The following is probably well-known to many followers of the Watson case, but while admitting that I haven't followed the case closely I don't recall having read it before, somebody sent it onto me so I've deleted names and published. Of course if it's verifiable, it would in normal circumstances show that at least a retrial was necessary in the Watson case. Overall, with the 'golden bullet' a hair allegedly from Olivia Hope evidence missed on a blanket when first scrutinised by a scientist but found later (and also with some debate about it's dna profie accuracy,) additional to the logistics of Scott's boat being able to travel at jet boat speed, the undesirable witness identifications, lack of motive and so forth - it would really mean case against Watson over and out.
I have a friend who along with his family (one with a sailing background) believe that the conviction against Watson relies on a contrived number of impossible circumstances. My friend says that a boat the size of Scott's would be stepped down into from a water taxi, although witnesses described those disembarking as having 'stepped up,' I imagine into something the size of that described below. Very disturbing.
THE MISSING KETCH
xxx ..... states 24 dec 1997
The next mooring, about 8-9.00 am, we set off. We sailed up Queen
Charlotte Sound. We went around the north side of Allports Island at
which time
we passed the Lynx and an interislander heading the other way.
We sailed through the Patten Passage then through the passage south of
Pickersgill Island.
We stopped on Blumine Island for lunch.
We sailed on to Anatohia Bay. We did not stop here but turned and
headed directly to Punga Cove.
We moored somewhere in Camp Bay, on one of the moorings.
We arrived there at about 6.00 pm. We were met by my sister xxx
xxx and her daughter xxx.
They arrived by water taxi.
While we were waiting for them to arrive another boat moored on the
mooring 30 metres north of us.
This was a white hulled ketch with round port holes in the cabin area,
above the deck.
It had a life buoy on it with the name “xxxx Wellington” on it.
My sister xxxx took a photograph of the boat a short time after her arrival.
I believe my wife has furnished a copy of this photograph to Wellington Police.
I've started this blog to share with those that may be interested in sports, books, topical news and the justice system as it applies to cyberspace and generally.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Arthur William Taylor - fairly bizzare television show
about him last night. Justice Minister Collins refused to be interviewed and so did the department, until a letter was dispatched to them by Ms Collins, though the department official said the reversal of the decision had nothing to do with anyone getting kicked in the butt by the Minister. Following from which, the department spokesperson, departed from the usual refusal to comment on the grounds of privacy, went onto reveal that the desperate Mr Taylor had been placed in solitary. When asked to explain how it was that Taylor could have taken photos of his gaol house law office, the spokesman said that 'incalcitrants' (something of that sort) were known to shove mobile phones up their bottoms, this was despite a deputy commissioner of police having described the security screens surrounding Taylor at all times. The deputy commissioner later went onto to describe how cunning Taylor was and other general descriptions that one would have thought would not be forthcoming from the commissioner knowing that Taylor had already appealed his conviction(s) for some gaol house organised drug importation of some description.
We also got to hear from the commissioner that Taylor, an armed robber among other things - so dispelling any misguided thoughts viewers might have harboured about armed robbers, pointed firearms at people and had spent around 30 years in prison. We got to see the grimace on Taylor's face when the Judge, sentencing him to 7 years, called him a minor celebrity who revelled in the role.
Not to be outdone the reporter questions Arthur's wife on the reasons why Arthur was permitted access to a law library and so forth, as though she, the wife, was instrumental in that decision. Overall, one might have got the impression that Arthur Taylor pissed the police and justice department right off for not only his dozen or so escapes but also because of his success in the courts over the years. Probably safe to assume that Arthur Taylor will have something to say in the Courts about the disclosures about him to the public. I know he's spent many years in solitary but it will be interesting to see how the Courts receive the news, that Taylor has not been able to prepare his defence (I gathered he has a number of cases going - some on behalf of other prisoners) and the QC appointed to advise him at his recent trial spoke of his acknowledgement of the legal skills of Taylor who, I seem to recall, was taken from Paremoremo a couple of years ago, to visit a dying Judge of the North Shore Court, at the Judge's request.
I once negotiated on his behalf when he was on a hunger strike and at other times teased him unmercifully about certain aspects of his slightly blemished character, during which discourses he would refer to himself in the 3rd person as AW Taylor when I reckoned he needed a good tickle. Blinking bank robbers.
Whatever is the motivation of Taylor, he's crossed swords with the police and justice department for 30 years and appears to be showing no signs of giving up. The unfortunate thing might be that nobody has been able to harness the formidable Arthur Taylor into a life of less conflict with the authorities, and that despite not being known as a violent man, has been treated as one because of his unbending spirit and willingness to fight the authorities every step of the way. I was reminded that as a page turns in attitudes toward the 'illegality' of certain drugs, and the futility of the 'war against drugs' without which Taylor may have moved from being an armed robber, to a more legit life, instead of apparently entering the drug trade. One thing is for sure, even locked in solitary, he won't be giving up - not even an inch.
We also got to hear from the commissioner that Taylor, an armed robber among other things - so dispelling any misguided thoughts viewers might have harboured about armed robbers, pointed firearms at people and had spent around 30 years in prison. We got to see the grimace on Taylor's face when the Judge, sentencing him to 7 years, called him a minor celebrity who revelled in the role.
Not to be outdone the reporter questions Arthur's wife on the reasons why Arthur was permitted access to a law library and so forth, as though she, the wife, was instrumental in that decision. Overall, one might have got the impression that Arthur Taylor pissed the police and justice department right off for not only his dozen or so escapes but also because of his success in the courts over the years. Probably safe to assume that Arthur Taylor will have something to say in the Courts about the disclosures about him to the public. I know he's spent many years in solitary but it will be interesting to see how the Courts receive the news, that Taylor has not been able to prepare his defence (I gathered he has a number of cases going - some on behalf of other prisoners) and the QC appointed to advise him at his recent trial spoke of his acknowledgement of the legal skills of Taylor who, I seem to recall, was taken from Paremoremo a couple of years ago, to visit a dying Judge of the North Shore Court, at the Judge's request.
I once negotiated on his behalf when he was on a hunger strike and at other times teased him unmercifully about certain aspects of his slightly blemished character, during which discourses he would refer to himself in the 3rd person as AW Taylor when I reckoned he needed a good tickle. Blinking bank robbers.
Whatever is the motivation of Taylor, he's crossed swords with the police and justice department for 30 years and appears to be showing no signs of giving up. The unfortunate thing might be that nobody has been able to harness the formidable Arthur Taylor into a life of less conflict with the authorities, and that despite not being known as a violent man, has been treated as one because of his unbending spirit and willingness to fight the authorities every step of the way. I was reminded that as a page turns in attitudes toward the 'illegality' of certain drugs, and the futility of the 'war against drugs' without which Taylor may have moved from being an armed robber, to a more legit life, instead of apparently entering the drug trade. One thing is for sure, even locked in solitary, he won't be giving up - not even an inch.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Patrick O'Brien - what's to investigate?
Inquiry into cop who lied in court
By Jared Savage
Patrick O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work. A criminal investigation is under way into an undercover police officer's confession that he lied in court and wrongfully sent at least 150 people to prison.
Patrick O'Brien wrote to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and former Police Commissioner Howard Broad admitting to perjury, saying he was racked with guilt after carrying a "dreadful secret" for more than 30 years.
He was an undercover agent in drugs operations in the 1970s, immersed in the criminal underworld and the star Crown witness in the resulting court trials.
But Mr O'Brien says he lied on oath every time he testified, and sent a confession letter in November 2007.
The police hired Wellington lawyer Bruce Squire, QC, to investigate.
He interviewed Mr O'Brien in July 2009, and reviewed court files dating back to 1974. Mr Squire finished his inquiry and sent his report to the police, but would not comment on his conclusions.
He said the report was sent to police more than a year ago.
His terms of reference were to confirm the truth of Mr O'Brien's allegations and determine whether police should investigate.
Now, the file has been handed to Detective Inspector Bruce Scott, head of the Waitemata district CIB, to look further into the perjury claims.
Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote.
"I have read the report produced by Mr Squire and also read the interview conducted with you. I have further looked at the evidence that you gave in Court from the transcripts that were available to Mr Squire.
"I am wanting to know if there is any other information that you have that may assist me in determining any criminal liability, or are there other persons that you consider need to be spoken to that could assist an enquiry relating to these matters?"
Mr O'Brien said he would co-operate fully with the inquiry and plead guilty to any charges.
In his confession, he said he could not guess the number of people who were convicted and imprisoned "because of my lies" as he stopped counting arrests at 150, halfway through his three-year undercover stint.
"In every case I lied to the courts and I lied to the juries to obtain convictions against my targets.
"Telling lies was easy - 'policemen don't tell lies' - and my targets never stood a chance."
Mr O'Brien said he was often high on drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, heroin and LSD, during undercover operations. But he denied this when questioned at trials.
He now considers he was a drug addict at that time in his life.
In some cases, Mr O'Brien said he directly lied and said people sold him drugs - when they did not.
Tampering with evidence was also common, he said. Often the exhibit before the court was not the drugs he bought from the target.
The shame and stress of the work broke Mr O'Brien. He resigned from the police and fled New Zealand, "haunted, traumatised and scared".
"My life since has been a tragic waste; running, always running, but never able to lose the demons that rush around in my head."
Mr O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work by former Governor-General Sir David Beattie, who as a judge presided over a series of drug trials in the High Court at Hamilton in 1974.
Sir David wrote a glowing commendation of the young constable to Police Commissioner Ken Burnside, describing him as a credible witness.
But Mr O'Brien confessed to Dame Sian: "In every case and on every charge, I lied to Sir David and I lied to his juries."
What he did
Patrick John O'Brien was an undercover police officer between 1974 and 1977. He says he committed perjury by telling lies while giving evidence at trial, and that he:
* Was often high on drugs while undercover, but denied ever using drugs when giving evidence at trials.
* Asked a suspected burglar to help break into a pharmacy in Hamilton but told a jury the man invited him, and he denied "entrapment".
* Told a jury that an accused drug dealer sold "buddha sticks" to him. The drugs were actually sold to someone else.
* Tampered with evidence by skimming drugs from bags for his own use.
What a trail of crap the public are being fed here. Patrick O'Brien has confessed, to the Chief Justice, a Former Commissioner, no doubt to Bruce Squire QC and more evidently to the public.
The head of CIB in West Auckand "Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote. Has been asked to enquire into the matter. That will make at least 2 Police Officers (including an ex Commissioner,) the Current Chief Justice, a QC, and about 1 million New Zealanders. Patrick has admitted perjury and other crimes when working as a police officer, has said that he will plead guilty if charged. One can hardly wonder what more proof the police need, maybe a Royal Commission of Inquiry?
