Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Bravo Germany.

In what often seems like dark times growing darker as the world insulates itself from responsibility of ravaging the earth and caring little for what is laid waste or destroyed for future generations, what a bold move by Germany, a definitive, logical and reasoned decision to do away with nuclear power by 2022.

I read with interest today the comments of some worldwide who ridicule the German decision as a backward and unsustainable step for this modern age. But I cannot help but feel that Germany have made a wholly sustainable decision with a confidence that belies their role of being able to adapt, to sustain hard work and fresh ideas, the very thing that makes them, as I read today, 'Europe's economic powerhouse.'

I am also reminded of the boldness of New Zealand in rejecting the visiting of nuclear powered warships all those years ago when it was assumed this country was a nondescript copy of the western will. So I salute my own country now, for it's vision and strength that played a part in the world beginning to recognise that it is those that stand apart that are leaders in the moments of time, those that question the speed with which life passes and wonder where the quality of life has gone, and what it being forwarded for those that follow us today.

But this moment is for Germany, for taking a fresh look at what is consumed and the danger of the waste that results. For accepting the challenge that if humans can fly into space, invent technology and step away from warfare, then humans can easily embrace a love for the planet and one another.

Deb Coates, enlightened judgement on high from kookybelle...

The fact that this "witness" was even allowed to give his now judged to have been " untruthful evidence" speaks volumes as to the integrity or otherwise of the defence, in my opinion. The hours billed for would seem to indicate there should have been plenty of time to investigate his story. Bruce connected the dots with far fewer resources, and I am happy that the police have endorsed his findings.

Edited by kulkkulbelle at 10:49 pm, Mon 30 May

kulkkulbelle (398 ) 10:46 pm, Mon 30 May #32293
frank_m wrote:

I'm bloody UNhappy that the cops aren't investigating it further!! All they've done is slandered the guy, then walked away. We're no closer to the truth.

F****n unhappy.

Slandered HIM fgs - what about sparing a thought for Robin and Margaret Bain's wider family and friends who believe a man who murdered 5 of their nearest and dearest, not only walks free, but that one of the murdered people has been framed by the defence.

Edited by kulkkulbelle at 11:11 pm, Mon 30 May

kulkkulbelle (398 ) 11:10 pm, Mon 30 May #32294

Look, she's using the old transparent shield 'in my opinion.' What a nutter. Speaks volume of the integrity of the defence she says, overlooking for a small moment that she is the only person in the world who has a pathologists report that determines that Laniet 'never had a baby.' But poor old Coatsy doesn't want to show that to anybody despite endorsing a 'judgement' by the Police who have no role in determining Court findings only to gather evidence which in the case of Daryl they've been totally unable to do. She says that Bruce connected the dots, but even considering for a moment that he had, what difference would it make to the failed Crown case. But queen kooky 'is happy that the police have endorsed his findings.' Makes it sort of sound like the Court of Appeal but without judges being involved, go kooky kooky.

Then the good old reliable 'spare a thought' for Robin's family. Well kooky, as a Jury have already decided Robin spared no thoughts for his family, he killed them and he wasn't thinking of his wider family either - not that they'd had a lot to do with him either, don't forget that Kooky.

As someone reports above all they (the Police - not all the Police we are sure to discover, when the inquiry is complete) did was 'slander' defame Daryl and walk away, denied him natural justice and due process. But that's okay with kooky because she a pedo-bro supporter.

A few more statistics for you Ralphie....

Hi Ralphie, I bet you've been having a lot of fun today snickering and picking your nose. Here's some stuff for ya.

Suicidal Gunshot Wounds to the Head: A Retrospective Review of 406 Cases
Blumenthal, Ryan MBChB (Pret), MMed (Med Forens) Pret, FC For Path (SA), Dip For Med (SA)
AbstractA retrospective review of 406 suicidal gunshot wounds to the head, investigated at the Medico-Legal Laboratory of Pretoria, between 1997 and 2000 was performed. Fifty-seven percent of fatal suicidal firearm injury to the head occurred in the 21- to 40-year age range in both male and female victims. Eighty-two percent of all these victims of suicidal firearm fatalities to the head were male. Of the 406 cases, 63% were white, 31% were black, and 6% were of mixed ethnic and/or Asian decent. There was a slight increase in incidence around spring and autumn. Handguns were used in the majority of cases with shoulder weapons being used in 18 of the 406 cases. Ninety-two percent of the suicidal gunshot wounds to the head occurred indoors. A positive blood alcohol concentration was seen in 40% of cases. Of those examined, 81% were contact gunshot wounds. The trajectory was upward in 51% of cases and horizontal in 24% of cases. The right temple was the most common entrance gunshot wound site. Findings are in keeping with previously published literature.
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Lots of stuff in there for you Ralphie but I thought you'd particularly like that upward and horizontal trajectory information because it puts Robin Bain's suicide in a 'healthy' 75% parameter. It kind of makes that nonsense about him praying when he got shot look ridiculous doesn't it Ralphie? If you read up on these things suicidees usually open their clothes for body shots rather than shooting through their clothes and the same goes for hats and beanies and we know old daddy lifted his beanie don't we Ralphie?

Forensic Science International
Volume 147, Supplement , Pages S37-S40, 17 January 2005
.Gunshot fatalities: suicide, homicide or accident?
A series of 48 cases
L. Desinan
AffiliationsCorresponding author. Fax: +39 0432 504649.
, G.M. Mazzolo
published online 02 November 2004.

Abstract Full Text PDFReferences .Abstract
Cases at study comprise 48 gunshot fatalities (33 suicides—29 males and 4 females; 12 homicides—8 males and 4 females; 3 uncertain cases—3 males), examined from 1992 to 2002. The age range of suicides is 22–96 years, mean 58.8 years. In 16 cases the age was upper 65. Scene of death was at home in 27 cases (of which 6 on bed), in a car in 2 cases and in an open place in 4 cases. Uncertain cases happened during hunting. The implements used in suicides were shotgun in 14 cases, rifles in 7, handguns in 11 and a humane veterinary killer in 1. In suicides single entrance wounds were found, apart 1 case with two entrance wounds. A script manifesting suicidal intent was present in 6 cases. Homicides showed both single and multiple entrance wounds: in the cases of multiple entrance wounds, no sign of contact/near contact injuries were seen. In 4 cases, bodies were hidden.

Keywords: Gunshot wounds, Homicide, Suicide, Accidental death

Among other things is the average age of those that commit suicide Ralph, and old Robin fell right within that group as well.

Influence of ballistic and autopsy parameters on the manner of death in case of long firearms fatalities
Geoffroy Lorin de la Grandmaison
AffiliationsDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, AP-HP, 104 Boulevard Raymond Poincaré, 92380 Garches, FranceCorresponding author. Tel.: +33 1 47 10 76 84; fax: +33 1 47 10 76 83.
, Christophe Fermanian
, Michel Durigon
AffiliationsDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, AP-HP, 104 Boulevard Raymond Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France
Received 28 March 2007; received in revised form 12 October 2007; accepted 4 January 2008. published online 18 February 2008.

