there are many more) claiming to have free acess to the transcript and its redistribution.
As I have written above there is a large body of strong supporting material not only about the allegation of Judicial collusion but also about Jury stalking and other serious matters which I can forward on request.
Yours etc
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=543&topic=7
ro42 wrote:
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quote
sophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=544&topic=7
pro seems to know a great deal about how to go about obtaining those transcripts,obviously must have them,and no doubt has quoted from them.
I sure hope she didn't have to pay for anything,when you can get them free,gratis,and for nothing.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:36 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27186
I've been reading the transcript and the first thing that really strikes me is that house was full of bullets. They were everywhere. Everytime something was moved there was either a spent or live bullet under it. Every room seemed to have them. Someone in that house was very active with a gun that's for sure and there were so many bullets around that they were not just from the night of the murders.
Someone seems obsessed with guns and bullets. Now who would that be?
Quote
misspw (65 ) 4:03 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27188
The following is a published comment that is clearly in contempt of Court. It suggests collusion between a High Court Judge and members of the hate-sites, Justice For Robin Bain, Counterspin and guiltyfreeforums. The particular sites currently have members who are defendants in proceedings in the Auckland High Court for Defamation.
The Publisher is this instance is Trade Me, and the publication is on it's community board, sub-titled 'Opinions.' Trade Me are also a defendant in the proceedings in the Auckland High Court.
The particular group involved in the Contempt of Court and misuse of documents have also been involved in other illicit activity including stalking the Christchurch Jury which served on the Bain case. There is a large body of evidence establishing this stalking and indeed breaches of The Harassment Act 1997.
I have written to Trade Me about their publication claiming collusion between members of the hate-site and Judge Pankhurst who presided over the David Bain trial.
I am concerned about the source of the transcript and it's distribution and publication without legal authority. Inquiries from the appropriate authority would be able to determine the source that has allowed the transcript to find it's way into the hands of the hate-sites and subsequently freely into cyberspace.
The following is the url and republiciation of the claim of collusion. Also included are the urls and republication of posts by 2 hate-siters (although there are many more) claiming to have free acess to the transcript and its redistribution.
As I have written above there is a large body of strong supporting material not only about the allegation of Judicial collusion but also about Jury stalking and other serious matters which I can forward on request.
Yours etc
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=543&topic=7
ro42 wrote:
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quote
sophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=544&topic=7
pro seems to know a great deal about how to go about obtaining those transcripts,obviously must have them,and no doubt has quoted from them.
I sure hope she didn't have to pay for anything,when you can get them free,gratis,and for nothing.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:36 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27186
I've been reading the transcript and the first thing that really strikes me is that house was full of bullets. They were everywhere. Everytime something was moved there was either a spent or live bullet under it. Every room seemed to have them. Someone in that house was very active with a gun that's for sure and there were so many bullets around that they were not just from the night of the murders.
Someone seems obsessed with guns and bullets. Now who would that be?
Quote
misspw (65 ) 4:03 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27188
In response to Judicial Collusion....
Anonymous said...
Absolutely unbelievable.
Their entire objective relies on them establishing and maintaining a reputable relationship with the Ministry of Justice.
Their method - break civil law, place the integrity of the judge in question, and commit various crimes, some of which are punishable by imprisonment.
I have to say, if it's a close relationship with the MOJ they wanted, they're going the right way about it. Their technique may also get them close relationship with the Dept of Corrections, as an added bonus.
September 12, 2010 12:43 PM
Well, Stockdale will need a flatulence proof cell for his well known self-advertised farting difficulties. Kennard is likely to be found unfit to plead on the grounds of being a hopeless, sad sack, attention seeker. Perkiss will try to sell his mates out, if that doesn't work he'll try doing a runner.
I still wonder why those raving lunatics are allowed a forum and who they are actually in collusion with, because sure as hell isn't the Judiciary.
Absolutely unbelievable.
Their entire objective relies on them establishing and maintaining a reputable relationship with the Ministry of Justice.
Their method - break civil law, place the integrity of the judge in question, and commit various crimes, some of which are punishable by imprisonment.
I have to say, if it's a close relationship with the MOJ they wanted, they're going the right way about it. Their technique may also get them close relationship with the Dept of Corrections, as an added bonus.
September 12, 2010 12:43 PM
Well, Stockdale will need a flatulence proof cell for his well known self-advertised farting difficulties. Kennard is likely to be found unfit to plead on the grounds of being a hopeless, sad sack, attention seeker. Perkiss will try to sell his mates out, if that doesn't work he'll try doing a runner.
I still wonder why those raving lunatics are allowed a forum and who they are actually in collusion with, because sure as hell isn't the Judiciary.
It is my understanding that Lindsay Kennard is an idiot.
It is my understanding that criminal court documents are Public Domain and copying is legal except for sections suppressed by Court Order, matters in the civil court may be more restricted and subject to blanket suppression on application, this is referred to as sealing.
The usual practice is for the Department of Courts to supply on application a either a full copy with notes or a full copy with suppressed evidence and names removed on payment of the appropriate fee. If a civil proceedings is 'reported' then any member of the public may use the report with citation.
Any matters in criminal court, other than those subject to a legislative or specific judicial order, are public domain only matters heard in Chambers are restricted unless appended to the trial transcript.