Every police officer in NZ knows what to do when somebody confesses to a crime, but in this case we see years of dithering. I accept the police have been made to feel uncomfortable by one of their ex-members, but discomfort or not they're obliged to act, particularly in a case which is so straight forward. It would seem that some senior police view this as a case to be ignored in the belief that it might go away. Those with that view add to the difficulties of a police force already under public scrutiny, they should show leadership to give both serving police and the public confidence. Patrick should be charged with every crime he has admitted. There was once a practice (and probably still is) where compliant convicts admitted a cluster of outstanding crimes (whether they might have done them or not) in order to help police clear unsolved crimes, in return they were rewarded in some way. Disposing of unsolved crimes in a convenient way hasn't been an aversion to police in the past, why one must wonder do police, QC's, Judges the lot ignore a compliant confessor of crimes against justice - the very core of that which those concerned are sworn, or warranted to uphold.
Nothing personal about Patrick O'Brien here, he seems to be very troubled by what has happened in his life, hardly a survivor of having taken the risk to work undercover. What might be odd is that he has the moral compass to feel defeated and in debt to what he did earlier in his life. In fact he probably simply expedited the imprisonment of crooks, cut corners, saw the prevailing wind was that the ends justified the means, went along with things, taking advantage of what he could for himself along the way, acted no differently than other colleagues of his. I wouldn't wish an hours imprisonment on him. The guy is a hero for the truth and he's calling out loudly that the king has no clothes, but the king dithers uncomfortably at the wretch who calls out. The king is uncomfortable with the truth.
By Jared Savage
Patrick O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work. A criminal investigation is under way into an undercover police officer's confession that he lied in court and wrongfully sent at least 150 people to prison.
Patrick O'Brien wrote to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and former Police Commissioner Howard Broad admitting to perjury, saying he was racked with guilt after carrying a "dreadful secret" for more than 30 years.
He was an undercover agent in drugs operations in the 1970s, immersed in the criminal underworld and the star Crown witness in the resulting court trials.
But Mr O'Brien says he lied on oath every time he testified, and sent a confession letter in November 2007.
The police hired Wellington lawyer Bruce Squire, QC, to investigate.
He interviewed Mr O'Brien in July 2009, and reviewed court files dating back to 1974. Mr Squire finished his inquiry and sent his report to the police, but would not comment on his conclusions.
He said the report was sent to police more than a year ago.
His terms of reference were to confirm the truth of Mr O'Brien's allegations and determine whether police should investigate.
Now, the file has been handed to Detective Inspector Bruce Scott, head of the Waitemata district CIB, to look further into the perjury claims.
Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote.
"I have read the report produced by Mr Squire and also read the interview conducted with you. I have further looked at the evidence that you gave in Court from the transcripts that were available to Mr Squire.
"I am wanting to know if there is any other information that you have that may assist me in determining any criminal liability, or are there other persons that you consider need to be spoken to that could assist an enquiry relating to these matters?"
Mr O'Brien said he would co-operate fully with the inquiry and plead guilty to any charges.
In his confession, he said he could not guess the number of people who were convicted and imprisoned "because of my lies" as he stopped counting arrests at 150, halfway through his three-year undercover stint.
"In every case I lied to the courts and I lied to the juries to obtain convictions against my targets.
"Telling lies was easy - 'policemen don't tell lies' - and my targets never stood a chance."
Mr O'Brien said he was often high on drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, heroin and LSD, during undercover operations. But he denied this when questioned at trials.
He now considers he was a drug addict at that time in his life.
In some cases, Mr O'Brien said he directly lied and said people sold him drugs - when they did not.
Tampering with evidence was also common, he said. Often the exhibit before the court was not the drugs he bought from the target.
The shame and stress of the work broke Mr O'Brien. He resigned from the police and fled New Zealand, "haunted, traumatised and scared".
"My life since has been a tragic waste; running, always running, but never able to lose the demons that rush around in my head."
Mr O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work by former Governor-General Sir David Beattie, who as a judge presided over a series of drug trials in the High Court at Hamilton in 1974.
Sir David wrote a glowing commendation of the young constable to Police Commissioner Ken Burnside, describing him as a credible witness.
But Mr O'Brien confessed to Dame Sian: "In every case and on every charge, I lied to Sir David and I lied to his juries."
What he did
Patrick John O'Brien was an undercover police officer between 1974 and 1977. He says he committed perjury by telling lies while giving evidence at trial, and that he:
* Was often high on drugs while undercover, but denied ever using drugs when giving evidence at trials.
* Asked a suspected burglar to help break into a pharmacy in Hamilton but told a jury the man invited him, and he denied "entrapment".
* Told a jury that an accused drug dealer sold "buddha sticks" to him. The drugs were actually sold to someone else.
* Tampered with evidence by skimming drugs from bags for his own use.
What a trail of crap the public are being fed here. Patrick O'Brien has confessed, to the Chief Justice, a Former Commissioner, no doubt to Bruce Squire QC and more evidently to the public.
The head of CIB in West Auckand "Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote. Has been asked to enquire into the matter. That will make at least 2 Police Officers (including an ex Commissioner,) the Current Chief Justice, a QC, and about 1 million New Zealanders. Patrick has admitted perjury and other crimes when working as a police officer, has said that he will plead guilty if charged. One can hardly wonder what more proof the police need, maybe a Royal Commission of Inquiry?
Every police officer in NZ knows what to do when somebody confesses to a crime, but in this case we see years of dithering. I accept the police have been made to feel uncomfortable by one of their ex-members, but discomfort or not they're obliged to act, particularly in a case which is so straight forward. It would seem that some senior police view this as a case to be ignored in the belief that it might go away. Those with that view add to the difficulties of a police force already under public scrutiny, they should show leadership to give both serving police and the public confidence. Patrick should be charged with every crime he has admitted. There was once a practice (and probably still is) where compliant convicts admitted a cluster of outstanding crimes (whether they might have done them or not) in order to help police clear unsolved crimes, in return they were rewarded in some way. Disposing of unsolved crimes in a convenient way hasn't been an aversion to police in the past, why one must wonder do police, QC's, Judges the lot ignore a compliant confessor of crimes against justice - the very core of that which those concerned are sworn, or warranted to uphold.
Nothing personal about Patrick O'Brien here, he seems to be very troubled by what has happened in his life, hardly a survivor of having taken the risk to work undercover. What might be odd is that he has the moral compass to feel defeated and in debt to what he did earlier in his life. In fact he probably simply expedited the imprisonment of crooks, cut corners, saw the prevailing wind was that the ends justified the means, went along with things, taking advantage of what he could for himself along the way, acted no differently than other colleagues of his. I wouldn't wish an hours imprisonment on him. The guy is a hero for the truth and he's calling out loudly that the king has no clothes, but the king dithers uncomfortably at the wretch who calls out. The king is uncomfortable with the truth.
It's official, the sisters don't want to come to Court.
They don't want to front up. They don't even want to be questioned about their stalking, and low and behold stalking has become 'free speech' and 'heated debate.' It hasn't occurred to the sisters that to defend an allegation of harassment by saying the harassment was actually a debate and an issue of free speech denies the fact that it takes at least 2 parties to debate an issue. Of course when one of those parties is not part of the 'debate' it can no longer be called a debate. And when you look more closely at what the 'debate' was - threatening to go to people's homes, discussing the children and spouses of other Trade Me members, discussing having children 'removed' from their parents or a wife 'saved' from her husband by a bunch of nutters you see that it is not really a debate at all.
Looking at the record, they're all members of hate-sites, associates. Annette Curran began the family stalking and it was carried on by Christine Williams and others, including Glenda OBrein who 'approached' the Sensible Sentencing Trust to get me put in prison. Silly Glenda, Christine and Annette, they all left a trail as to the essence of the real 'debate' and freedom of speech. And the pedo pals, Stockdale, Kennard and Fox were busy apologists for paedophilia, whilst stalking the jury and crown witnesses, or indeed anybody who challenged their right of 'free speech' to lie about David Bain or anybody they felt supported him.
And of course now, they don't want to come to Court to explain themselves. Explain what my children or family have to do with the filthy pervo members of hate-sites, or indeed why my family is any of their business. Stockdale doesn't want to explain how it happens that somebody just sent him my address, or what proof he has that I phoned him and arranged to meet him. Kennard doesn't want to explain how he debated with me in my absence, or what information he was relying on when he published that I had tracked down one of his former wifes and found out from her that he had been accused of offence against his own family. He doesn't want to explain how I would even know his ex wife, or even her name and what the point of finding her overseas could possibly be.
Well, anyway their names are now lodged in Court documents soon to attended by the names of Glenda OBrein, Annette Curran, Christine Williams and other associates of the stalkers, and will remain there until it is defined whether or not stalking children or jurors is indeed 'free speech' or if a 'debate' can be held with a person in their absence. Absence, yes, how brave they have been, now they plea for absence rather than face their victims. Front up cowards, show your mettle, come to the line I have drawn to protect my family and dare cross it cowards of the night, you snickering messengers of hate. Come out and explain to the Courts your stalking and hate.
Looking at the record, they're all members of hate-sites, associates. Annette Curran began the family stalking and it was carried on by Christine Williams and others, including Glenda OBrein who 'approached' the Sensible Sentencing Trust to get me put in prison. Silly Glenda, Christine and Annette, they all left a trail as to the essence of the real 'debate' and freedom of speech. And the pedo pals, Stockdale, Kennard and Fox were busy apologists for paedophilia, whilst stalking the jury and crown witnesses, or indeed anybody who challenged their right of 'free speech' to lie about David Bain or anybody they felt supported him.
And of course now, they don't want to come to Court to explain themselves. Explain what my children or family have to do with the filthy pervo members of hate-sites, or indeed why my family is any of their business. Stockdale doesn't want to explain how it happens that somebody just sent him my address, or what proof he has that I phoned him and arranged to meet him. Kennard doesn't want to explain how he debated with me in my absence, or what information he was relying on when he published that I had tracked down one of his former wifes and found out from her that he had been accused of offence against his own family. He doesn't want to explain how I would even know his ex wife, or even her name and what the point of finding her overseas could possibly be.
Well, anyway their names are now lodged in Court documents soon to attended by the names of Glenda OBrein, Annette Curran, Christine Williams and other associates of the stalkers, and will remain there until it is defined whether or not stalking children or jurors is indeed 'free speech' or if a 'debate' can be held with a person in their absence. Absence, yes, how brave they have been, now they plea for absence rather than face their victims. Front up cowards, show your mettle, come to the line I have drawn to protect my family and dare cross it cowards of the night, you snickering messengers of hate. Come out and explain to the Courts your stalking and hate.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Steve, confirming that his losers thread,
wasn't knocked off by his losers.
ash204 wrote:
OH BUBBINS....I THINK THE JFRB SUPPORTERS GOT THE THREAD BUMPED OFF ALL BY THEMSELVES....
No . Losers dont get threads knocked off . Thats your forray
Quote
steve1958 (396 ) 7:47 pm, Thu 23 Jun #63
He's probably got a point, admitting that losers don't get there own threads knocked off. Good work Steve, if you ever stop knocking yourself off you'll have less blisters.
ash204 wrote:
OH BUBBINS....I THINK THE JFRB SUPPORTERS GOT THE THREAD BUMPED OFF ALL BY THEMSELVES....