Abstract Full Text PDFImages References .Abstract
A retrospective study was carried out on 132 fatalities due to gunshot wounds secondary to long firearms. One group of suicide (n=72) and one group of homicide (n=60) were statistically compared regarding age and sex of the victim, number of shots, range of fire, direction of the projectile(s), anatomical distribution of entrance sites, weapon and ammunition types and the nature of eventual associated traumatic lesions. The frequency of suicide was higher when the victim's age increased. Females constituted about 43% of the homicide victims and about 8% of the suicide victims. 51.5% of the homicide victims and about 10% of the suicide victims had sustained more than one gunshot wound. Close range was respectively found in 53.5% of the homicide cases and in all suicide cases. Most of the suicide cases (85% of the cases) showed typical entrance sites. Entrance sites in the limbs and lateral or posterior wall of the chest were only encountered in homicide cases. Associated traumatic lesions were found in about 23% of the homicide cases and in 18% of the suicide cases. In case of suicidal gunshots to the left chest, both upwards and downwards directions, and also both right-to-left and left-to-right directions can occur. From 22 suicide cases showing entrance wound in the mouth, a downwards direction was found in only one. This study underlines the importance but also the limits of the autopsy findings (including direction of the projectile(s) related to the entrance site) for giving an indication of the manner of death (homicide vs. suicide).

Keywords: Firearms, Long guns, Suicide, Homicide

Lot to read there Ralphie but it says that all the close range shots- just like Robins, were suicide and I guess you could expect that because people don't sit passively when they're being murdered, even if they were praying. They would tend to do a runner Ralphie, hit the toe, duck, dive scream out, not be passive and lifting their beanie while a gunman crawled a long the floor to get an upward trajectory shot - to conveniently make the statistics right. A freaked out young man wouldn't do that would he Ralphie, because he wouldn't think of it or even know all these statistics from around the world.

A total of 624 consecutive gunshot autopsies from the Institutes of Legal Medicine in Münster and Hamburg was investigated retrospectively. In a subsample of 284 suicides and 293 homicides (n=577), a large variety of features such as firearm, ammunition, number and site of entrance wounds, shooting distance and direction of the internal bullet path were recorded and binary logistic regression analysis performed in the case of bullet paths. Females constituted 26.3% of the homicide victims and 10.6% of the suicides. Short-barrelled firearms outnumbered long arms in homicides by 6:1 and in suicides by 2:1. More than 1 gunshot injury was found in 5.6% of the suicides (maximum 5 gunshots) and in 53.9% of the homicides (maximum 23 gunshots). The suicidal gunshots were fired from contact or near contact range in 89% while this was the case in only 7.5% of the homicides. The typical entrance wound sites in suicides were the temple (36%), mouth (20%), forehead (11%) and left chest (15%) but uncommon entrance wound sites such as the eye, ear, and back of the neck and head were also encountered. In suicidal gunshots to the right temple (n=107), only 6% of the bullet paths were directed downwards and only 4% were directed from back-to-front. In gunshots to the left chest (n=130), bullet paths running right-to-left or parallel occurred frequently in suicides (75%) and infrequently in homicide victims (19%). From 61 suicides who fired the gun inside their mouth, only 1 pointed the gun downwards. Consequently, some bullet path directions cannot be considered indicative of suicide: downwards and back-to-front in gunshots to the temple, left-to-right in gunshots to the left chest and downwards in mouth shots. The isolated autopsy findings can only be indicative of suicide or homicide but the combined analysis of several findings can be associated with a high probability.

Direction, site and the muzzle target distance of bullet in the head and neck at close range as an indication of suicide or homicide

A little bit more there Ralphie to help you deal with the close contact situation that the Crown, and you, tried to play down.

Tasana Suwanjuthaa

aInstitute of Forensic Medicine, Police Department, Bangkok, Thailand

Available online 22 March 2004.

Direction, site and muzzle target distance can indicate suicide or homicide. This conclusion can be drawn from autopsies of 57 cases of suicide and 68 cases of homicide by handgun fired at close range to the head and neck together with going to the crimescene in some cases. This study was carried out in Bangkok during the period from January 1983 to January 1986. In order to determine whether it was suicide or homicide, the path of the bullet, the site, the muzzle target distance must be considered. The angle of the bullet would be either elevated (from below upward), horizontal or an angle of depression (from above downward). For suicide, the direction of the bullet should be at an angle of elevation in the majority of cases. The position of the handgun in relation to the head in suicide was most often in tight contact and near contact. For homicide, the direction of the bullet should be horizontal in most cases. The bullet was at close range in the majority of the cases. There are 8 common sites for suicide and homicide and 10 different sites in the case of homicide which are at neck, left cheek, left aural region, lip, left occipital area orbit, chin, left eyebrow, submental and nose.

Keywords: Pathology and biology; Gunshot wound; Manner of death

This paper was presented at The Second Indo-Pacific Congress on Legal Medicine and Forensic Science in Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1986.

I hope you're starting to get the picture now Ralph why David should never have been charged and that's even before getting all that pesky forensic evidence against Robin, the spatter on him, but it was the bloodied and bruised hands that was the real give away in the beginning before forensic reports were established. A man that is passively murdered doesn't have bloodied and battered hands, or no underwear, a full bladder, and forget to put the porridge on.

Monday, May 30, 2011

Oh my goodness, Nina and osook on the point of some type of climax...

'Untruthful evidence' in Bain case - police

Another twist has emerged in one of New Zealand's most well-known murder cases.

ONE News can tonight reveal that police believe a defence witness in the David Bain retrial gave "untruthful evidence".

But police will not be taking action against photocopier salesman Daryl Young who gave evidence in the 2009 trial.

Bain was found not guilty of murdering his father, mother, two sisters and brother in a case that has captivated the country for more than 15 years and which has been the subject of huge controversy.

Now more controversy has been added with a letter released to ONE News about Young's evidence.

Young was a late witness in Bain's defence and told of his dealings with David's father, Robin Bain.

In court Young said: "I smelled alcohol and that's why I thought he wasn't at school".

Last year, documentary maker Bryan Bruce challenged the testimony, going as far as to ask police to investigate Young's entire evidence.

The reply came in a letter 10 months later when Detective Senior Sergeant David Harvey said: "I have concluded that untruthful evidence was given by Young. The investigation was referred for legal advice as to whether there was sufficient evidence to support a prosecution for perjury. It was determined that no criminal charges would follow."

However, Young's lawyers have told ONE News that the letter "contains a completely gratuitous and totally unfounded allegation relating to Mr Young".

They say "not only is the allegation completely unfounded, but it's contrary to the Crown's own evidence."

David Bain's defence also rejects the police findings, calling them unadulterated rubbish.

But both Bryan Bruce and Robin Bain's brother are questioning why no perjury charges are pending. Neither police nor Crown lawyers would appear on camera for the story, and police will not elaborate on why they are not prosecuting.

They said the investigation remains open should any further evidence come to light.

However that does not satisfy Young, whose lawyers have told ONE News they have made a complaint about the police conclusions to the Police Commissioner and the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

nina_s (95 ) 6:41 pm, Mon 30 May #32239

Suddenly we have a vague description of 'untruthful evidence,' from which 'no criminal charges will follow,' Bryan Bruce and Robin Bains' brother are questioning (presumably each other) as to 'why no perjury charges are pending.' Though of course 'police will not elaborate on why they are not prosecuting' despite the fact that the investigation 'remains open should any further evidence come to light.'

But of course the disclaimer is at the outset 'police believe a defence witness in the David Bain retrial gave untruthful evidence' doesn't reveal why the police 'believe' something they can't prove. That was evidenced in the Bain prosecution so is nothing new, the police believing something they can't prove.