The Copyright of court transcripts relates to methods of citation and suppression.
Quotelinz4me (275 ) 12:11 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27180
“(2) Despite subclause (1), a record of court proceedings in electronic
form may be copied only with the permission of the
court.
“(3) Despite subclause (1), a Judge may direct that the court file
or any document relating to the proceeding not be accessed by
the parties or their counsel without the permission of the court.
I am completely confident that a High Court Judge didn't give permission for an anonymous moron called sophier and another called superdoof to have access to the Court file or to reproduce it in any way, either electronically or by print.
I am very happy for any member of the illegal hate-sites, JFRB, Counterspin and guiltyfreeforums to contact me and refer me to the legal order which allows their members access to the Court file and permission to reproduce it in anyway. I think the record, if it exists, was forwarded to them by the media, and I'm looking forward to examination of the these people under oath to reveal their sources. Thanks for your help.
The usual practice is for the Department of Courts to supply on application a either a full copy with notes or a full copy with suppressed evidence and names removed on payment of the appropriate fee. If a civil proceedings is 'reported' then any member of the public may use the report with citation.
Any matters in criminal court, other than those subject to a legislative or specific judicial order, are public domain only matters heard in Chambers are restricted unless appended to the trial transcript.
The Copyright of court transcripts relates to methods of citation and suppression.
Quotelinz4me (275 ) 12:11 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27180
“(2) Despite subclause (1), a record of court proceedings in electronic
form may be copied only with the permission of the
court.
“(3) Despite subclause (1), a Judge may direct that the court file
or any document relating to the proceeding not be accessed by
the parties or their counsel without the permission of the court.
I am completely confident that a High Court Judge didn't give permission for an anonymous moron called sophier and another called superdoof to have access to the Court file or to reproduce it in any way, either electronically or by print.
I am very happy for any member of the illegal hate-sites, JFRB, Counterspin and guiltyfreeforums to contact me and refer me to the legal order which allows their members access to the Court file and permission to reproduce it in anyway. I think the record, if it exists, was forwarded to them by the media, and I'm looking forward to examination of the these people under oath to reveal their sources. Thanks for your help.
Oh dear, it seems the law doesn't agree with Kennard, Willams and sophier8
"While any decision of the Court may be freely criticised on its merits, it is contempt of Court and punishable to attribute bias or improper motives to Judges or Magistrates, since this would tend to lessen confidence in the impartial administration of justice."
by Bruce James Cameron, B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, Wellington.
by Bruce James Cameron, B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Oh dear, 3 months for Stockdale, Purkiss and campmother?
32B Identity and address of serving or former juror or prospective juror not generally to be disclosed
o “(1) A person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to the penalty stated in subsection (2) if the person wilfully publishes any material, broadcasts any matter, or otherwise discloses any information, that identifies, or that may lead to the identification of, a juror or former juror.
“(2) The penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both.
“(3) In this section,—
“former juror includes a person who attended for jury service
“identification of a juror or former juror includes disclosure of his or her address
“juror includes a person attending for jury service.
“(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
§ “(a) the identification of a former juror with the former juror's consent:
§ “(b) the identification of a juror or former juror if the identification forms part of the exercise or performance of a power, function, or duty conferred, imposed, or contemplated by this Act, the jury rules, or a rule of law or practice relating to the trial of civil or criminal cases:
§ “(c) the disclosure of information to a court or to an investigative or prosecuting authority if the disclosure is made for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution of a contempt of court or of an offence relating to a juror or jury:
§ “(d) the disclosure of information relating to a proceeding under this section.
“Compare: Jury Act 1977 (New South Wales) s 68; Juries Act 2000 (Victoria) s 77”.
o “(1) A person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to the penalty stated in subsection (2) if the person wilfully publishes any material, broadcasts any matter, or otherwise discloses any information, that identifies, or that may lead to the identification of, a juror or former juror.
“(2) The penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both.
“(3) In this section,—
“former juror includes a person who attended for jury service
“identification of a juror or former juror includes disclosure of his or her address
“juror includes a person attending for jury service.
“(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
§ “(a) the identification of a former juror with the former juror's consent:
§ “(b) the identification of a juror or former juror if the identification forms part of the exercise or performance of a power, function, or duty conferred, imposed, or contemplated by this Act, the jury rules, or a rule of law or practice relating to the trial of civil or criminal cases:
§ “(c) the disclosure of information to a court or to an investigative or prosecuting authority if the disclosure is made for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution of a contempt of court or of an offence relating to a juror or jury:
§ “(d) the disclosure of information relating to a proceeding under this section.
“Compare: Jury Act 1977 (New South Wales) s 68; Juries Act 2000 (Victoria) s 77”.
New development from the hate-sites: allegation of Judicial collusion
ro42 wrote:
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quotesophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
So a quick rehash. To this point from the hate-sites we've have the following known activities.
Witness stalking: Stockdale, recorded in his own words.
Jury stalking: Purkiss, Stockdale and others recorded in their own words.
Stalking and threatening: Stockdale, D Cameron, O Brien, Christine Williams and at least six others who have already been named.
Tampering with names on the 'petition' sweetad, by her 'revelation' that a TM posters name 'happened' to be on the petition.
Allegations of perjury - many names recorded on this.
Defamation: a too extensive list to mention here.
Defamatory harassment: a too extensive list to mention here.
