Some who have read here before will recall the bets I offered Mike Stockdale and Taylor from the hate-sites over evidence they had lied about for years, I offered them fairly big money to provide the evidence of no strip search of David, no intimate samples and that the father's blood and brain matter wasn't found inside the rifle. Like typical cowards they wouldn't take the bets and eventually the truth was published direct from the transcript and other Court documents to show Stockdale, Taylor, Kennard, Fox and a host of others were just blatant liars, hate-siters spreading a message of hate.
But despite been outed as liars in this way they continued in the same vein, publishing their lies on TM with TM either complicit or acting out a fantasy and trying to hold a line that they are not a publisher and not responsible for what the hate-siters have done with their lies and stalking. Unfortunately TM have permanently hooked themselves because of inconsistency in responding to complaints and inconsistency with what the law requires. But the hate-siters, short on concentration as they are, pulled back a few times - then as time passed, emboldened, continued where they left off. Most recently they've tried subtlety but the Courts have no truck with that.
I gave Stockdale and the others notice here that I would take them to Court to stop what they've done with relative impunity for a long time, they slowed down, fell to silence and then crept back. Finally, I put them and TM on notice that the line was drawn in the sand at 5pm today. I posted comment here earlier that I was only joking or bluffing about it, but reality is you can't bluff with stalkers - they have to be confronted face on and brought to task, brought out into the light and be observed speaking their lies. Of course I was never joking or bluffing about it and 5 pm has passed without notice.
So, at least 2 in the South Island and one in the North will have 'you have mail' thoughts on their mind - the popular words of Kalnovitch (O Brien) and Golfergold (Curran) from the past, 2 like many others as I finally screen the paper work were often mentioned in the past and who are not forgotten now for their stalking and lies.
And for those of you who thought you were above the law, entitled to defame, harass and stalk others - remember this is just a preliminary step, a first round that you won't like very much and which may well lead onto other Judicial 'joys' for you. That was a bad mistake you made when you stalked my family and an even worse one when you didn't slink back into the shadows when you were told. So now we see what you are really made of, if you have any mettle or are simply full of shit and hate.
Monday, January 31, 2011
In passing....John Poynton.
The death of English painter John Poynton in adopted homeland of Samoa, last month in his home on the falls of Mt Vaea in the village of Palisi.
John lived in Samoa from the 1970s and once had a ram-shackled gallery on the foreshore near the Government buildings on Beach Road. In more recent years he fell upon what he freely admitted ,in a matter of fact way, were hard times. He had unsuccessful surgery in Samoa to correct a sight problem, he described the operation as a 'botch up' which left him with poor vision and he was frustrated by needing to use his pencil or paint brush with his 'good' eye only centimetres from the work while holding his 'bad' eye closed.
The last time I saw him he was walking out from a fast food store holding his portfolio of paintings and drawings in one arm and food in his free hand just brought with money from the sale of some drawings and paintings. I didn't know the man well but by some good fortune some in my family did, seeing him reminded me of the many writers and artists that have come under the spell of the South Pacific and who, like John, were devoted to their work in an exotic life-style that endlessly changed shape in one's imagination.
Salute John
John lived in Samoa from the 1970s and once had a ram-shackled gallery on the foreshore near the Government buildings on Beach Road. In more recent years he fell upon what he freely admitted ,in a matter of fact way, were hard times. He had unsuccessful surgery in Samoa to correct a sight problem, he described the operation as a 'botch up' which left him with poor vision and he was frustrated by needing to use his pencil or paint brush with his 'good' eye only centimetres from the work while holding his 'bad' eye closed.
The last time I saw him he was walking out from a fast food store holding his portfolio of paintings and drawings in one arm and food in his free hand just brought with money from the sale of some drawings and paintings. I didn't know the man well but by some good fortune some in my family did, seeing him reminded me of the many writers and artists that have come under the spell of the South Pacific and who, like John, were devoted to their work in an exotic life-style that endlessly changed shape in one's imagination.
Salute John
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Look, the 3 Fiddlerteers
now think that subtlety will save their sorry arses....
nx wrote:
Oh, so Weirs book is finally out
Nope.Wrong person,wrong book.So much for your powers of deduction.Have another guess.
Edited by supersleuth at 4:30 pm, Sun 30 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 4:27 pm, Sun 30 Jan #15625
supersleuth wrote:
Nope.Wrong person,wrong book.So much for your powers of deduction.
definitely not a super sleuth there ss
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 4:30 pm, Sun 30 Jan #15626
Must be McNeish's fairy tale then
Quote
nx (633 ) 5:23 pm, Sun 30 Jan #15627
nx wrote:
Must be McNeish's fairy tale then
Wrong AGAIN !! Geez. The Police Complaints Authority would not find hundreds of errors, omissions and misrepresentations in Sir James McNeish's excellent non-fiction book, would they. Keep trying. We're patient. (even though a budgie got the correct answer ages ago ... but, that's OK).
Edited by lucky_trader at 7:25 pm, Sun 30 Jan
Quote
lucky_trader (1373 ) 7:16 pm, Sun 30 Jan #15628
Sorry girls, the implication of what you don't dare say is defamation and harassment you dirty arsewi... But of course I'm only joking, just having a bit of fun.
Thanks for the addresses for service supplied by your own, but I already had them. What a bit of fun, I feel like eating 2 minties - sort of like what the heck fellas or fellowettes as you prefer to be.
nx wrote:
Oh, so Weirs book is finally out
Nope.Wrong person,wrong book.So much for your powers of deduction.Have another guess.
Edited by supersleuth at 4:30 pm, Sun 30 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 4:27 pm, Sun 30 Jan #15625
supersleuth wrote:
Nope.Wrong person,wrong book.So much for your powers of deduction.
definitely not a super sleuth there ss
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 4:30 pm, Sun 30 Jan #15626
Must be McNeish's fairy tale then
Quote
nx (633 ) 5:23 pm, Sun 30 Jan #15627
nx wrote:
Must be McNeish's fairy tale then
Wrong AGAIN !! Geez. The Police Complaints Authority would not find hundreds of errors, omissions and misrepresentations in Sir James McNeish's excellent non-fiction book, would they. Keep trying. We're patient. (even though a budgie got the correct answer ages ago ... but, that's OK).
Edited by lucky_trader at 7:25 pm, Sun 30 Jan
Quote
lucky_trader (1373 ) 7:16 pm, Sun 30 Jan #15628
Sorry girls, the implication of what you don't dare say is defamation and harassment you dirty arsewi... But of course I'm only joking, just having a bit of fun.
Thanks for the addresses for service supplied by your own, but I already had them. What a bit of fun, I feel like eating 2 minties - sort of like what the heck fellas or fellowettes as you prefer to be.
Interview with Lynley Dodd, author of A City Possessed...
Recorded, at 11.15 am on Radio Live today. First of all I should note that there is little held opinion abroad that Peter Ellis, of the infamous Christchurch Creche case, is anything other than innocent. Lynley Dodd, rather than take a neutral position in her book, expressed throughout that Peter Ellis was innocent displaying why. She still however presented all the 'evidence' including background information that shows how shaky the conviction was and indeed that charges should never have been laid.
After a introduction by way of interview, Lynley took calls from listeners, but for one, they all had information supporting Lynley's point of view. The one that didn't cited 2 pieces of 'evidence' against Peter Ellis that simply didn't exist, once Lynley had explained that, the caller was prevented from making his third (no doubt false) allegation. It was probably prudent to cut the caller off but by doing so was missed the opportunity of asking direct questions as to who his sources were, who he was and his relationship to his 'sources' - indeed why he was making false allegations so many years after the original event when, as has been described, that Peter has had a 'people's Pardon.'
Of course the 'people's Pardon' is not enough for Peter and he pushes ahead for not only a Royal Pardon but accountability for those that stole years of his life from him. Consider for a moment that Radio Live took the prudent course and cut off the message of hate by the caller making false allegations and compare that to Trade Me, hosting members of hate-sites that continue to publish false statements against David Bain and Joe Karam almost 2 years after the trial where David was acquitted. It was only recently that Trade Me began a 'unsuccessful' position of banning Stockdale and others from bringing unsubstantiated 'claims' from the hate-sites and posting them on TM as though they were facts.
That's why I'm joking around, just fooling, foxing with the suggestion that I'm going to take Stockdale, Kennard, Fox and Trade Me to Court. But don't take me seriously folks because it is probably important for the world to hear the drivelling bs coming from the mouths of these 'men' and have it published on line. And when they're not in Court because I'm bluffing, I hope they'll think about the Peter Ellis case and consider how Peter was framed in the same way as David was, and how even years later a few wackos continue to invent and peddle hate and lies in public - dirty, fiddling, witch, bros.
After a introduction by way of interview, Lynley took calls from listeners, but for one, they all had information supporting Lynley's point of view. The one that didn't cited 2 pieces of 'evidence' against Peter Ellis that simply didn't exist, once Lynley had explained that, the caller was prevented from making his third (no doubt false) allegation. It was probably prudent to cut the caller off but by doing so was missed the opportunity of asking direct questions as to who his sources were, who he was and his relationship to his 'sources' - indeed why he was making false allegations so many years after the original event when, as has been described, that Peter has had a 'people's Pardon.'
Of course the 'people's Pardon' is not enough for Peter and he pushes ahead for not only a Royal Pardon but accountability for those that stole years of his life from him. Consider for a moment that Radio Live took the prudent course and cut off the message of hate by the caller making false allegations and compare that to Trade Me, hosting members of hate-sites that continue to publish false statements against David Bain and Joe Karam almost 2 years after the trial where David was acquitted. It was only recently that Trade Me began a 'unsuccessful' position of banning Stockdale and others from bringing unsubstantiated 'claims' from the hate-sites and posting them on TM as though they were facts.
That's why I'm joking around, just fooling, foxing with the suggestion that I'm going to take Stockdale, Kennard, Fox and Trade Me to Court. But don't take me seriously folks because it is probably important for the world to hear the drivelling bs coming from the mouths of these 'men' and have it published on line. And when they're not in Court because I'm bluffing, I hope they'll think about the Peter Ellis case and consider how Peter was framed in the same way as David was, and how even years later a few wackos continue to invent and peddle hate and lies in public - dirty, fiddling, witch, bros.
To the Three Fiddlerteers, Stockdale, Kennard and Fox...
he's something that couldn't be happening, something I'm only joking or bluffing about....
I wonder who those 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents might be?
24/In consideration of this application I ask the Court to consider what benefit is lost for the public good if the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents are prevented from lying publicly about a case in which they are not involved, or lying about a case in which has already been dealt with by the Court and which the Respondents promote no public interest but rather bring deliberate disquiet upon the Judicial System and individuals they target for harassment. And for further consideration of whether the efforts of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
are in fact in Contempt of Court because due process continues and may ultimately be brought back to the Courts for a ruling on denial of due process or some other matter regarding the remedy of a Miscarriage of Justice.
25/I also ask for consideration of the results of careless, negligent publication of deliberate misinformation being allowed to continue ad infinitum and which causes people (myself and others) to be stalked and harassed for not remaining silent, and for not being permissive in the face of harassment and hate-filled messages and ask the question where but the Courts should the final place of remedy be for those harassed, defamed and stalked with or without tort?
I wonder who those 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents might be?
24/In consideration of this application I ask the Court to consider what benefit is lost for the public good if the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents are prevented from lying publicly about a case in which they are not involved, or lying about a case in which has already been dealt with by the Court and which the Respondents promote no public interest but rather bring deliberate disquiet upon the Judicial System and individuals they target for harassment. And for further consideration of whether the efforts of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents
are in fact in Contempt of Court because due process continues and may ultimately be brought back to the Courts for a ruling on denial of due process or some other matter regarding the remedy of a Miscarriage of Justice.
25/I also ask for consideration of the results of careless, negligent publication of deliberate misinformation being allowed to continue ad infinitum and which causes people (myself and others) to be stalked and harassed for not remaining silent, and for not being permissive in the face of harassment and hate-filled messages and ask the question where but the Courts should the final place of remedy be for those harassed, defamed and stalked with or without tort?
Friday, January 28, 2011
Hey 'Fiddlerteers' do you reckon I've put off to Monday what I could do today?
Kennard, Stockdale, Fox and TM - the paperwork is ready bros.
What fun.
But I'm joking aren't I, either that or bluffing? Surely, I wouldn't have any evidence coming from your own rotten dog-breath mouths? Would I?
You'll like the paperwork, you'll be so happy and beside yourselves. And a big trip to Auckland to boot. It's so jolly I feel like eating a minty, which reminds me to tell Kennard that he can't drink turps in Court, neither can Fox laugh hysterically every time Stockdale farts. Apart from that just act normal to complete the picture of what arse..pes you are.
What fun.
But I'm joking aren't I, either that or bluffing? Surely, I wouldn't have any evidence coming from your own rotten dog-breath mouths? Would I?
You'll like the paperwork, you'll be so happy and beside yourselves. And a big trip to Auckland to boot. It's so jolly I feel like eating a minty, which reminds me to tell Kennard that he can't drink turps in Court, neither can Fox laugh hysterically every time Stockdale farts. Apart from that just act normal to complete the picture of what arse..pes you are.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
One 'Fiddlerteer' starts the lie, then others repeat it by mantra..
First Trevor William Fox, now his bro fiddler buddy Mike Stockdale.....
Is kenty baby trying to up the ante? The only thing going up will be Joe Karam's boot up Kenty's butt as he flys into touch and starts blubbering. There, there Kenty - have a little fiddle with Mike in the bike sheds.
I see where David Bain said he didn't know whether he or his father killed his family. A look at this thread should solve that quandary for him.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 4:42 pm, Wed 26 Jan #15605
Is kenty baby trying to up the ante? The only thing going up will be Joe Karam's boot up Kenty's butt as he flys into touch and starts blubbering. There, there Kenty - have a little fiddle with Mike in the bike sheds.
I see where David Bain said he didn't know whether he or his father killed his family. A look at this thread should solve that quandary for him.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 4:42 pm, Wed 26 Jan #15605
The 3 'Fiddlerteers' - Stockdale, Kennard and Fox...
The below are timely reminders of the hate-siters still hunting in a pack and spreading lies as they have done since 2009. This is more current material I shall use in bringing to the Court's attention that Kennard and his fellow hate-siters (and hence TM) have no concern for legal action being brought because of the ongoing situation allowed on TM where the hate-siters have continued licence to defame and harass David Bain. The posts of Trevor William Fox (luckytrader) show this, also his post makes a claim about David Bain which is an absolute lie and which remains on TM boards with TM's consent.
