The following arrived in the mail box. Thanks Kent.
Submitted by Kent Parker on Mon, 25/10/2010 - 12:37pm
Stuff.co.nz have published what appears to be a statement from David Bain and Joe Karam. I assume that an interview did not take place because David Bain giving an interview would be a news item in itself. Rather this article looks like it is the result of a carefully crafted media statement timed perfectly to coincide with the recent publicity surrounding Rochelle Crewe's call for a re-investigation of her parents' murders in the wake of Ian Wishart's book on the subject.
Well Kent we all realise your paranoia would be at its highest at the moment. Interesting that you are so insanely jealous that anybody but yourself might be interviewed about the Bain case - even David. Don't be jealous Kent get over yourself. You're old news now, there's no interest in what you say, the papers won't print your press releases and wont run your advertisements. Having said that there is an extremely high interest in your expected demise in the Auckland High Court. Why don't you concentrate on that Kent, David giving an interview should be the least of your problems. 'carefully crafted media statement timed perfectly' is a little too far on the jealous side Kent, but if you may feel you're been given a lesson by someone with more brains and savvy than you - why simply not admit it. If you feel so absolutely left out I could consider you for the Moron award although I've been waiting for your complete capitulation to do that.
In the statement David makes a public appeal for a formal declaration of innocence from the Crown. I figure if the Crown was going to do that then they would have done it by now, but the reality is that there are far too many impediments against such a move, including the large amount of evidence that incriminates David in the murder of his family. Joe Karam may claim that there are 14 key items that indicate Robin's guilt, but there are at least 114 key items that indicate David's guilt, and the Crown calculates 'innocence' on the basis of balance of probabilities. 114 minus 14 equals 100 in favour of David Bain being guilty. As a well known justice campaigner once said: "A jury does not always get it right" (this was Joe Karam no less). I am not an expert on the history of juries, but I understand that the system was established to enable guilt or innocence of alleged criminals to be judged by a group of "peers" rather than by a group of people holding a privileged position. The trial system provides an event during which a select amount of evidence is paraded before the jury according to a complex set of rules that have gradually accumulated over the years. The judgment happens at a distinct point of time, when the jury delivers its verdict, and cannot easily be contraverted. There is ample opportunity within this system for the truth to be lost, for weak lawyers to inadequately argue the case, or for court rules to allow key evidence to be held inadmissable. The legal system acknowledges this by maintaining that a not guilty verdict does not equate with 'innocence'. If there is public unrest about a verdict and/or new evidence is found, a case that previously brought a not guilty verdict may be brought back to trial and deliver a guilty verdict. In the legal system, trial verdicts are often held in a state of flux awaiting new evidence or appeal.
I hope the above is not an indication of the formulation of your defence Kent because you'll quickly find yourself in the holding cells for contempt. Of course I understand that you have 114 key items that you believe indicate David's guilt, but imagination is no defence Kent, and David's guilt or innocence is no defence to the charges you face. Thanks for your history on the law, but you haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about and I would remind you that trying to give the Judge of your trial a history in Law will result in you being placed in the dungeons that still fill the pit below the Auckland High Court.
We can forgive David for being naive about the true nature of his not guilty status, but in reading his statement we cannot avoid the probability that it has been engineered as part of Joe Karam's propaganda campaign to garner public support for his compensation bid. The latest news on the bid is that there is no news. There is nothing to report.
What planet are you on Kent, why would you imagine David Bain would won't to be forgiven by somebody like you. It is you that should ask to be forgiven by him. He's done you no harm, you've never met the man, apart from coming like a thief in the night to steal your way into his life and that of his late family.
In relation to the Crewe case, Joe Karam has the following to say: "If they want to satisfy the public they need somebody like me to work with them because I have an understanding of police files and court documents and procedures. Nobody could then accuse the police of another cover-up." Joe Karam is on another planet. His handling of the Bain case hardly represents "satisfying the public", so what makes him think that he would be any better with handling the Crewe case? This statement reflects very poor understanding by Karam of how "the public" view him. If Karam was to play a part in the Crewe case, then, defamation action notwithstanding, "the public" would be accusing Karam of a whole myriad of other things instead, as they have already done as a result of the Bain case. His controversial reputation and lack of impartiality would be enough to immediately exclude him from any such involvement.
Typically here, as always, your true motive is to attack a man you have driven yourself crazy with jealousy over. Someone who has knocked you off your high horse, who would never have heard of you or bothered with you if not for your attacks against his reputation, something you continue with today, acting like a childish prat that has no understanding of the situation you are in. It's your understanding that is at fault and that's why you are in court. You've stalked people, mounted campaigns based on lies and mistruths and been caught out. Don't you have a decent bone in your body, a mere pulse of brain activity that would tell you that your big mouth and careless ways has only just begun its toll on you.
Plead for a settlement Kent and come clean about your partners in defamation and harassment. It's your only hope and, afterall, it will continue to come out anyway. But anyway I'll see you there, I look forward to your arrival in the Courtroom.
PS. I forgot my manners. Thanks very much for the additional material.
No comments:
Post a Comment