Newest activities: 1)illegally distributing a trial transcript 2)claims of collusion between the hate-sites and a High Court Judge, with the assertion that the Judge is/was sympathetic to the persecutor's efforts of the hate-sites.
Some readers may be aware that information regarding the hate-sites has been forwarded to the MOJ. This newest information, and the identities of posters who colluded in it's release into the pubic record will be going both to the Department of Courts through the Registrar of the ChCh High Court and additionally to the Minister in charge of the Courts. Good luck to those involved, you've elevated yourselves from being criminal stalkers to being in Contempt of Court.
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quotesophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
So a quick rehash. To this point from the hate-sites we've have the following known activities.
Witness stalking: Stockdale, recorded in his own words.
Jury stalking: Purkiss, Stockdale and others recorded in their own words.
Stalking and threatening: Stockdale, D Cameron, O Brien, Christine Williams and at least six others who have already been named.
Tampering with names on the 'petition' sweetad, by her 'revelation' that a TM posters name 'happened' to be on the petition.
Allegations of perjury - many names recorded on this.
Defamation: a too extensive list to mention here.
Defamatory harassment: a too extensive list to mention here.
Newest activities: 1)illegally distributing a trial transcript 2)claims of collusion between the hate-sites and a High Court Judge, with the assertion that the Judge is/was sympathetic to the persecutor's efforts of the hate-sites.
Some readers may be aware that information regarding the hate-sites has been forwarded to the MOJ. This newest information, and the identities of posters who colluded in it's release into the pubic record will be going both to the Department of Courts through the Registrar of the ChCh High Court and additionally to the Minister in charge of the Courts. Good luck to those involved, you've elevated yourselves from being criminal stalkers to being in Contempt of Court.
Racheal from Otorohanga: goldnkiwi pal of kal pal.
Here she shows the common intellect of a hate-siter, and additionally that she has no intention of letting the facts get in the way of a little persecution...
project_hr wrote:
Because the other child was on his paper round at the time Robin 'lost it'.
Pfft, how much time is there supposed to have been between the 'suicide' and the paper round being finished, if there was a dirty secret, that had been revealed, was David not privy to it? Why wouldn't Robin have just waited for David. I understand that body temperatures differed? Why not kill them all and leave the papers undelivered, since it was a snap attack? I hope David went and bought a Lotto and appreciates how lucky he was not to die too.
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 3:56 pm, Fri 10 Sep #26554
Basically Racheal, try hiring a brain. The reason daddy fiddler couldn't get to the firearm to 'kill them all' as you put it, was because the rifle was stored in David's room. Even someone as thick as you should be able to work out that David was unlikely to be willing for dear daddy to be borrowing and loading David's rifle in the small hours so that he could go about his mission of killing the family. Why not give up, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you've been indoctrinated with lies by hate-siters like Stockdale, Curran, OBrien, who, like yourself, share the ambition to support a depressed and fractured man who is consigned to history as someone who killed his family then himself after his concern at being outed for incest. Face reality and smell a rose or something.
project_hr wrote:
Because the other child was on his paper round at the time Robin 'lost it'.
Pfft, how much time is there supposed to have been between the 'suicide' and the paper round being finished, if there was a dirty secret, that had been revealed, was David not privy to it? Why wouldn't Robin have just waited for David. I understand that body temperatures differed? Why not kill them all and leave the papers undelivered, since it was a snap attack? I hope David went and bought a Lotto and appreciates how lucky he was not to die too.
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 3:56 pm, Fri 10 Sep #26554
Basically Racheal, try hiring a brain. The reason daddy fiddler couldn't get to the firearm to 'kill them all' as you put it, was because the rifle was stored in David's room. Even someone as thick as you should be able to work out that David was unlikely to be willing for dear daddy to be borrowing and loading David's rifle in the small hours so that he could go about his mission of killing the family. Why not give up, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you've been indoctrinated with lies by hate-siters like Stockdale, Curran, OBrien, who, like yourself, share the ambition to support a depressed and fractured man who is consigned to history as someone who killed his family then himself after his concern at being outed for incest. Face reality and smell a rose or something.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Christine Williams (misspw) the dirty work of a stalker and liar.
He has insight into the family that nobody else has. If you are interested in the truth in this case you will listen to his honestly expressed opinion. Your suggestion that the family were only interested in the money does your credibility on these threads no good at all. His affection for this family is genuine and you can hear that clearly. The inheritance which you are obsessed with would have been divided by so many it was not much anyhow and for all you know they did something with it in memory of the family. What would you say then if someone could provide evidence of that?
Quotemisspw (65 ) 8:19 pm, Fri 10 Sep #26661
Here we see Christine Williams arguing why David Bain should continue to be denied his inheritance. She uses the argument that David's uncle Michael has 'insight' into the family that nobody else has and readers who are interested in the 'truth' will listen to uncle Michael's 'honestly expressed opinions.' But, before considering the merits of this apparent suggestion of religious witchcraft of some sort that we (the readers) should listen to someone who has insight into the family that nobody else has. We must be clear on somethings that are not subjective but which are relevant to the blind faith approach offered by a person (Christine Williams) who is already revealed as a stalker and somebody so 'objective' that she wanted to watch an innocent man hung and visible in torch light.