No . Losers dont get threads knocked off . Thats your forray
Quote
steve1958 (396 ) 7:47 pm, Thu 23 Jun #63
He's probably got a point, admitting that losers don't get there own threads knocked off. Good work Steve, if you ever stop knocking yourself off you'll have less blisters.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
TM - a little confused......?
complaining from anyone can ban you: My response from TM and I think some know who we're talking about LOL:
"I can assure you that we only disable accounts if they are making multiple breaches of our message board rules. Therefore no matter how much other members may complain or try to get your account banned, we only take action if there are genuine breaches of the rules. If there are not then we just dismiss their complaints. So as long as you post on Trade Me within the rules no amount of complaining from them will get you banned.
In terms of the MB2 threads, you may want to contact the moderators there to see if they can do anything about those posts.
I also suggest that if you think this matter could escalate that you lay a harassment complaint with the police, especially if there are defamatory comments being thrown around. We will assist them with their investigations wherever possible."
The way some of them speak about people on there, it may just come to that.
Have a nice day stalkers!
Quote
tara34 (334 ) 7:44 am, Wed 22 Jun #1
Oh well, at least now it has become evident that TM are beginning to understand what board harassment is. They're a little confused about defamation, as can be shown by its context of use above, also that there is a definition under the Harassment Act 1987 between 'civil' and criminal harassment and it may only be the later under which the Police could possibly act. But the message is getting through if not all the content. The poster above is clearly having trouble with stalkers, and as in the past I always invite anyone to write here regarding message board stalking anywhere, I will keep any information confidential if asked, and may be able to offer some help as to how the Law might help.
Credit due to TM, after many years they're slowly getting the picture as to what their responsibilities as publishers are (despite still trying to water those responsibilities down with qualified denial.) Bad news of course for those that have ended up in the Courts because TM don't monitor their boards properly to curtail stalking as soon as it begins, as inevitably that inaction encouraged the behaviour of the stalkers, that and sheer idiocy - but no one is really concerned for them (the stalkers,) except themselves.
"I can assure you that we only disable accounts if they are making multiple breaches of our message board rules. Therefore no matter how much other members may complain or try to get your account banned, we only take action if there are genuine breaches of the rules. If there are not then we just dismiss their complaints. So as long as you post on Trade Me within the rules no amount of complaining from them will get you banned.
In terms of the MB2 threads, you may want to contact the moderators there to see if they can do anything about those posts.
I also suggest that if you think this matter could escalate that you lay a harassment complaint with the police, especially if there are defamatory comments being thrown around. We will assist them with their investigations wherever possible."
The way some of them speak about people on there, it may just come to that.
Have a nice day stalkers!
Quote
tara34 (334 ) 7:44 am, Wed 22 Jun #1
Oh well, at least now it has become evident that TM are beginning to understand what board harassment is. They're a little confused about defamation, as can be shown by its context of use above, also that there is a definition under the Harassment Act 1987 between 'civil' and criminal harassment and it may only be the later under which the Police could possibly act. But the message is getting through if not all the content. The poster above is clearly having trouble with stalkers, and as in the past I always invite anyone to write here regarding message board stalking anywhere, I will keep any information confidential if asked, and may be able to offer some help as to how the Law might help.
Credit due to TM, after many years they're slowly getting the picture as to what their responsibilities as publishers are (despite still trying to water those responsibilities down with qualified denial.) Bad news of course for those that have ended up in the Courts because TM don't monitor their boards properly to curtail stalking as soon as it begins, as inevitably that inaction encouraged the behaviour of the stalkers, that and sheer idiocy - but no one is really concerned for them (the stalkers,) except themselves.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Reported today that the headmaster of King's College,
Bradley Fenner, is considering phasing out the school ball following the death of David Raynor. He is reported to be considering speaking to other college headmasters about the same issues of student safety. I can't help but being reminded how poorly we are all equipped to deal with suicide, the way it works silently among us, among youth in particularly often without visible outward signs and the shock it brings to bear in it's aftermath.
However, the answer for Kings most likely lies within the school and the current pupil crop. That is an answer good enough that can be arrived at for a very complex situation. The school could conduct a confidential audit of sorts, among the peer groups of those who have used alcohol to excess, and friends of the deceased. Simply banning the ball is shifting the whereabouts or catalyst for potential problems like this into the future. I think the pupils and their parents deserve to know as much as possible about what, if anything has linked the recent deaths and look for common denominators that will allow strategies to put in place to overcome the deeper problems of alcohol and drug abuse. Parents and staff might not necessarily like the answers but they will be armed with an understanding and strategies to help the pupils cope through what is proven to be a difficult time for all teenagers.
Those conducting the audit would be probably ex pupils or those of an age the pupils would be able to identify with and share what isn't being seen now. There is a picture adrift from those presenting neatly in uniform, high achieving but with elements of disarray that appear to be contributing, or potentially contributing to binge drinking or drug taking without control for at least a number of pupils. Wouldn't the interest of other pupils, parents and the school be better served of a composite profile of all those who past through the school gates, something able to map changes as the pupils become older. An informal study of what they perceive as socialising, what underlying pressures might be brought to bear by sub-cultures within the school culture. Could knowing more about the pupils, behind the facade, be in anyway detrimental?
Isn't every parent, right across society, concerned about their child's teenage years and how they should be navigated without harm? Does Kings have anything to lose? I wouldn't say so, but everything to gain. Even the argument between parent and school responsibility is already crossed on this one. Who is the real Kings pupil and what are their characteristics, what changes does Kings bring about in them or they in one another.
On the question of what is to lose, I'd suggest nothing. Kings, through Fenner and others, has acknowledged problems within the school and that is a significant step. He has also rightly pointed out that the problems are not universal to all King's pupils and are probably shared with pupils from other schools - there is no denying that. But it appears that the shock that follows such things, or a number of such things can be immobilising, and not formerly something which might have been prepared for, or indeed even envisaged - a situation that doesn't necessarily bring blame but which however cries out for a remedy.
To many minds Kings are getting beaten up, but probably to a greater number an anticipation of what Kings might do. Shutting down the ball (whilst probably a good general idea) doesn't measure against the known phenomenon - that geographical change (or in this case another less public event) doesn't correct the drivers of problems that manifest themselves into disaster.
Two points are already defined, alcohol abuse, and suicide, the later perhaps being suicide from a particular bridge or in a particular way, and surely no adult could be as naive to expect that there is not a subtext of covert dialogue underway among King's pupils over these issues, nor that the dialogue is divorced from a probably largely hidden sub-culture among the same pupils.
However, the answer for Kings most likely lies within the school and the current pupil crop. That is an answer good enough that can be arrived at for a very complex situation. The school could conduct a confidential audit of sorts, among the peer groups of those who have used alcohol to excess, and friends of the deceased. Simply banning the ball is shifting the whereabouts or catalyst for potential problems like this into the future. I think the pupils and their parents deserve to know as much as possible about what, if anything has linked the recent deaths and look for common denominators that will allow strategies to put in place to overcome the deeper problems of alcohol and drug abuse. Parents and staff might not necessarily like the answers but they will be armed with an understanding and strategies to help the pupils cope through what is proven to be a difficult time for all teenagers.
Those conducting the audit would be probably ex pupils or those of an age the pupils would be able to identify with and share what isn't being seen now. There is a picture adrift from those presenting neatly in uniform, high achieving but with elements of disarray that appear to be contributing, or potentially contributing to binge drinking or drug taking without control for at least a number of pupils. Wouldn't the interest of other pupils, parents and the school be better served of a composite profile of all those who past through the school gates, something able to map changes as the pupils become older. An informal study of what they perceive as socialising, what underlying pressures might be brought to bear by sub-cultures within the school culture. Could knowing more about the pupils, behind the facade, be in anyway detrimental?
Isn't every parent, right across society, concerned about their child's teenage years and how they should be navigated without harm? Does Kings have anything to lose? I wouldn't say so, but everything to gain. Even the argument between parent and school responsibility is already crossed on this one. Who is the real Kings pupil and what are their characteristics, what changes does Kings bring about in them or they in one another.
On the question of what is to lose, I'd suggest nothing. Kings, through Fenner and others, has acknowledged problems within the school and that is a significant step. He has also rightly pointed out that the problems are not universal to all King's pupils and are probably shared with pupils from other schools - there is no denying that. But it appears that the shock that follows such things, or a number of such things can be immobilising, and not formerly something which might have been prepared for, or indeed even envisaged - a situation that doesn't necessarily bring blame but which however cries out for a remedy.
To many minds Kings are getting beaten up, but probably to a greater number an anticipation of what Kings might do. Shutting down the ball (whilst probably a good general idea) doesn't measure against the known phenomenon - that geographical change (or in this case another less public event) doesn't correct the drivers of problems that manifest themselves into disaster.
Two points are already defined, alcohol abuse, and suicide, the later perhaps being suicide from a particular bridge or in a particular way, and surely no adult could be as naive to expect that there is not a subtext of covert dialogue underway among King's pupils over these issues, nor that the dialogue is divorced from a probably largely hidden sub-culture among the same pupils.
Monday, June 20, 2011
I don't think anybody disagrees that Trade Me's board rules have been tweaked..
They said so themselves.
Within the new protocol is the specific 'don't abuse or harass people,' additionally that the boards are not a place 'for you to attack a person or their character.' The tweaks set out privacy issues for board members, just in case some board users are stalkers, like the sisters, who think they have propriety rights over other board members, their families and friends as well. Not a bad point really, but obviously a situation that preceded the 'tweaking' of the rules.
So the question remains, were those that Trade Me allowed to break the law before TM 'tweaked' the rules acting illegally, and if so why didn't TM take action earlier?
Those are issues that remain that TM will obviously be required to remedy.
Within the new protocol is the specific 'don't abuse or harass people,' additionally that the boards are not a place 'for you to attack a person or their character.' The tweaks set out privacy issues for board members, just in case some board users are stalkers, like the sisters, who think they have propriety rights over other board members, their families and friends as well. Not a bad point really, but obviously a situation that preceded the 'tweaking' of the rules.
So the question remains, were those that Trade Me allowed to break the law before TM 'tweaked' the rules acting illegally, and if so why didn't TM take action earlier?
Those are issues that remain that TM will obviously be required to remedy.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Trade Me, finally get it and 'tweak' the twisted sisters...
Looks like it, judging by the tweaking of the rules as follows..
Message board
The message board is provided for the enjoyment of the entire Trade Me community and is moderated by them and, at times, by Trade Me staff. The person posting a message on the boards may be liable for its content. Trade Me is not responsible for the content.
The basic rules are:
It's a family show
Keep your messages clean. Don't start messages about offensive or contentious topics, or post messages that include swearing, offensive or adult content.
Respect others
Don't abuse or harass people on the message board. Personal attacks are not acceptable. You may express a view on an issue, or criticise a particular approach. But the message boards are not a place for you to attack a person or their character.
