The idiot kulkkulbelle.

kulkkulbelle wrote:

FGS, he wasn't the one who slaughtered his family in cold blood. Why does he need to worry about his "arse" as you so delicately put it


for a start:

anderson was the one who claimed to find the shell in the alcove..

anderson was the one who claimed to have seen the magazine initially standing on its edge..he claims dempster knocked it over..he then stood it back up to be photographed..

anderson was the one who claimed to find the bone fragment by the rifle..despite another stating it was in the alcove..argued at trial..

anderson was the one who claimed to make safe and secure the rifle and secure prints..put on surgical gloves thereby smudging those very prints..but not till 10 hours later at 5pm..

Quotete-aroha (67 ) 2:52 pm, Mon 18 Oct #28355

The idiot kulkkulbelle, who has previously claimed to be willing to fund Kent Parker's defence, objects to facts that point to concerns about Detective Anderson's conduct. The 'coincidences' of Anderson's involvement in a number of locations of controversial exhibits certainly should be scrutinised. But kooybrain is offended and makes the point that he wasn't the killer. Well, I think we all know that kookybrain and te-aroha wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. But not being the killer wasn't the issue, the issue is of the 'convenient' involvement of Anderson in weaving together of unsubstantiated located material that in every event 'incriminated' David. From memory he might have also been the man who had the recalled 'memory' after 15 years of the claim that David asked for 'his' glasses on the morning of the killings - how very convenient memory recall.

So kookybelle te-aroha raises matters that should be of concern to us all, and earlier draws a justifiable parallel to the Thomas case planting of evidence. It's important that these things are dealt with now. As a general principle failings in a prosecution or evidence of potential evidence fabrication have to be ruthlessly investigated, it's important for all nzers, including the Police who have to bear the brunt of criticism that should rightly be laid at the feet of the offending officers and not the whole force. Look at the conduct of a particular officer and if found wanting ask the question of the OIC, because these officers are not acting independently but toward a common task. If Weir ever does write a book I hope he will have the guts not to deny the obvious and tell the obvious and tell the real and apparent truth.

On the point of the magazine being upright. I recall that evidence was 'moved' about during the photographing of the scene to the point where there is no reason to have confidence about what were the original positions of critical exhibits. Further, idiot Mike makes some assertion's about the magazine having been knocked over by Dempster and righted by good old Anderson, I can't recall if evidence was given by Dempster on the matter, but the mere fact the defence might not have questioned Anderson about that particular 'convenience' merely shows that if Dempster didn't give evidence about it then it didn't happen. Keep up folks, now is the time to right the ship.