A note for Parker watchers.

Kent Parker has been flat out on Trade Me defaming others at will, whilst claiming to be defamation expert. I'll grant that because he is facing 100s of defamation charges, and has had 2 defences rejected by the Court, he is a expert in defaming but hardly on the subject of defamation.
More material has come to light on Parker and his lonely hearts club that I will publish in the new year. For avid watchers of him no surprises really, just shooting himself in the foot and one would suspect, again, that he's attempting a defence of insanity. Oh well, at least he's entertaining now that his kitten claws have been trimmed.
Looking to see the links between Parker and vanbeynan and what recommendations may come from that when Justice Binnie gets to review them. Could be night night Kenty and Marty.

Happy new year to the good guys and the bad guys! (just to be nice.)

Hello out there.

I'm continuing with a few days off but for those interested, add that I have recieved the Greek themed sketches by John Poynton from Pandos and will get them up as soon as I can. I also have another painting of John's which I will put up, it's the first I've owned of his although there are others in the family.


Cheers for the new year.

Everyone knows that Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss are having a bad year....

What with their defences to the 100s of defamation charges they face being rejected in the High Court, Kent's 'launch' into international fame as a potential spokesman at the Justice Conference being held in Australia turning into a fizzer and kent and his girlie pals being reported to a cyber crime unit - surely something good  could be around the corner. Some little glimmer of hope that Kent won't after all be judged the moron of the decade or century even, something little like that to lift his and Vic's spirits. How much tough going can one expect to endure, the fall of the cards always going against them, unlucky in love and relationships, shunned by 'right thinking people,' openly laughed at by people in the street, considered on message boards as a nutter, nobody willing to give him money despite the most excruciatingly plaintive, exquisite begging. Just brings a tear to my eye, from laughter of course.

However, in  the true fashion of optimist morons I bet they think next year will be a humdinger, a real beaut. Maybe the law will change, or a cloud will pass over and the whole country will turn into morons and finally understand what the nutters are on about. But no, no, no, no. Beware the ides of March, as Shakespeare wrote of the soothsayer's warning, perhaps a few days less in time than the literal ides of March, but that is when Karam's book will be published. The hate-siters know the book as the one that will never be published, fat tony osook took great pleasure in announcing that it would never arrive - but surely it has, and it's appropriately called 'Trial By Ambush.'

What a fitting title, because Karam and David were beset by ambush. Over 25 detectives working for two years pre the re-trial to dig dirt and manufacture guilt in some way where all else had failed. Yes even police proposing to be experts in audio suddenly hearing 'confessions' oddly out of context but taken literally by Kent and the idiots as something 'important,' a rumour mill that wrongfully claimed 'event's committed by David to cast him in a bad light. Of course the rumour mill had a far broader base and we might even expect to see connections between the Chch Press 'award winning' journalist who misrepresented or omitted key forensic evidence against dear daddy. The forensic evidence is, according to the book description, a detailed narrative that will put to rest once and for all the answer to the Judge's question 'Who did it? David Bain. Robin Bain?'
I look forward to the detail of that and expect the book will rock the definition of Justice in New Zealand.

Perhaps it might go further to delve into the Trial By Ambush aspect and we may see some infamous names of hate-siters and their antics put under public scrutiny. And why shouldn't it, the harm they projected against an innocent man and another who would not turn away from him is unprecedented in NZ history, they need to be outed and perhaps this book or another will do it. In the meantime Kent and Vic and their miserable fellows can stew over Xmas and dread the coming year. Nice one folks, the ante is upped - just when you thought the pressure might come off. Dare I say, ha, ha, ha.

I hope this doesn't mean that the police will be knocking on Kent's door.

Well, I do actually.

Subject: Action Group for ROBIN Bain




Hi all
If you receive an email from these people, reply to the email with the following subject:
UNSUBSCRIBE NOTICE - Future emails will be reported to the Department of Internal Affairs Anti-Spam Compliance Unit
If they continue to email you, we will report them.
Thanks

Paul


Paul Montani B.Bus FCA CFP
JUSTICEwa


Founder and CEO

This is exactly what Trade Me should have done when notified of the invasion by the hate-siters, that way they wouldn't be wasting hundreds of 1000s if not more, defending a losing claim that they were not the publisher of the defamatory tripe of Parker - who is at the moment on the boards displaying what an ill-informed nut he is. Trade Me should have simply banned the idiots in November 2009 when an originating complaint was made.
Anyway it's clear that Paul Montani is somewhat tougher and a lot smarter than the Trade Me admin.

Some more of the new evidence Martin Vanbeynan didn't publish.

In his 'award' winning reporting on the 2nd Bain Trial vanbeynan left out a torrent of new evidence which showed David innocent and the father guilty.