Consequently, I now add Trevor William Fox, to the names of Mike Stockdale of Palmerston North and Lindsay Kennard as those against whom proof exists have willing spread lies on TM in order to defame, harass and diminish in reputation David Bain and others. As with the later 2, Trevor William Fox will be enjoined with TM in proceedings which I have given you notice of that I shall proceed with should no constructive response be made by TM in relation to my complaints about these three specifically and the hate-sites generally using TM boards to spread hate by close of work Monday 31 January 2011.
You may be interested to know that there is saved in cached material on TM details of a ruling made in The High Court which was suppressed. Publication of this material on TM is clearly a Contempt of Court issue which could be penalised by imprisonment. I have kept it because it shows currently that not only do TM allow publication of defamatory material, facilitate harassment against TM members and members of the public but also, and probably more seriously (for TM,) publish suppressed material and leave it on the boards ad infinitum.
Yours etc,
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=629&topic=7
ted9 wrote:
Why dont you clowns stop posting here its causing a lot of legal problems.
You may well be correct about the legal problems but really the issue, to whom?
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 11:38 am, Wed 26 Jan #31447
mr david bain has said in a recent interview with a womans magazine he is ok about people not believing he is innocent. his supporters should respect this.
Quote
lucky_trader (1364 ) 12:25 pm, Wed 26 Jan #31448
in fact, david has recently said he does not know which of the two suspects - himself or his father - killed his family, showing he does not believe his defence teams claim. it is only through discussion proving robin is innocent that we are able to help david work out who the killer is.
Quote
lucky_trader (1364 ) 1:01 pm, Wed 26 Jan #31449
Consequently, I now add Trevor William Fox, to the names of Mike Stockdale of Palmerston North and Lindsay Kennard as those against whom proof exists have willing spread lies on TM in order to defame, harass and diminish in reputation David Bain and others. As with the later 2, Trevor William Fox will be enjoined with TM in proceedings which I have given you notice of that I shall proceed with should no constructive response be made by TM in relation to my complaints about these three specifically and the hate-sites generally using TM boards to spread hate by close of work Monday 31 January 2011.
You may be interested to know that there is saved in cached material on TM details of a ruling made in The High Court which was suppressed. Publication of this material on TM is clearly a Contempt of Court issue which could be penalised by imprisonment. I have kept it because it shows currently that not only do TM allow publication of defamatory material, facilitate harassment against TM members and members of the public but also, and probably more seriously (for TM,) publish suppressed material and leave it on the boards ad infinitum.
Yours etc,
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=629&topic=7
ted9 wrote:
Why dont you clowns stop posting here its causing a lot of legal problems.
You may well be correct about the legal problems but really the issue, to whom?
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 11:38 am, Wed 26 Jan #31447
mr david bain has said in a recent interview with a womans magazine he is ok about people not believing he is innocent. his supporters should respect this.
Quote
lucky_trader (1364 ) 12:25 pm, Wed 26 Jan #31448
in fact, david has recently said he does not know which of the two suspects - himself or his father - killed his family, showing he does not believe his defence teams claim. it is only through discussion proving robin is innocent that we are able to help david work out who the killer is.
Quote
lucky_trader (1364 ) 1:01 pm, Wed 26 Jan #31449
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Does anybody actually know if Trevor William Fox is
also known as trevorluckyfiddler, or luckytradeover?
Don't worry Stockdale - I'm only joking...
I have had no response to my last two complaints made to you regarding registered hate-site members, the TM posters superslueth and linz4me construct of using TM boards to lie in order to cause public harassment, and ridicule of David Bain. It's a serious issue. And if my letters weren't clear enough I apologise but I thought it was sufficiently clearly set out, that subject to your response, I would be considering seeking legal remedy from both the posters and TM (as vehicle, publisher, complicit and so forth.)
I set out my issues in writing as is required, I also offered TM the opportunity, to consider any material I am holding material to the issue by way of a frank discovery process in order to avoid wasting Court time with what is a blatant, and simple to follow trail linked to registered members of known hate-sites, one of those involved in fact being a site-administrator.
I had anticipated that tomorrow, the 26th of January 2011, was sufficient time for the legal implications of TM's position with these 2 posters and others like them to be researched and made clear. However, because I had not determined in my correspondence with you a specific date I now nominate close of work on Monday 31st January as that time.
Yours sincerely
I set out my issues in writing as is required, I also offered TM the opportunity, to consider any material I am holding material to the issue by way of a frank discovery process in order to avoid wasting Court time with what is a blatant, and simple to follow trail linked to registered members of known hate-sites, one of those involved in fact being a site-administrator.
I had anticipated that tomorrow, the 26th of January 2011, was sufficient time for the legal implications of TM's position with these 2 posters and others like them to be researched and made clear. However, because I had not determined in my correspondence with you a specific date I now nominate close of work on Monday 31st January as that time.
Yours sincerely
Anything familiar here......
This one's also interesting... http://laurajames.typepad.com/clews/2006/12/christmas_murde.html
especially the denial by the family even now...
We remember the Christmas murders.
Our celebration is tempered by a certain pathos that makes any notorious crime more tragic when it falls on or even near it. The worst crime of all, at least on this holiday meant for family and the enjoyment of children, is the murder of a family. We may always remember how Scott Peterson betrayed Laci and Connor on Christmas Eve.
The "family annihilators" -- men who cooly plan the murders of their wives and children -- sometimes choose this holiday to do it. In 1954, in Pasadena, California, Harold Oilar killed his family after their Christmas party. On Christmas Day, 1929, Charlie Lawson committed the unforgivable sin of killing his wife and six youngest children in southern Appalachia.
A Christmas Family Tragedy is the name of the new documentary just out about the Lawson family murders in 1929. Your correspondent had a chance to see it. The movie is filled with photos and interviews with local residents, historians, genealogists, Lawson experts, and descendants of the surviving family. The movie is a fascinating exploration of the many ways to ask why in the Lawson case.
Why did a 37-year-old farmer kill his family?
Why did people drive for miles to see the murder house?
Why did 5,000 people attend the funeral?
Why do we make music of such a thing?
How could it be that a recording of a hillbilly murder ballad about the Lawson Christmas tragedy actually cracked the top five in record sales in 1930?
Why is it that some locals refused to discuss the case, ever, while others take stones from atop the gravesite?
There are some elements in this case that the student of crime will recognize as inherent in the family annihilator. Like John List decades later, Charlie Lawson clearly planned for days or weeks. He took the whole clan to town ten days before Christmas to buy new clothes -- outfits that they'd be buried in -- the photo (above) that would run in newspapers across the region. After his awful deeds, Lawson, like List, collected them, posed some of them.
But the Lawson case is also unusual even within its type. Charlie Lawson was well regarded, a "good man," someone who was honest and did kind deeds for his neighbors. None of the "usual" explanations for family annihilators appear in this case. Lawson did not seem to suffer from religious delusion or any delusion at all. He in fact objected to his family attending church. There were rumors of incest, that his daughter was pregnant. But there doesn't seem to be much support for that. And if there were financial straits that drove him to do it, again there seems little proof.
One thing about Charlie Lawson is clear these many years later. He had a temper. Rages. A "strong hand." He beat a man in public once. His oldest son had begun sleeping in his clothes to protect the family from the patriarch.
In the end, the explanation for the Lawson Christmas tragedy may lie in the simple fact that murdering your family, "my family, and I can do what I want with them," may best be characterized as the ultimate act of domestic violence.
After exploring the why of it, the filmmakers remark --
The cold, hard, observable, tangible fact of the matter is that Charlie did it because he felt like he had the right to make that decision for his family by himself. He thought he had the right to make life-or-death decisions for other people without their knowledge or consent.
We hope we can give the spirits of the Lawson children a proper burial by honestly acknowledging their suffering and confronting the shocking brutality of what happened to them that day without blinking.
Maybe instead of forgiving and forgetting we should be acting on warning signs and preventing the next tragedy from happening in our own neighborhoods.
For more:
The filmmaker's website - featuring photos, links, a message board, and a place to order your own copy.For more Clews, see The Lawson Family Tragedy In Music - about the Hillbilly music inspired by the murders.
A new book about the case -- The Meaning of Our Tears by North Carolina author Trudy J. Smith -- this is an update of the first and only other book about the case, White Christmas, Bloody Christmas (now out of print and in high demand). Trudy Smith first published White Christmas in 1990 along with her late father, M. Bruce Jones. The Meaning of Our Tears, which was published only weeks ago, is the enlarged and revised edition of the story.
***
An Interview with the Filmmaker
Matt Hodges, one of the producers of A Christmas Family Tragedy, was kind enough to answer a few questions about the film that I put to him. Here's the Q&A.
What ever came of the murder house?
As mentioned almost in passing in the film, the house was torn down in 1984 and the wood was used to build a covered bridge on the property.
Who owns the property today?
The current owner of the property is a rather private individual who specifically requested that we not include any info on him or his property in the film. That's the reason why it seems I only mentioned the fate of the house in passing at the beginning of the 1985 graveyard ghost story. I wanted to keep my promise to him, especially since he's currently Very upset that the book Did include a picture of the bridge he built without securing his permission. In a small community, it's a big deal, and I've done my best to not offend Any of the principals involved so as to contribute to the future goodwill attached to the project in the community.
The reason for their reticence seems to stem from a high volume of traffic to his home from curious onlookers, who in the past at least, vandalized a lot of things surrounding this story.
Did the one surviving member of the family ever speak at length about what happened and /or about his father? Did he leave any writings, any testimony?
Arthur 'Buck' Lawson to our knowledge never wrote any account of his life. We do have footage of more stories about his later life than we included in our film, but that's due in no small part to the need to contextualize every bit of info we got in a timely fashion within the structure of the overall film.
Strangely, we received stories that he sometimes accompanied the items from the house that toured local fairs as part of an exhibit, but we were unable to get anyone on record who saw him there or had any 1st hand account of it whatsoever, so we went with what we Did have, which was an apparent Lawson family imposter recounting the tale after Arthur's death. There are numerous newspaper accounts dating all the way throughout the 77 yrs of this story's history, but none that we found that referred to Arthur, except his obituary or the usual info we included.
Was there ever an inquest?
There was no inquest due to Dr. Helsabeck convening a jury on the scene of the crime announcing that the family was dead, Charlie was the killer, case closed. Again, there's newspaper stories from the time stating that a resident at Johns Hopkins University in the area, a Dr. James Spottiswood took the brain back to JHU to examine it, but followup stories on this are slim and inconclusive at best. After repeated efforts to track it's history at JHU, I was told that all records of it would have been purged long ago.
What is the family rift about today?
There are numerous causes of conflict amongst the surviving relatives. Some believe Charlie didn't do it, while others believe he did, but for different reasons. The one thing they all seem to agree on though is their universal unwavering hatred for the authors of WCBC. The 2 chief complaints being that by only interviewing one member of the family in depth, the rest of the family's opinions and considerations, not to mention feelings weren't taken into account. Thus the 'confirmation' of molestation was bitterly attacked by many who had at least as solid a connection to this story as Stella Lawson.
Secondly, that the authors exploited the story for their own private financial gain at the expense of family or any other needy cause affected by the issues raised in this story. Toward that end, to demonstrate our commitment to preserving history while using it to serve a greater good, we're donating 10% of the profits from the film for its lifetime toward domestic violence causes, which you can learn more about at http://www.bodproductions.com/domestic.htm.
especially the denial by the family even now...
We remember the Christmas murders.
Our celebration is tempered by a certain pathos that makes any notorious crime more tragic when it falls on or even near it. The worst crime of all, at least on this holiday meant for family and the enjoyment of children, is the murder of a family. We may always remember how Scott Peterson betrayed Laci and Connor on Christmas Eve.
The "family annihilators" -- men who cooly plan the murders of their wives and children -- sometimes choose this holiday to do it. In 1954, in Pasadena, California, Harold Oilar killed his family after their Christmas party. On Christmas Day, 1929, Charlie Lawson committed the unforgivable sin of killing his wife and six youngest children in southern Appalachia.
A Christmas Family Tragedy is the name of the new documentary just out about the Lawson family murders in 1929. Your correspondent had a chance to see it. The movie is filled with photos and interviews with local residents, historians, genealogists, Lawson experts, and descendants of the surviving family. The movie is a fascinating exploration of the many ways to ask why in the Lawson case.
Why did a 37-year-old farmer kill his family?
Why did people drive for miles to see the murder house?
Why did 5,000 people attend the funeral?
Why do we make music of such a thing?
How could it be that a recording of a hillbilly murder ballad about the Lawson Christmas tragedy actually cracked the top five in record sales in 1930?
Why is it that some locals refused to discuss the case, ever, while others take stones from atop the gravesite?
There are some elements in this case that the student of crime will recognize as inherent in the family annihilator. Like John List decades later, Charlie Lawson clearly planned for days or weeks. He took the whole clan to town ten days before Christmas to buy new clothes -- outfits that they'd be buried in -- the photo (above) that would run in newspapers across the region. After his awful deeds, Lawson, like List, collected them, posed some of them.
But the Lawson case is also unusual even within its type. Charlie Lawson was well regarded, a "good man," someone who was honest and did kind deeds for his neighbors. None of the "usual" explanations for family annihilators appear in this case. Lawson did not seem to suffer from religious delusion or any delusion at all. He in fact objected to his family attending church. There were rumors of incest, that his daughter was pregnant. But there doesn't seem to be much support for that. And if there were financial straits that drove him to do it, again there seems little proof.
One thing about Charlie Lawson is clear these many years later. He had a temper. Rages. A "strong hand." He beat a man in public once. His oldest son had begun sleeping in his clothes to protect the family from the patriarch.
In the end, the explanation for the Lawson Christmas tragedy may lie in the simple fact that murdering your family, "my family, and I can do what I want with them," may best be characterized as the ultimate act of domestic violence.
After exploring the why of it, the filmmakers remark --
The cold, hard, observable, tangible fact of the matter is that Charlie did it because he felt like he had the right to make that decision for his family by himself. He thought he had the right to make life-or-death decisions for other people without their knowledge or consent.
We hope we can give the spirits of the Lawson children a proper burial by honestly acknowledging their suffering and confronting the shocking brutality of what happened to them that day without blinking.
Maybe instead of forgiving and forgetting we should be acting on warning signs and preventing the next tragedy from happening in our own neighborhoods.
