Cybernana's correction...
Actually, I must correct what I have posted. David was required to wear glasses, it was on his licence. However, he was able to drive without them (not legally of course) and evidence was given that he was occasionally seen doing just that.
Edited by cybernana at 7:46 am, Mon 22 Nov
Quotecybernana (582 ) 7:45 am, Mon 22 Nov #30662
jmbh1, a dirty hate-siters interpretation of the above which only mentions the drivers licence endorsement...
Oh Cyber,
You've never explained who is giving you information and advice.
Remember how you argued black and blue that David didn't need to wear glasses and that his licence had no restrictions on it? We all told you that wasn't true - and you responded with abuse and name calling.
Then suddenly, after a week of such behaviour, you reversed your position. Who told you you were wrong? Why did you believe them? Who passed you that information?
How can we ever trust your arguments again?
Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 2:36 am, Sun 5 Dec #30950
A reader will see that the filthy fiddler 'enhances' the correction from its sole point as to the licence endorsement to extend to also being 'you argued black and blue that David didn't need to wear glasses.'Of course cybernana's post is clear and unambiguous while the kiddie fiddler's seeks to include something cybernana didn't even mention. But that's what these fiddlers are like, they lie and scheme and have no respect for the truth. They must protect the dead fiddler at all costs, projecting their own sick needs and desires not to be discovered in a way of trying to justify their sexual dysfunctions.
In reality there is absolutely no need to lie about anything regarding the Bain case, no need to twist the truth because the moment that is done a partisan motive is exposed. There is no risk in looking at the truth because generally the public have no stake in this particular case but have a stake in the fair administration of Justice. And what has happened is that the 'hangbainers' have assembled as defenders of certain police and their conduct, and others to defend the 'reputation' of a dead man claiming all that is said about him by a host of witnesses are lies. So too distinct groups come together (and maybe other hybrids of type,) many of whom in most circumstances would revile the other - it would be few of them that support both the bad and corrupt policing as well as the exploitation of children.
Along come people such as Annette Curran and Glenda OBrien, useful tools willing to stalk and defame people publicly. In the meantime Kent Parker, it would seem a hybrid of some type, more interested in capitalising on an opportunity to provide a vehicle for the motley bunch and 'launching' himself into 'fame.' And the stragglers come, impressed by the propaganda and down right lies, the myths about the jury, all able to be fed selective nonsense or down right lies, willing to swallow anything without suspicion. Of course in this mix are members of the media, probably ex police, and slowly the more evident sexual sickoes such as Taylor, Stockdale, Fox and others all welcomed in. Their 'power' is mantra, and lies, lies repeated at length just as we have seen jmbh1 above do along with the beekeeper William Rodie.
I will probably blog more about the later part of this subject again at some time, in many ways it is an unfolding story within itself and certainly will be brought into more acute focus in the future because we must know who these people are and how they've attempted to manipulate the truth and why.
It should be noted that the vast majority of the 'Hate-site's support has fallen away and that there were possibly hundreds of genuine people taken in by them in some way before realising as defamation charges were laid, and jury stalking etc revealed that they were duped. For them, I hope some of the actual trial evidence that is revealed here and else where from time to time resolves concerns they may formerly have had that Justice was not done in the Christchurch High Court last year. I fully recognise that a campaign that omits from such facts that David was not seen with any bruises to his head the morning of the killings before he collapsed, that Robin Bain did have the blood of some of his family on his right shoe etc maybe compelling at first sight, but like everything, we needed to be sure and not feeding from 'evidence' from discredited people running discredited hate-sites.
Just like cybernana did above correcting something, I stand to be corrected because I have no intention to mislead, I've had a driven interest in the evidence for a couple of years now because for me the 'design' of the case against David Bain as I learnt more was patently faulty - from his frank admissions, made damning against himself to the implausible paper run 'alibi' on which he 'needed' to be seen. And of course not to forget the 'recovered' memories from Anderson and others, and the 'recovered' lens from an already searched room.
No comments:
Post a Comment