Here is just a little more that he didn't include in his 'balanced' report from the trial he claims to have sat through almost in its entirety. Why did van beynan leave this and other critical material out? Was it because he had some links to the prosecuting police and the hate-sites? You decide.

9 points from among others –

New evidence:
Evidence that Laniet was shot through something, to which even the Crown experts agreed
Photographs of blood on Robin Bain’s hands
Photographs of numerous injuries to Robin Bain’s hands
The time discrepancy that dispelled the relevancy of the bruising to David’s face
Evidence that David did not have a bruise when first examined
David’s fingerprints on the gun were not in blood
Milton Weir acknowledged that he had misled the first jury about the whereabouts of the lens
The shot to Robin Bain was close contact
Robin Bain was showing signs of stress and depression sufficient for interventions to be put in place

Just when Kent Parker thinks things couldn't get worse...

It's been a tough week, year, couple of years for Kenty But this particular week would probably be significantly worse than others. First of all Kent became stupid enough to believe that an overseas Justice Organisation to whom David Bain will speak in the new year are naive, don't know what they doing, a new group that sort of thing - despite having international jurists and forensic specialists in their ranks. So he goes right on ahead and writes a letter to them. A letter filled with what people 'believe' about the Bain case, a letter which pointedly ignores the fundamentals of the case and attempts to sweep the group along on cherry picked cliches, his own observations and a bit of name dropping. Well, as one would expect when dealing with experts, life-experienced, wise people, Kent didn't make any positive impression. In his demented mind he thought he would be telling this particular group things they didn't 'know.' It's all history now as a letter in an earlier blog shows. History, apart from the fact that Parker, like a true idiot, provided another public example of how he sought to call people to action against Joe Karam and others. Parker displayed the very same tactics he employed against Karam on Trade Me and elsewhere, except that he made an additional mistake and cautioned his 'followers' to be respectful and measured.
In terms of this issue of respect it underlined what he hadn't done earlier when he set the baying dog brains loose on Trade Me. He displayed that he knew the difference between expressing an opinion and straight out defamation. What an idiot. Talk about a confession, the idiot did it publicly without even realising what he was doing. His words of caution showed the he acted deliberately and with the intention of causing the greatest harm when he encouraged idiots like Christine Williams, Melanie White and Maryanne Newton to vent their leaking spleens of hate on Trade Me. Likewise Vic Purkiss and his calls to 'go get them' in reference to hate-site attacks using the medium of Trade Me.
On the subject of Trade Me it is interesting to note, as predicted, that Trade Me have obviously not chosen to defend the content of the hate-messages and defamatory statements - using instead an argument that Trade Me were not responsible for what was posted. As I've written before, that stand looks clearly like an effort to mitigate their situation on either a finding of guilty by the Jury or as bargaining power in reaching a settlement. I think without doubt we will see a confidential settlement. Trade Me have no argument of truth, freedom of speech and so forth, relinquishing such arguments on the basis that they simply were not responsible for Parker's idiots. Even there, Trade Me have a big problem because they dithered and let the spite continue, they never accepted, until perhaps recently that they were allowing use of their boards by a criminal group, despite being  warned. Trade Me will lose of that there is no doubt, it's simply a matter of cutting costs and a deal if they can.
Parker the idiot, meanwhile has had all of his arguments of a democratically run message board, truth, books and whining set aside as the improper defences of a moron. When he stops weeping and opens his eyes, finally absorbs that Trade Me accept the comments published on their boards were defamatory, thinks about it for 2 more years he'll try to enjoin the 16 other named defamers just like he threatened to do in June 2010.Around about then he'll finally form a band for the 'grand fund-raising tour' and improvise on a 'new' name - Kent Parker and the Wailers.

Kent Parker - proving what an idiot he is again.

Kent has been calling his little tribe of broken hearted, lonely has-beens to inundate the organisers of an International Justice Conference with their 'veiws' on the Bain case. There is some attendant joy for the little sad band I'm sure, lost from the public eye in NZ except for the defamation and other proceedings and a general mirth of how stupid the hang-bainers now appear. I'm sure Kent's followers are assuming that they might somehow see David excluded from the conference, probably even imagining that Kent Parker might take his place - how grand for the sallow bunch. Kent has written an 'open' letter to the organisers relaying the same old bs he hopes might save him from the defamation charges, he even reports what a number of people 'think' - once a nutter always a nutter.

Anyway.....I understand the conference organisers have responded to the hate-siters:

Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:36 PM


Subject: Action Group for ROBIN Bain (the father of David Bain)
Hi all,
If any of you receive any contact from this group, please IGNORE them and do not reply.
Our PR consultant, Melissa Bramley, is handling them.
This group is entitled to their opinion and nothing more.
David Bain had his conviction quashed by the UK Privy Council who stated there had been a “substantial miscarriage of justice”. David was then fully acquitted by a jury at the subsequent retrial.
Thanks


Paul


Paul Montani B.Bus
JUSTICE EWA
Founder and CEO

Looks like either Paul has already heard of nutter Kent and his unhappy band of morons, or has considerable experience among his panel of the phenomenon of hate-sites and their members from around the world. Bad luck Kent - you suck.