For more:
The filmmaker's website - featuring photos, links, a message board, and a place to order your own copy.For more Clews, see The Lawson Family Tragedy In Music - about the Hillbilly music inspired by the murders.
A new book about the case -- The Meaning of Our Tears by North Carolina author Trudy J. Smith -- this is an update of the first and only other book about the case, White Christmas, Bloody Christmas (now out of print and in high demand). Trudy Smith first published White Christmas in 1990 along with her late father, M. Bruce Jones. The Meaning of Our Tears, which was published only weeks ago, is the enlarged and revised edition of the story.
***
An Interview with the Filmmaker
Matt Hodges, one of the producers of A Christmas Family Tragedy, was kind enough to answer a few questions about the film that I put to him. Here's the Q&A.
What ever came of the murder house?
As mentioned almost in passing in the film, the house was torn down in 1984 and the wood was used to build a covered bridge on the property.
Who owns the property today?
The current owner of the property is a rather private individual who specifically requested that we not include any info on him or his property in the film. That's the reason why it seems I only mentioned the fate of the house in passing at the beginning of the 1985 graveyard ghost story. I wanted to keep my promise to him, especially since he's currently Very upset that the book Did include a picture of the bridge he built without securing his permission. In a small community, it's a big deal, and I've done my best to not offend Any of the principals involved so as to contribute to the future goodwill attached to the project in the community.
The reason for their reticence seems to stem from a high volume of traffic to his home from curious onlookers, who in the past at least, vandalized a lot of things surrounding this story.
Did the one surviving member of the family ever speak at length about what happened and /or about his father? Did he leave any writings, any testimony?
Arthur 'Buck' Lawson to our knowledge never wrote any account of his life. We do have footage of more stories about his later life than we included in our film, but that's due in no small part to the need to contextualize every bit of info we got in a timely fashion within the structure of the overall film.
Strangely, we received stories that he sometimes accompanied the items from the house that toured local fairs as part of an exhibit, but we were unable to get anyone on record who saw him there or had any 1st hand account of it whatsoever, so we went with what we Did have, which was an apparent Lawson family imposter recounting the tale after Arthur's death. There are numerous newspaper accounts dating all the way throughout the 77 yrs of this story's history, but none that we found that referred to Arthur, except his obituary or the usual info we included.
Was there ever an inquest?
There was no inquest due to Dr. Helsabeck convening a jury on the scene of the crime announcing that the family was dead, Charlie was the killer, case closed. Again, there's newspaper stories from the time stating that a resident at Johns Hopkins University in the area, a Dr. James Spottiswood took the brain back to JHU to examine it, but followup stories on this are slim and inconclusive at best. After repeated efforts to track it's history at JHU, I was told that all records of it would have been purged long ago.
What is the family rift about today?
There are numerous causes of conflict amongst the surviving relatives. Some believe Charlie didn't do it, while others believe he did, but for different reasons. The one thing they all seem to agree on though is their universal unwavering hatred for the authors of WCBC. The 2 chief complaints being that by only interviewing one member of the family in depth, the rest of the family's opinions and considerations, not to mention feelings weren't taken into account. Thus the 'confirmation' of molestation was bitterly attacked by many who had at least as solid a connection to this story as Stella Lawson.
Secondly, that the authors exploited the story for their own private financial gain at the expense of family or any other needy cause affected by the issues raised in this story. Toward that end, to demonstrate our commitment to preserving history while using it to serve a greater good, we're donating 10% of the profits from the film for its lifetime toward domestic violence causes, which you can learn more about at http://www.bodproductions.com/domestic.htm.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Gabrielle Giffords.
one Angel of our time,
messenger of hope.
free, to hold goodwill, care for others,
to touch the damned and blessed alike -
watching there, where the wretched of heart fall
to cry or weep, or spit foul anger,
to offer a hand.
bringing with her, each of us,
into another world
for where we search
the final sands of life.
messenger of hope.
free, to hold goodwill, care for others,
to touch the damned and blessed alike -
watching there, where the wretched of heart fall
to cry or weep, or spit foul anger,
to offer a hand.
bringing with her, each of us,
into another world
for where we search
the final sands of life.
Amanda Know appeal, it's contemporary fit with MOJ's in NZ..
When the Amanda Knox appeal was previewed in November 2010 an ex FBI investigator referred to 'golden bullet' evidence. That being evidence not found initially, but found sometime later and by all appearances when it was most 'needed.'
This of course is similar to the Crewe case here in NZ and also the Bain and Scott Watson cases. The spent cartridge cases 'missed' in the Crewe garden despite a grid search but discovered weeks later and finally years later revealed as having been planted. So to the Bain case where despite days of searching a lens was discovered in one of the rooms by a Detective not tasked with the job of searching, making the 'find' after hours in what ultimately proved to be a discredited link between David Bain and that room on the morning of the killers. So to the Watson case, hairs somehow missed on an early inspection found later. On each of these occasions the 'event' of the discoveries led to strengthening already weak circumstantial cases. The FBI retired investigator called that 'golden bullet' evidence and it also occurred with some DNA samples found in the crime scene of what I'm calling the 'Knox' weeks after the initial searches.
But reading more details of the Knox appeal there are other familiar 'issues' with the evidence. One of the prime witnesses happens to be a convicted drug dealer who has given 'important' evidence in 2 earlier murder trials no less. So too for Watson, a convenient gaol house informer pulled in to provide evidence of 'disclosures' made by Watson to a complete stranger. Thomas in the Crewe case verballed, David in the Bain case, leading questions put to him during is statements and later magnified to other 'significant' meanings.
Then we have the suggested 'motives' in all 4 cases, each it could be said deliberately prejudicial and of no probative value. In effect too prejudicial and without enough verified substance to be put to a Jury. In the Knox case it was 'sex' games gone wrong despite there being no proof of that. Arthur Thomas had to overcome the sinister suggestion that he had harboured a long term affection for one of the victims which might have driven him on to murder - a bloody big might, with no real place to be put before a Jury. David Bain had levelled at him the suggestion that he was in a girlfriend boyfriend relationship with his sister Laniet. The two deceased in the Scott Watson case provided an 'opportunity' that the crime was sex driven, a young potential couple, handsome and beautiful by turn, a purity destroyed by someone, anyone and Scott would do.
So common also is the motive of sex in some way intended sex, or denied sex, wrongful sex - all bases covered. The mere idea to reside in a Juror's mind where doubt might surface - 'oh yes sex, I shall convict.' If there is no viable link, nothing strong enough to overcome the potential prejudice as to why the beautiful young women, or partners might die then call the 0800 sex line, that will be worth a call but it won't be justice.
This of course is similar to the Crewe case here in NZ and also the Bain and Scott Watson cases. The spent cartridge cases 'missed' in the Crewe garden despite a grid search but discovered weeks later and finally years later revealed as having been planted. So to the Bain case where despite days of searching a lens was discovered in one of the rooms by a Detective not tasked with the job of searching, making the 'find' after hours in what ultimately proved to be a discredited link between David Bain and that room on the morning of the killers. So to the Watson case, hairs somehow missed on an early inspection found later. On each of these occasions the 'event' of the discoveries led to strengthening already weak circumstantial cases. The FBI retired investigator called that 'golden bullet' evidence and it also occurred with some DNA samples found in the crime scene of what I'm calling the 'Knox' weeks after the initial searches.
But reading more details of the Knox appeal there are other familiar 'issues' with the evidence. One of the prime witnesses happens to be a convicted drug dealer who has given 'important' evidence in 2 earlier murder trials no less. So too for Watson, a convenient gaol house informer pulled in to provide evidence of 'disclosures' made by Watson to a complete stranger. Thomas in the Crewe case verballed, David in the Bain case, leading questions put to him during is statements and later magnified to other 'significant' meanings.
Then we have the suggested 'motives' in all 4 cases, each it could be said deliberately prejudicial and of no probative value. In effect too prejudicial and without enough verified substance to be put to a Jury. In the Knox case it was 'sex' games gone wrong despite there being no proof of that. Arthur Thomas had to overcome the sinister suggestion that he had harboured a long term affection for one of the victims which might have driven him on to murder - a bloody big might, with no real place to be put before a Jury. David Bain had levelled at him the suggestion that he was in a girlfriend boyfriend relationship with his sister Laniet. The two deceased in the Scott Watson case provided an 'opportunity' that the crime was sex driven, a young potential couple, handsome and beautiful by turn, a purity destroyed by someone, anyone and Scott would do.
So common also is the motive of sex in some way intended sex, or denied sex, wrongful sex - all bases covered. The mere idea to reside in a Juror's mind where doubt might surface - 'oh yes sex, I shall convict.' If there is no viable link, nothing strong enough to overcome the potential prejudice as to why the beautiful young women, or partners might die then call the 0800 sex line, that will be worth a call but it won't be justice.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Get it right Stockdale, you are a proven liar and pedo-apologist...
The only person who did lie was David Bain.He lied on oath when he took the stand and said he didn't know how that pair of his mother's glasses came to be in his room,that he hadn't thought about them,that he hadn't seen them for over a year.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:23 pm, Sun 23 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:20 pm, Sun 23 Jan #15581
The above from the filthy scumbag hate-site administrator who crawled back into TM with his crap after 2 weeks because he thought the coast is clear, well it ain't clear pig face - your number is up. By Wednesday the decision is made whether it is just you and Kennard going to Court or both you AND Trademe for facilitating your stalking and lies.
But I'm joking aren't I Stockdale, I'm just puff and wind aren't I bro?
Edited by supersleuth at 3:23 pm, Sun 23 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:20 pm, Sun 23 Jan #15581
The above from the filthy scumbag hate-site administrator who crawled back into TM with his crap after 2 weeks because he thought the coast is clear, well it ain't clear pig face - your number is up. By Wednesday the decision is made whether it is just you and Kennard going to Court or both you AND Trademe for facilitating your stalking and lies.
But I'm joking aren't I Stockdale, I'm just puff and wind aren't I bro?
From a former Government Inspector of explosives,
a letter to the editor published in today SST.
Pike River
As a former government inspector of explosives, I use to inspect every mine on the West Coast. I was also required to destroy any explosives that showed signes of hygroscopic deterioration (ie, absorption of water and the exudation of nitro-glycerine.)
I had read, as a very interested party, much of the media coverage and come to the conclusion already that this would end up as a catastrophic botch-up. The fact that the police were given overriding power in the rescue operation was the first botch-up. In a mine such as this, the least risky time to go in was immediately after the first blast.
Progress was held up inordinately, waiting for the first piece of Heath Robinson equipment from Queensland, which I am told proved useless on the first attempt. Then a modified jet engine, again from Australia, was awaited, which also failed to do the job.
I do not recall any mention that expertise in such a situation was ever requested from south Wales, which has far more experience in similar situations than Australian mines will ever have.
Roy Strother
Titirangi, Auckland.
Pike River
As a former government inspector of explosives, I use to inspect every mine on the West Coast. I was also required to destroy any explosives that showed signes of hygroscopic deterioration (ie, absorption of water and the exudation of nitro-glycerine.)
I had read, as a very interested party, much of the media coverage and come to the conclusion already that this would end up as a catastrophic botch-up. The fact that the police were given overriding power in the rescue operation was the first botch-up. In a mine such as this, the least risky time to go in was immediately after the first blast.
Progress was held up inordinately, waiting for the first piece of Heath Robinson equipment from Queensland, which I am told proved useless on the first attempt. Then a modified jet engine, again from Australia, was awaited, which also failed to do the job.
I do not recall any mention that expertise in such a situation was ever requested from south Wales, which has far more experience in similar situations than Australian mines will ever have.
Roy Strother
Titirangi, Auckland.
Trade Me simplicity....
If the country wants a change in Police culture, I suggest it looks much closer at the problem. Lopping off a few boils won't clear up the disease, nor will any dose of castor oil. The Police culture we all blame for the excessive use of power has it's roots much deeper and more widely spread throughout our community than anyone has pointed out todate. It is in all of us. We expect the cops to do the filthiest work, but we abuse them and threaten them as they do it, and afterwards when they present their findings in court. We pay them peanuts to risk their lives, their marriages, their psyches, we let the media hang them out to dry so we can watch them cry real tears and if they don't we name them incompetent country cops and revile them. We let our children race them on our streets, and screech when someone dies. We challenge them, make 'beating' them a national sport, but still we call for them when we need some big strong braveheart to come save us from our neighbours.
It isn't the Police culture we should be worried about. It's our own.
Quote
oh_hunnihunni (1188 ) 10:32 am, Wed 19 Jan #7
Here we have the ultimate excuse for why we have a Police culture under siege, it's the fault of the people in general. How pathetic and simplistic to propose that the country should accept an endemic culture of 'looking out for one's own kind' in the Police because of general proposals about the unpleasant jobs they are tasked with doing and our reliance upon them. The Police are not forced to join, they are not gang pressed into the force, they apply and if accepted make an oath after training. One cannot for a second anticipate that the new entrants have any misgivings about some of the worst aspects of their job, or that they have been lulled or conned into some false expectation of what the job will be.
So why then does the writer above suggest it's isn't the Police Culture that the public should worry about but rather the public should worry about their own. Is this dimwit suggesting that to obtain first class and community conscious Policing the community must lift it standards. Or that good policing is a reward only for communities that lift the standard of their culture to some unidentified level, in order that the Police will then deign to rid themselves of a culture that has been identified within the Police itself and marked to be removed? Are we about to enter an age when only those that have 'changed' their culture and have proof of such will be able to rely on help from the Police as this idiot seems to suggest. Are we to recognise that bad Policing is the result of being a 'bad' community?
The attitude of the writer above is an effort to put NZ into third world status where only the rich or 'good' will be provided for by the Police who in fact will inherit a paternalistic role over the good and bad they 'see' in society. Excuse me lunkhead that is exactly the problem and to endorse it is to victimise the public and disassemble law and order and the fundamental rights of democracy and freedom. It makes me wonder how far we have really come when some idiot message boarder quotes a few random examples of the accepted role of the Police before turning that to say we have what we deserve, or we get what we deserve - I'd like to see the legislation that says that.
Broad and Pope were given (probably the result of a serious misjudgement at the time) the opportunity to stop the back slapping of their mates into promotion, or reward for errors, promoting the wrong people for the wrong reasons and they blew it. In my opinion the project was never going to work, first of all because it was always going to be questioned how someone that formed part of the problem was going to be capable of fixing it. Already shown as to having never been willing to do anything about the culture during long Police careers. And secondly it seems ultimately stupid to presume they had the skills or capacity to implement something so far out of their career experience and with them known to already being in an environment where they'd overlooked or promoted the things they would be tasked with changing. Come to think of it, that decision was just about as dumb as blaming the public as the writer does above.
