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.

Scott Watson - does it matter?

One of the delays in Watson being given a decision to his application under the Prerogative of Mercy is that the Justice Department now need confirmation (signed affidavits) by Scott's lawyers (couldn't they just ring or write to them) at his trial that they did not know about an earlier identification procedure where main witnesses did not recognise Watson in a photo montage.
This is a procedural issue, if the lawyers did know and did not make an issue of it then the Law expects Scott to live with that, a 'tough luck' situation - 'your lawyers knew about it and didn't raise it so  bad luck.' When you think about that procedure the very exercise of it is a denial of Scott's rights. Every person facing prosecution is entitled to a fair trail despite who might be acting for him or her and what they may or may not decide at trial to use. Overall, this is fair because many guilty people often  round on their lawyers after their trials. The common procedures in terms of important evidence is that lawyers require the defendant to agree  for the lawyer to employ or not employ various options, including cross-examination of evidence, presentation of evidence and so on.
It becomes unfair when a man has spent years of his life in prison on circumstantial evidence, for a crime for which he had no motive to commit,  is required to legitimise what his lawyers might or might not have known at the time of the trial. In this case surely the single issue is that witnesses shown a montage of photos, in which a photo of Scott was included, did not identify him as the last man seen with the two deceased.
So why does the department use yet another tactic to deny Watson his freedom or the right to a fair trial where all the admissible evidence is heard? Watson's father, Chris, is quoted as saying that he believes it is an intentional delaying tactic by the Crown. Who can blame him, this application is years old, there is a public unease about this case that won't go away along with the knowledge that intentional misinformation was leaked to the public before and after Scott's arrest. Now the Crown ask for 'proof' that the lawyers didn't know - as if it could  matter more than the fact that Scott was effectively identified as not being the person in company of the deceased, boarding a yacht or sloop the morning they died.
A fair trial can't follow a Jury considering its verdict without knowing that important witnesses excluded the defendant as being the last person seen with a deceased, because for all else it means that the last person seen with the deceased was not the person charged with the crime. It's a full alibi, complete and full and something which the Jury had to hear, that it wasn't Scott last seen with the dead couple prior to their disappearance.
So no, it doesn't matter if the lawyers knew of the evidence or not, what matters is that evidence which showed Scott not to be the last man in the company of the couple before they disappeared.

For the deniers of Robin Bain's guilt - a similar case.

The hate-siters often fell about laughing, spitting out false teeth, laughing so hard that their wigs fell off, amused beyond reason of the explanation from the evidence that after killing his family Robin, washed and changed his clothes. Indeed they said he was praying in the lounge when he was shot.

Of course the finding of high-speed spatter going the wrong way on his right shoe put paid to that idea. The spatter was travelling  left to right, and not the required right to left that it needed to have been from his own wound. There was another big problem because had been praying in the manner described as being his custom, the top of his  feet and therefore tops of his shoes would have been tucked under him and blood travelling in any direction not able to spatter across his shoes.

Well, if he wasn't praying in the fashion described, apart from whispering a few words as he lent his left temple against the rifle, then he certainly wouldn't have washed in any fashion and changed his clothes. This despite trousers being found in his van with fresh blood on them. Nobody, if you listened to a hate-siter would clean up, change clothes after committing murder and before suiciding, the very idea would be preposterous. Yes, it would be if you didn't comprehend the evidence against  Robin and his unsound mind. He had 2 daughters both of whom had spoken to others of their fathers 'prevailence' upon them for sex from a very young age. We know of the problems Stephen was having, the sexual overtones of those and the anecdotal links to a fractured child-hood that may have lent toward that. We know that Robin saw limited scope left in his career as a teacher, his behaviour deteriorating to the point he was seen as needing to have help. Things at home were no better, he was excluded, left out of plans to redevelop the family home, a sharp tightening in the attitude of his wife toward him. Public recognition that one daughter had taken to prostituting herself and the younger son in conflict with the law, himself forced to sleep in his caravan far from the marital bed and his daughters.

Today is reported that a nz man living in England, Mark Barrett 48, having killed his wife in a stabbing frenzy, washed himself and dressed, even cleaned the knife before suiciding, giving an example as documented in many cases worldwide of a ritual cleansing, following a 'phsyical' cleansing before suicide. The problems Mark Barrett's perceived himself to be having were daunting but limited in his mind to a single figure, his partner Rosie Mayer. Robin Bain, looking at the anecdotal evidence, had problems in every area of his life, work, with his wife, his two daughters (one reported as preparing to lay a complaint against him,) a son at odds with the law in a disturbing way. Looking at the attempt of 'cleansing' that besets some troubled souls, Robin's was advanced on all fronts.

Considering the likelihood that his daughters were not simply being mischievous for some odd reason in their claims against him, then he was facing prison, ostracisation in his own community. It is said that he was a 'devout' man and one can assume that he could easily have considered that there were things he needed to hide from his God, clean up or put right in some way. He may have considered that he had let 'God' down, and like many perpetrators seen his victims as the 'true' cause of that. Overwhelming his life was distorted and he needed to distance himself from a life gone wrong, perhaps turn back the clock to the time when things had been 'normal' before things and people had gone bad. Robin was in a bad place, somewhere that made him feel 'dirty.'

But what could he put right? Nothing if he had a rational mind, other than to seek help. Seeking help though would have not brought relief from that which he couldn't bear, wouldn't resolve the relentless turmoil his life had become. Young Stephen is thought to have fought for his life, the reality is that probably out of pure fear he did, however his first wound was determined as going to be fatal.  But it was Laniet who the evidence suggests might have been deliberately wounded and later finished off who was apparently subjected to a less than 'clean or efficient' death. A pillow put over her head for the final shot, as her killer slowly found his anger and disgust sated. She whom there was evidence of being in a 'relationship' with her father that was going to be revealed to the police. Some of this is speculation of course, though based on compelling evidence in every aspect.

What Mark Barrett saw as needing to be put right was in context of a new relationship, what Robin saw as failed and stalled in his life was a complete marriage, place in the Community, and an aborted relationship with those his duty had been to protect. What both men shared was the need to wash and dress before arresting their own torment that had not been vanquished by the spilling of the blood of those they 'loved.'

The way they're killing Scott Watson at xmas.

The Minister of Justice Simon Power said that Scott Watson would finally know the answer to his 3 year old application for Justice under the Crimes Act by Election Day, 4 days from now.
But there's a problem. After 3 years the lawyer appointed to investigate the application appears to have decided that there was no 'new' evidence to support the claim. But hold on, she seems to have overlooked evidence of witnesses confirming that their original id of Scott was incorrect. What a torrid 3 years it must have been for her, pretending to be doing nothing while actually doing nothing.
So Scott won't know by Election time his fate, instead he'll continue to endure the slow death of false imprisonment.
Just a minute. It seems Scott's lawyer Greg King, has pointed out to the investigating lawyer, and the Minister, that there is in fact 'new' evidence, to go with the other 'old' evidence that shows Scott is innocent. But the Minister can't make a decision on the basis of common sense, or refer to a Court, because he needs to consider it at length. In fact right until he leaves office and the file becomes the property of another Minister.
This is how Scott Watson is killed.
He is denied his rights while timely haste is denied him in his prison cell.
So do you and me deny him, if but for a minute we look away.

