One of the difficulties in dealing with the hate-siters is they turn phrases into mantras. Mike Stockdale: lying again?

One of the first I recall was...'there was no blood on Robin,' another was that 'Robin had no injuries' of course the other and probably most idiotic and one of my favourites was that David Bain needed to be seen on the paper round to prove his 'alibi.' For 15 years some sections of NZ society believed that one, started by the Police and keenly swallowed by the vindictive gullible. Obviously, the papers being delivered was proof of their delivery and didn't rely on David having to be 'sighted.' Even Stockdale eventually got the point, but in true Stockdale myopic fashion of protecting dead daddy at all costs, Stockdale claimed that because David was an actor he needed to enhance the alibi with some theatrics. I think Stockdale even had David diving in and out of bushes at some stage and going along the pathway in the wrong direction, sleuths these days are not up to scratch.

On the issue of brainless Mike, he's taken a real hammering over the blood in the barrel, air borne spatter, the non existing scratches, the strip search, the drops of blood on Robin's right shoe et al. But in true moron fashion he's setting himself up (again) with a claim of the age of the injuries to Robin's hands. On the subject of the injuries to Robin's hands, that was a contributing factor on me being banned from Counterspin when I'd popped over for a chat and a cup of tea with the old dears wearing their blue wigs. As was another issue they didn't like - me saying that David was stripped searched, asking the question and why, and additionally why or why not, were intimate samples not taken from dead daddy? Some very expensive sets of false teeth flew through the air that day and we all had a jolly good time, and I should also mention that a couple of the goobers who had arrived without teeth left with some - so there is some benefit joining a hate-site if your broke and toothless because they regularly get spat out over there and people such as cowpat kal and nationalbroadcastingyoursecretsannie.curran will grab those teeth if they can get away it. They'll even read magazines in the supermarket and get upset at closing time and ask if they take it home and bring it back in the morning.

But back to Mike. Now Mike has got the trial transcript, or claims he has it, and also claims to have a hot line with Millie Weir and Henschel which leads him to contend that the injuries to Robin's hands were over 24 hours old. Originally, I'd gone from a report on stuff that the injuries may have been minutes to hours old. So I was banned. Nothing like winning argument, or proving a point, by banning your opponent particularly if you think (he's thinking) that you're a pedo supporter bsing about the age of the injuries to daddy's mitts. Now of course Mike has claimed that Joe Karam lied about a number of things on the Laws show, however he's been yet able to prove one, whilst many (claims by Stockdale as seen above) have been disproved.

So once again Stockdale, I'm telling you, that you are a liar. It's not Joe Karam lying, it's you and you repeatedly lie and you get caught out again and again.

Injury debate. The injury referred to on the Laws programme was on the back of Robin's right hand, interestingly just a wee bit between the knuckles and the wrist where Dr. Adams believed he could see evidence of tooth marks. It, the injury in question, is shown in a number of photos variously referred to as PMR38, 601/4 and 601/59 at the retrial. Retrial evidence in reference to this photo is as below.

Dr. Dempster

Evidence in Chief page 1603 line 12-15

"an abrasion 20 mm in diameter with a surrounding bruise 20mm in diameter"
Line 20
"I formed the opinion that it was a relatively recent bruise"

XXM page 1699, line 21-25

Q. But thats a fair way of putting it isnt it, even with hystology we probably cant tell whether its within a few minutes or up to 12 hours, we just dont know?
A. Thats correct

Crown witness patholgist Dr Thompson

XXM page 1796

Line 22.

Q. Have you seen photo 59 before?
A. No I havent

then referrred to the same injury he says at line 31- 33

Q. it seems to be quite recent doesnt it?
A. Yes its - its moist and hasnt got a scab on it
Q. Right, indicating?
A. A recent injury the last 6 to 12 hours.

So the oldest the injuries could be dated (by Thompson) was 6 to 12 hours. And the least (by Dempster) a few minutes. I will just remind readers again that both Dempster and Thompson were Crown witnesses called in the absence of Mike Stockdale who was attending an international Bullcrap Artist of the Year award as a guess speaker and previous multiple winner.

You bullshi...r Mike Stockdale, you pale Walter Mitty's reputation to transparency.