But of course all is not lost, wise heads are at work and the push for culture change in the Police has lopped off the heads of those representative of the culture that has been identified as in need of change, I hope the lessons now learnt at the top filter their way down and union resistance or 'old school' resistance is kicked to the kerb, more women are involved and promoted, promotions are on merit, difficult Police not 'promoted' to desk jobs in Wellington to get them away from areas where their poor performance has made the jobs of others more difficult. Also not least to forget that the rank and file of the Police are supported, able to speak out, complain when necessary, don't feel pressured not to report misconduct - in fact do as a normal part of business, no cover ups for anything and a removal of the 'elitism' aspect identified in the most recent report of the rank and file seeing the admin as out of touch.
It isn't the Police culture we should be worried about. It's our own.
Quote
oh_hunnihunni (1188 ) 10:32 am, Wed 19 Jan #7
Here we have the ultimate excuse for why we have a Police culture under siege, it's the fault of the people in general. How pathetic and simplistic to propose that the country should accept an endemic culture of 'looking out for one's own kind' in the Police because of general proposals about the unpleasant jobs they are tasked with doing and our reliance upon them. The Police are not forced to join, they are not gang pressed into the force, they apply and if accepted make an oath after training. One cannot for a second anticipate that the new entrants have any misgivings about some of the worst aspects of their job, or that they have been lulled or conned into some false expectation of what the job will be.
So why then does the writer above suggest it's isn't the Police Culture that the public should worry about but rather the public should worry about their own. Is this dimwit suggesting that to obtain first class and community conscious Policing the community must lift it standards. Or that good policing is a reward only for communities that lift the standard of their culture to some unidentified level, in order that the Police will then deign to rid themselves of a culture that has been identified within the Police itself and marked to be removed? Are we about to enter an age when only those that have 'changed' their culture and have proof of such will be able to rely on help from the Police as this idiot seems to suggest. Are we to recognise that bad Policing is the result of being a 'bad' community?
The attitude of the writer above is an effort to put NZ into third world status where only the rich or 'good' will be provided for by the Police who in fact will inherit a paternalistic role over the good and bad they 'see' in society. Excuse me lunkhead that is exactly the problem and to endorse it is to victimise the public and disassemble law and order and the fundamental rights of democracy and freedom. It makes me wonder how far we have really come when some idiot message boarder quotes a few random examples of the accepted role of the Police before turning that to say we have what we deserve, or we get what we deserve - I'd like to see the legislation that says that.
Broad and Pope were given (probably the result of a serious misjudgement at the time) the opportunity to stop the back slapping of their mates into promotion, or reward for errors, promoting the wrong people for the wrong reasons and they blew it. In my opinion the project was never going to work, first of all because it was always going to be questioned how someone that formed part of the problem was going to be capable of fixing it. Already shown as to having never been willing to do anything about the culture during long Police careers. And secondly it seems ultimately stupid to presume they had the skills or capacity to implement something so far out of their career experience and with them known to already being in an environment where they'd overlooked or promoted the things they would be tasked with changing. Come to think of it, that decision was just about as dumb as blaming the public as the writer does above.
But of course all is not lost, wise heads are at work and the push for culture change in the Police has lopped off the heads of those representative of the culture that has been identified as in need of change, I hope the lessons now learnt at the top filter their way down and union resistance or 'old school' resistance is kicked to the kerb, more women are involved and promoted, promotions are on merit, difficult Police not 'promoted' to desk jobs in Wellington to get them away from areas where their poor performance has made the jobs of others more difficult. Also not least to forget that the rank and file of the Police are supported, able to speak out, complain when necessary, don't feel pressured not to report misconduct - in fact do as a normal part of business, no cover ups for anything and a removal of the 'elitism' aspect identified in the most recent report of the rank and file seeing the admin as out of touch.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Hey Lindsay Kennard, Gurnard bum.....
I have it on good authority that Scott Watson doesn't like kiddie fiddlers either, so butt out fish bum. You should get the picture, pedo's aren't popular. Don't fly you're pedo flag for Scott Watson, get on your bike pal.
Friday, January 21, 2011
What was Judith Collins saying when she said
to allow Rob Pope to reapply for his job would show her as a 'corrupt' Minister. Was it because of his, apparently best held intentions, to capture his best retirement fund options by going in 2012 or was it because of behaviour that the Minister saw as corrupt. She owes it to the public and Rob Pope to spell that out.
I personally suspect that the Minister is well aware of a pervasive and corrupt culture older than the NZ Police that has won influence for its own ends - the bros and secret hand shakers, if it is not that then Minister should put the country right on the issue. For all intents and purposes it looks like the bros are out in the cold having finally been partially exposed.
I'd also like to know from the Minister how objectively it could fall upon serving police officers with a total background in the Police Culture to somehow be equipped to remove that culture. What bloody nonsense, and what bloody nonsense for the non bros and the non corrupt to be responsible to remedy the behaviour of those higher in the tree above them. Get it right Judith the men and women of the Police didn't join to become responsible for what successive Governments have allowed and seemingly promoted. Good on you if you've worked out the core base of the corruption and are taking a scythe to it and I'm sure you don't forget those at the forefront of fighting crime and building a more inclusive and fair society - give them proper recognition and support.
I personally suspect that the Minister is well aware of a pervasive and corrupt culture older than the NZ Police that has won influence for its own ends - the bros and secret hand shakers, if it is not that then Minister should put the country right on the issue. For all intents and purposes it looks like the bros are out in the cold having finally been partially exposed.
I'd also like to know from the Minister how objectively it could fall upon serving police officers with a total background in the Police Culture to somehow be equipped to remove that culture. What bloody nonsense, and what bloody nonsense for the non bros and the non corrupt to be responsible to remedy the behaviour of those higher in the tree above them. Get it right Judith the men and women of the Police didn't join to become responsible for what successive Governments have allowed and seemingly promoted. Good on you if you've worked out the core base of the corruption and are taking a scythe to it and I'm sure you don't forget those at the forefront of fighting crime and building a more inclusive and fair society - give them proper recognition and support.
The dirty lying kiddie fiddler Mike Stockdale is back to his filth....
You've had the message Stockdale you arseho.., you filthy peddler of lies. David Bain had no marks to his chest on the day of the murders. Don't for a second think that your 'problem' has gone away Stockdale, your fat butt will end up in Court along with TM if their response to me is not satisfactory. You know how it works idiot head, they've been given notice in writing, republished on here - I'll give them a few more days as my letter indicated before giving you the chop with your filthy pedo ways. Don't worry about Millie Weir, he's on the outer like his former mates, they're old news, a curiosity of corruption but you Stockdale remain current news with you pedo apologies and lies.
I've proven publicly that you are a liar Stock dale, a dirty dog liar and persecutor, don't for a minute think like your dope head girlfriend, pedo-accused mate Kennard that it all goes away just because you put a corset on and take anti diarrhoea pills for a week. The beat goes on lunk head. I've hundred of examples to prove you are a filthy stalker, persecutor and liar Stockdale, all attested by your blow arse words. But I'm joking aren't I Stockdale, I won't go ahead because I'm of scared of you and Millie Weir and your bro mates, disgraced cops - suck it up dickhe...
Are you inferring that Weir knew Laniet Bain?. Yes,Weir admits he shouldn't have written Hang Bain,but that was well after the trial. And I can understand his frustration. Once again you are confusing the issue. The police arrested the right person.He was tried and rightly convicted. The questions you should be asking yourself is why Bain lied when he took the stand. Why he lied about not wearing his mother's glasses,for example. Why he changed his story re the green jersey. Why he could not explain those bruises on his head,and those scratches on his torso. I could go on,ad infinitum. Instead you mention Weir writing the words "Hang Bain",as if that was of some importance.It wasn't. You need to look at the big picture.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 2:38 pm, Fri 21 Jan #82
As for this arsew...
And you go along with what pro did ,cyber.Shame on you.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 5:54 pm, Fri 21 Jan #106
Shame on you if you are a father or grandfather, even a half decent human being, shame on you kiddie fiddler bro, your time is up.
I've proven publicly that you are a liar Stock dale, a dirty dog liar and persecutor, don't for a minute think like your dope head girlfriend, pedo-accused mate Kennard that it all goes away just because you put a corset on and take anti diarrhoea pills for a week. The beat goes on lunk head. I've hundred of examples to prove you are a filthy stalker, persecutor and liar Stockdale, all attested by your blow arse words. But I'm joking aren't I Stockdale, I won't go ahead because I'm of scared of you and Millie Weir and your bro mates, disgraced cops - suck it up dickhe...
Are you inferring that Weir knew Laniet Bain?. Yes,Weir admits he shouldn't have written Hang Bain,but that was well after the trial. And I can understand his frustration. Once again you are confusing the issue. The police arrested the right person.He was tried and rightly convicted. The questions you should be asking yourself is why Bain lied when he took the stand. Why he lied about not wearing his mother's glasses,for example. Why he changed his story re the green jersey. Why he could not explain those bruises on his head,and those scratches on his torso. I could go on,ad infinitum. Instead you mention Weir writing the words "Hang Bain",as if that was of some importance.It wasn't. You need to look at the big picture.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 2:38 pm, Fri 21 Jan #82
As for this arsew...
And you go along with what pro did ,cyber.Shame on you.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 5:54 pm, Fri 21 Jan #106
Shame on you if you are a father or grandfather, even a half decent human being, shame on you kiddie fiddler bro, your time is up.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Taking into account that Lindsay Kennard is a proven liar is it also taken as proven that he's a pedo...
Maybe if you thick friend used lower case his meanings would be clearer. I AM NOT the only one to get the thicko's meaning right. You obviously know this person well as you fervently defend his arrogant stupidity. Yes I am deeply affected by the accusation as I am a survivor of female perpetrated sexual abuse and my ex made an allegation of incest against me in her effect to stop me seeing my children and obtain protection orders. He only problem was my daughter who was 15 would not support her allegation and emphatically denied any thing had ever happen. My daughter is my greatest support as I face a bleak future. So I suggest you tell you favourite ally to follow the convention of the internet. It would not do hard if you opened your mind, if you have a brain it wont fall out. addendum oh the other thing my original post was in reply to a comment YOU had made and I replied that it was a circular argument. ASH204 stuck his thick head and answered for you
Edited by linz4me at 6:43 pm, Mon 26 Jul
by linz4me on 06:39 pm, 26 Jul 2010
When somebody like Kennard so easily displays his propensity to lie, most often to deliberately hurt others, how can one really draw a line between the truth and his lies? All we know of his ex wives is what he has told us, that by some remarkable event they were all violent to the poor old reprobate. So to find the truth in what he repeatedly displays it is probably easier to consider the patterns which with Kennard are always - how great he is, also how he suffers from various ailments including depression 'brought on' by his faithless wives, his suicide attempts, what he studies and so it goes on. The common denominator is always his cry for sympathy, either because of how good he is or because life has dealt him such savage blows.
Often there is little respect for those that have a habit of blaming their ex spouses for things, Kennard does that 3 times over. Yes, he had 3 violent, unfaithful wives (can anyone beat that?) And to add to that he was accused of incest as he admits above, taking into account his history of lying one could easily consider that if one of his wives was violent (3 being so is too much of a stretch) perhaps it was because of the activities between Kennard and his daughter the allegation of which he freely admits above. Of course Kennard covers the possibility of that on a 'trust me, I'm a good guy Christian' basis. But we've 'trusted' Kennard before and his track record as a liar is compelling - so why trust the rotten pervert even an inch. I don't trust him and I don't take his word over others who have not had the opportunity to respond to Kennard's allegations about them, we know he makes false allegations and hints and references but provides no hard facts.
So we have it then, a pedo accused in his own words, defending another pedo accused not with facts but with lies. The fundamental failure arrives, Kennard can not be trusted and like most poor liars goes close to the truth they wish to avoid. For a poor liar there is often the necessity to travel close to the truth recognising that the fire there must at least be acknowledged and so too then does the logic of his lies fail. 3 violent wives, an incest allegation, suicide attempts, all apparent transitions of personality from Kennard to Robin Bain, if Kennard can do the impossible and rescue the Robin Bain, the killer of his family, then Kennard too is rescued.
Of course Kennard cannot do the impossible, but by going close to the truth he reveals that which he hates in himself and that which he needs to see redeemed in Robin Bain, so that he to - Kennard, might be rescued from his own shame.
I'll just note for the casual reader that Lindsay Kennard was going to sue 4 people over what he said above, in order one must assume, in his splintered mind, to rescue himself from his own words and misery. Bad luck Kennard, you suck.
Footnote, not to overlook of course the irresistable for the accused pedo, that he (Kennard) was also abused. Kennard, before he ruined his reputation, should have paid attention to another obvious characteristic of pedos, blaming the victim by connecting them in some abstract way to an 'event' many years earlier in which the alleged perpetrator was actually a victim. Too much Kennard, too much shi. for brains.
Edited by linz4me at 6:43 pm, Mon 26 Jul
by linz4me on 06:39 pm, 26 Jul 2010
When somebody like Kennard so easily displays his propensity to lie, most often to deliberately hurt others, how can one really draw a line between the truth and his lies? All we know of his ex wives is what he has told us, that by some remarkable event they were all violent to the poor old reprobate. So to find the truth in what he repeatedly displays it is probably easier to consider the patterns which with Kennard are always - how great he is, also how he suffers from various ailments including depression 'brought on' by his faithless wives, his suicide attempts, what he studies and so it goes on. The common denominator is always his cry for sympathy, either because of how good he is or because life has dealt him such savage blows.
Often there is little respect for those that have a habit of blaming their ex spouses for things, Kennard does that 3 times over. Yes, he had 3 violent, unfaithful wives (can anyone beat that?) And to add to that he was accused of incest as he admits above, taking into account his history of lying one could easily consider that if one of his wives was violent (3 being so is too much of a stretch) perhaps it was because of the activities between Kennard and his daughter the allegation of which he freely admits above. Of course Kennard covers the possibility of that on a 'trust me, I'm a good guy Christian' basis. But we've 'trusted' Kennard before and his track record as a liar is compelling - so why trust the rotten pervert even an inch. I don't trust him and I don't take his word over others who have not had the opportunity to respond to Kennard's allegations about them, we know he makes false allegations and hints and references but provides no hard facts.