Uncle Michael was responsible for David's inheritance being disbursed to other members of the family at a time when David was falsely imprisoned. Uncle Michael must have been aware, as the majority of the country was, that David always denied his guilt, despite even Uncle Michael trying to elicit a confession from him. Uncle Michael was aware also, that David continued to fight for his freedom despite numerous setbacks. The disbursement or redistribution of David's inheritance was Court ordered, having been taken to the Court by his family despite their awareness that David continued to fight to have his conviction overturned. The Law that a person should not benefit from his or her crime was applied because at that point David was convicted of murder x 5. Of course now David stands as innocence man, no convictions and facing no charges. His status now is such that had Uncle Michael allow due process to unfold that David would have by now received his rightful inheritance in accordance with his parent's wills. Uncle Michael is silent on that matter, absolutely silent. Christine Williams trys to divert readers from the truth by suggesting that the inheritance for David would not have been much anyway - due to the number of other beneficiaries. I however, believe that David and his siblings were the only beneficiaries and that what is rightfully has been taken illegally.
David's lawyer Michael Reed has already publicly expressed his view, and I am sure he is right, that David's rightful inheritance should be returned. But Uncle Michael won't talk about that. What Uncle Michael will talk about is his wonderful brother who, as history records, is seen by many as a man who killed his own family. Michael, wants the country to trust in his instinct of why his brother was not a murderer (but therefore his innocent son was,) and wants those that are interested to be content that. Uncle Michael won't speak about David's money. And you can see that Uncle Michael cannot fathom that because he has gone public (and only since David was found innocent) that people are interested in a complete picture, not what he will or won't talk about, but the truth. The truth many are interested in is how, in law or in good conscience, one man can deny another property and freedom on the basis of the first man's (as misspw puts it) insight. Divine insight I don't think so. It looks to me that Uncle Michael is unable to accept the Law and due process and unable to see that another's property, stolen, misappropriated, taken prematurely or mistakenly should be returned - in Law there is no other way, no witchcraft, or religion, propaganda, or claims of insight defeat the Law and the protection of a citizen's rights and property.
Nevertheless, Christine Williams works away at the cause, citing God and doom in equal measure, stalking and lying her way as she goes about her evil work.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 8:19 pm, Fri 10 Sep #26661
Here we see Christine Williams arguing why David Bain should continue to be denied his inheritance. She uses the argument that David's uncle Michael has 'insight' into the family that nobody else has and readers who are interested in the 'truth' will listen to uncle Michael's 'honestly expressed opinions.' But, before considering the merits of this apparent suggestion of religious witchcraft of some sort that we (the readers) should listen to someone who has insight into the family that nobody else has. We must be clear on somethings that are not subjective but which are relevant to the blind faith approach offered by a person (Christine Williams) who is already revealed as a stalker and somebody so 'objective' that she wanted to watch an innocent man hung and visible in torch light.
Uncle Michael was responsible for David's inheritance being disbursed to other members of the family at a time when David was falsely imprisoned. Uncle Michael must have been aware, as the majority of the country was, that David always denied his guilt, despite even Uncle Michael trying to elicit a confession from him. Uncle Michael was aware also, that David continued to fight for his freedom despite numerous setbacks. The disbursement or redistribution of David's inheritance was Court ordered, having been taken to the Court by his family despite their awareness that David continued to fight to have his conviction overturned. The Law that a person should not benefit from his or her crime was applied because at that point David was convicted of murder x 5. Of course now David stands as innocence man, no convictions and facing no charges. His status now is such that had Uncle Michael allow due process to unfold that David would have by now received his rightful inheritance in accordance with his parent's wills. Uncle Michael is silent on that matter, absolutely silent. Christine Williams trys to divert readers from the truth by suggesting that the inheritance for David would not have been much anyway - due to the number of other beneficiaries. I however, believe that David and his siblings were the only beneficiaries and that what is rightfully has been taken illegally.
David's lawyer Michael Reed has already publicly expressed his view, and I am sure he is right, that David's rightful inheritance should be returned. But Uncle Michael won't talk about that. What Uncle Michael will talk about is his wonderful brother who, as history records, is seen by many as a man who killed his own family. Michael, wants the country to trust in his instinct of why his brother was not a murderer (but therefore his innocent son was,) and wants those that are interested to be content that. Uncle Michael won't speak about David's money. And you can see that Uncle Michael cannot fathom that because he has gone public (and only since David was found innocent) that people are interested in a complete picture, not what he will or won't talk about, but the truth. The truth many are interested in is how, in law or in good conscience, one man can deny another property and freedom on the basis of the first man's (as misspw puts it) insight. Divine insight I don't think so. It looks to me that Uncle Michael is unable to accept the Law and due process and unable to see that another's property, stolen, misappropriated, taken prematurely or mistakenly should be returned - in Law there is no other way, no witchcraft, or religion, propaganda, or claims of insight defeat the Law and the protection of a citizen's rights and property.
Nevertheless, Christine Williams works away at the cause, citing God and doom in equal measure, stalking and lying her way as she goes about her evil work.
drrh brain-dead Stockdale...the penny almost drops...
Quit stirring,ro.I reckon some of us might be able to make a case for entrapment,this whole thing does seem to be orchestrated.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:39 am, Sat 11 Sep #26875
Dear Mad Mike,
I can confirm that you have indeed been entrapped by the disordered, convoluted meandering of your brain. That's one excuse for you that can reasonably be accepted as to why you are an idiot.