A dribbling hate-siter called bj.

What an unfortunate choice of name for the internet.

Anyway although the reaction to the news that an eminent jurist has been appointed to review David Bain's compensation claim has been fairly muted compared to earlier extremes it seems some of the hate-site members are beside themselves with rage. Thus, with frustration that their campaign is in tatters, that members have left in their droves leaving others facing 100s of charges and ongoing inquiries into allegations of threats, defamatory harassment, jury harassment and so forth this sick soul reverts to type - lies.

and the death certificate for Robin Bain says 'murdered' not 'suicide'.


Quotewelshdude (304 ) 6:07 pm, Sat 19 Nov #34

This former and discredited claim was once a rousing point for the demented few. Any reasonable person would realise that a death certificate isn't proof of murder in any situation, particularly not when no one has been convicted of the self-inflicted death of the family murderer Robin Bain. However, the truth is that the death certificate states benignly that Robin died as the result of a gun shot wound. So when they have nothing they invent things. Of course invention isn't proof of anything other than frustration of being unable to accept the truth. However, as I have written before, the persecution David Bain has faced is likely to be a contributing factor in determining what any compensation amount may be. One of the results of David's false imprisonment on biased, and in other cases with held evidence, was an actual Miscarriage of Justice that has already been ruled by the Privy Council. Not withstanding that, as reported in the foregoing blog, the persecution continued into the 2nd trial and after - particularly on Trade Me where the publishers allowed all manner of lies to be published in what were often Contempt of Court situations. David Bain may yet have the final word on that, or in fact some other judicial authority if, as I anticipate, the whole spectrum of what constituted the way the law and the internet was misused by idiots such as above to harass with lies and abuse David Bain as an enduring Miscarriage of Justice was weighed against him.

Interesting to note that it is only the hate-siters that sought to avoid the compensation inquiry, only they that are afraid of what the results might be. Bain's lawyer, the Queens Counsel Michael Reed, has expressed his confidence leading into this inquiry by someone who has been described as a 'star' of the legal system. Someone unlikely it can be presumed, to be anything other than disgusted that the media and dimwits with the unfortunate name of bj (welshdude) facilitated persecution by printing anything mindless idiots could think of even when the trial was under way.

Another blow against the hate-siters: Compensation claim to be considered.

The news broke yesterday that David Bain's compensation bid is set to be weighed by a retired Canadian Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ian Binnie. There are two broad aspects of the claim wrongful conviction and imprisonment, of course in a murder case one could not exist without the other.

Justice Minister Simon Power made the press release and from at least 2 of the things he mentioned it strongly appears that he sees the appointment of an overseas Judge 'in attempting to resolve Mr Bain's claim for compensation and a step toward achieving finality in the case.' I think this is a compromise decision between the Government and Bain from which both can expect the correct outcome. David Bain has experienced an extraordinary denial of his basic and constitutional rights and I'd suggest that the Government were fully mindful that the very essence of Cabinet's powers in cases of Miscarriages of Justice were on the line to be tested and likely to found wanting in this most unusual case where the highest Court had already ruled that David had been the subject of an 'actual' MOJ.

Simon Power was careful to point out that the decision had been made 'after consultation with Mr Bain's lawyers.' Also relating that in March last year the Minister had ordered his staff to work 'with Bains lawyers to devise a workable process for the assessment of the claim.' I expect the Minister was no less mindful that any other nzer that the case for compensation is never going to depart until it is satisfied  by a payout.

Broadly speaking there are a range of issues starting from the failure to investigate the motive Robin Bain had to kill his family, to fully comprehend the significant evidence that showed Robin as the killer at the outset, the untimely haste to charge somebody, the withheld evidence and so forth. But that goes further because after the Privy Council decision at the 2nd Trial there was further evidence of efforts to continue the MOJ by the Police. 5 in particular that I can think of now:
1/The evidence of Jones, describing a scientific impossibility as to the colour of blood under a poli-light.
2/The evidence of Jones, describing that skin under deflating pressure rather than flattened sharpened in detail.
3/The lifting of material from the Victorian Scientific Institute by NZ Police under the false 'pretence' of having a Court Order to do so.
4/The bizarre claim by a self-appointed linguist expert as to the contents of the 111 emergency call, something else totally discredited now.
5/The failure by the authorities to stop the activities of hate-sites and their patrons before, during and after the trial endeavouring to influence the public and potentially the Jury with lies about David, including alleged confessions and other pure fantasy from embittered people intent of perverting the course of Justice.

So there is a distinction. The Privy Council ruling that there had been a MOJ, then clear evidence of it continuing until David was acquitted, and in fact after as the record now shows with hate-sites claiming to have confessions, secret evidence and so forth - all of this contributes to the picture of what David Bain endured and for which he now claims for as wrongful conviction and imprisonment. All the consequences are relevant, I think that is something that Minister has taken advice on and determined, while not  a particularly 'rare' case, one nevertheless that has endured the full gambit of the agencies working under the authority of the state to verily set out to destroy an innocent man with all at it's disposal - lawful and unlawful, and being prepared to look away when something should have been done as a rabid pack of persecutors invaded cyber-space in a way that I doubt we will ever see again.

But enough on the hate for now, Justice has prevailed where good men and women feared at first to tread.         

Kent Parker sings - 'Dont cry for me Argentina.'

Well not quite. But judging by his latest outburst he is tearful and feeling very, very sorry himself. How touching. I heard about his latest 'woe is me' lament and somebody sent it to me this morning. It's already on the internet - so I'll publish it here and follow with some comments for those that can't be bothered going looking or who don't want to visit a hate-site.

Defending the Deceased



I am defending the reputation of a deceased person, Robin Bain, who, in the Bain murder retrial of 2009 was not able to defend himself, and yet had various spurious and opportunistic accusations thrown against him with very little evidence to back them up. I can safely say that I speak on behalf of a number of Justice For Robin Bain (JFRB) members in this respect. It appears that dead people have few rights and that people can say whatever they like about us when we are dead. As far as I know I do not need anyone's permission to represent a dead person; not their family or anyone else; and I can assure you that I do not have any weird beliefs about communicating with people "on the other side". I do this because I want to and because in a democratic society such as ours, I am able to. The number of people who still belong to and actively participate in counterspin and the Justice for Robin Bain group, and their stature and reputations indicate that this is a cause worth pursuing.