The noose tightens on Kent Parker and the other 'hang Bainers.'

The Law Commission today released an interim paper of issues related to cyber-publishing and it's not good news for Kent Parker or the twisted sisters. Although it is an issues paper defining that which will be discussed before a recommendation is made to the Government recommending action, what the paper does is identify that long held view of Trade Me and others such as Parker that they are not publishers in the traditional sense or that they're not responsible for what others publish on their sites is incorrect.

The paper says that such (cyber) publishers are still liable to the laws of defamation, copyright, contempt of Court etc.That is an absolute for Trade Me and Parker in particular. Trade Me have long sought to indemnify themselves against the law by using their own laws  (message board rules) as protection against defamation in particular, although contradicted this in another aspect Contempt of Court, perhaps fully appreciating that partying with Civil Law bears no resemblance to the consequences of partying with Criminal Law. I've long predicted that TM will settle the defamation case brought against them by Joe Karam, this is another indicator of that because even though it is defined in the report as an 'issue' clearly the prevailing wisdom is that if you publish it you own it, which of course also tightens the noose around Parker's neck as he dithers and considers a 'grand' concert to raise funds for a legal battle he is definitely losing and which will not be able to be re-couped.

Elsewhere in the report is floated the idea to amend the Harassment Act 1997 to explicitly include cyber-bullying. While that would be welcome the fact is it has already been determined in the Auckland High Court that a person subject to online harassment or stalking can bring an application under the Harassment Act. This would be equally unpalatable for TM, Parker and the like because the paper records that sanctions include monetary sanctions should be considered to be available to applicants in on line harassment cases. Again, while not law - an acknowledgement however that legal opinion is tending that way, support by international precedent. It is note worthy here to record that Trade Me earlier this year amended their rules to include the specific 'don't harass' on the boards. While Trade Me by it's size will (eventually) adapt to comprehending privacy laws as well as harassment laws Parker and the twisted sisters are still stuck 'out there' failing to comprehend advice that he should settle with Karam as he has no chance of winning - today's 'news' is more of the same stuff that Parker doesn't want to hear.

Robin Bain - how was it they charged his son?

Somebody recently wrote to myself and 3 others with the question:
What do you think is the most serious issue with the investigation and history of the Bain case?

The 4 people asked comprised an informed (as to the case) lay person, and equally informed Scientist and Psychologist and of course myself. The question was actually for 10 answers on a level of importance 1 to 10 and was qualified that the question(s) should be 'That is, one thing had it been done differently might have changed the whole thing and found the truth.'

Here are the answers which ironically were contained to a single answer rather than the need for a graduated 10.

1 says...A full investigation into Robin.

Answered by questionnaire: Mmm - that's what I think to.
My feeling is that everything else over the years is just built on that foundation.

2 says...In my opinion, it would be treating the crime scene as such from the start, and extensive photos taken before it was treated as a scenic tour by so many Police and personnel. If I can have 2, the second which is as important as the first was to let the pathologist into the house as early as possible.

Answered by the questionnaire: There might have been extensive photos taken before the scenic tours. No-one knows when the photos were taken. Some were obviously taken before 10.30; the video was started at 10:30 then more photos later. Trouble is no-one made any record of the photos. Weir should have done, and possibly the photographers too, but when the records were kept they have disappeared. That's what Schollum's stuff was trying to do - trying to stop it looking as slack as it was. Oh, and trying to  make it look like Weir was right about the lens. Schollum did the work for an earlier investigation and - get this - the police dismissed it as rubbish then.

3 says...Hi all. I reckon the most serious issue was that very early they allowed a theory to become a creed, at which point they started to only focus on anything, no matter how insignificant, that put David in a bad light. At the same time the ignored the glaring evidence against Robin - in fact they not only ignored it they threw it out.
So the one thing they could have done different, as 1 says, they should have investigated Robin.

Answered by questionnaire...Reassuring.

3 adds....The police got caught up in some kind of confirmation bias trap. It effectively gin-trapped their ability to properly investigate the tragedy. You would think they would learn to watch out for this sort of thing when they train to become a detective.

Answered by questionnaire.....According toan ex-senior detective I know, they are taught the opposite - to go with their gut feeling and set out to prove it.

1 says...Actually I'm probably too generous with my #1. Perhaps should be 'final death scene' as I use to call it. Blood on his hands, including his palms, damaged hands, the scene looking like suicide, the family difficulties, upward trajectory, no spatter shielding, the blood inside the barrel = suicide. They were actually down that track, had information coming in about incest - the changed course, why?