However, on the other hand there is nothing acceptable about your stalking, lying, and indecent behaviour or your disturbing support for paedophilia that you share with your already named 'friends' from your rotten hate-sites. You, and to just name a few, misspw, Ralpho devo, goldnkiwi are soulless, spineless, cowards.
All the best, avoid entrapment where possible and prepare for the ride of your life unprotected by you own bewildering ego and incessant lies and persecution. And when you sit, confused by your final departure from fantasy, and see the real world and your role in trying to dismember other people's freedoms and rights, recall your first thoughts of being on some kind of crusade - remember then, that you were warned of your impending failure and exposure as a devil of the night.
GNG.
PS I've looked in your drawer and your socks are made for a beast with cloven feet.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:39 am, Sat 11 Sep #26875
Dear Mad Mike,
I can confirm that you have indeed been entrapped by the disordered, convoluted meandering of your brain. That's one excuse for you that can reasonably be accepted as to why you are an idiot.
However, on the other hand there is nothing acceptable about your stalking, lying, and indecent behaviour or your disturbing support for paedophilia that you share with your already named 'friends' from your rotten hate-sites. You, and to just name a few, misspw, Ralpho devo, goldnkiwi are soulless, spineless, cowards.
All the best, avoid entrapment where possible and prepare for the ride of your life unprotected by you own bewildering ego and incessant lies and persecution. And when you sit, confused by your final departure from fantasy, and see the real world and your role in trying to dismember other people's freedoms and rights, recall your first thoughts of being on some kind of crusade - remember then, that you were warned of your impending failure and exposure as a devil of the night.
GNG.
PS I've looked in your drawer and your socks are made for a beast with cloven feet.
Piggy banks...by Goodnewsguy
from watcher..
Watcher said...
It makes perfect sense that TM would enjoin the errant posters. Hopefully all the moronic folk that are enjoined have enough in their piggy banks to pay.
September 10, 2010 10:13 PM
But aren't they such cute little piggies? I just popped out the back and they're all being good little piggies even though I can't see their piggy banks under their little curly tails.
My own opinion is that cute little piggies should have compulsory piggy banks under their curly tails when a wolf is looking for them, just for convenience's sake and to save on parking tickets and other curly situations.
Watcher said...
It makes perfect sense that TM would enjoin the errant posters. Hopefully all the moronic folk that are enjoined have enough in their piggy banks to pay.
September 10, 2010 10:13 PM
But aren't they such cute little piggies? I just popped out the back and they're all being good little piggies even though I can't see their piggy banks under their little curly tails.
My own opinion is that cute little piggies should have compulsory piggy banks under their curly tails when a wolf is looking for them, just for convenience's sake and to save on parking tickets and other curly situations.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Shift toward enjoinment?
Don't think 'enjoinment' is an actual word but I'm using in context of what could be another signal that Trade Me will soon enjoin posters who have made defamatory comment about Joe Karam.
We know the first hurdle has been passed already in that The Court has agreed to the option that TM can enjoin posters who were the primary source of the defamatory comments, 'people' like kalnovitch, luckytrader, nina_s, misspw, rodney osook to name just a few. Anybody that has watched TM will have noted that apart from a few wise heads who have simply run for cover, most of those that have posted defamatory material continue, or continued as long possible do so with a 'hare looking from a hole' policy. Tentatively looking out from its hole, like a frightened hare and sniffing before defaming, or else trying to appear suddenly innocent and then after awhile returning to former habits. First of all for those so deluded, it can be a single event of defamation, it doesn't have to be continuous and is not somehow mitigated by the poster appearing to turn over a new leaf. All these simple tactics or illusions only satisfy the simple minded - of which the hangbainer's ranks are replete.
But the most recent signal (after the application to enjoin posters) is that Trade Me moderating policy was recently 'beefed up.' Not only that, but of recent weeks defamatory posts of Joe Karam have become prevalent again, and whilst defamatory comment against David was for awhile curtailed is again in full force - and Trade Me are not removing the defamatory material. This has to be deliberate on TM's part, despite the fact it can effectively be seen as turning 180 degrees in possibly a too transparent, and too late tactic. One has to ask why TM would do this and have the risk of further citations brought against them. Would it be because TM has decided to enjoin posters and the policy change on removing defamatory material is a (some what belated) effort to say, again - it's stated in the T&C that posters are responsible, that the posters are wholly responsible for the defamation, informed of those conditions and in agreement with them. I'm starting to think so.
Personally, I am not at all surprised that TM are clearly considering enjoining their 'side show' customers. It makes sense for Trade Me. TM has the opportunity to show itself as a somewhat amateur, cottage industry type, publisher relying on the good sense of its users to abide by it's rules. Do I think it will work? No, not completely, but it might take a 0 or two of the final sum of payment and shift those sums of money to the supergoofs, swissy, golfergolds and other similar morons of the cyber world. Won't it be fun?