The defamation suit that has been served on me, Vic and by proxy, 16 other members of the JFRB group, gives us a distinct venue in which to apply this political advocacy. Without it we would be void of a cause. There are two sides to every argument, and by dint of circumstance, Robin's side of the argument was sorely lacking until Bryan Bruce's incisive documentary The Case Against Robin Bain, was aired in July 2010. It is readily apparent that, despite the action we have taken in response to Karam's defamation suit, he remains keen to press his case, therefore any trial that might ensue from this insistence may provide the crucial opportunity to publicly air the evidence and exonerate Robin Bain. At the same time we may get some case law in place with respect to political discussions on the internet. Since this country is in the top three nations in the world for social liberties I am not expecting any draconian judgments in any great hurry and the process may take some time yet. As it stands we have removed from public exposure all comments cited in Karam's claim except for half or dozen or so.






Politics is full of finger pointing, name calling, allegations and accusations. There are limits, but leeway has to be allowed for healthy and lively democratic expression and involvement, whether by politicians, business people or the general public. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire. Don't pretend that you are mortally offended by other people's opposition to your public standing. Ultimately it will be seen for what it is and you will lose your electorate as a result. Karam's attempt to silence the JFRB group I see as an attempt to prevent his followers from seeing the other side of the story, an action which I believe is entirely undemocratic and which, unless this country suddenly plummets into an elite-centered totalitarianism after the upcoming election, does not carry much credibility. In terms of the reality of the society that we live in on 13 November 2011, it is improper and vexatious (yes, that is an opinion).






Perhaps the best thing that could have happened for Robin Bain is that Karam, the person who publicly vilified him after he was no longer able to defend himself, sued the people who countered his (Karam's) arguments and thus provided the occasion for Robin to finally be vindicated. By suing us he has ensured that opposition to his ideas will not die and he has made himself vulnerable to the Streisand Effect.

Obviously, Parker thinks he is defending a dead person. In what Court, Jurisdiction and on what authority he is doing this 'defending' is hard to establish but he hints that it may well be in his own trial on defamation charges. Unfortunately Kent remains struggling to get the picture that his defamation trial isn't about Robin Bain but rather about defamatory statements Parker made and encouraged others to make about one person in particular, Joe Karam. Simply, Kent can't understand that the Courts are not a soap box from which he can rave about his misconceptions, weep, fall down even, and claim that he was defaming because he was defending a dead man.

On that point Parker continues to be unable to absorb that you don't defend a dead person by defaming a live person. Nor do you defend a dead person by encouraging and taking part in a hate-campaign and you certainly do not defend a dead person by ignoring the results of a trial. A trial in which it was necessary for the Crown to defend the dead person in order to prove that a live person was the perpetrator and not the dead man that had an abundance of forensic proof pointing to his guilt.

Just looking at that guilt for a moment, and the defamatory allegation that Karam ignored the truth in pursuit of victory of his own will, none of the evidence against Robin Bain pointing to his guilt was able to be set aside. That wasn't the 'fault' of karam or anybody else. Forensic proof is exactly what it is, in this case bruised and bloody hands of Robin Bain, a full bladder, no underwear, no porridge on the stove, no shielding of blood spatter from his self-inflicted wound, no scientific explanation of how his dna was sucked into the rifle barell, how an upward trajectory shot was achieved into his head - none of this, despite what Kent might hopefully wish others to believe, had anything at all to do with Karam. That material was gathered from the suicide scene by the police years before Karam came into the picture. Even the allegations of incest against Robin Bain  were made within days of his death. So too reports of his obvious health and behaviour issues. In short, for Parker to believe he may have an 'honest belief' defence he would have to first convince the Court of matters which had already been determined by a Jury, where he would fail on that is that there is firstly the difficulty of revisiting something already confirmed by a Jury, and secondly that even if there were possibly anything arising from the defamatory allegations against Karam  they cannot be countered by already established facts.

Parker continues to misunderstand his role as a publisher, his perceptions on what truth is, and fails to comprehend that our society and law doesn't dismiss lightly law-breaking and excuses for it that imply the victim of the law breaking deserves what has befallen them. Above he says that without the defamation charges that his group 'would be void of a cause,' another demonstration that fails to recognise that any party can have a cause but the minute they begin to lie about their countrymen and women, prey on them with stalking and hate campaigns their 'cause' his already voided because it is illegal. In the same paragraph, desperate Dan Parker, cites as evidence a Television show of untested and rejected pondering that failed to absorb the breadth of evidence against Robin Bain.

Parker continues with 'he (Karam) remains keen to press his case.' Perhaps finally realising that the case will not go away however much Parker squeals and publicly expresses his sorrow for himself. As an outsider I note that he made no noises other than encouraging ones, when his 'follower's stalked and threatened other nzers and used message boards such as Trade Me to spread their hate message and lies. Of course, Trade Me, are also facing defamation charges for failing to stop Parker's crew from publishing defamatory material on TM boards. Use of the words 'followers' is interesting. Parker talks about Karam's 'followers' being blocked from the truth by Karams act of suing. This statement says more about Parker, and his delusional mind, than it does about Karam.

I don't know of Karam having any 'followers' he doesn't have a website, or an organisation such as that of Parker, for all intents and purposes he holds his own counsel. Again Parker misreads that people form an opinion of their own without being 'followers.' He mistakes that a few, not so bright individuals, flocked to Parker's website and stayed for a while, as others retired quickly - realising that Parker's site and campaign was about himself and defamation, stalking and threats were seen as 'collateral' of his campaign. Personally, I didn't form an opinion about the Bain case from reading hate-site messages and other unsubstantiated nonsense, I was always primarily interested in the forensics above. The upward trajectory shot initially, the erroneous claims that David wasn't strip searched with intimate tests being taken and therefore was not a suspect, that Robin didn't have bruised and bloody hands and so it went on, all of that was answered by the evidence - not as Parker would try to manipulate as being from Karam.

Parker says 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.' His use of the word fire rather than the traditional word 'kitchen' is more of his threatening under tone. However, the fact remains that it is obvious that Parker cannot stand the heat in his own kitchen and now blubbers for sympathy, interposing threats and sweeping self rightous statements.

Too late Kent, your kitchen might be on fire but I'm sure Joe Karam's is fully air-conditioned and cool. Try to sweat it out bro, or take my advice offered over a year ago - close up your hate-site and either do a runner or go cap in hand to the man you victimised - while your at it consider what other legal action might becoming your way.

Footnote: Must note here the single piece of evidence that proved Robin as the killer, and David as innocent : the high speed blood splatter going the 'wrong' way found on Robin's shoe, and which was therefore occluded from having come from his own wound. The evidence that put him on the scene of the other killings, as it is accepted all the killings, including Robin's suicide, were carried out by one person using the same rifle in each. Setting aside all else that might seem complicated, this one piece of evidence shows why David should never have been charged and points to another reason why Parker's campaign of hate has failed.

In who we trust.