The message board is also not an appropriate place to raise concerns about other traders or their auctions. If you have concerns about an auction, please use Community Watch (at the bottom of each auction). If you're concerned about a trader, please contact us directly.
People have a right to their privacy. Don't post any contact details in the message board, including your own, or reveal personal information about others.
No commercial use or self-promotion
Over-posting or spamming of the message board ruins it for others. The message board is for open discussion only, so please don't advertise any auction, product, or service. This includes trying to facilitate a trade through the message boards (including wanted postings).
Keep it legal
In particular, do not name, drop hints, or post any other information which identifies members of the public who have name suppression.
You also need to be careful you don't post defamatory statements about anyone. A widely used definition is:
A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or which tends to cause him or her to be shunned or avoided, or which tends to cause a person to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or which is a false statement about a person to his or her discredit. The statement may be in the form of words or pictures, visual images, gestures, and other means of signifying meaning.
Finally, anyone who breaches the rules above may have their message board privileges or membership removed.
In a week where there has been Judicial scrutiny of TM's message board operations they change their rules, or at least broaden them so that the very dim-witted might be better able to follow that when they post they're responsible for what they post, no less than TM are responsible for what is published on their boards (although the later are yet to fully concede that point.)
The moves, while short of pre-editing of posts, are welcome. Board users need to know that the can't attack and out others on TM boards, not only that they can't continue defamatory harassment campaigns on TM boards and what they say about others must be sustainable in fact and not be a backyard over the fence chat, or as the fat obook once claimed like a 'chat in the pub.'
The longest running Bain thread is gone. The idiots who have thought themselves to be above the law are on notice, those that have cut and pasted misinformation for years on end are under scrutiny, the Law speaks. Specifics of what are harassment and defamation are spelt out for the dim-witted who previously 'thought' they were entitled to harass families, stalk children and defame at will.
The world will not suddenly change, but it will certainly improve. A new decorum of public speech will be recognised as that of any type of publication. The hate-sites are pushed to the side, no longer able to imagine that TM will fight for them, or that their conduct as hate-sites is mirrored by what TM have appeared to set as precedent, because that has thankfully finally changed, or at least showed the signs of intention of change - if TM can maintain the discipline.
While there remain matters to be resolved, and others have long been critical of TM's policies, inaction, and inconsistency, a step is made, one which I've maintained will be easily adapted to by message board communities and consistent with the Law.
But will the sisters get it, eventually as things progress, the brighter among have already fled leaving the dullards, of which there are considerable number, to keep poking their fingers in electrical socks and touch spinning saw blades with the fascination of a moron for sparkling and spinning things. Spinners...hmmh.
Message board
The message board is provided for the enjoyment of the entire Trade Me community and is moderated by them and, at times, by Trade Me staff. The person posting a message on the boards may be liable for its content. Trade Me is not responsible for the content.
The basic rules are:
It's a family show
Keep your messages clean. Don't start messages about offensive or contentious topics, or post messages that include swearing, offensive or adult content.
Respect others
Don't abuse or harass people on the message board. Personal attacks are not acceptable. You may express a view on an issue, or criticise a particular approach. But the message boards are not a place for you to attack a person or their character.
The message board is also not an appropriate place to raise concerns about other traders or their auctions. If you have concerns about an auction, please use Community Watch (at the bottom of each auction). If you're concerned about a trader, please contact us directly.
People have a right to their privacy. Don't post any contact details in the message board, including your own, or reveal personal information about others.
No commercial use or self-promotion
Over-posting or spamming of the message board ruins it for others. The message board is for open discussion only, so please don't advertise any auction, product, or service. This includes trying to facilitate a trade through the message boards (including wanted postings).
Keep it legal
In particular, do not name, drop hints, or post any other information which identifies members of the public who have name suppression.
You also need to be careful you don't post defamatory statements about anyone. A widely used definition is:
A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or which tends to cause him or her to be shunned or avoided, or which tends to cause a person to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or which is a false statement about a person to his or her discredit. The statement may be in the form of words or pictures, visual images, gestures, and other means of signifying meaning.
Finally, anyone who breaches the rules above may have their message board privileges or membership removed.
In a week where there has been Judicial scrutiny of TM's message board operations they change their rules, or at least broaden them so that the very dim-witted might be better able to follow that when they post they're responsible for what they post, no less than TM are responsible for what is published on their boards (although the later are yet to fully concede that point.)
The moves, while short of pre-editing of posts, are welcome. Board users need to know that the can't attack and out others on TM boards, not only that they can't continue defamatory harassment campaigns on TM boards and what they say about others must be sustainable in fact and not be a backyard over the fence chat, or as the fat obook once claimed like a 'chat in the pub.'
The longest running Bain thread is gone. The idiots who have thought themselves to be above the law are on notice, those that have cut and pasted misinformation for years on end are under scrutiny, the Law speaks. Specifics of what are harassment and defamation are spelt out for the dim-witted who previously 'thought' they were entitled to harass families, stalk children and defame at will.
The world will not suddenly change, but it will certainly improve. A new decorum of public speech will be recognised as that of any type of publication. The hate-sites are pushed to the side, no longer able to imagine that TM will fight for them, or that their conduct as hate-sites is mirrored by what TM have appeared to set as precedent, because that has thankfully finally changed, or at least showed the signs of intention of change - if TM can maintain the discipline.
While there remain matters to be resolved, and others have long been critical of TM's policies, inaction, and inconsistency, a step is made, one which I've maintained will be easily adapted to by message board communities and consistent with the Law.
But will the sisters get it, eventually as things progress, the brighter among have already fled leaving the dullards, of which there are considerable number, to keep poking their fingers in electrical socks and touch spinning saw blades with the fascination of a moron for sparkling and spinning things. Spinners...hmmh.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Whoops Trade Me, looks like there is such a thing as defamatory harassment afterall.
If a point of law lives before the Courts it becomes a precedent, whether if fails or succeeds and eventually is polished into a life of its own. At the moment there is recognition that if people deliberately lie about another on a message board, such as Trade Me, or continue to target a person or their family in a way likely to cause them to feel harmed or harassed then an offence is committed under the common law by both the speaker and the publisher.
It's a very welcome advance as far as I'm concerned to know that if a 'men' like Bill Rodie and Ralph Taylor, publish day after day lies on a message board, then both they and the message board owner maintain a liability. That's very fair, and it's the way it works in the traditional media, it's something that protects people, it's the Courts recognising that in the real world a person, or a person's family cannot be stalked or harassed by anonymous creeps, have their children and family discussed by lurking strangers. Equally importantly it recognises that whatever a person says publicly, by way of message board or not, they have a responsibility to the truth when in fact what they write can impact negatively on the lives of others, and if they're not sure of the truth that they should button their lips because what they speak may be what bites them later. Who could ever promote the idea that the world is not a better place when inhabitated by the truth?
One of the words of the moment is 'inaction.' Trade Me may have fallen about laughing by the situation that 'inaction' could constitute a liability, when they stop giggling perhaps they should research situations where not providing the necessities of life or not assisting someone in peril (being 'inactive') or the probably even more common suit that might address lawbreakers 'act or omission' are recognised as components of offending. Actually, TM may not actually be falling about laughing and could be questioning the quality of their legal advice.
It's a very welcome advance as far as I'm concerned to know that if a 'men' like Bill Rodie and Ralph Taylor, publish day after day lies on a message board, then both they and the message board owner maintain a liability. That's very fair, and it's the way it works in the traditional media, it's something that protects people, it's the Courts recognising that in the real world a person, or a person's family cannot be stalked or harassed by anonymous creeps, have their children and family discussed by lurking strangers. Equally importantly it recognises that whatever a person says publicly, by way of message board or not, they have a responsibility to the truth when in fact what they write can impact negatively on the lives of others, and if they're not sure of the truth that they should button their lips because what they speak may be what bites them later. Who could ever promote the idea that the world is not a better place when inhabitated by the truth?
One of the words of the moment is 'inaction.' Trade Me may have fallen about laughing by the situation that 'inaction' could constitute a liability, when they stop giggling perhaps they should research situations where not providing the necessities of life or not assisting someone in peril (being 'inactive') or the probably even more common suit that might address lawbreakers 'act or omission' are recognised as components of offending. Actually, TM may not actually be falling about laughing and could be questioning the quality of their legal advice.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Dear Nos,
I can't help but thinking about the fleeing Syrian refugees, I saw some of the families being interviewed on TV and it kind of breaks my heart nos. I saw an old man surrounded by soldiers and being kicked by his own countrymen like the only law is repression and might, and that the old man's life and all the good he might have done, and love he shared was kicked from him the desert dust of his own homeland. The school girl managing a tentative smile, and saying she missed her friends while she sheltered under a tree with her father and siblings while they rested on their march to the border - everything I believe about a homeland and cherishing the land and memories of folks since gone from empty homes and abandoned schools.
Now we have a mass of volcanic dust circling the country, as if it observes us in our frail and stumbling ways trying to raise from dust a homeland in these southern isles, sprinkling and falling among us while we struggle for the moment, forgetting others and becoming mean about all except our own preservation. In Christchurch the shakes continue and people fret about their children and their futures, thinking of the question of refugees and pioneers who came and raised buildings from hewn rock and sawed lumber for learning and a place to be shared. It makes me sad, because I remember some of the young men lifting rock and fallen beam to rescue those trapped, and in that moment young and old were one, for a time people were outside themselves, unafraid to care and help, not anxious about who others were apart from that they were human and cared.
I wanted to write something happy nos, for the children in the desert and our own ones lost here but my strength seems gone for the moment, and I know I must wait watching out for the angels among us to come to lead us home.
Now we have a mass of volcanic dust circling the country, as if it observes us in our frail and stumbling ways trying to raise from dust a homeland in these southern isles, sprinkling and falling among us while we struggle for the moment, forgetting others and becoming mean about all except our own preservation. In Christchurch the shakes continue and people fret about their children and their futures, thinking of the question of refugees and pioneers who came and raised buildings from hewn rock and sawed lumber for learning and a place to be shared. It makes me sad, because I remember some of the young men lifting rock and fallen beam to rescue those trapped, and in that moment young and old were one, for a time people were outside themselves, unafraid to care and help, not anxious about who others were apart from that they were human and cared.
I wanted to write something happy nos, for the children in the desert and our own ones lost here but my strength seems gone for the moment, and I know I must wait watching out for the angels among us to come to lead us home.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Suicide gives no answer.
On a day it is revealed that 13 teenagers suicided in our North Island community of Kawerau in the last year, we also learn that David Gaynor has died after an 'accident' after an after ball in Auckland.
The following morning after Jordan Elliot of Kawerau hung himself his mother Michelle, finding him dead, screamed at his corpse the question 'why have you done this to yourself?' Of course he couldn't answer, his life was cut short in a way his mother might never understand of how her boy had gone, raw and mean for those left to wonder.