There are deliberate and clumsy signs here of propaganda and persecution. Are the public suddenly to believe that complaints to the Police are generally expected to be upheld but not prosecuted, or that the Police believe something of which they do not have proof able to be tested by the Courts? I wonder why Bryan Bruce would receive such a letter which compromises the integrity of the Police generally by making a claim Police have not been able to prove. A letter which he 'releases' to news media in an exercise that without proof promotes his apparent credibility using an acknowledgement that there is no proof and all the while stretching the public's imagination that any complainant to the Police will receive a 'report' 10 months later that they (the Police) believe something they can't prove? This Police Officer is out of line, as is the letter in it's 'personal' tone that implies Brown is right not withstanding that there is no sustainable evidence.

The NZ public deserve more than this, to be so lightly regarded in their intelligence of believing something which isn't proven, or indeed could never be brought to Court because the passage of non-existence evidence has now been 'sold' to the public. Also tactically, how distant from explaining how the father had blood and bruises on his hands of which there is real proof and not proof of evidence yet 'come to life.' Vivian Harrison, Arie Smith, Aaron Farmer also 'enjoyed' the belief of those that lay at their doors claims that couldn't be proved, leaving them besieged by claims that don't sustain any credible inquiry.

So for David Bain, Vivian, Arie and Aaron, and now added to the list Daryl Young - who like Vivian was 'convicted' of nothing more than rumour to protect a failed prosecution, a thought now for the same sword which sought to strike them down, not with truth but with lies - also a time for NZers to expect more and the sword to fall back upon those that 'believe' without proof, but make their allegations anyway.

Ralph Taylor - more of what you hate to hear.....

Well Ralph, you didn't want to know that in less than 9% of suicides by long arms are fingerprints found on the rifle. That was evidence at the Trial and also supplied by parapenter (from memory) some time after the trial. There also happens to a peer-reviewed European study that puts the figure at less than 7% but rather than research that yourself you choose to badger others for their sources while (such as was the case with the blood in the barrel of the rifle Robin Bain shot himself with) providing no evidence or proof of your own claims, absolutely none.

Well, here's something else you don't want to know, but which you should have researched before persecuting David Bain with your lies, from Department of Forensic Medicine, Unirversity of Dundee, Lecture notes copyrighted by Derrick J Pounder in 1993 - before the Bain murders/suicide!

Under main heading: Ballistics
and sub heading: Bullet individual characteristics:

at end of section and para....

'Fingerprints are rarely recovered from firearms but may be obtained from cartridge cases.'

And additionally under the final heading: Gunshot Suicide...

'Suicide handgun wounds occur primarily to the head (80%), the chest (15%) and abdomen (<5%) being less common. Within the head the common sites, in decreasing order of frequency, are temple, mouth, under surface of chin and forehead. An unusual location raises a presumption of homicide.

Suicidal shotgun wounds show the same site preference as handguns. Rifle wounds show a distribution of head 50%, chest 35%, abdomen 15%.'

You might like to point out the later quotes to your fat friend osook who has claimed that Robin, if suiciding would have preferred to shoot himself in the mouth, much like you and osook have shot yourselves in the foot numerous times.

These are things you should have been able to understand if not research before you got on your persecution bandwagon Taylor. These are the type of statistics, that added to the tell-tale forensic evidence against Robin Bain, such as no splatter shielding across the lounge floor or curtain, the blood in the rifle, the spatter on Robin's hands, the spatter on his shoes occluded from being from his own wound, the only person to die that morning with an upward trajectory shot and the only person with battered and bloodied hands, a full bladder and no underwear - all showing why David Bain should never have been charged and most certainly not before the forensics evidence was assessed, rather than (as in some cases) thrown away.

Anyway Taylor I look forward to your proof, and the reason why you've badgered others, of peer reviewed material that denies that fingerprints on suicide weapons are 'rare' or that there are findings greater than 7-9% of fingerprints on suicide firearms. If you're not just a lying hate-messenger you'll have all that at your fingertips won't you Ralphie?

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Kent Parker, kenty-baby have a big sook-up.

Defamation case against Justice for Robin Bain Group and counterspinAs has been widely publicized, Joe Karam has sued members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group (JFRB) and counterspin for comments made on the Facebook page, this site and on Trade Me message boards. All of the statements under investigation except about a dozen or so have been removed from publication. Members of JFRB and counterspin are defending these claims on the basis of qualified privilege, truth and honest opinion. All the statements made by members of the group refer to Joe Karam's activities in respect to the David Bain case, including

1.The manner in which he has written about and promoted the case
2.The extent to which he used taxpayer money personally in the form of legal aid to further the cause
3.The manner in which the case affects his economic activities
4.The manner in which he has stifled opposition by threatening and serving defamation suits
5.The behaviour of people who support his cause
6.The manner in which he has pursued the case for so long and in such a determined manner
Members of JFRB and counterspin contend that this is not a genuine grievance but part of a strategy to prevent people from publicly expressing opposition to the arguments that Joe Karam has promoted. A decade ago when Karam was being sued by the Police for alleging that certain policemen committed perjury he was the small man up against the establishment. Now Karam is in the position of being the "establishment" with respect to the Bain case and is suing the "small people" for having lively and relevant discussions on purpose built forums about the case. Karam enjoys criticizing other people but takes huge offence when being criticized himself. In law there is no "Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" rule but in the real world of public opinion there is. Karam would be well advised to take heed of that particular ancient Christian proverb.

Blatant Hypocrisy

In response to the Bryan Bruce documentary The Case Against Robin Bain, Karam came out with the fighting words:

David Bain's chief supporter, Joe Karam, said claims made in promoting the documentary were "mischievous misrepresentations of the facts". "The programme itself perpetrates a fraud." (view)


The documentary did not follow the normal broadcasting standards of balance and fairness, Mr Karam said.

"Huge claims were made solely for the purpose, I would say, of increasing ratings and getting people to watch it."(view)

The statements above would be sufficient material for a defamation case against Mr Karam. These are similar to statements that members of the Justice for Robin Bain group have been making about the activities of Karam - but in much less public media.

Add to that, Karam accused the police of perjury in the first trial and drummed the idea thoroughly into the public in his book David and Goliath and in his booklet Innocent. No case for perjury was even made against any police officers, let alone proven and the Police Complaints Authority rebutted Karam's claims on just about every point.

Kenty is still hurting, he wants some sympathy - a hug even. The poor chap feels humiliated, he's indignant because he reckons Joe Karam is naughtier than what he is. He's citing a claim that Karam accused the Police of perjury in order to justify his (Kent's) defamation. Though he forgets two officers (with the full weight of the Police association behind them) sued Joe and lost. And spitting the dummy about what Joe might have done, rather than what he (Kent) has done, he grizzles about the discredited TV documentary by Bryan Bruce and what Joe had to say about it, although it's clear to note that Bryan Bruce is silent on the subject and was criticised by BCA and fined.

Poor old Kenty is a blubbering cry baby, a big sook who thinks he's justified in his hate campaign, stalking and defamation by comparing his own awkward, foolhardy and driven by bravado, law-breaking by what he believes Joe Karam might have done. Get it in your head thicko, it's not about what Joe Karam might have done it's about you and your fiddler web-site sprouting off defamation and hate. You're not the complainant Kent, you're the defendant - that's why you get to stand in the dock and look like a moron. That's why you were in Court last week Kent, because you needed to be told it's not kindergarten anymore where you cried in the sandpit because the other kids said you looked like Anthony Perkins in Psycho and when you threw painted blocks at them and they told the teacher you blubbered, 'they called me names.'