A friend sent me the following link as an idea for a blog subject.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html  ----- essentially a discussion by Richard Wilkinson citing facts as to what most of us understand as the difference between the rich and poor in our societies. Briefly put he says that we have known since before the French Revolution the destructiveness of economic gaps within societies and points out that the difference now is a broad information base that shows without doubt that per capita income relevant to different countries has no bearing on the social gap but rather the income gap within any given society.
Japan, Finland, Norway and Sweden have the least disparity and the least social problems, NZ is at the higher end along with the USA. The figures are poor for NZ across all quarters and are completely consistent with one exception that I could see. NZ has a high imprisonment rate, poor welfare of children score, high life expectancy declines at the lower income levels, violence, violence against children and so depressingly it goes along.
The one inconsistency that I observed is that nzers (Kiwis) have a high score of trusting in one another, right out of kilter with all the other findings which should have indicated that within our society trust of one another  would be a rare commodity.
I need to develop some other facts about 'the gap' as it is called before coming back to the trust issue where we kiwis have scored ambiguously high. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker has written a book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' which demonstrates that despite a general anxiety of omniscient violence and hostility the human race is growing gentler and that the past was far nastier. He argues rightly that there are fewer wars and offers 'presentism' (recent or current events) that cause us to reflect that times are more violent, when in fact the past was far more violent and that a great deal of violence was from the hands of the state against its own citizens. Interestingly he comments about the worse periods being times of torture of  Governments against its own citizens which in my opinion is relevant to the USA at this time where in bleak  financial times, and slipping world wide influence they have found torture to be acceptable in some 'circumstances.' Pinker talks about the horror of the Mongol conquests as making pale anything of more recent times, but the real consequences of the Mongol conquests and no doubt other more recent events of colonisation, slavery, etc as dull by not being 'present.'
Another factor that might help understand the gap, Richard Wilkinson demonstrated, is the interview with Chinese poet Liao Yiwu currently in NZ for a writers festival. Liao was imprisoned (one of many times it prevailed) for the 1st time was for writing the poem Massacre following the Chinese Governments crackdown on students in Tiananmen Square. That was a four year stretch followed by others as he continued to write about those at the wrong end of the social gap. Others will have read the article but for the context of this piece I quote him 'The Chinese Government hopes that every Chinese will be like a pig or animal - just eating and making money without thinking.' Liao, I understand is identifying the gap as being almost a disease of sorts where money is king. Showing perhaps, as did the facts Wilkinson revealed, that the 'gap' becomes an attitude where as Liao puts it people become pigs to a dominant master.
I introduce another voice here from the financial section of today's paper, a piece by Brian Gaynor that identifies what he believes is causing nz to sink. The borrowing to fund entitlement, he was writing about a number of specific issues but in particular how nz 'rewards' from a borrowed purse all superannuates despite that one might be totally impoverished and another rolling in money. He speaks about the lobby groups that grow from Government hands out and the sense of  entitlement with the retirees because of the 'work they've done tax they've paid' (my quote.) Gaynor points out the fiscal strangulation of borrowing now to fund pensions to be available to all, including those who demonstrably need a pension and what this burden is costing new entrants into the workforce. Who, in my opinion, may presumably one day feel entitled that the then government borrow even more money because they're also entitled to a pension when they retire.
Wilkinson was able to show that countries like nz with a wide earnings and wealth gap featured poorly on high imprisonment statistics and argues not necessarily because of more crime but often because of being 'tough' on crime. A call not so strident in this election as perhaps the maturity of some politicians  allows them to admit that a high imprisonment rate is a fiscal and social disaster. Not unexpectedly Japan, Finland, Norway and Sweden the consistent winners of a narrow social gap have low imprisonment rates, less severe sentencing regimes and don't, unlike China and the US, execute their own citizens. Pinker points out the remarkable reaction of the Norwegian people in response to the recent massacre there, highlighting their remarkable restraint and 'love bombing' instead of 'real bombing.'
Without digressing too far I note reading of a Mexican Judge who recently dismissed an accused claims of being tortured to confess on the grounds that the confession was 'too detailed.' The unfortunate woman was clearly unable to understand that confessions from under torture can be minutely detailed, they will in fact be exactly what the torturer requires and in the torturers own words.
So we see this co-relation in the countries, where the income gap is wide, of false confessions, a willingness to torture, execute and so forth quoted by Pinker from the 17th Century philosopher John Locke saying of the escape from nature to so-called civilisation why run from pole cats only to be devoured by lions.
So despite all this, and kiwis placed consistently near the bottom of all social evils to befall its citizens why do we trust one another disproportionally to the economic gap. I can't say I know the answer and it may not have been studied yet. But it appears to me to have at least part of its answer in that according to many reports nzers are generally most concerned about children and are horrified by the statistics that rate us so poorly in the world for looking after, protecting and educating our children. That seems to be across the board and within all the cultures that make nz home. Significantly however, odd and flightless bird that we be, we generally respect authority but not through fear, through a type of respect that is probably a nz strength and goes to a core event of the acts of violence Wilkinson was able to demonstrate came from people feeling socially separated, unacceptable or not respected - laughed at or mocked if you like.
We have cultural traditions pacific traditions that many of us may not realise are relevant to a large part of our pacific population, respect for the land, for chiefly leaders and the wise - those of whom we can turn to in our own separate societies (within a large society) for help. In other words people we trust. And perhaps our high ranking of trusting one another has its roots there, that we instinctively (or the majority of us) trust first, give somebody a 'go' until they prove they were not worth giving a go, offer help and seldom expect it by return. But when offered assistance or 'a hand' feel vindicated and uplifted for our beliefs in respect and helping one another whether as an act of kindness or because of being part of a particular pacific, pakeha, european, asian or other culture, or indeed just open to the argument that we each have a duty to one another, not to turn away or take more than our share to the detriment of others. As Liao puts it not 'be like a pig or animal - just eating and making money without thinking.'
What  can I do? Change the world, I wish. No, all I can do is to continue to help the few people I do help and perhaps help them a little more. Also be reminded of coming closer not further away from others, think of the land, the sky and the water realising that trust is a greater component in this society than distrust.

Baby X, who speaks for her in a life without rights?

Baby X was born in 2009 after some 20 years frozen as a fertilised embryo. Her biological parents Peter and Christie Clark donating the embryo to a childless couple asking by return for openness and continued contact. Unfortunately, and perhaps somewhat naively, accepting the word of baby X's parents that they would be involved in the life of their biological child. Who might not be naive, Peter and Christie had endured many years of being childless, adopted a son Dylan, then later as IVF made it's place in NZ became parents of a natural son Troy. They chose to keep the fertilised embryo of baby X, perhaps for the reason that the embryo of baby X lived in their minds as a child that might yet be born with all the promise of new life from part of themselves. They were no doubt influenced by understanding the experiences of people childless like they themselves had been for 11 years before adopting one son and the later successful birthing of a natural son.

They formed a contract with baby X parents, a childless couple, that captured good faith and a commitment to love they might share from a subtle distance. It was a time of expectation and excitement for both couples, there may have been misunderstandings between them and it was apparent that Peter and Christie were wealthy if but also kind. They may have given the impression of financial benefactors supportive of the couple and the baby, they may have even have imagined some financial control over the relationship.