We know the first hurdle has been passed already in that The Court has agreed to the option that TM can enjoin posters who were the primary source of the defamatory comments, 'people' like kalnovitch, luckytrader, nina_s, misspw, rodney osook to name just a few. Anybody that has watched TM will have noted that apart from a few wise heads who have simply run for cover, most of those that have posted defamatory material continue, or continued as long possible do so with a 'hare looking from a hole' policy. Tentatively looking out from its hole, like a frightened hare and sniffing before defaming, or else trying to appear suddenly innocent and then after awhile returning to former habits. First of all for those so deluded, it can be a single event of defamation, it doesn't have to be continuous and is not somehow mitigated by the poster appearing to turn over a new leaf. All these simple tactics or illusions only satisfy the simple minded - of which the hangbainer's ranks are replete.
But the most recent signal (after the application to enjoin posters) is that Trade Me moderating policy was recently 'beefed up.' Not only that, but of recent weeks defamatory posts of Joe Karam have become prevalent again, and whilst defamatory comment against David was for awhile curtailed is again in full force - and Trade Me are not removing the defamatory material. This has to be deliberate on TM's part, despite the fact it can effectively be seen as turning 180 degrees in possibly a too transparent, and too late tactic. One has to ask why TM would do this and have the risk of further citations brought against them. Would it be because TM has decided to enjoin posters and the policy change on removing defamatory material is a (some what belated) effort to say, again - it's stated in the T&C that posters are responsible, that the posters are wholly responsible for the defamation, informed of those conditions and in agreement with them. I'm starting to think so.
Personally, I am not at all surprised that TM are clearly considering enjoining their 'side show' customers. It makes sense for Trade Me. TM has the opportunity to show itself as a somewhat amateur, cottage industry type, publisher relying on the good sense of its users to abide by it's rules. Do I think it will work? No, not completely, but it might take a 0 or two of the final sum of payment and shift those sums of money to the supergoofs, swissy, golfergolds and other similar morons of the cyber world. Won't it be fun?
'Evidence' by omission.....
Now that David's trial is over, and the hangbainers (love Robins - pedo supporters) are slowly realising that the trial went against them they are holding another using 'evidence' by omission. They are capable of holding a full trial with this 'evidence' that was never given at the trial, much of it ruled inadmissible and a fair body of it either made up completely or the result of hopeful deductions.
So how did that lens get in Stephen Bain's room cyber?Did it somehow fly there?David Bain admitted he was wearing those glasses that weekend and they were found damaged in his room with one lens missing.That lens was found in Stephen Bain's room.
Robin Bain flipped out,give us a break.Can't you come up with something better than that?
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 11:06 am, Fri 10 Sep #26349
Superidiot offers a good example here. Don't bother if you've missed it before as generally he posts about it several times a day. Above he asks cybernana how the lens got in the room when of course he really wants to ask that question of Joe or David, but the point is David in particular has no obligation to explain how various items of evidence 'arrived' in various places. There is no onus on David to explain such questions, in this particular case my feeling is that the lens was planted as it was 'found' after many days of searching the room, by an officer who was not tasked with searching that room but rather was in charge of the scene. By 'chance' he also happened to 'find' it in an unusual circumstances, having returned to the house after hours to make the 'discovery.'
Superidiot also makes the continuous claim that David admitted wearing his mother's glasses that weekend, when in fact he gave no such evidence. Not one word of this (the wearing of the glasses) is true. The 'admissions' that David was alleged to have made were not given under oath by the witnesses that superidiot claims 'prove' that David wore the glasses that weekend. In fact no witness gave evidence that they saw him wear the glasses nor that he said he did. The anecdotal evidence that suggests David did admit wearing the glasses was never given in Court nor tested, so in fact there is no evidence existing other than in superidiot's flimsy brain. I am aware of the two people who made some claims about this but in both cases I believe it was unreliable at best, of course the Crown did not call those potential witnesses so there is no point to made from it anyway - apart from the fact that superidiot can't understand the obvious. David didn't wear the glasses that weekend and that is all there is to it.
For another display of 'evidence' by omission where have some childhood friends of David's that made claims about what could be purportedly a 'similar use' alibi. However the material didn't reach evidence status being rejected by the Supreme Court as inadmissible. So again there is no evidence in support of this false 'alibi' claim that is now used by the disenfranchised morons. Of course that is not evidence at all doesn't stop them using in their continued attacks against David and against our system of Justice.
One of the big problems for the hangers is that they're morons and that every week one of them gets to be moron of the week and that's pretty exciting for them and gives them an excuse to get down and morony at every opportunity. Unfortunately, while they simply see it as an opportunity to gain a coveted title, they don't realise or care about the harm that they do. They in general have continued to perpetrate defamatory harassment against others to protect themselves from what must be for them a fear of the world, afraid to think for themselves or to be exposed in some way. One has even called for statues to be made of dear daddy the perpetrator. But having said that, if one could put up with the lies, the misinformation, the stalking, the idolisation of paedophilia, the smell and funny noises they probably wouldn't be a bad bunch - not that you'd invite any of them home.
So how did that lens get in Stephen Bain's room cyber?Did it somehow fly there?David Bain admitted he was wearing those glasses that weekend and they were found damaged in his room with one lens missing.That lens was found in Stephen Bain's room.
Robin Bain flipped out,give us a break.Can't you come up with something better than that?