Seriously Kent, did you ever consider comedy?

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Kent Parker is not as stupid as he looks, nearly ... but not quite..

As has been widely publicized, Joe Karam has sued members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group (JFRB) and counterspin for comments made on the Facebook page, this site and on Trade Me message boards. All of the statements under investigation except about a dozen or so have been removed from publication. Members of JFRB and counterspin are defending these claims on the basis of qualified privilege, truth and honest opinion. All the statements made by members of the group refer to Joe Karam's activities in respect to the David Bain case, including

1.The manner in which he has written about and promoted the case
2.The extent to which he used taxpayer money personally in the form of legal aid to further the cause
3.The manner in which the case affects his economic activities
4.The manner in which he has stifled opposition by threatening and serving defamation suits
Members of JFRB and counterspin contend that this is not a genuine grievance but part of a strategy to prevent people from publicly expressing opposition to the arguments that Joe Karam has promoted. A decade ago when Karam was being sued by the Police for alleging that certain policemen committed perjury he was the small man up against the establishment. Now Karam is in the position of being the "establishment" with respect to the Bain case and is suing the "small people" for having lively and relevant discussions on purpose built forums about the case. Karam enjoys criticizing other people but takes huge offence when being criticized himself. In law there is no "Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" rule but in the real world of public opinion there is. Karam would be well advised to take heed of that particular ancient Christian proverb.

If the above is the sort of nonsense that Parker thinks is a defence no wonder it is challenged and sought to be struck out. The first thing Parker should note in his pea-sized brain is that he is the owner and operator of a hate-site which after much pressure was finally shut down. Parker and his merry band of idiots weren't seeking to do anything other than spread hate against Bain and Karam, to the point were they deliberately published lies to bring both men into disrepute - it went so far that a false 'confession' was written by a site administrator and referenced as breakthrough new evidence. Then of course we've had other hate-site personnel claiming that David was never strip searched, had scratches on his chest on the morning of the murders, that his fingerprints were in blood on the rifle and that Robin Bain's brain matter wasn't found sucked into the rifle with which he shot himself.

None of this of course relates to the financial situation of Mr Karam and if there were any question about that it would be for the authorities not some frothing at the mouth idiots or now seek to justify their defamation on matters for which they had no proof and were only ever mentioned by them in the most offensive and defamatory way without proof. Needless to say the system is transparent and any information the idiot Parker was entitled to he could have asked through the relevant legislation, shouting and lieing his rotten head of as he gloated in his own importance is why he is being sued. That he actively encouraged other to defame Karam and other by providing a message board for them to do is the reason his sorry arse is in the High Court. The same goes for the idiot Purkiss who along with Parker was stupid enough to be reported as threatening and harassing Karam and Bain in a public newspaper, and who also are recorded as launching defamatory attacks on TM and elsewhere.

'The manner of which he has stifled opposition' by threatening or issuing law suits says Parker. Does the idiot the think he has some kind of immunity from making and encouraging public defamation? If he does he's on a sharp learning curve now. As I've told the fool before he should pull his head and seek to settle on what ever terms he can get. Not only is that his best course but it might offer him some mitigation for his encouragement of jury and witness stalking, his failure to act when plans were made on his boards to stalk and threaten members of the public, to bring false complaints against others to the authorities. Face it Kent, you crapped in your own pants.

Truth and qualified opinion, says Kent. However, he will be able to show that Karam fabricated evidence and got witnesses to say things is beyond comprehension. Kent tried such things himself and got caught out, because Kent was caught out that somehow does gather into an unfounded allegation against others. Qualified opinion, and in what way is Kent Parker qualified, his sites have shown how little they know about the Bain case and how willing they to deny what doesn't suit them and labour mistruths in the hope they will become reality, maybe in his sad world but no where else on this planet.

But as I've written before the privilege argument may have merit. Parker could argue that he is an idiot (plenty of evidence to that fact) and that his members are also idiots and consequently there position is privileged in some way in that normal members of society ought not under normal circumstances listen or take seriously the rantings of filthy hate-siters. It would be worth a try for him, nothing else has worked and I don't think anyone could seriously argue that he isn't an idiot.

Of course the environment from which the defamatory statements were made is important, also the activities illegal and otherwise that also arose from that environment is important for a Jury to ascertain the credibility and honesty of the participants. But not least is the way the 'opinions' were passed whether they were nonfactual or not - in all those areas Parker and Purkiss fail.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Court update for the dear sisters.

Three men from further south, who have been biding their time are due their appointment in Court as a priority now. They are firmly on their own, despite their hopes that perhaps TM would shelter them, fight their fight for them, attend to the view that freedom of speech allows stalking and threats. Of course some months ago they expressed their preference to 'not attend' Court despite the fact they were so willing to 'attend' to the business and private life's of others for which they are now brought to account.

Sometimes, I just think heck, and oh goodness.

The joys of being a hate-siter.

The crazier you are the more at home you are in the hate-site mentality....

win8 wrote:

Yes true.... bbuuutt
The second trial proved he would have been found not guilty in the first trial, if he was given a fair trial with all the facts presented to the court.

Seems odd then that hearsays were allowed for the second trial by the defense . Yet screamed predujice of the prosecution did the same . So the defense got to have 3 scenerio hearsays . Presecution zero . and teh prosecution was denied the right to put even defense evidense before the court

steve1958 (395 ) 6:56 pm, Wed 25 May #43

The poster win8 points out the obvious, but nutbar Steve writes about 'hearsays' and that the defence got have '3 scenario hearsays.' He talks about 'hearsays' as though they are some strategic advantage and not simply a word he doesn't understand and misuses - then comes the humdinger 'teh prosecution was denied the right to even put defense evidense before the court.' This spinner believes the prosecution put their own 'evidense' before the court and are therefore entitled to put 'defense evidense' before the court. He got the dense part right. He thought getting the dunce's cap at school was a major achievement and that he held the world record for having it 'bestowed' upon him no less than 772 times. But he sums up well what it is to be a hate-siter, that you're accepted no matter how thick or 'dense' you are - just as long as you 'believe' and spread the hate.

And so they waffle on about all the 'withheld' evidence but remain silent on that which indicated that dear daddy was a fiddler. They also ignore the amount of 'hearsays' (that word again that sounds like a previously unknown breed of fish) that the Crown presented in their failed case.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Look, campmother Kenty and galpal Vic have been in Court today....

Defamation action by David Bain' supporter Joe Karam against members of Justice for Robin Bain (JFRB) was back in court in Auckland today.

Mr Karam's lawyers, along with respondents Kent Parker, from JFRB, and Vic Purkiss were at the High Court in Auckland for a hearing regarding the defamation case.

Mr Karam, who was not at court this morning, has made several defamation claims over alleged statements on JFRB's Facebook site and Counterspin.

The High Court website said today's hearing was to cover applications for orders striking out various defences, for particular discovery and for an order setting aside the defendants' claim to privilege.

The hearing was held in chambers and media were not allowed to attend.