They speak now about baby X's parents seeking money and agreeing to that before finally shutting the door when becoming concerned that the relationship might have been distorting. Finally, they were served notices excluding them from the baby's life. They discovered soon after, although it being made apparent to them before, that they had consigned all their biological parental rights away when signing  a Donation Consent form. On the surface a complete situation contained in the law - total exclusion from the child's life?

Well yes, that is what they consented to - even though they had a verbal and operating agreement with baby's parents which was exercised for 12 months. A colour of right, an operating agreement - something that could be judged as in the best long term interests of the baby, but regardless a firm basis in law operating that gave baby X no right to know her true identity. It should not be that baby X lives in a information vacuum, not knowing the natural  right of identity because of a Law claiming to determine all that her life might mean before she were ever born, a law that excludes her from knowing her biological parents or anything about them - a situation that placed her without certain rights before she took her first breath.

So who speaks for her, the child? In any other situation, a divorce, separation, eventually even adoption someone, the law, the rights of the child speak, but not for baby X. No one speaks for her, she is unrepresented, a test tube baby whose course in life was determined by contract that she had no part of. Well, shouldn't the  Courts let her speak? Recognising rights in a contract that she is the essential part. Who could claim that a baby's rights were contracted away from her before she was even born. It is clear for humanitarian reasons that she should be represented and her rights should never have been assigned away without someone representing the dialogue of her life. Baby X is real, breathes her own air, someone, by every human right, should speak for her - look to bring all the elements of her family life together in a way representing herself, her best interests at least  until she reaches the age of consent.

Baby X is like the adopted children who once under the law where never allowed to know or contact their birth parents, like the war baby's, and refugee children brought to NZ during and after the 2nd World War and often told their parents were dead when in fact they still lived. In all these cases something is taken from the children, something is assumed about them - that they have lesser rights. Probably we all know adults who've suffered by not knowing they were adopted or that they had birth parents in the world and know the tragedy that can mean to some.

Step in Polynesia, the Pacific way - where children can, and sometimes are, raised by other members of the family, have 2 mums or dads but where the truth is never kept from them. Children that when they become adults can acknowledge all parts of their lives and are accepted no less that any other, children not constrained by a law that keeps the truth from them, children not caught in a dispute between parents that sees part of their lives shut out and takes away from them their basic rights. The lawmakers can be as callous and cold against a child they might never meet, nor understand that is abhorrent to hide the truth from them, hide the essence of who they are in such a way that devalues their existence and rights - a palangi way.

The case of Baby X is important for her and others like her. It surely must be within the law to recognise the contract that operated before it was arbitrarily shut down by one side having enjoyed the fruits of that contract in a financial way for a whole year before retiring behind a second 'contract' that they had ignored to that point. There is little fairness in that, and that they accepted the 'gift' on an embryo on an acknowledged and operative verbal agreement. A situation that reasonable adults, with the help of the Court and Government agencies if necessarily, should be able to resolve, but the gross unfairness is that nobody represents Baby X, or speaks for her until she can speak for herself.

Another nail in Kent and the sister's coffin.

Oh how the hate-siters rejoiced when they were 'vindicated' with the 'news' that  potentially prejudicial evidence had been with held regarding David Bain's 111 emergency call. The evidence of a police 'expert' who miraculously, after more than a decade, heard the words 'I shot the prick' in the tape of the call.

The fact that he was the only idiot to hear it first didn't stop a gaggle of hate-siters wetting themselves in the excitement of 'vindication.' Not one of the morons could connect that a carefully planned murder-suicide would not result in the alleged killer, presenting his 'alibi' for the first time, interspersing it with a mid line 'confession.' To their minds (if they had one) they probably thought it happened all the time. Interesting the linquist experts who conducted tests on the tape found absolutely no evidence that the alleged words were said, backing up the reasons why the 'evidence' was never allowed. Some of the sample group who were told what the words were (auto-suggest,) when informed that no such words were spoken - didn't believe it. But don't worry they were all aussies, either that or ex-pat kiwis on the run from Parker's threats to enjoin them in the proceedings he faces.

Anybody that followed the case, and in particular the physics and forensic evidence of the final death scene would have realised that Robin Bain killed himself and every bit of evidence found in the lounge where he died confirmed that and excluded any other person being present. So even on that basis, the phone call was irrelevant but that didn't stop the hate-siters frothing at the mouth and going off on stalking expeditions because, like part of those in the sample group, they'd heard what they were told to listen for. It rang out loud and clear, because it was what they wanted to hear, it justified the hate they'd poured out on David Bain and Joe Karam for years, a hatred that crossed over to contempt of Court many times throughout the trial and since. Some, like Christine Williams, even offered that she would undertake hanging David if the opportunity was given her. So there you have it, the witches of Salem affect crossed into 'modern' nz and the 'twisted sisters effect' - to hang somebody for a murder (that of Robin Bain) that never happened, based among others things, of words that were never spoken.

Much like the evening the Jury returned the 5 not guilty verdicts, I just feel left cold that the winds of the 17th Century, the burning of 'witches,' 'marks' of the devil, sexual longings and other such travesties has its dark place in modern nz. And so the story of David Bain and Joe Karam changes yet again, another plank from a (very few) nzers of the defamatory hate that besieged them, rots and falls away. Shame on you sisters, shame on all of you.

In another way this 'finding' that police 'experts' will hopefully force the Courts to decide to unconditionally exclude such evidence in future trials where evidence of phone calls, taped conversations, overheard conversations and the like is sought to be introduced in cases where there is no other supporting evidence of what the amateur 'expert' hears, and is only also 'heard' by others once they are 'told' what they will hear. This use of 'experts' has evolved into another way of allowing the police to 'verbal' a suspect or defendant, that is after legislation required conversations to be video and audio recorded to avoid events of the past such as John Hughes 'verballing' another innocent man Arthur Thomas.

Scott Watson - unfortunate bad news?

The Herald on Sunday has reported that it is understood that Scott's plea for clemency 'must' fail because Kirsty McDonald investigation has uncovered no 'new' evidence. Rodney Hide spoke to both the Herald on Sunday and on Radio Live about his disappointment that Simon Power hadn't acted on what is recognised as a travesty of Justice. Plaudits to Rodney for that.

The idea that failed or disproved evidence doesn't constitute new evidence seems to be an aberration that a conviction can still 'hold' when there was so much that Jury couldn't consider because it wasn't before them, such as the fact that witnesses recanted on evidence that was persuasive and offered under inducement, and so many leads were dismissed without investigation.  False or recanted evidence that on 1st consideration fully imposed a troubling picture of Scott Watson, a false picture that remains and ought to have been erased either by a pardon or by a re-trial where the truth would be told and untruthful evidence excluded.

Then for students of the elements of a miscarriage of Justice is the more publicly recognised knowledge now that there was a deliberate campaign to blacken the name of Scott Watson by investigators long before the trial and a exclusion of evidence or investigation into leads that might have steered the investigation away from Rob Pope's target - Scott Watson. And that campaign is borne out now that more of the case is public and understood by the fact that highly prejudicial evidence offered by prison inmates in exchange for deals with the police has failed the test of time and credibility.