Meanwhile David is dead. Read from the news that King's College is 'reeling' after booze accusations against the school and students. But whether the booze accusations and David's death are linked is not established except for good newsprint copy while a hungry press seemingly delight in the 'fact' one of the Country's most prestigious schools has to deal with the death of a 4th pupil in 2 years for which, the blame, can be placed in accusatory headlines while a family and school friends are left dazed.
Michelle Elliot spoke about her loss and the agony of not understanding why her son had left so suddenly to death. About David, and what happened to him, we don't know except that he too is also dead, and forget for the moment that it is not news at all that a boy is lost until his family, like Michelle Elliot, has decided to do, speaks out. But David's name of course is attached to an illustrious school while the school to which Jordan attended escapes attention.
Suicide gives no answer, nor does traversing 'facts' that can never be connected but it is recognised that NZers kill themselves in great numbers and a vulnerable group are teenagers, and that alcohol or grief, or both, feelings of inadequacy, of missing friends whom one might be somehow connected with again in death, of the responsibilities of preparing to take the helm in one's own life where formerly a mother and father led with safe hands might be avoided and then they are gone.
So Michelle Elliot, tattoo showing on one breast, living in a town that the locals recognise as struggling, and the family of David wanting prosperity and happiness for their son are visited by the same horror question for which there is no answer. Why? The question for all of us to recognise those kids are just that, even when they seem suddenly arrived from another place and to walk with them so that they might always know that love is an answer, the only one when gambling chips are considered being put down.
The following morning after Jordan Elliot of Kawerau hung himself his mother Michelle, finding him dead, screamed at his corpse the question 'why have you done this to yourself?' Of course he couldn't answer, his life was cut short in a way his mother might never understand of how her boy had gone, raw and mean for those left to wonder.
Meanwhile David is dead. Read from the news that King's College is 'reeling' after booze accusations against the school and students. But whether the booze accusations and David's death are linked is not established except for good newsprint copy while a hungry press seemingly delight in the 'fact' one of the Country's most prestigious schools has to deal with the death of a 4th pupil in 2 years for which, the blame, can be placed in accusatory headlines while a family and school friends are left dazed.
Michelle Elliot spoke about her loss and the agony of not understanding why her son had left so suddenly to death. About David, and what happened to him, we don't know except that he too is also dead, and forget for the moment that it is not news at all that a boy is lost until his family, like Michelle Elliot, has decided to do, speaks out. But David's name of course is attached to an illustrious school while the school to which Jordan attended escapes attention.
Suicide gives no answer, nor does traversing 'facts' that can never be connected but it is recognised that NZers kill themselves in great numbers and a vulnerable group are teenagers, and that alcohol or grief, or both, feelings of inadequacy, of missing friends whom one might be somehow connected with again in death, of the responsibilities of preparing to take the helm in one's own life where formerly a mother and father led with safe hands might be avoided and then they are gone.
So Michelle Elliot, tattoo showing on one breast, living in a town that the locals recognise as struggling, and the family of David wanting prosperity and happiness for their son are visited by the same horror question for which there is no answer. Why? The question for all of us to recognise those kids are just that, even when they seem suddenly arrived from another place and to walk with them so that they might always know that love is an answer, the only one when gambling chips are considered being put down.
Friday, June 10, 2011
I must correct my claim that Scott Watson's
lawyers review and comment on Kirsty McDonald's report before any decision by the Minister as being unprecedented, because the same is happening in the Compensation Case of David Bain. As far back as 2010 The Minister instructed Justice Department Solicitors to work with the Lawyers of David Bain. So in fact the Watson and Bain cases are aligned in that respect, falling within the same basket.
I wonder if we are seeing an unofficial recognition of Compensation for the Falsely Imprisoned, one which a previous Government declined to sanction before the United Nations. Or a type of hybrid solution where the Government recognises that whist they are Law Makers they are not arbiters of the law, particularly in the area of defining guilt. If that is the case a finely balanced point is reached in the progress of the Law within this country, one which was previously wrested away and favoured the establishment and the Government where the falsely imprisoned fell into a twilight and slowly moving world of being denied Justice unless by Government whim.
I've read recently complaints about the traditional articles of law and how the founding principles of the Magna Carta must be progressed into modern times, all of which is true, but however the basic tenet that a man or woman is judged independent of the King (or in our case the Government of the day) remains as solid as first recorded in words a 1,000 years ago.
So perhaps we do see the law progress, where a man or woman always maintains a voice no matter whether from a prison cell or from a position of influence and where once their 'case' could be shifted from table top to table top, having 'tasks' set before it to reach an exercise of the Royal Prerogative that might favour them with freedom.
But the reality of the existence of a path through the quagmire has always been available to any person to challenge a Government decision by Judicial Review, but this has hardly, if ever, been used in cases of the falsely imprisoned or those seeking redress for false imprisonment and I don't understand why. I can recall the use of habeas corpus been considered but from memory or consideration any such attempt would fall at the first hurdle where a conviction existed, as a very narrow view of habeas corpus was conducted whilst the 'opportunity' for Royal Prerogative remained. And of course habeas corpus has no role in offering monetary remedy to the falsely imprisoned.
Prison inmates have challenged Parole Board Hearings, even decisions about what type of books they might have in their cells, if a Court could consider the perhaps frivolous last example given above - then surely is should have occurred to Lawyers nationwide that delayed decisions under the Royal Prerogative, or Minister ordered inquiries or indeed the decisions themselves should, where warranted, have been taken to the Courts for Judicial consideration. And not to forget that lawyers 'talking' outside Court is a modern trend to expediate Justice and place upon the parties the onus to find a way forward.
But the Courts themselves have been too meek in not inquiring further into instances of potential Miscarriages of Justice and have indeed rested behind 'not commenting' on such instances in circumstances where they can claim that they were not 'asked' to rule on such a particular matter even if it might have gravely troubled them. Fortunately, the now lost to us, Privy Council, were never constrained in voicing concerns and seeking out the truth or indeed a balanced picture that a Jury should consider and not the Courts. Whereas our Court of Appeal has played the role of Judgement, prosecution and Jury when it saw fit.
There has been a barren ground between the properly convicted prisoners and those improperly convicted, inquiries for the later invariably take years and when concluded in the falsely convicted prisoner's favour, those prisoners can be asked to climb still higher hurdles to satisfy the whim of the Minister of the day and his Cabinet colleagues. NZ is showing itself to have an abysmal record in false imprisonment and a sloth-like propensity to put things right.
So to end this piece for now, the door has been opened somewhat for David Bain, and likewise for Scott Watson, it is important that door is fully opened, and matters timely brought to Court when required and away from a Minister and his advisers desks, because they are not and never will be the arbiters of Justice, nor whilst they try to hold such a role the public will be denied seeing Justice done, while others dealt harshly by the Justice System, like Vivian Harrison and Rochelle Crewe will remain life-long victims of the State.
I wonder if we are seeing an unofficial recognition of Compensation for the Falsely Imprisoned, one which a previous Government declined to sanction before the United Nations. Or a type of hybrid solution where the Government recognises that whist they are Law Makers they are not arbiters of the law, particularly in the area of defining guilt. If that is the case a finely balanced point is reached in the progress of the Law within this country, one which was previously wrested away and favoured the establishment and the Government where the falsely imprisoned fell into a twilight and slowly moving world of being denied Justice unless by Government whim.
I've read recently complaints about the traditional articles of law and how the founding principles of the Magna Carta must be progressed into modern times, all of which is true, but however the basic tenet that a man or woman is judged independent of the King (or in our case the Government of the day) remains as solid as first recorded in words a 1,000 years ago.
So perhaps we do see the law progress, where a man or woman always maintains a voice no matter whether from a prison cell or from a position of influence and where once their 'case' could be shifted from table top to table top, having 'tasks' set before it to reach an exercise of the Royal Prerogative that might favour them with freedom.
But the reality of the existence of a path through the quagmire has always been available to any person to challenge a Government decision by Judicial Review, but this has hardly, if ever, been used in cases of the falsely imprisoned or those seeking redress for false imprisonment and I don't understand why. I can recall the use of habeas corpus been considered but from memory or consideration any such attempt would fall at the first hurdle where a conviction existed, as a very narrow view of habeas corpus was conducted whilst the 'opportunity' for Royal Prerogative remained. And of course habeas corpus has no role in offering monetary remedy to the falsely imprisoned.
Prison inmates have challenged Parole Board Hearings, even decisions about what type of books they might have in their cells, if a Court could consider the perhaps frivolous last example given above - then surely is should have occurred to Lawyers nationwide that delayed decisions under the Royal Prerogative, or Minister ordered inquiries or indeed the decisions themselves should, where warranted, have been taken to the Courts for Judicial consideration. And not to forget that lawyers 'talking' outside Court is a modern trend to expediate Justice and place upon the parties the onus to find a way forward.
But the Courts themselves have been too meek in not inquiring further into instances of potential Miscarriages of Justice and have indeed rested behind 'not commenting' on such instances in circumstances where they can claim that they were not 'asked' to rule on such a particular matter even if it might have gravely troubled them. Fortunately, the now lost to us, Privy Council, were never constrained in voicing concerns and seeking out the truth or indeed a balanced picture that a Jury should consider and not the Courts. Whereas our Court of Appeal has played the role of Judgement, prosecution and Jury when it saw fit.
There has been a barren ground between the properly convicted prisoners and those improperly convicted, inquiries for the later invariably take years and when concluded in the falsely convicted prisoner's favour, those prisoners can be asked to climb still higher hurdles to satisfy the whim of the Minister of the day and his Cabinet colleagues. NZ is showing itself to have an abysmal record in false imprisonment and a sloth-like propensity to put things right.
So to end this piece for now, the door has been opened somewhat for David Bain, and likewise for Scott Watson, it is important that door is fully opened, and matters timely brought to Court when required and away from a Minister and his advisers desks, because they are not and never will be the arbiters of Justice, nor whilst they try to hold such a role the public will be denied seeing Justice done, while others dealt harshly by the Justice System, like Vivian Harrison and Rochelle Crewe will remain life-long victims of the State.
The idiot kuklkulbelle strikes again...
Morons these days, they're not getting any thinner - between the ears or across the butt.
Sensing Murder looks pretty damned good in comparison to some of the far-fetched nonsense I have seen in NZ courts. Hell's bells we even had a situation once where a layman contrived an apparatus to illustrate how a murdered man committed suicide. You'd never believe it but props needed included headgear,rods and another person to help illustrate this unlikely scenario. Yes, I'd say that Sensing Murder looks rational compared to some defence teams efforts
Quote
kulkkulbelle (406 ) 9:35 pm, Thu 9 Jun #32329
Ah, the dear idiot sisters, trying to get some purchase from another lie by kuklkkulbelle. Some readers will remember she has the only copy in the world of a pathologists report so secret it wasn.t even used in the Bain re-trial!