Looks like his defences could be struck out, 3 strikes and all that. Poor Kenty, might have to hand over a lot of files that could show stalking for example, attempts to Pervert the Course of Justice, files that contain the names of the good old pals, Curran, O'Brien, Taylor and others in efforts to conspire to break the law both civil and criminal. But privilege as well? Kenty and Vic claiming privilege, I wonder what they could be? Client privilege, in respect communications between a bunch of nutters to a camp mother nutter - what a novel twist.

Oh well, at least the extent of his outrageous claims of defence were not heard in public so as to presumably avoid prejudicing the trial. The beat keeps on and Kent Parker tonight takes home the misery he sought to depart upon others. Suck it up Kent.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Garth McVicar, petulant and panicking.......

Bill English has been criticised for claiming the country doesn't need any more prisons.

The Finance Minister told TVNZ's Q&A that there'll be no more prisons built under his watch, calling them a moral and fiscal failure.

But Sensible Sentencing Trust's Garth Mcvicar has deplored the comments, saying Mr English has no understanding of what prisons are for.

He says much of the good work from National and Act has now been destroyed, and it seems the Government has now deserted victims of crime.

Very refreshing that in election year a Crown Minister is not racheting up crime and punishment, promising new laws and harsher sentences. Also refreshing that a Minister is speaking rationally about solutions that don't involve 'toughening up' and heightening public fears whilst at the same time points out the costs involved that frankly are unaffordable socially and financially. Then along comes Garth talking about the 'good work' that has been destroyed by Mr English's statements, the 'good work' built on misleading the public with erroneous figures on the '3 strikes' statistics by honest Wild Bill Davey Garrett and his side kick one-eyed Rodney, one eye on the perks and the other Wild Bill's back for when he needed to plunge the dagger in. Poor fellows, I hope Garthy is currently writing to Bill English and explaining what prisons are for because Bill has apparently led a very sheltered life and has no idea.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Belated vindication for Vivien Harrison?

Vivien Harrison died April just gone, never having been 'deframed' from the travesty of injustice imposed on her. She was 'identified' by the Prosecutor (later Judge) David Morris as the mystery woman who fed the baby Rochelle Crewe after her parents Jeanette and Harvey had been murdered. David Morris had driven the spectre of this lie into the reputation of, as she was then Vivien Thomas, to ensure that her then husband Arthur would be convicted of the murders. David Morris did this despite information on the case file that another person, later to be the wife of Len Demler father of Jeanette, Norma had been identified as the woman seen on the property in the days before the discovery of the bodies.

Much of this information is contained in a North and South article by Chris Bird and as much as it vindicates the late Vivien and Arthur Thomas it incriminates the complicity of Police in wilfully exercising a Miscarriage of Justice. However, more than that it shows that the strongest circumstantial evidence available to the police to have enabled a conviction was that against Len Demler. He, like his 2nd wife Norma, fudged and prevaricated that Norma was 'on the scene' that is in Pukekawa around the time of the murders. The police had a positive identification from Bruce Roddick who despite immense pressure was unwavering in his evidence that the woman he was on the Crewe's farm in the days after the murder was not Vivien but indeed was Norma Demler, the later information was never put before a jury as was also excluded the note in Detective Len Johnson's work-diary '..that Roddick was going to identify the woman he saw as Mrs Demler,'concluded with the further entry 'confirms our suspicions re identification.'

Of course if the allegation of Morris was negated, and the proof positive revealed that Mr Roddick had identified Norma Demler the case against Arthur was shot, as were the obscene allegations against Vivien. Moreover, a complete case was built against the true perpetrator of the crime Len Demler. I say the true perpetrator because there was no reason for Len Demler to lie about when he met Norma Demler or when she was 'on the scene' cooking for the shearers. All of this is substantiated by various people including even members of the extended Demler family. What becomes revealed is that among the police was evidence and belief that Norma had fed the baby and that therefore her husband to be was implicated in the murders.

Birt's article shows the role Norma Demler soon began to assume in the affairs of the trust which own the various farming properties associated to Len and his family even though Colin Harvey, a trustee said of her involvement 'She had no right to be there (at the meetings of the trust) as she was not a trustee and she did all the talking.'

Even the unshakable recollections of Bruce Roddick as to the identity of the mystery woman would sought to undermined by another Detective Mike Charles who considered that it was important to determine what the sexual inclinations of the late Bruce Roddick were, as though anyone could imagine the relevance of that an issue as the reliability of Bruce's identification of Norma and 'failure' to identify the favourite of Prosecutor Morris - Vivien.

The Crewe case remains a rare, if yet still raw, blight on the landscape of Justice in New Zealand, and rarer still for the now public knowledge that while one man was prosecuted members of the Police believed it was another man 'courted' and cultivated into a role of innocence that some within the Police believed was guilty and who was never thoroughly investigated and became unwatched under the blind eye of Justice that seeks a result no matter the cost and the issues of right or wrong or of basic fairness and Justice.

Chris Birt's article is a must read for those interested in or affected by this case, and reveals other startling information that the the Commissioner of the time, Walton, instructed Auckland Police (at a point after the convictions) to not formally interview Norma Demler. At work from the very top down was activity to lay open shortcomings in the original investigation, Walton told Chris Birt that if he should see the officer involved again to 'ask him what the reason was.' Another startling demonstration of self-protection by a request to ask the officer receiving the order what the reason was for Walton to have made the order.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Naughty, naughty Cybernana look what she's

doing now....

Yet another 7th of May has come and gone. Still no sight of Milton's book. It was to be published 7th May 2010, then 7th May 2011. Perhaps he is still trying to find a glass lens in the photos.

cybernana (596 ) 8:20 pm, Fri 20 May #32167

I'm not sure but I think she's teasing the old twisted sisters, who having lost on every count, were sure dear Milton was going to save the day - with an impressive book explaining how daddy's blood got sucked into the rifle barrel, and how his hands got all cut, bruised and covered with blood when he forgot to make the porridge and go to the toilet.

Nana's these days, they're so naughty.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Robert van Driek (skylab) what a spacer...

This from the moron...

is a joke. Joe Karam says, David has never been invited to speak anywhere in New Zealand about his experience off being unjustly found guilty of murdering his whole family. Joe also says, the media would eat him up for breakfast. WELL WHAT DO YOU EXPECT JOE, HES FARKING GUILTY!! I wonder what David thinks whilst sitting next to the Hurricane, a truly innocent man. Could David actually look him in the eye?

Edited by skylab6 at 6:33 pm, Tue 17 May

skylab6 (158 ) 6:33 pm, Tue 17 May #1

He's wondering what people think, and he's confirming full idiocy and introspection difficulties by not realising that David was found not guilty. What a dickhead you are robert the dickhead.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Dear twisted sisters, what would happen if you were a director of a company

that ran a message board on which people posted deliberate lies? Would you not be responsible, even after being told what was on your boards. In Aussie they said yes you would be responsible...

ACCC v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd and Anor (No 2) [2011] FCA 74
22nd March 2011

A recent case in the Federal Court which held a company responsible for claims made in testimonials that its clients posted on its Facebook wall.

print friendlyemail a friendrelated publicationsrelated servicesBackground

In 2009 the ACCC had brought an action alleging that Allergy Pathway had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, falsely represented goods or services were of a particular standard or quality and represented that its services had benefits which they do not have by making certain statements about its allergy services in marketing brochures and a variety of other publications. The respondents didn’t contest these allegations and, to avoid permanent injunctions, offered up undertakings to the Court committing to refrain from “making or publishing or causing to be made or published in any internet website, radio, television or newspaper advertisements or brochures or other written promotional material” statements representing that:

it could accurately test for and identify an allergen for a person;
it could cure or eliminate or successfully treat any allergy or allergic reaction;
its treatments were safe or low risk; or
after its treatments it would be safe for a person to have contact with the allergen to which the person had an allergic reaction.
The undertakings were given by the company and by the sole director of the company, who was taken to have been “involved” in the contraventions.