I hope these portents are wrong, just as I know the Royal Prerogative for Mercy is most often ineffectual and wrong and misplaces the course of Justice from the Courts into hands of transient politicians who might seen as concerned with the winds of what public reactions or favour might bear upon any decision they make. Fairness and Justice cannot rely on 'gut instinct' policing that utilises propaganda, excludes evidence, recanted evidence, laid out to be picked over at length by a lawyer who can see nothing new in failed evidence.

If the worst prospect is realised I hope Greg King will seek a review of the Minister's decision, all guns blazing.  If the recanted evidence was of no value then why was it ever called and who but the Jury could have determined the weight originally given to it in their deliberations. It was the icing on the cake, the ultimate prejudicial arrow to allow a jury to be disgusted and convict despite other evidence harbouring doubt falling short.

kulkkubelle goes wild, chokes on hypocrisy.

sweetie9 wrote:

Crawl back under your rock.
 Oh my God, the guy has been exonerated...I just hope if one of your family members is falsely accused and convicted of something that whiners on the other side of the world don't call them a " killer"

Quotekulkkulbelle (426 ) 4:19 pm, Thu 27 Oct #22

Deb Coates is morally outraged that someone should object to one of the 'Memphsis 3' being allowed into New Zealand. Fair enough on the surface. But isn't Kulkkulbelle, the previously banned ' Balisal' who renamed herself after a Kulkul bell as found in Balinese Temples. Why yes she is, and perhaps suffering from ringing in her ears that prevents her from recalling that she is a hate-site supporter that went a step further than any other hate-site supporter in New Zealand when she revealed having a copy of the autopsy report of one of the Bain victims which, according to kooky, proved that the victim had never been pregnant and their for gave lie to claims by the defence and its witnesses. Astoundingly enough, she was the only person who had such a report - even the pathologist himself didn't have it. But she is going to produce it, yes indeed, it's been coming on a slow boat from China for over 3 years now - trust her it is!

She, the wholesome soul, was also going to bankroll the defamation charges defences of Parker and Purkiss. The cheque is in the mail. Yes it is, kooky said it, so it must be - even ringing in one ears couldn't prevent that from being another truth from the veritable, holier than thou matriarch of TM, the self-appointed annoiter of all things good and fair.

But hold on, is claiming to have something which you never produce but use at length in your efforts to persecute somebody who has been 'exonerated' from a crime, found blameless - persecution? Why yes it is. And in order to appear 'enlightened' about another case of which a prominent nzer has taken an interest she defies anybody to object against the rights of somebody 'falsely accused and convicted.' But she did that herself, silly sausage - all that ringing in her ears must be upsetting her recall. Yes she did it herself and is unable to note that the Memphis 3 remain convicted in part for the authorities to avoid paying them out compensation. Compensation, yes that's right. Old Kooky is an expert on compensation as well, a signatory against compensation of somebody she knows is guilty despite them being found innocent by a jury in record time. Found innocent and therefore falsely imprisoned to that point, which is something else she knows is wrong because she of course has a pathologists report that will be arriving some time soon.

So what do you call somebody who lies in order to influence public opinion against an innocent man? I think you call them a persecutor. And why does somebody lie in order to have themselves believed, it is because they hate themselves, jealousy, an opportunity to play God over the life of a free man? You decide.

Which brings another question. Why does the spiritually cleansed bell person call out to those they imagine wicked in someway, for doing exactly what the cleansed person themselves have done and do in the few lucid moments when the bells subside and before their anger consumes them again. I believe they call out and point and mock, throw proverbial stones at that which they know is evil inside themselves.

Peter Jackson, like Joe Karam, Pat Booth, Jim Sprott and Chris Birt is motivated by defeating injustice he witnesses and which he is unable to turn away from. Though kookybell might applaud him she cannot hide that she is the instrument of injustice and the very example of what these good men find devastates them, deliberate, liberal, misuse of the truth and deceit.

One good thing that kooky unwittingly underlines is the mediocrity of desire for the truth of those such as kooky and her twisted sister buddies. Peter is not maligned in any meaningful way for a case of injustice he champions and which generally there is not a lot understood about by the average nzer, whereas another case many didn't understand, apart from sensationalised headlines and mistruths by kooky and her cohorts, both the falsely imprisoned and his champion for the truth have on dark days been maligned and persecuted to a far greater depth that the trivial comments queen kooky finds offensive.

The hate-sites: the end is nigh.

After over two years since cyber-attacks, stalking and harassment was commenced on line by Annette Curran (aka golfergold) of Kapiti Coast and Glenda OBrien (aka kalnovitch, laddiefatcat) of Dunedin and others such as Christine Williams (aka msspw, millie) dustproof and nina-s they are all but routed. While none of these people have been yet brought to Court, the files against their on-line activities and law-breaking are complete and formulated into a cognitive package that might yet be used against them or other parties for a variety of issues.

Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss who jumped on the bandwagon, with those mentioned above and others, are now crippled in a legal battle of which they have no prospect of winning. Parker has made a damning admission against himself in sworn papers that's likely to have done as much harm to him as anything else that could have been brought against him to prove his role as a publisher and defamer, and more succinctly as a hate-siter and sicko. All of this is contained in the recent  Judgement which he at first admitted was a defeat, and over time (how predictable) preached of how it was an 'opportunity' to try the Bain case again. Oh well, in kent's case once an idiot always an idiot. Each morning when he and Vic wake they will have the prospect of their own ruin churning in their stomachs, ruin that they sought to set upon others - free men and women alike with the right to live peacefully in this land without the attentions of a rabid mob. If you read this Kent, remember your snickering comments about my family and understand at least now the strength that grew in me when your cast your sick eyes and attention over my wife and children.

Changes have at last occurred in cyber-space here in New Zealand. The biggest site Trade Me now specifies that users must not harass or defame others on their boards. While it remains to be seen if live publishing online can ultimately be contained as lawful, I recognise the effort made to ensure that the risks are actively reduced - a substantial step in the right direction. All things have a starting point and one was obviously my letter to TM almost 2 years ago pointing out that their site was being populated by waves of hate-siters whose tools were lying, defamation and threats. If TM had been less like a slow maneuvering vessel they would have most likely avoided the litigation that was commenced against them about 6 months later and which continues on - probably inevitably to some sort of settlement between them and the plaintiff Joe Karam.

There has been an increased appreciation that online publishing isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'a chat in the pub.' Also, there is a sharp awareness between all online publishers that there protocols are recognised as being no different from the print media and with the same restraints. There is recognition by precedent before the Courts that nzers can be harassed on line and can take that to the Courts for relief without apparent need for massive law changes, but rather simply the Judicial appreciation that the written word, whether on a computer screen on a published newspaper, is not diminished one from the other - but that they, and their impact is one and the same, screen or printed page.