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 11:06 am, Fri 10 Sep #26349
Superidiot offers a good example here. Don't bother if you've missed it before as generally he posts about it several times a day. Above he asks cybernana how the lens got in the room when of course he really wants to ask that question of Joe or David, but the point is David in particular has no obligation to explain how various items of evidence 'arrived' in various places. There is no onus on David to explain such questions, in this particular case my feeling is that the lens was planted as it was 'found' after many days of searching the room, by an officer who was not tasked with searching that room but rather was in charge of the scene. By 'chance' he also happened to 'find' it in an unusual circumstances, having returned to the house after hours to make the 'discovery.'
Superidiot also makes the continuous claim that David admitted wearing his mother's glasses that weekend, when in fact he gave no such evidence. Not one word of this (the wearing of the glasses) is true. The 'admissions' that David was alleged to have made were not given under oath by the witnesses that superidiot claims 'prove' that David wore the glasses that weekend. In fact no witness gave evidence that they saw him wear the glasses nor that he said he did. The anecdotal evidence that suggests David did admit wearing the glasses was never given in Court nor tested, so in fact there is no evidence existing other than in superidiot's flimsy brain. I am aware of the two people who made some claims about this but in both cases I believe it was unreliable at best, of course the Crown did not call those potential witnesses so there is no point to made from it anyway - apart from the fact that superidiot can't understand the obvious. David didn't wear the glasses that weekend and that is all there is to it.
For another display of 'evidence' by omission where have some childhood friends of David's that made claims about what could be purportedly a 'similar use' alibi. However the material didn't reach evidence status being rejected by the Supreme Court as inadmissible. So again there is no evidence in support of this false 'alibi' claim that is now used by the disenfranchised morons. Of course that is not evidence at all doesn't stop them using in their continued attacks against David and against our system of Justice.
One of the big problems for the hangers is that they're morons and that every week one of them gets to be moron of the week and that's pretty exciting for them and gives them an excuse to get down and morony at every opportunity. Unfortunately, while they simply see it as an opportunity to gain a coveted title, they don't realise or care about the harm that they do. They in general have continued to perpetrate defamatory harassment against others to protect themselves from what must be for them a fear of the world, afraid to think for themselves or to be exposed in some way. One has even called for statues to be made of dear daddy the perpetrator. But having said that, if one could put up with the lies, the misinformation, the stalking, the idolisation of paedophilia, the smell and funny noises they probably wouldn't be a bad bunch - not that you'd invite any of them home.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
A Stockdale fan...
project_hr wrote to Stockdale:
Don't flatter yourself, in my opinion you are an idiot with nothing but repeated statements to make. You continually argue the same points despite people giving you the answers. You don't seem to remember from one day to the next, that you've already had that conversation. Most of your posts make no sense whatsoever. For some reason you think you are important and somewhat of an expert. In fact you are dead ignorant and well past your useby date. People don't laugh with you, they laugh at you.
On top of that you have been exposed as a stalker, and someone that excuses the sexual abuse of children in certain circumstances.
Why would I want to talk to you?
A stuck record style idiot, with memory loss, that doesn't make sense, self-important, ignorant, of no value, a joke, a stalker and paedophile apologist. Sounds like Stockdale. Glad I'm not the only one that noticed.
Don't flatter yourself, in my opinion you are an idiot with nothing but repeated statements to make. You continually argue the same points despite people giving you the answers. You don't seem to remember from one day to the next, that you've already had that conversation. Most of your posts make no sense whatsoever. For some reason you think you are important and somewhat of an expert. In fact you are dead ignorant and well past your useby date. People don't laugh with you, they laugh at you.
On top of that you have been exposed as a stalker, and someone that excuses the sexual abuse of children in certain circumstances.
Why would I want to talk to you?
A stuck record style idiot, with memory loss, that doesn't make sense, self-important, ignorant, of no value, a joke, a stalker and paedophile apologist. Sounds like Stockdale. Glad I'm not the only one that noticed.
Justice in the South Seas
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/4109525/NZ-police-blamed-for-Solomon-trial-botch-up
In the foregoing, a High Court Judge ruled statements by 2 defendants as inadmissible. Basically, the Police denied the defendants due process including reading the suspects their rights and telling them that whatever they might say could be used against them. The Judge noted (in his words) that there were 'deficiencies in process' that 'tainted the entire interview' with the defendants and threw the statements out although not the charges against the 2 defendants.
In the Bain case there were clearly 'deficiencies in process' probably encompassing the whole case from the first minutes/hours of the investigation beginning. The police, probably correctly, assumed that the perpetrator had to be David or Robin, when they later 'decided' it was David it meant that evidence against Robin was either not pursued or ignored. To my mind that in itself was a Miscarriage of Justice along with the 'decision' of which of the two men it was, and which person therefore evidence against was to be looked for.
Let's look at the evidence against Robin that was either ignored or not pursued. Day 3 of the inquiry police were told of a potential motive, which they ignored, later one of the officers gave evidence to the effect they (the Police) weren't interested in incest because they had a murder to solve. That displays the mindset, the belief that David was guilty and whether or not Robin was an abuser of his children was neither her nor there in the greater picture. The uninterrupted blood spatter across the floor from Robin's body and on the curtains, they explained that later as proof that David stood behind the curtain, completely disregarding the nonsense of such a theory and in particular how David, standing behind the curtain, had been able to get an upward trajectory shot that required the rifle barrel to be touching Robin's head. Other things, like the fresh blood on Robin's trousers in the van, the blood and hair found in the van and never tested. The accurate profiling of Robin that should have, like it or not, shown that he was a man with real problems at the time of his death.