The ACCC in these proceedings alleged that the respondents were in contempt because they had breached the undertakings by making several categories of objectionable publications, including in:

testimonials written by clients and posted by Allergy Pathway on its website, on its Facebook wall and on its Twitter page; and
testimonials written and posted by clients on Allergy Pathway’s Facebook wall.
The question

The respondents conceded that statements and links to statements which the company itself posted breached the undertakings. The Court had to determine whether Allergy Pathway and its director were similarly in contempt for allowing misleading statements posted by independent individuals on the company’s Facebook wall or Twitter page to remain there after the company became aware of the comments.

The respondents had said that the breaches were not deliberate, and that they thought they would not breach the undertakings by publishing the views of Allergy Pathways’ clients provided that they removed extravagant claims or words. However, they accepted that their approach to moderating their Facebook fans’ and Twitter followers’ testimonials was insufficient.

The finding

Finkelstein J held that the company and its director were in contempt because of these Facebook and Twitter statements. Key factors in the determination were that Allergy Pathways knew the statements had been posted on its Facebook wall / Twitter page and took no steps to remove them and if Allergy Pathways had made the statements itself it would have been in breach of the undertakings.

Finkelstein J said:

“While it cannot be said that Allergy Pathway was responsible for the initial publication of the testimonials (the original publisher was the third party who posted the testimonials on Allergy Pathway’s Twitter and Facebook pages) it is appropriate to conclude that Allergy Pathway accepted responsibility for the publications when it knew of the publications and decided not to remove them. Hence it became the publisher of the testimonials. In any event it is clear that it caused them to continue to be published from the time it became aware of their existence, which is enough to put Allergy Pathway in breach of the second limb of its undertaking [i.e. causing to be made or published].”
Each respondent was fined $7,500. Injunctions for 3 years were made and the court made declarations of breach, corrective advertising and costs.

This looks bad news for the very twisted sisters. Who would have thought that if you controlled a message board and you let people like Fox, Kennard, Stockdale, Taylor and others to lie their rotten heads off to harass and stalk people - the Courts would hold you responsible along with the direct harassers? Certainly not Trade Me, well maybe not until now.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

The twisted sisters day in Court has been put off

as many readers may know. Having had a few inquiries over the last few days I can confirm a hearing is scheduled the week after next on a point of law. But that concerns Trade Me and an issue of essentially who is responsible for what is published on a board. I have named a director of the host company who believe himself not to be responsible much in the way a director is absolved from debt in most situations where a limited liability company flounders because of debt and debtors are unable under law to pursue company directors in the normal matter of course.

I see a distinction whereby the limits of Limited Liability for a company under the law are restricted wholly (as far as I know)to debt but not necessarily to civil or criminal offending. Trade Me have rules which they 'hope' more than they can be certain of, which indemnify themselves against civil law of publishing. In the first instance I think that fails, but more particularly where the published material has been defamatory and intended to frighten, intimidate or harass members of the public (but which TM have published anyway) I think any 'limits' are a long way out the door. The law wasn't designed to accommodate across the board offending and is specific in terms of debt liability limited to a company and not the directors. The issues raised however by the publications TM have published on their boards cross into new territory not considered in Limited liability legislation where offending or trespass has transgressed other law.

I've had a few weeks away from the paperwork but on returning it still seems perfectly clear that TM are a traditional publisher and liable for defamatory comment that may be published and more importantly, in this case, for threats and stalking on the boards by TM members.

I haven't mentioned the 3 sisters to this point because they're irrelevant to the legal argument and not a party to the consideration of the law on the matter. They will not be represented at the interim hearing and have no been invited or instructed to do so because their position is irrelevant to the question of law. Additionally to that TM have raised no argument defending the actions of the 3 sister bros which entitles a position that TM accept (unfortunately for the 3 wise ones) the harassment took place. More interesting is that 2 of the 3 stalking heroes wrote incriminating letters to the Court, a couple of which revealed more stalking than I had been aware of - of course that matter isn't over yet, being reserved in the meantime but it's apparent they don't have a show, to the point they have indicated they won't even turn up at Court when the matter against them is convened for final lawful determination.

Overall, the news is not good for the twisted sisters already named in these proceedings and elsewhere, nor for the others excluded from this first test of the law but not forgotten by any stretch of the imagination. The laws they broke in their persecution and spreading of hate will be the same laws they will be tested against and the world will be a better place for it.

Johnson and Knight - false imprisonment.

More on this subject, the recent Sunday night show on this bleak episode of NZ Justice recorded a number of the reasons why the men were compensated. This included video footage of them in a service station at a time which precluded them from having started the fire, that alone shows the corruption of this case and the reveals the number of people who 'look away' from anything disturbing about the nature of the now quashed convictions. Additionally, it was a revealed there was a matter which was being kept confidential that also 'proved' the men's innocence.

Some will recall that the two mothers in this case researched recent arson records for the Foxton area and other relevant information as part of their crusade to have their sons set free. Why there should need to be anything kept secret (and probably an agreement forced upon the young men - if they wanted to be compensated)just adds to concerns that there has been a 'sell off' of some discription - a deal done to prevent the men speaking out on some information they might have. A situation of this nature doesn't restore any confidence, even when putting aside the fact that the OIC of the case remains in the police fold.

I will remind others that when Jaden Knight was standing on the steps of Parliament having received an 'apology' from Simon Power, the poster boy of the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the author of draconian statutes that have 'refined' some of our laws back to the dark ages, he spoke of feeling like being 'bullied' again. What bullying could have happened during the progress of his apology and compensation other than 'having' to agree to not speak out on some matters relevant to the case?

Well, I have two. Either that somebody else has been convicted, charged or admitted in some way responsibility for the Foxton arson. I could be completely wrong, but that is the difficulty when a Government try to extract themselves from a Miscarriage of Justice without full disclosure. Simon Power, who probably cooked his own goose (and hence his surprise announcement of retiring from politics) because of his unhealthy association with Garth McVicar, David Garrett and other crooks who manipulated the public (and John Key) it seems with morbid pleas to the vulnerable by heightening fear - is now seen as the Minister who apologised for matters which were of public record but refusing to do so over matters, necessarily made 'secret' and to be kept from the public.

I'd like to see Jaden Knight or one of the mothers speak out on what 'can't' be disclosed and to hell with the secret agreement. This secret agreement has all the hallmarks of the 2 men being bullied into silence (remember one of them, Johnston - didn't even bother attending Parliament to met the the 'glorious' Minister.) Then we would see if the Government had the temerity to try to enforce their 'insistance' (contract) of silence, that would be another court case against the odds (and fairness and Justice) that the 2 men would win.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The false imprisonment of Jaden Knight and Phillip Johnston.

Much to reflect upon with this case. In some ways deciding where the place to start is as difficult to arrive at as where the finish might be. I wonder what the touch stone might be, and realise that it is 2 mothers. There is a recognised concept that the wheels of justice turn very slowly, that justice is in many ways inert and selfish, that justice has become a law to itself, a preservation of itself over the faults that often make it blind, unable to speak, hear or see.