So we have it then, a pedo accused in his own words, defending another pedo accused not with facts but with lies. The fundamental failure arrives, Kennard can not be trusted and like most poor liars goes close to the truth they wish to avoid. For a poor liar there is often the necessity to travel close to the truth recognising that the fire there must at least be acknowledged and so too then does the logic of his lies fail. 3 violent wives, an incest allegation, suicide attempts, all apparent transitions of personality from Kennard to Robin Bain, if Kennard can do the impossible and rescue the Robin Bain, the killer of his family, then Kennard too is rescued.
Of course Kennard cannot do the impossible, but by going close to the truth he reveals that which he hates in himself and that which he needs to see redeemed in Robin Bain, so that he to - Kennard, might be rescued from his own shame.
I'll just note for the casual reader that Lindsay Kennard was going to sue 4 people over what he said above, in order one must assume, in his splintered mind, to rescue himself from his own words and misery. Bad luck Kennard, you suck.
Footnote, not to overlook of course the irresistable for the accused pedo, that he (Kennard) was also abused. Kennard, before he ruined his reputation, should have paid attention to another obvious characteristic of pedos, blaming the victim by connecting them in some abstract way to an 'event' many years earlier in which the alleged perpetrator was actually a victim. Too much Kennard, too much shi. for brains.
The repertoire narrows....and only the sheer idiots remain, Rachael Membery and Trevor William Fox...
God - Give it up...
Quote
davedog (645 ) 11:55 am, Wed 19 Jan #31421
davedog wrote:
God - Give it up...
Are you God- is that a directive?
Quote
goldnkiwi (610 ) 11:55 am, Thu 20 Jan #31422
davedog appears to be referring to the ongoing earthquakes in the city that released david bain.
Quote
lucky_trader (1353 ) 1:44 pm, Thu 20 Jan #31423
Insurance companies must think it odd earthquakes from a fault line dormant for fifteen thousand years continue to pound citizens of Christchurch starting a short time after they released a man accused of killing his entire immediate family. If "Act of God" clauses are enacted by insurance companies to deny insurance to policy holders, will david bain compensate those affected ?
Quote
lucky_trader (1353 ) 4:23 pm, Thu 20 Jan #31424
with what? Isn't legal aid meant to be paid back when you get a job?
Quote
goldnkiwi (610 ) 5:51 pm, Thu 20 Jan #31425
Good advice from the poster davedog but the election cheat who writes poems to dead donkeys and the Bro fiddler will have none of it and expunge from the record any faint sentiment or hint that they are anything other than idiot lonely bastar.s whose lives cannot be complete without spreading hate. Someone remarked to me today, having read a series of posts made by Rachael Dickleberryhead, that they make no sense which of course makes her a perfect conversation companion for the arsew..e Fox - Kent Parker must be so proud of his representatives generously espousing Kent's culpability for the defamation that arose from the cauldrons of hate, his websites.
Quote
davedog (645 ) 11:55 am, Wed 19 Jan #31421
davedog wrote:
God - Give it up...
Are you God- is that a directive?
Quote
goldnkiwi (610 ) 11:55 am, Thu 20 Jan #31422
davedog appears to be referring to the ongoing earthquakes in the city that released david bain.
Quote
lucky_trader (1353 ) 1:44 pm, Thu 20 Jan #31423
Insurance companies must think it odd earthquakes from a fault line dormant for fifteen thousand years continue to pound citizens of Christchurch starting a short time after they released a man accused of killing his entire immediate family. If "Act of God" clauses are enacted by insurance companies to deny insurance to policy holders, will david bain compensate those affected ?
Quote
lucky_trader (1353 ) 4:23 pm, Thu 20 Jan #31424
with what? Isn't legal aid meant to be paid back when you get a job?
Quote
goldnkiwi (610 ) 5:51 pm, Thu 20 Jan #31425
Good advice from the poster davedog but the election cheat who writes poems to dead donkeys and the Bro fiddler will have none of it and expunge from the record any faint sentiment or hint that they are anything other than idiot lonely bastar.s whose lives cannot be complete without spreading hate. Someone remarked to me today, having read a series of posts made by Rachael Dickleberryhead, that they make no sense which of course makes her a perfect conversation companion for the arsew..e Fox - Kent Parker must be so proud of his representatives generously espousing Kent's culpability for the defamation that arose from the cauldrons of hate, his websites.
Kennard again, schizophrenia goes wild.....
yes the peoples culture does play a part BUT someone in a position of power as Pope is/was is dangerous if he's willing to use his position and power to maliciously persecute and prosecute the innocent. Scot Watson was not his only victim, Vicki Calder was also a victim of his tunnel vision. and that is two too many.
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 8:43 pm, Wed 19 Jan #44
Oh dear, Kennard has a problem with those he thinks 'maliciously persecute' others. Look in the mirror sad sack, there's a whole file of you doing what you accuse others of - and it's all in your own words you fiddling idiot. If you need some comforting ask bro Trevor William Fox he's into di.ks, gets excited by the very thought of them.
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 8:43 pm, Wed 19 Jan #44
Oh dear, Kennard has a problem with those he thinks 'maliciously persecute' others. Look in the mirror sad sack, there's a whole file of you doing what you accuse others of - and it's all in your own words you fiddling idiot. If you need some comforting ask bro Trevor William Fox he's into di.ks, gets excited by the very thought of them.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Kennard and Stockdale's tactics laid bare....
I number those below for ease in identifying characteristics and repetition of the tactics used by Kennard as the expert, which allowed Stockdale to reinforce and labour the 'facts' that never existed.
1/
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 6:53 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31412
linz4me wrote:
cybernana wrote:
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
2/
Now Scott is some one who is innocent, and cyber when you copy this to the nos blog, don't let him put too much strain on the one brain cell he has that still functions. The half chewed horse manure falling out of his mouth is so far from the truth as is possible. I spoke of Scott as his arrest and trial were four years later the David Bain and the alleged swabs and he did not go through the process instead was asked for and agreed to give a blood sample. Nos's comments regarding me being told to go away by Chris. I know who the person is nos has mistaken me for. and can say without fear of contradiction that I have not been in the North Island since January 1993, and am not nor ever have been a veterinarian but I can get the person nos mistakes me for to give him [nos] a thorough examination which may explain why he [nos] is talking what is usually excreted at the other end of the torso by those with an IQ higher than an empty water glass.
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 10:27 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31417
3/
Robin Bain has siblings who have been deeply hurt by the false allegations made made for instance Karam claim the if the blood spots on his hoodie were tested they would reveal dna and blood from other members of the deceased family. The large number of spots made tested all uneconomic so a random sample was taken, approximate 1sample to 4spots none of the returned DNA or blood from other members of the family ALL were from Robin Bain in fact the only person found with DNA on him that was not his own was David. Karam was well aware of the test results of the spots when the reprint of David and Goliath was done. I believe a man of integrity would have righted the incorrect information in the reprint. He didn't, he knowingly, it would appear, allowed false and misleading information to be republished as if it was true. Karam took up David's case on the condition that he received 50% of all book royalties and compensation. In other words he has a financial interest in winning. By way of contrast Keith Hunter has mortgaged his home and gone out on a limb to fight the conviction of Scott Watson and has deliberately never met or even spoken to him and has NO financial arrangement to receive any reimbursement for the time and effort he has put into the investigation. He has done it pro bono as have Greg King and Mike Antunovic. Hunter has no financial interest in "winning" just the satisfaction of have helped some one who has had a bum rap.
by linz4me on 03:04 pm, 02 Jun 2010
4/
Bainoholics
14853. The swab for DNA is simply a swab on the inside of the mouth on the cheek muscles and the swab will contain skin and saliva both of which contain DNA but at that time was sometimes supplemented with a blood spot in the manner of diabetes sugar level testing. So the test was invasive, a pin prick on the finger tip, and intimate, a swab in the mouth. There is sufficient blood in the heel test done to all new born babies to yield DNA, this was the method used in the Sounds Investigation to obtain Olivia Hope and Ben Smarts DNA as a control for searching Scott Watson's vessel.
by linz4me on 09:50 am, 19 Dec 2010
5/
sophier8 wrote:
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
6/
The procedure related to a person being taken INTO CUSTODY the strip search is ensure there are no concealed weapons or drugs on the person and can if the is a suspicion of internally concealed drugs an internal. The same procedure IS NOT done to witnesses or victims. The examining physician does have discretion on the examination and Dr Pride ask if he had any other bruises and David said "no" and in that he was correct and it is quite likely he was unaware of the scratches at that stage as he had had a busy morning and following the fight the bruises were visible the knee mark was visible but the scratches were likely not that visible or sore.
by linz4me on 08:04 pm, 04 Nov 2010
7/
ss the trick of asking a witness a question where there is a "standard procedure" to be followed means the lawyer gets an affirmative reply that can be used later to cover a question not asked because the answer would weaken their case. Had the defender asked either of the two police in Dr Prides office the answer would have been no and that would weaken the defense case. DSS Doyle knew the procedure so who better the ask whether a strip examination is part of the procedure for a suspect, David was a suspect, again standard procedure, he was alive and ha been at the address. But it is very likely Dr Pride was aware of DI Robinson's considerable doubt of a murder, he fell heavily into the murder-suicide camp. But the defence had its "yes" answer to the correct procedure but it did not have an answer about the strip search having actually been done.
by linz4me on 04:09 pm, 10 Dec 2010
1/ Kennard here uses a typical Stockdale ploy of informing others of the truth from a 'secret' source, on a believe me I'm totally credible basis. Kennard goes onto repeat the 'mythical' oral swab and pronounce again that there was no sexual elements to the deaths all the while avoiding the reality that the tests made upon David (with his frank consent) were common to homicide situations where sexual 'element's might prevail. After all, there were 3 dead women in the house.
2/Here, Kennard, under pressure, removes his lofty presence to the 'safety' of the Scot Watson case (remember he has been asked by Chris, the father of Scot, to shut his yap on the subject) so to 'underline' his neutrality and reinforce his 'credibility' of recognising the innocent from the guilty. Of course he denys again that he has been asked to shut up and I have already published Kennard's own statements that attest to that.
3/Most interestingly here, Kennard takes on the role of defending Robin's siblings who have been hurt by his take of a Karam book and says 'I believe a man of integrity would have righted the incorrect information in the reprint. He didn't, he knowingly, it would appear, allowed false and misleading information to be republished as if it was true.' Just fine, isn't it - the guy lying about the strip search uses the word 'integrity' to promote something he knows is an absolute lie, and which he repeats time again.
4/ This the repeat by mantra to get the message across, no strip search and no intimate tests, made again on the coat tails of the case against Watson which despite Kennard's 'best' efforts
remains as qualified by 2 convictions, when of course David has been acquitted by a Jury and walks free.
5/ Here Kennard, prompted by bro William, again announces the 'facts' which do not exist. But which by repetition are given an apparent, if untruthful, life. This is a display of the conspiracy to sell the lies which Stockdale can then repeat at length, qualifying it at times as having come from 'someone' in the 'know.'
6/ Repeats the earlier distortions and confirms their 'existence' by repetition.
7/ Another repeat using abstractions to form a whole that doesn't exist and never has.
Kennard, Taylor, Stockdale, Fox, Rodie, van beynan, Parker, et al are exposed as filthy persecutors, along with their 'women' folk - they're rotten caught lying out basta..s
1/
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 6:53 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31412
linz4me wrote:
cybernana wrote:
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
2/
Now Scott is some one who is innocent, and cyber when you copy this to the nos blog, don't let him put too much strain on the one brain cell he has that still functions. The half chewed horse manure falling out of his mouth is so far from the truth as is possible. I spoke of Scott as his arrest and trial were four years later the David Bain and the alleged swabs and he did not go through the process instead was asked for and agreed to give a blood sample. Nos's comments regarding me being told to go away by Chris. I know who the person is nos has mistaken me for. and can say without fear of contradiction that I have not been in the North Island since January 1993, and am not nor ever have been a veterinarian but I can get the person nos mistakes me for to give him [nos] a thorough examination which may explain why he [nos] is talking what is usually excreted at the other end of the torso by those with an IQ higher than an empty water glass.
Quote
linz4me (282 ) 10:27 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31417
3/
Robin Bain has siblings who have been deeply hurt by the false allegations made made for instance Karam claim the if the blood spots on his hoodie were tested they would reveal dna and blood from other members of the deceased family. The large number of spots made tested all uneconomic so a random sample was taken, approximate 1sample to 4spots none of the returned DNA or blood from other members of the family ALL were from Robin Bain in fact the only person found with DNA on him that was not his own was David. Karam was well aware of the test results of the spots when the reprint of David and Goliath was done. I believe a man of integrity would have righted the incorrect information in the reprint. He didn't, he knowingly, it would appear, allowed false and misleading information to be republished as if it was true. Karam took up David's case on the condition that he received 50% of all book royalties and compensation. In other words he has a financial interest in winning. By way of contrast Keith Hunter has mortgaged his home and gone out on a limb to fight the conviction of Scott Watson and has deliberately never met or even spoken to him and has NO financial arrangement to receive any reimbursement for the time and effort he has put into the investigation. He has done it pro bono as have Greg King and Mike Antunovic. Hunter has no financial interest in "winning" just the satisfaction of have helped some one who has had a bum rap.
by linz4me on 03:04 pm, 02 Jun 2010
4/
Bainoholics
14853. The swab for DNA is simply a swab on the inside of the mouth on the cheek muscles and the swab will contain skin and saliva both of which contain DNA but at that time was sometimes supplemented with a blood spot in the manner of diabetes sugar level testing. So the test was invasive, a pin prick on the finger tip, and intimate, a swab in the mouth. There is sufficient blood in the heel test done to all new born babies to yield DNA, this was the method used in the Sounds Investigation to obtain Olivia Hope and Ben Smarts DNA as a control for searching Scott Watson's vessel.
by linz4me on 09:50 am, 19 Dec 2010
5/
sophier8 wrote:
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
6/
The procedure related to a person being taken INTO CUSTODY the strip search is ensure there are no concealed weapons or drugs on the person and can if the is a suspicion of internally concealed drugs an internal. The same procedure IS NOT done to witnesses or victims. The examining physician does have discretion on the examination and Dr Pride ask if he had any other bruises and David said "no" and in that he was correct and it is quite likely he was unaware of the scratches at that stage as he had had a busy morning and following the fight the bruises were visible the knee mark was visible but the scratches were likely not that visible or sore.
by linz4me on 08:04 pm, 04 Nov 2010
7/
ss the trick of asking a witness a question where there is a "standard procedure" to be followed means the lawyer gets an affirmative reply that can be used later to cover a question not asked because the answer would weaken their case. Had the defender asked either of the two police in Dr Prides office the answer would have been no and that would weaken the defense case. DSS Doyle knew the procedure so who better the ask whether a strip examination is part of the procedure for a suspect, David was a suspect, again standard procedure, he was alive and ha been at the address. But it is very likely Dr Pride was aware of DI Robinson's considerable doubt of a murder, he fell heavily into the murder-suicide camp. But the defence had its "yes" answer to the correct procedure but it did not have an answer about the strip search having actually been done.
by linz4me on 04:09 pm, 10 Dec 2010
1/ Kennard here uses a typical Stockdale ploy of informing others of the truth from a 'secret' source, on a believe me I'm totally credible basis. Kennard goes onto repeat the 'mythical' oral swab and pronounce again that there was no sexual elements to the deaths all the while avoiding the reality that the tests made upon David (with his frank consent) were common to homicide situations where sexual 'element's might prevail. After all, there were 3 dead women in the house.