Not testing all of the samples of DNA found on Robin, not doing a GSR test, not seeking to reconcile the dna found inside the rifle and silencer, not seeking to reconcile that the first four killings were killer dominant downward trajectory and the last was killer 'passive' upward trajectory. Not being able to reconcile the frankness of the admissions that David innocently made, that his was the rifle, that only he had a key to it, not knowing that his sister was a prostitute and on it goes. The difficulty of David being seen outside the house when the killings had, in the final analysis, already happened. There being no motive, not that one is required in law, for David to have committed the killing, the only motives would come years later from frantic people trying to cover up or disguise Robin's incest.
Whereas in Judge David Cameron's view the 'deficiencies of process' in accordance with the suspects rights being ignored 'tainted the entire interview' it could easily be accepted that the 'deficiencies of process' in the Bain investigation 'tainted' not the entire interview but the entire inquiry. One of the most disturbing features is that it effectively took the Police until June last year to concede they'd arrested and imprisoned the wrong man, the evidence of which had not come from themselves, although it had been available to them from the outset had they not chosen to ignore it, but came instead from witnesses and experts who, given the opportunity, would have concluded that the Bain case was murder/suicide. That seems to display the failings that can happen in the adversary system, where it becomes personal for prosecuting authorities, personal rather that professional and questioning of anything that doesn't bear scrutiny. There was never a rush to 'solve' this case, there was all the time in the world. And all the time in the world for Courts (post the Privy Council decision) or the Solicitor General to acknowledge the obvious that the 'deficiencies of process' defeated Justice and Justice from being seen to be done. A point is reached when a decision can be made, that a tyre is flat and no amount of turning on the hub will make it anything other than still flat. Much like that it can be accepted the realisation that some one's gut instinct was wrong when they searched for the wrong evidence and ignored that which should never have been ignored.
In the foregoing, a High Court Judge ruled statements by 2 defendants as inadmissible. Basically, the Police denied the defendants due process including reading the suspects their rights and telling them that whatever they might say could be used against them. The Judge noted (in his words) that there were 'deficiencies in process' that 'tainted the entire interview' with the defendants and threw the statements out although not the charges against the 2 defendants.
In the Bain case there were clearly 'deficiencies in process' probably encompassing the whole case from the first minutes/hours of the investigation beginning. The police, probably correctly, assumed that the perpetrator had to be David or Robin, when they later 'decided' it was David it meant that evidence against Robin was either not pursued or ignored. To my mind that in itself was a Miscarriage of Justice along with the 'decision' of which of the two men it was, and which person therefore evidence against was to be looked for.
Let's look at the evidence against Robin that was either ignored or not pursued. Day 3 of the inquiry police were told of a potential motive, which they ignored, later one of the officers gave evidence to the effect they (the Police) weren't interested in incest because they had a murder to solve. That displays the mindset, the belief that David was guilty and whether or not Robin was an abuser of his children was neither her nor there in the greater picture. The uninterrupted blood spatter across the floor from Robin's body and on the curtains, they explained that later as proof that David stood behind the curtain, completely disregarding the nonsense of such a theory and in particular how David, standing behind the curtain, had been able to get an upward trajectory shot that required the rifle barrel to be touching Robin's head. Other things, like the fresh blood on Robin's trousers in the van, the blood and hair found in the van and never tested. The accurate profiling of Robin that should have, like it or not, shown that he was a man with real problems at the time of his death.
Not testing all of the samples of DNA found on Robin, not doing a GSR test, not seeking to reconcile the dna found inside the rifle and silencer, not seeking to reconcile that the first four killings were killer dominant downward trajectory and the last was killer 'passive' upward trajectory. Not being able to reconcile the frankness of the admissions that David innocently made, that his was the rifle, that only he had a key to it, not knowing that his sister was a prostitute and on it goes. The difficulty of David being seen outside the house when the killings had, in the final analysis, already happened. There being no motive, not that one is required in law, for David to have committed the killing, the only motives would come years later from frantic people trying to cover up or disguise Robin's incest.
Whereas in Judge David Cameron's view the 'deficiencies of process' in accordance with the suspects rights being ignored 'tainted the entire interview' it could easily be accepted that the 'deficiencies of process' in the Bain investigation 'tainted' not the entire interview but the entire inquiry. One of the most disturbing features is that it effectively took the Police until June last year to concede they'd arrested and imprisoned the wrong man, the evidence of which had not come from themselves, although it had been available to them from the outset had they not chosen to ignore it, but came instead from witnesses and experts who, given the opportunity, would have concluded that the Bain case was murder/suicide. That seems to display the failings that can happen in the adversary system, where it becomes personal for prosecuting authorities, personal rather that professional and questioning of anything that doesn't bear scrutiny. There was never a rush to 'solve' this case, there was all the time in the world. And all the time in the world for Courts (post the Privy Council decision) or the Solicitor General to acknowledge the obvious that the 'deficiencies of process' defeated Justice and Justice from being seen to be done. A point is reached when a decision can be made, that a tyre is flat and no amount of turning on the hub will make it anything other than still flat. Much like that it can be accepted the realisation that some one's gut instinct was wrong when they searched for the wrong evidence and ignored that which should never have been ignored.