So if our Minister of Justice takes many years to speak out, apologise over a case that has found its root cause in Police misconduct years ago, then why haven't the Courts spoken sooner, why do they not speak now - in this time when again victims of miscarriages of justice and their families call for the formation of a separate entity to investigate cases such as that of the Foxton arson because of which these 2 men were wrongfully imprisoned - why are the Courts silent? The Courts must see more clearly that members of the public or lay people the mechanics, lies, and fabrications of MOJ but they leave them for the victims to pick a way through an unforgiving an forbiding Justice system that is onerous in it's design.

We all know a Judge can gaol a defendant, a lawyer, a member of the public in a Court room for 'insolence,' swearing, the clothing the wear, for being upset, shouting or cursing - so clearly they can gaol a police officer for contempt when he is giving evidence and clearly lying, or can note on the public record his observations of circumstances that have led an innocent person to Court and imprisoned or charge for an offence on evidence that is false. Unfortunately, the more I think about the role of the Courts in the role of imprisonment it appears equally as unsatisfactory to that of police officers, scientists, or lying witnesses play a role no less than a Judge or panel of Judges who remain unmoved, or unwilling to speak on events, such as the false imprisonment of these 2 men, when it passes before them.

If I'm offended that the OIC that fitted up these 2 men remains in the Police, has never been charged with any crime relating to the MOJ, then why aren't the Courts when the case passes before them? There are no expedients in Justice, only raw, uncompromising truth, the failure of truth in a prosecution is the failure of the entire case - not an opportunity to look for supporting facts elsewhere in a already blemished prosecution. The investigation into these unfortunate men in the overall wash up took minutes, hours, days but unravelling their nightmare has taken years - observed either without concern for the interests of justice and the safety or citizens. Time for the Courts to speak up, not to 'excuse' logic, or 'unfortunate' breaches of investigating and prosecution procedure. Time for the Courts to speak the public mind, to be active when things go wrong and not appear lethargic and system-protecting.

If the Courts don't speak who else will, campaigners such as Joe Karam, Pat Booth, Dr Sprott? (and respect to many others of their kind.) Women such as these two mothers and the mother of Aaron Farmer, who will protest for these good people who, for whatever reason have been disturbed enough over a MOJ to step out from themselves, from their life into the mouth of an indolent beast. Where is the life in our Courts in the people considered to be insightful, sharp, worthy and humble administrators of the truth, make no comment or order when a broken family pass by trying to rescue a son or daughter from a sleeping beast? It isn't right.

To finish on this subject, I wonder why the families needed to go to Parliament to accept their 'apology' when in fact that it is the lawmakers who should be cap in hands, or with fine mats hiding their shame at the door of their victims.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Hotchin suing NZ Herald update.

Among the allegations from Hotchin is that the Herald and Gaynor had waged a long-standing campaign against him, according to his lawyers, the articles were 'highly damaging, incorrect and misleading.' This, amongst other things 'seriously damaged his personal and commercial reputation and caused him to lose commercial opportunities both in New Zealand and Australia.'

Here's another beauty, 'the New Zealand Herald is accused of acting improperly 'and/or with the intention of increasing sales.' How naive that seems to be, it suggests that people would buy the Herald to read about Hotchin and therefore there would be an increase in sales. Also, 'with the intention of increasing sales,' I wonder if Hotchin or his lawyers realise that a commercial enterprise is geared toward increasing sales, and just because that entity is a publisher doesn't discount them from that role of looking to increase business without any need to defame dear Marky. I think more than anything such claims show if not pure vanity, then a man under self-induced pressure, unwilling to accept his own shortcomings and unable to find a way out.

Mr Hotchin has launched some misguided media parades in order to re-establish his reputation. He seems totally unaware that when a multi millionaire pleads poverty or how much he put into a failed company in which investors lost millions, those investors just don't care. Hotchin's very fall from grace has echoed in the public mind because of the failure of his companies and the way investors feel they've been treated, both of which would have had greater impact on his reputation that articles written in The Herald. It is the investors that have spread the word and feeling about Hotchin. His white elephant mansion in Orakei I'm sure features more in the mind of the public than anything Gaynor has written.

But moreover what Gaynor has written might well be tested (if Hotchin succeeds to trial,) and measured against Hotchins assets being frozen in the Courts, the public feeling abroad about failed finance companies in general and Hotchin in particular. I don't think Hotchin has a dog's show, this action reeks of the anger of a man under pressure who thought the pheasant's should appreciate his greatness and the opportunity to lose money by investing in his brand. There is a sharp delusion showing here. I think Hotchin is bewildered that he is viewed any differently than the way he sees himself, and additionally confused why there is no sympathy abroad for him.

I've never agreed with the invasion into the privacy of his family, I think that has been unwarranted and the work of guttersnipes (old word there), but the stark fact remains that Mark Hotchin sewed the seeds of his own fate and public opinion of himself - he should grow some gonads and toughen up the bloody cry-baby.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Peter Jansen calls it off, citing that the woman he

was suing needs the opportunity to continue her treatment. I gather he is also saying that that he was unaware that Jax was an ACC client. But of course he knew all these things when he began his litigation, it was all contained in the thread from which his complaints of defamation arose. And even if by some remarkable situation he was in the dark about Jax's situation he certainly knew when the story broke publicly, particularly when the Minister became involved.

Peter Jansen has an awkward, damaging touch. The 'pathways' programme he helped initiate to expediate treatment for ACC clients isn't universally lauded, in some quarters it is down right rejection as being a cost cutting exercise that created greater problems than its worth. His act, of what could be described as revengeful litigation, also held that clumsy touch. His withdrawal from that particular episode was again superficial, misleading - suddenly compassionate but citing excuses that don't weigh as credible or true.

Peter Jansen's pathway is more real than the prose he used to sell the original idea, Peter's pathway is in fact real and he walks that pathway now, alone, watched silently for his false steps and spiteful anger against those to whom he has betrayed himself.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Mark Hotchin suing Brian Gaynor and the NZ Herald

..in the more traditional fashion, the speaker (writer) as well as the Publisher (NZ Herald.) While one can assume that the Publisher Trade Me will want to enjoin the speakers (writers) of the posts for which it is being sued by Joe Karam, for the specific reason that they claim not be the publishers (but that the writers are) and TM are therefore not liable - Hotchin's actions takes the traditional, established route.

On the surface this could appear to be good news for TM but looked at more closely that isn't necessarily the case because TM continued (and continue now) to publish defamatory material about Karam after having been first warned and then sued. And of necessity the question is asked would Karam have been defamed after he warned TM if they had heeded his warning, the answer is probably no, and if the answer was still yes, TM have lost the mitigating circumstance that they stopped further publishing of defamatory comment because they agreed that they were the publisher or alternatively because they recognised the public harm to Karam even though they believed themselves not to be a publisher. There are some kind of idiots running or advising TM and ultimately the opinion is abroad that the hangbainers, are nutters with an unnatural interest in children.