Perhaps also there grows an awareness of the social change that cyberspace first brought which seemed to have no limits or boundaries to the recognition that there were always limits and boundaries, and that people would invariably learn that a hot pool discovered on a trip into the bush in Rotorua didn't need to have a sign, erected by the Council, to warn of the dangers. Because the dangers were clear and present to anyone of experience and common sense. Also the fears that the anxious online users held that they might be restrained by not being able to 'speak their minds' or engage in snooping and prying into the lives of others,  by some measure of insanity or social deviance, they thought they 'owned' because of a superior position they felt to hold over others not 'as good as them,' or deficient in some compared to the 'elite' defamers and stalkers. And for the more socially well-adjusted, the opportunity to see some measure of decorum and restraint arrive on message boards that might be expected by a mature and civilised society looking to progress itself with new social mediums.

I chose the title above for the obvious reasons that Parker, Purkiss, Curran and others hate-site owners have fallen over into redundancy to become an odd fixture in the recent past. A past where individuals that might otherwise have been socially moderate became monsters to an all consuming hate, sated by a false power they felt was their 'destiny' or 'right' to interfere mercilessly into the lives of not only those they considered their enemies but also the families, children and friends of those as well. The first individual, in this now expiring saga, was Annette Curran, quickly to be joined by Glenda OBrien, nina_s and others. I additionally chose the title because these hateful people and their campaigns inadvertently gave something good to nzers. They gave the opportunity for nzers to learn and see that there is a way out from being stalked and harassed in cyberspace and that the Courts can help them. This could now be seen as a blue print in the future for those that might choose cyber-space to bully, threaten or commence hate-campaigns to be stopped quickly and efficiently. I say that being mindful of the nz teenagers being bullied on line that featured on Close Up this week.

More pages yet to write and investigate on this subject, particularly the links that fed and used the hate-sites that now lie expired, but an interim report on substantial progress for the benefit of the majority.

Aaron Fordon recaptured, no need to breathe a sigh of relief.

George Wilder escaped, went over the wall more than once and hid in the bush for Howard Morrison to sing about a wild colonial boy.  So too, Dean Wickliffe, the kid who ran the railway lines to find his life, twice broke free of the Paremoremo prison from where no one had escaped before to patch together an unsettled life.
So for the escapers all 3 a salute, for showing adventure into the night and risk - to find the dream of a life that might be less severe, for rebelling that impotent man, bereft of ideas, compassion or care should lock others in cages where death, hopelessnes and misery abounds. So escape ye yet for the enlightened time where cold stone no longer cushions you but love instead.

Is Kent Parker giving Trade Me help that it doesn't want?

Originally Kent Parker and his since departed cohorts believed that Trade Me was about to fight their defamation battle for them. They were overjoyed with the fact such was the depth of their delusions. When it finally sunk in that Trade Me's interests were it's own and TM had no ambition to shelter members of hate-sites from their liabilities, in fact the site shed them in large numbers from it's own message boards, Parker and co began a number of initiatives for help which have ultimately led to the most recent which appears to be sausage sizzles to save the damned. An event I suspect which will be about as popular as Melanie White's graveside vigil which nobody but herself attended.

But although he doesn't realise it, and may not even realise that damage he has done to himself, it is within the Court system and the pleadings of Parker and Purkiss, that the men undeniably help Joe Karam with his case both against the errant twins of spin but also TM. The kind of help TM don't need. Parker has admitted in his pleadings the obvious, that he had editorial control over what appeared on his Website. Parker admits under oath the ability to remove offensive or defamatory material from his website so it follows recognition of the responsibility for the same of TM. Parker and TM therefore cannot deny  the responsibility of the defamatory or offensive material on their own websites that they had the power to remove. Remote that it may be that TM would agree with Parker's submissions to the Court, because it is not in their interest to do so, it remains that the Court has already accepted the concessions of Parker - that he owned and controlled the website (as TM own their own message board,) that he had the power to delete material (as TM also share the power to remove material, indeed posters,) that membership was restricted (the same as TM.)

Parker has for all intents and purposes admitted that which TM seek to deny, the power of control over their own boards. I've written before that although TM have sought to indemnify themselves with a set of rules it would be unprecedented if any publisher were not held responsible for what they publish, despite who may have written, or re-published any particular material. Para [46] in the recently released Judgement of Associate Judge Sargisson says 'Materially, the first defendant (Parker) appears to accept that his acts or omissions may constitute publication. He deposes at paragraph 4 of his affidavit of 3 March 2011:

With respect to the application to strike out the first action against me, while I had the technical ability to remove other people's post there was no moral or legal right...

The Judge goes on to say that the plaintiffs (Karam's) claim of publication is not clearly untenable and that it is a question for a Jury to determine whether or not Parker was the publisher of the posts of others. Therein, is also sunk Trade Me who possibly have even less arguments against being a publisher than Parker. Good work Kent, I'm sure Joe is very happy with you for cutting to the chase and admitting the obvious. The fact that Parker chose to swear no legal or moral was in fact a defence has allowed both the Court and any prospective Jury the opportunity to judge what legal or moral right was in force that allowed Karam, or any other member of the public, to have their character and reputation measured by a bunch of misinformed misfits that belonged to a hate-site where they published defamatory material which was also published on NZ's largest message board site, Trade Me. Own goal Kenty, shot of the century by a complete moron!

While Kent and Vic Purkiss calculate how many sausages must be cooked the administrators of Trade Me lurch closer toward a settlement with Joe Karam thanks to the good work of Kent. While the owners surely ask how could it be that TM administrators were so thick to not realise that the traditions and liabilities of print media are not distinguished by words on a written page compared to script appearing on a computer screen. So we live and learn, even Kent....eventually.

All of the 18 people identified by Joe Karam in his pleadings as having defamed him, who published on  both on TM and the hate-sites have spread the liability, as Parker and Purkiss have inadvertently admitted in their sworn affidavits to the Auckland High Court.

McVicar, Garrett, Rodney Hide and Simon Power kicked to touch.

Well, not exactly. But their impetus that led them into Parliament on the back of the fraudulent Three Strikes legislation is exposed as irrelevant. So is revealed, that single issues that capture public fear or animosity can and do set the political landscape beyond their single point. With the 3 Strikes legislation NZ was given some ACT MPs who before their Parliamentary terms had finished would be exposed for fraudulent behaviour. Instead of being given a good law that delivered on its promise the public were sold a duck, along with that they got an MP that would need to resign and another that would have to repay misused funds that when asked of that MP, Hide, if it was good for the public that he had chosen to take his then girlfriend on an overseas publicly funded trip, responded 'that it was good for him.' Yes indeed. It was also good for David Garret whose carefully researched proposed 3 Strike Legislation, along with the backing of McVicar and the nod of Simon Power, and popularised hoardings elevated Act into power and an 'easy' ticket for Power's party to ensure they had a compliant coalition partner if things got tight on numbers.