She's all giggly and snotty (what's new with that?) over the skull cap, she's claiming that the skullcap was 'contrived' by a layman (she actually means the Irish pathologist) when in fact it was produced by the Crown (Dempster perhaps, to show the trajectory of the wound to rotten daddy's head.) It follows then that all the idiot sisters pedo pals fall about laughing at the exhibit produced by the Crown, which, nevertheless, showed the ease with which Robin Bain shot himself after murdering his family. Duh, duh for that.
The cap had a 600mm rod attached to show the trajectory and the defence threaded the rifle onto the rod to show the ease of Robin's suicide. But of course the dumbos felt that this showed that Robin needed assistance because they're so thick they thought he was wearing a skull cap on which he needed to thread the rifle when shooting himself. How thick can you be? In the pedo pals case - very.
Sensing Murder looks pretty damned good in comparison to some of the far-fetched nonsense I have seen in NZ courts. Hell's bells we even had a situation once where a layman contrived an apparatus to illustrate how a murdered man committed suicide. You'd never believe it but props needed included headgear,rods and another person to help illustrate this unlikely scenario. Yes, I'd say that Sensing Murder looks rational compared to some defence teams efforts
Quote
kulkkulbelle (406 ) 9:35 pm, Thu 9 Jun #32329
Ah, the dear idiot sisters, trying to get some purchase from another lie by kuklkkulbelle. Some readers will remember she has the only copy in the world of a pathologists report so secret it wasn.t even used in the Bain re-trial!
She's all giggly and snotty (what's new with that?) over the skull cap, she's claiming that the skullcap was 'contrived' by a layman (she actually means the Irish pathologist) when in fact it was produced by the Crown (Dempster perhaps, to show the trajectory of the wound to rotten daddy's head.) It follows then that all the idiot sisters pedo pals fall about laughing at the exhibit produced by the Crown, which, nevertheless, showed the ease with which Robin Bain shot himself after murdering his family. Duh, duh for that.
The cap had a 600mm rod attached to show the trajectory and the defence threaded the rifle onto the rod to show the ease of Robin's suicide. But of course the dumbos felt that this showed that Robin needed assistance because they're so thick they thought he was wearing a skull cap on which he needed to thread the rifle when shooting himself. How thick can you be? In the pedo pals case - very.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Scott Watson: A peek at Justice?
An announcement today from Justice Minister Simon Power that a report from QC Kristy McDonald will be passed to Watson's lawyers for comment before a final decision is made by the Minister - one which would, it appears, fall after the next elections.
As far as I know this is unprecedented in NZ Law and must be welcome to the New Zealand public for a number of reasons. Firstly it is in the interests of Justice that the report be tested by those defending Scott Watson before it is decided upon or made public, because NZ history is littered with reports that remain untested or discredited but which however have been relied upon to wield the sword of Justice against the aggrieved and innocent. Think of the 'inquiries' including applications for 'The Royal Prerogative of Mercy' into the Thomas case before Arthur was pardoned, and indeed consider the twisted people who trot out the IPCA report into the Bain case as some sort of vindication for their failed cause.
The reality is that these reports can be poorly constructed and then shored up with a bitter resolve by the authorities. Far better, as we see today, to allow the Watson defence team the right to comment before the battle lines are drawn over any report. This also allows a 'conference' type opportunity to resolve issues between the parties whilst also narrowing them to a point that they could be taken to Court for Judicial review if a substantial conflict remains.
The 'talking and dialogue' between the parties promotes far better the Public Interest than lines drawn in bitterness. It also clearly demonstrates that the Courts can become involved by way of Judicial Review and it allows a construction of the 'essence' of what might have been a 'wrongful conviction' and allows a test of that construction because it is evident that 'wrongful convictions' aren't accidents, but deliberate. Additionally, part of that deliberate effort is both the avoidance of 'unhelpful' evidence and grooming of other evidence. So when Kirsty McDonald has reported that she was unable to contact 'one of the two secret witnesses who testified against Watson' it is plainly evident to a healthy sceptic that the case against Watson, is, as it was always, in trouble. Better for that trouble to be analysed in a methodical and deliberate way by representatives of both parties that for a gulf to be widened.
And it is to be repeated and not forgotten, that the Courts, as they should, remain accessible to consider the validity of any decision made by any elected politician or their nominee. Also that the Courts must bear the full weight of the healthy scepticism that attaches to 'miracle evidence' and that which has been described elsewhere as 'golden bullet' evidence that emerges to bolster a struggling investigation, not withstanding that the reality that the evidence wasn't 'found' when first look for.
So a hopeful step both for Scott Watson and his family, and for New Zealanders generally to know that when it can be plainly seen, that things are so wrong that smokescreens, prejudice or reliance upon such things as 'secret prison witnesses' are observed as desperate and unjust.
As far as I know this is unprecedented in NZ Law and must be welcome to the New Zealand public for a number of reasons. Firstly it is in the interests of Justice that the report be tested by those defending Scott Watson before it is decided upon or made public, because NZ history is littered with reports that remain untested or discredited but which however have been relied upon to wield the sword of Justice against the aggrieved and innocent. Think of the 'inquiries' including applications for 'The Royal Prerogative of Mercy' into the Thomas case before Arthur was pardoned, and indeed consider the twisted people who trot out the IPCA report into the Bain case as some sort of vindication for their failed cause.
The reality is that these reports can be poorly constructed and then shored up with a bitter resolve by the authorities. Far better, as we see today, to allow the Watson defence team the right to comment before the battle lines are drawn over any report. This also allows a 'conference' type opportunity to resolve issues between the parties whilst also narrowing them to a point that they could be taken to Court for Judicial review if a substantial conflict remains.
The 'talking and dialogue' between the parties promotes far better the Public Interest than lines drawn in bitterness. It also clearly demonstrates that the Courts can become involved by way of Judicial Review and it allows a construction of the 'essence' of what might have been a 'wrongful conviction' and allows a test of that construction because it is evident that 'wrongful convictions' aren't accidents, but deliberate. Additionally, part of that deliberate effort is both the avoidance of 'unhelpful' evidence and grooming of other evidence. So when Kirsty McDonald has reported that she was unable to contact 'one of the two secret witnesses who testified against Watson' it is plainly evident to a healthy sceptic that the case against Watson, is, as it was always, in trouble. Better for that trouble to be analysed in a methodical and deliberate way by representatives of both parties that for a gulf to be widened.
And it is to be repeated and not forgotten, that the Courts, as they should, remain accessible to consider the validity of any decision made by any elected politician or their nominee. Also that the Courts must bear the full weight of the healthy scepticism that attaches to 'miracle evidence' and that which has been described elsewhere as 'golden bullet' evidence that emerges to bolster a struggling investigation, not withstanding that the reality that the evidence wasn't 'found' when first look for.
So a hopeful step both for Scott Watson and his family, and for New Zealanders generally to know that when it can be plainly seen, that things are so wrong that smokescreens, prejudice or reliance upon such things as 'secret prison witnesses' are observed as desperate and unjust.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Mike Stockdale - leaking information, again....
I think it is okay to reprint the following which was sent as a comment on the post 'Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.' Somebody has obviously picked it up off the internet and is not relevant to the case against Stockdale and others - apart from showing how deceitful Mike Stockdale, hate-site adminstrator, is...
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.":
What on earth next do these two not realise the matter is all over and their spin on events will be only that, SPIN.
Mike and Paul Warner Dobson are now friends.
· Add Paul as Friend
Paul Warner Dobson
Hi there. Thanks for adding me. One project I have been planning for a while is to write a film about the Bain Murders. I propose calling it '65 Every Street' and I believe it would be a good way of presenting the entire story for people to decide for themselves. Essentially there would be a different story going on and the murders are the background. I am thinking a Journalist and Lawyer who have recently broken up. The Lawyer is forced to take one side of the story while the Journalist is free to decide for herself upon what she sees and finds out. The Lawyer doesn't care about the truth but is simply being paid to win a case. While I have sorted out the main facts pretty well, I would need to make sure the Lawyer character could not be confused with a real character, as would the journalist. Are you familiar with any actual lawyers involved and their conduct of the trial? The story I suppose would be presented as half a court room drama with major 'flash backs' to actual seen. Naturally I would present what I might or might not think about it but present the facts and allow the viewer to decide. By keeping scrupulously to the actual facts I am sure legal action would be impossible. I also understand there are more facts that can be presented in a film than were presented in the actual court room. I am currently busy of something else, but when finished would like to start this and would be interested in finding an expert to check facts with. I understand you are such an expert? Woiuld you like to check my facts?
May 19 at 3:30pm
Mike Stockdale
Hullo Paul.I sort of like to think I am an expert,but I am still learning things.But the good part of being in a group is that you have a number of "experts" which means if there is something you don't know ,somebody else probably will.I do have a copy of the retrial transcript[I am not supposed to have it,but it was put up on a website for a couple of days and I managed to copy it down,along with quite a few other people,I might add.]I don't know any of the lawyers who were at the retrial,but I have spoken on the phone to ex detective Weir a few times.He has written a book,but he can't get it published,the would be publishers have told him that it can't be published until after the compensation claim is settled ,one way or the other.And that could be years away.But I would be quite happy to try and answer any questions,if they are to do with the evidence I reckon I would probably know as much as anyone.And because I have the transcript I do know how the lawyers operated.So don't hesitate to ask me anything,I am a retired bloke with plenty of time on my hands,I have sort of made the Bain case my hobby,I don't have any other hobbies.
May 19 at 3:50pm
I suspect this could be a letter to Stockdale by someone wanting to stroke his ego and get some info, more or less a 'staged' exchange as the writer would appear to know that Stockdale has an inflated ego problem. Either a staged event or one moron attracted to another moron - who knows.
The intersting things however are how Stockdale speaks freely about other matters which he has publicly lied about. Note, the claim by Stockdale about the trial transcript, which begs the question why he continued to lie about so many details of the trial when he knew the truth. And perhaps we read the true story about Milton Weirs book despite the claims made by Stockdale and Melanie White, another hate-site adminstrator. Of course Mike opens with the particularly modest statement.. 'I sort of like to think I am an expert' and among other things the omniscient statement 'And because I have the transcript I do know how the lawyers operated.'
Stockdale claims that 'the good part of being in a group is that you have a number of "experts" which all sounds very grand but perhaps he should have acknowledged the group are not so much experts because they've been caught stalking the Jury, misusing public message boards, intimidating and stalking members of the public - but perhaps he meant experts at being morons and getting caught.
Just on the first letter above, I find it hard to reconcile that anyone would imagine that the proposed title of a movie would be '65 Every Street' it beggars belief but groper Stockdale swallowed it, much like he swallowed the story (perhaps invented it, that David wasn't stripped searched on the morning of the murders) and perhaps the humdinger of them all - that David sought to be seen delivering papers so that people would know they (the papers) were actually in their letter boxes, Stockdale explained that this was because David was an 'actor' and we can assume (as with dumbo Stockdale and his girlfriends) that David would have needed to be seen delivering because the papers themselves were not testament to their delivery. Well, yes, precisely. The papers might have been delivered by another paper boy who'd strayed from his round, or been delivered by someone who for a perfectly reasonable reason that only dimwits would understand - good work Mike.