Worse case scenario is that the Court might order that the nutter fiddlers be enjoined or TM might enjoin them as the traditional (route) action of Hotchin V NZ Herald and Gaynor above. Interesting to note that Mark Hotchin seems oblivious to the fact that his reputation has suffered by his own actions and not from the words published about him. I don't think he has a dog's show. The action seems designed for other reasons, probably quite desperate reasons divorced from reality and probably driven by anger. Another question is raised of how he can afford it if he is as impoverished as he claims when he has sought the courts to release frozen funds and assets to him.

In the meantime while there remain doubts that Hotchin has the dry ammo to keep his law suit going, and noting that Dr Jansen has given up his against an ACC client, sure as rain Karam keeps on relentlessly, passing on his way the locked down hate-sites of rotten fiddlers without an interested glance.

Friday, May 6, 2011

The inequality of the treatment of Karam compared to Jansen on TM.

I have had a look into the threads regarding Peter Jansen and can see that the first post on those threads contained words that were not appropriate. In this specific case we had to remove the whole thread to remove the first post, which was against the Message Board rules.



Trade Me Support

The first posts....

Yip, that's right. One of the Sexual Abuse Claimants who has been screwed over by ACC is being sued by Dr. Jansen (Head of the Sensitive Claims Unit) for calling him names on her blog. He is asking upwards of $250,000. His hurt, shame and financial loss is worth more than anyone who has been sexually abused apparently. He appears to be under the impression he isn't a "Completely Incompetent Prick" though no one would of guessed that one after the Independent Review Panel Report last year. He will get eaten alive in the media.

http://k1w1jax.blogspot.com/2011/04/peter-jansen-shows-his-t rue-colours.html
by grm
on 10:25 am, 14 Apr 2011


by scarpetta
on 02:33 pm, 17 Apr 2011

I recovered the first posts from VMN, the second as is apparent already had the first post removed which fails to explain why the whole thread needed to be removed. The second contains words that are 'not appropriate' according to TM.

TM specifically state that 'In this specific case we had to remove the whole thread to remove the first post, which was against the Message Board rules' whereas on the issue of the continued attacks on Karam (some 30,000 posts) the first post is already removed. A couple of years ago some threads were started about the fallen lawyer Eb Leary, they were also quickly removed.

Reading the remaining 1st post above from the 'dismissed' Jansen threads the only apparently 'inappropriate words' are those describing the good Doctor as an 'incompetent prick.' However these are the statements over which he is suing and I'm completely sure that he (Peter Jansen) has not sought suppression of those words in his law suit - in fact the are broadly published.

It is hardly obscure that Karam is likely to argue that TM have 'allowed' him to be defamed at length, the ongoing threads are strong proof of that. As for the intention to be proven against TM the disappearing Leary and Jansen threads provide substantial proof of TM holding a different standard when it suits them. The nonsense about some supposed technical reason why some threads are removed and not others of the same type is exactly that, nonsense.

Noteworthy, that supporters of the blogger Jax populated the removed Jansen threads while in the case of remaining Karam threads they're populated by in large of detractors and defamers of Karam - the man who is 'incidentally' suing Trade Me. Am I missing something here?

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Ralph Taylor, fiddler pal has a question....

Maybe nx would like to help out."only 7% of gun suicides leave identifiable prints".?He seems in the know?

jeeves-50 (3 ) 11:31 pm, Tue 3 May #32110

Would you like to put some money on it fiddler old pal, or are you still full of it like when you wouldn't back up your claims that rotten daddy's blood was in the barrel or that David had scratch marks to his chest when he was stripped searched? You're so pathetic Ralph, just because you stick up for pedos with other sicko cultists you think you're normal. But you're not normal Ralphie, you're a sicko sick pedo sticker upper. I'll put money on that, but what about you Ralph - too gutless you persecuting piece of dog waste?

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Peter Jansen, who apparently wrecked his reputation?

Apart from interested observers and partisans who noticed, or considered gravely, that a blogger called Peter some naughty words. Such naughty words that Peter would be reduced to biting his fingers and rolling about the floor in bewilderment and hurt. Would the general public have noticed had Peter not cast himself into infamy by driving a tank over one of his employer's clients, and shouting back, over his shoulder, 'ya called me names, you said I couldn't drive a tank over a fully used pedestrian crossing - well cop that, ya squeamy chum!'

Well, I feel sorry for ya Pete. I've got a fair to middling size couch. I could kick the rampaging books and bits of paper from it and you could lie down, all comfy like, with a freshly washed dummy in ya gob and tell me what happened when that blogger said something naughty. I'm not advocating smacking Pete, no no no. But you might need a good smack to get you back on track instead of driving pedestrians over in your tank. Think about buying a hummer, downsize, reduce your own considered importance to a thimble-full and breath.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Scott Watson file...

Watson's father Chris said the IPCA report went further than he expected and was official condemnation of the police investigation.
He said police should be concerned about the issues raised over the way witnesses were handled to identify Watson.
"It goes right to the foundation of it - if they had done their job properly, would they have had enough for an arrest?"
He said there were avenues the IPCA could have pursue

The above comments are an interesting insight into Chris Watson and what appears to be his belief that the police failed to investigate properly the murders for which his son has been convicted. Chris's beliefs probably stem from a straight forward, down to earth response of a man with faith that the world, and the police in particular, are fundamentally incapable of repeating what has happened with Farmer, Bain, Dougherty, Ellis, Thomas and others. All those cases of course have featured police breaking the rules in pursuit of a conviction.

To be most specific they are cases where the evidence 'sought' was that supporting an overview that the suspect was guilty to the exclusion of others and the evidence to prove that needed to be prioritised. But again, as I've written about before, someone pulled the strings, someone turned a 'blind eye' to improper investigating, overlooked the ambiguity of evidence being found on 're-searches' etc. Indeed someone requested the completion of those tasks and it was the Officer In Charge whose staff, for whatever reason, complied - no doubt some of whom were hand picked for such work.

Ultimately it appears that Chris Watson remains a believer in the system as did Aaron Farmer's mother who wrote letter after letter believing that someone would do something to free her innocent boy from prison. Chris Watson seems to believe that the system will answer to itself willingly and in good time and who could blame him. But I hope Chris also sees that the system protects itself with limited lines of inquiry, the lines of which the inquirer may not have the bravery or consciousness to step over. From that point Chris's beliefs could come back to a closer truth - one that the Courts should observe without failure that when the evidence offered toward a conviction fails the test of credibility, or lawfulness, the case should be dismissed. And not be viewed as an 'opportunity' to rely on other evidence, as in the Watson case, such as the tales of 'convenient' cell mate to cell mate 'confession,' particularly so when the helpful witness has already admitted being a liar.

Cases like this, would get chucked out in many jurisdictions, not necessarily for a single reason (although a sufficiently strong one would do) but where issues of identification are prejudicial, where evidence missed the first time is miraculously found on second 'search' where a case in constructed in the public mind even before an arrest or trial - those failures must be grouped together to dismiss the case or pardon the prisoner already convicted. The longer NZ allows repeat after repeat of cases like the Watson case and those mentioned above, and sit on their hands or at least preserve a mostly inert, or grudging response we are all poorer for it.

In most cases in normal life mistakes are accept, deliberate false imprisonments fall outside that category except for one respect, that the public continue to rightfully expect that the 'system' performs for the Public Interest and not to 'self-protect.' Scott Watson should have been let go a long time ago, the case against him has been found wanting by an independent investigation by IPCA, and further abroad there remains incredulity that a conviction was even sought against a man primarily targeted as fitting a profile induced in the mind of Rob Pope. Let the man go.