For McVicar it must have been the realisation of the political power he craved, never realising that his decision to remain silent that the author of the legislation Garret was already on his second strike, which Hide and McVicar ruled as not necessary to tell the public, would be exactly that which came to come back to bite them on the arse. Additionally, it remains evident that most likely it led to the decision of Power to end his Parliamentary career, or perhaps he was encouraged by the impact it would be seen to have made on the credibility of the Government. Of course Power's departure was not before he repealed laws that were working and made serious attacks on the freedoms of NZers. His intention was to remove rights in favour of an all powerful state, an elite. When he finally left office he spoke about the possible need for independent inquiries into the injustices that feature in our legal system and which he said were 'deeply troubling' or something similar. Perhaps, not realising or being too arrogant to care that when he was intent on changing laws left, right and centre it was within his power, indeed his obligation as a law maker, to put right things that were 'deeply troubling' within the Justice system.

However, for the bare bones of the once lauded 3 Strikes laws we now see it as a failure, a fraudulent failure. Kim Workman has spoken out about the actual progress of  the Law and quoted that anybody that believes that it is a success should speak to the Government's Chief Science Adviser, or the Ministry of Justice. The core group to which the legislation was meant to impact upon showed a little over 25% had even heard of the legislation, and none understood how it actually worked. Hello, that's a zero impact. Blinking brilliant.

But fear not, Crusher Collins, whose crusher legislation has so far failed to crush a single car, was able to 'confirm' that 'it does work, because of the comments that police and Corrections are getting from prisoners' she said. Hello again, the departments own statistics don't confirm that it works, the Chief Science Advisor, but Crusher knows that it does because anonymous people told her that it does by quoting, yes, the crims themselves who don't understand it. Well folks can be comforted by that when the Minister of Police who is down on crims, tough on them, uses anecdotal evidence apparently supplied by the most credible source of all, the crims themselves. Life must be tough for a bullshitting politician, particularly those that chose to deceive and frighten the public to ensure they're elected. But what of honesty? What of the critical need to unite and empower the people with truth? We now see truth and compassion lose to political expedience and lust for power.

Though perhaps the information that we see now as the real truth is something which can be learnt from, something proverbial about which truth shall endure, and liars who corrupt it are no better than those they lie about to condemn,  steal from or influence. As this Parliament rises for the elections not less that a handful of liars have been removed, or decided to leave, before the people judge them of their honesty while the dear Minister of Police supports her case with the veracity of criminals as McVicar and Hide limp away.

Kent Parker - desperate or just a dumbo. You decide.

The latest offering from the great leader is titled:
The People vs Joe Karam.

Taken no doubt from the American use of laying prosecutions, being The People, against some named individual. Of course this would put in the mind of any reader that it was Karam facing charges rather than Parker and Purkiss and that the charges were laid on behalf on the Crown (as it is in NZ.) This, much like all the subterfuge of the truth applied by Parker, is an intention to mislead in what essentially was a representation by Parker for financial help from those he misleads or might potentially mislead.

The actual name of the case for which he seeks 'financial help' that 'requires the services of a legal defamation expert' is in fact Between, Joseph Francis Karam Plaintiff and Kent Parker First Defendant and Vic Purkiss Second Defendant. Parker goes onto say that Karam has sued 18 members of the self-claimed 'Justice for Robin Bain Group' for 'defamation on the basis that 18 members of the general public have said in online discussion boards about the Bain Case.' He goes on to describe the 18 as students, housewives, small business owners, workers, teachers, retirees, 'people like you and me.'

Of course the truth is that Karam hasn't sued 18 people as the record and pleadings show. He's sued Parker and Purkiss for allegedly defamatory things they've said about him and for publishing the allegedly defamatory comments of 16 others. Parker clearly has some aversion to the truth, or perhaps it is simply that he is so deranged that he doesn't know fact from fiction - so we'll take the Court documents, which he has patently shown by his own pleadings that he can't follow, as the undeniable truth.

But even within his lies there are other lies. The 'people like you and me' are in fact not general members of society, they are people who decided to join a hate site and embark on a campaign that included threatening behaviour, stalking and harassing members of the public for a cause that was both unlawful and not specific to them in any personal way. In short they were a bunch of nutters given the opportunity by Parker and Purkiss to give full reign to their hate and righteous indignation. Among them certainly were housewives, retirees, students and so forth but they distinguish themselves as different than the mass of the population because they were 'enlignened' by the truth and in some case 'holiness' to maraud into the lives of other nzers, many of whom had done nothing more than held a different opinion to the group or no opinion at all - in short they adopted the tactic quote made famous by American outlaw MC riders 'if you are not with us you are against us' something even adopted in American Foreign policy - but not adopted by the average nzer that Kent Parker trys to elevate his companions as.

Suddenly in his rambling or sheer cunning Parker has projected his own plight as being a person who merely had online conversations with his cohorts. Even that is a lie as the pleadings show for the 'conversations' were not private and were taken elsewhere (to TM for example) and were based on an unprovable allegation of what Karam's motives were. Of course in full flight the conversations degenerated into simple defamatory mockery based on misinformation, rumour and deliberate lies - they were kids in a lolly shop of deceit and all restraint was stripped from them by the 'power' they suddenly found that allowed them to denigrate and defame other nzers at will. It remains however, that at least at this stage, the claim is solely against Purkiss and Parker.

While Purkiss is no doubt trying to convince others to part with their money by a fraudulent representation of the truth, at the same time he is reminding (threatening) the remaining 16 (not named as defendants) of a peril which might befall them. This is Parker in full flight, using a representation of himself and others as bringing proceedings against Karam when in fact it is the opposite, then enlarging the number of defendants in order to keep some control of fear against those not named.

Enough? Not on planet Parker. Bring out the hankies. He goes onto say that this is an issue of 'freedom of political speech.' Invoking the sacrifices of generations passed. 'Our forefathers sacrificed their lives to preserve freedoms like this. Lest we forget.' How touching for morons to be able to believe that defamation is indeed 'political speech' when the only time politics has entered the question was at the time the deluded Parker claimed to going to start a political party. Similarly, what a distortion to claim our forefathers sacrificed their lives so that a bunch of sick perverts could snoop into the lives of others and spread messages of hate, the fight was actually against that in more respects than one. I don't know Parker but it disturbs me that the rotten lying prick uses the war dead as a shield in a fight he started against honesty, truth and Justice.

Yes folks Parker's ambitions (manifold that they were) included the subterfuge of hiding the truth and in doing so deny Justice. Now he whimpers for help, the same person who actively encouraged the stalking of families and children not involved in the Bain case or any other controversial matter now whimpers. In his soulful self-pity he continues using the same tools of deceit, he has no capacity to recognise the harm he has caused and intended to cause he can only cry and whinge about himself and even them without the recognition that his state of denial worsens his situation by the day.

As for the errant 16 and others that supported the 'cause' it is recognised that many of them were simply carried along by the opportunity to exert power and be 'all knowing.' Many were able to temporarily transport the hate from their lives and heap it upon others. Some simply were misguided, didn't understand and didn't know when to take a breath. Kent Parker at the helm was in full narcissistic flight, he was a crusader for good, a politician in waiting, the leader of a 'powerful' political movement that only he could harness, a musician, godlike and a fool.