Anyway thanks to who ever sent this on, and it may also give anyone reading this an idea of the content and incriminating statements Stockdale forwarded to the District Court to 'prove' he isn't a stalker. There, there Mike. As the old saying goes ...'once a moron, always a moron.'
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.":
What on earth next do these two not realise the matter is all over and their spin on events will be only that, SPIN.
Mike and Paul Warner Dobson are now friends.
· Add Paul as Friend
Paul Warner Dobson
Hi there. Thanks for adding me. One project I have been planning for a while is to write a film about the Bain Murders. I propose calling it '65 Every Street' and I believe it would be a good way of presenting the entire story for people to decide for themselves. Essentially there would be a different story going on and the murders are the background. I am thinking a Journalist and Lawyer who have recently broken up. The Lawyer is forced to take one side of the story while the Journalist is free to decide for herself upon what she sees and finds out. The Lawyer doesn't care about the truth but is simply being paid to win a case. While I have sorted out the main facts pretty well, I would need to make sure the Lawyer character could not be confused with a real character, as would the journalist. Are you familiar with any actual lawyers involved and their conduct of the trial? The story I suppose would be presented as half a court room drama with major 'flash backs' to actual seen. Naturally I would present what I might or might not think about it but present the facts and allow the viewer to decide. By keeping scrupulously to the actual facts I am sure legal action would be impossible. I also understand there are more facts that can be presented in a film than were presented in the actual court room. I am currently busy of something else, but when finished would like to start this and would be interested in finding an expert to check facts with. I understand you are such an expert? Woiuld you like to check my facts?
May 19 at 3:30pm
Mike Stockdale
Hullo Paul.I sort of like to think I am an expert,but I am still learning things.But the good part of being in a group is that you have a number of "experts" which means if there is something you don't know ,somebody else probably will.I do have a copy of the retrial transcript[I am not supposed to have it,but it was put up on a website for a couple of days and I managed to copy it down,along with quite a few other people,I might add.]I don't know any of the lawyers who were at the retrial,but I have spoken on the phone to ex detective Weir a few times.He has written a book,but he can't get it published,the would be publishers have told him that it can't be published until after the compensation claim is settled ,one way or the other.And that could be years away.But I would be quite happy to try and answer any questions,if they are to do with the evidence I reckon I would probably know as much as anyone.And because I have the transcript I do know how the lawyers operated.So don't hesitate to ask me anything,I am a retired bloke with plenty of time on my hands,I have sort of made the Bain case my hobby,I don't have any other hobbies.
May 19 at 3:50pm
I suspect this could be a letter to Stockdale by someone wanting to stroke his ego and get some info, more or less a 'staged' exchange as the writer would appear to know that Stockdale has an inflated ego problem. Either a staged event or one moron attracted to another moron - who knows.
The intersting things however are how Stockdale speaks freely about other matters which he has publicly lied about. Note, the claim by Stockdale about the trial transcript, which begs the question why he continued to lie about so many details of the trial when he knew the truth. And perhaps we read the true story about Milton Weirs book despite the claims made by Stockdale and Melanie White, another hate-site adminstrator. Of course Mike opens with the particularly modest statement.. 'I sort of like to think I am an expert' and among other things the omniscient statement 'And because I have the transcript I do know how the lawyers operated.'
Stockdale claims that 'the good part of being in a group is that you have a number of "experts" which all sounds very grand but perhaps he should have acknowledged the group are not so much experts because they've been caught stalking the Jury, misusing public message boards, intimidating and stalking members of the public - but perhaps he meant experts at being morons and getting caught.
Just on the first letter above, I find it hard to reconcile that anyone would imagine that the proposed title of a movie would be '65 Every Street' it beggars belief but groper Stockdale swallowed it, much like he swallowed the story (perhaps invented it, that David wasn't stripped searched on the morning of the murders) and perhaps the humdinger of them all - that David sought to be seen delivering papers so that people would know they (the papers) were actually in their letter boxes, Stockdale explained that this was because David was an 'actor' and we can assume (as with dumbo Stockdale and his girlfriends) that David would have needed to be seen delivering because the papers themselves were not testament to their delivery. Well, yes, precisely. The papers might have been delivered by another paper boy who'd strayed from his round, or been delivered by someone who for a perfectly reasonable reason that only dimwits would understand - good work Mike.
Anyway thanks to who ever sent this on, and it may also give anyone reading this an idea of the content and incriminating statements Stockdale forwarded to the District Court to 'prove' he isn't a stalker. There, there Mike. As the old saying goes ...'once a moron, always a moron.'
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Garth must be having kittens. Look what crusher said..
Staff in some New Zealand prisons are working in "Dickensian" conditions and they should be closed down, Corrections Minister Judith Collins says.
She's gone and wrecked everything after all Garth's, Rodney and David's good work in keeping mum about stealing passports and convictions of assault. What is the world coming to, Judith in one quick step has followed Bill English in realising the financial burden for taxpayers to operate a 'hang them high' Justice system that Garth and his buddies can watch wearing suspender belts while begging for a 3rd strike across the buttocks. Garth wants to give children a 3 strike rule, on their 3rd strike they get painting lessons from the bespectacled 'graffiti removing specialist' who Garth believes got a bad deal when imprisoned for manslaughter.
She's gone and wrecked everything after all Garth's, Rodney and David's good work in keeping mum about stealing passports and convictions of assault. What is the world coming to, Judith in one quick step has followed Bill English in realising the financial burden for taxpayers to operate a 'hang them high' Justice system that Garth and his buddies can watch wearing suspender belts while begging for a 3rd strike across the buttocks. Garth wants to give children a 3 strike rule, on their 3rd strike they get painting lessons from the bespectacled 'graffiti removing specialist' who Garth believes got a bad deal when imprisoned for manslaughter.
Trade Me - trading harassment and stalking.
The following taken from the JFRB thread shows the continuing narration of defamatory harassment against Karam and Bain.
You must be acutely aware that members of the hate-site JFRB continue to use TM. The example below has no factual basis but for the average reader presents as highly significant and 'truthful.' But the hate-sites don't use TM boards to report truth but only to harass and defame others.
TM continually allow material to be printed that brings the Justice System into disrepute and allow 'reporting' of 'facts' that is probably Contempt of Court. In doing so TM reward messengers of hate with a free publishing venue. TM are sharply aware of this not only because of writs against TM for defamation, but also because TM are aware of writs against members of the hate-sites for not only defamation but also harassment and stalking. Some of the hate-site members have publicly confessed to stalking Jury members and others on TM boards such is their confidence that they are supported in their endeavours by TM who also happen to be likewise defendants in proceedings in the High Court.
You are also aware that members of the hate-sites have intimidated and frightened into silence some TM members who views on the Bain case they do not share.
I have no objection to the truth being debated on the boards, or opinions arising from the truth but that isn't and has never been the agenda of the hate-sites, theirs is to lie and poison.
If you will respond in no other way to this complaint, then just explain why you allow the same people to day in day out, year after year spread messages of hate on your site about the subject of the Bain killings/suicide?
Below you even have the report of a half-wit as to his own 'investigation' that however fails to deal with the actual evidence given at the trial. Meanwhile William Rodie (Sophie) continues in the same vein as when he posted as kirkmaiden and others, just lie after lie, after lie. Do TM and yourself a favour and get rid of the bullshitting scumbags who bump the thread in an effort to promote redemption for a person considered by many (including myself) as a paedophile who killed his family. Most importantly David Bain was found not guilty 2 years ago following a trial which has not been contested, TM or the hate-sites are not elevated about the Justice System but must abide to it and at the very least raise criticisms that are researched, and true or defendable.
steve1958 wrote:
The whole defense was based solely on hearsay's . Even their own investigation found that Robin couldn't have used that rifle to commit suicide .
You are right of course Steve the defence selected not to use the evidence and opinion "requested by a member of Davids Bains defence" from the Victorian Police Forensic Science Department that concluded Robin had not committed suicide.
Edited by sophier8 at 10:54 am, Sun 5 Jun
Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 10:50 am, Sun 5 Jun #32316
Yours etc
You must be acutely aware that members of the hate-site JFRB continue to use TM. The example below has no factual basis but for the average reader presents as highly significant and 'truthful.' But the hate-sites don't use TM boards to report truth but only to harass and defame others.
TM continually allow material to be printed that brings the Justice System into disrepute and allow 'reporting' of 'facts' that is probably Contempt of Court. In doing so TM reward messengers of hate with a free publishing venue. TM are sharply aware of this not only because of writs against TM for defamation, but also because TM are aware of writs against members of the hate-sites for not only defamation but also harassment and stalking. Some of the hate-site members have publicly confessed to stalking Jury members and others on TM boards such is their confidence that they are supported in their endeavours by TM who also happen to be likewise defendants in proceedings in the High Court.
You are also aware that members of the hate-sites have intimidated and frightened into silence some TM members who views on the Bain case they do not share.
I have no objection to the truth being debated on the boards, or opinions arising from the truth but that isn't and has never been the agenda of the hate-sites, theirs is to lie and poison.
If you will respond in no other way to this complaint, then just explain why you allow the same people to day in day out, year after year spread messages of hate on your site about the subject of the Bain killings/suicide?
Below you even have the report of a half-wit as to his own 'investigation' that however fails to deal with the actual evidence given at the trial. Meanwhile William Rodie (Sophie) continues in the same vein as when he posted as kirkmaiden and others, just lie after lie, after lie. Do TM and yourself a favour and get rid of the bullshitting scumbags who bump the thread in an effort to promote redemption for a person considered by many (including myself) as a paedophile who killed his family. Most importantly David Bain was found not guilty 2 years ago following a trial which has not been contested, TM or the hate-sites are not elevated about the Justice System but must abide to it and at the very least raise criticisms that are researched, and true or defendable.
steve1958 wrote:
The whole defense was based solely on hearsay's . Even their own investigation found that Robin couldn't have used that rifle to commit suicide .
You are right of course Steve the defence selected not to use the evidence and opinion "requested by a member of Davids Bains defence" from the Victorian Police Forensic Science Department that concluded Robin had not committed suicide.
Edited by sophier8 at 10:54 am, Sun 5 Jun
Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 10:50 am, Sun 5 Jun #32316
Yours etc
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Racheal Dickleberry, having considered for the 48,000th time if she
might run in the local elections again, under an assumed name 'Racheal Dickleberry Dumberry Head', has concluded that a TV show, that resulted in a letter - the contents of which were of insufficient merit, standard of proof to even be considered by a Court, is conclusive and persuasive evidence of something - and she's right. It's proof that she is a moron, not that any proof was needed but she's consistent in wanting to prove what an idiot she is so that she will be famous and her poems to dead donkeys might be published somewhere other than an outhouse wall.
