Kent Parkers frail grip on reality weakens.......

latest publicly open blog at counterspin http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/some-cases-where-the-investigation-really-was-dodgy

The following (abridged) from Kent Parker, when once pared of self-supporting dribble, shows the pressure he is facing and his inability to handle it.

Some Cases Where the Investigation Really was Dodgy
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.

In the wake of calls for a re-investigation of the Crewe murders for which Arthur Allan Thomas was acquitted after serving 9 years for false imprisonment, a barrister has commented on cases where police have been over zealous in their prosecution of justice. This barrister mentions the Thomas case, and while he didn't work on that particular case, he worked in other cases that involved the same police officers. The Thomas case is notable in that the investigation into police conduct did actually find the police guilty of misconduct but the powers that be failed to provide sufficient punishment, well in the eyes of many, including the barrister.

Joe Karam has tried to make the Bain case look like the Arthur Allan Thomas case in his quest for a compensatory handout.The worst thing that happened from what I can see is that someone measured the rifle length incorrectly but this was corrected in the original trial and had no effect on the outcome.The simple truth is that the original investigation was good. Joe Karam has made it out to be a shambles and taken every opportunity to broadcast this view, in order to serve his own needs. It helped cast doubt and uncertainty over the original prosecution and trial and provided a very good foundation for the reasonable doubt that eventually arose. What was originally clear and simple, has been made mysterious and muddied. Have a look at the PCA report and decide for yourselves.

» Kent Parker's blog

As can be seen from above Kent Parker feels some alarm at the prospect that there may be those among us that see connections between the falsity of the investigation of the Crew murders and that of inquiry into the deaths of the Bain family.

Of course the importance of this would be paramount in Kent's mind because he is getting his butt sued and might well imagine in his own particular insular way that any Jury in his (Kent's) trial might well be influenced by the much publicised findings in the Crew case. So to preserve his personal situation he must make (what is to him obviously an almost fatal scenario for him legally) distinctions between that case and the Bain case. What follows from that is self-interest predictable drivel.

Of course Kent defends the Trail that was and will forever be deemed an actual Miscarriage of Justice. A trial which for the any passing punter I should say was characterised by with-held evidence, objective only evidence search (that was that David was guilty) an absolute implausible scenario that relied on a clever killer needing to be seen on a paper run when in fact the evidence of the papers proved he'd done the paper round. A clever killer who took ownership of the rifle used in the killings, claiming to be the only one with access to it. A fairly obvious suicide scene with an upward trajectory of an assailant who had blood wiped hands with bruises to one of them. The same mans blood found inside the barrel of the rifle. A refusal by the police to (at any time) investigate a likely motive against the killer, Robin Bain. Kent needs to defend this trial because he sees that along with a PCA report as having more authority that a Privy Council ruling determining that the Trial was a MOJ and later a properly instructed Jury finding the target of Kent's campaign innocent in a unanimous decision after very short time of deliberation. Sorry Kent, you don't get off base 1 with this. You'll need to face up to your responsibilities rather than quote discredited events that you favour but which have been showing to not hold water. Bad leaking in fact, much like your hate-site over a long period of time. Before closing on this point, and just to underline how little of the case Parker has ever understood: the 'mistake' in measuring the rifle, may very well have been deliberate, because there was a deliberate position by the Crown that suicide with a rifle that had a silencer attached was difficult and unlikely, which follows that the longer the barrel the more improbable the suicidee being able to reach the trigger. 'Mistakes' for you Parker is what has come out of your debilitated brain and motor mouth. A psychologist should at least have learnt to think about what they are saying, and the credibility of it before opening his or her mouth - clearly you didn't in the past and still don't.

Kent goes on to say that Joe Karam tried or trys to make the Bain case look like the Crew case. I'm not aware that he ever has, and I'm sure he wouldn't assume that the public would look for connection between events some 20 years apart, different circumstances, different personnel and try to draw anything other than a general connection, if any at all. But what is in fact revealed by kent is that he believes the public to be gullible and influenced by Joe Karam when in fact Kent Parker feelings of public gullibility are that which have landed him in Court.

From JFRB Facebook Wall (abridged)


Blair Huston

I have lost friends & been verbally attacked over my public stance on David Bain. I have lost at least one good customer resulting in significant financial loss. Is that fair? I’m not sure, but its a price I’m prepared to pay given my strong belief that David Bain is guilty.


Hear we hear from Blair somebody also 'victimised' for having an opinion according to his report and clearly not able to discern that you don't argue with customers or try to ram your opinions down their throats. No sign of the psychologist being able to tell a fellow 'victim' that espousing your views in way that gets you publicly 'attacked' or loses you customers is foolish in the first instance and probably futile in the second.

Then like all good comedies where amateur paranoid sleuths operate...Ralph happens along, to enhance Kent's unspoken but implied paranoia....

Submitted by Ralph on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:35pm.
Uping the ante
We can expect the Defence to up the ante and try and capitalise on the publicity about further questions about the AAT convictions.Indeed in this mornings Herald a Barrister is describing how police have tried to cut corners secure convictions for career advancement and other dubious motives. No doubt the Bain defence will do their best to further discredit the police investigation in light of Rochelle Crewe request for the Police commissioner to reopen the case.This is where Milton Weir's book could prove to be so timely and further bog down the Defence with more questions and controversies as happened with The Investigator documentary.

We must be vigorous in explaining and advocating the significant distinctions beteween the Bain and Crewe murders.Would it be possible to do a media release if Karam and co get carried away reminding the public of those distictions?.Certainly letter's to the editor could set the ball rolling.Of course, further blogs and postings on Counterspin etc.

The 'good' lieutenant who for some reason believes that Kent still has some credibility with the press who might willingly be so dumb to be taken in my a press release from Kent to the effect of 'don't be fooled people, don't think that the Bain case is anything like the Crewe murders and that therefore I should be found guilty of defaming Joe Karam.'


Kent not wishing to be exposed for finally understanding that the Press are only interested in him as some sort of nut from a hate-site that caught himself out stalking a Jury, spreading lies and information and defaming Joe Karam, whilst approving of the idea (a press release) placates Ralph with a mysterious statement that might make sense to a fellow paranoiac.


'but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.'


reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:48pm.
Yeah, good comments, Ralph,
Yeah, good comments, Ralph, but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.

reply
Quotes

Quite right, there is only so much you can do and you've done a lot. Mounted a hate-campaign, sought publicity and got yourself sued. No use crying about it now Kent, you were not the victim, you chose to victimise others and held silent while your supporters broke the law when pursuing your objectives.

Footnote: For those interested in some of the abridged material Kent passes derogatory comment about Michael Laws were previously he implied a close and knowing relationship of some sort. Clearly Kent, according to his own words, thinks Laws didn't do a good job in the debate with Joe Karam. When in fact the broadcaster's main interest we must all assume was to get to the truth from the trial transcript and may very well have felt contented that a lot of the misinformation forwarded by Kent and his fellows had been discredited, much like Kent, much like Kent. Perhaps also an indication that Laws may now have an entirely different view of kent's hate-sites and crusades.