2/Here, Kennard, under pressure, removes his lofty presence to the 'safety' of the Scot Watson case (remember he has been asked by Chris, the father of Scot, to shut his yap on the subject) so to 'underline' his neutrality and reinforce his 'credibility' of recognising the innocent from the guilty. Of course he denys again that he has been asked to shut up and I have already published Kennard's own statements that attest to that.
3/Most interestingly here, Kennard takes on the role of defending Robin's siblings who have been hurt by his take of a Karam book and says 'I believe a man of integrity would have righted the incorrect information in the reprint. He didn't, he knowingly, it would appear, allowed false and misleading information to be republished as if it was true.' Just fine, isn't it - the guy lying about the strip search uses the word 'integrity' to promote something he knows is an absolute lie, and which he repeats time again.
4/ This the repeat by mantra to get the message across, no strip search and no intimate tests, made again on the coat tails of the case against Watson which despite Kennard's 'best' efforts
remains as qualified by 2 convictions, when of course David has been acquitted by a Jury and walks free.
5/ Here Kennard, prompted by bro William, again announces the 'facts' which do not exist. But which by repetition are given an apparent, if untruthful, life. This is a display of the conspiracy to sell the lies which Stockdale can then repeat at length, qualifying it at times as having come from 'someone' in the 'know.'
6/ Repeats the earlier distortions and confirms their 'existence' by repetition.
7/ Another repeat using abstractions to form a whole that doesn't exist and never has.
Kennard, Taylor, Stockdale, Fox, Rodie, van beynan, Parker, et al are exposed as filthy persecutors, along with their 'women' folk - they're rotten caught lying out basta..s
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Kennard again.....
in his own words saying why he has used TM to get his persecutionary message across in respect of David Bain....
8456. lyl_guy wrote: Here's a thought. Why not discuss the case through your private facebook page (you have one don't you?) and not allow RB to join?? Simple. This thread needs to go... it's outlived it's worth, and is just full of threats and counter-threats, nothing productive.
I agree totally, but the advantage of TradeMe is the high traffic of New Zealanders who read the forums where as FaceBook (yes a page exists) has a more limited audience and a more limited demographic audience. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=109670334813&ref=m f
by linz4me on 11:30 am, 01 Jun 2010
Later I'll post the trail as to how the deliberate lie of 'no strip search' and 'no intimate test' became a fact due to the efforts of the redoubtable and 'honest' Kennard...
I probably won't bother with the incest allegations against him (in his own words,) overall he has simply used such things to show his superior and 'personal' knowledge with the absurd approach that a heart attack victim would know more than the Doctor about heart disease and treatments than the Surgeon who attended him or her.
8456. lyl_guy wrote: Here's a thought. Why not discuss the case through your private facebook page (you have one don't you?) and not allow RB to join?? Simple. This thread needs to go... it's outlived it's worth, and is just full of threats and counter-threats, nothing productive.
I agree totally, but the advantage of TradeMe is the high traffic of New Zealanders who read the forums where as FaceBook (yes a page exists) has a more limited audience and a more limited demographic audience. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=109670334813&ref=m f
by linz4me on 11:30 am, 01 Jun 2010
Later I'll post the trail as to how the deliberate lie of 'no strip search' and 'no intimate test' became a fact due to the efforts of the redoubtable and 'honest' Kennard...
I probably won't bother with the incest allegations against him (in his own words,) overall he has simply used such things to show his superior and 'personal' knowledge with the absurd approach that a heart attack victim would know more than the Doctor about heart disease and treatments than the Surgeon who attended him or her.
Kennard gets upset and denys that Chris Watson, father of Scot, ever told Kennard to zip up his lips...
Lindsay R. Kennard
I haven't posted much on TM but yes it has gone nasty just a bit of the rails, I simply struggle with how some can believe what they post it so off the scale, its starting at the other side again. It was just a bit of light relief for me as I have worked extensively on R v Watson but a nut case arrived on that with wild and wacky scenarios, but have stepped back at Chris Watsons request.
about 7 months ago · Report
I as far as possible avoid the Scott Watson Thread as there is an ongoing police investigation into breaches of suppression involved in some of the posts made. The real strange thing is Trademe will not remove them even though they face prosecution for contempt as well and complaints have been made to Trademe by the people named, Keith and Chris. Also Chris asked me to not reply to things there as things are moving but moving slowly, I would have though a conviction for contempt of court would be serious for a media company. So I can only surmise that the threat of a defamation where there is at best a 50/50 chance is more terrifying than the 100% chance of conviction if the Solicitor General authorises charges of contempt or if the police decide to lay informations on breaches of suppression of names and evidence. There are some 16 breaches none have been removed. Explain to me why?
by linz4me on 05:27 pm, 02 Aug 2010
wrote:
If this thread bothers you so much why do you read it?, is it just an excuse to belittle and bully the OP? I just don't understand why people read this thread and turn negative
I don't read it but I do respect the right to privacy of Chris and Bev Watson who have tried everything to stop RdB posting information from stolen files. This has been doing on at various sites for close on 10 years. He has been contacting the Hope family with screwball ideas they, the Smarts and the Watson have been at times traumatised by the hairbrained things he has done and said. An illegal copy was made of a Department of Courts CD was made which had been legitimately with a third person with the stipulation no copies were to be made as the CD contains full files of suppressed names and documents from Scott's trial. The one thing RdB does not have it the information about which names or files are suppressed. He has been asked time and time again to stop using the material as it breaches suppressions and Copyright. He says he answers to a higher Authority God, quite frankly that is a load of heifer dust as the Authority he claims is not in the habit of requiring the law to be broken in fact exactly the opposite There is a command to obey those in authority over you in the world. I have taken the time to explain so you can understand why some get very upset at the continual refusal to abide by Chris Watson's request to all stop posting about the matter at this time as inquiries are under way after the GG petition, there are at least two IPCA inquiries under way, Chris just does not have the time to keep looking on line for breaches of suppression as he is the one ultimately responsible to ensure the CD was protected and he could face criminal charges as well. Not all publicity is good publicity.
by linz4me on 12:10 pm, 07 Aug 2010
By my count that's at least 3 times Kennard was asked to shut his yap - because it was doing no good, but he had to keep going showing what a great 'supporter' he was and impress others with insider knowledge and 'lawyering.'
I haven't posted much on TM but yes it has gone nasty just a bit of the rails, I simply struggle with how some can believe what they post it so off the scale, its starting at the other side again. It was just a bit of light relief for me as I have worked extensively on R v Watson but a nut case arrived on that with wild and wacky scenarios, but have stepped back at Chris Watsons request.
about 7 months ago · Report
I as far as possible avoid the Scott Watson Thread as there is an ongoing police investigation into breaches of suppression involved in some of the posts made. The real strange thing is Trademe will not remove them even though they face prosecution for contempt as well and complaints have been made to Trademe by the people named, Keith and Chris. Also Chris asked me to not reply to things there as things are moving but moving slowly, I would have though a conviction for contempt of court would be serious for a media company. So I can only surmise that the threat of a defamation where there is at best a 50/50 chance is more terrifying than the 100% chance of conviction if the Solicitor General authorises charges of contempt or if the police decide to lay informations on breaches of suppression of names and evidence. There are some 16 breaches none have been removed. Explain to me why?
by linz4me on 05:27 pm, 02 Aug 2010
wrote:
If this thread bothers you so much why do you read it?, is it just an excuse to belittle and bully the OP? I just don't understand why people read this thread and turn negative
I don't read it but I do respect the right to privacy of Chris and Bev Watson who have tried everything to stop RdB posting information from stolen files. This has been doing on at various sites for close on 10 years. He has been contacting the Hope family with screwball ideas they, the Smarts and the Watson have been at times traumatised by the hairbrained things he has done and said. An illegal copy was made of a Department of Courts CD was made which had been legitimately with a third person with the stipulation no copies were to be made as the CD contains full files of suppressed names and documents from Scott's trial. The one thing RdB does not have it the information about which names or files are suppressed. He has been asked time and time again to stop using the material as it breaches suppressions and Copyright. He says he answers to a higher Authority God, quite frankly that is a load of heifer dust as the Authority he claims is not in the habit of requiring the law to be broken in fact exactly the opposite There is a command to obey those in authority over you in the world. I have taken the time to explain so you can understand why some get very upset at the continual refusal to abide by Chris Watson's request to all stop posting about the matter at this time as inquiries are under way after the GG petition, there are at least two IPCA inquiries under way, Chris just does not have the time to keep looking on line for breaches of suppression as he is the one ultimately responsible to ensure the CD was protected and he could face criminal charges as well. Not all publicity is good publicity.
by linz4me on 12:10 pm, 07 Aug 2010
By my count that's at least 3 times Kennard was asked to shut his yap - because it was doing no good, but he had to keep going showing what a great 'supporter' he was and impress others with insider knowledge and 'lawyering.'
The honesty of Kennard captured in his own imagination...
I haven't worried about much in these threads. but in the Watson threads I always quoted the official document information came from.
I have been amused to see the quoting of 'official facts' most often with out citing a source so nothing can be verified. Is it obvious some have extensive access to source documents but the validity of those documents is far from clear while they are not identified. I have my own reasons for believing the original verdict was correct and nothing since has altered that. The Court of Appeal and Privy Council agreed with that verdict as did the second Appeal Court. Unfortunately the third Court of Appeal made findings of fact it was not entitled to and we have ended up with the fiasco that now prevails. We have only second and third and forth hand hearsay evidence of Laniet alleging incest. There is simply no credible corroboration of the allegations. so they are quite simply that allegations not facts. Laniet unfortunately was the source of the lack of corroberation in her allegations in her propensity to exaggerate her life in PNG.
The last factor I struggle with very hard are the so called witnesses who have come forward in reply to advertisements etc. over the years. The psychology and research into memory and memory retrieval, would caste considerable doubt on the veracity on the accuracy of the memories of many witnesses. To be clear I am not saying these people are making up memory deliberately, rather that time, retrieval and positive reinforcement of errors. It leads to false memory, but it is honestly held false memory and it is far more common that some believe.
I very rarely state something as a fact unless I can reference it to a source.
by linz4me on 01:03 pm, 04 Jul 2010
I have to ask, do you actually know what a fact is? Something is not a fact simply because you say it is. you expect others to take all you say is fact, when in reality it is only your interpretation of given circumstances.
by linz4me on 12:56 pm, 04 Jul 2010
by linz4me on 06:54 pm, 05 Jul 2010
Here is Kennard almost pious about his need to be accurate and post only the truth, yet in recent memory he has extensively claimed David Bain was not strip searched and had no intimate samples taken - more on that later. But an interesting discipline Kennard uses to strengthen what he always knew were lies and which he invariably knew would hurt David Bain. The truth was never going to hurt David, it was liars like Stockdale, Taylor, Fox and Kennard that would do that.
I have been amused to see the quoting of 'official facts' most often with out citing a source so nothing can be verified. Is it obvious some have extensive access to source documents but the validity of those documents is far from clear while they are not identified. I have my own reasons for believing the original verdict was correct and nothing since has altered that. The Court of Appeal and Privy Council agreed with that verdict as did the second Appeal Court. Unfortunately the third Court of Appeal made findings of fact it was not entitled to and we have ended up with the fiasco that now prevails. We have only second and third and forth hand hearsay evidence of Laniet alleging incest. There is simply no credible corroboration of the allegations. so they are quite simply that allegations not facts. Laniet unfortunately was the source of the lack of corroberation in her allegations in her propensity to exaggerate her life in PNG.
The last factor I struggle with very hard are the so called witnesses who have come forward in reply to advertisements etc. over the years. The psychology and research into memory and memory retrieval, would caste considerable doubt on the veracity on the accuracy of the memories of many witnesses. To be clear I am not saying these people are making up memory deliberately, rather that time, retrieval and positive reinforcement of errors. It leads to false memory, but it is honestly held false memory and it is far more common that some believe.
I very rarely state something as a fact unless I can reference it to a source.
by linz4me on 01:03 pm, 04 Jul 2010
I have to ask, do you actually know what a fact is? Something is not a fact simply because you say it is. you expect others to take all you say is fact, when in reality it is only your interpretation of given circumstances.
by linz4me on 12:56 pm, 04 Jul 2010
by linz4me on 06:54 pm, 05 Jul 2010
Here is Kennard almost pious about his need to be accurate and post only the truth, yet in recent memory he has extensively claimed David Bain was not strip searched and had no intimate samples taken - more on that later. But an interesting discipline Kennard uses to strengthen what he always knew were lies and which he invariably knew would hurt David Bain. The truth was never going to hurt David, it was liars like Stockdale, Taylor, Fox and Kennard that would do that.
For those interested, there have been some promising developments on the Kennard - Stockdale combo.
Though obviously there was an overall pattern these two hate-siters and their fellows used, the specifics of the strip search, intimate tests, blood in barrel were probably the most important. The ongoing attack on the strip search and intimate tests was critical to the hate-siters but not to the truth. They needed the strip search and intimate tests not to have taken place for a number of reasons, foremost it allowed the scratches to have been on David the morning of the murders when plainly they were not, also 'allowing' the presumption he fought with Stephen.