Answered by questionnaire.....That 'why' is something that has bugged me all along, and I think I have found the answer. I thought the answer was more likely to be something banal, because life tends to governed by the banal!
You listen to the 111 call: the way when David says 'hurry up' Dempsey (call centre) replies 'alright' in a very aggrieved tone. That tone of voice has always worried me: It's not not an appropriate response. Anyway, turns out Dempsey, at the end of the long shift, tired and wanting to get home, was convinced David's call was fake. He told his bosses and the other emergency staff so. Then the get to the scene and it's not. So I think they (the ambos) were primed by that to thinking it was   a fake. And because of that mindset, they saw fakes everywhere the looked - David's faint wasn't recognised as a faint but seen as fake fit. His distress was seen as fake because he was so hyper-alert (as he would be, but they were clearly not great psychologists). The cops not on the scene much - Robinson and the others - take the scene at face value: murder suicide. But Weir and Doyle, on the scene, talking to the ambos...they get infected with the fake mindset. Once that has happened, the rest is just a domino cascade.

Finish

To summarise the above, all four including the questionnaire agree in two different ways, the key is the non-investigation of Robin, person 2 confirming this by raising the death scene integrity which clearly to this day confirms Robin as the killer.

Before continuing I must make it clear that the Crown were never able to reduce or delete any of the following recorded above...Blood on his hands, including his palms, damaged hands, the scene looking like suicide, the family difficulties, upward trajectory, no spatter shielding, the blood inside the barrel = suicide. They were actually down that track, had information coming in about incest - the changed course, why?
None of these points of evidence were able to be reduced or deleted by the Crown or investigating officers, there was an attempt to distance the rifle from Robin's head at the 2nd trial, with 3 different Pathologists increasing the distance, but the original pathologist, Dempster,  who was at the scene maintaining the distance as contact or close contact. On that point, distancing the silencer tip from Robin's head was counter productive to his blood and dna found deep inside the barrel and counter productive to the evidence of an upward trajectory shot. All the evidence in the world could not delete from murder-suicide. Equally, the lack of spatter shield signified that there was no one else in the room at the time of Robin's death. The damage to Robin's hands, including the smears inside his palms corroborated his involvement in the murders, passive victims to homicide do not have bloody and bruised hands, certainly not smears on their palms, nor do they rest their heads against the barrel. For me this is one of the most disturbing issues of the Bain case - that the evidence always indicated suicide, indeed the investigation was heading down that track. Equally disturbing is the fact that David Bain need go through this Royal Prerogative nonsense despite being found not guilty.

Anyway, as to two points recorded in the dialogue between those above which bear examination.
The direction to go with 'gut feeling.' Really, this can have no place in modern policing. 'Gut feeling,' doesn't even have a scientific or any other realistic basis and when you consider it - there is an introduction of immediate bias. For example their was a 'gut feeling' about Scott Watson's guilt that has also resulted in a conviction the basis of which is eroded. 'Gut feeling' in my opinion is an open invitation that allows a prejudice against the way a suspect looks, what record they may or may not have, the 'feeling' an investigating officer might have about the suspect - none of these evaluations are evidence, but what follows from them is the 'opportunity' to exclude evidence that doesn't fit the 'gut feeling' and to look only for evidence compatible with that 'feeling.'

One thing these mojs are teaching the public, and hopefully the police alike, is that 'gut feeling' has no place in modern policing, and additionally, they lead to a closed mind situation which isn't even a poor substitute for Justice. Additionally, within the prosecuting authorities and the Courts there should be eternal shame that there are efforts to uphold 'gut feelings' when the so obviously result in mojs, and that looking for 'other' evidence, when critical evidence is proven as failed, provides a 'second bite at the cherry' that true Justice would never allow. If it sucks and stinks, throw the whole case out and don't waste millions on dollars on a pile of shit that began as a 'gut feeling.'

The second point of interest from the dialogue above, 'the priming' for the 'fake' call that turned out not to be fake. It might surprise some but I found some relief in this answer, something which I had long thought about, and which had me at times reaching for conspiracy theories. One of which included the fact that Robin Bain was a Freemason and my suspicions that the murder suicide was 'dissolved' as a protection of  'ones' own. I think now that it is far more likely that the priming for the 'fake' instigated the bias mindset, and although there might have been 'brothers' concerned that one of their own was accused of not only murder but of incest or worse, that it was not necessarily an influence in a poorly investigated murder-suicide.

Finally, I didn't know until yesterday the Police themselves rejected the efforts to 'place' the dusty lens in the relevant photo as anything more that a trick of light - how desperate of the Crown to revisit that at trial 2 and try to give it credibility.