Is not the statement made by Young regarding the set up of the van an untruth, the claim of selling the photocopier in one of 'two years' convenient and ..............and.............-
.surely the purpose of Young's testimony from the defence point of view was to paint a picture that Robin was unkempt, drunken and had lost the plot which would back up suggestions of depression, which would then suggest that he murdered the family. Tenuous at best but then I guess they had to take what they could get. So as we see the threads unravelling of what the defence would claim as their evidence against Robin more and more should unravel. As for Bryan Bruce's exposes, he is scrutinised more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.
Quote
goldnkiwi (612 ) 11:06 am, Sat 4 Jun #32311
Is not the statement made by Young regarding the set up of the van an untruth, the claim of selling the photocopier in one of 'two years' convenient and ..............and.............-
Now I guess that all makes sense to somebody with a befuddled brain, eating too much straw and living with donkeys - but in reality it shows how stuffed the deadbeats pedo fiddlers from the hate-sites have become. Their political aspirations gone, there petition deader than the donkeys in Rach's poems, their sites shut down, two of the 'camp' leaders in Court and lead to the startling final line from Rach Dicklehead....
As for Bryan Bruce's exposes, he is scrutinised more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.
Is Rach saying that Bryan Bruce exposed himself? And was scrutinised 'more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.' She can only surely mean that Bryan was scrutinised in his exposure and she claims stood 'up well' maybe as well as one on Rach's current donkey husbands. Well, what do you know. No wonder Ralph Taylor and Bill Rodie were excited.
Is not the statement made by Young regarding the set up of the van an untruth, the claim of selling the photocopier in one of 'two years' convenient and ..............and.............-
.surely the purpose of Young's testimony from the defence point of view was to paint a picture that Robin was unkempt, drunken and had lost the plot which would back up suggestions of depression, which would then suggest that he murdered the family. Tenuous at best but then I guess they had to take what they could get. So as we see the threads unravelling of what the defence would claim as their evidence against Robin more and more should unravel. As for Bryan Bruce's exposes, he is scrutinised more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.
Quote
goldnkiwi (612 ) 11:06 am, Sat 4 Jun #32311
Is not the statement made by Young regarding the set up of the van an untruth, the claim of selling the photocopier in one of 'two years' convenient and ..............and.............-
Now I guess that all makes sense to somebody with a befuddled brain, eating too much straw and living with donkeys - but in reality it shows how stuffed the deadbeats pedo fiddlers from the hate-sites have become. Their political aspirations gone, there petition deader than the donkeys in Rach's poems, their sites shut down, two of the 'camp' leaders in Court and lead to the startling final line from Rach Dicklehead....
As for Bryan Bruce's exposes, he is scrutinised more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.
Is Rach saying that Bryan Bruce exposed himself? And was scrutinised 'more critically than the judicial system it would seem and stands up well.' She can only surely mean that Bryan was scrutinised in his exposure and she claims stood 'up well' maybe as well as one on Rach's current donkey husbands. Well, what do you know. No wonder Ralph Taylor and Bill Rodie were excited.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Two fiddler bros, Ralph Taylor and Bill Rodie have got it sussed...
jmhb51 wrote:
Bryan Bruce has a letter sent to him by the Police acknowledging that Young's testimony included 'untruths'.
You are implying that the Police are spreading untruths and disinformation. I don't think TM like posters defaming the Police.
I suggest you check the terms and conditions of posting on this site.
Brian Bruce showed that Robin was not linked to the murders by any evidence, he also pointed out possible untruths in Young's testimony, now after 10 months of investigations the police have confirmed Bruce's suspicions.
Edited by sophier8 at 12:19 am, Fri 3 Jun
Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 12:17 am, Fri 3 Jun #32309
jmhb51 wrote:
Why did Darryl Young give untruthful evidence? Why would the defence let him?
What did Darryl Young gain? 15 minutes of fame?
Well only he himself can answer that. Possibly the defence itself may have ideas. Am sure that the Defence and he would be open to a judicial enquiry or take up Bryan Bruce's offer or a re do of the Investigator Special to try and explain himself more clearly.
Quote
jeeves-50 (4 ) 10:33 am, Fri 3 Jun #32310
Old Bill Rodie, disguised as his daughter again, asks why Daryl Young gave untruthful evidence when there is no evidence that he did give give untruthful evidence apart from a letter without enough substance or content to take to Court. Meanwhile dic..ead Ralph believes the answer might lie in a TV programme and that people are in someway responsible to a tv reporter and not the Justice system. That is why Bill and Ralph are such sickoes, they can't distinguish between fact and fiction, they think that Justice exists in a parallel universe called Television, where you tuck up on a cold night and listen to a droaning idiot re-invent the wheel while hanging off everyword written, and tightly scripted as for any TV drama, and you think (in the case of Taylor and Rodie) that everything is fine in googaa land for the fiddler bros who stick up for a dead one of their number. How sicko. They're both a pair of defaming pedo-pals who it seems along with nina_s and jimbo the elephant need to be sued, just so they can work out that they are interfering in real people's lives, stalking and harassing from behind a silver screen - I don't think it will do.
Bryan Bruce has a letter sent to him by the Police acknowledging that Young's testimony included 'untruths'.
You are implying that the Police are spreading untruths and disinformation. I don't think TM like posters defaming the Police.
I suggest you check the terms and conditions of posting on this site.
Brian Bruce showed that Robin was not linked to the murders by any evidence, he also pointed out possible untruths in Young's testimony, now after 10 months of investigations the police have confirmed Bruce's suspicions.
Edited by sophier8 at 12:19 am, Fri 3 Jun
Quote
sophier8 (8 ) 12:17 am, Fri 3 Jun #32309
jmhb51 wrote:
Why did Darryl Young give untruthful evidence? Why would the defence let him?
What did Darryl Young gain? 15 minutes of fame?
Well only he himself can answer that. Possibly the defence itself may have ideas. Am sure that the Defence and he would be open to a judicial enquiry or take up Bryan Bruce's offer or a re do of the Investigator Special to try and explain himself more clearly.
Quote
jeeves-50 (4 ) 10:33 am, Fri 3 Jun #32310
Old Bill Rodie, disguised as his daughter again, asks why Daryl Young gave untruthful evidence when there is no evidence that he did give give untruthful evidence apart from a letter without enough substance or content to take to Court. Meanwhile dic..ead Ralph believes the answer might lie in a TV programme and that people are in someway responsible to a tv reporter and not the Justice system. That is why Bill and Ralph are such sickoes, they can't distinguish between fact and fiction, they think that Justice exists in a parallel universe called Television, where you tuck up on a cold night and listen to a droaning idiot re-invent the wheel while hanging off everyword written, and tightly scripted as for any TV drama, and you think (in the case of Taylor and Rodie) that everything is fine in googaa land for the fiddler bros who stick up for a dead one of their number. How sicko. They're both a pair of defaming pedo-pals who it seems along with nina_s and jimbo the elephant need to be sued, just so they can work out that they are interfering in real people's lives, stalking and harassing from behind a silver screen - I don't think it will do.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
nina_s (who would love to be mrs nina_s - if she could find someone able to put up with her body odour)
seems to have a rottweiler attached to her rather large rump. She's been telling nellies (oh what a nellie_nina she is) and a friendly old rotty has clamped her bum right between the two resident crocodiles that have been clamped on since her last trip up the Murray River.
nina_s wrote:
...
Young stated he went to the doors at the back and Robin came out of them...
nina_s wrote:
You're so brave asking TM posters to sustantiate claims made by the police aren't you?
I am asking you to substantiate your claim that Daryl Young stated Robin came out of the back doors of the van - because it was you that made it.
You now seem to be implying that the police made the same claim. Can you point to any evidence of the police claiming Young stated Robin came out of the back doors either ?
Edited by gwimweeper at 12:51 pm, Wed 1 Jun
Quote
gwimweeper (7 ) 12:44 pm, Wed 1 Jun #43
The qwimreeper is unwilling to let nina_concertina bum tell any more nellies, probably because he's reached his wit's end because she has been getting away with it for years. But hold on, right now she's scouring the earth to prove she isn't a liar, don't expect her back this century and wave the crocodiles goodbye. Bye bye old crocs, it's been good to know ya - don't forget to plaque your teeth.
nina_s wrote:
...
Young stated he went to the doors at the back and Robin came out of them...
nina_s wrote:
You're so brave asking TM posters to sustantiate claims made by the police aren't you?
I am asking you to substantiate your claim that Daryl Young stated Robin came out of the back doors of the van - because it was you that made it.
You now seem to be implying that the police made the same claim. Can you point to any evidence of the police claiming Young stated Robin came out of the back doors either ?
Edited by gwimweeper at 12:51 pm, Wed 1 Jun
Quote
gwimweeper (7 ) 12:44 pm, Wed 1 Jun #43
The qwimreeper is unwilling to let nina_concertina bum tell any more nellies, probably because he's reached his wit's end because she has been getting away with it for years. But hold on, right now she's scouring the earth to prove she isn't a liar, don't expect her back this century and wave the crocodiles goodbye. Bye bye old crocs, it's been good to know ya - don't forget to plaque your teeth.
Kookyheadcase-pal....
said,
In essence, and in my opinion, Robin Bain was framed for 5 brutal murders, and the real murderer, a person who embodies the worst of "psychopath" is free.
Quote
kulkkulbelle (399 ) 12:06 pm, Wed 1 Jun #41
Thread title
'Untruthful evidence' in Bain case
Post number(s)
The post number is shown to the right of the post date.
I'm reporting this because
Choose... The post includes abusive and/or defamatory comments.
Quite clearly this habitual defamer of Karam and Bain is implying the 5th person is David Bain and that he guilty of murder. There is no conviction to support that, therefore this is a defamatory statement and ought to be removed back to the funny farm along with the poster.
Old kooky has got her 'in my opinion' crucifix held up to enable her defamation, without sanction she hopes. The problem is for old kooky is that her opinion is that of a moron and therefore is not a defence when compared to the decision of a fully informed Jury. Kook's these days ain't what they use to be, and what they use to be wasn't that flash anyway.
In essence, and in my opinion, Robin Bain was framed for 5 brutal murders, and the real murderer, a person who embodies the worst of "psychopath" is free.
Quote
kulkkulbelle (399 ) 12:06 pm, Wed 1 Jun #41
Thread title
'Untruthful evidence' in Bain case
Post number(s)
The post number is shown to the right of the post date.
I'm reporting this because
Choose... The post includes abusive and/or defamatory comments.
Quite clearly this habitual defamer of Karam and Bain is implying the 5th person is David Bain and that he guilty of murder. There is no conviction to support that, therefore this is a defamatory statement and ought to be removed back to the funny farm along with the poster.
Old kooky has got her 'in my opinion' crucifix held up to enable her defamation, without sanction she hopes. The problem is for old kooky is that her opinion is that of a moron and therefore is not a defence when compared to the decision of a fully informed Jury. Kook's these days ain't what they use to be, and what they use to be wasn't that flash anyway.