The main (surviving) proponents of the lies about the strip search on TM, Stockdale and Kennard, left a fairly clumsy trail (thanks fellas) to follow. I can only suspect that it is arrogance, or lack of wit, they made them put at risk their entire cause when the probability was that they'd be caught out. With them being caught out it demonstrates the cauldron of hate from where the defamation has arisen, the stalking likewise, and the deliberation misinformation in order to persecute others. Most readers will understand the wider implications of this exposure, both for the damages that can be claimed, in that the defamation was deliberate and intended and based on untruths and in the wider context the continuing persecution of David Bain by these people.
Opinion doesn't allow enhancement, nothing allows enhancement of 'facts' which are not true and which are only used as a weapon against others. That is foremost the hate-sites failure, they had no intention of becoming informed - they started from a particular ill-informed position and used that to attack the Judiciary, a Jury and so on. Another and more obvious failure was not to recognise the incompetence of the messengers - a rag tag bunch of idiots drooling at the mouth over imagined lynchings.
But for now to reflect upon, that two of the main culprits are corralled, encircled by their own hate and lies. Two others consider another hearing in a few weeks and a far greater number sit on the edges of their seats, full of bravado one minute before considering the word 'enjoined' the next.
The main (surviving) proponents of the lies about the strip search on TM, Stockdale and Kennard, left a fairly clumsy trail (thanks fellas) to follow. I can only suspect that it is arrogance, or lack of wit, they made them put at risk their entire cause when the probability was that they'd be caught out. With them being caught out it demonstrates the cauldron of hate from where the defamation has arisen, the stalking likewise, and the deliberation misinformation in order to persecute others. Most readers will understand the wider implications of this exposure, both for the damages that can be claimed, in that the defamation was deliberate and intended and based on untruths and in the wider context the continuing persecution of David Bain by these people.
Opinion doesn't allow enhancement, nothing allows enhancement of 'facts' which are not true and which are only used as a weapon against others. That is foremost the hate-sites failure, they had no intention of becoming informed - they started from a particular ill-informed position and used that to attack the Judiciary, a Jury and so on. Another and more obvious failure was not to recognise the incompetence of the messengers - a rag tag bunch of idiots drooling at the mouth over imagined lynchings.
But for now to reflect upon, that two of the main culprits are corralled, encircled by their own hate and lies. Two others consider another hearing in a few weeks and a far greater number sit on the edges of their seats, full of bravado one minute before considering the word 'enjoined' the next.
Monday, January 17, 2011
More bs from Lindsay 'Gurnard' Kennard, a hate-siter...
sophier8 wrote:
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
That's a lot bullcraping Gurnard.
A whole lot, over a long period of time.
I know you are a lawyer and all that, and have done some 'lawyering' as you put it, but how much more bullcrap than this above do you think would be needed to show that you are rotten, defamatory speaking, persecutor with a gurnard up your bottom.
If anyone ever took an intimate sample from your bottom as an example, it would return gurnard dna. That's why I call your Gurnard. Another thing I call you is a pedo-accused, because you posted about that. I've also said you're a drunk pill popper swilling in the trough because you've said you're a drinker, and that you pop an enormous amount of pills every day.
All in Gurnard, you deserve a variety on names, the options of which could keep a team of inventive name callers going for months. But I don't know any inventive name-callers Gurnard, I ain't that flash - in fact I rent my chicken coop out to Goodnewsguy but he never pays any rent.
But you have to hand to Goodnewsguy he's quick sometimes, especially to get out of things, quicker than you dolt brain. He would be happy to call you something like 'Gurnard fish sticking out bottom Kennard, a bs artist Lawyer Queens Counsel' - or 'fishbum' for short.
Where is the evidence that there was any intimate swabs taken?
An intimate swap is a wipe taken from the inside of the mouth for DNA purposes It is just like a cotton bud but longer and the wipe on the inside of the cheek captures skin cell and saliva but of which contain DNA unique to the person. The Police Surgeon took it as a normal part of his check to match with DNA from the crime scene and was by then a standard procedure at a homicide.
Edited by linz4me at 8:33 pm, Mon 11 Oct
That's a lot bullcraping Gurnard.
A whole lot, over a long period of time.
I know you are a lawyer and all that, and have done some 'lawyering' as you put it, but how much more bullcrap than this above do you think would be needed to show that you are rotten, defamatory speaking, persecutor with a gurnard up your bottom.
If anyone ever took an intimate sample from your bottom as an example, it would return gurnard dna. That's why I call your Gurnard. Another thing I call you is a pedo-accused, because you posted about that. I've also said you're a drunk pill popper swilling in the trough because you've said you're a drinker, and that you pop an enormous amount of pills every day.
All in Gurnard, you deserve a variety on names, the options of which could keep a team of inventive name callers going for months. But I don't know any inventive name-callers Gurnard, I ain't that flash - in fact I rent my chicken coop out to Goodnewsguy but he never pays any rent.
But you have to hand to Goodnewsguy he's quick sometimes, especially to get out of things, quicker than you dolt brain. He would be happy to call you something like 'Gurnard fish sticking out bottom Kennard, a bs artist Lawyer Queens Counsel' - or 'fishbum' for short.
Look, Kennard (Gurnard) caught out bsing again.
No wonder Scott Watson's father told him to shut up. Who could blame him, having a lying idiot on your team is no help.....ask Kenty baby.
linz4me wrote:
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
Edited by cybernana at 6:59 pm, Mon 17 Jan
Quote
cybernana (593 ) 6:58 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31413
How odd for those following this exchange that Trevor William Fox (luckytrader) arrived immediately to discuss the subject of penis's.
linz4me wrote:
Ah you have returned to "show the love" As to my source that is I'm afraid "for my eyes only" but is very reliable and in forensics, that plus a touch of common sense. There was never any thought of a sexual element to the deaths so no need to examine David for evidence of sexual activity. From memory he had showered after the paper run and before the washing, but I am happy to be corrected. Let me make it very very clear, I DO NOT believe there was a sexual element to the deaths. Genital swabbing is done in cases where sexual offences are suspected or where the investigation is into a sexual violation as female DNA maybe found linking the suspect to the Complainant. Finally the oral swab that is the least invasive method of obtaining DNA, the skin of the inner cheek is very soft and readily returns skin cells for testing, the other method is by blood sample.
Even Scott Watson whom police acknowledge they were intending to charge with rape and murder only ever gave a blood test
I accept it was eight days later, but there is no evidence Scott had showered or bathed in the day,
We are not discussing Scott Watson. Did your 'source' or 'common sense' tell you this, then? Because neither of them are reliable sources.It seems that first morning they were certainly looking at David as suspect, and in a sexual context.
The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
Edited by cybernana at 6:59 pm, Mon 17 Jan
Quote
cybernana (593 ) 6:58 pm, Mon 17 Jan #31413
How odd for those following this exchange that Trevor William Fox (luckytrader) arrived immediately to discuss the subject of penis's.
Hey Stockdale, you've gone a little quiet.
Pressure getting to you?
Don't worry there's more to come Mike a lot more, so too for Gurnard (Lindsay Kennard.)
Did Ralphie bail out or was he pushed, I have a feeling he'll be co-operating in his own escape from you Stockdale. I reckon he can't handle the pressure either, now that everyone knows that you and Kennard have based your persecution on lies.
If the situation requires, I'll file my papers against you and Gurnard in Auckland, just to make it easy for you to travel. Shucks Mike, I know you must think I'm considerate but I'm only trying to help. Maybe we could drag in Trevor William Fox, he's another liar, and Deb Coates and DCameron they've all lied about evidence just like you Stockdale.
But I'm only joking aren't I Mike, I wouldn't dare would I?
The paperwork is shaping up well, I'm keeping it simple and not going for complexity. Simple as Mike, but I won't do it will I?
Don't worry there's more to come Mike a lot more, so too for Gurnard (Lindsay Kennard.)
Did Ralphie bail out or was he pushed, I have a feeling he'll be co-operating in his own escape from you Stockdale. I reckon he can't handle the pressure either, now that everyone knows that you and Kennard have based your persecution on lies.
If the situation requires, I'll file my papers against you and Gurnard in Auckland, just to make it easy for you to travel. Shucks Mike, I know you must think I'm considerate but I'm only trying to help. Maybe we could drag in Trevor William Fox, he's another liar, and Deb Coates and DCameron they've all lied about evidence just like you Stockdale.
But I'm only joking aren't I Mike, I wouldn't dare would I?
The paperwork is shaping up well, I'm keeping it simple and not going for complexity. Simple as Mike, but I won't do it will I?
Don't worry Stockdale, you're far from forgotten.
I am happy to give you a reasonable amount of time to deal with my complaint dated the 15/1/11 though my position remains unchanged as to seeking legal remedy if required because I have a very strong case which I believe is in the Public Interest. As a matter of note I have now been able to research the 'source' of Stockdale's 'evidence' and it is bogus, absolutely untrue.
In the meantime and separately, the following is entirely offensive to Joe Karam and the defence team and more particularly to David Bain himself. That these disgusting comments should be aired on a public message board by the administrator of a hate-site currently being sued for many allegations of defamation on the same matter beggars belief. Please disabuse yourself from any thought that Stockdale is anything more than a liar intent on persecuting David Bain and others by the use of lies and in other way possible.
This 'person' has been subject to a complaint to the Police for harassment of another TM member and that this further and public harassment should have a place on TM message boards is frankly unbelievable.
I have already provided you with evidence (and the offer of more detailed evidence should you require) showing that Stockdale has deliberately posted false information on TM boards 100s of times in order to persuade public opinion against David Bain being compensated, and that in part, that also includes defaming at length Joe Karam.
In this disgusting piece below Stockdale prints that either Joe Karam is not aware of the evidence of a particular witness (which Stockdale, the idiot, thinks is conclusive but which was rejected by a Jury as material to their deliberation) or, as by implication, that Karam does not care and is therefore dishonest.
As you will note the quote is cut and pasted by Stockdale and is in fact an original quote attributable to him.
As always I have all the information cached and on hand regarding this or any earlier complaint, particularly mine of the 15/1/11.
I am looking forward to your prompt response on these matters.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=132231&p=312&topic=7
supersleuth wrote:
So what does Karam think of David's aunt's evidence,I wonder. I mean,you have to say it is quite compelling. Karam would have known not too long after he started looking into the case that David Bain had told his lawyer that he was going to attest to wearing his mother's glasses.And Mrs Clark's evidence was presented at the Court of Appeal hearings. So he would have known about David wearing his mother's glasses fairly early on. I mean,it is obvious to me that Jan Clark is telling the truth. David eyes were troubling him,and she went to get up and fetch his glasses,and he told her his were in being repaired and that he had been wearing an old pair of his mother's glasses. They weren't perfect ,he said,but they got him by. So I would like to ask Mr Karam a couple of questions? "Do you accept that David Bain was wearing his mother's glasses on the weekend of the murders?" If he anwers yes,as I feel ,realistically he must,then I would ask him "Then isn't it reasonable to suggest that they were damaged because David was in a struggle with Stephen,given the fact that the lens that was missing from those glasses was found in Stephen's room?".
!!!!
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:03 am, Mon 17 Jan #15562
In the meantime and separately, the following is entirely offensive to Joe Karam and the defence team and more particularly to David Bain himself. That these disgusting comments should be aired on a public message board by the administrator of a hate-site currently being sued for many allegations of defamation on the same matter beggars belief. Please disabuse yourself from any thought that Stockdale is anything more than a liar intent on persecuting David Bain and others by the use of lies and in other way possible.
This 'person' has been subject to a complaint to the Police for harassment of another TM member and that this further and public harassment should have a place on TM message boards is frankly unbelievable.
I have already provided you with evidence (and the offer of more detailed evidence should you require) showing that Stockdale has deliberately posted false information on TM boards 100s of times in order to persuade public opinion against David Bain being compensated, and that in part, that also includes defaming at length Joe Karam.
In this disgusting piece below Stockdale prints that either Joe Karam is not aware of the evidence of a particular witness (which Stockdale, the idiot, thinks is conclusive but which was rejected by a Jury as material to their deliberation) or, as by implication, that Karam does not care and is therefore dishonest.
As you will note the quote is cut and pasted by Stockdale and is in fact an original quote attributable to him.
As always I have all the information cached and on hand regarding this or any earlier complaint, particularly mine of the 15/1/11.
I am looking forward to your prompt response on these matters.
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=132231&p=312&topic=7
supersleuth wrote:
So what does Karam think of David's aunt's evidence,I wonder. I mean,you have to say it is quite compelling. Karam would have known not too long after he started looking into the case that David Bain had told his lawyer that he was going to attest to wearing his mother's glasses.And Mrs Clark's evidence was presented at the Court of Appeal hearings. So he would have known about David wearing his mother's glasses fairly early on. I mean,it is obvious to me that Jan Clark is telling the truth. David eyes were troubling him,and she went to get up and fetch his glasses,and he told her his were in being repaired and that he had been wearing an old pair of his mother's glasses. They weren't perfect ,he said,but they got him by. So I would like to ask Mr Karam a couple of questions? "Do you accept that David Bain was wearing his mother's glasses on the weekend of the murders?" If he anwers yes,as I feel ,realistically he must,then I would ask him "Then isn't it reasonable to suggest that they were damaged because David was in a struggle with Stephen,given the fact that the lens that was missing from those glasses was found in Stephen's room?".
!!!!
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:03 am, Mon 17 Jan #15562
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Has anybody any information from the media or
any where else that David Bain was given oral swabs and not intimate swabs during his strip search on the day of the deaths of his family?
I'm asking because the only link I've been able to track down as the originating source is to a hate-site member Lindsay Kennard. All help appreciated and treated in confidence.
I'm asking because the only link I've been able to track down as the originating source is to a hate-site member Lindsay Kennard. All help appreciated and treated in confidence.
Hey Stockdale, I told you idiot mate Parker that he
would get his butt sued and he laughed. He isn't laughing now.
I'll give you something to laugh about as well Stockdale, if TM don't kick you off their boards and back to your rotten hate-site I'll have your fat arse in Court along with theirs. Laugh about that Stockdale - I'll never do it will I?
I'll be taking a close look at your fiddler mates Gurnard and Taylor, so they can have a laugh as well.
I'll give you something to laugh about as well Stockdale, if TM don't kick you off their boards and back to your rotten hate-site I'll have your fat arse in Court along with theirs. Laugh about that Stockdale - I'll never do it will I?
I'll be taking a close look at your fiddler mates Gurnard and Taylor, so they can have a laugh as well.
superidiot, count your pennies......
And that point re Laniets gurgling is well made.If David Bain did hear her gurgling when he arrived home,then you could say he was partly responsible for her death by not calling the emergency services immediatly.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:57 am, Sat 15 Jan #15519
The latest from the idiot, an admission that fiddler Taylor immediately tried to correct. But he Stockdale said it. Saved, thanks superidiot.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 10:57 am, Sat 15 Jan #15519
The latest from the idiot, an admission that fiddler Taylor immediately tried to correct. But he Stockdale said it. Saved, thanks superidiot.
How are you feeling Stockdale?
The poster superslueth continues to harass and lie about David Bain.
As you know he is an administrator on one of the hate-sites.
He repeats daily that David Bain was never strip searched on the day of the killings and therefore scratches on his chest were not seen. The 'scratches' make a complete case therefore that David was involved in the killings of his family. I have counted at least two hundred occasions in merely weeks where he has made this claim. Any uninformed person reading his posts would easily be convinced by this lie. The actual evidence that David was strip searched is on page 150 of the 2nd trial transcript. This has been brought to superslueths attention however, he deliberately misinterprets and claims the Doctor didn't fully do the examination although the record shows the examination was completed and the samples given to one of the two attending officers. Not one person in the house that morning or attending David that day has ever given evidence of seeing the scratches.
Further research provides a record of the search taking place as recorded in the depositions pre trial 1. I have copies of that and the transcript recording mentioned above.
I repeat, every day and often many times a day superslueth repeats this lie which no doubt convinces many that David Bain is guilty. That is persecution and harassment of the worst kind. The poster knows it is not true but uses anyway in his ongoing attack against a person he has publicly slandered and vilified on TM boards for over a year. It has to stop.
I have taken some legal advice about the matter and I understand that sanctions can be taken against both TM and the poster (real name Mike Stockdale of Palmerston North) to prevent David's ongoing harassment in this matter. I give you the opportunity to remove him from the boards so as to avoid further harm to David and to avoid the litigation that it appears I will have to take against TM as the publisher of superslueths defamation and messages of hate.
For the record, and understanding this correspondence will be material to any action I may have to take, I also point out I have extensive records of Stockdale defaming Joe Karam and others, lying about other significant pieces of evidence, and also his harassment and stalking of other posters. This is a very serious matter as I'm sure you appreciate. An opinion is one thing but deliberate lies intended to defame and harass others is illegal.
Should you need any clarification on any of the above from the official records I can provide it for you, but of course it isn't my credibility on the line but Stockdales and his host TM.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours etc
As you know he is an administrator on one of the hate-sites.
He repeats daily that David Bain was never strip searched on the day of the killings and therefore scratches on his chest were not seen. The 'scratches' make a complete case therefore that David was involved in the killings of his family. I have counted at least two hundred occasions in merely weeks where he has made this claim. Any uninformed person reading his posts would easily be convinced by this lie. The actual evidence that David was strip searched is on page 150 of the 2nd trial transcript. This has been brought to superslueths attention however, he deliberately misinterprets and claims the Doctor didn't fully do the examination although the record shows the examination was completed and the samples given to one of the two attending officers. Not one person in the house that morning or attending David that day has ever given evidence of seeing the scratches.
Further research provides a record of the search taking place as recorded in the depositions pre trial 1. I have copies of that and the transcript recording mentioned above.
I repeat, every day and often many times a day superslueth repeats this lie which no doubt convinces many that David Bain is guilty. That is persecution and harassment of the worst kind. The poster knows it is not true but uses anyway in his ongoing attack against a person he has publicly slandered and vilified on TM boards for over a year. It has to stop.
I have taken some legal advice about the matter and I understand that sanctions can be taken against both TM and the poster (real name Mike Stockdale of Palmerston North) to prevent David's ongoing harassment in this matter. I give you the opportunity to remove him from the boards so as to avoid further harm to David and to avoid the litigation that it appears I will have to take against TM as the publisher of superslueths defamation and messages of hate.
For the record, and understanding this correspondence will be material to any action I may have to take, I also point out I have extensive records of Stockdale defaming Joe Karam and others, lying about other significant pieces of evidence, and also his harassment and stalking of other posters. This is a very serious matter as I'm sure you appreciate. An opinion is one thing but deliberate lies intended to defame and harass others is illegal.
Should you need any clarification on any of the above from the official records I can provide it for you, but of course it isn't my credibility on the line but Stockdales and his host TM.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours etc
Friday, January 14, 2011
Those aussie heroes...
Jordan Rice the 13 year old boy who told rescuer Warren McErlean to save his brother first from the flood waters. Before Warren returned for Jordan and his mother Donna Rice after saving 10 year old Blake they were gone into the waters. Warren paid tribute to Jordan and never said a word about his own bravery.
That aussie Veit Nam vet saved those horses by securing and towing behind a small dingy from the rushing flood where they were dying in the water to dry ground, I don't have his name on hand but I'll place it later, a hard, tough wiry bastard who explained it by saying that he was also a horseman.
That aussie Veit Nam vet saved those horses by securing and towing behind a small dingy from the rushing flood where they were dying in the water to dry ground, I don't have his name on hand but I'll place it later, a hard, tough wiry bastard who explained it by saying that he was also a horseman.
That strip search that Stockdale keeps lying about and the 'oral' swab he substitutes for genital swab thanks to 'I understand' .....
'information' from another hate-siter Lindsay Gurnard, and his reliable 'I understand' companion fiddly Ralph Taylor.
I've posted this before....from Trial 2,
Doyle's evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn't do the GSR tests on David - Doyle's answer was that it would have been insensitive.
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
Now that would be clear enough for most idiots, even an idiot like Stockdale but he continues with his lies - basically accusing the Defence of not leading evidence that they Crown were silent on denying....
Remember the obvious as I pointed out in an earlier post as well as above...The easy answer is that both Det Dunne and Van Turnhout were present in the room when Dr Pryde did his examination. If (a) there was no strip search they would have said so at second trial or (b) if there was and they had seen the scratches then they would have said so. They would have shouted it from the roof tops.
So that Stockdale is lying is covered twice, once by actual evidence and secondly by the absence of evidence in denial, on a point it is to be remembered would have been dramatically helpful to a weak Crown case.
But still the lying dogs Stockdale and Taylor persist, so we'll go to the complete proof that they are rotten liars. The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
So the Doctor didn't lie, didn't 'forget' because he 'asked' a question of David. He followed the procedure signed the necessary documents and handed the sealed test articles to the Detective in attendance.
So this is what we expect from the dirty dog Stockdale, he who claims to want Justice for Robin Bain, who he says cannot defend himself in death, and how does Stockdale achieve this? By casting aspersion on another dead man. A man who no doubt still has family and must abide silently while their father, husband, uncle whatever is daily maligned by the piece of crap who in 'defending' the dead Robin Bain maligns and persecutes his only surviving child with pages after pages of lies. You're a dog Stockdale, a miserable piece of crap mongrel.
Read it again dogface....
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
You should know what a penile shaft is, you've got one stuck on your shoulders that's why your piece of turd mate persecutor bro Taylor meets you in the bike shed.
I've posted this before....from Trial 2,
Doyle's evidence cross examination p150. Context is why they didn't do the GSR tests on David - Doyle's answer was that it would have been insensitive.
Q. He was subjected to very invasive tests of his body wasn’t he? Swabs taken?
A. He was examined by a doctor.
Q. When was that done?
A. Later that day.
Q. On that same day?
A. I think around about midday, half past 12.
Q. And we’re not talking about plastic covers around your hands or being checked, we’re talking about swabs being taken from the most intimate part of your body. And you’re saying that you didn’t mind doing that but you couldn’t bring yourself to ask for a test on his hands? Come on Mr Doyle.
A. These – these tests were carried out by Dr Pryde, there was a police surgeon and he carried them out in the normal way that he would do with any test I’m sure.
Q. And that is a particularly invasive test isn’t it?
A. Oh I’m sure it is.
Q. You have to follow a police directive as to what has to be done by the doctor?
A. The tests are required by the doctor, he has a procedure which is an agreed procedure, he follows that procedure.
Q. It’s an agreed police procedure for a police doctor to follow in a homicide, isn’t it?
A. That is correct.
Q. It involves strip-searching, swabs of intimate body parts, doesn’t it?
A. There are a number of tests, yes, all of those included.
Q. All of those are done?
A. Yes.
Now that would be clear enough for most idiots, even an idiot like Stockdale but he continues with his lies - basically accusing the Defence of not leading evidence that they Crown were silent on denying....
Remember the obvious as I pointed out in an earlier post as well as above...The easy answer is that both Det Dunne and Van Turnhout were present in the room when Dr Pryde did his examination. If (a) there was no strip search they would have said so at second trial or (b) if there was and they had seen the scratches then they would have said so. They would have shouted it from the roof tops.
So that Stockdale is lying is covered twice, once by actual evidence and secondly by the absence of evidence in denial, on a point it is to be remembered would have been dramatically helpful to a weak Crown case.
But still the lying dogs Stockdale and Taylor persist, so we'll go to the complete proof that they are rotten liars. The deposition of Dr Pryde from the first trial, quote follows verbatim...
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
So the Doctor didn't lie, didn't 'forget' because he 'asked' a question of David. He followed the procedure signed the necessary documents and handed the sealed test articles to the Detective in attendance.
So this is what we expect from the dirty dog Stockdale, he who claims to want Justice for Robin Bain, who he says cannot defend himself in death, and how does Stockdale achieve this? By casting aspersion on another dead man. A man who no doubt still has family and must abide silently while their father, husband, uncle whatever is daily maligned by the piece of crap who in 'defending' the dead Robin Bain maligns and persecutes his only surviving child with pages after pages of lies. You're a dog Stockdale, a miserable piece of crap mongrel.
Read it again dogface....
"I obtained swabs from him from his urethral, the glands penis and the penile shaft".
You should know what a penile shaft is, you've got one stuck on your shoulders that's why your piece of turd mate persecutor bro Taylor meets you in the bike shed.
More lies from Stockdale, these after he 'confirms' having the transcript...
And I see you have been unable to give me a page number re that blood splatter on the shoe,so it would seem to me either you or no's is making that up.cyber as well,come to think of it. So somebody is lying,and it ain't me.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:28 pm, Fri 12 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:22 pm, Fri 12 Nov #29535
You must have me mixed up with someone else,te,I have only been posting on Trade Me this year.And what blood splatter are you talking about?I don't recall mentioning any other blood splatter apart from that blood splatter that wasn't on the shoe. And as I have already told you,I don't bother to look at no's site anymore,I mean he still thinks that David Bain wasn't wearing his mother's glasses,dear oh dear.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:33 pm, Fri 12 Nov #29538
This would be the high impact blood splatter that Karam talked about in the Karam/Laws debate. Now I would ask this question.In that photo I have linked to the right shoe is tucked under and the front upper is facing the floor. So how on earth could it have got high impact blood splatter on it?. But if Robin Bain was sitting on the beanbag,he could have got high impact blood splatter on his right shoe.
Edited by supersleuth at 11:16 am, Thu 11 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:12 am, Thu 11 Nov #29458
The blood on his shoes could have been there for years before he was murdered.You tell me where it says in the transcripts it was high impact blood splatter,cyber.Another myth.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 8:51 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29483
You havn't answered my question,cyber,where does it say in the transcript that it was high impact blood splatter?
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 8:59 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29489
But,hey,seeing as you are still replying to me,something you swore blind some months back that you would never do,obviously you are not a man who keeps his word,have you been able to locate in the transcript where any prosecution witness said those scratches to Robin Bain's hands were less than 12 hours old ,as Karam stated in that debate with Laws?.
Edited by supersleuth at 11:45 am, Sat 6 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:38 am, Sat 6 Nov #29314
That'll do for the day. It's sickening reading page after page of lies from this 'man.' But it remains he is a liar, a stalker and a pedo-apologist. The heart is torn from his fabrications and he has only the illogical 'the defence asked the wrong witnesses' nonsense and Mrs Clark. With all due regard to other idiots I have known, they do fixate on things and lull themselves with mantra turning lies to truth. Mrs Clark's evidence was either totally rejected by the Jury or found not to be material to the proof of suicide, something which the Crown couldn't overcome and which idiot Stockdale can't overcome - these are the reasons he denied for so long the blood on the shoe, on the trousers and inside the rifle barrel.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:28 pm, Fri 12 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:22 pm, Fri 12 Nov #29535
You must have me mixed up with someone else,te,I have only been posting on Trade Me this year.And what blood splatter are you talking about?I don't recall mentioning any other blood splatter apart from that blood splatter that wasn't on the shoe. And as I have already told you,I don't bother to look at no's site anymore,I mean he still thinks that David Bain wasn't wearing his mother's glasses,dear oh dear.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:33 pm, Fri 12 Nov #29538
This would be the high impact blood splatter that Karam talked about in the Karam/Laws debate. Now I would ask this question.In that photo I have linked to the right shoe is tucked under and the front upper is facing the floor. So how on earth could it have got high impact blood splatter on it?. But if Robin Bain was sitting on the beanbag,he could have got high impact blood splatter on his right shoe.
Edited by supersleuth at 11:16 am, Thu 11 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:12 am, Thu 11 Nov #29458
The blood on his shoes could have been there for years before he was murdered.You tell me where it says in the transcripts it was high impact blood splatter,cyber.Another myth.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 8:51 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29483
You havn't answered my question,cyber,where does it say in the transcript that it was high impact blood splatter?
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 8:59 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29489
But,hey,seeing as you are still replying to me,something you swore blind some months back that you would never do,obviously you are not a man who keeps his word,have you been able to locate in the transcript where any prosecution witness said those scratches to Robin Bain's hands were less than 12 hours old ,as Karam stated in that debate with Laws?.
Edited by supersleuth at 11:45 am, Sat 6 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:38 am, Sat 6 Nov #29314
That'll do for the day. It's sickening reading page after page of lies from this 'man.' But it remains he is a liar, a stalker and a pedo-apologist. The heart is torn from his fabrications and he has only the illogical 'the defence asked the wrong witnesses' nonsense and Mrs Clark. With all due regard to other idiots I have known, they do fixate on things and lull themselves with mantra turning lies to truth. Mrs Clark's evidence was either totally rejected by the Jury or found not to be material to the proof of suicide, something which the Crown couldn't overcome and which idiot Stockdale can't overcome - these are the reasons he denied for so long the blood on the shoe, on the trousers and inside the rifle barrel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)